.

-·
. ~
,
. .
. ..

~· · Uni1•ersity nf llaifa
~~«:
~~ . '

..
itk
-~~-"i: ; ,
·

~il
THE CONCEPTiON OF THE TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE
;::t.'~t.·.
j~';;
SCIENCE IN MEDIEVAL JEWISH THOUGHT
~-
,r~·

~it' . .. . ·. . .
~~- In chapter twenty-three of his Rosh Amanah Isaac Abravanel (1437-1.508)
~i criticized Moses Maimonidcs (1138-1204), Jlasdai Cresc~s (died c. 1412),
~~-0!! and Joseph Albo (15th cent.) for having proposed lists of principles of faith
~~J: for the Torah 1 • Abravanel claims that they were Jed to do this by the
~}~f example of the secular sciences: · ·. · · ·· ·

~_-r_·iJ That which I believe to be "true, certain. and cstabli;hcd" 2 in ti1is matter
~- is that these men - Maimonidcs and those who follow after himl -are
:~::;.
pc•arC'ahiC' ll'ith us (Genesis 34:21 ). They were brought to postulate principles
3....;;
·.S..__,_.,
:'J. in the divine Torah only because they were drawn after the custom of gentile
' $; . scholars as described in their books. For they saw in every science, whether
;:;.,~;~
- ~.., natural or mathematical, roots and principles which ought not to be denied.
.:~!~t or argued against. They further saw that il is incumbent upon the master of ··
-~•,1 any science- to the exttnt that he is indeed a master or that science - to
:J~ explain these roots and principles nnd to demonstrate them. Such principles
r~~: are the accepted axioms 4 of a science; they arc already explained either in
•+.-. terms of another science, more general than and (logically) prior to this one,
:-~~, or through metaphysics, which precedes and is the first of all the sciences, the
'~·
i~), · first principles of which arc self-evident.
:~t? Thus, when one doubts one of the assumptions of a science and contra-
~t_;·,~ diets it, it can be clarified and proved \vith these general first principles since
•.:.- they arc the roots on which. that entire science is based. It is not fit fer the .
~~~- student of a science to disagree with its principles, nor is it proper to dispute ·
~;1-i~ them since they arc matters generally accepted in it which have already been
~i;: explained in terms of a different science more general than it, or are sclf-
rt~'~
E\~;
~~;~
s . .. . .. ·.
~-~ t. On the issue of dClgma in medieval Jewish thought sec my "Dogma in Medieval Jewish
~T Thought : A 13ihliog··aphical Survey'', Stmlie.~ in /Jihli!JKrapfly and llookfore 15 ( 1984). pp. 5-21
q{.f and my Dogma in Mrdit?wd Jell'ish Thouglrt: From Maimanillt•s to Abravmll!f, Oxford, Oxford
:·~'- University Press, 1986; henceforth, Dogma. · . . .. .
f!f< 2. This phrase is taken from the lirst blessing after the Shema' in the morning prayer; See,
~f.:; (or example, Philip Birnbnum, Daily Prtl)'t'r Book. New York, 1949, p. 78. . . . .
~~~ 3. Crescas and Albo. . · · ·
f.:l' 4. /lathaf<Jt.
;~1:- .
'.~f~~
"'11

~I Rnur dc·s EtucfC'.rjuh·c;.r CXI.VI (J-4) . /987, flf1. 2~5~179.

:sl: -s~,~~<~B31~
:t~'5~ 266 ·. ·~ ·~r=wz
.=·ea'•
· ma-...............
·
~~~,n~~~~~----~~----~~~~~~~--~--~~--~--~~--~~~--
it'!Hi7fr1f'fP"!t
.
· .i
··;'~"-'\.-'" ..-).t
1
71 IJJJ
l;iifM'''tt'ii , II<,·• ;J;-~-il<r·~1! ·
' J1lk~,/j,~
· .
..~....~..~..~~======~==~ .
:e;
.
:
·
~
2or-
evident. Jn this way physics takes its ficst principles from metaphysics and the
,jitl'o~~\'ic>'l<. first philosophy. The ficst philoso h i ·
g · .. . . . · · · · ·

'J¥f;(,ff,~K cectai~ e~c;r

science ofm•isic takes its ficst pdnciplcs fcom mathematics. . conception of the ficst movcc 0 Y n tum bo"ows fcom the physicist the

.( f,\;'f;'l'f";i~) P~'~''P
Our scholacs, having been dispccsed among the na lions and having sl udicd : assumes a I the beginning • theocctical science ' ' necessarily

g'"' '::;;~~1@;\JL p;~~~ lc~~ Po~tedor

their books and sciences, lcamcd [com their deeds and copied their w.<ys and , in anothec science as is expl . cs and postulates which ace pcoved

'll~i£f'[,ji; ~re
customs with cespect to the divine To ca h. They said: "How dn tll's< iks principles or upon .. he first ,'he Analyacs. Upon these

· Wi-li.\;l;'t~·.
pUr.we' their sciences1 By positing first princi pies and roots upon which a • that science. This being so i l is p · built aII the proofs occurring in
science is based. I will do so a \so and postulate principles and foundations ; pri nci pies" . . . ' proper lo mq u1re where divine Torah Ia kes its
~-... .;-t;.:'-~t~y ~if$~}?},~)~-
This is a clear and succinct summar - . . . . . . . ·.
'~i~JU£i:o;~::
for the divine Torah" 6 • · ·
. Abravanel contends here that Maimonides, Crcscas, and Albo treated . structure of science· Tl1e sc1ent1st
. . Y of the . deductive
when d 10. ·
model of. the
the "divine Torah" as. if the methodology appropriate . to. it d the •
b were · matters
. within his or her SCience
· d'educes specifi
engage 5 t the exposition . of
· · r 1
qt~estiOned
methodology of the secular sciences. Every secular sc1ence IS · ase upon : · sctence
• from axioms which th .
are emselves not to b c atements
· within. that
"roots and principles" which the practitiOners o t1at sc1ence accept · sc1ence. Albc explicitly links th T 11 . : concept
e
' d · · 1 " h 1 th 1 · e ora to th1s k' within
· that·
without question. These "roots an pnnctp es are t emse ves e cone u-. qucstton of it which is asked f 0 11 . · . ton, as mg the same
sions of (i.e., arc proved in) other specific sciences or they are the conclu· axioms ••? '
a sctences: what is the source of its
sions of (i.e., proved in) metaphysics, the most general of all sciences.· Returning to Ahravanel we find th 1 . . ·. . .. ·.

science;~
Metaphysics in turn iS based upon "roots and principles" which arc self- thai !he methodology of ll T h at le, contra Albo, re;ects the claini
evidently true so there is no more fundamental science on which it is ba<ed. logy of the secular ora may be subsumed under the mdhodo-
But to my eves "tl 1 • • . ' · ·. .· .
This conception allows the scientist the freedom of working in his or her
science without having to justify the basic assumptions and definitions · .J;j)" -~Y·.~
10
sciences
. of the
· gentiles and uston
" cunc thel·r bIS not
k similar the premtsc . , for the·
. ...,
and speculation. In order tlrtt the' oo s arc 1 .purslted by way o r ·mvcst1gation
pre~:,:.~"
n which the science is based. The geometer qua geometer, for example. ·
does not have to prove the I ruth of the axioms of geometry. l cwish
'~Y ~ere
Upo with the ex plana 1ion of thei; 'ttons would not become confused
1 P?stulate accepted
~ll1 s~d·~· ~e>en~e
scholars, Abravanel maintains, were influenced by this model and sought to first principles which would be aced ted forced to
r r
demand or demonstra lion and cvil.nce 105
~
apply it to the Torah. Thus, they posited pri nci p lcs 0 faith by way of IC ? without the
. d J'k • 01 ore genera , sc1encc or they wo ld b If
howe~er, understa~ds ~a;
delineating the axioms of the science of Torah. be explained by a different • rst pnnclplcs m turn would
Abravane!, who ultimately exculpates Maimonides from the charge of evt ent, ' c the primary intclligiblcs " · God, th:
8
aping secular methodologies 1, is wrong when it comes to Crcscas , but he II. ~!oldunnh iyyrmit.
12. lla-mu.rknlot /ra-riJ/umor.
is absolutely on the mark with respect to Albo. We find the following
:!.: ~t~;~~~a;~~~~-gn~
1(·d::J ~ra1~81a9t)cdm~l~ntls~ac1 Hu~ik~1 Philadelphla,
... arncl a s1m1 ar positio s h- D
1929, pp. 14S-G. . . '.
~- ec IS erekh Emunah
passage in Albo's Sefer ha-Ikkarim: · · .
• I. Wllh rcspec.t to the axiomatic account of scienc . h
10
Every science makes use of principles" and postulat~s which are not self- e!~pecially chapters 3> 10 and 13 ' Jon~th~ufl narncs Jn
Ill
. tehtn t e Posterror Analytics,
C Jnt d r h' .
see Book A
evident, but arc assurned as true and borrowed from another science in which ..... -,"1'c"t~·- A. ~~JOn
,
U I .

~}~~f}l
fostcrior Analyticr (Oxford, 1975) summarizes ro to IS translation of the
C!'Scntialthcsis of Dook A is simple and str•'k•'rl. · tl nst?tle s P<:Sitlon as follows (p. XI): '.'The
they arc proved. Upon these principles arc built all of the proofs of the
a~10matlzcd system~. Whnt Euclid did Inter, haltin I for ~
· · ' g. lC SCiences arc proper! . d d·
science in question. Thus, the geometrician borrows the conception of line .t.;~-k-·• · t\'cry .Y CKpoun e tn formal
or -~ilifAV!i
bwnch of human knmvlcdgc Tl . g y. g mnctry, Anstotlc wanted done for
. te sc1cnccs 'Ire to be 'IK · . 1• 1 1 • ·
and point from the physicist. The arithmetician borrows the conception 'r ~~m·• 17.Cc:. f;I wt dISrto say, the body
'}~iii
of truth that each define is. to be exh'lb'lted a s a sequence
., 0 thcor
. unity and the physicist the conception of substance and accident from the posulates or axioms. And the axiomatization is to be . e~~s m ~rrc ro~ a few basic
nrc to be formulated within a well-defined I· • formahz~d ' that IS to say, Jls sentences
5. The partial verse is Deuteronomy 12:30. The usc of this verse here, dealing ns it docs with :·l~1iV.
according to a precisely and explicitly specified s;~";;ltg~, and It~ arguments are to proceed .
idol worship, betrays Abravanel's altitude: . . .
6. Js~ac Abravanel, Rosh Anumah (Prrnrrplrs nf Fwtlr), translated by M. Kellner, East ·:.~~l'~~f} t
·.\1!!.~-}.1·
translated into Arabic in the lXth ccntur . 't ~glcal rules ..The Posterior Anafy tics was
XIIJth century through Hchrcw tr·tnshll·(~n· sl o\vfaAs avm a~lc to Hebrew readers from alleast the . .
· f· . . · · '
.r. .- '-)··\··.. ' I5Suc o 11s transm1ss on see Shalom Roscnb
· · vcrroes s commcnt·1ric · 0
,;L . . · s upon 1t. n the whole
the Fourteenth Century;', Hebrew Universi~rgPh ;gle.and O~tology in Jewish Philosophy in
Brunsw1ck, N.J., 1982, pp. 194-195. ,;. _!!;,,.. 1
:ti'~~'i;:
-'~h~~;~~~
· 7. See Roslr Amanalr, ed. cit., p. 19!1.
• 15. See Pe.rabim 15a; the phrase means tl~1t lhe . Dlssertadtl?n.' 1?73 (Hebrew), pp. 1-13.
~;';'E!i''
8. Sec Dogma, chapter four, section 4 and, briefly, he!ow.
· 16. Muska{ Risfum. . • ' cases arc ISSimllar. . . .
d11a~rot. .
.;y~~%~3•
9. Hatlwlot. · ·
I0. ·Jl
.~t~l~:
 _; . .
-----~~~--------~--~~~-==~·~~·~===~==~;=:: ......... . .

. . . :

Til£ TORAH AS A DE . .
THE TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE . O.UCTIVE ~CIENCE
268
. . .
. .

Science zr is divid d . · · · · . · 269

of the divine Torah; He gave it to His people, to be accepted in faith, s . c mto three part Th
c1cnce of the natu s. e first part · h
according to what He saw as necessary for their perfection. For this reason tics, which ·rncl d re ahnd accidents of bodies Th IS p ysics, which is the
u cs t e sc· · e second t·
He did not have to set down in it some beliefs as more fundamental than music, or the com . . lences of arithmetic e par IS mathema-
others, or some as more acceptable than others; nor did He establish the knowlcdgc of G d pOS!liOn of melodies. The thir~ ometr.y, astronomy, and
relative importance of the commandments, since they were all gil•ett hy one as well as those ~lh- gl~.ry and praise be unto Him part ~~ metaphysics, the
Shepherd. Nor is there any other Torah, or any science or divine undcrstan· soul, the mind ande~~u ~~c~s that can be undcrstood"b a~ ~he Scriptureszz,
' ' e spmtual persons2J . Y e mtcllect, like the
ding more general than or prior to our Torah, such that we could derive11first
principles for the Torah from it, or explain or validate them through it • Here we h ave a text w . .·· . .: . . .·
ntten by an au tho · h .
~h~z~~le~~~ ~~e;e~:rpehwys~cfisnd the Writt~nwT~r~a~!~;dze:e~::dicaasl
philoso h · · ·
Science involves investigation, speculation, and proof. An axiomatic/ ·
paFrt of
deductive methodology, distinguishing between the logical status of diffe-
urther evr·d ence may be dd · · . · .. ..· · . .
rent statements within any particular science, makes excellent sense. But the
des .and his commentators. ~ h~sc:~:,rom t.he writings of Moses Maimo~i :
Torah, Abravanel insists, is different. The statements within it (i.e., its ·
teachings and commandments) are all of equal logical status having all
Matmonides defines theology24 in u,//~f~c~l treatise, Milfot ha-Higayon~
o owtng passage. . .
been revealed by God; nor is there any other science on the basis of which The term 'philosophy'. , I . ·.· .. .
( d IS cl SO a homo
its axioms may be proved. c~~~~c::f ss~:~~:esthe sciences. rn ~~~nia~~;;c~!r::s~ ~i~nif~ing demonstra-
This controversy between Albo and Abravanel gives rise to a number of
~ractical phif;s~~;yw~~c~u is .callc~ theoretical! P;~il~~:e;h~o !~~ two .
~~:~~~~'i 1 )1*~'"ihy ;~ d;,;ded ;:~~~~~~~:~~;.Y,;, •;h poHtkal philo•op~~~
othcr.
interesting and related questions. First, Albo was hardly the first Jewish
thinker explicitly to compare the Torah to other sciences. Why did Abrava-
. everybcin~·wl . ~o ?gy IS divided into two parts: on: ;mthatrc~,
physics, and
nel specifically criticize him and not others (aside from Maimonidcs and h He 1 IS not matter ~ . o em IS the stud f

~~:;~,~~~;."!~~~~:he p:tilo•o~hc~. ~·.~:~='~ ;:::~~·;nd al•o, ,,::;d;::

Crescas) equally guilty? Second, and this question actually answers the first, w atcver appertains to God m no.r a orce rn matter, that is to . Yo .
·why was Albo the first Jewish thinker to go beyond the widely-accepted
claim that the Torah is a deductive science to the actual attempt to list its
~=::«·The other~~~~~~;;:;~;:;;·:~~~:: ;~tciHgcnee;, ;~~:,~~~,:~~~;,;;;: ·
axioms 18 ?
As Harry Wolfson has pointed out, it was a commonplace among
si~s, z~r...of the other sciences,. and is called bot~ ~~n~ole c~uses of the subject .
IVtne SCience and metaphy- .
20
medieval Jewish writers to see theology 19 as a deductive science • This is
. hardly surprising since theology was identified with metaphysics, a science We learn here that theolo . . .
su bjec t.s. Th e first subject isgyGod scrence, one whrch
IS aand · deals with two
which Aristotle himself had sought to place upon a firm deductive footing.
But was this ~wkhma!t elohit identical with the content of the Torah,
compns~s the most general presuppo ·r the .~ngcls; the second subject
other SCiences. . Sl IOnS ( remote causes") of aiJ the
properly understood? Many medieval Jewish philosophical writers made
this identification. 1 would like to adduce and analyze a number of texts
We know f rom a number of texts that Maim · 'd . 'd
· . ·... ·~ .. .

which substantiate this claim.

In Bal)ya ibn Paquda (XIth century), for example, we find the following
.
. .. . .
-
ont es I cntrficd theology as ·.
. .

passage:

17. RoJII Amano/1, c•d. d t .• p. 195.

\8. On Albo's attempt to list the axioms of the Torah sec ScjC'r lw-lkkarim 1.4, 10, 13, and
15; the bibliographical survey mentioned in note I above, and Dogma, chapter five, sections I

19. Usually {rokhmoh r/olrit {=divine science) or sometimes ~wklrmatlra- Torah ( = the science:
and 2. · .

of 20.
the Torah}.
Harry A.. Wolfson, "The Clnssilication of Sciences in Medieval Jewish Philosophy",
reprinted in his Studies ill tire /liJtary of Philosoplry and R1•ligimr, Vol. I. edited hy 1. Twcrsk)'
and G. Willia ms, Cambridge, 1973, pp. 493-550.
 THE TORAH AS A DEDUCTI VE SCIENCE
THE TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE . . . . 271
270 sense" on th e .one hand· .on · th "I . . . . . • ·
. . .· .
it is defined in Mil/at ha-Higayon with Ma'aselt Merkabah (Ezekiel's han.d. T~e former is the. subj:ct ~~~~st•c s~udy of the La:v" on the other
"Account of the Chariot'') 27 • Mishnah l:fagigah II, I drastically restricts the Matmonrdes'·halakhic compendiu ·.· e Gu:de, the Iatter.ts the subject of
population to whom Ma'aseh Merkaba!t may be taught. In his commentary p.arallels the distinction in the M:h~~~
MLs!meh Toralzll . This distinction .
to this text Maimonides explains why the Mishnah deals with Ma'aseh clples of gufei Torah'' (i e I . commentary between the " .
tl h . I k .., p 1ysrcs and meta I • ) pnn-
Merkaball there. He writes that the Mishnah, having discussed gufei Torah 1e a a .hot of the Torah). plystcs and gzijei Torah (i.e.,
· (specific halakhot; literally, "bodies of Torah"), "mentions matters which . But, withal, there is no explicit . .
are principles (usul) of the gufei Torah" 28 . Theology or metaphysics, Identified "the science of the La te~t~al evtdence proving that Maimonidcs
do h · w 10 Its true sens " · h
therefore, is that science which contains the principles of Halakhah. ave convmcing reason to· believe th . e wrt metaphysics. We
Although there is little doubt that for Maimonides the science of the we have proof that he did believe that tl ~t he accept~d that identification;
Torah properly understood is metaphysics, the point has not been proven. true sense; Maimonidcs gives no . d ' ~ere was a sczence of the Law in its
The texts adduced so far only show that for Maimonides metaphysics 2is be methodologically distinct fr m ;catJO~ that this science is or ought to
taught in the Torah (Ma'ase!J Merkahah) and that it is one of the sciences C) Although I cannot ?m ot 1cr scrences.
· prove conclusively tl t M ·
which contain the principles of the Torah when the latter is understood in sctence of the Law in its t la atmonides defined "the
rue sense" as pi · d ·
IS IS more Important ~
terms of concrete commandments (gufei Torah). We have yet to prove that d emonstrate - and th. . . lYSJcs an metaphysics I
. , can
there is a "science of the Torah" which ought to be guided by the many of his commentators underst d . or my purposes here - that
methodology of the deductive sciences. " Joseph ibn Kaspi (died . c. 1332~ow ~um ~o b~ ma king that definition.
In his Introduction to the Guide of the Perplexed Maimonides discusses Resefthat .... . the book(s) of physics a ~Jtes m hts commentary 'Ammudei
account of our sins we're stole 'r , n metaphysics (ha-Elolwt) which on
the purpose of the book: 'tl . , . n rom us and ' I ·'b d . ,
lC sctencc of the Torah ,·n l't t , • SCI I e to Anstotle 1 are all
It is not the purpose of this Treatise to make its totality understandable to s rue sense'JJ"
the vulgar or to beginners in speculation, nor to teach those who have not .M oscs . Narb om:· " ... and· since the science · f I . .
engaged in any study other than the science of the Law - I mean the science m which is explained G d' . o t le Torah includes every
th o s extstence unity d ·
legalistic study of the Law 30 • For the purpose of this Treatise and all those e secrets of physics and meta h . an ~ncorporeality, and
I

Bcreslzit and Ma'aselz Merkahalz ...~'J~slcs (ha-Eloltut) mcluding Ma'aseh

31
like it is the science or the Law in its true sense •
Maimonides nowhere explicitly explains what "the science of the Law in its .. Sh~m Tov b~n Joseph ibn Shem Tov XVth . . : .. . . . .
· ·· smce the sctence of the T h . ( cent.) echoes Narboni.
true sense" is. A glance at the subjects discussed in the Guide, however, _,. · . . ora mcludes every s · h' . ·
ou s extslence, unity and inco . I' Clence w tch explains
(which include God's attributes, His existence,· unity and incorporeality. .G t h . • rporea tty (and) the . f .
me ap ysJcs (ha-Elohut) and . ' secrets o physics and
the separate intellects, and Ma'aselz Merkabah) leads one to the almost Mcrkahalz ··· "35 . . · ' · 10 general Ma'aseh Bereslzit and M • 1
inescapable conclusion that "the science of the Law in its true sense" is a ase l
metaphysics. This idea is strengthened by the parallelism which may be seen Isaac Abravancl (1437-1508) . I . h .. . . .
"I I' · exp ams t at the di t · 1· ·
ega tsllc study of the Law" d I .. . s me ton between the
to obtain with Maimonides' discussion in his commentary on Mishnah " . . . an llc SCience of tl T .
Ifagigah. He distinguishes here between "the science of the law in its true sense IS Important since the latter term " i . , lC . o_rah . in its true
for metaphysics (ha-Elohiyol) I b s -not only sard of the Talm ud
.· . may .a so eca.H edthat. .. "Jcs.. .· ' ·
32. See GuMl!, IT 10 (p 273) and L S . '. . . . '. : . . .· ·.
1 • · co Lrauss "Th L' ·
<'~j <'.~~cr·, in~~· W. Baron (cd.), Essays on ·M~i;llnnit7rr ~~~~,?yCh:racter of the Guid,•of tit<' .
p
• t~muu "' K,•sr[. cd. Wcrbluncr (Frankfurt :.• . or • pp. 37-91 , csp. p. .38. . .
Ml![arslrct
14 B • ha-Hnrrlr.
l Jcrus·•lcm
• • 1961). . /M,. 184!!),. p.' 2 (reprinted in Ka·.(l,lllltJC'I
~, .
. •. l! ur ••-St!frr Morell Nl'bukhim cd J G ld . .. . .. .
on3~"~" Ill. 54 (rcprinlcd in Kadmm;d Altfar~hr~~~tl~~~ VI~n) na, 1852, p. I b; sec also p. 64 b .
. . ommcnlary to Guide l. lnlroducrion ( ./I a . nrc·'.' . . . ... ..
J6. ibid. . • I( J(l (". . . • ' ..

· :.
 ·~~-~·~·
.'if~!
IS' A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE . · 1~~) TilE TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE
.;Z·:t .
~\1·
THE TORAH I •
273
272 II of whom understood li
f tl1e Law in its true sense" t~ re fer
\ue have here four separate. commentators a .J~t
. '"'~"' Maimonides was concerned, not with the logical question, what -are the
'~ (!,-~,: axioms of the Torah when it is conceived of as a science? but with the
~~i
'd s' exprcss;on "the sctence 0 that th;s ;nterpretattOn or
Matmomt \;cs Th;s or course, docs not prove that th;s understand;ng or religious or dogmatic question, who is a Jew and who will enjoy share in
the world to come? : ·
a
:r;1!,,%
~=~~;;~~:~ ~~ ;::;:~ ;:;ts;m:~e:~;· :~,:~:~p~~a:s;~~~.a sdenee,
to meta P 'Y . • It docs show however' ' t M a;mon;-
, f~~; · Crescas'· system of principles is complex: and multi-tiered 40. A brief
dean Jewish thought. T e ~r nd metaphysics. ·'""~"!!;: account of it here will help to clarify where Albo differed from him. Ori the
b
··~.;~~~:· most fundamental level we have "the first principle of all
the Torah beliefs
. ;tJ·· ~~~
'fically the science of physiCS a . cc and if sciences ought to e
spect . 'd d as a scten , ' · why and commandments", belief in God's exislence, unity, and lnco.rporeality.
But if the Torah IS COOS\ ere . r ed in the Posterior Ana1yttcs. f ::tY:h

t~~:~f~!a~f~l:j;;~J,~f;~~;;i~~~f.~:l~.~~~:~f~~§~:~: ..,,
There are then those beliefs taught by the Torah which are "cornerstones .
and foundations of all the commandments". This second tier ·is distin·- ·
guished from the third tier of beliefs which "are not cornerstones and
foundations but are true views''. Last. there are those beliefs - many the
. atic account of metaphysics a . ;J;i.l~~t' subject of considerable debate in Crescas' time- which "the mind tends to
~;~:tie pre-em;nent among the';,:lbo was not the first Jew;sh th;nker to ; i):.:•·c[:
accept'' and which "may or may not be taught by the Torah" 41 • .. .

W~ have seen, theref?re, thaft tile Torah. On the contrary, the evtdencl:sde , !;f:~)St
We ought to note the following points. Belief in God is the_"first ·
J1>~.'1'1 . principle" of all Torah beliefs and commandments; this may be distin- ·.
:~~:ced c;m~~;;~g :~c.}:}.~
t that there is a science o I accepted idea. Why then
here ;ndkates that ;twas a made that assert;on?Thc guished from beliefs of the second variety which are foundations of the
Abravanel choose to attack A.lbo ~: above: Alba was the first thmkcr ·f.f r ;:;l commandments, but are· not themselves foundations of other Torah beliefs.

answer to that question :vas h~nl~~count of the science of the '!'orah. The ·...~}t,, ,..~..~i. .-._~;~.-.~.l~.•..
That is to say these beliefs are not logically related to the other teachings of
actually to attempt an axlo~atlc . he do it? Why was he not con~ent, as the Torah in any oarticular way. They · are, however, ·related to the
question which adses now, ts why~~ the ax;omat;c accounts or phystcs and :i~~~1 commandments in that the Torah as a system of commandments cannot be
Others thinkers apparently were, ws .. i~ . Jt· -·:t accepted if even one of these beliefs be denied. The third tier of beliefs are
·
metaphysics already given. ? . ht to be recalled that A bra vane1 d'd I not ·,:;-!,::.i:~./'
·~·;,;{;.>i~·~ those which the Torah teaches but are such that if one of them be denied .
Before taking up this is~ue ll o~~ed the Torah after the sciences. He s~e~ if~/.}~· the Torah as a whole would not collapse. The second and third groups of
accuse Albo alone of havm~ mo footsteps of Maimonides a.nd J:Ias al t-E:f!J~·
beliefs share one important characteristic in common: denial of any one of
n in this matter, we Will be b:ttcr ~tiWi;:~
these beliefs is like denying the whole Torah and constitutes heresy.
Albo as having followed tn the
Although Crescas does not make this explicit, we may assu~e that he held
Crescas:n. Although A~ravanehl wtaAs l'bvrood~ and why he did it if we bnefly '.cH./~::Ltl· that heretics lose their share in the world to come. ·
d
able to understan Precssely w a rote Y.
t-• t-~1:-:~\ll
:.r' · ·-' ·
We may summari7.e Crescas' system. to the ~xtent to which it is ~utlincd ·
examine what Maimonidcs and C~es~a~ w for .the TorahlR. I have argued .JJ,~?~;f;$:
M . nides posited thirteen pnnclp es d Abravanel may have ~~:~::W}'f§.;( in the Preface to the Or Adonai, as follows : Level J belief (God) makes·
else aJmo d . h t Crcscas Albo an n ' '!.'-'~;. ;~C-o'• -~~ possible the Torah as a system of teachings and commandments. Ltvcl IT
•. :~;;
p'f•-o \ ':~~~
JO .
where that, espl t ek w a 0 'd ' l'tst of ' the axioms o f t 11e T 0 rah
' ..... ·· ::..-·
beliefs answer the analytic question, which of the Torah beliefs must be
. ···~E-•"h·: ;,~-
ht
:~~":·~·~v,~.
. t prov1 · e a ' r.' "'-'-·: -·-:., "
thoug , h e was not see tng held if any Torah as a system of divine commai1dments is to be possible?
h Alho lc-Mishnat ha· lkkanm :l~)~~;:r,:·;:~ !
. .. . Mishn·lt ha·lkk;~rim she\ R . Jos~p Level JII beliefs answer the empirical question, what other beliefs are in fact
37. Eliczcr Schwcld, h~cm33 b actually followed lit;,<-J:•; =t;:.:EJi
(I96J-64) pp. 74-84, main lams thai Allocd to Alho hy some ·i;f:).f;r~!;:z· .
ha~:~l~s ~~a~d. Wh~reas idcad.~ligl\t ~~~~:;/gi~ae\n axio~atic/dcductivc :~if!~}\tJ~:
b " Tar r:: ' 11 1 e been sugges r · ··· -·· -·t: ':11 taught by the Torah of Moses? We may express it in another way: · ·
~o :K~:·~'t(,~
she] the account o Level J - the presupposition of Revelation
9.~ !·~:~i'_r~~t~
Duran I . Duran's, Duran himself I sc -103. . . ... .
Level li - belief.'> the acceptance of which makes. beliefin Revelation .
Torah.MSc~ Do~;~~;p ~cc Arthu~ Hyma~, ,u~~~:hrldgc. <j~ij~~1,~·
comments of haptcr three, sccllon 2, pp. .. 'des' 'Thirteen Prrncrplcs • tn
the crinciplcs M/' 1967, pp. 119·144. my possible
I I R •muucmcc ,,wcrr.~. •
38 On aJmom .
A A.Jtmann (cd.).Jrwish Mrclil!l'(l.am lee I
1
~·nd
Dnf!mn, chapter one. ~4~;,tr,.t.[J.\
"li l -';}:J,•· .- •. ,

{-j,!'.~$-i-1:~'~·-~
40. The following account of Crcscas is drawn from Dognui , chapter four.
"·"
bibliographical essay cr· cd •abovesection
111 no • 17-21.
2. pp. · : ·•. ·<v·k;· • ,
41. Or Adonni, Preface, Vicnnn, 1859, p. Jb. .
39. See Dnf!IIIO, chapter one, . -~-:11KW'~~~~·
1 ..
 THE TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE :nr~~t.~~]f-. THE TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCI.E·NCE
274 i!T.,1!!'l'::~~iif
f..;f.~·-:t.t~t'\S't • '
. ·. . 275
Level III- beliefs which are in fact taught by the Torah of Moses
.[-~; • ~~ir:n:~.;·~~·~::~g~:~~~~r~~= ~~~.~;;~::,~~~;e~o~ary beliefs ("true
.
Level IV - beliefs which are not conditions for Revelation and which
the Torah of Moses neither affirms nor denies explicitly. '~~-::=!:.-;t':.r~ ~e ~tJOnship between them whatever. Rather th " s . . ere IS no logical .
There are several reasons for assuming that Crescas defined his corner-
stones in an axiomatic sense as Abravanel maintained. First, he defines ~~r~·· ~::~~:~:;:L::~~:,:~ce:l:;,i::,~;~!t ~:~: 6::~~;~::·~:.~~::~
...~.J·>"''~.~~
them as "the foundations and piliars upon which the house of the Lord
We may phrase this in another wa . I . d' . . : . ·.. :. .· .
rests. With their existence, the existence of the Torah as ordered by God is . ~;p{¢£;~'rli ' the Torah, Crescas analysed tl y. n tscusstng the "cornerstones" of
conceivable; could we conceive the lack of one of them the entire Torah r.w:m···c.,r.~
,~·"·'~· ·~~~ ; re f1erence to the Torah 0 f 1 d Je. concept
·
of revelatio
.
'th ··
n · Wt out specific
would collapse, heaven forfend" 42 • That definition certainly makes the •'c-""s-~. ·~ u arsm. (He even d fi · '
h ..::J:i'>"':~)a . neutral terms: "a voliti I . . e mes tt m remarkably

~tit·. ·£~;~:f.;~tc~~~~~~~t;~~f~:?l~:~;;;~;Ii~~bfi~~;,;~~~~;~:~f·
cornerstones sound like axioms, beliefs upon which the very existence of the
Torah rests.
Second, adopting Abravanel's interpretation allows us to see an inte~es-
ting and suggestive parallelism between the critical and constructive por-
tions of Crescas' Or Adonai: in the first treatise he criticizes the axioms of
Aristotelianism while in the second he analyzes and defends the axioms of n. · . ~. ~~~~-~ :-~.z~.~--~j_;,~·'t~
. questions. Unlike
Jew or who is elig'rble ,. . .
1 Maimonid:s,~~e 'is':~tt:t~~~t ~~stanccd, stric~ly
religious
P tng to etermme who is a
. r.:o·'•>'~· ·i •Or a porlton 111 the wo ld t ·
Judaism, which he proposes as a replacement for Aristotelianism. !(~;~:·::"'' :~~ salvatron and the world to c
•
d . r. o; come. The 1ssue of
This interpretation of Crescas, then, has much to recommend it but I do '.~\~:t~ff::& . all. orne oes not anse m Crescas' discussr'ons at
not think that it is entirely satisfactory. Terminologically, we must ask why ·. t~·'"'~--~1 -U~. ~hat ~s. Crescas dotng
~ i'"l ·- .~ .•• ;.~
. here?' He is furthe . . r . .
Crescas, if he meant his principles to be construed as axioms, chose to call ~ tC:.·;~~::<;J~ , ..
,~~..<< ~t·;: Matmomdcs and of Jewish philoso I . .nng _hts ~ell known crttJque of
:
them pinnot ("cornerstones'') rather than hakdamot, the accepted term for :l.f;,,_,~~::·;::f . altogether the clai~1 that the T L ~ uc ra.ttonah.sm m general by rejecting
Euclid's axioms, and the term he himself uses for those axioms of Aristote- ·r.·. -.. .·· ;,~ ora11 ts a sc1ence hke otl ·
43 -' . ..T!.:_.:· :.;:.'-_:~ sought emphatically to estabii'sh tl T . I . ler sciences. Crescas
· . · .~~ · ~: ~1 ~
itt'~~V t~alt.t ~Y
lian ism which he criticizes in the Or Adonai • · ·, . . 1e ora 1 on 1to;: 0 · .
More importantly, however, we must note that for Crcscas, acceptance :'f.;_ can be assimilated mcthodolo ic 11 ' wn . ootmg. denymg
of the Torah precedes acceptance of the cornerstones; it is not deduced .... . l~·- ~.::;.:;_;~~;,_r_~.
hmg 1ts unique status. . g a Y to other SCiences he 1s establis-
•
from them . In his introduction to ..Treatise III, which deals with the ji/;~::-J.:;,:··.·.~t; . · Albo was a muc1t 1ess radtcal thinker than Crescas H . ; ' ·
;~f-. : ·i~ :~j¥
<

: 1\~!~1\~·~~ cJ.ell~
cornerstones of the Torah, Crescas deduces them from the concept, "Torah i follow Crcscas in rejecting the s . t'fi 1 d · e was not WIIImg4to .
from heaven"; he does not base our belief in Torah from heaven on our l·rt ~~ ..,. .. -~. But he was at the same tt' me unw1 mgrctomo el o.fMthe· Torah
follow ·d ,altogether
· s. .
antecedent acceptance of these beliefs; this would have been the proper Ao,;::~;;;:};
(and, in all likelihood, Maimonides him If) b h . atmom. es . . mter~reters
approach were he dealing with axioms of the Torah. !tf::Y/~~:):'
model of the Torah and in identifying thse . ot m adoptmg the screntific .. ,
Third, if Crescas did understand his "cornerstones" in an axiomatic j)~;~~-~:~J~,_;, a.nd me tap1lYSICS. ~·jt"'-;-> '~~:~~r
· In this latter point hee sctence
agreed of withtheCTorah . with
. 1 .phys·
. ICS.

:~;;,~~:~;~;,~~~ ~~~nw;~;,\:~:~~:,'!~;.;:~:~ :,;:c7~~'~:: ~:?.~:~: (~~}f1 ~~~e:~,:~d:~:~~.~;!:;::~:~:~~:,:~ ~:~~~~17.,~Tame rht~1~ ~ ·P:tes;;~~ •

of heresy. One would expect him to argue that axioms are more fundamen- ~~~].:*~;1.~1: · le ora could be descri-
tal, more important, more crucial, than derivative beliefs. Yet he does not. ~~s,,;:~;G 'ii~~; ' - .· .
This raises another and related point: Crescas -. unlike Albo ' who did (-:".i .,,,,.~""r.· k.~fk~~1~t
.. ~,.,,._~~
~ " 44. .Or Admwi ,
nltcntron to this point dr ..~d.
p. 27b·. 1 '
., 111 1·ndcbt cd to 0 r Warren Z II
· ' ev arvcy for drawing· my
. r·lt·,r -
..~};;t<'J~. ·~ :zhl''"'"· 4s "R d' , .. h ·
· a Jca ere is a rchllive term· fro 1 • ·
42. lhrd.• p. 27 b. ,,~f:I. ' H'ii'(··~:··
.,· ~l"";"'\·-: .......... , •
radical break with m·•ny of th 'I m I 1e perspectrve or Talmudic Judaism Cresca.s'
C.ttalan title or ~·:-~.~. ,·•~;.--
~ ;-r::•-:;:J:
· • · 1· · ' c common y ncccpled · • •
. t wou
• . ldChbe. mterestmg,
. m IllS context, 1r we knew what the original
I . 8 ' llkk ' I . . : ! ·
or the Principles or .';l!~<~i:Y~~;1V};·
. "- ~. · thought would prohably •
be
consr'dered conservative assumpllons
d t I' or post-Maimonidean '
Jewrs
· 11
·.\:<-~"-~~":!;..\:· tonotemake
43 I
rescas . anlt·
. '") nstmn po cm1c,
h frltu, I arrrI km-Nn.yrim (="Rcfutahon 37) sees Albo as tryi ng 1o esl.t• bl'IS h the Torah' an no . drm tcaln t all. Schwcid (sec above,
was: was e rc utmg t 1e 10 ·c m110t (ax1oms) or pinnnt (cornerstone.~) or l·,:il:;'5:t".:,.-:>'
I . "
.C c · · nsllans
· .... :; ~~ ~;..:·· h it independent of p111-1osop1ty and proof' a on ..- an
1 't'" epcndcnt
... axiomatic
' base
• · in order
th 1ns!Jamty
Ch .· ::i):'"'2:ir.;j>;';:£4:~ . ere, di!Ters from Schweid's. . 'g.. rns I s crllrcJsms. My own analysis, given .
:I
.~
Cl 7 . .,#. }~. '
~~~·~·· '"' . _·,-4p·.
··:.~ >fl~-,¥lr
.

._._ :"·f.~"';.~~!
 · AH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE ' ~.n~c:J~li!i
.·; '-1--~, THE TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE . 277

276 - eTtl11IO£dr,ooloRgy appropr'•ate to science: he <_f~~-%~,~~'l.J; three principles above mentioned, namely the existence of God divine

~~:a:~~;:~~~zt~~~~ ~:::v~; ~~e~ ~"_;:.«::..

_'~:_ h_,l-.~:-'~_:.·,-~;._·:~t,"._.:· ~-1._~;i._~- %;~~~~;~:~~-~fi~~;~n~n~~:.~~:~~;~~:~~i ~~:YP~~~~~~sd~7~i~lnt:~a~~~~~~~~ l~si~~~
•u '"' . - re~cl~tion, an~ ;eward and punishment, it follows that they are n~cessary
it came to specifying the content o?fTthhee .. _ _._-
.__ . .
T
h
science of the ora · 1
f he science of the T ora1 for Albo .
What, then, was the content o t f r as Albo was concerned was not
·••h···-~ ~-'··· ' · v every
d b science
h· h the principles
d II are
1 first
h laid down upon ·which the science turns
an y w lc are prove a t le ot er propositions that come in that science,
~he
1
T 1 as a T h so in the section In the beginning ... are recounted three matters, different
essential teaching of ora . 1e content of the science of the ora from each or her, every one explaining one of the principles to indicate that
phystCS
· and metaphystcsTbut hrase
law, tlthe pom · t ·I 0 Maimonidean. terms,f the they are the fundamental principles of divinc law upon which all its co_ntcnts
re its commandments. o p ·s equivalent to the sctence o turn4Q. . .1 . . . .
~cience of the Torah in its true scns:~ this fcom the followi~g1 texts. In sum, the Tocah of Moses is a legal system (as in all datot) and as a legal
Torah in its lega listtc sense. We ~ay A1b sets as his essen Ita task the
In Book 1 of Sefer ."a:Ikl::a~;nlegal ~ystems (datot) in general and of
system its content is a body of Ia ws. l n terms of its 'structu;.., it is a science
like other sciences. .
. t' of the pnnctp .
determma wn 111
. . articular. He writes: We may now understand why it was that Alba was the first Jewish
divine law (dat elolut) p d th number of (systems - 0 r. Laws in general.
'' . . The .thinker actually to attempt an explicitly deductive account of the. axioms . of
Book One: wherein is !reate
th t there are t rcc, n h e atural ' conventional, and dtvmer.
. I 0 f very one o \ em h the Torah.
I As opposed to his teacher CresGas
. he accepted
. the. "traditional''
It is made clear a d and the princ•p es e 1 •e mode of Torah as a science but, and in this he did follow Crescas, he
differences
. . t dbetween
in order themthatarethesta:e
prmct'.ples of divine law may be made c car · . " li- . ...,...,_.., .l,,j rejected the claim that the science of the Torah was metaphysics. To this he
. . mvesttga. e ' d0 t ("law" or "legal system")in chapter seven: .;·:,~-~ :.(.;c1,1
:·:r-':'1.·..,., ~;i,j . opposed the claim that the sCience of the .Torah was Ha/akhalz ( =gufei
r ',"' ·.:. ~''T Torah=fiqh). No one before him had both accepted the scientific modelof
ev~·ry orra~~~to~ng~~a~~~~~~/~:~n~a~J~~~~s~. :.,:~-~_r·_~f_i_f :_ ;.:~f.·.
lb d fi es the term ·
1
-A :hce ::m clat applies to rule Torah (which called for an axiomatic exposition) and identified the content
people. It may be a body ~f rules cmb d g It is applied 10 a divine law ... as .; ,.:~..".~-..~ of that science with llalakhah. No axiomatic account of the Torah under-
1
_::r_
._-_
j..

or it may be applied to a smglc con!';'an ... - ~;-·_;J ~·;,:t~i_!~;; stood in this sense (as opposed to the metaphysical sense) was available and
well as to a positive human law... · ...~ · · '" Albo sought to supply the wanting account.
. ule of behavior or a body of rules of behavior. The ~:;t~t~:'-~1:-:}~:j We are now faced with another question. Why was Albo the first to
A /at therefore, IS a r 1
ch 0'f Moses .IS an ex an ple of a divtne at:
· d
'1-~ 1·: :_·->-~'":-:-·.'.
... ,...J '""'''J· • • 1· · · 1
. ,... . -..,. ·•·) ·<l'l· conce1ve of the Torah 10 t 11s fash1on? W 1y had ear 1er t 10 ers not e med
1· h' k · d fi
Tora h T 11 whtch . Moses gave 10 the children of IsraeliS d ··~~;·=-~~;:1' 'l thc
ve ,. - ;-~' . ·' ,. ,. science of the. Torah .in halakhic as opposed to. .metaphysical . . terms .5°? .
Since all agree that t c ora ld k 1' t a test for divine laws, an ~ro ~>.1, ..-;:,:::!~t The answer to th1s quest1on depends upon recogmtwn of the fact that, m
a type 1f we ·r··· .:- ~<, ~-~-J ..
!::~:-.~-·:--.~;
. ;_·• ..-,_.·::.1 general, It may be sa1d• that the Jew1sh philosophers
• · · fit · that we shou rna e • • . . . • . , . . .
divme,b 1l •t
1ts J tmg ' · dividual of a given spec1cs to as the extslcnc
·. e. .~;-·.· . active m . the
_ • • thtrteenth
. the':" Y • us h things which are esscnttal and_ nccess~r~ cr that we :~2:~.t~t'~r.~. and fourteenth ccntunes saw themselves first and foremost as rntellcctuals ·
t as we use one tn . .
dcstred to tknow l e b 0r th spcClCS so ll IS prop .~-'"·•.~.~·~_!;:~'::,
things ,_·•~-·~~,
,, ·• _,, r.,. . f . II' 'b'l' ") . d . ., .
<:~:.·~~ ..t·L{maski!et mu.nwlot- 'cognizers o mte 1g1_1-· Ia , mtcrcste
I I '

and ura 10 . n of every other mcm cr c '

type and assume • th·tt those . · .. . pnman y m
·s110 uld take the Torah r th of M~scs
exlslcncc as oft
a hc d'ura t'on of the •Torah I of Moscs .-;~·.-;·
,'·tr~;;;:~ _.~;~tlntcllectual problems. That they happened• to be Jewish band, given the
:;.. lt/i<l;
,_;/"::;'iil'\{~-
;,i?';;.·.,;.'t;;
O,:reahtles of the M1ddle Ages, approached
I 48 1: <!•>-il; . .. •
which are necessaryh. or1 giVe
h'ch e. cxlslcncc
. and duration to divmc aw · mtellectual pro !ems from the
fi;~::~h~J~?~perspective
.- . . ,
· arc also the t mgs w . d b e) Albo of their religious tradition, in no way detracts from the funda-
( 11 as in 1 17 c1te a ov ;,~•JU;·"·::;Z--;.c I · · · ·
. : 1aw ·IS a science ·~:7..\;~,;: ~H.{~:mcntally • •
Tnt·h e Immc
· d·1'ate sequel to the text as dwe t.0 ' d s· dlvtne 'f'' •·'--,~··o.. :; umversal character
.
of thetr
-
quest.
.
T 1e1r mterest .
m Juda1sm ..
was . .
· es clear that the Torah o_r Moses un . ers ~ a ·~I~'<?;~Jt~~that. of the_ ~ure philosopher, not that o~ the apolog1st or ex~os1tor of _
rna~ :~~1t.W~l~i,;- the~e
-
wh1ch, me
thodologically, is ltke other sc1ences.
. . h beginning the t.>'~"·"t~-·-><-:~ ~.
', ..recc•ved rehg10us
·
tenets s 1 • I am not suggestmgthat
··
figures d1d not see
· ·
T 0rah of Moses lays down m t c ,C•~?.-~1tf.l;'.':~'f' 49. Ibid., I. I I, pp. 100-101. · - · '
,-~~j?""'!~: . SO. The ensuing discussion is drawn l<~rgcly from Do~:ma, chapter lwo, scchon I, pp. 66-69.
: .· -· . . . . -
Now since we find that the
· · · ,Bhlf:. t 51. Sec Isadore 'fwcrsky, "Aspect~ of the Social :t~d Cult;ural History of Provcn~al Jewry",
46. St'[t'~ lra-Jkkarin;, ed. cit.; p. 43. . - ~g.;~.>~;!;_lllll.ll. Ben-Sasson and Samuel Ellrngcr (cds.). Jcu•Jsh Somty Througlr .~he Age'.~, New York,
47 !hid., I. 7. p. 78. . "divine law" renders Torelli rlnlut. · : ·~r&~~~r71, pp. 185-207, esp. p. 190 and p. 204. See also lawrenc~ V. Derman, Greek mt~ Hebrew:
"., I. II. . p. 100. ln. tlus
48.. Jb'l . .passage ~]~~~~~ . . .. .. -- --- " . . : " .. . " .· " . " -- . - ..
 ~f2~l~~~· .
DEDUCTIVE Sli~NCE j!J':if_l!:1i'J~1 ·
TilE TORAH AS A ~r,ll~;i~~i< Til£ TORAH AS A DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE
279
h aw themse lifjJ ;7ji
-'~~,~gt~~~~-
· 278 lves as the l!···'t·""'·if daisin ". In addition to all this, many thousands of Jews had been forced to
I
l>.:c·,·-:·-~·-
as good Jews1_ on the contrary,
themse ves t . ous 1o f 31ewss2 _ but t e1r
h . 10 . tterest
ey s was no t so much in .·
. II t 1 per.ec r: t'10 n · ~:f1·:·-!.i,'\,-~:,~~·~
· -~:'!;···:· ,
convert . J and
. I to Christianity . I many of these remained .
Jewts 1 commumty. ew1s 1 communalleadershtp, therefore, was faced by a
on the periphery of the

'·Hf:k·.:,•.~
.:·~~·(-:6_~~
best ·and mose pt as tn . ud ·sm as a route to mte k' ec noteua o f tl1e "ollowing: 1' clearly theological challenge: how to defend Judaism in . the face of the

;-~~4;
§:· "'";~=:~-.·- i::~,7;'·f~~
Judaism · per · ts may b e fur tiler refined by fta mg h's
1 death an d h's 1 followers -.:
f :.:.-t - •;"'::tl attacks of the Church, how to define who a Jew
• was m the face of the
Thts pom ·d • pmtua ega
. . II 0cy was divided a ter0 3 m· 1y spea o
k f "halakhic · h ,:~·ti:' i ! converso problem, and how to strengthen the fatth of those Jews who stood
Maimom cs s s .mto tw1 opposed campS 5 . · nc , 'The h a1a kht'sts _ as ,· •-r-- ,,-<fl'l firm in their Judaism, despite the pressure of the Church and the tempta-

gener~
ranged themselve 'd "and .. pu'losophic Maimomdeans1 · h!losop . h'JCat and even -r.:-<·---*':3! - lion represented by the conversos. Jn other 1words, • the traditional commu-
Maimom cans.
:voln~ _ basically ignored P
i.~f«~J.i·
h .10 sophers paid (fJC:S"'f. nal/hala khic leadership (the "halak hie Maimonideans ") was forced by the
4
I

-f:~~·J:~.,;.:O:_~~.,•.S'~:\;l!
was always their
h ologtca tssu es in their writing 5 · h d spcct.fi'tea lly halakhic ., ,.,., , ... circumstances
• whtle the p · .in which it found . itself. to embark
. . upon a .clearly theological.
.
narrow Y t e
1
l'ttle attentiOn . '
to parochially Jewls an . . Malmom es,
'd at least on . Wt~ \ ·:t. .
endeavor desptte the fact that 1t had httle mnate mterest m purely theologJ-
. .1y.. the way of ft~>f~.·~"'tf cal (as over and
·!~J,:·~.
,_·~; ;~:;:t~~···· rabbtn~c/communal
prec1ous 10
. . thetr •
ques t"tOr intellectual perfectiOn. t 0 human r:te1tel •
above halakhic)
•
questions. • • • .
.
questiOnS • t sttmony soug .. I
ht to unite two routes I fectJOn
. ,- 1
._ .IS sp iritual heirs J -1 • • , . '~~ I . .
We have, m a figure hkc Joseph Albo, a trad1t1onal . h

comma~dments
htS own e 'd th way of inte lectua per

~
an h '.her of these two paths, but not
· b0 th His halakhic
d thus largely · ·!;:~:~f;l:;i!
~".,~ ~~-:~~
cadcr. Under ordmary ctrcumstances he would most likely ave never
· written an overtly theological work like Sefer ha-lkkadm. But, having been
·: ~~"~'1~:tN~I·
h
~ctenttlc
emphastzed one or t e chnical questions of Halakhalz and! theological : forced by the pressures and circumstances of his time to write a theological

' t<t ·; ~,.._ ~

. oncentrated on e d more broa y . d d . h J • d I . "fi . fT h .,.
. elrs cd as hala kh'ISs 1t0 had always one t- ted thetratten . ton on philo- ;
t'
. efense. of Ju. a1sm, . eIauopte. I. t d1e d conceptiOn o d'. ora preva1
I bb' mg
·~:.'; :~ :;~/n ,
d' I' .
tgnore -: . • 1h"t sophie heirs concon ra 1 • ]ways done •",,,:.:,.,J·.1.;:. tn Jewtsh plulosophtca ctre es an a apte tl to 11s own Ira tltona ra •me
after · ~J • · • • -.; . : conception of Torah as first and foremost a body of divinely ordained laws.
if~L·i::~~~~·;r.~. ~ r.
issues. Malmomdes d tl s largePY1gno . red_ as philosophers had almos be sat.da tll at c

: ,·~ ...( >· ;d;

.:'t1~-~1::;:-,-~-~J~· .:~-!:
sophy an lU owly t h1eolog'tcal ' issues. It .may . deven . t0 "two· cuIt ures" each
10 ' ' '' ' Albo, then, accepted .the prevailing intellectualist account . of the structure. of
- .more'dnarr the Jew1s . 1 1'ntcllectual world dtvtde · '-. ·.···~· . Torah but filled it With an old/new content: not phys1cs and metaphystcs,
d
Malmom to 1esthe oth cr. . M · omdeans . , began compo· · t·'- ('' but halakhah.- It is precisely here . that· we find
· Albo's
· greatest
• h controversy
· f

were : f~~_
:;~·:..",,-~~·,,·.;~-~{!'.
oppose. h ftfteent h cen t ury the "halaklnc atm 'the years 1391 - 1418 :• .....,..:.,.,.., :Jtf: with Maimonides . and .the "phtlosoph1c .Mmmontdeans' . : t . e true scJence o
'ngBuworks
I '" eof phtlosop . h·tca1theology".
. Why1 helmedBetween by a wave o f persecu-. i, ;,:;•.~. ,.•·-t-J•·. Ihe Torah tS not phyStcs and metaph yStcs but "'«val• (commandment).
Sl
the Iberian Jewtsh com
. mumly was overw
h b0 d of the Jewish commum Y . .
't
:;!~~-~~~;.;~!.c~
-J;,:. ~~--•. ,.;
RESUME · · ·
tions6. The horn·rymg · attacks on t e f llyYplanned assaults on Is · . · ,!f~:t
't spml .:<·.:;;~·:'l'
accompamed · by persistent rand "tly care u
theological character and took vanous . 1 ·.-:.'f•:·t~~~-·~ .
i:jl:~: "'\-:<+• .
These assaults had an ~xp ICI. ch as that ofTorlosa and convcrsiO· :r'::~::f.P,J . In this essay I argue that Joseph Albo was the first medieval Jewish
forms. These included dtsputattOn; su d to attend in their synagogues such ~j.~_ (_Jf.•·.~~W
philosopher actually to attempt an axiomatic presentation of Judaism

nary sermons lo which Jews ';ere orbcye Vl'ncente Ferrer. It is not only that ;_1:;_~~~:~ .
because while he accepted the Maimonidean thesis that the Torah was n
deductive science he rejected the thesis thnl the content of that science was
as those preache WI'lh • such rervor Christianity itself was attack'tn g Ju·,.f·r-~..,. } ~J.,-,,.,. ..
;?}>:~:K~~~~-
d
physics and metaphysics. Those of his predecessbi-s \~ho accepted both theses
· ..l, ~''"~*'t-.ll
. ·
Chnst1ans v.ere a
, ttackmg Jews, but
,· 1 M dicl'(lf and Rc•ncri.umrct /t~.:.<:r7~~t~~~-
-rr.;-~ ·>-\:'\f.'i~l·
had no need to present an axiomatic account of Judaism since this was, in
effect, the task of physicists and metaphysicians. Albo, however, was the first
Samuel ben Judah of Mar~crll~~g~:n~ es~.
. .. • 1\ Allnl'lnn (ed.), JC'uls'
pp. 295, 299, 30 l and 302.
e
l j'~.~~t}~J:~.f'.~'~.'
. . • -~ ._..-..)1~·••-"'l'
of the medi~val Jewish philosophers who at one and the same time accepted
. c bridge 1967, PP· • '
Studu•s, am ' . 205. . _, h sec Aviez.er Ravti7.~Y ;:.1:¥'~. -;-:,~
1 s 1~.:<1:;ti,~~t~:
~'-H~ the methodological claim that the Torah should be structured like a deductive
man;~~ ~' ~ltd Zera~Jialr :iqf~[.~~~¥,-_t.
52 Twersky, op. rlf., P·
53. For a valuable treatment of_ f lh themes d1scusseu ere,- , . ·m science and rejected the claim that its truest content. was physics and
I R. fwn She crltll'l If en, passr
or!·~;"-'~",..;_
. ~~.(.~",~~::'i3~,.
• • 1
• dissertalron, m r.t lira c - II - •· 10;,,.., t;.,,..:-!:V.. metaphysics. In their place he claimed tha t the content of the "science of
1977 Hebrew Umvcrsl yd 58..59 and in the English summary, p. h .I kh'sts were ignorant
· 11. y. p p . 2 an h • thirteenth
and espccta • and fourteen 11'. century
. a a 1 t..wishly. •: -~:h~- ;.; if~·
.·'!'>··· "·
Torah" was law or commandment. The Torah conceived in such a fashion ·
54. This rs not to say t at d'd 1 11 ot sec them as berng tmporla~t
c . :.;i'r.>\<.• ' :;-;.:~t, had never been axiomatized and Albo took the task upon himself. At the end .·
of the essay I suggest why Albo <~doptcd his position.
origin.~.
·
. Philosophic issues.
55. ISec
56 refer
li but that
generally, ~
ueh they
as Duran, Crcscas ' Albo ' Abrav<tnel,
· Cl · timr
Yrzhak nacr, A Jlistnry nf tlrC' JC'w.v Ill . Jrl.f
to lgurcs-
Ilthago
Spam•.etc.
I l • PI11'ladclphia
.
• •''1:it:W ,::_fifi
;t,;:;c",.
,.,.;,,;,.~;·*l
57. Jeremy
• .-~
.:~~;
Cohen Iraces, !he _
.. of this development. Sec 11rc fi-iar.r and the Jell's: The
· -~~'1; ... Ert•IIIII0/1 of Medl('l'nl Alltl·lrul.mm, .l lhaca, 1982,
·

1966,. PP- •95-24 3· ':.~7•:>;; · ,. _~C'I! @~.'