Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): His Life, Works and Times (Studia Post Biblica - Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism) 9004039724, 9789004039728

Citation preview

STUDIA POST-BIBLICA VOLUMEN VICESIMUM QUINTUM

STUDIA POST-BIBLICA INSTITUTA A P.A.H. DE BOER ADIUVANTIBUS

T. JANSMA

ET

J. SMIT SIBINGA

EDIDIT

J. C. H. LEBRAM VOLUMEN VICESIMUM QUINTUM

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1974

Portrait of Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (from first edition of Elim, 1629)

YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO (YASHAR OF CANDIA) HIS LIFE, WORKS AND TIMES

BY

ISAAC BARZILAY With a frontispiece a.nd 3 illustrations

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1974

ISBN 90 04 03972 4 Copyright 1974 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

IX

Introduction

1 PART ONE

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO I. II. III. IV. V.

Candian Milieu and Background . Yashar's Early Years in Candia Lehrjahre at Padua Back Home . A Wanderer 1. In Egypt and Turkey 2. In Poland. 3. In the Low Countries and the Germanies PART

7 24

35 48 54

54 59 76

Two

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES VI. Yashar's Printed Works 1. Introduction . 2. Elim . 3. Ma'ayan Gannim A. The A ~uz Letter B. Sod ha-Yesod C. Sefer J;Iuqqoth Shamayim D. Sefer Gevuroth ha-Shem E. Ma'ayan :i;Iatum . 4. Ta'alumoth lfokhmah A. Synopsis of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah I B. Synopsis of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah II 1. The "Foreword" . 2. "Novloth Orah" in Novloth lfokhmah, pp. Ib148 .

3. "Novloth :i;Iokhmah", pp. 149-197, and "Ko'al;t ha-Shem", pp. 198-206 .

91 91 95 99 99

100 100 101

102 103 103 108

109

111

113

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII. Problem of the Authorship of Novloth Qokhmah

116

PART THREE

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS VIII. IX. X. XL

Yashar as Physician A Note on Yashar as Ma~hematician Technology and Physics Y ashar as Astronomer

125 134 139 150

PART FOUR

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER Introduction . XII. Epistemology 1. Knowledge, Thought and Faith 2. Reason and Faith 3. The Active Intellect XIII. Metaphysical Speculations. XIV. Second Phase of Metaphysical Speculations 1. Creation Versus Eternity . 2. Secondary Causes and Divine Providence

169 170 170 175

181 188

198

198

204

PART FIVE

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH XV. The Historical Development of the Cabbalah in Italy and Poland 1. Italy . 2. Poland XVI. Yashar's Attitude to the Cabbalah 1. Two Views 2. Expression and Truth . 3. Theoretical and Practical Cabbalah 4. Exegetical Methods of the Cabbalists criticized 5. Wonder Workers Derided .

223 223 232 240 240 241 245 249 255

1'Al.ILE OF CONTENTS

XVII. In the Domain of Spiritualism and Occultism 1. Introduction . 2. The Witch of En Dor . 3. Angels and Souls 4. Man as Microcosm Naturalistically Interpreted 5. Reverse Emanation : Man as Micrososm Cabbalistically Interpreted XVIII. Ma§ref la-Qokhmah - A Concealed Anti-Cabbalistic Work XIX. Philosophication of the Cabbalah and its Failure . . . PART

IX

260 260 262 265 267 271

280 292

Six

RELATIONS AND ATTITUDES XX. Yashar's Criticism of the Bible XXL Religious Fermentation. Yashar's Attitude Toward Rabbinical Judaism XXII. Relations with Karaites XXIII. Attitude Toward Non-Jews. Conclusion .

299 305 311

315

APPENDICES A. The Date of Yashar's Departure from Candia B. Yashar's Unprinted Works Bibliography Index .

325 328 338

358

PREFACE To the scholar of today, whose concept of knowledge ~s becoming dver more specialized, this book may appear presumptuous. It is, indeed, an indication of the changed scholarly outlook, when an author feels apologetic about presenting to the readers a book whose range of subjects may seem too wide for the competence of one man. He may defend himself, however, by recalling the cultural reality of the days of Yashar, when scholars strove for the totality of human knowledge and their goal was all-embracing and encyclopedic. It is not the author who may seem immodest, but his subject, who, following the tradition of the Renaissance, was a uomo universale, dabbling in a wide range of pursuits ancl speculations. The preoccupation of this book with bibliographical studies is not of the author's choice either, but dictated to him by his subject, in whose writings the problem of books, - whether they were actually written or not, their authorship and the authenticity of the views expressed in them, - is central. Dealing as this book does with a number of scholarly areas in which I cannot claim expertise, I was fortunate to be living in a scholarly community as Columbia University, where I could turn to expert colleagues for both advice and reassurance. I am grateful and indebted to all of them. Professor Zvi Ankori of the History Department, Columbia University, read sizeable parts of the work. His remarks and suggestions were especially helpful with regard to sections of the first part. Professor Samuel Devons of the Physics Department (History of Physics Laboratory), graciously accepted the reading of the chapter on Technology and Physics, and communicated to me in writing some of his notes and suggestions. Professor Alan Landman (Mathematics, Columbia College) read the chapter on mathematics, and Professor Lloyd Motz (Dept. of Astronomy, Col. Univ.) - the chapter on Astronomy. I am especially indebted to my former student, Dr. Warren Harvey, Professor of Philosophy, MacGill university, Montreal, Canada. He not only carefully read the section on philosophy, but contributed to an improved text. For a careful editing of the manuscript, my thanks go to Ms. Emily Soloff. At all stages of the protracted writing of this book, I was fortunate

XII

PREFACE

in having the cooperation and encourageme:c.t of my wife, Hayyah (Helly) [nee Frost]. Her perceptive remarks and comments, and her inexhaustible patience helped improve the text and bring it to completion. The publication of this volume was made possible by two generous grants : one from the Alexander Kohut Foundation of the American Academy for Jewish Research and the other from the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation, New York City, whose president, Mr. Harry Starr, showed a keen interest in the book. I offer my gratitude to him and to the members of the board of the Academy. Columbia University, May, 1974.

INTRODUCTION The sixty five years of Yashar's life (1591-1655) were a period of increasingly reactionary trends in European society, yet at the same time a period heralding the advent of a new age. The regained strength and influence of the Church since the days of the Counter-Reformation notwithstanding, the period was perhaps uniquely distinguished by tremendous gains in the knowledge of the physical universe and the spread of new methods of inquiry which helped bring about that knowledge. Religious fanaticism declined and freedom of thought and tolerance emerged. Yet the state of Jewry during those years was gloomy. The relatively liberal days of the Renaissance were by now long over for Italian Jewry. The Jewish communities of Central Europe suffered greatly during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and the number of Jews dwindled. The situation of the Jews in Eastern Europe was most tragic, where for more than a decade (since 1648) they were the victims of uniterrupted waves of plunder and murder on an unprecedented scale. Culturally, the esoteric and ascetic Cabbalah appealed to ever widening masses of Jews. While intellectuals in the West were laying foundations for a scientific and naturalist outlook, Jewish intellectuals turned away from the rational and natural and became increasingly absorbed by an anti-rational and wholly arbitrary mysticism. Had Yashar been born outside the Jewish pale, he would surely have found his place, both intellectually and socially, among the new class of mathematicians and natural scientists whose numbers were constantly on the increase. However, as a Jew who combined deep rabbinic roots and upbringing with a philosophical and mathematicalscientific education, his position in the society of his day was much more complicated. Though he was in contact with many non-Jewish scholars of the time, such contacts could not, in the conditions of the seventeenth century, be of any social consequence for him, as far as Gentile society was concerned. Nor could he hope that his philosophized version of the teachings of the Ari, or his mathematicalscientific works would gain for him a place of honor and comfort in the Jewish world. It is no wonder then that he remained a man without roots throughout his life. Indeed, his constant wanderings

2

INTRODUCTION

reflect a deep spiritual restlessness which he never seems to have overcome. Bodily he lived out his life in the Jewish milieu; spiritually, however, he was an integral part of the arising intellectual elite, whose efforts and achievements brought about a new conception of the physical universe and human culture, emancipating both Gentile and Jew from outlived notions, misconceptions.and prejudices, and creating vast new areas of common interest and understanding between them. Judged by absolute standards, there is nothing in Yashar's scholarly legacy that is of value or significance to contemporary man anymore. Whatever was novel and pioneering in his thoughts and attitudes has since become part and parcel of our conventional outlook. Nevertheless, Yashar remains of great interest both historically and psychologically. He was among the very few in the Jewish world of his day, and for that matter also in the non-Jewish world, to embrace the new scientific rationalism as a basis for his Weltanschauung. In this respect he considerably preceded his time. As a result of his deep admiration for the new knowledge, he became critical of some aspects of Jewish life and culture and undertook the spread of new attitudes and values among his coreligionists. He was also an early forerunner of developments which did not become noticeable in Jewry before the eighteenth century. He seemingly succumbed to the spirit of his time in only one respect - his preoccupation with mysticism. However, as will be shown, this is not borne out by a closer analysis of the facts, and in this respect too be remained a non-conformist. Though Yashar was unique in many of his views and scholarly pursuits, he was by no means a solitary phenomenon in the Jewish world of his time. Spirits kindred with his, though few, were to be found in Italy and the Low Countries, and possibly elsewhere. In studying him, we are thus attempting to recapture a historical reality that may have been typical of a group, or groups, rather than of one single individual. At the very time Yashar was expounding his Averroist convictions and new scientific knowledge to small groups of disciples in Candia, Cairo, Constantinople and Wilno, Yehudah Aryeh Modena in Venice was clandestinely formulating his own radical views, and da Costa in Amsterdam was openly rebelling against traditional Judaism. Indeed, there is quite a similarity between Modena and Yashar, as far as their background and some aspects of their lives and literary behavior are concerned. They both were radicals in thought, but conformists

INTRODUCTION

3

in deed. In their lives they strictly adhered to Jewish law and custom, but in their literary works, through concealment and camouflage, they expressed their unconventional views. Of an entirely different background, training and disposition was Uriel da Costa. Nevertheless, there are points of affinity between him and Yashar, especially in their attitudes toward rabbinical Judaism and the general milieu and its culture. Perhaps closest to Yashar intellectually was the much younger Baruch Spinoza, who, like Yashar, had great admiration for mathematics and its deductive method, was critically disposed toward the Bible, and even may have been influenced directly by someofYashar's philosophical speculations in N ovloth Ifokhmah. With the exception of Eliyahu Delmedigo, his forebear of the fifteenth century, Yashar was the first Jew in modern times who, at the height of the mystical frenzy in Judaism, undertook a full and relentless criticism of the Oabbalah. That he conducted this criticism in a concealed and unconventional manner, using all kinds of tricks and devices which seem unsavory to us now, is by no means as grave a sin as Graetz would have us believe. At most, it may be interpreted as indicative of a lack of courage and of overcaution on his part, but not of calculated deception and dishonesty. Yashar was also the first Jew of modern times to introduce the Hebrew reader of his day to the new sciences, mathematics and astronomy which were gaining strength in Western Europe since the days of the Renaissance and which ushered in the new age of scientific rationalism. His works, notably Elim, had considerable impact not only on his contemporaries, but to even a greater extent on subsequent generations. Indeed, it is possible to trace from this work the beginning of a modern mathematical-scientific literature in Hebrew the effects of which reach into the age of Haskalah. Yashar is also of interest from a psychological point of view. Sizeable parts of his writings, notably those dealing with Oabbalah and religion, cannot and were not meant by their author to be treated at their face value. Because of this aspect of Yashar's writings, Graetz labeled him a Wiihler (fomenter), a man consciously intent on stirring up trouble and undermining the foundations of Judaism. Such an evaluation, however, cannot be accepted as serious historical judgment unless it is based on a deeper probing into Yashar's life and thought, a task which so far has not been undertaken. One who has studied Yashar is quite familiar with the earlier

4

INTRODUCTION

chapters of his life and thought, the years of his Sturm und Dmng, both at Padua and subsequently at Candia and in the lands of his wanderings; however, the last twenty years of his life remain an almost closed book. From numerous allusions and references in his published works, it is obvious that he had been considering many scholarly projects; indeed, he had begun work on some of them but left them unfinished. One wonders how to explain his total literary silence for a period of almost twenty five years. Is it to be interpreted as a wholehearted return to the cultural fold of Judaism and a voluntary rejection of his secular studies and youthful radicalism, or rather as a final coming to terms with himself and the milieu in consequence of bitter personal experiences, mellowing age and increased family responsibilities, in short, as a deliberate effort on his part to suppress his idealistic drive for truth, in exchange for peace and security 1 With no sources from this period at our disposal, no clear answer to this problem can be offered. Bearing in mind, however, Yashar's personality and views of earlier periods, one may guess with a certain degree of confidence that it is the pragmatic explanation which, though less dramatic and romantic, is the more plausible one. There is no reason to think that in his advanced years Y ashar changed his views and retreated from his rationalist convictions. However, with old age approaching and the missionary zeal of his youthful days spent, whatever views he may have harbored he kept to himself and never divulged in public. It should be remembered that, by the time Yashar had finally settled at Frankfurt, he was a man thoroughly acquainted with the Jewish reality of the day. He could truthfully claim to have travelled through the whole length and breadth of the Jewish dispersion. He was in his twenties, fresh from Padua and fired by its rationalism and new knowledge, full of ideas and ambitious plans, when he started out on his wandering trail as a zealous apostle, attempting to gain followers for the new truths among his coreligionists. It was many years later as a man of forty that he settled in Frankfurt. He was a much calmer and wiser individual with fewer dreams and illusions. By that time, his travels and experiences must have convinced him at last that the Jewish world was not yet ready for his kind of views and learning. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the image of Yashar, as it emerges from his earlier writings, remains valid for the older Yashar. What this image was, we shall attempt to describe in the following pages.

PART ONE

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

CHAPTER ONE

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND Were Crete, or Candia, the native land of Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 1 a far-away island remote from civilization, his life and pursuits could be interpreted in terms of a conscious or subconscious effort on his part to overcome the insularity of his early origins. The amazing scope of his learning and his Wanderlust could then be seen as a reaction to the narrow physical and spiritual confines of the land in which he spent the formative years of childhood and adolescence. Psychologically attractive as such an interpretation appears, the facts hardly bear it out. The Wanderlust was not a characteristic peculiar to Y ashar but existed in many scholars throughout the medieval, Renaissance and later periods. Nor was Crete insular in any way other than geographically. True, the Mediterranean of the seventeenth century played a declining role in world trade and commerce, yet it continued to be a major artery of communication and trade between East and West, North and South. 2 Likewise, Venice, the ruler of Crete for four and a half centuries (1204-1669), though steadily losing ground to the rising economic and political power of the North and the Atlantic states, and the growing might of the Ottoman Empire, still retained throughout the seventeenth century some of its past wealth and glory. As late as the last 1 Also known as Yashar of Candia. The "Y" is the initial of Yoseph, the "sh" of Shlomo and the "r" of rofe (physician). The word yashar is an adjective, meaning straight, honest, a meaning Delmedigo sometimes stresses to assert his commonsense or integrity. Thus, he writes to Shmuel Ashkenazi : "I am thankful to God for having made me straight in my thinking [•i,::>!D:l .,!Z?" 'l!Z?ll!V •i,Kili •.,,~ i,Ki, l"l"TiKJ," "Haqdamath Sefer," Novwth IJokhmah, p. 7. On the other hand, some of Yashar's critics pointed out that, by his teaching and behavior, Yashar did not live up to the meaning of his name. Cf. Naftali hen ... Ya'acov Ell;ianan of Frankfurt, 'Emeq ha-Melekh (Amsterdam, 1648), p. 7b; Zacut, Moshe, I ggroth ha-Ramaz (Livorno, 1785), p. 42a. In this study both names, Delmedigo and Yashar, are used interchangeably; it is, however, the second name which is employed more frequently. 2 Cf. Henri Pirenne, "International Trade to the End of the Thirteenth Century" in Economic and Social Hi8tory of Medieval Europe, II (New York, 1958), pp. 243-244; E. E. Rich and C.H. Wilson, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. IV (Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 155-167, 195-191, 224.

8

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

decades of that century and less than twenty years after the conclusion of the costly and protracted war of Candia (1645-1669), it continued to display great courage and initiative in its war against the Ottomans, reconquering-though only for a short time-many strongholds in Dalmatia and the whole of Morea. 1 Indeed, at no time in its long history was Crete isolated. Its unique geographic and strategic position between three continents and at the crossroads of trade, its moderate climate and fertile soil made it at all times a coveted possession to rising states and expanding empires. In the study of the Candian milieu and the background of Delmedigo's life, the present historian is in a more fortunate position than his past colleagues. The recent publication by Artom and Cassuto of the full text of The Statutes of Candia, 2 of which only some fragments, or a mere catalogued list, were known before, 3 gives the historian a major source for the reconstruction of Jewish life in Crete from the early part of the thirteenth century till the eighties of the sixteenth century. Though the Statutes are the most important source, they are not the only one. An important contribution to the cultural history of Cretan Jewry of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was made by Steinschneider, who painstakingly collected a variety of data regarding books and men of letters on the island during those centuries.4 1 See William Roscoe Thayer, A Short History of Venice (New York, 1905), chap. XIV; F. L. Carsten, ed., The New Cambridge Modern History, vol. V (Cambridge, 1961), p. 25-26, 461-468. 2 Elias S. Artom and Humbertus M. D. Cassuto, Taqqanoth Gandia v'Zikhronote'ah; Latin title, Statuta Judeorum Oandiae eorumque Memorabilia (Jerusalem, 1943). 3 A brief summary of the "Statutes of Candia" was first published by M. Giidemann in his Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Oultur der Juden in Italien wiihrend des Mittelalters (Wien, 1884), pp. 306-311. Giidemann printed in full the original Hebrew text of only one ordinance, concerning public prayers, "geder b"ad Tefillah," ibid., pp. 329-330. The whole original text of the early statutes was published by Dr. M. Rosenberg, "Die Statuten der Gemeinden auf der Insel Kandia," Festschrift David Hoffmann (Berlin, 1914), pp. 267-280. They were translated into English and analyzed by Louis Finkelstein, "Takkanoth of Candia," Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages (New York, 1924), pp. 82-85, 265-280. A complete, though brief, listing of the "Statutes of the Jewish Communities in Crete," appeared in 1932 in David Solomon Sassoon's Okel David, Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library, London (London, 1932), I, pp. 349-357. 4 M. Steinschneider, "Candia, cenni di storia letteraria" in Mose, Antologia Israelitica of Corfu, II (Corfu, 1879), pp. 411-416; III (1880), pp. 53-59, 281-284, 421, 426; IV (1883), pp. 15-17.

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

9

Further light on the cultural history of Cretan Jewry of the sixteenth century was shed by the bibliographical studies of Modona and Cassuto.1 The only attempt at a full history of Cretan Jewry under the rule of Venice was made by Joshua Starr. 2 A more embracing work was contemplated by U. Cassuto, as a follow-up to the volume of Statutes. Unfortunately, owing to his untimely death, this was not carried out. Abundant source material for the first half of the sixteenth century is available, primarily due to the efforts and activities of historicallyminded Elijah Capsali (b. after 1480, d. after 1555) who figures prominently among the leaders of Candian Jewry during the last thirty years of his life. 3 As a result of his initiative most of the earlier statutes were assembled, copied and re-enacted, and many new ones adopted. Moreover, the wide personal contacts this pious and worldly leader established with many of the contemporary Jewish savants of Italy and the lands of the East Mediterranean resulted in an impressive body of references to Candian Jewry in the responsa literature of the time, which sheds additional light on various aspects of its life and activities. 4 l Cf. Leonello Modona, "Deux inventaires d'anciens livres Hebreux conserves dans un manuscrit de la bibliotheque de l'universite royale de Bologna," REJ, XX (1890), pp. 117-135; Umberto Cassuto, "I manoscritti Palatini ebraici della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana e la loro storia" in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, vols. 64-66 (Citta de! Vaticano, 1935). 2 Joshua Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete under the Rule of Venice" in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. XII (New York, 1942), pp. 59-114. 3 The first statute on which his signature appears is of the year 1518, and the last one of the year 1549:; cf. Stat., pp. 77, 142. 4 On Capsali, see M. Lattes, ed., "Toledoth MishpaJ;iath Capsali" in Liqqutim Shonim d'vei Eliyahu (Padua, 1869); M. S. Ghirondi and H. Neppi, Toledoth Gedolei Yisrael u-Ge'onei Italia (Trieste, 1853), letter aleph, no. 20; N. Porges, "Elie Capsali et sa chronique de Venise," REJ, 77 (1923), 20-40; 78-79 (1924), 15-34, 28-60; Joshua Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," pp. 109-111. Capsali's name appears with great frequency in the Sta.tutes, see "name index," p. 163. For references to Candian Jewry in some of the responsa literature of the sixteenth century, see mainly: Eliyahu MizraJ.ii, Responsa (Constantinople, 1560; Jerusalem, 1946), par. 66; Responsa of R' Yehudah Minz and R' Me'ir mi-Padua (Fiirth, 1766), pars. 29, 32, 76, 78; Yoseph Caro, Se/er Avqath Rokhel (Leipzig, 1859), pars. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67; Responsa of Moshe lbn Alashqar (Sabionetta, 1554), pars. 70, 99, 111, 112, 113, 114; Responsa of Mabit (Moshe hen Yoseph mi-Trani) (Lwow, 1861), par. 30; Responsa of Yoseph Ibn Leb, IV (Ferrara, 1692,) par. 16; Responsa of R' David lbn Zimra, I (Sudilkov, 1836), no. 2, p. la; see also S. Asaf, "Teshuvoth v'Iggroth m'R' Moshe Capsali," Sinai, V (Jerusalem, 1939), pp. 149-158. For further references, see Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," passim, notes.

10

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

From the Statutes it may be gathered that life on the island, though far from insular and static, maintained a constant and continuous pattern from generation to generation. The socio-economic, as well as the religio-cultural, character of the community seems to have undergone little change from the time the statutes began until they ended. Only eight years passed between the date of the last of the statutes (1583) and that of the birth of Yashar (1591), so it is safe to assume that the picture of Candian Jewry, as it emerges from these Statutes, truly reflects the milieu in which Yashar was born and spent his childhood and adolescence. Though of old standing, the Jewish community of Crete remained at all times small, the number of its members never exceeding by much the fifteen hundred mark in a population which fluctuated between a quarter of a million and less than two hundred thousand during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 1 Cretan Jewry was of heterogenous character, with various groups from many parts of the Mediterranean and the North represented in its population. In his biographical notes on Y ashar, Moshe Metz, Yashar's disciple, observes with regard to Candian Jewry : "[The Jews], who live there are worldly, with many wise people [among them], most of whom are of Ashkenazi descent". 2 These Jews may have been the most influential; most ancient, however, and numerically preponderant were, in all likelihood, the Greek Jews. At least in the fourteenth century, the Greek element still seems to have held a dominant position in the Jewish population, as two of the three synagogues in Candia, the "Kretiko" and "Soleitiko", must have been frequented, as their names indicate, by Greek speaking Jews. 3 The arrival of the first Ashkenazi Jews in Crete must have taken place in the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when, as a result of the intensified persecutions of Jews in Western Europe, 1 Cf. Johann Wilhelm Zinkeisen, GeschichJ:e des osmanischen Reiches in Europa, IV (Gotha, 1856), pp. 706-712, 725-726; Israel Levi, "Les Juifs de Candie de 1380 a 1485," REJ, XXVI (Paris, 1893), p. 200; U. Cassuto," Kreta (Kandia)," EJ, X, pp. 410-413; J. Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," p. 2, n. 6. 2 ",c•n:>lUNil •oni·~~ c~ii c•~:>n n~im C'l'"T~ C'llllN l"I~ c•i"Tm" Sefer Elim (first ed., Amsterdam, 1629; sec. ed., Odessa, 1864-1867), p. 44. Throughout this study all references are to the second edition. 3 Cf. Stat., no. 50, pp. 46-47; J. Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," pp. 99-100, n. 122. Indicative of the strength of this element in the Jewish population and the prevalence of the Greek vernacular among them is the fact that as late as the early part of the sixteenth century it was still customary in Candia

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

11

Jewish migration moved both East and South. 1 The impact of Ashkenazi scholarship and institutions on the communal life of Camdian Jewry was indicated by R' Moshe Capsali (1430-15101), a native of Candia and a student of the yeshivoth of Ashkenaz, 2 who served for almost forty years as chief rabbi of Constantinople. In a responsum to a question from Candia regarding divorce procedures, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the attempted innovation of some "newcomers", and exhorted the Candian leaders to remain loyal to the ancient custom and legal procedures "which are based on the instructions of the Talmud and the Tosafists, R' Jacob Tam ... and his colleagues". s From the fourteenth century on, the surname "Ashkenazi" makes its appearance in the official documents of the community. 4 The name becomes frequent in the second half of the fifteenth century, and even more so in the first half of the sixteenth. 5 Around that time the names to recite on the Day of Atonement only the first three sentences of the Book of

Jonah in the original Hebrew and to translate the rest of the book ... into the vernacular Greek. This was also the practice with the Book of Micah. By that time, however, this custom must have become obsolete, since Elijah Capsali abolished it despite the fact that his revered master, R' Me'ir of Padua, advised against abolishing it. Cf. Responsa of R' Me'ir mi-Padua, no. 78. 1 Cf. Shlomo Ibn Verga, Sefer Shevet Yehudah, ed. A. Sho!;iet (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 147, lines 19-20; H. Graetz, "notes" in Geschichte der Juden, vol. VI4 , n. l, "add. 19," pp. 343-344; vol. VIl4, pp. 156££, 174££; C. Roth, The History of the Jews of Italy (Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 116-117, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 136; S. Simonsohn, ,"Haqdamah," History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua [Hebrew], I (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 1-11. 2 Cf. S. Asaf, in Sinai, V, p. 158. According to Porges, he assumed the rabbinate of Constantinople around 1470, see REJ, 78 (1924), p. 31. a S. Asafin Sinai, V, pp. 154-156; Stat., no. 47, pp. 42-44. 4 Stat., no. 50, pp. 47, 48; no. 51, p. 50; no. 53, pp. 52-53. s A Yoseph hen Elqanah Ashkenazi is mentioned around the year 1464, and a decade later-Moshe Cohen Ashkenazi, a solicitor of funds from Jerusalem who caused a stir on the island with his Cabbalistic speculations regarding metempsychosis [Steinschneider, "Candia, cenni," Mose, III (1880), p. 68, IV (1881), pp. 306-307, V (1882), pp. 267-268]. Worth mentioning is Steinschneider's hypothesis that this Moshe Cohen may have been no other than the father of the eminent Candian scholar and anti-Cabbalist, Sha'ul Cohen Ashkenazi [ibid., VI (1883), p. 17], a disciple of the philosopher Eliyahu Delmedigo and best known for his derogatory remarks on the Cabbalah [cf. "Sefer Be!;iinath ha-Dath" in Ta'rilumoth IJokhmah, pp. 9-10; "Ma~ref la-~okhmah," ibid., pp. 3-4. Henceforth, the second edition of MW!ref la-IJokhmah (Odessa, 1864) is used, referred to as MW!ref] and his "questions" regarding Maimonides' Guide which he

12

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

of Spanish Jews, using at times the surname Sephardi, also begin to appear with increasing frequency in these documents. 1 The number of Spanish arrivals on the island markedly increased in the year of the expulsion from Spain and in the following decades. From the lips of "the uprooted, charming, Spanish Jews, constantly passing here", Elijah Capsali writes, he gathered much of the information for his work on the Jews of Spain. 2 In the latter part of the sixteenth century, in the wake of the continued flight of Marranos from Portugal and the inimical attitude toward them assumed by the Church during the age of the Counter-Reformation, some Marranos sought refuge in Candia. 3 To some of these Jews Crete was only a temporary domicile; others, however, settled there and, in the course of time, became an integral part of the community, also taking an active role in its local affairs. We have mentionned before some

presented to Isaac Abravanel [cf. She'eloth l'he-lfakham ... Sha'ul ha-Cohen ... m'eth Yi~?iaq Abravanel (Venice, 1574)]. Should this hypothesis be true, it could explain Sha'ul's anti-Cabbalistic stand, as a reaction to his father's excessive absorption with mysticism. Noteworthy is the new light shed on the identity of Sha'ul by Cassuto's full text of the Statutes. The name of "Sha'ul Cohen, the son of Moshe Cohen," appears as signatory on five statutes of the second and third decades of the sixteenth century [Stat., nos. 64, 71, 72, 75, 78, pp. 66, 75, 76, 81, 87]. His identification was uncertain, however. The fact that his name also appears on a statute of the year l"l"i!) (5285 = 1525) [cf. Ohel David, p. 353], made such an identification very doubtful, since Sha'ul died in the plague of 1523. [See Lattes, Liqq'Utim, p. 27]. However, by suggesting that l"l"i!) be interpreted as 1519 (considering the heh as signifying the year 5000) and not 1525 [Stat., no. 75, p. 81, note to line 29], Cassuto removed this difficulty, leaving little doubt as to the identity of Sha'ul Cohen of the Statute8 with Sha'ul Cohen, the disciple of Eliyahu Delmedigo. If this identification is true, the high praises showered on Sha'ul by our Yashar in the opening pages of his M~ref la-lfokhmah, whatever their motivation, only corroborate the image of the man as it emerges from the Statute8. These statutes indicate that he was among the rabbis and out.standing leaders of the community of his day [cf. Stat., p. 81, line 14]. For other Ashkenazim, see, Stat., nos. 64, 70, 72, 75, 76, 78, 82, 84, 85, 87, 104, 107, pp. 67, 73, 77, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 89, 99, 102, 107, 109, 139, 143; Massa' Meshullam mi-Volterra b'Eretz YiBrael bi-Shenath 1481, ed., A. Ya'ari (Jerusalem, 1969), p. 82; Leonello Modona, "Deux lnventaires," p. 121. 1 Stat., no. 76, p. 85, line 72. Regarding the subject of the statute, cf. S. Markus, "A History of the Jews in Canea" [Hebrew], Tarbiz, XXXVIII (Jerusalem, 1968-1969), pp. 161-174, mainly p. 163; S. Dubnow, ed., Pinqaa ha-Medinah (Berlin, 1925; Israel, 1969), p. 9, par. 43. 2 Lattes, Liqqutim, p. 38. 8 Stat., nos. 112, 113, 114, pp. 146-148.

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

13

"Sephardim" of the fifteenth century. This appelation appears with greater frequency in the sixteenth century. 1 Besides Ashkenazi, Sephardi and native Greek Jews, there were in Candia also Jews from other parts of the Mediterranean : Sicily,• Rhodes, 3 Jerusalem, 4 and Egypt.s Noteworthy is Shemaryah Delmedigo of Egripon. 6 If surnames like Ibn Tibbon and $arfati 7 point to the French origin of their bearers, names like 'Abbas and Ibn Dalal, 8 point, in all likelihood, to an Arabic speaking land as the place of their origin. Yol;tanan ben Ephrayim must have been from an Arab land, most likely in the Magreb. He arrived in Candia in 1478 "from the remote parts" of the West, expounding the theory of metemphsychosis according to a book which he himself had translated from the Arabic.9 As a result of closer ties with Italy, some Italian Jews also settled here. When, at the end of the fourteenth century, the authorities raised substantially the Jewish tax, they based this "action on the claim that there had recently occurred an influx of wealthy Jews, following a decree of expulsion from Venice (August, 27, 1394)."1° Surnames like Prato,11 Messene,1 2 and Masriti or Maceriti 13 indicate a likely Italian origin.14 1 Ibid., no. 86, p. 108, n. on line 27; no. 103, p. 138; no. 110, p. 146; no. 111, p. 118; no. 116, p. 150; no. 117, p. 151. 2 Ibid., no. 32, pp. 20-22. 3 Modona, loc. cit., p. 127; Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," p. 104. 4 Steinschneider, "Candia, cenni," Mose, IV (1881), pp. 306-307; Stat., no. 76, p. 85, line 54. 5 Stat., no. 89, p. 110, line 7. 6 Ibid., no. 48, p. 45. In view of the prevalent opinion that the arrival of the Delmedigo family in Crete did not precede the beginning of the fifteenth century and that the family originated from Germany [Geiger, "Einleitung," Melo Chofnajim, p. XXVII; Steinschneider, "Candia, cenni," Mose, III (1880), p. 282; E. Beilinson, "Toledoth ... Yoseph Shlomo Rofe mi-Candia," Elim (Odessa, 1864), p. VJ, it must be assumed that Shemaryah Delmedigo of Egripon belonged to another family of physicians which also adopted this professional surname. For another arrival from Egripon, see Stat., no. 51, p. 50, line 69. 7 Ibid., no. 76, p. 84, lines 56, 65. 8 Ibid., no. 76, p. 84, line 67, p. 85, line 83. 9 Steinschneider, Mose, VI (1883), p. 15. 10 J. Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," p. 77. l l "i1'i"1~." Stat., nos. 51, 52, 57, p. 50, line 67; p. 52, line 66; p. 59, line 64. 12 "'l'!l.''r.I," ibid., no. 52, p. 52, line 60; no. 57, p. 59, line 63. 13 "'1''"1!Vr.I," ibid., no. 118, p. 152, line 42. 14 For "Prato," see Oassuto, Gli Ebrei a Firenze, pp. 150, 243. "'l'!l.''r.I" is most likely

14

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

The Jewish population of Crete displayed both constancy and fluidity. Families such as the Capsalis, the Delmedigos, the Nomicos, the Ashkenazim and the Casanis showed a continuous existence from generation to generatiOn, while other segments of the population were of more recent origin and their existence on the island of shorter duration. Whatever the general effect of these migrations on the Cretan Jewish community, in one respect at least they were salubrious, namely, they acted as an antidote to its seclusion and insularity. The constant stream of newcomers, transients or settlers, established contacts between these isolated communities and the rest of the Jewish world. Through them Cretan Jewry was kept abreast of events and developments in the Jewish world, as well as in the world at large. There also were other factors which contributed to a widening of horizons. As a small minority within a generally hostile population, the bulk of whom were concentrated in Candia, the seat of the foreign rule and administration, the Jews most naturally stood in closer contact with Venetian authorities than other segments of the population. They depended on that authority not only for their selfrule and the enforcement of their decisions,1 but for their very existence and the pursuit of daily activities. Though far from liberal in modern terms, Venetian rule on the island, as at home, was guided by an adherence to the principle of law and order. For example, because of the forceful intercession of the authorities during the anti-Jewish riots of 1538, the Candian community avoided serious consequences. 2 This was not the only case of governmental intervention on behalf of the Jews. A number of privileges were granted to the leaders of the community safeguarding synagogues against desecration by Gentiles, threatening severe punishment for plunderers of Jewish graves, and prohibiting anyone from interfering with their business activities or abusing them. 3 What wonder then that in the bitter struggle between the native Greek population and the Venetian a hebraized version of the Italian "messinese" for a person from Messina, and "'1''ilt'~"-a derivation from Macerata in the Marche. 1 In a letter of 1567 to the community of Castel Nuovo, the leaders of Candian Jewry threatened that community with punitive measures for usurping what they, the Candianites, claimed to be their sole right, granted to them by the authorities, namely to punish transgressors and recalcitrants. Stat., no. 108, pp. 143-144. 2 Ibid., no. 99, pp. 118ff. a Ibid., no. 46, pp. 39-42.

CANDI.AN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

15

rulers, a struggle that continued for centuries, desolating the island and decimating its population, the Jews seem to have aligned themselves with the latter. Indeed, it was a Jew, David Mavrogonato, who in 1453 divulged to the authorities a plot by the natives to anihilate them all. 1 Whereas this Jew must have appeared as traitor in the eyes of the native Greeks, he acted, no doubt, as a loyal son of the Jewish community, whose fate, he must have feared, would become extremely precarious were the foreign rule liquidated.2 The unique situation of the Venetians in Candia may also have been the reason for a friendlier attitude on their part toward the local Jewish community. Though devoutly Christian in administrating the state, and treating the Jews merely as a tolerated foreign minority, deprived of the privileges and honors of Venetian citizenship,s the de facto attitude of the Venetians toward the Jews may have been more humane than official sources indicate. The Jews of Candia constituted not only an important economic and financial segment of the local population, but it may also be assumed they were considered a politically loyal and trustworthy minority. Moreover, as a result of the close ties between Candian and Venetian Jewries and the diffusion of the culture of the Renaissance on the island, the local Jews must have become the most "westernized" element in the population, with a great cultural affinity to the Venetian rulers. It was, in all likelihood, the secular expressions of Renaissance culture which created a common meeting ground between Jews and Venetians, opening also the way for some social contacts. There also were other forces at work in the Candian Jewish situation which kept the community in touch with the external world and acted against its insularity. Some were of an economic, others of a cultural nature. Economically, Cretan Jewry belonged to the Mediterranean type of Jewish communities, rather than the continental European type. At the very time the economic activities of Franco-German and Italian Zinkeisen, op. cit., IV, p. 623; Stat., no. 46, lines 64-67. For some interesting data on this man, see D. Jacoby, "David Mavrogonato of Candia, Fifteenth Century Jewish Merchant, Intercessor and Spy," Tarbiz, XXXIII (1963-1964), pp. 382-402. 3 Even David Mavrogonato, who was granted some privileges for his services to Venice, never obtained Venetian citizenship. Cf. David Jacoby, "On the Status of Jews in the Venetian Colonies in the Middle Ages," Zion, XXVIII (Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 57-69. See also S. Marcus in Tarbiz, XXXVIII. 1

3

16

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

Jewries were assuming an almost exclusively financial character, the economic activities of Cretan Jewry-like those of the Jews in Spain, the Magreb, Sicily and the East Mediterranean-preserved a greater variety and balance, with the "productive" areas of economic life strongly represented in them. Eliyahu Mizral;ti's assertion-actually based on a letter of Yoseph Algazi to him-that "most Candian Jews, yea, all of them, were craftsmen," 1 is no doubt an exaggeration. However, as far as the pursuits of a sizeable segment of the Jewish population are concerned, it is not without foundation. Indeed, this is well borne out by the Statutes of Candia which abound in references to Jewish "craftsmen and workers." 2 The nature of these crafts was closely associated with the two mainstays of the island's economy, the raising of cattle and the growing of vines.a Associated with the former was the production of leather, shoemaking and saddle making, 4 and associated with the latter the seasonal work of "trampling the grapes." s Tied in with the raising of cattle was the dairy industry, notably the production of cheese, in which the Jews actively participated. Naturally, the community also had its butchers, bakers and tailors. 6 Important as these trades were in the economy of Candian Jewry, the wealth of the community as a whole did not derive from them, but from commerce and finance. "All the Jews" [of Candia], writes the traveler Meshulam of Volterra at the end of the fifteenth century, "are merchants and artisans," 7 a statement whose validity is well borne out by the Statutes and the responsa literature. Stores of "food, drink and spices," and dealers in dairy products, butchers and leather merchants are frequently referred to in the Statutes. 8 Candian Jews were also active in banking 9 and foreign trade, "l'lm~iN ''l7:J oi,i::i iN c:iii '!l ... ," Responsa, no. 66. Stat., no. 20, p. 12; no. 38, p. 28; no. 42, pp. 33-34; no. 57, pp. 57-58; no. 65, pp. 67-68; no. 74, pp. 78-80; no. 80, pp. 92-95. a Cf. Raymond Matton, La Crete au cours des siecles (Athens, 1957), pp. 116-119. 4 "C''l73l':l 'it1il'1," "Cl'3l7:S:i," cf. Stat., no. 74, pp. 78-80; no. 82, p. 99. 5 Ibid., no. 15, p. 8; no. 28, p. 16; no. 33, pp. 22-25; no. 94, pp. 113-116. 6 Ibid., nos. 36, 37, 41, 48, 51, 52, 55, 59, 71, 74. 7 ":'l::lN,l':l ''l7:ii Cl'inio oi,i:i," Massa' Meshulam mi-VoUerra (Ya'ari), p. 82. s Stat., no. 57, p. 58; nos. 36, 37, 82, pp. 26-28, 99 and passim. 9 It is amazing that this activity, which must have been a major source of the community's wealth, is not mentioned at all in the Statutes, though its pursuit is borne out by non-Jewish sources. Cf. J. Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," pp. 23ff. See also 1

~

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

17

notably the export of wine, 1 rice and sugar.2 Worth noting is an extensive commercial privilege that was granted in 1589 by the Polish king, Sigismund the Third, to a Jew from Crete, Joseph Cohen. a That those activities intensified contacts between Candian Jewry and the outside world is obvious and needs no further elaboration. The spiritual needs of the community, or, more specifically, the need for legal guidance and advice must be mentioned as an additional factor which contributed toward closer relations between Candian and world Jewries. Quite frequently legal cases occurred on the island, which the local rabbis did not feel sufficientlycompetenttoadjudicate. At times, the rabbis were divided in their opinions and could not reach agreement. In such instances, and following centuries-old patterns, they would turn to the recognized authorities of the time. Such an authority in the second half of the fifteenth century was Moshe Capsali, a native of Crete, who retained an interest in the local affairs of Candia even after he had settled in Constantinople. Another great legal authority of approximately the same period was Eliyahu Mizra};ti, who succeeded Capsali as chief rabbi of Constantinople. The scope and intensity of such contacts increased markedly in the sixteenth century, when, in the wake of the expulsion from Spain, new. centers of Jewish learning arose in various parts of the East Mediterranean, in Turkey, Egypt, Jerusalem and Safed. Somewhat earlier, Padua rose as the seat of great Ashkenazi scholars, who, for almost a century, exerted great influence on the Jewish scholarly world. 4 Markus in Tarbiz, XXXVIII, p. 162. It may be assumed, however, that money lending never became as prominent an occupation here as among Italian Jews of the Renaissance period, or the French and Ashkenazi Jews of earlier centuries. 1 S. Asaf, Sinai, V, no. 5; Yoseph Caro, Sefer Avqath Rokhel, no. 67; Responsa by R' Yehudah Minz and R' Me'ir mi-Padua, no. 76. 2 Cf. Shlomo Eidelberg, Jewish Life in Austria in the XVth Century (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 106. See also U. Cassuto, "Kreta (Kandia)," EJ, X, pp. 410-413; J. Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," p. 88. s M. Balaban, Zydzi Lwowscy na przelomie XVI i XVII wieku (Lw6w, 1905), p. 346. For an illuminating discussion of the economic character of Candian Jewry, see Z. Ankori, "Jews and the Jewish Community in the History of Medieval Crete," Proceedings of the Second International Oretological OongrelJs, vol. III (Athens, 1968), pp. 358-360. 4 Cf. S. Ghirondi, "Toledoth Gedolei Yisrael, Rabbanei Padua asher b'Italia ... ," S. L. Goldenberg, ed., Kerem Ifemed, III (Prague, 1838), pp. 88-96; Porges, REJ, vol. 77 (1923), pp. 29, 37-38; vol. 79 (1924), pp. 39-42.

18

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

The man who, more than any other Candian leader, fostered relations with most of the Jewish scholars of his time was Elijah Capsali. He exchanged letters, on a variety of legal problems, with his master of Padua, Rabbi Meir, 1 with R' Tam hen David Ibn Yal;i.ya and Menal;i.em Cavalli of Constantinople, 2 with rabbis Moshe Alashqar, Shmuel Halevi and David Ibn Zimra of Egypt, 3 and with Yoseph Caro and Moshe Trani of Safed. 4 Though on a lesser scale, such exchanges also continued in the second half of the sixteenth century.s Though predominantly Ashkenazi, at least as far as its leadership and the sources of its religious traditions are concerned, Cretan Jewry hardly displays any characteristics which are usually considered typical of Ashkenazi Jewry. Aspects of its life, culture and economy are distinguished by Mediterranean traits, common to the Jewries of Spain, Italy and Morea. The Jewish esprit de corps, typical of northern Jewry, seems to have been altogether lacking here, thus making it repeatedly necessary to enact special ordinances, calling for a work stoppage during a funeral, a restraint in the use of the ban, 7 and a curb on swearing, cursing and quarreling. 8 Nor does the religious life of that Jewry seem to have been distinguished by either a too deep commitment to study or a strict observance of the Law. Rather than intellectual, contemplative, or ascetic in any way, their religious experience seems exhausted by an adherence to the merely functional and external. The young men in the community flock to the synagogues on the joyous occasions of Siml;i.ath Torah and Purim, feasting with music and song the "/y,atan Torah and with exploding of rocchettas-the fall of Haman.9 On more routine occasions, however, the synagogue does not hold too great an attraction for them. Even on a Sabbath or holiday, they Cf. Responsa of R' Me'ir of Padua, nos. 29, 32, 78. Stat., nos. 96, 97, pp. 117-118. a Ibid., no. 90, p. 111; no. 95, pp. 116-117; see also Responsa of Moshe Alashqar (Sabionetta, 1554), nos. 70, 99, 111, 112, 113, 114. 4 Se/er Avqath Rokhel, nos. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67; Responsa of R' Moshe ben Yoseph mi-Trani (Mabit), I (Safed, 1861), no. 30. Cf. Stat., nos. 112, 113, 116, pp. 146-148, 149: Responsa of R' Yoseph Ibn Lev, IV (Fiirth, 1692), no. 16, p. 15b; see also Responsa of R' David Ibn Zimra (Radbaz), I (Sudiikov, 1836), no. 1, p. la. 6 Stat., nos. 7, 20, 42, 93, pp. 4, 12, 33, 78, 113. 7 Ibid., no. 6, p. 4; no. 22, p. 13; no. 27, p. 14. s Ibid., no. 40, p. 32, lines 80-84; no. 92, p. 112; no. 100, p. 129, and passim. 9 Ibid., no. 85, p. 103; no. 101, pp. 130-131. 1

2

°

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

19

prefer to loiter their time away in the courthouse, listening to its deliberations, or in the harbour watching the incoming and outgoing of boats, or in just walking around in the streets and the market place. The neglect of public prayers became so widespread as to necessitate a special ordinance. The fact, however, that it had to be re-enacted again and again shows that it was of little effect. 1 Characteristic of this situation is an ordinance of 1549 which suspended the custom of praying in the house of a mourner during the days of shiv'ah. Instead, the mourner was henceforth to be accompanied to and from the synagogue. However, it was pointed out that such a procedure should not be followed in the case of "sinful and wicked" mourners who do not even attend public services either on Rosh J:lodesh or the Sabbath. 2 That in a community as small as Candia there were Jews who did not even attend Sabbath and holiday services is, indeed, a most remarkable phenomenon. Just as Candian Jews displayed no excessive zeal in attending public services, they also were in no haste to usher in the Sabbath. Hence the repeated ordinances, exhorting against a too late stoppage of work on Friday afternoons. 3 A no less serious problem was moral laxity. Gambling was widespread and no less common here than on the Italian mainland. 4 Another serious matter was the low sexual morality prevalent here. Ordinances prohibiting too close an association between bridegroom and bride were constantly enacted; 5 in view of their frequency, however, compliance with them appears doubtful. An ordinance against "prostitutes and adulterers" was enacted in 1363. In 1526 an ordinance prohibited the celebration in the synagogue of the circumcision of a child born out of wedlock. Dead and long forgotten were the "lawless women" against whom was directed the Statute of 1363, their trade was still pursued, however, two hundred years later, as a statute of 1568 indicates. 6 To make this list of vices more complete, a few more must be added, such as the use of foul language, cursing and brawling.7 Ibid., no. 3, p. 4; no. 18, p. 9; no. 30, p. 17; no. 82, p. 98. Ibid., no. 106, p. 141. 3 Ibid., no. 9, p. 5; no. 16, p. 9; no. 38, p. 28; no. 65, p. 67; no. 79, p. 88. 4 RllBponsa of R' Me'ir of Padua, no. 29; Rll8ponsa of R' Moshe Alashqar, nos. 99, 114; Stat., no. 92, p. 112. 5 Stat., no. 8, p. 5; no. 19, p. 11; no. 62, p. 64; no. 104, p. 138. 6 Ibid., no. 31, p. 19; no. 81, p. 95; no. 113, p. 147. 7 Ibid., no. 100, pp. 128-129, and passim. 1

2

20

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

The general behavior and the impulsive and excitable temperament of Candian Jews are also Mediterranean in character. All the young men among them possess arms, and, when challenged, do not hesitate to use them and to display their sense of honor and courage. 1 It may be surmised that a Jewish traveler from Poland or Germany of the sixteenth century would surely have been taken aback by many aspects of Jewish life on the island. However, were such a traveler to come from Italy, ·or any other part of the Mediterranean, he would hardly have found here anything to surprise him. This somewhat negative picture of Candian Jewry does not exhaust, however, all its facets and characteristics. There also were aspects in the life and culture of that Jewry which were positive and attractive. Relatively speaking, this small community produced a great number of sages and scholars, whose fame spread far beyond the island. Suffice it to mention men like Shemaryah ha-Icriti of the fourteenth century, Eliyahu Delmedigo and Sha'ul ha-Cohen of the fifteenth, Elijah Capsali of the sixteenth, and Yoseph Shlomo Delme• digo of the seventeenth centuries. In addition to these rather famous individuals, there were on the island in each generation numerous scholars and leaders who could be the pride of any community. They were addressed with respect and admiration by the greatest Jewish sages of their respective times. As mentioned, almost from their emergence on the historical scene, the Jews of Candia display the cultural characteristics of the Mediterranean Jewish communities. Their interests are wide and varied, including, besides Talmud, the study of Bible, Cabbalah, philosophy, science, mathematics, and above all medicine. A relatively large number of physicians figures in the data collected by Steinschneider from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as well as in the Statutes of Candia from this period and the sixteenth century. The profession is notably represented in the Delmedigo, Nomico, :i;Ien and the Casani 1 Ibid., no. 98, p. 124. It is interesting to observe that the impulsive and excitable temper of Candian Jews is cited by an ordinance of the fourteenth century as the reason for not installing an 'eruv in Candia. Were an 'eruv installed, the leaders point out, and carrying on the Sabbath within the boundaries of the community permitted, it could have grave consequences. Since on the Sabbath the people assemble in the synagogues to discuss various matters, discussions which usually end in dissentions and quarrels, it might happen that someone, carried away by his anger, would run home, and fetch a sword or a spear, and thus cause bloodshed. Ibid., no. 40, p. 32.

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

21

families. The fact that many of these physicians frequently appear as leaders of the community and signatories of its statutes is proof of the high esteem in which they were held. Nor were the other areas of secular learning neglected. In the last quarter of the fourteenth century, a certain Abraham hen Leon composed a philosophical work, Arba' Turim, on the existence of God, providence, etc. He also made a copy of a Hebrew translation of Euclid's Y esodoth (Elementi). In 1410, a medical work of Algazi was copied here by a Malkiel hen Shabbetai Cohen. In 1478, the lfokhmath ha-Mispar of Mordekhai Comtino was copied by Shabbetai hen Moshe from a copy that was used by Caleb Afendopolo. A few years earlier, a copy was made of al Farabi's Hat~aloth according to the translation of Shmuel Ibn Tibbon. 1 More important by far was the work of Eliyahu Delmedigo (d. 1496). He attained prominence in the last quarter of the fifteenth century as translator and commentator of some of the works of Aristotle and Averroes. In Hebrew letters he is best known for his Be~inath ha-Dath in which he criticized the Cabbalah and expounded the Averroist doctrine of the double truth with regard to the relationship between philosophy and religion.2 According to Yashar, one of Eliyahu's sons, R' Moshe, was an "eminent and highly respected philosopher." 3 Somewhat older was Menal;iem Shmuel Delmedigo, who, according to the chronicles of Elijah Capsali, lived at Padua in the days of R' Yehudah Minz, teaching Talmud to Jews and philosophy to nonJews.4 A disciple of R' Yeduhah Minz and his son Abraham was Elijah Capsali who authored a history of Venice and Turkey in which he paid special attention to the history of the Jews during the crucial period of the exile from Spain.5 Noteworthy is Capsali's historical conception, with its emphasis on the importance of reliable and trustworthy sources as a prerequisite of sound historiography, and the demarcation line he draws between such and merely fictitious 1 Steinschneider, "Candia, cenni," Mose, III (1880), pp. 55, 283; IV (1881), pp. 403, 404, and passim. 2 Elim, pp. 44, 58; M~ref, pp. 10-12; I. S. Reggio, Introduction to Bel;inath haDath (Wien, 1833); U. Cassuto, Gli Ebrei a Firenze, pp. 282-299. 3 "i:!~li c:i1:itv riioi1:i~ti," Elim, p. 44. 4 Ibid., p. 43; Porges in REJ, 78-79 (1924), pp. 17-19, 52-53. 5 Cf. M. Lattes, Liqqutim, pp. 27-29; U. Cassuto, "R' Eliyahu (hen Elqanah) Capsali," Encyclopedia l'Toledoth Gedolei Yisrael, ed. M. Margolioth, I (Jerusalem, 1946), pp. 174-177; J. Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," pp. 109-111.

22

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

historiography, a clear indication of an awakened historical consciousness almost two generations before 'Azariah de Rossi and Yoseph ha-Cohen. 1 Along with these studies, the pursuit of Cabbalah also gained an early foothold on the island. According to Steinschneider, a Cabbalistio manuscript was sold in Candia in 1397.2 In 1444, Eliyahu ben Abba Delmedigo bought an anonymous Cabbalist-philosophical manuscript.a An upsurge in Cabbalistic speculations, especially regarding metempsychosis, is noticeable in ·candia in the seventies of the fifteenth century. 4 That these tendencies gained a wide following among Candian Jewry of the time can also be inferred from the relatively extensive criticism to which Eliyahu Delmedigo subjected the Cabbalah in his Be"IJ,inath ha-Dath. Eliyahu's remark that his critical views may give rise to "a clamorous and panicky" outcry against him, is no doubt proof-as Reggio, the editor of the book, observes-of the strength the Cabbalah had already attained by that time among Candian Jews.& This is also indicated, one generation later, by Elijah Capsali who asserted his belief in the higher meanings of the Aggadah and the secrets of the Cabbalah. That all these tendencies continued unabated, and perhaps even gained in strength, during the sixteenth century, is best attested by the list of manuscripts from Crete, of around the middle of the sixteenth century, which Cassuto discovered among the Hebraica in the library of the Vatican. Out of a hundred and seventy five manuscripts, twenty seven were in Cabbalah, twenty six in philosophy, eleven in mathematics, four in medicine, twenty six in Biblical exegesis, and only nineteen in Halakhah, Talmud and codes. 6 If this list is supplemented by the list of Doctor Nomico's collection of half a century later, which is mainly rich in medical works, 7 the wide diffusion of secular learning among Candian Jews during the sixteenth century becomes obvious. Justly Cassuto declares, that Cf. Lattes, Liqqv,tim, pp. 37-38. Mose, III (1880), p. 56. a Ibid., p. 284. 4 Ibid., V (1882), pp. 267ff; VI (1883), p. 15; Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete," pp. 108109; Markus in Tarbiz, XXXVIII, p. 164. 6 Cf. Be!;inath ha-Dath, p. 70. 6 Cf. Cassuto, "I manoscritti Palatini," pp. 43-44. 7 Cf. Modona, "Deux Inventaires," pp. 117-135. i

2

CANDIAN MILIEU AND BACKGROUND

23

during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a great flourishing of humanist studies took place among the Jews of Crete as among the Jews of Italy with whom they stood in close and continuous relations. 1 1

"I manoscritti Palatini," "conclusione," p. 79.

CHAPTER TWO

YASHAR'S EARLY YEARS IN CANDIA Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, a descendant of one of the most prominent Jewish families on the island of Crete and the greatest Jewish scholar the island brought forth, was born in Candia on the 16th of June, 1591. Here he passed the first fifteen years of his childhood and adolescence. His subsequent seven Lehrjahre he spent at Padua, the seat of one of the best known medical schools of the late medieval and Renaissance Europe. Upon completion of his studies, he returned to Candia and, after a stay of three to four years, he left the island, leading the life of a wanderer who stayed for various lengths of time in a number of cities and countries. In all likelihood he never again set foot on the island of Crete. As far as our knowledge of Delmedigo is concerned, his life may be divided in two parts with, as the dividing line between them, the years 1629-1631 which witnessed the appearance of his two printed volumes, Elim and Ta'alumoth lJokhmah, and his settlement at Frankfurt-am-Main. Whatever is known of his activities and views belongs to the first period, whereas the last twenty years of his life remain almost terra incognita. Essentially, there is only one major primary source for the life story of Delmedigo, the epistle of his disciple Moshe Metz to the Karaite Zeral;t. 1 However, this account does not go beyond the early 1620's, when Delmedigo was only thirty years old. For the following years, some information may be gleaned from Delmedigo's printed works, notably the two versions of "Mikhtav Al;tuz" and his introductions to Ma?ref la-!Jokhmah and Novloth lJokhmah. Additional fragmentary information from various sources brings us up to the early thirties, beyond which, however, we are left in almost total darkness. Our ignorance is even greater with regard to Delmedigo's thought in the closing period of his activity. Some bits of information regarding his physical whereabouts and activities during the last two decades of his life occasionally still reach us, but his spiritual world 1

Elim, pp. 42-48.

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

25

during that period remains tightly closed to us. As far as is known, after the publication of Elim and Ta'alumoth, no other work of his ever appeared in print. 1 Even these two collections of writings, reflecting his views of the earlier period, are so full of contradictions and inconsistencies that the historian is faced with the difficult task of separating the authentic from the unauthentic in them, to establish the intellectual and psychological identity of the man. According to the account of Moshe Metz, based on the chronicles of Elijah Oapsali and the oral testimony of Yashar, 2 the first member of the Delmedigo family to settle in Crete was R' Yeduhah, "who came from the land of Ashkenaz." 3 Abraham Geiger assumes that this settlement must have taken place "about the end of the fourteenth century." 4 Steinschneider suggests it is even as late as the beginning of the fifteenth century.s Both dates, we believe, are too late by at least one generation. Shemaryah Delmedigo, one of the three sons of Yeduhah, the first settler, appears already as signatory to a statute of December, 1399, 6 and Moshe and Eliyahu Delmedigo, most likely the grandsons of Yehudah (the sons of Yehudah's son, R' Abba), sign a statute of 1406. 7 According to tradition the family originated from Germany ;8

1 The only exception is his translation of Hippocrates' Aphorisms which was printed in Issakhar Baer Teller's Be'er Mayim !Jayyim (Prague, 1650 ?). See below, pp. 127-128, n. 4. 2 In relating about Shmuel MenaJ:iem Delmedigo, one of the outstanding members of that family in the first half of the sixteenth century. Metz observes that what he writes about him is "in accordance with the chronicles of... R' Eliyahu Capsali of Candia, "•1:itv!:lj.' in•1:iN .,,,.,;,,~~ l'Ji1:iNil ~.,;ii, Cl"~"il ,.,~, .,!::11'~ ~iri~~,, ilN"ilp~," Elim, p. 43. It may be assumed that from this source he also drew the rest of the earlier history of the Delmedigo family. In addition, he points out: "And by the way of narration, I found out the story of his life and his forebears" (.,i!:IO ,.,,,,, "i•rii~Ni i•mi1:iiri •l;i i:;,iil), Ibid., p. 44. a Ibid., p. 43. 4 "Etwa am Ende des XIVten Jahrhunderts," A. Geiger, "Einleitung," Melo Ohofnajim, p. XXIV. 5 "Verso l'inizio di questo secolo [i.e., the 15th] appajono le origini della famiglia ... di de Medigo," "Candia. cenni," Mose, III (1880), p. 282. 6 Stat., no. 55, p. 55, last line of notes, p. 56, line 58. On the other hand, it is also possible that this Shemaryah is identical with Shemaryah Delmedigo of Egripon whose name, as mentioned earlier, appears on a statute of 1362; see above, p. 13, n. 6. 7 Stat., no. 52, p. 51, line 12; p. 52, lines 55, 58. s Elim, p. 43.

26

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

however, the surname "Delmedigo" indicates that a period of sojourn in Italy may have intervened between the migration from Germany and the settlement in Oandia. 1 According to the genealogy of Metz, eight generations separate Y ashar from his ancestor Y ehudah, the first Delmedigo to arrive in Crete. Naturally, this genealogy represents only a small segment of the full membership of this large family. From among the almost hundred and twenty preserved ordinances of the Oandian community, there are very few on which the name of a Delmedigo does not appear as condestabulo, rabbi, or in any other capacity. Quite frequently a number of Delmedigos appear as signatories to one and the same ordinance. Thus, out of six signatories to a statute of the year 1477 the condestabulo and three other signatories bear the surname "Delmedigo." 2 Out of eleven signatories to a statute of 1518 four are Delmedigos.s Out of seven signed on a statute of the year 1525 three are Delmedigos, 4 and the same holds true with regard to other ordinances of later years.5 How prominent the family was may also be gathered from the fact that when Elijah Oapsali in 1529 established the precedent that the ~atan Torah would be an honor reserved only for scholars, Delmedigos were chosen for this honor in two out of the four Oandian synagogues. a Among the early benefactors of the community Yehudah's son, "Abba the Old", figures prominently. He built the "Allemanico" synagogue, and donated scrolls of Law with ornaments of silver and pearls, because "he was very rich." 7 His three sons, Elqanah, Eliyahu and Moshe, were prominent leaders in the first half of the fifteenth century. Moshe settled in Jerusalem, and his title Nagid indicates he must have been both rich and learned. One of the more famous members of the family was "the great Gaon, the divine philosopher and eminent physician", Rabbi Mena:Q.em, a grandson of Elqanah, who lived in Padua around the turn of the fifteenth century and was "teaching Gemara to Jews and philosophy to Christians." Besides 1 Cf. George Alter, "Two Renaissance Astronomers, David Gans and Joseph Delmedigo,'' Rozprawy Geskoslovenske Akademie Ved, 68 (1958), pp. 45-46. 2 Stat., no. 62, p. 65, lines 21, 25-28. a Ibid., no. 72, p. 77, lines 44, 49-51. 4 I bid., no. 80, p. 95, lines 86, 88, 89. 5 Ibid., no. 81, p. 96; no. 82, p. 99, lines 76-81; no. 107, p. 143, and passim. 6 Ibid., no. 85, p. 107, lines 130, 131. 7 Elim, p. 43.

YASHAR'S EARLY YEARS IN CANDIA

27

being erudite he was also very rich. However, during the war of 1509 he lost his wealth and was taken captive. He was redeemed by the Jews of Crete and became their spiritual leader. 1 His relative Elijah Capsali calls him "the big tamarisk ... the most excellent of teachers." 2 His name appears on a number of ordinances from the years 1518-1527.a It was Shmuel Menal;tem's grandson, Eli'ezer, who was the grandfather of our Yashar. He studied under both Ya'acov Beirav and Yoseph Caro in Egypt. 4 Yashar praises his grandfather as a "great luminary" who taught for more than forty five years atthe Yeshivah of Candia. He had a very keen mind and argued vigorously with the greatest legalists of his day on various aspects of the law.5 His name appears as signatory to a number of Candian statutes enacted between the years 1566 and 1583. 6 Of some interest is the fact that, when in 1577 a statute was enacted prohibiting aspirants to the rabbinate from attempting to obtain that title from abroad, Eli'ezer Delmedigo was the only one among the five rabbis of Candia who refused to sign that statute. 1 Eli'ezer's son and the father of Yashar, Eliyahu, succeeded his father in the rabbinate of Candia. On the basis of information probably derived directly from Yashar, Moshe Metz writes of Eliyahu : "He is a Torah scholar, not a philosopher; a great Talmudist and legalist, the chief rabbi of the Jews of this land whose fame reaches Egypt, Constantinople and Venice." s Like his grandfather, Yashar's father was adept in the pilpul method which had attained its highest development among Ashkenazi Jews. Yashar writes : "Nobody equalled him in the study of the Tosafoth." Though both his grandfather and father were intellectually gifted and studied throughout their lives, they left no substantial writings behind them, except for

.,,,lil

Ibid., ibid.; Porges in REJ, vol. 78-79 (1924), pp. 17-19, 52-53. '"C'ii~il in:i~ CMl~ i"iil~ '!VNil •':liip ,,~ C!VNi:ii .. ·" Stat., no. 82, p. 98, line 25; see also no. 86, p. 108, lines 24-25. a Stat., no. 72, p. 77, line 44; no. 75, p. 81, line 30; no. 78, p. 87, line 27; no. 80, p. 95, line 86; no. 81, p. 96, line 25; no. 82, p. 99, line 76. 4 M~ref in Ta'alumoth IJokhmah, I, p. 25b; sec. ed., p. 74. According to Geiger he was an anti-Cabbalist, cf., "Einleitung" in Melo-Ohofnajim, p. XXVI. 5 Cf. "Haqdamath ha-Sefer," Novloth IJokhmah, p. 7a (unpaginated); see also, Ta'alumoth IJokhmah, I, 84b; II, 46a. 6 Cf. Stat., no. 107, p. 143, line 49; no. llO, p. 146, line 16; no. 111, p. 146, line 12; no. 115, p. 149, line 18; no. 117, p. 151, line 23; no. 118, p. 152, line 41. 7 Ibid., no. ll6, p. 150, line 15. s Elim, p. 43. 1

2

28

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

some legal decisions, responsa and argumentations of a legalistic nature, scattered in various sources. 1 Yashar's mother, Casta, was also an offspring of the Delmedigo family on her mother's side. Her mother, Rachel, was a granddaughter of the famous philosopher Eliyahu Delmedigo, who was a grandson of Shemaryah, one of the three sons of Yehudah, the first settler of the Delmedigo family in Crete. Yashar's grandmother was married to a Rabbi Yoseph, a grandson of the famous scholar Mordekhai Comtino of Constantinople. He settled on the island and became very rich, and it was here that an only daughter, Rachel, was born to them. Since after his return from Padua in 1613 Yashar remained on the island for only about four years, and probably did not return, it is possible that he never again saw his parents after 1616. However, he always harbored a sense of gratitude and love for them. He felt that his medical profession and scholarly attainment were, to a great extent, the result of the education they had provided for him. 2 What wonder then that he was frequently overcome by a sense of remorse and grief, on remembering all his father had done for him and how little he, in return, did for his father.a In 1628, while putting the final touches to his "Ma'ayan J.Iatum," Yashar prayed that he be granted the privilege of seeing his parents again in his native town.4 As a teenager, Yashar must have made the fateful decision to devote himself entirely to the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom in their widest possible sense. His persistent drive for the totality of knowledge is the outstanding characteristic of his life and personality which is traceable to the early Candian period. In later years, when meditating on this drive in him, he attributed it to the influence of the stars, notably Mercury, under whose constellation he claims to have been born.s "Since the days of my youth," he writes to Zeral;i "Haqdamath ha-Sefer" to Novloth, p. 7a. Elim, p. 45; "Mikhtav Al;mz," Melo Ohofnajim (Berlin, 1840), Hebrew sect., p. 24. a In speaking of "prophetic dreams," Yashar writes that whenever he sees his father in a dream, something sorrowful happens to him that day. He wonders whether it is not perhaps a punishment for his improper behavior towards him : •n:i':irnv l;i:17 •':iiNi :i~:ini :iiin "li~':ii ili~~:ii itm:i ·~:11 po:11w .,,~ ii:i:ii wi~w:i •npo:11 N':ii •:siN~ 1

2

m .,

,w3i:11':i 1'3:17:'1 :iipi •3:i•wi:i C'i'13 1•:ii l"\NT:i Wtll:'I l"\N •1' :iw:11i l"\il~iNi Elim, p. 118; see also "Mikhtav Al;mz," p. 24. 4 Elim, p. 418. See infra, p. 82, n. 4. 5 "Also Kepler regarded his own zeal for study a result of his birth under a triple configuration," cf. Henry Carrington Bolton, The Follies of Science at the Court of Rudo/;ph II, 1576-1612 (Milwaukee, 1904), p. 88.

YASHAR'S EARLY YEARS IN CANDIA

29

in a letter known by its initial word as the "Al;mz" letter, "the passion for knowledge has been like a burning fire within me which did not let me sleep nor drowse." 1 Also Metz points out Yashar's boundless "diligence, striving and perseverance." 2 The conditions of a well-to-do home 3 and parents with an understanding for a broader education were conducive to this inclination. The subjects of his study were no doubt varied and numerous, embracing both Judaica and general learning. His Hebrew style, richly studded with phrases, quotations and allusions from all the Books of the Bible, shows a mastery of Biblical literature that usually goes back to early training. Associated with it was the study of Hebrew grammar. In the "Al;rnz" letter Yashar recommends that attention be given to the study of grammar, though he warns against treating the subject too pedantically and devoting too much time to it. 4 It is worth noting that this letter contains one of the early and most comprehensive statements regarding the new educational thought spreading in the Jewish world under the influence of the Renaissance. Although the expressed views appear to be of an impersonal nature, they may be considered as reflecting, to some extent at least, Yashar's own educational experience. The stress on the humanities is noteworthy in these views and reflects current notions both in Italy and Crete. Yashar suggests that the study of the Bible and grammar be followed by the study of Hebrew rhetoric, which in modern terms may be identified with a course in Hebrew literature, with special attention to the Spanish and Italian masters, in both prose and poetry. Yashar felt that a grounding in their work, supplemented by the study of Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics and Messer Leon's aesthetic analysis of the Bible, the Nofeth$ufim, would result in the acquisition of a sense of form and a mastery "of our language which, unfortunately, is rare at present, as must be the case with any unspoken language." s Having been eager and diligent, Yashar must have included in his reading list a great deal of the rather little respected historical literature of current as well as earlier times. In all likelihood, he shared the low opinion of history held even by historically minded "Mikhtav Al;mz," p. 24. Elim, p. 48. 3 "Mikhtav Atmz," p. 24. 4 Ibid., p. 15. s Ibid., pp. 15-16. 1

2

30

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

men like Elijah Capsali and 'Azariah de Rossi,1 when he advised the reader to turn to it for distraction in "the hour of depression." 2 For that purpose he recommended reading the Yosiphon, Ibn Daud's Sefer ha-Oabbalah, the travel accounts of Benjamin of Tudela and Petal_iyah of Regensburg, Zacuto's Sefer Yu~asin, and the more recent works of sixteenth century historians, such as Capsali's Chronicles, Yoseph ha-Cohen's 'Emeq ha-Bakha, Ibn Yal_iya's Shalsheleth ha-Oabbalah and David Gans' $ema~ David. 3 Above all, it was no doubt the Talmud which constituted the center of Yashar's studies. For years he must have attended the local yeshivah, where his masters were first his grandfather and then his father.4 Judging from his ability to follow a Talmudic argument while still a child, this study must have begun at quite an early age. Years later he recalled the a fortiori reasoning of R' Shmuel Casani, which he heard in his childhood, in support of the view that during ~ol ha-mo'ed philacteries must be put on in a standing position.s Though none of his published writings deals with Halakhah, they abound in passages and references which amply testify to his sound Talmudic upbringing. Nor could it have been different with the son of a rabbi and the offspring of a family in which Talmudic studies 1 M. Lattes, Liqqutim, pp. 28-29; 'A. de Rossi, Me'or 'Einayim (Warsaw, 1899), chap. 27, p. 235, and passim; S. W. Baron, "Azariah de Rossi's Attitude to Life (WeUanschauung)," Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York, 1927), p. 43. 2 "Mikhtav AJ:.iuz," p. 23. a Ibid., p. 23. The omission of de Rossi's Me'or 'Einayim (Mantua, 1574) from the above list is, no doubt, to be explained by the high regard in which he held that work. Indeed, he calls de Rossi "the excellent man" and the "excellent scholar," cf. Novloth, p. llla; MWJref, p. 30. 4 He writes to Shmuel Ashkenazi : O"Di);) "l"K!D ""37 n:"l);)?'li n::in~!D :'lb i,37, •ni);)i,!D •m::iK •m::i., i,37 1'.,D::ii Cl"i,,,l :"!);)~ i,37 :"l);)n "n"":"I "lK Cll ,.,DO :"IT"K 1:1i• i,~::i tvin);)i ,,,D,D::I 1:1•i:i .,j:',37 :"l":"llV "":!tT K::IK "::IK .,,K);):"I ,O,:!tK •:ii m•iK 1:137 1:1ni,l ':"! ni);)ni,7:), :"!");));) ini• :i::i"!D•::i ,);)i, Kim ;,~i,;,::i .,.,37::1 i•::iK t:1ij:');) Ki,7:)7:), :"IK.,i;i;, KO~ i,37 ::itvi•;, T1Kl:"I K"K l~, '"K""37 ·niDoin;i ii);)';::i , ..i,K ,,.,37 rK .,!DK ':"IK"ilp "Haqdamah," Novloth, p. 7a (unpaginated). He writes again on the same subject in the official "AJ:.iuz" letter: "The study of the Gemara was like a father to me since my childhood. All my forefathers spent their lives in Yeshivoth, teaching Torah andraising many disciples." Elim, p. 132. 5 The Gaon Rabbi Shmuel Casani, one of the rabbis of my native land, inferred it by the rule from minor to major. If the blessing for l!i~ith, which is of lesser sanctity, must be made in a standing position, all the more so the blessing for tejillin, the sactity of which is greater. So I heard from his mouth when I was a ·child. MQ,1Jref, p. 74.

mtv

,,,m

YASHAR'S EARLY YEARS IN CANDI.A.

31

were cherished for generations. Also pointing to this conclusion is the fact that among the many praises which Zeral;t showers on Yashar is one for his great expertness in the Tosafoth and the teachings of R' Isaac Alfasi. 1 Zeral;t also mentions some responsa Yashar had sent to R' David Segal 2 regarding the Tosafoth and Nimmuquei Yoseph.a Along with Judaica Yashar also pursued secular studies, notably both classical and modern languages. His linguistic effort seems to have been motivated by scholarly rather than literary-humanist considerations, namely, the desire to acquire the linguistic tools necessary for the study of the Ancients. An interest in classical languages and literature per se is not found in his writings. The humanist enchantment with the Classics, displayed so strongly in Messer Leon's Nofeth $ufim, Leone Abravanel's Dialoghi delAmore, Yehudah Moscato's masterful sermons, Nejul}oth Yehudah, and Abraham Portaleone's Shiltei ha-Gibborim, yielded in him to the more modern tendency of scientific interests. It is primarily the sciences, medicine, and philosophy of the Ancients, which he desires to master through use of their languages. Of course, during the Candian period the unique use he would make of his linguistic accomplishments must not have been entirely clear to him. It may be assumed that his curriculum of studies must have been, at least at this stage, set for him by others rather than selected by himself. Hence, the sense of gratitude he felt toward his parents at a later age, when he realized the kind of education they enabled him to receive. 4 He attached great importance to the study of Greek, as "the language in which were composed all the books of the Ancients, in philosophy, medicine and astronomy." 5 It was a great disappointment to him to discover that the island vernacular was just "a corrupt jargon," 6 the knowledge of which was no help at all in the study of classical Greek. Hence, "in order to understand the books of the Ancients," he had "to study classical Greek for a long time," and it Elim, p. 8. Ibid., p. 13; cf. J. D. Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, letter "d," no. 37. 3 According to Gedalyah Ibn Yal}.ya, "Rabbi Yoseph Ibn :i;rabib composed a work Nimmuqei Yoseph on Alfasi's commentary; however, only parts of it survived;" cf. Sefer Shalskeletk ka-Oabbalak (Amsterdam, 1697), p. 48a. See also H. Y. Azulai, "!l:a'arekheth Gedolim" in Shem ka-Gedolim, letter yod, no. 128, and Ben Ya'acov, O{/ar ka-Sefarim, letter nun, no. 186. 4 "Mikhtav Al}.uz," p. 24; Elim, p. 118; supra, p. 28. 5 "Mikhtav Al}.uz," p. 24. 1

2

6

"iOEll

l'IV':i"

32

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

was to him "like any other foreign language." 1 His knowledge of that language must have been considerable. From it he translated Hippocrates' Aphori"srns and excerpts from the books of Philo. He had planned to publish the latter in conjunction with a translation from Latin of Yehudah Abravanel's Dialogues. Unfortunately, these translations were stolen from him and never recovered. 2 During his stay in Constantinople Yashar was asked by the Cabbalist and philosopher Ya'acov Ibn Nal;imias to translate some of the works of the Greek commentators on Plato. At the time, NaJ;imias was engaged in writing a book, attempting to show the close relationship between the Cabbalah and Platonism. 3 Besides Greek, Y ashar studied Latin, still the official language of scholarship and academic discourse and a prerequisite to higher studies. 4 He advised Moshe Metz to study that language as "a precious vehicle" of learning, since "all scholarly books have been translated into it." 5 It is possible that among the "medical and mathematical writings" of Yashar which, according to Metz, were written in "various languages," there may have been works in Latin.e Indeed, in his study of spherical triangles, Sod ha-Yesod, Yashar mentions one such work of geometry, the Triplodonomia. 7 His knowledge of Latin was not only literary, as indicated by the recently published exchange of letters between him and Johann Broscius of the university of Krakow, but oral as well.s In a letter to Buxtorf, dated February 19, 1630, a learned Dane by the name Suaningius, who had met Yashar at Frankfurt-am-Main, writes of the deep impression Yashar made on him by his fluency in many languages : Hebrew, Spanish and Latin. 9 During the early Candian period Yashar also studied Italian and p. 29. Cf. "Mikhtav Al}.uz," p. 21; see also Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies, II (Philadelphia, 1935), no. 134, p. 1228. 3 "Haqdamath ha-Magihah," MU!fref, p. 7. 4 Cf. P. O. Kristeller, "Die italienischen Universitiiten der Renaissance, Schriften und Vortriige deB Petrarca lnstituts Koln, I (Scherpe Verlag, Krefeld, 1953), p. 14. s Elim, p. 41. a Ibid., p. 47. 7 Ibid., p. 160. 8 Cf. Jan Brozek, Wyb6r pism, I (Warzsawa, 1956,) pp. 485-487, 490-494; see also Israel Halperin, "Exchanges between Broscius and Delmcctigo" [Hebrew], Meir BenI;Iorin, Bernard D. Weinryb and Solomon Zeitlin, eds., Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham Neuman (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 640-649. 9 See Infra, p. 79. 1 MU!fr~f,

2

YASHAR'S EARLY YEARS IN CANDIA

33

f$panish. 1 Because of Venetian rule on the island and the Jews' close ties with the authorities, on the one hand, and with Italian Jewry, on the other hand, knowledge of the Italian language must have been rather common among Oandian Jews. As far as one can judge from the Statutes, the impact of the Italian language is most noticeable in the terminology pertaining to the relationships between the Jewish community and the authorities. Scores of Italian terms, phrases and concepts fill this collection of Hebrew documents. 2 Likewise, in consequence of the settlement of Iberian Jews on the island in the course of the sixteenth century, the knowledge of Spanish must also have been quite common there, and Yashar's mastery of it a relatively easy task. For some time he also contemplated the study of Arabic. When he realized, however, that "whatever precious knowledge there was in that language was taken from the books of the Greeks," and that, moreover, the Arabs have "strangely" misinterpreted those books by additions and substractions, he dropped this idea. 3 According to the Karaite Zeral;t, Yashar also knew other languages, such as French, German and Polish. 4 This seems doubtful as far as Polish is concerned, since at the time Zeral;t made this statement Yashar had been in Poland only a short while.s However, an indication that he did know Polish comes to us from a later date : the spring of 1624, when he wrote to Zeral;t concerning the exact date of the beginning of the lunar month, Nisan. In that writing Yashar not only mentions the Polish names for some of the months of the year but also refers to a Polish book on astronomy. From this reference it is obvious that he had at least a reading knowledge of Polish. 6

"~i.,£>Oi Tl7':ii ... ," "Mikhtav .Al;rnz,'' p. 24. Stat., see mainly, pp. 153ff. and passim, notes. 3 "Mikhtav .Al;rnz," p. 24. 4 Elim, p. 9. 5 Had Yashar known Polish, he might not have been so "lonely, taciturn and without a word on my lips" during his frequent long trips as physician in the countryside in the company of his own and the nobleman's servants. [Cf. "Haqdamath Sefer,'' Novloth, p. 6b]. On the other hand, it may be argued that Yashar's silence may not have been due to his ignorance of Polish. The text in which these words appear stresses the low cultural level of Polish peasants, their lack of any knowledge or civility which made it impossible to carry on any conversation with them. 6 Cf. "Mikhtevei ha-Rav Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo,'' S. Y. Finn, ed., Ha-Carmel (Weekly), VI (Wilno, 1867), p. 358. 1

2

34

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

The study of logic should be added to the catalogue of his early secular education. His advice to Zeral;i. that "one must get through quickly with it and complete it all by the age of fifteen," no doubt reflects his own course of study. Indeed, he points out in the same text: "For I too began philosophizing at Padua at the ageoffifteen," in all likelihood an activity that was preceded by the study of logic.1 1 'l~ Cl J::> '::> •C'l!t' 1 iu il1 C'li'li1i1 i1:i~ 1:i::> C''!t''i • • • Ji'li1!1 ii~1:i1:i ii1~'i •i"C!t'i1 l'll!t'!l i1!lii~!l!l i1l!t' 'i" J!l l'jt:>1:i!ll'li11:i '1'l1:iM1'li1 Mikhtav A?iuz, p 16.. ·

CHAPTER THREE

LEHRJAHRE AT PADUA

At the age of fifteen Yashar arrived in Padua and enrolled in its famous university. 1 He was no path-breaker in this respect, but followed in the footsteps of many of his coreligionists who, for the last two centuries, had been streaming to that great center of learning to take advantage of its liberal policies regarding the admission of Jews. 2 Since among the Jews of Candia the number of physicians was relatively high, it may be assumed that some of them also attended the Padua school. 3 Going to Padua for both secular and Jewish "Mikhtav AJ;mz," p. 16. As early as 1409 Padua "was liberal enough to bestow its medical doctorate upon a Jew." [Cf. Hastings, Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, eds., F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, vol. II (Oxford, 1936), p. 21, n. 5]. Between the years 1517 and 1619 some eighty Jews were conferred with that degree. The number increased to 149 during the years 1619-1721 [Antonio Ciscato, Gli Ebrei in Padova (1300-1800) (Padova, 1901), p. 218]. Whereas most of these students no doubt came from Italy [E. Morpurgo, "L'universita degli Ebrei in Padova nel XVI secolo," Stratto dal Bolletino del Museo Givico di Padova, anno XII, nos. 1-2-3 (Padova, 1909)], a sizeable part of them must have been from other countries, notably Poland. In 1501, the Polish legate to Rome, Erasmus Ciolek, in writing to his king, Alexander, mentions that on passing through Padua, he came across six Jews of Polish origin who were attending the university under assumed names, out of fear that the divulgence of their true names might impede their studies. In adducing this information, Giovanni Lachs justly observes that the number of Jews at the Paduan school "must have been not small at all if Ciolek could find six of them simultaneously" [Giovanni Lachs, "Alcune notizie sugli allievi Polacchi presso la scuola di medicina di Padova," Ornaggio dell' Academia Polacca di Scienze e Lettere all' Universita di Padova nel settimo centario della sua fondazione (Cracovia, 1922), p. 280]. The evidence bearing on the presence of Polish Jews at the school of Padua increases during the next two centuries [ibid., pp. 295, 324, 325-326, 328; Ciscato, op. cit., chap. VII; David Kaufmann, "Die Promotion des posener Artzes Dr. Moses Lima in Padua am 19ten August 1639," MGWJ, neue Folge, 3lter Jahrgang, Vol. 39 (Breslau, 1895), pp. 474-477; idem, "Trois docteurs de Padoue," REJ, vol. 18 (1899), pp. 293-295; S. Dubnow, "Talmidim Yehudim ba-Universita she-bi-Padua ba-Me'ah ha-17 v'ha-18," Sefer ha-Shanah li-Yehudei America, eds. M. Ribalow and Z. Scharfstein (New York, 1931 ), pp. 216-219]. 3 Cf. Ghirondi-Neppi, "Abraham ha-Cohen," Toledoth, letter "A," no. 76, p. 32; M. Soave, "Medici ebrei laureati nell' universita di Padova nel 1600 e 1700," Il V essillo Israelitico, XXIV (Casale, 1876), pp. 189-192. 1

2

36

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

studies was a long standing tradition in the Delmedigo family. The earliest and best known among them was the above mentioned Eliyahu Delmedigo. 1 Related to the Delmedigo family was the well known leader of Candian Jewry of the first half of the sixteenth century, Elijah Capsali, who arrived in Padua in 1508 and studied there for a short time under Yehudah · Minz and Meir Katzenellenbogen.2 Another Delmedigo of around this period was R' Shmuel Menal;tem, whom Yashar praises as "a divine philosopher and an expert physician." a A contemporary of Capsali and his frequent opponent in legal matters, who also studied at Padua under Yeduhah Minz and Meir Katzenellenbogen, was Y ehudah Delmedigo, a son of the philosopher Eliyahu Delmedigo. 4 It is reasonable to assume that also his brother, Moshe, whom Yashar describes as an "accomplished respectable philosopher," s may have been a student at Padua. That a youngster of fifteen was admitted to the university must not surprise us at all. Since no entrance examinations were required and since no line between higher and elementary education existed, students in their first year, at least, were much younger than they are now. 6 Indeed, at fifteen Yashar may not even have been the youngest among the freshmen. Twenty was the minimum age for the mastership, and the full course in the arts lasted seven years. Fourteen might therefore be considered the normal minimum age for admission . . . but as a rule the freshmen would be between thirteen and sixteen.7

Upon registration, the student almost automatically joined one of the "nations" into which the student body was divided. These "nations" were officially recognized bodies with a clearly defined hierarchy and legal status. In view of the corporate state of medieval and Renaissance society with its class divisions and intense antagonisms, the student "nations" were a real necessity to safeguard the rights and privileges of their members in a foreign environment Supra, p. 21. Lattes, Liqqutim, p. 18; Porges in REJ, vol. 77, p. 34; vol. 79, pp. 40-42. 3 Elim, p. 43; supra, p. 21. 4 Elim, p. 44; Responsa of R' Me'ir of Padua, no. 29; Porges, REJ, vol. 79 (1924), p. 40. 5 "i:i:m c':i!V riioi':i"t>," Elim, p. 44. 6 Cf. Lynn Thorndike, "Introduction," University Records and Life in the Middle Ages (New York, 1944); P. 0. Kristeller, "Die italienischen Universitiiten der Renaissance," p. 14. 7 Hastings, Rashdall, op. cit., III (Oxford, 1936), pp. 352-353. I

2

LEHRJAHRE AT PADUA

37

which was usually hostile to them. This was especially the case in the Italian universities which had an international character. The universities of Bologna and Padua were among the earliest and most famous in Europe, attracting hundreds of students from all over the continent. 1 In the fifteenth century, when the university of Padua peaked under Venetian rule, the number of such "nations" was thirty.2 These "nations" were important to the Gentile student in protecting him 3 and providing him with food and lodging in time of need, but they were less essential to the foreign Jewish student. Even assuming that prior to the publication of the Sacro Sancta bull of Pius V (1564), the Jews were admitted to these national unions, as Jews they hardly could have benefited from the facilities these unions provided for their poorer members. However, with the initiation by the CounterReformation of a strict separation policy between Christians and Jews, even the limited benefit a Jewish student might have derived from such an affiliation was eliminated. For example, as far as the Polish "nation" is concerned, after 1564 it altogether refused admission of Jews. 4 This aspect of student life and organisation was of little consequence to our Yashar. As a son of one of the leading families in Candia and financially independent, he must have encountered little difficulty in settling at Padua and in adjusting to the new environment. After all, the new environment was in many ways not much different from the old one. Venice ruled them both and the treatment it accorded to its respective Jewries must have been much the same. Nevertheless, there were some differences which must have affected the young Yashar. The fact that Padua was twice as large as Candia, with a population of more than 35,000, may appear inconsequential to a modern observer; it was not so to one of the time. The proximity of Venice, still a great center of trade, diplomacy and culture, was perhaps a more important factor. True, the Jewish population of Padua, numbering about 600 around.the early part of the seventeenth Antonio Favaro, L'universita di Padova (Venezia, 1922), p. 9. Ibid., p. 13. 3 Ibid., pp. 14, 35, 36, 50; Maria Borgherini-Scarabellin, "La Vita Privata a Padova nel Secolo XVII," Miscellanea di Storia Veneta, aerie terza, Torno, XII (Venezia, 1917), p. 14. 4 S. Dubnow in Sefer ha-Shanah li- Yehudei America (1931); C. Roth, History of the Jews in Venice (Philadelphia, 1930), p. 290. 1

2

38

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

century, 1 was slightly smaller than Candia's 700; but this difference was more than made up for by the proximity of Venice with its Jewish community of several thousands. 2 Of greater importance than all these statistical factors must have been the change in the spiritual climate and milieu. Notwithstanding Venetian rule and influence, Crete remained essentially an integral part of the declining Levant. Venice, on the other hand, though commercially and politically involved in the East Mediterranean, was also a leading center in Western civilization. Coming to Padua meant contact with one of the great centers of the new culture arising in Europe from the early days of the Renaissance. It was an encounter with one of the major sources for the rebirth of art, philosophy, and above all medicine and the sciences. From a Jewish point of view, it meant the moving away from a geographic area already showing clear signs of decline and moving to an area of rising new centers and re-establishing old ones. Great events took place in the life of the Jewish community of Padua and the famous university during the years that immediately preceded the arrival of Yashar. In the spring of 1603 the Jews were finally forced to give up their quarters among Christians and to withdraw behind the ghetto walls. By the second half of the sixteenth century the university had lost much of its past glory. Because funds were lacking, some "chairs" were abolished and the number of students drastically declined from 1210 in 1561 to only 720 in 1565. In the last quarter of the century the university became entangled in a bitter struggle with the Jesuits, who attempted to discredit it as a center of Averroist heresy and erect a new educational network of their own. 3 On the other hand, important developments of an academic 1 In 1615 there were about 665 Jews in Padua out of a population of 35.463. In the spring of 1631, before the outbreak of the plague in the ghetto, the number of Jews was 721. The plague reduced that number to 300. Cf. Ciscato, op. cit., p. 99; Lelio della Torre, "Le ghetto de Padoue pendant la peste de 1631," Scritti Sparsi, II (Padova, 1908), p. 327. 2 Cf. SimJ:iah (Simone) Luzzatto, Ma'amar 'al Yehudei Venezia, Hebrew translation of Discorso circa il stato degli Ebrei nell' inclita citta di Venetia (Venetia, 1638), translated by Professor D. Lattes with a biography of S. Luzzatto by Dr. N. A. Schulvass and an introduction by Professor Ricardo B. Bachi (Jerusalem, 1951) [henceforth referred to as Ma'amar], chap. 8, p. 99; C. Roth, History of the Jews of Venice, pp. 106-107. a A. Favaro, Galileo Galilei e lo Studio di Padova, vol. I (Firenze, 1883), pp. 73ff.

LEHRJAHRE AT PADUA

39

nature also took place during that period, heralding the experimental era in the sciences and medicine, an era that finally overcame the bookish nature of medieval learning. In 1533 a chair in botany (ad lecturam semplicium), the first of its kind in Europe, was established. Also during the second half of the sixteenth century anatomical demonstrations became a more integral part of the medical curriculum. In 1594 the Teatro Anatomico was constructed which enabled a more orderly and continuous performance of anatomical demonstration. 1 As already stated, considering his family background, his genius and diligence, Yashar's knowledge of Judaica must have been quite considerable when he arrived in Padua. It was far from complete, however. The study of the Talmud and the vast literature that accrued around it was a task never to be completed. The seven years he spent in Padua were devoted therefore to both areas of study, Jewish as well as secular. Even at the height of the Renaissance, when secular learning became an almost integral part of Jewish education in Italy, it was not allowed to encroach on the study of Judaica. Its staunchest supporters emphasized that its place must remain secondary at best, as compared with Jewish subjects. The study of medicine had, of course, a long history among Jews. It has always been treated with special regard, and even in times of opposition to secular studies, it was usually exempted from strictures imposed on such studies. But medicine in the days of the Renaissance, notably in the universities of northern Italy, was closely associated with the preparatory studies of philosophy and the arts. Aristotle, regarded in Northern Europe chiefly as the basis of speculative philosophy and as the indispensable propaedeutic for the scholastic theologian, was in Italy studied largely as constituting the scientific basis of medicine. Hence the intimate connection in all Italian universities between medicine and arts. 2

Thus, while the study of medicine was considered "legal" in the strictly professional sense of the term, the prerequisite courses in 1 L. Sabbatani, "L'Instituto di Farmacologia della Universita di Padova," Memorie e Documenti per la Storia della Universita di Padova (Padova, 1922), pp. 395-425; Giuseppe Favaro, "Contributi alla Biografia di Girolamo Fabrici D'Acquapendente," ibid., pp. 241-348; idem, "L'insegnamento anatomico di Girolamo Fabrici D'Acquapendente," M onografie Storiche sullo Studio di Padova, contributo del R. I nstituto V eneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti all Celebrazione del VII Oentario della Universita (Venezia, 1922), pp. 107-136; A. Favaro, Galileo Galilei, pp. 71-72; idem,L'Universita di Padova, pp. 38, 40. 2 Hastings, op. cit., I, p. 235.

40

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

such subjects as grammar, rhetoric, logic and philosophy, sometimes aroused suspicion and criticism, out of fear that their study might become an end in itself, to the detriment of Jewish studies. 1 It is not known to what extent Yashar pursued such a combined program during the Padua period, and whether this program satisfied the communal leaders or not. Unfortunately, no laudatory poems by contemporary versifyers on the occasion of Yashar's graduation from the medical school at Padua have been preserved. In 1624, Yehudah Aryeh Modena wrote such poems [Blil lfamif] in honor of his disciple Yoseph I,Iamii;; who was conferred with the medical degree.2 In the last decade of the seventeenth century, the graduation of Yashar's compatriot, Abraham hen Shabbetai ha-Cohen, was celebrated in song by contemporary rhymsters, who extolled his devotion to Torah, "even while he was walking in the house of secular widsom." 3 A collection of such poems, in honor of some medical graduates of the early part of the eighteenth century, extolling their success in harmonizing worldly and Jewish knowledge, came down to us from the pen of Moshe I,Iayyim Luzzatto.4 However, the lack of such poems in Yashar's honor is by no means a basis for any conclusions regarding the nature of his studies and the attitude of the community toward him, True, he was a youth of strong individuality and pronounced character, traits which already then had caught the eye of Modena,s so a rift between him and his contemporaries would not be surprising. However, the argument ex silencio cannot be used as substantiating evidence. Nor must the statement of Shmuel Ashkenazi, Yashar's disciple of the late twenties, to the effect that he had heard it admitted by Yashar himself that while in Padua he was wholly absorbed in Aristotelian rationalism and would tolerate nothing which did not yield to syllogistic inference, 6 be interpreted as indicative of the secular nature of Yashar's studies 1 Cf. A. Berliner, "Aus den Memoiren eines romischen Ghetto-Jiinglings," Jahrbuch fur judische Geschichte und Literatur, vol. VII (Berlin, 1904), pp. 110-132. 2 Cf. Shlomo Simonsohn, "Mavo" in Ziqnei Yehudah, p. 41, n. 188; see also Diwan l'R' Yehudah Aryeh mi-Modena, ed., S. Bernstein (Philadelphia, 1932), no. 76, p. 123. a See Franz Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der judischen Poesie vom A bschluss der heiligen Schrift bis au/ die neueste Zeit (Leipzig, 1836), chap. 2, par. 15; for further literature see supra, p. 35, n. 3. 4 M. I;I. Luzzatto, Sefer ha-Shirim, ed. B. Klar (Jerusalem, 1945), pp. 6-23. s Elim (1864), p. 4. 6 "Haqdamath ha-Magihah," M~ref, p. 7.

LEHRJAHRE AT PADUA

41

then, to the exclusion of Jewish learning. In its context, this statement merely emphasizes Yashar's youthful anti-Cabbalist bias, and must not be interpreted as also pertaining to other areas of J udaica. From the second half of the fifteenth century and through the greater part of the sixteenth, Padua had arisen as a great center of Jewish learning. This was mainly due to the successive presence there of outstanding scholars from the Minz and Katzenellenbogen families from Germany.1 However, with the death of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen (1565), the era of Paduan scholastic greatness came to an end. His son, Rabbi Shmuel Yehudah, transferred himself to Venice, where he died in 1597. Though the community continued also in later years to have in its midst rabbis and sages, none of them was of real greatness.2 With the exception of Rabbi Shmuel Archivolti, Yashar mentions none of the Paduan rabbis; nor is there reason to believe that any of them exerted any influence on him. He must have felt a greater spiritual affinity for some of the Venetian rabbis, especially men like 1 Cf. Ghirondi, "Toledoth Gedolei Yisrael, Rabbanei Padua asher b'Italia, Kerem Ifemed, III, pp. 88-96; E. Morpurgo, "Serie cronologica dei Capi e Rabbini dell' universita degli Ebrei di Padova dal 1577 al 1600 dell E. V.," Il Vessillo Israelitico, vol. LVI (Casale, 1908), pp. 573-577; N. Porges in REJ, vols. 77, 78-79. 2 Cf. Lelio della Torre, "Le Ghetto de Padoue," Scritti Sparsi, II, p. 316. During Yashar's stay in Padua (1606-1613), there still lived here Rabbi Shmuel Archivolti (1515 ?-1613), best known for his linguistic and poetic accomplishments [GhirondiNeppi, Toledoth letter shin, no. 77, pp. 354-355; L. Blau, Modenas Briefe und SchriftstUcke, Hehr. sect., no. 21, p. 22, n. 2; nos. 42, 159; Modena, Ifayyei Yehudah, pp. 17-18; S. Bernstein, "Introduction," Diwan l'R' Yehudah Aryeh mi-Modena, pp. VIII-X, n. 10; idem, "Shirim ~adashim l'R' Shmuel Archivolti," Tarbiz, VIII (1936-1937), p. 55]. A contemporary of Archivolti and one of the sages of Padua was Aryeh Catalani [Ghirondi, Toledoth, letter aleph, no. 86, p. 36]. Prominent also at the time were some members of the Alpron (Eilpron) family. Ya'acov hen El~anan Alpron, a disciple of Shmuel Yehudah Katzenellenbogen, was the author ofa volume ofresponsa, Na"J:talath Ya'acov (Padua, 1623). A well known scholar and preacher was Simon Alpron who taught for forty years at the yeshivah of Padua [ibid., letter shin, no. 43, p. 334] For further information regarding these and other Jewish families of Padua during the last quarter of the sixteenth century, see Edgardo Morpurgo, "Notizie sulle famiglie ebree esistenti a Padova," Il Corriere Israelitico, XLVII (Trieste, 1908-1909), pp. 161-165, 193-197, 229-234, 257-260. "It seems," writes Ghirondi, "that R' Yoseph Samega also taught at Padua_ ... and was a teacher of Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo [Ghirondi, op. cit., letter yod, no. 28, p. 136]. Unfortunately, I could not locate Ghirondi's reference from the Ma!iref which he quotes as the source for this statement. On Semega, see S. Simonsohn, "Mavo," Zignei Yehudah, p. 50; see also idem, History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua, I, p. 244; Ben Ya'acov, 011ar ha-Sefarim (Wilno, 1880), letter peh, no. 232.

42

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

Modena and Simone Luzzatto. Venice, being only twenty two miles away, he, no doubt, visited quite often. 1 Years later, when about to publish his Elim, he turned to these two rabbis, as well as to rabbis Ne}.i.emyah Saraval and Ya'acov Levi, also of Venice, for approval. In his approbation, Modena wrote of Yashar, inter alia : I have known him face to face and enjoyed his wisdom on several occasions, when he visited Venice during the time he was studying at Padua. My love for him still lingers in my heart. Though a tender youth, I perceived in him already then a man of wisdom and courage, not to be easily frightened by words, nor swayed by multitudes of writers. Even in a thousand he would stand out. It is a man of such qualities whom I have always considered worthy of the appelation 'sage.' 2

The personal undertone of these words indicates a sense of spiritual affinity Modena must have felt for the young Delmedigo. However, the gap of twenty years between them precluded a closer association at that time. With the exception of this endorsement, the name of Modena never appears in any of Yashar's writings. Rather the younger Delmedigo subsequently affected Modena, especially through his published works, the Ma§ref la-lfokhmah and other parts of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah. 3 Closer to Yashar in age and scholarly leanings was Simone Luzzatto whose star was then on the rise. Years later, Yashar singled out him and the Karaite Ya 'acov Iskandrani of Cairo as the only ones among contemporary Jews who were well versed in mathematics and the sciences, though, with reference to Luzzatto he qualified this praise by observing that he does not know "whether he has actually written anything either in mathematics or astronomy." 4 There are very few references in the writings of Y ashar to his studies Elim, pp. 4, 118; M~ref, p. 61. Elim, p. 4. a Cf. Modena, Ari Nohem, ed. N. S. Leibowitz (Jerusalem, 1929), paBsim. 4 Elim, p. 131. True to his view regarding the camouflaged nature of Y ashar's writings, Abraham Geiger doubted the genuineness of these words of praise for Luzzatto. He believed that Yashar merely inserted them because Luzzatto commended his work, cf. Geiger, Melo Ghofnajim, German sect., p. 52, n. 40. Justly Geiger observes that this praise constitutes a digression from the original "Al.mz" letter where it does not appear. Yet, we believe that it cannot be entirely false. After all, Modena's endorsement was a much stronger one, yet Y ashar did not single him out for praise. Whatever reasons he may have had for praising Luzzatto as a scientist, there must have been some basis for it. Indeed, Luzzatto's Ma'amar indicates, if not his knowledge of the sciences, at least the great esteem in which he held them. Cf. Ma'amar, chap. 16, mainly p. 148. 1

2

LEHRJAHRE AT PADUA

43

and teachers at Padua. Galileo is the only one to whom he refers as "my teacher," 1 also mentioning the new telescope through which he gazed several times at the heavens. 2 He briefly refers to his studies of metaphysics and natural philosophy which he asserts almost to have completed at the age of eighteen. 3 To these references may, perhaps, be added his mild criticism of Jewish parents, for sending their youngsters to Padua and exposing them to the undermining effects of rationalism, before implanting in them a steadfast unshakable faith. 4 This almost exhausts the list of Paduan references. Regrettable as this paucity of direct evidence is, it is of no serious consequence to our attempted reconstruction of his academic career. Yashar's extant works contain sufficient indirect evidence to supplement the incomplete direct information. He studied at Padua a variety of subjects : philosophy, natural science, mathematics, astronomy and medicine. None of these subjects had then, of course, the exact scope and meaning it has today, nor were they clearly demarcated from each other. Many of those subjects, which, in the course of subsequent centuries, detached themselves and attained autonomous standing were still treated as part of philosophy. This was especially the case with "natural philosophy," which was central in the study of philosophy and medicine in the universities of northern Italy, notably Padua. Between philosophy in its all embracing .Aristotelian conception, and medicine with its claim upon the newly unfolding areas of botany, zoology and chemistry, the realm of science per se had not gathered sufficient strength to claim a status of its own. The rudimentary state of science in the early part of the seventeenth century is perhaps best illustrated by the relatively low academic status of mathematics. The chair of mathematics and astronomy still remained among the least stable and respected. 5 What wonder Elirn., p. 301. Ibid., p. 417. s MWJref, p. 21. 4 Elim, p. 90. 5 If the salary scale may be taken as an indicator of academic standing, mathematics and astronomy were almost at the bottom. Compared with the annual salaries of professors of medicine, philosophy and civil law, the honorariums of professor~ of mathematics were exceedingly low. Cf. Favaro, Galileo Galilei, II, pp. 14, 99; J. J. Fahie, Galileo, his Life and Work (New York, 1908), p. 36, n.; Lynn Thorndike, University Records, pp. 360-363. i

2

44

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

then that the greatest scholars of the age with a natural bent for mathematics and pure science chose, as a rule, medicine for their profession. Only after securing for themselves a source of livelihood and social status, they applied their talents to the field of their natural vocation. With the exception of Law, which constituted a "university" in itself and which was usually barred to Jews, the only substantial profession offered by the university of the "artists" was that of medicine. The profession was remunerative and highly esteemed in both academic and lay circles. Scholastically, it was the only profession which afforded a meeting ground for both the humanist and scientific tendencies of the age. A doctor in philosophy alone was considered inadequately prepared unless he could add to it also a medical degree. A philosopher of the stature of Niccolo Vermia, who was given the privilege to lecture in philosophy without a 'concurens,' having been already advanced in age and of great fame, desired also to gain his laurels in medicine, as did also the philosopher Pomponazzi. Indeed, a good many of the Italian philosophers of the Renaissance, as a matter of fact almost all of them, were professors of medicine.!

In view of the above, there is nothing exceptional or unique in Yashar's curriculum of studies at Padua, since a program of this kind was followed by many of similar talents and aptitudes. 2 Favaro, L'univer.qita di Padova, p. 19. Tims, the German Wolfgang Meurer (1513.1585), who obtained a doctorate in philosophy, devoted himself to mathematics and medicine. He was called to the university of Leipzig to lecture on Aristotelian philosophy, and was subsequently appointed dean of the College of Medicine [L. Thorndike, University Records, pp. 379388]. Similarly, Girolamo Francastoro (1483-1553), one of the encyclopedic minds of the Italian Renaissance, a physician to Pope Paul III who contributed a fundamental study on syphilis and its treatment, wrote also on philosophy, mathematics and astronomy [Castiglioni, op. cit., pp. 457-461, 468-469; Friedrich tJberwegB Grundriss der Geschichte der Phi'losophie, dritter Tei!, Die Philosophie der Ne:uzeit bis zum Ende des XVIII Jahrhunderts von Max Frischeisen und Willy Moog, 14 Auflage (Basel-Stuttgart, 1958), par. 7, pp. 40·41]. Wider and more colorful was the range of pursuits of Geronimo Cardano, a great mathematician {Ars Magna, 1545), and a most successful physician who also wrote many books on philosophy, physics, astronomy and the occult sciences of his day [The Book of my Life, chap. 45]. A strange combination of studies was followed by Libavius (1540-1616), one of the founders of modern chemistry. "The best chemical work of the century," Sarton remarks of him, "was done not by a professional chemist, but by a professor of history and poetry, a phycian and an ... educator" [Six Wings, p. 114]. The famous French physician Jean Ferne! (1497-1558) was also a mathematician and astronomer. And finally, to cite one more example, among the pioneers in mining and metallurgy during the 16th century was the classical scholar and physician, Georgius 1 2

LEHRJAHRE AT PADUA

45

Besides Galileo, Yashar also mentions among his teachers Elijah Montalto (d. 1616), the famous Jewish physician, who at the end of the sixteenth century left Portugal and after short stays at the royal court of France, Livorno, Florence and Pisa, finally settled in Venice, where he openly returned to Judaism and became a devout Jew. Yashar calls Montalto "my master" and highly praises him as "a universal scholar and excellent physician". He refers to his Optica (1606) and to his commentary on the Torah. It is reasonable to assume that Yashar studied under Montalto some time during his Lehr}ahre at Padua when Montalto was living at Venice. 1 Yashar must have attended the lectures and demonstrations of many scholars both in Padua and elsewhere. Despite the growing availability of printed books, he ardently believed in the efficacy of the time honored method of learning by "sitting at the feet" of the wise and drawing directly from them. "One hour of direct exchange [between master and disciple]," he writes to Zerah, "is preferable to [many hours spent on reading of] books." 2 "Instruction received [orally] impresses itself on the mind." 3 In the same spirit he also writes to an anonymous correspondent of the early twenties. After enumerating the various essays he had written, in answer to the questions of Zera:Q., he adds : I desired to gain a thorough knowledge of all these wisdoms directly from the lips of the excellent masters ... each of whom is an expert in his own field ... I followed them in every city or state ... In this way I acquired more wisdom than by reading hundreds of books, and I also came to realize clearly the great difference between learning through 'serving' the wise and reading.4 Agricola (1494-1555) [ibid., pp. 123ff]. The list could, of course, be greatly expanded; however the examples cited are sufficient to show how essentially united the whole area of human knowledge still was, and how little its various fields were demarcated from each other. 1 Cf. Finn, ed., Ha-Carmel (weekly), VI (1867), p. 343; Modena, Ari Nohem, ed. Leibowitz, p. 80; C. Roth, History of the Jews of Venice, pp. 242-244; H. Friedenwald, The Jews and Medicine, II (Baltilore, 1944), pp. 468-496. 2 'M~1:i!ZI' rii:P'i' 1:i::>~ MD ,N MD ,,~, rinN M:Ptv MD'i," Elim, p. 135. 3 "Cl'':i::>!ZI'~ Cltvii iW:P' Cl'1:i~ip~M Cl'i~iM," ibid., p. 41. 4 "MN'ip1:i tvi~W J'~ iM~ ~1''M 'l'ii::>m," ibid., pp. 117-118. Such views were rather common at the time. "The best doctrine," writes Joachim Currens around the middle of the 16th century, "is that by word of mouth, and the hving voice has a latent energy; nor, as is said, is there a readier way of learning than to listen to artists." [L. Thorndike, University Records, p. 174]. "The spoken word of the professor," writes another contemporary, "has some occult virtue that penetrates deeper into the mind

,It)

46

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

The seven years Yashar spent at Padua were decisive for his intellectual development and the future course of his life. They were years of great diligence and accumulation of knowledge. Besides reading for his class requirements, he must have read a great deal on his own in the fields of science, philosophy, medicine and in the wide area of Judaica. It was most likely during that period that he delved into medieval Jewish philosophy, notably Maimonides' Guide, the knowledge of which he abundantly displays in Novloth IJokhmah. Here also, he must have conceived some of the plans for his future scholarly works. Indeed, in the "Al;rnz" letter he states that, from the age of eighteen he made it his habit to write down notes on anything that attracted his attention at one time or another.1 Yashar was a great bibliophile and spent much money and energy on the accumulation of books. 2 Though collecting of books and manuscripts was rather widespread in Candia during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, 3 Yashar's passion for books must also have been greatly stimulated by his stay at Padua. Padua, and especially Venice, were great printing centers. The first printed edition of Aristotle's writings with the commentaries of Ibn Roschd appeared in Padua in the 1470's and many more editions came out in Venice during the sixteenth century. 4 From the beginning of the sixteenth century, Venice became the greatest printing center of Jewish books.s The university must have employed book agents, copyists and printers. 6 In addition, there were in Padua public and private libraries. 7 Padua may also have awakened in Yashar the Wanderlust, which uprooted him from his comfortable home and set him on a path of wanderings that apparently never came to an end. There were more direct causes for his subsequent departure from the island; however, the international atmosphere of the Padua Studio with its multiof the hearer and makes a greater impression upon the memory than private reading," hence the impor:tance of guided instruction and of regular class attendance [ibid., pp. 391-392]. 1 "Mikhtav Al).uz," p. 24. 2 Ibid., ibid.; Novl.oth lfokkmah, p. 94b; infra, pp, 48, 49, n. 3, 57, 58. 3 Cf. U. Cassuto, "I manoscritti Palatini," p. 79ff. 4 Renan, Averroes et l'Averroisme (Paris, 1866), pp. 86-87. 5 Cf. Ch. B. Friedberg, Toledoth ha-De/us ha-'Ivri b'Italia, sec. ed. (Tel Aviv, 1956), pp. 60ff. 6 Kri8teller, "Die italienischen Universitaten der Renaissance,'' p. 16; Hastings, op'. cit., II, p. 12. 7 Maria Borgherini-Scarabellin, "La Vita. Privata," p. 161.

LEHRJAHRE AT PADUA

47

national student bodies and scholars from all over Europe, may have been a contributing factor. But it was the intellectual impact of Padua that proved most decisive and lasting. The prevalent Averroist trends, on the one hand, and the advances in scientific discovery and method, on the other hand, 1 shook the foundations of Yashar's creed and sowed the seeds of skepticism which were to persist in him for many years, possibly throughout life. Busson writes : La source principale du rationalisme moderne c'est l'Italie, et dans l'Italie, l'ecole de Padoue. Elle avait re~m, en effet, des averroistes du XIII• siecle le principe fondamental du rationalisme: !'opposition de la foi et de la raison; elle l'applique comme Averroes aux dogmes de la creation, de la Providence, de l'immortalite. Henry Busson, Le Rationalisme dans la Literature Franr;aise de la Renaissance (15331601) (Paris, 1957,) p. 16; see also Arnard Maurer, "Between Reason and Faith. Siger Brabant and Pomponazzi on the Magic Arts," Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies (Toronto, Canada), Medieval Studies, vol. XVIII (Toronto, 1956), pp. 1-18; John H. Randall, "The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua," Journal of the History of Ideas, I (Lancaster, Pa., and New York, 1940), pp. 177-206. 1

CHAPTER FOUR

BACK HOME It is reasonable to assume that in 1613, when the seven year period of study required for the doctorate 1 came to an end and the degree was granted to him, Y ashar left Padua and returned home. 2 It may further be assumed that his visit to Venice during that years was also in connection with this anticipated trip. Back on the island, his time must have been divided between the practice of medicine and continued studies. Only a lucrative practice can explain the source of the ten thousand ducats he claims to have spent during those years on seven thousand books he accumulated in his library. 4 But his real interest lay in the pursuit of those studies to which he was introduced at Padua. It was during those years that he must have conceived his great educational plan to diffuse, through teaching and writing of books in Hebrew, the new secular learning among his coreligionists. Under the circumstances, this was both a noble and practical undertaking, by which he could hope to satisfy his love for the new learning and his desire to teach. Had he been a Christian, a man of his talents and knowledge would surely have been given the opportunity to pursue an academic career in the rising sciences and mathematics. However, as a Jew of the post-Renaissance period, this avenue of scholarly endeavor was closed to him. It was, no doubt, with this educational goal in mind that he undertook to write his Ya'ar Levanon (Forest of Lebanon), an encyclopedic work in the form of questions and answers which contained all the knowledge in philosophy and the natural sciences which he had acquired in Padua. He must already have been advanced in his enterprise, when he came to realize that its scope was too daring and its completion beyond the power of a single individual. A few years later, when he made his exit from Candia, he left the work there incomplete.6 Hastings, op. cit., III, p. 352. Cf. A. Geiger, "Einleitung," Melo Ghofnajim, p. XXIX. s Elim, p. 118. 4 "Mikhtav Al;mz," p. 24. s Elim, p. 45; "Mikhtav Al,mz," pp. 26-27.

1

2

BACK HOME

49

While in Candia, Yashar may have married and may have become the father of a daughter. The source for this information is a single parenthetical phrase, a passage in the writing of Moshe Metz, in which he highly praises Yashar's encyclopedic work, Bosmath Bath Shlomo (Bosmath Solomon's Daughter), for both its scope and numerous illustrations, and which he concludes with the following words: Several times I heard my master say that he needs a great deal of money as a dowry for his daughter, and tlwugh he does have a little daughter in his native land, I knew that he was alluding to the printing of his book Bosmath.I

The playful allusion to both "daughters" is confusing. But Geiger's conclusion that Yashar was married and had a daughter seems plausible and in accordance with the most obvious meaning of the above text. 2 Yashar's statement, in his letter to Shmuel Ahskenazi of the late twenties, is pertinent to the problem of his marital status, though of little help in solving it. I have already told you that although I am unfortunate as far as sons [banim] and other possessions are concerned, because of the heavenly constellations which do me battle, yet I have been most fortunate as far as the acquisition of books is concerned. There never was a precious book in the world, the possession of which I desired, which I did not obtain.a

Should one accept the existence of such a daughter, Geiger's assumption that Yashar's wife may have died in her youth appears reasonable, though another possibility, namely, that of a divorce, cannot be excluded either. Indeed, it would be such a divorce, in consequence 1 (Italics are mine, I. B.). i~iN "1'1:!7~1V C:J'~l7El i1~::> •1'1ili~1'1 N':i~ i1Ti1 iElOi1i •n:11i• ini':ii~ yiN::i mtip n::i ,., IV" •::> cm 1 in::i n•liil':i ;i::ii;i ml'~ 1•i:s:1V •::ii':i ,,,~n m;i• ;iniin::ii i1l!V" i11'l!:li1N!:llV n~IV!:li1 i!:lo no!:lii1 ':ill T~,, i1'i11V

Elim, p. 47. The conclusion one may draw from this passage hinges almost entirely on the meaning one attaches to the connecting words "v'gam ki." If they are interpreted as a continuation of the preceding sentence, in terms of "and that he also," they may be understood as related to the book. However, if they are interpreted as the beginning of an antithetical sentence, in terms of "and though," they seem, indeed, to indicate the existence of a daughter. We believe that the second rendering is more in keeping with the structure of the sentence. Besides, how can the reference be to a book which Yashar allegedly left in his native land, if in the sequence of this very page Metz says that Y ashar is constantly at work on this book and that he, Metz, has not been allowed to read it. Elim, p. 47. 2 Cf. "Einleitung," Melo Ghofnajim, p. XXX. 3 c:mi':i·o~~ r:r::i::>i::>i11V Cl"l"lP iNIV!:li Cl'l!:l!:I ':iT~ •., l"NIV Tl":>" "Tll7iii1 i::i::ii N:S:~llV ip• iElO 1;!37 •n:!7~1V N':'IV '""T~ n::> ,,,l Cl"iElo Tll1Vi1!:1 T"::>:!7 ·"!:! ci·~n':il i•nl1Vi1 N':'IV i•nplVni t:1':ii:11::i" "Introduction," Novloth, p. 3b. 1

50

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

of which the daughter might have been entrusted to the care of her mother, which may explain the utter lack of any apparent desire on his part to ever see her. Except for the above reference, she is never mentioned again. Moreover, a divorce may seem a rather logical development, in the wake of a generally worsening relationship between him and Candian Jews, which we shall presently describe. 1 Why and when did Yashar leave Candia 1 Around the year 1621, or 1622, Moshe Metz writes: 2 It has been five years since a spirit of God carried him away from his land ... Hounded and embittered by a bunch of evildoers, hated by ignorant fanatics, he preferred a life among strangers, yea, in the desert ... Contemptuous of both their hate and love, and dreading an existence of ceaseless controversies and bickerings ... he made his exit ... Leaving all his precious acquisitions and books in his mother's house ... he circled the globe to discover the unknown and obscure.a

This passage yields two reasons for what seems to have been a rather violent departure of Y ashar from the island : first, a sharp difference of opinion between him and the less enlightened elements of the community which resulted in great tension between them; and, secondly, a desire on his part to gain new knowledge by widening his physical horizon. Yashar sheds some light on the nature of these disagreements a few years later in his writing to Yoshiyah, a Karaite from Troki who was among his disciples in Poland during the early twenties. Beset by doubts concerning the metaphysical foundations of religion, Yoshiyah asked Yashar to enlighten him rationally in regard to the existence of God and the soul, and to advise him about a "proper method of study." 4 In his reply, Yashar mentions the views on the soul held by Alexander, Galen, Themistius, Ibn Roschd, Maimonides, Plato and the Cabbalists, concluding with the assertion of his own unqualified belief in its immortality, "notwithstanding any argument or proof to the contrary." s He goes on to recall that in his youth he was an ardent follower of Maimonides' conception of the soul, since he could not understand how, being a form, the soul could be "separated." In accordance with this view, he denied immortality to the souls of the See below, pp. 79, 84. At the time of Metz' writing, Yashar was thirty years old [cf. Elim, p. 42]. Since Yashar was born in 1591, th~ date of this writing would be 1621. a Elim., p. 45. 4 Ibid., pp. 75-76. o Ibid., p. 89. 1

2

BACK HOME

51

uneducated because of their failure to transform their souls into substances through intellectual endeavor. Because of this, Yashar says, "the wicked people and the zealots spread rumors about me ... as if I were altogether negating immortality." 1 He vehemently denies the charge even a decade later, calling to his aid the good name of his ancestors, some of whom pursued secular learning and yet remained steadfast in their faith. It was not he, he declares, who was to blame, but the dishonest and hypocritical character of his generation. Even assuming, he defiantly argues, that he did hold those views which his past adversaries accused him of, it would still not justify their attitude toward him. These wicked fools should have given heed to the fact that the rule of the will over the inner faculties [of man] 2 is far from absolute . . . Certain notions are sometimes so forcefully engraved in us that no will can force them out ... Moreover, it is actually reason that dominates the will ... How then is it possible for one to acquiesce in something which he does not understand, or which is contrary to his understanding . . . Ho~ can one be blamed for refusing to believe that which is against his innermost convictions, or the existence of which has been proven to be impossible by logical inference ... God would not punish one for holding such views . . . nor would the civil authorities 3 act stringently with such a person, as long as he holds his opinions to himself and does not divulge them to the public, causing many to stumble ... 4

The above passage illustrates the radical nature of Yashar's views after his Paduan studies. It contains the basic argument in defense of freedom of thought in general. Though the passage specifies neither time nor place, it undoubtedly relates to the immediate post-Paduan period, after Yashar' s return to the island, and sheds some light on the reason for his departure from Candia. It is relevant to note here that the problem of the immortality of the soul, which was a bone of contention between Yashar and his compatriots, troubled not only the minds of Jews, but was the center of a heated controversy among the various philosophical schools of the time.s Usually the Neo-Platonists upheld the ontological conception Ibid., pp. 89-90. "m•ivt>lil mni::>:i." a "l"li•oi~lil l"lmi:i" 4 Elim, p. 90. 5 Cf. Renan, Averroes et l' Averroisme, p. 355 ; H. tl'berweg, Grundriss, vol. III, pp. 27 · 35; Windelband-Heimsoeth, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie (Tiibingen, 1935), IVter Tei!, "Die Philosophie der Renaissance," Kap. I, par. 28, p. 302; Cassirer, Kristeller, Randall, The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, pp. 257ff; Henri Busson, Le Rationalisme dans la Litterature Franyaise (1957), passim. Bernardino M. Bonansea, Tommaso Campanella (The Catholic University of America Press, 1969), chap. one. 1

2

52

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

of the soul, considering the soul a unique and separate entity that makes its entry into the body as well as its exit from it. The Aristotelians, on the other hand, championed the naturalist conception of the soul as "form" or capacity, constituting an integral part of the composite man and disintegrating at the same time as the body. During Y ashar' s Lehrjahre the Aristotelian traditions prevailed in Padua. It is no wonder then that his coreligionists in Candia found the extreme Aristotelian rationalism which he, no doubt, brought back home heretical and shocking. The problem of the soul was probably not the only issue that caused bitterness and strained relations. In his youthful intoxication with Paduan rationalism, Yashar must have attempted to "enlighten" his compatriots with regard to other aspects of Judaism as well, evoking further anger and dismay. Another important cause for Yashar's departure from Candia was his longing for a wider encounter with reality. The longer he stayed on the island, the more aware he must have become of its narrow confines, and the stronger must have been the urge to leave and break forth into the world. Bookish though he was, like most scholars of his age, the growing naturalism of the time, with its persistent call to observe facts at their source rather than accept them on the basis of authority, could not have escaped him. Yashar's departure from Candia and the wanderer's life he led actually reflect the pattern of behavior typical of many of his restless and searching contemporaries. 1 1 Almost two generations earlier, the great mathematician and physician Cardan pointed out the usefulness of travel for an understanding of history and geography, botany, zoology and the other branches of knowledge [J. Cardan, The Book of my Life, p. 109]. Erasmus and Paracelsus, the Spanish Luis Vives (1492-1540), the great anatomist Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564), the tragic Lucilio Vanini (1585-1619) and many others were also wanderes [Sarton, Six Wings, p. 11; Castiglioni, op. cit., (1958 ed.), pp. 418££; W(ilh). D(av). F(ahrmann), Leben und Schicksale, Geist und Character und Meinungen des Lucilio Vanini (Leipzig, 1800), pp. 52££]. Thomas Campanella (1568-1639), one of the universal scholars of the time, expressed the view that all the books are nothing but dead copies of God's divine book, nature. Instead of studying nature through Aristotle,. one ought to investigate it directly [Uberweg, op. cit., III, pp. 45-47]. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) made no startling revelation of new truths when, in retelling the story of his own intellectual growth, he pointed out that he had reached an important new stage in it after having completed his formal education and having read numerous books; he suddenly discovered his great ignorance, and decided henceforth to put away his books and learn solely from the "large book of the world" [Rene Descartes, Discours de la Methode. Texte et Commentaire par Etienne Gilson (Paris, 1925), pp. 4, 9].

BACK HOME

53

The date of this departure may be inferred from the statement of Metz. He writes that Yashar is "about thirty years old," 1 and "it has been five years since a spirit of God carried him away from his land." 2 Since Yashar was born in 1591, 3 he was thirty years old in 1621, and must therefore have left his native land in 1616 or 1617. 4 Elim, pp. 42, 47. Ibid., p. 45. a Ibid., p. 47. 4 See Appendix "A."

1

2

CHAPTER FIVE

A WANDERER 1.

IN EGYPT AND TURKEY

Yashar's first stop was Egypt.1 Travel between Crete and Egypt was common and well organized, following the route of Cretan wine and other goods exported to Egypt. During the sixteenth century Spanish exiles had settled there and Egypt became a leading center of Jewish learning. Among its great scholars during that century were notables as Shmuel Halevi (d. before 1536), Moshe Alashqar (1460-1542), David Ibn Zimra (1480-1574), Bezalel Ashkenazi (d. after 1592), Ya'acov Castro (1525-1610), and others. It was not for the sake of deepening his Jewish training, however, that Yashar went to Egypt. By this time Egyptian Jewry, along with most other Jewish communities in the Levant, had entered a period of gradual decline. Egyptian Jewry could no longer boast of scholars great enough to attract pilgrims from other lands. When exactly did Yashar arrive in Egypt and how long he stayed there, we do not know. It may be assumed, however, that it was at least a stay of several months and possibly of half a year or longer. His reputation as scholar and physician spread rapidly, arousing curiosity among Jews and Arabs alike. He soon found himself challenged to a scholastic debate with 'Ali Ibn Ral;tmadan, who was, according to Yashar, an outstanding Arab mathematician. For some time he tried to evade such a public contest, since he felt that being away from his home and library, he would be at a disadvantage. He finally had to give in and after agreeing upon a date for a mutual exchange of questions, he and 'Ali decided to meet for an open debate. On the appointed day, four weeks later, a great number of Ishmaelite notables and many Jews, Karaites and Samaritans, assembled. As the younger of the contestants, Yashar was the first the jury called upon to reply. "But what I considered an evil turned out to be a great salvation," as he succeeded in proving "that the first question of'Ali was built on totally false premises." 2 iim rioi•i," Elim, p. 45. Ibid., p. 176; cf. Alter, "Two Renaissance Astronomers," p. 40.

1 "71~.,,~~ 2

A WANDERER

55

This debate left a deep impression on Yashar. Wherever he went afterwards he kept on retelling the details of his great victory at Cairo, and as time went on, the event assumed in his mind an almost legendary character. When he arrived in Poland, Zeral;t was already well informed of it, and espressed "his soul's craving to find out a little about the mighty questions Yashar was asked by the great sage and intellectual overlord of Egypt, 'Ali, in the great city of Cairo." 1 Yashar obliged his curious friend, and through his disciple, Moshe Metz, wrote a detailed report. 2 He kept on returning to various aspects of this debate on other occasions. 3 While in Egypt Yashar made the acquaintance of Ya'acov Iskandrani (the Alexandrian), whom he praises as a great mathematician who added "forty irrefutable proofs of his own" to the

1 2 3

"~l;iy •Cl~.,~~ l;ilt) J~.,," Elim, p. 24. Ibid., pp. 67-72. Ibid., pp. 254, 356, 414. The obvious pride Yashar took in his successful public

display of scholastic erudition and acumen must be understood against the background of the time. Throughout the later Middle Ages and the period of the Renaissance, public debating was a common practice in scholarly circles. It was then the custom for professors to challenge their colleagues to take part in public debates and discussions. The disputation was as full of risks and surprises as a boxing match .. . In the Italian climate of the Renaissance, a good deal of eloquence and acting were mixed up with the arguments, and the public disputations were often highly dramatic. [Sarton, Six WingB, pp. 28-29]. Instances of such debates are numerous. In the eighties of the fifteenth century, Pico della Mirandola, one of the encyclopedic geniuses of the Renaissance, published his nine hundred theses from Greek philosophy and Jewish Cabbalah, for the discussion of which he intended to convene in Rome an international assembly of scholars. In an open debate he desired to prove that these theses can be reconciled and fused into a single Christian-philosophic system [cf. Pearl Kibre, The Library of Pico della Mirando/a (New York, 1935), p. 4]. The protracted debates between Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1524) and Alexander Achillini (1463-1512) regarding the soul were the most dramatic events in the life of Padua at the end of the XV century [E. Renan, Averroe8 et l'AverroiBme, pp. 360-362]. Such debates continued, with no less zeal, between the philosophers Giacomo Zabarella (1532-1589) and Francesco Piccolomini in the second half of the XVI century, and subsequently between Cremonini and his contemporaries [ibid., pp. 40lff; Bee also tl'berweg, GrundriBB, III, par. 5]. The versatile Cardan boasted : Neither at Milan, nor at Pavia, nor Bologna, nor in France or Germany, have I ever found a man who could successfully controvert or dispute me within the last twenty three years ... In disputation I was so exceptionally keen that all marvelled at my exemplary skill, and avoided challenging me. [The Book of my Life, pp. 44, 46; see also Thorndike, UniverBity RecordB, pp. 378-379].

56

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

first six sections of Euclid.1 Y ashar composed for him his pamphlet "Nifle' oth ha-Shem" (The Wonders of the Lord) on the new developments in mechanics. 2 From the references to him in Yashar's works, one cannot infer that this Ya'acov was a Karaite. He is, in all likelihood, however, identical with the ~akham Ya'acov, "the head of the Karaites in Egypt," whose books Shmuel Ashkenazi saw in Yashar's collection of Karaitica. 3 Should this be true-and there is little reason to doubt it-this would be the first in a series of friendships between Yashar and Karaite worthies whom he sought out on his wanderings through the Jewish world. Leaving the interpretation of Yashar's contacts with the Karaites in general for a later part of this study, it should be noted here that in Egypt these contacts could not have enhanced Yashar's reputation among local Jews. In the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, relations between Jews and Karaites in Cairo constantly worsened. The liberal view regarding intermarriage between the two groups, held by Shmuel Halevi in the early part of the sixteenth century, 4 came to be resisted by more and more rabbis of the later part of that century. R' David hen Zimra argues : The Karaites of today, increasingly alienate themselves from us. They do not circumcise their children properly ... refusing to use our circumciser to perform the rite according to our standards. Nor would they admit anyone of our sages to their homes. On the contrary, they flee from them as from a snake, even insulting them. [In addition], they do not eat of our meat ... openly desecrate the holidays ... and the Sabbath,5

Though living side by side in the same quarter, social contacts between the two groups were almost non-existent. When the problem of intermarriage again arose in the second half of the sixteenth century, and Ya'acov Castro, chief rabbi of Cairo, wanted to have some information regarding the marriage customs of the Karaites, he could think of no better way to obtain it than by sending in two rabbanites to observe such a ceremony, "without being noticed." s 1 oi•':ipiN':i Cl'litz1Nil"I mi~N~l"I !W'· ':i:s7 c•ii~';i Cl':s7~iN ,,i,tv~ 1!:>il rroil"!" Elim, p. 131; "Mikhtav Al;mz," p. 13. 2 Elim, p. 376. 3 N ovloth, p. 56b; see also Geiger, Melo Chofnajim, p. 59, n. 52, and "Siml;tah Lucki's Account of Karaite Literature," Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies, II, p. 1427. 4 Ya'acov Castro, Oholei Ya'acov (Livorno, 1783), no. 33, p. 56b. 5 Responsa of R' David Ibn Zimra, II (Venice, 1749), no. 796. 6 Oholei Ya'acov, p. 66b; cf. S. Asaf, "New Materials to the History of the Karaites in the Orient" (Hebrew), Zion, I (Jerusalem, 1935-1936), pp. 208-251.

A WANDERER

57

Yashar's book and manuscript collection must have increased during his stay in Egypt. Most likely he acquired there many of the Karaitic works listed by Shmuel Ashkenazi,1 as well as "piles of novellae" 2 and numerous commentaries, "large and small," on Maimonides' Guide. 3 From Egypt, Yashar went to Constantinople, the seat of the largest Jewish as well as Karaitic communities of the time, and since the early part of the sixteenth century a great printing center of Hebrew books. 4 Contacts between Candia and the Turkish communities, especially Constantinople, were close at all times. In addition, Yashar must have felt attracted by family associations. His grandfather on his mother's side was a grandson of Mordekhai Comtino, rabbi, astronomer and mathematician, who lived here in the second half of the lifteenth century. Comtino was both a great scholar and liberal. He not only took the opinion of the Karaites into consideration in his Biblical commentaries, but also admitted Karaite and rabbanite pupils equally to his public classes, where they inbibed science and learned mutual tolerance, of which he himself gave them an example by fostering friendly feelings toward the Karaites, and by speaking respectfully about them. 5

Yashar showed a special interest in Comtino's supercommentaries on Abraham Ibn 'Ezra's Torah commentary which he held in the highest esteem. While there, he saw twenty four such supercommentaries.s By the time Y ashar arrived in Constantinople, the Karaite community there was already in its final decline. This decline would surely have set in much earlier, had it not been for the stimulus the community received from the influx of Iberian Jews before and after the expulsion from Spain. As a result of closer contacts with rabbanite sages and scholars, a revival of interest in both Karaitic and scientific lore among the local Karaites took place. It was due to scholars such as Elijah Bashiatzi, Judah Gibbor, Caleb Mendopolo, Joseph Revitzi 1

Novloth, p. 56.

c•.,~n •CJ•.,~n, "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 7b. "Mikhtav Al;rnz," p. 18. 4 Ch. B. Friedberg, Toledoth ha-Defus ha-'lvri b'Jtalia, pp. llOff; A. Ya'ari, Hebrew Printing at Constantinople [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1967). 5 Abraham Danon, "The Karaites in European Turkey," JQR, NS, vol. XV (19241925), pp. 310-311. See also S. Y. Finn, "Gedolei Yisrael b'Turkiyah," Ha-Carmel, IV (1863-1864), p. 173; J. Gurland, Ginzei Yisrael b'Peterburg, III (St. Petersburg, 1866), pp. 2-10; Z. Ankori, "Introduction" to Bashyatzi's Code (Israel, 1966 ), XI-XII [Hebrew: "Beth Bashyatzi v'Taqqanotav"]. 6 "Mikhtav Al;rnz," p. 20. 2 ,t:1•tzni•ni11~

3

58

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

and Judah Maruli, that Constantinople again became a center of Karaitic creativity and scholarship. However, this new wave of life soon ebbed, and with it the friendlier atmosphere that prevailed for some time between the Karaites and the rabbanites. Moses Messorodi (1560-1637), whom Yashar had met during his stay in Constantinople,1 was the last Karaite notable of some renown the community produced. 2 As in Egypt, Yashar assembled here eager students from among both the rabbanites and the Karaites, and instructed them primarily in secular learning.a Yashar's stay in Constantinople was not only rewarding to him in terms of his book and manuscript collection, especially his Karaitica and the commentaries on Ibn 'Ezra and Maimonides ;4 but according to Shmuel Ashkenazi, it was of even greater importance for Yashar's spiritual development and pursuits. Ashkenazi writes : Y ashar himself admitted that in his youthful days at Padua, when he was about eighteen and completely engrossed by Greek wisdom, false Aristotelianism, he tolerated nothing but what could be proven by logical inference. He was then very critical of the Cabbalah and its followers, slandering and persecuting them. This continued until he reached the age of twenty seven, when he was privileged to lift his soul out from the depth ... of Aristotelian speculations ... unto the contemplation of the living God, King of the universe. During his stay in Constantinople, Yashar was invited to the home of the very respected old Rabbi, Ya'acov Ibn Nal;lmias. Because of the plague, his home was at the time in a village, near the city. There, Yashar stayed for several days, discussing various subjects of learning. As the discussion turned to the Cabbalah, Ibn Nal;lmias opened a chest in which he kept his silver, gold and pearls, and, taking out from it some pamphlets of the Lurianic Oabbalah, he extolled their great value and told how much money he had spent on their acquisition. He boasted to be able to show an affinity between the Cabbalah and the philosophy of Plato. Since he was composing at the time a work on this subject, he wanted Y ashar to translate for him the Greek commentaries on Plato. Had he stayed longer, he would have fulfilled his wish. God decreed, however, that they separate. From there, Yashar traveled to Poland, and while at Jassy, Wallachia, he met the divine physician, Rabbi Shlomo Ibn Urvai, who studied the Cabbalah for more than forty years and wrote books on it. About the age of eighty he left for Jerusalem. Yashar met him and conversed with him, and when he saw that there was almost no subject of importance which he did not investigate, and though he Ibid., p. 18. Danon, loc. cit., pp. 329-333; A. Geiger, op. cit., p. 73, n. 78; J. Mann, "Supplement," Texts and Studies, II, p. 1424. a Cf. Abraham Firkowicz, "Mikhtav ha-Rav Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo," Ha-Carmel, VI {1867), p. 342. 4 Novloth, p. 56; "Mikhtav Al;mz," pp. 18-21, 24. 1

2

A WANDERER

59

was a great philosopher and an expert in the works of Averroes, he nevertheless praised and glorified the Cabbalah-this wisdom began to make a deep impression on him. A new spirit came over him. Seeing two such eminent scholars, whose word can be trusted, preoccupied with this wisdom and declaring it to be much superior to natural philosophy and metaphysics, he thought to himself: 'there must be something to it' ... and he set his heart to investigate and search it thoroughly. All this [Ashkenazi concludes] Yashar disclosed to me secretly.1

Thus, at the conclusion of his stay in Constantinople and on his way to Poland, Yashar decided to apply himself to the study of Cabbalah. The text makes it clear that the Cabbalah was not unknown to him before, stresses, however, the change in attitude which now took place in him. With apparent deliberation Ashkenazi describes Yashar's awakened interest in the Cabbalah in such a manner as to leave the impression that it implied not only a change of mind but a change of heart as well, a sort of sudden discovery of the validity of the higher truths of the Cabbalah. A more careful analysis of this text, however, leads to the conclusion that this is not implied. Ashkenazi's flowery and ambiguous language notwithstanding, it is obvious that he does not go beyond the statement that Yashar's newly acquired interest in the Cabbalah was intellectual and inquisitive, rather than emotional and psychological. 2.

IN

POLAND

(1620-1624/25)

At the beginning of December, 1619, Yashar was still in Constantinople, where his students sought his views concerning the newly observed, exceedingly bright and long comet. 2 It must have been soon afterwards, probably at the beginning of 1620, that he left for Poland. From the Polish period we have a number of dates which can serve as a chronological framework for this period. Moshe Metz, in his account of Yashar's life, states that Yashar was thirty years old at the time a and Yashar had been wandering for the past five years; 4 finally, Metz says he has been Yashar's disciple for the last three years. 5 1

2 3

4 5

"Haqdamath ha-Magihah," M~ef, p. 7. S. Y. Finn, ed., Ha-Carmel, VI (Wilno, 1867), p. 342. Elim, pp. 42, 4 7; supra, p. 53. Elim, p. 45. Ibid., p. 46. At that time, Y ashar had been in Poland less than two years. It may

60

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

A few other dates bearing on that period are worth mentioning. The first is eleven (or seventeen) days in Iyyar of the year 5380 (23rd of either April or May, 1620), the date when Zera~1 the Karaite wrote his first letter to Yashar. 1 Unfortunately, Zera}_i's second letter to Ya.shar has no date at all. It may safely be assumed, however, that it was written only a few months after the first one, i.e., in the summer or the beginning of the fall of the same year. Yashar was then "in the northern districts," and Zera}_i generously sent along with his writing a present of fur skins which he requested the Jews of Wilno and its vicinity to dispatch to Yashar "wherever he may be," in order to keep him warm "in the terrible cold of these districts." 2 Sometime during 1620, the personal acquaintance between Metz and Zeral;i took place. The frequent references to this disciple in Zeral_i's third letter to Yashar 3 indicate prolonged contacts between the two. Stimulated by this acquaintance and Metz' glowing reports regarding his master's erudition and generosity, Zeral_i writes his third letter to Yashar, in which he humbly requests instruction in twelve major fields of inquiry and seventy "paradoxes." 4 Unfortunately, this letter has no date either. There can be little doubt, however, that it too belongs to the same year, or more specifically, the later part of it. This may be inferred from Yashar's reply to an anonymous questioner in the spring of 1621. Like Zera];i, that anonymous writer also requested Yashar's views on a number of problems, to which Yashar answered that others have already approached him with the same questions, notably "the universal scholar, R' Zeral;i ben Nathan," to whom he already had responded with thirteen studies under the name Ma'ayan Gannim. 5 This reply, written at Lublin, carries the date of "thirteen days in Sivan of the year 5381" (May, 1621). Thirteen months and two days had thus elapsed since Zera.l;i.'s first letter. The fact that by that time Yashar had already completed the therefore be assumed that the association between Yashar and Metz preceded Yashar's arrival in Poland. Some time earlier, Metz had also been in Egypt and Constantinople (ibid., p. 44), and in all likelihood they must have met in one of these places. 1 Ibid., p. 3; cf. Geiger, "Einleitung," Melo Chofnajim, pp. 35-36, n. 5. The date for the first letter reads: "17:)1:i:P1:i t'J!V l"ll!V i!:l07:)1:i l":;, Cl1"1 i"'N1:i N""1 T\":l Cl1":l :in:;,31" Geiger interprets the vav of "N""i" as conjunctive and the "i!:l07:)1:i l":;, Cl1"1" as the 23rd day of the 'omer, according to Karaite counting. 2 Elim, p. 10. a Ibid., pp. 13-14, 14-17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29. 4 Ibid., pp. 11-40. 5 Ibid., pp. 116-117.

A WANDERER

61

studies requested by Zeral;t shows that Zeral;t must have written his third letter in the summer or fall of 1620, or early in 1621. As far as these studies are concerned, it should be noted that what Yashar "wrote" down was actually nothing more than a first draft. Indeed, this he pointed out quite clearly ; Owing to many distractions, I could not yet either copy them or put them in order. They still are with me like formless matter, and I shall not be able to send them before the next winter, when I hope to work on them in the leisurely hours of the long winter nights.1

Had Yashar realized his plans, the Ma'ayan Gannim could have been ready for publication in the winter of 1621/22; however, it took much longer. Of a much later date (March, 1624) is a letter of Yashar to Zeral;t regarding the molad (the appearance of the crescent of the new moon) of the month of Nisan of the year 5384 (1624). It is worth noting that this letter, more than anything else Yashar has written, directly testifies to the intensity of his relations with the Karaites and his great mastery of Karaite literature. More puzzling is the date of another letter by Yashar to Zeral;t concerning comets. Though in its opening Yashar refers to the comet he had observed at Constantinople in December 1619, it is obvious from the sequence that this letter was written a number of years later. The difficulty in precisely dating it stems from the fact that it contains two seemingly contradictory statements. On the one hand, Yashar refers to an anti-Aristotelian pamphlet, "Tokhal;tath Megullah" which he claims to "have written for the love of you here in the city of Wilna" [italics are mine, I.B.], thus indicating that the letter under discussion was also written at Wilno. But, in an earlier passage of this letter, he refers to his "wanderings in the lands of the Germans" (b'ar§oth ha-Ashkenazim), also indicating that these wanderings took place "some years" after the observation of the comet in Constantinople at the end of 1619. Since, to the extent we know, Yashar went to the Germanies only after he had left Poland, this reference, appearing in a letter obviously written at Wilno, is puzzling indeed. 2 The last date in our possession from the Polish period is that of the 23rd of Sivan, 5384 (June, 1624), when Yoshiyah of Troki wrote to Yashar in Wilno, asking him for rational proofs concerning the Ibid., p. 117. Cf. "Mikhtevei ha-Rav Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo," Ha-Carmel, VI (1867), pp. 342-344, 366-367, 390-391, 403-404, see mainly pp. 342-343. 1

2

62

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

existence of God and the immortality of the soul, 1 to which Yashar replied with the pamphlet "Ner Elohim." 2 . The five years Yashar spent in Poland were years of hard work and intensive activity both physically and mentally. They were also years of loneliness and suffering. Poland, especially its Eastern provinces where Yashar spent most of his time, was still "wild territory," when compared with such ancient seats of civilization as Candia, Padua, Cairo and Constantinople. During the first half of the seventeenth century, the territories ruled by the Polish Crown embraced an area of almost a million square kilometers, extending from the Dvina in the north to the Black Sea in the south and from beyond the Dnieper in the east to Silesia and West Prussia in the west. The more populated and cultural were, of course, the western parts, while those in the east were in the process of being settled. 3 Within a population of some ten million, the number of Jews may have reached several hundred thousand. 4 During the Renaissance, Poles traveled abroad for studies, particularly to the Italian universities of Padua and Bologna. They brought back a knowledge of Latin and a taste for the new learning and art. 5 As a result of the marriage between the Polish king Sigismund I (1506-1548) and the Italian duchess Bona of the Sforzas (1518), there was an influx of Italian nobles, artists and scholars to the royal court at Krakow.a There also were numerous Italians among numbers of foreign immigrants who settled in Poland in the early part of the seventeenth century. 7 Despite this, the political, cultural and social state of Poland declined from the last quarter of the sixteenth century. Polish society became more and more feudal, impoverished, religiously fanatic and culturally backward. The country was agricultural in character and the nobility possessed Elim, pp. 74-76. Ibid., pp. 76-93. 3 Cf. Henryk Lowmianski, ed., Historja Polski, I (Warszawa, 1957), pp. 416-417. 4 Ibid., p. 416; see also S. M. Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, transl. by. I Friedlander, I (Philadelphia, 1946), p. 66, n.; R. Mahler, Toledoth haYehudim b'Polin (Merhavyah, 1946), p. 95, n. 5 Cf. Omaggio, passim; Ignacy Chrzanowski, H istorja Literatury N iepodleglej Polski, I (London, 1947), pp. 52, 88, 181, 322, and passim; Mieczyslaw Brahmer, ed., Italia, Venezia e Polonia Tra Umanesimo e Rinascimento (Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow, 1967), passim. 6 Chrzanowski, op. cit., p. 52. 7 Lowmianski, Historja, I, p. 416. 1

2

A WANDERER

63

scattered land holdings; 1 thus, the medical services performed by Yashar to the noble family Radziwil could not be localized, and entailed constant traveling. Distances between villages, hamlets and towns were immense and with the primitive roads, trips would sometimes take days, even weeks. Some years later, while in Amsterdam or Frankfurt-am-Main, Yashar reminisced about that time: All those years I lived in Russia, Poland and Lithuania, I had no rest for even one week. All year round I had to go to the countryside to heal the sick. Because of their large retinues of servants and animals, it is not customary among the dukes and princes to live in the big cities, but in villages.2

He also referred to this period in his reply to Zera};i., in which he complained about the great demand on his medical services by princes and noblemen, whose servants, young and old, throng at my door at the very early hours of the day, ready to carry me in their wagons from town to town. They shower upon me presents and flatteries and surround me with honor and glory, interrupting my meditations, wasting my precious time and frustrating my serious projects.a

Not all his trips were of a professional nature. Thus, he traveled a great distance with Metz to a town in Podolia, only to unmask the tricks of a father with his allegedly miracleworking child. 4 His trip to Lublin, in the spring of 1621, was probably not of a professional nature, but rather for the purpose of gaining a closer view of Jewish life in Poland, at one of its most active centers, and during a biannual gathering of its leadership. It is possible that the observations he made on that trip furnished him with the material for his later criticism of Polish Jews. 5 During his stay in Poland, Yashar also visited Krakow, the seat of the Polish court and its most famous university. In fact, he must have visited Krakow twice, once before March 1624, and the second time after July 13th of that year. 6 It Ibid., pp. 438ff. 2 "Haqdamath Sefer,'' Novloth, p. 6b. 3 Elim, p. 132; see also ibid., p. 76; Ha-Carmel, VI (1867), p. 366. 4 Elim, pp. 72-73. s Ibid., p. 129 . 6 He refers to the first visit in his above mentioned letter to Zeral,i, written at Wilno shortly after March 19, 1624, in which he relates : When I was in Krakow, some of the wise and noble people of the land gathered around me to listen to my exposition of Maimonides' tractate concerning the laws of the sanctification of the new moon. 1

64

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

was during his second visit that he made the acquaintance of the Polish mathematician and astronomer, Jan Brozek (Broscius). 1 Brozek and Y ashar had a great deal in common and a lasting friendship developed between them. Padua was their Alma Mater, where they both studied medicine and imbibed the spirit of free enquiry. They In that letter, which discusses the date of Passover, 1624, Yashar writes that The molad of Nisan was on March 19th, and the molad of Iyyar will be [my italics] at the beginning of April, 18th, thus indicating that the letter was written shortly after March 19th, 1624 [Ha-Carmel, VI (1867), p. 358, col. b]. In the continuation, Yashar relates that for the sake of a better understanding of the subject, he composed "a small essay explaining the words of the master" [i.e. Maimonides], to which he also appended tables. However, "all these pamphlets," he writes, "together with the rest of my books are [now] at Krakow." The original reads : ·~m!:I ·~:in~ •':iN i~::ipl Nj?Nip p"p:i •iw:i::ii ... '"T C":i~i:i ':iw !ViM:"I wi;p rii::i';:i l1i~wl;i yiN:i

iN:i~ l~P i~N~ '1'l'!Vl1 C'l"'l1~:"1 ':ip:i':i •;:ii c•oi~lip:iw N':iN • • • i;~::i riini':i:i Cl1 ::ii:i •i:i; ·Nj?Nip p"p::i •i!:lo iNw Cl1 ;n• c:i i':iN:i

[Ibid., p. 390, col. b]. The fact that Yashar had left his books in Krakow is indicative of two things, first, that this visit must have taken place a short time before the date of that letter. It is inconceivable that a scholarly man as Yashar would remain for a long time without his library. Second, that by that time he must already have made up his mind to leave Poland for the West, and decided to visit Krakow again on his way westward, at which time he would also take his books along with him. 1 From June 10th, 1620, to July 13th, 1624, Brozek was at Padua [Jan Brozek, Wyb6r Pism, I, p. 412], while Yashar was in Poland. They could not have met therefore during that time. Assuming that Yashar arrived in Poland around the beginning of 1620, he could have met Broscius sometime during the first five months of his stay in the country, before Broscius left for Padua. However, the sources pertaining to the activities of Yashar during that time indicate that his activities were confined to the eastern provinces of Poland. Again, Broscius was still at Padua at the time of Yashar's first visit to Krakow. Therefore, the acquaintance between them must have been made after July 13th, 1624, after Brosoius' return and during Yashar's second visit to Krakow. In support of Krakow as the place of this acquaintance, and not Padua-as claimed by Jadwiga Dianni, the editor of the second volume of Broscius' writings [Wyb6r Pism, II, p. 32]-Broscius' letter to Delmedigo may be cited [see below, p. 80], in which he writes that, after he had received the prospect of Se/er Elim with Y ashar's dedication, he was "seized with a love for the work and he obtained it from Mr. Sebastian" [Wyb6r Pism, I, p. 485]. Now, this Sebastian was a book dealer in Krakow [ibid., p. 417). The fact, justly observes Professor Israel Halperin, that Sebastian is mentioned by his first name only, "shows that Broscius knew, or believed, that Yashar must once have been introduced to this man, or at least knew about him." [Israel Halperin in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham Neumann, p. 645]. It stands to reason that a book lover like Y ashar must have paid a visit to Sebastian during his stay in Krakow.

A WANDERER

65

shared not only a love for science and mathematics but also similar views regarding the new astronomy. Like Yashar, Brozek was an ardent believer in the Corpernican system 1 and a passionate book collector. 2 Most likely on his way from Poland to the West, Yashar also visited Torun, Great Poland, where, "by the aid of large and important instruments," he measured the obliquity of an eclipse which he found to equal 23°32'. 3 Such measurments, he asserts, he also conducted at Wilno, where he had his more permanent home during his stay in Poland. 4 It is obvious that the years Yashar spent in Poland were far from sedentary in nature. Zera:Q.'s three letters of 1620/21 found him "at the end of the land of Livonia ... in the northern districts." s Yet, the following spring he already was in Lublin, far to the South. 6 By the spring of 1624, when Yoshiyah turned to him for advice and instruction, he was again in Wilno. 7 But, some time before and after he visited Krakow twice. Although Yashar declares that Poland "had become a second fatherland" to him, 8 his remarks on Polish Jewry indicate little enthusiasm for that Jewry's way of life and unique cultural patterns. By that time, Polish Jewry had reached the peak of its cultural development-a development unique in the nation's long history. An enlightened rationalism was gaining in Western Europe, gradually emancipating its cultural elite from a barren Aristotelianism and fossilized religious dogmatism, also affecting the newly established Jewish communities. Yet, the vast energies of the largest Jewish community of the time remained harnessed to the supreme task of legalistic interpretation and elaboration of Talmudic law, the mastery of which was set up as the sole and highest ideal of religious life. 9 This development had, of course, its antecedents in earlier periods of Jewish history, and was to a great extent the result of forces Wyb6r Pism, I, pp. 50-69. Ibid., pp. 16, 17, 71, 105ff. a Elim, p. 249; see also George Alter in Rozprawy Ceskoslovenske Akademie Ved, vol. 68 (1958), p. 58. 4 Elim, p. 249. 5 Ibid., p. 126. a Ibid., p. 119. 7 Ibid., p. 74. s Brozek, op. cit., I, p. 490. 9 Cf. Nathan Hanover, Se/er Y'ven Me~ulah (Warsaw, 1872), pp. 20-21. 1

2

66

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

within the community, especially the highly developed system of Jewish self-rule. On the other hand, it also was affected in no small measure by the trends in the general environment. It was no accident that the great flourishing of Talmudic studies in Poland from around the middle of the sixteenth century coincided with a gradual withdrawal of Polish society from the Renaissance of earlier days, the growing power of the Church, the disintegration of political authority, and, in consequence, the general worsening of the situation for the Jews in the country. The thinner the secular layers in Polish culture became and the greater the power of the Church grew, the more withdrawn and secluded became the character of Jewish culture in that land. Whatever the cause, at almost no other period in Jewish history was the withdrawal of Jewry from contact with the culture of the environment so complete. Secular learning was almost totaly ignored; indeed, it was repudiated as detrimental to the ideal of Torah and the integrity of the faith. Such a development, obviously, could not have been appreciated by a man ofYashar's background and taste. In his view, it constituted a regression from a broader conception of Judaism and a perversion of the highest human ideals. He felt that the two guiding principles of Jewish educational thought and practice in Poland-the acquisition of dialectical acumen in legalistic pertractations a.nd an expert mastery of Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature-were bringing about a narrowing of intellectual horizons. The hair-splitting method of study prevalent mainly in the yeshivoth of Poland [Yashar writes], is so time consuming that it leaves one little time for any other study. Thus, students eager to master the po8eqim (jurists), must necessarily devote less time to dialectical wrangles. The students thus split up into small groups, each of which attains proficiency in one branch of study only. Some excel in the Tosafoth (novellae), others become experts in the works of Alfasi and Maimonides, the Tur, the Mordekhai and the responsa literature. Their knowledge is so thorough that they can pin-point the page and paragraph of each law. Again, others specialize in homiletics, attaining a mastery of the 'Ein Ya'acov, the Rabboth and the Yalqut.1 It is from among the latter that the boastful preachers come, who 1 Midrash Rabba [plur. Rabboth], the largest collection of legends and homilies on the Pentateuch and the five Scrolls, from around the third century to the twelfth century. Mordekhai, a halakhic compilation of the 13th century, named after its author, Mordekhai b. R' Hillel Ashkenazi. Yalqut, a large collection of midrashim by R' Shim'on Ashkenazi of Frankfurt (12th-13th cent.) on the whole Bible, in two parts: the first on the Pentateuch and the second on the Prophets and Hagiographa. Tur or Purim

A WANDERER

67

waste all their time on legends and homilies, and are therefore exceedingly weak in the law. Although they may amaze the women folk and plain people, for the most part, they have neither depth nor knowledge. Thus, I have seen very few excellent people with a proficiency in all of these branches. And if by chance one such person may be found among them, and, in addition, he would also possess some knowledge of the Parde,s (mysticism), he is hailed by the masses of Israel as an accomplished universal scholar, though in truth he does not deserve such an appelation at all.1

No less deplorable, in Yashar's view, was the negative attitude Polish Jews expressed toward secular learning. Even the closely edited text of the introduction to Ma'ayan Gannim cannot conceal the deep frustration he felt on that account. He is critical of Polish Jewry not only for passively ignoring secular learning, but for actively combating it and persecuting its followers. He writes with bitterness : As enemies of rational learning, they anger its students and use all kinds of cunning stratagems against them . . . God, they say, has no need of .. . grammarians, rhetoricians and logicians, nor of mathematicians or astronomers ... all their wisdom being foreign and drawn from impure sources.2

He tried in vain, while in Poland, to attract some youths to science. Their interest was short lived and, in spite of his efforts, soon faded away. It must be the low quality of their minds, he concluded, and the refined nature of scientific learning, requiring as a prerequisite a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy, which are the cause of such failure. a Yashar's bitterness against Polish Jews may not have been entirely due to ideological differences between him and them regarding questions of education and secular learning. He may also have experienced in Poland some unpleasant incidents of a personal nature. Not only were his unique talents and scholarly accomplishments little appreciated there, but he also must have encountered open contempt and hostility. 4 Indeed, Polish Jews of the time had but (Rows), a compilation of Talmudic and post-Talmudic Jewish law in four divisions by R' Ya'acov b. R' Asher (appr. 1270-1343). 'Ein Ya'acov, the legends of the Talmud as interpreted by Rashi, Tosafoth, Na!;unanides and others, compiled by Ya'aoov b. R' Shlomo Ibn J:[aviv (d. appr. 1516). 1 Ma§ref, pp. 59-60. 2 Elim, p. 129. s Ibid., p. 131. 4 Ibid., p. 132.

68

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

little understanding or respect for the kind of erudition to which Yashar had devoted his life. At best, they might have appreciated his medical skill. However, they did not rank it very highly on the scale of human accomplishments. After all, what importance could be attached to a healer of the body when compared with the great legalistic dialecticians and homiletic charmers in which the period so abounded! What wonder that he felt critical and bitter, an attitude he displays in almost all his observations regarding Polish Jews. He felt especially irked by their claim that their devotion to Torah was idealistically motivated. Rejecting such a claim, he asserts that the opposite holds true, namely, that their sole reason for study is utilitarian, "to become either teachers, judges, or heads of academies." 1 He therefore advises his friend Yoshiyah, the Karaite : Leave all trades and teach your son nothing but Torah. Second best is medicine which bestows upon its practitioner both power and glory ... A wise man ought to pursue such wisdom that also furnishes him with a trade, so that he may maintain himself and his family with dignity. Such is the position of the heads of the Talmudic academies in Poland, who enjoy both wealth and power.2

In the same spirit, though in a more subtle manner, Yashar also writes of Polish Jews in his letter of 1629 to Shmuel Ashkenazi. With tongue-in-cheek he rebukes him for publishing secular matter in one volume with holy Cabbalistic lore. How could he do it 1 He himself had long abandoned secular learning, and even while he was pursuing it in the past, it was only for the sake of teaching the Karaites, "who have a love for such learning," but not the rabbanites "whose only passion is Talmud and Poseqim." And indeed, they act wisely, for these studies are a source of livelihood to them, and by assuming positions of rabbis or judges they provide for themselves a fine existence and living. Torah is indeed a most profitable investment, the dividend of which we enjoy in this world, while the capital stays intact for the world to come. The reverse, however, is the case with mathematical or natural studies. The material gain one may derive from them is insignificant, while the spiritual harm their fallacies cause is great. One who is concerned with the welfare of his soul must therefore keep away from these studies.a

An outstanding characteristic of Yashar's stay in Poland, similar to that of his earlier stays in Cairo and Constantinople, was his close relations with the Karaites. These relations began soon after his 1

2 3

Ibid., pp. 128-129. Ibid., pp. 92-93. "Haqdamah," Novloth, p. 7a.

A WANDERER

69

arrival in Poland and continued till the end of his stay. When Zera:Q. addressed himself to Yashar with his third letter, •Ezra ben Nissim had already been among Yashar's students for some time.1 The exchange of letters between Yashar and Yoi?hiyah, during the spring of 1624, is the last piece of evidence in our possession from the Polish period. The number of Karaites in the Polish territories was not high at any time, never exceeding a few hundred even in their most populous communities. 2 The most ancient and largest of these communities was at Troki, near Wilno. During the last two decades of the fifteenth century, the Trokite Karaites exchanged writings with their coreligionists of Constantinople, the best known among whom were Elijah Bashiatzi and Caleb Afendopolo.3 As a result of these connections and possibly also under the stimulus of Polish Jewry, the sixteenth century marks a period of great cultural activity for the Troki Karaites. The town became the religious and intellectual center of Karaism in Poland and Lithuania. The most eminent Karaite author of Troki was Yii?\laq ben Abraham (1533-1586), author of the famous polemical work Ifizzuq Emunah, and of a number of liturgical hymns in both Hebrew and Tartarish. 4 The outstanding Karaite authority after the death of Yii?:Q.aq was his disciple, Joseph Malinowski, "rabbi" at Troki and author of many liturgies. 5 In 1624, he was still alive. The Karaite documents of this period, published by Jacob Mann, bear ample evidence regarding frequent contacts between rabbanites and Karaites. They are limited, however, almost exclusively to official business between the qahal and the Karaite leadership. 6 With the exception of some small neighborly services, such as the delivery of a letter or a parcel, there is no indication of any social contacts between the individual members of the two groups. In view of the almost exclusive devotion of Polish Jewry to Talmudic studies at the time, and the high esteem in which such studies were held, one 1

Elim, p. 12.

M. Balaban, "L'Qoroth ha-Qara'im b'Polin," Ha-Tequfah, XVI (Warsaw, 1923), p. 293. 3 Cf. Mann, Texts and Studies, vol. II nos. 109-119; Z. Ankori, "Introduction" to Bashiatzi's Code, pp. XV-XVI. 4 Mann, Texts and Studies, II, pp. 714-718; A. Geiger, Isaak Troki, ein Apologet des Judentums des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1863). 5 Mann, op. cit., II, pp. 718-720; Balaban in Ha-Tequfah, XXV, pp. 484-485. 6 Mann., II, pp. 626 ff. 2

70

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

can well imagine the feeling of both pity and contempt the Jews must have felt for the Karaites. Yashar's relations with them may therefore have evoked in Poland even greater suspicion and ill will than in the culturally less homogeneous communities of Egypt and Turkey. As pointed out, the earliest of these contacts was with 'Ezra hen Nissim (1595-1666), 1 who is mentioned by Zeral;i. as being instructed by Yashar, along with other students, in the Pentateuch with the commentaries of Ibn 'Ezra and the supercommentary of Mizral;i.i. 2 In subsequent years 'Ezra's name appears in several documents in the capacity of either shofet (wojt) or "expert communal physician' .. 3 He maintained friendly relations with the rabbanites and was respected by them. In 1653, when the Polish government prohibited the employment of Christian servants and maids by Jews, the rabbis of Wilno requested the Troki Karaites to lend them their charters, in which they hoped to find a basis for disproving the legality of such a prohibition. 'Ezra was instrumental in the successful conclusion of this transaction. 4 According to Firkowicz, 'Ezra was both a relative and a disciple of Zeral;i., and because of the friendship between Zeral;i. and Yashar, the former "entrusted" him to the latter. Owing to 'Ezra's great abilities, Yashar loved him more than any of his students and imparted to him all his medical knowledge. He also introduced him to the nobles and dukes whom he served and, when he was about to depart from Poland, he left 'Ezra in his place. 'Ezra was successful in his medical practice, and when he succeeded in curing the daughter of the Polish king Casimir of an incurable disease, he was awarded large possessions of land and a palace at Troki.s Zeral;i.'s third letter contradicts, however, Firkowicz's assertion that Zeral;t "entrusted" 'Ezra to the care of Yashar. The letter clearly indicates that the acquaintance between Yashar and 'Ezra preceded Yashar's acquaintance with Zeral;t. Nor is 'Ezra ever singled out for praise by Y ashar. The other ingredients of this account also appear fictitious. However, since the Mann documents confirm the fact that

1

cit.

Cf. A. Firkowicz, Avnei Zikkaron (Wilno, 1872), p. 251. See also Balaban, loc.,

2 Elim, p. 12. a "c~:ii':i ;im~i~ N!:lii," Mann, op. cit., II, pp. 796, 815, 1022, 1023. 4 Ibid., II, nos. 53, 54, 55. 5 Firkowicz, Avnei Zikkaron, p. 251.

A WANDERER

71

'Ezra served as physician, it is reasonable to assume that Yashar may have imparted to him some medical knowledge. Another Karaite leader Yashar befriended was Yoshiyah ben Yehudah. He was among Yashar's early disciples in Lithuania; but because of material needs, Yoshiyah had to discontinue his studies under him.1 From "Yashar's mouth" he had written a book on logic,2 and Yashar wrote on his request the "Ner Elohim" in 1624. 3 His name also appears in a letter Y ashar wrote to Zera}.!. the same year, concerning the date of Passover. 4 After the death of Joseph Malinowski, Yoshiyah was recognized as the leading Karaite authority for litigation. For some time he functioned as shofet and subsequently as "rabbi." His name appears on a number of documents from the years 1630-1658. 5 According to Lucki, he composed a number of liturgical poems "and was a great teacher who had seventy disciples all of whom were wise and understanding and were referred to as rabbis." a His son, Abraham, became a physician and was among the leaders of the community. 1 The best known of Yashar's Karaite friends in Lithuania was Zera}.!. ben Nathan of Troki who has the honor, formally at least, of having been the direct cause for all of Yashar's writings in Elim and the inspiration for Metz' biographical account of Yashar. The three letters Zera}.!. wrote to Yashar s were answered by Metz, u and subsequently by Y ashar himself. 10 It seems as if the first letter 11 was sent out as a feeler. Zera}.!. made no request in it but introduced himself, using an elaborate technique of composition and a highly decorative style. The piece is important on account of its rich autobiographical data. Elim, p. 75. Ibid., p. 81. a Ibid., pp. 76ff. 4 Cf. Ha-Carmel, VI (1867), p. 358, col. b; p. 366, col. a, b, and p. 367a. s Mann, op. cit., II, no. 3, p. 796; no. 6, p. 806; no. 8, pp. 818-819; no. 49, p. 1015; no. 52, p. 1019; no. 100, p. 1106; no. 101, p. 1108; no. 129, p. 1211; no. 130, p. 1219. 6 "Supplement, Siml;tah Isaac Lucki's Account ofKaraite Literature," Mann, op. cit., II, p. 1432. 7 Ibid., II, no. 57, p. 1025; no. 120, p. 1180. As it seems, he also dabbled in the Cabbalah, ibid., p. 1432. s Elim, pp. 3-39. u Ibid., pp. 40-74. io Ibid., pp. 126-135; "Mikhtav A!;tuz," Melo Ohofnajim, pp. 1-28. 11 Elim, pp. 3-6. 1

2

72

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

The letter establishes Zera};t's birth in Troki in 1578. At the age of five he was entrusted for three years to the spiritual care of "my father Yiljl};taq." His education was continued for another year under the guidance of Joseph, and for another six months under that of Yehudah. Mann identifies his first teacher, Yiljl};taq, as Yil?};taq of Troki, author of Ifizzuq Emunah; his second teacher, Joseph, as Joseph Malinowski, and his third teacher as Y ehudah ben Aharon, a ~azzan (cantor) of Halicz. 1 After the age of thirteen, Zera};t had no more teachers; but driven by an unsatiated thirst for knowledge, he continued to study on his own. Thirty two years after the death of his master Yif?};taq his parents passed away. Two years later, at the age of forty two, he wrote his letter to Yashar. 2 Zera};t concludes this letter with noting that he cannot mention his request until he first receives the master's permission to do so.a Since such permission did not come, Zera};t wrote a second letter. 4 Its style is no less cumbersome, though its technique is somewhat simpler. He mainly pays homage to Yashar. In twenty two alphabetically ordered paragraphs, each of which begins with the question "who", he extols in the highest superlatives the attainments of Y ashar in almost all fields of universal and Jewish learning. Zera};t finally formulates his request in the third and longest of his letters.s In the introduction he again praises Yashar's great accomplishments, notably his mastery of the works of Plato and Aristotle as well as their commentators. He also expresses his gratitude to him for his devoted study of Karaitic literature and his friendly attitude toward the Karaites, as a result of which "their elders and sages readily accept your burden and lend their ear to your open rebuke." He subsequently mentions Yashar's teaching "on the holy Sabbath" of the Pentateuch with the commentaries of Rashi and the supercommentary of Mizra};ti. He heard the praises of this instruction from Yashar's bright disciple 'Ezra ben Nissim, who also told him of "the deep secrets and riddles" of Abraham Ibn 'Ezra which Yashar was divulging to his students. Zera};t also tells of his own large collection of books and manuscripts. He admits, however, that it is of no great benefit to him, having no teacher to guide him. In conclusion, he 1

Mann, op. cit., II, p. 727 and n. 167; p. 728, n. 169. II, p. 728, n. I 71a. p. 6. pp. 6-10. pp. 11-40.

Ibid., a Elim, 4 Ibid., 5 Ibid., 2

A WANDERER

73

enthusiastically tells of his meeting with Moshe Metz, Yashar's outstanding disciple, though otherwise entirely unknown. Metz, he reports, was on his way to a wedding some twelve parasangs away from Birie, the home-town of Zera:Q_, and he paid Zeral.1 a visit. This was probably not an accidental visit, but one undertaken on the request of Yashar, who must have asked Metz to meet the inquisitive Zeral;i. while in the vicinity and impart to him some of the knowledge he was. so eager to acquire. Zeral;i. complains, however, that Metz' help was inadequate, owing to the shortness of his stay and the" brevity of his words." Rather than quenching his thirst, Metz only intensified it. In the wake of this visit, an exchange of letters ensued between Zeral;t and Metz. In one of them Zera};t expressed his willingness to follow Metz "like a disciple follows his master" and even to pay him. Metz, however, declined and advised him to turn directly to Yashar. Worth noting is Zera};t's admission that his twelve main questions, the so called ma'ayanoth ("fountains"), which follow his letter and to which he expects Yashar's replies, are not actually of his own thinking but the result of "the instruction and stimulus [which he derived from] his [i.e. Metz'] precious words." Furthermore, as far as the seventy temarim ("palm trees"), the paradoxes, are concerned, for which he also requests Yashar's instruction, he frankly admits : "I heard them from the excellent disciple." 1 It is thus obvious that the bulk of Zeral_i's questions did not originate with him but with Metz. This conclusion is supported by a number of striking similarities between the questions of Zera};t and the writings of Yashar-Metz. There can be little doubt that, in formulating his questions. Zeral.1 must have used some of the writings of Metz which he had in his possession. 2 If one further realizes that all the knowledge of this mysterious Metz derived from Yashar, one may conclude that the whole of the book Elim, both the questions as well as the answers, are from Yashar. He is not only the respondent but the questioner as well. This, however, must not be construed as implying a preconceived, calculated scheme on the part of Yashar, as if there actually was no Zeral;i., or as if the attribution of the questions to him was a mere stratagem without a basis in reality. The Mann documents fully corroborate the image of the man Zeral;i. as it emerges from Yashar's writings. The fact that he turned to Yashar for answers on such a variety of questions 1 2

Ibid., p. 14. Mann, op. cit., II, pp. 729-730, 1223-1225.

74

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

need not amaze us. Yashar was not the only one to whom he turned with such immodest requests. After the death of the Karaite scholar, Moses Messorodi (1637), Zeral;i. requested Joseph Maruli of Constantinople to have all the books of the deceased copied for him, a request which Maruli politely declined. 1 Some time after the publication of Yashar's Elim (1629) and Novloth lfokhmah (1631), Zeral;i. requested Menasseh ben Israel of Amsterdam to prepare for him a digest of Philo's works. 2 Mann is also of the opinion that a letter by David hen Yeshu'a, the Karaite "J;azzan of Jerusalem, in which he replies to three questions regarding the 'al Akt?a mosque, the prohibition of meat to Karaites in Jerusalem and the legendary river Sambatyonwas also in answer to questions by Zeral;i.." Nor is there any reason to doubt Zera];i.'s genuine interest in the sciences, notably astronomy. Two years prior to his contacts with Yashar, he had traveled to Constantinople and studied the Almagest with a small group of other scholars.4 Zeral;i.'s role in the literary activization of Yashar must therefore not be overrated. At most, his persistent inquisitiveness may have expedited the formulation of Yashar's views on a number of subjects which he had been thinking about for a number of years. From all the evidence pertaining to ZeraJ;i it is obvious that he was by no means a man of either great knowledge or ability, and it is most unlikely that Yashar undertook any of his inquiries just to satisfy Zeral;i.'s curiosity. The question whether Zeral;i. ever received the replies of Yashar or not, a question which aroused the curiosity of A. Geiger, 5 is thus of Ibid., p. 1228. Ibid., no. 125, pp. 1199-1200. 3 Ibid., pp. 721-722. The Mann documents also shed light on another aspect of Zeral,i's activities, alluded to in Zeral,i's writings to Yashar. In his first letter to Yashar, after having made some critical remarks about Polish Jewry's obscurantism and absorption with Talmudic casuistry, Zeral,i adds : "My soul melts away in distress. Because of my contentions with them they expelled me from their midst" [Elim, p. 5, letter nun]. This somewhat enigmatic statement has become meaningful as a result of two documents published by Mann; we learn from them that Zeral,i was planning to write a work in three volumes on the origin and history of the Karaite schism [Mann, op. cit., II, pp. 1224, 1431-1432]. It is also possible, as Mann believes, that the reason for Yashar's advising Zeral,i against Talmudic studies ["Mikhtav AJ,iuz," p. 14], was in order "not to cause heated disputes on legalism between Karaite 'lamdanim' and Rabbanites" [op. cit., II, p. 677]. 4 Elim, p. 19. 5 Cf. "Einleitung," Melo Glwfnajim, p. 37 and n. 4, pp. 37-38. 1

2

A WANDERER

75

no importance or consequence. With the formulation of the questions, Zeral;i's role was actually completed. Subsequent to the "Al;iuz" letter, which was probably addressed to him, there is no evidence of any further contact between Yashar and him. Only some years later do we learn that Zeral;i was in the possession of the published works of Yashar.1 As indicated, Yashar's contacts with the Karaites could not have enhanced his reputation among Polish Jews. Indeed, with the exception of one reference by Zeral;i to some responsa which Yashar had sent to a Rabbi Segal and to a Rabbi Shalom, 2 there is nowhere in his writings any evidence of contacts, social or scholarly, that he may have maintained with Polish Jews. This is amazing, indeed, in the light of his own repeated assertions that since his arrival in Poland he withdrew from secular studies and devoted himself exclusively to the study of Talmud.a The Polish period in Yashar's life, it may be concluded, was not only a time of hard professional work, but of impressive scholastic achievements as well. By the spring of 1621, Yashar had completed the first draft of his essays for Zeral;i, though they were not in final form until shortly before their publication in 1629. 4 By 1624 he had composed his two pamphlets for Yoshiyah, one on logic and the other on metaphysics, and he continued working on what he himself considered his magnum opus, the Bosmath Bath Shlomo, and other writings. 5 Large sections of Novloth Ifokhmah, notably the "Novloth Orah", were also a product of the lonely trips over the LithuanianPolish countryside. 6 Finally, if those years were not conducive to the advancement of his scientific and mathematical interests, they permitted stock-taking. This, indeed, is reflected in Elim, a product of the Polish period and a summary of knowledge and views which he had mainly acquired during the years at Padua. In Poland Yashar maintained some contacts with Polish scholars of the time, though the evidence bearing on this aspect of his activity is rather meager. The exchange of letters between him and Broscius Mann, op. cit., II, no. 134, p. 1226. Elim, p. 13. s Ibid., pp. 106, 132. 4 Ibid., pp. 254, 418. 5 Ibid., p. 47; "Mikhtav Al;mz," p. 26. See also Ha-Carmel, VI (1867), pp. 343b, 359a. 390b, 6 "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 6b. 1

2

76

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

is one example. The feelings of mutual respect and admiration that permeate it point, no doubt, to rather extensive contacts between the two. Yashar's relations with other scholars were probably more incidental. Thus, in the letter to Zeral;t regarding the molad of Nisan, 1624, Yashar writes: "Subsequently I was summoned to the College by the astronomer who teaches there, and he showed me all the mathematical books and instruments." 1 The College referred to is probably the Jesuit College of Wilno, established in the last quarter of the sixteenth century and elevated, a few years later, by the Polish king Stefan Batory (1576-1586) to the rank of a university. 2 It may also be assumed that the astronomical measurements which Yashar conducted at Torun with the aid of "large and important instruments," 3 necessarily involved contacts with local Polish scholars. Since Torun was almost totally closed to Jews until the eighteenth century and there was no Jewish community there, Yashar's visit to that town must have been of a purely scholarly nature. The town may have attracted him as the birthplace of Copernicus whom he deeply admired. From the second half of the sixteenth century there existed in Torun an academic gymnasium which taught academic subjects in the highest class, the suprema. 4 Perhaps more typical of those years in Poland was Yashar's preoccupation with the Cabbalah. Hence, it was no accident that the first original work which he composed soon after his departure from Poland was the Ma§ref la-lfokhmah in which he displayed complete mastery of Cabbalistic lore. 3.

IN THE Low CouNTRIES AND THE GERMANIES

Yasher must have left Poland either in the later part of 1624 or early in 1625. 5 The first place he settled in was Hamburg. He disliked the Jewish quarter there and bitterly remarked : 1 ',::i liN (sic!) i', i1Niil Cl'!Vi i~',~il J::>iliil ',~N iN•l•',ip:i 'liN.,p3 N.,p3 ::>"nNi ci•':i::>m Cl'ii~':ii1 ,.,£)0 Ha-Carmel, VI (1867), p. 366, col. b.

2 W. F. Reddaway, J. H. Penson, 0. Halecki and R. Dyboski, The Cambridge History of Poland to 1696 (Cambridge University Press, 1950), pp. 402, 409, 497. 3 See supra, p. 65. 4 I. Rosenberg, "Thorn" in JE, XII, pp. 140-151; Reinhold Heuer, Siebenhundert Jahre Thorn (Danzig, 1931), p. 49. 5 Supra, end ofn. 6, p. 64; infra, p. 81, n. 4. See also Appendix "A."

A WANDERER

77

Throughout our dispersion we live in filthy alleys. Indeed, the Gentiles call the Jewish street in Hamburg, where I am teaching at present, 'Dreck-Allee'... In most other places you also find the slaughter-house near the synagogue ... 1

The Jewish community of Hamburg was young and small, having begrudgingly been given official recognition only in 1612. At that time the number of its adults did not exceed 125. 2 By 1617, a new agreement was concluded between the ghetto and the Senate. Due to the excessive number of physicians among the Portuguese Jewish settlers here and in the other newly established communities of the area, 3 Yashar must have found it difficult, even impossible, to continue his medical practice. The presence of such medical greats as Rodrigo de Castro (1546-1627) and his son, Benedict de Castro (1597-1684), 4 must have further deterred Yashar from his practice. It so happened that the community was left without a rabbi, since its former rabbi, Isaac Athias, was called to Venice. 5 For the first time in his life Yashar thus assumed the functions of rabbi, or, to be more exact, of teacher and preacher. 6 While in Hamburg he also began to write his Ma§ref la-lfokhmah, 7 a supposed defense of the Cabbalah which he claims to have undertaken on the request of one of the dignitaries of the Jewish community who was a good friend of his and an admirer of the Cabbalah. 8 Because of a raging epidemic which had spread also to his quarter, Y ashar left Hamburg and moved to nearby Glii.ckstadt. The conditions of the place, he notes in disappointment, do not bear out its name as "a city of happiness." Rather he describes it as "new and desolate, without either settlers or luck." He therefore brought "rm:m~~i1 niK'l::i~::i c•ii ilK 1=iKilD" ni::m:in l:i~::i." Mairref, p. 45. Graetz, Geeckicl!te der Juden, xa, p. 17. 3 C. Roth, A Life of Menassek ben Israel (Philadelphia, 1945), chap. VII. 4 Cf. E. Carmoly, Histoire des medecins Juifs (Bruxelles, 1844), I, pp. 173-174; M. Kayserling, "Zur Geschichte der jiidischen Xrzte," Z. Frankel, ed., MGWJ, vol. VIII (Leipzig ,1859), pp. 330ff. 5 Josef Heller, "Athias Isaac (Yshac)" in EJ, III, pp. 622-623. 6 Regarding these functions, Shmuel Ashkenazi writes that Yashar was the "provider" (i::i i•::iw~), i.e., the spiritual leader, of the Sephardi Jews in Hamburg and Amsterdam ["Haqdamath ha-Magihah," MO,fref, p. 5]. According to the epitaph on his gravestone, Yashar was the "Ab Beth Din" (the head of the rabbinical court) at Hamburg and in the environs of Amsterdam (Cii"O~K ml;i•l;il::ii lii::i~Ki1:l i1'i1 i":JK). Koppelmann Lieben, Gal-Ed, Grabschriften des prager israelitiscken aUen l!'riedkofs (Prag, 1856), pp. 33-34. 7 M(J,fref, p. 107. s Ibid., p. 58. 1

2

78

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

the Ma~ref to a hurried conclusion and resolved to leave for Amsterdam. 1 In the summer of 1628 and possibly earlier, Yashar already was in Amsterdam. 2 Menasseh hen Israel, a preacher in the "Nveh Shalom" congregation and a rising star in the new community, who had recently established the first H'.ebrew printing house in Amsterdam, befriended the new arrival.a It may have been due to his intercession that Yashar's services were soon sought. When Shmuel Ashkenazi visited him, Yashar was preoccupied with teaching at the yeshivah and preparing sermons which "he had to deliver almost every Saturday." 4 The religious functions Y ashar performed in the Jewish community of Amsterdam were not, it seems, too rewarding an activity for him, spiritually or materially. He was a man of no financial means when he left Amsterdam in 1630 and settled at Frankfurt-am-Main. However, the stay at Amsterdam brought him another kind of reward. It was here that he experienced the joy of seeing in print, for the first time, some of his scientific writings which he had been working on for so long. Indeed, one senses the thrill of hopeful expectation in him when he informs Shmuel Ashkenazi of the "good tidings" regarding the forthcoming appearance of Elim. 5 It was also then that Shmuel Ahskenazi undertook, allegedly without Yashar's knowledge, to print at Basel Yashar's large collection Ta'alumoth lfokhmah. Though Yashar claimed to be dissatisfied and angry over this enterprise, 6 the genuineness of these emotions is quite doubtful. By the end of 1629 or early in 1630, after the appearance of Elim, the Amsterdam period in Yashar's life drew to a close. Besides the desire to see Elim through the press, Amsterdam held no more reward or promise for him. The prospect of continuing as preacher and teacher was no great inducement for staying. Moreover, in view of the relatively high number of Spanish and Portuguese physicians in the Jewish community,7 the possibilities of a medical practice also must have appeared slim. Yashar left Amsterdam and settled at Frankfurtam-Main, one of the largest Jewish communities in the Germanies of t

2

Ibid., p. 107. Elim, pp. 254, 41S.

a Cf. "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. Sb. 4 M ~ref, p. 6. 5 "Haqdamath," Novloth, p. Sb. 6 Cf. Yashar's letter to Shmuel in "Haqdamah," Novloth. 7 Carmoly, op. cit., pp. 1S2-1S3.

A WANDERER

79

the time. 1 His stay at Frankfurt was to prove the longest and also the quietest of all the sojourns since his departure from Crete. It appears that at this stage in his life he finally came to terms with himself and the world: he married, or remarried, and became the father of a daughter. The first evidence on this period in Yashar's life is of the 19th of February, 1630, when an erudite Dane, by the name of Suaningius, reported to Johann Buxtorf his impressions of Y ashar whom he had met at Frankfurt. He wrote : ... I am presenting to your eyes one of them.2 whose native land is Crete and whose Jewish name is Joseph. He boasts of having wandered through the better known lands of Asia and Europe, and of having combined with it in happy union [the knowledge of] the main and allied exotic languages. What has enhanced my confidence in him is the fact that he speaks fluently, without an interpreter, rabbinical Hebrew (Rabbinica) with the learned Jews, Spanish with his wife, and Latin with me. I admire the strength of his memory and his fluency in languages, especially in a Jew of this time (imprimis in uno huius aetatis Judaeo). How highly proficient he is in the medical art-the qualified should judge. If one may trust, however, the crowns (si coronis credendum), he has already attained the highest honors in it a long time ago. That he has been extremely devoted to the study of mathematics is attested by an excellent sample of his mind, written in modern Hebrew (Juniore Hebraeo), illustrated by drawings, and published in Amsterdam. I possess two copies of this work, one of which belongs to you, and the other to me, as the author's gift. It can hardly be bought for two Thalers. He asserts to have had as disciples men of great repute in Belgium. From among them he mentioned by name Sixtinus Amama (Dii de Ia prii) whom he guides in Talmudics.3

The next piece of evidence bearing on that period is the exchange of letters between Yashar and Broscius of Krakow. In the Collection of Broscius' recently published writings, there are two such letters : one from Broscius to Delmedigo, and the other from Delmedigo to Broscius. The first, bearing the date of November 24, 1630, is in answer to two pamphlets which, according to Broscius, Yashar had sent to him some months earlier. One of these contained a likeness of Yashar, and the other a Latin prospectus of the book Elim with a dedication in Latin to Broscius. After thanking Yashar, Broscius writes that as soon as he became acquainted with the contents of the book, "he Cf. Graetz, Geschichte, X3, p. 27. 2 I.e., one of the Frankfurt Jews who are referred to in the preceding sentence. 3 Latin text as quoted by M. Kayserling in A. Geiger, ed., JZfWuL, IX (Breslau, 1871), pp. 135-136; part of the Latin text is also quoted by Graetz, Geschichte, X3, p. 149, n. I. 1

80

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

was seized with a love for the work" and acquired it from Mr. Sebastian, the book seller. From the numerous drawings in the book he formed a general notion of it; but since he does not know Hebrew, he can hardly judge it one way or the other. He therefore urges Y ashar to translate the work into Latin, so that "the fountains of his mind should open up not only for Palestine but also for Lati um". In this way his work "which contains so much would gain many admirers." In the sequence of that letter, Broscius promises to "look into those quite complicated questions from Diophantes", and he also discusses the question whether the Chinese preceded or followed the Greeks in certain geometrical proofs. 1 Yashar's letter to Broscius is of June 16, 1631. 2 Because of its valuable data with regard to Yashar it is translated here fully: Most Enlightened and Educated Sir, I have submitted your arithmetical problem, my most beloved doctor and greatest of philosophers, to all Italian, French, Spanish, German, English, Belgian logicians and mathematicians, to all-I say-most known and famous: to Willebrord Snellius,3 the magnificent and marvelous Sybrand of Amsterdam, Michael Muller, Philip Landsberg,4 Albert Girard,s Jost Byrgius,s Johann Faulhaber,7 Johann Kepler,s Metius,9 Golius,10 and to a thousand others, all masters of the highest order; none, however, succeeded in solving it. Truly, I regret my departure from Poland, which had become a second fatherland to me (after all, wherever I go, my medical art furnishes me with adequate means of sustenance), for no other reason than because it completely deprived me of the possibility to enjoy Jan Brozek, Wyb6r Pism, 1, pp. 485-487. On that date Brozek took note of its receipt, though it was written a few weeks earlier, ibid., pp. 490, 494. 3 Dutch astronomer and mathematician, 1581-1626. Cf. Moritz Cantor, Vorlesungen ilber Geschichte der Mathematik, II (Leipzig, 1900), p. 654. 4 Philip van Landsberge (1561-1632), Dutch Mathematician, ibid., II, p. 700. 5 French mathematician. In 1629 he composed "Invention nouvelle en I'algebre," died 1632. 6 Swiss mathematician (1552-1632). The invention of the pendulum which Ohr. Huygens made known is sometimes ascribed to him. 7 Mathematician (1530-1635). 8 Among the greatest scholars of the 16th-17th centuries. Mathematician, astronomer, physicist (1571-1635). 9 Adrian Metius (d. 1635). Dutch mathematician, astronomer and physician. io Jacob Golius (1596-1667), a versatile Dutch scholar who was similar in many respects to Yashar. Besides Greek and Latin he also studied Arabic; travelled extensively in the Near and Middle East, and was a passionate manuscript hunter and a devoted student of mathematics. See on him, Zedler's Universal Lexicon, Bd. XI (Halle und Leipzig, 1735), pp. 149-151. See also I. Halperin in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham Neuman, p. 643. l

2

A WANDERER

81

the fruits of your most pleasant company. During my whole five years sojourn in Belgium I did not succeed in meeting anybody from Poland who could inform me about your way of life and the state of your health. So much so that I came to despair of the possibility of ever establishing written contact with you. However, when, after varying vicissitutes of fate, I transferred myself to Frankfurt, where, by the grace of God, I carry on a medical practice, for which I am handsomely remunerated, my enthusiasm revived. The spark for. it was supplied by a certain German knight, who is no less a scholar than an adept in the military art, and, having fallen sick, he made use of my help and medical skill. Having been permitted to look through my writings, he observed your name in the catalogue of famous mathematicians, which I prepared for print,1 and he declared to me that you are well known to him, and began to extol you in the highest terms. I am hardly able to express the joy I felt upon hearing the words of this serious and respectable man. From him I also found out about your health, a thing I desired to know more than anything else, as well as about the state of your studies : what matters you are about to undertake; what great works and splendid actions you are planning; how you are exercising your diligence with great joy in the whole area of philosophy; how you are directing the course of your life untiringly, day by day, with a manly spirit and a Herculean body toward eternal glory, and how you are reaching out for the peaks. I wish I could fly to you on the wings of a bird, so that the reflection of the light of the most enlightened man would fall upon me. I know people, I have seen and heard; of one thing, however, I am more certain than of anything else : that you are one of the truly learned and profound men, and that your thoughts are not mathematical dust, but represent rather a sample of the divine wisdom which dwells in you. [During] the last fair I sent to you a foreword to an elementary work in the field of mathematics which I had printed in Hebrew upon the request of a certain rich man, 2 and through the deliverer I entreated you to send me the solution of Polydedal's problem ... ,a I have no doubt that immediately after my departure 4 [you] solved that problem in accordance with the promise made; in the meantime, however, most likely owing to the negligence of the Jew, I was not privileged ... 5 [to receive] the desired solution. All the virtues dwell in you,

1 Professor Israel Halperin is correct in noting that this work of Y ashar is not known from any other source [Abraham Neuman Festschrift, p. 642, n. 3]. 2 Rightly Halperin again notes that this work also is not known from any other source [ibid., p. 641, n. l]. a Editor's note : A few following words are illegible in the manuscript, Jan Brozek, op. cit., I, p. 412, n. a. 4 As indicated[B'Upra, p. 64, n. l], the acquaintance between Broscius and Delmedigo was made in Krakow, sometime after July 13th, 1624. It thus stands to reason that the "departure" about which Yashar writes here was his departure from Poland. The fact that Willebrord Snelius (d. 1626) is mentioned as one of the scholars to whom he turned with the mathematical problem of Broscius only corroborates our earlier assumption that ho left Poland either at the end of 1624 or early in 1625. 5 Editor's note : Five lines of the manuscript are spoiled as a result of dampness, and are illegible, Brozek, op. cit., p. 493, n. b.

82

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

such humaneness, humility, friendliness-that you can be compared with nobody else. If you send me then the solution of the said problem, if you let me know whatever new you have published, I shall continue to publicize your name among the wise as I have been doing till now; my own works, whatever they are, I shall share with you, dedicate them to you, and I shall swear by your name. Stay healthy, dear man, that all Poland may feel glorified in your name. Stay healthy, once more, Your devoted servant, Salomon de! Medico. P.S. I have written with indescribable haste. Should your honor need some printed books, either from Italy or anywhere else, please let me know, and I shall send them without delay during the next fair.

A few details in this letter are of importance and should be stressed. At least a year and a half after his "angry" letter to Shmuel Ashkenazi, in which he rebuked him for printing secular matter together with Cabbalistic lore, and in which he asserted that his pursuit of secular learning was a thing of the past from which he has completely withdrawn i-we learn the contrary from this present writing. He is in a lively exchange not only with Broscius, but with many other great scientists of the age. Not only has his love for mathematics not diminished, but it has become more intense. The third document bearing on that period in Yashar's life is the contract drawn up between him and the Frankfurt Jewish community which engaged him as communal physician for a period of five years. Because of its importance, it too is translated here almost fully. From the words of the Torah 'and he shall cause him to be thoroughly healed,' 2 it can be inferred that the physician is permitted to heal. Our sages, of blessed memory, have also declared that it is prohibited [for one] to dwell in a place where there is no trained physician. Accordingly, we engaged the expert physician,3 the eminent Rabbi Yoseph, the son of Rabbi Eliyahu, may God preserve and keep him,4 for a period of five years from today, under the conditions specified below. At the end of five years, he must appear before the qahal ..• and ask if it is their wish to retain him for some additional time, according to their pleasure. Herewith are the conditions : First, he should not travel during those five years, whenever it may be, outside of town without the permission and consent of the

1

2

"Haqdamath Sefer,'' Novloth. Ex. 21:19.

a "nm~i~n KDiirr." 4

This indicates that R' Eliyahu, Yashar's father, was still alive then.

A WANDERER

83

heads of the qahal ... even though he may be sent for by prince or ruler, or whoever it may be. Second, if there be a sick man in the community who is gravely ill and who wants him to visit him, he should not delay his visit, but hasten to do so, whether in darkness or light, whether [the sick] is rich, of medium means or poor. He should take nothing from the poor. And even though they may offer him something for his bother, or waste oftime,1 he should not take. Heaven will reward him.2 From those of average means,3 he may take whatever they offer him, one more, the other less. But he should demand nothing from them, not even a penny. Whatever the case, he must not neglect their cure owing to a lack of money.4 Prom the rich, i.e. the most affluent, he should demand remuneration for his services; however, not more than what is proper ... He should make excessive demands on nobody. He must go with speed to everyone, whether rich or poor, whoever he might be. It is further understood that even if he fulfilled all the above specified conditions, but does something which causes in some way the displeasure of the qahal ... the qahal is entitled to turn to the town's registration office [with the request] that his name be removed from our book 5 and that he leave his dwelling place here as soon as he is ordered to do so by the qahal.

The date of the contract is "ten days in the second Adar, 5391" (about March or April, 1631). AJmost exactly two years later a few more clauses were added to the above document. One stipulated that in case of a substantial change in Yashar's material position, he would be obliged to pay his share in communal taxes "like anyone of our brethren". Another fixed Yashar's fee at no more than 2 RT. [Reichsthaler] per visit from the rich, and also set the rate for a sequence of visits to one patient and for night calls. 6 Worth noting is the fact that more than a year had elapsed between Yashar's arrival in Frankfurt 7 and his official engagement as physician by the Jewish community. 8 In concluding the documentary evidence regarding the Frankfurt period, mention should also be made of "another Danish scholar, .;ti,i;,:i .,~!U 1iE1i;i .,~!!) C37 ;i•;i• in.,~tzn~i s c•m•:in 1~· 4 1i~~ .,cin ii~. 5 ·icp3E1 iin~ ipni~i, N"l:l37.,:i i,37 c•:i!t)i•:i c•li-,•im i,:sN ,~i,•!t) i,;ipi, niiu., iu•

1

2

6 An extract of the contract was printed in Graetz, Geschichte, xs, p. 149, n. 1 ; for the full text, see M. Horovitz, JUdische Arzte in Frankfurt-am-Main (.Frankfurt-am-Main, 1886), pp. 16-17; see also Dr. J. Leibowitz, "Contracts of Physicians (Delmedigo)" [Hebrew), Harefuah, Journal of the Medical Association of Israel, XLI (JerusalemTel-Aviv, 1951), no. 4 (August, 15th), p. 65. 7 As mentioned, Suaningius met him there on February 19th, 1630 [see supra, p. 791. s April, 1631.

84

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

Matthias Lorche, [who] visited Yashar in September 1634, bringing him regards from Buxtorf." 1 Thus, as late as the mid-thirties Yashar must have maintained his connections with the secular scholars of the time. We have seen earlier, from the letter of Suaningius, that at the beginning of 1630 Yashar was married. An epitaph on one of the stones of the Jewish cemetry at Frankfurt and a note in the Book of Remembrance (Memorbuch) of the Frankfurt community indicate the existence here of a daughter of Yashar by the name of Sarah. She was married to a physician, Solomon Bing, the son of Abraham Bing. He studied under Yashar and, probably under Yashar's influence, he went to Padua, graduating from its medical school. After Bing's death in 1680, his widow Sarah married Yishai Oppenheim, a prominent businessman whose name appears frequently in the Notariatsbilcher of the community. She passed away on "the 14th of the first Adar, in the year 5451" (1691). 2 Whether this daughter can be identified with the "little daughter" mentioned by Metz, 3 or whether she was born sometime after 1629, 4 is a matter of pure speculation. In 1645 doctor Bing submitted an application to the town council of Frankfurt, seeking a license to practice medicine. Among the reasons for his request he cited the departure of his father in law, Yashar, which left the Jewish community with only one physician of a rather advanced age, instead of the normal three who "used to be here previously". s It may be assumed that throughout the thirties and the early forties Yashar continued to live at Frankfurt and to practice medicine there. However, in 1645 the restlessness of his early days returned and he was once more overcome by his Wanderlust. From Frankfurt he must have gone to Prague, the seat of one of the largest communities of the time. Many years later, R' Ya'ir I,Iayyim Bacharach (1638-1701) 1 Unfortunately, in adducing this information, Kayserling does not indicate his source. Cf. JZfWuL, IX, p. 136. 2 Cf. M. Horwitz [Horovitz], "Zur Biographie Josef Salomon Delmedigos," Magazin fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, herausgegeben von Dr. A. Berliner und Dr. D. Hoffmann, X (Berlin, 1883), pp. 113-115; idem, Judische Arzte etc., p. 25, n. 2; see also, I. Kracauer, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt am Main, vol. II (Frankfurt am Main, 1927), pp. 262-265. 3 Elim, p. 47; cf. supra, p. 49. 4 As mentioned, in 1629 Yashar wrote to Shmuel Ashkenazi: "I have no luck, as far as sons [or children] are concerned"-"Ilaqdamah," Novloth, p. 3b; cf. supra, p. 49. 5 M. Horovitz, JUdische Arzte, pp. 26-27.

A WANDERER

85

recalled that he saw him there in his childhood. In the summer of 1650, Ya'ir's father, R' Moshe Shimshon, was called to the rabbinate of Worms, so Ya'ir must have been referring to· a time which preceded that date. 1 He also recalled that a few years later, in 1652, he saw him again at Worms. 2 During those years Yashar must have also visited, from time to time, his daughter and her family at Frankfurt. Indeed, from an entry in the N otariatsbuch of the community of Frankfurt we learn that in the fall of 1649 he borrowed the sum of 80 RT. from his son-in-law, the physician Solomon, and obligated himself to repay it within three years "without any delay." 3 Sometime, during the last decade of his life, he may also have stayed for a short time at Nikolsburg in Moravia, 4 though the evidence for such an assumption is rather flimsy. His more permanent and last dwelling place, after his departure from Frankfurt, was Prague, where he passed away on Succoth of the year 5416 (September, 1655). The epitaph on his tombstone reads : The wonderful rabbi, universal scholar, divine philosopher, the mightiest of physicians, Morenu Rabbi Yoseph, physician from Candia. He was chief justice [of the Jewish court] in Hamburg and the environs of Amsterdam, the son of the honorable Rabbi Eliyahu of holy blessed memory.

In the eulogy that follows he is described as "a prince and great one,'' and his fame, his atrono'mical works, his vast erudition in the "seven wisdoms" and in the Jewish lore, and the many disciples "who drank from his fountain," are all mournfully mentioned. 5 The epitaph on the tombstone leaves little doubt as to the identity of the deceased buried under it, and also indicates that Y ashar died a famous man, highly esteemed by the Jews of Prague for both his wisdom and piety. Yet, this identification has not passed without challenge. An epitaph with the name "Yoseph Shlomo Rofe" was 1 The older Bacharach writes: "At the end of the year 5410 (summer, 1650) I was nominated as rabbi at Worms, an excellent community" wri ?'ll!D riio :iii;! •ri1:i:iprili .rin:ii!D~ i11:ii1p1 N!D"~iii:i Ya'ir l,Iayyim, Ifavoth Ya'ir, I (Frankfurt am Main, 1699), p. 237. 2 R' Ya'ir writes: "R' Yashar was in my days. I met him when he was in Prague, and when he came, in 1652, to Worms." im•i!:i i•rii:>i1i i1'i1 ·~·:i i"!D' ,, •::> 1::1"'?'1 ?'ll!D !D'~iiil;i iNi:i:ii lNiti:i ibid., p. 270b. 3 M. Horovitz in Magazinfur die Wissenschaft des Judendthums, X, p. 114. 4 Cf. Dr. S. J. Plaschkes, "Voyages of Delmedigo," Harefuah, XXXIX (JerusalemTel-Aviv, 1950), pp. 12-13. 5 Cf. Koppelmann Lieben, Gal Ed, pp. 33-34; see also M. E. Beilinson, "Toledoth ha-Rav Yashar mi-Candia," Elim (Odessa, 1864), pp. XXII-XXIII.

86

THE LIFE OF YOSEPH SHLOMO DELMEDIGO

found on one of the tomstones of the Jewish cemetry of Lublin. It eulogizes the deceased as An elevated prince from the island of Candia whose name was known in the gates and who was crowned with many laurels whose seat was among the great and mighty [and who was] an expert healer of souls and bodies.l

While all signs seem to point to Yashar as buried there, the year of death, 5386 (1626), leaves no room for further speculation on the subject. Another challenge with wider implications, especially with regard to the last period in Yashar's life, comes from some handwritten notes on a Siddur Te:fillah Minhag Bnei Ar~oth Yavan (a prayerbook according to the Greek rite), which Dr. Weinryb discovered some forty years ago in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau. 2 Dr. Weinryb believes that this siddur stems from Candia, and that the notes have been written by our Yashar and by one of his sons. In the first of these notes, "apparently written by Joseph Delmedigo himself," it is said that On the Sabbath of the twenty ninth ofElul, of the year 5413 (September 11, 1653) ... my son Elimelekh Delmedigo, the physician, passed away, and was buried the next day in the ruined house of Malkiel Casani.

In his will, the deceased provided for half a measure of oil to be given for four continuous years to the synagogue in which he prayed. The gabbai confirms the receipt of these donations "from Joseph Delmedigo, the physician," for the years 5414, 5415, 5416 and 5417 (1654-1657). At the end there is a note of a son of Joseph Delmedigo to the effect that In the year 5420, on Monday, the third day of Roi ha-Mo 'ed Succoth (October 6, 1659), my father, ... Joseph Delmedigo, ... the physician, passed away and was buried the same day near his son Elimelekh in the ruined house of Malkiel Casani.3

Though there is no doubt that this siddur is from Candia 4 , it is by no means sure that the name of "Joseph Delmedigo a physician" 1 Cf. Shmuel Yoseph Finn, Kneseth Yisrael (Warsaw, 1886), p. 464; see also Shlomo Baruch Nisenbaum, L'Qoroth ha-Yehudim b'Lublin (sec. ed., Lublin, 1920), pp. 47-48. 2 Cf. B. Weinryb, "Wound wann ist Joseph Delmedigo gestorben ?" MGWJ, vol. 74 (1930), NF 38, pp. 41-43. 3 For a detailed description of the ms., Bee D. S. Loewinger and B. D. Weinryb, Catalogue of the Hebrew ManUBcripts in the Librwry of the Jue,disch-1'heologisches Seminar in Breslau (Wiesbaden, 1965), no. 196, pp. 127-130. 4 For an explanation of the "ruined house of Malkiel Casani" as a burial place, which appears in the notes of the Siddur, see Zvi Ankori, "The Living and the Dead : The

A WANDERER

87

in it is that of our Yashar. The Delmedigo family, as mentioned earlier, was one of the largest on the island, and the contemporaneous existence of two persons by the same name and profession is an incidence that may not have been rare at all. On the other hand, it is not impossible that Yashar may have had two sons, one of whom may have been a physician. The assertion that he has "no luck with sons" was made in 1629. Since then he married, or remarried, and could have had sons. He expressed the wish to return to Candia, to see his parents, in 1628. 1 But if he did return to Candia and remained there, it could have been only after 1652, when Ya'ir J:layyim Bacharach last saw him at Worms, long after his parents would have died. During those years, however, the Turkish-Venetian war over Crete was becoming more and more intense, and it is very doubtful, indeed, whether Yashar would have chosen such a time for his return. Nor does the eulogy's designation of the deceased as yashish (a very old man) seem fitting to a man of sixty eight. The strongest argument, however, remains, of course, the Prague tombstone, which cannot be explained unless Y ashar was really brought to rest there. Story of Hebrew Inscriptim1s in Crete," P AAJR, vol. 38-39 (1970-1971) (New York, 1972), p. 43, n. 56. 1 Elim, p. 418.

PART TWO

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

CHAPTER SIX

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS 1.

INTRODUCTION

Y ashar's printed works 1 consist of two volumes : Elim, published in 1629 by the newly .established printing house of Menasseh hen Israel in Amsterdam, and Ta'alumoth l;l okhmah, published at Basel in 1629-1631 by Yashar's disciple, Shmuel ben Yehudah Ashkenazi. 2 The two volumes are diametrically opposed in content, the first dealing primarily with astronomy, mathematics and science, and the second with philosophy, Oabbalah and occultism, thus posing a major scholastic and psychological problem in dealing with the personality of Yashar and his authentic views and creeds. By their origin, both volumes belong to the post-Paduan period in Yashar's life, particularly the years spent in Poland. Though many of his scholarly projects were launched at Candia, it was in Poland that they reached maturity. There, he composed not only most of the treatises that were to be included in Elim, 3 but also a great deal of his Oabbalistic and philosophical speculations which he subsequently incorporated in Ta'alumoth l;l okhmah. 4 It is possible that he decided to depart for the West only after completing these works, in the hope of publishing them, especially his scientific and mathematical studies, since Jewish Poland was not an appropriate place for such an enterprise. It may seem odd that Yashar was first published at the age of almost forty, after many years of literary activity. Both his publishers, Menasseh hen Israel and Shmuel Askhenazi, point out that they first had to persuade Yashar to submit his works to print. 5 Yashar was, of course, a rather complicated human being, full of contradictions and inconsistencies. He was humble and proud, resigned yet ambitious, honest and suspicious, rationalist and mystic. His On the unprinted works ofYashar, see Appendix "B," pp. 328-337. For the full titles see infra, pp. 103, 104, 108-109, 338. s Cf. Elim, pp. 116-117. 4 "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 6. 5 Elim, p. 125; "Haqdamath Sefer," NovWth. 1 2

92

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

travels did not convince him of the value of printing. He found piles of manuscripts in Egypt and Turkey accumulating dust. The work of some of the greatest sages in Israel perished without ever seeing the light of day. The lot of those authors whose books were printed did not appear to be more fortunate. After all, rarely does the printing of a book perpetuate its author's name. "Were one's words engraved upon pillars of marble and iron, they would not last for ever, for time would erase and destroy them." 1 Ashkenazi also suggested another reason for Yashar's reluctance to have his works printed, his unquenched thirst for knowledge. He was more eager to learn than to teach, asserting that his own perfection preceded that of others. Instead of teaching others what he already knew, he preferred to acquire for himself what he did not know yet. 2 On the other hand, Yashar was not altogether oblivious of the social responsibilities of the scholar. He considered scholarship and science the cumulative result of the efforts of generations, each generation continuing the work of preceding ones and building upon their foundations. If it were not for the innate desire of the altruist scholars to impart their knowledge to future generations ... we would be barren of all knowledge ... groping in darkness . . . and the human race would still be in a state of primitive beasts.a

Perhaps stronger were his nationalist and personal motivations. He was a born teacher. He felt no one was better qualified than he to introduce his Jewish contemporaries to the new knowledge which he mastered and admired so much. He dreamt of spreading the new mathematical, astronomic and physical knowledge that was brought to such a high degree of perfection during his lifetime. He examined the extant medieval Hebrew texts in philosophy and the sciences, and found them all insufficient. He had great admiration for Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, Crescas, MizraJ;ii and other scholars, who brought to the Hebrew reader a great deal of secular learning of their times. However, he criticized their contribution for its inadequacy in content and form. None of the scholarly works in Hebrew, he asserted, contains a systematic description of the field of enquiry under discussion. Even Maimonides' Guide appeared to him of little use, at least as far as beginners were concerned. "To "Haqdamath Sefer," Novwth, p. 7; Elim, p. 90. "Haqdamath Sefer," Nov"loth, p. I. a Elim, pp. 110-111. Cf. Gersonides, Millj,amoth Hashem, ma'amar sheni, ch. V ("ha-safeq ha-J:iamishi") (Riva di Trento, 1560), p. 18b, left col. 1

2

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

93

the unversed in science, the bulk of it must seem an unravelled dream." 1 The same, he thought, was true of the works of other Jewish scholars who followed Maimonides' example. They seemed satisfied with alluding to the problems rather than thoroughly investigating them. "They merely fill the cracks, leaving open the big holes, windows and doors," the result of which is "a real waste of time on the part of those who attempt to acquire wisdom by reading these works." 2 As for works translated from either Greek, Latin or Arabic, he found them all to be even less useful. Whatever is clear in the original becomes unintelligible and obscure by the awkward Hebrew rendering.a Instead of writing clearly, as is common among scholars in other languages, the Hebrew authors use either an impure style, which !S a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic that makes "one's ears tingle," 4 or a pure flowery Biblical style which does not althogeter yield to translation into any other language. 5 It was in full awareness of these deficiencies and in order to overcome them that he conceived his idea, to create a scientific literature in modern Hebrew : "I had in mind to compose Hebrew books dealing with all kinds of learning [mathematics] and science, in order to place the Jews on a par with other nations and put an end to their degraded position." 6 He soon must have realized that this was a task beyond the powers of a single individual. Possibly one of the reasons for his ceaseless wanderings was the desire to find co-workers and assistants for this great enterprise. He tried wherever he went to gather around him eager youths; to awaken in them an interest in the new learning and a desire for understanding it. This was not an easy task, in view of the extremely onesided nature of Jewish educational thought and practice at the time. With the exception of Italy, there hardly was a Jewish community which showed an awareness of the new secular learning or a desire to add it, in some degree at least, to the curriculum of studies. Realizing this situation, Yashar undertook not only to teach science and mathematics, but also to publicize the need for a new approach to Jewish education in general. Indeed, the "Almz" 1 Cf. S. Pines, "Introduction" to Maimonides, The Guide of the Perflexed (Chicago University Press, 1963), p. CXVI, n. 96. 2 Ibid., pp. 40-41. a Ibid., p. 41. 4 I Sam. 3:11. 5 "Haqdamath Sefer," Nov"loth, p. Sa. 6 Elim, p. 132,.37,~i ,,~i, l:i:i c•i,l;ii:i c•i:i37i1 1iw1:i:i c•iDo i:inl:i i1'il •n37i

94

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

letter, as well as the writings of Metz, Zeral;l, Yoshiyah and others, contain numerous allusions to the views of Y ashar on the curriculum and "method of study" which he introduced to his disciples. When compiled, these references may prove to contain projects and ideas which reached the Jewish public mind only at the end of the eighteenth century in Central Europe and not earlier than the nineteenth century in Eastern Europe. Like many of his predecessors and contemporaries, especially Italian Jews, Yashar taught the importance of form and order in both language and thought. He emphasized that their attainment requires a gradual education, beginning with the elements of reading and proceeding to the study of grammar, Hebrew language, Bible, logic, literature, history, Mishnah, Talmud, etc. He did not overlook the importance of foreign languages, especially Latin, though he considered a too zealous preoccupation with them wasteful. He showed a keen interest in the progress of his more advanced students, advising them with regard to bibliographical aids and methods of study and memorization. 1 Though himself a great lover of books, he constantly warned against indiscriminate use of them. He pointed out that the invention of printing was, no doubt, a great blessing, but it was not without its perils. Once, manuscripts were so rare and expensive that people would acquire only valuable ones, so that those of little value would disappear by themselves. At present, however, any person of means aspiring to perpetuate his name, submits his works to print, "though he does not even deserve to teach the most ignorant." 2 The student must therefore learn to discriminate between valuable and useless books, since "there is no greater impediment to beginners than too many books; it may be likened to the overfeeding of infants and sick people." a Stronger than these altruist motivations must have been Yashar's craving for personal fame and recognition. Despite his constant assertions about humility and modesty, he was a person of great strength and ambition. The flight from society, an outstanding feature of Yashar's behavior for many years-in fact all his life-was not the result of a tendency toward self-effacement, but an expression of possibly a subconscious desire, to temporarily withdraw in order to return to society in greater glory. Were he really so humble, how is i 2

3

Ibid., pp. 41-42. "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 7b. "Mikhtav AQ.uz," p. 23.

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

95

one to explail! .:ie numerous boastful statements that fill his writings regarding his erudition and the excellence of his works ? After all, it was he himself who submitted to print, and probably edited, the letters of his disciples praising him in the highest terms. Menasseh ben Israel's assertion that he had to persuade and plead with Yashar to publish his works must therefore be taken with a grain of salt. Yashar had reservations about the publication of his Cabbalistic and philosophical speculations which he pointed out in his letter to Ashkenazi; 1 but, as far as his other writings are concerned, he was, no doubt, eager and happy to see them printed. 2 Since my youth I have considered my way. I realized I shall not live for ever, and thought that it is the duty of a transient mortal to leave some impression behind him, a mark that he was in this world, so that his fleeting existence would not be like that of the passing shadow, forgotten with death, and his name would not descend with him into the pit.3

He failed in both respects, as scholar and teacher. "My thoughts came to nought." 4 None of the youths he attraced actually became his disciples, in the sense of continuing and diffusing the master's studies, or making a contribution of their own to those studies. After a while they all drifted away, each to his natural calling and pursuits.s The noble projects and plans with which he started out as scholar and author were not realized. It appears that he had written a great deal, but most of it was discarded and never brought to completion. Even those writings that were printed fell far short of the high standard he had set for himself in content and form. Most discouraging must have been the Jewish public's lack of interest in his works. With only some exceptions, his works did not cause much of a stir. 2. Elim

In comparison with Ta'alumoth Qokhmah, Elim is a well organized and an almost homogeneous volume. Its 441 pages are divided into five parts : "Elim" proper 6 and four treatises printed under the compre"Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, pp. 2ff. Ibid., p. Sb. 3 "Gevuroth ha-Shem," no. 34, Elim, p. 341. 4 ":i~!Z!':i i':i i~n i~o 'Tli:J:rvn~." ibid., p. 132. s Ibid., pp. 75, 131. 6 This was the first part to appear in print. The four Venetian rabbis, Yehudah Aryeh Modena, Siml;lah Luzzatto, Ne!;iemiah Saraval and Ya'acov Levi [On Ne!;iemiah 1

2

96

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

hensive title Ma'ayan Gannim (A Fountain of Gardens). They are: Sod ha-Yesod (The Secret of the Foundation),1 fluqqoth Shamayim (Laws of Heaven), 2 Gevuroth ha-Shem (The Might of God), 3 and Ma'ayan flatum (A Sealed Fountain).4 The least scholarly of the five parts is the first; it is, however, the most interesting from a philosophical, historical and psychological point of view. It has life and drama and provides insight into the local milieu of the eastern provinces of Poland in the early decades of the seventeenth century. Distant as this milieu was from the cultural centers of the West, it nevertheless was affected by the great intellectual upheaval of the time. Indeed, the hundred and nineteen pages of its awkwardly styled and richly embellished letters offer ample material for an attractive story of human relationships and cultural situations from an area that then constituted almost the borderline of the civilized world. Elim begins with three letters to Y ashar by the Karaite Zera]}. ben Saraval, see Shlomo Simonsohn, ed., Modena, Ziqnei Yehudah, "Mavo," p. 52. On "Ya'acov !'Beth Halevi" (d. 1636), see 'Azariah Figo, Sefer Binah l"lttim (Venezia, 1648), sermon 73, pp. 191-193, especially 193a; H. Y. Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, letter yod, no. 237; Marco Mortara, Mazkereth lfakhmei Italia (Padova, 1886), p. 33] received it as a separate publication and on its basis gave their approbation to the volume as a whole. They all considered the imminent appearance of Ma'ayan Gannim a major event in Jewish intellectual life and expected it to stimulate secular learning among Jews. In the first edition, these approbations appear at the beginning of the second part, Ma'ayan Gannim. In the second edition, however (1864-1867), they were put at the head of the volume as a whole. There are two additional differences between the two editions: (1) In the first, a page in Latin, detailing the contents of the work, follows the title page; in the second, this page has been left out. (2) The geometrical and mechanical drawings, which are integrated with the text in the first edition, are inserted as appendices in the second edition, at the end of each part and at the end of the volume as a whole. Due to its small print, the first edition has only 353 pages, as compared with the 411 pages of the second edition. As far as the text itself is concerned, there is no difference between the two editions. As mentioned, throughout this study the second edition has been used, because of its greater availability. "Elim" proper contains (in the second edition) 119 pages of text plus two pages of commendations and one page of geometrical drawings. 1 Elim, pp. 135-213, plus l page, "EI 'Ain ha-Qoreh," by Menasseh ben Israel, plus "Haqdamath ha-Mel,labber," pp. 126-135. 2 Ibid., pp. 219-290. 3 Ibid., pp. 291-350. 4 Ibid., pp. 351-442, plus 4 pages with 83 illustrations. Originally, the name "Elim" denoted only the first part of the volume. It is generally used, however, as the title for the volume as a whole.

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

97

Nissim. 1 These letters have been discussed earlier, and what may be added here is a brief summary of Zeral;i.'s twelve major questions, the so called "fountains" ('Ayanoth), which he presented to Yashar in the third letter. They deal with mathematics (1, 7), astronomy (2, 3, 4, 10, 11), Cabbalah and occultism (5), astrology (6), alchemy (8), medicine (9), metaphysics and theology (12). The next part of Elim, consisting of thirty five pages (40-74), is a "letter" by Metz to Zeral;i., "in which he replies to his questions." In an introductory note, probably inserted by the publisher Menasseh ben Israel, he points out that he considered it useful to print that part on account of "the sweetness of its language," the details about Yashar it contains, and its "attractive ideas" in general which, though of no value to the ignorant, may be beneficial to the enlightened (maskilim), versed in secular learning. 2 The "letter" may be divided in five sections: (1) The biography of Yashar and a list of his writings (pp. 41-48), (2) Yashar's criticism of Aristotelianism and its implications (pp. 49-62), (3) Ali's ten mathematical questions which he submitted to Yashar for their public debate in Cairo (pp. 62-72), (4) the "Grodek affair"-Yashar's unmasking of a father's tricks with his "prophet-child" by which he misled the masses into believing in occultism and superstition (pp. 7273), and (5) an excerpt. from Bosmath on alchemy (pp. 73-74). Aside from section one, which is the major source for Yashar's biography, the importance of this "letter" lies primarily in section two, which summarizes Y ashar' s basic philosophical and scientific views of the Paduan and post-Paduan periods. Whether this letter is actually a reply to the questions of Zeral;i., as suggested by Menasseh ben Israel, or an independent literary piece, cannot be answered with certainty, though internal evidence seems to support the first assumption. Thus, section three is a direct reply to question seven of Zeral;i., 3 four may be a reply to part of question five, 4 and five-to question eight. 5 Section two may also be an indirect reply to some of the major problems regarding the impact of the new astronomy on religion, raised by Zeral;i. in questions nine Ibid., Ibid., a Ibid., 4 Ibid., s Ibid., 1

2

pp. 3-40. p. 40. p. 24. p. 23. pp. 24-25.

98

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

through twelve. 1 On the other hand, a comparison of the questions as formulated by Zeral;i. and as repeated by Metz in his replies, seems to uphold the second view.2 The following nineteen pages are taken up by a letter to Yashar from another Karaite notable of the time, Yoshiyah hen Yehudah of Troki, and Yashar's reply to hims which he named "Ner Elohim." Unlike Zeral;i., Yoshiyah does not display any interest either in mathematics or science, but is mainly concerned with proofs concerning the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In addition, he solicits Yashar's advice with regard to a proper method of study. In his reply, Yashar cites Aristotle's definition of knowledge, differentiating betw~en demonstrative knowledge by syllogism and undemonstrative knowledge, represented by "thought" or "faith." To illustrate this and the varying degrees of ascertainment, he briefly deals with the problems of the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the assumption of the creation of the world versus the assumption of its eternity, and, in a digressive manner, with the relationship between reason and the will, touching also on the problem of freedom of thought. The epistle concludes in a deeply pious mood, condemning as useless philosophical speculations and mathematical and astronomical studies, but praising applied knowledge, notably technology, and asserting Yashar's unqualified devotion to popular, unsophisticated religion. "Ner Elohim" is followed by a letter of Rabbi J;Iayyim Schor of Satanow to Rabbi Mordekhai Katz of Lwow, in which R' J;Iayyim describes in glowing terms and with utmost credulity the miraculous "prophetic" endowments of a child of four and a half from the neighboring town of Grodek. 4 The publication of this letter here, following an earlier description of this affair as a deliberate deception by an impostor of a father, 5 and immediately after the pious conclusion of Yashar's own reply to Yoshiyah, seems not at all accidental, but purposely inserted, to serve as a counter-balance and warning against Ibid., pp. 26-30. Thus, question one in Metz' letter [Elim, p. 48] has no exact parallel in any of ZeraJ.i.'s writings. Also question four, as referred to by Metz [Elim, p. 73], is quite different from question eight in Zera}.l.'s letter to Yashar [ibid., pp. 24-25]. a Elim, pp. 74-93. 4 "itiil"C':i i1:>il'~Ci1 ll~i~.,l j:'"j:'," Elim, pp. 93-95; see also ibid., pp. 23, 72. 6 Ibid., p. 72. 1

2

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

99

the dangers of uncritically accepting popular religion, a mood in which he concluded his "Ner Elohim." Pages 95-104 contain geometrical propositions from the Y esod 'Olam by Isaac Israeli which were inserted by Menasseh ben Israel, and excerpts from a work by Jabbir of Seville copied by Zeral;i. 1 The last item in Elim is a letter by Y ashar to "one of the dignitaries of Judah." 2 Taking up almost five pages, the first part of it is a verbose apology to the anonymous writer for the delayed reply. It is written in cumbersome style, studded with Biblical expressions and phrases in meaningless application. Though it contains numerous allusions to the addressee, nothing is clear regarding his identity. In the second part of that letter, Yashar inserts his translation of the first two Aphorisms of Hippocrates and a commentary on them.a In the third and final part, 4 in answer to the writer's request to enlighten him on some aspects of the occult arts, Yashar informs him that he had already prepared a draft of thirteen treatises in reply to Zeral;i's questions. Yashar bids him be patient till the following winter, when he hopes to rewrite them and give them final form. 3. Ma'ayan Gannim

A. The "Ab,uz Letter" As mentioned, Ma'ayan Gannim consists of four studies. They are preceded by Yashar's letter to Zeral;i which has been called the "Al;iuz" letter.s With the exception of a few gibes at the Cabbalah and some not too flattering remarks on Polish Jews, the letter contains nothing suspicious or radical other than a strong plea to his contemporary coreligionists for a more positive attitude toward secular learning. However, in the late twenties of the past century, a somewhat different version of this letter came to the attention of S. L. Goldenberg of Tarnopol, one of the prominent Galician maskilim. A section of it was published by J. L. Mieses in his Qinath ha-Emeth. 6 Ibid., pp. 95, 96. Ibid., pp. 104-119. a Ibid., pp. 109-116. 4 Ibid., pp. 116-119. s Elim, pp. 126-135. 6 Yehudah Leib Mieses, Se/er Qin'ath ha-Emeth (Wien, 1828), pp. 228-232.

i

2

100

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

In the late thirties, the Karaite "lfakham of Halicz, with the mediation of Goldenberg, made a copy of that letter available to Abraham Geiger, who published the full text of it with scholarly notes and an extensive introduction. 1 A comparison of the truncated text of the "Al;rnz" letter in Elim and the full text of it as published by Geiger, would surpass the confines of this synopsis. Suffice it to say that the differences between the two versions are quite remarkable, not only with regard to Cabbalah, but also the Talmud and other aspects of Jewish literature. The full text of that letter will be used in the subsequent discussion of Yashar's views on the Talmud and the Oabbalah.

B. Sod ha-Yesod The "Sod ha-Yesod" is a mathematical study and formally, at least, written in answer to Zeral;t's first question on the "Solutions of Triangles." It consists of four sections: the first (pp. 135-139) deals with the solution of right angular spherical triangles; the second (pp. 160-190) with "various studies which constitute the propositions concerning all spherical triangles;" 2 the third (pp. 190-205) with the common spherical triangle; and the fourth (pp. 205-213) with plain triangles.

0. Sefer I.Iuqqoth Shamayim This is a work on astronomy, written in reply to Zeral;t's second question, requesting Yashar to explicate the first two books of the Almagest which contain the theory of the first motion. 3 In a brief introduction, Yashar asserts that he had written and commented at length on almost the whole Almagest; but these writings were not yet ready for publication. In the opening ten chapters of the first book he discussed in detail the nature of the universe according to "Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus and their successors." He hopes to return to these studies under more propitious circumstances and to "arrange them for the use of students." He therefore begins the present study with chapter eleven of the first book. 1 See A. Geiger, JYJew Ghofnajim. Geiger, it appears, was unaware of an earlier publication of the full text of that letter by Yi~J.iaq ha-J:Iazzan in Pinnath Yiqrath (Guzlow, 1834). 2 Elim, p. 160. 3 Ibid., p. 221.

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

101

"I.Iuqqoth Shamayim" discusses astronomical problems of both a theoretical and practical nature. It deals with spherical and geographical astronomy, the finding of unknown data on the basis of known ones, the measurement of distances between various points on land and sea, and the instruments used for this purpose. It concludes with a list of geographical coordinates for more than a hundred and twenty localities. D. Sefer Gevuroth ha-Shem The third of Yashar's studies is also on astronomy and in reply to Zeral.i's third question. 1 From a layman's point of view it is the most accessible work. It has very few mathematical computations and deals with basic and general problems of universal astronomy. Alongside the older names of Hyparchos, al-Fargani, Ibn Roschd, Alacin and others, the names of Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo appear with even greater frequency. He explains the older views of the heavens, the reasons for the assumption of epicycles,2 and the modern views which dispose of them. He discusses the theories of Copernicus, and, in connection with them, the belief in spheres, the source of the light of the planets and the fixed stars. In support of the new views, he mentions Galileo's telescopic observations of the phases of Venus and Mars' increased luminosity when closer to earth. The new observations of Brahe, Galileo and Kepler are also added in connection with the question, whether the moon is the only planet between the earth and the sun, or whether there are also other planets circling the sun. 3 Some chapters discuss the dimensions of the sun, the earth, the moon, and other stars, their distance from earth and the methods of measuring it. 4 Beginning with chapter 25 and ending with the final chapter, the discussion centers on methods of measuring distances on earth. He cites various data regarding the circumference of the earth, its diameter, surface, volume and weight.s The quantitative relationship between water and earth is the subject of chapter thirty,a following which the author drifts to wild speculations regarding 1

2 3

4 5 6

Elim, pp. 20-21. p. 311. 299-302. pp. 310, 313. pp. 334-335. p. 336.

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

102

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

the number of drops in all the waters,1 the quantitative relationship among the four elements, 2 the number of dust particles in the earth, 3 and concludes with high praises for Archimedes' technological inventions for weight lifting. 4 E. Ma'ayam J.Iatum The final study in this volume, "Ma'ayan J:Iatum," consists of seventy chapters of varying lengths, each in reply to one of the seventy questions of Zera];t, the so called temarim (palm-trees). Since it is a compilation of replies to so many different questions, the work does not form a continuous whole, but each chapter constitutes a unit in itself. The work is nevertheless impressive both in its scope and variety of subjects. The earlier sections deal mainly with logical and mathematical paradoxes, 5 the subsequent ones with problems of mechanics, physics and astronomy. Some clarify difficulties in Euclid, a and others show tricks with numbers. 7 Chapter 22 explains the reasons for the decimal system, and chapter 23 the differences between the works of man and nature. Chapters 25 and 67 discuss a number of Biblical passages which seem to contradict scientific knowledge, and chapters 31-33 and 39 mechanical problems related to the lever and motion. Following the discussion of scales in chapters 41-43, chapter 44 expounds at length musical theory, and chapter 46 discusses optics. Most of the final chapters deal with practical problems of astronomy. Thus, 49 answers the question "how to find out the day of the week if it is forgotten;" 51, "how to know the time without a time instrument;" and 53, how to establish the geographic location of a land. Chapter 60 discusses comets, and 61 the mountains on the moon. Also chapters 62, 63 and 64 deal with astronomical problems. The other parts of the work are also of interest, but their analysis would require the scrutiny of a professional astronomer or mathematician. Ibid., pp. 336-337. Ibid., pp. 340-341. s Ibid., pp. 342-343. 4 Ibid., pp. 344-348. 5 For instance: "How can the part be larger than the whole?" [ibid., p. 352]; "How can one number have two roots, and two equal numbers different roots?" [ibid., p. 355], etc. 6 Ibid., p. 369. 7 Ibid., pp. 371-372. i

2

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

103

4. Ta'alumoth lfokhmah

A. Synopsis of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, I The title of this volume as it appears on its front page reads: "Various excerpts collected by Rabbi Shmuel Ashkenazi from the major book Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, the composition of which was begun by the excellent and honorable Rabbi Yoseph of Candia, the omniscient scholar whose thoughts wander in heaven and earth, supplemented by sweet essays from the writings of great men ... " 1 and under it in Latin : "Oollectanea decerpta per Magistrum R. Samuelem Germanum ex magno opere Absconditorum Sapientiae, quod quidem exasciauit, nondum tamen undique expoliuit clarissimus, omniscius Joseph del Medico Oretensis." Basel appears as the printing place and the year 1631 as the date. 2 On the reverse side of the page is printed the table of contents, divided into two parts. Under the title of Tomus Primus are cited the following writings : a (1) P. 1, Be~inath h.a-Dath by rabbi and philosopher Eliyahu Delmedigo. (2) P. 9, writing of his disciple, the perfect scholar Rabbi Shaul Cohen, in praise of his master, the above [Eliyahu Delmedigo). (3) P. 1, 4 Sefer Ma§ref la-lfokhmah 5 by Rabbi Yashar, an open rebuttal of the above and a defense of the Cabbalah. (4) P. 37, writings dispatched from Jerusalem in praise of the Ari, i.e., Rabbi Yi~l;i.aq Ashkenazi of blessed memory. (5) P. 48, an event that took place at Safed ... in the days of the above mentioned Ari concerning a woman who became possessed of an evil spirit. 1 il~:>n rii~i':i:Pri ,,,lil i!:lOil~ ,Tl:llZJN ':iNi~IZJ ,!l, :ii;i ~p':i!V C,l,IV c,~ip':i rii~~,IV~ i:i':i rii:i1zm~ !7,~il ,,,:> i:i:ili n:ii1ZJ~il IZJ,Nil yiN:i i:in':i ':in;i i1ZJN ,:iri:i~ C,!l,!7 c,i~N~ i!:loil"!l Cil,,!7, 1 i1N,ilp~ l'JO,, ,!l, :iiil yiN:ii c,~!Z)!l

2

• • • C,':iiil C,!VlN "i'"!:l':i il':iO 1ri:ii:i 1~!7 ':i!7 li1!7iW'il iliil,':i ilN,':i,o:i," cf. infra, p. 109,

n. 1. a The ordinal number preceding each item of the following list has been inserted by this writer; the page numbers are part of the printed text. 4 This item starts new pagination. 5 The Refining Pot for Wisdom, Prov. 17:3.

104

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

(6) P. 51, '"Olam Qatan,"

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

an abridgment of the fourth Ma'amar (Essay) from the 'Asarah Ma'amaroth by Rabbi Menal;iem 'Azariah of Fano. P. 53, an abridgment of '"Olam ha-Tiqqun" 2 by Rabbi Yashar. P. 55, a sermon on "Adam Qadmon" 3 and an abridgment of all the A~iluth that was sent by Rabbi Shimshon from Jerusalem. P. 59, "Sefer Shever Yoseph," 4 by Rabbi Yashar. P. 79, the Cabbalah of Rabbi Yisrael Srug which he received directly from the mouth of the Ari. P. 85, the epistle of Ramban [Nal;imanides] to the rabbis of France regarding the Yad [Code] and the Moreh [Guide] of Maimonides. P. 89, the epistle of the universal scholar, Rabbi Anatoli, to the great Rabbi Maimonides and the latter's reply to him. P. 91, poems by the above Rabbi Anatoli and the ban formula sent by Maimonides to Alexandria against the cohen who married a divorced woman. P. 92, Maimonides' epistle to Rabbi Yonathan and his reply to the sages of Lunel regarding the Y ad. P. 93, Maimonides' epistle to the lands of Yemen entitled "Petal;i Tiqvah" 5 regarding the Messiah. P. 104, Maimonides' M"a'amar Tel;iiyyath ha-Metim." 6 1

The table of contents of Tomus Secundus reads as follows: And these are the items included in the second part : it begins with a foreword to Novloth IJokhmah by Rabbi Shmuel and a letter of complaint by Rabbi Yashar against him. Contained [in the Foreword] is a letter by the pious Rabbi Isaiah Hurwitz [from Jerusalem, to Rabbi Shmuel of Przemsyl] regarding the Cabbalah of the Ari. On page one is folio one of the book Novloth IJokhmah, followed on page two by the beginning of the book Novloth Orah by Rabbi Sh. Folio two of the book Novloth IJokhmah begins on page hundred forty nine and continues to the end. Between pages 164 and 165 the "Lu'aJ:i ha-Malbush" is inserted,7 and the ":i;Ieshbon f;leruf ha-Otiyyoth." B On page 195, which concludes the book [i.e., "Small World" (Microcosmos). "The World of Restoration." Cf. G. Scholem, Major Trends, etc. (1960), VII, 7. 3 "Privaeval Man." See ibid., Index. 4 "The Provision of Joseph," see infra, pp. 246-247 and 334, n. 7. 5 "An Opening of Hope," Hosea 2: 17. 6 "Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead." 7 "Table of the Literal Patterns of the Divine Mantle." Cf. Scholem, op. cit., p. 155. s "Computations of the numerical values of various letter combinations." Scholem, op. cit., p. 133. 1

2

Title page of Ta'alwnoth Jj.okhmah

P R I'M V S·

T 0 M V S

: fJll'I q"I :"lr•,;:i IJ"IID ID,fO ":incl•WfltdlC"\

p~n:a\.,,&,,..,'••iiNDn•itp~ n'?N tc

: ')"1 i:i101.,:in u•.,D"J•i tn•':PN ..,.,;;,~::>'7 n"l:"I 1u•n:i b q, : &,;:i 1::1., nmn &,p ::UONJ nt.,ll ''Mltl -Ii 0•>1on c~nn. ,.,,o.,n :im "I, ·'"-L ' • L ., '.!. : n ~1::ipn J"lo:in., ru:1 .,l,, n?IM!l nn::il\A "IW• "'l"l~tc:r7 r1c::n i:i.,ui tt ... "I, : ' "''· j)Mll:'' •::i."I •u::i~Nn .,~ • ,.,·itr: ,,:i::i ll'"l!iCO ~.,,,,,.,,D ln1~ ~::in:a ,., q, 'l"l:l."lj):J :'I.II., n1., ncJ::>J\1:1 :'llt.'M::l ::i:;nn M!l'lt:I '"" ,.,icn •a•ll n•nlCI :i1t112c tim t'\,· • .!I.I I ., . ' '1 UNSllO }1.-i:"I 1'11"1ElKC •nD i:i "'ICN"" "llJ(p Nini l~P tl I.If NJ q.

ll'"'

:.,I,

.,trJ

• -.,, ~ ::i::i11'1o1..,1.,•c rnvow

lb

•

: ,";;n 1"1'J "'11:1• .., "l':im., rmn:i o.,,'ll -.1sp JJ q,,. ~ L ., • 'J.,.. "\,no::i M?lr.'., "! 'lr~n .,~ .,,rptp111 t.t1,., ~ ., •

:. It.a., .,p• "'"'"o" qo1• .,::ilt' b tll q,·

er

oljr to\tcnD :-rg .,N n~ ])Dlt'tl:I :'llll '!l:i .'ll"ID ,,N"T(t.lt .,.;he J!l.,::!p {u ~ii c::ib.,l'l "'l:lMIP M"\IQ~.,.,~:"I b r.l!t"IJ' •J::i.,., f::ID"\l\.,.IN n"11 tt1 i

.,,-U..,

,,,,,!('>.II

~ l''JIC 11'1::111£11'\I ir o:i&:>"\ :!>"\Pl'" t.'t1tjJM J; .,.,l::l:'1 031"1:"1 1:1.,JN t:)m I:\.,. . :llC•"liJo3">K., 0::16.,n· n.,ic.tld o"\nn no1J a11:11 i,j., ,.,,~ .;., a•.,•IQ N':r i:i"

°'SJ

,..,~" o.,ii "J•J,., •o:in., ,.111::inurn tnJ1• '!l., ~.,:i., o5o., n.,...., ::i":r q-i K':l l'l'lt'tl>:'I llll ;npn nna pl:i JD•n t\ll:'"llt., O!lu.,:i ,,., ... IC q, :t,l c::ib.,., crnc:i n"nn .,!:)Ma -ip '\;" ; :'11:11"1.'I tts,!Jlt.' 1:'1>1'1

~(CK

1H

.t

TOMVS

f

!1

till

~¥

t'

'

SECVNDVS..

• •. • •Jlt'M• j'"'.''!il!l ~,.,:ii.., O•"l~"l:"I :1,lft ::t'"J1 .,ii, .,.,:it> n1.n.,nn"\J11tl nc:>n T-1..,:lU b4' "'Lla:i ~ 3.,:-ib,p:'I t(•n c:ilC.'N"1~· 1\::> .,., 1 -i'1ot:'l l'l.,.,p ~JI'"" "10 n;1111• .,Cin1a "l•cnl"l one n.,!P1C7 ::in:i cu:r1 ~ p;l"IC., rnuc 1"11.,:::1" Ci ''Ml"ID 5 ,, !!>Jl:l ow':l1 :'lm:in n1..,:u ic ;'I'S! e't l:)"O

co

cbp

:•.,•c.1 .,, rrn::in ,.,,.,::i,.bm':i l"l"JV !'}•nnr: 1:1"1;? ~ n1•n11t:i Ill'.,~ ll!l!Pl'll 1'11:1.,[)n Ml., f'IJID Mt p i:ii" "ID'D q., 1•3· : l'l.,:ll')MM::>n::i 'i:i.1n::i:i.l"IDl'IJM 9.,ll~"l fM:>r·rm qunn:ie7 nip l)'"O ·11:r.,J..,1:"!f:l111w.a C"\'Jn1•J"l1M:-rf'JD1 r•~1:r.,!l:"1Y ,.,,o.,,11n r.u:in., nu101"1 bn i:i•o!l : :11 n::i .,90 N"lp,.a:i \=,:J ,,.,..,ul"I t•iwnun 1'1:l.,~!l

.,a,. .,.,.hzl.,

J"omus Tcnius & ~arrus nondumimprert"l.

'.

Table of contents of Ta'alumoth J;Iok hmah

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

105

Novloth Ifokhmah], a list of Cabbalistic writings is presented. Appended at the end are also tables for the comprehension of the 'worlds' and the 'configurations,' the count of the letters by Sa'adyah Gaon, and the meaning of the mantle and its awesome letters [as explained] by Rabbi Yashar in 'Ko'aJ.i Ha-Shem.' 1

The last line at the bottom of the page has the following words : "Tomus tertius et quartus nondum impressi." 2 Part one of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, which contains about 240 densely printed pages, is a collection of heterogeneous writings by various authors. At first reading, it seems predominantly Oabbalistic in character. Items three to ten apparently defend, glorify or describe Jewish mysticism, especially the new trends that emanated from Safed and which came to be known as the Lurianic Oabbalah. However, a further examination of these writings leads us to a more qualified view of their character. The nature of Ma~ref, the longest work in the collection and Yashar's only original work, is questionable. Nor is it altogether certain whether items four and five, dealing with a possessed woman and the exorcising powers of the Safed Oabbalists, were meant to be understood in terms of laudatory literature. The first piece in the collection is Be~inath ha-Dath by Eliyahu Delmedigo of the second half of the fifteenth century. It was composed in 1491 3 on the request of Eliyahu's disciple, Shaul Cohen Ashkenazi, who appended to it his own remarks and his praises for its author. 4 It represents a moderate statement of views regarding the relationship between reason and faith. Though Eliyahu displays great admiration for Maimonides, he warns against too sweeping an application of his rationalist approach. He finds nothing prohibitive in speculations regarding the essence of God and His attributes. Such speculations, he thinks, are inadmissible, however, with regard to other aspects of Judaism, such as prophecy, miracles, the belief in reward and punishment and other fundamentals. Reason and faith, he feels, must be kept apart, and it would be utterly wrong to apply a rationalist yardstick in deciding what is valid or invalid in religion. In justification

1 ti~u O"ii, ni•mN:i rl~i l'Eli:lti!:mi m~i,i:im l"ll::mi, l"lili~l"l i!:lCl:"I l'JiO:i ·':'I n::i i!:lo Nipl:i ""il i"1tr i"i:i~i, mNiil:i i•m•niNi wi:ii,~:i :i:ltim i:i~i

"Parts three and four are not yet printed." Cf. infra, p. 116 and p. 332, n. 4. At the end of it Eliyahu noted : I named this essay Examen Religionis and I completed it 18 days in Teveth of the year 5251" (ar. January, 1491). Cf. Isaac Samuel Reggio, ed., Bel}inath ha-Dath (Wien, 1833). p. 79. 4 "Sefer BeJ.iinath ha-Dath" in 'l'a'alumoth IJokhmah, part I, pp. 9-10. 2

3

106

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

of Maimonides, he points out that his rationalism must not be taken too seriously, but rather interpreted as an attempt "to show the validity of the Torah even according to the ways of the philosophers." i We mention this aspect of Be~inath ha-Dath here in the belief that this double-truth approach was also embraced by Yashar, and may have been one of the reasons for his publication of the work in the first place. Officially, Yashar's interest in the work had an entirely different reason-Eliyahu's criticism of the Cabbalists and their literature, notably the Zohar. It was allegedly for the sake of refuting this criticism that Yashar published both the Be~inath ha-Dath and his own Mat}ref la-lfokhmah. However, this reason is open to doubt, in view of the fact that the MatJref contains numerous passages which betray a sharp criticism of the Cabbalah, rather than a defense of it. The following writings in Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, up to item ten (pp. 37-84), all belong to the early products of the Lurianic Cabbalah which, beginning with the last decade of the sixteenth century, started to spread from Safed and Jerusalem and to reach the Jewish communities of Italy, Poland, Turkey and Holland. Most interesting among these writings are the letters of Shlomel of Lotenburg, Moravia, who, inspired by the admiration of 'Azariah Fano for the new Lurianic teachings, 2 left his family and in 1602 "went up" to Eretz Israel and settled at Safed. There he married the daughter of Israel Brug and received a rich collection of Cabbalistic manuscripts. His three letters of the years 1606, 1607 and 1608, printed for the first time in Yashar's collection, constitute an important source for the study of Safed mysticism and its milieu at the close of the sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth centuries. Though permeated with elements of legend and superstition, these letters contain poignant observations and valid information regarding the time and some of its outstanding personalities and spiritual trends. Item five belongs to the same genre of laudatory literature with its story of the woman possessed by an evil spirit which was exorcised by I:layyim Calabresi, the famous disciple of the Ari.a Items six to ten deal with various aspects of the Lurianic ha-Dath (Reggio ed.), p. 21. Cf. "Haqdamath ha-Mel;labber, Petil;lah," Sefer Pa'arrwn ve-Rimmon ... 'Asis Rimmonim v'Sefer Pela~ ha-Rimmon (Amsterdam, 1708). a "Kitvei Sheval;l Yeqar u-Gedulath ha-Ari," Ta'alurrwth IJokhmah, I, pp. 49-50; cf. also G. Scholem "A Document by the Disciples of Isaac Luria" (Hebrew), Zion V (Jerusalem, 1939-1940), p. 143. 1 Be~inath

2

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

107

Cabbalah as interpreted by Israel Srug and his disciple from Italy, 'Azariah Fano. Number six, "'Olam Qatan," is an abbreviated extract from Fano's 'Asarah Ma'amaroth, printed here for the first time.1 Number seven by Yashar, "Qi1?1?ur 'Olam ha-Tiqqun," 2 is a brief summary of the basic concepts of the Ari's mythology, demonstrating Yashar's mastery of the intricacies of this system. The following seven pages are described as a "highly condensed" version of "Seder A1?iluth," which was sent from Jerusalem by Shimshon Bachi, expounding the teachings of the Ari, with a commentary by "one of the great ones." 3 Number nine, one of the more extensive pieces in the collection, is "Shever Yoseph" (pp. 59- 77), which deals with the symbolism of the alphabet and its combined patterns which form the "divine cloak." We shall return to this piece in a subsequent part of this study. 4 The final item in this part of Ta'alumoth is "The Cabbalah of the divine Rabbi Srug which he received directly from the mouth of Rabbi Yi1?l;i.aq Ashkenazi, of blessed memory." 5 Regarding this, Scholem remarks : "It is quite possible that it was actually written by Srug himself, and one of his disciples added the concluding words : 'up to here is what I found and the same I also heard orally' !" This disciple, Scholem believes, is no other than 'Azariah Fano who is also the author of the page that follows in the printed manuscript. 6 In conclusion, as far, as this collection of Oabbalistica is concerned, with the exception of Ma~ref, all of it, including those writings which bear Yashar's name as author, are only copies and compilations and not original works. The concluding part of Ta'alumoth I, articles number eleven to sixteen, form a separate group.7 If the previous group may be described as "Lurianica,'' this group may be named "Maimonidiana." Item Cf. Ben Ya'acov. O§ar ha-Sefarim, letter '"ayin," nos. 640-643. Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah, pp. 53b-55a. 3 Ibid., p. 55a. According to Scholem, Shimshon was never a disciple of the Ari himself, but of the Ari's disciple, Yoseph Ibn Tabul. He arrived in Eretz Yisrael in 1579. In 1584 he moved to Jerusalem, where he came into the possession of this manuscript which he sent the next year to Italy. Scholem believes that the notes on it "were undoubtedly written by Rabbi Menal}.em 'Azariah Fano." Cf. Zion, V, pp. 150, 155-156, 158. 4 See below, pp. 246-247. 5 'Tl:::ltvN pn::t• i"in~~ nD ':iN nD ':i:lp!ll liio ':iNitv• ,, •n':iNn :iin n':i:ip" "':i"::tt, Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah, I, pp. 77b-84. 6 Cf. G. Scholem, "Israel Sarug-Disciple of Luria?" Zion, V, pp. 226-227. 7 Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, I, pp. 85-110. 1

2

108

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

eleven is Nal;tmanides' dignified and powerful defense of Maimonides'

Guide and the first part of the Yad [Code]. The French rabbis placed

a ban (printed here for the first time) against these works.1 In his defense, Nal;tmanides expresses his great admiration not only for the Y ad but also for Maimonides' philosophical writings. He points out that in writing them, Maimonides was motivated by a desire to combat the "undermining effects of 'Greek Wisdom,' and he succeeded in fortifying the shaken faith of many rationalists and students of secular learning" by his writings. The following item, the Epistle of Anatoli, is also full of the highest praises for Maimonides. "The glory of the generation" Anatoli calls Maimonides, and wishes he were "like one of Maimonides' servants." 2 The most important other writings in this group are those of Maimonides himself, the "Epistle to Yemen," 3 printed here for the first time, and the "Treatise concerning the Resurrection of the Dead,'' 4 written in reply to his critics, notably Abraham lbn Daud and Shmuel hen 'Ali of Bagdad. Whether the juxtaposition of Lurianica and Maimonidiana in this collection is incidental or deliberate cannot be answered with certainty. However, even the unsophisticated reader cannot fail to notice the polarity in views, attitudes and exposition represented by these two groups of writings. Comparing any of the unintelligible specimens from the Lurianic literature with any of the writings of Maimonides is enough to demonstrate the deep chasm between the two. This is also true of the laudatory literature of both groups. Whether Yashar intended the beautiful epistle of Na};tmanides, for instance, to counterbalance the primitive epistles of Shlomel about the Ari is, of course, nowhere stated explicitly; such an intention, however, seems implicit in the presented material. B. Synopsis of Ta'alumoth IJokhmah, II The title of Novloth IJokhmah in the second part of Ta'alumoth IJokhmah reads: The Book of "Novloth I;Iokhmah", which contains 36 folios, teaches man knowledge and discretion ... It discusses great things regarding the World of tohu according to 1 2

3

4

"Iggereth ha-Ramban l'Hitna~luth Sefer ha-Moreh," ibid., pp. 85-89. "Ha-Ketav she-shala]f R' Anatoli l'Rabbenu Moshe," ibid., pp. 89b-91. "Iggereth Teiman ha-Niqreth Peta]f Tiqvah,'' ibid., pp. 93a-104a. "Ma'amar Te]fiyyath ha-Metim," ibid., pp. 104a-110.

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

109

the way of the pious Rabbi Ashkenazi of blessed memory; and the book "Novloth Orah" ... which contains precious inquires ... gleaned from various books of ... the divine Rabbi Yoseph of Candia and commented on by the accomplished universal scholar, the princely ... Rabbi Shmuel hen Y ehudah Leib Ashkenazi ... Printed at Basel, in the year "Yeshu'ah" (1631).1

1. The "Foreword" The work is preceded by a "Foreword" of 16 pages, allegedly written by the editor, Shmuel Ashkenazi, which is extremely important in relation to the problem of the authorship and character of the work. We shall deal with it here only briefly and return to it subsequently. Askhenazi relates that after Yashar gave him some of his writings, he decided to publish them without first informing Yashar of his decision. He was afraid, he writes, that if informed in advance, Yashar might object; but when confronted with a fait accompli, he would reconcile himself to it and even be pleased. However, one of the workers in the printing house left after an argument, taking with him some of the printed materials. He brought them to Y ashar and maliciously accused Shmuel of scheming to gain honors for himself through their publication. Aroused by such rumors, Yashar wrote Shmuel a long and bitter letter of denunciation 1 castigating him for misusing his trust and confidence. In that letter, which Shmuel inserted as part of the "Foreword," Yashar admits that he gave Shmuel some of his writings, but only for his personal use and not for publication. He shares the view of the sages of Eretz Israel, who object to the publication of this kind of literature, especially the teachings of the Ari. Should these writings accidentally fall into the hands of those unversed in the secret lore, they may become a stumbling block and cause more evil than good. Furthermore, he is deeply disturbed by the disorder and confusion of the presented material. Shmuel indiscriminately put together secular and Cabbalistic lore. He is afraisd he may be accused 1 nl;l:m ;1"1;lN 1·1~:> ci•l;l:i: i:ii 'il~·T~i n:s:1 ci1Nl;l 1~i,~il il~:>n ml;l:ii1 "IE:IO "1""1il~:> 1•onil :J"lil 1i1 •E:il;l 1ill'lil cil;li:s: nil;ll;l:i:i i:i i:i1~ ni1:i:>1 ·il•l;l:i: ·n~!Zl~ Cl'"IP' Cl'!Zli"11 i:i "1!Z!N 'N"liill N"l!Zl il~:S: il"liN ml;l:iil "1E:IOi .i,"T 'Tl:l!Z!N "l!Zlil l;ll;li:>il Cll;l!Zlil Cl:>nil "1N:Ji ppi l']ON "1!Z!N •il"11N ill'l'il Cl'1iil•l;l Clil~i :;il;l Cl'"IE:IO 1in~ '""1l 'Tl:l!Z!N :;i•l;l il1iil' "1""1il:>:J l;lNi~!Zl "1""1i11~:> l;lN'1l~ l']il;lN OE:11l 'N"T' ilN'1lp~ rioi• ':l"1 ilii~ 1i:i:> 'ili,Nil l;ll;li:>il :J"lil il"il "1:Jn!Z1 Cl'li!Zl

•Cl'P'1:!!: •l;lilN:J il:S:itzl•i ill"1 !;lip nl!Zl 'ilN•l;l•oN:J:J "ill"1 !;lip" equals 391, and so does "il:S:itzl•"; the year would thus be 1631. See supra,

p. 103 n. 2.

110

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

of deliberately using this stratagem in order to spread dangerous, alien views. Moreover, the materials Shmuel included are actually notes which Y ashar jotted down on various occasions. He had been in the habit of doing this in order to remember his thoughts, and intended to return to them when he could elaborate on their style and content. In their present form, they are like unripe fruits and not printworthy. He was also displeased by. Shmuel's long digressions and his extended quotations from "ancient" sources like Maimonides' Guide. In view of all this, he pleaded with Shmuel to discontinue the printing. Moreover, "if I have grace in your eyes, erase my name from your book ... and if this is impossible, let the book bear your name on the front page and in its opening ... " When this letter allegedly reached Shmuel, he had already completed the printing of a hundred and forty eight folios of this part. "In consequence of the author's rebuke and reprimand," he "was forced to interrupt." Replying to Yashar's accusation, that he published these writings for the sake of self aggrandizement, he openly declares : I never was in Padua or in any other philosophical academy. My sole occupation since my youth was Talmud, poseqim and midrashim. The very little philosophy which I acquired, I have drawn from Hebrew translations ... As I already pointed out in the preface to MWJref la-Qokhmah, all I am printing in this work is stolen by me from the unpublished works of this sage ... Since the bulk of this book is taken from another work by this author, on Creation, called The Light of the Seven Days [of Creation] ... 1 I named it "Novloth Orah," and because of the small size of "Novloth J;Iokhmah" I decided to publish it together with it. 2

Shmuel also complied with another request of Yashar : he put his name on the front page of the printed work as editor and publisher of the material, and, in addition, claimed an even greater share for himself in the composition of "Novloth Orah." In the table of contents for the second part of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, the "Novloth Orah" is listed as the work of "Rabbi Sh." "Sh," however, may be the initial of either Shmuel or Yashar's first name Shlomo. Thus, he intentionally left the question of its authorship in doubt. Before attempting to solve this important question, we must first proceed with a brief synopsis of the second part of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, the "Novloth ij:okhmah." Such a synopsis may be beneficial, Q•;>.)•l"! ?'\37 :l!V ,,~ "Novloth I;Iokhmah," Ta'alumoth IJokhmah, II, p. 148b.

1 •

2

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

Ill

in view of the highly confused exposition and the wide range of metaphysical problems touched upon in this work. Though this whole part bears the comprehensive title of "Novloth :i;Iokhmah," it actually consists-according to its detailed title-of two works, "Novloth :i;Iokhmah", containing about fifty pages of Cabbalistic character, and-sandwiched between-"Novloth Orah," containing close to a hundred and fifty pages, predominantly of a philosophical character. The work starts with folio one of "Novloth :i;Iokhmah" (p. 1), following which the entire "Novloth Orah" is inserted (pp. lb-148), supposedly as a commentary on it. This work is brought to an abrupt end and "Novloth :i;Iokhmah" is resumed with its thirty-six folios taking up almost the remainder of this part of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah (top. 195). The last ten pages (to 206) consist of several Cabbalistic pamphlets, the most challenging of which is "Ko'al;t Ha-Shem." 2. "Novloth Orah" in Novloth lfokhmah, pp. lb-148 In most general terms, Novloth may be divided into two almost equal parts, with page 79 as the divider between them. Both parts share a similar structure, though they deal with somewhat different subject matter. The opening part in both is rationalist, or, more specifically Aristotelian-Maimonidean. Its failure leads to Platonism and mysticism, whicn degenerates, in the concluding parts, to spiritualism and occultism. Central to the first part is the problem of creatio ex nihilo, the hyle, form, and the substance of the heavens, for the "solution" of which long deliberations on light are introduced. They culminate in the Lurianic myth of Creation. Central to the second part is the problem of creation versus eternity, secondary causes and providence. We may now proceed with a more detailed description of the work.

Pages 1-7. Novloth opens with a page-long passage on God and the Creation. Apparently the philosophical-mystical interpretation is a deliberate forecasting of the nature of the whole work combining philosophical and mystical speculations. On the reverse side of the first page the "commentator" or "annotator" appears for the first time, accompanying the author throughout' most of the book, commenting on his views or expressing his own opinion. The difficulty in determining the authorship and views of that work is thus compounded. The discussion touches on Plato's view of creation

112

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

and alludes to the Lurianic "breaking of the vessels." The author is critical of Sa'adyah, Maimonides and Abravanel for upholding the belief in creatio ex nihilo; but he suggests that a solution to this problem may be found in the Lurianic cosmogony. Pages 8-16 discuss light: its essence, the relationship between it and its source, the medium of its transmission, and whether its propagation is instantaneous or in time. Many scholarly views are cited, both ancient and medieval, Jewish and not-Jewish. The naturalist approach to the subject of light in these pages is complemented by a philosophical approach in a subsequent section of the work. Pages 16-23 treat of the theory of knowledge in its Aristotelian as well as Platonic conceptions, and the role of light in it. Pages 24-40 again discuss light, in the framework of the Biblical story of creation. The author cites the deliberations of the Midrash and of many scholars, both Jewish and not-Jewish. He dwells at length on the view of Rashi as interpreted by Eliyahu Mizral;ti. He emphasizes the eternity of light and infers from it the eternity of the universe. In support of such views, he cites the Lurianic Torath ha-$imsum [theory of God's contraction], which conceives of God in terms of light and of creation as the result of the "lingering effects of the divine light after God's withdrawal." Pages 40-71 cover a wide range of metaphysical problems, such as primaeval matter [hyle]-as interpreted by both Plato and Aristotlethe substance of the heavenly bodies, and many others. Central in these pages are the cosmogonic teachings of the Ari, in which Y ashar discovers a clue to the philosophical problem of matter and form. Pages 71-79 discuss the human soul, first in its Aristotelian conception as man's form, and subsequently in its Platonic-Cabbalist conception as a divine entity from above. The discussion winds up in a great array of quotations from many sources concerning angels, demons and spirits, metempsychosis and resurection, implying that once the naturalist approach is abandoned the door is wide open to superstition and occultism. Pages 80-93 deliberate the antinomy of creation versus eternity. On behalf of creation the author cites Maimonides and Aquinas. On behalf of eternity-Plato, Aristotle and Proclus. He concludes by citing the views of R' Nissim and R' Crescas, according to whom

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

113

creation is not to be considered a cardinal tenet of Judaism and its rejection in favor of eternity does not endanger "the Torah as a whole." Y ashar points out, however, that such a view is rejected by both Maimonides and Abravanel. Pages 94-112 turn to the ethically and religiously critical problem of divine providence. A variety of views is presented : those of Democritus and Epicurus who reject providence altogether, those of Aristotle and Ibn Roschd who confine it to the "eternals," i.e., the celestial spheres and the sublunar species, and that of Maimonides who extends providence to human individuals. In support of a total providence, i.e., a permanent dependence of all creation on God, the author cites Avicebron [Gabirol], Plato and his disciples, as well as the Cabbalists, though indicating the many difficulties inherent in such a view. He finally cites Maimonides' discussion of the subject in the Guide and dwells at length on the interpretation of Maimonides by his "radical" commentators. Pages 113-125 retreat from the rationalist point of view, expounding the Neoplatonic and Cabbalist theory of emanation [a§iluth]. Yashar rejects the Cabbalistic notion of a§iluth in terms of a first stage in the actualisation or externalisation of God's will, but conceives of it as the conceptual inwardness of the universe in the divine mind. Pages 125-148, which conclude "Novloth Orah," deal with the notion of man as microcosm. Though the author also includes the views of Maimonides and Ibn Ezra, the section is predominantly Cabbalistic, expounding the mystical theory of man as microcosm and the related tenet of man's impact on the heavenly hierarchy. 3. "Novloth ij:okhmah," p. 149-197, "Ko'al;t ha-Shem," pp. 198-206 As indicated, 1 this section is a continuation of folio one at the beginning of part II of Ta'alumoth. Contrary to the bulk of the preceding "Novloth Orah," this part is purely Cabbalistic, or, more specifically, Lurianic. Indeed, together with the above mentioned Cabbalistic manuscripts of part I, it belongs to the early publications of the new Cabbalah outside the Palestinian center. It is also unique in its almost total lack of critical comments, abundant in the former sections. The mystical teachings are presented here in their original terminilogy, entirely unelaborated. Whatever comments one may find here, they are not of a critical nature, but rather seem to be the 1

Supra, p. 104.

114

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

com.m.ent of the com.m.itted follower, attempting to elucidate the subjects under discussion. It would be both futile and presumptuous on our part to attempt a sum.m.ary of this section. It abounds in arbitrary entities, symbols and images, in an attempt to describe the complicated processes and the intricate systems of relationships which emerged as a result of creation. As the reading progresses the complexity grows, and one cannot escape the feeling of being confronted with a most sophisticated piece of design and structure, devoid, however, of anything that m.ay edify one spiritually. Central in these texts is the primaeval cosmic dram.a of creation, depicted in terms of the contraction of divine essence and the withdrawal of divine light, the emergence of "dots" and multiple letter combinations which resulted in God's "cloak" [malbush]. The texts also dwell at length on the sephiroth, viewed as receptacles of the divine creative abundance. Their failure to contain that abundance resulted in the 'breaking of the vessels," the emergence of the "four worlds" and the forces of evil. Passages from. the Bible and the Midrash are interpreted so that they bear directly on these cosmic events. In conclusion, Ashkenazi states : As I have indicated in my foreword to M(J,f!ref l,a-!Jokhmah, it was my intention to append to this work some of the master's pamphlets on Primaeval Man, the dots and the restoration of the Short and Long Tempered and other writings of his which are in my possession. However, what can I do, in face of his prohibition to print them. He promised me, however, that he will send them to me after he will correct and purge them ... Should I ever be privileged to obtain these writings, I shall print them as part three of this book and name it Novloth Binah (Leaves of Understanding).1

Following this, Ashkenazi lists close to a hundred titles of Cabbalistica, both printed books and manuscripts, which he claims he has received from. Yashar. He is ready to print the material, he writes, if someone would share half the expense. 2 The pamphlet "Ko'a};t ha-Shem." ("Might of God"), printed at the end of the Novloth volume (pp. 198-206), constitutes a unit in itself which in many ways is different from. the major part of the work. Though it also deals with the subject of the Hebrew language in its mystical conception and application, the author's attitude here is 1 2

Novloth !Jokhmah, pp. 194-195.

Ibid., p. 195a.

YASHAR'S PRINTED WORKS

115

obviously different from that in the earlier parts; he acts as an outsider attempting to explain the subject in rational terms and also to express his own views on it. The work has relatively few quotations, and its exposition is both logical and easy. The author still refers to fimfum and the motions of the letters in their primaeval heavenly hierarchies; however, he presents these notions rationally and critically.1 l

See infra, pp. 292-296.

CHAPTER SEVEN

PROBLEM OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF NOVLOTH IJOKHMAH More than a century ago, the scholarly Shneour [Senior] Sachs (1816-1892) expressed the opinion that there never was a Shmuel Ashkenazi, and that the whole collection [of Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah] was the handiwork of Yashar alone. He wrote everything, beginning with M04ref and ending with Novloth. He alone also had it printed, he and no disciple, he and no one else.l

In support of his conclusion, Sachs cited an excerpt from Yashar's earlier mentioned letter to Shmuel in which he reprimands Shmuel for the publication. The excerpt reads : Said Solomon, 'I wisdom dwell with prudence.' 2 Indeed, no sooner does one study Torah, than one acquires a crafty attitude with regard to everything. A righteous and wise man ought [however] to keep his eyes and ears open; he must learn from the mouth of the wise to subtly keep a secret and guard his hidden thoughts; he must listen and keep silent.a

Sachs saw in the words "Solomon," "righteous" (yashar) and "craftiness" ('ormah) allusions to Yashar himself and to his subtle stratagem of hiding behind a fictitious Shmuel. 4 He found additional proof for his view in the words "Tomus tertius et quartus nondum impressi," inserted at the end of the table of contents of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah. 0 By these words, he argued, Yashar was alluding to Elim and Ma'ayan Gannim which were being printed simultaneously with Ta'alumoth. "He wanted to draw the attention of readers and prospective buyers to the beauty of his works and also to allude to his subtlety." Sachs reasoned that, were this line, which 1 Shneour (Senior) Sachs, "I;Ievel l'hamith u-l'ha!;iayoth," Ha-Meli~, I (Odessa, 1860-1861), pp. 436-437. 2 Prov. 8:12. 3 i:i Ol:ll :iiiri CiN i~l;l!Z.' 7i•::>!D ,;i~i:P 'lil:l!Z.' :i~::>n 'lN : :i~l;lw ,~Ni" ii~i,i, 1i'lTN :i•wp:il;li i•3•:p nip£)1;l c::>ni iizr !Z.''N 1iii 1i:ii l;l::i l;l!Z.' rii·~i~i:P ,;,,,~iii l:"~!Z.'~ 1i•li£):lt~ i~!Z.'l;l iiO c•i:p•i i•li:ll '£)~ "Haqdamah," Nodoth Ifokhmah, p. 2. 4 Ha-Meli~, I, pp. 448-450. s See supra, p. 105.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF NOVLOTH J;IOKHMAH

117

mentions parts three and four of Yashar's works, written by Shmuel, it would contradict Shmuel's own statement to the effect that he hoped one day to publish an additional third part of Novloth lfokhmah under the title "Novloth Binah." 1 Sachs also pointed out the "intentional ambiguity" of the initial "Sh," listed in the table of contents of Ta'alumoth II as the author of "Novloth Orah." He thought it was a deliberate allusion to either Shmuel (Ashkenazi) or Shlomo, one of Yashar's names. Sachs also considered it false to attribute the poem of praise in honor of Yashar, at the end of the introduction to Mal}ref, to "one of the author's disciples." In his view, Yashar wrote it in his own praise, as the acrostic of his name indicates. Were it written by a disciple, "why did he hide his own name?" 2 Finally, Sachs relates that he made inquiries regarding the identity of Shmuel Ashkenazi among many bibliographers and historians of his time, Zunz, Steinscheneider, Geiger, Jost and Nathanson, but nobody knew anything about him except for the references to him in this collection. 3 On the other hand, Ashkenazi's actual existence was defended by a contemporary of Sachs with the pen name "vehu-vehu." 4 However, his identifying Ashkenazi with "Shmuel hen Yehudah" who, in 1677 corresponded with the Cab balist Moshe Zacut, 5 is hardly acceptable. 6 Though lacking any extraneous corroborating evidence and the arguments of Sachs notwithstanding, we believe that a case can be made on behalf of Ashkenazi's existence. In support of it, one basic fact must be remembered, namely, that his name appears scores of times throughout Ta'alumoth lfokhmah. It is integrally woven into See supra, p. 114 and n. 4, p. 332. I, p. 450. a Ibid., ibid.; see also J.M. Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Sekten, Band III (Leipzig, 1859), p. 248, n. 1. 4 "Vehu Vehu" (pseudonym for Matityahu Strashun), "Ma'amar 'al devar ha-Rav R' Shmuel ben R' Yehudah Ashkenazi asher hidpis et Sifrei Rabbo, ha-Rav Yashar mi-Candia," Ha-Carmel (weekly), I (Wilno, 1860-1861), pp. 376, 385, 396-397. 5 Ibid., p. 395; cf. I ggroth Ramaz (Livorno, 1785), p. 42a. 6 In his letter of rebuke to Shmuel, Y ashar writes inter alia : I said, days should speak and multitude of years should teach wisdom [Job, 32:7]. And though on birth man is like a wild colt [Job 11:12], he becomes wise if he lives long enough. But you have grown old and gray ... "Haqdamah," Novloth, p. 2. By the year 1630 Shmuel was thus "old and grey." It is most improbable that in 1677, almost fifty years later, he would still be alive and the recipient of Zacut's writing. 1

2 Ha-Meli~,

118

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

almost every part of it, as expositor, paraphraser, annotator and editor. It would have required a tremendous amount of concentrated cunning on the part of Yashar to integrate so naturally a fictitious Shmuel in so many roles, in a volume of close to four hundred and fifty densely printed pages (not including the first part in which his name also frequently occurs). Moreover, assuming that he is fictitious, the only purpose one can ascribe to Y ashar for inventing him would be to hide his own radical views, by making Shmuel the mouthpiece for those opinions which Yashar might not have dared to express. However, an analysis of Novloth J;Iokhmah shows that, with the exception of a gibe at the Talmudists for the narrowness of their outlook,1 Shmuel attributes all other views-some of which are quite extreme-to Y ashar himself. Assuming that he is a real person, there is very little concrete information one can give about him except, perhaps, that he was a native of Crete, and he moved to the North. 2 He received a thorough, though one-sided, Jewish education, in which the study of the Talmud was the major pursuit. At a mature age he discovered, through Hebrew translations, medieval science and philosophy, a discovery which had a sobering effect on him, lessening his zeal for his earlier studies. 3 From his words that he came [to Amsterdam] to see Yashar and left behind his "little flock," it may be inferred that he was either a teacher, a preacher, or a rabbi. 4 As far as Shmuel's share in Ta'alumoth J;Iokhmah is concerned, this is problematic only with regard to Novloth J;Iokhmah. Even taking his words at their face value, he was, at the most, only the publisher of the first part of Ta'alumoth which contained the BeMnath ha-Dath, the Ma~ref and the two groups of Lurianica and Maimonidiana. Moreover, notwithstanding an impression to the contrary, it is almost certain that the selection of the materials for this part was also made by Yashar and not by ShmueI.s Novloth, p. 17a. In his "Foreword" to Mal}ref, Shmuel highly praises Yashar's erudition. He writes inter alia : "I did not believe the stories that were circulating about him in my country when he still was a youth." These words clearly point to Crete as Shmuel's native land. As pointed out earlier, the surname "Ashkenazi" was rather common among the Jews of Candia. See supra, pp. 11-12, notes 4,5. a Novloth, pp. 17, 148b. 4 "Haqdamath ha-Magihah," Mal}ref (1864), p. 6. s Enumerating the manuscripts which he found in Yashar's possession, Shmuel points out that he was especially attracted by "a large group of pamphlets which 1

2

THE AUTHORSHIP OF NOVLOTH JilOKHMAH

119

His role was again that of publisher alone with regard to "N ovloth lfokmah" proper. The text contains only a few notes which Shmuel says he authored. 1 He claims a greater share for himself in the composition of the last pamphlet of the volume, "Ko'a:Q_ Ha-Shem." He admits, of course, that most of it is Yashar's; however: "I have added a little bit of my own ... I have composed it at the request of one of my friends. In one night I both conceived and bore it." 2 More complicated appears the problem of the authorship of the so-called "Novloth Orah." As seen earlier (pp. 109ff.), it was mainly the publication of this part that allegedly aroused the anger ofYashar. A specific reason for this anger were the extensive commentaries of Shmuel: What I have handed over to you of the teachings of the Ari was only a small thing and a short composition which I compiled from pamphlets that were sent over from there; but your commentaries and explanations in "Novloth Orah" are longer and wider than the ocean. It was not necessary, therefore, to call the whole book Novloth lfokhmah. Shamelessly you attached your chariot behind mine, and, whatever the consequence, it will be to my detriment. Should anything good be found in it, you will be credited for it, but for the bad-I shall be blamed.a

It appears that there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the above : that the "commentaries and explanations" of "Novloth Orah" are all from the pen of Shmuel, a conclusion which also is seemingly supported by the ti~le page of the printed volume. However, this conclusion is refuted by both Yashar and Shmuel. In the continuation of that letter, Yashar writes to Shmuel : Judge for yourself, is it conceivable that all I have written in my youth, in the days of my vanity and wanderings, all the crazy and nonsensical notions that came to my mind, should all be joined together, fragment unto fragment, to form one composition?

But, what did Shmuel do 1 "You collected them all in your bag under the title 'Novloth Orah'." Also Shmuel admits that his role with regard to "Novloth Orah" is that of collector alone. Responding to Yashar's allegation that he wanted to "clothe himself in someone [Yashar] had labeled Ta'alumoth lfokhmah." After much pleading, Yashar consented to give him this collection. It is thus obvious that Yashar is responsible for both the name and most likely also the contents of the collection. See p. 332, n. 4. 1 They arc usually introduced by the words "Shmuel said;" cf. Novloth, pp. 188, 19la, 194b, 195. 2 Novloth, p. 20la. 3 "Haqdamah," Novloth, p. 6a.

120

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES

else's apparel," he declares definitely that all he has printed in this work has been drawn from pamphlets which came into his possession "and which constitute a first draft of a work by this sage. Yashar obviously had a low opinion of many of them which he indicated by striking them out with his pen." 1 The result is clear: all the material printed in Novloth lfokhmah, including the "Novloth Orah," is from the pen of Yashar and of no one else. The most that can be attributed to Shmuel is the organization of the material, or, more specifically, the juxtaposition of Cabbalah and philosophy. Perhaps one may take Yashar's word and attribute to Shmuel the long quotations from secular works for which Yashar blames him. However, even this is doubtful. Having defended the thesis of Shmuel's actual existence, the opposite, that he is fictitious and an invention of Yashar, may be defended with perhaps even greater strength and conviction. It is reasonable to assume that Yashar introduced him for the sake of safeguarding his own literary freedom and in order not to expose himself to the suspicion of heresy and persecution. Indeed, a casual reading of N ovloth Ifokhmah is sufficient to make one a ware of the radical nature of some of Yashar's views regarding creation, immortality of the soul, providence and the Cabbalah. True, Shmuel attributes most of these views to Yashar himself; however, Yashar's assertion that these were merely "notes" jotted down at random and not meant for publication, entirely blaming Shmuel for printing them-cannot be ignored. It constituted some sort of defense. What Yashar actually undertook to show in Novloth Ifokhmah was that neither the Jewish philosophers nor the Cabbalists can prove any of their views or tenets; that the speculations of the Cabbalah, to the extent that they yield to rationalization, are essentially only a new facade for the perennial problems and solutions of the metaphysicians; and finally, that with most problems, it is still the naturalist approach of the Aristotelians or other secular thinkers which is the more logical and preferable. Now, it was both convenient and safe to invent a Shmuel and make him the spokesman of such views; to give him responsibility for juxtaposing philosophy and Cabbalah, and for treating the latter merely as a new form of the former. Indeed, it is no accident at all that the strongest claim Shmuel makes on the authorship of any part of Novloth If okhmah is in relation 1

Ibid., p. 148b.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF NOVLOTH

~OKHMAH

121

to "Ko'a~ Ha-Shem" in which the philosophication of the Cabbalah reaches its highest degree. Apparently this stratagem worked out so well that it threatened to backfire. Shmuel was so naturally integrated in Novloth lfokhmah and so much has been attributed to him, that the unsuspecting reader tended to attribute the larger share of "Novloth Orah" to him rather than Yashar. Yashar must have suddenly realized that the price he was paying for his freedom of expression was too high, practically depriving him of the authorship of his own work. It was at this juncture, and in order to forestall such an inference and safeguard his authorship, that he decided on a counter-measure, his letter to the alleged Shmuel. In spite of all the charges against Shmuel, allowing him even to attribute the book to himself, Y ashar makes it quite clear that the whole work is his and no one else's. He stresses that Shmuel was only a collector and that all he collected was taken from Yashar's writings. Moreover, before continuing with folio two of Novloth I,Iokhmah, Shmuel is forced to unequivocally declare again that the whole work is Yashar's and that nothing of it belongs to him. It was only after the attachment of Yashar's own letter as an introduction to the work, and Shmuel's statement as a conclusion to it, that Yashar must have felt that his stratagem worked out well. Shmuel was still the scapegoat, taking the burden of blame for the heretical views, confusion, poor logic and style of the work, but the work was now clearly established as Yashar's. In support of this view one can cite not only Sachs' strong re~1sons, but a great number of additional inconsistencies which are quite obvious in both Novloth I,Iokhmah and Ma~ref. Yashar allegedly praises the Cabbalah and shares the pietistic view of the Cabbalists of Eretz Israel that the Lurianic interpretation of it should not be divulged to the public, but his attitude to it is clearly one of utter ridicule and contempt. Nor is his expressed attitude to secular learning consistent. He asserts that his preoccupation with it is a thing of the past, and at present he devotes his entire time to the "holy books.'' However, from his correspondence with Broscius we know that this was certainly not true. Moreover, he displays happiness with the forthcoming publication of Elim by Menasseh ben Israel. The reader may have his own opinion about Shmuel's reality or fictitiousness. But, as far as the authorship of Novloth lf okhmah is concerned, we believe that it all belongs to Yashar and to no one else.

PART THREE

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

CHAPTER EIGHT

YASHAR AS PHYSICIAN By profession Yashar was a physician. But whether medicine was also his vocation remains to be seen. In the early twenties, Metz wrote that Yashar's medical pursuit provided not only "a clean sustenance" during his prolonged wanderings, but also served him as "a strong staff, a beautiful rod," 1 giving him access to "kings and rulers." 2 Yashar himself wrote some ten years later to the Polish mathematician Broscius: "Wherever I go, my medical profession provides me with adequate means of sustenance." 3 He practiced medicine at least till the mid-forties, when he must have resigned his position as community physician at Frankfurt-am-Main. 4 In all likelihood, he continued his medical activity in Prague and in other localities of Bohemia where he spent the last decade of his life. 0 Economic conditions for Jewry at that time were dire, and Yashar must have realized that medicine was the only field among the few academic professions which opened the world of secular knowledge to Jews and at the same time furnished them with means of a gainful employment. What ;vonder that he counselled his friend Yoshiyah to choose either the study of Torah or medicine for a career. Medicine, he pointed out, gives one "power, fame and glory." 6 It was probably not entirely accidental that he chose a medical man to be his son-inlaw, or, more exactly, trained him to become one .. As physician, Yashar was compassionate and humane, "showing pity for the poor, visiting their sick and giving them his medications." Metz writes of him that

1 2

3

4

Jer. 48:17.

Elim, p. 45. Supra, p. 80. Supra, p. 84.

Pointing to this conclusion is the fact that Issachar Baer Teller, a medical practitioner from Prague, who must have published his Be'er Mayim l;fayyim around 1650, calls Yashar "rabbi u-mori." Be'er Mayim l;fayyim, ed., Y. Leibowitz, top of p. 13. Also the description of Yashar, on the epitaph of his tombstone, as "the mightiest of physicians," indicates that he must have practiced medicine to the last years of his life. 6 Elim, p. 93. 5

126

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

he was secretly doing many charitable deeds, responding to every plea and doing his utmost to please everyone. He showed sympathy for those in distress, and did not rest until their suffering was relieved. I

Despite this, it is not clear that Yashar felt a real affinity for medicine, or that he attained any degree of excellence in it. It is worth noting, that in praising medicine, as in praising the Talmud, Yashar always emphasizes the material benefits one may derive from it. Nowhere does he show the enthusiasm for medicine that he often shows for mathematics and astronomy. 2 The reason for such an attitude is quite obvious : compared with these two disciplines, Yashar thought that medicine was an art only and no science at all. The more one learns about it, the more one doubts it ... There is no other art in which opinions vary so greatly and in which such a confusion of views prevails. Contrariwise, there are no conflicting views in mathematics . .. as truth cannot contradict truth.a

Aspects of Yashar's life and activity point also to a rather qualified devotion on his part to the medical profession. In his reply to Zeral;l, he complains of the great demand the sick in Poland make on his medical services, in consequence of which his "precious time" is wasted, his "divine speculations" interrupted, and his plans for an extensive literary activity frustrated. 4 Nor does it seem that his professional ethics were always of the highest order. He quite frankly admits that it was due to "the raging epidemic" that he fled from Hamburg to Gliickstadt. 5 And during his stay at Hamburg, Gliickstadt and Amsterdam, he altogether ceased practicing medicine for a number of years. 6 He even may have been thinking of a complete withdrawal from the profession. 7 It is equally doubtful whether he excelled in any way in the practice of medicine. Metz' description of him as a "great physician" s may Ibid., p. 42. Ibid., pp. 129, 131, 134. a Ibid., p. 113. 4 Ibid., p. 132. 5 MatJref, p. 107.

1

2

6 At Hamburg he maintained himself by "teaching Torah" [MatJref, p. 45], and somewhat later, at Amsterdam, by teaching at the yeshivah and preaching on the Sabbath in the synagogue [ibid., "Haqdamath ha-Magihah," p. 6]. 7 Cf. D. A. Friedman, M. D., "Joseph Shelomo Delmedigo," Medical Leaves, IV (Chicago, 1942), p. 91. s Elim, p. 42.

YASHAR AS PHYSICIAN

127

have been true only in the primitive conditions of Eastern Europe. It is doubtful whether he could have been considered great in the more advanced conditions of Northern Germany and the Low Countries. Indeed, the fact that while there he suspended his medical practice and made use of his rabbinical accomplishments in order to eke out a meager existence, suggests he lacked medical greatness. An analysis of the agreement he signed to serve as physician for the Jewish community of Frankfurt-am-Main, leads one to the same conclusion, since the conditions of that contract don't seem to have been favorable to Yashar.1 The lack of medical works among his writings also supports this qualified evaluation of Yashar as physician. He claims to have composed the Refu'oth Te'alah which supposedly embraced both theoretical and practical medicine; but he himself admits that it was a mere compilation drawn entirely from the works of others, and not an original work. 2 Though it may be argued that there was no room in Yashar's works for medical topics, such an argument seems irrelevant, in view of the eclectic character of his writings. Almost all of them are full of disgressions and unrelated matter, especially "Ma'ayan ij:atum" and Ta'alumoth lfokhmah whose range of topics is wide and varied; yet, they contain almost nothing of a medical character. Out of more than six hundred pages of Ta'alumoth, only two pages discuss the c~ative qualities of certain plants and animal organs, a discussion which has its beginnings in the ancient and medieval theories regarding the parallelism of macrocosm and microcosm. 3 Yashar's extant medical writings are thus reduced to his translation of Hippocrates' Aphorisms and his commentaries on the first two of them cited in Elim. 4 It may be assumed that he Cf. aupra, pp. 82-83. In Elim, p. 116, Yashar writes of this work: "it alone is sufficient to produce many doctors, since I have compiled it from several hundred books." See also, p. 334, n. 6. a Novloth, p. 77. 4 Elim, pp. 109-116. The existence of a printed edition of Yashar's translation of Hippocrates' Aphorisms was known to Steinschneider and Ben Ya'acov [M. Steinschneider, Gatalogus Librorum Hebreaorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (Berlin, 1852-1860), no. 5288, pp. 1065-1066; Ben Ya'acov, O~ar ha-Sefarim, letter beth, no. 164, p. 64]. However, only recently has the book become accessible to a greater number of readers by a limited photographic edition of Issachar Baer Teller's Be'er Mayim Ifayyim [Well of Living Water] which was printed in Prague (1650 ?) together with Yashar's translation [Be'er Mayim Jjayyim by lssachar Teller with Hippocrates' Aphorisms translated into 1

2

128

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

commented on all the Aphorisms, as he claims to have done, and that he also translated and commented on Hippocrates' Book of Prognostics; 1 nothing of this survives, however. Neither his translation nor his commentary constitute a major literary or scholarly achievement. Both had been done many times before, 2 though it is quite possible that Yashar had no knowledge of it.a In accordance with the character of the original work, Yashar's translation is brief and concise. Most of it is difficult to follow without the aid of a modern rendering into another language. In this respect, however, this translation is not much different from that of Moshe Ibn Tibbon's which he did from the Arabic version of Yii;il;taq Ibn Hunain of the ninth century. The awkwardness of the Hebrew in both is, no doubt, attributable to the literal approach of both translators, who preferred exactness to fluency. Another reason may be the paucity of the Hebrew language then, especially m terms for realia and states and processes thereof. More important as a source for Yashar's medical views is his commentary on the first two aphorisms. Unfortunately, this commentary must be used with caution, in view of the fact that almost all of it is a translation, and in parts a paraphrase of Galen's Hebrew by Joseph Solomon Delmedigo issued and prefaced by Joshua 0. Leibowitz (Jerusalem, 1968)]. According to Elim, pp. 25, 116, Yashar also wrote commentaries on both the Aphorisms and the Book of Prognostics. A sizable sample of the commentary on the Aphorisms is cited in Elim, pp. 109-116. However, the printed Prague edition has only the translation, without any commentaries. A comparison of the first two Aphorisms, as translated in Elim, pp. 109 and 114, and in Be'er Mayim Ifayyim, shows some variations in rendering, with the later translation being an improvement upon the earlier one in terms of clarity and fluency. It may be assumed that when Yashar gave his approval to the printing of his youthful work together with that of Issachar Baer's popular medical manual, he must have reexamined the old translation and introduced some changes. 1 Elim, p. 116. 2 Cf. Suessmann Muntner, "Mavo," Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon, Ketavim Refu'iyim, vol. III, Perush l'Pirqei Abucrat (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. XXIV-XXIX, XXXIII-XXXV. 3 He writes: "In this way I interpreted, in concise form, all of Hippocrates' Aphorisms and Prognostics, according to my translation from Greek. Until today I have not seen [these books] in Hebrew," Elim, p. 116. Coming from a bibliophile like Yashar, this statement is somewhat amazing. The Aphorisms was the most popular of all Hippocratic writings. Out of 488 preserved manuscripts, 40 are in Hebrew. In the course of the 16th century many editions of Hippocrates' works appeared, both in the original Greek and in Latin translations. Cf. George Sarton, An Appreciation of Ancient and Medieval Science During the Renaissance (1450-1600) (Philadelphia, 1955), p. 183.

YASHAR AS PHYSICIAN

129

commentary on that work. 1 Though it has been a common practice throughout the ages to translate the Aphorisms together with this 1 A comparison of the commentaries of Yashar and Galen on the first two aphorisms [cf. Les Aphorismes D'Hippocrates ... avec le commentaire de Galien sur le premier livre; Traduicts de Gree en Francois par M. I. Breche ... (Lyon, 1628)], leaves no doubt as to the total reliance of Y ashar on Galen. The first aphorism reads : Life is short and the art long; the occasion fleeting; experience is dangerous, and judgment is difficult. The physician must not only be prepared to do what is right himself, but also has to make the patient, the attendants and externals co-operate. In Galen's view, which he believes to have been the view of almost all earlier commentators, this aphorism ought to be considered an introduction to the work as a whole. The words "life is short," are not meant as a pronouncement per se, but as a judgment from the point of view of the medical art, purporting to stress the fact that life is short when measured by the immense task of medicine. [Cf. Maimonides, Perush l'Pirqei Abucra.t, ed., S. Muntner, pp. 7-8]. By these words, Galen thinks, Hippocrates wanted to justify his publication of medical knowledge, which, according to the oath, was to remain restricted, and also to justify his use of the aphoristic method. Because of the brevity of life, Galen explains, there is no single individual-diligent and able as he may be-who can master all the aspects of the art. One should therefore be content wit11. only adding his contribution, small as it may be, to that of his ancestors. The aphoristic method is also the most appropriate for both the uninitiated in the art as well as its practitioners, as it is both time-saving and mnemonic. By "the occasion is fleeting," Galen believes that Hippocrates was alluding to the unique nature of the medical subject, the human body, which constantly undergoes change, resulting from external and internal causes. In consequence, the physician is unable to formulate general principles. "Experience is dangerous and judgment difficult" suggests, in Galen's view, Hippocrates' thought on the two medical approaches, the empirical and the rationalist. The danger stems from the dignity of man, who is not to be experimented with as craftsmen do with inanimate materials. As for "judgment," Galen points out that whatever the meaning of this term, whether "reasoning," as he thinks, and related to diagnosis, prognosis and the prescribed regimen, or "discernment," as the empiricists think, and primarily related to the proper medications, it is always difficult to reach a final verdict. Indicative of this difficulty is the great number of medical systems and the constant disputes among their followers. Equally, in view of the fact that many medications are usually administered at one and the same time, it is again impossible to determine, on the basis of experience alone, which were effective and which were not. By the conclusion, which follows these general observations, Galen explains, Hippocrates asserted that all he had written in that book is valid and true, provided that not only the physician act properly, but that so also do the patient and the attendants, and provided that proper conditions be created, essential for the recuperation of the patient. It is noteworthy that among the "externals" he includes not only physical but also psychological factors. Things that cause joy or sadness to the patient are as important as proper lodging, quiet and rest. There is not a single point in this commentary which is not found also in Y ashar's commentary : the introductory nature of this aphorism, the defense of the aphoristic

130

SECULAR STUDIES .AND PURSUITS

commentary, 1 the fact that Yashar did not even mention the source of his commentary and claimed it as his own, can only strengthen the position of his critics who consider him a person of dubious ethical standards. Meager as the source material is for a thorough description of Yashar's medical outlook, it is sufficient for some general observations. Unlike his views in mathematics and astronomy which display an awareness of recent developments, his medical views reflect the ancient and medieval traditions. The period abounded in outstanding medical men, 2 but Yashar mentions only Prospero Alpino (1533-1617) for having tried vainly to revive the ancient school of the "methodists." 3 By and large, Y ashar seems indebted to the Hippocratic and Galenic traditions. This is certainly in harmony with the state of medicine in his day when, in spite of the advances in anatomy and physiology, the texts of the old masters still remained central to the medical curriculum of the university. Typical of Renaissance medicine in the sixteenth century was the revival of interest in the Hippocratic tradition. In the course of twenty years (1526-1546), five editions of Hippocrates' works appeared both in the original Greek and in Latin translations. 4 No less influential during the Renaissance were the works of Galen. Although his views, especially in anatomy, were becoming obsolete, and being criticised 5 , method, the cumulative nature of medical knowledge. the emphasis on the dignity of man, the uncertainty of the rationalist and experimental approaches, and, finally, the stress on the necessity of co-operation from the "externals." The same is also true as regards the second aphorism, in which Hippocrates lays down some general principles pertaining to evacuations and blood letting. Yashar's interpretation of that aphorism, as advising the physician to adopt for the basis of his medical treatment the principle of imitating nature, is wholly Galenic. Galenic also is his interpretation of the purges and evacuations as purporting to restore the balance among the humors and the method recommended for identifying the humor which requires treatment [Breche, op. cit., pp. 12-15]. 1 Muntner, op. cit., p. XXVII. 2 Cf. Arturo Castiglioni, A History of Medicine, chaps. XVI, XVII, pp. 408ff; Erwin H. Ackerknecht, A Slwrt History of Medicine (New York, 1955), pp. 87-117. -a Elim, p. 112. 4 Cf. George Sarton, Ancient and Medieval Science During the Renaissance, pp. 8-12; A Castiglioni, op. cit., chap. IX; Ackerknecht, op. cit., pp. 49ff; Ch. Daremberg, "Introduction," Les Aphorismes D'Hippocrate suivis des Aplwrismes de L'ecole de Salerne (Paris, 1934), p. 18. 5 Cf. Heinrich Heinrichs, Die tlberwindung der Autoritiit Galens durch Denker der Renaissancezeit (Bonn, 1931), passim.

Y ASHAR AS PHYSICIAN

131

most of them were still considered valid. 1 That Y ashar was still thinking in terms of the older medical traditions may be illustrated by the following passage from his letter to Yoshiyah: Let me give you an example, how one and the same conclusion may be arrived at by both syllogism and experience. It is common knowledge among physicians that gourds are effective against fevers. The exposition of this truth by syllogism would be as follows: everything that cools and liquefies is a proper cure for the feverish; gourds cool and liquefy, hence they are good for the feverish. Now, the validity of the major premise is obvious from the general assumption that cure is achieved through the application of the opposite. As for the minor, it may thus be explained : the composite in which the element of water prevails cools and liquefies. In gourds this element prevails, hence they cool and liquefy. The definition of fever being a fiery heat that burns in the heart, and whence it passes to all the body, it follows that gourds, being the exact opposite of the sickness, are its proper cure. Such will be the verdict of the speculative physician.2 On the other hand, the practitioner 3 will thus say : 'I remember that my master administered gourds to one who was feverish and it helped him, and so it happened a second, a third and a fourth time. The repeated experiences engrave themselves on the memory ... following which reason awakens to draw the general conclusion that gourds are effective against fever. In such a manner the premise is verfied through experience and not by inference.' 4

Although, in its context, the above passage is cited to illustrate a logical rather than a medical point, it may also be considered as reflecting Yashar's medical thought. It appears that he shared the view associated with the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition, that a connection between medicine and philosophy was essential and that medicine, for some reason, had to be grounded in a vast body of speculative knowledge. It may further be assumed that he not only had a high regard for Galen's commentary on the Aphorisms, but, by claiming that commentary as his own, expressed an affinity for its views. As far as the medical philosophy in that commentary is concerned, it is critical of both the empirical approach of the so called "methodists," as well as of the rationalist approach of the so called "dogmatists." It criticizes the empiricists for their incompetence in formulating general principles and for their disdainful attitude toward a broader 1 Ch. Singer, "Vesalius the Reformer of Anatomy," A Short History of Anatomy from the Greelcs to Harvey, sec. ed. (1956), pp. 111-135; Ackerknecht, op. cit., chap. 10; G. Sarton, Galen of Pergamon [Logan Clendening Lectures on the History and Philosophy of Medicine, Third Series] (University of Kansas Press, Kansas, 1954), pp. 88, 90.

"li':l.7 :i N~ii :i .•p::i:i Elim, p. 84.

2 •

3

4

132

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

theoretical basis of the medical art; but, it also stresses the inadequacies of the dogmatic approach of the rationalists.1 To the extent that this commentary reflects the medical views of Yashar, it may be concluded that he approached medicine with a synthesis of both the theoretical and the experimental methods. To round out the description of Yashar as physician, one aspect of his views requires greater emphasis, that is, the importance he attached to the experimental method, and the pride he took in the medical gains of his own time. Though he still was deeply committed to the Ancients, he was well aware of the unique nature of his own age, "when the river of wisdom was overflowing its banks" 2 and great advances had been made in many areas. His admiration for the Ancients began to recede with new developments, giving way to a critical attitude toward them, and a growing sense of confidence in the achievements of his own age. As far as knowledge obtained by the senses and experience is concerned, one must not trust others more than himself. Who can prove that Ptolemy's vision was sharper than ours and Galen's feeling of the pulse, or his taste of medicines, more sensitive and discerning than ours, especially since we have instruments of much greater precision than he had.3

Worth mentioning finally is an incidental remark about Y ashar made by Issachar Baer Teller, a medical practitioner from Prague and a disciple of Yashar. In discussing blood-letting, he points out that some hold the opinion that the proper time for administration must be decided in accordance with the constellations and the heavenly signs. However, he himself has little regard for that sort of view; "my master and teacher, the physician and rabbi, Yoseph Candia, disregarded it." Assuming that the association between Yashar and Issachar Baer belongs to the Prague period, this indication that Yashar rejected medical astrology, is the only bit of information in our possession regarding Yashar's views of that period. It is also reasonable to assume that his rationalist stance in medical matters must have also been typical of his views in general. 4 l Cf. G. Sarton, "The Medical Sects in Galen's Time," Galen of Pergamon, pp. 30-38; John Redman Coxe, The Writings of Hippocrates and Galen, epitomized from the original Latin translations (Philadelphia, 1846), pp. 482-487; Breche, LeB Aphorismes etc., pp. 4-10; Elim, pp. 111-113. 2 Elim, p. 111. a Ibid., p. 249. 4 Cf. Issachar Baer Reller, Be'er Mayim Ifayyim, pp. 12-13 (counting from the original title page).

Y ASHAR AS PHYSICIAN

133

Yashar's medical outlook, it may be concluded, displays the characteristics of the age of transition, when the old and the new were strongly intermingled. In consequence of his university training, Yashar's medical knowledge and views were still of the bookish type. He also seems to have retained a belief in the older theory of humors and the scholastic approach to the subject in general. On the other hand, one discerns in his writings the rudiments of a new medicine which is rationalist and based on a growing appreciation of experience and experimentation.

CHAPTER NINE

A NOTE ON YASHAR AS MATHEMATICIAN For no other field of study did Yashar display such an appreciation and enthusiasm as for mathematics. Metz was paraphrasing Yashar's Bosmath when he wrote of mathematics in general and trigonometry in particular : by their aid man masters not only the mechanical arts and earthly trades but the secrets of the heavens as well. Trigonometry "gives him wings to soar to the heavens, to study the height of clouds ... the distances of meteors and all other atmospheric phenomena." Select individuals as Ptolemy, al-Battani, Copernicus and Tycho soar even higher, and with the aid of trigonometry expand man's knowledge to include the size of stars, their number and distance from earth. "How fearful are thy deeds," he enthusiastically exclaims with reference to the triangle, "you were the instrument of the Creator ... and through you He brought into being the universe and the fullness thereof." 1 Even Yashar's prolonged stay in Poland did not dampen his mathematical fervor, and in the introduction to Ma'ayan Gannim he showered the highest praises on both geometry and algebra, as the vehicles of knowledge of both heaven and earth, and as the instruments of the new mechanics, perspective; but above all the new astronomy. Yashar also praised mathematics for another quality, its excellence as a means for the improvement of the mind. In his view, it trains man "for abstract thought" and prepares him for the study of metaphysics. 2 Its greatest distinction, however, was the high degree of its truthfulness. It alone imparts true knowledge, whereas all other studies offer only fables, opinions and partisan views. There is no view, queer and strange though it may appear, which does not have its partisans and supporters, ready to marshal all kinds of proofs and evidence in its behalf. Only in mathematics full agreement prevails, as there is only one truth.3

He repeats this view in his letter to Y oshiyah. 4 Elim, p. 17. Ibid., pp. 129-131. 3 Ibid., p. 365. Interestingly, this was also the view of Halevi, see Ha-Kuzari, V, end of 14. 4 Elim., p. 93. l

2

A NOTE ON YASHAR AS MATHEMATICIAN

135

Most of all Yashar emphasized the instrumentality of mathematics in technology and science. He frequently declared his preference for applied learning over theoretical. He writes: "The more applicable a branch of knowledge is, the more praiseworthy it is." Hence, he attached greater importance to the applied teachings of Archimedes than to the theoretical abstractions of Euclid. 1 He warned Yoshiyah to keep away from an excessive preoccupation with the "pedantries of arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy" and philosophy, which are not only time consuming and difficult, but of no benefit to either the "intellectual or vegetative soul." A person with no other trade or knowledge can hardly maintain himself by them. 2 This critical attitude toward theoretical mathematics, no doubt reflects the relatively low academic status of the subject at the beginning of the age of science, and Yashar's medieval conception of it. He seems to be sharing the view of Maimonides that mathematics is unphilosophical because it is preoccupied with forms rather than the causes of things. 3 The sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth constitute a period of great developments in mathematics. Spectacular strides were made during that time in trigonometry and algebra. The De Triangulis (1533) by Regiomontanus (1436-1476), considered to be the foundation of modern trigonometry, opened the way to the construction of trigonometrical tables of ever greater precision. His work was continued by Georgius Rhaeticus (1514-1567), Valentin Otho (15501605), and was brought to a high degree of precision by Pitiscus (1561-1613). 4 Fundamental to the development of algebra was the Ars Magna (1545) by Geronimo Cardano, the Trattato dei Numeri by Tartaglia (1500-1557), and the standardization of its general system of notation by Francesco Viete (1540-1603). An important advance, which did away with the tediousness of calculation, was achieved by the invention of logarithms by John Napier at the beginning of the seventeenth century (1614). 5 M111Jref, p. 27. Elim, p. 93. 3 Ibid., pp. 365, 427. In Guide, III, chap. 51, Maimonides writes: "know, my son, that as long as you are engaged in studying the mathematical sciences and the art of logic, you are one of those who walk around the house searching for its gate." 4 Barton, Six Wings, p. 26. 5 Ibid., "Second Wing"; Charles Singer, A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900 (Oxford University Press, 1959), chap. VII; A. Wolf, A History of Science, Technology and Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (New York, 1935), chap. IX. 1

2

136

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

Yashar displays an acquaintance with these developments. He is especially impressed with the new trigonometrical and logarithmic tables which are great time savers in computations. He writes : During the lifetime of our forefathers miracles were performed and the earth became full of knowledge as the waters cover the sea. Scholars have recently appeared in Germany, Denmark and England, and, dissatisfied with the teachings of the Ancients, destroyed all barriers to reason and penetrated the innermost [secrets]. Who would awaken the dwellers of the houses of clay, the great sages of old, Hipparchus and Ptolemy, so that they might see, marvel and be amazedLook, what diligence and perseverance have achieved ... [Recent] scholars have found an easy method of solving any problem dealing with numbers, dispensing with complicated computations ... Nowadays, even a child can solve the problems of triangles . . . not by the aid of the planisphere and astrolabe, but by other, wonderful methods ... the sine or logarithmic tables.I

References to recent and contemporary mathematicians are rather frequent in Yashar's writings. Thus, he praises Francesco Viete's solution of quadratic and higher equations with mixed numbers. 2 He advises Zeral;t to have with him always Viete's Canon Mathematicus (1579), the trigonometrical tables of which will save him much work. 3 Rightly or wrongly, he points out several geometrical errors committed by Copernicus, 4 and refers to a solution by Regiomontanus of a problem with spherical triangles whic.P- he himself claims to have solved in a different manner. 5 According to Isak Heilbronn, a student of Yashar's mathematics and science, Yashar's solution of the cubic equation in the seventh question of 'Ali, is done in accordance with the method worked out by Tartaglia. 6 When Broscius submitted an arithmetical problem to him, Y ashar contacted many of the famous mathematicians of the day.7 Somewhat amazing is Yashar's utter disregard of Galileo and the influence he must have exerted on his mathematical views and direction. Yashar must have attended his lectures; yet, he never refers to Galileo in this capacity. It may, of course, be argued that Galileo's genius was primarily that of an observer of nature and Elim, p. 151. Ibid., pp. 69, 71. 3 Ibid., pp. 148-149. 4 Ibid., pp. 168-169. o Ibid., p. 177. 6 Ibid., p. 67; cf. Isak Heilbronn, Die mathematischen und naturwissenschajUichen Anschauungen des Josef Salomo Medigo (Erlangen, 1913), pp. 33ff. 7 Supra, p. 80. 1

2

A NOTE ON YASHAR AS MATHEMATICIAN

137

experimenter, whose interest in mathematics was rather confined to its application in dynamics and astronomy. But this still does not explain Yashar's reticence. On the contrary, it is the scholarly direction and orientation of Galileo which also prevail in Yashar's work. From the four studies of Ma'ayan Gannim, only one, "Sod ha-Yesod,'' is of a pure mathematical character, whereas the other three deal with physics, technology and astronomy. Moreover, the subject of "Sod he-Yesod,'' spherical triangles, is also closely related to problems of physics. It is also quite possible that Yashar's "l;Iuqqoth Shamayim,'' the commentary on chapter eleven of the first part of the Almagest, is nothing other than the notes he must have taken at Padua of Galileo's lectures on the subject. Ptolemy, as is well known, remained the basic text of Galileo's lectures on astronomy throughout the Paduan period (1592-1610). 1 We believe Yashar's writings contain even more specific indications of his indebtedness to Galileo. His praises of mathematics are strongly reminiscent of similarly worded praises by Galileo. 2 So also is his admiration for Archimedes, 3 his opposition to Aristotelian natural philosophy, on the one hand, and his appreciation of his logic, on the other; 4 and, finally, his high regard for the mathematical method of demonstration and the close association he sought to establish between mathematics and physics. 5 Yashar was not only abreast of recent developments in mathematics, but he also was acquainted with the earlier history of the subject. Prior to his exposition of the study of tangents and secants in "Sod ha-Yesod,'' he gives a brief review of the development of trigonometry. He finds it continuously progressing, in terms of a growing simpli1 Cf. Ludovico Geymonat, Galileo Galilei : A Biography and Inquiry into his Philosophy of Science (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, Toronto, London, 1965), pp. 22-23. 2 Cf., for instance, Elim, pp. 17, 129-130 and Favaro, Galileo Galilei, I, pp. 143-146. Yashar writes of geometry that it gives man "wings to soar to the heavens," 1'l!Zil1' 1'1!Zi:S: tl'~!Zi::l t'ji:S:':i tl'!:ll::l il;i, an expression which is also used verbatim by Galileo : 'Ella ci presta le ali per trascorrere il cielo," Favaro, p. 132. 3 Ma:;ref, p. 27; Ludovico Geymonat, op. cit., pp. 7, 30-31, and passim. 4 In Elim, p. 79, Yashar writes: C'l::liO~ l"li'l1::11'::1 (i1'0'iN ':i!Zi) i'i::li!Zi i~::ii 11'!i:S::!tNi ,,~:!;::> ,~:!;:11 1'i!Zip Ti'ln::l i1:in':i i::i nnin 111'\N tl'':inl '::l cf. Geymonat, op. cit., p. 194. 5 These are just a few random points. Their number, I am sure, is much greater. Galileo's impact on Y ashar's mathematical, physical and technological studies is a subject worthy of further investigation.

138

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS·

fication of solutions, from ancient times, through the medieval period, to his own time. 1 Along the names of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Euclid, Archimedes, Hipparch, Eratosthenes, Apolonius, Heron, Menelaus, Theodosius and Pappus, he also mentions Isaac Israeli, al-Battani, Purbach, Regiomontanus, Copernicus, Tartaglia, Cardanus, Viete and others. To what extent this vast body of information stimulated his own mathematical thinking is not for us to decide. Heilbronn writes: "It is not entirely improbable that some of his solutions to individual problems may be original." 2 As mentioned, he claims "a new proof" for the treatment of the sine. 3 Yet, generally he still leans heavily on Greek and Arabic mathematicians in translation. As for the technique Yashar uses in his mathematical presentations, it is rather modern. Numerous drawings are attached to the text to illustrate the theorems. For notation he uses the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In algebraic equations the aleph is used for the unknown, the beth for the second power, the gimmel for the third, etc. The mem (the initial of the word mispar or number) is attached to the known number; the shin (the initial of the Hebrew word shaveh or equals) stands between the two parts of the equation; the tav (initial of tosif-meaning add) stands for the sign of plus, and the peh (initial of pa~oth, meaning less, substract) for the sign of minus. An equation by Y ashar may be illustrated by the following example : 1755~

;mw

ri366'~

ri52~

'!J/l '!J/i

In modern notation this equation would be written as follows :

- x 4-X 3 +52x2 + 366x

=

1755

4

We may conclude by citing Heilbronn's genera] evaluation of Yashar as mathematician : "He introduced nothing original in the science of mathematics, though whatever he borrowed from others he worked out in a unique and independent manner." 5 Elim, p. 142. Op. cit., p. 24. s Elim, p. 136. 4 This equation is taken from Heilbronn, op. cit., pp. 26-27. 5 Ibid., p. 73. A full study of Yashar's mathematics may still be a deserving project. The dissertation of Heilbronn only deals with select items and does not folly exhaust the subject. 1

2

CHAPTER TEN

TECHNOLOGY AND PHYSICS Compared with his extensive and systematic studies of mathematics, Yashar's studies of physics or natural philosophy, as it was called then, are of limited scope and casual in character. He devoted no major work to any of its areas; however, his printed works contain numerous passages dealing with various aspects of it, indicating not only a lively interest in the field but a wide acquaintance with recent developments as well. In addition to "Ma'ayan J:Iatum," the last and largest part of Elim, the bulk of which he devoted to natural studies, he also dealt with these subjects in his unprinted Nifle'oth Ha-Shem 1 and in an "extensive work" on the rainbow.2 Yashar's proclivity for metaphysical speculations has been amply illustrated by the synopsis of N ovloth Ifokhmah. A diametrically opposite tendency and point of view prevail in his natural studies. It is primarily applied science, or technology, for which he displays his greatest enthusiasm. "Engineers and builders," he writes to Yoshiyah in 1624, "are more essential to the maintainance of society than the academicians with their endless disputations, which only distract people from tp.eir useful pursuits." 3 In 1627 he writes again : I esteem those who invent something beneficial for society at large : the alchemists who transmute metals and demonstrate publicly the truth of their art; the mineralogists, agronomists and engineers of water supply. Their work is useful to many in times of peace and war, and it is they who are the perfect scholars ... not the philosophers who only write words ... This also applies to mathematics, the functional aspects of which deserve much greater praise than the purely theoretical. 4

Whether these words were altogether meaningful to the Jews of the time and were meant for them in the first place is, of course, quite questionable. They had, no doubt, a more familiar ring to Christian ears of the Renaissance period in both Italy and Northern Europe. Indeed, it was during the sixteenth century that technology Elim, pp. 376, 392. Ibid., p. 416. a Ibid., p. 92. 4 M~ref, pp. 26-27.

1

2

140

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

made rapid and impressive advances. In the wake of a scientific approach by Italian and German scholars to the study of mining and metallurgy, new tools and machines came into use. The increased control of metals and the substitution of wooden by metal machines prepared the ground for the success of the experimental method m the seventeenth century. 1 The emphasis on the technological-functional point of view in Yashar's writings on natural science reflects the spirit of the time, and may be another instance of the direct influence on him by Galileo. 2 Yashar's studies in physics center mainly on mechanics, optics and sound. He cites most frequently Archimedes and Aristotle, less frequently other scholars, ancient, medieval or recent ones; a but never Galileo, Kepler, or the earlier Stevin, with whose works he was undoubtedly acquainted and to whom he was substantially indebted. In accordance with Aristotle, Yashar defines mechanics as the effort of man to overcome the resistance of nature by the aid of greater sources of power. Mechanics is the art that teaches us, by the use of various instruments, to pull and push, raise and lower . . . hit and crush, insert and remove, throw and press with greater ease and lesser effort than would be possible by human strength alone and without the use of such instruments,4

In this connection Yashar cites Aristotle's De Oaelo (Book IV, chap. 6) on floating bodies, where the view is upheld that the floating Six Wings, p. 127; Ch. Singer, A Short History of Scientific Ideas, chap. VI. For the impact of the technological tradition of the sixteenth century on Galileo, cf. Leonardo Olschki, Galilei und seine Zeit (Halle, 1927), pp. 68ff, 135ff; Ludovico Geymonat, op. cit., pp. 7ff; Lynn White, "Pumps and Pendula: Galileo and Technology,'' Carlo L. Golino, ed., Galileo Reappraised (University of California Press, 1966), pp. 97-110. 3 In his discussion of scales Y ashar mentions J ordanus [Elim, p. 345]. In his discussion of the lever he refers to the "excellent mechanic Domenico Fontana" [ibid., p. 348], who was instrumental in raising some ancient obelisks at the end of the 16th century [cf. Ch. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall and Trevor Williams, eds., A History of Technology, vol. III (Oxford Press, 1947), p. 289]. He also alludes to Vitruvius, the Roman architect of the 1st century [Elim, p. 376], and to Vitelius of the 13th century [ibid., p. 223]. Regarding Jordanus, Professor Samuel Devona of the Physics Department, Columbia University (History of Physics Laboratory), indentifies him with Jordanus Nemore (Jordanus Nemoranius) of the 13th century, whose most notable and influential work was De Ponderibus [On Weights]. He cites as an authority on the subject P. Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique (Paris, 1906). [From a letter to the author, dated November 4, 1970]. 4 Elim, p. 376. Cf. Aristotle, Mechanica, 847a. 1

2

TECHNOLOGY AND PHYSICS

141

or sinking of bodies depends primarily on their shape. Galileo of course, in his Discourse on Floating Bodies (Florence, 1612), upheld the opposite, Archimedean view, that it is the specific gravity of a body which is the decisive factor in keeping it either on the surface or causing it to sink. 1 Although Yashar does not commit himself to either view, he displays an awareness of both. 2 Another problem in mechanics which he discusses at length is that of the center of gravity. With regard to it, he admits that he is drawing from Archimedes, again failing to mention Galileo's early preoccupation with it. 3 He defines the center of gravity as the point upon which a suspended object balances without leaning to either side. In this connection he explains "just and unjust scales." Besides the normal scales, the horizontal bar of which is balanced at the top of the vertical bar, he also describes scales of unequal horizontal arms and the relationship required, for the sake of balance, between the weights and the distance from the center of gravity. 4 Yashar also discusses the lever. He explains in simple terms the gain in power resulting from the lengthening of the bar, observing however that Archimedes' boast of being able to lift any weight, while true mathematically is refuted by nature. "Nature has its limits," and a theory cannot be considered valid unless proven to be functional, a proof which must take in consideration the properties of the materials it deals with.5 In answer to Zeral;t's question, how it is possible "that an empty receptable may be more difficult to lift than a full one," Yashar explains the simple mechanism of the drawing well, also based on the principle of balance and the center of gravity. 6 He further illustrates the manifold gain in power through mechanical devices by a description of the toothed wheel, built on the principle of the transmission of power. Apparently carried away by the possibility-theoretical at least-of an infinite gain in power from using a great number of toothed wheels, Y ashar computes that the pound weight of the earth, expressed in a number of 31 digits, can be 1 Cf. Raymond J. Seeger, Galileo Galilei, his Life and his Works (Pergamon Press, 1966), chap. XI, "Floating Ebony." 2 Cf. Elim, pp. 376, 407-408. 3 Olschki, op. cit., pp. 157ff. 4 Elim, pp. 344-345. 5 Ibid., pp. 346, 388-389, 390-391. 6 Ibid., p. 391.

142

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

reduced by this device to a number of 26 digits. He observes, however, that "even the years of a Metuselah would not suffice to move one tooth of the wheel." Though ineffective in moving the earth, he concludes, this device is none the less of great benefit to builders, in "lifting large and heavy stones, in raising sunken ships from the ocean floor, and in transferring pillars from one place to another." 1 Of a speculative nature is Yashar's discussion of the sphericity of the elements. In reply to Zeral;t's question 54, "how one and the same receptable may contain more water in the valley than on the top of a mountain," Yashar, leaning on Archimedes, explains that "all the elements are spherical, surrounding each other like onionskins. All the proofs with regard to the sphericity of earth are equally valid with regard to water." The fact that, at sea, sunrise is seen earlier and sunset later than on land, can only be explained by the assumption that the surface of water is round. Also the fact that objects on land which cannot be seen from the deck of a ship, are seen from the top of the mast upholds this assumption. From all this he infers that "water everywhere, even in receptacles, always preserves the spherical shape," the reason being the pressure exerted by its parts towards the center. However, in small vessels and at low altitudes the difference would not be felt, as the radius of the vessel is negligible in size when measured against that of the earth. 2 Yashar devotes his most extensive studies in physics to optics. There are a number of reasons for this : first, the influence of the Platonic tradition, revived during the Renaissance, in which light played a major role; second, the impact of Copernicus' heliocentric assumption; third, the centrality of light in the mystical trends which were emanating from Safed at the end of the sixteenth century; and fourth, the long preoccupation with this subject from ancient times throughout the medieval period down to the age of experimental science at the beginning of the seventeenth century.a Ibid., pp. 347-348. Ibid., pp. 421-422, 428. a In the course of the 16th century several works dealing with optics appeared : two editions of Vitelius of the 13th century (1535, 1551), two works by Giambattista della Porta, the Magia Naturalis (1558) and the De Refractione etc. (1593), and finally, the Photismi de Lumine by Maurolycus which was not printed, however, before 1611. A great advance, in terms of the application of mathematics to the phenomena of light, was made by Johann Kepler, whose Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena (Frankfurt, 1604), and Dioptrice (Augsburg, 1611) superseded many earlier views in this field. Cf. Sarton, 1

2

TECHNOLOGY AND PHYSICS

143

Of all the physical sciences, Yashar apparently had the highest regard for optics. He writes: "The sense of vision is the most noble in this life." He esteemed above all the work 'Of astronomers, "who perceive with th-eir mind's eye what no human eye has ever seen, thus opening new avenues toward the knowledge of God and the universe." 1 Despite this lofty conception, his approach remains qualitative and speculative, rather than quantitative and experimental. His extensive speculations in Novloth lfokhmah are especially typical, where the philosophical section of the work is introduced by a sixteen page essay on light. 2 Leaning on Aristotle, Yashar defines light as an emanation from an illuminating body which becomes visible through the air's transparency. It was Democritus, he points out, who thought "that if the space between heaven and earth were empty, we would be able to see every tiny object in the sky; it is only air which prevents it." 3 Aristotle thought, to the contrary, that light cannot be propagated in emptiness, and that it is only due to light's passing through the medium of "sphericity" that it becomes visible. Such a quality, Y ashar continues, is to be found "in the heavens, and in the elements of fire, air and water." Air is entirely free of opaqueness, whereas metals, glass, etc., are both transparent and opaque. Again, other scholars are of the opinion that all bodies, earth included, are transparent to some extent, and that absolute opaqueness does not exist. In proof they cite the existence of minerals in the depth of the earth, which cannot be explained without assuming earth's permeability t~ the sun's rays. This view, Yashar notes, is similar to that of the Oabbalists who assert that "sparks of purity are to be found also among the impurities . . . since without them they could not exist." 4 In terms of medieval scholasticism, Yashar discusses next the nature of light's existence in the medium: whether it is that of an accident in its subject, or "only a spiritual existence ... similar to Six Wings, III, "Optics;" Vasco Ranchi, "Influence Du Development De L'optique Du XVII Siecle Sur La Science Et La Philosophie En General," Le Soleil A La Renais· .ance, Science et Mythes, Colloque International (April, 1963) (Bruxelles, 1965), pp. ll0125; Benjamin Brickman, An Introduction to Francesco Patrizi's Nova de Universis Philosophia (New York, 1941). 1 Elim, p. 365. 2 Novloth, pp. 7-16. 3 Ibid., p. 12b; De Anima, Bk. II, chap. 7. 4 Novloth, p. Sa.

144

SECULAR STUDIES .A.ND PURSUITS

that of an image in the mirror." He argues against both views, concluding that it is neither, but a quality perceptible to sense because of its reflection in the transparent medium. He thinks that the relationship between it and the medium may best be illustrated by comparing it with the relationship of body and soul. As the soul can exist without a body, light can exist without a bodily vehicle, and "will exist even in emptiness;" its existence in the transparent medium is that of a reflection only, whereas its real existence is in its source, the sun. "Hence, it is equally true to say of light that it is in the medium and is not; that it exists and does not; that it is a quality and is not; and that it acts and does not." i Less speculative, though also formulated in qualitative and unscientific terms, are Y ashar' s discussions, in reply to Zeral;i' s "palm" forty-six, 2 of various aspects of optics in "Ma'ayan J.Iatum." He begins by stating that it is the "accident of color" on surfaces which strikes the sense of vision by the aid of light. With regard to colors he only remarks that some of them are "extremities, such as black and white, while others are intermediates, or composites." 3 As for the "composites," he points out that "a method has been devised in our time to establish their shades." He defines vision as "the reception of the image of the sensual object upon the retina of the eye and its comprehension." 4 The mere reception of the image by the eye, he explains, without the mental act following it, does not yet constitute vision. Were it so, "the glass mirror would see." This view, Yashar points out, "is most common among such philosophers as Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus, Aristotle, Alacin and others." On the other hand, Euclid, Hipparchus, Ptolemy and the Stoics hold the view that it is the light that comes from the eye to the object which constitutes vision and not the reverse. Again, Pythagoras and Plato consider both· elements essential. They believe that the ray emanating from the eye meets at half distance the image from the sensual object, and vision results from the fusion of the two and the illuminating light. 5 Though refusing to take a stand on either view, Yashar admits Ibid., p. 12b. Cf. Yehudah Abravanel, Vikkua[i Ahayah, p. 42a. Elim, pp. 408-416. Cf. De Anima, 418a; De Sensu, 439a. 3 C'~!:>,~ iN C"lil'~ • • · C"l,,,:Sp. Elim., p. 408. 4 '1~,,, ilN,,il l'Y zi•:>i:>T~ vmi~il li'l~m m~i '?~ip•!V:> Niil il'N,il ibid., ibid. 5 Aristotle, De Sensu, 437b-438. l

2

,,j

TECHNOLOGY AND PHYSICS

145

that "reasons and arguments" rather uphold the Aristotelian view. Whatever the differences among scholars as regards the mechanism of vision, Yashar concludes by pointing out that they are all in agreement as to the spiritual nature of the image that impresses itself on the eye. Like the signet which may repeatedly be impressed upon the wax without detaching itself from the ring, the image of the sensual object-its essence being spiritual--impresses itself, via the medium of transparency, on many eyes without detaching itself from its material source.1 Yashar differentiates between two kinds of vision, "simple" and "composite." It is simple when the object is in front of the spectator and the rays emanating from it come in a straight line to the eye. It is composite when the object is not in front of the eye, and the rays reaching it come either reflected or refracted. An example of reflected vision is moonlight, which is the light of the sun as reflected from the surface of the moon; an example of refracted vision is that of an object in water. Whereas simple vision furnishes us with an image of the object itself, composite vision brings us only a reflection of that image. Y ashar next discusses mirrors : flat, convex and concave, though offering no explanation regarding the variety of reflections they produce. He finds most "amazing" the "burning" mirrors, by the help of which Archimedes burned down the Roman fleet. 2 Popular subjects i:p. optical research during the medieval and Renaissance periods were the Camera Obscura and refraction of light. 3 Y ashar discusses both, He explains the inverse picture obtained on the screen of the camera obscura through the opposite aperture as the result of the intersection of the rays of light emanating from the edges of the illuminated object when passing through that aperture. The size and clarity of the picture, he further explains, depend on the distance between the screen and the aperture. 4 1 Ibid., pp. 408-409. De Anima, 424a. According to Vasco Ronchi, Johann Kepler offered in his Paralopimena ad Vitelionem (1604) a solution to the problem of the mechanism of vision, a solution which is still considered valuable. He adds, however, that at the time of its appearance, the work had not evoked any reaction. "It was so new and revolutionary that at the beginning no one understood it, and it required many generations for its content to supersede the notions of the past," Le Soleil A La Renaissance, p. 116. 'l'here is no indication in Y ashar's writings that he was acquainted with this solution. 2 Elim, pp. 410-412. 3 Cf. Sarton, Six JVings, III, "Optics." 4 Elim, pp. 412-413.

146

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

He rejects Aristotle's solution to the problem of image roundness regardless of the aperture's shape1 but fails to mention Kepler, whose very experiment with the threads attached to the edges of a book and drawn through the aperture, he repeats. 2 Interestingly, Yashar also remarks about the camera obscura : "by it we can see the sun spots and infer that the sun moves and rotates round itself and that it comes in conjunction with Venus and Mercury," a a remark which indicates his acquaintance with recent developments in astronomy, especially the discoveries of Galileo. Refraction, Yashar states, is the result of light rays passing through transparent media of various densities. It takes place on the borderline between the two media. The denser medium makes objects appear bigger, while the opposite holds for a rarer medium. Accordingly, Yashar argues that if the Peripatetics are right in their assumption that the substance of the heavenly bodies is "thinner" than air, "the stars ought to be seen outside their place, farther away and smaller than they really are." The ray of light which strikes the denser refractive substance is bent downward toward the perpendicular, but is away from the perpendicular when it passes into a rarer substance in which it can move more swiftly. 4 Y ashar makes the general observation about sound that it is the result of circular air waves spreading to the drum of the ear. He compares them to ripples on water caused by a stone thrown into it. 5 He also deals briefly with musical theory and the mathematical relationship upon which it is based. He describes the Pythagorean "experiment" with five hammers of different weights, the sounds of which Pythagoras one day chanced to listen to in the smithy, allegedly resulting in his establishing the basic ratio between the weight, length and other physical properties of the sound producing tools, on the one hand, and the pitch of the tone, on the other hand. 6 Aristotle, Problemata, Bk. XV, problem 11, 912b. Elim, pp. 413-414; cf. A. Wolf, op. cit., p. 246. a Elim, p. 413. 4 Ibid., p. 415. 5 Ibid., p. 402; cf. Heilbronn, op. cit., p. 86. De Anima, 420a. 6 With regard to this point, S. K. Heninger writes : The Renaissance was saturated in the lore of Pythagoras. His doctrine . . . was aimed at purification of the mind, achieved through successive stages of knowledge about the universe ... This spiritual perfection was the aim of man's study, but yet the goal could be reached only by the observation of nature. For one of the rare moments in history, science and ethics were incorporated into a single phi!-

1

2

TECHNOLOGY AND PHYSICS

147

He next defines the tone, the half tone, the octave, and the relationships among the intervals in it. Following this, he discusses, by the aid of the tetrachord (appendix, illusttation 73), some of the tone combinations which result in harmonious chords. Finally, in reply to Zeral;i's question, "how a thing may move without being touched," Yashar discusses the observation he made many times, that when the first tone of the octave is struck, a sympathetic vibration takes place in the eighth of the octave and not in the nearer tones of the scale. He admits that he was led to this observation by the remarks of Aristotle; but he rejects Aristotle's explanation that the vibration is the result of "a similarity between the two tones," and leaves the question unanswered. 1 In addition to his acquaintance with the workings of the lever and the toothed wheel, Y ashar knew about more technological devices, like the thermoscope and the water-clock. In order to measure the temperature of the air and the difference in temperature between one day and the other, he advises Zeral;i to take a thin tube fitted to a glass vessel filled with either water or alcohol. He suggests, in the first of two devices, that the tube remain closed on the top by a glass ball, and in the second that it stay open, osophical system ... For this reason, I believe, the Pythagorean philosophy appealed so strongly to the renaissance . . . The renaissance inherited numerous legends and anecdotes that gave him a living presence ... One of the most widespread stories recounted how he discovered the numerical ratios between the notes of the musical scale. "Pythagorean Cosmology and the Triumph of Heliocentrism" in Le Soleil a la Renaissance, pp. 35-53. No attempt has been made in this work to find out whether Yashar was musically educated or not. Such an education was rather common among Italian Jews of the Renaissance period, as may be attested by the lives of men like Yehudah Moscato, Abraham Portaleone, Y eduhah Aryeh Modena and Solomon Rossi, to name only a few outstanding examples [cf. J. Moscato, Sefer NefU1Joth Yehudah (Lwow, 1859), first sermon; Abraham Portaleone, Sefer ShiUei ha-Gibborim (Mantua, 1612), chap. 4, pp. 36ff; Sefer Ifayyei Yehudah (Modeiia's autobiography), pp. 17, 23; S. Naumbourg, "Essai sur la vie et Jes ooqvres de Salomon Rossi" in S. Naumbourg, ed., Oantiques de Salomon Rossi etc.; Bee also ibid., Modena, "EI Kol Ozen Millin Tivl;lan"]. It is noteworthy that in his Saggiatore (1623), which appeared a few years before Elim (1629), also Galileo dealt ,among many other subjects, with the "relation between the pitch of sounds emitted by an organ, and the length of the pipes emitting them," cf. Geymonat, op. cit., pp. 102-103. Cf. Edward E. Lowinsky, "Music in the Culture of the Renaissance," Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. XV (1954), pp. 509-553. 1 Elim, pp. 401-407. Cf. Aristotle, Problemata, Bk. XIX, prob. 24, 919b.

148

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

By putting the hand on the glass ball, the air will warm up, and. expanding, press down the level of water in the tube. Inversely, when cold, the air will shrink and the water will rise. A scale in the tube will indicate the rise and fall of the water level. In the second device, he suggests that the warming up be done from below. As a result, the water will rise and the air be pushed upward. Yashar prefers the second device, as in it an opening can be made in the tube for the outflow of the rising water, which can be measured. 1 It was Galileo who was credited with the invention of the thermometer, or the "thermobaroscope," as some called it. 2 Though there seem to be some differences between Galileo's instrument and that of Yashar, it may be assumed that Yashar's design was basically patterned after that of his master.a To measure time where there are no clocks, Yashar suggests the building of some sort of water clock. Take a scaled or unscaled receptacle filled with water and with a small opening in the bottom. Attach a handle pointing to a scale on the wall to a piece of wood on its surface. As the water declines the handle will also decline, indicating the time on the wall-scale. Such an instrument, however, while simple, is unreliable, as, due to the changing pressure of the water column, the outflow of the water would not be even. Similar in device, though somewhat more complicated, is another clock which Yashar recommends on the authority of a ship captain who devised it for maritime purposes. 4 Yashar also touches on other problems of physics, such as the nature of air, the resilience and falling of bodies, the magnet, the rainbow, etc. 5 Y ashar' s studies in physics, it may be concluded, reflect the transitional state of the subject during the early decades of the seventeenth century. Slowly and gradually the application of mathematics to the description of natural phenomena was increasing, however, the reliance on past authorities and the "philosophical" approach continued to prevail for many decades. Though, at times Y ashar rejects the views of Aristotle, he more frequently relies on him and the Ancients. He still clings to the time honored conceptions of nature's abhorrence of emptiness, the spherical and hierarchial 1 2

3

4 5

Elim., p. 338; cf. appendix, drawing 52 (erroneously numbered as 51). Cf. Wolf, op. cit., p. 85; Fahie, op. cit., pp. 51-53; Geymonat, op. cit., p. 28. I. Heilbronn, op. cit., p. 85. Elim, pp. 419-421; cf. appendix, drawings 76, 77. Heilbronn, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

TECHNOLOGY AND PHYSICS

149

structure of the elements, the instantaneous propagation of light, and many more. But, on the other hand, he advocates greater adherence to experience and experimentation and rejects views and opinions based solely on hearsay and unproven evidence. 1 Moreover, though he never admits his indebtedness to Galileo and Kepler, he displays an acquaintance with their studies of mechanics and light. Worth noting, finally, is his lively and fertile imagination which frequently carries him into all kinds of speculations regarding the unlimited possibilities of future scientific developments. As the power-gaining devices of mechanics set him wondering as to the possibility of lifting the globe, the "sympathetic" attraction of the magnet leads him to envision a magnetic attraction over an unlimited field that would eventually result in a code-like system of communication through great distances of space-an idea that became meaningful only in our own time and age. On the other hand, that imagination is not always of a purely scientific bent, but is rather deeply medieval both in spirit and imagery.2 All in all, Yashar's studies of both technology and physics are not very impressive. For the most part they are of a qualitative nature, drawing heavily on the Ancients. Their importance, if any, must not be measured, however, in terms of an actual contribution to the various areas of study they touch upon, but rather as an indication of Yashar's wide range of interests, and his awareness of current developments. Their importance is far greater in the framework of Jewish culture of the time, constituting the first attempt by a Jew to bring to the Hebrew reader a notion of the scientific developments that were taking place in Europe at that time. In a milieu dominated by rabbinic legalism, and increasingly under the spell of Cabbalah, Yashar was among the very few of his generation who maintained the contact of Hebrew letters with the world of secular learning. For a proper evaluation of these studies, it should further be noted that nowhere in them does Yashar make a claim on originality, which he frequently makes in his mathematical studies. It appears that he himself considered his role in this area as that of popularizer and disseminator, rather than innovator. As such, he no doubt made an important pioneering contribution.

1 2

Elim, pp. 377-378, 406-407, 415-416. Ibid., pp. 407, 410, 428, 438.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

YASHAR AS ASTRONOMER The most dramatic developments in science during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were in the field of astronomy. Almost two generations before Yashar was born, the epoch-making De Revolutionibus Orbium Oelestium of Nicolai Copernicus appeared (1543). The earth's dethronement from the central position it had held for thousands of years in the mind of man proved only a first step in an intellectual revolution which gradually set man free from a geo-centric, finite and hierarchical concept of the universe, and taught him instead to think in terms of infinite and uniform space. Y ashar was ten years old on the island of Crete when Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), the second greatest astronomer of the century, passed away. Though conservative and rejecting, on the whole, the heliocentric view of Copernicus, Brahe's observations and exact measurements constituted a further step in undermining the foundations upon which the old astronomy rested. They shook the belief in the separation of heaven and earth and the "perfect" circular motion ascribed to the heavenly bodies. The tendency toward a mechanical explanation of the universe gained further impetus through William Gilbert's (1530-1603) De Magnete (London, 1600), which treated earth's gravity as a form of magnetic attraction. To the end of the sixteenth century belong also the pathetic, erratic and deep tracts of the ill-fated Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), in which the heliocentric view of Copernicus was openly embraced as the basis for a pantheistic conception of an infinite universe with an infinite number of solar systems. Astronomy finally emerged from its hypothetical state and broke with the transcendental essences and hierarchies of the Aristotelians after the mathematical formulations of Johann Kepler (1571-1630) and the celestial discoveries of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), which prepared the ground for Newton's synthesis. It was Kepler who put astronomy on a demonstrable mathematical foundation. Embracing the Copernican view, he adopted elliptic instead of circular motion, and established a mathematical relationship between the periods of revolution of the planets round the sun and their distances from it.

YASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

151

Most spectacular were the astronomical discoveries of Galileo. His observations of the new star of 1604 in the constellation Serpentarius, his discovery of the four satellites of Jupiter, and his telescopic observations regarding the rings of Saturn, the face of the moon, the Milky Way, the sun spots, and the phases of Venus, not only lent strength to the Copernican theory, but brought forth an awareness of the rising new knowledge and the methods of inquiry which were to be followed in order to expand it. 1 Yashar amply displays his acquaintance with these new developments and his admiration for them. Galileo had left Padua for Florence some months before the end of 1610. Yashar, having arrived in Padua in 1606, thus had ample time and opportunity to attend his lectures. Indeed, he refers to Galileo as "my master," 2 and mentions several times his telescope through which he gazed at the sky. 3 It may also be assumed that a knowledge of Galileo's celestial observations and discoveries is implied, even though his name is not mentioned, whenever Yashar discusses such subjects as the phases of Venus, the "mountains on the moon," and the new views with regard to the Milky Way, meteors, the source of light of the planets, etc. 4 Y ashar' s mastery of the Almagest and the history of ancient and medieval astronomy, he so abundantly displays, must also be attributed to Galileo's teaching. Though a convinced believer in the Copernican system during the Paduan period (1592-1610), Galileo, in his official capacity as professor of mathematics and astrononomy, never embraced that' system, but continued the age-old tradition of teaching Ptolemy, Aristotle and Euclid. 5 From the astronomers of the time, Yashar most admired Tycho Brahe and Kepler. Though he rejects Brahe's general theory of the 1 Angus Armitage, The World of Copernicus (New York, 1953) ; Henry Carrington Bolton, The Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolph II, 1576-1612; H. Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science (New York, 1952), pp. 1-53; J. J. Fahie, Galileo, his Life and Works, chaps. III-VIII; Antonio Favaro, Galileo Galilei e lo Studio di Padova, 2 vols., I, pp. 137-175, 275ff, 372-418; Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Random House, New York, 1957, 1959); Sarton, Six Wings, pp. 54-76; Ch. Singer, A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900, chap. VII and passim. For more recent literature on the subject, especially with regard to Galileo, see "Foreword" by Giorgio de Santillana in L. Geymonat, Galileo Galilei (New York, 1965). 2 Elim, p. 301. 3 Ibid., pp. 417, 432. 4 Ibid., pp. 300-301, 432-433 and passim. s Favaro, op. cit., I, pp. 142, 154, 162-168.

152

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

heavens, he praises the precision of his instruments and the exactness of his numerous observations. 1 He refers nowhere to the planetary laws of Kepler; 2 he calls him, however, "the greatest mathematician of our time," 3 and draws frequent attention to his studies. 4 Nor does he mention by name Gilbert and his studies of the magnet, though he refers to the explanation of the earth's suspension as the result of magnetic pull. s Similarly, Bruno's name never appears, though the hypothesis of an infinite universe with a multiplicity of solar systems is alluded to several times. 6 Among the "new" astronomers, Y ashar admired Copernicus most. He described him and Ptolemy as "the two great luminaries." 7 Both he and his two disciples, Metz and ZeraJ;i, constantly refer to Copernicus as the father of the new astronomy, whose system offers solutions to the difficulties and inconsistencies of the older astronomy.s Yet, this wide acquaintance with the new theories and his admiration for them notwithstanding, Yashar devoted most of his work in astronomy to an exposition of the Almagest and the views of the Ancients. As mentioned, the "J;Iuqqoth Shamayim" is an exposition of the first two parts of that "wonderful book," 9 the Almagest, and most of "Gevuroth ha-Shem" is equally devoted to other parts of the same. Along with the ever-present Ptolemy he frequently mentions other astronomers and scholars, such as Archimedes, Hipparch, Eratosthenes, Euclid, Theon, Miletus, Posedonius, Jabbir of Seville, al-Battani, al-Farganus, Regiomontanus, Rheticus, Maurolycus, and many more. On the other hand, except for short, though frequent references, neither the views of Copernicus nor of Tycho Brahe are ever discussed at length. His main attention remains focused on the Almagest. To explain this, it should be remembered, first, that Ptolemy's was the basic text in Yashar's university· training; secondly, that Elim, pp. 317-319, 432. Cf. Ch. Singer, A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900, pp. 240-241. a Elim, p. 300. 4 Cf. G. Alter, "Two Renaissance Astronomers," p. 62. s Elim, pp. 407, 438. o Ibid., pp. 27, 61, 292-293. 7 Ibid., p. 315. 8 Ibid., pp. 11, 18, 27, 58, 117, 292, 299-300, 304 and passim. 9 Ibid., p. 329.

1

2

YASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

153

the reliance on Ptolemy was still predominant even in the new theories of Copernicus; 1 and, thirdly, that the Ptolemaic theory remained virtually unchanged, so far as its mathematical details were concerned, even after Copernicus had vastly altered the philosophical standpoint.2

Yashar's studies of astronomy are of two kinds, philosophical and mathematical. He attributes the first-a criticism of the philosophical foundations of the old astronomy-to Moshe Metz, 3 and claims for himself only the authorship of the purely mathematical and experimental works: "Sod ha-Yesod," "J.Iuqqoth Shamayim" and "Gevuroth ha-Shem." Although Metz repeatedly stresses that the views he expresses are not his, but drawn either from Yashar's book Bosmath, 4 or acquired through direct oral contact with Y ashar, s the unsophisticated reader may tend to believe that these pages are Metz' and not of Yashar's authorship. We believe that the attribution of this part of Elim to Metz is merely a device used by Yashar to shield himself against possible criticisms and accusations, because of the radical views expressed therein. Indeed, in no other part of Yashar's writings does one come across such an unprecedented, all-out assault on the basic concepts of ancient and medieval metaphysics, in general, and astronomy, in particular, as in this relatively short tract. Moreover, nowhere else does Yashar embrace such a materialistic view of man and his soul. Whatever Yashar's reftSOn for attributing this part of Elim to Metz, the ideas are all his own. Metz opens his criticism of the old astronomy by a presentation of Yashar's philosophy of nature. By defining air as "a spongy, though clearer and thinner" form of water, he reduces the Aristotelian four elements to three, two of which, earth and water, he declares to be the passive elements, and fire the active one. He totally rejects the Aristotelian hyle and form as explaining the processes of generation and corruption. Varying proportions of dryness and moisture, fused with varying degrees of heat acting upon them, sufficiently explain the multiplicity of being. a There is no need of the assumption of Cf. Butterfield, op. cit., chap. 2. Ch. Singer, A Short History etc., p. 91. a Cf. Elim, pp. 48-62, especially 54ff. 4 Ibid., pp. 17, 48, 54. s Ibid., pp. 26-28, 57, 58, 61. a I bid., p. 49.

1

2

154

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

form as the activating agent. The mandrakes become mandrakes not in consequence of form pressing upon hylic matter, but in consequence of the mixture of elements brought about by heat. 1 Form is only "an accidental quality." No other elements, he declares, ought to be admitted in the interpretation of nature besides those which are actually perceived by the senses. The senses, however, perceive nothing other than conglomerations of qualities, both primary and secondary. It is, moreover, in these conglomerations of properties, moulded by heat, that one has also to look for the specific "soul" of things. 2 Like the specific "form" of lead, for instance, which is only the result of a unique mixture of properties of matter, the "forms" of other beings are equally the result of such material mixtures. Thus, the "vegetative soul" of plants, the principle of their growth and reproduction, is nothing other than a unique merger of qualities of matter.s A "higher" and more "perfect" blending of elements 4 results in the animal soul, distinguished by sense. Even man, though he appears to be exceptional in the realm of being, constitutes no exception. All his capacities, the imaginative as well as the intellectual : conceptualization, synthesis, analysis and inference, derive from a blending [of material elements], which is superior in him than in all other animals. 5

Following these natural speculations, which undoubtedly bear the stamp of the anti-Aristotelian philosophies' of nature of the sixteenthseventeenth centuries, 6 Yashar-Metz apply this sensualist approach to the heavenly realm. And here too the basic concepts of Aristotelian and medieval astronomy are subjected to a devastating criticism. An outstanding feature of the Aristotelian heavens are not only the whirling spheres with their planets and stars, but also their Ibid., p. 51. Ibid., p. 52. 3 •CIWE:ll Nil"! Jl"l':iW lTbl"I 4 ·n::iiwbi l"!Nl niiio' ':iw rii1Tbl"ll"I s ;n':i'ni ;i::i::>.,m ;i':i::>w;i::> m'b'l!::ll"I WE:lll"I rii':iil7E:l ':i::>i 'li'bil"I n::>;i t=>i • • ·" •M"!:l .,N!D!:l c:iiNl"I lTb ::ii~b Cl'::>!Dbl i':iN ':i::> •Wv'l"li Elim, pp. 52-53. All these views seem directly traceable to Bernardino Telesio's (1508/9-1588) De Rerum Natura (Naples, 1586). See G. Gentile, Bernardino Telesio (Bari, 1911), pp. 59 ff. See also Neil van Deusen, "The Place of Telesio in the History of Philosophy," The Philosophical Review, XLIV (1935), pp. 417-434; Harry Austryn Wolfson, Crescas' Critique of Aristotle (1929), 120-122, 569-570. 6 Cf. "Oberweg's Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, IIJ12, 4lff; E. Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy (New York, 1964), pp. 145ff; P. 0. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford, 1964), pp. 9lff. i

2

.,m,

.,l"I,'

Y ASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

155

guiding spirits, the so called "intellects." 1 It is primarily against these arbitrary assumptions that Yashar levels his criticism. He first questions the multiplicity of intellects. As detached from any corporeality, how, he asks, can they be numbered 1 What is the principle of their individuation to set one apart from the other 1 He concludes, that this assumption has one reason only, the multiple motions of the heavenly bodies. However, "whoever desires to introduce new beings into the world must first prove their reality." 2 Y ashar next discusses the essence of the spheres and the relationship between them and the intellects. 3 The belief that the spheres are "living intelligences," though common among many ancient and medieval scholars, was differently understood by many of them, especially as regards the nature of that intelligence. Thus, Maimonides believed that the sphere was endowed with a soul, its "inseparable form" and the principle of its motion. In addition, he assumed the existence, outside the sphere, of an intellect detached from all matter. By itself, this intellect, he thought, has nothing to do with the sphere; inasmuch, however, as its image is impregnated in the mind of the sphere's soul, 4 it constitutes the object of the sphere's aspired imitation, and is thus the direct cause of its motion.s Yashar finds the view of Ibn Roschd and "most of the theologians" somewhat simpler. They deny that the sphere is possessed of a soul, and believe that it is rather moved directly by the intellect. How is it conceivable, they argue, "that the sphere should have an intellectual soul without possessing at the same time a vegetative and sensual soul; indeed, these stages of the soul are implicit in the intellectual soul as number two is in number four." 6 Whatever the merits of either view, Yashar considers both subject to "grave doubts." Moreover, the assumption of a relationship between spheres and intellects is, in his view, an unreasonable and useless assumption. What is the purpose, he wonders, of "harnessing the Metaphysica, Bk. XII, chap. 8; Renan, Averroes et l'Averroisme, pp. 116-122. Elim, p. 57. 3 This relationship was the subject of a heated debate between Francanciano and Piertro Pomponazzi at the beginning of the 16th century. Cf. H. Randall, "Introduction" to "Pietro Pomponazzi" in Cassirer, Kristeller, Randall, eds., The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, p. 270. 1

2

4

·l:ill:ill'I 11.'Dl l:i:>tl.'

Elim, p. 57; cf. Guide, II, 4. a Elim, p. 58. 5

156

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

horses to the wagon 1" If it is for the sake of the sphere, would the Creator subject the higher being to the lower 1 If, again, it is for the sake of the intellect, its essence being pure intelligence detached from all matter, what benefit can be derived from such a conjunction 1 In short, he can see no connection between the intellect and the sphere. The natural heat being the medium by which the soul acts in the body, how can the spheres move or be intelligent if they are deprived of the vital spirit and animal soul ? How can the chariot be called intelligent just because of its intelligent driver? 1

Yashar cites additional arguments to show that whatever relationship one establishes between these celestial entities, it always leads to logical fallacies and inconsistencies. 2 He concludes by asserting that all these assumptions are not only unconvincing but altogether invalid and superfluous, and "a true philosopher ought not to crowd the universe with arbitrary beings." All these allegedly divine speculations are built on shaky foundations. Should one reject the assumption of primaeval matter as a figment of the imagination, and with it the assumption of compartmentalized spheres ... embracing, instead, the view that there is actually nothing besides expanding air, which higher up is transformed into a thin transparent ether; and as it is natural for the stars to move in circular motion, it is natural for the four elements to be in a state of rest and only when outside their place, to move in a rectilinear manner . . . if such views are adopted, dispensing with movers and abstract intelligences, the result would be that all this sort of speculation would come to nought. It would then become obvious how vain are all these disputations on which so much ink is spilt and so many pens broken.a

Another aspect of the old a::;tronomy which Yashar criticizes is its assumption of a fifth substance for the heavenly bodies. This is not discussed in the above section attributed to Metz, but is frequently alluded to in other parts of his writings. 4 Thus, in his third letter to Y ashar, Zera:Q. writes : Your disciple [Metz] has excitedly asserted that you have proven by demonstration that the heavens are generated and are subject to corruption ... You have rejected Aristotle's proofs regarding a fictitious fifth substance, and in your book Bosmath you smashed them to pieces.

Ibid., Ibid., a Ibid., 4 Ibid.,

i

2

pp. 58-59. pp. 59-60. p. 61. pp. 117, 299-300; Novloth, pp. 51-54.

YASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

157

Noteworthy is the fact that it is this very letter, in which Zeral;i. gives a vivid and emotional expression of the confusion that befell him as a result of the new philosophical and· astronomical views to which he was· introduced by Metz, which makes us realize, though indirectly, Yashar's total rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and astronomy, and his full adoption of the new mechanistic and materialist views. He negates not only a fifth substance, spheres and intellects, but the very concept of a heaven as well. He also goes much beyond Copernicus in his reference to infinite space, multiplicity of worlds, the possibility of human life on other planets, and in his purely mechanistic explanation of universal motion. 1 Worth noting also is the time element. Both letters of Zeral;i. and Metz belong to the first year of Yashar's stay in Poland. The fact that the rejection of the medieval world view and the adoption of the new astronomy, with its far-reaching philosophical implications, constitute so central a subject in them both, clearly indicates the nature of Yashar's teaching at that time, which he was so eager to impart to his students. Indirectly, though clearly, the reader perceives the youthful master, who, overcome by the great revolutionary ideas of the time, set out on a pilgrimage in search of kindred spirits among his brethren with whom he hoped to share this unique and great intellectual experience. As mentioned, the above discussion of Aristotelianism and classical astronomy is based on the correspondence of Zeral;i. and Metz, printed in the first part of Elim. However, Yashar's major work in astronomy is contained in the subsequent parts of that volume. Six of Zeral;i.'s thirteen questions are on astronomy, and three of Yashar's four printed replies are devoted to this subject. In the previous bibliographical section, a brief summary of the first two, "Sod ha-Yesod" and "J;Iuqqoth Shamayim,'' was presented. In the following discussion, the third of these treatises, "Gevuroth ha-Shem,'' will be considered. It is the most accessible from a layman's point of view, as it is the least encumbered with mathematical calculations. Reminiscent of the apologetic approach of the early maskilim, Yashar opens his "Gevuroth ha-Shem" by piously stating that what 1 Elim, pp. 26-28. Many of Yashar's anti-Aristotelian views were adumbrated two centuries earlier by J;Iasdai Crescas, though, of course, in the framework of the Ptolemaic conception of the universe. See, H. A. Wolfson, Orescas' Critique of Aristotle (Harvard University Press, 1929), pp. 114-127; idem, The Phik>sophy of Spinoza (Meridian Books, New York, 1958), p. 221.

158

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

attracted him to recent astronomical theories was mainly their implied sublime concept of the Deity. All my days I could not believe that there was no other world besides the one which extends from the center of our earth to the eighth, ninth or tenth sphere, and that God, blessed be He, is standing above it and moving it. It seemed unbecoming to God's infinite might to limit itself to such a finite task, which, although wonderful and awesome in human eyes, is nevertheless trivial to Him. When I therefore read of the views of the Cabbalists regarding the four worlds and the spheres ... my thoughts soared higher than those of the philosophers ... I felt elevated and overjoyed by the heightened concept of my Creator. My joy had greatly increased when I heard about the views of some of the most important scholars of our day, who conceive of the world in terms of a lantern, with the sun like a candle in its midst, diffusing its light as far as the sphere of Saturn, the most extreme of the spheres of this world, and with all the other planets-old and new and many unseen [by the naked eye]-inside that lantern enjoying its light. As for the stars of the eighth sphere, it is believed that their distance from Saturn is by far greater than that assumed by Copernicus. They therefore appear so small, though each of them is as large as this world or even larger ... The light we perceive in them comes from the sun of each of those lanterns. Who knows what kind of existence is theirs; whether they also have an earth, inhabited places and creatures like us or not.1

This passage, with its enthusiasm for an infinite universe of multiple solar systems, clearly points to Yashar's acquaintance with the views of Giordano Bruno. Bruno's small tract on The Infinite Universe and its Worlds, published together with his two other tracts, appeared in London in 1584, 2 and it may be assumed that so ardent a bibliophile as Yashar must have come into its possession. Copernicus' view of the universe, alluded to by Metz in the first part of Elim,a is introduced here in chapter five. It is preceded by a brief description of the Ptolemaic system and some of the difficulties it became entangled in. According to Ptolemy and all other astronomers before Copernicus, the earth is in the center of the universe. Closest to it is the orb of the moon, followed by the orbs of Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and the last one, that of Saturn. These are the seven planets which, it is believed, do not move of their own, but by their orbs. In opposition to these, the eighth sphere is considered immovable, and its stars the fixed ones ...

Regarding the distance of the heavenly bodies from earth, Yashar continues, it is generally agreed "that the fixed stars are the most 1 Elim, pp. 292-293. For the lantern or lamp simile, see Kuhn, op. cit., pp. 179-180. 2 Cf. Ch. Singer, A Slwrt HiBtory of Scientific Ideas, p. 220. a Elim, p. 58,.

Y ASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

159

distant, for all the planets are seen actually passing under them, and separating us from them." The fact "that they are always sparkling, as if darting arrows,'' also points to this conclusion. Above all, however, this may be inferred by reason, as there ought to be a direct relationship between the size of a star's revolution and the period for its completion. Assuming that all the stars move at the same velocity, the time table of their revolutions ought to differ in accordance with the size of their orbit. Thus, "while the sun completes its revolution in a year, Mars should complete its revolution in two years, Jupiter in more time and Saturn in still more." However, it has been observed that this relationship between distance and time is not sustained, casting doubt on the accepted view of the order of celestial bodies. Whereas all are in agreement that Jupiter and Saturn are "above the sun," there is doubt and confusion with regard to Mars, Sun, Venus and Mercury. "The wonderful astronomer Tycho has decisively demonstrated ... that Mars is sometimes nearer earth than the sun,'' and the same has been observed with regard to Mercury and with Venus.1 In view of these irregularities, some of which had already been noticed by the Ancients, Aristotle saw himself compelled to take refuge in fictitious assumptions and explanations. However, all these difficulties, Y ashar declares, are overcome by the hypothesis of Copernicus and his successors. He summarizes it as follows : According to Copernicus, the sun is in the center of the universe, successively encircled by Mercury, Venus, earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn ... Thus ... when the sun stands between earth and Mars, Mars will be more distant from earth than the sun. The same is true with regard to Mercury and Venus, who, for the same reason, are sometimes more distant from the sun, but when the earth is between them and the sun, they are closer to earth than the sun.

The disciples of Copernicus, Yashar continues, go even further, rejecting altogether the notion of celestial spheres. As there is no orb carrying the earth, there are no orbs carrying the other planets either. What accounts for the motions of the planets are not their orbs, but the sun, which, like a king on its throne, is in the center of the world, and, endowed with power of magnetic attraction, moves and leads all the planets in their prescribed paths. This also applies to earth, which, as long as it is in motion, is not heavy, and only in a state of rest would become heavy. It may be likened to a thrown stone, that 1

Ibid., p. 299; cf. Kuhn, op. cit., pp. 205-206.

160

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

keeps itself in flight as long as the power that was lent to it by the thrower persists. The permanent motion of the earth will continue as long as the power of the sun, moving, pushing and leading, does not cease. On its part, also earth is endowed with such magnetic power, and by it causes the moon to circle around it. In this way all cosmic motions transpire, according to the following time table : Mercury in eighty days, Venus in nine months, earth in a year, Mars in two years, Jupiter in twelve, Saturn in thirty; the moon, however, whose circle is the smallest, moves faster than all the rest.1

As mentioned, the above passages indicate Yashar's acquaintance not only with the Copernican system but with post-Copernican developments as well, notably Gilbert's theory of the magnet which was adopted by Kepler as the basis for a theory of universal gravitation.2 It further shows that he emancipated himself from the dogma of the spheres as the carriers of the stars in their orbits, and began, instead, to think in terms of boundless space. 3 In the remainder of chapter five Yashar discusses two problems, the solutions of which had been greatly facilitated by the celestial observations of Galileo: first, whether there are other stars, besides the moon, between earth and the sun; and second, what is the source of the stars' light. The Aristotelians argued against the Copernicans that, were there any stars besides the moon, between us and the sun, two phenomena should have become noticeable : first, while in conjunction with the sun, they ought to become obscured on the side facing us, since, like all other stars, they obtain their light from the sun and have no light of their own. Equally, coming out of conjunction, they ought also to show phases like the moon. Secondly, as a result of conjuction, the sun too, as in the case of a conjunction with the moon, ought to become occulted. Not having observed these phenomena, however, they concluded that only the moon is "under" the sun and no other stars. In refutation of these arguments, Yashar points out that Venus, like the moon, does go through phases and the sun is partially obscured when in conjunction with Mercury. The phases of Venus had been observed by the telescope of Galileo, and the obscuration of the sun has been attested by both Ibn Roschd and Kepler. They testified that, during a conjunction of Mercury and the sun, they observed a 1 Elim, pp. 299-300. For the simile of the sun as king, see the passage from Copernicus in Kuhn, op. cit., pp. 179-180. 2 Butterfield, op. cit., p. 49. 3 G. Alter, loc. cit., p. 63.

YASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

161

spot on the image of the sun disc, obtained through the aperture of the camera obscura. Others reply to the arguments of the Aristotelians by asserting that only the moon, being "thick and dark" and with no light of its own, obscures the sun, whereas all other stars, having a light of their own, cannot obscure it. Whatever the merit of this view, Yashar points out that it has been established through observation that at least the increased luminosity of the planets must be attributed to the sun. My teacher Galileo testified that he observed Mars when near to earth, and saw that its light was much greater than that of Jupiter, though its body is smaller. Indeed, its light was so strong that he could not look at it through the tube. I asked permission to observe it through the telescope, and it appeared to me elongated, not round ... Jupiter, however, I found to be round, and Saturn ... egg-shaped. Thus, ifthe light of Mars, when in the proximity of the earth, is greater and redder than the light of Jupiter, which is whiter, and the light of Jupiter is greater than that of Saturn which is like lead and dull, and Venus, which is closer to the sun, glitters more than all of them, and Mercury, although the smallest of the planets, is nevertheless bright-we must conclude that they obtain light from the sun, if not all of it, [at least] the observed increase of it.

However, Yashar points out that the view that the stars have a light of their own, is refuted by Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus, which would have been imperceptible if Venus had a light of its own. Nor can it be upheld by the luminosity and brightness of the fixed stars, notwithstanding their great distance from the sun. This light, may either be generated by the great velocity of their own rotation round their center, or may derive from other, far greater, sources of light than our sun. As for the argument regarding the lack of obscuration of the sun by bodies other than the moon, Yashar asserts that this in no way proves that there are no other bodies "under" the sun besides the moon. The reason that such obscurations have not been observed is simple : Venus and Mercury, being much smaller than the sun, obscure in conjunction only a small section of it, which, due to the great brightness of the sun, is hardly noticeable. The fact that from earth only the eclipse of the sun by the moon and by no other body is seen, is only the result of the proximity of the moon, which darkens our eyes rather than the sun.1 In "Ma'ayan :i;Iatum" Yashar criticizes two other aspects of Aristotelian astronomy, namely, its views regarding comets and the 1

Elim, pp. 300-301.

162

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

Milky Way. 1 According to Aristotle, comets are the result "of the light vapours from earth, which, being either fat or dry, upon ascending to the higher sphere of the air, heat up, and, when reaching the sphere of fire, ignite." 2 Without taking a stand on this theory, Yashar criticizes Aristotle's assumption that comets are sublunar, or, more specifically, stratospheric phenomena, an assumption Aristotle infers from his view of the eternal and unchangeable nature of the heavens. 3 Were comets stratospheric phenomena, Yashar argues, as imperfect compounds, they ought to disintegrate soon after their formation; however, "we see them persisting for months." Moreover, they ought not to show any regularity in their motion or the path they travel. However, according to recent studies of five of them, they all follow a path similar to that of other planets, moving "from West to North and East." Though the speed of their motion does not remain constant, its change is regular, from greater to lesser speed. Furthermore, were they stratospheric, they ought to be seen traveling at great velocity, since the closer a star is to earth the faster its motion appears. However, "their motion has never been observed to be faster than five degrees per day, whereas the motion of the even sluggishly moving moon is more than ten degrees per day, thus, indicating that they are above the sphere of the moon." This, Yashar points out, is also confirmed by the observations of the three stars which have recently reappreared. Who would deny that they were in the eighth sphere, in view of the fact that their motion was not different from that of the fixed stars of that sphere. The first of them, which appeared in the year 1600 in the constellation Cygnus, is still extant. Of the other famous two, one appeared in the year 1572 in the constellation Cassiopeia, and the second in 1604 in the Bow.

The strongest proof, however, of the heavenly, and not stratospheric, nature of comets is mathematical, namely, their extremely small parallax. Were they sublunar, Yashar reasons, they ought to appear to observers at different places on earth at different positions in the heavens. This has not been the case, however. Ibid., pp. 431-433. Cf. Aristotle, Meterologica, Bk. I, chaps. 4, 7, in The Works of Aristotle, ed. by W. D. Ross, vol. III (Oxford, 1931). 3 For a more decisive stand by Yashar against Aristotelian astronomy, notably his theory of comets, cf. Ha-Carmel, VI (1867), pp. 342-343. 1

2

YASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

163

All astronomers from East and West, whose books were published in the same year and exhibited at the Frankfurt Fair, testified that they appeared to them at the same time and in the same poAition, and that their parallax was smaller than that of the sun and moon. They must therefore be above the moon.

For this very reason, i.e., the smallness of the parallax, Yashar points out, Aristotle's view regarding the Milky Way must also be rejected. "He considered it a permanent comet, generated from ... atmospheric vapors drawn upward by the light of the stars." In refutation of this view, Yashar cites the fact that "the Milky Way is seen by all the world as being in the same position ... [thus indicating] that this belt [of stars] lies in the eighth sphere." Moreover, this problem, as well as some others, have already been cleared up by the glass tube, as described by Galileo in his book ... 1 I myself looked through it several times and saw that that circle is nothing other but a cluster of small stars pressed together so closely that, in consequence of their brightness, it gives the impression of a circle ... 2 You must realize [Yashar concludes] that Aristotle was only human and not divine. You must not, therefore, always rely on him uncritically.a

Chapter 17 also belongs to the more general parts of "Gevuroth ha-Shem." In it Y ashar briefly summarizes the astronomical achievements of Tycho Brahe, "the second Hipparchus." He writes with enthusiasm of the tall observation tower Tycho had built on an island in the Baltic Sea, under the auspices of the King of Denmark. He praises the many observations and measurments of the heavenly bodies which he had conducted there with his precise instruments, "the like of which have not been seen since creation." He then presents some of his tables of the angular diameters of the planets, as compared with that of earth, and their relative distance from it. Summarizing his data, he writes : You thus see that, according to his assumptions, Mars is smaller than earth ... Saturn is larger than Jupiter, and both are not as large as the Ancients thought. Nor are the fixed stars so big. Mercury and Venus are larger than the moon, which, in his view, is the smallest of the heavenly bodies.

1 The book referred to is the Biderius Nuncius which appeared in March, 1610, and in which Galileo summarized the results of his celestial observations. In it he also described the nature of the Milky Way as seen through the telescope. Cf. The Sideral Messenger of Galileo Galilei ... A Translation with Introduction and Notes by Edward Stafford Carlos (London, 1880), pp. 42-44. 2 Elim, p. 432. a Ibid., p. 433.

164

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

He concludes with a final note on Tycho's general theory of the heavens: According to him the earth is in the center of the universe, constituting the center for the sun, moon and fixed stars. He believes, however, that the sun is the center of the other planets ... The orbits of Mercury, Venus and Mars are intersected with the orbit of the sun. By such an assumption he believes that all obsei;ved motions can properly be explained ... I do not intend to adduce here the fundamentals of his theory, but only [to note] that he adopted the assumptions of Copernicus and dressed them up in a new appareJ.l

The other sections of "Gevuroth ha-Shem" deal with more specific aspects of astronomy. Thus, chapter seven discusses the parallax and its reliability as a method for the establishment of the distances of the heavenly bodies. By it alone, he declares, can it be decided whether comets, or any other newly observed bodies in the heavens, are atmospheric or etheral. Should the angle of their parallax be larger than that of the moon, these bodies would be closer to earth, if smaller, they must be placed at greater distance. This method is in his view "stronger than rock, and cannot be refuted either by Aristotle or any other seeker of truth." 2 In chapter eight he describes the instruments used by Ptolemy and Copernicus for measuring the angle of the parallax.3 Chapter nine illustrates the use of these instruments in measuring the distance of the moon. 4 Chapter ten discusses the question, how to establish distances of stars in case of changing parallaxes or of great distances, where the parallax is very small.s The "excellent" method of Ptolemy in finding the distance of the sun "on the basis of the known distance of the moon from the center of the earth" is discussed in chapter eleven. 6 The relative diameters and volumes of the moon, the earth and the sun, according to Ptolemy and Copernicus, are computed in chapter twelve. 7 That the sun is larger than the earth, and the earth larger than the moon is pointed out in chapter thirteen, on the basis of the effects of earth's shadow

1 Ibid., pp. 317-319; see also Michael Hoskins and Christine Jones, "Problems in Late Renaissance Astronomy," Le Soleil a la Renaissance, pp. 21-31. 2 Elim, p. 304. a Ibid., pp. 304-305. 4 Ibid., pp. 305-306. 5 Ibid., pp. 306-307. 6 Ibid., pp. 307-309. 7 Ibid., pp. 309-310.

YASHAR AS ASTRONOMER

165

on other planets. 1 Further data regarding distances, diameters and circumferences of the planets are given in chapters 14-24. 2 Since in all of these calculations the diameter of the earth is used as the basic unit, Y ashar considers it essential "to investigate the matter precisely, especially in view of the fact that the earth is closer to us than the remote and hidden heavens." 3 He devotes to this subject almost five chapters,4 in which he describes the methods used by Egyptian and other scholars, such as Eratosthenes, Posedonius and Maurolycus. Summarizing their findings, he points out that, in view of the different methods used, their estimates regarding the size of the circumference of the earth differ, and some of them quite considerably. Thus, according to Aristotle, some of the Ancients estimated that circumference to be 400,000 stadiums (50,000 miles). He also adduces estimates by Oleomendes (300,000 stadiums, i.e., 37,500 miles), Hipparchus (252,000 stadiums, i.e., 31,500 miles, or 277,000 stadiums, i.e., 34,625 miles), "early Arab scholars" (24,000 miles), Alfarganus and Alacin (20,400 miles) and some recent scholars (19,080 miles). He believes that the most reliable is the estimate of "the majority of recent scholars," who investigated the matter both at sea and on land and concluded that, since each degree equals fifteen parasangs, the circumference equals 5400 parasangs, i.e., 21,600 miles. Yashar concludes: It seems to me that everything depends on the exactness of the measurement of the distance between one place and another, since, in the final analysis, all calculations are based on it. A minor, unnoticed error becomes an error of major proportions.

Although he shares the views of recent scholars, he accepts for the time being Ptolemy's estimate of 180,000 stadiums, i.e., 22,500 miles. 5 What follows in the final chapters of "Gevuroth ha-Shem" clearly indicates the continued strength of the medieval elements in Yashar's thought. The sober discussions described above suddenly degenerate into wild speculations about the earthly area required for all the generations of Jews at resurrection. 6 Similarly, the discussion of the Ibid., pp. 310-311. Ibid., pp. 311-330. a Ibid., p. 330. 4 Chaps. XXV-XXIX, ibid., pp. 330-334. s Ibid., p. 334. 6 Ibid., pp. 334-335.

i

2

166

SECULAR STUDIES AND PURSUITS

ratio of water and earth degenerates into a computation of the number of drops of water. 1 To this kind of speculations also belongs the calculation of the volumes of the various elements, 2 the number of dust particles of the earth, 3 the tooth-wheel device to lift the earth,4 etc. The transitional nature of Yashar's studies in general is also characteristic of his astronomy. He embraces the new views, and displays great enthusiasm for them; his major effort, however, still centers on Ptolemy. Nevertheless, it is not the lingering aspects of his medieval background that ought to be stressed, but rather the new ideas and the new method he so amply and strongly displays. Though in details and specifics he still leans on the Ancients, notably Aristotle and Ptolemy, he is completely modern in his general view of the heavens and the universe at large. He assimilated not only Copernicus' heliocentric view, but the more advanced astronomical notions of the post-Copernican era as well. He is acquainted with the researches of Brahe, the magnetic theories of Gilbert, the pantheistic speculations of Bruno regarding infinite space and multiple solar systems, the planetary laws of Kepler and, finally, the new celestial discoveries by Galileo. Although Yashar's astronomical studies are unoriginal, they are impressive by their scope and versatility. He mastered not only ancient and modern astronomy, but also adopted, for his own independent studies, the new methods of scientific observation and experimentation that were coming into use with such astounding results. Already as a student at Padua he used Galileo's telescope several times to observe the skies, and continued his observations during his incessant wanderings. 5 Yashar may thus be considered one of the early scholars who taught and practiced the application of the observational and quantitative approach to science. Had he expressed his views even in one of the European languages, they might not have lacked an element of novelty; but they undoubtedly were more novel and startling to the Hebrew reader. Whether there were many such readers at the time is very doubtful, indeed. Ibid., Ibid., s Ibid., 4 Ibid., 5 Ibid.,

1

2

pp. 336-337. pp. 340-341. p. 343. pp. 346-348. pp. 249, 254, 330.

PART FOUR

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

INTRODUCTION Yashar devoted more time and thought to philosophy than to any other intellectual pursuit. The bulk of the three hundred pages of Novloth lfokhmah, the so called "NovlothOrah," deal almost exclusively with metaphysics. Even the Oabbalistic parts of it are philosophically inspired, intended to solve problems, rather than to edify one spiritually. Also parts of Elim are of a philosophical character. He loved and admired both mathematics and astronomy, but his greatest absorption was with philosophy. If an element of novelty is discernible in his philosophical speculations, it lies less in the speculations themselves than in his approach. His thought still centers on the perennial problems of both ancient and medieval metaphysics; creation versus eternity, matter and form, the substance of the heavens, providence, the soul, etc. Typical, however, are the multiple and often contradictory points of view he alternately embraces. Though he is deeply committed to Aristotle's logic and naturalistic approach, his thoughts are strongly permeated with elements of Platonism and mysticism. This eclecticism runs through almost every subject of his speculations, leaving the reader perplexed as to which views he is ultimately committed. Indeed, on the basis of Elim and Ta'alumoth lfakhmah one may justly draw a picture of Yashar either as a staunch rationalist and naturalist, or, alternatively, as an idealist and spiritualist. To resolve this apparent dichotomy in the manner Geiger did, namely, to dismiss the pietist elements in his writings as mere camouflage, a stratagem for concealing his heretical views, may be justified only in the context of Ma§ref and with regard to the Oabbalah alone; but not in the framework of Novloth and with regard to his thought in general. The spiritualist and mystical elements in N ovloth are too extensive and profuse to be summarily dismissed as camouflage. They must rather be treated as an integral part of his thought, characteristic not only of him but of his generation as a whole. N ovloth must not be considered a definitive system of thought, but an expression of his quest and search. Y ashar wanders along a variety of paths, raising questions and doubts rather than offering finalized views and solutions. By doing so, he undermines the foundations of dogmatic speculative thought-whether Platonic, Aristotelian or Oabbalistic-heralding the advent of a new age, with a new orientation and new methods.

CHAPTER TWELVE

EPISTEMOLOGY 1.

KNOWLEDGE, THOUGHT AND FAITH

Y ashar devoted two essays to the problem of knowledge : the epistle "Ner Elohim," written to his Karaite friend, Yoshiyah, and reprinted in Elim,1 and an essay on the Active Intellect, printed in Novloth.2 The difference in views and approach between these two volumes in general is reflected in these essays. Whereas the "Ner Elohim" is primarily concerned with defining the various areas of knowledge according to the nature and degrees of their demonstrability, the essay in N ovloth is epistemological and psychological. Although, as we shall see, Yashar rejects in Novloth the transcendental conception of the Active Intellect and adopts an immanent conception, as an integral part of the mind, he maintains this view within the traditional framework of Arabic-Jewish Aristotelian epistemology. The source of all knowledge, Y ashar points out in his epistle to Y oshiyah, are the five senses. There is no premise or conclusion amongst all the acquisitions of the intellect whose existence has not been preceded in one of the senses, upon which the intellect has built its fortresses and structures. 3

However, sensual data alone do not constitute knowledge. They are common to both man and beast. Only when abstracted and transformed into universals do they become the elements from which knowledge is spun. Man is unique in the animal world because of his memory which helps him retain universals. 4 Memory emancipates him from a constant dependence on sensual impressions, and enables him to attain knowledge and thought. Elim, p. 76-93. Novloth, pp. 15-23. 3 Elim, p. 77. Although this sensualism may be traced back to Aristotle (De Anima, III, 8, 43lb}, it is perhaps more directly derived from Telesio and Campanella. See supra, p. 152, notes 5 and 6 and Bernardino l\L Bonansea, Tommaso Campanella, pp. 4748, 76-77. 4 Aristotle, Analytica Posteriora, Bk. II, 19, 99b-100a. 1

2

EPISTEMOLOGY

171

Leaning on Aristotle and his commentators, Yashar conceives of knowledge as a three-staged process. In the first, the simple sense data are conceptualized, and their essence in terms of substance, accident, etc., grasped. In the second, relationships are established among these data either by combining or separating them, an activity expressed in both positive and negative sentences. The greatness of the human mind, however, comes to the fore in the third stage when a new inference is made from two given premises by the aid of syllogism. Yashar views the highest form of knowledge as the demonstrative, by which an inference is made from proven premises. The major hurdle to achieving knowledge is the difficulty of formulating such premises. The number of proven and valid premises in the realm of the natural and the divine sciences, i.e., physics and metaphysics, is very limited. 1 Mathematics is the only area which offers precise and undisputable truth. 2 However, being purely formal and indifferent to the cause and effect relationship in reality, it can hardly be considered philosophical. a Though Yashar admired the demonstrative method in mathematics, he realized that other areas of study hardly yield to its application. Basing himself on Aristotle's remarks in Physics, Yashar maintains that in natural science the analytic method from effect to cause is more likely to lead to new truths than the deductive method. 4 The proper procedure, he writes, ought to be "from the immediately knowable to us, though posterior in nature, to that which is concealed from us, though truly prior in nature." In his writings he appeals to experience and emphasizes the importance of experimentation almost as frequently as he expresses his admiration for mathematics and its deductive method. The appeal to experience is also the basis of Yashar's thought on education, and in its name he levels his criticism against both the Cabbalists and philosphers. He admonishes that the acquisition of all the knowledge pertaining to a field of enquiry must precede any speculation of general principles. This rule ought to be followed not only in the sciences, but in ~hetoric and divinity as well. One must not begin with speculations of abstract causes before one has thoroughly Elim, p. 81. Ibid., pp. 93, 113, 365. a Ibid., p. 427. 4 Ibid., p. 80; Aristotle, Physica, I, 1, 184a; cf. John Herman Randall in Journal of the History of Ideas, I (1940), pp. 177-206. 1

2

172

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

familiarized oneself with their effects. He complains that the opposite is practiced by "some of our people," who do not apply themselves first to the study of the Torah and the Gemara, and do not acquire an understanding of the Codes or even an adequate knowledge of Hebrew, before they begin publicly displaying the bits of knowledge they picked up from books of secular poets and prose writers ; they mix them with some sayings of Christian theologians or the mysteries of the Cabbalists, of which they know next to nothing, and consider themselves great sages and take the liberty of mocking the Talmud and its students. A Torah scholar, even if he does not know the reasons for the commandments or their secret meanings' is more important in the eyes of the Lord than a theologian or a mystic who is ignorant of the Torah and the Gemara. The latter may be likened to one who has been given the inner keys, but not the outer ones : how can he get inside? 1

On the other hand, Y ashar stresses that a knowledge of particulars alone, not complemented by a study of underlying causes-important though it may be in many ways-can by no means be considered wisdom. In his view, the knowledge of some medical practitioners, who base their diagnoses on experience alone and lack a theoretical foundation, is of such a nature. 2 He also relegates historians to this class. They certainly possess expertise, and they can be considered scholarly, 3 to the extent that they present their knowledge in an orderly fashion. However, history without a study of causes, is mere information and can hardly be considered knowledge. The same applies to the so-called rhetoricians, 4 who deal with laws, customs and institutions. Their sort of knowledge is the result of hearsay or reading, tradition or service; hence it is of a rather simple and superficial nature, since the causes that gave rise to these laws and institutions and the aim of their original legislators constitute no part of the discipline.s As far as law and ethics are concerned, Yashar holds the opinion that an investigation into their origins and causes is a noble task which deserves the highest praise; a pursuit superior to that of the natural philosopher, who is interested only in the causes of material things. Yashar is convinced that in the background of ancient constitutions, one must look for a philosophy of man and society, a desire to enhance human welfare. Noble and deserving as such an

3

Elim, p. 83; cf. Sefer IJasidirn (Margaliyoth ed.), par. 13. Elim, pp. 83-84, 112. "lil7i" ,,~,. ibid., p. 81.

4

•t:l":!l:"'~

1 2

s Elim, p. 82.

EPISTEMOLOGY

173

investigation is, however, it ought to be preceded by a study of the law itself. Methodologically, the student of law and ethics must follow the example of the natural philosopher, who first acquaints himself with the properties and functions of the natural bodies, and only then proceeds to deal with principles and causes. In short, as philosophy must have its base in the particulars of experience, experience likewise must go beyond itself and conclude in a study of final causes. 1 Knowledge in the strict sense of the term is, in Yashar's view, confined to the small area of demonstrative truth. However, in a looser manner and with a lesser degree of certainty. it is also applicable to the area of thought and speculation. 2 In the latter category he includes all metaphysical and ethical speculations, placing them in a class below that of demonstrative knowledge. Although the syllogism is also used in this area, its nature differs from that in demonstrative truth. The premises from which an inference is drawn are apodictic in mathematics, but only opinionative in other areas. Yashar relegates to the latter category some fundamental conceptions regarding God, man and the world. The most one may offer in support of his assertions regarding these matters are proofs of a dialectic, not a demonstrative, nature. 3 The premises upon which such a proof rests may appear true, but are not true by necessity. Some appear truthful to a greater number of people than others. Thus, Yashar thinks, the existence of God is a conviction of universal validity, since one cannot find people without some concept of a Supreme Ruler. Even animals must have a. notion of a Divinity impregnated in their imagination. Moreover, were the inanimate objects given the power of expression, they too would acknowledge it. 4 Less universally recognized are some ethical tenets which serve as the basis for moral judgment. Such a maxim as "that the good ought to be preferred to the pleasant,'' may appear valid to the wise, but not to all men. Again, the belief that the world was created and the mind is eternal may be recognized as true by "the majority of the wise,'' though not by all of them. But since it is impossible to subject the ethical and metaphysical concepts and views to demonstrative proofs, this area is left a subject of contentious speculations hardly deserving the name "knowledge." i

I bid., ibid. :"l:l!VMl'.l Cf. Aristotle, Anal. Post., Bk. I, ch. 33. c••ritlil'.l ~i,, c~•ni:sl c•wp:i, Elim, p. 86. Ibid., p. 84.

2 .~-,:ioi

3

4

174

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

The "knowledge" pertaining to faith is qualitatively lower, since its truth has only one foundation, namely, tradition. To the extent that this tradition originates in divine revelation, as in Judaism, it rests upon a solid foundation, and its truths are superior to even those attained by demonstration. However, to the extent that it is based on human tradition, its validity depends on the strength of the testimony. As far as this tradition in Judaism is concerned, Yashar asserts that it is of the greatest possible strength. Following the reasoning of Y ehudah Halevi, he points out that Revelation was a public ~vent before the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people. Everything that happened was written down in the Torah of Moses, and when Moses died, each tribe received a scroll of the Torah. 1 Many of the people who witnessed Revelation were still alive and would surely have challenged anything recorded in it, if it were not in accordance with their knowledge. Since then, the Torah has been handed down from generation to generation in an uninterrupted chain, maintaining its validity to the present, "as if we ourselves heard and saw" that Revelation. Moreover, it is unthinkable "that so many fathers would all bequeath the very same falsehoods" to their offsprings. Besides, "all the nations also acknowledge it." 2 Yashar's argument for the validity of the Jewish tradition, drawn from the alleged honesty of the fathers, would have been much more convincing if in another context he had not asserted the exact opposite view, namely, that "there is never a teacher or a father who reveals to his disciple or son everything that is in his heart with regard to matters of this kind." s Religion thus rests on tradition, and that tradition is as strong as its historical evidence. To demand additional proofs of its validity is unreasonable, in Yashar's view. Were there such proofs, that tradition would cease to be a matter of faith and would become knowledge. 4 He explains that fundamental assumptions are made in all areas of human knowledge and activity, from which everything else in that area is derived; but the assumptions are never made a subject of 1 inKi Cl'"!l!Z.' ,:i•':i '!l' ,l"l!t'~ :in::i ni.,in l"l.,!Zl:U w':iiv : Klil"I '., civ:i K''l!l '.," Kl'!' ,l"l.,inl"I 1~ inK .,,p:u':i Cl'"!l!Zll"I 1~ inK !Z!p:i ClK!Z.' ,•i':i ':iw i":iw':i ",i::iin~ m·l~i i':i!Z.' l"l.,in .,£)0 K·~i~ .,i, ':i!Z! i":i!Z.' Pesiqta von Rabbi Kahana, ed. Solomon Buber (Lyck, 1868), p. 197 (pea. 32:29). 2 Ibid., pp. 87-88.

.,:i,

p. 58. Cf. Don Yehudah ben p. 56b. 3 M~re/(1864), 4

Yi~Q.aq

Abravanel, Vikku'aQ, 'al ha-Ahavah (Lyck, 1871),

EPISTEMOLOGY

175

study in that particular area. Tradition in religion constitutes such an unquestionable assumption.1 There are thus three areas of human 9ulture, each of which claims to possess some sort of truth : demonstrative knowledge, thought and faith. In the strict sense of the term, knowledge can be attributed only to such studies which teach us the causes of or reasons for things, and whose truth yields to demonstration. In the two other areas, one can only "think" or "believe." The subject of thought may appear to be true, although it cannot be necessarily true, since the proofs it offers are only dialectic and the premises undemonstrable. Faith is even less certain than thought because it is based on an assumed tradition, "the testimony received from the mouth of prophet, teacher or father." In short: "by knowledge we know, by thought we think, and by faith we believe." 2 2.

REASON AND FAITH

This clear separation of "knowledge," thought"" and "faith" is important for an understanding not only of Yashar's views, but also for understanding the many inconsistencies so frequently encountered in them. This separation makes the apparently puzzling fact that he was the author of two so contradictory studies as Elim and Novloth Ifokhmah, become less puzzling. If we try to see Yashar within the framework of his own time, his embracing of both naturalist and pietist attitudes, rationalism and mysticism, appears less contradictory than it appeared to the generation of Geiger and Graetz of the nineteenth century. The concept of a consistent human personality, thinking and acting in accordance with some basic homogeneous principles, a concept reflecting the mentality of the medieval age of faith, and which became again increasingly prevalent-though with a different set of principles-from the age of the Enlightment, simply is not representative of the intellectuals of the Renaissance. In its thought patterns, that period displays a variety of elements with widely divergent points of view. It had lost the uniformity of an earlier age; but it had not as yet attained a new uniformity. Though signs of the new vistas of knowledge and its new methods were rapidly accumulating, the transcendental Lebens- and W eltanschauung of an 1 Elim, p. 88; cf. Yoseph Albo, Sefer ha-'lqqarim, I, 17. Cf. Aristotle, Anal. Post., Bk I, ch. 10. 2 Elim, p. 88.

176

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

earlier day still dominated man's thoughts and emotions. In this milieu, Yashar's pursuit of science, metaphysics and mysticism, his embracing of both Aristotle'.s naturalism and Plato's idealism, with their accompanying moods of skepticism and piety, is not an exceptional and isolated phenomenon. Indeed, in this respect he is in the company of some of the greatest minds of the age.1 Yashar's philosophical quest, to which he devoted his Novloth Orah, is remarkable above all by the recurrent skepticism with which he concludes most of his speculations. If by insisting on a separation of reason and faith, he aimed to emancipate rational enquiry from the shackles of religious doctrine, his separation of demonstrative and speculative knowledge is indicative of his skeptical attitude toward medieval rationalism in general. A skeptical attitude toward medieval rationalism was typical not only of Yashar. Beginning with Petrarch of the fourteenth century, but especially during the later part of the fifteenth century, under the impact of a revived Platonism and an intensified struggle against Averroism, such an attitude was embraced by a great many scholars of the time. It also prevailed among many of the Jewish illuminati of the age, notably those who came under the influence of the spreading Cabbalah. The anti-rationalist point of view is strongly displayed in the writings of Yehudah Moscato (1532-1590), 'Azariah Figo (1579-1647), Yehudah del Bene (first half of the 17th century) and others. Even 'Azariah de Rossi (1513-1578), his critical attitude to the Aggadah and Jewish chronology notwithstanding, asserted his anti-rationalism. 2 Yet Yashar did not adopt a single attitude and stay with it. True, he emphasized the inadequacies of philosophical speculations, and, rejecting Maimonides' attempt to reconcile reason and faith, he expressed the opposite view, namely, that the two are separate domains, each with a truth and method of its own. On the other hand, his work contains numerous passages pointing to an outright adoption of the rationalist approach with the implied view that reason alone should be the supreme criterion of truth. The dichotomy in Yashar's attitude toward the problem of the 1 Cf. V-berweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, III (Stuttgart, 1958), pp. 40ff; Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos etc., pp. 14lff; Jerome Cardan, The Book of my Li/e, passim. 2 See Isaac E. Barzilay, Between Reason and Faith, Anti-Rationalism in Italian Jewish Thought, 1250-1650 (The Hague, 1967), Index, p. 243.

EPISTEMOLOGY

177

relationship between reason and faith thus remains a permanent feature of almost all his writings. Indeed, he assumes contradictory attitudes toward this problem in his various works. He unequivocally embraces the demonstrative and experimental method in Elim; he allegedly identifies with the Oabbalists in Ma§ref, and fluctuates between mysticism and rationalism in Novloth. However, throughout all his works and notwithstanding his frequent tactics of camouflage and concealment, it is the rationalist core of his personality and views that breaks through and impresses itself on the unbiased reader as the essential and authentic in him. In the final analysis, the image of Y ashar, as it emerges from his works, is that of a man whose religious outlook in general and his Jewish convictions in particular have been greatly weakened; a man fully aware of the implications of the new scientific method and ideas, in the name of which he actually bids farewell to medieval rationalism, thus presaging the new rationalism based on both mathematics and experimentation. The above conclusions may amply be substantiated from his writings. In the early twenties, Metz-Yashar writes : You must keep in mind the following principle ... whereas belief is considered a virtue to the follower of a religion, it is considered a folly and defect to the philosopher, whose rule is to investigate and to refuse to believe unless compelled.1

Asserting that he is quoting directly from the oral teachings of Yashar, Metz writes again: "scientific research is an area in itself, and faith is an area in itself," 2 an expression of the "double truth" doctrine which first emerged among the Latin Averroists of the thirteenth century, 3 and which became popular again among the radical interpreters of Aristotle during the Renaissance. Like the Italian Alexandrist, Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1524), who declared that as a Christian he was ready to die in defense of the belief in the immortality of the soul, but as a philosopher he would not accept it as part of his rational outlook, 4 Metz points out that one and the same Elim, p. 54. Ibid., p. 57. 3 Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York, 1954), pp. 387ff; cf. Wilhelm Windelband, A History of Philosophy (Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1958), I, pp. 320ff; Josef Pieper, Scholasticism: Personalities and Problems of Medieval Philosophy (McGraw-Hill Paperback Ed., New York, 1964), pp. 122-123; Armand Maurer in Medieval Studies, XVIII (1956), pp. 1-18. 4 Renan, Averroes et l'Averroisme, pp. 360-361; see also E. Cassirer, et al., The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, mainly pp. 257ff. 1

2

178

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

opinion or belief may be rejected philosophically though embraced in the framework of one's religion. He cites as an example Maimonides' interpretation of angels in the Bible in terms of secondary causes. 1 Although such a view is, no doubt, close to Metz' heart, he declares that it can hardly be embraced in the face of clear Biblical evidence to the contrary. Hence he concludes : ... We shall philosophize in the academies of the nations and in their houses of learning, and for the sake of argumentation we shall call right left; but in the courts of the house of the Lord, we shall believe everything that is written in our Torah.2

Yashar returns to the subject of angels some years later in Ma§ref, where in the mouth of one of the "philosophizing sages of Israel," he puts the demand to separate the Bible and free enquiry. He writes : It is not the intent of the Bible to impart secular learning. Prophecies are the product of the prophet's imagination, and are not meant as a description of reality. Their main goal being functional, to encourage the keeping of the commandments, the words of Scripture ought not to be used either to uphold or to refute scientific or philosophical data.a

This approach is also adopted by Y ashar-Metz with regard to another much debated problem, the soul. Though in the framework of the universal relationship of matter and form, the immortality of the soul Guide, 11, 6. Elim, p. 60. 3 Ma~ref, p. 85. A similar view on the relationship between the Bible and scientific truth was expressed, some years earlier, by Galileo, whose defense of freedom of scientific enquiry belongs to the earliest and classical formulations of this principle. In a letter to Costelli of December 21, 1614, Galileo wrote inter alia: I think it would be part of wisdom not to allow anyone to apply passages of Scripture in such a way as to force them to support as true any conclusions concerning nature, the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of the senses, or by actual demonstration ... Who can assure us that everything that can be known in the world is already known . .. I am inclined to think that Holy Scriptures is intended to convince men of thOBe truths which are necessary for their salvation, and which, being far above man's understanding, cannot be made credible by any learning, or by any other means than revelation. But that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and understanding, does not permit us to use them, and desires to acquaint us in another way with such knowledge as we are in a position to acquire for ourselves by means of those faculties-that, it seems to me, I am not bound to believe, especially concerning those sciences about which the Holy Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying explanations .... I think that in discussing natural phenomena, we ought not to begin with texts from Scriptures, but with experiment and demonstration ... and I can see that that which experience sets before our eyes concerning natural 1

2

EPISTEMOLOGY

179

appears doubtful, yet, if one is to adopt the Oabbalistic conception of the soul in terms of a separate entity "attired in a thin spiritual garment" with a pre-natal existence, one may ·continue to maintain the view of the universal inseparability of matter and form, and still believe in the immortality of the soul.1 Metz' role as the exponent of the double truth approach in Elim, is taken over by Shmuel Ashkenazi in Novloth, who immediately makes the reader aware of the difference in attitude between the philosopher and the Oabbalist, He writes in the opening of his "comment:" It is a rule of the philosophers to believe in nothing but sensual perceptions or what is derived from them by syllogism. And if they were to believe something other than what was arrived at in this manner, they would no longer be called philosophers ... But the words of the Cabbalists are not revealed to them by the method of demonstrative proof, for, if so, they would not be Cabbalists [Hebrew : mequbbalim]; rather, they received them [Hebrew: qibblum] in oral tradition from the prophets; and these words and their veracity are obvious to them, but alien to the philosophers.2

Though it may seem to the unsophisticated reader that AshkenaziYashar is according to religion the status of having a source of truth equal to that of philosophy, such an interpretation is utterly wrong and is openly denied by him. There can be only one truth, he declares, namely, that arrived at by reason. Commenting on Maimonides' assertion with regard to creatio ex nihilo, that although it is considered an impossibility by the philosophers, it is nevertheless "possible to us," believers, a he asserts : I am amazed at his words ... for the truth does not contradict the truth, as Aristotle effects, or which demonstration proves unto us, ought not ... to be called in question, much less be condemned upon the testimony of Scriptural texts, which may ... have meanings of a contrary nature. J. J. Fahie, Galileo, his Life and Work, p. 151. The only known Jewish protagonist of the "double truth" doctrine before Yashar was Yitz]:iaq Albalag (13th cent.), who expressed it in his notes to his Hebrew translation of al-Gazali's Maqasid al-falasifa (Kavanoth ha-pilosofim). See Y. H. Schorr in He-Ifalutz, IV (1859), VI (1861) and VII (1865); J. Guttmann, Philosophy of Judaism (Heb.), 184-187; idem, in L. Ginzberg Jubilee vol. (Heb.) (N.Y., 1946), 75-92. For a comprehensive study of Albalag, see George Vajda, Isaac Albalag, etc. (Paris, 1960). 1 Elim, p. 57. 2 Novloth, p. lb. Noteworthy is the great similarity in both content and form with regard to this view, as expressed earlier by Metz in Elim, p. 54, and by Shmuel here, a similarity which indicates that the views of both disciples are to be attributed to one and the same source, namely, Y ashar. a Guide, III, 15.

180

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

wrote in his discussion of opposites in Book X of the Categories. Now, if something is impossible according to the philosophers, it is impossible according to common sense and valid demonstration. How then can religion dare challenge demonstration; for the light of the intellect is from God who grants knowledge to man, and the Father of truth will not bequeath lies to him. And the light of religion is received also from God ... Can it be that God contradicts His own words? And if we do not have elucidation by way of faith concerning creatio ex nihilo, why should we go against the intellect which shepherds us in all that is known with signs and wonders? This is nothing but folly and stubborness ! 1

In contrast to the above, mention should be made of an antirationalist stand which Yashar takes in concluding his epistle to Yoshiyah. After dividing knowledge into demonstrative truth, thought and faith, Yashar points out that only a demonstrative proof to the contrary may invalidate and uproot a religious concept or belief, but a mere argument of a dialectic nature may not. He thinks this was Maimonides' position in his defense of creation versus eternity; this, he asserts, should also be one's position with regard to other problems, such as the soul, when the religious and the philosophical outlooks disagree. 2 Although some of the tenets of Judaism do not yield to demonstrative proofs, "there is not a single proof in all the books of the philosophers to contradict them." a One should not attach too much importance to arguments based on opinion and speculation; rather, one should develop an immunity to them and remain adamantly faithful to the creed of his people. Apparently contradicting his earlier view regarding the importance of a philosophy of religion and ethics, Yashar goes even further advising the opposite: one should restrain reason from rationalizing not only on matters of faith, but on all matters of abstract speculations. Pursuits of such a nature are not only useless, but actually damaging. He who searches for God and His divine words in the books of the philosophers is like he who searches for the living in a cemetery; and conversely, he who interprets the words of the Law and Scripture according to the ideas of the philosophers is seeking the dead amongst the living.4

The less speculation and rationalization the better. "A man of faith is more important than the greatest of scholars," and one "who 1 Novloth, p. 6b. In similar terms also wrote Ibn Roschd, see Leo Strauss, Philoeophie und Geeetz (Schoeken, Berlin, 1935), p. 71. 2 Elim, p. 89. 3 Ibid., p. 91. 4 Ibid., p. 93.

EPISTEMOLOGY

181

believes even in those parts of the Bible that are contrary to his reason, deserves to be called holy, not foolish." 1. Though puzzling, this conclusion must not be treated too seriously. The fact that this letter was addressed to Y oshiyah, who already two years earlier must have started on his life-long career as ~akham to the Karaites of Troki, 2 may explain-to some extent at least-the mood of piety and anti-rationalism that permeates it. Y ashar knew Yoshiyah from the time he had studied under him at Wilno,a and must have realized that he did not have a daring and critical mind. Indeed, judging from Mann's documents pertaining to Yoshiyah, it appears that he was bent on the practical affairs of life, rather than on theoretical pursuits. 4 Yashar may have thus adjusted his views to those of the recipient of his letter. On the other hand, this conclusion must not be interpreted as implying insincerity and duplicity on his part. As seen, the letter contains too many obvious inconsistencies and vacillations not to be considered genuine. Yashar's words of piety to Yoshiyah are not, in our view, a mere facade behind which one should look for the real, heretical Y ashar. He was as sincere with his piety and anti-rationalism as he was with the opposite view of rationalism, which he also expressed in this very letter. Indeed, the letter is indicative of the polarity of his thought and being, and reflects the two opposing trends of the time which simultaneously affected him : an enlightened critical rationalism, on the one hand, and a pietist mystical anti-rationalism, on the other. 3.

THE ACTIVE INTELLECT

The discussion of the problem of knowledge in Elim is methodological, setting up demarcation lines between demonstrative knowledge, speculative thought and faith. In contrast, the discussion in N ovloth is primarily psychological and epistemological. It concerns the process of cognition itself, the transformation of sense data into concepts and those into premises. The discussion is, of course, general and shows little originality, restating Aristotelian views as interpreted by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Avicenna, Averroes, and Ibid., pp. 91, 93. Mann, Texts and Studies, II, doc. 49, pp. 1014-1015. a Elim, pp. 75-76. 4 Mann, op. cit., II, pp. 723-733, 1432; see also 612, 620, 678-690, 1019-1020, 1210-1211, 1219. 1

2

182

Y ASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

other Arabic and Jewish philosophers. Nevertheless, it is worth recording, if only for the prominence of light in it, derived primarily from the Neo-Platonists as well as Renaissance thinkers, and the strong monistic tendency which permeates it. Y ashar bases his theory of cognition on the assumption of the two intellects, the passive (or hylic), and the active (or agens), as originally derived from Aristotle's De Anima and Analytics.1 According to Aristotle, becoming in nature is the result of interaction between form and matter. Likewise intellectual becoming is described as resulting from interaction between these two intellects, the active awakening the passive. Yashar explains the assumption of two intellects and the unique roles assigned to them as resting on the following Aristotelian premises : first, that "no thing can make itself," and so anything that comes into being requires the help of an external agent; second, that "nothing comes into being from nothing", and, third, that each force or agent carries within itself its own limitations beyond which it cannot act. 2 Accordingly, the passive intellect, being mere potentiality and really not an intellect at all, cannot by itself be the source of its own spiritual concepts. The higher spiritual essence of the universals cannot be the product of the lower, hylic, potentiality. Who or what is the active intellect 1 Yashar rejects entirely any transcendent or extrahuman interpretations. Thus, the active intellect is neither God ("the view of Alexander of Aphrodisias and many recent thinkers"), nor an intermediary between God and man (i.e., an angel), e.g., the mover of the lunar sphere (the view of Algazali), or the giver of forms in the entire sublunar world (the view of Avicenna and of Maimonides in Guide II, 4). or the giver of forms to the entirety of human minds (the view of al-Farabi and Averroes). Rather, Yashar shares the view that each individual man possesses his own active intellect; that is, the active intellect is immanent and not transcendent, part of the mind and not outside it. He admits that he is no innovator in this respect, "Other Greek philosophers, amongst the great and ancient, thought that this active intellect was not outside the soul but in the soul." 3 Yashar cites five reasons in support of this view: 1 De Anima, Bk.- III, chapA. 4 and 5; Posterior Analytics, Bk. II, chap. 19; Novloth, p.17a. 2 Arist., Phys., Bk. I, ch. 7; De Generatione, Bk. I, ch. 3, 317b; De Anima, Bk. III, 5, 430a; 7, 43la. 3 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Benziger Brothers, U.S., 1947), I, q. 79, fourth art., pp. 399ff.; Gersonides, Mill,iamoth, I; Moscato, Qol Yehudah on Kuzari, V, 12.

EPISTEMOLOGY

183

the inadequacy of the human mind as illustrated by its susceptibility to fallacious premises; the lack of clarity in its understanding; the tedious way by which it arrives at universais; its being capable of only one way of reasoning, that of inference, and finally, the limited area of demonstrative truth open to it. Were the source of human knowledge some superior intelligence, how, he asks, are all these inadequacies to be explained 1 1 What is the function of the active intellect 1 It is, in Yashar's view, that of mediator between the sensual perceptions and the passive intellect. In a process of many stages, the sensual data are gradually detached from their material source and transformed into concepts in the passive intellect. Noteworthy in this process is not only the role of the senses and the active intellect, but that of a third element, light. Although the role ascribed to light in the present discussion is primarily that of a simile, to illustrate the essence and function of the active intellect, most likely owing to the prominence of the data of the sense of vision among the other sensibilia, unique and paramount importance is ascribed to light in the process of knowledge itself. Indeed, it is between these two, light and the active intellect, that a great deal of the process of the formation of intelligibilia is divided. The outer light makes it possible for the sensual object to be transformed into a sensual image, and it is, one may say, the inner light of the active intellect that transforms this image into a concept. What necessitates the function of light in the process of cognition, Yashar explains, is the unique character of the sense of vision, which is distinctly spiritual as compared with the predominantly material nature of the other senses. While all sensibilia are directly communicable to their corresponding senses, those of the sense of vision have no direct access to that sense, but only via the medium of light. Only after illumination has transformed the material images of colors into spiritual images in the "spheric medium," or air, can they be conducted to the "higher" sense of vision. 2 Novloth, pp. 17-18. Ibid., p. 18b, Aristotle, De Anima, 418b; De Sensu, 438b. As seen and as will be seen, the subject of light is central in Yashar's writing, especially in Novloth. The conception of light "as a kind of intermediary entity which constitutes a bond between the purely spiritual and the purely material and inert" is undoubtedly attributable to the Platonic tradition of which Francesco Patrizzi (1529-1597) was the most outstanding representative in the Italian Renaissance [cf. R. Hiinigswald, Denker der italianischen Renaissance, Gestalten und Probleme, pp. 120 ff; Frederick Copleston, S.J., I

2

184

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

With the image of the material object transferred via the medium of light unto the eye, the function of light comes to an end. The active intellect, however, cannot as yet begin its activity. To do so, the image must undergo several changes, the first of which is to become seen. The eye, being a "live mirror," only reflects the image, without seeing it. In order to become seen, consciousness must attach itself to reflection, a function attributed to the "common sense," 1 which transfers it to the imagination. 2 It is at this stage that the active intellect takes over. Imagination, being of a material nature, cannot itself accomplish the final transformation of the image-still sensual to a great extent-into a pure concept. Thus, the task falls to the active intellect to abstract "the image from the lingering vestiges of matter, and, elevating it to the highest purity, to present it as a pure concept to the passive intellect, awakening in it the power of conceptualization. a To comprehend the essence and function of the active intellect, Yashar stresses the analogy between it and light, an analogy noted by Aristotle in De Anima 4 and often elaborated in the ArabicHebrew philosophic tradition. Similar to light, which helps colors become visible, but contributes nothing to their actual existencethey exist even when not seen-the active intellect merely presents the image, awakening the potential mind to conceptualize it. Its role is that of an inner light which illuminates the dormant and obscure potentiality of the mind; or, of something that predisposes the hylic intellect to become active. The "presentation" of the image of a particular thing to the potential intellect constitutes only the first, the most simple, function of the active intellect. Its second, higher function, consists of the presentation A History of Philosophy, vol. III; Late Medival and Renaissance Philosophy, Pt. II (Image Books Edition, New York, 1963), p. 62; Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Renaissance, pp. 118-121]. The sun and light are central not only in the scientific literature in which the heliocentric view of Copernicus was adopted (Bruno), but also in the utopian and Cabbalistic literature of the 16th century. Cf. Le Soleil a La Renaissance, passim; B. Brickman, An Introduction to Francesco Patrizzi's Nova de Universis Philosophia (New York, 1941). 1 ·~l'litv~il tviMil· De Anima, 426b-427a. Cf. D. Cassels German edit. of the Kusari, III, 5, n. 2; D. Kaufmann, Die Sinne (Leipzig, 1884), p. 181. 2 ·ti'~iil ,l;i:::>:i l'li~i i'i,,, 3 Novloth, p. 19a. 4 De Anima, Bk. III, chap. 5, 430a

EPISTEMOLOGY

185

of universals for the conceptualization of the potential intellect. With regard to them, Yashar disagrees with the commentators of Aristotle who explain their formation as derived from the sensual images in the imagination. He rather thinks that these images must first be transformed into pure concepts in the hylic intellect. Being the result of accumulated particular data, the perception of both similarities and differences among them-requiring such mental activities as comparing, separating and, finally, categorizing-the univerasls cannot emerge directly from the imagination, but must be preceded by a conceptualization of the images in the hylic intellect.1 More intricate is the third function of the active intellect by which relationships are established between the concepts acquired in the second stage. Premises of a positive and negative nature, composed of subject and predicate, true or false, are presented to the hylic mind. This is followed by the fourth, final function, the act of logical inference, by which a new truth is deduced from two or three premises.2 Whereas both the third and fourth functions can be either true or false, the nature of the error in them differs. It is substantive, stemming from a false premise in the third function ; it is merely formal, stemming from a logical error, in the fourth. As regards the human mind in general, Y ashar points out that it is both deductive and discursive. Being denied the power of instantaneous knowledge, it must acquire knowledge slowly and laboriously; by comparing, separating and combining. It is equally denied the gift of a synoptic conception of reality, and must be satisfied with mere patches thereof, conceived in a discursive manner. The mind of angels, though equally discursive and deprived of synoptic vision, is superior to that of man by the gift of instantaneous knowledge, knowledge "on sight," which does not require the use of inference. Only the Divine Mind is both instantaneous and synoptic. The above discussion is not original, at least as far as its general framework and basic notions are concerned. The theory of the active and passive intellects had been a central theme in the Aristotelian tradition, beginning with the Greek commentators, through the Muslim and Jewish philosophers, and concluding with the Christian scholastics of the late medieval period. 3 The parallelism between the Novloth., pp. 20b-2la. Ibid., p. 22a. 3 Cf. Etienne Gilson, Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (N.Y., 1955), pp. 183-85, 285-86, 304-05, 321-22, 378-79, and more; A. Hyman and J. Walsh, eds., Philosophy 1

2

186

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

function of the intellect and light is ancient and frequently encountered in that tradition. 1 Yet, Yashar's views are not entirely without originality. As in his astronomical studies, one experiences here also a desire for a simpler and more naturalist explanation of the process of human knowledge, an explanation that aims to do away with the fantastic essences with which the theory of knowledge had become encumbered, and to interpret knowledge in immanent terms. He rejects not only all transcendental interpretations of the active intellect as "pure inventions and lies," 2 but attempts to overcome the Aristotelian dualism by drastically reducing the role of the active intellect in the human mind itself. This is evident from an analysis of his analogy between the active intellect and light, on the one hand, and his description of the various phases of the process of cognition, on the other hand. He stresses that not only is the active intellect not to be understood as an extra-human entity, but not even as an independent faculty in the human mind. It does not constitute some mysterious depository of knowledge from which that knowledge is continuously dispensed to the hylic intellect. Indeed, in itself, it is altogether barren of any knowledge. Just as light is the cause by which colors are actually seen, even though it does not see, so the active intellect actualizes the intellectual cognitions in the passive intellect, and does not cognize or understand them.a

In other words, its role is merely that of an awakener and predisposer. Its purely functional character and its actually being a mere expression of the principle of development and growth of the human mind is obvious from the reverse relationship between it and the hylic intellect. As the hylic intellect starts to grow, the active intellect starts to decline. The images of things once transformed into intelligibles in the hylic mind, no longer need the light of the active intellect. 4 That part of the mind which has become actualized is withdrawn from its domination; indeed, it has itself become an active intellect. in the Middle Ages (U.S.A., 1973), pp. 207, 212-13, 215ff., 235-36, 285; J. Guttmann, Philosophy of Judaism (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1951), p. 140; Halevi, Kuzari, I, 1; V, 14, 21; Maimonides, Guide, II, 4, 32, 36, 37; III, 18; Gersonides, MillµJ,moth, !st treatise; Abravanel, Mif'aloth Elohim, X, 8. t See supra, p. 183, n. 2. 2 He writes of these interpretations : C'ij:'!Di T\iM~~M i:ii,~ riii:i iMM i,:;,i 1 C'i,iil C'iiM M!DU7i Novloth, p. 18b. a Ibid., p. 22b. 4 Ibid., p. 16b.

EPISTEMOLOGY

187

By viewing the active intellect as without intelligibles of its own, Yashar greatly reduces its role in the formation of universals. This formation is based on numerous particular images which have already been transformed into pure intelligibles in the hylic mtellect. The process of comparing, separating and categorizing, is also attributed to the hylic intellect. Thus, Yashar comes very close to totally eliminating the active intellect, and attributing the full process of creating universals to the hylic mind alone.1 The same is also true of the third and fourth stages of cognition, in which synthetic premises and syllogistic inferences are made from the data already accumulated in the earlier stages. Though Y ashar still speaks of the active intellect as presenting the premises and inferences for the conceptualization of the hylic intellect, he very clearly and drastically reduces its role. Again using the simile of light, he points out that the active intellect may be likened to illumination and the hylic to vision. Although illumination naturally and causally precedes vision, in actuality they are simultaneous. At the very instant the active intellect illuminates the intelligibles, joining subject and predicate together and presenting them as a premise ... at this very instant the hylic intellect sees or cognizes it, and either verifies or refutes it.

The sequence of illumination and vision, or presentation and conceptualization, is a logical sequence but not one in time. 2 The above discussion clearly indicates the struggle in Yashar's mind between an awakened naturalist rationalism and the school rationalism in which he was brought up. He still retains the assumption of the active intellect as best suited to explain knowledge in the terms in which it was defined by Aristotle. However, one experiences here a growing tendency on Yashar's part to emancipate himself from this framework. Almost all the stages of the discussion, with their numerous difficulties and inconsistencies, seem to be leading to and begging for a new formulation of the theory of knowledge, a formulation that would rid it of the vestiges of Aristotelian dualism and explain it in monistic terms in the framework of the natural emergence and growth of the human intellect. 1 2

Ibid., pp. 20b-2la. Ibid., p. 22a.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS The first metaphysical problem posed by Y ashar in N ovloth lJokhmah is that of creatio ex nihilo. He writes that it was introduced as a basic creed of Judaism by Sa'adyah, and three hundred years later it was adopted by Maimonides. He argues against its validity, by pointing out that there is little Biblical foundation for such a view. In most instances in which the word "create" (baro) appears in the Bible, its meaning is a creation out of something. This, he asserts, is also the view of Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, and others. 1 Besides, he considers it an unreasonable view, rejected by most of the ancient scholars as contradicting common sense. Yashar is critical of Maimonides for embracing this belief in the religious framework, though apparently rejecting it philosophically. 2 He is also critical of Abravanel for attempting to uphold it rationalistically. 3 Yet, following these refutations, he asserts his unequivocal belief in it : We believe that God created the world ex nihik>, and in a wonderful way which reinvigorates the enlightened reader who seeks to know the truth.4

The "wonderful way," as will be seen, is an allusion to the Lurianic theory of creation by God's regression into Himself. From the start Yashar thus has recourse to the Cabbalah for the sake of satisfying "the enlightened reader who seeks to know the truth," i.e., for rational, rather than spiritual, reasons. Following this preliminary statement, Yashar digresses to a three-fold discussion of light. He first deals with the subject in a general manner, quoting both ancient and medieval scholars on the essence and function of light. 5 The subject of light remains central in the following essay concerning the active

1 N ovloth, pp. 6a, 33a; cf. Emunoth v' De'oth, I; Ibn Ezra, Comm. on Gen. 1:1; Mill,iamoth Ha-Shem, VI, pt. 2, chap. I. 2 See supra, p. 179. 3 Novloth, pp. 6b-7a; cf. Abravanel, Mif'ak>th Ek>him, ma'amar IV. 4 Ibid., p. 7a. s Ibid., pp. 7a-15b.

METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

189

intellect, 1 from which he proceeds to his final discussion of light in the framework of the commentaries on the first chapter of Genesis. The third essay is introduced by the well known passage from the Midrash in which Rabbi Shim'on hen Yehoi;iadaq questions Rabbi Shmu'el hen Nal}.man: "Wherefrom was light created 1" To which the latter replies: "God wrapped Himself in light like a garment and His glory shone forth from one end of the world to the other." 2 This Midrash serves as an opening for lengthy deliberations by homilists, Biblical exegetes and philosophers, all of whom attempt to resolve the apparent difficulty concerning the problem of light in the first chapter of Genesis.a Yashar resolutely rejects Abravanel's view that the first day's light had an abstract nature without a material source; 4 a view, he points out, Abravanel had borrowed from Gentile scholars, notably Basilius the Great.s He displays much greater admiration for Eliyahu Mizral}.i's interpretation of a version of Rashi that was in his hands and according to which light was created on the first day together with heaven and earth. s He also quotes some of the implied views of Ibn Ezra : his belief in a primaeval substance, the eternity of the heavens, that only light was created on the first day and that the light of the fourth day is identical with that of the first, the only difference being that light became visible because air was created. 7 Returning finally to the passage of the Midrash, he makes the following comment : Those of deeper insight will understand that light is eternal, and has always resulted and emanated from Him, may He be exalted, as an effect results from its cause, e.g., light from the sun, or the intelligible from the cognizing intellect. Accordingly, light preceded the world as a cause, for through light, [God] created the world. For illumination and its action constitute the bringing of the world into actuality.s And the interpretation of the text [Psalms 104:2] will be : who coverest Thyself with light always. And for this reason the text does not say 'who covered.' For in covering Himself with light, He is stretching out the heavens like a curtain, and is creating heaven and earth-each day and at all times, producing anew the work of creation. According to this, the world would be eternal as light is eternal.

Ibid., pp. 15b-24a; see supra, pp. 18lff. Midrash Rabba on Genesis (1:3), sect. III. 3 Novloth, pp. 24a-38a. 4 Ibid., p. 25; cf. Abravanel, comment. Genesis, 1:3, Exod. 40:34. 5 Cf. Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy, pp. 581-582. 6 Novloth, pp. 32b, 34a, 36b. 7 Ibid., p. 33. This text is a good example of the "secrets" of Ibn Ezra which Y ashar was divulging to his Karaite students during his stay in Poland. See supra, p. 72; Elim, p. 12. 8 ;:11£); o;i:!1l"I l"IN~il"I N~l"I l"ll"l;i:11£)i l"liNl"ll"l!ll ibid., p. 38. 1

2

190

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

And the text [Genesis I], 'In the beginning [God] created,' does not contradict this, for its interpretation is thus : In the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, [God] said 'Let there be light !' But this beginning was not a thing in itself, and Scripture did not intend to speak of any particular time, but to say only that, by nature and causally, light was prior, for through it the world emerged into light, if it did emerge after not having been in existence-but just as light never has ceased to exist, so the world never has ceased to exist.l

The implications of this view may emerge more fully when it is realized that the light referred to in the above text, as being eternal, is not the sensual, but the divine, spiritual light, of which the sensual is a mere reflection. Indeed, Yashar writes : All Greek and Arab philosophers are agreed on the designation of God as light, and not merely as a figure of speech, as Ibn Roschd thought. He really is light and illumination ... the absolute light to which none is superior.

In such terms God is described by Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, al-Gazali and others, but above all by the Cabbalists. 2 The world is thus eternal as light is. The Biblical Creation is simply the sudden visibility of an existence that has no beginning, or, as we shall see, the sensual reflection of a supernal reality in the Divine Mind. In support of this Platonic viewpoint, Yashar introduces a long quotation from Abraham Bibago's Derekh Emunah, 3 in which Bibago interprets the first day's light of creation as an immanent light in the Divine Mind which assumed an external reality on the fourth day, "it being proper for the intellectual light in the Divine Mind to precede its sensual existence as cause precedes effect." 4 Bibago upholds this interpretation in the wider framework of the Platonic conception concerning the relationship between the intelligibilia and the sensibilia. The whole universe, he explains, constitutes a hierarchy of varying degrees of reality; reality being the attribute of the ideal alone and not of the phenomenal. Only by being conceptualized does a thing assume reality. 5 Through sensual perception it gains its first Ibid., p. 38a. 2 Ibid., p. 29b. The simile of God as light appears at its stongest in Plotinus whose works have been translated into latin by Marsilio Ficino at the end of the 15th cent. Cf. Eduard Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, 32 (Leipzig, 1923), pp. 554, 557-58, 564. In Renaissance literature, it is strongly emphasized in Leone Ebreo's Dialogues (see Viklcua?t Ahavah, 42). See also Albo, 'Iqqarim, II, 29; cf. Abravanel, comm. Ex. 40:34. a First edition, Constantinople, 1522. See on Bibago in M~ref, p. 25; Ghirondi, op. cit., p, 20; Margaliyoth, M., ed., Encyclopedia, etc. I, pp. 23-24. 4 Novloth, p. 39a. 5 : Cf. ':i:Pit>:i N1il!D ':i:::iw:i C':i!D im• ;i:iiil mN·:s~ Cil':i ID' C"~!Dlil c•i:iiil" 1

i:ii ':i:::i n:P•i• l!D11l i:i':i:i ':i:Pit>il ':i:::i!Dil 1ll!Dil:l ::l"N .c~:si:i Cil':i !D'!D iniN~ ",CiNil i!D1N'1 Vikkua?; Ahavah (Lijck, 1871), p. 9 a.

METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

191

entry into the world of reality. By preserving that perception in the imagination, its reality is enhanced. It attains the highest degree of reality as a pure concept in the mind, detached from all accidents. However, dependent as human ideation is on sensibilia, its reality is perforce of a low order. Above it is the ideation by the abstract intellects which undoubtedly constitutes a higher order of reality. Nor is the reality of their minds of a homogeneous character, dependent as it is on their closeness to or remoteness from the source of all reality-God. 1 This idealist approach is further stressed by a long quotation from Ma'asei .A.donai (.Acts of the Lord) 2 of Eli'ezer Ashkenazi,3 in which Ashkenazi develops the Platonic conception of the shadowy, unreal nature of the sensible world, created only for the sake of aiding man to gain a glimpse of true reality. 4 It is at this point that Yashar introduces the subject of the kyle (primeaval matter). 5 As we shall presently see, this is done in preparation of presenting the Lurianic solution of the problem of "beginning." He upholds the assumption of the kyle by an array of quotations from Nal;i.manides, Eli'ezer Ashkenazi, Obadiah Sforno, 'Azariah Fano and Yehudah Moscato, all of whom assert its necessity and depict in rich metaphor its passive character, interpreting it in terms of potentiality. 6 Having set forth his speculations on light, Platonic idealism and prime matter, Yashar now reiterates his "Wholehearted belief that all .the world, with its creatures above and below, was created out of nothing," following which he expounds his interpretation of the Lurianic Torath ha-$imsum (theory of God's regression into Himself): In the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, everything was inside His essence, may He be exalted, but it was in chaos and darkness, without separations. Analogously, it was like a palace or mansion, replete with fine paintings, vessels, tables and benches, and all good food and drink, bnt pitch dark. Now, he who enters there and hears no voice of people whispering, no speech and no language, will presume it to be a dungeon, a place where the prisoners of the king are incarcerated, a musty chamber, desolate, empty, and deserted. And someone who Ibid., pp. 38b-40a; cf. Derekh Emunah, p. 13a. Eli'ezer Ashkenazi, Ma'asei ha-Shem (Venice, 1583, Warsaw, 1871), chaps. 3, 6. s For the great esteem in which Yashar held Rabbi Ashkenazi, cf. Novloth, p. 46a; see also Azulai [J;lida], "Ma'arekheth Sefarim," letter mem, no. 188, letter yod, no. 21; H. H. Ben-Sason, Haguth v'Hanhagah (Jerusalem, 1959), p. 34, n. 1. 4 Novloth, pp. 4lff. Ma'asei Ha-Shem, chap. 3, pp. 16a, 18b. 5 ••1,,.i1 6 Novloth, pp. 44-49; cf. commentary of Ramban and Sforno, Gen. 1 : 1-2; Ma'asei Ha-Shem, chap. II; Yehudah Moscato, Nefu1Joth Yehudah, begin. serm. 34. 1 2

192

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

brought a lamp and lit it would appear in the eyes of this observer as if he had created and brought to light everything that exists in that castle! This [analogy] will please you if you remember what was written above, that light does not give absolute existence to colors, but only apparent [phenomenal] existence. Accordingly, light came to be simultaneously with the created things, while in truth the world was prior.1

Whether such a view, asserting the eternal immanence of the world in God and conceiving of creation as its emergence unto light, can be accommodated in the framework of the Lurianic Oabbalah, must be left unanswered by this writer. However, as far as Yashar is concernend, he could not have stated more clearly his belief in the eternity of the world. Expanding on the $im~um theory of the Ari, Yashar goes on to explain it: since God was everywhere, when the desire of creation arose in Him, He contracted Himself2 and evacuated the Shekhinah [divine presence, indwelling] ... from the center to the periphery,3 and retired, and ascended to the supernal heights to prepare a place for the worlds which were allegedly to be created.4

The insertion of the qualifying "allegedly" is not accidental but deliberate, again expressing doubt with regard to creation, and well in line with his belief in eternity. Yashar continues : And that evacuated place, absent of His glory, is called 'nihil' [ayin], because there is no longer in it what there had been of perfection and glory.... and this [nihil] is the hyle; for, in truth, whenever [the hyle] is considered alone, disassociated from form, it is considered to be nothing and absolute privation,5

Y ashar points out that the concept of the hyle as space that had been evacuated by the Shekhinah explains its eternal pursuit of form -a pursuit about which the philosophers have written but the cause of which they could not explain. The restlessness of matter, in its "unsatiated hunger and unquenched thirst" for ever new embodiments, is thus nothing other than an expression of its craving to once again be permeated by the divine perfection and glory. Like matter, form is explained as resulting from God's contraction. Yashar repeats his unequivocal rejection of the view of Avicenna (and Maimonides) that there exists a transcendental Active Intellect which gives forms to all (sublunar) things. He then cites the theory of the 'El'!Z.' Cl7 ibid., p. 49a-b. .,l;):S:l7 Cl:S:l;):S: 3 ·ti'i'l;lrl i,N T~.,l;);,l;l 4 ·l:ii~':J~ Z'liN.,:Jrli, Cl'i'Z'1l7rl Z'lil;l,,l7, cipl;l p;,i, Novwth, p. 49b. 5 • .,,l;ll O!:)N ibid., ibid.

1 cip ci,i11:i Z'll;lNrl 2

.,,17;,i

METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

193

Lurianic school. According to this theory, even after the divine contraction, an impression 1 of the Shekhinah persisted in the evacuated space-sparks of light which made possible the existence of the hyle by informing it.2 However, Yashar does not accept that theory. Instead, he argues that form resulted from the very contraction of God's light and not from any remnants which lingered in the evacuated space; i.e., as the hyle was brought into being by the contraction of God's essence, so form was brought into being by the contraction of His light; as the hyle is created by the absence of God's essence, so form is created by the absence of His light: It is His praise, may He be blessed, that in the absenting of His essence from the space, the hyle was created, and in the absenting of His light, form was created. For although neither of the two possesses existence without the other, notwithstanding this, in their conjunction there came to be a self-sustaining entity which was the yeast of all created things and the mother of all life ... But if we should say that there remained sparks of light, then there never would have been hyle in creation! For there would have always been a composite substance of matter and form, something which is not the case when we say that in the retiring of His essence, His light also retires and ascends with Him ... a

Using the terms of the Lurianic myth, Yashar describes the emergence of primaeval matter and form in God's voided space as the manifestation of two aspects of His entity, that of judgment (din) and compassion (ra~amim). Inasmuch as creation constitutes divine abandonment, self-limitation and regression, it expresses the quality of judgment; however, inasmuch as it constitutes a heavenly emanation, an emergence of the creative and formative forces in the universe, it expresses divine benevolence, the mitigation of rigorous judgment by the quality of compassion. 4 Y ashar cites another simile to illustrate the essence of matter and form and the relationship between them, that of a white sheet of paper with inkspots on it. The hyle is like white paper . . . which potentially contains all wisdom. On the other hand : as the inkspots impress themselves upon the paper, form impresses itself upon the hyle to give it existence, distinguish it, and individuate it as a thing which may be said to be a "this." 5

1

2

•C:llvii ·ii·t~ ·i~l':i cip~ imN 7piim N':ii

a N ovloth, p. 50a. 4 Ibid., p. 50b. s Ibid., p. 5lb.

194

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

With the introduction of the Lurianic Cabbalah Yashar seems to have rounded out the first stage of his metaphysical speculations. It is in the light of this finale that the subjects he dealt with assume greater meaning and congruity. It finally dawns on the puzzled reader that the long discussions of light may not have been arbitrary and accidental after all; rather they must be seen in conjunction with the central role of light in the mysticism of the Safed Cabbalists, who speak of God in terms of light and of creation as its withdrawal. A conception of creation according to which the universe emerges out of God's contraction is also reconcilable with the Platonic view of the world as an idea in the Godhead and with the assumption of eternity. Allegedly committed to this idealist orientation, Yashar now reexamines some of the views he dealt with before. He begins with a discussion of the substance of the heavens : is it identical with the four elements of sublunar bodies, or is it something different ? He dealt with this subject in Elim, where he defended the uniformity of matter throughout the universe as an integral part of a new Weltanschauung which challenged the Aristotelian conception of the universe, casting doubts also on the assumption of prime matter, spheres and abstract intelligences. 1 He takes a different stand here. Though he still defends the basic unity of matter, he qualifies it as not identical with uniformity, but rather as consisting of numerous qualitative variations, "in accordance with its remoteness from the divine purity." 2 Here he also embraces the assumption of spheres and intellects which he had rejected so resolutely in Elim. Indeed, the very arguments he used there to debunk them, he uses here to uphold them ! a Also contrary to his position in Elim is his position with regard to the hyle here. He dismissed its assumption there as unnecessary; here, however, he argues its necessity. He claims the constant changes in nature force us to assume it. "Dust is transformed into water, water into air, air into fire, and vice versa." There must be a primaeval substance underlying these changes, a substance from which the multiplicity of being originates and unto which it dissolves itself. 4 As for the notion of the hyle, he vacillates between naturalist and mystical conceptions. On the one hand, he defines it as pure negation 1 2

3 4

See supra, pp. 153ff. Novloth, p. 54b. Cf. Elim, pp. 57ff; Novloth, p. 54a. Novloth, p. 55.

METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

195

and deprivation. 1 but, on the other hand-following "the subtle doctor," Duns Scotus-as of actual existence, not merely in the mind, but in the external reality, extant for itself and independent of form ... the substratum that persists in the constant flow from form to form,2

He attributes to it quantity and spatial extension, hence divisibility and motion. Indeed, in itself it may be identified with unlimited quantity and extension which become limited and defined upon the assumption of form.a Most prevalent in this section, however, is the conception of the hyle in terms of a dynamic potentiality that permeates all the universe and dominates all forms of existence. It is in the light of such a conception, which he himself identifies with the Cabbalistic ayin, that one is entitled to speak of the universe in terms of a cosmic whole. Stemming as all being does from God, it is permeated with a longing for higher forms of existence which is nothing other than a longing to be restored to the source of all-God. This longing is strongest and attains consciousness in the higher spiritual beings, weakest and a mere instinctive stimulus in the lower ones. Potentiality is thus universal, not excluding even the abstract intelligences. 4 By its origin the hyle is essentially one, but by its varying degrees of quality in terms of greater or lesser purity, "thickness or thinness," it presents a ladder of innumerable rungs, the quality of each being contingent upon its place in the universal hierarchy of being. The universe is thus one and many, uniform yet multiple. 5 Naturalist and mystical tendencies are also intermingled in Yashar's discussion of form. On the one hand, he explains its origin as inherent in the seed of the species, and its full development as requiring the aid of the heavenly bodies, the warmth of the sun and the stars; 6 on the other hand, he points out that, besides its specific integral form, each subject has a number of "external forms shining above it," sign-posts showing it the way to its aspired higher stages of being. 7 The universe, it may thus be concluded, constitutes a united whole, pulsating with longing and striving. The demarcation line between Ibid., p. 62a. Ibid., p. 64a. a Ibid., pp. 64-66. 4 According to Leone Ebreo, this is the view of Plato. Cf. VikkualJ, Ahavah, 57b. 5 Ibid., pp. 63, 68. 6 Ibid., p. 72a. 7 Ibid., p. 71a.

1

2

196

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

matter and form is marred, and the form of the being of one stage serves as matter of the being on a higher stage. This is true with regard to the relationships among the various "souls" as well as among the "four worlds." Equally, in the sublunar world, the lower beings serve as matter to the higher ones. "The more perfect a composite the greater the excellence of its matter." Or, to pursue the light simile : each light is a reflection of another light in an endless chain, the beginning of which is the source of all light, God. In short : All existence thus depends on Him, blessed be He, and if for a moment He would turn His face away, that existence would change to nought. Or [to use the terms of the Cabbalah], should He restore Himself to the vacated space ... everything would return to Him and all creation would disappear as if it never existed. Only His' is the absolute reality, whereas the reality of all the rest is imaginary and a mere reflection of His essence.1

Viewed in its entirety, the first eighty folios of Novloth (more than half of "Novloth Orah") seem to contain three phases of the discussion : 1) a philosophical-rationalist, 2) a mystical-Platonic, and 3) a mythicalCabbalist. It is difficult to draw a line between the first two phases. Aristotle and his commentators, as well as Maimonides, Gersonides, Abravanel and other rationalists, remain central to the discussion throughout. However, it is the mystical-Platonic tendency that steadily gains and prevails. Following the early allusion to the solution of the problem of creatio ex nihilo by the Lurianic Cabbalah, 2 Yashar digresses to prolonged discussions of light, which at first seem altogether unrelated to the problem posed. However, once the transcendental conception of light is itroduced and Biblical creation interpreted in terms of the emergence of the sensual world from its idea in the Divine Mind, Yashar's Platonic orientation becomes pronounced, and the protracted deliberations on light assume greater meaning. The mystical tendency reaches its climax with the introduction of the Lurianic theory of God's contraction, which apparently

1 Ibid., p. 7lb. All these views are traceable, directly or indirectly, to the neo-Platonic tradition, whose major spakesmen were Plotinus and Proclus of the 3rd and 5th cent. C.E. respectively. Cf. Zeller, op. cit., 32, pp. 520 ff. and 834-890. During the Renaissance, this tradition found renewed expression in the works of Ficino, Pico and Leone Ebreo. For bib!. leads, see Paul Oskar Krisbeller, Renaissance Thought (Harper, 1961), pp. 48 ff., 145-148. See also Nesca A. Robb. Neoplatonism of the Italian Renaissance (N.Y., 1968), mainly chap. III. 2 Novloth., p. 7a.

METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

197

Y ashar treats as a sort of Platonic idealism. As seen, this tendency also prevails in the following discussion of hyle and form. More pronounced is the demarcation line between these deliberations and the last section of this part, 1 which constitutes a medley of bizarre creeds and superstitions with regard to a variety of subjects, such as the soul, angels, spirits, demons, occult medicine and many more. This section shall be dealt with in a subsequent part of this study, devoted to Oabbalah. It may be noted here, however, that the introduction of this sort of literature, as a natural sequence to the mysticalPlatonic "wave" of Yashar's deliberations, is perhaps indicative of his attitude toward the Oabbalah and Neo-Platonism. The mere juxtaposition of the mystical and superstitious-occultist sections of the work, though typical of neo-Platonic literature, may be interpreted as indicative of his conviction that there exists a direct link between an arbitrary mysticism and a crude superstition. 1

Ibid., approx. pp. 72-80.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS 1.

CREATION VERSUS ETERNITY

The three successive stages we discovered in the previous part of

N ovloth, a philosophical, a mystical and a spiritualist-mythological,

are also to be found, even more pronouncedly, in what may be considered as the second part of the work, beginning around folio 80 and concluding at the end of "Novloth Orah," on folio 148. Like the earlier section, the discussion in this section also opens with the exposition of the philosophical point of view. It fails and the mystical approach is introduced, again degenerating into spiritualism and crude superstition. Whether this procedure is deliberate or accidental is not for us to decide; its presence, however, is obvious. The first problem Yashar discusses here is that of creation versus eternity. This problem was touched upon in the previous part; here, however, he deals with it more thoroughly and systematically. Following it, Yashar discusses secondary causes, a discussion which branches into other famous topics of metaphysical speculation: divine omniscience, providence, human freedom, etc. The problem of a voluntary creation in time troubled the inquisitive Zera}:i. It was one of the questions on which he sought Yashar' s views.1 The fact that Y ashar did not reply to it within the framework of Elim may be explained, first, by the predominantly scientific character of the volume, and second, by the unorthodox nature of his own thoughts on the subject. Only when he could sandwich these thoughts between heavy layers of mysticism and Neo-Platonism, did he feel sufficiently secure to express them. To the extent that Yashar expresses his view on the subject in Elim, it is quite different from the one he upholds in N ovloth. In his letter to Yoshiyah, he advances two arguments on behalf of the belief in creation, one drawn from Maimonides, the other from Gersonides. The orderliness and purposefulness of nature, he writes in the spirit of Maimonides, point to a Creator. Again, the progress of civilization

•

1

Elim, p. 29.

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

199

in the course of a relatively short period of time would be incomprehensible under the assumption of eternity, an argument advanced by Gersonides.1 The main discussion of the problem is reserved, however, for N ovloth. It opens with a long quotation from chapter 13, part III of the Guide, 2 in which Maimonides, though asserting his belief in a purposefulness that permeates the universe, rejects the popular view that it is mortal man who constitutes that purpose. Commenting on that rejection, Yashar observes : "These are true words, since we also say that there is a superman," 3 i.e., Maimonides' rejection applies only to mortal, terrestrial man, who, indeed, cannot be the goal of all creation; there is, however, an elite, spiritual man, who is that goal. 4 He also feigns to counter Maimonides' skeptical view with regard to man's capacity to fathom the purpose of the universe as a whole by reiterating the midrashic assertion that it is Israel, the trustee of the Torah, that constitutes that goal. However, from the context, which will be analyzed later, it is obvious that this rejection of Maimonides must not be taken seriously and that Yashar actually is in full accord with him as regards this matter. The discussion of the problem of creation versus eternity centers on the following arguments of Proclus (411-485, E. E.) against creation: 1. God's power being infinite .. . why didn't He create the world previously? s 2. The existence of the world being a good and pleasant thing, and non-existence absolutely bad-it is inconceivable that God existed an infinite time without the world.6 3. If God is the nomos and order of all things in existence, it is improper that He should exist without them. 7

In other words, assuming that the world is an idea in the Divine Mind 1 Guide, II, 19, 22 and mo re; M il~arnoth ha-Shem, discourse VI, Pt. I, chap. 15; Elim, pp. 86, 302, 390. 2 Novloth, pp. 79b-80b. 3 " 1 'f1•?;p l:l"TN IV"!t' 1~ t:1•i~iN ilnlN l:ll'IV 1 l:l"Mi~l t:1•i:l"T l:l:'li" ibid., p. 80b. 4 Cf. ibid., pp. 75-77. Scholem traces this notion to gnostic sources of the second cent. See G. Scholem, Reshith ha-Gabbalah v' Sefer ha-Bahir, lectures at the Heb. Univ. (1962), edt., Rivkah Shatz (Academon, Jerusalem, 1966), pp. 138 ff. s Novloth, p. 84a. a Ibid., 84b. 1 •n?:i N~~·w •iNi T"N t:1i"Toi 1:1?~ 1:1·N~~lit oi~·l Nii! IV"n• ?Nit 1:1~ i:lTi~ :l!Dn• IVE:ll? yin NIZm i? rN iwN ?~tz>i~it ·~ 'l:l"N~~lit ibid., p. 86a; cf. Guide, II, 14. Abravanel cites the same arguments as drawn from al-Gazali (Mif'aloth Elohim, VI, 1). See also S. Pines, ed., The Guide (Chicago Univ. Press, 1963), "Introduction", p. LXXVIII.

200

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

and as such the idea of the world is eternal, it should follow, according to the logical relationship between an idea and its object,1 that the sensual existence of the world must also be eternal; or else we must accuse God of entertaining a false idea during that time when the world did not exist, for an idea which has no corresponding object is false. 4. If you say that prior to creation God was a potential Creator and only with creation He became an actual creator ... there can hardly be a greater change in Him than this. 2

It would be futile to enumerate here the arguments, pro and con, quoted in the text from Maimonides, Aquinas, Abravanel and others. Only regarding the third argument, it is worthwhile to point out Yashar's assertion that he is in accord with the Maimonidean view (Guide, III, 21), viz., that the existing things are acquired from the divine mind, and not vice versa, and that "the idea may be in Him prior to its external existence." 3 Although Abravanel argued against this view, saying that "no matter whether the idea is acquired from existing things or the existing things from the idea," the relationship between the idea and existence is that of cause and effect, and that they must necessarily be concomitant, Yashar counters this by two examples of the cause and effect relationship from the human reality. As the idea of a house in the builder's mind does not entail its existence, so the idea of the world in the divine mind does not entail the actual existence of the world. Equally, as a man precedes his son in time, although as father he can have no previous existence to that of his son, so God precedes the world, though He has not become the Creator until the world was in actual existence. 4 This notwithstanding, Yashar's allegiance to the Maimonidean solution is quite questionable. Indeed, only a short distance from his affirmation of it, we find him again in doubt and confusion : In the poverty of my mind, I do not understand how the world was created without a change in Him, may His name be exalted. For if nothing changed from what had previously been, and there was not produced in actuality a new productioninasmuch as there is nothing except Him, according to our opinion, we who believe in creatio ex nihilo, then how was the world created? And even according to the believers in primaeval matter, we know not who produced in the matter a new thing, and it is impossible to imagine or conceive how the world was created. 1

·rm:iiti:sm1 pin

Novloth, p. 87a; cf. Guide, II, 14; Abravanel, Mif'aloth Elohim (Lemberg, 1863), VI, 1. a N ovloth, p. 86a. s Ibid., p. 86b; Mif'aloth Elohim, VI, 2.

2

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

201

It is our embarrassment before the philosophers, that we have nothing to say but 'We do not know.' And I am very astonished at the perfectly faithful of Israel who in these profound inquiries walk the path of the rhetoricians. So while the true investigator, the philosopher, who opposes us, girds his loins with logic, it is with rhetoric that the believer girds his loins! And he tells parables, and without knowledge he masses words, and he wants, in spite of all this, to be called a theologian ! And also at Maimonides one ought to wonder, for he raises these doubts, and leaves them unresolved.I

Maimonides' solutions are inadequate not only with regard to the problem of creation, but the other metaphysical problems as well, such as God's omniscience and human freedom, an inadequacy for which he has been taken to task by Abraham hen David.2 It is obvious that neither the solutions of Maimonides nor those of the Platonists appear satisfactory or meaningful to Yashar. The rhetoric and parable telling, of which he writes with such disdain, are in all likelihood intended as a description of the kind of views and ideas which originated in the circles of the N eo-Platonists and Cab balists. Regarding the view of Maimonides that creation of the world in time after its non-existence constitutes a fundamental principle of Judaism, Y ashar points out that he is not the first to challenge this view. It had been done long before him by "the Gaon Rabbi Nissim who, in his incompleted studies of the Torah, raises many excellent questions with regard to it." It was also criticized by his disciple, Rabbi J:Iasdai Orescas, who was "an accomplished philosopher and a righteous God-fearing man." These two scholars, Y ashar asserts, were of the opinion that the belief in eternity does not challenge the bases of Torah, nor, specifically, does it render miracles impossible. For, since God's intent and will are eternal, the world, which results from His intent and will-directly and freely, and not as the philosophers think necessarily-could also be eternal. A Jew, they said, is enjoined to believe in creation not as a principle of faith, but rather because it is part of the Biblical narrative. The heretic who denies it would therefore not be considered in the class of those who reject the principles of Torah, but rather in that of those who deny any detail of any narrative in the Torah, even the most trivial detail. 3 Novloth, p. 9la-b. See "Hassagath RABD" [R' Abraham hen Daud] on Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhoth Teshuvah, ch. V (5). a Ibid., p. 92; see also Perush ha-Ran 'al ha-Torah, ed., L. Feldman (Jerusalem, 1968), p. 5, n. 21; Orescas, Or Adonai, ma'amar III, beginning of klal I, chap. 5, and end of klal I. 1

2

202

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

By removing the belief in a creation in time from the sphere of dogmatics and placing it in that of Biblical exposition, Rabbenu Nissim and Crescas no doubt made the belief in the eternity of the world entirely acceptable. What wonder that Y ashar is enthusiastic about these two sages. He dwells at length on Crescas' interpretation of creation as a continuous process of eternally renewing the world. He is fully aware of the many difficulties of this philosophy of emanation, difficulties which were given clear expression by Gersonides. According to Gersonides, it would follow that things would be generated from no things and corrupted into nothings . . . time would be composed of instants ... the existence of the heavenly bodies would only be a potential existence, and motion would not be continuous.I

However, Yashar fully endorses the controversial defense of emanation against Gersonides. He discusses Crescas' arguments at length, and defends them against the criticisms of Abravanel in his Mif'aloth Elohim and of Abraham Shalom in his N'veh Shalom. 2 These critics, Yashar points out, misunderstood the true nature of emanation. They conceived of it as the fragmentization of physical processes of motion and time into atomic particles, each particle being created out of nothing in one instant and passing away into nothing in the next. This, however, Yashar declares, is not what happens at all according to the theory of emanation as expounded by Crescas. Rather, the world in its entirety is conceived of as continuously emanating from God, i.e., as His existence is eternal, so is the existence of the universe. Returning to his earlier simile of light, Yashar now uses it to interpret the essence of emanation, i.e., the relationship between God and the world in terms of the relationship between the sun and its light. Were one to assume the eternity of the sun and the spherical medium, illumination would also be eternal. For in instantaneous actions the action and its effect are simultaneous . . . This is not the case with actions in time, which require motion, and in which the efficient cause of the action precedes [the motion], since the effect of the action comes at the end of the motion, and between the cause and effect is the motion. This is not the case with actions outside of time and instantaneous, wherein the efficient cause of the action does not precede the action except causally, and of which it is incorrect to say that first a thing is generated and

MiU;amoth Ha-Shem, ma'amar 6, Pt. I, chap. 7; Novwth, pp. 99b-100. See mainly Or Adonai, ma'amar 3. klal rishon, chap. 3; Novl,oth, pp. 99b-103; cf. M~f'a.l,oth Elohim, IX, 7; A. Shalom, Nveh Shawm (Venezia, 1575, Jerusalem, 1967), I, 9. On Abraham Shalom, see Herbert A. Davidson, The Philosophy of Abraham Shalom (Univ. of Calif. Press, 1964). 1

2

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

203

afterwards it is perfected and is, for while being generated, it already was and its existence is its generation and its generation its existence. And when we say 'is generated,' we mean that each instant something is being generated that already was in the previous instant, and so too in the previous. This is not preposterous. For we are not saying that a thing was produced anew and what had been did not pass away, because that which exists [now] does not precede in time that which is being generated, but in natural order alone ... And I suspect that both [Abraham Shalom] the author of N'veh Shawm and Rabbi Isaac Abravanel did not understand the process of illumination. Consequently, they banded together unjustly against the perfect scholar, Rabbi ~asdai [Crescas] ... Many have thought that light is in continuous generation and corruption, and that each instant new sparks are generated; and according to their statements, it is analogous to time and to motion, and comparable to water spouting up from a spring, where the first waters fall and are lost for they pass and flow away, and new waters come in their place, and so it goes on continuously, without stop, and yet, the fountain does not change ... And I have rejected their views and made clear that the truth is with those who think that neither the light nor the spark is produced anew, but it rolls with the sun, not that it moves [itself], but that it changes its position with each movement of the sun, as it may be said of the shadow that it changes its position with the motion of the illuminator or the body whose shadow it is .. .1

Y ashar concludes his discussion by praising Crescas and his views : He who has a mind and intellect will understand the truth, and will acknowledge that the light of the Lord shone on Rabbi ~asdai [Crescas], for the Lord blessed his intellect, and in his temple all say 'Glory!' [cf. Psalms 29:9].2

Yashar thus breaks with the Maimonidean school of thought and takes up the essential position of Crescas. He is attracted to Crescas' philosophy for the very same reason he is attracted to the Lurianic Cabbalah and Mizra1}i's exegesis of the creation story in Genesis. He interprets them all as sanctioning the belief in the eternity of the world. Yashar's views may finally be summarized as follows: He believes in God as the logical cause of the world but not as its creator in time. The world is as eternal as God, and emanates from Him as light does from the sun. If by rejecting the notion of a creation in time Yashar may have exposed himself to the criticism and possible persecution of the zealous traditionalists, by embracing emanation, i.e., the view of the continuous coming into being of the world, he could claim to be assuming the position of the pietists and mystics. Whether this was his real attitude, however, remains to be seP.n.

1 2

Nov'loth, p. 106a. Ibid., p. 107a.

204

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

2.

SECONDARY CAUSES AND DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Directly connected with the assumption of emanation is the problem of secondary causes and divine providence. If the universe is a constant divine emanation, how is the function of "nature" to be explained ? Does the Divine act in nature only as a first, distant, cause, leaving immediate causality to the natural agents, or are natural bodies and forces mere instruments through which the divine power constantly acts and reveals itself? In short, is nature an independent realm of immanent laws, only distantly dependent on a First Cause, or does God's divine guidance and functioning in some mysterious way permeate all its forces and activities, making them directly and constantly depentlent upon Him ? In support of nature's total dependence on God, Yashar first quotes passages from the Guide 1 in which Maimonides upholds the organic and hierarchical nature of the universe, asserting that it is to the ultimate First Cause, rather than to the immediate causes, that every action has to be related. 2 The same conclusion, Yashar writes, one also reaches by an analysis of the final ca use : One moved, for instance, by a desire to acquire an important book, this book is his immediate goal. To obtain it, he will neither rest nor sleep, but contrive all kinds of schemes. However, the purpose of getting that book is to learn from it how to transmute cheaper metals into precious ones, the purpose of which is to become rich in order to acquire everything one needs for his perfection . . . The goal of this perfection, however, is to gain immortality and cling unto God.3

Yashar's argument on behalf of nature's total and continuous dependence on God-drawn from the observation of the wonderful purposefulness which seems to permeate and to govern organic and inorganic existence-though unoriginal, is quite impressive. The motion of the elements-when dislocated by the effect of the motions of the heavenly bodies-to return to their "natural abodes," earth and water downward, air and fire upward; the awesome wonders one observes in the growth of "roots, seeds ... leaves, plants and flowers, their multiple display of colors and patterns,'' but, above all, the amazing activities of such creatures as ants, bees and spiders-all this points to "an unerring mind that leads them." Guide, I, 72 ; II, 1. Novloth, p. 94b. (The discussion of secondary causes begins in Novloth on p. 94a). a Ibid., ibid.

1

2

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

205

The spider's cobwebs display a weaver's mastery and a craftsman's understanding of warp and woof ... How wonderful is its work in weaving its circular net, unaided by any compass ... It shows an understanding of the nature of parallel lines and the circle, i.e., that its center is equally distant from any part of its circumference. It keeps guard in the center, in order to be most conveniently located to pursue the insects caught in its web ... Also hunting dogs, choosing a short cut in pursuit of their pray ... show a greater knowledge of geometry than Euclid ... He needs proof of what is self-evident to them ... Also bees manifest an understanding of stereometry. They know that the more angles and sides to a body, the greater its volume. They therefore construct their hives in hexagonal and not circular shapes ... If you investigate further, you may find that they are natural philosophers, physicians, and experts in agriculture and other disciplines, in home economics and state management ... All this they perform with ease, without master, teacher, books or instruments ... a performance for which humans would need a great deal of study and preparation ... Consequently, you must admit that they are the instruments of some mind which acts through them.I Indeed, these miraculous ways of nature have even led some philosophers to the identification of God with nature. 2

In a cursory manner Yashar mentions an additional argument on behalf of this view, one drawn from God's omniscience. Without elaborating, he points out that omniscience implies a knowledge of particulars and therefore the dependence of all creation on God.a He summarizes this view as follows : Since all creatures derive their being and essence from God, and cannot exist for a moment without Him, they also derive from Him their capacity for action ... Their existence being completely dependent on Him, all their activities and force,s must equally depend on Him ... Hence, it is obvious that God is acting together with every actor ... 4 The fire does not burn, the sun does not shine, nor does man beget, but only through the will of God and [in consequence of] His joining in each of these actions. 5

This view, Yashar points out, is also shared by Avicembron, who thinks that only God and the angels act independently, whereas everything else is "acted upon. Although they seem to be acting by themselves, they are nothing but prerequisite conditions or in1 2

.w,; l:i:JiD ~m''l!U l:i~!U i'IT'N ''~ Cil!U ,,~~,; l:iNil Niil 3'::!1'il!U C'Dioil:i•Dil~ !'l~j:' i::iwn l"~:Ji ibid., p. 95a; cf.

Aristotle, Phys. II, 8, 199a, 20-30; Historia Animalium (Oxford, 1910), Bk. IX, 38, 39, 40, 622b-627b. A. Ibn Ezra, Comm. Ex. (ed. Reggio, Prague, 1840, Vienna, 1926), 23:10, p. 204. Gershon hen Levi, comm., Prov. 6:6. See also Harry Austryn Wolfson, "Hallevi and Maimonides on design, chance and necessity», PAAJR, XI (1941), 105-163, esp. 139 ff. 3 N ovloth, pp. 95a, b. 4 0

·l:i:JiD l:i~ C:J in• l:i:JiD ill:i:J!'I' l:iNil!U iriiDi1'~i'li ili~i::i Nl:i CIN i•l:ii~ CliNil Nl:ii i•N~ !U~!Uil Nl:ii 'Jiiw !UNil rN

Clil~:!7.

ibid., p. 96a.

206

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

struments ... for the actions of God and the angels." i This, he asserts, is also the view of Plato and his disciples, as well as of the disciples of Hillel. He infers this from Hillel's disciples because of their opinion on the blessing of light. According to them, this blessing ought to be in the present tense with the noun for light in the plural : "Blessed be Thou, God, ... who creates the lights of fire." 2 The present tense Yashar interprets as indicative of God's permanent creativity, and the plural as pointing to His participation in every action together with the immediate actor. 3 In final support of these views he quotes the popular Reshith IJokhmah by the Oabbalist Eliyahu de Vidas, who writes with great fervor and emotion of God's constant benevolence and providence which maintain and guide this world. 4 Yashar opens the description of the opposite, naturalistic, view with a long quotation from Maimonides' Guide concerning the subject of angels.5 In that passage Maimonides flatly asserts that "what Aristotle called 'abstract intelligences,' we call angels." However, the term "angel" in the Bible, Maimonides explains, is of much wider connotation, actually denoting the full range of immediate causes operating at any moment in the universe. The primary meaning of malakh (angel) is messenger; thus, any animate or inanimate object in nature which performs an action in accordance with the divine intent may be considered God's messenger with regard to that action. 6 In the light of such an interpretation, Maimonides continues, the teaching of the Midrash that "every day God creates hosts of angels who sing His praises and disappear," 7 becomes meaningful. If angels signify natural forces, this Midrash may be understood to express the idea of the uninterrupted flow of becoming and its unique and transient nature. It is in this spirit that he also interprets another midrashic saying, namely, that "no single angel performs two functions, nor do two angels perform one and the same function,"s since "each force is destined to perform only one unique action." The above quotation is relatively extensive and its aim and purpose Ibid., p. 97a. Mishn. Ber. 8:5: !DNi'l ,,,N~ Nii:l 3 Novloth, p. 97a. 4 Ibid., pp. 97b-98a; cf. Vidas, Reshith IJokhmah, Sha'ar ha-Ahavah, chap. V. 5 Novloth, pp. 96a-97b; Guide, II, 6. a Guide, II, 4, 6. 7 Ber. Rab., 78 (1); BT, l;lag., 14a. 8 Ber. Rab., 50 (2).

i

2

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

207

obviously to point out Maimonides' naturalistic view of nature's functioning, a view Maimonides also expresses directly and clearly elsewhere. 1 It is equally obvious that, notwithstanding some weak assertions to the contrary, 2 Yashar also embraces this view, indeed, drives it to its extreme logical conclusions. How deeply impressed Yashar was by Maimonides' interpretation of angels in the Bible in terms of secondary causes, may be gathered from his frequent and lengthy allusions to it in various contexts of his work. He referred to it in Elim, Ma§ref and Novloth. 3 Guide., II, 4, "1il:J.'ip:i C'i:J.'Til il!D3'' N1:i i11:i3'1'l' C!Vil!V iN:J.Tlil i:i::> Novloth, pp. 97b, 99b. 3 Elim, pp. 29, 54, 60; MQ,f}ref, pp. 85ff; Novloth, pp. 72-73, 78-79, 96-97 and passim. It is of interest to cite a few examples from MQ,f}ref to ill~strate not only Yashar's naturalistic approach, but also his tactics of concealment and camouflage. Thus, he allegedly rejects Maimonides' interpretation of the angel's appearance in the story of the binding oflsaac in terms of a vision or dream, since such an interpretation contradicts common traditions and beliefs. However, his own interpretation, which he attributes, of course, to someone else, is even more extreme, removing altogether from the story any transcendental elements. The sentence about the angel calling unto Abraham "not to lay his hand upon the lad," he argues, ought to follow the sentence telling of Abraham's beholding the ram. Only after Abraham noticed the ram, it occurred to him to sacrifice the ram instead of his son. Thus, the angel-deliverer in the story is actually not a heavenly being but the ram. In naturalistic terms he also explains the angel's appearance to Mano'al;l's wife in the Samson story. There was no angel there, he declares, all the story just having bee~ a dream, a frightening dream that she gave birth to a giant, extraordinary in shape and strength-a dream caused by the strong stimulus that was stirring her imagination in consequence of the semen that was acting at the time in her womb. Indeed, according to Hippocrates, all parts of the body are interrelated, notably the head and the womb. Amusing and a good example of his deliberate and frequent abuses of logical inference, i.e., the drawing of conclusions which contradict his own premises, is Y ashar's parenthetical remark with regard to Metz' general view of causality : He shares the opinion of some philosophers, that God joins in the actions of the natural agents and acts with them-a view to which also the sages of the Talmud seem inclined. The latter declare that if a m~n had sexual relations with a married woman and she conceived, it would have been proper for God not to mould the embryo. However, nature acts according to its own laws. It appears that it is not entirely up to the natural causes to act in accordance with their will, but in conjunction with the Creator, blessed be His name. 1

2

c1:ii» N1:iN •i:ii»il 1:iNil i":S' N1:i!D 'iNi il'il •ili:J.»Tlli N"N 1:i3' N:J.il 1:i"TN) i1:i»!:l' N1:iN J'1'i1:in1:i cm~i::> Tli!D3'1:i C"3':J.1'1:i tim M::lil J'N!V ilNil ·lilil ilill~::l (•!Zl"Tl' ,~,,il .,,,~:i

Maf}ref, pp. 85-88. BT., Avodah Zarah, 54b.

208

Y.ASH.AR .AS PHILOSOPHER

In support of the naturalistic conception of secondary causes Yashar also cites the Shammaites, who, in opposition to the Hillelites, are of the opinion that the blessing for light ought to be in the past tense and in the singular : "Blessed be Thou, God . . . Who created the light of fire,'' Though they believe that God is the distant cause of all existence, they consider the immediate causes endowed with the capacity and freedom to act of their own, without the participation of the Divine. "The fire thus burns because of the capacity that was bestowed upon it by God since creation." 1 In conclusion, Yashar summarizes the "strong and irrefutable" arguments on behalf of the naturalistic view and in opposition to the contrary view. From the length and tone of the discussion it is obvious that ·he fully shares this view. Were one to assume God's participation in every move and action, he argues, nature as a domain of defined species, each with its own qualities and characteristics, would become meaningless. It would be impossible then to speak of properties of things, and of a relationship between these and their functions. How could one explain then God's blessing to man "be fruitful and multiply,'' and His command to the earth to bring forth all kinds of herbs and trees? It may further be asked, what would be the part and role of God and what of the immediate agents? Which would precede which, and which would be more or less decisive? Such a view would, moreover, lead to the abolition of the contingent, the rejection of freedom of choice, with the implication that God would "actually be moving the evil doer." 2 In short, it would result in "a confusion of things and the destruction of both natural philosophy and religion." a

Before attempting to draw final conclusions with regard to Yashar's views on the "ways of the Lord" in the universe, it may be useful With regard to the above passage, it should be noted, first, that the identification of Metz' view on causality with that of the Talmudists, who believe that God participates directly in every activity, is utterly false. Indeed, all of Metz' interpretations concerning angels point to the contrary view. Second, the example Yashar chose, allegedly to illustrate the point of view of the Talmudists with regard to secondary causes, does not, to say the least, indicate a serious attitude on his part toward that point of view. On the contrary, it seems to ridicule it. And third, the twisted nature of Yashar's reasoning in the above passage is too obvious to require analysis. Indeed, it is the diametrically opposite inference to the one he makes which is the correct one. 1 Novloth, p. 98a. Mishn. Ber. 8:5. 2 I bid., pp. 98b-99a. a Ibid., p. 99b.

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

209

to widen the discussion, to include another directly related problem, divine providence. Maimonides devoted three chapters of the Guide to this problem. 1 He indirectly discusses it also in parts of his work dealing with God's knowledge and the problem of Job. 2 This discussion constitutes the framework of Y ashars analysis in N ovloth. 3 Following the order of the Guide, Y ashar first cites the five views on providence as classified by Maimonides, following which he presents Maimonides' view, and the "doubts and suspicions" raised against it by some of the Guide' s commentators. Most interesting, however, are Yashar's own concluding remarks which constitute the finale of the philosophical section of the work in general. According to Maimonides, there are five schools of thought with regard to divine providence: (1) The Epicureans, who altogether reject it, declaring everything to be accidental; (2) the Aristotelians, who identify providence with the everlasting lawfulness of nature, thus limiting it to the heavenly bodies and the species of the sublunar world ;4 (3) the Islamic Isharites, the protagonists of an extreme determinism, who attribute everything to the will of God, deny, however, that that will is of any intent or purpose; thus, while saving God's omniscience, they undermine religion and morality; (4) the Islamic Mutazilites, who also insist on God's omniscience, but seek to reconcile it with His goodness and justice; thus, while limiting human freedom, they conceive of reward and punishment as encompassing also the animal world; and finally (5) "the view of our Torah," which believes not only in man's freedom, but also in the voluntary motions of all other living things, in a good and just God, Whose justice prevails, although His ways may not always be comprehensible to man. 5 In the sublunar world, Maimonides confines his own concept of providence to man alone. He shares Aristotle's view that the existence of plants and animals is accidental. In terms of Biblical passages which imply or state such providence for flora and fauna, he interprets those passages as pertaining to the species alone but not to the 1 2

3 4

5

Guide, III, 17, 18, 51. Ibid., III, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and more. Novloth, pp. 95b, 97b-99, and mainly 107-112. Cf. S. Pines, "Introduction" to the Guide, p. LXVI. Novloth., pp. 107b-108b; cf. Guide, III, 17.

210

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

individuals. The exhortations of the Bible against cruel treatment of animals are, in his view, educationally motivated, intending to imbue man with a sense of pity and compassion, but are not meant to imply uni versa! providence.1 Maimonides subjects this reduced conception of providence to many further qualifications. The result is that its significance is curtailed to such an extent as to make it virtually unrecognizable as "providence." Divine providence, Maimonides teaches, is neither a static nor a permanent feature of the objective order of man's world. Though a divine abundance and benevolence, it is granted to man as a result of his own efforts. God, it may be said, only reciprocates; the initiative, however, must come from man. More important perhaps is Maimonides' emphasis on the intellectual nature of that effort. It is primarily through contemplation and an intense intellectualism that a state of providence may be attained. It thus follows that the extent of providence granted to men is unequal and differs in relation to the individual's intellectual excellence. 2 Following these lengthy quotations from the Guide, Yashar adduces remarks attributed to some commentators, who suspected Maimonides of insincerity, concealment and of more extreme views than those he actually expressed. Though Yashar labels such suspicions "unjust,'' 3 it is obvious that he also shares them. He considers them not only valid, but drives them to their extreme logical conclusions, finally inferring Maimonides' total rejection of providence. Naturally, such a conclusion illuminates the views of Yashar no less than Maimonides'. Yashar points out that Maimonides' insistence on a direct relationship between intellectualism and providence inclined some of his commentators to the interpretation that he actually intended to drive home the following truth : It is, indeed, reason alone by the aid of which man takes care of himself .. . The greater his wisdom, the more efficient the precautions he takes to guard himself against all sorts of perils. It is in this respect that the wise man is superior to the prophet. Owing to his foresight, he is not only himself cautious, but is also able to warn his fellow men against imminent evils. 4 ..• According to these commentators, 1

2

Novloth, p. 109a. Guide, III, 17 and mainly 18.

s ·ri:;, K':i!U

4 Among the earliest and most extreme of these commentators is Yoseph Caspi (12th-13th cent.), who interprets Maimonides' intellectual conception of providence not

211

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

Maimonides concealed his true views not only with regard to prophecy but also with regard to God's knowledge and providence. He conceived of prophecy as some sort of cleverness, shrewdness and watchfulness, and excluded from divine knowledge a knowledge of particulars.1

In support of such comments, Yashar quotes l\faimonides' own admission that "God's knowledge with regard to the infinite is, indeed, doubtful." 2 Above all, however, Yashar extensively quotes the commentators in reference to Maimonides' interpretation of Job. They discover in his interpretation numerous doubts and unorthodox views. Yashar accepts their rendering of Maimonides' alleged interpretation of the "sons of God" as denoting the orderly, divine functions of the forces of nature, and Satan as denoting the accidental which is not

in terms of an emanation from a Divine Mind, but as man's immanent capacity for reasoning. Since God is mind, he reasons, and the mind of every individual by which he guides himself in all his dealings and strivings is from Him, it may justly be said that God's providence of man is identical with the extent ofreason that dominates man's thought and activities. In his commentary on the Guide, called Maskiyyoth Keseph, he writes: Niillt' iDK'!Zl iD::i c':ii:1m "1'.,£) ';i::i ':i»i!:> Kiil!V i•':i!.7 iDi':i pil• ':iKM!V inK 1·i::iD KiilW pil' 1::ii 1pin., ':i!.7!:> i::i mi::iil 1il'lD' iwK CME>M MT iDKl ';i::iK •CiK 'l::l "W'Nil ,.,» ,~,, pil"!V W":l •'iW:Sm ?::i ini:ii niKl)'.jlil 'W'N "i::i~ inl:iiT l:i!.7 i~K" iwK~ m':i»D n~::i '1l"li" n~Nil ,.,, ':i» l:i»i!:>il l:i::itvil~ Niil •::i ''n' u~~ l:ilNl mil i::i!V ';i::ittmi "i::iw "i!.7::i Niilw •t>l:i iip~t.j :>"N ·'?i';iyi M':i!.7 pi ':iNM r::ii i3•::i rK ':l 1 1:itv~ ,.,, ';iy N:S:~l Niillt' ilMlK N:S:~l •::i ':i!V~ ,.,, 1'v 7::i1:ii 11;:11i1:>::i Niil •::i u::i itvN l:i::i!Vil ilT Cill) l:iNil l:iKni '?Kn Kiil ':i:>!Vil •::> ,,l'lt'K'1 1in::i ':iNil C'K'!:I~ ilMlK l:i»it>::i irl:i:>tv •il~~ !V'Ni tt''N ':i:>';i ';iviD::i il'lt'N.,::l!V '1'.,E>M '!V'Nil '?:>lt'il iriiNi ,';i:>!VM Niil :P'l'tt' i:P MlillMM ::ii1'::1 ill'ill'i il!.?iiN~i ill'l:P '1'.,!:>::l M'lW~ili '?•:>W~il Niil il'M m':iNil N M'illt' m~';i!V .,n,- ';ip i•~n itvNi 1in:i 7::i';ii ·':i:lW Kiil l:iNni ':i::itv Kiil M:l imN!V .,MN 'ni':iKil M:l iK il':iNil il.,~N r::i nmmo iK il~l:i!V n•nn MMllt'l"lili 'CiN 'l::l~ !V'N !V'N::l M'l!VD ;nl:iNil ':l .,~K· N:S:~lTD •ni';itcn n::in mitc::i ilMlN •::i 1 il':iiil ill':i!:>il nn ,,i,::iw ii»"!V •£>::> in•ill~ Nini U"!VN., 1in:i iilN':S:~li ni':iNil l'!Zll ni,,i:inn::i 'lml:Pl:i Niil 'il •::i ••• ('f : ,,, •'Mn} ,,N ilNil ,.,,N::i ,.,~N imi 1 ilpo~i u::il:in~ ';i::i::i ·Nin Nini 1 i1:i:>w Nim ,,·~·~ Kini ,,,i'~~ Cl',ll c·~ Niil tt'":>i .,,~l ':i::i!V Die Kommentare van Joseph Kaspi, einem Grammatiker und Philosophen aus dem 13ten Jahrhundert zu Dalalat al Hairin van Moses Maimuni, herausgegeben von Salomon Werbluner (Frankfurt am Main, 1848), p. 98; see also, ibid., German introduction by R. Kirohheim ( ?), pp. XII-XIII. 1 Novloth, p. 109b. 2 j:'E:ICil i::l IV' ,, n•':i::in J"Nlt' il~::i ME>j:'MM Cl~N,, Guide, III, 20.

,.,!.?

,.,!.?

mm

m

.,.,,!V

212

Y ASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

in God's control. 1 But Yashar ventures far beyond them, winding up by attributing to Maimonides a throughly naturalistic approach. What happened to Job, he writes-apparently interpreting Maimonides' view on the subject-was the result of excessive living, a lack of moderation with regard to food, drink and sexual relations. This caused his skin disease, which is usually attributable to a loss of bodily substances or heredity. In a similar vein he interprets the other misfortunes that befell Job. His sons were killed because "they exposed themselves to dangers by frequenting places infested with highway men." 2 Nor does he find anything supernatural in the "fire from heaven" or the "strong wind from the desert." Earthquakes are common in Upper Galilee and in other places of the East. Indeed, such an earthquake also occurred at Ferrara, as described by the excellent 'Azariah de Rossi ...a Unheedful shepherds, caught in a rain or hail storm, are sometimes struck by hail or lightening and destroyed with their herds. Strange occurrences like these have been observed everywhere.

Yashar is also more radical than the commentators of the Guidenever forgetting though to attribute his views to them-in the comments he makes on Maimonides' description of Job as a man of moral, rather than intellectual ,excellence. According to these commentators, Y ashar writes, the only crime of Job was that he did not take care of his own health, and, by letting his sons expose themselves to dangers, also neglected their well-being and the safety of his possessions. Instead of taking precautions, he relied on miracles, believing that his sacrifices and prayers would save them from all the evils.

In short, according to Yashar, it is by such interpretations that these commentators concluded that Maimonides attributes to God only "a general knowledge" of things and thinks of providence in terms of man's ability to take care of himself. 4 Having concluded his alleged quotations from the commentators, 1 Cf. Efodi on Guide, III, 22; see also Bi'ur l'Sefer More Nevukhim by Moshe haNarboni, ed., Ya'acov Goldenthal (Wien, 1852), comm. on III, 18, 22, 23, 51. 2 C'1'0'i;l cip~:l i;l"1'i;l ri:ii;ll;l r'iil:lO:l O~~:sl' O'l:ll"l:l, Novloth, p. llla. a A. De Rossi, "Qol Elohim", in Me'or 'Einayim. 4 Novloth, Illa. Although the above views are inferable from some of the commentaries, notably that of Moses Narboni, I found them nowhere as articulate and elaborated upon as in the above passages of Novloth.

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

213

Yashar now offers some remarks of his own. Above all, he is doubtful as to the validity of Maimonides' view regarding a direct connection between providence and intellectualism, a doubt expressed at length and with clarity by J;lasdai Orescas. 1 Were this view valid, Yashar asks, how is the Psalmist's "God watches the innocent" 2 to be explained? And how would one account for the fate that befell Aristotle? Here was a man whom Maimonides considered the epitome of perfection, the highest degree of human attainment ;3 why then did God not keep His vigil over Aristotle, as he did over Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and other pious and righteous men, although they were not as wise as he ? Ibn Roschd wrote· of Aristotle that God created him to serve as an example of perfection to the human race; that one who attained his degree has reached the highest possible level of knowledge in this world. 4 And yet, it is told of him that out of fear for his life, he fled at the end of his days from Athens to Ohalcis, and there killed himself by poison. This, Yashar observes, is very perplexing, indeed. 5 If these queries alone seem to deal a devastating blow to the intellectual conception of providence, it is Yashar's alleged reply to them that points to his rejection of the idea of providence altogether. He writes: Maimonides may possibly answer these questions by pointing out that although Aristotle was a great thinker and although he spoke loftily about ethics and morality, he did not practice his own teaching. He should have taken his cue from such sages as Hesiod and Homer who spoke in riddles, especially since he saw what happened to his master, Socrates, for having taught in public his views on things divine. Even Plato, though a nobleman of royal descent and a man of truth, did not slander with his tongue to make his opinions known, but, instead, used riddles and fables in his writings to conceal his views. Aristotle should have followed their example, to display a smiling countenance to the Greek priests, in order to mislead them. In this manner also behave contemporary philosophers who bow and prostrate themselves before [the priests]. He should not have published his views on such subjects as eternity, the soul, God's knowledge and providence. If he did not take care of himself, nor protect his honor, who was supposed to do it? Our sages have also warned us not to expose ourselves to dangers, and not to rely on

Or Adonai, ma'amar sheni, klal vav, pereq aleph. 'l"I c~~Z"lt> i~i!V, Ps. 116:6. 3 Cf. Alexander Marx in JQR, N.S., vol. XXV (1934/35), pp. 371-428, esp. p. 379; S. Pines, "Introduction" to the Guide, LIX. 4 Pines, loc. cit., LX-LXI; S. Munk, Melanges de Philosophie Juive et Arabe (Paris, 1

2

1927), pp. 316, 440-441. 5 Novloth, p. 111.

214

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

miracles. Though one ought to love truth, it should not be divulged but to a select few. They also said: three have spoken the truth, yet perished, the snake, the spies, and Do'eg the Edomite ... 1 and jokingly they said that falsehood also entered the ark with Noah,2 to show that its existence is as essential to the world as that of other beings ... Maimonides too acted in this way.a

It is interesting to note that these comments begin in the text in the first person, conclude, however, with: "these are their words," 4 i.e., attributing them again to the commentators. This notwithstanding, there cannot be the slightest doubt that they are entirely Yashar's. The above passage is interesting not only on account of Yashar's opinion concerning Maimonides' views in the Guide, but perhaps even more on account of his own justification of a policy of concealment and camouflage on the part of intellectuals in a society dominated by a reactionary clergy. It is almost certain that in making these remarks, Yashar had in mind not only the intolerance of the general milieu which affected so tragically the lives of men like Bruno, Vanini and Galileo; but also similar attitudes that prevailed in the Jewish milieu of the time, and whose stifling effect he himself miist have experienced personally. Thus, it may not be far-fetched to interpret his thoughts on the fate of Aristotle as thoughts on his own fate; a voluntary, though hidden admission of his own tactics which he had been employing in order to avoid the dangers of an intolerant environment. Indeed, this very passage furnishes us with an excellent illustration of these tactics. It opens with the apparent intention of defending Maimonides against equating his intellectualism, as a prerequisite of providence, with individual practical wisdom. However, by the end of that passage, the reader realizes that Yashar is really expounding the view that man alone provides for himself and watches over his own fate-a view which Yashar convincingly drives home. Moreover, though Yashar concludes by asserting that Maimonides too adopted these camouflage tactics, he immediately reverses himself by stating that "he was suspected of ideas which did not even occur to him." 1 For a similar version of this midrash, see "Ma'aseh Torah", letter gimmel, par. 326, in Y. L. Hacohen Maimon, Toledoth Ha-Gro (Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 1970), p. 386. 2 Midrash Tehillim Sho~er Tov, 7:11. a Novwth., p. lllb. 4 Four lines from the bottom of p. Ula he writes : i~i!Z.' '"El:! i:ii• il~ 37~!Z.'N 'il C"Nl"IE> but at the end, he adds: "•Cil•i:ii :>"37", ibid., p. lllb.

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

215

No less illuminating with regard to both, Yashar's understanding of Maimonides and his own thinking on the problem of providence, is his final observation: I am about to tell you something great, though I know, it may seem strange to you. Only those beings whose existence is not absolute, but always emanates from God [like the light from the sun] ... are the truly alive and everlasting ones, as it is, indeed, written : "and you who cling unto God your Lord, are all alive this dayl ... and those who forsake God will perish."2 Although the latter are also in need of Him, they feel confident in their heart and fear not . . . Such [a dependent existence] is [that] of the abstract intellects and spheres. However, the transient individuals of the sublunar world, whose existence is absolute, i.e. independent of a lasting divine sustenance, since they were cut off and detached from their sourcetheir portion was given to them and they have no more a share in God, since the divine image does not cling unto transient individuals-they are like soap bubbles which disappear in a second .. . Such is the fate of all transient things which acquire an absolute existence. The turning away of God's face from them spells their end. This is a very refined philosophical thought which has not occurred to many. Perhaps this was the idea which Maimonides had in mind, as there is no one among the sages of Israel to equal him in the depth of understanding.a

As a comment on Maimonides' concept of providence, we believe that this passage refers to chapter 51 of part III of the Guide, in which Maimonides rounded out his earlier, only generally formulated, views on the subject, 4 bringing them to their extreme logical conclusion. Maimonides writes in that chapter : A most extraordinary speculation has occurred to me just now through which doubts may be dispelled and divine secrets revealed. We have already explained in the chapters concerning providence that providence watches over everyone endowed with intellect proportionately to the measure of his intellect. Thus providence always watches over an individual endowed with perfect apprehension, whose intellect never ceases from being occupied with God. On the other hand, an individual endowed with perfect apprehension, whose thought sometimes for a certain time is emptied of God, is watched over by providence only during the time when he thinks of God; providence withdraws from him during the time when he is occupied with something else ... Hence it seems to me that all prophets or excellent and perfect men whom one of the evils of this world befell, had this evil happen to them during such a time of distraction, the greatness of the calamity

Deut. 4:4. Is. 1:28. 3 Novloth, p. 112. In Guide III, 17, Maimonides attributes this view to Aristotle ("the second opinion"). According to J. Guttmann, this view was shared by Ibn Rosehd and his Jewish follower Albalag; see in Levi GinBberg Jubilee Book (Hebrew), 76-77. 4 See mainly Guide, III, 17, 18. 1

2

216

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

being proportionate to the duration of the period of distraction or to the vileness of the m!l'tter with which he was occupied. If this is so, the great doubt that induced the philosophers to deny that divine providence watches over all human individuals and to assert equality between them and the individuals of the other kinds of animals is dispelled. For their proof for this opinion was the fact that excellent and good men experience great misfortunes. Thus, the secret with regard to this has been explained even according to the requirements of their opinions : The providence of God, may He be exalted, is constantly watching over those who have obtained this overflow, which is permitted to everyone who makes efforts with a view to obtaining it. If a man's thought is free from distraction, if he apprehends Him, may He be exalted, in the right way and rejoices in what he apprehends, that individual can never be afflicted with evil of any kind. For he is with God and God is with him. When, however, he abandons Him, may He be exalted, and is thus separated from God and God separated from him, he becomes in consequence of this a target for every evil that may happen to befall him. For the thing that necessarily brings about providence and deliverance from the sea of chance consists in that intellectual overflow of providence and protection from evil accidents.1

Though lofty and beautiful, this grand finale, which raises the ideal of the vita contemplativa to the height of a mystical union with God, may actually, upon closer analysis, prove to be the coup de grace to the idea of divine providence altogether. Apparently confronted with a growing realization of the total indifference of nature to both intellectual and ethical human achievements, Maimonides saw himself forced to an ever stricter delimitation of the scope of providence. In the whole realm of sublunar beings he first limited it to man; he then qualified it as pertaining to thinking man alone, adding the prerequisite that his thoughts be centered on God. The concept suffered, however, its greatest delimitation when the vita contemplativa, upon which its validity was made dependent, was set forth as a requirement of permanent duration. By thus increasing his prerequisites, Maimonides may have succeeded in saving the belief in providence as a logical concept; as a principle of ethical and religious import, however, it could now be considered defunct. The existence he allotted to it finally shrank to that of a mere illusion, 1 Ibid., III, 51, as translated by S. Pines, The Guide of the Perplexed, pp. 624-625. For some critical observations on Maimonides' views in this chapter by the Tibbonites, Shmuel and Moshe, and by Shemtov Palquera, and how to reconcile them with Maimonides' views in chaps. XVII and XVIII of part III, see Z. Diesendruck, "Samuel and Moses Ibn Tibbon on Maimonides' Theory of Providence," HUCA, XI (Cincinnati, 1936), pp. 341-366, see also Shem Tov Palquera, Se/er More ha-More (Pressburg, 1837), chap. II of appendix, pp. 145-148.

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

217

meaningful perhaps only to a small minority of ivory tower recluses, living on the fringe of natural humanity. To the bulk of men, however, composites of spirit and flesh, providence turned out to be almost meaningless and non-existent in either objective or subjective terms. Though Yashar never identified the exact text of the Guide which stimulated his own thinking on the problem and which served as a basis for attributing such a view to Maimonides, similar phrases in that chapter and in his own comments, the fact that they both appear as final conclusions to long deliberations, but, most importantly, the fact that the Maimonidean text actually yields to the kind of interpretation given it by Yashar-all this, we believe, offers strong support to our assumption of a direct link between this text and Yashar's views on the subject. Be this as it may, as far as Yashar's views on providence are concerned, he expressed them nowhere with such clarity and definiteness as-here. The idea of providence, he indicates, may claim validity only in the framework of a philosophy of emanation. Limiting emanation as he does, however, to the heavenly spheres and intellects, the sublunar world is declared a domain of "absolute" transient beings to which "the divine image does not cling," a domain completely outside divine providence and subject to the rule of an immanent natural causality alone. If it be further recalled that in Elim the belief in spheres and intellects was altogether refuted as lacking any foundation, the total rejection of providence by Yashar may justly be inferred. In support of such an inference, may also be cited his strong reasons on behalf of a naturalist conception of secondary causes, as well as his rationalist interpretations of angels in the Bible. The outstanding formal characteristic of Yashar' s philosophical speculation is its eclecticism and discursive character. The whole of Novloth !Jokhmah is a collection of quotations from a great variety of sources, Jewish and not-Jewish, religious and secular, rationalist and mystical, continuously following each other, with only brief comments separating between them. Indeed, were the long and numerous quotations, whose insertion Yashar attributes to Ashkenazi, excised from the work, N ovloth could be described as an annotated topical bibliography of ancient and medieval metaphysics, Oabbalah and occultism. In view of this, the student of N ovloth feels rather inclined to treat seriously Yashar's assertion-in his letter of complaint to Ashkenazi-that the whole of it are mere notes taken at random

218

YASHAR AS PHILOSOPHER

with the intention of elaborating upon them in the future. However, once it is recalled that Yashar's other two books, MatJref and Elim, are also essentially eclectic works, the validity of this assertion becomes doubtful. It appears that this eclecticism, which is so prominent a feature in all his writings, cannot be explained in 'merely technical terms, but is rather indicative of an inadequacy in him which is either of a psychological or intellectual nature. It is a fact that, his great knowledge and acumen notwithstanding, he never succeeded in merging and focusing that knowledge-in uniting it into a cohesive whole. The discursive and fragmentary nature of his scholarly endeavor is esp~ially felt in his philosophical speculations. Indeed, the two expressions of his philosophy, Elim and Novloth, not only do not complement each other, but are actually contradictory and mutually exclusive. Yashar is modern in Elim, totally emancipated from the medieval Weltanschauung. Contrariwise, he is wholly medieval in N ovloth, both with regard to his views and his use of the method of formal dialectics. · As far as Novloth is concerned, it offers no philosophy, but. a philosophical composite with preponderant leanings towards Platonism and mysticism. Strongly represented in that composite is, of course, the Aristotelian tradition with its major Jewish spokesman, Maimonides. Aristotle is still the philosopher and his works are the most frequently quoted and referred to. However, following the trends of the Renaissance from the second half of the fourteenth century, this tradition had been exposed to sharp criticism and was waning. Yashar's writings strongly reflect this situation. Indeed, the Aristotelian Weltanschauung is completely overthrown in Elim, though many of its concepts and modes of thought still remain fundamental to N ovloth. It is also clear that Yashar was especially influenced by the boldest of all Jewish anti-Aristotelians, Jfasdai Crescas. Interesting and camouflaged is Yashar's attitude to Maimonides. He fully shares his rationalist approach; the nature of that approach has completely changed, however. Maimonides' great endeavor to reconcile reason and faith by a rationalization of the latter is meaningless to Yashar, in view of his critical attitude to the Bible, on the one hand, and his commitment to the new concept of the universe, on the other hand. Free from the necessity of rationalizing the Bible, Y ashar is in a position to assume a seemingly more pious attitude toward its

SECOND PHASE OF METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS

219

narrative, defending the authenticity of its spiritualist and irrational sections. Allegedly embracing the point of view of emanation, he also feigns a commitment to a broader conception of divine providence and divine knowledge. However, as has been shown, it is not Maimonides' rationalism that is disturbing to him in the least; but rather the contrary, the fact that Maimonides did not go far enough in it, or at least did not do so explicitly. Indeed, he attempts to develop and reveal the full implications of some of Maimonides' views, notably with regard to eternity, the soul, and providence. The element most strongly represented in Yashar's philosophical composite is drawn from the Neo-Platonist tradition, which gained considerable influence in Italy during the Renaissance. To that tradition must be attributed Yashar's defense of emanation, his conception of the hyle and form as emerging from God and in terms of a universal potentiality which characterizes all cosmic being and which is the source of its aspiration for ever higher stages of existence, and finally his extensive deliberations on light and his frequent flights into the mystical and occult. Aspects of Yashar's philosophy of nature are directly related to Renaissance sources. His rejection of the Aristotelian four elements and their substitution by a triad of principles, with heat as the active and moist and dry as the passive elements, his insistence on sense perception as the only primary source of knowledge and his materialist interpretation of nature as a whole-seem all traceable to the views of Telesio, Cardan, Campanella and other Renaissance philosophers of nature. 1 Although Yashar's speculations are generally lacking originality or novelty, as far as the problems themselves and their solutions are concerned, his mere juxtaposition of the various views and approaches, clearly illustrating the helplessness of all of them, deserves attention as an indication of the mood of doubt that seized this Jewish representative of the Cartesian age on the threshold of the new era. The most interesting element of Yashar's philosophical composite is, of course, the Cabbalah, and his recourse to it for philosophical purposes. Indeed, this is perhaps his most original contribution to the philosophical discussion. To this aspect of his work the following pages will be devoted. 1

See supra, pp. 154, n. 5, and 170, n. 3.

PART :FIVE

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CABBALAH IN ITALY AND POLAND 1.

ITALY

According to Shmuel Ashkenazi, Yashar became aware of the increasing strength of the Lurianic Cabbalah during his travels in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially in Turkey; and then decided to turn his serious attention to it. He had come in contact with the Cabbalah some years earlier, while at Padua; but he ignored it then, as he was absorbed with his secular studies.1 Though Italy was the greatest center of Cabbalistic activity outside Safed at the time, its impact was neutralized to a great extent by the secular trends of the environment. Only after his encounter with the larger and culturally more secluded Jewries of Turkey and Poland, did he fully realize the inroads of these new trends in Jewish life and thought. By the time Yashar decided to turn his attention to the subjectthe end of the sec.ond decade of the seventeenth century-Jewish mysticism in Italy could already boast of a long history. Disregarding earlier developments, its more recent diffusion was undoubtedly linked with the rise of Neo-Platonism and the mystical tendencies of the fifteenth century Renaissance. 2 But Cabbalah also gained ground in Italy during the first decades of the sixteenth century, as a result of the influx of Spanish Cabbalists

Cf. "Haqdamath ha-Magihah" in M~ef. Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, sec. ed., vol. XIII (New York, 1969), pp. l 72ff, 401-405, notes 18-22; Joseph Leon Blau, The Christian Interpretation of the Cabala in the Renaissance (New York, 1944); U. Cassuto, Gli Ebrei a Firenze, pp. 279, 284, 291, 299, 304ff; Pearl Kibre, The Library of Pico della Mirandola, pp. 39, 44, 45; H. Pflaum, Die ldee der Liebe Leone Ebreos (Tiibingen, 1926), pp. 67-70; G. Scholem, "Chapters from the History of Cabbalistic Literature" [Hebrew], Kirjath Se/er, V (Jerusalem, 1928/29), pp. 273-276; Ch. Wirszubski, "Flavius Mitridates' Christological Sermon" [Hebrew] in Yitzhak F. Baer Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 191-206; idem, "Flavius Mitridates," Proceedings of the Israel Academy for Sciences and Humanities, vol. I (Jerusalem, 1966), pp. 1-10. 1

2

224

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

and Cabbalistic works. 1 Its dissemination may also have been promoted by the growing messianic fervor during the years ~hat followed the exile from Spain. 2 Nevertheless these gains remained limited. Conditions of Jewish life in Italy were simply not conducive to the diffusion of an ascetic mysticism before the Counter-Reformation set in. Besides, none of the Cabbalists of the first half of the sixteenth century, native or Spanish, displayed enough spiritual greatness to exert more than a moderate influence. At best, their work was that of commentators and expositors, with little originality or creativity. In the second half of the sixteenth century, with the worsening situation of the Jews in Italy and the emergence of the Cabbalistic center at Safed, a new situation developed which was more conducive to the diffusion of the mystical lore. In the mid-century, the Cabbalah finally emerged from the obscurity of an esoteric doctrine, until then pursued only by small groups of devotees. Daring into the open, Cabbalah was able to gain the hearts and minds of wider segments of the Jewish people. It not only asserted the supremacy of the mystical conception of the Torah over the revealed one, but also attributed a redemptive power to its study, declaring that study to be a prerequisite for ushering in the messianic age. 3 From that time to the Shabbetai Zevi upheaval, more than a century later, the Cabbalah penetrated Jewish life and literature on an unprecedented scale, deeply affecting the creeds and mores of the Jews. Its diffusion was greatly facilitated by the comparatively recent invention of print. The Cabbalists showed a rather non-mystical attitude toward print and used it efficiently. 4 Printing houses were 1 A. W. Greenup, ed., "A Kabbalistic Epistle by Isaac b. Samuel ben Hayim Sephardi," JQR (NS), XXI (1930-1931), pp. 365-375; Ya'el Nadav, "Epistle of the Cabbalist R' Isaac Mar ~ayyim concerning the Doctrine of Supernal Light Oiin~mO," Tarbiz, XXVI (Jerusalem, 1951), pp. 440-458; G. Scholem, "The Cabbalist R' Abraham ben ·Eli'ezer Halevi" [Hebrew], Kirjath Se/er, I-11 (1924-1926), pp. 101-141, 269-273; idem, "New Researches on R' Abraham ben Eli'ezer Halevi," ibid., VII (1930-1931), pp. 149-165; J. Rubinstein, "~ayyei ha-MeJ:iabber" in Yoseph Ya'avets' Se/er Ifasdei ha-Shem (New York, 1934), pp. 9-16; Yehudah ~ayyat, "Haqdamah" to Se/er Ma'arekheth ha-Elahuth (Ferrara, 1557); G. Scholem, "Problem of the Book 'Ma 'arekheth ha-Elahuth' and its Commentators" [Hebrew], Kirjath Se/er, XXI (1944-1945), pp. 284295. 2 A. Z. Eshkoli, Ha-Tenu'oth ha-Meshi'IJ,iyoth b' Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1956), pp. 23lff. 3 See mainly "Psaq ha-Ga'on ... Yi~J:iaq de Lattes" at the head of the Mantua edition of the Zahar, reprinted in later editions. 4 Among the early printed Hebrew books were the commentaries of BaJ:iya (Naples, 1492; Pesaro, 1507; ibid., 1514, and many more) and Recanati (Venice, 1523). Me'ir

THE CABBALLAH IN ITALY AND POLAND

225

established in many Jewish communities in Italy, most important of which were those of Mantua, Venice, Ferrara and Cremona.1 The Jewish printing houses outside of Italy also published a great deal of Cabbalistica. Prominent among the early presses abroad was that of Constantinople and, somewhat later, those of Krakow, Lublin and Prague. Especially active was the printing house of Krakow, where many Cabbalistic works were published in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. It was also during that period that Italian Jewry resumed its historic role of an earlier day, linking the Jewish East and West. As in bygone centuries, when many of the traditions, institutions and lore of Palestinian Jewry were transmitted to the rising Jewish communities of the north via Italy, 2 the new mystic teachings of the Safed Cabbalists were now disseminated to the European Jewish communities via the same channel. Indeed, perhaps at no other period since Roman and Byzantine times were the ties between the Holy Land and Jewish Italy so close. From the second half of the sixteenth century, and increasingly during the seventeenth century, Italy was the base and center for the aid which Diaspora Jewry extended to the struggling yishuv. 3 Many of the messengers from the Holy Land, who came to Italy in connection with that activity, were under the influence of the Cabbalah, and, as preachers, disseminated it among their audiences. 4 ben Gabbai's 'Avodath ha-Qode8h appeared at Mantua in 1545. Most Cabbalistic books appeared, however, in the fifties and early sixties. Among these were : the Zohar (Mantua, 1558-1560, Cremona, 1558-1560), the Tiqqunei ha-Zohar (Mantua, 1558), Ma'arekheth ha-Elahuth (Mantua, 1558), Sefer Ye~irah (Mantua, 1562), Sha'arei Orah of Gikatila (Mantua, 1559), Me'ir ben Gabbai's Derekh Emunah (Padua, 1562), Shem Tov ben Shem Tov's Sefer ha-Emunoth (Ferrara, 1556), Menah.em f;liyyoni's commentary on the Torah (Cremona, 1559; sec. ed., ibid., 1560, third ed., ibid., 1581), and many more. 1 Cf. Ch. B. Friedberg, Toledoth ha-Defu8 ha-'lvri b'ltalia (sec. ed., 1956). 2 Cf. B. Klar, ed., Megillath AQ,ima'a.,, "Mavo"; I. F. Baer, "The Origins of the Organisation of the Jewish Community of the Middle Ages," Zion, XV (Jerusalem, 1950), pp. 1-41; Isaac Barzilay, Shlomo Yehudah Rapoport [Shir] and hi8 Gontemporarie8 (Israel, 1969), p. 40, p. 68, n. 85. 3 Schulvass, op. cit., chap. 11; Shlomo Simonsohn, HiBtory of the Jew8 in the Duchy of Mantua, I, pp. 346ff; idem, "Shluh.ei f;lefath b'Mantua ba-Me'oth ha-17 v'ha-18," Yi~h.aq ben Zvi u-M. Benayahu, eds., Sefer $efath (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 329ff. 4 Cf. M. Lonzano, Shtei Yadoth (Venice, 1618), pp. 80ff. On him, see David Kaufmann, "lljotes on the Life ofMenah.em di Lonzano," JQR (London, 1896), pp. 513-524; I. Sonne, "Te'udoth 'al Shaddarim Ah.adim b'Italia bi-Teh.illath ha-Me'ah ha-17," Qove~ 'Al Yad, V (1941), pp. 197-218; I. Landshuth, 'Ammudei ha-'Avodah, II (Berlin, 1857), pp. 178-

226

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

There also took place during that period a migration in the opposite direction, from Italy to Eretz Israel. By the middlE,l of the sixteenth century, or perhaps even earlier, an Italian congregation apparently existed at Safed. 1 The stream of 'olim (immigrants) to the Holy Land must have increased in the second half of the century. This was precipitated by several factors: the intensified persecution of Jews and their final expulsion from the Papal States (1569), the colonization attempts of Gracia Mendes and Joseph Nasi in Galilee in the sixties, and, finally, the messianic fervor of the time. 2 The 'aliyah of a number of prominent Italian Cabbalists was spiritually motivated. Notable among them was Moshe Basola, who, in the fifties, gave his approval to the printing of Tiqqunei ha-Zohar,s and Mordekhai Dato (1527-1590), a mystic of apocalyptic tendencies who was a disciple of Cordovero and author of several works.4 The most prominent of this group, however, was Israel Srug who had greater intellectual stature and influence. Unfortunately, little is known about him with certainty, except that in the last decade of the sixteenth century he spent about six years in Italy, where, as a result of his teaching of the Lurianic Cabbalah, he gained many adherents for it and also spread the lore to other parts of the Jewish world. 0 185; Ya'ari, Shlul}ei Eretz Yisrael, pp. 15lff; Modena, Ari Nohem, chap. 25; L. Blau, op. cit., Hehr. sect., nos. 6 (pp. 5-6), 96 (p. 94), 106 (pp. 104-105), 123; A. Berekhyah, Ashmoret ha-Boqer (Mantua, 1622), p. 212. 1 Solomon Schechter, "Safed in the Sixteenth Century," Studies in Judaism, II (Philadelphia, 1945), p. 229; S. Simonsohn in Se/er $efath, I, pp. 329, 330. 2 I. Sonne, Mi-Paulus ha-Revi'i 'ad Pius ha-Ifamishi, passim; C. Roth, The House of Nasi, the Duke of Naxos, pp. 97ff; J. Reznik, Le Due Joseph de Naxos (Paris, 1936), pp. 129ff; Yoseph Shapiro, Bi-Shevilei ha-Ge'ulah, II (Jerusalem, 1947), pp. 11-36. a Ari Nohem [Leibowitz ed.], end of chap. 26. 4 He is the author of a collection of religious-mystical poems entitled Shemen 'Arev, pub!. by A. W. Greenup, The Poems of Mordecai Dato (London, 1910). Some have been included in Siddur, Ashmoreth ha-Boqer by Aharon Berekhyah [see pp. 82-84, 205a]. He also wrote Migdal David, in which he calculated the date for the arrival of the Messiah; see Me'or 'Einayim (Warsaw, 1899), p. 323. To him are also attributed annotations to 'Asis Rimmonim, cf. Horodecki, Torath ha-Cabbalah shel R' Moshe Cordovero (Jerusalem, 1950/51), pp. 12, 26; Yehudah Aryeh Leib Woidyslawski, Se/er Toledoth R' Menq,l}em 'Azariah mi-Fano (Piotrkow, 1904), p. 54. 5 See R' Mena!;iem 'Azariah de Fano, "Haqdamath ha-Mel;labber-Peti!;iah" in Se/er Pa'amon v'Rimmon etc. Leaning on the references to Srug as "a disciple of the Ari" in the writings of 'Azariah Fano (Woidyslawski, op. cit., p. 8, n. 3), Y. A. Modena (Ari Nohem, pp. 11, 42, 49, 53, 81, 85), Yissakhar Baer Eilenburg [Be'er Sheva' (Venice, 1614),

THE CABBALLAH IN ITALY AND POLAND

227

The Italian Jewish community thus played an important role in the spiritual history of Jewry during that period. Whereas Safed was the focus for the creative genius of the people at work, to a great extent Italian Jewry made it possible for the products of this creatiyjty to be transmitted and disseminated among the European Jewish communities. nos. 57, 70]. Yi~!;taq Abohab ["Haqdamath ha-Ma'atiq" in his Hebrew translation of Abraham Herrera, Sha'ar ha-Shamayim (Warsaw, 1864), p. 23], and Ephraim Zalman Margaliyoth [preface to R' Nathan ... Shapiro, Megalleh 'Amuqoth (Krakow, 1637)], S. Horodecki concluded that Srug was a direct disciple of the Ari. He also assumed that, soon after the death of the Ari, Srug came to Poland, where he introduced R' Shlomo Luria to the new Lurianic Cabbalah. At a later date, he thought, Srug arrived in Amsterdam, where he imparted the new teachings to Abraham Herrera [Sh. H. Horodecki, Porath ha-Oabbalah shel R' Yil!'lfaq Ashkenazi (Ari), v'R' IJayyim Vital (Eretz Yisrael, 1947), pp. 28-30, 31]. This view is disputed, however, by Scholem, who points out that Srug's name does not appear among the disciples of the Ari, as recorded by R' I;[ayyim Vital. Nor is anything attributed to him in the original writings of the Lurianic circle. Furthermore, Scholem concludes that Srug's conception of the teachings of the Ari is distinguished by many elements which are new and set it apart from the Safedian conception, as formulated either by Vital or Ibn Tabul. The fact that in many sources Srug is referred to as "a disciple of the Ari" must not be taken as evidence that he actually was such a disciple, since all of these sources are of European origin, and may be traced either to rumors spread by Srug himself or to the writings of 'Azariah de Fano. In his own writings, Scholem notes, Srug never made the assertion that he was a disciple of the Ari. Scholem also rejects Horodecki's view as regards the diffusion of the Ari's teachings outside Eretz Yisrael. He believes that for almost a generation after the death of the Ari these teachings remained the exclusive possession of the small circle of his immediate disciples. Indeed, in the year 1575-a year of great Messianic expectation [Me'or 'Einayim, chap. 43]-seven of the Ari's original disciples pledged themselves not to publish anything of his teachings for a period of ten years [W. Rabinowicz, "Manuscripts from an Archive in Stolin" [Hebrew], Zion, V (Jerusalem, 1939-1940), pp. 125-132, 244-247]. For 15 years after the death of the Ari, very little of his teachings leaked out to the outside world. Only during Vital's prolonged and critical illness, his brother allowed some of his writings to be copied, and "from that day they became known among a select few in Eretz Yisrael alone" ["Kitvei Sheval;t Y eqar u-Gedulath ha-Ari," Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah, p. 46b]. Among those, Scholem surmises, must have been Srug. With copies of the teachings of the Ari, as interpreted by Vital, in his possession, Srug gained full mastery of them, and, after subjecting them to an original interpretation of his own, returned to Italy. There, he succeeded, in the course of more than six years of "shuttling back and forth" [Ari Nohem, p. 81], in organizing cells of Lurianic adherents who remained in close contact with each other even after his departure [R' Mena!;tem 'Azariah de Fano, "Haqdamath ha-Me!;tabber-Petil;tah," Se/er Pa'amon v'Rimmon]. From Italy these new teachings spread to other parts of the Jewish world. Cf. G. Scholem, "Israel Sarug-Disciple of Luria?" Zion, V (1939-1940), pp. 214-243.

228

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

Important in this respect was the activity of the Cabbalist, MenaJ.iem 'Azariah of Fano (1548-1620). For two generations 'Azariah was the central figure among Italian Cabbalists, or, to use Yashar's description of him, "the grand master of all the Cabbalists of western lands." 1 Many of them were his disciples. 2 His fame also spread outside Italy, to influence the lives of Yi~J.iaq ben Mordekhai of Poland 3 and Shlomel of Moravia. 4 As his earlier works were considered authoritative with regard to the Cordoveran system, his later works enjoyed a similar reputation with regard to the Lurianic teachings. 0 Though important in the history of the Cabbalah, the activities of the men described above do not exhaust its full story; nor can they alone account for its great impact on Jewish life and thought culminating in the greatest messianic upheaval in Jewish history. As far as this impact is concerned, it may safely be assumed that it was least of all the result of the purely speculative aspects of the Cabbalah. As is the case with all speculations throughout history, philosophical or mystical, the Cabbalistic speculations of the sixteenth century were meaningful to very few. Only when accomodated in a more popular framework, could these be assimilated and find their way to the less intellectually and spiritually inclined segments of the Jewish population. The Cabbalah succeeded not so much because of the profundity of its thought concerning God and the world, Israel and the nations, body and soul, etc., but primarily because it penetrated the popular aspects of Jewish culture and through these spread its notions among wide segments of the people. From the circles of the Cabbalists a new ethical orientation emerged, which, though somber and ascetic, was soul stirring with its humaneness and moral purity. 6 The Cabbalah also gained in popularity through "~i:P~i1 m:S:iN ~i,~,p~ i,::i i,!l.' J~i," Matjref, p. 40. Woidyslawski, op. cit., pp. 15-23. Among his prominent disciples was Abraham Portaleone, a well known physician and lover of Classical studies. He calls him "my teacher and master of past years," "the magnificence and glory of his generation," see "Iggereth ha-Mel;iabber" etc. in his Shiltei ha-Gibborim (Mantua, 1612). Also David de! Bene and Aharon Berekhyah were his disciples, see Seder Asmoreth ha-Boqer, p. 226; D. Kaufmann, "The Dispute about the Sermons of David de! Bene of Mantua," JQR, vol. VIII (London, 1896), pp. 513-524. 3 "Haqdamath ha-Me!;iabber" in Se/er Pa'amon v'Rimmon. 4 "Kitvei ShevaJ;i" etc., Ta'alumoth IJokhmah, p. 42a. 0 "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 3b. 6 See mainly: Eliyahu Vidas, Reshith IJokhmah (Venice, 1679), M. Cordovero, Tomer Devorah (Venice, 1588), E. Azikri, Se/er IJaredim (Venice, 1601), Isaiah Hurwitz, Shnei Lu!Joth ha-Berith (Amsterdam, 1648), and many more. 1 2

THE CABBALLAH IN ITALY AND POLAND

229

the homilists and preachers of the time, who introduced a new genre of mystical exegesis, and ventured on interpretative innovations of the Jewish lore, for which, as we shall see, they were taken to task by our Yashar. The Cabbalah also left its imprint on Hebrew poetry of the time, notably the "Ferrara poets" of the second ha.If of the sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth centuries. Their poems are permeated with a mood of piety and ascetism, critical of the vestiges of Renaissance secularism and the pursuit of mundane values. 1 Directly connected with the Cabbalah, especially its apocalyptic tendencies, were the numerous liturgical creations in which the period abounded. They resulted from the movement of the so called "early risers" or "awakeners of dawn," which had begun in many Italian communities and elsewhere in the East Mediterranean in the second half of the sixteenth century and attained greater popularity during the early decades of the seventeenth century. Its initiator in Italy appears to have been Menal;iem 'Azariah Fano, who, while still a young man, introduced this custom in the "Italian congregation" of Venice. "His examp]e was followed by individuals of other congregations in Italy." 2 This custom, of rising either at midnight or dawn to offer supplications for the exiled Shekhinah and the nation's restoration to Zion, originated, in more recent times, in the Cordoveran circle at Safed. 3 While in Italy, Cordovero's son, Gedaliah, "used to get up every night and sit on the ground to mourn the tribulations of the exile," and in doing so he was following the example of his father. Also Israel Srug kept this custom, and so did Hillel Modena of Verona. The latter "tarried every night till after midnight, when the mourners of Zion mourn a hove ... " 4 The movement soon spread to Mantua, Ferrara, Rome and other communities.s As a result, the need for new liturgical compositions was felt. To meet it, manuscripts of old prayerbooks, as the Ma"IJ,zor Vitri and others, were sought after. More frequently, local rhymsters and poets were summoned to compose such prayers. 6 S. Bernstein, Mi-Shirei Yisrael b'Italia (Jerusalem, 1939), II, "Piyyutei Ferrara." Seder Ashmoreth ha-Boqer, p. 226. 3 In earlier centuries, it prevailed among the Avelei Zion, cf. Ben Zion Dinur, Yisrael ba-Gol.ah, I (2) (Tel Aviv, 1961), pp. 215-218. 4 Ashmoreth ha-Boqer, p. 212. 5 Schulvass, Roma vi- Yerushalayim, chap. XII. 6 To the early epecimens of this literary genre belongs Menal].em Lonzano's 'Avodath 1 2

230

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

All these developments and activities notwithstanding, the impact

of the Cabbalah on the Italian Jewish community at large must not be overrated. Even under the Catholic Reaction, Jewish Italy remained strongly exposed to the forces and currents of its environment. At the very time this mysticism was affecting Jewish life, phenomena of a totally different, even contradictory nature, were exerting an even greater influence on it. A community like Mantua, for instance, which ,throughout the sixteenth century, was a center of Cabbalistic activity and speculation, was during that same period also a center of dramatic art and musical pursuits. Its printing establishment which brought forth the Zohar (1558-1560) and other Cabbalistic works, also printed two such relatively secular works as de Rossi's Me'or 'Einayim (1576) and Portaleone's Shiltei ha-Gibborim (1612). While Israel Srug was introducing his small conventicles to the new Lurianic gospel, which

Miqdash. He writes: "My friends asked me to publish in print some of the melodies and liturgical poems which I composed, so that they too may pour out their heart before God" [Shtei Yadoth, p. 65b]. In 1612, the liturgical collection Ayeleth ha-Shaftar appeared at Mantua. Most of its compositions were by I.Iananyah Elyaqim Rieti (1560-1623), some by Samuel Marli (d. 1617), Jacob Segre (d. after 1629) and anonymous versifiers. One of the largest compilations is Ashmoreth ha-Boqer by Aharon Berekhyah, a relative of Modena and a disciple of MenaJ.iem 'Azariah Fano. He compiled it for the "awakeners of dawn" at Modena. Besides liturgies, it contains detailed instructions regarding prayers and the manner in which they are to be offered daily and on various occasions, in order to invoke the benevolence of the heavenly hierarchy. Similar in material and arrangement is Kena/ Renanim (1626) by Yoseph Carmi. An order of supplications for the "watchers of dawn" of the Ashkenazi congregation of Venice appeared in 1635 [see Isaiah Sonne, '"Al Devar ha-1.Ievrah l.Iadashim la-Beqarim b'Mantua," Zion, VI (1935-1936), p. 94]. A special compilation for Hoshanna Rabba, by I.Iananyah Elyaqim Rieti, appeared at Modena in 1648 [l.Iananyah Elyaqim Rieti (Graziadio da Rieti), Meqi~ Redumim, ed. by his son David Naftali (Mantua, 1648)]. Also Abraham Yoseph Shlomo Graziani of Modena, known for his liberal views on synagogue singing and music [S. Jonas, "Abraham Joseph Salomon Graziani poete hebreu du XVII• siecle," REJ, IV (Paris, 1882), pp. 113-126], composed hymns for the "Watchers of dawn" of Modena, to be sung on the night of Hoshanna Rabba [ibid., p. 119]. This literary genre, permeated with ascetic tendencies and apocalyptic longings, continued in Hebrew letters of the seventeenth and the early part of the eighteenth centuries. To it also belong the dramas and liturgical poems of the Cabbalists, Moshe Zacut (1625-1697) and his disciple Binjamin Coen (Vitali) (1651-1740). [Cf. M. Zacut, Tofteh 'Arukh (1st ed., Venice, 1715; sec. ed., by Ya 'acov Daniel Olmo, Metz, 1777; third ed. with introduction by D. A. Friedman, Berlin, 1922); idem, Y esod 'Olam, ed. A. Berliner (Berlin, 1874); an earlier edition of the same by D. Y. Maroni (Livorno, 1784); idem, Hen Qol Ifadash (Amsterdam, 1712); Binjamin ha-Cohen, Sefer 'Eth ha-Zamir (Venice, 1707)].

THE CABBALLAH IN ITALY AND POLAND

231

he brought back from the Holy Land, the young David del Bene was delighting his synagogue audiences with sermons that were strongly interjected with similes and imagery from classical pagan literature,1 and Jewish actors were acting out their pagan roles to the amusement of their Christian spectators and listeners. 2 A span of no more than a few decades separates the first Hebrew drama of the Italian Renaissance-written most probably by the Mantua dramatist Leone Sommi (1527-1592) in the last decades of the sixteenth century a_ from a liturgical compilation as Ayeleth ha-Sha~ar (1612), for instance, a product of the same environment; yet, what a distance between them as regards values and ideals ! An immoral licentiousness, intent on bodily pleasures and material gain, prevails in the former, while a spiritual asceticism, bent on redemption and transcendentalism, dominates the latter. Such a polarity is undoubtedly typical of the life and culture of the Italian Jewish community as a whole. The constant appeals from apocalyptic dreamers and ascetic moralists to the Jewish public for a mood of penitence, abstinence and moral purity, for the sake of expediting redemption, were more than neutralized by the deep effect of the Renaissance milieu upon the Jews. 4 Jewish sources of the time bear ample evidence as to the involvement of the Jews in all aspects of Renaissance life and culture and to the eroding effects this had on both their religious and moral integrity.5 The life story of Y. A. Modena and his family, which must by no means be considered unique, points in no way to a milieu that was much affected by either mystical or puritanic tendencies. In 1 David Kaufmann, "The Dispute about the Sermons of David i1 par. 6.

"lip•n

See Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, lecture VII,

246

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

the tradition of our forefathers ... The goal of the practical Cabbalah is to rehabilitate the universe and restore the forsaken souls to their source; to transmute judgment into compassion, to mitigate the asperity of the qelippoth (impurities), to purify the defiled ... and bring down the heavenly abundance.

Even if taken at its face value, this division of the Cabbalah by no means warrants the conclusion that Yashar may have been more appreciative of the theoretical than the practical. The fact that in the official version of the "Al.mz" letter he labeled the theoretical Cabbalah "the wisdom of the Divine,'' and praised it as having constituted, in ancient times, an integral part of the Judaic lore, is of little consequence. Such praises are missing in the Geiger version of the letter, and must be considered one of the alterations to which the text had been subjected before it was submitted to print. 1 Indeed, in that version no distinction is made between the two kinds of Cabbalah, and both are condemned as pernicious and senseless aberrations. One also reaches this conclusion on the basis of Yashar's other writings, notably his (or Ashkenazi's) negative comments on "Shever Yoseph,'' his criticism of the Cabbalistic speculations concerning emanation, 2 and his rationalization of the myth of the letters in "Kci'al;t ha-Shem." Prefacing the "Shever Yoseph" -the most important specimen of the Lurianic Cabbalah m Ta'alumoth Qokhmah (pp. 59-77)Ashkenazi notes : I found this important essay among the books of Yashar. It was written by his own hand and compiled from books of the Ari's disciples, especially Limmudei Atiluth and the commentary on Safra di-Seni'uta.a It seems to me that R' Yashar composed this gem prior to Novloth Ifokhmah, in which he expanded his thoughts

1 In "Mikhtav ~uz" [Elim], Yashar writes: l"li,~pl"I l"lil"li,Nl"I Ji7.l::>n Cl" 'C'i,W,.,' ,.,,p,-i, i1.,it>7.l illi'ili Ji'~ ilN:S:~ i1'Mi1 iiD:S:i1 J"l'li'l7i1 The words "Z'1'li'l7:'1 ili,~pil" do not appear, however, in the Geiger text, which reads : ,;ii, TP J"l',,~,.,il n7.l~n l"I'~ i1N:S:~ i1'Mi1 .,,D:S:i1 ,J"l,i1.,Ni1 J"l7.l~n t!l" Melo Ohofnajim, p. 11. 2 Novloth, pp. 112-125. 3 According to Scholem, two whole books, composed by Srug, were printed anonymously : Sefer Limmudei A§iluth and the commentary on Safra di-fjeni'uta of the Zahar (Lwow, 1850). The commentary is an expansion and elaboration of the commentary on Safra di-$eni'uta by the Ari himself, which he must have composed while still in Egypt. As for Limmudei A§iluth, its final version was made by one of Srug's disciples; the initial work was written, however, by Srng himself. In the circle ofl\IenaJ:tem 'Azariah Fano the works were put together in one volume, and in this form they came into the possession of Yashar. Cf. "Is1·ael Sarug-Disciple of Luria?" Zion, V, pp. 227-228.

YASHAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE CABBALAH

247

on the same subject with which he dealt here only briefly. It is (also) apparent that in the second work [i.e., Novloth] he rejected the ideas of the first ... Since it is a deficient work, as he never completed it ... and he tucked it away in the holes of his house and the nooks of the walls, I wanted to print it and called it 'Shever Yoseph.' l

Ashkenazi also makes another comment on this work : It appears that the author [Yashar] cites the texts verbatim, as he found them, letter by letter, word by word, I saw the same in pamphlets which have come from Eretz Yisrael. He therefore did not correct them according to his wisdom in philosophy and medicine, because he did not compose a work [of his own] but only made an anthology.2

The above remarks by Ashkenazi deserve our utmost attention, as they clearly indicate Yashar's contemptuous attitude toward the Lurianic speculations. Noteworthy, first, is the fact that, whereas in the table of contents of Ta'alumoth Yashar claims this work as his own, Ashkenazi denies it, stating that it is only a copy. Indeed, he emphasizes that Yashar copied it "word by word," without making the slightest change, as if am;:ious to indicate that Yashar is not responsl.ble in the least for its irrational concepts and confused exposition. Second, by asserting that Yashar tucked away these writings of the "lion's cubs" (disciples of the Ari) in some "holes" and "nooks," Ashkenazi indicated, in the clearest possible way, how disdainful Yashar was of them. Most interesting is Ashkenazi's final observation, that in Novloth lfokhmah Yashar completely rejected the ideas of "Shever Yoseph." There can be little doubt that he is referring to the pamphlet "Ko'a];i ha-Shem," the last section of Novloth, in which as we shall see, Yashar rationalizes the Cabbalistic myth of the letters, thereby obviously refuting its mystical significance. 3 The most direct and extensive criticism of the theoretical Cabbalah is found in pp. 112-125 of Novloth lfokhmah, as a sequence to the "second wave" of metaphysical speculations. Following long deliberations on the problems of eternity versus creation, secondary causes, Divine omniscience and providence, all of which prove to be fruitless and inconclusive, Yashar discusses the foundation of Cabbalistic

1

Ta'alumoth If.okhmah, p. 59a.

'Z'1'N"1 1:ii l"!1:i~:i l"!1:i~ riiN:i 'iN CIN:S~W i~:> Cl'"1:iil"I N':il"IW l"IN"1l "1:!M~l"I l"IW:!7 N1:i •:i l"!Ni!J.,, ''!Jioi1:i•!J:i iri~:in 'E:l:l Cllj:'Z"l N1:i 1:i1:ii '"N~ iN:iw ''0"1~lip:i "•1'ipl;i• j:'"1 "1i:in ibid., p. 60b. 2

3

See infra, pp. 293ff.

248

Y ASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

thought, its theory of emanation (a§iluth). That theory explains creation in terms of a chainlike emanation, in the course of which the first emanated supernal entity in the Divine Mind (a§iluth) becomes the cause [or source] of new emanated entities with an ever descending purity and spirituality, from which finally the phenomenal world emerges. In short, it attempts to explain the emergence of the finite from the infinite. One after another, Yashar quotes the basic Cabbalistic texts: Recanati, the Zohar, Nal;tmanides, the works of the "sweet Rabbi" Me'ir ben Gabbai, 1 Cordovero's Pardes, Shabbetai Hurwitz's Shefa' Tal, R' Peretz's Ma'arekheth ha-Elahuth and Yehudah :i;Iayyat's commentary on it, M in"IJ,ath Y ehudah. 'l'he fact that many of the texts display great similarity to each other both with regard to the conception of a§iluth and the imagery they use for its illustration, is by no means accidental, but deliberate, intending to indicate the lack of originality in Cabbalistic thought and the widespread practice of plagiarism common among the Cabbalists. Indeed, Yashar states this quite openly. Preceding a quotation from :i;Iayyat, he writes; "It is taken from Recanati. Both he [I:layyat] and [Me'ir] ben Gabbai copied everything from him [and inserted it] in their commentaries." 2 More serious is the lack of any appreciation on the part of Yashar for the fundamental teachings of the Cabbalists, their theories concerning a§iluth, the "four worlds" and the sephiroth. Again and again he insists that a§iluth is meaningful only in Platonic terms, as the idea of the world in the Divine Mind and perforce eternal. He even goes further, asserting that, contrary to the human craftsman, "whatever action [God] imagines is already done . . . since the possible and the real are one in Him." 3 Though in this text he shuns the open conclusion of the eternity of the world, it is obviously implied. The Cabbalists reject, however, such a view, interpreting a§iluth as "new" and as one of the four externalisations of the Divine. According to them, Y ashar asserts, he cannot understand the assumption of "four worlds, no less and no more," and the difference between a§iluth and beriah. 4 Nor can be reconcile their insistence on the unity of the sephiroth with their assertion that they are ten in number,5 In short, N ovloth, p. 120a. Ibid., p. 118a. a Ibid., p. 113a. 4 Ibid., p. 114a. s Ibid., p. 118a.

I

2

YASHAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE CABBALAH

249

he finds "great confusion" in their words (114b). If these views were a matter of Cabbalah (tradition), he would remain silent. However, "they want to prove them by demonstrations and logical inference." In this they fail : "they demonstrate nothing and offer no reason whatsoever for their words." 1 Of all the Cabbalists quoted, he seems somewhat more sympathetic to hen Gabbai's views; yet, at the end of long quotations by hen Gabbai from the words of the "Cabbalist R' 'Azri'el ... which he received from ... the pious Cabbalist Isaac the Blind ... the son of Abraham ben David," which hen Gabbai praises as "good, straight and adequate words," Yashar concludes: "If they are adequate to his broad mind, they are doubtful to me". 2 He is especially irked by the verbosity and lack of refinement in the conception of emanation by the author of Shefa' Tal. He criticizes him for hackneying his notions over and over again. "Only some of his words are true and in conformity to our view, whereas others are as far from it as East is from West. Even a child would know the deficiency of his images and parables." 3 Yashar's rejection of the Cabbalistic doctrines is quite obvious and needs no further elaboration. Finally, pointing to the same conclusion, i.e., Yashar's negative attitude to the Cabbalah as a whole, is also the fact that all mystical speculations both in Mal}ref and N ovloth end as a rule in myth and superstition, thus indicating Yashar's conviction that the two are inseparable, and that the practical Cabbalah has its roots in the. speculative and is a direct offshoot of it. 4.

EXEGETICAL METHODS OF THE CABBALISTS CRITICIZED

A major point in Yashar's criticism of the Cabbalah concerns its exegetical methods and techniques. In justification of their innovative exegesis, the Cabbalists assert two principles: the mystical character of the Torah and the unique endowment of the Jewish people for unraveling it. The Torah, they claim, consists of the names of God, thus holding the key to the mysteries of the universe. 4 They further say that the souls of all Israel, of past, present and future generations, having all been present at the revelation at Sinai, are spiritually Ibid., p. 113b. Ibid., p. 124a. a I bid., p. 122b. 4 Cf. G. Scholem, Reshith ha-Oabbalah v'Sefer ha-Bahir, Lectures at the Heb. Univ. (1962), ed., R. Shatz (Academon, Jerusalem, 1966), pp. 37 ff. i

2

250

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

endowed to fathom those mysteries. If the first of these principles throws the Bible wide open to the wildest of midrashic speculations, the latter abolishes the esoteric nature of the lore, opening the ranks of the Cabbalists to anyone claiming inspirational endowment. Yashar sarcastically criticizes both principles. To be sure, only rarely does he do it openly. For the most part, these criticisms are subtly hidden and camouflaged. However, an analysis of the texts easily discerns them. A typical instance of this circumspect method, directly bearing on the subject under discussion, is the following passage. In it Yashar, all~gedly in all earnest, presents the Cabbalistic conception of the Torah. He writes : Our Torah is like a small tablet with the impression of all the worlds [on it] ... .According to the teachings of the Cabbalists, this Torah of Moses is also to be found in the supernal realm, because all things have their roots there. However, the difference between the two [Torahs] is great. What appears to us a [mere] story is actually a matter of sublime wisdom and awesome secrets. [The Torah] resembles a secret code used by kings ... a stenographic piece distributed among ten people, each of whom has been given a different key to decipher it ... Thus, one may understand its primary meaning and yet not understand the meaning of its author-only after many investigations may that meaning dawn upon him.

So far so good, and one has no reason to doubt Yashar's sincerity. Such a doubt enters one's mind, however, upon reading the conclusion of that passage, to which Yashar himself attaches special weight. It reads : "But I am telling you something more important, namely, it is possible for one to comprehend the ultimate meaning of the author, yet not to understand its ele~entary meaning, which is obvious to the unsophisticated read~r!' 1 It is, no doubt, this conclusion which is the crux of the passage, ridiculing the Cab halists for undertaking to decipher the deeper meanings of Scriptures, though neglecting to understand its simple meaning. This is, indeed, well in line with Yashar's frequent-crl.ticisms of the Cabbalists, for soaring into the realm of the mysterious before acquiring a knowledge of the revealed lore. 2 He writes on the same subject, in a more concealed and sarcastic manner, in the opening pages of Novloth, where he asserts that the practical Cab balah is solely the possession of Israel. Hence, 1

i1l:li1i1

P'

N'? :il"li::i

'?w J'l.,nNi1 l"l''?::>l"\ 1·:i~;iw .,!l.'tlN!l.' .,~,N 'lN

,,~,l"\ •ti'? N.,ipil J':l'!l.' illi!l.'N., M~ref, pp. 31-32. 2 Cf. Elim, p. 83; M~ref, pp. 60-62; Mew Chofnajim, p. 10.

it~ ;,i,i·m

YASHAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE CABBALAH

251

whoever has understanding is entitled to interpret Scriptures and midrashim in accordance with the methods of this wisdom. Indeed, each such interpretation must be considered as emanating from the pure sparks of one's soul, which it has absorbed from the supreme source at Sinai-a place to where no other nation had been admitted. It was there that the individual must have learned those novelties, and it is through him that they were destined to become known.1

Though seemingly in all earnest about the claim of the Cabbalists on individual exegetical freedom and fully justifying it, Yashar completely reverses himself in .LY.la§ref, where he attacks this claim and questions its source : "I do not know who gave the preachers the right to exact new meanings and divulge new mysteries, and think, moreover, that they will be rewarded for it." However, apparently alarmed by his own frank and honest criticism, Yashar falls back on his old stratagem, and in the continuation of this very passage again feigns to defend the midrashic liberty of the Cabbalists-though he actually continues his attack on it. Responding to his own questions, he asserts that the Oabbalists are justified in their exegetic activity: Although they themselves did not sec it, their stars must have seen. it 2 that their souls were at Sinai, where they must have heard [those mysteries directly] from the Almighty, and, animated by the spirit of holiness, they are [now] merely reminiscing about what has been forgotten. One should not therefore rebuke them for misinterpreting the Torah, but [rather praise them] for bringing up from darkness its profound meanings, and inventing sweet things for their listeners, exactly as they were given from Sinai.3

Even assuming that Yashar is serious about the midrashic extravagance (based on Deut. 29:13-14) regarding the presence of all the souls of Israel at Sinai, one still cannot ignore the open criticisms of the Oabbalists here. Yashar says they misinterpret the Torah and invent new things. His major criticism, however, is more subtle, hinging on the ambiguous phrase "megallei 'amuqoth mini lioshekh." He did not intend to praise the Cabbalists for unfolding the hidden mysteries, but rather, to criticize them, by alluding to their "revelations" as originating in the realm of darkness. The whole passage is thus homogeneous and derogatory of the Oabbalistic darshanim (preachers). 1 2

N ovloth, p. 2b.

"im 1il"l:iT~ 1TM N1:i 1i'l'N'l l"37N'l", MWJref, p. 34; cf. BT. Meg. 3a; Sanh. 94a;

Shab. 146a. 3 The original reads :

i1:i::ip•w i::iwn'i miio vnn1:ii w,.,.,i, C'lw.,.,i, .niw., 7m -~ '1137'1' N1:i T":>l7 '!:l~ 137~W1 'l'O .,il:l ilZ"l'i'l CW!:llW 1TM 1il"1:iT~ 1 iTM N7 1i'll'N'l l"37N'l ,.,:>It'

252

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

Yashar criticizes more openly the Cabbalistic exegesis m his letter to Yoshiyah of the spring, 1624, in which he writes: ... Thus you will understand the reason for the inscrutability of Scriptures. They were, no doubt, written down exactly as they were put in the mouth of the prophets. Why then did not God make them sufficiently clear? The answer is that God, knowing the heart of man and the course of things to come, the changeability of times and scholarly tastes, desired to write in a way that would yield to many interpretations, so that everyone would discover in it whatever he is looking for. Indeed, it has been said of the Torah that it has seventy faces. Leave therefore the practitioners of gematria, notariqon and other mystical techniques to their own devices. They are all the word of God, although only those interpretations which are smooth a.nd unforced are the ones that were undoubtedly meant in the first place. [Only] they are pleasant to their listeners and may be likened to wine that flows from the grapes by itself, whereas the strange interpretations are like wine that oozes from the grapes under pressure and which retains the taste of the seeds. Man is praiseworthy only according to his common sense.1

The criticism of the Cabbalistic exegesis in the above passage is too obvious to require elaboration. Yashar considers that exegesis unnatural, tasteless, and a mere passing fad. He also repeats this view on another occasion. To Shmuel's question about why he is reluctant to publish his writings, Yashar, as mentioned earlier, expresses a rather pessimistic view on the fate of books and their authors. He writes: Nothing withstands the test of time. Even printed books do not survive for long. Due to Jewish poverty, only one book in a thousand may go through a second or third printing. This is especially the case with the books of the darshanim (homilists), whose appeal is short-lived, and the recent ones among them cause the earlier ones to be forgotten ... Worse than all is the fate of secular and Cabbalistic books, whose authors introduce either rationalist or mystical interpretations. This sort of literature is disregarded and ignored by aJJ.2

There can be little doubt that in Y ashar' s eyes the Cabbalistic midrash -though spreading like wildfire among preachers and homilists-was only a transient phenomenon, which he did not expect to last long. More interesting perhaps are Yashar's comments on the midrashic innovations of the Cabbalists which use the formal aspects of the ,~N· N1:ii ·!J:J il:Sl:Sl wipil niii mM:l!L'lil o•i•:iT~:l N1:iN Cll'Ni ili1:Jlil 'l~ mpi~:;, •1:il~ CiW N1:iN 1 i1:l1:ii1:i N1:i!L' iliiri.::i Cl'l~ •1:il~ Clil!U Cil1:i ·'l'O~ om•m:i oi1•11~iw1:i o•.::ii:;, o•i.::ii o•win~ 7:ii 1 Elim, p. 92. 2 "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 7b [text unpaginated].

1wn

YASHAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE CABBALAH

253

Biblical text, its spelling, vowels, accents, cantillation signs, etc. Allegedly in defense of such innovations, he rhetorically asks : For what reason are there in the Torah large and small letters, words written fully and deficiently, written one way and pronounced in another way, open and closed sections, singulars instead of plurals, feminines instead of masculines, an aleph instead of an heh and vice versa, as well as other irregularities? God forbid us from saying that the copyists and scribes may have erred.1

Yashar thus appears to be defending the midrashic point of view, according to which any formal irregularity of the text is sufficient cause for some sort of exegetic innovation. However, the text clearly shows later that he does not share this view at all. Indeed, it is the very thought which he asks God to prevent from entering his mind, namely, that the irregularities of the text may be due to scribal errors, which he really entertains. He quotes as an example Ibn Ezra's commentary on Ex. 25:31, where the word "tei'aseh" (will be made) is written with a yod after the tav, on which Ibn Ezra makes the following comment : I have seen books [i.e., manuscripts] which have been examined by the Masoretes of Tiberias, and fifteen of their elders have sworn that they have looked closely three times at each word, dot and spelling, and Io, the word tei'aseh is written with a yod. However, in manuscripts from Spain, France and overseas I did not find a yod. Our ancient sages interpreted the additional yod as alluding to the ten candelabras which Solomon was to construct. Anyway, if there is a yod there, it is foreign. 2

The conclusion of Ibn Ezra is clear and in conformity with his generally negative attitude toward the midrashic method. 3 Nor can there be any doubt that Yashar's own view is in full accord with it. However, his subsequent comment is intentionally ambiguous. "You thus see," he concludes, "that the excessive letters are not accidental ... but have been inserted on purpose by the Masoretes." 4 What began as an alleged defense of the method of the homilists, actually turned out to be an assault on it. The alleged irregularities of the text, upon which Ma[jref, p. 28. nit nl;i~ N':-t ,,,,, CtD !D' CN : l;i';i:i;ii, Ma~ef, p. 28. 3 Cf. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Safah Berurah, critically edited, with commentary and introduction by Dr. Gabriel Lippmann (Fiirth, 1839), pp. 4-7; David Kahana, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, in 2 vols. (Warsaw, 1922), "Toledoth Abraham lbn Ezra," in vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 54ff. 1

2

4 ·riiio~ ·~:::m iio~ mi:>~ N';iN J~im~i nip~~ i':i!:ll N1:i riiiri•:i p. 28.

l'rfOJiref,

254

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

the darshanim raise their castles, have either never been in the original text, as Ibn Ezra asserts, or were subsequently inserted by the Masoretes, as Yashar points out. Whatever view one embraces, the conclusion is the same, namely, that the exegetical structures of the homilists are without foundation. It may be of interest to adduce here Yashar's true, critical, view with regard to this problem of Biblical spelling. In his "Ko' al}. ha-Shem" he writes: It must be admitted that not all Hebrew words are pure ones ... Many of them originate in Greek, Arabic, or Persian ... This may explain why the spelling of some is strange and not as it ought to be grammatically. Sometimes they are spelled fully, with a vav, aJ,eph or yod, and sometimes deficiently, without them; at times with an aleph and at times with an heh.1

Whatever the scholarlv value of these observations, they are, no doubt, indicative of a "spirit and approach ~orlds apart from those of the mystics. Of wider implications, especially as regards the problem of the antiquity of the Zahar, are Yashar's camouflaged views concerning vowels, accents and cantillation notes in the Bible which serve the Oabbalists as an inexhaustible source for mystical exegesis. In alleged defense of the method, Yashar asks : "For what purpose are there so many vowels . . . cantillation notes and accents which are not to be found in any other language?" 2 In reply he quotes Sefer I;Iasidim, where it is asserted that all of them are as old as the Torah; indeed, "they have been given to Moses at Sinai." He adduces further evidence of their antiquity from the Zahar and other Oabbalistic texts, in which deep meanings are attributed to them. The letters are compared to bodies, the vowels to spirits and the accents to souls.a However, after citing all the evidence, he refutes it by simply observing that the Jews of his native Crete make no distinction between long and short vowels. Moreover, they, as well as the Jews of some North African communities, have no cantillation signs altogether. To further strengthen his argument, he adds that he saw a manuscript of a Mishnayoth with cantillation signs, which led him to the conclusion that "if this is the case with the oral law, how much more so with the written law." 4 Nobody Novloth, p. 203b. .lJfw;ref, p. 29. 3 Ibid., p. 30. For a few refer., see Sefer lJasidim (Margaliyyoth ed.), par. 302; Zohar lJadash on Shir Ilashizim from par. 583 ff. For an illuminating discussion and rich bib!., see Gerhard Scholem, Das Buch Bahir (Leipzig, 1923; Darmstadt, 1970), pp. 85-89. 4 Mal}ref., p. 29. 1

2

YASHAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE CABBALAH

255

must have known better than Yashar himself that this conclusion is logically wrong, and the right one contradicts it. He continues to use these tactics in his final argument concerning the views of Eliyhau Bal;mr (Levita). After presenting the view that the vowels and accents are post-Talmudic and the invention of the Masoretes, Yashar apparently refutes it by pointing out the numerous allusions to them in the Zohar and other early Cabbalistic writings. But by such a procedure he clearly intended to disprove the claim of the Zohar to antiquity, rather than to prove the antiquity of the vowels and accents. This is obvious from his concluding statement : But why should I continue to adduce external evidence? Anyone intimately acquainted with the Talmud and midrashim, as, I believe, R' Eliyahu was, must see and understand the truth.I

Obviously the "truth" Yashar refers to is that the Talmud and early midrashim know nothing of either vowels or accents; hence they must be late, and so must be all Cabbalistic works in which reference is made to them. In conclusion, mention must be made of Yashar's derogatory remarks with regard to the gematria and notariqon. The examples he uses best prove the contempt in which he held these artificial techniques. To name only a few, he points out that the gematria of ishah (a woman) equals that of devash (honey), of ishah yafah (a beautiful woman) that of sim~ah gedolah (a great joy), of zakhar (a male) that of berakhah (a blessing), and of neqevah (female) that of qelalah (a curse), and so on and so forth. It is obvious that examples of this kind were not meant to enhance the stature of the Cabbalah, in which such tomfoolery played so vital a role. Yashar considered them "things without substance, 2 and the preoccupation with them a pursuit fit for loafers and idlers." 3 He relates that he himself had collected many such specimens in special collections, and though he was amused by them, he did not think the subject deserved serious consideration. 4

5.

WONDER WORKERS DERIDED

No less critical and camouflaged is Yashar's attitude to another aspect of Cabbalistic activity, wonder working. The Cabbalists boasted 1 2

3

4

Ibid., p. 31. D''j? c•i::i;, ibid., p. 37. C!'l'b::ii C'P',, ibid., p. 38. Cil~ i1lilltl.' Olil Ci1:J n'!::>' ~mi i,::iN, "Ko'ah ha-Shem" in Novloth, p. 206a.

256

Y ASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

they not only possessed a deeper understanding of Jewish lore, but, in consequence of it, claimed the power to influence the course of natural events, power both to create and destroy. The number of such claimants must have greatly increased among Polish Jews during the first quarter of the seventeenth century, since they aroused the curiosity of the rationalist Zeral;i. He was eager to know Yashar's opinion, although by the time he turned to Yashar, Zeral;i already had his own, negative opinion. He had frequently examined their actions, he wrote, and always found them to be shameless deceptions. They are helpless "to even rid themselves of their fleas and mosquitoes," ye,t claim, through their knowledge of the names of God, to possess the power of performing miracles.1 The attitude of Metz was equally negative. Commenting on the affair with the precocious child from Grodek,; whose alleged miraculous gifts caused a great stir among Polish Jews until they were unmasked by Yashar as the manipulations of the child's father, he writes : And from this case you may conclude as to the truth of similar stories, which are being circulated by the insipid women folk on the subject of foretelling the future and the deeds and events related to Lilith. They are all nonsense and folly.2

Yashar's own opinion did not differ from that of his two disciples. Indeed, in the "Al;iuz" letter he repeats almost verbatim some of the words of Zeral;i. 3 This is indicated also in his reply to Zeral;i's question five, regarding the occult arts and their practitioners ; he places the Oabbalah in one category with physiognomy, palmistry, magic and sorcery. 4 Yashar's attitude is more concealed in his discussion of this subject in Ma§ref. In that work he adduces a great variety of references from the Talmud and Oabbalistic works, all of which not only uphold the mystical nature of the Torah, but the supernatural powers of the sages of Israel as well. He quotes at length from Derekh Emunah, whose author, Abraham Bibago, distinguishes between the theoretical and practical aspects of natural philosophy and theology. Bibago concedes to the sages of the other nations some theoretical knowledge in these two domains; however, as far as the "practical" aspects are concerned, such as the knowledge of "mixing the elements" for the 1 2

3

4

Elim, p. 23. "m~l;il;ii:i :i~:i l;i::m''. ibid., p. 12. Melo Ghofnajim, pp. 8-9. Elim, p. 117.

YASHAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE CABBALAH

257

sake of producing "natural creatures" as nature itself, these, he asserts, are unaccessible to them and are the sole possession of "the fearful of God, the contemplators of His name, the sages of truth and the possessors of the Torah." To support these assertions, Bibago cites the miraculous creations of such sages as Rava, Rabbah, the son of R' Yosi and others, as recorded in the Talmud.1 Without evincing the slightest doubt in the authenticity of these stories, and without commenting on them, Y ashar suddenly interrupts this discussion ; and, addressing himself to contemporary scholars, advises them to turn away from their sterile scholastic disputations and, instead, to devote their talents and energies to applied science and technology, by which all humanity would benefit. It is wrong on their part, he declares, to waste their time on "logical and philosophical argumentations, raising thousands of questions on the wings of ants." They are drifting in a vacuum, engrossed by meaningless problems which the "idle priests" 2 have accumulated in their books. Instead of dealing with words and sophistries, they should learn to create and invent things. Alchemists and mineralogists, agronomists and hydrologists are the perfect scholars, not the verbose philosophers. Even in mathematics, he asserts, it is the applied and functional aspects that ought to be preferred to the merely theoretical. Hence, he has a much higher regard for the inventions of Archimedes than the geometry of Euclid. a Following this digression, Y ashar returns to his main theme, the wonder workers of Israel. He cites Ibn Daud's commentary on Sefer Ye§irah with reference to the patriarch Abraham's knowledge of the ten spheres and his mastery of letter combinations, by the aid of which he succeeded "to create." He also cites another commentary on Sefer Ye§irah, attributed to Sa'adyah Gaon, in which it is stated that Ibn Ezra formed a creature in the presence of Rabbenu Tam, and upon saying: 'Look at the power God invested in the holy letters,' he commanded it to turn forward and backward, following which it disintegrated.

Yashar remarks, however, that this is an absolute lie, and chronologically impossible, since Sa'adyah preceded Ibn Ezra. 4 He sub1 Ma§ref, pp. 25-26; cf. Abraham Bibago, Derekh Emunah (1522), p. lla. BT. Sanh. 65b, Ta 'anith, 24a. 2 "Cl'll;J~:il"I c•nl;Jm," Ma~ref., p. 26. a Ibid., pp. 26-27; supra, pp. 137, 139-140. 4 Cf. S. Rapoport, "Toledoth Rabbenu Sa'adyah Ga'on," Biklcurei ha-'Ittim, IX (Wien, 1828), p. 32, n. 32.

258

YASHAR AND THE OABBALAH

sequently cites a similar story about Ibn Gabirol "who created a woman to serve him, and when denounced to the authorities, he dismembered her, thus demonstrating that it was an imperfect being." He finally quotes Moscato's Qol Yehudah on the Kuzari, where, in the name of Sa'adyah Gaon, all data pertaining to the creation and destruction of new beings are adduced, such as the material ingredients, the alphabetical combinations, etc. 1 Only the digressive passage which emphasizes the importance of applied science and technology genuinely reflects Yashar's views. Yashar advocated his actual views some years earlier in his letter to Yoshiyah, as well as in his other writings. However, the crux of the discussion does not lie in the passage itself, but rather in the context in which he placed it. It is, no doubt, with tongue in cheek that Yashar appears to be suggesting to his contemporaries to look up to the Talmudic sages and the medieval Jewish wonder workers as examples for scholarly emulation; that it is they who followed the right path and method in the study of nature and things divine. It requires, indeed, very little insight to discern Yashar's sarcasm in displaying the miraculous deeds of the sages of Israel as patterns for emulation by the scientists and technologists of his own time, and presenting their legendary feats as the realization of the scientific method and ideal. This sacrastic attitude is also discernible in Yashar's comment on one of the stories regarding ma'asei merkavah of the Talmud. One day, the Talmud relates, the two great tanna'im, R' Yol;lanan ben Zakkai and R' El'azar ben 'Arakh, bcame absorbed in a discussion of ma'asei bereshith (mystery of creation) and ma'asei merkavah (mystery of the divine throne). A flame of fire descended from heaven, encompassed all the trees in the field which burst out in songs of praise ... Although it was at the height of the summer, clouds covered the sky and a sort ofrainbow appeared. Like humans attracted to a wedding ... angels gathered to listen ... 2

Following this citation, Y ashar rhetorically asks : Has anything of this sort ever been heard of with regard to Aristotle or Avicenna, Ibn Roschd or Alexander, Themistius and Yohanan the Grammarian, in the course of their metaphysical speculations? The sages of other nations deal all day long with such matters, and yet not a wing moves. 1 MWJref, pp. 27-28. Cf. Qol Yehudah on Kuzari IV, 25 (Warsaw, 1880; Israel, 1959), pp. 94-95. 2 MWJref., p. 22; cf. BT, Hagiga, 14b.

YASHAR'S ATTITUDE TO THE CABBALAH

259

It is in this rhetorical question, we believe, that Yashar's comment on this legendary passage lies. By it, he did not intend to stress, as the text seems to imply, the unique nature of these speculations and their superiority to Aristotelian metaphysics, but, on the contrary, to cast doubt on their veracity, and relegate them to the realm of legend and fiction. A similar question, with the same intent and purpose, Yashar poses with regard to the Ari. He writes : So many things are being told about this pure and holy man, as you will see in the writing that was sent from there [Eretz Yisrael]. Has there ever been anyone like him among the philosophers who commemorated his own miraculous deeds, and whose glory will, henceforth, be the subject of tales for many generations to come?

To make sure that the derogatory implications of these words do not escape even the unsophisticated reader, he immediately adds: "But as regards the affair of the Polish child from Grodek, it was a trick, as I have shown to all the world the same day when I came to see it." 1 The juxtaposition of these two cases is by no means accidental, and, notwithstanding Yashar's statement to the contrary, intends to show that they both belong to one and the same category. 1 MUl}ref, p. 45 . .A hundred years before Yashar, Pietro Pomponazzi derided the, miracle performers of his day, describing their actions as tricks and deceptions; see, Les Causes des Merveilles de la nature oo les Enchantements, premiere traduction franQaise avec une introduction par Henri Busson (Paris, 1930), pp. 142·143.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

IN

THE

DOMAIN

OF 1.

SPIRITUALISM AND

OCCULTISM

INTRODUCTION

Extensive spiritualist and occult texts constitute a sizeable part of Yashar's writings, notably Ma§ref 1 and Novloth lfokhmah. 2 They pose a problem not only because the concepts and views they contain are in contradiction to the rationalist parts of his works, but also because Yashar's own attitude toward them is unclear. We believe that y ashar did not treat this material seriously and had ulterior motives in presenting it. But this is not as easy to prove as it was with the excerpts from Ma§ref analyzed above. Those excerpts are usually presented in such a manner as to indicate their own refutation. Their analysis exhibits irreconcilable points of view. This, however, is not the case in most instances of the texts under discussion here. They abound in quotations from a great variety of sources both Jewish and not Jewish, representing various aspects of spiritualism and occultism; they contain very little, however, in terms of comments and opinions, to indicate Yashar's attitude. It is, of course, possible to interpret such a procedure as part of a calculated strategy on his part, by which he intended to let the texts speak for themselves and leave the verdict to the reader. Such an interpretation appears too modern, however. It fails to take into account the unique character of Yashar's time, when the scientific-rationalist point of view was only at its inception and far from dominant even in the minds of scholars, most of whom still harbored superstitions and beliefs in magic and occultism. a On the other hand, it would be naive to accept MWJref, pp. 47-56, 85-107. Novloth, pp. 72-80, 125-131, 142-148. 3 Cf. Lynn Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, V (Columbia University Press, 1959), VII (1964), chap. X, pp. 272ff. A naturalist thinker as Geronimo Cardano (1501-1576) believed in magic, the devil and spirits. Jean Bodin (1530-1596), among the ablest writers and advanced thinkers of France of the 16th century, still believed in magic, astrology and witchcraft. The same is true of Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639), his insistence on a direct investigation of nature as the source of knowledge about the world notwithstanding. Even Francis Bacon (1561-1626), practical though 1

2

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

261

the views expressed in these texts at their face value, and consider them as representative of Yashar's own thought,. To do so. one would have to completely disregard the strong rationalism prevalent in so many of his writings. Some solution to this problem was offered by Y ashar himself, who, on several occasions, expressed his views on some aspects of occultism. Unfortunately, however, these utterances are camouflaged to a great extent and cannot be used uncritically. In the early twenties, Y ashar briefly summed up his rather moderate position with regard to revealed and occult knowledge . .. . But this I must tell you, that I am not like others ... who repudiate everything which has not been verified or proven to them by demonstration.... Nor am I like 'the simple [who] believeth every word' [Prov. 14:15].I

Like many of his contemporaries, he believed in astrology, 2 and pursued alchemy, the mania of his day. Although his preoccupation with the latter displays elements of scientific motivation and method, it is still dominated by the magical and occult. 3 He also believed in predictive dreams, 4 physiognomy, metoposcopy and palmistry. On the other hand, he was skeptical of geomancy, and altogether rejected necromancy and beliefs in demons and spirits. Y ashar summed up his views on these matters as follows : he was in his demand for proofs, was by no means ready to reject all witchcraft as fables. This list can, of course, be greatly expanded far into the 18th century. Lea, H. C., Materials Toward a History of Witchcraft (New York, London, 1957), 3 vols., pp. 435££, 554££, 1352££, 1355, and passim; see also E. Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos in the Renaissance Philosophy, pp. 147££.; J. Cardan, The Book of My Life (N.Y., 1929), passim. 1 Elim, p. 117. 2 He lists among his writings Ototh Shamayim [Signs of Heaven], on astrology, Elim, p. 117. He writes of himself in the introduction to Ma'ayan Gannim: Were it not for the spark of reason-the offspring of Mercury-under whose constellation I was born, who shepherds me all my life [Gen. 48:15], bestowing on me power and honor ... I would have perished in misery, because of my bad luck ... The stars in their courses have lifted their heel [Ps, 41:10] against me, and who can straighten out what the heavenly constellations made crooked [Ecol. 1:15]. Elim, p. 133. Also in his letter to Ashkenazi he writes of the "heavenly constellations which do me battle" [Novloth, p. 3b]. See also Elim, pp. 24, 48. 3 See Elim, pp. 25, 46, 73-74; "Mikhtav Al}.uz," Melo Chofnajim, p. 27; Novloth, p. 29b. 4 "m~N,~l rm~, 1;m", Elim, p. 11s.

262

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

As for the miraculous properties attributed to minerals, herbs and animals, few are true. Who would believe that a small fish of a span's length can stop a boat,1 or that a diamond oan neutralize the magnet's attraction of iron, and many other such nonsensical stories which fill many books. I have heard so much, but have seen so little which ~as true, that I resolved not to consider anything as true, nor even to mention it, unless I examined it first and tested it several times. Whatever I did not examine nor had a chance to see, I shall neither declare as true nor reject as false, but shall altogether not mention. To this category belong all matters of magic and sorcery, demons and their like. From Egypt to here I have never seen them. In Egypt it is said that they are in the extreme north, and here, that they are in Egypt and Babylonia. I therefore have nothing to do with them ... Although I have seen many lands and traversed deserts and forests, it never happened to · me to see them. On the other hand, I do not want categorically to deny their existence just because I have not seen them. [After all], there are a million times many more things which are unknown than those that are known. We must, moreover, have regard for the sages of the Talmud, the Cabbalists and Platonists who relate many stories about them ... I do not say this in order to please those who share such beliefs. To them this may be a matter of vested interest, since by selling amulets and performing abjurations to exorcise spirits they earn a livelihood. [I say it because] this sort of beliefs do not belong to the fundamentals of the faith, and if it were clear to me that they do not exist I would openly declare it.2

Even if taken at its face value, the most one may conclude from the above passage is that Yashar was a product of his own time, sharing to a great extent its superstitions and prejudices, but, on the other hand, he also was greatly in advance of it, critically inclined with a more sober and controlled notion of truth. Though he still believed in alchemy, astrology, physiognomy, palmistry, prognostic dreams etc., he displayed strong signs of a growing emancipation from the uncouth spiritualism of the Neo-Platonists and Oabbalists. Most important to remember is his open rejection of demons and spirits and the necromantic superstitions which were still exerting a deep influence on his contemporaries both Christians and Jews.

2.

THE WITCH OF EN DoR

The first text of spiritualist content in Yashar's writings is the one which deals with the Biblical story of the witch of En Dor (Sam. 1:28). 1 Cf. L. Thorndike, History of Magic, V (1959), p. 101; see also Henry Carrington Bolton, The Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolph II, 1526-1612, pp. 171-172; Pomponazzi, Les Causes des Merveilles (Busson), pp. 121-122. 2 Elim, pp. 118-119. Cf. Thorndyke, op. cit., vols. VII, VIII (CUP, 1955),passim and "Index," vol. VIII, pp. 642, 649-650, 682-683, 737, 756.

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

263

Yashar discusses that story in response to the comment on it by his distant relative, Eliyahu Delmedigo, in his BeMnath ha-Dath. In that book Eliyahu criticized the Cabbalah, and pointed out that "all the Geonim, or a majority of them, did not follow its path. Indeed, their words indicate that they were in disagreement with it ... Moreover, they knew nothing of it, and rather desired to follow the path of common sense." As an illustration, Eliyahu cites the comment of Shmuel hen J:lofni on this story, to the effect of stating that "one ought not to accept the words of the Bible literally whenever they are refuted by reason. 1 " This succinct, clear and rather simple criticism is seized upon by Yashar with great eagerness and zest, and though he allegedly undertakes to defend the literal meaning of that story, he ends up by an all-out attack not only on the Cabbalah, but the Bible and the Talmud as well. He begins by feigning not to comprehend Eliyahu's criticism. "What is there in the story about the woman diviner against the Cabbalists ?," he asks. In response, he reasons as follows: If what he meant to say is that, as... the story of Scriptures is all nonsense and mockery - since the woman did not actually bring up Samuel, and though she knew quite well that he was Saul, she subtly simulated not to know him, and all she told him was of her own imagination-so also are the words of the Cabbalists, which contradict reason, then there are many answers to it. 2

There can be little doubt that Yashar's elaboration on the critical statement of his distant relative is far fetched. It is also obvious that it is deliberate and introduced for the sole purpose of expressing his own criticism of both the Biblical story and the Cabbalah. Also feigned is his alleged defense of the irrational against the Gaon J:lofni and Eliyahu. "With our eyes," he writes, "we daily see things which reason refuses to accept; yet they undoubtedly are true." He substantiates this assertion by the following quotation from Abraham Shalom's Nveh Shalom : There is a kind of stone which attracts hair. When put on the hair of the head, it shaves it off like a razor, and when put on a bald head, causes the hair to regrow fast. Another kind of stone stops the neighing of horses and the chirping of birds, as long as it remains on them.a

•iNi t•N", cf. Qimhi's commentary, I Sam. 28.

2

"CbW)E:l:> c•i::ii:i Ma§ref, p. 47.

3

Ibid., ibid., cf. Nveh Shalom (1967), V, ch. 4, p. 65a.

1

il~N•!Z)

264

Y ASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

One has only to recall Yashar's just stated view on the nature of true knowledge and his pledge not to suggest anything as truthful which he has not seen or examined, to realize how ludicrous this "evidence" is in support of the irrational and the occult. The following discussion also leads one to the same conclusion. Yashar presents a great variety of interpretations by both Jews and Christians of the Biblical story of the witch of En Dor. He dwells at length on Abravanel's necromantic interpretation, which he describes as totally borrowed from Christian sources and "unbecoming a man li)rn him." 1 Following these interpretations, the majority of which imply some sort of belief in necromancy, Yashar declares his rejection of all of them, in favor of accepting the story at its face value. The narratives regarding Elijah, Elisha' and Ez~kiel, he points out, clearly show that reviving the dead is a rather common practice in the Bible. Numerous stories about spirits and demons in the Talmud offer further proof as to the belief of the sages of the Talmud in spiritualism, magic and sorcery. Why then philosophize and rationalize ? If the philosophizers among our people believe that the prophets were philosophers like themselves and their words ought to be interpreted rationalistically, they are \\Tong. The Talmudists are the sons of the prophets and the heirs to their teachings and traditions, and from their words we may gather the true meanings of Scriptures. If we therefore find in Talmudic literature stories like those of the Bible, why forgo the simple meaning of the Bible? I swear that only a person who does not believe in the words of our sages would act in such a manner. [After all] our Talmud is full of demons and their apparitions to humans, as well as of spirits of the dead ... Who are their ancestors if not the prophets ? As we trust the words of the Talmudic sages, we must also trust the words of the prophets and vice versa. 2

It is obvious that the discussion which opened with an alleged defense of the irrational and concluded with an assertion of pious belief in the simple and literal meaning of the miraculous in the Bible, is actually an outstanding example of concealed criticism of the full range of Jewish literature, beginning with the Bible and concluding with the Cabbalah. By his vast array of quotations from both Christian and Jewish necromancers, Yashar simply intended to drive home the notion that superstition cannot be claimed as the monopoly of one faith only, and that it prevails with equal force in both Christianity

.1 ~

MG,f!ref., pp. 51-52; cf. Abravanel, comm. I Sam. 28:8. MalJref., pp. 55-56.

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

265

and Judaism. The crux of the discussion, however, lies in the concluding statement, quoted above, which points to the Talmud as the source of Jewish superstition. Indeed, he insists that it is the prominence of the superstitious and occult elements in the Talmud that vouches for their authenticity in the Bible. 3.

ANGELS AND SOULS

Similar material of a spiritualist nature, dealing with angels and souls, demons and ghosts, incarnation and metempsychosis, is presented in the concluding twenty pages of Maf}ref. 1 This section is preceded (in Ma!Jref) by a rationalist exposition of the subject of angels in the Bible, according to which they are indentified with secondary causes and altogether disposed of as transcendental beings. 2 The alleged purpose of the text is to refute this view and to uphold the popular belief. It is doubtful, however, whether this really was Yashar's intention. It is reasonable to assume that what Yashar had in mind was something entirely different, namely, to discredit that literature, by abundantly quoting from it and showing its utterly arbitrary and superstitious nature. Like the previous section about the witch of En Dor, this section also is a collection of quotations. However, their number is far greater and their content even less rational. The major theme of the discussion, if such a theme is discernible at all in a medley of this sort, centers around the problem of angels and souls, demons and ghosts: whether under certain circumstances these creatures can assume bodily form or not. Yashar marshals an impressive array of scholars and philosophers from all lands, religions and times: pagans, Christians, Muslims and Jews, Greeks, Latins and Arabs, who all uphold such a possibility. The varieties of angels and souls, mentioned in these texts, are paralleled by varieties of ghosts and demons, of "thicker" and "thinner" substances. Such beliefs, Yashar points out, are especially common in the writings of the "ancient Greeks," Orpheus, Hesiod, Empedocles and others. They also abound in the works of Pythagoras and Plotinus, but above all in those of Plato, "who is the father of all" in this respect. Among Christian scholars, these beliefs are shared by Basilius the Great, Eusebius, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and 1 2

Ibid., pp. 89-107. Ibid., pp. 85-89.

266

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

"many hundreds" of them. Whereas most of the scholars and their views are only briefly mentioned, he quotes at great length from the "wonderful preface" of "Yo}.ianan the Grammarian" 1 to Aristotle's De Anima 2 as regards the various "souls." According to him, the "vegetative" soul perishes with the body; the "sensitive" soul, however, assumes the role of a vehicle for the soul, carrying it to the "heavenly abode." These views, Yashar notes, are close to the views of the sages of the Talmud. The final twelve pages are entirely taken up by quotations from major Cabbalistic works : the Zohar, Pardes, Fano's Yonath 'Elem, the commentaries of Recanati and ~iyyoni, the Sefer Yef}irah and many others. It requires great endurance and patience to read through this material, whose exposition defies all reason and orderly discourse. Besides the extremely irrational character of most of the quotations and the fact that they are preceded by a rather orderly and lucid presentation of the opposite, rationalist point of view, there is little direct evidence in this section, from which it could be inferred that Yashar's views differ from those contained in the texts. He appears much more restrained in his comments here than in most of his other discussions. We believe this is no accident but directly connected with the nature of the material presented. He must have felt that the texts were so obviously absurd that by just printing them, even without comment, they could safely be relied upon to refute the views contained in them. On the other hand, the text is not entirely without some clues. Thus, Y ashar notes that the fact that Ibn Roschd failed to comment on Aristotle's "divine beings," which he included among the "substances," a was not accidental at all, since he knew quite well that in writing it, the philosopher did not express his own opinion, but bowed to the conventions of that time, when people were attracted to the opinions of his master, Plato.4

1 "i'ii'i~l"I pni~". Johannes Grammaticus or Johannes Philoponus (6th century), see on him, Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, pp. 89-91; also Yehudah Ibn Shmuel (Dr. J. Kaufman), comment. on Guide, Pt. I, vol. II (Jerusalem, 1959), chap. 71, p. 395. 2 M~ref, pp. 92-95. 3 Aristotle, Metaphysica, Bk. V; chap. 8. 4 M~ref, p. 91.

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

267

The intention of this observation is clearly to refute the notion that Aristotle sanctioned a belief in spiritual beings besides the intellects moving the spheres. 1 Significant also is the fact that most of the Cabbalistic material quoted here is drawn from works for which Yashar himself had shown great contempt. 2 Inherent in the presented material, in which similar views are shown to prevail among pagans, Christians, Muslims and Cabbalists, is also the inescapable conclusion that the spiritualistic tendencies of the Cabbalists are of little originality, and are actually borrowed from alien sources. Nor does he ever forget to remind the reader that most of these bizarre beliefs are also to be found in the Talmud. 3 4.

MAN AS MICROCOSM NATURALISTICALLY INTERPRETED

The subject matter of what may be considered the third spiritualist text in Yashar's writings 4 is very much the same as that of the previous two texts. Angels and souls, spirits and demons dominate the scene. However, the frame of the discussion has been greatly changed and expanded. The point of departure in these pages is the spiritualist concept of the human soul, claimed to be unique among composites of matter and form. In opposition to all other forms, conceived of as integral parts of their composites, inherent in the seed of their species and subject to dissolution, the human soul is declared "a creation for itself, spun from a primaeval spiritual substance, the light of His image." s It is "itself," pure spirit, only in its heavenly abode; upon its descent to the world of matter, however, it passes through stages of growing materiality and concealment. Wrapping itself in garment upon garment, its purity and spirituality become more and more hidden, and its association with matter ever closer and more pronounced. Thus: ye"/y,idah (the only one) wraps 1 Such a view on Aristotle was expressed by Pomponazzi in the early part of the 16th century: Ceux qui s'appuient sur Aristote pour affirmer !'existence de substances immaterielIes autres que Jes Intelligences motrices des spheres ne doivent pas du tout s'appeler Aristoteliciens; ils sont meme tout a fait etrangers a I'aristotelisme, Les Causes des Merveilles (Busson), p. 264. 2 Cf. "Mikhtav Al,mz," Melo Olwfnajim, pp. 8-9. 3 M~ref, pp. 91, 95. 4 Novloth, pp. 71-79. 5 Ibid., p. 71b.

268

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

itself in the garment of "/y,ayyah (the living one); "/y,ayyah in that of neshamah (soul); neshamah in that of ru'a"/y, (spirit) and ru'ah in that of nefesh (animus). 1 Moreover, this process is also characteristic of the universe at large. The lower a being is in the universal hierarchy, the thicker its matter and the more numerous the garments in which it envelops itself. Conversely, the higher and closer it is to the original divine source, the thinner and fewer its garments.2 In explanation of this view of a universe "not being itself" but concealed and shrouded, Yashar introduces the mystical theory of a primaeval superman, wholly spirit and created in the image of God to serve as a pattern for all creation.a It was the original intention of God, we are told on the best of Cabbalistic authority, to create everything in the image of man. In consequenc6'of "deteriorating substances and changing locations," however, this image suffered perversion and distortion. As a result, it declined, assuming the forms of animals and plants. "You must not be surprised at that," Yashar explains, with our own eyes we see that seeds and plants of warmer climes, when transplanted to the soil of the extreme north, do not yield their natural fruits, so much so that I have seen in the far north a lemon tree whose fruit looked like wild apples, without flavor, taste or beauty.

Also animals and humans undergo such change when transferred from one land to another. In the course of time their skin changes, the structure of their body, even their mind and patterns of behavior. Moreover: We may even see the mother of the human species, the female of man, instead of giving birth to humans, bringing forth reptiles, queer creatures in the form of birds and fish, figs, grapes and other fruits.4

Man was thus destined to be the center and pattern of all creation. All forms of existence, heavenly and earthly, though vastly transformed and degenerated, still betray common traits with him. His image clings to angels in the upper worlds, to spirits and demons of the domains of air and fire, and to inanimate objects, plants and animals on earth. 5 Cf. Bereshith Rabba, 14:9. Novloth, p. 75a. a See supra, p. 199, n. 4. 4 Ibid., p. 75b. s Ibid., pp. 76-77a. 1

2

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

269

The impact of these views, Yashar points out, is felt not only in an occult art as physiognomy, but also in natural arts such as medicine and pharmacology. Whereas the physiognomists deduce man's character from his animal features-considering him lion-hearted if his face shows lion's traits, subtle if he looks foxy, or wicked if his nose is acquiline-others use a reverse method, that is, reveal man's hidden features and characteristics in the animals. Man being the norm of all things. it is his qualities, both good and bad, which prevail among them. "Some of them resemble him by their skin, others by their facial features, hands, feet, intestines or temper." 1 This is also true with regard to herbs and plants, which have all been created in man's likeness and for his benefit. It is, indeed, the similarity between them and parts of the human body which has been taken as a basis for many ancient curative practices. Thus, physicians infer from the likeness in form between certain nuts and the human skull the effectiveness of those nuts as a cure for headaches. Again, it is believed that the flowers of the asaro leaves, due to their earlike shape, strengthen both memory and hearing when fried in sugar and consumed. The heart-shaped lemon and other fruits of this form are considered beneficial to the heart, and so it is with scores of herbs, roots, flowers and fruits. This is also the principle of the preparation of many drugs from parts of animals. Thus, the liver of the wolf helps cure man's liver, and the lung of the fox-man's lung; the bladder of sheep and goats, burned and ground to dust and administered by mouth in a mixture of vinegar and water, strengthens man's bladder.

and so on, and so forth. 2 In the final pages of the text, Yashar returns to the subject of angels and souls, which he places in one category. With regard to the soul, he reiterates the difference between it and the ru' a~, which he pointed out in Ma;;ref, and· again quotes the Talmud on the spirits of the dead which, under the cover of darkness, make their appearance in ruins and cemeteries. He seems to derive special delight from the subject of demons, dwelling on their varieties, the similarities and differences between them and humans, their voracious appetites and Ibid., p. 76b. Ibid., p. 77b. Cf. Pomponazzi, Les Causes des Merveilles, pp. 134-136; Thorndyke, VII, 655; VIII, 91, 197, 259 and more. 1

2

270

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

the problem of supplying them with food and drink as well as disposing of their waste. Worth mentioning is the "evidence" he uses in support of the existence of this realm of beings. Not only "is the Talmud full of them,'' but daily occurrences prove it as well. Only an obdurate skeptic, who refuses to listen to the charmers and magicians, and solely judges by what his eyes see, and only believes in what his hands touchhe may doubt it. But such a man is likely even to deny the existence of demons, just because he cannot see them. By the same token he may also deny the existence of air that fills space, just because he cannot touch it.

He offers additional evidence : the wondrous stories about the Cabbalists of Safed and their miraculous performances in exorcising demons and spirits. Their supernatural deeds, he assures us, were recorded by "pious and truthful people" who have seen them with their own eyes. They have seen men and women falling to the ground, and, though in a state of coma and almost lifeless, utter sounds without moving their lips, answer questions without using their vocal cords. Some assert that these are impure souls which defiled themselves by sins in this world and died [before repenting]. Hence, they know no peace, and keep on wandering from body to body, sometimes of men and sometimes of women, sometimes of animals and sometimes of plants. They even enter leaves of trees or reeds moved by water or wind.

In substantiation of the authenticity of these happenings, Yashar refers the reader to the "Shivl;tei ha-Ari" and Gedalyah Ibn Yal;tya's Shalsheleth ha-Cabbalah. 1

The unsophisticated reader can find little direct evidence in this section to show that Yashar's attitude toward the views presented here is one of insincerity and criticism. The section contains, of course, many crude superstitions and strange views. It may be argued, however, that they ought to be seen in the framework of their time, when such views and beliefs were still commonplace even among scholars. Such an argument, however, cannot be taken too seriously. Even assuming Yashar's sincerity, it is still very doubtful whether he could have been altogether serious with some of the evidence he cites. That a woman could give birth to reptiles and fruits must have appeared incredible even to a contemporary of the seventeenth century, especially a rationalist like Yashar. Recalling his negative statement 1

Nov"loth, pp. 78b-79a.

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

271

on demons and spirits in Elim, one cannot but interpret the passage on demonology here as a shrewd satire, some unsavory aspects of which have not been surpassed even by the criticisms of a later day maskilim. Nor must the Safed stories, cited in evidence of metemphsychosis and exorcising of evil spirits, be taken seriously. Some twenty pages earlier, in this very text, he derided this belief and labeled it "an error and nonsense." 1 Finally, his reference to the Shalsheleth ha-Oabbalah, in support of the truth of spiritualism, further indicates his insincerity. In the "Al).uz" letter he labeled this book as "a chain of lies," and in Ma§ref he wrote of its author that "he deserves [to be bound in] iron chains for corrupting his work with so many lies that its truth is almost unnoticeable." 2 5.

REVERSE EMANATION :

MAN AS MICROCOSM CABBALISTICALLY INTERPRETED

The fourth and final text of spiritualist content in Yashar's writings is the concluding section of "Novloth Orah" which discusses the Cabbalist doctrine of man's impact on the "upper worlds." a Eliyahu Delmedigo expressed doubt with regard to the doctrine's validity in his Be"fy,inath ha-Dath; 4 and Yashar made a not-too-serious effort to refute it at the end of Ma§rej.s In the framework of Novloth, this section constitutes the second part of a critical analysis of the major tenets of the Cabbalah. The first part of that analysis 6 exposed the inability of the Cabbalah to form a clear conception of a§iluth (emanation) and to elucidate the relationship between it, on the one hand, and the Ein-Sof and the sephiroth on the other, thus undermining the theoretical foundation of Cabbalistic speculations. 1 In this part, the foundation of the so called practical Cabbalah is being probed and allegedly defended, namely, the claim of the Cabbalists that they possess the secret knowledge to influence the higher hierarchy not only on behalf of man but on behalf of the hierarchy itself. This concept of what may be termed "a reverse emanation," from earth "nii T1'l7ii lV'l::l!V Ni:i", ibid., bottom of p. 58a. Cf. Melo Clwfrwjim, p. 23; MWJref, p. 20. a Novloth, pp. 125-148. 4 Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah, I, pp. 7b-8a. 5 MWJref, pp. 105ff. 6 Novloth, pp. 112-125. 7 See BUpra, pp. 247-249.

1

2

272

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

to heaven, rests on the conception of man as microcosm whose essence and structure reflect the macrocosm and whose actions are therefore of the utmost importance and consequence not only in the natural but also in the heavenly abodes. Contentwise, this text is much different from the previous ones. It discusses none of the earlier topics, such as angels and souls, demons and spirits. Nor is its discussion of man's central position in the universe the same as in the third of these texts. Whereas the emphasis of the previous text was naturalistic, i.e., the supremacy of man in the natural order of things, his being the object of imitation by 3'.nimals, plants, and inanimate things, the main consideration here is the mythical and transcendental aspects of this view. Methodologically, there is little difference between the present discussion and the previous ones. The bulk of the twenty-four folios is a series of quotations, following one another without almost any interpretative interruptions. The section may be subdivided into three parts, which differ from each other both by content as well as the nature of the quoted sources. It is especially the second subdivision 1 which is entirely different from the other two. Though it also deals with the concept of man as microcosm, its approach is philosophical and the views expressed therein of a different kind. The other two parts also differ among themselves, the first 2 being an explanation of the Cabbalistic notion of man as microcosm, and the second 3 an illustration of the impact of this notion on Cabbalistic exegesis. Regarding man, he is conceived by the Cabbalists not only as a passive recipient of the heavenly bounty, but as an active participant in the universal drama of being, whose every action, for good or bad, is of the utmost consequence. He is not only an organism governed by reason and hence illustrative of the organic structure of the universe and the divine reason that rules it, a parallelism expressed so masterfully by Maimonides ;4 he is much more than that : a pattern for imitation throughout existence by both the upper and lower realms ... If man was created in the image of God, the world at large and all its beings were created in man's image. Ibid., pp. 132-139. Ibid., pp. 125-131. a Ibid., pp. 140-148. 4 Gitide, I, 72; Novloth, pp. 132a-133a. 1

2

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

273

His arms symbolize the extremities of the world ... his heart the great sea . . . his veins and vessels the sources and channels from which and through which the heavenly abundance flows into the world ... and his flesh and skin the outstretched heavens.1

Also the ten sephiroth are patterned after him : The brain, skull and tongue are representative of the first three, the arms--of "greatness" .and "strength," the body--of "magnificence," the thighs--of "eternity" and "glory," and the genital organ--of "foundation." 2

Equally, he is the pattern for the Torah, its commandments being directed to and designed for the various parts of the body. Some are meant for the head, some for the eyes, the ears etc... Hence, one who fulfills a commandment pertaining to a certain limb, upholds thereby that limb and perfects it, and one who keeps all the commandments elevates his likeness and image and becomes like superman who sits on the throne ... with the Shekhinah upon him.3

The effect of these ideas on Cabbalistic exegesis is illustrated in the last part of our section, which constitutes the conclusion of "Novloth Orah" as a whole. Like most other spiritualist texts, this is eclectic and extremely confused. Passages of no apparent affinity with one another are juxtaposed and undreamt of midrashic connections established between them. Nevertheless, the underlying tendency of this collection is quite clear, namely, to illustrate, by examples of Cabbalistic interpretations, the effect of the "lower worlds" upon the heavenly hierarchy. The text specifically dwells on the mystery of the sacrificial cult, the lulav (palm branch) and ethrog (lemon) ceremony, and the mystery of sex. Regarding the mystical significance of sacrifices, Yashar quotes from Torath ha-'Olah of Moshe Isserles: It is known that man's actions in the lower world awaken the forces of the higher realm . . . By their good deeds, the people of Israel enhance the strength of the Upper Court; contrariwise, by their sins they weaken it and cause exhaustion. This is, indeed, the mystery of sacrifices. When the offering is properly administered, to the satisfaction of the heavenly altar, it causes greater unity among the upper forces. The deeds of the pious bring harmony in the heavens, and, as a result, good-will and abundance descend. The lowest sephirah pleased and with a shining

Novloth, p. 130b. Ibid., p. 126a. 3 "i'i,l7 ;iii!V i1l':ll1Ji", ibid.; cf. Recanati, Be'ur 'Al Ha-Torah (Venezia, 1545), Gen. 49:22. 1

2

274

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

countenance . . . maintains all her household . . . the upper forces . . . If the offering is accepted, each rank of the hierarchy receives its due share : some the spirit, others the nefesh, the smoke, the flesh or flavor ... As for God, His share consists only of the good-will of the offerer ... the rest of the heavenly hierarchy, however, is sustained by the offering itself.l

Of great mystical significance is the palm branch and ethrog ceremony. Every petty detail elaborated by the Talmud with regard to their appearance and observance assumes deep meanings, and far-reaching consequences in both heaven and earth are attributed to it. Yashar quotes Recanati : "The lulav symbolizes the foundation of the world ... , the three myrtle twigs the three heavenly forefathers ·... and the ethrog the Shekhinah." Other aspects of this ceremony are interpreted as bearing on the sephiroth. In this connection Y ashar also quotes 'Azariah Fano's treatise on the subject, Yemin Adonai Romemah. 2 As a finale to this section and to "Novloth Orah" as a whole Yashar presents the Cabbalistic notion of the mystery of sex. The duality of sexes on earth, we are told, reflects a transcendental duality. Active man is representative of the sephirah Tifereth (magnificence), and passive, receiving woman-of the sephirah Malkhuth (royalty). Moreover, at the time man imparts his virile abundance to woman, a similar process takes place in the heavens ... At the very moment, when the semen, flowing from the brain and passing through the spine and veins, descends into the testicles and procreating organs, from where it is submitted to the womb, a heavenly coupling of the exact same pattern takes place in the superchariot. A§iluth flows from the Primary Essence into Tifereth, and from it to Ne§al! and Hod, and from them to $adiq and Malkhuth.3

Before attempting to draw any conclusions as regards Yashar's attitude toward this kind of speculations, we must discuss first the middle part of this section. As pointed out, it is primarily of a philosophical nature, in contradistinction to the Cabbalistic nature of the other two parts. It deals still in the problem of man as a microcosm; however, the views presented are not those of the Cabbalists but of Maimonides and Ibn Ezra, the two great scholars Y ashar loved and admired most. In passing from the Cabbalistic part to this part, the reader experiences a sense of real relief. Not only is the exposition of Novloth., p. 143b. Torath Ha'oTAh, pt. II, ch. I. Novloth., pp. 145b ff. Cf. Recanati, Lev. 23:40, p. 157. a Novloth., pp. 147b-148a.

1

2

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

275

the problem-based on the Guide 1 and excerpts from the commentaries and works of Ibn Ezra-more orderly and lucid, but the views themselves are far more meaningful. Y ashar first presents the Maimonidean view. :Maimonides embraces the organic concept of the universe and even subscribes, to some degree, to a parallelism between the macrocosm and the microcosm. However, he qualifies this parallelism as pertaining only to the unity of the universe and the all-pervasive wisdom that guides it, even to the minutest particle of matter in it. God, however, who is the source of that wisdom, does not constitute a part, but is transcendental and acts in some mysterious way via the secondary causes. The human organism is characterized by a mutuality between its main organ, the heart, and the other parts. The heart sustains them and they, in turn, sustain it. But, there exists no such relationship in the universe at large, which constitutes a hierarchical system of beneficences, flowing in one direction only, from the higher to the lower beings, and not vice versa. As for man's claim on being a microcosm, Maimonides points out that such a claim is meaningful only as far as man's reasonableness and sociability are concerned, not, however, by virtue of his body. As far as man's body is concerned, it is not different from the bodies of animals. 8 That view is clearly at variance with Cabbalistic notions. More interesting in itself, and equally indicative of certain tendencies in Yashar's own thought, is the material he assembled from Ibn Ezra's writings. Yashar's preoccupation with the works of this great medieval scholar and his deep admiration for him are frequently displayed in his writings. 3 However, it is only here that he deals with his views at relatively great length. Ibn Ezra's enigmatic commentary on the no less enigmatic text of Job 23:13: "But he is one, who can turn him," serves as the basis for the discussion. Y ashar alluded to this text in Maf}ref,4 where he promised to explain it on some other occasion. It is here, we believe, that he fulfills that promise. He first adduces Isserles' comment on this passage, and, though praising it, observes 1 2

3

4

Cf. mainly Guide, I, 72 ; II, 48, 69. Cf. S. Pines, "Introduction" to the Guide, p. CXIV, n. 94. Cf. Elim, pp. 12-13; M e/o Chofnajim, pp. 11, 14, 19-20; M~ref, pp. 23, 28. M~ref, p. 23.

276

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

that "there is no small difference between us." 1 He then quotes Moscato's comment on it in his Qol Yehudah. 2 Rejecting both interpretations, he refers to Ibn Ezra's commentary on Gen. 1:26, in which Ibn Ezra adduces the simile of man as microcosm. Following ,this, Yashar quotes at greater length Ibn Ezra's introductory remarks on Exodus 26: Though it is known that the capacity of the soul 3 is diffused throughout the body, some parts [of the body], such as the eyes and ears, by virtue of their closer connections with the brain, are more sensitive than others ... Above all it is the heart which partakes of a greater share of soul than all other parts of the body. Hence, there are so many limbs to serve it. The same applies to God. Though we know that His glory fills the whole earth, there nevertheless are places, where His might is more noticeable ... Thus, one aware of the secret of his own soul and the structure of his body 4 is in a position to know the upper1 world, because man is a microcosm, and he was the last of God's creations on earth. Not without significance is the fact that creation began with the universe at large and ended with insignificant man.5

It is primarily from this text, corroborated by a few more passages bearing on the same problem, that Yashar infers Ibn Ezra's pantheistic view. He writes : His writings disclose in several places his views that God's essence fills the whole world ... indeed, He is the world ... There is nothing besides Him, since everything is He Himself,6

Though abstaining from direct comments on this view, Yashar does it indirectly, by commenting on one of the arguments of Proclus regarding eternity, which he inserts in the text. He writes: According to his words, there is nothing in the world which is not part of God ... also animals and plants are divine parts ... the extremities of God ... In short, everything under the orb of the moon, though subject to generation and decay. And though they [the holders of such a view] say that there is nothing strange in it, since these [particular] things [in relation to God] are comparable to the blood or hair [in relation] to the living things, i.e., they keep on regenerating, it nevertheless would necessarily follow, in the opinion of some, that God's might would be finite, because He is unable to perpetuate [Himself] in the particular. Hence

Novloth, p. 135a. Ibid., pp. 135b-136a; Qol Yehudah, II, 2. 3 "i1~Wli1 n:;,", Novloth, 136a. 4 "i!::iil rm:;,ri~i iri~Wl iio l7ii•;ii"' ibid., p. 136b; cf. BT Ber. lOa: i1":1pi1 i1~" •Z')ili1 i,:;, l"\N i1Ni,~ i1~Wl Z')N ci,il7i1 i,:;, N,~,, 5 ".;ii,:;, 1~p:ii i,n;i i,m:i i:iii, 1~·oi 6 ,l"\,,T l'N ..• ci,il7i1 Nii1W ,,,, frN:;,i ,~l?.7 ci,il7i1 i,:;, N'~!t' iril7i i1'l" "·i~l?.7 Nii1 i:ii i,:;,w ibid., pp. 138b-139a. 1

2

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

277

[it would also follow that] He is finite, a conclusion that is preposterous. Such thoughts must not be entertained with regard to God ... Nor is it proper to divulge them or write about them in books.1

Though a comment on Proclus, this passage is equally a comment on Ibn Ezra, and for that matter on pantheism in general. He points out that these views imply the eternity of the universe; more importantly, they raise difficult questions concerning the essence of God. To return to our main theme, it may be asked: for what purpose, if any, did Yashar insert, in the middle of Cabbalistic speculations, this collection of quotations from Maimonides and Ibn Ezra bearing on the problem of man as microcosm 1 We have indicated earlier the divergence in views between Maimonides and the Cabbalists in relation to this notion. No less divergent are their views and those of Ibn Ezra on this subject. Though Ibn Ezra's conception of man's soul as permeating all parts of the body-thus reflecting the nature of a pantheistically conceived macrocosm, all of whose parts are permeated with, or constituting, God-greatly differs from the Maimonidean view, it is perhaps even farther removed from Cabbalistic notions. Nor does Y ashar fail to stress that both Maimonides and Ibn Ezra unequivocally reject the view of man as the center and goal of creation. 2 However, the difference between the philosophical and Cabbalistic notions with regard to the microcosm-macrocosm parallelism still runs deeper. To Maimonides and Ibn Ezra this parallelism is at most a mere simile, helpful perhaps in grasping the organic nature of the universe; they deny to it, however, any reality. To the Cabbalists, however, it represents an actual state of being, with all the alleged far reaching consequences which they ascribe to it. There can be little doubt that the juxtaposition of the views of the Cabbalists and the philosophers in this section is not accidental, but aims to show the difference between a rational and an arbitrary approach. We thus believe that Yashar's attitude toward this cardinal principle of Cabbalistic speculation is as negative as his attitude toward the other aspects of Cabbalah. Such a conclusion can also be upheld by internal evidence scattered throughout this section.

Ibid., 136-137a. Ibid., p. 139a. As for Ibn 'Ezra, see his Comm. on Gen. 1:1; Ex. (ed. Reggio, Prague, 1840; sec. ed. Vienna, 1926), 23:20, 25:7, and end of Comm. on Job. 1

2

278

Y ASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

Noteworthy first of all are Yashar's introductory words to the section as a whole : If you were amazed at our assertion that the "lower world" acts only by the will of the heavens, you will be even more amazed at the assertion of the Cabbalists, which is an axiomatic principle to them, that the upper beings follow the desire and will of the lower ones.l

Though these are not explicitly derogatory words, they at least express incredulity and amazement. Also uncomplimentary is the observation Y ashar makes several times in this section with reference to the Oabbalists, namely, that they plagiarize each other's writings. 2 More derogatory are some passages in which he attributes to them a belief in black magic, crude superstitions and an excessively anthropomorphisized conception of the Deity. ,Interesting is the passage he adduces from $iyyoni, to illustrate the Oabbalistic notion of the parallelism between the heavenly and earthly domains, a passage which indicates, moreover, the impact of black magic on the practical Oabbalah. He quotes: There is nothing on earth ... which does not have its pattern in heaven ... The proof of that is the following : if one would dra"\" the picture of a thief on the wall, with his eyes fixed upon certain objects, and then would drive a nail in the eye of the picture, the thief, though far away, would go blind and suffer, because the main essence of man is his heavenly form ... a By conjurations the magician gets rid of the thief's guardian angel, exposing the earthly embodiment of him to the injuries of fate. 4

Commenting on this passage, Yashar points out that such practices were rather common in his day : What f;liyyoni has written with regard to a thief, I have seen the witches apply to any person whom they desire to harm. They make a human likeness, male or female, either of wax or rags, according to their intentions at certain times and circumstances. They then prick each part of it with needles, invoking each time [the evil spirits] to do the same to the living body, thus causing pains and maladies

1 i1~riri c•1i•':i:11i1 li:it., •':i::i c•1irinrii1 i':i'.11!)' N':i!ll i1.,~iN~ l"li1~l"l!l1 i1~~ .,m•i" .,MN m:>!ll~l rim•':il1i1 l"li!l0i1!l1 •Ci1'l'!l till1N., ':i:>!lli~ Nim •i1"M c·.,~iN!ll i1~~ "1J"lilil"lMl"li1 f!)Mi li:it., Novloth., p. 125. 2 Ibid., pp. 13la, 144a. 3 "i1':il1~ ':i!ll iri.,i:it N'i1 C"1Ni1 •::>, ibid., p. 131 b . . 4 "·pn•i c·.,p~i, mi~ lirinrii1 C"1Ni1i !llli1 ':i!ll i':iT~ .,oi• mi~~i1 '.!1!l!lli1!l" ibid., ibid.; cf. M. Giidemann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens ... In Frankreich und Deutschland (Wien, 1880), pp. 206-207; Menahem hen Me'ir [f;liyyoni], Be'ur 'al haTorah 'al Derekh ha-Emeth (Cremona, 1560), p. llb.

.,v''.11

IN THE DOMAIN OF SPIRITUALISM AND OCCULTISM

279

which no physician can cure. If the spell is not broken and the needles are not removed, the person affected would undoubtedly die in a short period of time.l

A note of sarcasm is also detectable in Y ashar's remark on a long quotation from Isserles' Torath ha-'Olah, which the latter concludes as follows : "I have gleaned these words from the Zohar, which are words given from Sinai." Y ashar comments on this : By declaring these to be the words of the great luminary, R' Shim'on bar Yol;lai, he prevented us from investigating them. Hence, I shall neither question, nor dispute them. I must mention, however, what that rabbi has written regarding human sacrifices, namely, that the reason for their prohibition is because man constitutes the image of God.2

More passages of this kind are scattered throughout the text. Those cited are sufficient, however, to substantiate our view that Yashar's attitude toward this kind of literature and ideas was critical and derogatory. l Novloth, 13lb. Cf. Eugene Defrance, Catherine de Medicis, ses astrologues et ses magiciens-envouteurs (Paris, 1911), pp. 200-201. 2 Novloth, p. 144a.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

MA$REF LA-IJOKHMAH A CONCEALED ANTI-CABBALISTIC WORK It is not altogether impossible that Yashar did write the Mal}rej la-IJokhmah, as he claims, on the request of "one of the dignitaries" of the Jewish community of Hamburg who was an admirer of the Cabbalah and wished it defended against its detractors. 1 Should this be true, however, the book would constitute an outstanding example of misused trust, since instead of defending the secret lore, it actually criticizes and even attacks it. This as~ertion of Yashar, however, regarding the genesis and nature of Mal}ref is open to doubt. More plausible appears the view of Geiger, who considered Mal}ref a work of camouflage which Y ashar devised for the purpose of publishing the anti-Cabbalist views of his distant forebear, Eliyahu Delmedigo; a task which, owing to the conditions of the time, Yashar could not have accomplished openly and directly. To the knowledge of this writer, the only contemporary of Y ashar who perceived the true nature of Mal}ref, was Yehudah Aryeh Modena. 2 Indeed, there is good reason to believe that it may have been the rich anti-Cabbalist material which Modena discovered in it, as well as in other parts of Ta'alumoth IJokhmah, notably the "Shivl,iei ha-Ari,'' rather than the Cabbalists' abuses of Maimonides, as he himself claims, which was the direct cause for the composition of his own anti-Cabbalist, Ari Nohem. 8 On the other hand, Rabbi :i;Iayyim Ya'ir Bacharach, 4 a much younger contemporary of Yashar (1637-1702), though puzzled by some passages of Mal}ref and the letter of Yashar in the introduction to Novloth lfokhmak, did not doubt Yashar's sincerity in the book as a whole.6 Also the Cabbalist Moshe Zacut, who was rather critical of some of Yashar's mystical views, notably his conception of al}ilutk as coeval with Ein Sof, and who pointed out pp. 58, 107. Ari Nohem, chaps. 12, 14, 18, 20, 25, 29, 30 and paasim. 3 Ibid., chaps. 1, 25. 4 See on him, I;Iayyim ben R' Yoseph Mikhal, Or ha:!Jayyim (Frankfurt am Main, 1891; New York, 1965), no. 859, pp. 382-385. 5 Ifavoth Ya'ir (Frankfurt am Main, 1699) no. 210, p. 297a. 1 M~ref, 2

MA~REF

LA-J;IOKHMAH

281

Yashar's inadequate understanding of the Lurianic Cabbalah in general, otherwise found no fault with Ma§ref. 1 Even the critical Reggio, editor and commentator of Be~inath ha-Dath (1833), who frequently refers to both Ma§ref and Modena's Ari Nohem, does not seem to have fully realized the true nature of the work.2 As mentioned, this discovery belongs exclusively to Geiger in recent times. However, since Geiger's interest centered on the "Al;mz" letter, he devoted only peripheral attention to Ma§ref, and his remarks on it are of a general nature. 3 Parts of Ma§ref have been analyzed earlier, to prove Yashar's critical attitude toward the Cabbalah. In the following pages further proofs to this effect will be adduced, and an attempt will be made to show the camouflaged nature of the work as a whole. Yashar's sincerity or insincerity with regard to the views he expresses in Ma§ref presents a problem almost from the first page of the work. As Geiger points out, the high praises Y ashar showers on Eliyahu Delmedigo and Sha'ul ha-Cohen, the two critics of the secret lore whose views he allegedly undertakes to refute, seem excessive. His statement regarding the great popularity of BeMnath ha-Dath in the Jewish world and its negative effect on the secret lore also appears excessive. Geiger's assertion that if it were not for Ma§ref, no trace of Be~inath ha-Dath would have remained in Jewish letters is, no doubt, an exaggeration; but it is not entirely untrue, either. Nor should the fact be ignored that Yashar himself describes his arguments in Ma§ref as "popular ... illogical and unphilosophical." 4 Being a refutation of the anti-Cabbalist Be~inath ha-Dath, Ma!}ref closely follows its arguments. The first argument challenges the fundamental Cabbalistic conception of the Torah as a mystical work, the knowledge of which the Cabbalists claim to be solely theirs. 5 Yashar's reply, even when taken at its face value, is weak and far from convincing. The literature he uses in support of this claim, the Zohar, Pardes, Reshith !Jokhmah, Nal;imanides' introduction to the Cf. lggroth ha-Ramaz (Livorno, 1780), p. 42a. Cf. his comments and notes in Se/er BeQ,inath ha-Dath (Wien, 1833), pp. 38-49. 3 Cf. "Einleitung," Melo Chofnajim, pp. 51-52, and notes, passim. 4 Ibid., p. 51; MUf!ref, pp. 12, 84; cf. also I. Barzilay, Between Reason and Faith, p. 144, n. 58. 5 Se/er BeQ,inath ha-Dath l'he-!Jakham ha-Mu/la ... Rabbi Eliyahu Delmedigo ... sec. ed. with commentary and notes by Yi~l,laq Shmuel Reggio (Wien, 1833), p. 38; "Bel,linath ha-Dath" in Ta'alumoth !Jokhmah, p. 5b. 1

2

282

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

Torah, etc., is a priori committed to mysticism, and cannot be used as an objective source to uphold its validity. More relevant seem the pneumatic passages from the Mishnah, bearing on ma'asei bereshith and ma'asei merkavah 1 which he adduces. However, the most such passages prove is the long standing of mystical trends in Judaism, offering no answer, however, as to the nature of these trends and whether there is any link between them and Zoharic mysticism, which is, after all, the crux of the problem. It has, moreover, been pointed out earlier that Yashar himself had little regard for these stories, and considered them mere legends. 2 This reply is also a very long one, indeed, much too long, for what Eliyahu's question would require. 3 Intentionally Yashar expands the framework of the discussion, in order to expose all the weaknesses and difficulties of the Cabbalistic doctrine and methods. He generally opens by stating the Cabbalistic point of view, but concludes by criticizing and deriding it. Since most of the material bearing on this part of the discussion has been referred to earlier, 4 we shall begin here with Yashar's reply to the second argument of Eliyahu, namely, that the "Geonim did not follow the path of the mystics ... and all of them, or most of them, knew nothing of it, but preferred a rationalist approach." 5 Strangely enough, instead of replying to this argument directly, he begins by citing the negative attitude toward the Cabbalah of R' Yi~l;i.aq bar Shesheth [Ribash] (1326-1407), the great Talmudist of the fourteenth century, of R' Shimshon of Chinon (died around 1350), 6 "the greatest scholar of his generation," and of R' Nissim [Ran] (died around 1380), the teacher of Crescas-all pillars of halakhic Judaism. R' Nissim is quoted as having been especially critical of Nal;i.madides for having devoted himself too zealously to the Cabbalah, which has neither an authentic tradition nor a clearly defined and understandable body of thought. 7 MWJref, p. 22. See above, p. 258. a M WJref, pp. 12-38. 4 Ibid., pp. 19-20, 22-23, 25-28; see above, pp. 249ff. 5 Beljinath ha-Dath (Reggio), pp. 39-40; in Ta'alumoth !Jokhmah, I, p. 5b; MWJref, pp. 38-47. 6 See on R' Shimshon of Chinon in Isaac Hirsch Weiss, Dor Dor v'Dorshav, vol. V (Vienna, 1891; offset, Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, no date), pp. 86-88. 7 MWJref, pp. 38-39; cf. Responsa of Isaac Bar Shesheth (Constantinople, 1547; Jerusalem, 1968), par. 157, p. 67. 1

2

MA~REF

LA-J;IOKHMAH

283

Allegedly replying to these criticisms, Yashar points out that, in those days, before the invention of printing, Cabbalistic works were not yet diffused, and only small pamphlets of that lore were to be found in Spain in the hands of a few.

In support of this explanation, he quotes ij:ayyat's introduction to his Min"i}ath Yehudah, in which the Spanish mystic of the second half of the fifteenth century warns against reading the books of Abraham Abulafia, and recommends instead a select and rather small list of other Cabbalistic texts, such as Sefer Yel}irah, Bahir, Zahar, and the commentaries of Gikatila, Recanati and Moshe de Leon. 1 Following this, Yashar adds : Indeed, before the appearance of the Pardes, the main source for the study of Cabbalah was the above mentioned Min~ath Yehudah of R' I.Iayyat, as there were few books in that lore ... The situation has completely changed, however, in our time, when an abundance of books became available : Cordovero's Parde.~ and his commentaries on the Zohar and Tiqqunim. Some ancient texts ... have also appeared ... but above all the Cabbalah of the divine, awesome, heavenly and holy Rabbi Y~q Luria Ashkenazi ... whose teachings are, to use the words of R' Menal;iem 'Aze.riah de Fano, superior to those of Cordovero, as the teachings of Cordovero are to those of QimJ:ii.2

Rather than a defense of the Cabbalah, we believe that this discussion contains many criticisms of it. Openly critical is the quotation from the Ribash. More subtle and concealed is the implied criticism in the quotation from ij:ayyat and his own remarks on it, by which Yashar intended to indicate that most Cabbalistic works are of recent origin, and only a small number of them may claim greater antiquity. It may further be assumed that by his insertion of Fano's statement regarding the superiority of the teachings of the Ari to those of Cordovero, Y ashar also intended to undermine the claim of the Cabbalists upon a valid tradition of their teachings. Indeed, it was this very statement which Modena subsequently used in his polemic against the Cabbalists. 3 Following this prelude, Yashar finally comes to grips with the question posed by Eliyahu. In direct reply to it, he quotes a responsum Ma$ref, pp. 39-40. Cf. Sefer Ma'arekheth Ha-Elahuth (Ferrara, 1557), "!Jaqdamah." Ibid., pp. 40-il. 3 After quoting these words of 'Azariah Fano, Modena asks : how can the Cabbalists claim to be in the possession of a "Cabbalah" (tradition)? Were there such a tradition from early times, Cordovero too should have known what R' Yi~J:iaq Ashkenazi was subsequently to know [Ari Nohem, chap. 14, pp. 48-49]. 1

2

284

Y ASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

(no. 29) of R' Shlomo Luria and a manuscript in his own possession which he attributes to R' Eli'ezer, author of Roqe'a~, both containing genealogies of early Ashkenazi scholars and liturgical rhymsters, whose forefathers, according to family traditions, arrived in Italy from the East, and from Italy migrated, in the days of Charlemagne, to the Rhine valley. The texts attribute to them a knowledge of the mysteries of the Hebrew alphabet and prayers. Important as the data of these texts are with regard to the historical roots of medieval Ashkenazi Hasidism, it is quite doubtful whether Y ashar himself believed that a link could be established between it and Zoharic mysticism. The same is true with regard to the mystical leanings of R' Hai and other Geonim to which reference is made in a quotation from Shemtob's Sefer ha-Emunoth. A .final citation from Me'ir ben Gabbai's Tola'ath Ya'acov traces the early mystical traditions of Spanish Jewry, beginning with R' David, the father of Maimonides' contemporary and critic, R' Abraham, through his son, Isaac the Blind, and his two disciples, Ezra' and 'Azri'el, and ending with Nal;imanides.1 There is nothing of a concealed critical attitude discoverable in these texts. They indicate, indeed, the existence of mystical proclivities and traditions, especially with regard to prayers, among the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jewry in the West. They also point to the existence of such leanings among some of the later Babylonian Geonim, and trace the mystical currents among Spanish Jews to the early part of the twelfth century. Disregarding the historical aspect of the problem, whether these trends in Babylonia, Western Europe and Spain have anything to do with the later Cabbalah or not 2-a problem for which neither Yashar nor his contemporaries have shown any understanding -Yashar's reply to Eliyahu seems genuine and effective. This conclusion becomes doubtful, however, in view of the finale of this discussion, in which Yashar attempts to show that also Maimonides belonged to the early mystics. He quotes ben Gabbai's 'Avodath ha-Qodesh and Moshe Alashqar's Hassagoth (refutations) on Shemtov's Sefer ha-Emunoth to the effect of stating that in his old age Maimonides rejected the rationalist approach and fully embraced Cabbalah. 3 It MG,firef, pp. 41-44. For an illuminating discussion of this difficult problem, see G. Scholem, Reshith ha-Cabbalah v'Sefer ha-Bahir, and idem, Ha-Cabbalah bi-Provence, Lectures at the Hebrew Univ. (1962-1963), edited by Rivkah Shatz (Academon, Jerusalem, 1966), passim. 3 Ma§ref, pp. 45-46; see, "Mikhtav ha-Meyu"1.as !'Maran ha-Rambam v'Noda' b'Shem 1

2

MA~REF

LA-J;IOKHMAH

285

must be obvious, however, to anyone who has read even parts of , N ovloth or Elim, in which the philosophical views of Maimonides constitute as a rule the center of the discussion, that Yashar could not have been serious about such assertions. One need only recall the high praises he showers on the orderliness and lucidity of Maimonides' teachings, to realize that nothing could be farther from Yashar's thought than to attribute to him mystical leanings. Indeed, he himself refers to Maimonides' negative comments on the ba'alei shem, 1 and only a few pages prior to this assertion he quotes I:fayyat's condemnation and derision of Abraham Abulafia for his "stupid" attempt to interpret the Guide in the light of "a fabricated Cabbalah which did not even occur to Maimonides, nor enter his thought." 2 Most of Yashar's subsequent refutations of Eliyahu's arguments deal with the relationship between the Zahar, on the one hand, and the Talmud and poseqim, on the other. But, they are all weak and most of them insincere. Thus, in reply to Eliyahu's argument that the Talmud knows nothing of Cabbalistic views, he asserts that this argument is of no strength at all. By the same token one may ask, for instance, why there is nothing in books of medicine about the art of sea-faring or woodwork. Preoccupied as the Talmudists are with the deduction of new laws by the rules of Scriptural inference, they are not concerned with investigations of Ein Sof and spheres. Indeed, it is inconceivable that two areas so widely apart from each other should form the subject of one and the same book ... There must have been special books for these profound studies, the exposition of which, like that of other [secular] subjects, was prohibited in the academies.a

It goes without saying, that such a view of the Talmud is utterly untrue, and no one was more aware of it than Yashar. Indeed, throughout his writings he displays an untiring zeal for digging up Megillath Setarim" in Ari Nohem (Leibowitz), pp. 143-149. See also Abravanel Isaac, Na"f;,alath Avoth (Venetia, 1545; N.Y., 1953), end of comm. on ch. 3, p. 209. Meir ben Gabbai, Se/er 'Avodath ha-Qodesh(Lwow, 1848), ":Q.eleq ha-'avodah", chap. XIII, p. 17a; Moshe Alashqar, Hassagoth etc. (Ferrara, 1557), p. 10. 1 "Mikhtav A:Q.uz," Melo Ohojnajim, pp. 9, 11, 16, 18; Guide, I, 61, 62. 2 MQ,f!ref, p. 40. Cf. G. Scholem, "From Philosopher to Cabbalist (a Legend of the Cabbalists on Maimonides)" [Hebrew], Tarbiz, VI (1934-1935), pp. 90-98. See also Alexander Altmann, "Das Verhaltniss Maimunis zur jiidischen Mystik," MGWJ, LXXX (1936), 305-330. 3 M afire/, p. 59.

286

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

the spiritualist and legendary parts of the Talmud, which deal with angels and souls, demons and ghosts, cosmogony, theology, etc. Furthermore, according to Shmuel Ashkenazi, Y ashar even composed a special volume on medicine in the Talmud, Levav lfokhmah, in which he discussed "the reasons for the cures prescribed by the Talmud ... its various remedies, conjurations ... and witchcraft." He was proud of that volume, since no Gentile scholar ever composed anything like it.1 In his Be"f.i,inath ha-Dath Eliyahu advanced five arguments against the contention of the Cabbalists that Shim'on bar Yo}.i.ai is the author of the Zohar: (1) Were he the author, at least something of the Zohar should have been mentioned in the Talmud, either in a beraitha or an aggadah; such reference, however, "is nowhere to be found." (2) There are to be found in the Zohar many names of sages who lived long after the time of R' Shim'on, and who are also mentioned in the Talmud. (3) The book became known among our people "only about three hundred years ago." (4) Were R' Shim'on the father of the Cabbalists, and in possession of a true knowledge of the mysteries of the laws and their implications, his opinion ought to have prevailed [in all halakhic disputes in the Talmud], which is not the case, however;

and, finally, (5), there are frequent disagreements regarding legal decisions between the Cabbalists, on the one hand, and the Talmudists and poseqim, on the other. 2 Yashar divides these arguments into two groups. In answer to Eliyahu's first question, why nothing of the Zohar is ever mentioned in the Talmud if its author is R' Shim'on, he takes refuge in the assertion of ]:Iayyat, in his introduction to Min~ath Yehudah and the Tiqqunim, that it was destined for the Zohar to remain hidden and for its discovery to usher in the messianic era. "This," Yashar declares, "is a decisive answer to the first and third questions." Moreover, by "his third question, he himself gave an answer to the first one: since the book did not become known in Talmudic times, there could be no reference to it in the Talmud." Finally, Yashar writes that Eliyahu is right in his argument if what he implies by it is that the Talmudists did not mention R' Shim'on explicitly by name or quote him verbatim; there are, however, a number of things in the Zohar which are also to be found in the l Ibid., "Haqdamath ha-Magihah"; for Modena's comment on this reply, see Ari Nohem, chap. 11, pp. 35-36; for Reggio's comment, Be"l;inath ha-Dath, p. 42. 2 "Be]J.inath ha-Dath" in Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah, p. 5b; in Reggio's edition, pp. 43-44.

MA~REF

LA-lilOKHMAH

287

midrashim and Gemara, although they are somewhat differently phrased. Indeed, this is obvious to anyone who has read the Zohar.l

It is only too obvious that all this discussion is nothing but a piece of sophistry aiming at the opposite of what Yashar feigns to prove. As regards the quotation from J;Iayyat, suffice it to mention that in the "Iggereth AI!uz" Yashar singled out J;Iayyat's works, together with Recanati' s, for burning. 2 Yashar' s second argument is interesting in its subtlety. Yashar asserts that Eliyahu himself answered the first question by his third one. In question one Eliyahu argued that there is nothing in the Talmud regarding the Zohar, and in three-that the Zohar had become known only in the last three centuries. Yashar justly observes that it is sufficient to accept the view that the Zohar became known only recently, to realize why it could not have been mentioned in the Talmud. It is obvious that by this subtlety Yashar merely pointed out a certain redundancy in the logical argumentation of Eliyahu, but otherwise Yashar rather upheld his contention with regard to the lateness of the Zohar. This logical subtlety, it is worth noting, seems to have escaped Reggio, who angrily labels Yashar's reasoning on this point as twisted.a Yashar uses a less subtle sophistry in his third argument, asserting that "there are some things in the Zohar which are also to be found in the midrashim and Gemara." Eliyahu argued that there was nothing in the Talmud regarding the Zohar; Yashar replies that there is "something" in the Zohar which is traceable to the Talmud and the Midrash; thus, he not only fails to refute Eliyahu's contention, but actually strengthens it. In refutation of Eliyahu's second argument, namely, that many of the names mentioned in the Zohar belong to later generations, Yashar points out that this is not as serious a problem as it appears to be, and that it may be solved by an analogy with the Mishnah and the Gemara. Although composed by R' Yehudah, the Mishnah contains the earlier traditions of R' 'Aqiva and R' Me'ir, equally the Zohar, although composed and given final form by R' Shim'on's disciples and their disciples, its basic teachings go back, no doubt, to R' Shim'on. The same is also true of the Talmud. Though it was "sealed" by R' Ashi, it contains many subsequent additions by the Saborites. 4 pp. 60-61. Melo Chofnajim, p. 9. Be'J;,inath ha-Dath, p. 43. M~ref, pp. 61-62.

1 M~ref, 2

3

4

288

Y ASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

Whether this reasoning is valid is not our direct concern here. A rather strong case against it was made by Reggio. 1 More pertinent to our discussion is the question regarding Yashar's sincerity or the lack of it with regard to this argument. Whereas the present text offers no clue, some light on it may be shed by the "Al;mz" letter, in which he writes: They [the Cabbalists] claim that Shim'on [bar Yol:,i.ai] composed the Zohar, although there are mentioned in it opinions of Amora'im who lived hundreds of years after him. What person would let himself be fooled into such a belief, in the face of such convincing evidence to the cont.rary, unless he assumes that R' Shim'on was a prophet and knew in advance the names of all the sages, the stories of their lives, and the opinions of the generations yet to be born.2

Yashar's reply is somewhat ambiv-alent to Eliyahu's contention that the opinion of R' Shim'on does not prevail in halakhic matters, a fact that is puzzling if he truly is the father of the secret lore and supposedly familiar with the mysteries of the Law. He bases his reply on an analogy with the Talmudic controversy between R' Eli'ezer and R' Yehoshu'a regarding the "oven of Akhnai." 3 Although a heavenly voice was heard in support of R' Eli'ezer, his opinion was rejected, to indicate that, notwithstanding the fact that the law is in accordance with the views of the mystics, we [non-mystics] must nevertheless proceed in accordance with the rules of exegetical inference which were given to us from Sinai ... However, an individual, endowed by the grace of God, and so much superior to the other sages as to know the truth from another source, he must not follow their simple path. This is why R' Eli'ezer persisted in his argument and did not accept the reply of R' Yehoshu'a. The same applies to R' Shim'on and the poseqim who disagree with him. Unaware as the latter were of the mystical lore, they followed their own method, which must also be the method of all those who walk in their footsteps, especially in cases in which their opinion has become the accepted norm ... [In short], one who has not studied the secret lore ought not to abandon the clear statements of the Gemara in exchange for some allusion or tradition.4

Whatever one's view of this reply, there is little doubt that, as far as the general question of the legal authority of the Zohar versus that of the Talmud is concerned, Yashar fully aligned himself with the prevalent rabbinical stand, which, as a rule, resisted the attempts 1 Be'IJ,inath ha-Dath, comm., pp. 43-44; see also Isaiah Tish bi, Introduction to Mishnath ha-Zahar, I, pp. 74-75. 2 Melo Ohofnajim, p. 10. 3 '•Nl::>l7 l;iw i·mn", BT, BM, 59b. 4 M Ul}ref, p. 66.

MA~REF

LA-J;IOKHMAH

289

of the Cabbalists to introduce changes in the vital area of Jewish law and custom on the mere strength of the Zohar. 1 Indeed, such is also his stand in "Iggereth Al;rnz" and in the following sections of Mal}rej.2 Worth noting also in this reply is Yashar's unobtrusive statement, simply asserting that the poseqim were unaware of the mystical lore. Y ashar's reply to the final argument of Eliyahu regarding the legal disagreements between the Zohar and the poseqim is camouflaged and anti-Cabbalist. Eliyahu's reasoning, he argues, is faulty. On the one hand, he denies R' Shim'on's authorship of the Zohar, since that work had become known only some three hundred years ago, and, on the other hand, he says that the poseqim are against him. However, were the author a recent man,3 he would have already seen the writings of R' Asher (Rosh) and the Tur, considered by most Jews legalistically authoritative. How is it that he paid no attention to them, but ruled against them. You cannot say that the author of the Zahar was a plain ignorant man, as are most of the Cabbalists, who master neither the Talmud nor the codes. Preoccupied as they constantly are with the inner meanings, they are ignorant of the external meanings. The Zahar, however, does contain wonderful interpretations which are more precious than gold, and in its treasures there are such excellent things that even its opponents admit that its author was a great man,4

It is superflous to observe that chronologically Yashar's argument is all wrong. Assuming with Eliyahu, as he does, that the Zohar only became known some three hundred years ago, this would place its appearance around the end of the twelfth century, 5 a century prior to R' Asher (d. 1328) and almost a century and a half prior to his son Ya'acov (died 1340), author of the Tur. Thus, the author of the Zohar could have been "a recent man" and yet unacquainted with more recent legalistic developments. Yashar knew these historical data quite well. He had in his possession Abraham Zacuto's Sefer Yu~asin, Yoseph ha-Cohen's 'Emeq ha-Bakha, Gedaliah hen Ya}:tya's Shalsheleth ha-Oabbalah and David Ganse's $ema~ David, 6 all of which

2

Supra, p. 235. Melo Chafnajim, p. 10;

3

·tJ•liimm~

l

iiT'N

Ma~ref,

pp. 67-82.

Ma,iref, p. 62. Eliyahu completed his Bel;tinath ha-Dath at the end of 1491. See "Bel;i.inath haDath" in Ta'alumoth If.okhmah, p. Sb. 6 Melo Chofnajim, p. 23. 4

5

290

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

give quite exact dates for the lives of these two great legalists. He thus could not have been serious with his argument that the author of the Zohar "must already have seen the writings of the Rosh and the Tur." What he most likely did intend to imply was that the discrepancy between the Zohar and the poseqim was not the result of an independent stand on the part of the Zohar in halakhic matters, bur rather the result of its author's ignorance of Halakhah. To make such a statement, however, was too dangerous, even when camouflaged. Nevertheless, he almost does just that. He praises the Zohar, but only on account of its beautiful midrashim, and openly criticizes the Cabbalists for their ignorance of Jewish law, a criticism he most likely thought also pertinent with regard to the author of the Zohar. Yashar devoted a sizeable part of Ma§ref 1 to the legal disagreements between the codes and the Zohar. He assiduously collected an impressive body of such disagreements (about thirty-five), some of which deal with such basic aspects of Jewish law and custom as tefillin, prayers, diet, ablutions, the synagogue building, the reading of the Torah, and many more. He frequently quotes from Caro, Isserles, Luria and many others, all of whom reiterate the view that in all cases of disagreement between the Talmud and the Zohar, it is always the view of the former that must be adhered to. 2 Worth noting, finally, are several "queer and difficult" passages from the Zohar which Yashar adduces, allegedly to illustrate his objective approach, but which obviously aim to show the opposite, namely, the legalistic weakness and the superstitious character of the work. He quotes the Zohar as stating that a Hebrew slave is exempt from the commandments of the Torah, a statement, he observes, that is in contradiction to the Talmud. He further points out that regarding the moon, it is stated in the Zohar that, "when eclipsed in full, it is an ill omen for Jews, and when eclipsed in crescent it is an ill omen for Ishma'elites," on which he comments that "even beginners in astronomy know that there can be no eclipse of the moon while in crescent shape." In the final passage, the Zohar is quoted as stating that:

1 2

Ma§ref, pp. 67-82. Ibid., pp. 69-70, 72-74, and more.

MA~REF LA-J~fOKHMAH

291

There are seven earths inside the globe of the earth ... each with a sky that separates it from the others, and each with its own paradise and hell and all kinds of queer creatures.

Yashar assures the reader that he "collected" all these "difficult" passages in a separate book and interpreted them. He furthermore notes that "some strange things are also found in the Talmud, though we know that their meaning is different than what it appears to be." 1 The list of proofs to uphold our contention that Ma~ref is a camouflaged work, in which Yashar undertook to criticize the Cabbalah and deride it, rather than defend and praise it, can no doubt be extended. 2 We believe, however, that what has been already adduced sufficiently substantiates our thesis. 1 Ibid., pp. 82-83. Cf. Ha-Zohar (with Sulam Com.)," Vayiqra," pars. 134: 137; "Behar," par. 9; "Ki Tetze," par. 113. 2 See, for instance, Mairref, pp. 63-64, 83-84, and pa11sim.

CHAPTER NINETEEN

PHILOSOPHICATION OF THE CABBALAH AND ITS FAIL URE In winding up our discussion of the Cabbalah in the writings of Yashar, one major point needs further emphasis, namely, Yashar's philosophical approach to the Cabbalah in Novlotk Ifokkmah. In Ma~ref he conducted his anti-Cabbalist polemic on a rather low intellectual level, and the character of the work, as he himself admits, is popular and unphilosophical. This is evident from both the subjects of the discussion, as well as the methods of argumentation. He mainly dealt with the popular aspects of the Cabbalistic lore, displaying few scruples in the choice of means of criticism. His tactics included sarcasm and camouflage, subtle sophistries and outright logical fallacies. He conducts the discussion of the Cabbalah on a somewhat higher level and in a more genuine atmosphere in Novlotk lfokhmak. This notwithstanding, the treatment .of the Cabbalah in Novwth is equally critical. Moreover, at times these criticisms are rather direct and open. Yashar does not hesitate to admit to a number of disagreements between him and the Cabbalists with regard to some basic concepts of the lore. 1 This, however, is of only minor importance. It is even possible that such admissions are deliberate and of a rather tactical nature, as by them he may have wanted to strengthen the impression of his mystical posture and to remove any doubts as regards his basic commitment to mysticism. More essential for an understanding of N ovlotk in general and the role of the Cabbalah in it in particular is Yashar's attempt at rationalizing the Cabbalah. It is obvious, almost from the opening of the work, that his preoccupation with the Cabbalah is not prompted by mystical tendencies, but is part of his philosophical quest. He arrived at it not in search of a deeper religious experience, but to find solutions to the problems of metaphysics. He writes at the beginning of Novloth: If you will pay attention to the words [of the Cabbalists], you will find that their works contain the answers to such problems as creation and creatio ex nihilo, which the philosophers have posed, but to which they could find no solutions ... 2 i

2

Novwth, pp. 3a, 50a, 113-114. I bid., p. 2a.

PHILOSOPHICATION OF CABBALAH AND ITS FAILURE

293

Throughout the work his attitude is that of an observer, constantly examining the Cabbalistic notions philosophically, attempting at times to discover their historical roots. Thus, he rationalizes the catastrophic breaking of the sephiroth (shevirath ha-sephiroth), as signifying the contemplative process in the Divine Mind that preceded creation, 1 and, as seen, he juxtaposes the views of the philosophers and Cabbalists on the macrocosm-microcosm parallelism. The view of some natural philosophers regarding the universal penetrability of light, even through opaque bodies-a view they infer from the existence of metals and minerals in the depth of the earth-Yashar considers "close to the view of the Cabbalists who assert that sparks of purity are to be found even in the qelippoth (impurities), otherwise the latter would have no existence." 2 That the major attraction of the Cabbalah for Yashar was philosophical is obvious from the fact that it is primarily to its cosmogonical speculations that he has recourse, speculations which are also in the center of his philosophical quest. Indeed, he uses some of the Cabbalistic notions to elucidate and "solve" metaphysical problems. Thus, he interprets the Cabbalistic ayin (nihil), resulting from the withdrawal of the Divine Essence from primaeval space, in terms of the philosophers' hyle, and analogously attributes the emergence of form to the withdrawal of divine light. Equally, he rationalizes the Cabbalistic a§iluth. Rejecting its conception in terms of a stage in the process of externalization, he attaches to it a purely Platonic meaning, the inwardness of the idea of the universe in the Divine Mind. Above all, it appears that Yashar uses the Cabbalah to uphold his major conviction-the eternity of the universe. In that spirit he interprets both the commentaries on the Biblical story of creation, as well as the theory of emanation propounded by Platonists and Cabbalists alike. This rationalizing tendency reaches its climax in the concluding essay of Novloth, "Ko'al;i. ha-Shem" (pp. 198-206). Yashar opens that essay with a pious statement concerning the uniqueness of the Hebrew language. In conformity with the views held by such men as David Provencal, Yehudah Moscato, 'Azariah de Rossi, Shmuel Archivolti, David del Bene and other intellectuals of the Renaissance periodviews traceable to the K uzari or the midrashim-Yashar first asserts 1

2

Ibid., p. 3a. Ibid., p. Sa.

294

YASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

his belief in the uniqueness of the Hebrew language. It belongs, he declares, to the divine inventions which God, blessed be He, invented at the time of the creation ... or before. All [Hebrew] words, nouns and verbs, did not come by way of accident, chance or convention, as is the case with other languages, but [in consequence] of a wonderful plan and deep counsel. They are all grounded in mysteries and profound reasons, the names of things actually indicating their essences.l

It is upon this premise, he points out, that the Oabbalists base their views and practices. Each material letter, they assert, represents a spiritual counterpart, "hewn from the awesome sephiroth, and when that letter is written or uttered devoutly, it has the power to activate the heavenly forces." Of greater power and holiness are whole words, "since composites are more perfect than their parts." The holy words, written on parchment, merge with their spiritual counterparts, stimulating the flow of the heavenly abundance. A God-fearing man, proficient in the origins of the letters and their combinations, may therefore, by merely uttering them, bring forth creatures and angels that would execute his commands and wishes. Indeed, it is in this manner that the prophets, some of the Talmudic sages and the Cabbalists act.2 Following this introduction, the authorship of which is claimed by Ashkenazi, 3 the discussion turns to the subject of the mystical qualities and forces inherent in the letters. They are described as originally concealed in the Divine Mind, but subsequently emerging as potent agents in the universal drama of creation. Using the stratagem of a befuddled interrogator, the author expresses the view that what the Oabbalists say regarding "dots, lines, letters and vowels, namely, that they stand for a great deal more than what is pronounced by mouth and tongue," comes actually very close to what the magicians and sorcerers say, namely, that from the motions of the material flame and the hissing of the coals, [spiritual] letters are born, which are not the same as the material letters, and only one well versed in the art of fortune telling can communicate through them.4

More revealing with regard to Yashar's attitude to the Cabbalah and his rationalist approach is the comparison he draws between the

3

Ibid., p. 198a. Ibid., pp. 200-201. Ibid., p. 20la.

4

1 bid., ibid.

i

2

'PfilLOSOPHICATION OF CABBALAH AND ITS FAILURE

295

mysticism of the letters and the atomistic theories of the Ancients. The speculations of the Cabbalists about dots and letters, he unequivocally declares, differ but little from the speculations of philosophers like Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, and others with regard to the atoms. If everything consist.s of everything, as Democritus thought, it necessarily follows that everything must be contained in everything, which is also the view of the Cabbalists ... You must have seen what they write in their books, that each nefesh consists of nefesh, ru'al),, neshamah, l),ayyah, yelfidah,l and so also does each ru'alf etc. Equally, they say that each letter consists of all the twenty two letters, and each letter of the name of God [of the letters] yod, heh, vav, heh, and each word of the Torah-of all the words therein . . . You must know that the letters are indicative of forces or capacities, and parts of the letters, such as lines, of fragments of forces. For there are many forces in each letter and in each line. Indeed, there are as many forces in the line, as the number of points from which it is composed. Words are dissolvent into forces, and those forces into other forces ... until one reaches the elementary forces which, like the atoms, are indivisible anymore.2

To make his idea even clearer, he adds illustrations from the art of printing. He writes : Long before printing was invented in Europe, this art was known for almost a thousand years in the kingdom of China and Japan ... Some of their ·scholarly books in medicine and astronomy have been brought over to the city of Amsterdam ... and we saw that in their print they do not have separate letters, but whole words, making it neoesaary to have as many blocks as the number of words ... For practical purposes, therefore, the European method of separation into letters is preferable.a

all

By observing the work of the printer, Yashar suggests, one may get a clear notion of the atomic theory of matter and of the views of the Cabbalists which are very similar, though they express them in terms of alphabetical letters. The printers produce books that differ in words and style, although they use the same letters of the alphabet. You cannot say that there is any other reason [for this difference] besides the changed situation of the letters. The very same letters from which they make books on logic, after they are separated, serve to produce books on physics or theology. Nothing else is required but a change in the order, composition and situation [of the letters].4 Supra, pp. 267-268. Not'loth, p. 202. The Renaissance witnessed a revival of interest in the ancient theories of the atomists. See Thomas Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists (4th edit., Hildesheim, 1961), pp. 198-199. See also Novloth, 56, 66b. a Ibid., p. 202b. 4 Ibid., p. 201b. 1

2

296

Y ASHAR AND THE CABBALAH

This pattern of the employment of letters by the printer is followed by matter throughout the universe. "The multiplicity of being is the result of varying positions and compositions" of the atoms. Similar to the printer who takes apart the words and, rearranging their components-the letters-makes new words, also nature dissolves its composites, and from their parts-the atoms-brings forth new composites. Using the simile of the letters, the author now interprets the pristine state preceding §im§um, as a state in which all the letters were merged in His essence, making it impossible for Him to reveal Himself in many actions ...

Parallel to our preference for the European system of printing by separate letters to that of the Chinese system by whole blocks, the Almighty, blessed be He, [also] preferred the world of separation, splitting asunder the letters.... Thus, a person familiar with the art of letter combinations, is in a position to construct worlds, as, indeed, the sages tell about Bezalel who knew to combine the letters through which heaven and earth came into existence.

In the light of this simile, Yashar now suggests that the meaning of the "divine cloak" [malbush] may become comprehensible. It is "a texture of the letters with which God clothed Himself to create the world." Indeed, it is "like the tool of the craftsman," and its innumerable combinations the multiple forces which brought the great variety of beings into existence.1 These sober and illuminating remarks may be considered the actual conclusion of the whole volume, Ta'alumoth lfokhmah. Their implication is clear, proving conclusively that the author's search for "solutions" of the great problems of creation and existence, for which he took refuge in the Cabbalah, ended in total failure and disappointment. Considered in its own framework and terms, the Lurianic Cabbalah is nothing but a myth leading to superstition and witchcraft. Again, when rationalized, it is only a new garb to the ancient views of the atomists, on the one hand, and the logos of the Neo-Platonists, on the other.

1

Ibid., pp. 202b.203.

PART SIX

RELATIONS AND ATTITUDES

CHAPTER TWENTY

YASHAR'S CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE Yashar's criticism of the Cabbalah is one aspect only-a most pronounced one, indeed-of a criticism of wider scope and proportions, directed against other aspects of Judaism as well. In this respect he was not alone. Contemporary critics of Judaism also were Uriel da Costa, Modena and, somewhat later, Spinoza, as well as others. In contradistinction, however, to the criticisms of these men which were of a relatively embracing and systematic nature, the criticisms of Yashar were sporadic, and, for the most part, indirect and concealed. Apparently stimulated by a desire to uncover the roots of Cabbalistic and occult tendencies in Judaism, Yashar turned to both the spiritualist literature of ancient and medieval times, on the one hand, and the Talmud and the Bible, on the other hand. With his mind set on what may be described as a study of Jewish superstition, his remarks on the Bible and the Talmud are necessarily limited in scope and one-sided in character. They nevertheless deserve attention, if only for the fact that they constitute one of the earliest expressions of a critical attitude that was becoming noticeable among segments of Jewry of the modern age with regard to the basic religious texts of Judaism. Yashar's views on religion in general have been discussed earlier in the context of his theory of knowledge. As seen, they were well in line with the Averroist teachings of the Renaissance which had become especially popular in the universities of northern Italy. In accordance with them, he drew a demarcation line between reason and faith, asserting that religion constitutes an area in itself, different both in its subject matter and method of ascertainment from either demonstrative or speculative knowledge. Yashar's remarks on the Mosaic Law are strongly rationalist and reflect current thinking on religion in general. He places it on a par with the ancient constitutions of Solon, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, whose aim, he asserts, was no other than the welfare of man and society, and the enh!l-ncement of peace and prosperity. He also minimizes the uniqueness of Judaism in other respects. "Many peoples have two laws", a written and an oral, and the concealment of the reasons for the laws is typical of other religions as well. Thus, while

300

RELATIONS AND ATTITUDES

publicly proclaiming the rewards and punishments in store for those who keep these laws or infract them, the reasons behind the law, especially as regards the divine laws, are not divulged. Were the people to know these reasons, he explains, they would become negligent of the laws. Leaders such as Moses and Joshua were undoubtedly well aware of them, "however, they did not consider it proper to make them known to the mass of the people." 1 The implications of such a view are obviously far-reaching and need not be elaborated upon here. Suffice it to observe that it not only is in total contradiction to the thinking of the mystics, but also of traditional Jews. Whether this view also implies a denial of the divine origin of the Law is, of course, a matter open to debate; it certainly reduces, however, its supernatural significance. Another obvious implication is the rather pragmatic and popular concept of religion which underlies it. A line is drawn between the people and its leadership. The mystery enshrouding the Law is only a stratagem to which the leaders had recourse for the purpose of effecting greater obedience by the masses. The inference to be drawn by Spinoza somewhat later in the century, namely, that the knowledge of Biblical narrative and Law is inessential to those living by the light of their reason, is obviously close at hand. 2 Such ideas, and even more extreme ones, seem to have become rather common in Italy during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In certain circles the views were expressed that immortality of the soul was an invention to strengthen the spirit of the people; that tho first man was formed by natural causes; that miracles are nothing other than the work of impostors or illusions; that prayers, invocations to saints and the cult of relics arc of no effect at all, and that religion in general is of value only t-0 the simple minded.3

Noteworthy is Yashar's view of prophecy, a view subsequently elaborated upon by Spinoza. In opposition to Maimonides, he asserts that its aim is not to teach wisdom and truth, but to stimulate people to do good and to keep the commandments. 4 1 Elim, p. 82. Y ashar's views concerning the nature and aim of the revealed law come close to those of YitsQ.aq Albalag of the 13th cent. For bib!., see above, p. 179, n. 3. 2 Cf. Bcnedicti De Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, transl. into Hebrew by Ch. Wirszubski (Israel, 1961), chap. 5, especially pp. 6lff, and passim. 3 E. Renan, Averroes et l'Averroisme, p. 358. 4 Mat1ref, p. 85; In Guide, II, 38, Maimonides writes : Know that the true prophets indubitably grasp speculative matters; by meaus of

YASHAR'S CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE

301

As regards the text of the Bible, Y ashar expresses the view that many of its obscurities and difficulties are due to errors by copyists and scribes, unwarranted insertions by Masoretes 1 and foreign linguistic influences. 2 Worth mentioning are some of Yashar's specific observations. The fact that in the Book of Chronicles are enumerated seven generations of the descendants of Jeconiah, 3 he points out, shows that it is a late work, written "a long time after the first destruction." Its fuller passages, as compared with those of Kings, concerning the same events, must not, he thinks, be treated seriously. They are interpretative additions to Kings, rather than independent statements based on new materials. He writes : You know how the narratives from the time after the destruction vary from each other. They are like the narratives of recent historiographers among whom you will not find two who agree with each other even on one and the same event. 4

As seen, Yashar advocates the separation of reason and faith, and consequently opposes the allegorization and rationalization of the Bible. The prophets, he declares, were not philosophers, and it is wrong to attach to their words meanings which did not even occur to them. 5 Such an attitude, though seemingly pious and in accordance with a later-day historical point of view, is actually neither the one nor the other. Thus-to give only two examples-his alleged rejection of Maimonides' interpretation of angels in the Bible in terms of secondary causes, and his opposition to the rationalization of the story of the witch of En Dor,a are by no means prompted by a desire to uphold the literal authenticity of the Biblical narrative, as he himself seems to imply, but rather by the desire to show the primitive and superstitious nature of the Biblical narrative. Nor should this attitude be interpreted as indicative of a growing historical awareness on his part. On the contrary, as has been customary for hundreds of years, also his speculation alone, man is unable to grasp the causes from which what a prophet has come to know necessarily follows. [Pines-Straus, p. 377]; see also, Spinoza, op. cit., chap. 2, p. 31; supra, p. 178, n. 3. 1 Mt>~il •iE>t>:l j:'"il':i ii~l;i• Nl:ii, Novloth, p. 80b. 3 The original Text reads :

i

l:i"TM 037, ilTil i:in~il :iiil 037 Cl':lO~lV '1'137, •n•':il •i:ii !DNi:i i:i::i 'lNi CJNi:iiJ:i ,,~N J::ii inNi:in 1'\'lVNi iNij?l!D l:iNi!Zl' l:i•:ilV:i 1'\'lVNi:i ,!Z.',,!Z.' o•npE>':i pii o•1'g;lVi o•':i•o::i:i 'ii yg;n J'N •::i .i,,,lil oiNil t:1ili:iN l:i•:i!Z.':i · · ·Ji::i• Npii ilT':i Cl'il':iN 1'\N !Z.'iii ':i•::iw~ N:S~' l:J':iN~ 'N il;i•g;Ni f!:>M ilii~il :iii! v,,,,~::i ,,T ii':iilo ii':i !Z.''tv •'1'1£> n~·::in~ iltviipil i1niin ni•il:ii ri::i•n J":l37 ·illi::iil l:iN iw"n~ ':i::i ilV"~!Z.' ':i37 iliin iE>o Nip1tv 'l' '£> l"n:i •iE>o:i j:'"ill:i ii~':i· Nl:ii • • • iliinil 't>:i niip':i imi~l:i· 1i1•n':i i17lil 37'l'tv o•iiitv~il •iE>o:i J'1'':ii ti• 'm!Zll:i o·i~':i~!Z.' ni~iNil itv37' i!Z.'N::i o•iE>t>~il 1'\'!Z.'Ni:i 'O!l i':i•iJ iNiip:ii •t:l'ij?!Z.'i Cl':lT:l Cl!l1''~!Z.' oiN•':i•li•ii oii·~iN 1'\NTi •Clil'l':l ill!D '37 J!l Jj:'T~ ini• nml:iN:i l'!l~ Cl'ill:iN::i il'ili i'l'37 inj?E>' '!Zl!:>lil m~l:itvil J'lj:' 1'\l:lil l'l37!l il~'!Z.'1'\ t:l"il TVNi':i il!Z.'~ Cl!Z.' iTVN iliinil i•~il;i37 '~':l ':i::iiNil ':i:l!V i~::i •t:11:ii371;i 'Mi l:i::iNi 1 il!l Cl'j:''TM~':i Cl"M f37 Niiltv t:Jil!D o•i::i1i1 •i':i• o•wi37 Jil i!Z7N:l ·ni'17!l1'il JilTV ,37,, :ii1' n17iil f37~ in•:i o':i•l •1:ii oni~::iiv o•i:i37il ,,.,, l;i37 lVNi oii• •t:1no•i37~ t:l'E>t>':iE>n~ 1 illi~n l;i::i l:i:ipl:i l~,T~, 1i::il .,,,l, ii•:s •':i:i J:ll:i nil:i::i Clni'il:l T37 in•i 1'\N!Z.' jJ•E)it>i':i•!:>iJ iT mi:s ,,N '1'\!V!Z.' ·illi~Nil •i:ii~ ni~ij:'il Cl~37 l:i:i o:i':i pl:in ·il':ii37 iT niii• iTw::ii i1':i!lj?ili 1

1

1

1

,,T.,

1

1

Novloth, pp. 80b-8la; for Yashar's use of the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of Knowledge," see Guide, I., 2

ATTITUDE TOWARD NON-JEWS

319

the text seems to imply-the answer is that God has no use for fools, but only for the wise. Israel is the goal of creation because of its wisdom. If you continue to ask, "whence does that wisdom come?" the answer is, "the Torah." Accordingly, Yashar highly praises Jewish education for introducing the child to that wisdom, by teaching him the Book of Genesis. This book, he declares, predisposes him for spiritual perfection. This concludes the first part of the passage. The second part is somewhat simpler and more genuine, clearly stating the superiority of Gentile education over Jewish education in the area of natural learning. It thus appears that, at its face value at least, the whole passage is logical and its train of thought quite clear : it praises the secular education of the Gentiles; asserts, however, the incomparably superior nature of Jewish education in the more vital area of one's spiritual welfare. Though apparently true, such an interpretation is undoubtedly incorrect, at least as far as the first part of the passage is concerned. Indeed, Yashar's true views contradict the ones he apparently embraces. It needs no great insight to realize that Yashar's assertion regarding his alleged belief in the view of the midrash that creation was meant for the sake of Abraham or Israel, is not to be taken seriously at all. Indeed, this view has been sarcastically derided in the two passages from Elim and Novloth which have just been cited. It is, no doubt, for the same purpose, of refuting it, that he also inserted the reference to Maimonides' Guide (III, 13), in which Maimonides unequivocally rejected the homocentric view of creation. Nor must one treat seriously Yashar's words of praise for the deep wisdom of the Book of Genesis. With the esthetic and historical approaches to the Bible still a long way off, it is very doubtful, indeed, whether Yashar could have found anything valuable in a book as Genesis. Recalling his generally rationalist approach, it is rather reasonable to assume that he had no regard for that book at all, and that he must have considered it both primitive and fictitious. Hence, his praise for the spiritual orientation of Jewish education, as against the naturalist orientation of non-Jewish education, should also not be taken literally. Rather than superior in any way to general education, he must have considered Jewish education much inferior to it, both with regard to content and method. In view of his great admiration for science, and his rather skeptical and critical attitude toward religion in general and the Bible and Talmud in particular, it is easy to guess with which educational system his sympathies lay. Indeed, in his camouflaged way, Yashar makes it

320

RELATIONS AND ATTITUDES

quite clear that, in his view, the method of elementary Jewish education is all wrong. Instead of starting the child with a book as Genesis, he should just be taught the elements of Hebrew via secular texts, as Latin and Greek are taught. The fresh and unadulterated receptivity of the young ought not to be encumbered with stories and notions of a primitive nature. Yashar goes even farther. His assertion that Gentile children are incomparably superior in natural studies to Jewish children indicates that he favored more cardinal changes in Jewish education as a whole. It is thus not far-fetched to think that a hundred and fifty years before Wessely's Words of Peace and Truth (1781-1784), Yashar might already have arrived at the same conclusion, namely, that not only must secular learning become an integral part of a Jew's education, but that it must perhaps also be given time precedence in the educational process over the uniquely Jewish subjects. Taken as a whole, the passage may thus be summarized as a concealed criticism of two popular extravaganzas of the Jewish esprit de corps, viz., that Israel constitutes the goal of creation and the Torah the epitome of human wisdom. In refutation of such claims, Y ashar feigns to accept the premise that creation was intended for the wise; however, the conclusion he draws is contrary to that of the Jewish sources. It is not the Jews who are the wise but the Gentiles, since secular wisdom in superior to the so called spiritual wisdom. In support of this interpretation, similar views by Yashar on other aspects of the Jewish esprit de corps may be cited. Sarcastically he writes to Ashkenazi, that, in the view of the Jews, God derives no delight from the academies of the philosophers and their disputations, conducted in accordance with their logic and their procedures, but only from the divisions 1 of the Talmudists. He is entertained by their casuistry only, 2 since it is their utterances alone that maintain the world.3 Equally, God has no predilection for their [Christian] rhetoricians but for [Jewish] preachers, who are proficient in legends and fables, and the people assembled in the house of the Lord listen to their moralizing words and learn the fear of God. 4

As seen earlier, Y ashar was also critical of scholarly works in Hebrew. 5 He complained about the "great evil" he found among the 1 2

3

"c•ii~':iri:i •pi':in", "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 7a. ''.c•':iiD':iD" "c:i•':i!ll"l!l N':iN c•pri~ c':ii:sm l"N!V" The more likely

words is that "It is only their nonsense that maintains the world." 4 Novloth, p. 7a. 5 Supra, pp. 92-93.

rendering of these

AT'l'ITUDE TOWARD NON-JEWS

321

majority of Hebrew authors, who do not write clearly, as is common among all nations, but use a "hybrid" style and confused exposition which makes it impossible to translate their works into any other language, "as if their books were meant only for the feeble Jews." 1 What wonder then that "most Hebrew writers are hardly known, yea, not even mentioned among the other nations." 2 The impression one carries away from the above material with regard to Yashar is that he was a man who "saw the light" and became somewhat dazzled by it. In consequence of his studies and travels, he gained a wider perspective, became strongly rationalist, deeply comitted to secular learning, with the end result that his esteem for his own culture greatly diminished. He is the first Jew in modern times whose criticisms, unlike those of the ex-Marranos or the author of Qol Sakhal, are directed less against Judaism as a religion than against Judaism as a culture. He was skeptical not only about the metaphysical foundations of religion in general-creation, providence and the immortality of the soul-but,more specifically, about some fundamentals of Jewish thought, attitudes and values. As seen, he was contemptuous of the Cabbalah, and had no regard for the Talmud or the Bible either. In view of the new vistas of knowledge that were unfolding, the speculations of the Cabbalists, and the dialectics of the Talmudists lost all their attraction for him. As far and as long as his whereabouts and pursuits are known, he remained a student and admirer of the new science and mathematics; he was in contact with many non-Jewish scholars of the time, displaying both love and respect for them. It was, no doubt, as a result of such contacts, going back to his student-years at Padua, that he became an ardent humanitarian and a critic of the Jewish esprit de corps and its parochial orientations. He scorned not only the view of immortality as limited to those who keep the commandments, but also derided the widespread notion among the Jewish masses concerning the superiority of their own culture and institutions to those of other nations. He thought that the contrary was true. While the Jews share with other peoples many prejudices and superstitions, they partake little of their wisdom. He felt that it was high time for the Jews to realize that there was a great deal of "wisdom" they must learn from Gentiles. Indeed, it is i 2

Neh. 3:34. "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. Sa.

322

RELATIONS AND ATTITUDES

the recognition from a Jew so deeply steeped in Jewish life and tradition, that a new secular culture of high value was arising in the nonJ ewish world, and his deep admiration for it, which constitutes an entirely new element in the Jewish mentality which Yashar represents. Perhaps more novel and startling is his critical attitude toward Judaism and his demand for a new Jewish orientation in relation to the non-Jewish world. Considered together, these elements are indicative of the new trends and forces that were penetrating the Jewish world and stirring it to new orientations and attitudes. The fact that these trends. affected the thinking of only a few, and otherwise were of little consequence for another century and more, only goes to show the slow nature of the advent of the modern era in Jewish history. Such fundamentals of the Haskalah ideology, as a reconciliation with the natural and human milieus and a growing critical attitude toward Jewish life and culture, appear fully developed in the thoughts and feelings of Yashar. Yet, they could not become more widely diffused, before the transcendental orientation of Jewry and its secluded existence were deeply shaken and undermined, and, more significantly, before European society as a whole underwent a deep change with regard to both its political and social structures. In the conditions of his own time, with the hate for the Jew and the prejudices against him still rampant all over the continent, and with the Cabbalah ever gaining in strength in the Jewish world, his views were bound to remain a solitary voice in the wilderness. This was, indeed, the tragedy of his life : he was much ahead of his time, and hence a stranger to his own age and contemporaries.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE DATE OF YASHAR'S DEPARTURE FROM CANDIA The date of 1616, or 1617, for the departure of Yashar from Candia, derived from the data of Metz, is contested by George Alter, a recent student of Yashar's astronomy, who, on the basis of the "Al;rnz" letter, arrives at a different conclusion regarding this as well as other dates in the life of Yashar.1 In that letter, Yashar mentions three dates which for Alter provide a clue to the problem. He first states that for the last seven years he has been wandering "without a moment's rest." He then relates that since the age of eighteen he has been in the habit of taking notes on any subject that appeared of interest to him at one time or another. And, finally, without any apparent logical connection with the above statements, he presents a list of his "compositions and books" which he asserts he has composed over a period of seventeen years. 2 Due to the juxtaposition of the numbers eighteen and seventeen, Alter assumes a relationship of chronological sequence between them, i.e., that the seventeen years of Yashar's scholarly work began at the age of eighteen, when he started to write down his notes. By simply adding these two numbers Alter obtains the number thirty five for the age of Yashar at that time. Since he was born in 1591, the "Al;rnz" letter would thus date from 1626, and the date for his departure from Candia, seven years earlier, would be 1619. In order to reconcile the discrepancy between this date and that of 1616/17, arrived at on the basis of Metz' data, Alter suggests emending Metz' version, that Yashar was "about thirty years old," to read thirty three. He justifies this by the fact that the letter lamed (thirty), by which Metz describes Yashar's age, is followed in the first edition of Elim by two apostrophes, which, in his view, are indicative of another letter-most likely a gimmel (three)-that must have followed the lamed and has somehow dropped out. If there were no other letter after the lamed, Alter argues, there would not have been two apostrophes but only one. 1 2

Alter, "Two Astronomers," p. 48. "Mikhtav Al;rnz," p. 24.

326

APPENDICES

Alter also offers another argument supporting his dates. In the section of the "Al;mz" letter devoted to his educational thought, Yashar mentions that he composed a work on logic which he describes as "adequate for an understanding of the Introduction and the Categories," 1 and which, he points out to Zeral;i, is "in the hands of your friend Yoshiyah." Without offering any proof, Alter asserts that it is this book on logic which Yashar must have sent to Yoshiyah in reply to some questions which Yoshiyah asked him in the spring of 1624.2 This being the case, Alter concludes that "Delmedigo's letter to Zeral;i containing this information could not possibly have been written in 1623, as was presumed by Geiger, but after 1624." a None of the proofs offered by Alter is truly convincing, nor are his inferred dates acceptable. The text of the "Al;iuz" letter merely states that Yashar began to take notes from the age of eighteen and that his written works are the result of seventeen years of work. There is nothing in the text, however, to warrant Alter's connecting these two statements and his interpretation that the seventeen years of Yashar's literary activity began at the very time he started to write down his notes. There is no basis, therefore, for Alter's conclusion that Yashar was thirty five years old when he wrote the "AJ;iuz" letter; that this letter was written in 1626, and that, therefore, his departure from Candia was in 1619. Consequently, there is no need to emend Metz' lamed to lamed-gimmel. As far as this emendation is concerned, Alter's reasons for it are weakened by the fact that the statement that Yashar was thirty years old appears twice ~n Metz' writing; 4 it seems unlikely that the same error, or omission, should occur twice. Besides, the use of two apostrophes only in the middle of a word, though a most common practice, is by no means one that is strictly adhered to by all scribes or printers. Alter's second "proof," is even less convincing. One need only glance through Yoshiyah's letter, as summarized by Yashar,5 to 1 Ibid., p. 16. By the first he most likely refers to Porphyry's (233-304) Introduction to the Categories which had great influence on medieval philosophy, and by the second to Aristotle's Categories, the first part of the Organon. Cf. Herbert A. Davidson, ed., Averrois ... Comm. Medium of Isagoge and Categoriae (University of California Press, 1969), Introduction. 2 Elim, pp. 75-76. 3 "Two Astronomers," p. 48. 4 Elim, pp. 42, 47. 5 Ibid., p. 76.

A. YASHAR'S DEPARTURE FROM CANDIA

327

convince himself that the book on logic referred to in the "Al;rnz" letter, had nothing to do with Yoshiyah's letter and could by no means be a reply to it. Yoshiyah ·specifically asked Yashar for rational proofs regarding the existence of God and immortality. Yashar replied with his pamphlet "Ner Elohim." 1 It is this pamphlet, and not one on logic, that is the reply to Yoshiyah's letter, and which must therefore have been written after the spring of 1624. Indeed, in that pamphlet Y ashar actually mentions "the book on logic which you have written down as you heard it from my lips." 2 A comparison between the references to this book in "Ner Elohim" and in the "Al;rnz" letter leaves little doubt that it is one and the same book, and that it belongs to the early years of Yashar's stay in Lithuania, when Yoshiyah was one of a small group of Karaite youths who had gathered around him. Alter's dating is directly refuted by Shmuel Ashkenazi, the editor of Ta'alumoth lfokhmah, and by Yashar himself. In his "Foreword" to Mat?ref la-lfokhmah, Shmuel declares that Yashar's preoccupation with Cabbalah was stimulated by his experiences in Constantinople and Jassy, and that it did not take place before "he reached the age of twenty seven." 3 Now, Yashar reached that age in 1618; however, before coming to Constantinople he had already spent some time in Egypt. He must therefore have left Candia some time earlier. Finally, Yashar, in a letter written June 16, 1631, to the Polish mathematician and astronomer Broscius, states that for five years after he left Poland he had been living in Belgium. 4 By February, 1630 he already was at Frankfurt. Thus, more than a year elapsed between his exit from Belgium and the writing of this letter and more than six years since he left Poland. So Yashar's departure from Poland must have taken place sometime in the later part of 1624 or in the early part of 1625. All the evidence, it may be concluded, points to the correctness of Metz' dates, the year 1616, or more likely, 1617, as the date for Yashar's departure from Candia. 1 2 3

4

Ibid., pp. 76-93. Ibid., p. 81. Cf. "Haqdamath ha-Magihah," MU!Jref (1864), p. i. Jan Brozek, Wyb6r Pism, I, p. 490.

APPENDIX B

YASHAR'S UNPRINTED WORKS The discussion of the unprinted works of Yashar requires some justification, in view of the fact that the existence of most of them has almost never been attested by a source other than Yashar's own printed works. It is usually he himself, or, more frequently, one of his disciples, who mentions them as either having been written by him or as being in someone's possession. So far, only a very few of them have been discovered, such as a fuller text of "Mikhtav Al.mz," 1 a manuscript of "Ner Elohim" 2 and the, until recently, little known printed edition of his Hebrew translation of Hippocrates' Aphorisms. 3 To these may possibly be added a manuscript of Bosmath that was still in existence in the eighteenth century. 4 Nevertheless, we believe that such a discussion is both proper and defensible, as it may furnish us with further insights into the world of Yashar and his activity, acquainting us with some of his plans and projects which, though unrealized, also constitute an integral part of his full personality. Moreover, with regard to some of these works, it is quite certain that they really existed at one time or another, since, as just mentioned, they are referred to as being either in the possession of the direct addressee or of another contemporary, either of whom could easily deny such a statement if it had no basis in fact. With regard to other works, frequent allusions to them in various contexts may also be considered as some indication of their actual existence at the time. Yashar's printed works list his writings five times. In the chronological order, the first is the list cited by Moshe Metz; s the second is in a letter Yashar wrote to an anonymous receiver, in which he enumerates the essays he had written in reply to Zeral;t's questions; 6 the third, again by Yashar, is in his "Mikhtav Al;tuz," 7 and the fourth, Melo Chofnajim, Hebr. sec. pp. 1-33. Cf. J. Mann, Texts and Studies, II, p. 678, n. 112. 3 See supra, pp. 127-128, n. 4. 4 See below, pp. 329-330, n. 5. 5 Elim, (1964), pp. 45-47. a Ibid., pp. 116-118. 7 Melo Chofnajim, pp. 25-27.

1

2

B. YASHAR'S UNPRINTED WORKS

329

by his disciple of the Amsterdam period, Shmuel Ashkenazi.1 An additional fifth list may be compiled from titles enumerated by Yashar in his letter to this same disciple, 2 and from incidental notes and references scattered in his printed writings and correspondence.

I. The earliest of these lists is probably from 1621. Hence, it is the shortest, containing only a few titles. The second, from Yashar's reply to an anonymous writer, is of the end of the spring of that year; 3 the third, in "Mikhtav Al;rnz," is most probably of the year 1623, or somewhat later; and the fourth, of Shmuel Ashkenazi, is from 1629, containing only titles in Judaica. Metz' list [Elim, 45-47] contains the following titles: 1) Ya'ar Levanon (Forest of Lebanon), encyclopedic in character,

"consisting of various studies ... drawn from many scholarly books." Since its scope had become too extended, Yashar abandoned it before completion. 2) Be' er Sheva', an extract from the above, "dealing in concise form, after the fashion of the Ancients, with logic, rhetoric, natural philosophy, theology, ethics, mathematics, astronomy, astrology, optics, technology, agriculture, surgery, medicine, pharmacology, alchemy, etc." In its introduction, entitled Pi ha-Be'er (Mouth of the Well), he outlined a program of studies for the "Perfect Israelite ... , 4 which languages he ought to study and which books he must choose in every subject." Its conclusion, Peleg Elohim (Divisions concerning the Divine), treats of various opinions regarding "religions ... the intentions of kings and law-givers in their constitutions ... the foundations and principles of laws, both old and new." Due to its brevity and deductive method, Metz found the Be'er Sheva' obscure and difficult, and it was on his advice that Yashar composed a commentary on it, Be' er Alpereth (Another Well). 3) Bosmath Bath Shlomo (Bosmath the Daughter of Solomon), according to most references,s an encyclopedic work dealing with mathe"Haqdamath ha-Magihah," M~re/(1964), pp. 5-6, 8. "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, pp. 6b-7a. a Elim, p. 119. 4 "•l;iNittr:i cl;ittm ciN:i riiiri", Elim, p. 46. 5 Ibid., pp. 15, 17, 47, 54, 73, 186, 346, 376, 392, 441; see also S. Y. Finn, ed., HaCarmel, VI (1867), pp. 343, 358; Bass, Shabbetai, Siftei Yeshenim (Prague, 1680 ?), 1

2

330

APPENDICES

matics, astronomy, physics, the soul, paradoxes, etc. Metz relates that although all of Yashar's writings were in his hands, he was permitted to read only two sections of this book, Or Shiv'ath haY amim (The Light of the Seven Days [of Creation]) on Creation, and !Jejes Me~upas 1 (Diligent Search), possibly on alchemy.2 The above works actually represent three attempts at one and the same project, namely, to bring to the Hebrew reader the new secular knowledge that had been accumulating in Western Europe since the days of the Renaissance. With the possible exception of Bosmath, the other two attempts must have remained abortive. II. In the spring of 1621 3 Yashar sent a reply to an anonymous questioner and in it he enumerated the thirteen essays which he claimed he had already composed in answer to the questions of Zeral;t [Elim, 116-117]. Four of these were subsequently published (1629) under the comprehensive title Ma'ayan Gannim; nine, however, were not included. The latter are : 1) Meged Shamayim instruments.

(Blessings

of Heaven),

on

astronomical

letter beth, no. 118. According to Moses Mendelson of Hamburg, there was a manuscript of Bosmath in the library of Rabbi Shimshon Slonim (Poland), of the 18th century. Unfortunately it perished with the rest of his books in a fire. "R' Shimshon trauerte dariiber mehr wie iiber den Verlust seiner ganzen Habseligkeiten, denn es ist durchaus nirgends ein gutes Exemplar davon vorhanden" [Moses Mendelson, "Mendelssohn und Wesselys Zeit mit Hinblick auf die Gegenwart," Julius Fiirst ed., Literaturblatt des Orients (Leipzig, Feb. 19, 1848), p. 124). I presume that the above information was the source of Ben Ya'acov's statement with regard to Bosmath:

cn•:i i:in;i;,;i •"::> ri il riiivl •::> iE)o;, i:iNl c•3i;r;,N iv•N •E);r;, •i•:i l:i:iip;i;,:i •E)'?i ",inN pmm t'JN m~;i;, iN!Vl Nl:ii N;r;,'lNl:io P"P!l !VN m:u:i.n O~ar ha-Sefarim (Wilno, 1880), letter beth, no. 677. However, this statement appears somewhat inexact. According to Mendelson, not a single good manuscript remained, which does not exclude

however, the possible existence of other, less perfect, manuscripts. Indeed, according to Ribal, there was a manuscript of Bosmath in Paris [Yi~J:iaq Baer Levinsohn, Se/er Te'udah b' Yisrael (Wilno, 1855), p. 152). Regretfully, neither Mendelson, nor Levinsohn offer any source for their respective statements. i Ps. 64:7. 2 Cf. Elim, p. 47; "'.nill'l!V:"l:"I J'l:U!l ;,:ii;, •.ni:ii lt'E)in;i;, TlJE)M iE)O!li" HaOarmel, VI, p. 343. 3 N"E)!D 'Ji•o 'l'. Elim, P· 119.

B. YASHAR'S UNPRINTED WORKS

331

2) Ta'alumoth lf okhmah (Sapientiae Absconditorum), on the "tricks of charlatans and their devices ... the Cabbalah, its beginning and foundations, the efficacy of its adepts and its strength in divine physiognomy." (3) Ototh Shamayim (Signs of Heaven), on astrology. (4) Le"l;em Abbirim (Bread of the Mighty), algebra. (5) Megalleh 'Amuqoth (Discoverer of Deep [Things]), alchemy. (6) Meqor Binah (The Source of Understanding), the Aphorisms of Hippocrates translated from the Greek. 1 (7) 'Ef}em ha-Shamayim (Essence of the Heavens), a refutation of Aristotle's proofs regarding the assumption of a fifth substance for the heavenly bodies, as presented in his De Caelo. (8) 'Ammudei Shamayim (Pillars of Heaven), astronomy. (9) Gan Na'ul (Inclosed Garden), principles of religion.

The total exclusion of these nine treatises from the printed Elim puzzled Geiger; he did not doubt, however, that they were actually written down, and believed that they were "to be found somewhere in the hands of the Karaites." 2 This view cannot be accepted uncritically, since it is doubtful whether all these treatises shared one and the same fate. Thus, we know that the Meqor Binah, Yashar's translation of Hippocrates' Aphorisms, was actually printed in Prague together with Issachar Baer Teller's Be'er Mayim Ifayyim. 3 As for the 'Ammudei Shamayim, Yashar refers to it as an accomplished book "dealing at length with the Copernican view." 4 He also mentions the 'ErJem ha-Shamayim as containing a devastating criticism of Aristotle's fifth substance.s Regarding the Le~em Abbirim, on algebra, if it is assumed that Yashar replied to Zeral;i. in the order Zeral;i. questioned him, it stands to reason that this book was nothing other than Yashar's reply to question seven regarding the exchange of problems and solutions between him and the Egyptian mathematician 'Ali, part of which may be identical with the section of Metz' letter to Zeral;i. 1 A sample of this translation and commentary was printed in Elim, pp. 109-116; the work may have also contained a translation of Hippocrates' Book of Prognostics, see Elim, p. 116. It appears that Yashar composed this work before his arrival in Poland, since it is already mentioned in Zeral,l's third letter, Elim, p. 25. 2 "Einleitung," Melo Ohofnajim, p. XLIX. 3 Supra, pp. 127-128, n. 4. 4 Elim, p. 438. 5 Ibid., p. 432, line 2.

332

APPENDICES

dealing with this subject.1 Somewhat perplexing is the problem of the Gan Na'ul, described above as dealing with the "fubdamentals of religion." In his answer to Yoshiyah's letter of 1624, Yashar mentions that he wrote that book in reply to ZeraJ;i..2 However, in "J:Iuqqoth Shamayim" of the Amsterdam period, a book by this title is mentioned as incomplete yet. 3 It is obvious though that there must have been two works of different content by this name, the one referred to in "J:Iuqqoth Shamayim" dealt with astronomical geography, whereas the other with speculations on religion. More challenging perhaps is the problem of Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah, notably, the relationship between it and the large volume by this title published years later by Shmuel Ashkenazi. Some aspects of that work, as described in the present list, are identifiable with parts of the later volume. It is possible that years later, when he was in the process of printing Elim, he at first intended to publish Ta'alumoth as a sequence to it; however, he soon gave up the idea, and decided to separate such divergent materials. 4 III. Yashar's list in "Mikhtav Al;tuz" [pp. 25-27] contains the following titles (in the order of their presentations) : (1) Be'er Sheva', described almost verbatim as in the list of Metz, except for two differences: a) the concluding essay, entitled there "Peleg Elohim," is named here "Takhlith ha-Adam" (Destiny of Man}, and b) the commentary "Be' er AJ;tereth," described above as composed on the advice of Metz, is presented here without any reference to Metz. (2) $el ha-Ifokhmah (Shelter [or Shadow] of Wisdom), 5 a study of shadows for the purpose of "finding out the hour of the day and

Ibid., pp. 62-72. Ibid., p. 85. 3 Ibid., end of "question" 27, p. 271. 4 In the "Foreword" to Mlll!r~f, Shmuel Ashkenazi relates that from all the writings which he found tucked away in dusty niches of Yashar's home in Amsterdam, he was . mainly attracted to a "big bundle of pamphlets entitled by Yashar Ta'alumoth Ifokhmah." When he asked Yashar's permission to copy them for the sake of publication, he refused, "saying that he intends soon to review and correct them and then have them published together with other important responsa which he had written to a great person." The "great person," we assume, is no other than Zeral)., and the "important responsa"-the scholarly replies to his questions. Cf. supra, pp. 105, 116-117. 5 Eccl. 7:12. 1

2

B. YASHAR'S UNPRINTED WORKS

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

333

night by the light of the sun or the moon.'' The book is mentioned here as completed; in a later text, however, as only begun.1 Bosmath Bath Shlomo, described here almost verbatim as in the Metz list, but for two differences: a) the "l,:Iefes Mel).upas" is not mentioned at all, and b) reference is made to "Qesheth Derukhah" (Taut Bow), on the rainbow, as constituting part of it. 'Ir Gibborim (City of Heroes), in two parts: part I, "Gevuroth ha-Shem" ("The Might of God"), "A very profound work on algebra concerning square roots and their application . . . In it are explained the teachings of Diophantes the Alexandrian ... Frarn;ois Viete" and others .. . Part II, "Nifle'oth ha-Shem" ("God's Wonders"), "Containing queer and strange opinions ... with strong proofs and demonstrations, accompanied by drawings ... " 2 Peleg Elohim. It is cited here as a "book", whereas in the Metz list as the concluding essay of Be'er Sheva'. Its description, with only slight variations, is the same in both texts except for the rather important addition here : "and in it are examined the fundamental views of the Rabbanites and the Karaites." Ya'ar Levanon. Its description, though very similar to Metz', is more detailed and makes clear that a) it was Yashar's first scholarly enterprise, b) it was left incomplete at Candia, and c) it was a compilation from notes of lectures and books. In addition, the "l,:Iefes Mel).upas," cited by Metz as part of Bosmath, is cited here as part of this work, dealing with "the nature of gold and other metals, their mutations and transformations."

In "I.Iuqqoth Shamayim," question 40, Yashar writes: For instruction in devices which indicate time by the length of shadows, a special work is required ... If God will grant me life and peace, I shall complete what I have begun to write, the Bel Ifokhmah, in which I shall treat the subject fully, Elim, p. 277. In question 12 of the above text, Yashar indicates that he is at the time in Amsterdam. [He writes : "And in Amsterdam I see through my little window in the wall," Elim, p. 254]. If the numerical sequence of the questions and answers in "I.Iuqqoth Shamayim" is indicative of a chronological sequence, it stands to reason that question 40 of the same text also belongs to the Amsterdam period, and must therefore have been written after the "Iggereth Al;rnz." See also Ha-Carmel, VI, p. 358. 2 It is doubtful whether this "Nifle'oth ha-Shem" is identical with the "small essay" by the same name which Yashar mentions that he wrote on the request of the "universal scholar," Ya'acov Iskandrani. From the context it may rather be concluded that the latter essay dealt with mechanics. "Ma'ayan I.Iatum," no. 24, Elim, p. 376. See also Ha-Carmel, VI, p. 342. 1

334

APPENDICES

Summarily and without any specifications, Yashar mentions two additional groups of works: a) Torah Books and b) medical. 1 He names among the first : (7) Sefer Torei Zahav (Rows of Gold) 2 with a commentary "Nequdoth ha-Kesef" (Dots of Silver}. 3 (8) Sefer Tor ha-Ma'alah (Row of Dignity}. 4 (9) Ra~el Mevakkah (Rachel Lamments). (10) Nefesh ha-Ger (The Soul of the Stranger). (11) Batei ha-Nefesh (Tablets}. 5 In the "medical" group, he includes : (12) (13) (14) (15)

Refu'oth Te'alah (Healing Medicines).a Halleluyah (Praise the Lord). Shever Yoseph (Hope [or Solution] of Joseph}. 7 Barkhi Yoseph (Bless Joseph).

In conclusion Yashar remarks : "Since they are incomplete, I shall not dwell on them at length." From the text it appears that these words refer to both groups of works, the "Torah" books as well as the medical ones. With the exception of Refu' oth Te'alah, none of the titles in the second group is mentioned anywhere else. IV.

The list of Shmuel Ashkenazi ["Haqdamath ha-Magiha" in contains the following titles :

Ma~ref la-If.okhmah]

"rmm:i.,::ii ... C'".,in", "Mikhtav Al,mz," p. 27. Song of Songs 1:10. 3 In his letter to Shmuel Ashkenazi, Y ashar describes this work as "containing flowers from Hebrew books" and as being in his, i.e., Shmuel's, possession, "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 7a. 4 It dealt, most likely, with the laws concerning the treatment of sages. Cf. ibid. 5 Is. 3:20. To my knowledge, titles 9, 10 ,11 are mentioned nowhere else. 6 Jer. 30:13. In question five of his third letter, ZeraJ.i writes that he saw the book in the possession of Metz [Elim, p. 22]. He refers to it again, in very laudatory terms, in question nine of that letter, where he also points out that in it Yashar "mentioned other medical works which he composed, especially [his] short and precious commentaries on the teachings of Hippocrates" [ibid., p. 25]. See Bupra, p. 127, n .. 2 7 Besides the printed "Shever Yoseph," which deals with Cabbalah [cf. Ta'alumoth I;lokhmah, I, pp. 59-77], and the present one, dealing with medicine, a third "Shever Yoseph," on logarythms, is mentioned as part of 'Ir Gibborim [cf. "Ma'ayan I;Iatum," pars. 6, 7, 8, Elim, p. 355]. 1

2

B. YASHAR'S UNPRINTED WORKS

335

(1) TeMllath lfokhmah (The Beginning of Wisdom). "In it," writes

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) (6) (7)

Ashkenazi, "Yashar included all the Cabbalah of Rabbi Yii:i:J.iaq Ashkenazi Luria ... based on oral reports and some books from Eretz Yisrael which came into his hands." Battu~oth lfokhmah (Secrets of Wisdom). 1 According to Ashkenazi, Yashar "compiled in it, in abbreviated form, all the teachings of Cordovero and the Ancients, the secrets of all the gematrias, roshei teivoth (combinations of initials) and all the other techniques of the Cabbalists." Levav lfokhmah (The Heart of Wisdom), discusses "the medicines of the Talmud ... charms, conjurations ... and magic." Ta'alumoth lfokhmah (Sapientiae Absconditorum), "A large collection of pamphlets." 2 Qi??Ur ha-Pardes, an Abbreviation of the Orchard, Cordovero's major work, Pardes Rimmonim (Orchard of Pomegranates). 'Erkei ha-Kinnuyim "in accordance with the Lurianic method," (Chapters on the Names of God). Commentary on the $iyyoni. a

V. Other unprinted works of Yashar mentioned in his writings (listed alphabetically) : (1) Aruboth fhamayim (Windows of Heaven), mathematics.4 (2) Catalogue of.Famous Mathematicians. 6 (3) Commentary on the Almagest. a (4) Commentary on Abraham Ibn Ezra's Sefer ha-E~ad. 7 (5) Commentary on Abraham Ibn Ezra's Sefer ha-Shem ha-Nikhbad. 8 (6) Commentary on Aristotle's Categories. 9 Job 38:36. Cf. supra, p. 332, n. 4. 3 A Cabbalistic commentary on the Torah by Menal}.em ~iyyoni of the fifteenth century; first published, under the name $iyyoni, at Cremona, 1560. Cf. M~ref (1864), pp. lOlff. 4 Cf. Elim, pp. 136, 151. • Supra, p. 81. 6 In the opening of "J;Iuqqoth Shamayim" Yashar writes: "I have writings and commentaries on almost all of the Almagest," Elim, p. 221; see also "Haqdamath Sefer," Novloth, p. 6b. 7 Elim, bottom of page 363. Commented on and edited by Simcha Pinsker and M.A. Goldhardt (Odessa, 1867). 8 "Sefer Ko'al). ha-Shem," Ta'alumoth JJokhmah, II, p. 203b. Edited with comm. and introd. by G. M. Lippmann (Fiirth, 1834). Se/er ha-Etia