Abstract
The Wars of the Lord, written in Provence in the first half of the 14th century, is one of the most exceptional and extensive medieval philosophic works intended for a Jewish audience.1 It is also the first of the major treatises studied in this book to be written in Hebrew rather than Arabic. This reflects some of the profound changes that took place in Jewish culture in the intervening period. More than just language distinguishes Gersonides’ treatise from those of his predecessors. Unlike R. Saadiah’ Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Halevi’s Kuzari and Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, the Wars is more a philosophical treatise in the strict sense of the term, rather than a Jewish one. Influenced by the method of the Christian Scholastics, Gersonides first lays out the basic philosophic positions covering all possible solutions to the questions with which he deals. He then provides a detailed defense of each of the positions, followed by a detailed critique of each of them. His own conclusion is presented next, accompanied by a discussion of the philosophic objections to his view. In the course of his discussion of a topic, particularly towards the end, he often attempts to show how his position is in harmony also with Scripture and with rabbinic views, philosophic truth and religious truth being one.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
The edition of The Wars of the Lord used in this chapter is Milchamot Haschem (Berlin, 1923). All page numbers in citations from the Wars refer to this edition, unless otherwise noted. The treatise was translated into English by Seymour Feldman in 3 volumes (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1984, 1987, 1999). English translations of passages from the Wars that appear in this chapter are my own. I have made extensive use of Feldman’s translation and often refer to the page numbers in his book where his translation of the passages in question appears.
For an analysis of Gersonides’ philosophy and hi s literary activity see especially, Charles Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide (Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1973); Seymour Feldman. The Wars of the Lord, vol. 1, 3–84. An extensive bibliography of writings by and about Gersonides has be en compiled by Menachem Kellner, “Bibliograp hia Gersonideana”, in: Gad Freudenthaled., Studies on Gersonides (Leiden: Brill, 1992): 367–414.
For example, there is good reason to ascribe to Maimonides an esoteric view on divine providence that is very similar to Gersonides’ exoteric approach. See my article, “The Suffering of the Righteous in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Heb.]”, Daat, 19 (1987): 17–29.
For studies in Ibn Ezra’s cultural activity and influence see Wilhelm Bacher ed., Abraham Ibn Esra’s Einleitung zu seinem Pentateuch-Commentar [Heb.] (Tel-Aviv: Zion Press, 1970).
For an overview of Jewish culture in Provence during this period see Isadore I. Twersky, “Aspects of the Social and Cultural History of Provençal Jewry“, Journal of World History, 11 (1968): 185–207; M-H Vicaire and B. Blumenkranz eds., Juifs et judaisme de Languedoc (Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1977).
Ibn Tibbon’ s Hebrew translation and commentary on the Arabic version of Aristotle’ s Meteorology (Otot Ha-Shamyim) has be en edited and translated into English by Resianne Fontaine (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995). On the translation of Arabic scientific and philosophic treatises in Provence see Moritz Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Übersetzungeti des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstak, 1956): 42–843; Gad Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communautes juives medievales des Provence: Leur appropriation, leur role”, REJ, 152 (1993): 29–136.
Ibn Tibbon also wrote a commentary on Ecclesiastes and a (lost) commentary on the beginning of Genesis. For a description of Ibn T’ibbon’ s writings see Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Thought of R. Zerahiah ben Isaac ben Shealtiel Hen and the Maimonidean-Tibbonian Philosophy in the 13th Century”, Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University (1977): 5–40; An important aspect of Ibn Tibbon’ s influence on subsequent thinkers was traced by Aviezer Ravitzky, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed”, AJSReview, 6 (1981): 87–123 [rep r. in his History and Faith: Studies in Jewish Philosophy (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1996): 205–45]; see, however, Georges Vajda, “An Analysis of the Ma’ amar yiqqawu hamayim by Samuel ben Judah Ibn Tibbon”, Journal of Jewish Studies, 6 (1959): 137–49.
Whether Gersonides knew Arabic has been debated by the scholars. It is clear, however, that all his supercommentaries were made on the basis of known Hebrew translations. Gersonides played the pioneering role in writing such supercommen taries as has been shown by Ruth Glasner, “Levi ben Gershom and the Study of Ibn Rushd in the Fourteenth Century”, JQR, 86 (1995): 51–90.
For an overview of the controversies see Joseph Sarachek, Faith and Reason: The Conflict over the Rationalism of Maimonides (New York: Hermon Press, 1970). A partial translation of the ban can be found on pages 231-2. For a more recent study of the controversy at the beginning of the 14th century, see Gregg Stern, “Menahem ha-Meiri and the Second Controversy over Philosophy”, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University (1995).
For the influence of scholastic thought on the Jewish philosophy of the period see Shlomo Pines, “Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas and His Predecessors”, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1 (1966): 1–101 [repr. in Pines, Studies in the History of Jewish Thought, W.Z. Harvey and M. Idel eds. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997): 489–589].
See Feldman, vol. 1, 55–58; Ruth Glasner, “The Early Stages in the Evolution of Gersonides’ The Wars of the Lord”, JQR, 87 (1996): 1–6.
See Feldman, vol. 1, 12–16, 27–30.
Wars, 2 (Feldman, vol. 1, 91).
Glasner, “The Early Stages”, 2.
Wars, 2 (Feldman, 91).
This text has been edited by Alexander Altmann, “Commentary on Averroes’ Epitome of Parva Naturalia, II.3: Annotated Critical Edition”, in: S. Baron, I. Barzilay eds., American Academy of Jewish Research Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1980): 9–25. A good number of studies have been written on Gersonides’ approach to prophecy. See in particular, Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide, 366–75, 45 1–77; Feldman, The Wars of the Lord, vol. 2, 5–23; Colette Sirat, Les theories des visions surnaturelles dans la pensée juive du moyen-âge (Leiden: Brill, 1969): 166–74; Daniel J. Lasker, “Gersonides on Dreams, Divination, and Astronomy”, Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies Division C (Jerusaelm: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1982): 47–52; Tamar Rudavsky, “Divine Omniscience, Contingency and Prophecy in Gersonides”, in T. Rudavsky ed., Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985): 161–81; Sara Klein-Braslavy, “Gersonides on Determinism, Possibility, Choice and Foreknowledge [Heb.] ”, Daat, 22 (1989): 5–53; Sara Klein-Braslavy, idem. “Prophecy, Clairvoyance and Dreams and the Concept of ‘Hitbodedut’ in Gersonides’ Thought [Heb.] ”, Daat, 39 (1997): 23–68; Sara Klein-Braslavy idem. “Gersonides on the Mode of Communicating Knowledge of the Future to the Dreamer and Clairvoyant”, in: A. Ivry, E. Wolfson and A. Arkush eds., Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998): 171–199; and my, “Veridical Dreams and Prophecy in the Philosophy of Gersonides [Heb.] ”, Daat, 22 (1989): 73–84. Klein-Braslavy’s first article provides an excellent example illustrating the importance of exploring Gersonides’ approach to prophecy within the wider context of his thought.
Harry Blumberg edited the Arabic text of Averroes’ Epitome of Parva Naturalia (Cambridge, MA.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1972), and Ibn Tibbon’ s Hebrew translation (Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America, 1954). He also translated the treatise into English (Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America, 1961). All page numbers relating to this treatise in the present chapter refer to the English translation. The medieval Latin translation of the treatise has been edited by A. L. Shields (Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America, 1949). For a study of the Arabic recension of Aristotle’s De Divinatione see Shlomo Pines, “The Arabic recension of Parva Naturalia and the philosophical doctrine concerning veridical dreams according to al-Risāla al-Manāmiyya and other sources”, Israel Oriental Studies, 4 (1974): 104–53 [repr. in his Studies in Arabic Versions of Greek Texts and in Mediaeval Science (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986): 96–145].
Wars, 92 (Feldman, vol. 2, 27).
Altmann, “Commentary on Averroes’ Epitome”, 9–10.
Epitome, 39–40; Altmann, 9–10.
For a study of the “common sense” and the other internal senses in medieval philosophy see Harry Wolfson, “The Internal Senses in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew Philosophic Texts”, Harvard Theological Review, 28 (1935): 69–133 [reprinted in his Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, I. Twersky and G. Williams eds., vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973): 250–314].
Aristotle, Metaphysics l0.8.1049b.
Epitome, 43; Cf. Aristotle, De Divinatione 2.464a. Aristotle denies the divine origin of divinatory dreams.
Epitome, 43-4.
Ibid. 46.
Perhaps better rendered “affirmation“. For a study of this term see Harry Wolfson, “The Terms Tassawur and T’asdiq in Arabic Philosophy and their Greek, Latin, and Hebrew Equivalents”, The Moslem World, 33 (1943): 114–28 [repr. in his Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, vol. 1, 478–92].
Epitome, 46-7.
Ibid., 49; cf. De Divinatione 2.464a.
Ibid., 50; cf. Aristotle, De Memoria 2.453a; De Divinatione 2.463b-464a.
Gersonides refers explicitly to Galen in his supersommentary (Altmann “Commentary on Averroes’ Epitome”, 22); cf. Wars, 101–3 (Feldman, vol. 2, 42–4). Maimonides too brings an example of this claim from Galen’s De Venesectione in his Medical Aphorisms of Moses [Hebrew], Suessmann Muntner ed., (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1982): 303.
Epitome, 51-2.
F. Rahman, Avicenna’s Psychology (London: Oxford University Press, 1952): 36. For a discussion of the term hads in Avicenna see Dmitri Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1988): 159-176.
Avicenna’ s Psychology, 36–7. For a parallel passage in Arabic see Fazlur Rahman ed., Avicenna’s De Anima (London: Oxford University Press, 1959): 248-50.
Ibid. 35.
Ibid. 35.
See my, “Sage and Prophet in the Thought of Maimonides and h is Followers [Heb.]”, Eshel Bersheva, 3 (1986): 149–169.
Aristotle deals with this ability in Posterior Analytics 1.34.89b: “Acumen [anchinoia] is a certain [talent for] hitting correctly upon [eusto chia] the middle term in an inco nsiderable time”. See also Nicomachean Ethics 6.9.1142b. For a discussion of these sources see Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradit ion, 166-8.
This view is based on his epistemological approach, which treats the intelligibles as coming directly from the Active Intellect rather than being attained by a process of abstraction. See Herbert Davidson, “Alfarabi and Avicenna on the Active Intellect”, Viator, 3 (1972): 160–71.
For a study of Averroes’ approach to intellection see Herbert Davidson, “Averroes on the Material Intellect”, Viator, 17 (1986): 91–137. The notion presented by a number of Jewish philosophers that Averroes accepted th e possibility of an angelic species of humans is based on the mistaken ascription to him of the treatise Moznei Iyyunim in which this view appears. See my “Sage and Prophet”, 163.
Yet even some of the philosophers could be read as maintaining that the Active Intellect transmits the notions themselves directly to the imagination, without the intermediation of the rational faculty. Alfarabi, for example, writes in the Virtuous City: “The particulars that the Active Intellect bestows upon the imaginative faculty are by way of true dreams and visions. It bestows upon it the intelligibles, which it [the imaginative faculty] receives by adopting imitations in their place, by way of divinations of divine things. All this may occur in sleep, and it may occur in wakefulness”. See Richard Walzer, Al-Farabi on the Perfect State (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985): 219–25. For a discussion how Alfarabi’s approach influenced Maimonides see chapter 3.
These causes were well known in the ancient and medieval worlds. See Aristotle, De Divination 1.463a; Pines, “The Arabic Recension of Parva Naturalia”, 108-10.
Epitome, 53.
Altmann, “Commentary on Averroes’ Epitome”, 9–10.
Ibid. 10 (see note 10 for the views of other Jewish thinkers on the subject).
See Guide 2.40 and my discussion in the previous chapter.
Averroes, on the other hand, gives no indication in the Epitome of Parva Naturalia that he countenances such exceptions to normative prophecy, not even in the case of Mohammed. For a study of Moses’ prophecy in Gersonides’ thought see Menachem Kellner, “Maimonides and Gersonides on Mosaic Prophecy”, Speculum, 52 (1977): 62–79.
Wars 2.6: 106.
Epitome, 46 (I have introduced a number of slight changes into Blumberg’s translation due to Gersonid es’ text of the Epitome).
De Int erpretatione l0.19a.
Altmann, “Commentary on Averroes’ Epitome”, 17–18. The translation is my own.
De Interpretatione 9.18b-19a. A good amount of medieval and modern literature is devoted to an analysis of this passage. The most extensive discussion of the history of this problem is presented by William Lane Craig, The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988).
See Guide 3.20 and Gersonides’ critique of this position in Wars 3.3:132137. I have discussed the problem of interpreting Maimonides’ view on this subject in my article, “The Suffering of the Righteous in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Heb.]”, Daat, 19 (1987): 17–29.
S. Weil ed., Emunah Ramah (Frankfurt, 1852): 2.6.2:96; cf. 2.6.1:87. Ibn Daud’s treatise was translated from Arabic into Hebrew in Spain in the latter half of the 14th century and apparently was not known by Gersonides. For a discussion of God’s knowledge in Ibn Daud’s philosophy see T.A.M. (Resianne) Fontaine, In Defense of Judaism: Abraham Ibn Daud (Assen/Maastricht, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1990): 172-6, 207-10.
An extensive bibliography exists on this issue in Gersonides’ thought. See in particular Norbert Samuelson, “Gersonides’ Account of God’s Knowledge of Particulars”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 10 (1972): 399–416; Tamar Rudavsky, “Divine Omniscience and Future Contingents in Gersonides”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21 (1983): 513-36; idern., “Divine Omniscience, Contingency and Prophecy in Gersonides”, 161-81; Klein Braslavy, “Gersonides on Determinism, Possibility, Choice and Foreknowledge”, 5-53.
Altmann, “Commen tary on Averroes’ Epitome”, 24.
This idea appears frequently by Aristotle; see for example Physics 2.8.199a; On the Heavens 1.4.271a.
Altmann, 24.
Wars, 4 (Feldman, vol. 1, 94)
Ibid. 4 (Feldman, 94-5)
For a study of this issue see Seymour Feldman, “Gersonides on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Agent Intellect”, AJSReview, 3 (1978): 99–120.
Metaphysics 1.1.979b.
Wars, 5 (Feldman, 96). The “Philosopher” is the common acronym for Aristotle in this period. Maimonides devotes Guide 2.13-25 to the discussion of the problem of creation. The notion that a person does not desire to know what is humanly impossible to apprehend is brought by him in Guide 1.31.
See Herbert Davidson, “Gersonid es on the Material and Active Intellects”, in: Gad Freudenthal ed., Studies on Gersonides — A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Philosopher-Scientist (Leiden: Brill, 1992): 195–264.
Wars 1.6.
Ibid. 2.2:95 (Feldman, vol. 2, 33).
Wars, 97 (Feldman, 35).
See above, note 31.
Wars 2.4:03 (Feldman, 46).
Ibid. 2.5.
Ibid. 106 (Feldman, 50-1).
Wars 3.4: 141 (Feldman, 121); cf. 1.6:47.
For a recent illuminating discussion of Gersonides’ approach to God’s knowledge of particulars see Charles Manekin, “On the Limited-Omniscience Interpretation of Gersonides’ Theory of Divine Knowledge”, in: Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism (note 17), 135–70.
See above, note 28.
Wars, 106 (Feldman, 51–52).
For a study of the functions of the imagination in medieval philosophy see (note 22), 69-133.
The relation of the material intellect to the Active Intellect on one hand, and to the imagination on the other is a complex issue in Averroes’ thought. Averroes’ also appears to have revised his thinking on this issue. For a study of the material intellect in Averroes’ thought see Herbert Davidson, “Averroes on the Material Intellect”, Viator, 17 (1986):91–137.
Wars, 107 (Feldman, 53).
Guide 2.37. See the discussion in the previous chapter.
Wars, 108 (Feldman, 55).
See previous chapter for Maimonides’ discussion of this point in his Commentary on Pereq Heleq and in Laws of the Principles of the Torah.
Wars, 109 (Feldman, 56).
Cf. Guide 2.45.
Wars, 109 (Feldman, 56).
See above note 29.
Wars, 109 (Feldman, 57). Gersonides’ alludes here to his position on the talmudic debate whether the meaning of the dream is static and the interpreter must discover what it is, or whether the interpretation itself determines what is to happen. See B.T. Brakhot 55b.
For a study of this term in Gersonides’ thought see Klein-Braslavy, “Prophecy, Clairvoyence, and Dreams” (note 17), 23–68.
Wars, 110 (Feldman, 58).
For a study of the history of this term in the history of Jewish philosophy see Moshe Idel, “Hitbodedut as Concentration in Jewish Philosophy [Heb.]”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 7 (1988): 39–60. Klein-Braslavy disagrees with aspects of Idel’s analysis of the term in reference to Gersonides. See above, note 94. See also my comments on this term, and the diverse Arabic terms that it translates, in my article, “Some Observations on Ma’aseh Nissim by R. Nissim of Marseilles”, in: Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism (note 17), 208-10.
The translation is my own based on A. Weiser’s edition of Ibn Ezra’s Torah Commentary (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1976): 47.
See Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s use of hitbodedut as a translation for the Arabic term infiràd in Guide 3.51, where it is used in reference to the individual’s concentration on God; cf. Maimonides’ own use of the term in Laws of the Principles of the Torah 7.4.
The translation is that of Geoffrey Lewis and appears in: P. Henry and H.R. Schwyzer eds., Plotini Opera (Paris: Desclée Brouwer, 1959): vol. 2, 225. For the Arabic edition see A. Badawi, Plotinus apud Arabes (Cairo, 1955): 22-3.
For an analysis of the sources in which Gersonides employs this term see Klein-Braslavy, “Prophecy, Clairvoyence and Dreams”, 29–68.
De Divinatione 2.464a.
Wars, 112 (Feldman, 60–1).
For a discussion of this notion see Feldman, 64 n.32.
Wars, 113–115 (Feldman, 63–65).
Ibid. 116 (Feldman, 67).
Translated by Fazlur Rahman, Prophecy in Islam (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1958): 75.
Alghazali summarizes this view in his Incoherence of the Philosophers. Instead of talking of the souls of the heavenly bodies he employs the Koranic image of the Indelible Tablet as an apparent reference to the World Soul: In respect to the imaginative faculty they say that when this faculty becomes predominant and strong, and the senses and perceptions do not submerge it, it observes the Indelible Tablet, and the forms of particular events which will happen in the future become imprinted on it; and that this happens to the prophets in a waking condition and to other people in sleep, and that this is a peculiar quality of the imaginative faculty in prophecy. See S. Van Den Bergh, Averroes’ Incoherence of the Incoherence (London: Luzac, 1954): vol. 1,313.
See Rahman, Prophecy in Islam, 75
Thomas Aquinas presents a distinction between prophecy and divination in Quaestiones disputatae similar to that of Avicenna, as noted by Alexander Altmann, “Mairnonides and Thomas Aquinas: Natural or Divine Prophecy?” AJSReview, 3 (1978): 10–11. Altmann characterizes Thomas’s view of divination as follows: “He believes that in the case of veridical dreams the natural aptitude or disposition enables the dreamer to receive certain ‘impressions’ from the celestial bodies in which the ‘preparations’ of future events reside. The soul, by virtue of its subtlety, is able to previsualize these events from certain’ similitudes’ left in the imagination as a result of those impressions… As far as natural prophecy is concerned, St. Thomas believes it to consist in the reception of certain information from the Intelligences”
See my “Veridical Dreams and Prophecy” (note 17), 73–84; and Davidson, “Gersonides on the Material and Active Intellects” (note 67 Metaphysics 1.1.979b.), 259-61.
Sara Klein-Braslavy convincingly argues this interpretation in “Gersonides on the Mode of Communicating Knowledge of the Future” (note 17), 171–99.
The topic of providence in Gersonides’ thought is analyzed by Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide, 382–392; and Feldman, Wars, vol. 2, 139–151. See also Michael Nehorai, “Maimonides and Gersonides: Two Approaches to the Nature of Providence [Heb.]”, Daat, 20 (1988): 51–64
See above, note 66. For Maimonides’ view and those of his Islamic predecessors see chapter 3.
Wars 4.5: 165–7 (Feldman, 178–9).
Ibid. 4.6:168–179 (Feldman, 180–95).
On this point he follows the order of Maimonides’ Guide though his views on these topics differ from those of Maimonides (at least,” from Maimonides’ exoteric views). “For a discussion of miracles in Gersonides’ thought see Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide, 469–77; Menachem Kellner,” “Gerson ides on Miracles,” the Messiah, and Resurrection, Daat, 4 (1980): 5–34; idem. “Gersonides on the Problem of Volitional Creation”,HUCA, 51 (1980): 111–28; and my “Miracles in Medieval Jewish Philosophy”,J Q, R., 75 (1984): 99–133.
For a discussion of this topic see Aviezer Ravitzky,” “The Anthropological Theory of Miracles in Medieval Jewish Philosophy”, in: Isadore Twersky ed., Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1984): 231–72 [repr. in: Ravitzky,” History and Faith (note 8 Commentary on Psalms, Joseph Kafih ed. and trans. [Arabic and Heb.] (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1966): 23), 154–204]; and my article cited in the previous note.
Wars 6.2. 10: 443–53.
Ibid. 6.2.12: 455.
Ibid. 6.2. 10: 453.
Ibid. 6.2.12: 454–5. Mairnonides’ too maintains the unchanging perfection of both nature and the Torah (Guide 2.29, 39) and juxtaposes these two domains in Guide 3.34.
Ibid. 6.2.2: 455–60.
Kellner makes a gallant, if unsuccessful, attempt to extract Gersonides from this difficulty. See “Gerso nide s on Miracles”, 5–34. See Robert Eisen’s discussion of this issue in: Gersonides on Providence, Covenant, and the Chosen People (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995): 22–8.
For a discussion of this issue see my, “The Verification of Prophecy in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Heb.]”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 4 (1984–85): 1–18.
Wars 6.2. 13: 460–3. For Maimonides’ view see ch apter 3.
Cf. Maimonides, Laws of the Principles of the Torah 10.1–3
Wars 6.2.13: 460; 2.6:111–115.
Ibid. 461; cf. Jeremiah 28: 7–9; Laws of the Principles of the Torah 10.4.
Ibid. 461–2. Maimonides presents this view in the introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah. See chapter 3.
Wars 6.2.13 Ibid. 6.2. 14: 463.
This is the major th eme of Eisen’s book, Gersonides on Providence, Covenant, and the Chosen People (note 124) Wars 6.2.12:454–5.
His Torah commentary was first published in Venice in 1547. An annotated edition of his commentary on Gen esis was prepared by Baruch Braner and Eli Freiman (Jerusalem: Maaliyot, 1993). Jacob Lev Levy also prepared an edition of Genesis, as well as of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1994–2000). “For a study of Gersonides’ biblical commentaries see Touati, La pensee philosophique et théologique de Gersonide, 63–71; idem., Les idées philosophique et théologiques de Gersonidedans ses commentaires bibliques, Revue des sciences religieuses, 28 (1954): 335–67; Feldman,” “Gersonides and Biblical Exegesis “, in: Wars of the Lord, vol. 2, 213–47; Amos Funkenstein, “Ralba g’s Biblical Commentary”, in: Freudenthal, Studies on Gersonides, 305–15. For a bibliography of studies dealing with specific themes in Gersonides’ commentari es see Menachem Kellner, “Bibliograp hia Gersonideana” (note 3), Harry Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1976). For the influence of Islamic theology on Jewish thought in general, and on R. Saadiah in particular, see Wolfson’s itRepercussions of the Kalam in Jewish Philosophy (Cambidge, MA: Harvard University, 1979) 382–5.
Wars, 7 (Feldman, vol. 1, 98); 6.2.1:419.
For the English translation of this work see M. Kellner, Commentary on Song of Songs: Levi ben Gershom (New Haven: Yale University, 1998).
The translation is my own and is based on the Braner-Freiman edition of Genesis, 1–2. All subsequent citations from the book of Genesis refer to this edition. Page references to Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy ar e to the Jacob Levy edition. The parallel between the wisdom exhibited by the Torah and that exhibited by nature appears in Maimonides, Guide 3.49: 605–6.
Guide 3.27.
Wars 6.2.1: 419.
For a comparison between both treatments see Feldman, vol. 2, 219–26.
See, for example, Commentary on Exodus, 18 (lesson 4, 5), 139, 144 (lesson 4); Commentary on Numbers, 42–3.
Commentary on Genesis, 173; Commentary on Numbers, 127; Commentary on Deuteronomy, 161.
Maimonides appears to suggest the same id ea. See previous chapter. For an extensive discussion of the various approaches to these techniques in medieval Jewish thought see Dov Schwartz, Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought [Heb.] (Ramat-Can, Israel: Bar-Ilan University, 1999).
See Eisen, Gersonides on Providence, Covenant, and the Chosen People (note 124) Wars 6.2.12:454–5.
Commentary on Numbers, 40, 124; See Feldman, Gersonides and Biblical Exegesis, 219–22.
Commentary on Numbers, 47 (lesson 12).
Sifre Deuteronomy, no. 357.
See, for example, Bereshit Rabbah 19: 11; Mekhilta, Ba-Hodesh, 1.
Commentary on Numbers, 136; Commentary on Deuteronomy, 344–5. See Kellner, “Gersonides on Miracles, the Messiah, and Resurrection” (note 117), 5–34.
Commentary on Numbers, 134.
Wars 4.6.
Ibid. 4.6 (Feldman), vol. 2, 200).
See Kuzari 3.17, 23.
The notion that prophecy is bestowed upon unworthy individuals out of providence for Israel is presented also in Gersonides’ Commentary on I Samuel 12: 6.
See my discussion of Guide 2.41–45 in th e previous chapter.
Guide 2.45.
Commentary on Joshua, chap. 5 (lesson 1).
See the previous chapter for a discussion of this point (particularly Introduction to Pereq Heleq and Laws of the Principles of the Torah).
See in particular Commentary on Exodus, 142–4; Commentary on Deuteronomy, 24, 35.
See Commentary on Exodus, 18, 19, 429, 441 (lesson 7).
Commentary on Numbers, 42–3.
Ibid. 42.
Commentary on Deuteronomy, 27–8 (lesson 8).
Commentary on Exodus, 142, 144 (lesson 5); Commentary on Deuteronomy, 24, 35.
Commentary on Deuteronomy, 28 (lesson 8). See Kellner, “Gersonides on Miracles, the Messiah, and Resurrection” (note 117), 13.
Wars 4.6: 184.
Ibid. 3.3: 137; cf. Guide 1.63.
See also Wars 5.3.12. For a study of this issue see Harry Wolfson, “Maimonides and Gersonides on Divine Attributes as Ambiguous Terms”, in: Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1953): 515–530 [reprinted in his, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, vol. 2, 1. Twersky and G. Williams eds. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1977): 231-246].
Ibid. 5.3.7: 268–9.
Commentary on Exodus, 433–4.
Commentary on Genesis, 193; Commentary on Deuteronomy, 26 (lesson 5); See my “The Land of Israel and Prophecy in Medieval Jewish Philosophy [Heb.] ”, in: M. Halamish and A. Ravitzky eds., The Land of Israel in Medieval Jewish Thought (Jerusalem: Ben-Zevi Institute, 1991): 40–51.
Commentary on Genesis, 482 (lesson 6).
See Klein-Braslavy, “Gersonides on the Mode of Communicating the Future” (note 17), 184–5.
Commentary on Daniel in: Ozar Ha-Perushim, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv: Pardes, 1970): 2b.
Ibid.: 5b.
Ibid. 5b.
See Charles Touati, «Le problerne de l’inerrance prophetique dans la theologie juive du moyen age», Revue de l’histoire des religions, 174 (1968): 169–87.
Wars 2.6: 111–2 (Feldman, vol. 2, 59–60).
Commentary on Genesis, 222–24; cf. Commentary on Job 39.
Guide 2.8; 3.3; cf. Ezekiel I: 24–25. See also Maimonides’ discussion of the hashmal in 3.7.
Wars 2.6: 111–2 (Feldman, vol. 2, 59–60).
Aspects of Gersonides’ political thought have be en analyzed by W.Z. Harvey, “The Philosopher and Politics: Gersonides and Crescas”, in: Leo Landman ed., Scholars and Scholarship in Jewish History (New York: Yeshiva University, 1990): 53–65; Menachem Kellner, “Politics and Perfection: Gersonides vs. Maimonides”, Jewish Political Studies Review, 6 (1994): 49–82. Both scholars point to the fact that Gersonides downplayed the importance of political activity as an aspect of the individual’s perfection and Gersonides himself played no active political role.
Wars 2.2: 97–8 (Feldman, vol. 2, 34–6).
Ibid. introduction. 5 (Feldman, vol. 1, 97); Commentary on Deuteronomy
(lesson 7); cf. Guide 2: 37. See Kellner, “Politics and Perfection”, 69–70.
Ibid. 2.6: 108 (Feldman, vol. 2, 55).
Ibid. 2.5: 104 (Feldman, vol. 2,48).
Ibid. 2.6: 112 (Feldman, vol. 2,60).
See chapter 3 (particularly the discussion of Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah and Laws of the Principles of the Torah).
Commentary on Deuteronomy, 164–5.
See particularly Commentary on Numbers, 42–43.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levi Ben Gershom, R. (2001). The Wars of the Lord. In: Prophecy. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0820-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0820-4_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1181-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0820-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive