Abraham ben David

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may be looking for Abraham ibn Daud, a twelfth century Spanish-Jewish philosopher and historian.

Rabbeinu Abraham ben David was a Jewish, French commentator on the Talmud. He was born in Provence, France, about 1125 CE; died at Posquières, 27 November 1198 CE.

He was the son-in-law of Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne Av Beth Din (known as the Ravad II). He was the father of Rabbeinu Isaac the Blind, a Neoplatonist and important Jewish mystical thinker. The teachers under whose guidance he acquired most of his Talmudic learning were Rabbeinu Moses ben Joseph and Rabbenu Meshullam of Lunel (Rabbeinu Meshullam hagodol).

RABaD (abbreviation for Rabbeinu Abraham ben David) or RABaD III remained in Lunel after completing his studies, and subsequently became one of the rabbinical authorities of that city. He went to Montpellier, where he remained for a short time, and then moved to Nîmes, where he lived for a considerable period. Rabbeinu Moses ben Judah ("Temim De'im", p. 6b) refers to the rabbinical school of Nîmes, then under Rabbeinu Abraham's direction, as the chief seat of Talmudic learning in Provence.

1 Persecution
2 Literary Works
3 Rashi and the Ravad
4 Attitude as a Critic
5 Maimonides (Rambam) and Ravad
6 Judaism a Religion of Deed, not of Dogma
7 External links and references

[edit] Persecution

The center of the Ravad's activity was Posquières, after which place he is often called. It is difficult to determine when he moved to Posquières; but about 1165 Benjamin of Tudela, at the outset of his travels, called upon him there. He spoke of the Ravad's wealth and benevolence. Not only did he erect and keep in repair a large school-building, but he cared for the material welfare of the poor students as well. It was his great wealth which brought him into peril of his life; for, in order to obtain some of it, Elzéar, the lord of Posquières, had him cast into prison, where, like Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, he might have perished, had not Count Roger II of Carcassonne, who was friendly to the Jews, intervened, and by virtue of his sovereignty banished the lord of Posquières to Carcassonne. Thereupon the Ravad returned to Posquières, where he remained until his death.

Among the many learned Talmudists who were his disciples in Posquières were Rabbeinu Isaac ha-Kohen of Narbonne, the first commentator upon the Yerushalmi; Rabbeinu Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, author of "Ha-Manhig"; Rabbeinu Meir ben Isaac of Carcassonne, author of the "Sefer ha-'Ezer"; and Rabbeinu Asher ben Meshullam of Lunel, author of several rabbinical works. The Ravad's influence on Rabbeinu Jonathan of Lunel also is evident, though the latter did not attend his lectures.

[edit] Literary Works

The Ravad was a prolific author. He not only wrote answers to hundreds of learned questions—which responsa are still partially preserved in the collections "Temim De'im", "Orot Hayyim", and "Shibbale ha-Leket" — but he also wrote a commentary on the whole Talmud and compiled several compendiums of rabbinical law.

Most of his works are lost; but those which have been preserved, such as the "Sefer Ba'ale ha-Nefesh" (The Book of the Con-scientious), a treatise on the laws relating to women, published in 1602, and his commentary on Torath Kohanim, published in 1862 at Vienna.

The title of "Baal Hasagot" (Critic), given him frequently by the rabbis, shows that they viewed the direction in which his ability lay. Indeed, critical annotations display his powers at their best, and justify his being ranked with the Rif, Rashi, and the Rambam (Maimonides).

The Ravad did much for the study of the Talmud. Without accusing the Rambam of intending to supplant the study of the Talmud itself by means of his compendium, the Mishneh Torah, it is nevertheless a fact that if the Rif and Rambam had not encountered such keen opposition, rabbinical Judaism may have degenerated into an exclusive study of the legal code, which would have been fatal to any original intellectual development in a considerable portion of the Jewish people.

This danger was not so imminent for those Jews who lived in lands where Arabian culture ruled; for there the study of the Hebrew language and poetry, and especially of the sciences and philosophy, would always have afforded a wide field for intellectual development. It was, therefore, sufficient that the leading Jewish rabbis domiciled in Moorish countries should devote much attention to furnishing a clew to the labyrinth of the Talmud, intricate and perplexing as the latter had become by the addition of the copious post-Talmudic literature of law and custom. Some sort of guide had become imperatively necessary for the practical application of this voluminous and intricate material. But in Christian countries like France and Germany, where the largest communities of Jews existed, throughout the Middle Ages there was no such outlet for Jewish intellectuality as the culture of literature or of the sciences which existed in Moorish Spain. Their own religious law was the only field open to the intellects of the Jews of Germany and northern France.

[edit] Rashi and the Ravad

In his commentary, Rashi furnished a well-paved road to the Talmud; while the Ravad, by his acute criticism, pointed out the way intelligently and with discrimination. This critical tendency is characteristic of all the writings of the Ravad. Thus, in his commentary upon Torath Kohanim (pp. 41a, 71b), we find the caustic observation that many obscure passages in rabbinical literature owe their obscurity to the fact that occasional explanatory or marginal notes not tending to elucidate the text have been incorporated.

[edit] Attitude as a Critic

The strength of Ravad, may be shown by his criticisms of the works of various authors. The tone which he employs is also characteristic of his attitude toward the persons under criticism. He treats the Rif with the utmost respect, almost with humility, and refers to him as "the sun by whose brilliant rays our eyes are dazzled" ("Temim De'im", p. 22a). His language toward Rabbeinu Zerachiah ha-Levi, the Baal Hamoer is harsh, almost hostile. Though only eighteen years old, this scholar possessed the courage and the ability to write a sharp criticism upon the Rif, and the Ravad refers to him as an immature youth who has the audacity to criticize his teacher. However, in fairness it must be stated that Rabbeinu Zerachiah had himself provoked this treatment by sharply criticizing the Ravad, and by incorporating into his own work some of the Ravad's interpretations without acknowledgment to the author (compare Gross, l.c., 545, and Reifmann, "Toledot," p. 54).

[edit] Maimonides (Rambam) and Ravad

The Ravad's criticism of the Rambam's code of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah, is very harsh. This was not due to personal feeling, but to radical differences of view in matters of faith between the two greatest Talmudists of the twelfth century.

The Rambam's aim was to bring order into the vast labyrinth of the Halakah by presenting final results in a definite, systematic, and methodical manner. But in the opinion of the Ravad this very aim was the principal defect of the work. A legal code which did not state the sources and authorities from which its decisions were derived, and offered no proofs of the correctness of its statements, was, in the opinion of the Ravad, entirely unreliable, even in the practical religious life, for which purpose the Rambam designed it.

Such a code, he considered, could be justified only if written by a man claiming infallibility - by one who could demand that his assertions be accepted without question. If it had been the intention of the Rambam to stem the further development of the study of the Talmud by reducing it to the form of a code, the Ravad felt it his duty to oppose such an attempt, as contrary to the free spirit of rabbinical Judaism, which refuses to surrender blindly to authority.

[edit] Judaism a Religion of Deed, not of Dogma

The Ravad was thus an opponent to the codification of the Halakah; but he was even more strongly opposed to the construction of a system of dogmas in Judaism, particularly according to the method followed by the Rambam (Maimonides), who often set up the concepts of the Aristotelian philosophy as Jewish theology. The Rambam, for instance, in accordance with his philosophical conviction and in the true spirit of Judaism, declares the incorporeality of God to be a dogma of Judaism, or, as he formulates it, "whosoever conceives God to be a corporeal being is an apostate" ("Yad ha-Chazakah, Teshuvah," iii. 7).

In the circles with which the Ravad was connected, a certain mystical anthropomorphistic conception of the Deity was usual; and therefore it was but natural that a statement which practically declared his best friends apostates should arouse his resentment. He, therefore, appended to the Rambam's formula this brief but emphatic criticism: "Why does he call such persons apostates? Men better and worthier than he have held this view, for which they believe they have found authority in the Scriptures and in a confusing view of the Haggadah."

The phrase concerning the Haggadah shows that the Ravad is himself far from advocating the anthropomorphistic view. His opposition to the Rambam's statement of the doctrine of the incorporeality of God is only directed against its being raised into a dogma. Judaism is to the Ravad a religion of deed, and not one of dogmas. His attitude toward the teachings of the Rambam in regard to the future life and the eternity of the world is in harmony with this point of view. According to him the opinion of the Rambam on this question was as distinctly heretical as the corporeality of God from the standpoint of the Rambam; yet he has no word of vituperation for its author, but merely contents himself with recording his difference of opinion (l.c. viii. 2, 8). Thus, the ultra-conservative Talmudist was broader-minded and more tolerant than the greatest of the medieval Jewish philosophers (compare Smolensky, "'Am 'Olam," chap. 13).

The Ravad is particularly severe on the attempts of the Rambam to smuggle in his philosophic views under cover of Talmudic passages. To cite one example sorcery, according to both Biblical and rabbinical law, is, under certain conditions, an offense punishable with death. The opinions in the Talmud on the various acts coming under the category of sorcery differ widely, owing, no doubt, to the fact that it was not practicable to look upon every superstitious practise, from which Talmudic Judaism itself was not entirely free, as a heinous offense. The Rambam, who, from the point of view of his philosophy, looks upon sorcery, astrology, augury, and the like as pure absurdities, decides that even the innocent actions which Scripture narrates of Eliezer (Gen. xxiv 14), and of Jonathan (I Sam. xiv. 8-10) are to be considered as falling under the ban.

Here the Ravad is not content with merely correcting the statement of the Rambam, but he declares that, in his opinion, the Rambam deserves the ban for the calumnious views he expresses concerning these Biblical personages (Yad. 'Akum, xi. 4). This suffices to explain the principle that actuated the Ravad in his intense opposition to the Rambam, and particularly to his "Yad ha-Chazakah", which the Ravad himself designates as a great achievement (Kilayim, vi. 2).

Many Kabbalists view the Ravad as one of the fathers of their system, and this is true to the extent that he was inclined to mysticism, which led him to follow an ascetic mode of life and gained for him the title of "the pious." He frequently spoke of "the holy spirit (or Elijah) disclosing to him God's secrets in his studies" (see his note to "Yad ha-Chazakah", Lulav, viii. 5; Beth ha-Bechirah, vi. 11), great mysteries known only to the initated ("Yesode ha-Torah", i. 10).

The Ravad was not an enemy to secular science, as many deem him. His works show that he was a close student of Hebrew philology; and the fact that he encouraged the translation of Rabbeinu Bahya ibn Paquda's Chovot ha-Levavot shows that he was not hostile to philosophy. This philosophic work argues strongly against the anthropomorphistic conception of the Deity; and the favor with which the Ravad looked upon it is sufficient ground on which to acquit him of the charge of having held anthropomorphistic views.

Some of his works show acquaintance with philosophy; for instance, his remark on "Hilchoth Teshuvah", v., end, is a literal quotation from Honein ben Isaac's "Musre ha-Philosophim," pp. 11, 12—or Loewenthal, p. 39, below—which is extant only in Al-Charizi's translation.