,transcriber's ,note3 ,english transliterations have been provided for the ,greek and ,hebrew words4 ,a few other substitutions have also been used in this version of the text4 ,they are as follows3 surrounding a vowel indicates that it is a long vowel with a macron 7dash7 above it4 h4 indicates that this is an h with a dot under it4 ,the use of tildes 77 around a word signifies that the original was spaced out l i k e t h i s4 indicates an inverted apostrophe1 which in this book is used to represent the gutteral ayin found in ,hebrew and ,arabic4 ,a ,,history ,,of ,,mediaeval ,,jewish ,,philosophy ,,by ,,isaac ,,husik1 ,a4,m41 ,,ph4,d4 ,,assistant ,,professor ,,of ,,philosophy ,,in ,,the ,,university ,,of ,,pennsylvania ,new ,york ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company #aiaf ,all rights reserved ,,copyright1 #aiaf ,,by ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company ,set up and electrotyped4 ,published ,october1 #aiaf4 ,this book is issued by the ,macmillan ,company in conjunction with the ,jewish ,publication ,society of ,america4 ,,to ,,solomon ,,solis ,,cohen1 ,m4,d4 ,,as ,a ,,token ,,of ,,gratitude ,,and ,,esteem ,,preface ,no excuse is needed for presenting to the ,english reader a ,history of ,medival ,jewish ,philosophy4 ,the ,english language1 poor enough in books on ,jewish history and literature1 can boast of scarcely anything at all in the domain of ,jewish ,philosophy4 ,the ,jewish ,encyclopedia has no article on ,jewish ,philosophy1 and neither has the eleventh edition of the ,encyclopedia ,britannica4 ,hastings' ,encyclopedia of ,religion and ,ethics will have a brief article on the subject from the conscientious and able pen of ,dr4 ,henry ,malter1 but of books there is none4 ,but while this is due to several causes1 chief among them perhaps being that ,english speaking people in general and ,americans in particular are more interested in positive facts than in tentative speculations1 in concrete researches than in abstract theorizing--there are ample signs that here too a change is coming1 and in many spheres we are called upon to examine our foundations with a view to making our superstructure deep and secure as well as broad and comprehensive4 ,and this is nothing else than philosophy4 ,philosophical studies are happily on the increase in this country and more than one branch of literary endeavor is beginning to feel its influence4 ,and with the increase of books and researches in the history of the ,jews is coming an awakening to the fact that the philosophical and rationalistic movement among the ,jews in the middle ages is well worth study1 influential as it was in forming ,judaism as a religion and as a theological and ethical system4 ,but it is not merely the ,english language that is still wanting in a general history of ,medival ,jewish ,philosophy1 the ,german1 ,french and ,italian languages are no better off in this regard4 ,for while it is true that outside of the ,hebrew and ,arabic sources1 ,german books and monographs are the sine qua non of the student who wishes to investigate the philosophical movement in medival ,jewry1 and the present writer owes very much to the researches of such men as ,joel1 ,guttmann1 ,kaufmann and others1 it nevertheless remains true that there is as yet no complete history of the subject for the student or the general reader4 ,the ,german writers have done thorough and distinguished work in expounding individual thinkers and problems1 they have gathered a complete and detailed bibliography of ,jewish philosophical writings in print and in manuscript1 they have edited and translated and annotated the most important philosophical texts4 ,france has also had an important share in these fundamental undertakings1 but for some reason neither the one nor the other has so far undertaken to present to the general student and non-technical reader the results of their researches4 ,what was omitted by the ,german1 ,french and ,english speaking writers was accomplished by a scholar who wrote in ,hebrew4 ,dr4 ,s4 ,bernfeld has written in ,hebrew under the title ,daat ,elohim 7,the ,knowledge of ,god7 a readable sketch of ,jewish ,religious philosophy from ,biblical times down to ,ahad ,haam4 ,a ,german scholar 7now in ,america71 ,dr4 ,david ,neumark of ,cincinnati1 has undertaken on a very large scale a ,history of ,jewish ,philosophy in the ,middle ,ages1 of which only a beginning has been made in the two volumes so far issued4 ,the present writer at the suggestion of the ,publication ,committee of the ,jewish ,publication ,society of ,america has undertaken to write a history of medival ,jewish rationalistic philosophy in one volume--a history that will appeal alike to the scholar and the intelligent non-technical reader4 ,treating only of the rationalistic school1 ,i did not include anything that has to do with mysticism or ,kabbala4 ,in my attempt to please the scholar and the layman1 ,i fear ,i shall have succeeded in satisfying neither4 ,the professional student will miss learned notes and quotations of original passages in the language of their authors4 ,the general reader will often be wearied by the scholastic tone of the problems as well as of the manner of the discussion and argument4 ,and yet ,i cannot but feel that it will do both classes good--the one to get less1 the other more than he wants4 ,the latter will find oases in the desert where he can refresh himself and take a rest1 and the former will find in the notes and bibliography references to sources and technical articles where more can be had after his own heart4 ,there is not much room for originality in a historical and expository work of this kind1 particularly as ,i believe in writing history objectively4 ,i have not attempted to read into the medival thinkers modern ideas that were foreign to them4 ,i endeavored to interpret their ideas from their own point of view as determined by their history and environment and the literary sources1 religious and philosophical1 under the influence of which they came4 ,i based my book on a study of the original sources where they were available--and this applies to all the authors treated with the exception of the two ,karaites1 ,joseph al ,basir and ,jeshua ben ,judah1 where ,i had to content myself with secondary sources and a few fragments of the original texts4 ,for the rest ,i tried to tell my story as simply as ,i knew how1 and ,i hope the reader will accept the book in the spirit in which it is offered--as an objective and not too critical exposition of ,jewish rationalistic thought in the middle ages4 ,my task would not be done were ,i not to express my obligations to the ,publication ,committee of the ,jewish ,publication ,society of ,america to whose encouragement ,i owe the impulse but for which the book would not have been written1 and whose material assistance enabled the publishers to bring out a book typographically so attractive4 ,,isaac ,,husik4 ,,philadelphia1 ,july1 #aiaf4 ,,table ,,of ,,contents ,,page ,,preface vii ,,introduction xiii ,,chapter ,i4 ,,isaac ,,israeli #a ,,ii4 ,,david ,,ben ,,merwan ,,al ,,mukammas #ag ,,iii4 ,,saadia ,,ben ,,joseph ,,al-,,fayyumi #bc ,,iv4 ,,joseph ,,al-,,basir ,,and ,,jeshua ,,ben ,,judah #dh ,v4 ,,solomon ,,ibn ,,gabirol #ei ,,vi4 ,,bahya ,,ibn ,,pakuda #hj ,,vii4 ,,pseudo-,,bahya #ajf ,,viii4 ,,abraham ,,bar ,,hiyya #aad ,,ix4 ,,joseph ,,ibn ,,zaddik #abe ,x4 ,,judah ,,halevi #aej ,,xi4 ,,moses ,,and ,,abraham ,,ibn ,,ezra #ahd ,,xii4 ,,abraham ,,ibn ,,daud #aig ,,xiii4 ,,moses ,,maimonides #bcf ,,xiv4 ,,hillel ,,ben ,,samuel #cab ,,xv4 ,,levi ,,ben ,,gerson #cbh ,,xvi4 ,,aaron ,,ben ,,elijah ,,of ,,nicomedia #cfb ,,xvii4 ,,hasdai ,,ben ,,abraham ,,crescas #chh ,,xviii4 ,,joseph ,,albo #djf ,,conclusion #dbh ,,bibliography #dcc ,,notes #dci ,,list ,,of ,,biblical ,,and ,,rabbinic ,,passages #ddi ,,index #dea ,,introduction ,the philosophical movement in medival ,jewry was the result of the desire and the necessity1 felt by the leaders of ,jewish thought1 of reconciling two apparently independent sources of truth4 ,in the middle ages1 among ,jews as well as among ,christians and ,mohammedans1 the two sources of knowledge or truth which were clearly present to the minds of thinking people1 each claiming recognition1 were religious opinions as embodied in revealed documents on the one hand1 and philosophical and scientific judgments and arguments1 the results of independent rational reflection1 on the other4 ,revelation and reason1 religion and philosophy1 faith and knowledge1 authority and independent reflection are the various expressions for the dualism in medival thought1 which the philosophers and theologians of the time endeavored to reduce to a monism or a unity4 ,let us examine more intimately the character and content of the two elements in the intellectual horizon of medival ,jewry4 ,on the side of revelation1 religion1 authority1 we have the ,bible1 the ,mishna1 the ,talmud4 ,the ,bible was the written law1 and represented literally the word of ,god as revealed to lawgiver and prophet2 the ,talmud 7including the ,mishna7 was the oral law1 embodying the unwritten commentary on the words of the ,law1 equally authentic with the latter1 contemporaneous with it in revelation1 though not committed to writing until many ages subsequently and until then handed down by word of mouth2 hence depending upon tradition and faith in tradition for its validity and acceptance4 ,authority therefore for the ,rabbanites was two-fold1 the authority of the direct word of ,god which was written down as soon as communicated1 and about which there could therefore be no manner of doubt2 and the authority of the indirect word of ,god as transmitted orally for many generations before it was written down1 requiring belief in tradition4 ,by the ,karaites tradition was rejected1 and there remained only belief in the words of the ,bible4 ,on the side of reason was urged first the claim of the testimony of the senses1 and second the validity of logical inference as determined by demonstration and syllogistic proof4 ,this does not mean that the ,jewish thinkers of the middle ages developed unaided from without a system of thought and a ,weltanschauung1 based solely upon their own observation and ratiocination1 and then found that the view of the world thus acquired stood in opposition to the religion of the ,bible and the ,talmud1 the two thus requiring adjustment and reconciliation4 ,no6 ,the so-called demands of the reason were not of their own making1 and on the other hand the relation between philosophy and religion was not altogether one of opposition4 ,to discuss the latter point first1 the teachings of the ,bible and the ,talmud were not altogether clear on a great many questions4 ,passages could be cited from the religious documents of ,judaism in reference to a given problem both pro and con4 ,thus in the matter of freedom of the will one could argue on the one hand that man must be free to determine his conduct since if he were not there would have been no use in giving him commandments and prohibitions4 ,and one could quote besides in favor of freedom the direct statement in ,deuteronomy #cj1 #ai1 ,i call heaven and earth to witness against you this day1 that ,i have set before thee life and death1 the blessing and the curse3 therefore choose life1 that thou mayest live1 thou and thy seed4 ,but on the other hand it was just as possible to find ,biblical statements indicating clearly that ,god preordains how a person shall behave in a given case4 ,thus ,pharaoh's heart was hardened that he should not let the children of ,israel go out of ,egypt1 as we read in ,exodus #g1 #c3 ,and ,i will harden ,pharaoh's heart1 and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of ,egypt4 ,but ,pharaoh will not hearken unto you1 and ,i will lay my hand upon ,egypt1 and bring forth my hosts1 my people1 the children of ,israel1 out of the land of ,egypt by great judgments4 ,similarly in the case of ,sihon king of ,heshbon we read in ,deuteronomy #b1 #cj3 ,but ,sihon king of ,heshbon would not let us pass by him3 for the ,lord thy ,god hardened his spirit1 and made his heart obstinate1 that he might deliver him into thy hand1 as at this day4 ,and this is true not merely of heathen kings1 ,ahab king of ,israel was similarly enticed by a divine instigation according to ,i ,kings #bb1 #bj3 ,and the ,lord said1 ,who shall entice ,ahab1 that he may go up and fall at ,ramoth-,gilead8 ,the fact of the matter is the ,bible is not a systematic book1 and principles and problems are not clearly and strictly formulated even in the domain of ethics which is its strong point4 ,it was not therefore a question here of opposition between the ,bible and philosophy1 or authority and reason4 ,what was required was rather a rational analysis of the problem on its own merits and then an endeavor to show that the conflicting passages in the ,scriptures are capable of interpretation so as to harmonize with each other and with the results of rational speculation4 ,to be sure1 it was felt that the doctrine of freedom is fundamental to the spirit of ,judaism1 and the philosophic analyses led to the same result though in differing form1 sometimes dangerously approaching a thorough determinism1 as in ,hasdai ,crescas4#a ,if such doubt was possible in an ethical problem where one would suppose the ,bible would be outspoken1 the uncertainty was still greater in purely metaphysical questions which as such were really foreign to its purpose as a book of religion and ethics4 ,while it was clear that the ,bible teaches the existence of ,god as the creator of the universe1 and of man as endowed with a soul1 it is manifestly difficult to extract from it a rigid and detailed theory as to the nature of ,god1 the manner in which the world was created1 the nature of the soul and its relation to man and to ,god4 ,as long as the ,jews were self-centered and did not come in close contact with an alien civilization of a philosophic mould1 the need for a carefully thought out and consistent theory on all the questions suggested was not felt4 ,and thus we have in the ,talmudic literature quite a good deal of speculation concerning ,god and man4 ,but it can scarcely lay claim to being rationalistic or philosophic1 much less to being consistent4 ,nay1 we have in the ,bible itself at least two books which attempt an anti-dogmatic treatment of ethical problems4 ,in ,job is raised the question whether a man's fortunes on earth bear any relation to his conduct moral and spiritual4 ,ecclesiastes cannot make up his mind whether life is worth living1 and how to make the best of it once one finds himself alive1 whether by seeking wisdom or by pursuing pleasure4 ,but here too ,job is a long poem1 and the argument does not progress very rapidly or very far4 ,ecclesiastes is rambling rather than analytic1 and on the whole mostly negative4 ,the ,talmudists were visibly puzzled in their attitude to both books1 wondered whether ,job really existed or was only a fancy1 and seriously thought of excluding ,ecclesiastes from the canon4 ,but these attempts at questioning the meaning of life had no further results4 ,they did not lead1 as in the case of the ,greek ,sophists1 to a ,socrates1 a ,plato or an ,aristotle4 ,philo in ,alexandria and ,maimonides in ,fostat were the products not of the ,bible and the ,talmud alone1 but of a combination of ,hebraism and ,hellenism1 pure in the case of ,philo1 mixed with the spirit of ,islam in ,maimonides4 ,and this leads us to consider the second point mentioned above1 the nature and content of what was attributed in the middle ages to the credit of reason4 ,it was in reality once more a set of documents4 ,the ,bible and ,talmud were the documents of revelation1 ,aristotle was the document of reason4 ,each was supreme in its sphere1 and all efforts must be bent to make them agree1 for as revelation cannot be doubted1 so neither can the assured results of reason4 ,but not all which pretends to be the conclusion of reason is necessarily so in truth1 as on the other hand the documents of faith are subject to interpretation and may mean something other than appears on the surface4 ,that the ,bible has an esoteric meaning besides the literal has its source in the ,talmud itself4 ,reference is found there to a mystic doctrine of creation known as ,maase ,bereshit and a doctrine of the divine chariot called ,maase ,merkaba4#b ,the exact nature of these teachings is not known since the ,talmud itself prohibits the imparting of this mystic lore to any but the initiated1 i4 e41 to those showing themselves worthy2 and never to more than one or two at a time4#c ,but it is clear from the names of these doctrines that they centered about the creation story in ,genesis and the account of the divine chariot in ,ezekiel1 chapters one and ten4 ,besides the ,halaka and ,agada are full of interpretations of ,biblical texts which are very far from the literal and have little to do with the context4 ,moreover1 the beliefs current among the ,jews in ,alexandria in the first century ,b4,c4 found their way into medival ,jewry1 that the philosophic literature of the ,greeks was originally borrowed or stolen from the ,hebrews1 who lost it in times of storm and stress4#d ,this being the case1 it was believed that the ,bible itself cannot be without some allusions to philosophic doctrines4 ,that the ,bible does not clearly teach philosophy is due to the fact that it was intended for the salvation of all men1 the simple as well as the wise1 women and children as well as male adults4 ,for these it is sufficient that they know certain religious truths within their grasp and conduct themselves according to the laws of goodness and righteousness4 ,a strictly philosophic book would have been beyond their ken and they would have been left without a guide in life4 ,but the more intellectual and the more ambitious are not merely permitted1 nay they are obligated to search the ,scriptures for the deeper truths found therein1 truths akin to the philosophic doctrines found in ,greek literature2 and the latter will help them in understanding the ,bible aright4 ,it thus became a duty to study philosophy and the sciences preparatory thereto1 logic1 mathematics and physics2 and thus equipped to approach the ,scriptures and interpret them in a philosophical manner4 ,the study of medival ,jewish rationalism has therefore two sides to it1 the analysis of metaphysical1 ethical and psychological problems1 and the application of these studies to an interpretation of ,scripture4 ,now let us take a closer glance at the rationalistic or philosophic literature to which the ,jews in the middle ages fell heirs4 ,in #ebi ,a4,d4 the ,greek schools of philosophy in ,athens were closed by order of ,emperor ,justinian4 ,this did not1 however1 lead to the extinction of ,greek thought as an influence in the world4 ,for though the ,west was gradually declining intellectually on account of the fall of ,rome and the barbarian invasions which followed in its train1 there were signs of progress in the ,east which1 feeble at first1 was destined in the course of several centuries to illumine the whole of ,europe with its enlightening rays4 ,long before #ebi1 the date of the closing of the ,greek schools1 ,greek influence was introduced in the ,east in ,asia and ,africa4#e ,the whole movement goes back to the days of ,alexander the ,great and the victories he gained in the ,orient4 ,from that time on ,greeks settled in ,asia and ,africa and brought along with them ,greek manners1 the ,greek language1 and the ,greek arts and sciences4 ,alexandria1 the capital of the ,ptolemies in ,egypt after the death of ,alexander1 and ,antioch1 the capital of ,syria under the empire of the ,seleucid1 were well-known centres of ,greek learning4 ,when ,syria changed masters in #fd ,b4,c4 and became a ,roman province1 its form of civilization did not change1 and the introduction of ,christianity had the effect of spreading the influence of the ,greeks and their language into ,mesopotamia beyond the ,euphrates4 ,the ,christians in ,syria had to study ,greek in order to understand the ,scriptures of the ,old and the ,new ,testaments1 the decrees and canons of the ecclesiastical councils1 and the writings of the ,church ,fathers4 ,besides religion and the ,church1 the liberal arts and sciences1 for which the ,greeks were so famous1 attracted the interests of the ,syrian ,christians1 and schools were established in the ecclesiastical centres where philosophy1 mathematics and medicine were studied4 ,these branches of knowledge were represented in ,greek literature1 and hence the works treating of these subjects had to be translated into ,syriac for the benefit of those who did not know ,greek4 ,aristotle was the authority in philosophy1 ,hippocrates and ,galen in medicine4 ,the oldest of these schools was in ,edessa in ,mesopotamia1 founded in the year #cfc by ,st4 ,ephrem of ,nisibis4 ,it was closed in #dhi and the teachers migrated to ,persia where two other schools became famous1 one at ,nisibis and the other at ,gandisapora4 ,a third school of philosophy among the ,jacobite or ,monophysite ,christians was that connected with the convent of ,kinnesrin on the left bank of the ,euphrates1 which became famous as a seat of ,greek learning in the beginning of the seventh century4 ,christianity was succeeded in the ,orient by ,mohammedanism1 and this change led to even greater cultivation of ,greek studies on the part of the ,syrians4 ,the ,mohammedan ,caliphs employed the ,syrians as physicians4 ,this was especially true of the ,abbasid dynasty1 who came into power in #gej4 ,when they succeeded to the ,caliphate they raised ,nestorian ,syrians to offices of importance1 and the latter under the patronage of their masters continued their studies of ,greek science and philosophy and translated those writings into ,syriac and ,arabic4 ,among the authors translated were1 ,hippocrates and ,galen in medicine1 ,euclid1 ,archimedes and ,ptolemy in mathematics and astronomy1 and ,aristotle1 ,theophrastus and ,alexander of ,aphrodisias in philosophy4 ,in many cases the ,greek writings were not turned directly into ,arabic but as the translators were ,syrians1 the versions were made first into ,syriac1 and then from the ,syriac into ,arabic4 ,the ,syrian ,christians were thus the mediators between the ,greeks and the ,arabs4 ,the latter1 however1 in the course of time far surpassed their ,syrian teachers1 developed important schools of philosophy1 became the teachers of the ,jews1 and with the help of the latter introduced ,greek philosophy as well as their own development thereof into ,christian ,europe in the beginning of the thirteenth century4 ,we see now that the impulse to philosophizing came from the ,greeks1--and not merely the impulse but the material1 the matter as well as the method and the terminology4 ,in the ,aristotelian writings we find developed an entire system of thought4 ,there is not a branch of knowledge dealing with fundamental principles which is not there represented4 ,first of all ,aristotle stands alone as the discoverer of the organon of thought1 the tool which we all employ in our reasoning and reflection2 he is the first formulator of the science and art of logic4 ,he treats besides of the principles of nature and natural phenomena in the ,physics and the treatise on the ,heavens4 ,he discusses the nature of the soul1 the senses and the intellect in his ,psychology4 ,in the ,history of ,animals and other minor works we have a treatment of biology4 ,in the ,nikomachean and ,eudemian ,ethics he analyzes the meaning of virtue1 gives a list and classification of the virtues and discusses the summum bonum or the aim of human life4 ,finally in the ,metaphysics we have an analysis of the fundamental notions of being1 of the nature of reality and of ,god4 ,the ,jews did not get all this in its purity for various reasons4 ,in the first place it was only gradually that the ,jews became acquainted with the wealth of ,aristotelian material4 ,we are sure that ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 the forerunner of ,maimonides1 had a thorough familiarity with the ideas of ,aristotle2 and those who came after him1 for example ,maimonides1 ,gersonides1 ,hasdai ,crescas1 show clearly that they were deep students of the ideas represented in the writings of the ,stagirite4 ,but there is not the same evidence in the earlier writings of ,isaac ,israeli1 ,saadia1 ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,gabirol1 ,bahya ,ibn ,pakuda1 ,judah ,halevi4 ,they had picked up ,aristotelian ideas and principles1 but they had also absorbed ideas and concepts from other schools1 ,greek as well as ,arabian1 and unconsciously combined the two4 ,another explanation for the rarity of the complete and unadulterated ,aristotle among the ,jewish thinkers of the middle ages is that people in those days were very uncritical in the matter of historical facts and relations4 ,historical and literary criticism was altogether unknown1 and a number of works were ascribed to ,aristotle which did not belong to him1 and which were foreign in spirit to his mode of thinking4 ,they emanated from a different school of thought with different presuppositions4 ,i am referring to the treatise called the ,theology of ,aristotle1#f and that known as the ,liber de ,causis4#g ,both were attributed to ,aristotle in the middle ages by ,jews and ,arabs alike1 but it has been shown recently#h that the former represents extracts from the works of ,plotinus1 the head of the ,neo-,platonic school of philosophy1 while the latter is derived from a treatise of ,proclus1 a ,neo-,platonist of later date4 ,finally a third reason for the phenomenon in question is that the ,jews were the pupils of the ,arabs and followed their lead in adapting ,greek thought to their own intellectual and spiritual needs4 ,it so happens therefore that even in the case of ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 ,maimonides and ,gersonides1 who were without doubt well versed in ,aristotelian thought and entertained not merely admiration but reverence for the philosopher of ,stagira1 we notice that instead of reading the works of ,aristotle himself1 they preferred1 or were obliged as the case may be1 to go to the writings of ,alfarabi1 ,avicenna and ,averroes for their information on the views of the philosopher4 ,in the case of ,gersonides this is easily explained4 ,it seems he could read neither ,latin nor ,arabic#i and there was no ,hebrew translation of the text of ,aristotle4 ,averroes had taken in the fourteenth century the place of the ,greek philosopher and instead of reading ,aristotle all students read the works of the ,commentator1 as ,averroes was called4 ,of course the very absence of a ,hebrew translation of ,aristotle's text proves that even among those who read ,arabic the demand for the text of ,aristotle was not great1 and preference was shown for the works of the interpreters1 compendists and commentators1 like ,alfarabi and ,avicenna4 ,and this helps us to understand why it is that ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides who not only read ,arabic but wrote their philosophical works in ,arabic showed the same preference for the secondhand ,aristotle4 ,one reason may have been the lack of historical and literary criticism spoken of above1 and the other the difficulty of the ,arabic translations of ,aristotle4 ,aristotle is hard to translate into any language by reason of his peculiar technical terminology2 and the difficulty was considerably enhanced by the fact that the ,syriac in many cases stood between the original ,greek and the ,arabic1 and in the second place by the great dissimilarity between the ,semitic language and its ,indo-,european original4 ,this may have made the copies of ,aristotle's text rare1 and gradually led to their disuse4 ,the great authority which names like ,alfarabi1 ,avicenna and ,averroes acquired still further served to stamp them as the approved expositors of the ,aristotelian doctrine4 ,among the ,arabs the earliest division based upon a theoretical question was that of the parties known as the ,kadariya and the ,jabariya4#aj ,the problem which was the cause of the difference was that of free will and determinism4 ,orthodox ,islam favored the idea that man is completely dependent upon the divine will1 and that not only his destiny but also his conduct is determined1 and his own will does not count4 ,this was the popular feeling1 though as far as the ,koran is concerned the question cannot be decided one way or the other1 as it is not consistent in its stand1 and arguments can be drawn in plenty in favor of either opinion4 ,the idea of determinism1 however1 seemed repugnant to many minds1 who could not reconcile this with their idea of reward and punishment and the justice of ,god4 ,how is it possible that a righteous ,god would force a man to act in a certain manner and then punish him for it8 ,hence the sect of the ,kadariya1 who were in favor of freedom of the will4 ,the ,jabariya were the determinists4 ,this division goes back to a very early period before the introduction of the ,aristotelian philosophy among the ,arabs1 and hence owes its inception not to reason as opposed to religious dogma1 but to a pious endeavor to understand clearly the religious view upon so important a question4 ,from the ,kadariya1 and in opposition to the ,aristotelian movement which had in the meantime gained ground1 developed the school of theologians known as the ,mutakallimun4 ,they were the first among the ,arabs who deliberately laid down the reason as a source of knowledge in addition to the authority of the ,koran and the ,sunna or tradition4 ,they were not freethinkers1 and their object was not to oppose orthodoxy as such4 ,on the contrary1 their purpose was to purify the faith by freeing it from such elements as obscured in their minds the purity of the monotheistic tenet and the justice of ,god4 ,they started where the ,kadariya left off and went further4 ,as a school of opposition their efforts were directed to prove the creation of the world1 individual providence1 the reality of miracles1 as against the philosophers1 i4 e41 the ,aristotelians1 who held to the eternity of motion1 denied ,god's knowledge of particulars1 and insisted on the unchanging character of natural law4 ,for this purpose they placed at the basis of their speculations not the ,aristotelian concepts of matter and form1 the former uncreated and continuous1 but adopted the atomistic theory of ,democritus1 denied the necessity of cause and effect and the validity of natural law1 and made ,god directly responsible for everything that happened every moment in life4 ,god1 they said1 creates continually1 and he is not hampered by any such thing as natural law1 which is merely our name for that which we are accustomed to see4 ,whenever it rains we are accustomed to see the ground wet1 and we conclude that there is a necessary connection of cause and effect between the rain and the wetness of the ground4 ,nothing of the kind1 say the ,mutakallimun1 or the ,mutazila1 the oldest sect of the school4 ,it rains because ,god willed that it should rain1 and the ground is wet because ,god wills it shall be wet4 ,if ,god willed that the ground should be dry following a rain1 it would be dry2 and the one is no more and no less natural than the other4 ,miracles cease to be miracles on this conception of natural processes4 ,similarly the dogma of creation is easily vindicated on this theory as against the ,aristotelian doctrine of eternity of the world1 which follows from his doctrine of matter and form1 as we shall have occasion to see later4 ,the ,mutazila were1 however1 chiefly known not for their principles of physics but for their doctrines of the unity of ,god and his justice4 ,it was this which gave them their name of the ,men of ,unity and ,justice1 i4 e41 the men who vindicate against the unenlightened views of popular orthodoxy the unity of ,god and his justice4 ,the discussion of the unity centered about the proper interpretation of the anthropomorphic passages in the ,koran and the doctrine of the divine attributes4 ,when the ,koran speaks of ,god's eyes1 ears1 hands1 feet2 of his seeing1 hearing1 sitting1 standing1 walking1 being angry1 smiling1 and so on1 must those phrases be understood literally8 ,if so ,god is similar to man1 corporeal like him1 and swayed by passions4 ,this seemed to the ,mutazila an unworthy conception of ,god4 ,to vindicate his spirituality the anthropomorphic passages in the ,koran must be understood metaphorically4 ,the other more difficult question was in what sense can attributes be ascribed to ,god at all8 ,it is not here a question of anthropomorphism4 ,if ,i say that ,god is omniscient1 omnipotent and a living ,god1 ,i attribute to ,god life1 power1 knowledge4 ,are these attributes the same with ,god's essence or are they different8 ,if different 7and they must be eternal since ,god was never without them71 then we have more than one eternal being1 and ,god is dependent upon others4 ,if they are not different from ,god's essence1 then his essence is not a strict unity1 since it is composed of life1 power1 knowledge2 for life is not power1 and power is not knowledge4 ,the only way to defend the unity of ,god in its absolute purity is to say that ,god has no attributes1 i4 e41 ,god is omniscient but not through knowledge as his attribute2 ,god is omnipotent but not through power as his attribute1 and so on4 ,god is absolutely one1 and there is no distinction between knowledge1 power1 and life in him4 ,they are all one1 and are his essence4 ,this seemed in opposition to the words of the ,koran1 which frequently speaks of ,god's knowledge1 power1 and so on1 and was accordingly condemned as heretical by the orthodox4 ,in the tenth century a new sect arose named the ,ashariya after ,al-,ashari1 its founder4 ,this was a party of moderation1 and tended to conciliate orthodoxy by not going too far in the direction of rationalistic thinking4 ,they solved the problem by saying1 ,god knows through a knowledge which is not different from his essence4 ,the other problem to which the ,mutazila devoted their attention was that of the justice of ,god4 ,this was in line with the efforts of the ,kadariya before them4 ,it concerned itself with the doctrine of free will4 ,they defended man's absolute freedom of action1 and insisted on justice as the only motive of ,god's dealings with men4 ,god must be just and cannot act otherwise than in accordance with justice4 ,in reference to the question of the nature of good and evil1 the orthodox position was that good is that which ,god commands1 evil that which ,god forbids4 ,in other words1 nothing is in itself good or evil1 the ethical character of an act is purely relative to ,god's attitude to it4 ,if ,god were to command cannibalism1 it would be a good act4 ,the ,mutazila were opposed to this4 ,they believed in the absolute character of good and evil4 ,what makes an act good or bad is reason1 and it is because an act is good that ,god commands it1 and not the reverse4 ,the foregoing account gives us an idea of the nature of the ,mutazilite discussions of the two problems of ,god's unity and ,god's justice4 ,their works were all arranged in the same way4 ,they were divided into two parts1 one dealing with the question of the unity1 and the other with that of justice4 ,the proofs of the unity were preceded by the proofs of ,god's existence1 and the latter were based upon a demonstration that the world is not eternal1 but bears traces of having come to be in time4 ,these are the earmarks by which a ,mutazilite book could be recognized1 and the respect for them on the part of the philosophers1 i4 e41 the ,aristotelians1 was not great4 ,the latter did not consider them worthy combatants in a philosophical fight1 claiming that they came with preconceived notions and arranged their conceptions of nature to suit the religious beliefs which they desired to defend4 ,maimonides expresses a similar judgment concerning their worthlessness as philosophical thinkers4#aa ,this school of the ,mutakallimun1 or of the more important part of it known as the ,mutazila1 is of great interest for the history of ,jewish rationalism4 ,in the first place their influence on the early ,jewish philosophers was great and unmistakable4 ,it is no discovery of a late day but is well known to ,maimonides who is himself1 as has just been said and as will appear with greater detail later1 a strong opponent of these to him unphilosophical thinkers4 ,in the seventy-first chapter of his ,guide of the ,perplexed1 he says1 ,you will find that in the few works composed by the ,geonim and the ,karaites on the unity of ,god and on such matter as is connected with this doctrine1 they followed the lead of the ,mohammedan ,mutakallimun4444 ,it also happened1 that at the time when the ,mohammedans adopted this method of the ,kalam1 there arose among them a certain sect1 called ,mutazila4 ,in certain things our scholars followed the theory and the method of these ,mutazila4 ,thanks to the researches of modern ,jewish and non-,jewish scholars we know now that the ,rabbanite thinker ,saadia and the ,karaite writers1 like ,joseph ,al ,basir and ,jeshuah ben ,judah1 are indebted far more to the ,mohammedan ,mutazilites than would appear from ,maimonides's statement just quoted4 ,the ,rabbanites being staunch adherents of the ,talmud1 to the influence of which they owed a national and religious self-consciousness much stronger than that of the ,karaites1 who rejected the authority of tradition1 did not allow themselves to be carried away so far by the ideas of the ,mohammedan rationalists as to become their slavish followers4 ,the ,karaites are less scrupulous2 and as they were the first among the ,jews to imitate the ,mutazila in the endeavor to rationalize ,jewish doctrine1 they adopted their views in all details1 and it is sometimes impossible to tell from the contents of a ,karaite ,mutazilite work whether it was written by a ,jew or a ,mohammedan4 ,the arrangement of the work in the two divisions of ,unity and ,justice1 the discussion of substance and accident1 of the creation of the world1 of the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god1 of his attributes1 of his justice1 and of human free will1 are so similar in the two that it is external evidence alone to which we owe the knowledge of certain ,karaite works as ,jewish4 ,there are no medival ,jewish works treating of religious and theological problems in which there is so much aloofness1 such absence of theological prepossession and religious feeling as in some ,karaite writings of ,mutazilite stamp4 ,cold and unredeemed logic gives the tone to the entire composition4 ,another reason for the importance of the ,mutazilite school for the history of ,jewish thought is of recent discovery4 ,schreiner has suggested#ab that the origin of the ,mutazilite movement was due to the influence of learned ,jews with whom the ,mohammedans came in contact1 particularly in the city of ,basra1 an important centre of the school4 ,the reader will recall that the two main doctrines of the ,mutazila were the unity of ,god and his justice4 ,the latter really signified the freedom of the will4 ,that these are good ,jewish views would of course prove nothing for the origin of similar opinions among the ,mohammedans4 ,for it is not here a question simply of the dogmatic belief in ,monotheism as opposed to polytheism4 ,mohammedanism is as a religion ,monotheistic and we know that ,mohammed was indebted very much to ,jews and ,judaism4 ,we are here concerned with the origin of a rationalistic movement which endeavors to defend a spiritual conception of ,god against a crude anthropomorphism1 to vindicate a conception of his absolute unity against the threatened multiplication of his essence by the assumption of eternal attributes1 and which puts stress upon ,god's justice rather than upon his omnipotence so as to save human freedom4 ,another doctrine of the ,mutazila was that the ,koran was not eternal as the orthodox believed1 but that it was created4 ,now we can find parallels for most of these doctrines4 ,anthropomorphism was avoided in the ,aramaic translations of the ,pentateuch1 also in certain changes in the ,hebrew text which are recorded in ,rabbinical literature1 and known as ,tikkune ,soferim1 or corrections of the ,scribes4#ac ,concern for maintaining the unity of ,god in its absolute purity is seen in the care with which the men of the ,agada forbid any prayer which may have a semblance1 however remote1 of dualism4#ad ,the freedom of the will is clearly stated in the ,rabbinic expression1 ,all is in the hands of ,god except the fear of ,heaven4#ae ,and an apparently deterministic passage in ,job #bc1 #ac1 ,but he is one and who can turn him1 and what his soul desireth1 even that he doeth1 is explained by ,rabbi ,akiba in the following manner1 ,it is not possible to answer the words of him who with his word created the world1 for he rules all things with truth and with righteousness4#af ,and we find a parallel also for the creation of the ,koran in the ,midrashic statement that the ,torah is one of the six or seven things created before the world4#ag ,these parallels alone would not be of much weight1 but they are strengthened by other considerations4 ,the ,mutazilite movement seems to have developed among the ascetic sects1 with the leaders of whom its founders were in close relation4#ah ,the ascetic literature bears unmistakable traces of having been influenced by the ,halaka and the ,agada4#ai ,moreover1 there is a ,mohammedan tradition or two to the effect that the doctrine of the creation of the ,koran and also of the rejection of anthropomorphism goes back to a ,jew1 ,lebid-ibn ,al-,asam4#bj ,more recently still,a ,c4 ,h4 ,becker proved from a study of certain ,patristic writings that the polemical literature of the ,christians played an important rle in the formation of ,mohammedan dogma1 and he shows conclusively that the form in which the problem of freedom was discussed among the ,mohammedans was taken from ,christianity4 ,the question of the creation or eternity of the ,koran or word of ,allah1 is similarly related to the ,christian idea of the eternal ,logos1 who is on the one hand the ,word and the ,wisdom1 and is on the other identified with ,jesus ,christ4 ,and the same thing holds of the doctrine of attributes4 ,it played a greater rle in ,christian dogma than it ever did in ,judaism prior to the philosophic era in the middle ages4 ,to be sure1 the ,patristic writers were much indebted to ,philo1 in whose writings the germ of the medival doctrine of attributes is plainly evident4 ,but the ,mohammedan schools did not read ,philo4 ,it would seem1 therefore1 that ,schreiner's view must be considerably modified1 if not entirely rejected1 in view of the later evidence adduced by ,becker4 ,a ,cf4 ,zeitschrift fr ,assyriologie1 #aiab1 #age ff4 ,the more extreme doctrines1 however1 of the more orthodox ,ashariya1 such as the denial of natural law and the necessity of cause and effect1 likewise the denial of man's ability to determine his actions1 none of the ,jews accepted4 ,here we have again the testimony of ,maimonides1 who1 however1 is not inclined to credit this circumstance to the intelligence and judgment of his predecessors1 but to chance4 ,his words are1 ,although another sect1 the ,ashariya1 with their own peculiar views1 was subsequently established among the ,mohammedans1 you will not find any of these views in the writings of our authors2 not because these authors preferred the opinions of the first named sect to those of the latter1 but because they chanced first to become acquainted with the theory of the ,mutazila1 which they adopted and treated as demonstrated truth4#ba ,the influence of the ,kalam is present in greater or less degree in the philosophers up to ,abraham ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides4 ,the latter gave this system its death blow in his thoroughgoing criticism1#bb and thenceforth ,aristotelianism was in possession of the field until that too was attacked by ,hasdai ,crescas4 ,another sect of the ,mohammedans which had considerable influence on some of the ,jewish philosophical and ethical writers are the ascetics and the ,sufis who are related to them4 ,the latter developed their mode of life and their doctrines under the influence of the ,christian monks1 and are likewise indebted to ,indian and ,persian ideas4#bc ,in their mode of life they belong to the class of ascetics and preach abstinence1 indifference to human praise and blame1 love of ,god and absolute trust in him even to the extent of refraining from all effort in one's own behalf1 and in extreme cases going so far as to court danger4 ,in theoretical teaching they adopted the emanatistic doctrine of the ,neo-,platonic ,school4 ,this has been called dynamic ,pantheism4 ,it is ,pantheism because in its last analysis it identifies ,god with the universe4 ,at the same time it does not bring ,god directly in contact with the world1 but only indirectly through the powers or ,greek3 dynameis1 hence dynamic ,pantheism4 ,these powers emanate successively from the highest one1 forming a chain of intermediate powers mediating between ,god and the world of matter1 the links of the chain growing dimmer and less pure as they are further removed from their origin1 while the latter loses nothing in the process4 ,this latter condition saves the ,neo-,platonic conception from being a pure system of emanation like some ,indian doctrines4 ,in the latter the first cause actually gives away something of itself and loses thereby from its fulness4 ,the process in both systems is explained by use of analogies1 those of the radiation of light from a luminous body1 and of the overflowing of a fountain being the most common4 ,the chief exponent of the ethics of the ,sufis in medival ,jewish literature is ,bahya ,ibn ,pakuda4 ,in his ethical work ,the ,duties of the ,hearts1 he lays the same stress on intention and inwardness in religious life and practice as against outward performance with the limbs on the one hand and dry scholasticism on the other1 as do the ,sufis4 ,in matters of detail too he is very much indebted to this ,arab sect from whose writings he quotes abundantly with as well as without acknowledgment of his sources except in a general way as the wise men4 ,to be sure1 he does not follow them slavishly and rejects the extremes of asceticism and unworldly cynicism which a great many of the ,sufis preached and practiced4 ,he is also not in sympathy with their mysticism4 ,he adopts their teachings only where he can support them with analogous views as expressed in the ,rabbinical writings1 which indeed played an important rle in ,mohammedan ascetic literature1 being the source of many of the sayings found in the latter4#bd ,the systems of thought which had the greatest influence upon ,jewish as well as ,mohammedan theology1 were the great systems of ,plato 7especially as developed in ,neo-,platonism7 and ,aristotle4 ,these two philosophies not merely affected the thinking of ,jew and ,mohammedan but really transformed it from religious and ethical discussions into metaphysical systems4 ,in the ,bible and similarly in the ,koran we have a purely personal view of ,god and the world4 ,god is a person1 he creates the world--out of nothing to be sure--but nevertheless he is thought of doing it in the manner in which a person does such things with a will and a purpose in time and place4 ,he puts a soul into man and communicates to him laws and prohibitions4 ,man must obey these laws because they are the will of ,god and are good1 and he will be rewarded and punished according to his attitude in obedience and disobedience4 ,the character of the entire point of view is personal1 human1 teleological1 ethical4 ,there is no attempt made at an impersonal and objective analysis of the common aspects of all existing things1 the elements underlying all nature4 ,nor is there any conscious effort at a critical classification of the various kinds of things existing in nature beyond the ordinary and evident classification found in ,genesis--heaven and earth2 in heaven1 sun1 moon and stars2 on earth1 grass1 fruit trees1 insects1 water animals1 birds1 quadrupeds1 man4 ,then light and darkness1 the seasons of the year1 dry land and water4 ,in ,greek philosophy for the first time we find speculations concerning the common element or elements out of which the world is made--the material cause as ,aristotle later called it4 ,the ,sophists and ,socrates gave the first impulse to a logical analysis of what is involved in description or definition4 ,the concept as denoting the essence of a thing is the important contribution ,socrates made to knowledge4 ,plato objectified the concept1 or rather he posited an object as the basis of the concept1 and raised it out of this world of shadows to an intelligible world of realities on which the world of particulars depends4 ,but it was ,aristotle who made a thoroughgoing analysis of thing as well as thought1 and he was the master of knowledge through the middle ages alike for ,jew1 ,christian and ,mohammedan4 ,first of all he classified all objects of our experience and found that they can be grouped in ten classes or categories as he called them4 ,think of any thing you please and you will find that it is either an object in the strict sense1 i4 e41 some thing that exists independently of anything else1 and is the recipient of qualities1 as for example a man1 a mountain1 a chair4 ,or it is a quantity1 like four1 or cubit2 or a quality1 like good1 black1 straight2 or a relation like long1 double1 master1 slave2 and so on throughout the ten categories4 ,this classification applies to words and thoughts as well as to things4 ,as an analysis of the first two it led him to more important investigations of speech and thinking and arguing1 and resulted in his system of logic1 which is the most momentous discovery of a single mind recorded in history4 ,as applied to things it was followed by a more fundamental analysis of all real objects in our world into the two elements of matter and form4 ,he argued as follows3 nothing in the material world is permanent as an individual thing4 ,it changes its state from moment to moment and finally ceases to be the thing it was4 ,an acorn passes a number of stages before it is ripe1 and when it is placed in the ground it again changes its form continually and then comes out as an oak4 ,in artificial products man in a measure imitates nature4 ,he takes a block of marble and makes a statue out of it4 ,he forms a log into a bed4 ,so an ignorant man becomes civilized and learned4 ,all these examples illustrate change4 ,what then is change8 ,is there any similarity in all the cases cited8 ,can we express the process of change in a formula which will apply to all instances of change8 ,if so1 we shall have gained an insight into a process of nature which is all-embracing and universal in our experience4 ,yes1 we can1 says ,aristotle4 ,change is a play of two elements in the changing thing4 ,when a thing affected with one quality changes into a thing with the opposite quality1 there must be the thing itself without either of the opposite qualities1 which is changing4 ,thus when a white fence becomes black1 the fence itself or that which undergoes the change is something neither white nor black4 ,it is the uncolored matter which first had the form of white and now lost that and took on the form of black4 ,this is typical of all change4 ,there is in all change ultimately an unchanging substratum always the same1 which takes on one quality after another1 or as ,aristotle would say1 one form after another4 ,this substratum is matter1 which in its purity is not affected with any quality or form1 of which it is the seat and residence4 ,the forms on the other hand come and go4 ,form does not change any more than matter4 ,the changing thing is the composite of matter and form1 and change means separation of the actual components of which one1 the form1 disappears and makes room for its opposite4 ,in a given case1 say1 when a statue is made out of a block of marble1 the matter is the marble which lost its original form and assumed the form of a statue4 ,in this case the marble1 if you take away both the previous form and the present1 will still have some form if it is still marble1 for marble must have certain qualities if it is to be marble4 ,in that case then the matter underlying the change in question is not pure matter1 it is already endowed with some primitive form and is composite4 ,but marble is ultimately reducible to the four elements1 fire1 air1 water1 earth1 which are simpler2 and theoretically1 though not in practice1 we can think away all form1 and we have left only that which takes forms but is itself not any form4 ,this is matter4 ,here the reader will ask1 what kind of thing is it that has no form whatsoever1 is it not nothing at all8 ,how can anything exist without being a particular kind of thing1 and the moment it is that it is no longer pure matter4 ,aristotle's answer is that it is true that pure matter is never found as an objective existence4 ,point to any real object and it is composed of matter and form4 ,and yet it is not true that matter is a pure figment of the imagination2 it has an existence of its own1 a potential existence4 ,and this leads us to another important conception in the ,aristotelian philosophy4 ,potentiality and actuality are correlative terms corresponding to matter and form4 ,matter is the potential1 form is the actual4 ,whatever potentialities an object has it owes to its matter4 ,its actual essence is due to its form4 ,a thing free from matter would be all that it is at once4 ,it would not be liable to change of any kind1 whether progress or retrogression4 ,all the objects of our experience in the sublunar world are not of this kind4 ,they realize themselves gradually1 and are never at any given moment all that they are capable of becoming4 ,this is due to their matter4 ,on the other hand1 pure matter is actually nothing4 ,it is just capacity for being anything1 and the moment it is anything it is affected with form4 ,it is clear from this account that matter and form are the bases of sublunar life and existence4 ,no change1 no motion without matter and form4 ,for motion is presupposed in all kinds of change4 ,if then all processes of life and death and change of all kinds presuppose matter and form1 the latter cannot themselves be liable to genesis and decay and change1 for that would mean that matter is composed of matter and form1 which is absurd4 ,we thus see how ,aristotle is led to believe in the eternity of matter and motion1 in other words1 the eternity of the world processes as we know them4 ,motion is the realization of the potential qua potential4 ,this is an ,aristotelian definition and applies not merely to motion in the strict sense1 i4 e41 movement in place1 or motion of translation1 but embraces all kinds of change4 ,take as an example the warming of the air in a cold room4 ,the process of heating the room is a kind of motion2 the air passes from a state of being cold to a state of being warm4 ,in its original state as cold it is potentially warm1 i4 e41 it is actually not warm1 but has the capacity of becoming warm4 ,at the end of the process it is actually warm4 ,hence the process itself is the actualization of the potential4 ,that which is potential cannot make itself actual1 for to make itself actual it must be actual1 which is contrary to the hypothesis of its being potential4 ,potentiality and actuality are contradictory states and cannot exist side by side in the same thing at the same time in the same relation4 ,there must therefore be an external agent1 itself actual1 to actualize a potential4 ,thus1 in the above illustration1 a cold room cannot make itself warm4 ,there must be some agency itself actually warm to cause the air in the room to pass from cold to warm4 ,this is true also of motion in place1 that a thing cannot move itself and must be moved by something else4 ,but that something else if itself in motion must again be moved by something else4 ,this process would lead us to infinity4 ,in order that a given thing shall be in motion1 it would be necessary for an infinite number of things to be in motion4 ,this is impossible1 because there cannot be an infinite number of things all here and now4 ,it is a contradiction in terms4 ,hence if anything is to move at all1 there must be at the end of the finite chain a link which while causing the next link to move1 is itself unmoved4 ,hence the motion existing in the world must be due ultimately to the existence of an unmoved mover4 ,if this being causes motion without being itself in motion it does not act upon the bodies it moves as one body acts upon another1 for a body can move another body only by being itself in motion4 ,the manner in which the unmoved mover moves the world is rather to be conceived on the analogy of a loved object moving the loving object without itself being moved4 ,the person in love strives to approach and unite with the object of his love without the latter necessarily being moved in turn4 ,this is the way in which ,aristotle conceives of the cause of the world's motion4 ,there is no room here for the creation of the world4 ,matter is eternal1 motion is eternal1 and there is an eternal mind for the love of which all motions have been going on1 eternally4 ,the unmoved mover1 or ,god1 is thus not body1 for no body can move another body without being itself in motion at the same time4 ,besides1 all body is finite1 i4 e41 it has a finite magnitude4 ,a body of infinite magnitude is an impossibility1 as the very essence of body is that it must be bounded by surfaces4 ,a finite body cannot have an infinite power1 as ,aristotle proves1 though we need not at present go into the details of his proof4 ,but a being which causes eternal motion in the world must have an infinite power to do this4 ,hence another proof that ,god is not corporeal4 ,if ,god is not subject to motion1 he is not subject to change of any kind1 for change involves motion4 ,as matter is at the basis of all change ,god is without matter1 hence he is pure form1 i4 e41 pure actuality without the least potentiality4 ,this means that he is what he is wholly all the time2 he has no capacities of being what he is at any time not4 ,but if he is not corporeal1 the nature of his actuality or activity must be ,thought1 pure thinking4 ,and the content of his thought cannot vary from topic to topic1 for this would be change1 which is foreign to him4 ,he must be eternally thinking the same thought2 and the highest thought it must be4 ,but the highest thought is himself2 hence ,god is pure thought thinking himself1 thought thinking thought4 ,the universe is in the shape of a sphere with the earth stationary in the centre and the heavens revolving around it exactly as appears to us4 ,the element earth is the heaviest1 hence its place is below or1 which is the same thing1 in the centre4 ,this is its natural place2 and its natural motion when away from the centre is in a straight line toward the centre4 ,water is the next heaviest element and its natural place is just above earth2 hence the water in the world occupies a position spherical in shape round about the earth1 i4 e41 it forms a hollow sphere concentric with the earth4 ,next comes the hollow sphere of air concentric with the other two4 ,its natural motion when away from its place in the direction of the earth is in a straight line toward the circumference of the world1 not however going beyond the sphere of the lightest element of all1 namely1 fire4 ,this has its natural place outside of the other elements1 also in the form of a hollow sphere concentric with the other three4 ,its natural motion is in a straight line away from the centre of the world and in the direction of the circumference4 ,our earth1 water1 air and fire are not really the elements in their purity4 ,each one has in it also mixtures of the other three elements1 the one which gives it the name predominating4 ,all minerals1 plants and animals are formed from these four elements by various combinations1 all together forming the sublunar world1 or the world of generation and decay4 ,no individual thing in this world is permanent4 ,all are subject to change and to ultimate destruction1 though the destruction of one thing is the genesis of another4 ,there is no annihilation4 ,the causes of the various combinations of the elements and the generation and destruction of mineral1 plant and animal resulting therefrom1 are the motions of the heavenly bodies4 ,these are made of a purer substance than that of the four elements1 the ether4 ,this is proven by the fact that the heavenly bodies are not subject to change or destruction4 ,they are all permanent and the only change visible in them is change of place4 ,but even their motions are different from those of the four elements4 ,the latter are in a straight line toward the centre or away from it1 whereas the heavenly bodies move in a circle eternally around the centre4 ,this is another proof that they are not composed of the same material as sublunar bodies4 ,the heavens consist of transparent spheres1 and the stars as well as the planets are set in them and remain fixed4 ,the motions of the heavenly bodies are due to the revolutions of the spheres in which they are set4 ,these spheres are hollow and concentric4 ,the outermost sphere forming the outer limit of the universe 7the world is finite according to ,aristotle7 is studded with the fixed stars and moves from east to west1 making a complete revolution in twenty-four hours4 ,this motion is transmitted to the other spheres which carry the planets4 ,since1 however1 we notice in the sun1 moon and the other planetary bodies motions in the contrary direction in addition to that from east to west1 there must be other spheres having the motions apparent to us in the positions of the planets borne by them4 ,thus a given body like the sun or moon is set in more than one sphere1 each of which has its own proper motion1 and the star's apparent motion is the resultant of the several motions of its spheres4 ,without entering into further details concerning these motions1 it will be sufficient for us to know that ,aristotle counted in all fifty-five spheres4 ,first came the sphere of the fixed stars1 then in order the spheres of ,saturn1 ,jupiter1 ,mars1 ,mercury1 ,venus1 ,sun1 ,moon4 ,god himself sets the outer sphere in motion1 or rather is the eternal cause of its motion1 as the object of its desire2 and in the same way each of the other motions has also its proper mover1 likewise a pure form or spirit1 which moves its sphere in the same incorporeal and unmoved manner as ,god4 ,thus we have in the supra-lunar world pure forms without matter in ,god and the spirits of the spheres1 whereas in the sublunar world matter and form are inseparable4 ,neither is found separately without the other4 ,in man's soul1 however1 or rather in his intellect we find a form which combines in itself the peculiarities of sublunar as well as celestial forms4 ,when in contact with the human body it partakes of the nature of other sublunar forms exhibiting its activity through matter and being inseparable from it4 ,but it is not destroyed with the death of the body4 ,it continues as a separate form after death4 ,the soul1 ,aristotle defines as the first entelechy of the body4 ,the term entelechy which sounds outlandish to us may be replaced by the word realization or actualization and is very close in meaning to the ,aristotelian use of the word form4 ,the soul then1 according to ,aristotle1 is the realization or actualization or form of the body4 ,the body takes the place of matter in the human composite4 ,it has the composition and the structure which give it the capacity for performing the functions of a human being1 as in any other composite1 say an axe1 the steel is the matter which has the potentiality or capacity of being made into a cutting instrument4 ,its cutting function is the form of the axe--we might almost say the soul of the axe1 if it were not for the circumstance that it cannot do its own cutting2 it must be wielded by someone else4 ,so far then the human soul forms an inseparable unit with the body which it informs4 ,as we do not think of the cutting function of an axe existing apart from the axe1 so neither can we conceive of sensation1 emotion or memory as existing without a body4 ,in so far as the soul is this it is a material form like the rest1 and ceases with the dissolution of the body4 ,but the soul is more than this4 ,it is also a thinking faculty4 ,as such it is not in its essence dependent upon the body or any corporeal organ4 ,it comes from without1 having existed before the body1 and it will continue to exist after the body is no more4 ,that it is different from the sensitive soul is proven by the fact that the latter is inherent in the physical organ through which it acts1 being the form of the body1 as we have seen4 ,and hence when an unusually violent stimulus1 say a very bright light or a very loud sound1 impinges upon the sense organ1 the faculty of sight or hearing is injured to such an extent that it cannot thereafter perceive an ordinary sight or sound4 ,but in the rational faculty this is not the case4 ,the more intense the thought occupying the thinking soul1 the more capable it becomes of thinking lesser thoughts4 ,to be sure1 the reason seems to weaken in old age1 but this is due to the weakening of the body with which the soul is connected during life2 the soul itself is just as active as ever4 ,we must1 however1 distinguish between two aspects of the rational soul1 to one of which alone the above statements apply4 ,thought differs from sensation in that the latter perceives the particular form of the individual thing1 whereas the former apprehends the essential nature of the object1 that which constitutes it a member of a certain class4 ,the sense of sight perceives a given individual man2 thought or reason understands what it is to be a member of the human species4 ,reason therefore deals with pure form4 ,in man we observe the reason gradually developing from a potential to an actual state4 ,the objects of the sense with the help of the faculties of sensation1 memory and imagination act upon the potential intellect of the child1 which without them would forever remain a mere capacity without ever being realized4 ,this aspect of the reason then in man1 namely1 the passive aspect which receives ideas1 grows and dies with the body4 ,but there is another aspect of the reason1 the active reason which has nothing to do with the body1 though it is in some manner resident in it during the life of the latter4 ,this it is which enables the passive intellect to become realized4 ,for the external objects as such are insufficient to endow the rational capacity of the individual with actual ideas1 any more than a surface can endow the sense of sight with the sensation of color when there is no light4 ,it is the active intellect which develops the human capacity for thinking and makes it active thought4 ,this alone1 the active intellect1 is the immortal part of man4 ,this very imperfect sketch of ,aristotle's mode of approach to the ever-living problems of ,god1 the universe and man shows us the wide diversity of his method from that with which the ,jews of ,biblical and ,rabbinic tradition were identified4 ,greek philosophy must have seemed a revelation to them1 and we do not wonder that they became such enthusiastic followers of the ,stagirite1 feeling as they must have done that his method as well as his results were calculated to enrich their intellectual and spiritual life4 ,hence the current belief of an original ,jewish philosophy borrowed or stolen by the ,greeks1 and still betraying its traces in the ,bible and ,talmud was more than welcome to the enlightened spirits of the time4 ,and they worked this unhistorical belief to its breaking point in their ,biblical exegesis4 ,aristotle1 however1 was not their only master1 though they did not know it4 ,plotinus in ,aristotelian disguise contributed not a little to their conception of ,god and his relation to the universe4 ,the so-called ,theology of ,aristotle#be is a ,plotinian work1 and its ,pantheistic point of view is in reality foreign to ,aristotle's dualism4 ,but the middle ages were not aware of the origin of this treatise1 and so they attributed it to the ,stagirite philosopher and proceeded to harmonize it with the rest of his system as they knew it4 ,aristotle's system may be called theistic and dualistic2 ,plotinus's is pantheistic and monistic4 ,in ,aristotle matter is not created by or derived from ,god1 who is external to the universe4 ,plotinus derives everything from ,god1 who through his powers or activities pervades all4 ,the different gradations of being are static in ,aristotle1 dynamic in ,plotinus4 ,plotinus assumes an absolute cause1 which he calls the ,one and the ,good4 ,this is the highest and is at the top of the scale of existence4 ,it is superior to ,being as well as to ,thought1 for the latter imply a duality whereas unity is prior to and above all plurality4 ,hence we can know nothing as to the nature of the ,highest4 ,we can know only that ,he is1 not what he is4 ,from this highest ,being proceeds by a physical necessity1 as light from a luminous body or water from an overflowing spring1 a second hypostasis or substance1 the nous or ,reason4 ,this is a duality1 constituting ,being and ,knowledge4 ,thus ,thought and ,being hold a second place in the universe4 ,in a similar way from ,reason proceeds the third hypostasis or the ,world-,soul4 ,this stands midway between the intelligible world1 of which it is the last1 and the phenomenal world1 of which it is the first4 ,the ,soul has a dual aspect1 the one spiritual and pertaining to the intelligible world1 the other1 called ,nature1 residing in the lower world4 ,this is the material world of change and decay4 ,matter is responsible for all change and evil1 and yet matter1 too1 is a product of the powers above it1 and is ultimately a derivative of the ,absolute ,cause1 though indirectly4 ,matter is two-fold1 intelligible and sensible4 ,the matter of the lower world is the non-existent and the cause of evil4 ,matter in a more general sense is the indeterminate1 the indefinite and the potential4 ,matter of this nature is found also in the intelligible world4 ,the ,reason as the second hypostasis1 being an activity1 passes from potentiality to actuality1 its indeterminateness being made determinate by the ,one or the ,good4 ,this potentiality and indeterminateness is matter1 but it is not to be confused with the other matter of the phenomenal world4 ,man partakes of the intelligible1 as well as of the sensible world4 ,his body is material1 and in so far forth partakes of the evil of matter4 ,but his soul is derived from the universal soul1 and if it conducts itself properly in this world1 whither it came from without1 and holds itself aloof from bodily contamination1 it will return to the intelligible world where is its home4 ,we see here a number of ideas foreign to ,aristotle1 which are found first in ,philo the ,jew and appear later in medival philosophy4 ,thus ,god as a ,being absolutely unknowable1 of whom negations alone are true just because he is the acme of perfection and bears no analogy to the imperfect things of our world2 matter in our world as the origin of evil1 and the existence of matter in the intelligible world--all these ideas will meet us again in ,ibn ,gabirol1 in ,ibn ,daud1 in ,maimonides1 some in one1 some in the other4 ,alike in respect to ,aristotle as in reference to ,plotinus1 the ,jewish philosophers found their models in ,islamic writers4 ,the ,theology of ,aristotle which1 as we have seen1 is really ,plotinian rather than ,aristotelian1 was translated into ,arabic in the ninth century and exerted its influence on the ,brethren of ,purity1 a ,mohammedan secret order of the tenth century4 ,these men composed an encyclopdia of fifty-one treatises in which is combined ,aristotelian logic and physics with ,neo-,platonic metaphysics and theology4 ,in turn such ,jewish writers as ,ibn ,gabirol1 ,bahya1 ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,judah ,halevi1 ,moses and ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra1 were much indebted to the ,brethren of ,purity4 ,this represents the ,neo-,platonic influence in ,jewish philosophy4 ,the ,arab ,aristotelians1 ,al ,kindi1 ,al ,farabi1 ,avicenna and ,averroes1 while in the main disciples of the ,stagirite1 were none the less unable to steer clear of ,neo-,platonic coloring of their master's doctrine1 and they were the teachers of the ,jewish ,aristotelians1 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 ,moses ben ,maimon1 ,levi ben ,gerson4 ,one other phase must be mentioned to complete the parallelism of ,islamic and ,jewish philosophy1 and that is the anti-philosophic attitude adopted by ,judah ,halevi and ,hasdai ,crescas4 ,it was not a dogmatic and unreasoned opposition based simply upon the un-,jewish source of the doctrines in question and their incompatibility with ,jewish belief and tradition1 such as exhibited itself in the controversies that raged around the ,guide of ,maimonides4 ,here we have rather a fighting of the philosophers with their own weapons4 ,especially do we find this to be the case in ,crescas who opposes ,aristotle on philosophic grounds4 ,in ,judah ,halevi similarly1 though with less rigor and little technical discussion1 we have nevertheless a man trained in philosophic literature1 who found the philosophic attitude unsympathetic and unsatisfying because cold and impersonal1 failing to do justice to the warm yearning after ,god of the religious soul4 ,he could not abide the philosophic exclusion from their natural theology of all that was racial and national and historic in religion1 which was to him its very heart and innermost essence4 ,in this attitude1 too1 we find an ,arab prototype in the person of ,al ,gazali1 who similarly attacked the philosophers on their own ground and found his consolation in the asceticism and mysticism of the ,sufis4 ,we have now spoken in a general way of the principal motives of medival ,jewish philosophy1 of the chief sources1 philosophical and dogmatic1 and have classified the ,jewish thinkers accordingly as ,mutakallimun1 ,neo-,platonists and ,aristotelians4 ,we also sketched briefly the schools of philosophy which influenced the ,jewish writers and determined their point of view as ,kalamistic1 ,neo-,platonic or ,aristotelian4 ,there still remains as the concluding part of the introductory chapter1 and before we take up the detailed exposition of the individual philosophers1 to give a brief and compendious characterization of the content of medival ,jewish philosophy4 ,we shall start with the theory of knowledge4 ,we have already referred to the attitude generally adopted by the medival ,jewish thinkers on the relation between religion and philosophy4 ,with the exception of ,judah ,halevi and ,hasdai ,crescas the commonly accepted view was that philosophy and religion were at bottom identical in content1 though their methods were different2 philosophy taught by means of rational demonstration1 religion by dogmatic assertion based upon divine revelation4 ,so far as the actual philosophical views of an ,aristotle were concerned1 they might be erroneous in some of their details1 as was indeed the case in respect to the origin of the world and the question of ,providence4 ,but apart from his errors he was an important guide1 and philosophy generally is an indispensable adjunct to religious belief because it makes the latter intelligent4 ,it explains the why's and the wherefore's of religious traditions and dogmas4 ,into detailed discussions concerning the origin of our knowledge they did not as a rule go4 ,these strictly scientific questions did not concern1 except in a very general way1 the main object of their philosophizing1 which was to gain true knowledge of ,god and his attributes and his relation to man4 ,accordingly we find for the most part a simple classification of the sources of knowledge or truth as consisting of the senses and the reason4 ,the latter contains some truths which may be called innate or immediate1 such as require no experience for their recognition1 like the logical laws of thought1 and truths which are the result of inference from a fact of sensation or an immediate truth of the mind4 ,to these human sources was added tradition or the testimony of the revealed word of ,god in the written and oral law4 ,when ,aristotle began to be studied in his larger treatises and the details of the psychology and the metaphysics became known especially through ,averroes1 we find among the ,jews also an interest in the finer points of the problem of knowledge4 ,the motives of ,plato's idealism and ,aristotle's conceptualism 7if this inexact description may be allowed for want of a more precise term7 are discussed with fulness and detail by ,levi ben ,gerson4 ,he realizes the difficulty involved in the problem4 ,knowledge must be of the real and the permanent4 ,but the particular is not permanent1 and the universal1 which is permanent1 is not real4 ,hence either there is no knowledge or there is a reality corresponding to the universal concept4 ,this latter was the view adopted by ,plato4 ,gersonides finds the reality in the thoughts of the ,active ,intellect1 agreeing in this with the views of ,philo and ,augustine1 substituting only the ,active ,intellect for their ,logos4 ,maimonides does not discuss the question1 but it is clear from a casual statement that like ,aristotle he does not believe in the independent reality of the universal 7,guide ,,iii1 #ah74 ,in theoretical physics the ,arabian ,mutakallimun1 we have seen 7p4 xxii71 laid great stress on the theory of atom and accident as opposed to the concepts of matter and form by which ,aristotle was led to believe in the eternity of the world4 ,accordingly every ,mutakallim laid down his physical theory and based on it his proof of creation4 ,this method was followed also by the early ,jewish thinkers4 ,the ,karaites before ,maimonides adopted the atomic theory without question4 ,and ,aaron ben ,elijah1 who had ,maimonides's ,guide before him1 was nevertheless sufficiently loyal to his ,karaite predecessors to discuss their views side by side with those of the ,aristotelians and to defend them against the strictures of ,maimonides4 ,saadia1 the first ,rabbanite philosopher1 discusses no less than thirteen erroneous views concerning the origin and nature of the world1 but he does not lay down any principles of theoretical physics explicitly4 ,he does not seem to favor the atomic theory1 but he devotes no special treatment to the subject1 and in his arguments for creation as opposed to eternity he makes use of the ,kalamistic concepts of substance and accident and composition and division4 ,the same is true of ,bahya ,ibn ,pakuda4 ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik is the first who finds it necessary to give an independent treatment of the sciences before proceeding to construct his religious philosophy1 and in so doing he expounds the concepts of matter and form1 substance and accident1 genesis and destruction1 the four elements and their natures and so on--all these ,aristotelian concepts4 ,ibn ,daud follows in the path of ,ibn ,zaddik and discusses the relevant concepts of potentiality and actuality and the nature of motion and infinity1 upon which his proof is based of the existence of ,god4 ,maimonides clears the ground first by a thorough criticism and refutation of the ,kalamistic physics1 but he does not think it necessary to expound the ,aristotelian views which he adopts4 ,he refers the reader to the original sources in the ,physics and ,metaphysics of ,aristotle1 and contents himself with giving a list of principles which he regards as established4 ,aristotle is now the master of all those who know4 ,and he reigns supreme for over a century until the appearance of the ,or ,adonai of ,hasdai ,crescas1 who ventured to deny some of the propositions upon which ,maimonides based his proof of the existence of ,god--such1 for example1 as the impossibility of an infinite magnitude1 the non-existence of an infinite fulness or vacuum outside of the limits of our world1 the finiteness of our world and its unity1 and so on4 ,these discussions of the fundamental principles of physics were applied ultimately to prove the existence of ,god4 ,but there was a difference in the manner of the application4 ,during the earlier period before the ,emunah ,ramah of ,abraham ,ibn ,daud was written1 the method employed was that of the ,arabian ,mutakallimun4 ,that is1 the principles of physics were used to prove the creation of the world in time1 and from creation inference was made to the existence of a ,creator1 since nothing can create itself4 ,the creation itself in time as opposed to eternity was proved from the fact of the composite character of the world4 ,composition1 it was said1 implies the prior existence of the constituent elements1 and the elements cannot be eternal1 for an infinite past time is unthinkable4 ,this method is common to ,saadia1 ,bahya1 ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik1 and others4 ,with the appearance of ,ibn ,daud's masterpiece1 which exhibits a more direct familiarity with the fundamental ideas of ,aristotle1 the method changed4 ,the existence of ,god is proved directly from physics without the mediation of the doctrine of creation4 ,motion proves a mover1 and to avoid an infinite regress we must posit an unmoved mover1 that is1 a first mover who is not himself moved at the same time4 ,an unmoved mover cannot be corporeal1 hence he is the spiritual being whom we call ,god4 ,ibn ,daud does not make use of creation to prove the existence of ,god1 but neither does he posit eternal motion as ,aristotle does4 ,and the result is that he has no valid proof that this unmoved mover is a pure spirit not in any way related to body4 ,this defect was made good by ,maimonides4 ,let us frankly adopt tentatively1 he says1 the ,aristotelian idea of the eternity of the world1 i4 e41 the eternity of matter and motion4 ,we can then prove the existence of an unmoved mover who is pure spirit1 for none but a pure spirit can have an infinite force such as is manifested in the eternal motion of the world4 ,creation cannot be demonstrated with scientific rigor1 hence it is not safe to build so important a structure as the existence of ,god upon an insecure foundation4 ,show that eternity of the world leads to ,god1 and you are safe no matter what the ultimate truth turns out to be concerning the origin of the world4 ,for if the world originated in time there is no doubt that ,god made it4 ,thus ,maimonides accepted provisionally the eternity of matter and motion1 but provisionally only4 ,no sooner did he prove his point1 than he takes up the question of the world's origin and argues that while strict demonstration there is as yet none either for or against creation1 the better reasons are on the side of creation4 ,gersonides1 on the other hand1 was a truer ,aristotelian than ,maimonides and he decided in favor of the eternity of matter1 though not of this our world4 ,the ,jewish ,mutakallimun1 as we have seen1 proved the existence of ,god from the fact that a created world implies a creator4 ,the next step was to show that there is only one ,god1 and that this one ,god is simple and not composite1 and that he is incorporeal4 ,the unity in the sense of uniqueness was shown by pointing out that dualism or pluralism is incompatible with omnipotence and perfection--attributes the possession of which by ,god was not considered to require proof4 ,maimonides1 indeed1 pointed out1 in his opposition to the ,mutakallimun1 that if there is a plurality of worlds1 a plurality of ,gods would not necessarily be in conflict with the omnipotence and perfection of each ,god in his own sphere 7,guide ,i1 #ge71 and he inferred the unity of ,god from his spirituality4 ,the simplicity of ,god was proved by arguing that if he is composite1 his parts are prior to him1 and he is neither the first1 nor is he eternal1 and hence not ,god2 and the incorporeality followed from his simplicity1 for all body is composite4 ,maimonides proved with one stroke ,god's existence1 unity and incorporeality4 ,for his argument from motion leads him to conceive of the first mover as a separate form or intellect4 ,this clearly denotes incorporeality1 for body is composed of matter and form4 ,but it also denotes unity1 for the immaterial is not subject to numerical distinction unless the one be the cause and the other the effect4 ,but in that case the cause alone is ,god4 ,next in importance to the proof of ,god's existence1 unity and incorporeality1 is the doctrine of attributes4 ,we have seen 7p4 xxiii7 how much emphasis the ,arabian ,mutakallimun placed upon the problem of attributes4 ,it was important to ,jew1 ,christian and ,mohammedan alike for a number of reasons4 ,the crude anthropomorphism of many expressions in the ,bible as well as the ,koran offended the more sophisticated thinkers ever since ,alexandrian days4 ,hence it was necessary to deal with this question1 and the unanimous view was that the ,biblical expressions in question are to be understood as figures of speech4 ,the more difficult problem was how any predicates at all can be applied to ,god without endangering his unity4 ,if ,god is the possessor of many qualities1 even though they be purely spiritual1 such as justice1 wisdom1 power1 he is composite and not simple4 ,the ,christian theologians found indeed in this problem of attributes a philosophical support for the doctrine of the ,trinity4 ,since ,god cannot be devoid of power1 reason and life1 he is trinitarian1 though he is one4 ,the difficulty was of course that the moment you admit distinctions within the ,godhead1 there is no reason for stopping at three4 ,and the ,jewish critics were not slow to recognize this weakness in the system of their opponents4 ,at the same time they found it necessary to take up a positive attitude toward the question of attributes so as to harmonize the latter with ,god's absolute unity4 ,and the essence of the solution of the problem was to explain away the attributes4 ,saadia says that the ascription of life1 power and knowledge to ,god does not involve plurality in his essence4 ,the distinction of three attributes is due to our limited mind and inadequate powers of expression4 ,in reality the essence of which we predicate these attributes is one and simple4 ,this solution did not seem thoroughgoing enough to ,saadia's successors1 and every one of the ,jewish philosophers tried his hand at the problem4 ,all agreed that the attributes cannot apply to ,god in the same signification as they have when we use them in our own experience4 ,the meaning of the term attribute was investigated and the attributes were divided into classes1 until finally in the system of ,maimonides this question too received its classical solution4 ,god is conceived as absolutely transcendent and unknowable4 ,no positive predicate can apply to him so as to indicate his essence4 ,we can say only what he is not1 we cannot say what he is4 ,there is not the faintest resemblance between him and his creatures4 ,and yet he is the cause of the world and of all its happenings4 ,positive attributes signify only that ,god is the cause of the experiences denoted by the attributes in question4 ,when we say ,god is just we mean that he is not unjust1 and that he is the cause of all justice in the world4 ,hence ,maimonides says there are no essential attributes1 meaning attributes expressive of ,god's essence1 and the only predicates having application are negative and such as designate effects of ,god's causal activity in the world4 ,gersonides was opposed to ,maimonides's radical agnosticism in respect of the nature of ,god1 and defended a more human view4 ,if ,god is pure thought1 he is of the nature of our thought1 though of course infinitely greater and perfect1 but to deny any relation whatsoever between ,god's thought and ours1 as ,maimonides does1 is absurd4 ,from ,god we pass to man4 ,and the important part of man is his soul4 ,it is proved that man has a soul1 that the soul is not material or corporeal1 that it is a substantial entity and not a mere quality or accident of the body4 ,both ,plato and ,aristotle are laid under contribution in the various classifications of the soul that are found in ,saadia1 in ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik1 in ,judah ,halevi1 in ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 in ,maimonides4 ,the commonest is the three-fold division into vegetative1 animal and rational4 ,we also find the ,platonic division into appetitive1 spirited and rational4 ,further psychological details and descriptions of the senses1 external and internal1 the latter embracing the common sense1 memory1 imagination and judgment1 are ultimately based upon ,aristotle and are found in ,judah ,halevi1 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides1 who derived them from ,avicenna and ,alfarabi4 ,in the ,neo-,platonic writers1 such as ,isaac ,israeli1 ,solomon ,ibn ,gabirol1 ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,moses ,ibn ,ezra1 ,pseudo-,bahya1 ,abraham ,bar ,hiyya1 and so on1 we also find reference to the ,world ,soul and its emanation from ,intelligence4 ,in the conception of the human soul the ,jewish philosophers vary from the ,platonic view1 related to the ,biblical1 that the soul is a distinct entity coming into the body from a spiritual world1 and acting in the body by using the latter as its instrument1 to the ,aristotelian view that at least so far as the lower faculties of sense1 memory and imagination are concerned1 the soul is the form of the body1 and disappears with the death of the latter4 ,the human unit1 according to this opinion1 is body-and-mind1 and the human activities are psycho-physical and not purely psychical as they are according to ,plato4 ,some writers occupying intermediate positions combine unwittingly the ,platonic and ,aristotelian views1 or rather they use ,aristotelian expressions and interpret them ,platonically 7,saadia1 ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,hillel ben ,samuel74 ,as the influence of the ,arab ,aristotelians1 ,alfarabi1 ,avicenna and especially ,averroes1 began to make itself felt1 the discussions about the ,active ,intellect and its relation to the higher ,intelligences on the one hand and to the human intellect on the other found their way also among the ,jews and had their effect on the conception of prophecy4 ,aristotle's distinction of an active and a passive intellect in man1 and his ideas about the spheral spirits as pure ,intelligences endowing the heavenly spheres with their motions1 were combined by the ,arabian ,aristotelians with the ,neo-,platonic theory of emanation4 ,the result was that they adopted as ,aristotelian the view that from ,god emanated in succession ten ,intelligences and their spheres4 ,thus the first emanation was the first ,intelligence4 ,from this emanated the sphere of the fixed stars moved by it and the second ,intelligence4 ,from this emanated in turn the sphere of ,saturn and the third ,intelligence1 and so on through the seven planets to the moon4 ,from the ,intelligence of the lunar sphere emanated the ,active ,intellect and the sublunar spheres of the four elements4 ,these ,intelligences were identified with the angels of ,scripture4 ,with some modifications this theory was adopted by the ,jewish ,aristotelians1 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 ,maimonides1 ,levi ben ,gerson4 ,the ,active ,intellect was thus placed among the universal ,intelligences whose function it is to control the motions of the sublunar world1 and in particular to develop the human faculty of reason which is in the infant a mere capacity--a material intellect4 ,sensation and experience alone are not sufficient to develop the theoretical reason in man1 for they present concrete1 individual material objects1 whereas the reason is concerned with universal truth4 ,the conversion of sense experience into immaterial concepts is accomplished through the aid of the ,active ,intellect4 ,and at the end of the process a new intellect is produced in man1 the ,acquired ,intellect4 ,this alone is the immortal part of man and theoretical study creates it4 ,averroes believed that this ,acquired ,intellect exists separately in every individual so long only as the individual is alive4 ,as soon as the individual man dies1 his acquired intellect loses its individuality 7there being no material body to individuate it7 and there is only one acquired intellect for the entire human species1 which in turn is absorbed into the ,active ,intellect4 ,there is thus no individual immortality4 ,maimonides1 it would seem1 though he does not discuss the question in his ,guide1 shared the same view4 ,gersonides devotes an entire book of his ,milhamot ,adonai to this problem1 but he defends individuation of the acquired intellect as such and thus saves personal immortality4 ,the practical part of philosophy1 ethics1 the ,mutakallimun among the ,arabians discussed in connection with the justice of ,god4 ,in opposition to the ,jabariya and the ,ashariya who advocated a fatalistic determinism denying man's ability to determine his own actions1 some going so far as to say that right and wrong1 good and evil1 are entirely relative to ,god's will1 the ,mutazila insisted that man is free1 that good and evil are absolute and that ,god is just because justice is inherently right1 injustice inherently wrong4 ,hence reward and punishment would be unjust if man had not the freedom to will and to act4 ,the ,karaites ,joseph ,al ,basir and ,jeshua ben ,judah discuss the problem of the nature of good and evil and vindicate their absolute character4 ,god desires the good because it is good1 and it is not true that a thing is good because ,god has commanded it4 ,freedom of man is a corollary of the goodness of ,god4 ,the ,rabbanites take it for granted that good is good inherently1 and ,god desires and commands it because it is identical with his wisdom and his will4 ,freedom of man does follow as a corollary from the justice of ,god and it is also taught in the ,bible and the ,talmud4 ,the very fact of the existence of a divine law and commandments shows that man has freedom4 ,and those passages in ,scripture which seem to suggest that ,god sometimes interferes with man's freedom are explained away by interpretations ad hoc4 ,our own consciousness of power to determine our acts also is a strong argument in favor of freedom4 ,nevertheless the subject is felt to have its difficulties and the arguments against free will taken from the causal sequences of natural events and the influence of heredity1 environment and motive on the individual will are not ignored4 ,judah ,halevi as well as ,abraham ,ibn ,daud discuss these arguments in detail4 ,but freedom comes out triumphant4 ,it is even sought to reconcile the antinomy of freedom vs4 ,god's foreknowledge4 ,god knows beforehand from all eternity how a given man will act at a given moment1 but his knowledge is merely a mirror of man's actual decision and not the determining cause thereof4 ,this is ,judah ,halevi's view4 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud with better insight realizes that the contingent1 which has no cause1 and the free act1 which is undetermined1 are as such unpredictable4 ,he therefore sacrifices ,god's knowledge of the contingent and the free so as to save man's freedom4 ,it is no defect1 he argues1 not to be able to predict what is in the nature of the case unpredictable4 ,maimonides cannot admit any ignorance in ,god1 and takes refuge in the transcendent character of ,god's knowledge4 ,what is unpredictable for us is not necessarily so for ,god4 ,as he is the cause of everything1 he must know everything4 ,gersonides who1 as we have seen1 is unwilling to admit ,maimonides's agnosticism and transcendentalism1 solves the problem in the same way as ,ibn ,daud4 ,god knows events in so far as they are determined1 he does not know them in so far as they are contingent4 ,there is still another possibility and that is that ,god knows in advance every man's acts because no act is absolutely free4 ,and there is an advocate of this opinion also4 ,hasdai ,crescas frankly adopts the determinist position on the basis of ,god's knowledge1 which cannot be denied1 as well as of reason and experience1 which recognizes the determining character of temperament and motive4 ,but reward and punishment are natural and necessary consequences1 and are no more unjust than is the burning of the finger when put into the fire4 ,in respect to the details of ethical doctrine and the classification of the virtues1 we find at first the ,platonic virtues and their relation to the parts of the soul1 in ,saadia1 ,pseudo-,bahya1 ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik and even ,abraham ,ibn ,daud4 ,in combination with this ,platonic basis expression is given also to the ,aristotelian doctrine of the mean4 ,maimonides1 as in other things1 so here also1 adopts the ,aristotelian views almost in their entirety1 both in the definition of virtue1 in the division of practical and intellectual virtues1 and the list of the virtues and vices in connection with the doctrine of the mean4 ,as is to be expected1 the ultimate sanction of ethics is theistic and ,biblical1 and the ceremonial laws also are brought into relation with ethical motives4 ,in this rationalization of the ceremonial prescriptions of ,scripture ,maimonides1 as in other things1 surpasses all his predecessors in his boldness1 scientific method and completeness4 ,he goes so far as to suggest that the institution of sacrifice has no inherent value1 but was in the nature of a concession to the crude notions of the people who1 in agreement with their environment1 imagined that ,god's favor is obtained by the slaughter of animals4 ,among the peculiar phenomena of religion1 and in particular of ,judaism1 the one that occupies a fundamental position is the revelation of ,god's will to man and his announcement of the future through prophetic visions4 ,dreams and divination had already been investigated by ,aristotle and explained psychologically4 ,the ,arabs made use of this suggestion and endeavored to bring the phenomenon of prophecy under the same head4 ,the ,jewish philosophers1 with the exception of ,judah ,halevi and ,hasdai ,crescas1 followed suit4 ,the suggestion that prophecy is a psychological phenomenon related to true dreams is found as early as ,isaac ,israeli4 ,judah ,halevi mentions it with protest4 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud adopts it1 and ,maimonides gives it its final form in ,jewish rationalistic philosophy4 ,levi ben ,gerson discusses the finer details of the process1 origin and nature of prophetic visions4 ,in short the generally accepted view is that the ,active ,intellect is the chief agent in communicating true visions of future events to those worthy of the gift4 ,and to become worthy a combination of innate and acquired powers is necessary together with the grace of ,god4 ,the faculties chiefly concerned are reason and imagination4 ,moral excellence is also an indispensable prerequisite in aiding the development of the theoretical powers4 ,proceeding to the more dogmatic elements of ,judaism1 ,maimonides was the first to reduce the #fac commandments of ,rabbinic ,judaism to thirteen articles of faith4 ,hasdai ,crescas criticised ,maimonides's principle of selection as well as the list of dogmas1 which he reduced to six4 ,and ,joseph ,albo went still further and laid down three fundamental dogmas from which the rest are derived4 ,they are the existence of ,god1 revelation of the ,torah and future reward and punishment4 ,the law of ,moses is unanimously accepted as divinely revealed4 ,and in opposition to the claims of ,christianity and ,mohammedanism an endeavor is made to prove by reason as well as the explicit statement of ,scripture that a divine law once given is not subject to repeal4 ,the laws are divided into two classes1 rational and traditional2 the former comprising those that the reason approves on purely rational and ethical grounds1 while the latter consist of such ceremonial laws as without specific commandment would not be dictated by man's own reason4 ,and in many of these commandments no reason is assigned4 ,nevertheless an endeavor is made to rationalize these also4 ,bahya introduced another distinction1 viz41 the duties of the heart1 as he calls them1 in contradistinction to the duties of the limbs4 ,he lays stress on intention and motive as distinguished from the mere external observance of a duty or commandment4 ,finally1 some consideration is given in the works of the majority of the writers to eschatological matters1 such as the destiny of the soul after death1 the nature of future reward and punishment1 the resurrection of the body and the ,messianic period1 and its relation to the other world4 ,this brief sketch will suffice as an introduction to the detailed treatment of the individual philosophers in the following chapters4 ,a ,,history ,,of ,,medi,,val ,,jewish ,,philosophy ,,medi,,val ,,jewish ,,philosophy ,,chapter ,i ,,isaac ,,israeli ,we know next to nothing about the condition of the ,jews in ,mohammedan ,egypt in the ninth and tenth centuries4 ,but the fact that the two first ,jewish writers who busied themselves with philosophical problems came from ,egypt would indicate that the general level of intellectual culture among the ,jews at that time was not so low as the absence of literary monuments would lead us to believe4 ,every one knows of ,saadia1 the first ,hebrew grammarian1 the first ,hebrew lexicographer1 the first ,bible translator and exegete1 the first ,jewish philosopher of medival ,jewry4 ,he was born in ,egypt and from there was called to the ,gaonate of ,sura in ,babylonia4 ,but not so well known is his earlier contemporary1 ,isaac ben ,solomon ,israeli1 who also was born in ,egypt and from there went later to ,kairuan1 where he was court physician to several of the ,fatimide ,califs4 ,the dates of his birth and death are not known with certainty1 but he is said to have lived to the age of one hundred years1 and to have survived the third ,fatimide ,calif ,al-,mansur1 who died in #iec4 ,accordingly we may assume the years of his birth and death as #hee and #iee respectively4 ,his fame rests on his work in theory and practice as a physician2 and as such he is mentioned by the ,arab annalists and historians of medicine4#bf ,to the ,christian scholastics of medival ,europe he is known as the ,jewish physician and philosopher next in importance to ,maimonides4#bg ,this is due to the accident of his works having been translated into ,latin by ,constantinus ,afer1#bh and thus made accessible to men like ,albertus ,magnus1 ,vincent of ,beauvais1 ,thomas ,aquinas and others4 ,for his intrinsic merits as a philosopher1 and particularly as a ,jewish philosopher1 do not by any means entitle him to be coupled with ,maimonides4 ,the latter1 indeed1 in a letter which he wrote to ,samuel ,ibn ,tibbon1 the translator of the ,guide of the ,perplexed1 expresses himself in terms little flattering concerning ,israeli's worth as a philosopher4#bi ,he is a mere physician1 ,maimonides says1 and his treatises on the ,elements1 and on ,definitions consist of windy imaginings and empty talk4 ,we need not be quite as severe in our judgment1 but the fact remains that ,israeli is little more than a compiler and1 what is more to the purpose1 he takes no attitude in his philosophical writings to ,judaism as a theological doctrine or to the ,bible as its source4 ,the main problem1 therefore1 of ,jewish philosophy is not touched upon in ,israeli's works1 and no wonder ,maimonides had no use for them4 ,for the purely scientific questions treated by ,israeli could in ,maimonides's day be studied to much better advantage in the works of the great ,arabian ,aristotelians1 ,al ,farabi and ,avicenna1 compared to whom ,israeli was mediocre4 ,we are not to judge him1 however1 from ,maimonides's point of view4 ,in his own day and generation he was surpassed by none as a physician2 and ,saadia alone far outstrips him as a ,jewish writer1 and perhaps also ,david ,al ,mukammas1 of whom we shall speak later4 ,whatever may be said of the intrinsic value of the content of his philosophical work1 none can take away from him the merit of having been the first ,jew1 so far as we know1 to devote himself to philosophical and scientific discussions1 though not with the avowed aim of serving ,judaism4 ,the rest was bound to come later as a result of the impulse first given by him4 ,the two works of ,israeli which come in consideration for our purpose are those mentioned by ,maimonides in his letter to ,samuel ,ibn ,tibbon spoken of above1 namely1 the ,book of the ,elements1#cj and the ,book of ,definitions4#ca ,like all scientific and philosophic works by ,jews between the ninth and thirteenth centuries with few exceptions1 these were written in ,arabic4 ,unfortunately1 with the exception of a fragment recently discovered of the ,book of ,definitions1 the originals are lost1 and we owe our knowledge of their contents to ,hebrew and ,latin translations1 which are extant and have been published4#cb ,we see from these that ,israeli was a compiler from various sources1 and that he had a special predilection for ,galen and ,hippocrates1 with whose writings he shows great familiarity4 ,he makes use besides of ,aristotelian notions1 and is influenced by the ,neo-,platonic treatise1 known as the ,liber de ,causis1 and derived from a work of ,proclus4 ,it is for this reason difficult to characterize his standpoint1 but we shall not go far wrong if we call him a ,neo-,platonist1 for reasons which will appear in the sequel4 ,it would be useless for us here to reproduce the contents of ,israeli's two treatises1 which would be more appropriate for a history of medival science4 ,a brief rsum will show the correctness of this view4 ,in his ,book of the ,elements ,israeli is primarily concerned with a definite physical problem1 the definition of an element1 and the number and character of the elements out of which the sublunar world is made4 ,he begins with an ,aristotelian definition of element1 analyzes it into its parts and comes to the conclusion that the elements are the four well-known ones1 fire1 air1 water1 earth4 ,incidentally he seizes opportunities now and then1 sometimes by force1 to discuss points in logic1 physics1 physiology and psychology4 ,thus the composition of the human body1 the various modes in which a thing may come into being1 that the yellow and black galls and the phlegm are resident in the blood1 the purpose of phlebotomy1 the substantial character of prime form1 that the soul is not an accident1 the two kinds of blood in the body1 the various kinds of accident1 the nature of a property and the manner in which it is caused--all these topics are discussed in the course of proof that the four elements are fire1 air1 water1 earth1 and not seed or the qualities of heat1 cold1 dryness and moisture4 ,he then quotes the definitions of ,galen and ,hippocrates and insists that though the wording is different the meaning is the same as that of ,aristotle1 and hence they all agree about the identity of the elements4 ,here again he takes occasion to combat the atomic theory of the ,mutazila and ,democritus1 and proves that a line is not composed of points4 ,in the last part of the treatise he refutes contrary opinions concerning the number and identity of the elements1 such as that there is only one element which is movable or immovable1 finite or infinite1 namely1 the power of ,god1 or species1 or fire1 or air1 or water1 or earth2 or that the number is two1 matter and ,god2 or three1 matter1 form and motion2 or six1 viz41 the four which he himself adopts1 and composition and separation2 or the number ten1 which is the end and completion of number4 ,in the course of this discussion he takes occasion to define pain and pleasure1 the nature of species1 the difference between element and principle4 ,and thus the book draws to a close4 ,not very promising material this1 it would seem1 for the ideas of which we are in search4 ,the other book1 that dealing with definitions of things1 is more promising4 ,for while there too we do not find any connected account of ,god1 of the world and of man1 ,israeli's general attitude can be gathered from the manner in which he explains some important concepts4 ,the book1 as its title indicates1 consists of a series of definitions or descriptions of certain terms and ideas made use of by philosophers in their construction of their scheme of the world--such ideas and terms as ,intelligence1 science1 philosophy1 soul1 sphere1 spirit1 nature1 and so on4 ,from these we may glean some information of the school to which ,israeli belongs4 ,and in the ,book of the ,elements1 too1 some of the episodic discussions are of value for our purpose4 ,philosophy1 ,israeli tells us1 is self-knowledge and keeping far from evil4 ,when a man knows himself truly--his spiritual as well as his corporeal aspects--he knows everything4 ,for in man are combined the corporeal and the spiritual4 ,spiritual is the soul and the reason1 corporeal is the body with its three dimensions4 ,in his qualities and attributes--accidents in the terminology of ,israeli--we similarly find the spiritual as well as the corporeal4 ,humility1 wisdom and other similar qualities borne by the soul are spiritual2 complexion1 stature1 and so on are corporeal4 ,seeing that man thus forms an epitome1 as it were1 of the universe 7for spiritual and corporeal substance and accident exhausts the classes of existence in the world71 a knowledge of self means a knowledge of everything1 and a man who knows all this is worthy of being called a philosopher4 ,but philosophy is more than knowledge2 it involves also action4 ,the formula which reveals the nature and aim of philosophy is to become like unto ,god as far as is possible for man4 ,this means to imitate the activities of ,god in knowing the realities of things and doing what the truth requires4 ,to know the realities of things one must study science so as to know the various causes and purposes existing in the world4 ,the most important of these is the purpose of the union in man of body and soul4 ,this is in order that man may know reality and truth1 and distinguish between good and evil1 so as to do what is true and just and upright1 to sanctify and praise the ,creator and to keep from impure deeds of the animal nature4 ,a man who does this will receive reward from the ,creator1 which consists in cleaving to the upper soul1 in receiving light from the light of knowledge1 and the beauty of splendor and wisdom4 ,when a man reaches this degree1 he becomes spiritual by cleaving to the created light which comes directly from ,god1 and praising the ,creator4 ,this is his paradise and his reward and perfection4 ,hence ,plato said that philosophy is the strengthening and the help of death4 ,he meant by this that philosophy helps to deaden all animal desires and pleasures4 ,for by being thus delivered from them1 a man will reach excellence and the higher splendor1 and will enter the house of truth4 ,but if he indulges his animal pleasures and desires and they become strengthened1 he will become subject to agencies which will lead him astray from the duties he owes to ,god1 from fear of him and from prayer at the prescribed time4 ,we look in vain in ,israeli's two treatises for a discussion of the existence and nature of ,god4 ,concerning creation he tells us that when ,god wanted to show his wisdom and bring everything from potentiality to actuality1 he created the world out of nothing1 not after a model 7this in opposition to ,plato and ,philo71 nor for the purpose of deriving any benefit from it or to obviate harm1 but solely on account of his goodness4 ,but how did the creation proceed8 ,a fragment from the treatise of ,israeli entitled ,the ,book of ,spirit and ,soul#cc will give us in summary fashion an idea of the manner in which ,israeli conceived of the order and connection of things in the world4 ,in the name of the ancients he gives the following account4 ,god created a splendor4 ,this having come to a standstill and real permanence1 a spark of light proceeded from it1 from which arose the power of the rational soul4 ,this is less bright than the splendor of the ,intelligence and is affected with shadow and darkness by reason of its greater distance from its origin1 and the intervening ,intelligence4 ,the rational soul again becoming permanent and fixed1 there issued from it likewise a spark1 giving rise to the animal soul4 ,this latter is endowed with a cogitative and imaginative faculty1 but is not permanent in its existence1 because of the two intervening natures between it and the pure light of ,god4 ,from the animal soul there likewise issued a splendor1 which produced the vegetative soul4 ,this soul1 being so far removed from the original light1 and separated from it by the ,intelligence and the other two souls1 has its splendor dimmed and made coarse1 and is endowed only with the motions of growth and nourishment1 but is not capable of change of place4 ,from the vegetative soul proceeds again a splendor1 from which is made the sphere 7the heaven74 ,this becomes thickened and materialized so that it is accessible to the sight4 ,motion being the nature of the sphere1 one part of it pushes the other1 and from this motion results fire4 ,from fire proceeds air2 from air1 water2 from water1 earth4 ,and from these elements arise minerals1 plants and animals4 ,here we recognize the ,neo-,platonic scheme of emanation as we saw it in ,plotinus1 a gradual and successive emanation of the lower from the higher in the manner of a ray of light radiating from a luminous body1 the successive radiations diminishing in brightness and spirituality until when we reach the ,sphere the process of obscuration has gone so far as to make the product material and visible to the physical sense4 ,the ,intelligence and the three ,souls proceeding from it in order are clearly not individual but cosmic1 just as in ,plotinus4 ,the relation between these cosmic hypostases1 to use a ,neo-,platonic term1 and the rational and psychic faculties in man ,israeli nowhere explains1 but we must no doubt conceive of the latter as somehow contained in the former and temporarily individualized1 returning again to their source after the dissolution of the body4 ,let us follow ,israeli further in his account of the nature of these substances4 ,the ,intelligence is that which proceeds immediately from the divine light without any immediate agency4 ,it represents the permanent ideas and principles--species in ,israeli's terminology--which are not subject to change or dissolution4 ,the ,intelligence contains them all in herself eternally and immediately1 and requires no searching or reflection to reach them4 ,when the ,intelligence wishes to know anything she returns into herself and finds it there without requiring thought or reflection4 ,we can illustrate this1 he continues1 in the case of a skilful artisan who1 when he wishes to make anything1 retires into himself and finds it there4 ,there is a difference1 however1 in the two cases1 because ,intelligence always knows its ideas without thought or reflection1 for it exists always and its ideas are not subject to change or addition or diminution2 whereas in the smith a difficulty may arise1 and then his soul is divided and he requires searching and thinking and discrimination before he can realize what he desires4 ,what has been said so far applies very well to the cosmic ,intelligence1 the ,greek3 nous of the ,neo-,platonists4 ,it represents thought as embracing the highest and most fundamental principles of existence1 upon which all mediate and discursive and inferential thinking depends4 ,its content corresponds to the ,ideas of ,plato4 ,but the further account of the ,intelligence must at least in a part of it refer to the individual human faculty of that name1 though ,israeli gives us no indication where the one stops and where the other begins4 ,he appeals to the authority of ,aristotle for his division of ,intelligence into three kinds4 ,first1 the ,intelligence which is always actual4 ,this is what has just been described4 ,second1 the ,intelligence which is in the soul potentially before it becomes actual1 like the knowledge of the child which is at first potential1 and when the child grows up and learns and acquires knowledge1 becomes actual4 ,third1 that which is described as the second ,intelligence4 ,it represents that state of the soul in which it receives things from the senses4 ,the senses impress the forms of objects upon the imagination 7,greek3 phantasia7 which is in the front part of the head4 ,the imagination1 or phantasy1 takes them to the rational soul4 ,when the latter knows them1 she becomes identical with them spiritually and not corporeally4 ,we have seen above the ,aristotelian distinction between the active intellect and the passive4 ,the account just given is evidently based upon it1 though it modifies ,aristotle's analysis1 or rather it enlarges upon it4 ,the first and second divisions in ,israeli's account correspond to ,aristotle's active and passive intellects respectively4 ,the third class in ,israeli represents the process of realization of the potential or passive intellect through the sense stimuli on the one hand and the influence of the active intellect on the other4 ,aristotle seems to have left this intermediate state between the potential and the eternally actual unnamed4 ,we shall see1 however1 in our further study of this very difficult and complicated subject how the classification of the various intellects becomes more and more involved from ,aristotle through ,alexander and ,themistius down to ,averroes and ,levi ben ,gerson4 ,it is sufficient for us to see here how ,israeli combines ,aristotelian psychology1 as later ,aristotelian logic and physics1 with ,neo-,platonic metaphysics and the theistic doctrine of creation4 ,but more of this hereafter4 ,from the ,intelligence1 as we have seen1 proceeds the rational soul4 ,in his discussion of the general nature of the three-fold soul 7rational1 animal and vegetative7 ,israeli makes the unhistoric but thoroughly medival attempt to reconcile ,aristotle's definition of the soul1 which we discussed above 7p4 xxxv71 with that of ,plato4 ,the two conceptions are in reality diametrically opposed4 ,plato's is an anthropological dualism1 ,aristotle's1 a monism4 ,for ,plato the soul is in its origin not of this world and not in essential unity with the body1 which it controls as a sailor his boat4 ,aristotle conceives of the relation between soul and body as one of form and matter2 and there is no union more perfect than that of these two constituent elements of all natural substances4 ,decomposition is impossible4 ,a given form may disappear1 but another form immediately takes its place4 ,the combination of matter and form is the essential condition of sublunar existence1 hence there can be no question of the soul entering or leaving the body1 or of its activity apart from the body4 ,but ,israeli does not seem to have grasped ,aristotle's meaning1 and ascribes to him the notion that the soul is a separate substance perfecting the natural body1 which has life potentially1 meaning by this that bodies have life potentially before the soul apprehends them2 and when the soul does apprehend them1 it makes them perfect and living actually4 ,to be sure1 he adds in the immediate sequel that he does not mean temporal before and after1 for things are always just as they were created2 and that his mode of expression is due to the impossibility of conveying spiritual ideas in corporeal terms in any other way4 ,this merely signifies that the human body and its soul come into being simultaneously4 ,but he still regards them as distinct substances forming only a passing combination4 ,and with this pretended ,aristotelian notion he seeks to harmonize that of ,plato1 which he understands to mean not that the soul enters the body1 being clothed with it as with a garment1 and then leaves it1 but that the soul apprehends bodies by clothing them with its light and splendor1 and thus makes them living and moving1 as the sun clothes the world with its light and illuminates it so that sight can perceive it4 ,the difference is that the light of the sun is corporeal1 and sight perceives it in the air by which it is borne2 whereas the light of the soul is spiritual1 and intelligence alone can perceive it1 not the physical sense4 ,among the conceptual terms in the ,aristotelian logic few play a more important part than those of substance and accident4 ,substance is that which does not reside in anything else but is its own subject4 ,it is an independent existence and is the subject of accidents4 ,the latter have no existence independent of the substance in which they inhere4 ,thus of the ten categories1 in which ,aristotle embraces all existing things1 the first includes all substances1 as for example1 man1 city1 stone4 ,the other nine come under the genus accident4 ,quantity1 quality1 relation1 time1 place1 position1 possession1 action1 passion--all these represent attributes which must have a substantial being to reside in4 ,there is no length or breadth1 or color1 or before or after1 or here or there1 and so on except in a real object or thing4 ,this then is the meaning of accident as a logical or ontological term1 and in this signification it has nothing to do with the idea of chance4 ,clearly substance represents the higher category1 and accident is inferior1 because dependent and variable4 ,thus it becomes important to know in reference to any object of investigation what is its status in this respect1 whether it is substance or accident4 ,the nature of the soul has been a puzzle to thinkers and philosophers from time immemorial4 ,some thought it was a material substance1 some regarded it as spiritual4 ,it was identified with the essence of number by the ,pythagoreans4 ,and there have not been wanting those who1 arguing from its dependence upon body1 said it was an accident and not a substance4 ,strange to say the ,mutakallimun1 defenders of religion and faith1 held to this very opinion4 ,but it is really no stranger than the maintenance of the soul's materiality equally defended by other religionists1 like ,tertullian for example1 and the opposition to ,maimonides's spiritualism on the part of ,abraham ben ,david of ,posquires4 ,the ,mutakallimun were led to their idea by the atomic theory1 which they found it politic to adopt as more amenable to theological treatment than ,aristotle's ,matter and ,form4 ,it followed then according to some of them that the fundamental unit was the material atom which is without quality1 and any power or activity in any atom or group of atoms is a direct creation of ,god1 which must be re-created every moment in order to exist4 ,this is the nature of accident1 and it makes more manifest the ever present activity of ,god in the world4 ,thus the substantial or accidental character of the soul is one that is touched on by most ,jewish writers on the subject4 ,and ,israeli also refers to the matter incidentally in the ,book of the ,elements4#cd ,like the other ,jewish philosophers he defends its substantiality4 ,the fact of its separability from the body1 he says1 is no proof of its being an accident4 ,for it is not the separability of an accident from its substance that makes it an accident1 but its destruction1 when separated4 ,thus when a white substance turns green1 the white color is not merely separated from its substance but ceases to exist4 ,the soul is not destroyed when it leaves the body4 ,another argument to prove the soul a substance is this4 ,if the soul were an accident it should be possible for it to pass from the animal body to something else1 as blackness is found in the ,ethiopian's skin1 in ebony wood and in pitch4 ,but the soul exists only in living beings4 ,we find1 besides1 that the activity of the soul extends far beyond the body1 and acts upon distant things without being destroyed4 ,hence it follows that the soul itself1 the agent of the activity1 keeps on existing without the body1 and is a substance4 ,having made clear the conception of soul generally and its relation to the body1 he next proceeds to treat of the three kinds of soul4 ,the highest of these is the rational soul1 which is in the horizon of the ,intelligence and arises from its shadow4 ,it is in virtue of this soul that man is a rational being1 discriminating1 receptive of wisdom1 distinguishing between good and evil1 between things desirable and undesirable1 approaching the meritorious and departing from wrong4 ,for this he receives reward and punishment1 because he knows what he is doing and that retribution follows upon his conduct4 ,next to the rational soul is the animal soul1 which arises from the shadow of the former4 ,being far removed from the light of ,intelligence1 the animal soul is dark and obscure4 ,she has no knowledge or discrimination1 but only a dim notion of truth1 and judges by appearance only and not according to reality4 ,of its properties are sense perception1 motion and change in place4 ,for this reason the animals are fierce and violent1 endeavoring to rule1 but without clear knowledge and discrimination1 like the lion who wants to rule over the other beasts1 without having a clear consciousness of what he is doing4 ,a proof that the animals have only dim notions of things is that a thirsty ass coming to the river will fly from his own shadow in the water1 though he needs the latter for preserving his life1 whereas he will not hesitate to approach a lion1 who will devour him4 ,therefore the animals receive no reward or punishment 7this in opposition to the ,mutakallimun7 because they do not know what to do so as to be rewarded1 or what to avoid1 in order not to be punished4 ,the vegetative soul proceeds from the shadow of the animal soul4 ,she is still further removed from the light of ,intelligence1 and still more weighed down with shadow4 ,she has no sense perception or motion4 ,she is next to earth and is characterized by the powers of reproduction1 growth1 nutrition1 and the production of buds and flowers1 odors and tastes4 ,next to the soul comes the ,sphere 7the heaven71 which arises in the horizon and shadow of the vegetative soul4 ,the ,sphere is superior to corporeal substances1 being itself not body1 but the matter of body4 ,unlike the material elements1 which suffer change and diminution through the things which arise out of them as well as through the return of the bodies of plants and animals back to them as their elements1 the spiritual substances 7and also the sphere7 do not suffer any increase or diminution through the production of things out of them4 ,for plants and animals are produced from the elements through a celestial power which ,god placed in nature effecting generation and decay in order that this world of genesis and dissolution should exist4 ,but the splendor of the higher substances1 viz41 the three souls1 suffers no change on account of the things coming from them because that which is produced by them issues from the shadow of their splendor and not from the essence of the splendor itself4 ,and it is clear that the splendor of a thing in its essence is brighter than the splendor of its shadow1 viz41 that which comes from it4 ,hence the splendor of the vegetative soul is undoubtedly brighter than that of the sphere1 which comes from its shadow4 ,the latter becomes rigid and assumes a covering1 thickness and corporeality so that it can be perceived by sight4 ,but no other of the senses can perceive it because1 although corporeal1 it is near to the higher substances in form and nobility1 and is moved by a perfect and complete motion1 motion in a circle1 which is more perfect than other motions and not subject to influence and change4 ,hence there is no increase or diminution in it1 no beginning or end1 and this on account of the simplicity1 spirituality and permanence of that which moves it4 ,the ,intelligence pours of her splendor upon it1 and of the light of her knowledge1 and the sphere becomes intelligent and rational1 and knows1 without investigation or reflection1 the lordship of its ,creator1 and that he should be praised and glorified without intermission4 ,for this reason the ,creator assigned to the ,sphere a high degree from which it cannot be removed1 and gave it charge of the production of time and the four seasons of the year1 and the month and the day and the hour1 and made it ruler of the production of perishable things in this world of generation and dissolution1 so that the upper souls may find bodies to apprehend1 to clothe with their light1 and to make visible in them their activities according to the determination of ,god4 ,the ,sphere by its motion produces the four elements1 fire1 air1 water1 earth2 and the combinations of these in various proportions give rise to the minerals1 plants and animals of this world1 the highest of whom is man4 ,that the elements are those mentioned above and nothing else is proved by the definition of element and its distinction from principle4 ,a principle is something which1 while being the cause of change1 and even possibly at the basis of change1 is not itself subject to change4 ,thus ,god is undoubtedly the cause of everything that happens in the world4 ,he may therefore be called a principle of the world1 but he does not enter with his essence the changing things4 ,hence it is absurd to speak of ,god as an element of the sublunar world4 ,matter1 i4 e41 primary formless matter1 does enter all changing things and is at the basis of all change2 but it does not itself change4 ,hence matter also is a principle but not an element4 ,an element is something which is itself a composite of matter and form1 and changes its form to become something else in which1 however1 it is contained potentially1 not actually4 ,the product ultimately goes back to the element or elements from which it was made4 ,when we follow this resolution of a given composite into its elements back as far as we can until we reach a first which is no longer produced out of anything in the same way as things were produced from it1 we have the element4 ,such is the nature of fire1 air1 water1 earth4 ,all things are made from them in the manner above indicated4 ,but there is nothing prior to them which changes its form to become fire1 continues to reside potentially in fire and returns to its original state by the resolution of fire4 ,the same applies to the other three4 ,the matter is now clear4 ,the elements stand at the head of physical change and take part in it4 ,prior to the elements are indeed matter and form1 but as logical principles1 not as physical and independent entities4 ,hence it would seem1 according to ,israeli1 that matter and form are side-tracked in the gradual evolution of the lower from the higher4 ,for the elements1 he tells us1 come from the motion of the ,sphere1 the ,sphere from the shadow of the ,soul1 the ,soul from the shadow of the ,intelligence1 the ,intelligence is created by ,god4 ,to be sure he tells us that the ,sphere is not body1 but the matter of body4 ,yet the ,sphere cannot take the place of prime matter surely1 for it is undoubtedly endowed with form1 nay is rational and intelligent1 as we have seen4 ,when ,israeli says that prior to the four elements there is nothing but the ,omnipotence of ,god1 he means that the sublunar process of change and becoming stops with the elements as its upper limit4 ,what is above the elements belongs to the intelligible world2 and the manner of their production one from the other is a spiritual one1 emanation4 ,the ,sphere stands on the border line between the corporeal and the intelligible1 itself a product of emanation1 though producing the elements by its motion--a process apparently neither like emanation nor like sublunar becoming and change4 ,creation in ,israeli seems to be the same as emanation1 for on the one hand he tells us that souls are created1 that nothing precedes the four elements except the ,omnipotence of ,god1 and on the other that the elements come from the motion of the ,sphere1 and the souls issue from the shadow of the ,intelligence4 ,for matter and form there seems to be no room at all except as logical principles4 ,this is evidently due to the fact that ,israeli is unwittingly combining ,aristotelian physics with ,neo-,platonic emanationism4 ,for ,aristotle matter and form stand at the head of sublunar change and are ultimate4 ,there is no derivation of matter or form from anything4 ,the celestial world has a matter of its own1 and is not the cause of the being of this one except as influencing its changes4 ,god is the mover of the ,spheres1 but not their ,creator1 hence he stands outside of the world4 ,this is ,theism4 ,in ,israeli there is a continuity of ,god1 the intelligible world and the corporeal1 all being ultimately the same thing1 though the processes in the two worlds are different4 ,and yet he obviates ,pantheism by declaring that ,god is a principle not an element4 ,we said before that ,israeli takes no avowed attitude to ,jewish dogma or the ,bible4 ,he never quotes any ,jewish works1 and there is nothing in his writings to indicate that he is a ,jew and is making an effort to harmonize ,judaism with philosophy and science4 ,in words he refers to creation ex nihilo1 which is not necessarily ,jewish1 it might be just as well ,mohammedan or ,christian4 ,but in reality1 as we have seen1 his ideas of the cosmic process are far enough removed from the orthodox doctrine of creation as it appears in ,bible and ,talmud4 ,incidentally we learn also something of ,israeli's ideas of ,god's relation to mankind1 of his commandments1 and of prophecy4 ,god created the world1 he tells us1 because of his goodness4 ,he wanted to benefit his creatures4 ,this could not be without their knowing the will of ,god and performing it4 ,the will of ,god could not be revealed directly to everybody because the divine wisdom can speak only to those in whom the rational soul is mistress and is enlightened by the ,intelligence4 ,but people are not all of this kind2 for some have the animal soul predominating in them1 being on that account ignorant1 confused1 forward1 bold1 murderous1 vengeful1 unchaste like animals2 others are mastered by the vegetative soul1 i4 e41 the appetitive1 and are thus stupid and dull1 and given over to their appetites like plants4 ,in others again their souls are variously combined1 giving to their life and conduct a composite character4 ,on this account it was necessary for ,god to select a person in whom the rational soul is separated1 and illumined by the ,intelligence--a man who is spiritual in his nature and eager to imitate the angels as far as it is possible for a man to do this4 ,this man he made a messenger to mankind4 ,he gave him his book which contains two kinds of teaching4 ,one kind is spiritual in its nature1 and needs no further commentary or interpretation4 ,this is meant for the intellectual and discriminating4 ,the other kind is corporeal1 and requires spiritual interpretation4 ,this is intended for the various grades of those who cannot understand directly the spiritual meaning1 but who can grasp the corporeal teaching1 by which they are gradually trained and prepared for the reception of higher truths4 ,these people therefore need instructors and guides because a book alone is not sufficient for the purposes of those who cannot understand4 ,dreams and prophecy are closely related1 hence an explanation of the former will also throw light on the latter4 ,a dream is caused by the influence of the ,intelligence on the soul in sleep4 ,the ,intelligence receives its knowledge directly from ,god1 and serves as a mediator between him and the soul1 like a prophet who mediates between ,god and his creatures4 ,in communicating to the soul the spiritual forms which it received from ,god1 the ,intelligence translates them into forms intermediate between corporeality and spirituality in order that they may be quickly impressed upon the common sense1 which is the first to receive them4 ,the common sense stands midway between the corporeal sense of sight and the imagination1 which is in the anterior chamber of the brain1 and is known as phantasy 7,aristotelian ,greek3 phantasia74 ,that the forms thus impressed on the common sense in sleep are intermediate between corporeal and spiritual is proved by the fact that they are different from the corporeal forms of things seen in the waking state4 ,the latter are obscure and covered up1 whereas those seen in sleep are finer1 more spiritual and brighter4 ,proof of this is that a person sees himself in sleep endowed with wings and flying between heaven and earth4 ,he sees the heavens opening and someone speaking to him out of the heaven1 and so on4 ,there would be no sense in all this if these phenomena had no spiritual meaning1 for they are contrary to nature4 ,but we know that they have real significance if interpreted by a really thoughtful person4 ,the prophets also in wishing to separate themselves from mankind and impress the latter with their qualities1 showed them spiritual forms of similar kind1 which were preternatural4 ,hence all who believe in prophecy admit that dreams are a part of prophecy4 ,now these intermediate forms which are impressed upon the common sense in sleep are turned over by it to the phantasy and by the latter to the memory4 ,when the person awakes1 he recovers the forms from the memory just as they were deposited there by the phantasy4 ,he then consults his thinking power2 and if this is spiritual and pure1 the ,intelligence endows him with its light and splendor and reveals to him the spiritual forms signified by the visions seen in sleep4 ,he is then able to interpret the dream correctly4 ,but if his powers of thought are not so good and are obscured by coverings1 he cannot properly remove the husk from the kernel in the forms seen in sleep1 is not able to penetrate to the true spirituality beneath1 and his interpretation is erroneous4 ,this explanation does not really explain1 but it is noteworthy as the first ,jewish attempt to reduce prophecy to a psychological phenomenon1 which was carried further by subsequent writers until it received its definitive form for the middle ages in ,maimonides and ,levi ben ,gerson4 ,to sum up1 ,israeli is an eclectic4 ,there is no system of ,jewish philosophy to be found in his writings4 ,he had no such ambitions4 ,he combines ,aristotelian logic1 physics and psychology with ,neo-,platonic metaphysics1 and puts on the surface a veneer of theistic creationism4 ,his merit is chiefly that of a pioneer in directing the attention of ,jews to the science and philosophy of the ,greeks1 albeit in ,arab dress4 ,there is no trace yet of the ,kalam in his writings except in his allusions to the atomic theory and the denial of reward and punishment of animals4 ,,chapter ,,ii ,,david ,,ben ,,merwan ,,al ,,mukammas ,nothing was known of ,al ,mukammas until recently when fragments of his philosophical work were found in ,judah ben ,barzilai's commentary on the ,sefer ,yezirah4#ce ,the latter tells us that ,david ,al ,mukammas is said to have associated with ,saadia1 who learned a good deal from him1 but the matter is not certain4 ,if this account be true we have a second ,jewish philosopher who preceded ,saadia4 ,his chief work is known by the title of ,twenty ,chapters1 fifteen of which were discovered in the original ,arabic in #ahih by ,abraham ,harkavy of ,st4 ,petersburg4#cf ,unfortunately they have not yet been published1 and hence our account will have to be incomplete1 based as it is on the ,hebrew fragments in the ,yezirah commentary above mentioned4 ,these fragments are sufficient to show us that unlike ,israeli1 who shows little knowledge of the ,mutazilite discussions1 ,al ,mukammas is a real ,mutazilite and moves in the path laid out by these ,mohammedan rationalists4 ,whether this difference is due to their places of residence 7,israeli having lived in ,egypt and ,kairuan1 while ,al ,mukammas was in ,babylon71 or to their personal predilections for ,neo-,platonism and the ,kalam respectively1 is not certain4 ,saadia knows the ,kalam2 but though coming originally from ,egypt1 he spent his most fruitful years in ,babylonia1 in the city of ,sura1 where he was gaon4 ,the centres of ,arabian rationalism were1 as we know1 the cities of ,bagdad and ,basra1 nearer to ,babylon and ,mesopotamia than to ,egypt or ,kairuan4 ,the first quotation in ,judah ben ,barzilai has reference to science and philosophy1 their definition and classification4 ,science is the knowledge of the reality of existing things4 ,it is divided into two parts1 theoretical and practical4 ,theoretical science aims at knowledge for its own sake2 practical seeks an end beyond knowledge1 viz41 the production of something4 ,we call it then art4 ,thus geometry is a science in so far as one desires to know the nature and relations to each other of solid1 surface1 line1 point1 square1 triangle1 circle4 ,but if his purpose is to know how to build a square or circular house1 or to construct a mill1 or dig a well1 or measure land1 he becomes an artisan4 ,theoretical science is three-fold4 ,first and foremost stands theology1 which investigates the unity of ,god and his laws and commandments4 ,this is the highest and most important of all the sciences4 ,next comes logic and ethics1 which help men in forming opinions and guide them in the path of understanding4 ,the last is physics1 the knowledge of created things4 ,in the ninth and tenth chapters of his book ,al ,mukammas discusses the divine attributes4 ,this was a very important problem in the ,mutazilite schools1 as we saw in the ,introduction1 and was treated in ,mutazilite works in the first division1 which went by the title of ,bab al ,tauhid1 the chapter on the unity4 ,god is one--so ,al ,mukammas sums up the results of his previous discussions--not in the sense in which a genus is said to be one1 nor in that in which a species is one1 nor as the number one is one1 nor as an individual creature is one1 but as a simple unity in which there is no distinction or composition4 ,he is one and there is no second like him4 ,he is first without beginning1 and last without end4 ,he is the cause and ground of everything caused and effected4 ,the question of ,god's essence is difficult4 ,some say it is not permitted to ask what ,god is4 ,for to answer the question what a thing is is to limit it1 and the limited is the created4 ,others again say that it is permitted to make this inquiry1 because we can use in our answer the expressions to which ,god himself testifies in his revealed book4 ,and this would not be limiting or defining his glory because his being is different from any other1 and there is nothing that bears any resemblance to him4 ,accordingly we should answer the question what ,god is1 by saying1 he is the first and the last1 and the visible and the hidden1 without beginning or end4 ,he is living1 but not through life acquired from without4 ,his life is not sustained and prolonged by food4 ,he is wise1 but not through acquired wisdom4 ,he hears without ears1 sees without eyes1 is understanding in all his works1 and a true judge in all his judgments4 ,such would be our answer in accordance with ,god's own testimony of himself4 ,we must on no account suppose that the expressions living1 wise1 seeing1 hearing1 and so on1 when applied to ,god mean the same thing as when we ascribe them to ourselves4 ,when we say ,god is living we do not mean that there was a time when he was not living1 or that there will be a time when he will not be living4 ,this is true of us but not of ,god4 ,his life has no beginning or end4 ,the same thing applies to his wisdom4 ,it is not acquired like ours1 it has no beginning or end1 and is not subject to error1 forgetfulness1 addition or diminution4 ,it is not strange that his attributes should be so unlike ours1 for it is fitting that the ,creator should be different from the thing created1 and the ,maker from the thing made4 ,we must1 however1 analyze the matter of divine attributes more closely4 ,when we say ,god is living1 we may mean he is living with life as his attribute1 i4 e41 that there is an attribute life which makes him living1 or we may deny that there is any such attribute in him as life1 but that he is living through himself and not through life as an attribute4 ,to make this subtle distinction clear we will investigate further what is involved in the first statement that ,god is living with life4 ,it may mean that there was a time when ,god was not living and then he acquired life and became living4 ,this is clearly a wrong and unworthy conception4 ,we must therefore adopt the other alternative1 that the life which makes him living is eternal like him1 and hence he was always living from eternity and will continue to be living to eternity4 ,but the matter is not yet settled4 ,the question still remains1 ,is this life through which he lives identical with his being1 or is it distinct from his being1 or is it a part of it8 ,if we say it is distinct from his being1 we are guilty of introducing other eternal beings beside ,god1 which destroys his unity4 ,the ,christians are guilty of this very thing when they say that ,god's eternal life is the ,holy ,ghost1 and his eternal ,wisdom is the ,son4 ,if we say that his life is a part of his being1 we do injury to the other aspect of his unity1 namely1 his simplicity4 ,for to have parts in one's being implies composition4 ,we are forced therefore to conclude that ,god's life is identical with his being4 ,but this is really tantamount to saying that there is no attribute life which makes him living1 or that he is living not through life4 ,the difference is only in expression4 ,we may make this conception clearer by illustrations from other spheres1 inadequate though they be4 ,the soul is the cause of life to the body1 i4 e41 the body lives through the soul1 and when the latter leaves it1 the body loses its life and dies4 ,but the soul itself does not live through anything else1 say through another soul4 ,for if this were the case this other soul would need again another soul to make it live and this again another1 and so on ad infinitum1 which is absurd4 ,the soul lives through itself4 ,the same thing applies to angels4 ,they live through their own being2 and that is why souls and angels are called in the ,sacred ,scriptures spirits4 ,a spirit is something that is fine and light and incomposite4 ,hence their life cannot be due to anything distinct from their being1 for this would make them composite4 ,this statement1 however1 that souls and angels are living through their own being must not be understood as meaning that they have no creator who gave them being and life4 ,the meaning merely is that the being which ,god gave them is different from the being he gave to bodies4 ,bodies need a soul to become living1 the soul is itself living4 ,so in material things1 also1 the sun shines with its own light and not with light acquired4 ,the odor of myrrh is fragrant through itself1 not through anything else4 ,the eye sees with its own power1 whereas man sees with the eye4 ,the tongue does not speak with another tongue1 man speaks with a tongue1 and so on4 ,so we say of ,god1 though in a manner a thousand-fold more sublime1 that he is living1 but not with a life which is distinct from his being2 and so of the other attributes1 hearing1 seeing1 and so on1 that we find in the ,scriptural praises of him4 ,it is necessary to add that as on the one hand we have seen that ,god's attributes are identical with his being1 so it follows on the other that the various attributes1 such as wise1 seeing1 hearing1 knowing1 and so on1 are not different from each other in meaning1 though distinct in expression4 ,otherwise it would make ,god composite4 ,the reason we employ a number of distinct expressions is in order to remove from ,god the several opposites of the terms used4 ,thus when we say ,god is living we mean to indicate that he is not dead4 ,the attribute wise excludes folly and ignorance2 hearing and seeing remove deafness and blindness4 ,the philosopher ,aristotle says that it is truer and more appropriate to apply negative attributes to ,god than positive4 ,others have said that we must not speak of the ,creator in positive terms for there is danger of endowing him with form and resemblance to other things4 ,speaking of him negatively we imply the positive without risking offence4 ,in the sequel ,al ,mukammas refutes the views of the dualists1 of the ,christians and those who maintain that ,god has form4 ,we cannot afford to linger over these arguments1 interesting though they be1 and must hurry on to say a word about the sixteenth chapter1 which deals with reward and punishment4 ,this no doubt forms part of the second ,mutazilite division1 namely1 the ,bab al ,adl1 or section concerning ,god's justice4 ,he defines reward as the soul's tranquillity and infinite joy in the world to come in compensation for the sojourn in this world which she endured and the self-control she practiced in abstaining from the pleasures of the world4 ,punishment1 on the other hand1 is the soul's disquietude and sorrow to the end of days as retribution for indulging in the world's evil pleasures4 ,both are imposed by ,god with justice and fairness4 ,it is fitting that the promises of reward and threats of punishment consequent upon obedience and disobedience should be specified in connection with the commandments and prohibitions in the ,scriptures1 because this is the only way to train the soul to practice self-control4 ,a child who does not fear his teacher's punishment1 or has no confidence in his good will will not be amenable to instruction4 ,the same is true of the majority of those who serve kings4 ,it is fear alone which induces them to obey the will of their masters4 ,so ,god in commanding us to do what is worthy and prohibiting what is unworthy saw fit in his wisdom to specify the accompanying rewards and punishments that he who observes may find pleasure and joy in his obedience1 and the unobservant may be affected with sorrow and fear4 ,as the world to come has no end1 so it is proper that the reward of the righteous as well as the punishment of the wicked should be without end4 ,arguments have been advanced to show that unlike reward which is properly infinite as is becoming to ,god's goodness1 punishment should have a limit1 for ,god is merciful4 ,on the other hand1 it is claimed on the basis of the finiteness of human action that both reward and punishment should be finite4 ,but in reality it can be shown in many ways that reward and punishment should be infinite4 ,without naming all the arguments--as many as ten have been advanced--in favor of this view1 we may urge some of the more important4 ,it was ,god's own goodness that prompted him to benefit mankind by giving them laws for their guidance1 and not any prior merits on their part which gave them a claim on ,god's protection4 ,god himself is not in any way benefited by man's obedience or injured by his disobedience4 ,man knows that it is for his own good that he is thus admonished2 and if he were asked what reward he would like to have for his good deeds he would select no less than infinite happiness4 ,justice demands that punishment be commensurate with reward4 ,the greater the reward and the punishment the more effective are the laws likely to be4 ,besides in violating ,god's law a person virtually denies the eternity of him who gave it1 and is guilty of contempt2 for he hides himself from men1 fearing their displeasure1 whereas the omnipresence of ,god has no deterring effect upon him4 ,for such offence infinite punishment is the only fit retribution4 ,the question whether the soul alone is rewarded or the body alone or both has been answered variously4 ,in favor of the soul alone as the subject of reward and punishment it has been urged that reward raises man to the grade of angels1 who are pure spirits4 ,how then can the body take part8 ,and punishment must be of the same nature as reward4 ,on the other hand1 it is claimed that the ,bible says nothing of man being raised to the status of angels1 and we know in this world of physical reward and punishment only4 ,the ,garden of ,eden of which the ,bible speaks is not peopled with angels1 and that is where the righteous go after death4 ,the true solution is that as man is composed of body and soul1 and both share in his conduct1 reward and punishment must attach to both4 ,as we do not understand the nature of spiritual retribution so the composite is equally inconceivable to us4 ,but everyone who believes in the resurrection of the dead has no difficulty in holding that the body has a share in future reward and punishment4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,,saadia ,,ben ,,joseph ,,al-,,fayyumi 7#hib-idb7 ,saadia was the first important ,jewish philosopher4 ,philo of ,alexandria does not come within our purview as he was not medival4 ,besides his work is not systematic1 being in the nature of a commentary on ,holy ,writ4 ,though ,philo was a good and loyal ,jew1 he stood1 so to speak1 apart from the real centre of ,jewish intellectual and spiritual development4 ,he was on the one hand too closely dependent on ,greek thought and on the other had only a limited knowledge of ,jewish thought and tradition4 ,the ,bible he knew only in the ,greek translation1 not in the original ,hebrew2 and of the ,halaka1 which was still in the making in ,palestine1 he knew still less4 ,it was different with ,saadia4 ,in the tenth century the ,mishna and the ,talmud had been long completed and formed theoretically as well as practically the content of the ,jew's life and thought4 ,sura in ,babylonia1 where ,saadia was the head of the academy1 was the chief centre of ,jewish learning1 and ,saadia was the heir in the main line of ,jewish development as it passed through the hands of lawgiver and prophet1 scribe and ,pharisee1 ,tanna and ,amora1 ,saburai and ,gaon4 ,as the head of the ,sura academy he was the intellectual representative of the ,jewry and ,judaism of his day4 ,his time was a period of agitation and strife1 not only in ,judaism but also in ,islam1 in whose lands the ,jews lived and to whose temporal rulers they owed allegiance in the ,east as well as in ,spain4 ,in ,islam we saw in the introduction how the various schools of the ,kadariya1 the ,mutazila and the ,ashariya arose in obedience to the demand of clarifying the chief problems of faith1 science and life4 ,in ,judaism there was in addition to this more general demand the more local and internal conflict of ,karaite and ,rabbanite which centred about the problem of tradition4 ,saadia found himself in the midst of all this and proved equal to the occasion4 ,we are not here concerned with the vicissitudes of ,saadia's personal life or of his literary career as opponent of the ,karaite sect4 ,nor can we afford more than merely to state that ,jewish science in the larger sense begins with ,saadia4 ,hebrew grammar and lexicography did not exist before him4 ,the ,bible had been translated into several languages before ,saadia's day1 but he was the first to translate it into ,arabic1 and the first to write a commentary on it4 ,but the greatest work of ,saadia1 that which did the most important service to the theory of ,judaism1 and by which he will be best remembered1 is his endeavor to work out a system of doctrine which should be in harmony with the traditions of ,judaism on the one hand and with the most authoritative scientific and philosophic opinion of the time on the other4 ,israeli1 we have seen1 was interested in science before ,saadia4 ,as a physician he was probably more at home in purely physical discussions than ,saadia4 ,but there is no evidence that he had the larger interest of the ,gaon of ,sura1 namely1 to construct a system of ,judaism upon the basis of scientific doctrine4 ,possibly the example of ,islam was lacking in ,israeli's environment1 as he does not seem to be acquainted with the theories and discussions of the ,mutakallimun1 and draws his information from ,aristotelian and ,neo-,platonic sources4 ,saadia was in the very midst of ,arab speculation as is evident from the composition of his chef d'oeuvre1 ,emunot ve-,deot1 ,beliefs and ,opinions4#cg ,the work is arranged on the ,mutazilite model4 ,the two main divisions in works of this character are ,unity and ,justice4 ,the first begins with some preliminary considerations on the nature and sources of knowledge4 ,it proceeds then to prove the existence of ,god by showing that the world cannot have existed from eternity and must have been created in time4 ,creation implies a creator4 ,this is followed by arguments showing that ,god is one and incorporeal4 ,the rest is devoted to a discussion of the divine attributes with the purpose of showing that ,god's unity and simplicity are not affected by them4 ,the section on unity closes with a refutation of opposing views1 such as those of the dualists or ,trinitarians or infidels4 ,the section on ,justice centres about the doctrine of free will4 ,hence psychology and ethics are treated in this part of the work4 ,to this may be added problems of a more dogmatic nature1 eschatological and otherwise4 ,we shall see in the sequel that ,saadia's masterpiece is modeled on the same plan4 ,but not merely the plan and arrangement of his work give evidence of the influence upon ,saadia of ,islamic schools1 many of his arguments1 those for example on the existence of ,god and the creation of the world1 are taken directly from them4 ,maimonides1 who was a strong opponent of the ,mutakallimun1 gives an outline of their fundamental principles and their arguments for the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god4#ch ,some of these are identical with those of ,saadia4 ,saadia1 however1 is not interested in pure metaphysics as such4 ,his purpose is decidedly apologetic in the defence of ,judaism and ,jewish dogma4 ,hence we look in vain in his book for definite views on the constitution of existing substances1 on the nature of motion1 on the meaning of cause1 and so on4 ,we get a glimpse of his attitude to some of these questions in an incidental way4 ,the ,mutakallimun were opposed to the ,aristotelian theory of matter and form1 and substituted for it the atomic theory4 ,god created atoms without magnitude or quality1 and he likewise created qualities to inhere in groups of atoms4 ,these qualities they called accidents1 and one of their important discussions was whether an accident can last more than a moment of time4 ,the opinions were various and the accidents were classified according to their powers of duration4 ,that is1 there were some accidents which once created continued to exist of their own accord some length of time1 and there were others which had to be re-created anew every moment in order to continue to exist4 ,saadia does not speak of matter and form as constituting the essence of existing things2 he does speak of substance and accident1#ci which might lead us to believe that he held to the atomic theory1 since he speaks of the accidents as coming and going one after the other1 which suggests the constant creation spoken of by the ,mutakallimun4 ,on the other hand1 when he answers an objection against motion1 which is as old as ,zeno1 namely1 how can we traverse an infinitely divisible distance1 since it is necessary to pass an infinite number of parts1 he tells us that it is not necessary to have recourse to the atomic theory or other theories adopted by some ,mutazilites to meet this objection4 ,we may believe in the continuity and infinite divisibility of matter1 but as long as this divisibility is only potentially infinite1 actually always finite1 our ability to traverse the space offers no difficulty4#dj ,finally1 in refuting the second theory of creation1 which combines ,platonism with atomism1 he argues against an atomic theory primarily because of its implications of eternity of the atoms1 but partly also on other grounds1 which would also affect the ,kalamistic conceptions of the atoms4#da ,these points are not treated by ,saadia expressly but are only mentioned incidentally in the elucidation of other problems dealing with the creation of the world and the existence of ,god4 ,like ,israeli ,saadia shows considerable familiarity with ,aristotelian notions as found in the ,logic1 the ,physics and the ,psychology4 ,it is doubtful1 however1 whether he really knew ,aristotle's more important treatises at first hand and in detail4 ,the ,categories1 a small treatise forming the first book of ,aristotle's logic1 he no doubt knew1 but the other ,aristotelian concepts he probably derived from secondary sources4 ,for while he passes in review all the ten categories showing that none of them is applicable to ,god1#db we scarcely find any mention of such important and fundamental ,aristotelian conceptions as matter and form1 potentiality and actuality1 the four causes1 formal1 material1 efficient and final--concepts which as soon as ,aristotle began to be studied by ,al ,farabi and ,avicenna became familiar to all who wrote anything at all bearing on philosophy1 theology1 or ,biblical exegesis4 ,nay1 the very concepts which he does employ seem to indicate in the way he uses them that he was not familiar with the context in which they are found in the ,aristotelian treatises1 or with the relation they bear to other views of ,aristotle4 ,thus no one who knew ,aristotle at first hand could make the mistake of regarding his definition of the soul as making the latter an accident4#dc ,when ,saadia speaks of six kinds of motion #dd instead of three1 he shows clearly that his knowledge of the ,aristotelian theory of motion was limited to the little of it that is contained in the ,categories4 ,we are thus justified in saying1 that ,saadia's sources are ,jewish literature and tradition1 the works of the ,mutakallimun1 particularly the ,mutazilites1 and ,aristotle1 whose book on the ,categories he knew at first hand4 ,saadia tells us he was induced to write his book because he found that the beliefs and opinions of men were in an unsatisfactory state4 ,while there are some persons who are fortunate enough to possess the truth and to know that they have it and rejoice thereat1 this is not true of all4 ,for there are others who when they have the truth know it not1 and hence let it slip2 others are still less fortunate and adopt false and erroneous opinions1 which they regard as true2 while still others vacillate continually1 going from one opinion and belief to another4 ,this gave him pain and he thought it his duty to make use of his limited knowledge to help them4 ,a conscientious study of his book will tend to remove doubt and will substitute belief through knowledge for belief through tradition4 ,another result of such study1 not less important1 will be improvement of character and disposition1 which will affect for the better a man's life in every respect1 in relation to ,god as well as to his fellowmen4#de ,one may ask why it is that one encounters so many doubts and difficulties before arriving at true knowledge4 ,the answer is1 a human being is a creature1 i4 e41 a being dependent upon another for its existence1 and it is in the nature of a creature as such that it must labor for the truth with the sweat of its brow4 ,for whatever a man does or has to do with is subject to time2 each work must be accomplished gradually1 step by step1 part by part1 in successive portions of time4 ,and as the task before him is at the beginning complex1 he has to analyze and simplify it4 ,this takes time2 while certainty and knowledge cannot come until the task is accomplished4 ,before that point is reached he is naturally in doubt4#df ,the sources of truth are three4 ,first is that to which the senses testify4 ,if our normal sense perceives under normal conditions which are free from illusion1 we are certain of that perception4 ,the judgment is another source of truth4 ,there are certain truths of which we are certain4 ,this applies especially to such judgments of value1 as that truth is good and falsehood is bad4 ,in addition to these two sources of immediate knowledge1 there is a third source based upon these two4 ,this is logical inference4 ,we are led to believe what we have not directly perceived or a matter concerning which we have no immediate knowledge of the second kind1 because we infer it from something else which we have perceived or of which we have immediate certainty4 ,thus we believe man has a soul though we have never seen it because we infer its presence from its activity1 which we do see4 ,these three sources are universal4 ,they are not peculiar to a given race or religious denomination1 though there are some persons who deny the validity of some or all of them4 ,we ,jews believe in them and in still another source of truth1 namely1 authentic tradition4#dg ,some think that a ,jew is forbidden to speculate or philosophize about the truths of religion4 ,this is not so4 ,genuine and sincere reflection and speculation is not prohibited4 ,what is forbidden is to leave the sacred writings aside and rely on any opinions that occur to one concerning the beginnings of time and space4 ,for one may find the truth or one may miss it4 ,in any case until a person finds it1 he is without a religious guide2 and if he does find what seems to him the truth and bases his belief and conduct upon it1 he is never sure that he may not later be assailed by doubts1 which will lead him to drop his adopted belief4 ,but if we hold fast to the commandments of the ,bible1 our own ratiocination on the truths of religion will be of great benefit to us4#dh ,our investigation of the facts of our religion will give us a reasoned and scientific knowledge of those things which the ,prophets taught us dogmatically1 and will enable us to answer the arguments and criticisms of our opponents directed against our faith4 ,hence it is not merely our privilege but our duty to confirm the truths of religion by reason4#di ,here a question presents itself4 ,if the reason can discover by itself the truths communicated to us by divine revelation1 why was it necessary to have recourse to the latter8 ,why was it not left to the reason alone to guide us in our belief and in our conduct8 ,the answer is1 as was suggested before1 that human reason proceeds gradually and does not reach its aim until the end of the process4 ,in the meantime one is left without a guide4 ,besides not everybody's reason is adequate to discover truth4 ,some are altogether incapable of this difficult task1 and many more are exposed to harassing doubts and perplexities which hinder their progress4 ,hence the necessity of revelation1 because in the witness of the senses all are equally at home1 men and women1 young and old4#ej ,the most important fact of religion is the existence of ,god4 ,we know it from the ,bible1 and we must now prove it by reason4 ,the proof is necessarily indirect because no one of us has seen ,god1 nor have we an immediate certainty of his existence4 ,we must prove it then by the method of inference4 ,we must start with something we do know with certainty and proceed from it through as many steps of logical inference as may be necessary until we reach the object of our search4#ea ,the world and the things in it are directly accessible to our senses and our judgment4 ,how long has the world been in existence and how did it come to be8 ,the answers to these questions also we do not know through our senses1 and we must prove them by a chain of reasoning4 ,there are several possibilities4 ,the world just as it is may have existed from eternity4 ,if so nobody made it2 it just existed1 and we have no proof of ,god4 ,the world in its present form might have proceeded from a primitive matter4 ,this hypothesis only removes the problem further back4 ,for1 leaving aside the question how did this prime matter develop into the complex world of our experience1 we direct our attention to the prime matter itself1 and ask1 ,has it existed from eternity or did it come to be8 ,if it existed from eternity1 then nobody made it1 and we have no proof of a ,god1 for by ,god we mean an intelligent being acting with purpose and design1 and the cause of the existence of everything in creation4 ,the third alternative is that whether the world was developed out of a primitive matter or not1 it at any rate1 or the primitive matter1 as the case may be1 was made in time1 that is1 it was created out of nothing4 ,if so there must have been someone who created it1 as nothing can create itself4 ,here we have proof of the existence of ,god4 ,it follows therefore that we must first show that the world is not eternal1 that it came to be in time1 and this is what ,saadia does4 ,here are some of his proofs4 ,the world is finite in magnitude4 ,for the world consists of the earth1 which is in the centre1 and the heavens surrounding it on all sides4 ,this shows that the earth is finite1 for an infinite body cannot be surrounded4 ,but the heavens are finite too1 for they make a complete revolution in twenty-four hours4 ,if they were infinite it would take an infinite time to complete a revolution4 ,a finite body cannot have an infinite power4 ,this ,saadia regards as self-evident1 though ,aristotle1 from whom this statement is derived1 gives the proof4 ,hence the force or power within the world which keeps it going is finite and must one day be exhausted4 ,but this shows also that it could not have gone on from eternity4 ,hence the world came to be in time4#eb ,another proof is based on the composite character of all things in heaven and earth4 ,minerals1 plants and animals are made up of parts and elements4 ,the heavens consist of spheres1 one within the other4 ,the spheres are studded with stars4 ,but composition implies a time when the composition took place4 ,in other words1 the parts must have been there first and somebody put them together4 ,hence the world as we see it now is not eternal4#ec ,a special form of composition1 which is universal1 is that of substance and accident4 ,plants and animals are born 7or sprout71 grow and decay4 ,these manifestations are the accidents of the plant or animal's substance4 ,the heavenly bodies have various motions1 lights and colors as their accidents4 ,but these accidents are not eternal1 since they come and go4 ,hence the substances bearing the accidents1 without which they cannot exist1 are also temporal like them4 ,hence our world is not eternal4#ed ,finally1 past time itself cannot be eternal4 ,for this would mean that an infinite time has actually elapsed down to our day4 ,but this is a contradiction in terms4 ,what is already accomplished cannot be infinite4 ,infinity is possible only as a potentiality1 for example1 we may speak of a given length as infinitely divisible4 ,this merely means that one may mentally continue dividing it forever1 but we can never say that one has actually made an infinite number of divisions4 ,therefore not merely the world1 but even time must have begun to be4#ee ,it will be seen that the first three arguments prove only that the world in the form which it has now is not eternal4 ,the possibility is not yet excluded of an eternal matter out of which the world proceeded or was made4 ,the fourth argument proves a great deal4 ,it shows that nothing which is subject to time can be eternal1 hence not even prime matter4 ,god can be eternal because he is not subject to time4 ,time1 as we shall see later1 cannot exist without motion and moving things1 hence before the world there was no time1 and the fourth argument does not apply to premundane existence4 ,to complete the first three arguments ,saadia therefore proceeds to show that the world1 which we now know came to be in time1 must have been made by someone 7since nothing can make itself71 and that too out of nothing1 and not out of a pre-existing eternal matter4 ,if an eternal matter existed before the world1 the explanation of the origin of the world is open to two possibilities4 ,one is that there is nothing outside of this matter and the world which came from it4 ,this is absurd1 for it would mean that an unintelligent dead thing is the cause of intelligence and life in the universe4 ,we must therefore have recourse to the other alternative that someone1 an intelligent being1 made the world out of the primitive1 eternal matter4 ,this is also impossible4 ,for if the matter is eternal like the maker of the world1 it is independent of him1 and would not be obedient to his will to adapt itself to his purpose4 ,he could therefore not make the world out of it4 ,the only alternative left now is that the author of the universe is an intelligent being1 and that nothing outside of him is eternal4 ,he alone is responsible for the existence of the world1 which was at one time nothing4 ,whether he first created a matter and then from it the universe1 or whether he made the world outright1 is of secondary importance4#ef ,there is still a possibility that instead of making the world out of nothing1 ,god made it out of himself1 i4 e41 that it emanated from him as light from the sun4 ,this1 as we know1 is the opinion of the ,neo-,platonists2 and ,israeli comes very close to it as we saw before 7p4 #f74 ,saadia is strongly opposed to any such doctrine4 ,it is unlikely1 he says1 that an eternal substance having neither form1 condition1 measure1 place or time1 should change into a body or bodies having those accidents2 or that a wise being1 not subject to change or influence1 or comprehensibility should choose to make himself into a body subject to all of these4 ,what could have induced a just being who does no wrong to decree that some of his parts should be subject to such evils as matter and material beings are afflicted with8 ,it is conceivable only in one of two ways4 ,either they deserved it for having done wrong1 or they did not deserve it1 and it was an act of violence that was committed against them4 ,both suppositions are absurd4 ,the fact of the matter is that the authors of this opinion to avoid the theory of creation ex nihilo went from the frying pan into the fire4 ,to be sure1 creation out of nothing is difficult to conceive1 but this is the reason why we ascribe this power to ,god alone4 ,to demand that we show how this can be done is to demand that we ourselves become creators4#eg ,the question what existed in place of the earth before it was created evinces ignorance of the idea of place4 ,by place is meant simply the contact of two bodies in which the one is the place of the other4 ,when there is no earth and no bodies there is no such thing as place4 ,the same thing applies to time4 ,time means the persistence of existing things in heaven and earth under changing conditions4 ,where there is no world1 there is no time4 ,this answers the objection raised by some1 namely1 how is it possible that before all these bodies were made time existed void of objects8 ,or the other difficulty which is closely related1 viz41 ,why did not ,god create the world before he did8 ,the answer to both is1 there was no before and there was no time1 when the world was not4 ,the following question is a legitimate one1 ,why did ,god create all things8 ,and our answer is1 there was no cause which made him create them1 and yet they were not made in vain4 ,god wished to exhibit his wisdom2 and his goodness prompted him to benefit his creatures by enabling them to worship him4#eh ,we have now proved the existence of ,god as the cause of the existence of all things4 ,we must now try to arrive at some notion of what ,god is as far as this is in our power4 ,god cannot be corporeal or body1 for in our proof of his existence we began with the world which is body and arrived at the notion of ,god as the cause of all corporeal existence4 ,if ,god himself is corporeal our search is not at an end1 for we should still want to know the cause of him4 ,being the cause of all body1 he is not body and hence is for our knowledge ultimate1 we cannot go beyond him4 ,but if ,god is not corporeal1 he is not subject to motion or rest or anger or favor1 for to deny the corporeality of ,god and still look for these accidents in him is to change the expression and retain the idea4 ,bodily accidents involve body4#ei ,the incorporeality of ,god proves also his unity4 ,for what is not body cannot have the corporeal attributes of quantity or number1 hence ,god cannot be more than one4#fj ,and there are many powerful arguments besides against a dualistic theory4 ,a unitary effect cannot be the result of two independent causes4 ,for if one is responsible for the whole1 there is nothing left for the other1 and the assumption of his existence is gratuitous4 ,if the effect consists of two parts of which each does one1 we have really two effects4 ,but the universe is one and its parts cannot be separated4#fa ,again1 if one of them wishes to create a thing and cannot without the help of the other1 neither is all-powerful1 which is inconsistent with the character of deity4 ,if he can compel the other to help him1 they are both under necessity4 ,and if they are free and independent1 then if one should desire to keep a body alive and the other to kill it1 the body would have to be at the same time alive and dead1 which is absurd4 ,again1 if each one can conceal aught from the other1 neither is all-knowing4 ,if they cannot1 they are not all-powerful4#fb ,having proved ,god's existence1 unity and incorporeality1 he proceeds to discuss his most essential attributes1 which are1 ,life1 ,omnipotence1 and ,omniscience4 ,these easily follow from what was said before4 ,we cannot conceive a creator ex nihilo unless he is all-powerful2 power implies life2 and the thing made cannot be perfect unless its maker knows what it is going to be before he makes it4 ,these three concepts our reason discovers with one act of its thinking effort1 for they are all involved in the concept1 ,maker4 ,there is no gradual inference from one to the other4 ,the reason we are forced to use three expressions is because of the limitations of language4 ,hence it must not be thought that they involve plurality in ,god4 ,they are simply the implications of the one expression1 ,maker1 and as that does not suggest plurality in ,god's essence1 but signifies only that there is a thing made by the maker1 so the three derivative terms1 ,living1 ,omnipotent1 ,omniscient1 imply no more4 ,the ,christians erred in this matter in making ,god a trinity4 ,they say one cannot create unless he is living and wise1 hence they regard his life and his wisdom as two other things outside of his essence4 ,but this is a mistake4 ,for in saying there are several attributes in him distinct one from the other1 they say in effect that he is corporeal--an error which we have already refuted4 ,besides they do not understand what constitutes proof3 ,in man we say that his life and his knowledge are not his essence because we see that he sometimes has them and sometimes not4 ,in ,god this is not the case4 ,again1 why only three8 ,they say essence1 life1 wisdom2 why do they not add power1 or hearing and seeing8 ,if they think that power is implied in life1 and hearing and seeing in wisdom1 so is life implied in wisdom4 ,they quote ,scripture in their support1 for example1 the verse in ,,ii ,samuel 7#bc1 #b71 ,the ,spirit of the ,lord spoke through me1 and his ,word was upon my tongue4 ,word denotes1 they say1 his attribute of wisdom1 and ,spirit his life1 as distinct persons4 ,but they are mistaken4 ,the expressions in question denote the words which ,god puts into the mouth of his prophets4 ,there are other similar instances which they cite1 and in their ignorance of ,hebrew take metaphorical expressions literally4 ,if they are consistent1 they should add many more persons in the ,godhead1 in accordance with the many phrases of the ,bible concerning the hand of ,god1 the eye of ,god1 the glory of ,god1 the anger of ,god1 the mercy of ,god1 and so on4#fc ,the above discussion1 as also that of ,al-,mukammas 7p4 #ai71 shows clearly the origin of the doctrine of attributes as well as its motive4 ,both ,al-,mukammas and ,saadia and the later ,jewish philosophers owed their interest in this problem primarily to the ,mohammedan schools in which we know it played an important rle 7see ,introduction1 pp4 xxiii1 xxvi74 ,but there is no doubt that the problem originated in the ,christian schools in the ,orient1 who made use of it to rationalize the dogma of the ,trinity4 ,there is extant a confession of faith attributed to ,jacob ,baradus 7sixth century71 the founder of the ,syrian ,church of the ,monophysites or ,jacobites1 in which the phrase occurs that the ,father is the ,intellect1 the ,son is the ,word and the ,holy ,ghost is ,life4 ,in the works of ,elias of ,nisibis of the ,nestorian ,church1 who lived shortly after ,saadia 7#ige-ajdi71 we also find a passage in which the three expressions essence1 life and wisdom are applied to the three persons of the ,trinity4 ,the passage is worth quoting4 ,it reads as follows3 ,as the essence of ,god cannot receive accidents1 his life and his wisdom cannot be accidents4 ,but whatever is not accident is either substance or person4 ,hence as the essence of the ,creator and his life and his wisdom are not three substances or three accidents1 it is proved that they are three persons4#fd ,monotheism was a fundamental dogma of the ,mohammedan faith4 ,hence it was necessary for their rationalizing theologians to meet the ,trinitarians with their own weapons and show that the multiplicity of the divine attributes which they could not deny1 since the ,koran was authority for it1 does in no way affect ,god's unity4 ,the problem was quite as important for ,judaism as it was for ,islam1 and for the same reason4 ,hence ,saadia's insistence that inadequacy of language is alone responsible for our expressing ,god's essential attributes in the three words1 ,living1 ,omnipotent1 ,omniscient2 that in reality they are no more than interpretations of the expression ,maker4 ,we have now shown that ,god is one in the two important senses of the word4 ,he is one in the sense that there is no second ,god beside him2 and he is one in his own essence1 i4 e41 he is simple and not composed of parts4 ,his ,life and his ,power and his ,wisdom are not distinct one from the other and from his essence4 ,they are all one4 ,we have also proved ,god's incorporeality4 ,nevertheless ,saadia is not satisfied until he has shown in detail that ,god cannot be compared to man in any sense1 and that the anthropomorphic expressions in the ,bible must not be taken literally4 ,in reference to ,biblical interpretation ,saadia makes the general remark that whenever a verse of ,scripture apparently contradicts the truths of reason1 there is no doubt that it is figurative1 and a person who successfully interprets it so as to reconcile it with the data of sense or reason will be rewarded for it4 ,for not the ,bible alone is the source of ,judaism1 ,reason is another source preceding the ,bible1 and ,tradition is a third source coming after the ,bible4#fe ,in order to show that ,god is not to be compared to any other thing in creation ,saadia finds it convenient to use ,aristotle's classification of all existing things under the ten categories4#ff ,everything that exists is either a substance1 or it is an accident1 i4 e41 an attribute or quality of a substance4 ,substance is therefore the first and most important of the categories and is exemplified by such terms as man1 horse1 city4 ,everything that is not substance is accident1 but there are nine classes of accident1 and with substance they make up the ten categories4 ,the order of the categories as ,aristotle gives them in his treatise of the same name is1 substance1 quantity1 quality1 relation1 place1 time1 position1 possession1 action1 passion4 ,if these categories include all existing things and we can prove that ,god is not any of them1 our object is accomplished4 ,the one general argument is one with which we are already familiar4 ,it is that ,god is the cause of all substance and accident1 hence he is himself neither the one nor the other4 ,scripture supports our view1 as in ,deuteronomy #d1 #ae3 ,take ye therefore good heed of yourselves2 for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the ,lord spake unto you in ,horeb out of the midst of the fire3 lest ye corrupt yourselves1 and make you a graven image in the form of any figure1 the likeness of male or female1 the likeness of any beast that is on the earth1 the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven2 the likeness of anything that creepeth on the ground1 the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth3 and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven1 and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars1 even all the host of heaven1 thou be drawn away1 etc4 ,and tradition is equally emphatic in this regard4 ,our sages1 who were the disciples of the prophets1 render the anthropomorphic passages in the ,bible so as to avoid an objectionable understanding4 ,this is particularly true of the ,aramaic translation of the ,targum4 ,such terms as head1 eye1 ear1 mouth1 lip1 face1 hand1 heart1 bowels1 foot1 which are used in relation to ,god in the ,bible1 are figurative4 ,for it is the custom of language to apply such terms metaphorically to certain ideas like elevation1 providence1 acceptance1 declaration1 command1 favor1 anger1 power1 wisdom1 mercy1 dominion4 ,language would be a very inadequate instrument if it confined itself to the literal meaning of the words it uses2 and in the case of ,god we should be limited to the statement that he is4 ,what was said of the nouns above mentioned applies also to other parts of speech1 such as verbs attributing human activity to ,god4 ,such phrases as incline thine ear1 open thine eyes1 he saw1 he heard1 he spoke are figurative4 ,so the expression1 the ,lord smelled1 which sounds especially objectionable1 denotes acceptance4 ,the theophanies in the ,bible1 where ,god is represented under a certain form1 as in ,ezekiel1 ,isaiah and ,kings1 do not argue against our view1 for there are meant specially created forms for the benefit and honor of the prophet4 ,this is what is meant by the ,glory of the ,lord1 and ,shekinah4 ,sometimes it is simply a created light without an individual form4 ,when ,moses asked to see ,god1 he meant the created light4 ,god cannot be seen with the eye nor can he be grasped in thought or imagination4 ,hence ,moses could not have meant to see ,god1 but the created light4 ,his face was covered so that he should not be dazzled by the exceeding splendor of the beginning of the light1 which is too much for a mortal to endure2 but later when the brightest part passed by1 the covering was taken off and ,moses saw the last part of the light4 ,this is the meaning of the expression in ,exodus #cc1 #bc1 ,and ,i will take away mine hand1 and thou shalt see my back3 but my face shall not be seen4 ,having treated of ,god as the creator of the world and having learned something about his attributes1 we must now proceed to the study of man1 or which is the same thing1 to an investigation of ,god's relations to the rational part of his creation in the sublunar world4 ,that man is endowed with a soul cannot be doubted1 for the activities of man's soul are directly visible4 ,the problem which is difficult is concerning the nature of the soul4#fg ,here opinions differ1 and some regard the soul as an accident of the body1 some think it is a corporeal substance like air or fire1 while others believe there is more than one soul in man4 ,it will be our task to vindicate our own view against these erroneous ideas4 ,the soul is too important in its functions to be an accident4 ,it is neither air nor fire because it has not the properties of these bodies4 ,and if the soul consisted of two or more distinct parts1 the perceptions of sense would not reach the reason1 and there would be no co-operation between these two powers4 ,the true view is therefore that the soul of man is a substance created by ,god at the time when the human body is completed4 ,the soul has no eternal existence before the body as ,plato thought1 for nothing is eternal outside of ,god1 as we saw before4 ,nor does it enter the soul from the outside1 but is created with and in the body4 ,its substance is as pure as that of the celestial spheres1 receiving its light like them1 but is much finer than the substance of the spheres1 for the latter are not rational1 whereas the soul is4 ,the soul is not dependent for its knowledge upon the body1 which without the latter has neither life nor knowledge1 but it uses the body as an instrument for its functions4 ,when connected with the body the soul has three faculties1 reason1 spirit and desire4 ,but we must not think with ,plato that these powers form so many divisions or parts of the soul1 residing in different parts of the body4 ,all the three faculties belong to the one soul whose seat is in the heart2 for from the heart issue the arteries1 which give the body sense and motion4 ,the soul was put in the body because from its nature it cannot act by itself2 it must have the body as its instrument in order thereby to attain to perfect happiness1 for the soul's functions either purify or defile it4 ,when the soul leaves the body she can no longer repent2 all this must be done while she is in the body4 ,being placed in the body is therefore a good for the soul4 ,if she were left alone1 there would be no use in her existence or in that of the body1 and hence the entire creation would be in vain1 which was made for the sake of man4 ,to ask why was not the soul made so as to be independent of the body is foolish and tantamount to saying why was not the soul made something else than soul4 ,the soul is not in any way harmed by being with the body1 for the injury of sin is due to her own free will and not to the body4 ,moreover1 the body is not unclean1 nor are the fluids of the body unclean while in the body2 some of them are declared in the ,bible to cause uncleanness when they leave the body1 but this is one of those ordinances which1 as we shall see later1 are not demanded by the reason for their own sake1 but are specially commanded for a different purpose4 ,as for the sufferings which the soul undergoes by reason of her connection with the body1 some are due to her own negligence1 such as cold1 heat1 and so on1 others are inflicted by ,god for the soul's own good so that she may be later rewarded4 ,we see here1 and we shall learn more definitely later1 that ,saadia is opposed to the view of the ascetics--a view ,neo-,platonic in its origin--that matter and body as such are evil1 and that the constant effort of man must be to free the soul from the taint of the body in which it is imprisoned1 and by which it is dragged down from its pristine nobility and purity4 ,saadia's opposition to the belief in the pre-existence of the soul at once does away with the ,neo-,platonic view that the soul was placed in the body as a punishment for wrongdoing4 ,the soul was created at the same time with the body1 and the two form a natural unit4 ,hence complete life involves both body and soul4 ,we have seen that ,god's creation of the world is due to his goodness4 ,his first act of kindness was that he gave being to the things of the world4 ,he showed himself especially beneficent to man in enabling him to attain perfect happiness by means of the commandments and prohibitions which were imposed upon him4 ,the reward consequent upon obedience was the real purpose of the commandments4#fh ,the laws which ,god gave us through the prophets consist of two groups4 ,the first embraces such acts as our reason recognizes to be right or wrong1 good or bad1 through a feeling of approval or disapproval which ,god planted in our minds4 ,thus reason demands that a benefactor should receive in return for his goodness either a kind reward if he needs it1 or thanks if he needs no reward4 ,as this is a general demand of the reason1 ,god could not have neglected it in his own case1 and hence the commandments that we should serve him1 that we should not offend or revile him and the other laws bearing on the same subject4 ,it is likewise a demand of the reason that one should prevent the creatures from sinning against one another in any way4 ,murder is prohibited because it would lead to the destruction of the race and the consequent frustration of ,god's purpose in creating the world4 ,promiscuous association of the sexes is prohibited in order that man may be different from the lower animals1 and shall know his father and other relatives that he may show them honor and kindness4 ,universal stealing would lead to indolence1 and in the end would destroy itself when there is nothing more to steal4 ,in a similar way we can explain all laws relating to social dealings among mankind4 ,the second group of laws has reference to acts which are inherently neither right nor wrong1 but are made so by the act of ,god's commandment or prohibition4 ,this class may be called ,traditional in contrast to the first1 which we shall name ,rational4 ,the traditional laws are imposed upon us primarily so that we may be rewarded for obeying them4 ,at the same time we shall find on careful examination of these laws that they also have a rational signification1 and are not purely arbitrary4 ,thus the purpose of sanctifying certain days of the year1 like ,sabbaths and holy days1 is that by resting from labor we may devote ourselves to prayer1 to the acquisition of wisdom1 and to converse with our fellows in the interest of religion4 ,laws of ceremonial purity have for their purpose to teach man humility1 and to make prayer and the visitation of holy places more precious in his eyes after having been debarred from his privileges during the period of his uncleanness4 ,it is clear that we should not know how to perform the traditional commandments without divine revelation since our own reason would not have suggested them4 ,but even in the case of the rational laws the general principles alone are known to us from our own reason but not the details4 ,we know in general that theft1 unchastity1 and so on1 are wrong1 but the details of these matters would lead to disagreement among mankind1 and hence it was necessary that the rational laws also be directly communicated to us by divine messengers4 ,the divine messengers are the prophets4#fi ,they knew that their revelations came from ,god through a sign which appeared at the beginning of the communication and lasted to the end4 ,the sign was a pillar of cloud or of fire1 or an extraordinary bright light1 as we learn in the case of ,moses4 ,the genuineness of a prophet's message is tested first of all by the nature of the content1 and then by his ability to perform miracles4 ,the ,israelites would not have believed ,moses1 notwithstanding his miracles1 if he had commanded them to commit murder or adultery4 ,it is because his teaching was found acceptable to the reason that the miracles accompanying it were regarded as a confirmation of ,moses's divine mission4 ,the ,jewish ,law#gj contains three elements1 all of which are necessary for effective teaching4 ,first1 the commandments and prohibitions1 or the laws proper2 second1 the reward and punishment consequent upon obedience and disobedience2 and third1 examples of historical characters in which the laws and their consequences are illustrated4 ,but the written law would not accomplish its purpose without belief in tradition4 ,this is fundamental1 for without it no individual or society can exist4 ,no one can live by what he perceives with his own senses alone4 ,he must depend upon the information he receives from others4 ,and while this information is liable to error either by reason of the informant being mistaken or his possible purpose to deceive1 these two possibilities are eliminated in case the tradition is vouched for not by an individual1 but by a whole nation1 as in the case of the ,jewish revelation4 ,as ,saadia's emphasis on tradition1 apart from its intrinsic importance for ,judaism1 has its additional motive in refuting ,karaism1 so the following discussion against the possibility of the ,law being abrogated is directed no doubt against the claims of the two sister religions1 ,christianity and ,mohammedanism4#ga ,abrogation of the law1 ,saadia says1 is impossible4 ,for in the first place tradition has unanimously held to this view1 and in the second place the ,law itself assures us of its permanent validity1 ,moses commanded us a law1 an inheritance for the assembly of ,jacob 7,deut4 #cc1 #d74 ,the law constitutes the national existence of our people2 hence as we are assured by the ,prophets that the ,jewish nation is eternal1 the ,law must be likewise4 ,we must not even accept the evidence of miracles in favor of a new law abrogating the old4 ,for as we saw before1 it was not primarily ,moses's miracles that served to authenticate his teaching1 but the character of the teaching itself4 ,now that the law of ,moses stood the test of internal acceptability and external confirmation by the performance of miracles1 its declaration of permanent validity cannot be upset by any new evidence even if it be miraculous4 ,man#gb alone of all created things was given commandments and prohibitions1 because he is superior to all other creatures by reason of the rational faculty which he possesses1 and the world was created for him4 ,man's body is small1 but his mind is great and comprehensive4 ,his life is short1 but it was given him to assist him to the eternal life after death4 ,the diseases and other dangers to which he is subject are intended to keep him humble and ,god-fearing4 ,the appetites and passions have their uses in the maintenance of the individual and the race4 ,if it is true that ,god gave man commandments and that he rewards and punishes him according to his conduct1 it follows that unless we attribute injustice to ,god he must have given man the power to do and to refrain in the matters which form the subject of the commandments4 ,this is actually the case and can be proven in many ways4 ,everyone is conscious of freedom in his actions1 and is not aware of any force preventing him in his voluntary acts4 ,the ,bible testifies to this when it says 7,deut4 #cj1 #ai71 ,i have set before you life and death 444 therefore choose thou life1 or 7,malachi #a1 #i71 ,from your hand has this thing come4 ,tradition is equally explicit in the statement of the ,rabbis 7,berakot #cc;b71 ,everything is in the hands of ,god except the fear of ,god4 ,to be sure ,god is omniscient and knows how a given individual will act in a given case1 but this does not take away from the freedom of the individual to determine his own conduct4 ,for ,god's knowledge is not the cause of a man's act1 or in general of a thing's being4 ,if that were so1 all things would be eternal since ,god knows all things from eternity4 ,god simply knows that man will choose of his own free will to do certain things4 ,man as a matter of fact never acts contrary to ,god's knowledge1 but this is not because ,god's knowledge determines his act1 but only because ,god knows the final outcome of a man's free deliberation4 ,since it is now clear from every point of view that ,god does not interfere with a man's freedom of action1 any passages in the ,bible which seem to indicate the contrary are not properly understood1 and must needs be interpreted in accordance with the evidence we have adduced from various sources including the ,bible itself4 ,thus when ,god says 7,exod4 #g1 #c7 ,i will harden the heart of ,pharaoh1 it does not mean1 as many think1 that ,god forced ,pharaoh to refuse to let ,israel go4 ,the meaning rather is that he gave ,pharaoh strength to withstand the plagues without succumbing to them1 as many of the ,egyptians did4 ,the same method should be followed with all the other expressions in the ,bible which appear to teach determinism4 ,a man's conduct has an influence upon the soul1 making it pure or impure as the case may be4#gc ,though man cannot see this effect1 since the soul is an intellectual substance1 ,god knows it4 ,he also keeps a record of our deeds1 and deals out reward and punishment in the world to come4 ,this time will not come until he has created the number of souls which his wisdom dictates4 ,at the same time there are also rewards and punishments in this world as an earnest of what is to come in the hereafter4 ,a man is called righteous or wicked according as his good or bad deeds predominate4 ,and the recompense in the next world is given for this predominating element in his character4 ,a righteous man is punished for his few bad deeds in this world1 and rewarded for his many good deeds in the world to come4 ,similarly the wicked man is paid for his good deeds in this world1 while the punishment for his wickedness is reserved4 ,this answers the old problem of the prosperity of the wicked and the misery of the righteous in this world4 ,there are also sufferings of the righteous which are not in the nature of punishment for past conduct1 but in view of the future so as to increase their reward in the world to come for the trials they endured without murmuring4 ,the sufferings of little children come under this head4 ,on the other hand1 a sinner is sometimes well treated and his life prolonged for one of the following reasons3 ,to give him time to repent1 as in the case of ,manasseh2 that he may beget a righteous son1 like ,ahaz1 the father of ,hezekiah2 to use him as ,god's tool to punish others more wicked than he--witness the rle of ,assyria as ,isaiah describes it in chapter ten of his prophecies2 for the sake of the righteous who is closely related to him1 as ,lot was saved for the sake of ,abraham2 or in order to make the punishment more severe later1 as in the case of ,pharaoh4 ,that there is another world after this one in which man is rewarded and punished can be proved from reason1 from ,scripture and from tradition4#gd ,it is not likely from what we know of ,god's wisdom and goodness that the measure of happiness intended for the soul is what it gets in this world4 ,for every good here is mixed with evil1 the latter even predominating4 ,no one is really content and at peace in this world even if he has reached the top of the ladder of prosperity and honor4 ,there must be a reason for this1 which is that the soul has an intuitional longing for the other world which is destined for it4 ,there are many things from which the soul is bidden to abstain1 such as theft1 adultery1 and so on1 which it desires1 and abstention from which causes it pain4 ,surely there must be reward awaiting the soul for this suffering4 ,often the soul suffers hatred1 persecution and even death for pursuing justice as she is bidden to do4 ,surely she will be rewarded4 ,even when a person is punished with death for a crime committed in this world1 the same death is inflicted for one crime as for ten crimes4 ,hence there must be another world where all inequalities are adjusted4 ,it is also evident that the men of the ,bible believed in a hereafter4 ,else why should ,isaac have consented to be sacrificed1 or why should ,god have expected it8 ,the same applies to ,hananiah1 ,mishael1 and ,azariah1 who preferred to be thrown into the fiery furnace rather than fall down in worship before the golden image of ,nebuchadnezzar2 and to ,daniel who was thrown into the den of lions for disobeying the order of the king and praying to ,god4 ,they would not have done this if they did not believe in another world1 where they would be rewarded for their sufferings in this one4 ,tradition and the ,rabbinical literature are filled with reference to a future world4 ,we need mention only one or two4 ,in the ,ethics of the ,fathers 7ch4 #d7 we read that this world is like the vestibule to the other world4 ,another statement in the ,talmudic treatise ,berakot 7p4 #ag;a7 reads that in the world to come there is no eating and drinking1 nor giving in marriage1 nor buying and selling1 but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads and enjoy the splendor of the ,shekinah4 ,with regard to the condition of the soul after death and the nature of reward and punishment in the next world1 there is a variety of opinions4 ,those who hold that the soul is corporeal or that it is an accident of the body believe it is destroyed with the death of the body4 ,we have already refuted their opinion4 ,others1 like the ,platonists1 the ,dualists and the ,pantheists1 who believe in the pre-existence of the soul either as a separate entity or as a part of ,god1 hold that after the death of the body the soul returns to its original condition4 ,our belief as stated above 7p4 #cg7 is opposed to this4 ,but there are some calling themselves ,jews who believe in metempsychosis1 that the soul migrates from one person to another and even from man to beast1 and that in this way it is punished for its sins and purged4 ,they see a confirmation of their view in the fact that some persons exhibit qualities which are characteristic of lower animals4 ,but this is absurd4 ,the soul and the body form a natural unit1 the one being adapted to the other4 ,a human body cannot unite with the soul of an animal1 nor an animal body with a human soul4 ,they try to account by their theory for the suffering of little children1 who could not have sinned in their own person4 ,but we have already explained that the suffering of children is not in the nature of punishment1 but with a view to subsequent reward1 and they must admit that the first placing of the soul in the body and giving it commandments is not in the nature of compensation for any past merit1 but with a view to later reward4 ,why not then explain the suffering of children in the same way8#ge ,as the body and the soul form a natural unit during life and a man's conduct is the combined effort of the two constituent parts of his being1 it stands to reason that future reward and punishment should be imposed upon body and soul in combination4 ,hence the doctrine of the resurrection of the body1 which is alluded to in the ,bible and made into a religious dogma by the ,rabbis1 has support also in the reason4#gf ,many objections have been advanced against it1 but they can be easily answered4 ,the strongest objection might seem to be that which attempts to show that resurrection is a logical contradiction4 ,the argument is that the elements making up a given body during life find their way after the death of the person into the body of another1 to which they are assimilated and of which they form a part4 ,hence it is impossible to resurrect two bodies out of the material common to both4 ,but this argument is untrue to fact4 ,every human body has its own matter1 which never enters into the composition of any other body4 ,when the person dies and the body decomposes1 each element returns to its place in nature1 where it is kept until the resurrection4 ,but there is another event which will happen to ,israel before the time of the resurrection4 ,in accordance with the promises of the ,prophets we believe that ,israel will be delivered from exile by the ,messiah4#gg ,reason also supports this belief1 for ,god is righteous1 and since he has placed us in exile partly as a punishment for wrongdoing1 partly for the purpose of trying us1 there must be a limit to both4 ,messiah the son of ,david will come1 will deliver ,jerusalem from the enemy and settle there with his people4 ,when all the believing ,israelites have been gathered from all the nations to the land of ,palestine1 then will come the resurrection4 ,the ,temple will be rebuilt1 the light of the ,shekinah will rest upon it1 and the spirit of prophecy will be vouchsafed to all ,israel1 young and old1 master and servant4 ,this blessed period will last until the end of time1 i4 e41 until this world will give place to the next1 which is the place of reward and punishment4 ,we describe the future habitation and status of the soul as ,garden of ,eden 7,paradise7 and ,gehenna4#gh ,the former expression is intended to suggest happiness1 there being nothing pleasanter in the world than a garden4 ,the term ,gehenna is associated in the ,bible with ,tofteh1 which was a place of impurity not far from the ,temple4 ,in reality1 however1 ,god will create a substance which will combine light and heat in such a way that the righteous will enjoy the light only1 while the wicked will be tortured by the heat4 ,all this ,saadia infers from ,biblical passages4 ,there will be no eating and drinking in the next world1 and hence no need of a heaven and an earth like ours1 but there will be place and time1 since creatures cannot do without it4 ,there will be no succession of day and night1 for these are of use only for our present life and occupations1 but will be unnecessary there4 ,there will1 however1 be a special period for worship4 ,reward and punishment in the next world will both be eternal4 ,it stands to reason that ,god should promise eternal reward and punishment so as to inspire mankind with the highest possible degree of hope and fear1 that they may have no excuse for not heeding the commandments so forcibly impressed upon them4 ,having made the promise1 his justice prompts him to fulfil it1 and those who suffer have themselves to blame4 ,we have now completed in outline ,saadia's system of ,judaism4 ,there are many details which we necessarily had to leave out1 especially in the more dogmatic part of his work1 that dealing with specific ,jewish doctrines1 which he constructs on the basis of ,rabbinical literature and ,biblical allusions interpreted so as to harmonize with the statements of the ,rabbis4 ,many questions specifically theological and eschatological assumed importance in his mind by reason of his surroundings4 ,i mean the ,mohammedan schools and sects1 and the ,karaite discussions which were closely modelled after them4 ,the most important part of his system philosophically is that which deals with creation and the attributes of ,god4 ,his discussions of the soul and of free will are less thorough1 and the details of his doctrines of resurrection1 future reward and punishment1 the redemption of ,israel and the ,messiah are almost purely dogmatic4 ,for a scientific ethic there is no room at all in the body of his work4 ,a man's conduct is prescribed for him in the divine commandments1 though in a general way the reason sees the right and the wrong of the so-called rational group of laws4 ,still as an after thought ,saadia added a chapter to the ,emunot ve-,deot in which he attempts to give a psychological basis for human conduct4 ,noting the various tendencies of individuals and sects in his environment to extremes in human behavior1 some to asceticism1 some to self-indulgence1 be it the lust of love or of power1 he lays emphasis on the inadequacy of any one pursuit for the demands of man's complex nature1 and recommends a harmonious blending of all things for which men strive4#gi ,god alone1 he says1 is a real unity1 everything else is by the very reason of its being a creature essentially not one and simple1 but composite and complex4 ,so man has a love and desire for many things1 and also aversion for many things4 ,and as in other objects in nature it takes a combination of several elements to constitute a given thing1 so in man it is by a proper systematization of his likes and dislikes that he can reach perfection of character and morals4 ,it cannot be that ,god intended man to pursue one object all his life to the exclusion of all others1 for in that case he would have implanted only one desire in man instead of many4 ,you cannot build a house of stones alone neither can you develop a perfect character by one pursuit and one interest4 ,pursuit of one thing is likely to result in harm1 for example1 over-indulgence in eating brings on disease4 ,wisdom is therefore needed in regulating one's conduct4 ,the principle here is control of one's likes and dislikes4 ,of the three faculties of the soul1 reason1 spirit and desire1 reason must be the master of the other two4 ,if any matter occurs to a person's imagination1 he must try it with his reason to see whether it is likely to benefit or injure him1 and pursue or avoid it accordingly4 ,if1 on the other hand1 he allows the lower parts of his soul to rule his reason1 he is not a moral man4 ,the reader will recognize ,plato in the last statement4 ,the division of the soul into the three faculties of reason1 spirit and desire is ,platonic1 as we have already seen1 and the attempt to base an ethic on the proper relation between the powers of the soul also goes back to ,plato4 ,but ,saadia tries to show that the ,bible too favors this conception4 ,when ,ecclesiastes tells us 7#a1 #ad71 ,i have seen all the works that are done under the sun2 and1 behold1 all is vanity and a striving after wind1 he does not mean that there is nothing worth striving after1 for he would then be condemning the objects of ,god's creation4 ,his meaning is that it is vain to pursue any one thing to the exclusion of every other4 ,he then proceeds to name three prominent objects of pursuit1 wisdom1 pleasure and worldly gain--all is vain when taken by itself4 ,a proper combination of all is to be recommended as is delicately hinted in the same book 7#b1 #c71 ,i searched in mine heart how to cheer my flesh with wine1 mine heart yet guiding me with wisdom1 and how to lay hold on folly4 ,,chapter ,,iv ,,joseph ,,al-,,basir ,,and ,,jeshua ,,ben ,,judah ,i4 ,joseph ,al-,basir 7#aath century7#hj ,joseph ben ,abraham1 euphemistically surnamed on account of his blindness1 al-,basir 7the seer71 was a ,karaite and lived in ,babylonia or ,persia in the beginning of the eleventh century4 ,his philosophical work is closely modelled on the writings of the ,arabian ,mutakallimun1 the ,mutazilites4 ,unlike ,saadia1 who tacitly accepts some of their methods and views1 al-,basir is an avowed follower of the ,kalam and treats only of those questions which are common to ,jew and ,mohammedan1 avoiding1 for example1 so important an issue as whether it is possible that the law of ,god may be abrogated--a question which meant so much to ,saadia4 ,the division of his investigation into the two parts1 ,unity and ,justice1 is a serious matter with him2 and he finds it necessary to tell us in several instances why he chose to treat a given topic under the one or the other heading4 ,in spirit and temperament he is a thoroughgoing rationalist4 ,brief and succinct to the point of obscurity1 he betrays neither partiality nor emotion1 but fearlessly pushes the argument to its last conclusion and reduces it to its lowest terms4 ,saadia 7above p4 #bh7 puts revelation as a fourth source of truth parallel to sense1 judgment and logical inference4 ,to be sure he1 in one instance 7p4 #ce71 speaks of the reason as preceding the ,bible even as tradition follows it1 but this is only a passing observation1 and is properly corrected by the view expressed elsewhere 7p4 #bh7 that while a ,jew is not forbidden to speculate1 he must not set the ,bible aside and adopt opinions as they occur to him4 ,al-,basir does not leave the matter in this unsettled condition4 ,he definitely gives priority--logical priority1 to reason4 ,knowledge1 he says1 must precede revelation4 ,the prophet as the messenger of ,god cannot be believed on his word1 for the opponent may have the same claim4 ,not only must the prophet authenticate his mission by the performance of a miracle which cannot be explained by natural means1 but we must know besides that he who sent him has our good at heart and would not deceive us4 ,a knowledge of the existence1 power and wisdom of the creator must therefore precede our belief in the prophet's mission4 ,to take these truths from the words of the prophet and then give him credence because ,god sent him would be reasoning in a circle4 ,the minimum of knowledge therefore which is indispensable before we can make any appeal to the words of the prophet is rational proof of the existence1 power and wisdom of ,god4 ,having this minimum the person who is not practiced in speculative investigation may rely for the rest of the creed1 for example1 the unity of ,god and his other attributes1 upon the words of the ,bible4 ,for if we know independently that ,god is ,omnipotent and ,omniscient1 and the prophet can substantiate his claim to be a divine messenger by the performance of genuine miracles1 his reliability is established and we are safe in accepting all that he has to say without proof2 but the fundamental thing to do is to establish the prophet's reliability1 and for this an independent source of evidence is necessary4 ,this is the reason4 ,our problem therefore is to prove the power and wisdom of ,god1 which will imply his existence4 ,we cannot do this directly1 for we cannot see ,god4 ,hence the only method is to prove the existence of a powerful and wise creator through his creation4 ,we must prove his power in doing things which we cannot do1 such as the ability to create our bodies4 ,but for this it is necessary to show that our bodies--and the same will apply to the other bodies of the world1 and hence to the world as a whole--were created1 i4 e41 that there was a time when they were not4 ,this leads us to an analysis of the constituents of body4 ,all bodies consist of atoms and their accidents1 or conditions and qualities4 ,the primary accidents1 which are presupposed by all the rest1 are the following four1 combination1 separation1 motion and rest4 ,without these no body can exist1 for body is the result of a combination and separation of atoms at rest or in motion4 ,but combination and separation are the acts of a combiner and separater1 as we can infer from the analogy of our own acts4 ,our acts have ourselves as their creators1 hence the acts visible in the combinations and separations of atoms to form bodies must also have their creator4 ,the attributes of the creator we infer from the nature of his work4 ,so we call ,god ,powerful1 meaning that he had the power to create the world4 ,as creation denotes power1 so the success and harmony of the product argues wisdom2 and this power and wisdom thus established are not disproved by an occasional production or event which is not perfect1 a monstrosity for example1 or disease and suffering4 ,we say in reference to these that ,god must have a deeper object in view1 to inspire mankind with the fear of ,god1 and in order to increase their reward in the next world4 ,the attribute of ,life follows from the other two1 for life denotes the possession or capacity of power and knowledge4 ,thus al-,basir has the same three essential attributes as ,saadia4 ,his proof of the existence of ,god is also identical with one of the proofs of ,saadia4 ,but he shows himself a more loyal follower of the ,kalam by frankly adopting the atomic theory1 whereas ,saadia opposes it 7p4 #be74 ,other predicates of ,god are perception1 will1 unity1 incorporeality and eternity4 ,perception is one of the most important expressions of life1 but it must not be confused with knowledge or wisdom4 ,the latter embraces the non-existent as well as the existent1 the former the existent only4 ,it is in virtue of the former attribute that we speak of ,god as hearing and seeing4 ,willing is another attribute of ,god1 and those are wrong who identify ,god's will with his knowledge1 and define ,god's willing to mean that his works take place in accordance with his knowledge4 ,god's will must be a special attribute since we see in creation traces of free will4 ,to be the will of ,god it must not reside in anything different from ,god1 and yet it cannot inhere in ,god as the subject1 for only body is capable of being the subject of accidents4 ,the only solution1 therefore1 is that ,god exercises his voluntary activity through a will which he creates1 a will not residing in any subject4 ,this discussion of the nature of ,god's will seems a case of hair splitting with a vengeance1 and al-,basir is not the author of it4 ,as in his other doctrines so in this also he is a faithful follower of the ,mutazila1 and we shall see more of this method in his discussion of the unity of ,god despite the plurality of his attributes4 ,but we shall first take up the attributes of incorporeality and eternity1 which can be dismissed in a few words4 ,god is eternal because the only other alternative is that he is created4 ,but if so there is a creator1 and if the latter is again created1 he must likewise have a creator1 and so we are led to infinity1 which cannot be1 the infinite regress being in all cases an impossibility according to an axiom of the ,kalam4 ,we must1 therefore1 have an eternal creator somewhere1 and he is ,god4 ,from ,god's eternity follows his incorporeality1 for we have shown before that all body is created1 since it presupposes combination and separation1 and the latter a combiner and separater4 ,when we speak of the unity of ,god we mean first that there is no second ,god1 and then that his own essence has no composition or plurality in it4 ,two ,gods is an absurdity1 for the one might desire what the other does not1 and he whose will predominates is the real ,god4 ,it is no objection to say that in their wisdom they would never disagree1 because the possibility is there1 and this makes the above argument valid4 ,again1 if there were two ,gods they would have to be completely alike in their essential attributes1 and as space cannot hold them apart1 since they are not bodies1 what is there to constitute them two8 ,the other problem1 of ,god's simplicity1 is more difficult4 ,does not the multiplicity of attributes make ,god's essence multiple and composite8 ,the form which this question took was this4 ,shall we say that ,god is omnipotent through ,power1 omniscient through ,knowledge1 and so on8 ,if so1 this ,power1 ,knowledge1 etc41 are created or eternal4 ,if the ,power1 say1 is created1 then ,god must have had power in order to create it1 hence was powerful not through ,power4 ,if the ,power is eternal1 we have more than one ,god1 and ,power as an eternal would also be ,wise and ,living1 etc42 ,wisdom would also be powerful1 living1 etc41 and so on with the other attributes1 a doctrine closely bordering on ,christianity and reminding one of ,augustine4 ,the principle of monotheism could not allow such a conception as this4 ,if ,power is neither created nor eternal1 it follows that ,god is omnipotent not through ,power as an external cause or a distinct entity1 but through his own essence4 ,the attributes ,power1 ,wisdom1 ,life1 are not anything distinguishable from each other and from ,god's essence4 ,they are modes or conditions of ,god's essence1 and are known along with it4 ,the same considerations which prompted us to conceive ,god as one and simple1 make impossible the belief in the eternity of ,god's word4 ,this was a point much discussed in the ,mohammedan schools1 and was evidently directed against ,christianity1 where the ,word or ,logos was identified with the second person in the ,trinity4 ,eternity1 ,al-,basir says1 is incompatible with the idea and purpose of speech4 ,god speaks with a word which he creates4 ,this adds no new predicate to ,god1 but is implied in his ,power4 ,the attribute omnipotent implies that when he wills he can make himself understood by us as we do through speech4 ,we notice that ,al-,basir is more elaborate in his discussion of the attributes than ,saadia1 and like ,al-,mukammas he makes use of the formul of the ,kalam1 omnipotent not with ,power1 omniscient not with ,wisdom4 ,saadia does not follow the ,kalam so closely1 but is just as emphatic in his endeavor to show that the three essential attributes are only verbally three2 conceptually and really they are one4 ,the doctrine of the attributes brings to a close the section on unity1 and the second division of the investigation is entitled ,justice and ,fairness4 ,the main problems here are the nature of good and evil and the relation of ,god to them1 the question of free will and other subordinate topics1 theological and eschatological4 ,with regard to the first question two extreme positions are possible1 which were actually held by ,mohammedan schools of ,al-,basir's day4 ,one is that nothing is good or bad in itself1 our reason not recognizing it as such2 that the divine command or prohibition makes the thing good or bad4 ,hence1 the representatives of this opinion say1 ,god1 who stands above his commands and prohibitions1 is not bound by them4 ,good and bad hold for the subject1 not for the author4 ,the acts of ,god do not come within the classification1 and hence it is possible that ,god may do what we regard as injustice4 ,some1 in their endeavor to be consistent and to carry the argument to its last conclusion1 did not even shrink from the reductio ad absurdum that it is possible ,god may lie2 for1 said they1 if ,i promise a boy sweetmeats and fail to keep my promise1 it is no worse than if ,i beat him4 ,for this school there is no problem of evil1 because ethical distinctions do not apply to ,god's doings4 ,whatever ,god does is good4 ,the other school came under the influence of ,greek thought and identified the idea of ,god with the idea of the ,good4 ,they maintained that from the nature of ,god's essence it was not only his duty to do the good1 but that it was impossible for him to do anything else4 ,doing good is a necessity of his nature1 and our good and evil are also his good and evil4 ,ethical values are absolute and not relative4 ,neither of these radical views can be maintained4 ,the first is refuted by its own consequences which only very few of its advocates were bold enough to adopt4 ,the possibility of ,god telling a falsehood1 which is implied in the purely human validity of good and evil1 is subversive of all religion4 ,god would then cease to be trustworthy1 and there would be no reason for giving him obedience4 ,besides1 if revelation alone determines right and wrong1 it would follow that if ,god chose to reverse his orders1 our moral judgments would be turned the other way around1 good would be evil1 and evil good4 ,finally1 if good and bad are determined by the will of ,god only1 those who do not believe in revelation would be without an idea of right and wrong1 but this is manifestly not true4 ,but the other opinion1 that ,god is compelled by the necessity of his nature to do the good1 is also erroneous4 ,in the first place it detracts from ,god's omnipotence to say he cannot do wrong4 ,besides1 if he is compelled by an inner necessity to do the good1 he must always have done this1 and the world would have existed from eternity4 ,it is just as wrong to say that it is the duty of ,god to do what is good and useful for man4 ,for this is due to a confusion of the good or generous with the obligatory4 ,any deed to which no blame attaches may be called good4 ,if no praise attaches to it either1 it is indifferent4 ,if it is deserving of praise and its omission does not call forth blame1 it is a generous act4 ,a duty is an act the omission of which deserves blame4 ,now the truth in the question under discussion is midway between the two extremes4 ,god is able to do good as well as evil1 and is under no necessity4 ,the notions of right and wrong are absolute and not merely relative4 ,god never does wrong because evil has no attractive power per se4 ,wrong is committed always as a means to an end1 namely1 to gain an advantage or avoid an injury4 ,god is not dependent upon anything2 he needs no advantages and fears no injuries4 ,hence there is nothing to prompt him to do wrong4 ,the good on the other hand attracts us by its inherent goodness1 not for an ulterior end4 ,if the good were done only for the sake of deriving some benefit external to the good itself1 ,god1 who is self-sufficient1 would not do anything either good or evil4 ,god does the good always and not the bad1 because in his wisdom he sees the difference between them4 ,it was a deed of generosity in ,god to have created the world and given life to his creatures1 but it was not a duty4 ,this conception of the nature of good and evil leaves on our hands the problem of evil4 ,why does a good ,god permit disease and suffering to exist in the world8 ,in particular1 how explain the suffering and death of innocent children and harmless animals8 ,the answer of ,al-,basir is that infliction of pain may under certain circumstances be a good instead of an evil4 ,in human relations a person is permitted to inflict pain on another in self-defence1 or to prevent the pain from becoming worse1 as1 for example1 when a finger is amputated to save the hand4 ,the infliction of pain is not only permitted1 it becomes a duty in case of retribution1 as in a court of justice2 and finally it is permitted to inflict temporary pain if it will result in a greater advantage in the future4 ,the last two cases apply also to ,god's treatment of his creatures4 ,disease and suffering are either punishment for offences committed1 or are imposed with a view to later reward4 ,in the case of children the last explanation alone is applicable4 ,they will be rewarded in the next world4 ,at the same time the parents are admonished to repentance and good conduct4 ,the most difficult question of the section on justice is that of free will and foreknowledge4 ,is man master of his actions8 ,if so1 how can we reconcile this with ,god's omniscience1 who knows beforehand how the person will act at a given moment8 ,is man free to decide at the last moment in a manner contrary to ,god's knowledge8 ,if so1 we defend freedom at the expense of ,god's omniscience4 ,if man is bound to act as ,god foreknew he would act1 divine knowledge is saved1 man's freedom lost4 ,al-,basir has no doubt man is free4 ,our own consciousness testifies to this4 ,when we cut off our finger bitten by a snake1 we know that we ourselves did it for a purpose1 and distinguish it from a case of our finger being cut off by order of an official1 before whom we have been accused or maligned4 ,one and the same act can have only one author and not two1 and we know that we are the authors of our acts4 ,there is a much closer connection between an agent and his act than between a knower and his knowledge1 which may be the common property of many1 and no one doubts that a man's knowledge is his own4 ,the dilemma above mentioned with its two horns1 of which one denies ,god's knowledge1 the other man's freedom1 is puzzling enough1 to be sure4 ,but we are not bound to answer it since it is purely hypothetical4 ,we do not know of a real instance in which a man's decision tended to be contrary to ,god's foreknowledge of its outcome4 ,just as we should refuse to answer the question whether an actual case of injustice on the part of ,god would prove his ignorance or dependence1 because we know through irrefutable proofs that ,god is wise and without need2 so here we say man has freedom though ,god knows he will act thus and so1 and refuse to say whether in case the unbeliever turned believer it would prove ,god's ignorance or change in his knowledge4 ,god's creation was a pure act of grace4 ,but once having done this and communicated to us a knowledge of himself and his will1 it is now his duty to guide us in the right path1 by sending us his prophets4 ,the commandments and prohibitions must never be contrary to the knowledge of reason4 ,we must see in the commandments means of guidance1 in the prohibitions a protection against destructive influences4 ,if they had not this rational basis1 we do not see why ,god should have imposed them upon us4 ,having given us reason to know his being1 and having announced his truth through the prophets1 it is his duty to reward those who knew him and were obedient1 eternally in the next world1 and to punish eternally the unbeliever4 ,if one has merits and sins1 they are balanced against each other4 ,if the sinner repents of his evil deeds1 it is the duty of ,god to accept his repentance and remit his punishment4 #b4 ,jeshua ben ,judah#ha ,jeshua ben ,judah or1 as he is known by his ,arabic name1 ,abu al-,faraj ,furkan ibn ,asad1 was likewise a ,karaite1 a pupil of ,joseph ,al-,basir1 and flourished in ,palestine in the second half of the eleventh century4 ,his point of view is essentially the same as that of his teacher1 ,al-,basir4 ,he is also a follower of the ,mutazilite ,kalam and as strong a rationalist as his master4 ,he agrees with ,al-,basir that we cannot get certain knowledge of the creation of the world and the existence of ,god from the ,bible4 ,this information must come originally from rational speculation4 ,it should then be applied to the miracles of the prophets so as to prove the authenticity of their mission and the truth of their announcements4 ,he adopts the atomic theory1 though he is opposed to the view that atoms are created ever anew by ,god from moment to moment1 and that there is no natural and necessary sequence or continuity in the phenomena of the world or qualities of bodies1 all being due to habit1 and custom induced in us by ,god's uninterrupted creations4 ,as in his philosophical discussions he is a follower of the ,kalam1 so in his legalistic works he is indebted to the ,mohammedan schools of religious law4 ,like ,al-,basir1 ,jeshua ben ,judah regards as the corner stone of his religious philosophy the proof that the world was created1 i4 e41 that it is not eternal4 ,his arguments are in essence the same1 though differently formulated4 ,in their simplest form they are somewhat as follows4 ,the world and its bodies consist of atoms and their accidents4 ,taking a given atom for the sake of argument we know that it is immaterial to it1 so far as its own essence is concerned1 whether it occupy one place or another4 ,as a fact1 however1 it does occupy a definite place at a given moment4 ,this must be due to a cause4 ,and as the atom in question in the course of time changes its place1 this shows that the cause which kept it in the former place has disappeared and given way to a new cause1 and so on4 ,in other words1 the successive causes which determine the positions and motions of the atoms are not permanent1 hence not eternal but created4 ,the necessary inference is that the atoms or the bodies1 which cannot exist without these created causes 7else they could not occupy one place rather than another71 must also be created4 ,another form of the argument for creation is this4 ,the eternal has no cause4 ,it exists by virtue of its own essence1 and is not dependent on anything else4 ,if now the atoms were eternal1 they would have to persist in the same condition all the time2 for any change would imply a cause upon which the atom is dependent1 and this is fatal to its eternity4 ,but the atoms do constantly change their condition and place4 ,hence they are created4 ,if the things of the world are created1 someone must have created them4 ,this is clear4 ,but there may be room for the supposition that this creative agency is a cause1 i4 e41 an impersonal entity1 which by necessity produces other things from itself4 ,hence we must hasten to say that this conception of the ,creator is impossible because incompatible with our results so far4 ,a necessarily producing cause cannot be without creating1 hence an eternal cause implies an eternal effect--which contradicts our idea of a created world proved above4 ,we say1 therefore1 that the ,creator is not a cause but an agent1 i4 e41 one acting with will and choice4 ,god is incorporeal because body consists of atoms1 and atoms1 we have shown1 are created4 ,besides1 if he were corporeal1 he could not create bodies any more than we can4 ,he would furthermore be limited to a definite place1 and the same arguments cited above to prove that atoms are dependent on a cause would apply to him4 ,finally we as corporeal beings cannot exert an influence on objects except by coming in contact with them4 ,god causes the seed to grow without being in contact with it4 ,hence he is not body1 and the scriptural passages apparently teaching the contrary must be explained otherwise4 ,jeshua ben ,judah likewise agrees with ,al-,basir in regarding the nature of good and evil as absolute1 not relative4 ,like his master he opposes those who make ,god's command and prohibition the sole creators of good and evil respectively1 as on the other hand he refuses to agree with the view that ,god is bound by necessity to do the good4 ,our reason distinguishes between good and evil as our senses between white and black4 ,among other arguments in favor of the absolute character of right and wrong1 which we have already found in ,al-,basir1 appears the following4 ,if good and evil mean simply that which ,god commands and prohibits respectively1 and the distinction holds only for us but not for ,god1 it follows that ,god may do what we think is evil4 ,if this be so1 we have no ground for believing in the good faith of the prophet--,god might have sent him to deceive us--and the alleged basis of right and wrong is removed4 ,we conclude therefore that good and evil are absolute and are binding upon ,god as well4 ,god can do evil as well as good1 but being omnipotent he can accomplish his purpose just as easily by doing good as by doing evil1 and hence surely prefers to do good4 ,besides1 all evil doing is the result of some need1 but ,god has no needs1 being self-sufficient1 hence he does not do evil4 ,it follows from the above that ,god had a purpose in creating the world4 ,for an act without a purpose is vain and hence bad4 ,this purpose cannot have been egoistic1 since ,god is without need1 being above pleasure and pain4 ,the purpose must therefore have been the well-being of his creatures4 ,,chapter ,v ,,solomon ,,ibn ,,gabirol ,with ,gabirol the scene of ,jewish intellectual activity changes from the east to the west4 ,prior to the middle of the tenth century the centre of ,jewish learning was in ,babylonia4 ,the succession of ,geonim in the ,talmudical schools of ,sura and ,pumbadita1 and particularly the great fame of ,saadia1 made all the other ,jewish communities of the world look to ,babylonia as the spiritual centre4 ,they considered it a privilege to contribute to the support of the great eastern academies and appealed to their spiritual heads in cases of doubt in religious matters4 ,some of this glory was reflected also upon the neighboring countries under ,mohammedan domination1 ,palestine1 ,egypt1 and ,kairuan or northern ,africa to the west of ,egypt4 ,thus all the men1 ,rabbanites as well as ,karaites1 whom we treated so far lived and flourished in the east in one of the four countries mentioned4 ,christian ,europe was intellectually on a low level1 and as far as scientific studies were concerned1 the ,jews under ,christian rule were no better than their temporal rulers4 ,but a new era dawned for ,jewish literature with the accession to power of the ,umayyad caliph ,abd al ,rahman ,,iii1 as head of ,mohammedan ,spain or ,andalusia4 ,he was a liberal man and a patron of learning4 ,hasdai ibn ,shaprut1 a cultured and high-minded ,jew1 was his trusted adviser1 and like his royal patron he protected and encouraged ,jewish learning1 ,talmudical as well as scientific4 ,when ,moses ben ,enoch1 a learned emissary from the ,babylonian ,academy1 was ransomed by the ,jewish community of ,cordova and made the head of a ,talmudical school in that city1 the beginning of the end of ,babylonian ,jewish supremacy was at hand4 ,moses ben ,enoch the ,talmudist1 ,menahem ben ,saruk1 the grammarian and lexicographer1 and ,dunash ben ,labrat1 the poet--all three under the distinguished patronage of ,hasdai ibn ,shaprut--inaugurated the long line of ,spanish ,jewish worthies1 which continued almost five centuries1 constituting the golden era of ,jewish literature and making of ,spain the intellectual centre of all ,jewry4 ,solomon ibn ,gabirol was not merely the first ,jewish philosopher in ,spain1 he was the first ,spanish philosopher1 that is1 he was the first philosophical writer in ,andalusia4 ,ibn ,badja1 the first ,mohammedan philosopher in ,spain1 was born at least a half century after ,gabirol4 ,the birth of ,gabirol is generally placed in #ajba and his death in #ajeh1 though some have put it as late as #ajgj4 ,the fate of ,gabirol in the history of ,jewish literature was a peculiar one4 ,highly celebrated as a synagogal poet in the ,sephardic as well as ,ashkenazic community1 his fame as a great philosopher was early overshadowed by his successors1 and his chief work1 the ,fountain of ,life1 was in the course of time quite forgotten4 ,the ,arabic original was lost and there was no ,hebrew translation4 ,the ,tibbonides1 ,judah1 ,samuel and ,moses1 who translated everything worth while in ,jewish philology1 science and philosophy from ,arabic into ,hebrew1 either did not know of ,gabirol's masterpiece or did not think it important enough to translate4 ,to judge from the extant fragments of the correspondence between ,samuel ibn ,tibbon and ,maimonides1 it would seem that both were true2 that is that ,samuel ibn ,tibbon had no access to ,gabirol's ,fons ,vit1 and that if he had had such access1 ,maimonides would have dissuaded him from translating it4 ,maimonides actually tells his translator#hb that the only books worth studying are those of ,aristotle and his true commentators1 ,alexander of ,aphrodisias1 ,themistius1 ,averroes4 ,alfarabi and ,avicenna are also important1 but other writings1 such as those of ,empedocles1 ,pythagoras1 ,hermes1 ,porphyry1 represent a pre-,aristotelian philosophy which is obsolete1 and are a waste of time4 ,the books of ,isaac ,israeli on the ,elements and on ,definitions1 are no better1 seeing that ,israeli was only a physician and no philosopher4 ,he is not familiar with the ,microcosmus of ,joseph ibn ,zaddik1 but infers from a knowledge of the man that his work is based upon the writings of the ,brothers of ,purity2 and hence1 we may add1 not strictly ,aristotelian1 and not particularly important4 ,not a word is here said about ,gabirol1 apparently because ,samuel ibn ,tibbon had not inquired about him4 ,but from ,maimonides's judgment concerning the works of ,empedocles1 we may legitimately infer that he would have been no more favorable to ,gabirol2 for1 as we shall see1 ,gabirol's system is also based upon a point of view similar to that of the so-called ,empedocles4 ,what the ,tibbonides left undone was1 however1 partially accomplished about a half century later by the commentator and critic ,shem ,tob ,falaquera 7#abbe-abij74 ,apparently in agreement with ,abraham ibn ,daud that ,gabirol's profuseness in his philosophic masterpiece made it possible to reduce it to a tenth part of its size1 ,falaquera did not find it necessary to translate the whole of the ,mekor ,hayim into ,hebrew1 giving us instead a translation of selected parts1 which in his estimation contained the gist of ,gabirol's teaching4 ,the absence of a complete ,hebrew translation of ,gabirol's philosophical work meant of course that no one who did not know ,arabic could have access to ,gabirol's ,mekor ,hayim1 and this practically excluded the majority of learned ,jews after the first half of the thirteenth century4 ,but the selections of ,falaquera did not seem to find many readers either1 as may be inferred from the fact that so far only one single manuscript of this translation is known4 ,en revanche1 as the ,french would say1 the ,christian ,scholastics of the thirteenth century made ,gabirol their own and studied him diligently4 ,his fundamental thesis of a universal matter underlying all existence outside of ,god was made a bone of contention between the two dominant schools2 the ,dominicans1 led by ,thomas ,aquinas1 opposing this un-,aristotelian principle1 the ,franciscans with ,duns ,scotus at their head1 adopting it as their own4 ,ego autem redeo ad sententiam ,avicembronis1 is a formula in ,duns ,scotus's discussion of the principle of matter4#hc ,the translation of ,gabirol's philosophy into an accessible language1 which was not considered desirable by ,jews1 was actually accomplished by ,christians4 ,about a century before ,falaquera a complete translation into ,latin was made in ,toledo of ,gabirol's ,fountain of ,life1 under the title ,fons ,vit4 ,this translation was made at the instance of ,raymond1 ,archbishop of ,toledo in the middle of the twelfth century1 by ,dominicus ,gundissalinus1 archdeacon of ,segovia1 with the assistance of a converted ,jewish physician1 ,ibn ,daud 7,avendehut1 ,avendeath71 whose name after conversion became ,johannes ,hispanus or ,hispalensis4 ,unlike the ,hebrew epitome of ,falaquera this translation was not neglected1 as is clear from the rle ,gabirol's philosophy plays in the disputations of the schools1 and from the fact that there are still extant four manuscripts of the complete translation1 one of an epitome thereof1 and there is evidence that a fifth manuscript existed in #acge in the ,papal library4#hd ,as ,ibn ,sina was corrupted by the ,latin writers into ,avicenna1 and ,ibn ,roshd into ,averroes1 so ,ibn ,gabirol became in turn1 ,avencebrol1 ,avicembron1 ,avicebron2 and the ,scholastics who fought about his philosophy had no idea he was a ,jew and celebrated as a writer of religious hymns used in the synagogue4 ,he was regarded now as a ,mohammedan1 now as a ,christian4 ,this peculiar circumstance will help us to get an inkling of the reason for the neglect of ,gabirol's philosophy in the ,jewish community4 ,it is clear that a work which1 like the ,fons ,vit1 made it possible for its author to be regarded as a ,mohammedan or even a ,christian1 cannot have had the ,jewish imprint very deeply stamped upon its face4 ,nay more1 while the knowledge of its having been translated from the ,arabic may have been sufficient in itself to stamp the author as a ,mohammedan1 there must have been additional indications for his ,scholastic admirers to make them regard him as a ,christian4 ,an examination of the work lends some semblance of truth to these considerations4 ,gabirol nowhere betrays his ,jewishness in the ,fons ,vit4 ,he never quotes a ,biblical verse or a ,talmudic dictum4 ,he does not make any overt attempt to reconcile his philosophical views with religious faith4 ,the treatise is purely speculative as if religious dogma nowhere existed to block one's way or direct one's search4 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 the author of the philosophical treatise ,emunah ,ramah 7,the ,exalted ,faith71 and the predecessor of ,maimonides1 criticises ,gabirol very severely1 and that not merely because he disagrees with him in the conception of matter and finds ,gabirol's reasoning devoid of cogency and logical force--many bad arguments1 he says1 seem in the mind of ,gabirol to be equivalent to one good one--but principally because ,gabirol failed to take a ,jewish attitude in his philosophizing1 and actually1 as ,ibn ,daud tells us1 maintains views dangerous to ,judaism 7below1 p4 #aih74 ,this will easily account for the fact that ,gabirol1 celebrated as he was as a poet1 was lost sight of generally as a philosopher4 ,the matter is made clearer still if we add that his style in the ,mekor ,hayim is against him4 ,it is devoid of all merit whether of literary beauty or of logical conciseness and brevity4 ,it is diffuse to a degree and frequently very wearisome and tedious4 ,one has to wade through pages upon pages of bare syllogisms1 one more flimsy than another4 ,finally1 the point of view of ,gabirol was that of a philosophy that was rapidly becoming obsolete1 and ,maimonides1 the ground having been made ready by ,ibn ,daud1 gave this philosophy its death-blow by substituting for it the philosophy of ,aristotle4 ,we now understand why it is that1 with few exceptions here and there1 ,gabirol's philosophical work was in the course of time forgotten among the ,jews1 though his name ,avicebron as well as some of his chief doctrines were well known to the ,scholastic writers4 ,to be sure1 even students of ,scholastic literature had no direct access to ,gabirol's treatise as it was never printed and no one knew whether there were still any manuscripts of it extant or not4 ,the only sources of information concerning ,avicebron's philosophy were ,aquinas's refutations1 and ,duns ,scotus's defence1 and other second-hand references in the writings of the ,scholastics4 ,who ,avicebron was no one knew4 ,it was not until #ahai that ,amable ,jourdain1#he in tracing the history of the ,latin translations of ,aristotle1 came to the conclusion that more must be known about the philosophy of ,avicebron's ,fons ,vit if we intended to understand the ,scholastics4 ,in #ahde ,solomon ,munk discovered in the national library at ,paris the epitome of ,falaquera mentioned above1 and comparing it with the views of ,avicebron as found in the discussions of the ,scholastics1 made the important discovery that the mysterious ,avicebron was neither a ,mohammedan nor a ,christian but a ,jew1 and none other than the famous poet ,solomon ibn ,gabirol4 ,then began a search for copies of a ,latin translation1 which was rewarded amply4 ,both ,munk and ,seyerlen discovered manuscript copies of the ,fons ,vit1 and now both the ,hebrew epitome of ,falaquera and the ,latin translation of ,gundissalinus are accessible in print4#hf ,so much for the interesting history of ,gabirol4 ,now a word as to his views4 ,shem ,tob ibn ,falaquera1 in the brief introduction which he appends to his epitome of the ,mekor ,hayim says1 ,it seems to me that ,solomon ibn ,gabirol follows in his book the views of the ancient philosophers as we find them in a book composed by ,empedocles concerning the ',five ,substances4'#hg ,this book is based upon the principle that all spiritual substances have a spiritual matter2 that the form comes from above and the matter receives it from below1 i4 e41 that the matter is a substratum and bears the form upon it4 ,he then adds that ,aristotle attributes a similar view to his predecessors1 but that this view is inconsistent with ,aristotle's own thinking4 ,for in his opinion what is material is composite and possessed of potentiality4 ,hence only those things have matter which are subject to generation and decay1 and in general change from one state to another4 ,without going into detail as to the nature of this work of ,empedocles named by ,falaquera as the source of ,gabirol's views--expositions of these so-called ,empedoclean views and fragments from ,empedocles's book have been found in ,arabian and ,hebrew writers#hh--;it is sufficient for us to know that it has nothing to do with the real ,empedocles1 the ancient ,greek philosopher2 that it was another of the many spurious writings which circulated in the middle ages under famous names of antiquity2 and that like the ,theology of ,aristotle1 and the ,liber de ,causis1 mentioned in the ,introduction 7p4 xx71 it was ,neo-,platonic in character4 ,thus ,gabirol was a ,neo-,platonist4 ,this does not mean that he did not adopt many important ,aristotelian conceptions4 ,neo-,platonism itself could not have arisen without ,aristotle4 ,the ideas of matter and form1 and potentiality and actuality1 and the categories1 and so on1 had become the fixed elements of philosophical thinking1 and no new system could do without them4 ,in this sense ,plotinus himself1 the founder of ,neo-,platonism1 is an ,aristotelian4 ,when we speak of ,gabirol as a ,neo-,platonist1 we mean that the essence of his system is ,neo-,platonic4 ,he is not a dualist1 but a monist4 ,god and matter are not opposed as two ultimate principles1 as they are in ,aristotle4 ,matter in ,gabirol is ultimately identified with ,god4 ,in this he goes even beyond ,plotinus4 ,for whereas in ,plotinus matter occupies the lowest scale in the gradation of being as it flows from the ,one or the ,good 7cf4 ,introduction1 p4 xxxviii71 and becomes equivalent to the non-existent1 and is the cause of evil1 in ,gabirol matter is the underlying substance for all being from the highest to the lowest1 with the one exception of the ,creator himself4#hi ,it emanates from the essence of the ,creator1 forming the basis of all subsequent emanations4#ij ,hence the spiritual substances of the celestial world1 or1 to use a more technical and more precise term--since spirit is not located in heaven or anywhere spatially--the intelligible world1 have matter underlying their form4#ia ,in fact1 matter itself is intelligible or spiritual1 not corporeal4#ib ,corporeality and materiality are two different things4 ,there are various gradations of matter1 to be sure2 for the prime matter as it emerges from the essence of the ,creator pervades all existence from highest to lowest1 and the further it extends from its origin the less spiritual and the more corporeal it becomes until in the sublunar world we have in the matters of its particular objects1 corporeal matter1 i4 e41 matter affected with quantity and magnitude and figure and color4#ic ,like ,plotinus1 ,gabirol conceives of the universe as a process of a gradually descending series of existences or worlds1 as the ,kabbalistic writers term them2 these cosmic existences radiating or flowing out of the superabundant light and goodness of the ,creator4 ,the two extremes of this graded universe are ,god at the one end1 and the corporeal world at the other4 ,intermediate between these are the spiritual substances1 ,intelligence1 ,soul and ,nature4#id ,man as a microcosm1 a universe in little1 partakes of both the corporeal and intermediate worlds1 and hence may serve as a model of the constitution of the macrocosm1 or great universe4 ,his body is typical of the corporeal world1 which consists of the lowest matter1 viz41 that which has no other form except that of corporeality1 or extension1 and the forms of figure1 color1 and so on1 borne on top of the extension4#ie ,body as such is at rest and is not capable of action4 ,to act it needs an agent4 ,hence it needs an agency to compose its parts and hold them together4 ,we call this agency ,nature4 ,man's body also grows1 is nourished and propagates its kind as do plants4 ,this likewise must have its non-corporeal cause4 ,this we call vegetative soul4 ,man has also sense perception and local motion like the animals4 ,the principle or substance causing this is the animal soul4 ,man also thinks and reasons and reflects4 ,this is brought about by the rational soul4 ,finally1 man has a still higher function than discursive thought4 ,the latter has to search and to pass from premise to conclusion1 whereas the apprehension of the intelligence takes place without seeking1 without effort1 and without any other cause except its own essence1 because it is full of perfection4 ,in other words1 it is immediate intellectual intuition of which ,gabirol speaks here4 ,the ,intelligence is capable of this because it has in itself1 constituting its essence1 all the forms of existence1 and knowledge means possession of the forms of the things known4 ,as man is typical of the universe1 it follows that there are cosmic existences corresponding to the principles or powers just enumerated in man1 and the relation of the latter to the former is that of the particular to the general4 ,hence there is a cosmic ,intelligence1 a cosmic soul embracing the rational1 the animal and the vegetative parts1 and a cosmic nature4 ,of these the more perfect is the cause of the less perfect2 hence the order in which we named them represents the order of causation or of emanation from the prime source4 ,the lowest of these emanations is the matter which sustains extension or magnitude1 and with it the process ceases4 ,this matter is no longer the source of an additional form of existence4 ,the various qualities and attributes which inhere in this corporeal matter are caused by the spiritual substances above4 ,for like the prototype of all generosity and goodness the ,first ,essence or ,god1 every one of the spiritual substances proceeding from him has the same tendency of imparting its form or forms to the substance next below it4 ,but the forms thus bestowed are no longer the same as they are in the essence of the bestowing substance1 as it depends upon the recipient what sort of form it will receive4 ,an inferior receiving substance will receive a superior form in an inferior way4 ,that is1 the form which in the substance above the one in question is contained in a spiritual and unitary manner1 will be transformed in the substance below it into something less spiritual1 less unified1 and more nearly corporeal1 i4 e41 visible and tangible4 ,hence the visible and tangible1 and in general the sensible qualities of particular things in the sublunar world1 are in reality descended from a line of spiritual ancestors in the forms of the simple substances1 ,intelligence1 ,soul and ,nature4 ,but it is their distance from the prime source1 which increases with every transmission of influence1 together with the cruder nature of the receiving substance1 that makes the resulting forms corporeal and sensible4 ,the matter may be made clear if we use the analogy of light1 which is invisible as long as it is in air because it penetrates it1 but becomes visible when it comes in contact with a gross body which it cannot penetrate4 ,it then remains on the surface condensed1 and becomes visible to the senses4 ,we thus see that the higher substance acts upon the lower and contains all that is found in the latter1 though in a more perfect and simple manner4 ,the lower substances flow from the higher and yet the latter are not diminished in their essence and power4#if ,that ordinary material objects are composed of matter and form is admitted and we need not now prove it1 as we have already discussed the subject in the ,introduction1 where we gave an outline of the ,aristotelian philosophy4 ,the principle peculiar to ,gabirol is that not merely the material objects of the sublunar world1 but that the intelligible or spiritual substances also are composed of matter and form4#ig ,whenever two things have something in common and something in which they differ1 that which they have in common is the matter1 that in which they differ is the form4 ,two things absolutely simple must be prime to each other1 i4 e41 they must have nothing in common1 for if they have anything in common they have everything in common1 and they are no longer two things but one4 ,hence a spiritual substance must be composite1 for it must have something by which it differs from a corporeal substance1 and something1 viz41 substantiality1 which it has in common with it4 ,in the same way the intelligible substances1 ,intelligence and ,soul1 have their substantiality in common1 and they differ in form4 ,hence they are composed of matter and form1 and the matter must be the same in all the intelligible substances2 for their differences are due to their forms1 hence if their matters also differed1 they would have to differ in form1 but matter as such has no form4 ,hence matter in itself is everywhere the same4 ,as the ,intelligence is the highest existence next to ,god1 and is composed of matter and form1 these are respectively the universal matter and universal form1 embracing all subsequent matters and forms4#ih ,hence the ,intelligence in knowing itself knows everything1 as everything is contained in it4 ,and as it is prior to everything and the cause of everything it has an immediate knowledge of all things without effort or searching4 ,but what is the origin of universal matter and universal form which1 in constituting ,intelligence1 are the fundamental principles of all existence8#ii ,the answer is they come from the ,first ,essence1 ,god4 ,unity comes before duality or plurality1 and there is no true unity except in ,god4 ,whatever issues from him is ipso facto1 as a product which is not ,god1 affected with duality4 ,matter and ,form is this duality4 ,their union is necessary and real1 and it is only in thought that we can keep them apart4 ,in reality they form a unit1 their union varying in perfection according as they are nearer or further away from their origin4 ,hence the union is closest in ,intelligence1 the first divine emanation1 and least close in corporeal objects of the sublunar world1 where plurality is the order of the day4 ,this process by which universal matter and form issue from ,god may be called creation4#ajj ,but we must conceive of it on the analogy of water flowing from a fountain in continued and uninterrupted succession4 ,the only difference is that the emanation from ,god takes place without motion and without time4 ,the union of universal form and universal matter must be thought of as a stamping of the form upon the matter4 ,matter has in itself no actual or definable existence4 ,it serves merely as a tabula rasa1 as a potential background1 as an empty receptacle1 as a reflecting mirror for form to be written1 filled out1 impressed or reflected therein or upon4 ,hence we may view ,god as the spectator1 universal matter as the mirror1 and universal form as the reflection of the spectator in the glass4 ,god himself does not enter the glass1 only his reflection is outlined therein4 ,and as matter and form are really the whole world1 it would follow that the universe is a reflection of ,god1 though ,god remains in himself and does not enter the world with his essence4 ,we may also picture to ourselves this impression of form upon matter on the analogy of speech4 ,the speaker's words impress ideas upon the soul of the listener4 ,so ,god speaks and his ,word or ,will impresses form upon matter4 ,the world is created by the ,word or the ,will#aja of ,god4 ,in all these similes matter appears as something external to ,god1 upon which he impresses form4 ,but this is not strictly true1 since matter has no real existence without form1 and has never so existed4 ,the existence of matter and form is simultaneous1 and both come from ,god1 matter from his essence1 form from his attribute1 or his ,wisdom1 or his ,word1 or his ,will4 ,and yet in ,god1 who is a perfect unity1 essence and attribute are one4 ,it is the ,will of ,god1 not ,god himself1 that must be regarded as the spectator1 whose outline is reflected in the mirror of matter in the above simile4 ,it is the ,will of ,god that writes form upon the chart of matter1 and thereby produces a world4 ,it is in virtue of the ,will that ,god is said to be in everything4 ,but what is this will of ,god as distinguished from ,god himself1 since in ,god there can be no duality of any kind8 ,gabirol's answer is not clear or satisfactory4 ,the will1 he says1 is identical with ,god if we consider it apart from its activity2 considered as active it is different from the divine essence4 ,exactly to describe it is impossible1 but the following is an approximation4 ,it is a divine power producing matter and form1 binding them together1 pervading them throughout their extent above and below1 as the soul pervades the body1 and moving and ordering everything4 ,god himself1 or the ,first ,essence1 can be known only through the ,will as pervading everything1 i4 e41 through his effects in the world4 ,and in this way too only his existence can be known but not his essence as he is in himself1 because ,god is above everything and infinite4 ,the soul may know ,intelligence because though the latter is above the soul there is some similarity between them4 ,but the ,first ,essence has no similarity to ,intelligence1 therefore no intelligence can know it4 ,there is a kind of mystic knowledge by which man may come in touch with the spiritual substances and rise even to universal matter1 which is above ,intelligence4 ,if you wish to form a picture of these substances1 the master says to the disciple in the ,fons ,vit1 you must raise your intellect to the last intelligible1 you must purify it from all sordid sensibility1 free it from the captivity of nature and approach with the force of your intelligence to the last limit of intelligible substance that it is possible for you to comprehend1 until you are entirely divorced from sensible substance and lose all knowledge thereof4 ,then you will embrace1 so to speak1 the whole corporeal world in your being1 and will place it in one corner of your soul4 ,when you have done this you will understand the insignificance of the sensible in comparison with the greatness of the intelligible4 ,then the spiritual substances will be before your eyes1 comprehending you and superior to you1 and you will see your own being as though you were those substances4 ,sometimes it will seem to you that you are a part of them by reason of your connection with corporeal substance2 and sometimes you will think you are all of them1 and that there is no difference between you and them1 on account of the union of your being with their being1 and the attachment of your form to their forms4 ,the pupil assures the teacher that he has followed this advice and seen the whole corporeal world floating in the spiritual substances as a small boat in the sea1 or a bird in the air4 ,when you have raised yourself to the first universal matter1 replies the teacher1 and illumined its shadow1 you will see there the wonder of wonders4 ,pursue this therefore diligently and with love1 because this is the purpose of the existence of the human soul1 and in this is great delight and extreme happiness4#ajb ,but ,gabirol does not promise a knowledge of the ,most ,high even through this royal road of ecstasy1 unless we suppose that in the promise of seeing in universal matter the wonder of all wonders there may be a covert allusion to a glimpse of the deepest secret of all1 the essence of ,god4 ,all knowledge is according to ,gabirol embraced in the following three topics1 7#a7 ,matter and ,form1 7#b7 the ,active ,word or ,will1 7#c7 the ,first ,essence or ,god4 ,by far the larger part of the ,fons ,vit is devoted to the first subject4 ,only brief hints are given of the second and third1 and ,gabirol refers us to a special work of his on the ,will1 which he says he wrote4 ,there is no trace of any such treatise4 ,at any rate it is clear from the little that is contained on the ,divine ,will in the ,fons ,vit that the ,will forms an important element in ,gabirol's philosophy4 ,this is the more remarkable because it is not an essential element in ,neo-,platonism1 upon which ,gabirol's system is based4 ,nay1 the doctrine of a divine will scarcely has any place in the form of emanation taught by ,plotinus4 ,the cosmic process is conceived there as necessary and impersonal4 ,and but for the introduction of the ,will in the ,fons ,vit we should be forced to understand ,gabirol in the same way4 ,the difficulty in ,neo-,platonism is that ,god is at the same time transcendent and1 through his powers or emanations1 immanent in the world4 ,god is above all being and at the same time is the cause of and pervades all existence4 ,gabirol must have felt not merely this purely philosophical difficulty1 but as a ,jew1 ,pantheism as well as impersonalism must have been objectionable to him4 ,hence he mitigates both by introducing the divine will as mediating between ,god and the world4 ,this brings ,god in closer and more personal touch with his creation4 ,the cosmic process is not a necessary and impersonal flow or radiation but a voluntary activity having a purpose4 ,the solution is unsatisfactory1 as all such solutions are bound to be1 because it introduces as many difficulties as it solves4 ,the nature of this divine ,will is ambiguous4 ,if it is ,god's will1 and ,god is the ,one in whom there can be no distinctions1 we have only a new word1 and nothing is solved4 ,if on human analogy we are inclined to take the will seriously1 we are endangering ,god's unity4 ,this dilemma ,gabirol does not succeed in removing4 ,his system still has a strong flavor of ,pantheism1 and moreover his identification of the ,will of ,god with the ,wisdom and the ,word of ,god1 and his hypostatization of the latter as in a sense a being distinct from ,god1 reminds us strongly of ,philo's ,logos1 which became the ,logos of ,christianity1 the second person in the ,trinity4 ,this is the reason why ,william of ,auvergne1 bishop of ,paris in the thirteenth century1 regarded ,avicebron as a ,christian4 ,and these same reasons were no doubt adequate to estrange ,jewish readers1 as ,abraham ibn ,daud expressly tells us about himself1 though his terms are general 7see above1 p4 #fb74 ,gabirol is also the author of an ethical work which he composed in #ajde4 ,though of little importance philosophically1 or perhaps because of this1 the ,tikkun ,middot ha-,nefesh 7,improvement of the ,qualities of the ,soul7 fared much better than its more important companion1 the ,mekor ,hayim4 ,not only did it have the privilege of a ,hebrew translation at the hands of the father of translators1 ,judah ibn ,tibbon1 but the original ,arabic itself is still extant and was recently published with an ,english translation by ,stephen ,s4 ,wise 7#aija74ajc ,the ,hebrew translation also had the good fortune of being reprinted several times4 ,this is due to the fact that the ,tikkun ,middot ha-,nefesh is a popular work1 dealing with morals1 and does not go into metaphysical questions4 ,it is full of ,biblical citations1 which stamps it as ,jewish2 and there are also in it quotations from ,arabic writers serving to illustrate the argument and lending variety and interest to the style4 ,the larger question of the aim of human life is touched on in the ,fons ,vit4 ,we are told there that the ultimate aim of man's existence is that the soul should unite with the upper world to which it belongs4#ajd ,the particular human soul is according to ,gabirol a part1 though not in a physical sense1 of the cosmic soul1 which is one of the universal spiritual substances 7see above1 p4 #ff74 ,hence its own real existence is spiritual and eternal1 and independent of the body4 ,its entrance into the body obscures its spiritual vision1 though it does not lose all touch with the higher world from which it came4 ,the senses and the data of sense perception are not an end in themselves2 they are only a means for the soul through them to recall the higher knowledge which was its own in its spiritual existence1 and thereby win its return to the intelligible world4 ,man's duty therefore in this world is to strive to attain this higher life for his soul4 ,this is brought about by means of knowledge and practice4 ,this knowledge has to do with knowing all things as they really are1 and particularly the intelligible substances and the ,prime ,essence4 ,practice signifies to keep away as far as possible from things of sense1 which are foreign to the soul and might injure it4 ,what more particularly the things are which are beneficial to the soul1 and what are injurious1 we learn from ,gabirol's ethical treatise4 ,man's soul has a higher and a lower nature4 ,the higher power is the reason or rational soul1 the lower is the animal or vegetative soul2 and man's business is to see that the reason rules over the lower nature4 ,gabirol does not give us any test by which we can tell whether a given act or feeling belongs to the lower or higher nature except to say that the appetites are diseases of the body which must be cured2 that they do not belong to the rational soul1 and to satisfy them is not the attainment of a good4 ,gabirol's method of treating virtue and vice1 or rather the virtues and the vices1 is to relate them to the five senses and the four humors in man1 which in turn correspond to the four elements1 fire1 air1 water1 earth1 and the four primitive qualities1 hot1 cold1 moist1 dry4 ,this division of the elements1 the humors1 the qualities and the senses was a commonplace of the physiological and medical science of the time4 ,we have met it in ,isaac ,israeli 7see above1 p4 #c71 and it goes back to ,aristotle and ,galen and ,hippocrates4 ,the originality1 though a queer one to be sure1 of ,gabirol is to bring the ethical qualities of man into relation with all these4 ,the approximations are forced in every instance and often ludicrous4 ,instead of attempting to give a psychological analysis of the qualities in question1 he lays stress on their physical basis in one of the five senses1 as we shall see presently4 ,the great world1 we are told1 was created out of the four elements1 and similarly man1 the microcosm1 also consists of four natures corresponding to the elements4 ,thus the four humors1 upon the harmonious combination of which the health of man's body depends1 viz41 blood1 phlegm1 black gall1 and red gall1 correspond respectively to air1 water1 earth1 fire4 ,man is endowed besides with five senses4 ,if he is wise he will use his senses properly and in the right measure1 like a skilful physician who calculates carefully what proportion of each drug should be prescribed4 ,the sense of sight is the noblest of the senses1 and is related to the body as the sun to the world4 ,the philosophers have a wonderful saying concerning the eye that there are spiritual tints in the soul which are visible in the movements of the eyelids--pride and haughtiness1 humility and meekness4 ,accordingly the ethical qualities due to the sense of sight are pride1 meekness1 modesty and impudence1 besides the subordinate qualities derived from these4 ,pride is common in a person of a warm disposition in whom the red gall predominates4 ,many wise men exhibit this quality out of place1 fools adopt it until they are mastered by it1 and it is prevalent in youth4 ,it may be useful when it keeps a man away from vice and unworthy things1 inspiring him to rise to nobility of character and the service of ,god4 ,but generally it is useless and leads to many evils1 especially if it causes one to be self-opinionated1 refusing to seek the advice of anyone4 ,when a man sees this quality gaining mastery over him1 he should consider the origin and end of existing things4 ,when he sees that all things are destined to pass away1 and himself likewise1 his pride will change to humility4 ,meekness is closer to virtue than the quality mentioned before1 because he who possesses it withholds his desire from seeking gratification4 ,it is a quality manifested by the prophets and leads to honor4 ,the fruits of lowliness1 a philosopher has said1 are love and tranquillity4 ,contentment is of a kind with meekness4 ,the greatest riches are contentment and patience4 ,he who esteems his rank but lightly enhances man's estimation of his dignity4 ,a wise man has said1 ,be humble without cringing1 and manly without being arrogant4 ,arrogance is a wilderness and haughtiness a taking refuge therein1 and altogether a going astray4 ,modesty is connected with humility but is superior to it1 for it is a sister of reason1 and reason1 as everybody knows1 is the most important quality1 which separates man from beast and brings him near to the angels4 ,you never see a modest person without sense1 or a person of good sense who is not modest4 ,a man must be modest not only before others but also to himself4 ,modesty and faithfulness1 it is said1 are closely related1 and the one cannot be had truly without the other4 ,the impudent man is disliked by ,god and by man1 even if he be wise and learned4 ,if one has this quality it is the duty of his friend and associate to break him of it by reproving him4 ,it is of value only when used in defence of the ,torah and in behalf of ,god and the truth4 ,space will not permit us to treat in detail of the other senses and the virtues and vices depending upon them1 but we shall indicate briefly ,gabirol's method of relating the ethical qualities to the physical senses4 ,thus the sense of hearing1 which is next in importance to sight has as its qualities hate1 love1 mercy and cruelty4 ,it takes some fine insight1 he says1 to see the connection of these qualities with the sense of hearing1 but the intelligent and discerning reader will find this hint sufficient4 ,i hope he will not blame me1 ,gabirol continues1 if ,i do not bring together all the reasons and the scriptural passages to prove this1 for human flesh is weak1 especially in my case on account of my vexatious experiences and disappointments4 ,we find in the ,bible love associated with hearing3 ,hear1 ,o ,israel 444 and thou shalt love the ,lord thy ,god 7,deut4 #f1 #d74 ,hate follows hearing in the phrase3 ,when ,esau heard the words of his father 444 and ,esau hated ,jacob 7,gen4 #bg1 #cd-da74 ,mercy is related to hearing in ,exod4 7#bb1 #bf71 ,and ,i will hear for ,i am merciful4 ,finally cruelty is to refuse to listen1 as we find in the case of ,pharaoh 7,ex4 #i1 #ab71 ,and the ,lord hardened the heart of ,pharaoh1 and he hearkened not unto them4 ,in a similar manner ,gabirol proves that the sense of smell has four qualities1 anger1 favor1 envy1 wide-awakeness2 the sense of taste1 the four qualities1 joy1 sorrow1 regret1 calmness2 while liberality1 niggardliness1 courage and cowardice are related to the sense of touch4 ,the relation of the ethical qualities to the senses1 humors1 elements and primitive physical qualities is exhibited in the following table1 as it appears in the ,arabic text of the ,aslah al-,ahlak1 the original title of ,gabirol's ethical work4 ,illustration ,among ,gabirol's religious poems there is one which interests us particularly because it bears traces of the philosophy of the ,fons ,vit4 ,it is the most important of his hymns and is found in the prayer-book of the ,sephardic ritual for the ,day of ,atonement4 ,the ,royal ,crown1 as the poem is entitled1 is an appeal to ,god for mercy and forgiveness1 and is based upon the contrast between the greatness of ,god and the insignificance of man4 ,the first part is therefore devoted to a poetical description of ,god's attributes and the wonders of the cosmic system1 as conceived in the astronomical science of the day4 ,a few quotations will give us an idea of the style and character of the hymn and its relation to the ,fons ,vit4 ,thine are the mysteries1 which neither fancy nor imagination can comprehend2 and the life1 over which dissolution hath no power4 ,thine is the ,throne exalted above all height2 and the habitation concealed in the eminence of its recess4 ,thine is the existence1 from the shadow of whose light sprung every existing thing2 of which we said1 under its protecting shadow shall we live4444 ,thou art ,one1 the first of every number1 and the foundation of all structure4 ,thou art ,one1 and in the mystery of the ,unity all the wise in heart are astonished2 for they cannot define it4 ,thou art ,one1 and thy ,unity can neither be lessened nor augmented2 for nothing is there wanting or superfluous4 ,thou art ,one1 but not such a one as is estimated or numbered2 for neither plurality1 nor change1 form1 nor physical attribute1 nor name expressive of thy quality1 can reach thee4444 ,in the same way he treats ,god's other attributes1 existent1 living1 great1 mighty4 ,then he continues3 ,thou art light1 and the eyes of every pure soul shall see thee2 for the clouds of iniquity alone hide thee from her sight4444 ,thou art most high1 and the eye of the intellect desireth and longeth for thee2 but it can only see a part1 it cannot see the whole of thy greatness4444 ,thou art ,god1 who by thy ,divinity supportest all things formed2 and upholdest all creatures by thy ,unity4 ,thou art ,god1 and there is no distinction between thy godhead1 unity1 eternity or existence2 for all is one mystery2 and although each of these attributes is variously named1 yet the whole point to one end4 ,thou art wise1 and wisdom1 which is the fountain of life1 floweth from thee2 and compared with thy wisdom1 the knowledge of all mankind is folly4 ,thou art wise2 and didst exist prior to all the most ancient things2 and wisdom was reared by thee4 ,thou art wise2 and hast not learned aught from another1 nor acquired thy wisdom from anyone else4 ,thou art wise2 and from thy wisdom thou didst cause to emanate a ready will1 an agent and artist as it were1 to draw existence out of non-existence1 as light proceeds from the eye4 ,thou drawest from the source of light without a vessel1 and producest everything without a tool4 ,then follows a description of the constitution of the sublunar world1 the terrestrial sphere consisting of part earth1 part water1 and being surrounded by the successive spheres of air and fire4 ,then follow in order the spheres of the ,moon1 ,mercury1 ,venus1 ,sun1 ,mars1 ,jupiter1 ,saturn1 the spheres of the fixed stars1 and the outermost sphere embracing all and giving to the entire heaven the diurnal motion from east to west4 ,he then continues3 ,who can understand thy tremendous mysteries1 when thou didst exalt above the ninth orb1 the sphere of the ,intelligence2 that is the inner temple2 for the tenth shall be holy to the ,lord4 ,this is the sphere which is exalted above all the highest1 and which no imagination can reach2 and there is the hiding-place1 wherein is the canopy for thy glory4444 ,o ,lord6 who can come near thy understanding1 when thou didst place on high above the sphere of the ,intelligence the ,throne of thy glory1 where is the glorious dwelling of the hiding-place2 there also is the mystery and the foundation 7matter72 so far the intellect may reach and no further2 for above this art thou greatly exalted upon thy mighty throne1 where no man may come up to thee4444 ,who can comprehend thy power1 when thou didst create from the splendor of thy glory a pure lustre8 ,from the rock of rocks was it hewn1 and dug from the hollow of the cave4 ,thou also didst bestow on it the spirit of wisdom1 and didst call it soul4 ,thou didst form it hewn from the flames of intellectual fire1 so that its spirit burneth as fire within it4 ,thou didst send it forth to the body to serve and guard it2 it is as fire in the midst of it1 and yet doth not consume it2 for from the fire of the soul the body was created1 and called into existence from nothing1 because the ,lord descended thereto in fire4 ,here we see the ,intelligence spoken of as standing above the heavenly spheres4 ,this clearly represents the cosmic ,intelligence as a creation of ,god1 which is exalted above all the highest1 hence the first product of ,god's light4 ,and yet the ,throne of ,glory is said to be placed even above the sphere of the ,intelligence4 ,he speaks of it as the mystery and the foundation 7,yesod71 beyond which the intellect cannot reach4 ,this is apparently a contradiction1 but becomes clear when we learn what is meant by the ,throne of ,glory1 and by foundation4 ,in the ,fons ,vit ,gabirol tells us that matter receives form from the ,first ,essence through the medium of the ,will1 which latter therefore1 as it bestows form upon matter1 sits in it and rests upon it4 ,and hence1 he says1 matter is as it were the stool 7cathedra7 of the ,one4 ,the word yesod 7foundation7 which ,gabirol applies in the ,keter ,malkut 7,royal ,crown7 to the ,throne of ,glory is the same that ,falaquera uses for matter throughout in his epitome of the ,mekor ,hayim4 ,hence it is clear that the ,throne of ,glory which is above the ,intelligence is nothing else than ,gabirol's matter4 ,and we know from the ,fons ,vit that matter is really prior to ,intelligence as it exists in the knowledge of ,god1 but that in reality it never was1 as a creation1 without form2 and that with form it constitutes the ,intelligence4 ,finally there is also a reference in the poem to the will as emanating from ,god's wisdom1 and like an agent and artist drawing existence out of non-existence as light proceeds from the eye4 ,the process of creation is thus compared with the radiation of light in the sentence just quoted1 and likewise in the following3 ,thou drawest from the source of light without a vessel1 and producest everything without a tool4 ,we do not know whether ,gabirol wrote any commentaries on the ,bible--none are extant1 nor are there any references to such works--but from his exegetical attempts in his ethical work discussed above 7p4 #ga ff47 and from citations by ,abraham ibn ,ezra of ,gabirol's explanations of certain passages in ,scripture1 we gather that like ,philo of ,alexandria before him and ,maimonides and a host of philosophical commentators after him1 he used the allegorical method to reconcile his philosophical views with the ,bible1 and read the former into the latter4#aje ,thus we are told that ,eden represents the presence of ,god1 the garden planted in ,eden stands for the angelic beings or1 according to another interpretation1 for the world of sense4 ,by the river which flows out of ,eden is meant prime matter which issues from the essence of ,god according to the ,fons ,vit4 ,the four divisions of the river are the four elements2 ,adam is the rational soul1 ,eve1 as the ,hebrew name indicates1 the animal soul1 and the serpent is the vegetative or appetitive soul4 ,the serpent entices ,adam to eat of the forbidden tree4 ,this means that when the lower soul succeeds in controlling the reason1 the result is evil and sin1 and man is driven out of the ,garden1 i4 e41 is excluded from his angelic purity and becomes a corporeal being4 ,it is clear from all this that ,gabirol's omission of all reference to ,jewish dogma in the ,fons ,vit was purely methodological4 ,philosophy1 and religion or theology should be kept apart in a purely philosophical work4 ,apologetics or harmonization has its rights1 but it is a different department of study1 and should be treated by itself1 or in connection with exegesis of the ,bible4 ,while it is true that ,gabirol's influence on subsequent ,jewish philosophy is slight--at most we find it in ,moses and ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 ,abraham ibn ,daud and ,joseph ibn ,zaddik--traces of his ideas are met with in the mysticism of the ,kabbala4 ,gabirol's ,fons ,vit is a peculiar combination of logical formalism with mystic obscurity1 or profundity1 according to one's point of view4 ,the latter did not appeal to pure rationalists like ,ibn ,daud or ,maimonides1 and the former seemed unconvincing1 as it was employed in a lost cause4 ,for ,neo-,platonism was giving way to ,aristotelianism1 which was adopted by ,maimonides and made the authoritative and standard philosophy4 ,it was different with the ,kabbala4 ,those who were responsible for its spread in the thirteenth century must have been attracted by the seemingly esoteric character of a philosophy which sees the invisible in the visible1 the spiritual in the corporeal1 and the reflection of the unknowable ,god in everything4 ,there are certain details also which are common to both1 such as the analogies of irradiation of light or flowing of water used to represent the process of creation1 the position of the ,will1 the existence of matter in spiritual beings1 and so on1 though some of these ideas are common to all ,neo-,platonic systems1 and the ,kabbala may have had access to the same sources as ,gabirol4 ,,chapter ,,vi ,,bahya ,,ibn ,,pakuda ,all that is known of the life of ,bahya ben ,joseph ibn ,pakuda is that he lived in ,spain and had the office of ,dayyan1 or judge of the ,jewish community4 ,not even the exact time in which he lived is yet determined1 though the most reliable recent investigations make it probable that he lived after ,gabirol and was indebted to the latter for some of his views in philosophy as well as in ,ethics4#ajf ,so far as traditional data are concerned we have equally reliable1 or rather equally unreliable statements for regarding ,bahya as an older contemporary of ,gabirol 7eleventh century71 or of ,abraham ibn ,ezra 7#ajhh-aafg74 ,neither of these two data being vouched for by any but their respective authors1 who lived a long time after ,bahya1 we are left to such indirect evidence as may be gathered from the content of ,bahya's ethical work1 the ,duties of the ,hearts4 ,and here the recent investigations of ,yahuda1 the latest authority on this subject and the editor of the ,arabic text of ,bahya's masterpiece 7#aiab71 force upon us the conclusion that ,bahya wrote after ,gabirol4 ,yahuda has shown that many passages in the ,duties of the ,hearts are practically identical in content and expression with similar ideas found in a work of the ,arab philosopher ,gazali 7#ajei-aaaa74 ,this leaves very little doubt that ,bahya borrowed from ,gazali and hence could not have written before the twelfth century4 ,to be sure1 there are arguments on the other side1 which would give chronological priority to ,bahya over ,gabirol1#ajg but without going into the details of this minute and difficult discussion1 it may be said generally that many of the similarities in thought and expression between the two ethical works of ,gabirol and ,bahya rather point in favor of the view here adopted1 namely1 that ,bahya borrowed from ,gabirol1 while the rest prove nothing for either side4 ,in so far as a reader of the ,duties of the ,hearts recognizes here and there an idea met with in ,gabirol's ,fons ,vit1 there can scarcely be any doubt that the latter is the more original of the two4 ,gabirol did not borrow his philosophy or any part thereof from ,bahya4 ,despite its ,neo-,platonic character the ,fons ,vit of ,gabirol is the most independent and original of ,jewish medival productions4 ,the ,duties of the ,hearts owes what originality it has to its ethics1 which is the chief aim of the work1 and not at all to the introductory philosophical chapter4 ,as we shall see later1 the entire chapter on the existence and unity of ,god1 which introduces the ethical teachings of ,bahya1 moves in the familiar lines of ,saadia1 ,al ,mukammas1 ,joseph al ,basir and the other ,jewish ,mutakallimun4 ,there is besides a touch of ,neo-,platonism in ,bahya1 which may be due to ,gabirol as well as to ,arabic sources4 ,that ,bahya did not borrow more from the ,fons ,vit than he did is due no doubt to the difference in temperament between the two men4 ,bahya is not a mystic4 ,filled as he is with the spirit of piety and warmth of heart--an attitude reflected in his style1 which helped to make his work the most popular moral-religious book in ,jewish literature--there is no trace of pantheism or metaphysical mysticism in his nature4 ,his ideas are sane and rational1 and their expression clear and transparent4 ,gabirol's high flights in the ,fons ,vit have little in common with ,bahya's modest and brief outline of the familiar doctrines of the existence1 unity and attributes of ,god1 for which he claims no originality1 and which serve merely as the background for his contribution to religious ethics4 ,that ,bahya should have taken a few leading notions from the ,fons ,vit1 such as did not antagonize his temperament and mode of thinking1 is quite possible1 and we shall best explain such resemblances in this manner4 ,as ,abraham ibn ,ezra in #aaef makes mention of ,bahya and his views1#ajh we are safe in concluding that the ,duties of the ,hearts was written between #aajj and #aaef4 ,as the title of the work indicates1 ,bahya saw the great significance of a distinction made by ,mohammedan theologians and familiar in their ascetic literature1 between outward ceremonial or observance1 known as visible wisdom and duties of the limbs1 and inward intention1 attitude and feeling1 called hidden wisdom and duties of the hearts4#aji ,the prophet ,isaiah complains that the people are diligent in bringing sacrifices1 celebrating the festivals and offering prayer while their hands are full of blood4 ,he informs them that such conduct is an abomination to the ,lord1 and admonishes them to wash themselves1 to make themselves clean1 to put away the evil of their deeds from before ,god's eyes2 to cease to do evil2 to learn to do well1 to seek for justice1 to relieve the oppressed1 to do justice to the fatherless1 to plead for the widow 7,isa4 #a1 #aa-ag74 ,this is a distinction between duties to ,god and duties to one's fellow man1 between religious ceremony and ethical practice4 ,saadia makes a further distinction--also found in ,arabic theology before him--between those commandments and prohibitions in the ,bible which the reason itself approves as right or condemns as wrong--the rational commandments--and those which to the reason seem indifferent1 and which revelation alone characterizes as obligatory1 permitted or forbidden--the so-called traditional commandments4 ,bahya's division is identical with neither the one nor the other4 ,ethical practice may be purely external and a matter of the limbs1 quite as much as sacrifice and ceremonial ritual4 ,on the other hand1 one may feel profoundly moved with the spirit of true piety1 love of ,god and loyalty to his commandments in the performance of a so-called traditional commandment1 like the fastening of a mezuzah to the door-post4 ,bahya finds room for ,saadia's classification but it is with him of subordinate importance1 and is applicable only to the duties of the limbs4 ,among these alone are there some which the reason unaided by revelation would not have prescribed4 ,the duties of the heart are all rational4 ,like all precepts they are both positive and negative4 ,examples of positive duties of the heart are1 belief in a creator who made the world out of nothing2 belief in his unity and incomparability2 the duty to serve him with all our heart1 to trust in him1 to submit to him1 to fear him1 to feel that he is watching our open and secret actions1 to long for his favor and direct our actions for his name's sake2 to love those who love him so as to be near unto him1 and to hate those who hate him4 ,negative precepts of this class are the opposites of those mentioned1 and others besides1 such as that we should not covet1 or bear a grudge1 or think of forbidden things1 or desire them or consent to do them4 ,the common characteristic of all duties of the heart is that they are not visible to others4 ,god alone can judge whether a person's feeling and motives are pure or the reverse4 ,that these duties are incumbent upon us is clear from every point of view4 ,like ,saadia ,bahya finds the sources of knowledge1 particularly of the knowledge of ,god's law and religion1 in sense1 reason1 written law and tradition4 ,leaving out the senses which are not competent in this particular case1 the obligatory character of the duties of the heart is vouched for by the other three1 reason1 law1 tradition4 ,from reason we know that man is composed of soul and body1 and that both are due to ,god's goodness4 ,one is visible1 the other is not4 ,hence we are obliged to worship ,god in a two-fold manner2 with visible worship and invisible4 ,visible worship represents the duties of the limbs1 such as prayer1 fasting1 charity1 and so on1 which are carried out by the visible organs4 ,the hidden worship includes the duties of the heart1 for example1 to think of ,god's unity1 to believe in him and his ,law1 to accept his worship1 etc41 all of which are accomplished by the thought of the mind1 without the assistance of the visible limbs4 ,besides1 the duties of the limbs1 the obligation of which no one doubts1 are incomplete without the will of the heart to do them4 ,hence it follows that there is a duty upon our souls to worship ,god to the extent of our powers4 ,the ,bible is just as emphatic in teaching these duties as the reason4 ,the love of ,god and the fear of ,god are constantly inculcated2 and in the sphere of negative precepts we have such prohibitions as1 ,thou shalt not covet 7,exod4 #bj1 #ag72 ,thou shalt not take vengeance1 nor bear any grudge 7,lev4 #ai1 #ah72 ,thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart 7ib4 #ag72 ,you shalt not go astray after your own heart 7,num4 #ae1 #ci72 ,thou shalt not harden thy heart nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother 7,deut4 #ae1 #g71 and many others4 ,rabbinical literature is just as full of such precepts as the ,bible1 and is if possible even more emphatic in their inculcation4 ,witness such sayings as the following3 ,heaven regards the intention 7,sanh4 #ajf;b73 ,the heart and the eye are two procurers of sin 7,jer4 ,berak4 #a71 and many others1 particularly in the treatise ,abot4 ,the great importance of these duties is also made manifest by the fact that the punishment in the ,bible for unintentional misdeeds is more lenient than for intentional1 proving that for punishment the mind must share with the body in the performance of the deed4 ,the same is true of reward1 that none is received for performing a good deed if it is not done in the name of heaven4 ,they are even more important than the duties of the limbs1 for unlike the latter the obligation of the duties of the heart is always in force1 and is independent of periods or circumstances4 ,their number1 too1 is infinite1 and not limited1 as are the duties of the limbs1 to six hundred and thirteen4 ,and yet1 ,bahya complains1 despite the great importance of these duties1 very few are the men who observed them even in the generations preceding ours1 not to speak of our own days when even the external ceremonies are neglected1 much more so the class of precepts under discussion4 ,the majority of students of the ,torah are actuated by desire for fame and honor1 and devote their time to the intricacies of legalistic discussion in ,rabbinic literature1 and matters unessential1 which are of no account in the improvement of the soul2 but they neglect such important subjects of study as the unity of ,god1 which we ought to understand and distinguish from other unities1 and not merely receive parrot fashion from tradition4 ,we are expressly commanded 7,deut4 #d1 #ci71 ,know therefore this day1 and reflect in thy heart1 that the ,eternal is the ,god in the heavens above1 and upon the earth beneath3 there is none else4 ,only he is exempt from studying these matters whose powers are not adequate to grasp them1 such as women1 children and simpletons4 ,moreover ,bahya is the first1 he tells us1 among the post-,talmudical writers1 to treat systematically and ex professo this branch of our religious duties4 ,when ,i looked1 he says1 into the works composed by the early writers after the ,talmud on the commandments1 ,i found that their writings can be classified under three heads4 ,first1 exposition of the ,torah and the ,prophets1 like the grammatical and lexicographical treatises of ,ibn ,janah1 or the exegetical works of ,saadia4 ,second1 brief compilations of precepts1 like the works of ,hefez ben ,yazliah and the responsa of some geonim4 ,third1 works of a philosophico-apologetic character1 like those of ,saadia1 ,al ,mukammas and others1 whose purpose it was to present in an acceptable manner the doctrines of the ,torah1 to prove them by logical demonstration1 and to refute the criticisms and erroneous views of unbelievers4 ,but ,i have not seen any book dealing with the hidden wisdom4#aaj ,here we see clearly the purpose of ,bahya4 ,it is not the rationalization of ,jewish dogma that he is interested in1 nor the reconciliation of religion and philosophy4 ,it is the purification of religion itself from within which he seeks to accomplish4 ,sincerity and consistency in our words and our thoughts1 so far as the service of ,god is concerned1 is the fundamental requirement and essential value of the duties of the heart4 ,to be sure this cannot be attained without intelligence4 ,the knowledge of ,god and of his unity is a prerequisite for a proper understanding and an adequate appreciation of our religious duties4 ,philosophy therefore becomes a necessity in the interest of a purer and truer religion1 without reference to the dangers threatening it from without4 ,having found1 he continues in the introduction to the ,duties of the ,hearts1 that all the three sources1 reason1 ,bible and tradition1 command this branch of our religious duties1 ,i tried to think about them and to learn them1 being led from one topic to another until the subject became so large that ,i feared ,i could not contain it all in my memory4 ,i then determined to write the subject down systematically in a book for my own benefit as well as for the benefit of others4 ,but ,i hesitated about writing it on account of my limitations1 the difficulty of the subject and my limited knowledge of ,arabic1 the language in which ,i intended writing it because the majority of our people are best familiar with it4 ,but ,i thought better of it and realized that it was my duty to do what ,i could even if it was not perfect2 that ,i must not yield to the argument springing from a love of ease and disinclination to effort2 for if everyone were to abstain from doing a small good because he cannot do as much as he would like1 nothing would ever be done at all4 ,having decided to compose the work1 he continues1 ,i divided the subject into ten fundamental principles1 and devoted a section of the book to each principle4 ,i endeavored to write in a plain and easy style1 omitting difficult expressions1 technical terms and demonstrations in the manner of the dialecticians4 ,i had to make an exception in the first section dealing with the existence and unity of ,god1 where the sublet of the subject required the employment of logical and mathematical proofs4 ,for the rest ,i made use of comparisons or similes1 adduced support from the ,bible and tradition1 and also quoted the sages of other nations4#aaa ,we have already seen in the introduction that ,bahya was indebted for his ideas to the ascetic and ,sufic literature of the ,arabs1 and ,yahuda1 who is the authority in this matter of ,bahya's sources1 has shown recently that among the quotations of the wise men of other nations in ,bahya's work are such as are attributed by the ,arabs to ,jesus and the gospels1 to ,mohammed and his companions1 to the early caliphs1 in particular the caliph ,ali1 to ,mohammedan ascetics and ,sufis4#aab ,in selecting the ten general and inclusive principles1 ,bahya lays down as the first and most fundamental the doctrine of the deity1 or as it is called in the works of the ,kalam1 the ,unity4 ,as ,god is a true unity1 being neither substance nor accident1 and our thought cannot grasp anything except substance or accident1 it follows that we cannot know ,god as he is in himself1 and that we can get a conception of him and of his existence from his creatures only4 ,the second section is therefore devoted to an examination of creation4 ,then follow in order sections treating of the service of ,god1 trust in ,god1 action for the sake of ,god alone1 submission to ,god1 repentance1 self-examination1 separation from the pleasures of the world1 love of ,god4 ,in his discussion of the unity of ,god1 ,bahya follows the same method as ,saadia1 and the ,kalam generally1 i4 e41 he first proves that the world must have been created2 hence there must be a creator1 and this is followed by a demonstration of ,god's unity4 ,the particular arguments1 too1 are for the most part the same1 as we shall see1 though differently expressed and in a different order4 ,the important addition in ,bahya is his distinction between ,god's unity and other unities1 which is not found so strictly formulated in any of his predecessors1 and goes back to ,pseudo-,pythagorean sources in ,arabian literature of ,neo-,platonic origin4 ,in order to prove that there is a creator who created the world out of nothing we assume three principles4 ,first1 nothing can make itself4 ,second1 principles are finite in number1 hence there must be a first before which there is no other4 ,third1 every composite is new1 i4 e41 came to be in time1 and did not exist from eternity4 ,making use of these principles1 which will be proved later1 we proceed as follows3 ,the world is composite in all its parts4 ,sky1 earth1 stars and man form a sort of house which the latter manages4 ,plants and animals are composed of the four elements1 fire1 air1 water1 earth4 ,the elements again are composed of matter and form1 or substance and accident4 ,their matter is the primitive hyle1 and their form is the primitive form1 which is the root of all forms1 essential as well as accidental4 ,it is clear therefore that the world is composite1 and hence1 according to the third principle1 had its origin in time4 ,as1 according to the first principle1 a thing cannot make itself1 it must have been made by some one4 ,but as1 in accordance with the second principle1 the number of causes cannot be infinite1 we must finally reach a first cause of the world before which there is no other1 and this first made the world out of nothing4 ,before criticising this proof1 from which ,bahya infers more than is legitimate1 we must prove the three original assumptions4 ,the proof of the first principle that a thing cannot make itself is identical in ,bahya with the second of the three demonstrations employed by ,saadia for the same purpose4 ,it is that the thing must either have made itself before it existed or after it existed4 ,but both are impossible4 ,before it existed it was not there to make itself2 after it existed there was no longer anything to make4 ,hence the first proposition is proved that a thing cannot make itself4 ,the proof of the second proposition that the number of causes cannot be infinite is also based upon the same principle as the fourth proof in ,saadia for the creation of the world4 ,the principle is this4 ,whatever has no limit in the direction of the past1 i4 e41 had no beginning1 but is eternal a parte ante1 cannot have any stopping point anywhere else4 ,in other words1 we as the spectators could not point to any definite spot or link in this eternally infinite chain1 because the chain must have traversed infinite time to reach us1 but the infinite can never be traversed4 ,since1 however1 as a matter of fact we can and do direct our attention to parts of the changing world1 this shows that the world must have had a beginning4 ,a second proof of the same principle is not found in ,saadia4 ,it is as follows3 ,if we imagine an actual infinite and take away a part1 the remainder is less than before4 ,now if this remainder is still infinite1 we have one infinite larger than another1 which is impossible4 ,if we say the remainder is finite1 then by adding to it the finite part which was taken away1 the result must be finite2 but this is contrary to hypothesis1 for we assumed it infinite at the start4 ,hence it follows that the infinite cannot have a part4 ,but we can separate in thought out of all the generations of men from the beginning those that lived between the time of ,noah and that of ,moses4 ,this will be a finite number and a part of all the men in the world4 ,hence1 as the infinite can have no part1 this shows that the whole number of men is finite1 and hence that the world had a beginning4 ,this proof is not in ,saadia1 but we learn from ,maimonides 7,guide of the ,perplexed1 ,i1 ch4 #ge7 that it was one of the proofs used by the ,mutakallimun to prove the absurdity of the belief in the eternity of the world4 ,the third principle is that the composite is new4 ,this is proved simply by pointing out that the elements forming the composite are prior to it by nature1 and hence the latter cannot be eternal1 for nothing is prior to the eternal4 ,this principle also is found in ,saadia as the second of the four proofs in favor of creation4#aac ,we have now justified our assumptions and hence have proved--what8 ,clearly we have only proved that this composite world cannot have existed as such from eternity2 but that it must have been composed of its elements at some point in time past1 and that hence there must be a cause or agency which did the composing4 ,but there is nothing in the principles or in the demonstration based upon them which gives us a right to go back of the composite world and say of the elements1 the simple elements at the basis of all composition1 viz41 matter and form1 that they too must have come to be in time1 and hence were created out of nothing4 ,it is only the composite that argues an act of composition and elements preceding in time and by nature the object composed of them4 ,the simple needs not to be made1 hence the question of its having made itself does not arise4 ,it was not made at all1 we may say1 it just existed from eternity4 ,the only way to solve this difficulty from ,bahya's premises is by saying that if we suppose matter 7or matter and form as separate entities7 to have existed from eternity1 we are liable to the difficulty involved in the idea of anything having traversed infinite time and reached us2 though it is doubtful whether unformed matter would lend itself to the experiment of abstracting a part as in generations of men4 ,be this as it may1 it is interesting to know that ,saadia having arrived as far as ,bahya in his argument was not yet satisfied that he proved creation ex nihilo1 and added special arguments for this purpose4 ,before proceeding to prove the unity of ,god1 ,bahya takes occasion to dismiss briefly a notion which scarcely deserves consideration in his eyes4 ,that the world could have come by accident1 he says1 is too absurd to speak of1 in view of the evidence of harmony and plan and wisdom which we see in nature4 ,as well imagine ink spilled by accident forming itself into a written book4#aad ,saadia also discusses this view as the ninth of the twelve theories of creation treated by him1 and refutes it more elaborately than ,bahya1 whose one argument is the last of ,saadia's eight4 ,in the treatment of creation ,saadia is decidedly richer and more comprehensive in discussion1 review and argumentation4 ,this was to be expected since such problems are the prime purpose of the ,emunot ve-,deot1 whereas they are only preparatory1 though none the less fundamental1 in the ,hobot ha-,lebabot1 and ,bahya must have felt that the subject had been adequately treated by his distinguished predecessor4 ,it is the more surprising therefore to find that in the treatment of the unity of ,god ,bahya is more elaborate1 and offers a greater variety of arguments for unity as such4 ,moreover1 as has already been said before1 he takes greater care than anyone before him to guard against the identification of ,god's unity with any of the unities1 theoretical or actual1 in our experience4 ,there is no doubt that this emphasis is due to ,neo-,platonic influence1 some of which may have come to ,bahya from ,gabirol1 the rest probably from their common sources4 ,we see1 ,bahya begins his discussion of the unity of ,god1 that the causes are fewer than their effects1 the causes of the causes still fewer1 and so on1 until when we reach the top there is only one4 ,thus1 the number of individuals is infinite1 the number of species is finite2 the number of genera is less than the number of species1 until we get to the highest genera1 which according to ,aristotle are ten 7the ten categories74 ,again1 the causes of the individuals under the categories are five1 motion and the four elements4 ,the causes of the elements are two1 matter and form4 ,the cause of these must therefore be one1 the will of ,god4 7,the will of ,god as immediately preceding universal matter and form sounds like a reminiscence of the ,fons ,vit47 ,god's unity is moreover seen in the unity of plan and wisdom that is evident in the world4 ,everything is related to1 connected with and dependent upon everything else1 showing that there is a unitary principle at the basis4 ,if anyone maintains that there is more than one ,god1 the burden of proof lies upon him4 ,our observation of the world has shown us that there is a ,god who made it2 hence one1 since we cannot conceive of less than one2 but why more than one1 unless there are special reasons to prove it8 ,euclid defines unity as that in virtue of which we call a thing one4 ,this means to signify that unity precedes the unitary thing by nature1 just as heat precedes the hot object4 ,plurality is the sum of ones1 hence plurality cannot be prior to unity1 from which it proceeds4 ,hence whatever plurality we find in our minds we know that unity precedes it2 and even if it occurs to anyone that there is more than one creator1 unity must after all precede them all4 ,hence ,god is one4 ,this argument is strictly ,neo-,platonic and is based upon the idealism of ,plato1 the notion that whatever reality or attributes particular things in our world of sense possess they owe to the real and eternal types of these realities and attributes in a higher and intelligible 7using the term in contradistinction to sensible7 world in which they participate4 ,in so far as this conception is applied to the essences of things1 it leads to the hypostatization of the class concepts or universals4 ,not the particular individual whom we perceive is the real man1 but the typical man1 the ideal man as the mind conceives him4 ,he is not a concept but a real existent in the intelligible world4 ,if we apply it also to qualities of things1 we hypostatize the abstract quality4 ,heat becomes really distinct from the hot object1 existence from the existent thing1 goodness from the good person1 unity from the one object4 ,and a thing is existent and one and good1 because it participates in ,existence1 ,unity and ,goodness4 ,these are real entities1 intelligible and not sensible1 and they give to our world what reality it possesses4 ,plotinus improved upon ,plato1 and instead of leaving these ,ideas as distinct and ultimate entities1 he adopted the suggestion of ,philo and gathered up all these intelligible existences in the lap of the universal ,reason1 as his ideas or thoughts4 ,this universal ,reason is in ,philo the ,logos1 whose mode of existence is still ambiguous1 and is rather to be understood as the divine mind4 ,in ,plotinus it is the first stage in the unfoldment of the ,godhead1 and is a distinct hypostasis1 though not a person4 ,in ,christianity it is the second person in the ,trinity1 incarnated in ,jesus4 ,in ,israeli1 ,gabirol and the other ,jewish ,neo-,platonists1 it occupies the same place as the ,nous in ,plotinus4 ,in ,bahya1 whose taint of ,neo-,platonism is not even skin deep1 there is no universal ,reason spoken of4 ,but we do not really know what his ideas may have been on the subject1 as he does not develop them in this direction4 ,to return to ,bahya's arguments in favor of the unity of ,god1 we proceed to show that dualism would lead to absurd conclusions4 ,thus if there is more than one creator1 they are either of the same substance or they are not4 ,if they are1 then the common substance is the real creator1 and we have unity once more4 ,if their substances are different1 they are distinct1 hence limited1 finite1 composite1 and hence not eternal1 which is absurd4 ,besides1 plurality is an attribute of substance1 and belongs to the category of quantity4 ,but the creator is neither substance nor accident 7attribute71 hence plurality cannot pertain to him4 ,but if he cannot be described as multiple1 he must be one4 ,if the creator is more than one1 it follows that either each one of them could create the world alone1 or he could not except with the help of the other4 ,if we adopt the first alternative1 there is no need of more than one creator4 ,if we adopt the second1 it follows that the creator is limited in his power1 hence1 as above1 composite1 and not eternal1 which is impossible4 ,besides1 if there were more than one creator1 it is possible that a dispute might arise between them in reference to the creation4 ,but all this time no such thing has happened1 nature being always the same4 ,hence ,god is one4 ,aristotle also agrees with us1 for he applies in this connection the ,homeric expression1 ,it is not good to have many rulers1 let the ruler be one 7,iliad1 ,,ii1 #bjd2 ,arist41 ,metaphysics1 ,,xii1 ch4 #aj1 p4 #ajgf;a #d74aae ,so far as ,bahya proves the unity of ,god he does not go beyond ,saadia1 some of whose arguments are reproduced by him1 and one or two of a ,neo-,platonic character added besides4 ,but there is a decided advance in the analysis which follows1 in which ,bahya shows that there are various kinds of unity in our experience1 and that the unity of ,god is unique4 ,we apply the term one to a class1 a genus1 a species1 or an individual4 ,in all of these the multiplicity of parts is visible4 ,the genus animal contains many animals2 the species man embraces a great many individual men2 and the individual man consists of many parts and organs and faculties4 ,things of this sort are one in a sense and many in a sense4 ,we also apply the term one to an object in which the multiplicity of parts is not as readily visible as in the previous case4 ,take for example a body of water which is homogeneous throughout and one part is like another4 ,this too is in reality composed of parts1 matter and form1 substance and accident4 ,it is in virtue of this composition that it is subject to genesis and decay1 composition and division1 union and separation1 motion and change4 ,but all this implies plurality4 ,hence in both the above cases the unity is not essential but accidental4 ,it is because of a certain appearance or similarity that we call a thing or a class one1 which is in reality many4 ,another application of the term one is when we designate by it the basis of number1 the numerical one4 ,this is a true one1 essential as distinguished from the accidental referred to above4 ,but it is mental and not actual4 ,it is a symbol of a beginning which has no other before it4 ,finally there is the real and actual one4 ,this is something that does not change or multiply2 that cannot be described by any material attribute1 that is not subject to generation and decay2 that does not move and is not similar to anything4 ,it is one in all respects and the cause of multiplicity4 ,it has no beginning or end1 for that which has is subject to change1 and change is opposed to unity1 the thing being different before and after the change4 ,for the same reason the real one does not resemble anything1 for resemblance is an accident in the resembling thing1 and to be possessed of accidents is to be multiple4 ,hence the true one resembles nothing4 ,its oneness is no accident in it1 for it is a purely negative term in this application4 ,it means not multiple4#aaf ,we have now shown that there is a creator who is one1 and on the other hand we have analyzed the various meanings of the term one1 the last of which is the most real and the purest4 ,it remains now to show that this pure one is identical with the one creator4 ,this can be proved in the following way4 ,the world being everywhere composite contains the one as well as the many--unity of composition1 plurality of the parts composed4 ,as unity is prior by nature to plurality1 and causes do not run on to infinity 7see above1 p4 #hg71 the causes of the world's unity and multiplicity cannot be again unity and multiplicity of the same kind forever4 ,hence as multiplicity cannot be the first1 it must be unity--the absolute and true unity before which there is no other1 and in which there is no manner of multiplicity4 ,but ,god is the one cause of the universe1 as we have shown1 hence ,god and this true unity are the same4 ,we can show this also in another way4 ,whatever is an accidental attribute in one thing is an essential element in some other thing4 ,thus heat is an accidental attribute in hot water4 ,for water may lose its heat and remain water as before4 ,it is different with fire4 ,fire cannot lose its heat without ceasing to be fire4 ,hence heat in fire is an essential element2 and it is from fire that hot water and all other hot things receive their heat4 ,the same thing applies to the attribute of unity4 ,it is accidental in all creatures4 ,they are called one because they combine a number of elements in one group or concept4 ,but they are really multiple since they are liable to change and division and motion1 and so on4 ,hence there must be something in which unity is essential1 and which is the cause of whatsoever unity all other things possess4 ,but ,god is the cause of the universe1 hence he is this true and absolute unity1 and all change and accident and multiplicity are foreign to him4#aag ,this unity of ,god is not in any way derogated from by the ascription to him of attributes4 ,for the latter are of two kinds1 essential and active4 ,we call the first essential because they are permanent attributes of ,god1 which he had before creation and will continue to have when the world has ceased to be4 ,these attributes are three in number1 ,existing1 ,one1 ,eternal4 ,we have already proved every one of them4 ,now these attributes do not imply change in the essence of ,god4 ,they are to be understood in the sense of denying their opposites1 i4 e41 that he is not multiple1 non-existent or newly come into being4 ,they also imply each other as can easily be shown1 i4 e41 every one of the three implies the other two4 ,we must understand therefore that they are really one in idea1 and if we could find one term to express the thought fully1 we should not use three4 ,but the three do not imply multiplicity in ,god4 ,the active are those attributes which are ascribed to ,god by reason of his actions or effects on us4 ,we are permitted to apply them to him because of the necessity which compels us to get to know of his existence so that we may worship him4 ,the ,biblical writers use them very frequently4 ,we may divide these into two kinds3 ,first1 those which ascribe to ,god a corporeal form1 such as 7,gen4 #a1 #bg71 ,and ,god created man in his image1 and others of the same character4 ,second1 those attributes which refer to corporeal movements and actions4 ,these have been so interpreted by our ancient sages as to remove the corporeality from ,god by substituting the ,glory of ,god for ,god as the subject of the movement or act in question4 ,thus1 7,gen4 #bh1 #ac7 ,and behold the ,lord stood above it1 is rendered by the ,aramaic translator1 and behold the glory of ,god was present above it4 ,saadia deals with this matter at length in his ,emunot ve-,deot1 in his commentary on ,genesis1 and on the book ,yezirah4 ,so there is no need of going into detail here4 ,we are all agreed that necessity compels us to speak of ,god in corporeal terms so that all may be made to know of ,god's existence4 ,this they could not do if the prophets had spoken in metaphysical terms1 for not everyone can follow such profound matters4 ,but having come to the knowledge of ,god in this simpler though imperfect way1 we can then advance to a more perfect knowledge of him4 ,the intelligent and philosophical reader will lose nothing by the anthropomorphic form of the ,bible1 for he can remove the husk and penetrate to the kernel4 ,but the simple reader would miss a very great deal indeed if the ,bible were written in the language of philosophy1 as he would not understand it and would remain without a knowledge of ,god4 ,despite its predominant anthropomorphism1 however1 the ,bible does give us hints of ,god's spirituality so that the thoughtful reader may also have food for his thought4 ,for example1 such expressions as 7,deut4 #d1 #ae71 ,take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves2 for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the ,lord spake unto you in ,horeb out of the midst of the fire1 and many others are meant to spur on the discriminating reader to further thought4 ,the same applies to all those passages in which the word name is inserted before the word ,god as the object of praise to indicate that we do not know ,god in his essence4 ,an example of this is1 ,and they shall bless the name of thy glory 7,neh4 #i1 #e74 ,for the same reason the name of ,god is joined in the ,bible to heaven1 earth1 the ,patriarchs1 in such phrases as the ,god of the heavens1 the ,god of ,abraham1 and so on1 to show that we do not know ,god's essence but only his revelation in nature and in history4 ,this is the reason why after saying to ,moses1 ,i am sent me unto you 7,ex4 #c1 #ad71 he adds 7ib4 #ae71 tell them1 the ,god of your fathers1 the ,god of ,abraham1 the ,god of ,isaac and the ,god of ,jacob sent me unto you4 ,the meaning is1 if they cannot understand ,god with their reason1 let them know me from history and tradition4#aah ,in ,bahya's treatment of the divine attributes we already have in brief the main elements which ,maimonides almost a century later made classic1 namely1 the distinction between essential and active attributes1 and the idea that the former are to be understood as denying their opposites1 i4 e41 as being in their nature not positive but negative4 ,the outcome therefore is that only two kinds of attributes are applicable to ,god1 negative and those which are transferred or projected from the effects of ,god's activity as they are visible in nature4 ,saadia had already made the distinction between essential and active attributes1 but it was quite incidental with him1 and not laid down at the basis of his discussion1 but casually referred to in a different connection4 ,al ,mukammas speaks of negative attributes as being more applicable to ,god than positive1 as ,philo had already said long before4 ,but the combination of these two1 negative and active1 as the only kinds of divine attributes is not found in ,jewish literature before ,bahya4 ,it is worth noting also that ,bahya does not lay down the three attributes1 ,power1 ,wisdom and ,life as fundamental or essential in the manner of the ,christians1 the ,arab ,mutakallimun1 and the ,jewish ,saadia4 ,bahya1 as we have seen1 regards as ,god's essential attributes1 existence1 unity1 eternity4 ,herein1 too1 he seems to anticipate ,maimonides who insists against the believers in essential attributes that the attributes1 living1 omnipotent1 omniscient1 having a will1 are no more essential than any other1 but like the rest of the qualities ascribed to ,god have reference to his activity in nature4#aai ,we have now gone through ,bahya's philosophical chapter giving us the metaphysical basis of his ethico-religious views4 ,that his purpose is practical and not theoretical is clear from his definition of what he calls the acknowledgment of the unity of ,god with full heart1 not to speak of the title of the book itself1 the meaning of which we explained at the beginning of this section1 and the nine chapters in ,bahya's work following upon the first1 which constitute its real essence and purpose4 ,to acknowledge the unity of ,god with full heart means1 he tells us1 that one must first know how to prove the existence and unity of ,god1 to distinguish ,god's unity from every other1 and then to make his heart and his tongue unite in this conception4#abj ,it is not a matter of the intellect merely1 but of the heart as affecting one's practical conduct4 ,the adequacy of the conception is destroyed not merely by thinking of ,god as multiple1 or by worshiping images1 sun1 moon and stars2 it is made null and void likewise by hypocrisy and pretence1 as when one affects piety before others to gain their favor or acquire a reputation4 ,the same disastrous result is brought about by indulging the low physical appetites4 ,here the worship of the appetites is brought into competition and rivalry with devotion to the one ,god4#aba ,our object being to trace the philosophical conceptions in medival ,jewish literature1 we cannot linger long in the study of the rest of ,bahya's masterpiece1 which is homiletical and practical rather than theoretic1 and must content ourselves with a very brief rsum of its principal contents4 ,in studying the nature and attributes of ,god we reached the conclusion that while a knowledge of him is absolutely necessary for a proper mode of life1 we cannot form an idea of him as he is in himself1 and are left to such evidence as we can gather from the world of which he is the author4 ,it becomes our duty1 therefore1 to study nature1 as a whole and in its parts1 conscientiously and minutely1 in order to realize clearly the goodness and wisdom of ,god as exhibited therein4 ,for various reasons we are apt to neglect this study and miss the insight and benefits arising therefrom4 ,chief among these hindering circumstances are our excessive occupations with the pleasures of this world1 and the accidents and misfortunes to which mortal is heir1 which blind him to his real good1 and prevent him from seeing the blessing in disguise lurking in these very misfortunes4 ,but it is clear that man has a duty to study the divine goodness and wisdom as exhibited in nature1 else of what use is his faculty of reason and intelligence1 which raises him above the beast4 ,if he neglects it1 he places himself below the latter1 which realizes all the functions of which it is capable4 ,bible and ,talmud are equally emphatic in urging us to study the wonders of nature4 ,the variety of natural phenomena and the laws they exhibit give evidence of the personality of ,god and the existence of his will4 ,a being without will1 acting by necessity of nature1 acts with unswerving uniformity4 ,heaven and earth1 plant and animal1 all creatures great and small1 bear witness1 in their structure and relations1 in their functions and mutual service and helpfulness1 to the wisdom and goodness of ,god4 ,above all is this visible in man1 the highest of earthly beings1 the microcosm1 the rational creature1 the discoverer and inventor of arts and sciences4 ,in the laws and statutes which were given to him for the service of ,god1 and in the customs of other nations which take the place of our divine law1 we see ,god's kindness to man in securing his comfort in this world and reward in the next4 ,pride is the great enemy of man1 because it prevents him from appreciating what he owes to ,god's goodness4 ,pride makes him feel that he deserves more than he gets1 and blinds him to the truth4#abb ,we all recognize the duty of gratitude to a fellow man who has done us a favor1 although all such cases of benefit and service between man and man1 not excepting even the kindness of a father to his child1 will be found on examination to be of a selfish nature4 ,the benefit to self may not in all cases be conscious1 but it is always there4 ,it is a father's nature to love his child as part of himself4 ,moreover1 these human favors are not constant1 and the person benefited stands comparatively on the same level of existence and worth as his benefactor4 ,how much greater then is the duty incumbent upon us to appreciate ,god's favors which are not selfish1 which are constant1 and which are bestowed by the greatest of all beings upon the smallest of all in respect of physical strength4 ,the only way in which man can repay ,god for his kindness1 and show an appreciation thereof is by submitting to him and doing those things which will bring him nearer to ,god4 ,in order to realize this it is necessary to abandon the bad qualities1 which are in principle two1 love of pleasure and love of power4 ,the means enabling one to obtain this freedom are to abstain from too much eating1 drinking1 idling1 and so on1 for the first1 and from too much gossip1 social intercourse1 and love of glory for the second4 ,it may be difficult to do this1 but one must make up one's mind to it1 like the invalid who is ready to lose a limb in order to save his life4 ,the problem of free will is perplexing indeed and interferes with the proper attitude toward ,god and his worship4 ,the best way out of the difficulty is to act as if we were free1 and on the other hand to have confidence in ,god as the author of everything4 ,we have seen that the reason bids us recognize our duty to ,god in return for his goodness to us4 ,at the same time we are not left to the suggestions and promptings of the reason alone4 ,we have a positive law prescribing our conduct and the manner and measure of expressing our gratitude to ,god4 ,this is made necessary by the constitution of man's nature4 ,he is a composite of body and spirit4 ,the former is at home in this lower world and is endowed with powers and qualities which tend to strengthen it at the expense of the spirit1 a stranger in this world4 ,hence the necessity of a positive law to cure the spirit from the ills of the body by forbidding certain kinds of food1 clothing1 sexual indulgence1 and so on1 which strengthen the appetites1 and commanding such actions as prayer1 fasting1 charity1 benevolence1 which have the opposite tendency of strengthening the reason4 ,the positive law is necessary and useful besides because it prescribes the middle way1 discouraging equally the extremes of asceticism and of self-indulgence4 ,it regulates and defines conduct1 and makes it uniform for old and young1 intelligent and unintelligent4 ,it institutes new occasions of worship and thanksgiving as history reveals new benefactions of ,god to his people in various generations4 ,the law also contains matters which the reason alone would not dictate1 and of which it does not understand the meaning4 ,such are the traditional commandments4 ,the reason why the law prescribes also some of the principles of the rational commandments is because at that time the people were so sunk in their animal desires that their minds were weakened1 and there was need of putting both classes of commandments on the same level of positive prescription4 ,but now the intelligent person observes them in accordance with their distinct origin1 whereas the masses simply follow the law in both4 ,the admonition of the positive law serves as an introduction to the suggestions of our own reason and prepares the way for the latter4 ,the first is absolutely necessary for the young1 the women and those of weak intellectual power4 ,to worship ,god not merely because the law prescribes it1 but because reason itself demands it denotes a spiritual advance1 and puts one in the grade of prophets and pious men chosen of ,god4 ,in this world their reward is the joy they feel in the sweetness of divine service2 in the next world they attain to the spiritual light which we cannot declare or imagine4#abc ,one of the duties of the heart is to trust in ,god4 ,apart from the ,bible which commands us to have trust in ,god1 we can come to the same conclusion as a result of our own reflection4 ,for in ,god alone are combined all the conditions necessary to confidence4 ,he has the power to protect and help us1 and the knowledge of our needs4 ,he is kind and generous and has a love for us and an interest in our welfare1 as we have shown in a previous discussion4 ,trust in ,god is of advantage religiously in giving a person peace of mind1 independence and freedom to devote himself to the service of ,god without being worried by the cares of the world4 ,he is like the alchemist who changes lead into silver1 and silver into gold4 ,if he has money he can make good use of it in fulfilling his duties to ,god and man4 ,if he has not1 he is grateful for the freedom from care which this gives him4 ,he is secure against material worries4 ,he does not have to go to distant lands to look for support1 or to engage in hard and fatiguing labor1 or to exploit other people4 ,he chooses the work that is in consonance with his mode of life1 and gives him leisure and strength to do his duty to ,god and man4 ,the suffering of the good and the prosperity of the bad1 which apparently contradicts our conclusion1 is a problem as old as the world1 and is discussed in the ,bible4 ,there is no one explanation to cover all cases1 hence no solution is given in the ,bible4 ,but several reasons may be brought forward for this anomaly4 ,the righteous man may suffer by way of punishment for a sin he has committed4 ,he may suffer in this world in order that he may be rewarded in the next4 ,his suffering may be an example of patience and goodness to other people2 especially in a bad generation1 to show off their wickedness by contrast with his goodness4 ,or finally the good man may be punished for not rebuking his generation of evil doers4 ,in a similar way we may explain the prosperity of the wicked4 ,trust in ,god does not signify that one should neglect one's work1 be careless of one's life1 health and well-being1 or abandon one's effort to provide for one's family and dependents4 ,no1 one must do all these things conscientiously1 at the same time feeling that if not for the help of ,god all effort would be in vain4 ,in the matter of doing one's duty and observing the commandments1 whether of the limbs or the heart1 trust in ,god can apply only to the last step in the process1 namely1 the realization in practice4 ,he must trust that ,god will put out of the way all obstacles and hindrances which may prevent him from carrying out his resolutions4 ,the choice and consent must come from a man's own will1 which is free4 ,the most he may do is to trust that ,god may remove temptations4 ,while it is true that good deeds are rewarded in this world as well as in the next1 a man must not trust in his deeds1 but in ,god4 ,it may seem strange that there is no reference in the ,bible to reward in the hereafter4 ,the reasons may be the following4 ,not knowing what the state of the soul is without the body1 we could not understand the nature of future reward1 and the statement of it in the ,bible would not have been a sufficient inducement for the people of that time to follow the commandments4 ,or it is possible that the people knew by tradition of reward after death1 hence it was not necessary to specify it4 ,as knowledge of nature and of ,god leads to trust in him1 so ignorance leads away from it4 ,it is as with a child1 who develops in his manner of trusting in things2 beginning with his mother's breast and rising gradually as he grows older and knows more1 until he embraces other persons and attains to trust in ,god4#abd ,we said before 7p4 #hc7 that the duties of the limbs are imperfect unless accompanied by the intention of the heart4 ,a man's motive must be sincere4 ,it must not be his aim to gain the favor of his fellowmen or to acquire honor and fame4 ,the observance of the prescribed laws must be motived by the sole regard for ,god and his service4 ,this we call the unity of conduct4 ,the meaning is that a man's act and intention must coincide in aiming at the fulfilment of ,god's will4 ,in order to realize this properly one must have an adequate and sincere conception of ,god's unity as shown above2 he must have an appreciation of ,god's goodness as exhibited in nature2 he must submit to ,god's service2 he must have trust in ,god alone as the sole author of good and evil2 and correspondingly he must abstain from flattering mankind1 and must be indifferent to their praise and blame2 he must fear ,god1 and have respect and awe for him4 ,when he is in the act of fulfilling his spiritual obligations1 he must not be preoccupied with the affairs of this world2 and finally he must always consult his reason1 and make it control his desires and inclinations4#abe ,humility and lowliness is an important element conducive to unity of conduct4 ,by this is not meant that general helplessness in the face of conditions1 dangers and injuries because of ignorance of the methods of averting them4 ,this is not humility but weakness4 ,nor do we mean that timidity and loss of countenance which one suffers before a superior in physical power or wealth4 ,the true humility with which we are here concerned is that which one feels constantly before ,god1 though it shows itself also in such a person's conduct in the presence of others1 in soft speech1 low voice1 and modest behavior generally1 in prosperity as well as adversity4 ,the truly humble man practices patience and forgiveness2 he does good to mankind and judges them favorably2 he is contented with little in respect to food and drink and the needs of the body generally2 he endures misfortune with resignation2 is not spoiled by praise1 nor irritated by blame1 but realizes how far he is from perfection in the one case1 and appreciates the truth of the criticism in the other4 ,he is not spoiled by prosperity and success1 and always holds himself under strict account4 ,god knows it1 even if his fellowmen do not4 ,humility1 as we have described it1 is not1 however1 incompatible with a certain kind of pride2 not that form of it which boasts of physical excellence1 nor that arrogance which leads a man to look down upon others and belittle their achievements4 ,these forms of pride are bad and diametrically opposed to true humility4 ,legitimate mental pride is that which leads a person blessed with intellectual gifts to feel grateful to ,god for his favor1 and to strive to improve his talents and share their benefits with others4#abf ,humility is a necessary forerunner of repentance and we must treat of this duty of the heart next4 ,it is clear from reason as well as from the ,law that man does not do all that is incumbent upon him in the service of ,god4 ,for man is composed of opposite principles warring with each other1 and is subject to change on account of the change of his mental qualities4 ,for this reason he needs a law and traditional custom to keep him from going astray4 ,the ,bible also tells us that the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth 7,gen4 #h1 #ba74 ,therefore ,god was gracious and gave man the ability and opportunity to correct his mistakes4 ,this is repentance4 ,true repentance means return to ,god's service after having succeeded in making the reason the master of the desires4 ,the elements in repentance are1 7#a7 regret2 7#b7 discontinuance of the wrong act2 7#c7 confession and request for pardon2 7#d7 promise not to repeat the offence4 ,in respect to gravity of offence1 sins may be divided into three classes3 7#a7 ,violation of a positive commandment in the ,bible which is not punished by cutting off from the community4 ,for example1 dwelling in booths1 wearing fringes1 and shaking the palm branch4 7#b7 ,violation of a negative commandment not so punished4 7#c7 ,violation of a negative commandment the penalty for which is death at the hands of the court1 and being cut off by divine agency2 for example1 profanation of the divine name or false oath4 ,in cases of the first class a penitent is as good as one who never sinned4 ,in the second class he is even superior1 because the latter has not the same prophylactic against pride4 ,in the third class the penitent is inferior to the one who never sinned4 ,another classification of offences is in two divisions according to the subject against whom the offence is committed4 ,this may be a human being1 and the crime is social2 or it may be ,god1 and we have sin in the proper sense of the term4 ,penitence is sufficient for forgiveness in the latter class1 but not in the former4 ,when one robs another or insults him1 he must make restoration or secure the pardon of the offended party before his repentance can be accepted4 ,and if the person cannot be found1 or if he died1 or is alive but refuses to forgive his offender1 or if the sinner lost the money which he took1 or if he does not know whom he robbed1 or how much1 it may be impossible for him to atone for the evil he has done4 ,still if he is really sincere in his repentance1 ,god will help him to make reparation to the person wronged4#abg ,self-examination is conducive to repentance4 ,by this term is meant taking stock of one's spiritual condition so as to know the merits one has as well the duties one owes4 ,in order to do this conscientiously a man must reflect on the unity of ,god1 on his wisdom and goodness1 on the obedience which all nature pays to the laws imposed upon it1 disregard of which would result in the annihilation of all things1 including himself4 ,a man should review his past conduct1 and provide for his future life1 as one provides for a long journey1 bearing in mind that life is short1 and that he is a stranger in this world with no one to help him except the goodness and grace of his maker4 ,he should cultivate the habit of being alone and not seek the society of idlers1 for that leads to gossip and slander1 to sin and wrong1 to vanity and neglect of ,god4 ,this does not apply to the company of the pious and the learned1 which should be sought4 ,he should be honest and helpful to his friends1 and he will get along well in this world4 ,all the evils and complaints of life are due to the fact that people are not considerate of one another1 and everyone grabs for himself all that he can1 more than he needs4 ,one should examine anew the ideas one has from childhood to be sure that he understands them in the light of his riper intellect4 ,he should also study again the books of the ,bible and the prayers which he learned as a child1 for he would see them now in a different light4 ,he must try to make his soul control his body1 strengthening it with intellectual and spiritual food for the world to come4 ,these efforts and reflections and many others of a similar kind tend to perfect the soul and prepare it to attain to the highest degree of purity1 where the evil desire can have no power over her4#abh ,in self-examination temperance or abstemiousness plays an important rle4 ,let us examine this concept more closely4 ,by abstemiousness in the special sense in which we use it here we do not mean that general temperance or moderation which we practice to keep our body in good order1 or such as physicians prescribe for the healthy and the sick1 bidding them abstain from certain articles of food1 drink1 and so on4 ,we mean rather a more stringent abstemiousness1 which may be called separation from the world1 or asceticism4 ,we may define this to mean abstention from all corporeal satisfactions except such as are indispensable for the maintenance of life4 ,not everyone is required to practice this special form of temperance1 nor is it desirable that he should1 for it would lead to extinction of the human race4 ,at the same time it is proper that there shall be a few select individuals1 ascetic in their habits of life1 and completely separated from the world1 to serve as an example for the generality of mankind1 in order that temperance of the more general kind shall be the habit of the many4 ,the object of ,god in creating man was to try the soul in order to purify it and make it like the angels4 ,it is tried by being put in an earthy body1 which grows and becomes larger by means of food4 ,hence ,god put into the soul the desire for food1 and the desire for sexual union to perpetuate the species2 and he made the reward for the satisfaction of these desires the pleasure which they give4 ,he also appointed the evil inclination to incite to all these bodily pleasures4 ,now if this evil inclination gets the upper hand of the reason1 the result is excess and ruin4 ,hence the need of general abstemiousness4 ,and the ascetic class serve the purpose of reinforcing general temperance by their example4 ,but in the asceticism of the few there is also a limit beyond which one should not go4 ,here too the middle way is the best4 ,those extremists who leave the world entirely and live the life of a recluse in the desert1 subsisting on grass and herbs1 are farthest from the middle way1 and the ,bible does not approve of their mode of life1 as we read in ,isaiah 7#de1 #ah7 ,the ,god that formed the earth and made it2 he that hath established it1--not in vain did he create it1 he formed it to be inhabited4 ,those are much better who without leaving for the desert pass solitary lives in their homes1 not associating with other people1 and abstaining from superfluities of all kinds4 ,but the best of all are those who adopt the mildest form of asceticism1 who separate from the world inwardly while taking part in it outwardly1 and assisting in the ordinary occupations of mankind4 ,these are commended in the ,bible4 ,witness the prayer of ,jacob 7,gen4 #bh1 #bj71 the fasting of ,moses forty days and forty nights on the mount1 the fasting of ,elijah1 the laws of the ,nazirite1 ,jonadab ben ,rechab1 ,elisha1 prescriptions of fasting on various occasions1 and so on4#abi ,the highest stage a man can reach spiritually is the love of ,god1 and all that preceded has this as its aim4 ,true love of ,god is that felt toward him for his own sake because of his greatness and exaltation1 and not for any ulterior purpose4 ,the soul is a simple spiritual substance which inclines to that which is like it1 and departs from what is material and corporeal4 ,but when ,god put the soul into the body1 he implanted in it the desire to maintain it1 and it was thus affected by the feelings and desires which concern the health and growth of the body1 thus becoming estranged from the spiritual4 ,in order that the soul shall attain to the true love of ,god1 the reason must get the upper hand of the desires1 all the topics treated in the preceding sections must be taken to heart and sincerely and conscientiously acted upon4 ,then the eyes of the soul will be opened1 and it will be filled with the fear and the love of ,god4#acj ,,chapter ,,vii ,,pseudo-,,bahya ,it had been known for a number of years that there was a manuscript treatise in ,arabic on the soul1 which was attributed on the title page to ,bahya4 ,in #ahif ,isaac ,broyd published a ,hebrew translation of this work under the title ,torot ha-,nefesh1 7,reflections on the ,soul74#aca ,the original ,arabic was edited by ,goldziher in #aijg4acb ,the ,arabic title is ,maani al-,nafs1 and should be translated ,concepts of the soul1 or ,attributes of the soul4 ,there seems little doubt now that despite the ascription on the title page of the manuscript1 the treatise is not a work of ,bahya4 ,it is very unlikely that anything written by so distinguished an author as ,bahya1 whose ,duties of the ,hearts was the most popular book in the middle ages1 should have been so thoroughly forgotten as to have left no trace in ,jewish literature4 ,bahya as well as the anonymous author refer1 in the introductions to their respective works1 to their sources or to their own previous writings4 ,but there is no reference either in the ,duties of the ,hearts to the ,attributes of the ,soul1 or in the latter to the former4 ,a still stronger argument against ,bahya as the author of our treatise is that derived from the content of the work1 which moves in a different circle of ideas from the ,duties of the ,hearts4 ,our anonymous author is an outspoken ,neo-,platonist4 ,he believes in the doctrine of emanation1 and arranges the created universe1 spiritual and material1 in a descending series of such emanations1 ten in number4 ,the ,mutakallimun he opposes as being followers of the ,naturalists1 who disagree with the philosophers as well as the ,bible4 ,bahya1 on the other hand1 is a strict follower of the ,kalam in his chapter on the ,unity1 as we have seen 7p4 #hf71 and the ,neo-,platonic influence is very slight4 ,there is no trace of a graded series of emanations in the ,duties of the ,hearts4#acc ,the sources of the ,attributes of the ,soul are no doubt the various ,neo-,platonic writings current among the ,arabs in the tenth and eleventh centuries1 of which we spoke in the ,introduction 7p4 xx7 and in the chapter on ,gabirol 7p4 #fc f474 ,gabirol himself can scarcely have had much influence on our author1 as the distinctive doctrine of the ,fons ,vit is absent in our treatise4 ,the reader will remember that matter and form1 according to ,gabirol1 are at the basis not merely of the corporeal world1 but that they constitute the essence of the spiritual world as well1 the very first emanation1 the ,universal ,intelligence1 being composed of universal matter and universal form4 ,as we shall see this is not the view of the ,attributes of the ,soul4 ,matter here occupies the position which it has in ,plotinus and in the encyclopdia of the ,brethren of ,purity4 ,it is the fourth in order of emanations1 and the composition of matter and form begins with the celestial sphere1 which is the fifth in order4 ,everything that precedes matter is absolutely simple4 ,at the same time it seems clear that he was familiar with ,gabirol's doctrine of the will4 ,for in at least two passages in the ,attributes of the ,soul 7chs4 #aa and #ac7acd we have the series1 vegetative soul1 spheral impression1 psychic power--omitted in ch4 #ac1 universal soul1 intellect1 will4 ,the ,categories of ,aristotle is also clearly evident in the ,attributes of the ,soul4 ,it is the ultimate source of the definition of accident as that which resides in substance without being a part of it1 but yet in such a way that without substance it cannot exist4#ace ,the number of the species of motion as six#acf points in the same direction4 ,this1 however1 does not prove that the author read the ,categories4 ,he might have derived these notions1 as well as the list of the ten categories1 from the writings of the ,brethren of ,purity4 ,the same thing applies to the statement that a spiritual substance is distinguished from a corporeal in its capacity of receiving its qualities or accidents without limits4#acg ,this probably goes back to the ,de ,anima of ,aristotle where a similar contrast between the senses and the reason is used as an argument for the separate character of the latter4 ,the doctrine of the mean in conduct#ach comes from the ethics of ,aristotle4 ,the doctrine of the four virtues and the manner of their derivation is ,platonic1#aci and so is the doctrine of reminiscence1 viz41 that the soul recalls the knowledge it had in its previous life4#adj ,ibn ,sina is one of the latest authors mentioned in our work2 hence it could not have been written much before #ajcg1 the date of ,ibn ,sina's death4 ,the terminus ad quem cannot be determined4 ,as the title indicates1 the anonymous treatise is concerned primarily with the nature of the soul4 ,whatever other topics are found therein are introduced for the bearing they have on the central problem4 ,a study of the soul means psychology as well as ethics1 for a complete determination of the nature of the soul necessarily must throw light not only upon the origin and activity of the soul1 but also upon its purpose and destiny4 ,the first error1 we are told1 that we must remove concerning the soul1 is the doctrine of the naturalists1 with whom the ,mutazilites among the ,arabs and the ,karaites among the ,jews are in agreement1 that the soul is not an independent and self-subsistent entity1 but only an accident of the body4 ,their view is that as the soul is a corporeal quality it is dependent for its existence upon the body and disappears with the latter4 ,those of the ,mutazilites who believe in ,mahad 7return of the soul to its origin71 hold that at the time of the resurrection ,god will bring the parts of the body together with its accident1 the soul1 and will reward and punish them4 ,but the resurrection is a distinct problem1 and has nothing to do with the nature of the soul and its qualities4 ,the true opinion1 which is that of the ,bible and the true philosophers1 is that the soul is a spiritual substance independent of the body2 that it existed before the body and will continue to exist after the dissolution of the latter4 ,the existence of a spiritual substance is proved from the presence of such qualities as knowledge and ignorance4 ,these are opposed to each other1 and cannot be the qualities of body as such1 for body cannot contain two opposite forms at the same time4 ,moreover1 the substance1 whatever it be1 which bears the attributes of knowledge and ignorance1 can receive them without limit4 ,the more knowledge a person has1 the more capable he is of acquiring more4 ,no corporeal substance behaves in this way4 ,there is always a limit to a body's power of receiving a given accident4 ,we legitimately conclude1 therefore1 that the substance which bears the attributes of knowledge and ignorance is not corporeal but spiritual4#ada ,to understand the position of the soul and its relation to the body1 we must have an idea of the structure and origin of the universe4 ,the entire world1 upper as well as lower1 is divided into two parts1 simple and composite4 ,the simple essences1 which are pure and bright1 are nearer to their ,creator than the less simple substances which come after4 ,there are ten such creations with varying simplicity1 following each other in order according to the arrangement dictated by ,god's wisdom4 ,as numbers are simple up to ten1 and then they begin to be compound1 so in the universe the ten simple substances are followed by composite4 ,the first of these simple creations1 which is nearest to ,god1 is called in ,hebrew ,shekinah4 ,the ,torah and the ,prophets call it ,name 7,exod4 #bc1 #ba71 also ,kabod1 ,glory 7,is4 #ei1 #ai74 ,god gave his name to the nearest and first of his creations1 which is the first light1 and interpreter and servant nearest to him4 ,solomon calls it ,wisdom 7,prov4 #h1 #bb72 the ,greeks1 ,active ,intellect4 ,the second creation is called by the ,prophets1 the ,glory of the ,god of ,israel 7,ezek4 #h1 #i72 by the ,greeks1 ,universal ,soul1 for it moves the spheres through a natural power as the individual soul moves the body4 ,the soul partakes of the ,intelligence or ,intellect on the side which is near to it2 it partakes of ,nature on the side adjoining the latter4 ,nature is the third creation4 ,it also is an angel1 being the first of the powers of the universal soul1 and constituting the life of this world and its motion4 ,these three are simple essences in the highest sense of the word4 ,they are obedient to their ,creator1 and transmit in order his emanation and the will1 and the laws of his wisdom to all the worlds4 ,the fourth creation is an essence which has no activity or life or motion originally1 but only a power of receiving whatever is formed and created out of it4 ,this is the ,matter of the world4 ,from it come the bodies which possess accidents4 ,in being formed some of its non-existence is diminished1 and its matter moves4 ,it is called hyle1 and is the same as the darkness of the first chapter in ,genesis4 ,for it is a mistake to suppose that by darkness in the second verse of the first chapter is meant the absence of the light of the sun4 ,this is accidental darkness1 whereas in the creation story the word darkness signifies something elemental at the basis of corporeal things4 ,this is what is known as matter1 which on account of its darkness1 i4 e41 its imperfection and motionlessness1 is the cause of all the blemishes and evils in the world4 ,in receiving forms1 however1 it acquires motion2 its darkness is somewhat diminished1 and it appears to the eye through the forms which it receives4 ,the fifth creation is the celestial ,sphere1 where for the first time we have motion in its revolutions4 ,here too we have the first composition of matter and form2 and the beginning of time as the measure of the ,sphere's motion2 and place4 ,the sixth creation is represented by the bodies of the stars1 which are moved by the spheres in which they are set4 ,they are bright and luminous because they are near the first simple bodies1 which were produced before time and place4 ,the last four of the ten creations are the four elements1 fire1 air1 water1 earth4 ,the element earth is the end of creation4 ,what follows thereafter is formation and composition4 ,by creation is meant that which results through the will of ,god from his emanation alone1 and not out of anything1 or in time or place4 ,it applies in the strictest sense to the first three only4 ,the fifth1 namely the ,sphere1 already comes from matter and form1 and is in time and place4 ,the fourth1 too1 enters into the fifth and all subsequent creations and formations4 ,still1 the term creation is applicable to the first ten1 though in varying degrees1 until when we reach the element earth1 creation proper is at an end4 ,this is why in the first verse in ,genesis1 which speaks of heaven and earth1 the term used is bara 7created71 and not any of the other terms1 such as yazar1 asah1 kanah1 paal1 and so on1 which denote formation4 ,from earth and the other elements were formed all kinds of minerals1 like rocks1 mountains1 stones1 and so on4 ,then plants and animals1 and finally man4 ,man who was formed last bears traces of all that preceded him4 ,he is formed of the four elements1 of the motions of the spheres1 of the mixtures of the stars and their rays1 of ,nature1 of the ,universal ,soul1 the mother of all1 of the ,intellect1 the father of all1 and finally of the will of ,god4 ,but the order in man is reversed4 ,the first two creations1 ,intellect and ,soul1 appear in man last4 ,the soul of man1 embracing reason and intellect1 is thus seen to be a divine emanation1 being related to the universal soul and ,intellect4 ,on its way from ,god to man it passes through all spheres1 and every one leaves an impression upon her1 and covers her with a wrapper1 so to speak4 ,the brightness of the star determines the ornament or wrapper which the soul gets from it4 ,this is known to the ,creator1 who determines the measure of influence and the accidents attaching to the soul until she reaches the body destined for her by his will4 ,the longer the stay in a given sphere the stronger the influence of the sphere in question2 and hence the various temperaments we observe in persons1 which determine their character and conduct4 ,for at bottom the soul is the same in essence and unchangeable in all men1 because she is an emanation from the ,unchangeable4 ,all individual differences are due to the spheral impressions4 ,these impressions1 however1 do not take away from the soul its freedom of will4#adb ,in the rest of his psychology and ethics the anonymous author follows ,platonic theories1 modified now and then in the manner of ,aristotle4 ,thus we are told that the soul consists of three powers1 or three souls1 the vegetative1 the animal and the rational4 ,we learn of the existence of the vegetative soul from the nourishment1 growth and reproduction evidenced by the individual4 ,the animal soul shows its presence in the motions of the body4 ,the existence of the rational soul we have already shown from the attributes of knowledge and ignorance4 ,the vegetative soul comes from certain spheral influences1 themselves due to the universal soul1 and ultimately to the will of ,god4 ,it is the first of the three to make its appearance in the body4 ,it is already found in the embryo1 to which it gives the power of motion in its own place like the motion of a plant or tree4 ,its seat is in the liver1 where the growth of the embryo begins4 ,its function ceases about the twentieth year1 when the growth of the body reaches its limit4 ,the animal soul springs from the heart4 ,its functioning appears after birth when the child begins to crawl1 and continues until the person loses the power of locomotion in old age4 ,the rational soul resides in the middle of the brain4 ,she knows all things before joining the body1 but her knowledge is obscured on account of the material coverings which she receives on her way down from her divine source4#adc ,the virtue of the vegetative soul is temperance2 of the animal soul1 courage2 of the rational soul1 wisdom4 ,when these are harmoniously combined in the individual1 and the two lower souls are controlled by the higher1 there results the fourth virtue1 which is justice1 and which gives its possessor the privilege of being a teacher and a leader of his people4 ,in ,moses all these qualities were exemplified1 and ,isaiah 7#aa1 #a-d7 in describing the qualities of the ,messianic ,king also enumerates these four cardinal virtues4 ,the spirit of wisdom and understanding represents wisdom1 the spirit of counsel and strength stands for courage2 the spirit of knowledge and fear of the ,lord denotes temperance2 and justice is represented in the phrase1 and he will judge the poor with righteousness4#add ,virtue is a mean between the two extremes of excess and defect1 each of which is a vice4 ,thus an excess of wisdom becomes shrewdness and cunning and deceit2 while a defect means ignorance4 ,the true wisdom consists in the middle way between the two extremes4 ,similarly courage is a mean between foolhardiness and rashness on the side of excess1 and cowardice on the side of defect4 ,temperance is a mean between excessive indulgence of the appetites on one side and utter insensibility on the other4 ,the mean of justice is the result of the harmonious combination of the means of the last three4 ,if the rational soul has wisdom and the two other souls are obedient to it through modesty and courage1 their substance changes into the substance of the rational soul1 i4 e41 their bad qualities are transformed into the four virtues just mentioned4 ,then the two lower souls unite with the rational soul and enjoy eternal happiness with it4 ,on the other hand1 if the rational soul follows the senses1 its wisdom changes into their folly1 its virtues into their vices1 and it perishes with them4#ade ,the immortality of the soul is proved as follows4 ,things composed of elements return back to their elements1 hence the soul also returns to its own origin4 ,the soul is independent of the body1 for its qualities1 thought and knowledge1 are not bodily qualities1 hence they become clearer and more certain after the soul is separated from the body than before1 when the body obscured its vision like a curtain4 ,the fact that a person's mind is affected when his body is ill does not show that the soul is dependent in its nature upon the body2 but that acting as it does in the body by means of corporeal organs1 it cannot perform its functions properly when these organs are injured4 ,since death is a decree of ,god1 it is clear that he has a purpose in changing the relations of body and soul4 ,but if the soul comes to an end1 this change would be a vain piece of work of which he cannot be guilty4 ,hence it follows that the destruction of the body is in order that we may exist in another similar form1 similar to the angels4#adf ,the purpose of the soul's coming into this world is in order that she may purify the two lower souls2 also that she may know the value of her own world in comparison with this one1 and in grieving for having left it may observe ,god's commandments1 and thus achieve her return to her own world4 ,in the matter of returning to their own world after separation from the body1 souls are graded according to the measure of their knowledge and the value of their conduct4 ,these two conditions1 ethical and spiritual or intellectual1 are requisite of fulfilment before the soul can regain its original home4 ,the soul on leaving this world is like a clean1 white garment soaked in water4 ,if the water is clean1 it is easy to dry the garment1 and it becomes even cleaner than it was before4 ,but if the water is dirty1 no amount of drying will make the garment clean4 ,those souls which instead of elevating the two lower souls1 vegetative and animal1 were misled by them1 will perish with the latter4 ,between the two extremes of perfection and wickedness there are intermediate stages1 and the souls are treated accordingly4 ,those of the proud will rise in the air and flying hither and thither will not find a resting place4 ,those which have knowledge1 but no good deeds1 will rise to the sphere of the ether1 but will be prevented from rising higher by the weight of their evil deeds1 and the pure angels will rain down upon them arrows of fire1 thus causing them to return below in shame and disgrace4 ,the souls of the dishonest will be driven from place to place without finding any rest4 ,other bad souls will be punished in various ways4 ,those souls which have good deeds but no knowledge will be placed in the terrestrial paradise until their souls recall the knowledge they had in their original state1 and they will then return to the ,garden of ,eden among the angels4#adg ,,chapter ,,viii ,,abraham ,,bar ,,hiyya ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 the ,prince1 as he is called1 lived in ,spain in the first half of the twelfth century4 ,he also seems to have stayed some time in southern ,france1 though we do not know when or how long4 ,his greatest merit lies not in his philosophical achievement which1 if we may judge from the only work of a philosophical character that has come down to us1 is not very great4 ,he is best known as a writer on mathematics1 astronomy and the calendar2 though there1 too1 his most important service lay not so much in the original ideas he propounded1 as in the fact that he was among the first1 if not the first1 to introduce the scientific thought current in the ,orient and in ,moorish ,spain into ,christian ,europe1 and especially among the ,jews of ,france and ,germany1 who devoted all their energies to the ,rabbinical literature1 and to whom the ,arabic works of their ,spanish brethren were a sealed book4 ,so we find ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 or ,abraham ,savasorda 7a corruption of the ,arabic title ,sahib al-,shorta71 associated with ,plato of ,tivoli in the translation into ,latin of ,arabic scientific works4 ,and he himself wrote a number of books on mathematics and astronomy in ,hebrew at the request of his friends in ,france who could not read ,arabic4 ,abraham bar ,hiyya is the first of the writers we have treated so far who composed a scientific work in the ,hebrew language4 ,all the others1 with the exception of ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 wrote in ,arabic1 as they continued to do until and including ,maimonides4 ,the only one of his extant works which is philosophical in content is the small treatise ,hegyon ha-,nefesh1 ,meditation of the ,soul4#adh ,it is a popular work1 written with a practical purpose1 ethical and homiletic in tone and style4 ,the idea of repentance plays an important rle in the book1 and what theoretical philosophy finds place therein is introduced merely as a background and basis for the ethical and religious considerations which follow4 ,it may be called a miniature ,duties of the ,hearts4 ,as in all homiletical compositions in ,jewish literature1 exegesis of ,biblical passages takes up a good deal of the discussions1 and for the history of the philosophic movement in medival ,judaism the methods of reading metaphysical and ethical ideas into the ,bible are quite as important as these ideas themselves4 ,the general philosophical standpoint of ,abraham bar ,hiyya may be characterized as an uncertain ,neo-,platonism1 or a combination of fundamental ,aristotelian ideas with a ,neo-,platonic coloring4 ,thus matter and form are the fundamental principles of the world4 ,they existed potentially apart in the wisdom of ,god before they were combined and thus realized in actuality4#adi ,time being a measure of motion1 came into being together with the motion which followed upon this combination4 ,hence neither the world nor time is eternal4 ,this is ,platonic1 not ,aristotelian1 who believes in the eternity of motion as well as of time4 ,abraham bar ,hiyya also speaks of the purest form as light and as looking at and illuminating the form inferior to it and thus giving rise to the heavens1 minerals and plants4#aej ,this is all ,neo-,platonic4 ,and yet the most distinctive doctrine of ,plotinus and the later ,neo-,platonists among the ,arabs1 the series of emanating hypostases1 ,intellect1 ,universal ,soul1 ,nature1 ,matter1 and so on1 is wanting in the ,hegyon ha-,nefesh4#aea ,form is the highest thing he knows outside of ,god2 and the purest form1 which is too exalted to combine with matter1 embraces angels1 seraphim1 souls1 and all forms related to the upper world4#aeb ,with the exception of the names angel1 seraphim1 souls1 this is good ,aristotelian doctrine1 who also believes in the movers of the spheres and the active intellect in man as being pure forms4 ,to proceed now to give a brief account of ,abraham bar ,hiyya's teaching1 he thinks it is the duty of rational man to know how it is that man who is so insignificant was given control of the other animals1 and endowed with the power of wisdom and knowledge4 ,in order to gain this knowledge we must investigate the origins and principles of existing things1 so that we may arrive at an understanding of things as they are4 ,this the wise men of other nations have realized1 though they were not privileged to receive a divine ,torah1 and have busied themselves with philosophical investigations4 ,our ,bible recommends to us the same method in the words of ,deuteronomy 7#d1 #ci71 ,know therefore this day1 and reflect in thy heart1 that the ,lord is ,god in the heavens above1 and upon the earth beneath3 there is none else4 ,this means that if you understand thoroughly the order of things in heaven above and the earth beneath1 you will at once see that ,god made it in his wisdom1 and that he is the only one and there is no one beside him4 ,the book of ,job teaches the same thing1 when it says 7#ai1 #bf7 ,and from my flesh ,i shall behold ,god4 ,this signifies that from the structure of the body and the form of its members we can understand the wisdom of the ,creator4 ,we need not hesitate therefore to study the works of the ancients and the wise men of other nations in order to learn from them the nature of existence4 ,we have the permission and recommendation of ,scripture4#aec ,starting from a consideration of man we see that he is the last of created things because we find in him additional composition over and above that found in other creatures4 ,man is a rational animal4 ,animal means a body that grows and moves and at last is dissolved4 ,rational refers to the power of knowledge1 of inferring one thing from another1 and discriminating between good and evil4 ,in this man differs from other animals4 ,descending in the scale of existence we find that the plant also grows and dies like the animal1 but it does not move4 ,stones1 metals and other inanimate bodies on the earth1 change their forms and shapes1 but unlike plants they have no power of growing or increasing4 ,they are the simplest of the things on the earth4 ,they differ from the heavenly bodies in that the latter never change their forms4 ,proceeding further in our analysis1 we find that body1 the simplest thing so far1 means length1 breadth and depth attached to something capable of being measured4 ,this definition shows that body is also composed of two elements1 which are theoretically distinct until ,god's will joins them together4 ,these are hyle 7matter7--what has no likeness or form1 but has the capacity of receiving form--and form1 which is defined as that which has power to clothe the hyle with any form4 ,matter alone is too weak to sustain itself1 unless form comes to its aid4 ,form1 on the other hand1 is not perceptible to sense unless it clothes matter1 which bears it4 ,one needs the other4 ,matter cannot exist without form2 form cannot be seen without matter4 ,form is superior to matter1 because it needs the latter only to be seen but can exist by itself though not seen2 whereas matter cannot exist without form4 ,these two1 matter and form1 were hidden in ,god1 where they existed potentially until the time came to produce them and realize them in actu4 ,matter is further divided into two kinds4 ,there is pure matter1 which enters into the composition of the heavens1 and impure matter1 forming the substance of terrestrial bodies4 ,similarly form may be divided at first into two kinds2 closed and sealed form1 too pure and holy to be combined with matter2 and open and penetrable form1 which is fit to unite with matter4 ,the pure1 self-subsistent form gazes at and illuminates the penetrable form1 and helps it to clothe matter with all the forms of which the latter is capable4 ,now when ,god determined to realize matter and form in actu1 he caused the pure form to be clothed with its splendor1 which no hyle can touch4 ,this gave rise to angels1 seraphim1 souls1 and all other forms of the upper world4 ,not all men can see these forms or conceive them in the mind1 because they do not unite with anything which the eye can perceive1 and the majority of people cannot understand what they cannot perceive with their corporeal senses4 ,only those who are given to profound scientific investigations can understand the essence of these forms4 ,the light of this pure form then emanated upon the second form1 and by the word of ,god the latter united with the pure matter firmly and permanently1 so that there is never a change as long as they are united4 ,this union gave rise to the bodies of the heavens 7spheres and fixed stars7 which never change their forms4 ,then the form united with the impure matter1 and this gave rise to all the bodies in the sublunar world1 which change their forms4 ,these are the four elements1 and the products of their composition1 including plants4#aed ,so far we have bodies which do not change their places4 ,then a light emanated from the self-subsisting form by the order of ,god1 the splendor of which spread upon the heaven1 moving from point to point1 and caused the material form 7i4 e41 the inferior1 so-called penetrable form7 to change its place4 ,this produced the stars which change their position but not their forms 7planets74 ,from this light extending over the heaven emanated another splendor which reached the body with changing form1 giving rise to the three species of living beings1 aquatic1 aerial and terrestial animals1 corresponding to the three elements1 water1 air1 earth2 as there is no animal life in fire4 ,we have so far therefore three kinds of forms4 7#a7 ,the pure self-subsistent form which never combines with matter4 ,this embraces all the forms of the spiritual world4 7#b7 ,form which unites with body firmly and inseparably4 ,these are the forms of the heavens and the stars4 7#c7 ,form which unites with body temporarily4 ,such are the forms of the bodies on the earth4 ,the forms of the second and third classes cannot exist without bodies4 ,the form of class number one cannot exist with body4 ,to make the scheme complete1 there ought to be a fourth kind of form which can exist with as well as without body4 ,in other words1 a form which unites with body for a time and then returns to its original state and continues to exist without body4 ,reason demands that the classification should be complete1 hence there must be such a form1 and the only one worthy of this condition is the soul of man4 ,we thus have a proof of the immortality of the soul4#aee ,these are the ideas of the ancient sages1 and we shall find that they are drawn from the ,torah4 ,thus matter and form are indicated in the second verse of ,genesis1 ,and the earth was without form 7,heb4 ,tohu7 and void 7,heb4 ,bohu74 ,tohu is matter2 ,bohu ,hebrew3 ,bohu ,bo hu signifies that through which matter gains existence1 hence form4 ,water 7,heb4 ,mayim7 is also a general word for any of the various forms1 whereas light 7,heb4 ,or7 stands for the pure subsistent form4 ,by firmament 7,heb4 ,rakia7 is meant the second kind of form which unites with the pure matter in a permanent and unchangeable manner4 ,let there be a firmanent in the midst of the waters 7,gen4 #a1 #f7 indicates that the firmament is embraced by the bright light of the first day1 that is the universal form1 from which all the other forms come4 ,and let it divide between water and water 7ib47 signifies that the firmament stands between the self-subsistent form and the third kind of form above mentioned1 namely1 that which unites with body and gives rise to substances changing their forms1 like minerals and plants4 ,the luminaries 7,heb4 ,meorot7 correspond to the second light mentioned above4 ,we shall find also that the order of creation as given in ,genesis coincides with the account given above in the name of the ancient sages4#aef ,it would seem as if the self-subsisting form and the two lights emanating from it are meant to represent the ,intellect1 ,soul and ,nature of the ,neo-,platonic trinity respectively1 and that ,abraham bar ,hiyya purposely changed the names and partly their functions in order to make the philosophical account agree with the story of creation in ,genesis4 ,with regard to the intellectual and ethical condition of the soul and its destiny1 the speculative thinkers of other nations1 arguing from reason alone and having no divine revelation to guide or confirm their speculations1 are agreed that the only way in which the soul1 which belongs to a higher world1 can be freed from this world of body and change is through intellectual excellence and right conduct4 ,accordingly they classify souls into four kinds4 ,the soul1 they say1 may have health1 sickness1 life1 death4 ,health signifies wisdom or knowledge2 sickness denotes ignorance4 ,life means the fear of ,god and right conduct2 death is neglect of ,god and evil practice4 ,every person combines in himself one of the two intellectual qualities with one of the two ethical qualities4 ,thus we have four classes of persons4 ,a man may be wise and pious1 wise and wicked1 ignorant and pious1 ignorant and wicked4 ,and his destiny after death is determined by the class to which he belongs4 ,thus when a man who is wise and pious departs this world1 his soul by reason of its wisdom separates from the body and exists in its own form as before4 ,owing to its piety it will rise to the upper world until it reaches the pure1 eternal form1 with which it will unite for ever4 ,if the man is wise and wicked1 the wisdom of the soul will enable it to exist without body2 but on account of its wickedness and indulgence in the desires of this world1 it cannot become completely free from the creatures of this world1 and the best it can do is to rise above the sublunar world of change to the world of the planets where the forms do not change1 and move about beneath the light of the sun1 the heat of which will seem to it like a fire burning it continually1 and preventing it from rising to the upper light4 ,if the man is ignorant and pious1 his soul will be saved from body in order that it may exist by itself1 but his ignorance will prevent his soul from leaving the atmosphere of the lower world4 ,hence the soul will have to be united with body a second1 and a third time1 if necessary1 until it finally acquires knowledge and wisdom1 which will enable it to rise above the lower world1 its degree and station depending upon the measure of intellect and virtue it possesses at the time of the last separation from the body4 ,the soul of the man who is both ignorant and wicked cannot be saved from the body entirely1 and dies like a beast4 ,these are the views of speculative thinkers which we may adopt1 but they cannot tell us what is the content of the terms wisdom and right conduct4 ,not having been privileged to receive the sacred ,law1 which is the source of all wisdom and the origin of rectitude1 they cannot tell us in concrete fashion just what a man must know and what he must do in order to raise his soul to the highest degree possible for it to attain4 ,and if they were to tell us what they understand by wisdom and right conduct1 we should not listen to them4 ,our authority is the ,bible1 and we must test the views of the philosophers by the teaching of the ,bible4 ,if we do this we find authority in ,scripture also for belief in the immortality of the soul4 ,thus if we study carefully the expressions used of the various creations in the first chapter of ,genesis1 we notice that in some cases the divine command is expressed by the phrase1 ,let there be4441 followed by the name of the thing to be created2 and the execution of the command is expressed by the words1 ,and there was4441 the name of the created object being repeated2 or the phrase may be simply1 ,and it was so1 without naming the object4 ,in other cases the expression ,let there be is not used1 nor the corresponding ,and there was4 ,this variation in expression is not accidental4 ,it is deliberate and must be understood4 ,upon a careful examination we cannot fail to see that where the expression ,let there be is used1 the object so created exists in this world permanently and without change4 ,thus1 ,let there be light 7,gen4 i1 #c74 ,if in addition we have the corresponding expression1 ,and there was1 in connection with the same object and followed by its name1 it means that the object will continue its everlasting existence in the next world also4 ,hence1 ,and there was light 7ib474 ,in the creation of the firmament and the luminaries we have the expression1 ,let there be2 the corresponding expression at the end is in each case not1 ,and there was4441 but1 ,and it was so4 ,this signifies that in this world1 as long as it lasts1 the firmament and luminaries are permanent and without change2 but they will have no continuance in the next world4 ,in the creation of the sublunar world we do not find the phrase1 ,let there be1 at all1 but such expressions as1 ,let the waters be gathered together 7ib4 #i71 ,let the earth produce grass 7ib4 #aa71 and so on4 ,this means that these things change their forms and have no permanent existence in this world4 ,the phrase1 ,and it was so1 recording the realization of the divine command1 signifies that they do not exist at all in the next world4 ,the case is different in man4 ,we do not find the expression1 ,let there be1 in the command introducing his formation2 hence he has no permanence in this world4 ,but we do find the expression1 ,and the man became 7lit4 was7 a living soul 7ib4 #b1 #g71 which means that he will have permanent existence in the next world4 ,the article before the word man in the verse just quoted indicates that not every man lives forever in the next world1 but only the good4 ,what manner of man he must be in order to have this privilege1 i4 e41 of what nation he must be a member1 we shall see later4 ,this phase of the question the speculative thinkers cannot understand1 hence they did not investigate it4 ,reason alone cannot decide this question2 it needs the guidance of the ,torah1 which is divine4 ,consulting the ,torah on this problem1 we notice that man is distinguished above other animals in the manner of his creation in three respects4 7#a7 ,all other living beings were created by means of something else4 ,the water or the earth was ordered to produce them4 ,man alone was made directly by ,god4 7#b7 ,there are three expressions used for the creation of living things1 create 7,heb4 bara71 form 7,heb4 yazar71 and make 7,heb4 asah74 ,the water animals have only the first 7ib4 #a1 #ba71 as being the lowest in the scale of animal life4 ,land animals have the second and the third1 formed and made 7ib4 #a1 #be2 #b1 #ai74 ,man1 who is superior to all the others1 has all the three expressions 7ib4 #bf1 #bg2 #b1 #g74 7#c7 ,man was given dominion over the other animals 7ib4 #a1 #bh74 ,as man is distinguished above the other animals1 so is one nation distinguished above other men4 ,in ,isaiah 7#dc1 #g7 we read3 ,every one that is called by my name1 and whom ,i have created for my glory2 ,i have formed him2 yea1 ,i have made him4 ,the three terms1 created1 formed1 made1 signify that the reference is to man2 and we learn from this verse that those men were created for his glory who are called by his name4 ,but if we inquire in the ,bible we find that the nation called by ,god's name is ,israel1 as we read 7ib4 #a71 ,thus said the ,lord that created thee1 ,o ,israel1 ,fear not2 for ,i have redeemed thee1 ,i have called thee by thy name2 thou art mine1 and in many other passages besides4 ,the reason for this is their belief in the unity of ,god and their reception of the ,law4 ,at the same time others who are not ,israelites are not excluded from reaching the same degree through repentance4#aeg ,there is no system of ethics in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 and we shall in the sequel select some of his remarks bearing on ethics and pick out the ethical kernel from its homiletical and exegetical husk4 ,man alone1 he tells us1 of all animal creation receives reward and punishment4 ,the other animals have neither merit nor guilt4 ,to be sure1 their fortune in life depends upon the manner in which they respond to their environment1 but this is not in the way of reward and punishment1 but a natural consequence of their natural constitution4 ,with man it is different1 and this is because of the responsible position man occupies1 having been given the privilege and the ability to control all animal creation4#aeh ,the psychological basis of virtue in ,abraham bar ,hiyya is ,platonic in origin1 as it is in ,pseudo-,bahya1 though we do not find the four cardinal virtues and the derivation of justice from a harmonious combination of the other three as in the ,republic of ,plato1 to which ,pseudo-,bahya is ultimately indebted4 ,man has three powers1 we are told1 which some call three souls4 ,one is the power by which he grows and multiplies like the plants of the field4 ,the second is that by which he moves from place to place4 ,these two powers he has in common with the animal4 ,the third is that by which he distinguishes between good and evil1 between truth and falsehood1 between a thing and its opposite1 and by which he acquires wisdom and knowledge4 ,this is the soul which distinguishes him from the other animals4 ,if this soul prevails over the lower two powers1 the man is called meritorious and perfect4 ,if on the other hand the latter prevail over the soul1 the man is accounted like a beast1 and is called wicked and an evil doer4 ,god gives merit to the animal soul for the sake of the rational soul if the former is obedient to the latter2 and on the other hand imputes guilt to the rational soul and punishes her for the guilt of the animal soul because she did not succeed in overcoming the latter4#aei ,the question of the relative superiority of the naturally good who feels no temptation to do wrong1 and the temperamental person who has to sustain a constant struggle with his passions and desires in order to overcome them is decided by ,abraham bar ,hiyya in favor of the former on the ground that the latter is never free from evil thought1 whereas the former is4 ,and he quotes the ,rabbis of the ,talmud1 according to whom the reward in the future world is not the same for the two types of men4 ,he who must overcome temptation before he can subject his lower nature to his reason is rewarded in the next world in a manner bearing resemblance to the goods and pleasures of this world1 and described as precious stones and tables of gold laden with good things to eat4 ,on the other hand1 the reward of the naturally perfect who is free from temptation is purely spiritual1 and bears no earthly traces4 ,these men are represented as sitting under the ,throne of ,glory with their crowns on their heads and delighting in the splendor of the ,shekinah4#afj ,his theodicy offers nothing remarkable4 ,he cites and opposes a solution frequently given in the middle ages of the problem of evil4 ,this is based on the assumption that ,god cannot be the cause of evil4 ,how then explain the presence of evil in the world8 ,there is no analysis or classification or definition of what is meant by evil4 ,apparently it is physical evil which ,abraham bar ,hiyya has in mind4 ,why do some people suffer who do not seem to deserve it8 is the aspect of the problem which interests him4 ,one solution that is offered1 he tells us1 is that evil is not anything positive or substantial4 ,it is something negative1 absence of the good1 as blindness is absence of vision2 deafness1 absence of hearing2 nakedness1 absence of clothing4 ,hence it has no cause4 ,god produces the positive forms which are good1 and determines them to stay a definite length of time4 ,when this time comes to an end1 the forms disappear and their negatives take their place automatically without the necessity of any cause4 ,abraham bar ,hiyya is opposed to this solution of the problem1 though he gives us no philosophic reason for it4 ,his arguments are ,biblical4 ,god is the cause of evil as well as good1 and this is the meaning of the word judgment 7,heb4 ,mishpat7 that occurs so often in the ,bible in connection with ,god's attributes4 ,the same idea is expressed in ,jeremiah 7#i1 #bc7 ,i am the ,lord which exercise loving kindness1 judgment and righteousness in the earth4 ,loving kindness refers to the creation of the world1 which was an act of pure grace on the part of ,god4 ,it was not a necessity4 ,his purpose was purely to do kindness to his creatures and to show them his wisdom and power4 ,righteousness refers to the kindness of ,god1 his charity so to speak1 which every one needs when he dies and wishes to be admitted to the next world4 ,for the majority of men have more guilt than merit4 ,judgment denotes the good and evil distributed in the world according to the law of justice4 ,thus he rewards the righteous in the next world1 and makes them suffer sometimes in this world in order to try them and to double their ultimate reward4 ,he punishes the wicked in this world for their evil deeds1 and sometimes he gives them wealth and prosperity that they may have no claim or defence in the next world4 ,thus evil in this world is not always the result of misconduct which it punishes2 it may be inflicted as a trial1 as in the case of ,job4 ,abraham bar ,hiyya's solution is therefore that there is no reason why ,god should not be the author of physical evil1 since everything is done in accordance with the law of justice4#afa ,,chapter ,,ix ,,joseph ,,ibn ,,zaddik ,little is known of the life of ,joseph ben ,jacob ibn ,zaddik4 ,he lived in ,cordova2 he was appointed ,dayyan1 or ,judge of the ,jewish community of that city in #aach2 and he died in #aadi4 ,he is praised as a ,talmudic scholar by his countryman ,moses ibn ,ezra1 and as a poet by ,abraham ibn ,daud and ,harizi1 though we have no ,talmudic composition from his pen1 and but few poems1 whether liturgical or otherwise4#afb ,his fame rests on his philosophical work1 and it is this phase of his career in which we are interested here4 ,olam ,katon or ,microcosm is the ,hebrew name of the philosophical treatise which he wrote in ,arabic1 but which we no longer possess in the original1 being indebted for our knowledge of it to a ,hebrew translation of unknown authorship4#afc ,maimonides knew ,joseph ibn ,zaddik favorably1 but he was not familiar with the ,microcosm4 ,in a letter to ,samuel ,ibn ,tibbon1 the translator of his ,guide of the ,perplexed1 ,maimonides tells us that though he has not seen the ,olam ,katon of ,ibn ,zaddik1 he knows that its tendency is the same as that of the ,brothers of ,purity 7cf4 above1 p4 #fj74afd ,this signifies that its trend of thought is ,neo-,platonic1 which combines ,aristotelian physics with ,platonic and ,plotinian metaphysics1 ethics and psychology4 ,an examination of the book itself confirms ,maimonides's judgment4 ,in accordance with the trend of the times there is noticeable in ,ibn ,zaddik an increase of ,aristotelian influence1 though of a turbid kind2 a decided decrease1 if not a complete abandonment1 of the ideas of the ,kalam1 and a strong saturation of ,neo-,platonic doctrine and point of view4 ,it was the fashion to set the ,kalam over against the philosophers to the disadvantage of the former1 as being deficient in logical knowledge and prejudiced by theological prepossessions4 ,this is attested by the attitude towards the ,mutakallimun of ,judah ,halevi1 ,maimonides1 ,averroes4 ,and ,ibn ,zaddik forms no exception to the rule4 ,the circumstance that it was most likely from ,karaite writings1 which found their way into ,spain1 that ,ibn ,zaddik gained his knowledge of ,kalamistic ideas1 was not exactly calculated to prepossess him1 a ,rabbanite1 in their favor4 ,and thus while we see him in the manner of ,saadia and ,bahya follow the good old method1 credited by ,maimonides to the ,mutakallimun1 of starting his metaphysics with proofs of the world's creation1 and basing the existence of ,god1 his unity1 incorporeality and other attributes on the creation of the world as a foundation1 he turns into an uncompromising opponent of these much despised apologetes when he comes to discuss the nature of ,god's attributes1 of the divine will1 and of the nature of evil4 ,and in all these cases the target of his attack seems to be their ,karaite representative ,joseph al-,basir1 whose acquaintance we made before 7p4 #dh ff474 ,he laid under contribution his predecessors and contemporaries1 ,saadia1 ,bahya1 ,pseudo-,bahya1 ,gabirol2 and his sympathies clearly lay with the general point of view represented by the last1 and his ,mohammedan sources2 though he was enough of an eclectic to refuse to follow ,gabirol1 or the ,brethren of ,purity and the other ,neo-,platonic writings1 in all the details of their doctrine2 and there is evidence of an attempt on his part to tone down the extremes of ,neo-,platonic tendency and create a kind of level in which ,aristotelianism and ,platonism meet by compromising4 ,thus he believes with ,gabirol that all things corporeal as well as spiritual are composed of matter and form2#afe but when it comes to defining what the matter of spiritual things may be1 he tells us that we may speak of the genus as the matter of the species--a doctrine which is not so ,neo-,platonic after all4 ,for we do not have to go beyond ,aristotle to hear that in the definition of an object1 which represents its intelligible 7opposed to sensible7 essence1 the genus is like the matter1 the difference like the form4 ,of the universal and prime matter underlying all created things outside of ,god1 of which ,gabirol says that it is the immediate emanation of ,god's essence and constitutes with universal form the ,universal ,intelligence1 ,ibn ,zaddik knows nothing4 ,nor do we find any outspoken scheme of emanation1 such as we see in ,plotinus or with a slight modification in the cyclopoedia of the ,brethren of ,purity1 or as it is presupposed in the ,fons ,vit of ,gabirol4 ,ibn ,zaddik does refer to the doctrine of the divine ,will1 which plays such an important rle in the philosophy of ,gabirol and of the ,pseudo-,empedoclean writings1 which are supposed to have been ,gabirol's source4#aff ,but here1 too1 the negative side of ,ibn ,zaddik's doctrine is developed at length1 while the positive side is barely alluded to in a hint4 ,he takes pains to show the absurdity of the view that the divine will is a momentary entity created from time to time to make possible the coming into being of the things and processes of our world--a view held by the ,mutakallimun as represented by their spokesman al-,basir1 but when it comes to explaining his own view of the nature of the divine will1 and whether it is identical with ,god or not1 he suddenly becomes reticent1 refers us to the writings of ,empedocles1 and intimates that the matter is involved in mystery1 and it is not safe to talk about it too plainly and openly4 ,evidently ,ibn ,zaddik was not ready to go all the length of ,gabirol's emanationism and ,neo-,platonic mysticism4 ,the ,aristotelian ideas1 of which there are many in the ,microcosm1 are probably not derived from a study of ,aristotle's works1 but from secondary sources4 ,this we may safely infer from the way in which he uses or interprets them4 ,an ,aristotelian definition is a highly technical proposition in which every word counts1 and requires a definition in turn to be understood4 ,in the ,aristotelian context the reader sees the methodical derivation of the concept2 and the several technical terms making up the definition are made clear by illustrative examples4 ,aside from the context the proposition is obscure even in the original ,greek4 ,now conceive an ,arabic translation of an ,aristotelian definition taken out of its context1 and you do not wonder that it is misunderstood2 particularly when the interpreter's point of view is taken from a school of thought at variance with that of ,aristotle4 ,this is exactly what happens to ,ibn ,zaddik4 ,he quotes approvingly ,aristotle's definition of the soul1 and proceeds to interpret it in a manner not intended by the author of the ,de ,anima4#afg ,if he had read the context he could not have misunderstood the definition as he did4 ,unlike his predecessors1 ,ibn ,zaddik did not confine himself to a special topic in philosophy or to the metaphysical aspects of ,judaism4 ,isaac ,israeli and ,gabirol discuss special questions in ,physics and ,metaphysics without bringing them into relation with ,judaism or the text of the ,bible4 ,saadia takes cognizance of philosophical doctrine solely with a view to establishing and rationalizing ,jewish dogma1 and only in so far as it may thus be utilized4 ,bahya and ,abraham bar ,hiyya confine their philosophical outlook within still narrower limits1 having ,jewish ethics as their primary concern4 ,all of the latter make a feature of ,biblical interpretation1 which lends to their work the ,jewish stamp and to their style the element of homeliness and variety4 ,to this they owe in a measure their popularity1 which1 however1 cannot be said for ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 whose ,hegyon ha-,nefesh was not printed until the second half of last century4 ,the ,microcosm of ,ibn ,zaddik is the first compendium of science1 philosophy and theology in ,jewish literature4 ,and yet it is a small book2 for ,ibn ,zaddik does not enter into lengthy discussions1 nor does he adorn his style with rhetorical flourishes or copious quotations from ,bible and ,talmud4 ,the ,olam ,katon is clearly meant for beginners1 who require a summary and compendious view of so much of physics1 psychology1 metaphysics and ethics as will give them an idea of the position of man in the world1 and his duties1 theoretical and practical1 in this life1 that he may fulfil his destiny for which he was created4 ,it is very possible that ,ibn ,zaddik modelled his work on the ,encyclopdia of the ,brethren of ,purity1 leaving out all that he regarded as unessential or objectional and abridging the rest4 ,accordingly1 the ,microcosm is divided into four parts4 ,the first part treats of what is called in the ,aristotelian classification of the sciences ,physics1 i4 e41 the principles and constitution of the corporeal world and its processes4 ,the second treats of man1 including anthropology and psychology4 ,the third is devoted to a discussion of the existence1 unity1 incorporeality and other attributes of ,god1 based upon the doctrine of the creation of the world4 ,this bears the stamp of the ,kalam1 and is indebted to the writings of ,saadia1 ,bahya and ,joseph al-,basir4 ,it covers the topics usually treated by the ,mutakallimun in the division of their works1 known by the name of ,bab al ,tauhid1 treatise on ,unity4 ,the fourth part corresponds to the ,bab al ,adi of the ,kalam1 i4 e41 the second division of ,kalamistic works devoted to theodicy1 or vindication of ,god's justice in his dealings with mankind4 ,hence it includes theological questions of an ethical nature1 like freedom of the will1 reasons for divine worship1 the nature of reward and punishment1 and so on4 ,the book was written1 ,ibn ,zaddik tells us1 in answer to the question of a pupil concerning the meaning of such terms as perfection and permanent good1 used by philosophers4 ,they are not of this world these men say1 and yet every man of intelligence should seek them4 ,this is a very difficult subject1 made more so by the small number of persons engaged in its study4 ,particularly in our own generation is this true1 that the value of knowledge and investigation is not recognized4 ,people are ,jews in name only1 and men only in outward appearance4 ,former ages were much superior in this regard4 ,two fundamental requisites are necessary for the knowledge of our subject4 ,they are the knowledge of ,god1 and performance of his will4 ,for this purpose we must understand the works of the philosophers4 ,but these in turn require a knowledge of the preliminary sciences of arithmetic1 geometry1 music1 astronomy1 and logic4 ,this takes a long time and is likely to weary the student1 especially the beginner4 ,i have therefore made it my purpose to show how a man can know himself1 for from a knowledge of self he will come to a knowledge of all4 ,man is called ,microcosm1 a world in miniature1 because he has in him represented all the elements of the universe4 ,his body resembles the corporeal world2 his rational soul the spiritual world4 ,hence the importance of knowing himself1 and hence the definition of philosophy as a man's knowledge of himself4 ,philosophy is the science of sciences and the end thereof1 because it is the path to a knowledge of the ,creator4#afh ,here we see at the outset ,ibn ,zaddik's ,neo-,platonic tendency to make a short cut to knowledge through the study of man instead of the painful and laborious mastery of the preliminary sciences4 ,and so it was that the ,neo-,platonists added little to ,aristotle's study of nature1 concentrating their attention upon the intelligible or spiritual world4 ,the first thing we must do then is to show that the human body is similar to the corporeal world4 ,this will require an analysis of the structure of the latter4 ,but before examining the objects of knowledge1 we must say a word about the process of knowing4 ,man perceives things in two ways--through sense and through intellect4 ,his senses give him the accidents of things1 the shell or husk1 so to speak4 ,he perceives color through sight1 sound through hearing1 odor through smell1 and so on4 ,it takes reason to penetrate to the essence of an object4 ,take as an example a book4 ,the sense of sight perceives its color1 and through the color its form4 ,this is then apprehended by the power of imagination or representation4 ,the latter in turn hands it over to the cogitative power of the rational soul1 from the reflection of which results the spiritual reality of the object1 which is its knowledge4 ,so we see that the reason knows the essence and reality of a thing1 whereas the senses know only its husk and its accidents4 ,this same thing is stated by the philosopher in another form4 ,the senses1 he says1 know only the particular1 the universal can be known by the intellect only4 ,this is because the soul is fine and penetrating1 while the body is gross1 and can reach the surface only4 ,we may also classify knowledge from another point of view as necessary 7or immediate71 and demonstrated 7or mediate74 ,necessary knowledge is that which no sane man can deny4 ,such knowledge may be of the senses1 as the sight of the sun or the sound of thunder2 or it may be of the reason1 such as that the whole is greater than its parts4 ,we may then enumerate four kinds of things known directly without the help of other knowledge1 7#a7 ,the percepts of the senses4 7#b7 ,truths generally admitted by reason of their self-evidence4 7#c7 ,traditional truths1 i4 e41 truths handed down by a reliable and wise man1 or by a community worthy of credence4 7#d7 ,first principles or axioms4 ,these four can be easily reduced to two2 for traditional truths ultimately go back to the testimony of the senses2 while first principles or axioms are included in self-evident propositions4 ,we thus have two kinds of necessary or immediate knowledge1 the data of sense1 and self-evident propositions4 ,the latter kind is superior to the former1 because man shares sense knowledge with the lower animals2 whereas rational propositions are peculiar to him alone4 ,demonstrated knowledge is built upon necessary knowledge1 and is derived from it by means of logical inference4#afi ,we may now proceed to discuss the principles of the corporeal world4 ,matter is the foundation and principle of a thing4 ,all things1 natural as well as artificial1 are composed of matter and form4 ,wood is the common matter of chair and bed4 ,their forms are different4 ,so the common matter of the four elements is the prime matter endowed with the form of corporeality1 i4 e41 with the capacity of filling place4 ,this form of corporeality makes the prime matter corporeal substance4 ,matter is relative to form1 form is relative to matter4 ,spiritual things also have matter and form4 ,in corporeal artificial things like ring or bracelet1 the matter is gold1 the form is the form of ring or bracelet1 the efficient cause is the art of the goldsmith1 the final cause or purpose is the adornment4 ,in spiritual things we may compare genus to matter1 species to form1 specific difference to efficient cause1 the individual to the final cause4 ,everything exists either by itself 7per se7 or in something else4 ,matter exists by itself1 form exists in something else1 in matter4 ,matter is potentially substance2 after it assumes a form it becomes actual substance4 ,in reality there is no matter without form1 but in thought we can remove the form and leave the matter4 ,substance may be described as that which bears opposite and changing qualities4 ,no substance can be the opposite of another substance through its substantiality1 but through its accidents2 for opposition resides in quality4 ,matter receiving form is substance4 ,absolute substance is simple and spiritual1 for it cannot be perceived through the five senses4 ,when the philosophers say that all body is substance1 and that the individual is a substance1 they use substance in contradistinction to accident1 meaning that the individual exists by itself1 and needs not another for its existence1 unlike accidents1 which must have something to exist in4 ,this absolute substance1 which is simple and spiritual1 seems to be identical with ,gabirol's substantia qu sustinet decem prdicamenta1 the substance which supports the ten categories4 ,gabirol means by it that which remains of a corporeal substance when we take away from it everything that qualifies it as being here or there1 of a particular nature or size1 in a given relation1 and so on4 ,the expression corporeal world includes the celestial spheres and all which is under them4 ,to be sure1 the body of the sphere is different from the other bodies in matter and form and qualities4 ,it consists of a fifth nature1 different from the four elements4 ,it is not cold1 or it would move downward like earth and water4 ,it is not warm1 or it would move upward like air and fire4 ,it is not wet1 for it would then roll like the waves of the sea4 ,nor is it dry1 for it would condense and not move at all4 ,not being any one of these qualities1 which constitute our four elements1 the sphere is not a composite of them either2 for the simple is prior to the composite1 and we cannot regard the elements of the sublunar world as prior and superior to the spheres4 ,the sphere is neither light nor heavy4 ,for light and heavy are relative terms4 ,an object is heavy when out of its natural place1 light when in its natural place4 ,thus a stone is heavy when it is away from the earth1 which is its natural place1 but is light when it comes to rest where it belongs4 ,the sphere is never out of its place or in its place1 as it moves constantly in a circle4 ,hence it is neither light nor heavy4 ,ibn ,zaddik's definition of light and heavy as being relative1 and dependent on the relation of the object to its natural place is peculiar1 and would lead him to say that fire and air are also heavy when out of their natural place1 which is outside of1 and above earth and water4 ,but this does not seem in consonance with the ,aristotelian use of these terms4 ,according to ,aristotle an object is heavy if its tendency is to move to the centre of the world2 it is light if it moves away from the centre to the circumference4 ,hence earth and water are heavy1 fire and air are light4 ,the natural place of a body or element is that to which it has a tendency to move1 or in which it has a tendency to rest1 when left to itself4 ,hence a body will always move to its natural place when away from it and under no restriction2 and its heaviness or lightness does not change with its position4 ,to continue1 the sphere moves in a circle1 the most perfect of all motions1 having neither beginning nor end4 ,it is more perfect than all bodies1 and the knowledge of ,god is not hidden from it as it is hidden from us4 ,whatever moves in a circle must move around a body at rest2 for if it moves around another moving body1 this second body must have another body around which it moves1 and this third body another1 and so on ad infinitum1 which is impossible4 ,hence the sphere moves around a body at rest4 ,this is the earth4 ,the four elements of the sublunar world are1 fire1 air1 water1 earth4 ,in their purity these elements have neither color nor taste1 nor odor nor any other sensible property4 ,for the elements are simple bodies1 whereas the sensible qualities are the result of the composition of the elements4 ,if air had color1 we should see it as we see all colored things2 and all other things would appear to us in the color of air1 as is the case when we look through a colored glass4 ,the same argument applies to water4 ,the elements change into each other4 ,we see water changing under the effect of heat into vapor1 and the vapor condenses again under the influence of cold and changes back to water1 namely1 rain4 ,air changes into fire when flint strikes iron4 ,fire cannot exist here unless it has something to take hold of2 otherwise it changes into air4 ,earth and water change into each other very slowly1 because earth is hard to change4 ,the basis of the four elements is a substance filling place as a result of its assuming the form of corporeality1 i4 e41 extension in three directions4 ,filling place1 it moves2 moving1 it becomes warm4 ,when its motion is completed1 it necessarily comes to rest and becomes cold4 ,heat and cold are the active powers1 wet and dry are the passive qualities1 wet being associated with heat1 dry with cold4 ,the mixture of these qualities with the corporeal basis results in the four elements4 ,the three natures1 mineral1 plant1 animal are composed of the four elements4 ,when a seed is put in the ground it cannot grow without water1 and sunshine and air4 ,these form its food1 and food is assimilated to the thing fed4 ,our bodies are composed of the four elements1 because they are nourished by plants4 ,the general process of the sublunar world is that of genesis and dissolution4 ,the genesis of one thing is the dissolution of another4 ,the dissolution of the egg is the genesis of the chicken2 the dissolution of the chicken is the genesis of the four elements2 for in the living being the elements are potential1 and they become actual when the animal dies4 ,this continuous process of genesis and dissolution proves that this world is not permanent1 for the basis of its processes is change4#agj ,the human body corresponds to the corporeal world1 and is similar to it in its nature and matter4 ,man's body is subject to genesis and decay like other objects4 ,it is composed of the elements and returns to them4 ,it has in it the nature of minerals1 plants and animals4 ,it has the power of growth1 sustenance and reproduction like plants4 ,man is like animal in having motion and sensation4 ,he has the spirited power and the appetitive like other animals4 ,his body is perfect because it has resemblances to all kinds of plants and animals4 ,his body as a whole resembles great trees1 his hair is like grass and shrubs4 ,animals have various qualities according to the relation of the animal soul to the body4 ,thus the lion has strength1 the lamb meekness1 the fox shrewdness1 and so on4 ,mankind includes all of these qualities4 ,in the same way various animals have various instincts resembling arts1 such as the weaving of the spider1 the building of the bird and the bee1 and so on4 ,they also subsist on various foods4 ,man alone combines all arts and all kinds of food4 ,the human body has three dimensions like inanimate bodies4 ,it is also similar to the bodies of plants and animals1 and at the same time is distinguished alone among animals by its erect position4 ,this is due to the fact that man's nature is proportionate1 and his body is purer and finer than other bodies4 ,thus we see when oil is pure1 its flame rises in a straight line2 when the oil is impure the flame is not straight4 ,another thing proving that man's nature is superior to that of other animals is that the latter live in that element which is akin to their constitution--fish in water1 birds in air1 quadrupeds on land4 ,man alone can inhabit all three4 ,another reason for man's erect position is that he is a plant originating in heaven4 ,hence his head1 which is the root1 faces heaven4#aga ,man has three souls1 a plant soul1 an animal soul and a rational soul4 ,he must have a plant soul to account for the fact that man grows like other plants and dies like them4 ,for if he can grow without a plant soul1 plants can do the same4 ,and if this too is granted1 then there is no reason why mountains and stones should not grow also4 ,again1 if man can grow without a plant soul1 he can live without an animal soul1 and know without a rational soul1 which is absurd4 ,the faculty of the vegetative soul is the appetitive power1 whose seat is in the liver4 ,its subordinate powers are those of nutrition and growth4 ,through it man feels the need of food and other natural desires4 ,he has this in common with the lower animals4 ,it is the first power that appears in man while he is still in his mother's womb4 ,first comes the power which forms the combined seed of the male and the female into a human being in its proper form and nature4 ,in doing this it requires the assistance of the growing power1 which begins its activity as soon as the first member is formed1 and continues until the period of youth is completed4 ,this power in turn needs the assistance of the nourishing power1 which accompanies the other two from the beginning of their activity to the end of the person's life4 ,all this constitutes the plant soul1 and it must not be supposed that these powers are separated from one another1 and that one is in one place and another in another place4 ,they are all spiritual powers derived from the universal powers in the upper world4 ,when the form of the being is complete1 the animal soul makes its appearance4 ,this soul is carried in the spirit of the animal or man1 which is found in the pure blood of the arteries4 ,there are two membranes in every artery1 making two passages1 one for blood and the other for the spirit or wind4 ,the seat of the animal soul is in the heart1 and it is borne in the pure red blood4 ,this is why we see in the heart two receptacles2 in one is spirit1 in the other1 blood4 ,hence after death we find congealed blood in the one1 while the other is empty4 ,death happens on account of the defective mixture of the heart4 ,this means that the four humors of which the body is composed1 namely1 blood1 yellow and black gall and phlegm1 lose the proper proportionality in their composition1 and one or other of them predominates4 ,an animal does not die unless the mixture of the heart is injured1 or the heart is wounded seriously4 ,death is also caused by disease or injury of the brain4 ,for the brain is the origin of the nerves which control the voluntary activities by means of contraction and expansion4 ,if the chest does not contract1 the warm air does not come out2 if it does not expand1 the cold air does not come in2 and if the air does not come in or out1 the heart loses its proportionality1 and the animal dies4 ,the functions of the animal soul are sensation and motion4 ,this motion may be active as well as passive4 ,the active motions are those of the arteries1 and the expansion and contraction of the chest which results in respiration4 ,the passive motions give rise to the emotions of anger1 fear1 shame1 joy1 sorrow4 ,anger is the motion of the spirit within the body toward the outside1 together with the blood and the humors4 ,this is found in animals also4 ,fear is the entrance of the soul within1 leaving the surface of the body1 and causing the extremities to become cold4 ,shame is a motion inward1 and forthwith again outward4 ,sorrow is caused in the same way as fear1 except that fear is sudden1 while sorrow is gradual4 ,this is why fear sometimes kills when the body is weak4 ,joy is motion outward4 ,joy may kill too1 when it is very great1 and the person is weak and without control4 ,joy is of the nature of pleasure1 except that pleasure is gradual1 while joy is sudden4 ,pain is that feeling we have when we are taken out of our natural state and put into an unnatural4 ,pleasure is felt when we are restored to the natural4 ,take1 for example1 the heat of the sun4 ,when a person is exposed to it1 the sun takes him out of his natural state4 ,heat is then painful1 and pleasure is produced by the thing which restores him to his natural state2 in this case a cold spring and a drink of cold water4 ,similarly a person walking in the snow and cold air feels pain by reason of the cold taking him out of his natural state4 ,heat then gives him pleasure by restoring him4 ,the same thing applies to hunger and thirst1 sleeping and waking1 and other things which give us pleasure and pain4 ,without pain there is no pleasure1 and the pleasure varies in accordance with the antecedent pain4 ,life is the effect of the animal soul4 ,the disappearance of the effect does not necessarily involve the disappearance of the cause1 as the disappearance of the smoke does not require the cessation of the fire4 ,death means simply the separation of the soul1 not the destruction thereof4 ,it does not follow because the human soul remains after the death of the body1 that the soul of the ox and the ass continues likewise1 for the two souls are different4 ,animals were created for the sake of man1 whereas man exists for his own sake4 ,moreover1 man's life is ultimately derived from his rational soul4 ,for if the animal soul of man were the ultimate source of life1 the rational soul too would be dependent for its life upon the former1 and hence would be inferior to it1 which is absurd4 ,it remains then that the rational soul gives existence to the animal soul in man4 ,sleep is the rest of the senses1 as death is their entire cessation4 ,the purpose of sleep is to give the brain rest so that the spirit of the soul should not be dissolved and the mixture of the body injured suddenly and cause death4 ,the heart rests continually between contraction and expansion1 hence it needs no special rest at night4 ,waking is the activity of the senses and the exercise of their functions to satisfy the desires of the body4 ,the motions of the soul in the waking state are in the interest of the needs of the body4 ,during sleep the soul looks out for itself1 for its better world1 being then free from the business of the body4 ,if it is pure and bright1 and the body is free from the remnant of food1 and the thought is not depressed by sorrow and grief--then the soul is aroused in its desire for the future1 and beholds wonderful things4#agb ,no one can deny that man has a rational soul because speech is an attribute which man has above all other animals4 ,the soul is not a corporeal thing1 for if it were it would have to occupy place like body1 and would have color and form and other qualities like body4 ,moreover1 it would require something else to give it life like body4 ,in other words1 the soul would require another soul1 and that soul another soul1 and so on ad infinitum1 which is impossible4 ,hence the soul is not a corporeal thing4 ,nor can we say that the soul is in the body4 ,for if it were1 it would itself be body2 since only body can fill the empty place in another body1 as water fills a jar4 ,the soul is a substance and not an accident4 ,an accident is a quality which makes its appearance in something else1 and has no permanence4 ,if then the rational soul is an accident of the body1 it has no permanence1 and man is sometimes rational and sometimes not4 ,this is absurd1 for in that case there could be no purpose in giving him commandments and statutes4 ,there are inseparable accidents to be sure1 like the color of the ,ethiopian's skin4 ,but in that case we know the color is an accident despite its inseparability1 from the fact that in other things color is an accident and may be removed4 ,this will not apply to the reason4 ,for we do not find anything in which reason is a removable accident4 ,the moment you remove reason1 you remove man1 for reason is essential to man4 ,the fact that as a result of an injury a man may lose his reason is no argument against us1 for this happens only when an injury is inflicted on the brain1 which is the reason's instrument4 ,this accounts for the fact1 too1 that men in good health if given henbane to drink lose their reason1 because the drink affects the brain4 ,on the other hand1 we see that those afflicted with a certain disease of the intestines1 which causes their death1 are more rational and brighter at the time of death than ever before1 showing that the soul cannot be an accident depending upon the mixture of the body4 ,to regard the soul as an accident1 while the body is a substance1 would make the soul inferior to the body4 ,this is absurd4 ,for we have the body in common with the beasts2 whereas it is in virtue of the reason that we are given commandments1 and reward and punishment in the world to come4 ,if the soul is neither a corporeal thing nor an accident of body1 it must be a spiritual substance4 ,and the best definition of the soul is that of ,aristotle1 who says it is a substance giving perfection to a natural organic body1 which has life potentially4 ,every phrase in this definition tells4 ,substance excludes the view that the soul is an accident4 ,giving perfection signifies that the soul is that which makes man perfect1 bringing him to the next world1 and being the purpose not merely of his creation and the composition of his body1 but of the creation of matter as well4 ,natural organic body indicates that the body is an organon1 or instrument in the function of the soul1 the latter using the body to carry out its own purposes4 ,the rational soul is like a king2 the animal soul is like an official before the king1 rebuking the appetitive soul4 ,in the discussion of the last paragraph we have a good example of the uncritical attitude of ,ibn ,zaddik toward the various schools of philosophical thought1 particularly those represented by ,plato and ,aristotle4 ,this attitude is typical of the middle ages1 which appealed to authority in philosophy as well as in theology1 and hence developed a harmonistic attitude in the presence of conflicting authorities4 ,aided by their defective knowledge of the complete systems of the ancient ,greek philosophers1 by the difficulties and obscurities incident to translations from an alien tongue1 and by the spurious writings circulating in the name of an ancient ,greek philosopher1 the precise demarcation of schools and tendencies became more and more confused1 and it was possible to prove that ,plato and ,aristotle were in entire agreement4 ,thus ,ibn ,zaddik has no scruple in combining 7unconsciously1 to be sure7 ,platonic and ,neo-,platonic psychology with the ,aristotelian definition representing quite a different point of view4 ,the one is anthropological dualism1 regarding the soul as a distinct entity which comes to the body from without4 ,the other is a biological monism1 in which the soul is the reality of the body1 the essence of its functioning1 which makes the potentially living body an actually living body4 ,we cannot enter here into a criticism of the elements of the ,aristotelian definition of the soul as rendered and interpreted by ,ibn ,zaddik1 but will merely say that it misses completely the meaning of ,aristotle1 and shows that ,ibn ,zaddik did not take it from the ,de ,anima of ,aristotle1 but found it without its context in some ,arabic work4 ,to return from our digression1 the three souls1 ,ibn ,zaddik tells us1 are spiritual powers2 every one of them is a substance by itself of benefit to the body4 ,the rational soul gets the name soul primarily1 and the others get it from the rational soul4 ,the ,intellect is called soul because the rational soul and the ,intellect have a common matter4 ,and hence when the soul is perfected it becomes intellect4 ,this is why the rational soul is called potential intellect4 ,the only difference between them is one of degree and excellence4 ,the world of ,intellect is superior1 and its matter is the pure light1 ,intellect in which there is no ignorance1 because it comes from ,god without any intermediate agency4 ,here we see just a touch of the ,neo-,platonic doctrine of emanation1 of which the ,universal ,intellect is the first4 ,but it is considerably toned down and not continued down the series as in ,plotinus or the ,brethren of ,purity4 ,the accidents of the soul are spiritual like the soul itself4 ,they are1 knowledge1 kindness1 goodness1 justice1 and other similar qualities4 ,ignorance1 wrong1 evil1 and so on1 are not the opposites of those mentioned above1 and were not created with the soul like the others4 ,they are merely the absence of the positive qualities mentioned before1 as darkness is the absence of light4 ,god did not create any defect1 nor did he desire it4 ,evil is simply the result of the incapacity of a given thing to receive a particular good4 ,if all things were capable of receiving goods equally1 all things would be one thing1 and the ,creator and his creatures would be likewise one4 ,this was not ,god's purpose4 ,there is a tacit opposition to the ,mutakallimun in ,ibn ,zaddik's arguments against the view that the soul is an accident1 as well as in his statement in the preceding paragraph that the bad qualities and evil generally are not opposites of the good qualities and good respectively1 but that they are merely privations1 absences1 and hence not created by ,god4 ,this is a ,neo-,platonic doctrine4 ,pseudo-,bahya1 we have seen 7p4 #ajh f471 and ,abraham bar ,hiyya 7p4 #abc f47 adopt the ,kalamistic view in the latter point1 and solve the problem of evil differently4 ,the function of the rational soul is knowledge4 ,the rational soul investigates the unknown and comprehends it4 ,it derives general rules1 makes premises and infers one thing from another4 ,man alone has this privilege4 ,it is in virtue of the rational soul that we have been given commandments and prohibitions1 and become liable to reward and punishment4 ,brute animals have no commandments1 because they have no reason4 ,the soul has reason only potentially1 and man makes it actual by study4 ,if the reason were actual originally in the soul1 there would be no difference between the soul's condition in its own world and in this one2 and the purpose of man1 which is that he may learn in order to choose the right way and win salvation1 would have no meaning4 ,the existence of many individual souls1 all of which have the soul character in common1 shows that there is a universal soul by virtue of which all the particular souls exist4 ,this division of the universal soul into many individual souls is not really a division of the former in its essence1 which remains one and indivisible4 ,it is the bodies which receive the influence of the universal soul1 as vessels in the sun receive its light according to their purity4 ,hence the existence of justice and evil1 righteousness and wrong4 ,this does not1 however1 mean to say that the reception of these qualities is independent of a man's choice4 ,man is free to choose1 and hence he deserves praise and blame1 reward and punishment4 ,the rational soul is destined for the spiritual world1 which is a pure and perfect world1 made by ,god directly without an intermediate agency4 ,it is not subject to change or defect or need4 ,god alone created this spiritual world to show his goodness and power1 and not because he needed it4 ,the world is not like ,god1 though ,god is its cause4 ,it is not eternal a parte ante1 having been made out of nothing by ,god2 but it will continue to exist forever1 for it cannot be more perfect than it is4 ,it is simple and spiritual4 ,this applies also to the heavenly spheres and their stars4 ,man is obliged to reason and investigate1 as all nations do according to the measure of their capacities4 ,no animal reasons because it has not the requisite faculty4 ,but if man should neglect to exercise the power given him1 he would lose the benefit coming therefrom and the purpose of his existence4 ,there would then be no difference between him and the beast4 ,the first requisite for study and investigation is to deaden the animal desires4 ,then with the reason as a guide and his body as a model1 man acquires the knowledge of the corporeal world4 ,from his rational soul he comes to the knowledge of the existence of a spiritual world4 ,finally he will learn to know the ,creator1 who is the only real existent1 for nothing can be said truly to exist1 which at one time did not exist1 or which at some time will cease to exist4 ,when a man neglects this privilege which is his of using his reason1 he forfeits the name man1 and descends below the station of the beast1 for the latter never falls below its animal nature4 ,it is very important to study the knowledge of ,god1 for it is the highest knowledge and the cause of human perfection4 ,the prophets are full of recommendations in this regard4 ,jeremiah says 7#ca1 #cc71 ,they shall all know me1 from the least of them even unto their greatest4 ,amos 7#e1 #f7 bids us ,seek for the ,lord and you shall live4 ,hosea likewise 7#f1 #c7 recommends that ,we may feel it1 and strive to know the ,lord4#agc ,the first loss a man suffers who does not study and investigate is that he does not understand the real existence of ,god1 and imagines he is worshipping a body4 ,some think ,god is light4 ,but this is as bad as to regard him body4 ,for light is an accident in a shining body1 as is proved by the fact that the air receives the light of the sun1 and later it receives the shadow and becomes dark4 ,and yet these people are not the worst by any means1 for there are others who do not trouble to concentrate their minds on ,god1 and occupy their thoughts solely with the business and the pleasures of this world4 ,these people we do not discuss at all4 ,we are arguing against those who imagine they are wise men and students of the ,kalam4 ,in fact they are ignorant persons1 and do not know what logic is and how it is to be used4 ,before giving our own views of the nature and existence of ,god1 we must refute the objectionable doctrines of these people4 ,joseph al-,basir in a work of his called ,mansuri casts it up to the ,rabbanites that in believing that ,god descends and ascends they are not true worshippers of ,god4 ,but he forgets that his own doctrines are no better4 ,anyone who believes that ,god created with a newly created will and rejects by means of a newly created rejection has never truly served ,god or known him4 ,just as objectionable is their view that ,god is living but not with life residing in a subject1 powerful but not with power1 and so on4 ,we shall take up each of these in turn4 ,the ,mutakallimun refuse to believe that ,god's will is eternal1 for fear of having a second eternal beside ,god4 ,and so they say that whenever ,god wills1 he creates a will for the purpose1 and whenever he rejects anything he creates a rejection with which the objectionable thing is rejected4 ,but this leads them to a worse predicament than the one from which they wish to escape1 as we shall see4 ,if ,god cannot create anything without having a will as the instrument in creating1 and for this reason must first create a will for the purpose--how did he create this will8 ,he must have had another will to create this will1 and a third will to create the second1 and so on ad infinitum1 which is absurd4 ,if he created the first will without the help of another will1 why not create the things he wanted outright without any will8 ,besides1 in making ,god will at a given time after a state of not willing1 they introduce change in ,god4 ,as for the other dictum1 that ,god is living but not with life1 powerful but not with power1 knowing but not with knowledge1 and so on2 what do they mean by this circumlocution8 ,if they say living to indicate that he is not dead1 and add but not with life1 so as to prevent a comparison of him with other living things1 why not say also1 ,he is body1 but not like other bodies8 ,if the objection to calling him body is that body is composite1 and what is composite must have been composed by someone and is not eternal1 the same objection applies to living4 ,for living implies breathing and possessed of sensation1 hence also composite and created4 ,if they reply1 we mean life peculiar to him1 we say why not also body peculiar to him8 ,you see these people entangle themselves in their own sophisms1 because they do not know what demonstration means4#agd ,having disposed of the errors of the ,mutakallimun1 we must now present our own method of investigation into the nature of ,god4 ,to know a thing1 we investigate its four causes--material1 formal1 efficient and final4 ,what has no cause but is the cause of all things1 cannot be known in this way4 ,still it is not altogether unknowable for this reason4 ,its essence cannot be known1 but it may be known through its activities1 or rather effects1 which suggest attributes4 ,we cannot therefore know concerning ,god what he is1 nor how he is1 nor on account of what1 nor of what kind1 nor where1 nor when4 ,for these can apply only to a created thing having a cause4 ,but we can ask concerning him1 whether he is2 and this can best be known from his deeds4 ,we observe the things of the world and find that they are all composed of substance and accident1 as we saw before 7p4 #aca74 ,these are correlative1 and one cannot exist without the other4 ,hence neither precedes the other4 ,but accident is new 7i4 e41 not eternal71 hence so is substance4 ,that accident is new is proved from the fact that rest succeeds motion and motion succeeds rest1 hence accidents constantly come and go and are newly created4 ,now if substance and accident are both new there must be something that brought them into being unless they bring themselves into being4 ,but the latter is impossible1 for the agent must either exist when it brings itself into being1 or not4 ,if it exists it is already there2 if it does not exist1 it is nothing1 and nothing cannot do anything4 ,hence there must be a being that brought the world into existence4 ,this is ,god4 ,god is one1 for the cause of the many must be the one4 ,if the cause of the many is the many1 then the cause of the second many is a third many1 and so on ad infinitum2 hence we must stop with the one4 ,god is to the world as unity is to number4 ,unity is the basis of number without being included in number1 and it embraces number on all sides4 ,it is the foundation of number2 for if you remove unity1 you remove number2 but the removal of number does not remove unity4 ,the one surrounds number on all sides2 for the beginning of number is the one1 and it is also the middle of number and the end thereof4 ,for number is nothing but an aggregate of ones4 ,besides1 number is composed of odds and evens1 and one is the cause of odd as well as even4 ,if there were two eternal beings1 they would either coincide in all respects1 and they would be one and not two4 ,or they would differ4 ,in the latter case1 the world is either the work of both or of one only4 ,if of both1 they are not omnipotent1 and hence not eternal4 ,if of one only1 then the other does not count1 since he is not eternal1 and there is only one4 ,by saying ,god is one we do not mean that he comes under the category of quantity1 for quantity is an accident residing in a substance1 and all substance is new4 ,what we mean is that the essence of ,god is true unity1 not numerical unity4 ,for numerical unity is also in a sense multiplicity1 and is capable of multiplication and division4 ,god's unity is alone separate and one in all respects4 ,god is not like any of his creatures4 ,for if he were1 he would be possessed of quality1 since it is in virtue of quality that a thing is said to be like another1 and quality is an accident contained in a substance4 ,god is self-sufficient and not in need of anything4 ,for if he needed anything at all1 it would be first of all the one who created him and made him an existent thing4 ,but this is absurd1 since ,god is eternal4 ,we might suppose that he needs the world1 which he created for some purpose1 as we sometimes make things to assist us4 ,but this1 too1 is impossible4 ,for if he were dependent upon the world for anything1 he could not create it4 ,it is different with us4 ,we do not create things2 we only modify matter already existing4 ,again1 if ,god created the world for his own benefit1 then either he was always in need of the world1 or the need arose at the time of creating4 ,if he was always in need of the world1 it would have existed with him from eternity1 but we have already proved that the world is not eternal4 ,if the need arose in him at the time of creation1 as heat arises in a body after cold1 or motion after rest1 then he is like created things1 and is himself new and not eternal4 ,to say the need was always there1 and yet he did not create it until the time he did would be to ascribe inability to ,god of creating the world before he did1 which is absurd4 ,for one who is unable at any given time1 cannot create at all4 ,it remains then that he does not need anything1 and that he created the world by reason of his goodness and generosity and nothing else4 ,the question of ,god's will is difficult4 ,the problem is this4 ,if ,god's will is eternal and unchanging1 and he created the world with his will1 the world is eternal4 ,if we say1 as we must1 that he created the world after a condition of non-creation1 we introduce a change in ,god1 a something newly created in him1 namely1 the will to create1 which did not exist before4 ,this is a dilemma4 ,my own view is that since ,god's creating activity is his essence1 and his essence is infinite and eternal1 we cannot say he created after a condition of non-creation1 or that he willed after a condition of non-willing1 or that he was formerly not able4 ,and yet we do not mean that the world is eternal4 ,it was created a definite length of time before our time4 ,the solution of the problem is that time itself was created with the world2 for time is the measure of motion of the celestial sphere1 and if there are no spheres there is no time1 and no before and after4 ,hence it does not follow because the world is not eternal that before its creation ,god did not create4 ,there is no before when the world is not4 ,we objected to the view of the ,mutakallimun 7p4 #adb71 who speak of ,god creating a will on the ground that if he can create a will directly he can create the world instead4 ,our opinion is therefore that ,god's will is eternal and not newly created1 for the latter view introduces creation in ,god4 ,there is still the difficulty of the precise relation of the will to ,god4 ,if it is different from ,god we have two eternals1 and if it is the same as ,god in all respects1 he changes when he creates4 ,my answer is1 it is not different from ,god in any sense1 and there is no changing attribute in ,god4 ,but there is a subtle mystery in this matter1 which it is not proper to reveal1 and this is not the place to explain it4 ,the interested reader is referred to the book of ,empedocles and other works of the wise men treating of this subject 7cf4 above1 p4 #fd74 ,god created the world out of nothing1 and not out of a pre-existent matter4 ,for if the matter of the world is eternal like ,god1 there is no more reason for supposing that ,god formed a world out of it than that it formed a world out of ,god4 ,the world is perfect4 ,for we have repeatedly shown that its creation is due entirely to ,god's goodness4 ,if then it were not perfect1 this would argue in ,god either ignorance or niggardliness or weakness4#age ,most of the ancients avoided giving ,god attributes for fear of making him the bearer of qualities1 which would introduce plurality and composition in his essence4 ,the proper view1 however1 is this4 ,as ,god's essence is different from all other essences1 so are his attributes different from all other attributes4 ,his attributes are not different from him2 his knowledge and his truth and his power are his essence4 ,the way man arrives at the divine attributes is this4 ,men have examined his works and learned from them ,god's existence4 ,they then reflected on this existent and found that he was not weak2 so they called him strong4 ,they found his works perfect1 and they called him wise4 ,they perceived that he was self-sufficient1 without need of anything1 and hence without any motives for doing wrong4 ,hence they called him righteous4 ,and so on with the other attributes4 ,all this they did in order that people may learn from him and imitate his ways4 ,but we must not forget that all these expressions of ,god's attributes are figurative4 ,no one must suppose that if we do not say he has life1 it means he is dead4 ,what we mean is that we cannot apply the term living to ,god literally1 in the sense in which we apply it to other living things4 ,when the ,bible does speak of ,god as alive and living1 the meaning is that he exists forever4 ,the philosopher is right when he says that it is more proper to apply negative attributes to ,god than positive4#agf ,taking a glance at ,ibn ,zaddik's theology just discussed in its essential outlines1 we notice that while he opposes vigorously certain aspects of ,kalamistic thought1 as he found them in al-,basir1 the ,karaite1 his own method and doctrine are not far removed from the ,kalam4 ,his proof of the creation of the world from its composite character 7substance and accident7 is the same as one of ,saadia1 which ,maimonides cites as a ,kalamistic proof4 ,we have already spoken of the fact that the method of basing one's theology upon the creation of the world is one that is distinctive of the ,kalam1 as ,maimonides himself tells us4 ,and this method is common to ,saadia1 ,bahya and ,ibn ,zaddik4 ,in his discussion of the attributes ,ibn ,zaddik offers little if anything that is new4 ,his attitude is that in the literal and positive sense no attribute can be applied to ,god4 ,we can speak of ,god negatively without running the risk of misunderstanding4 ,but the moment we say anything positive we do become thus liable to comparing ,god with other things2 and such circumlocutions as the ,kalamistic ,living without life1 and so on1 do not help matters1 for they are contradictory1 and take away with one hand what they give with the other4 ,the ,biblical expressions must be taken figuratively2 and the most important point to remember is that ,god's essence cannot be known at all4 ,the manner in which we arrive at the divine attributes is by transferring them from ,god's effects in nature to his own essence4 ,all this we have already found in ,bahya much better expressed1 and ,bahya is also without doubt the source of ,ibn ,zaddik's discussion of ,god's unity4 ,we must now review briefly the practical part of ,ibn ,zaddik's philosophy as it is found in the fourth part of the ,microcosm4 ,in the manner of ,bahya he points out the importance of divine service and obedience to the commandments of ,god1 viewing man's duties to his maker as an expression of gratitude1 which everyone owes to his benefactor4 ,like ,bahya he compares ,god's benefactions with those of one man to another to show the infinite superiority of the former1 and the greater duty which follows therefrom4 ,the commandments which ,god gave us like the act of our creation are for our own good1 that we may enjoy true happiness in the world to come4 ,as it would not be proper to reward a person for what he has not done1 ,god gave man commandments4 ,the righteous as well as the wicked are free to determine their own conduct1 hence reward and punishment are just4 ,like ,saadia and ,bahya before him1 ,ibn ,zaddik makes use of the distinction 7or rather takes it for granted7 between rational and traditional commandments2 pointing out that the latter also have a cause and explanation in the mind of ,god even though we may not know it4 ,in some cases we can see the explanation ourselves4 ,take for instance the observance of the ,sabbath4 ,its rational signification is two-fold4 ,it teaches us that the world was created1 and hence has a ,creator whom we worship4 ,and in the second place the ,sabbath symbolizes the future world4 ,as one has nothing to eat on the ,sabbath day unless he has prepared food the day before1 so the enjoyment of the future world depends upon spiritual preparation in this world4 ,in his conduct a man must imitate ,god's actions by doing good and mercy and kindness4 ,without the knowledge of ,god a person's good deeds are of no account and no better than the work of idolaters4 ,in fact it is not possible to do good deeds without a knowledge of ,god1 for he is the source of all good1 and there is no true good without him4 ,when a fool is seen with good qualities such as mercy and benevolence1 they are due to the weakness of his animal soul1 the spirited part of his nature4 ,similarly if this fool abstains from pleasures1 it is because of the weakness of his appetitive soul4 ,thus we see that knowledge comes first in importance2 for knowledge leads to practice1 and practice brings reward in the world to come4 ,as the purpose of man's creation is that he may enjoy the future life1 wisdom or knowledge is the first requisite to this great end4 ,the four principal qualities constituting goodness or virtue are 7#a7 knowledge of ,god's attributes2 7#b7 righteousness or justice2 7#c7 hope2 7#d7 humility4 ,all other good qualities are derived from these4 ,jeremiah names some of them when he says 7#i1 #bc71 ,i am the ,lord who exercise kindness1 justice and righteousness on the earth2 for in these things ,i delight1 saith the ,lord4 ,similarly ,zephaniah 7#b1 #c7 bids us1 ,seek ye the ,lord1 all ye meek of the earth1 who have fulfilled his ordinances2 seek righteousness1 seek meekness4 ,the four qualities of wisdom or knowledge1 righteousness1 hope and humility are without doubt modified descendants of the four ,platonic virtues1 wisdom1 courage1 temperance and justice1 which we still find in their original form and in their ,platonic derivation and psychological origin in ,pseudo-,bahya 7cf4 above p4 #aaa74 ,reward and punishment of the real kind1 ,ibn ,zaddik thinks1 are not in this world but in the next4 ,in this way he accounts for the fact of the prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings of the righteous4 ,another proof that this world cannot be the place of final reward and punishment is that pleasure in this world is not a real good1 but only a temporary respite from disease4 ,pain and pleasure are correlative1 as we saw before 7p4 #acf74 ,in fact pleasure is not a good at all2 for if it were1 then the greater the pleasure1 the greater the good1 which is not true4 ,reward in the next world is not a corporeal pleasure at all4 ,the evil which happens to the righteous in this world is often a natural occurrence without reference to reward and punishment1 and may be compared to the natural pleasures which men derive from the sense of sight and the other senses1 and which have nothing to do with reward and punishment4 ,sometimes1 too1 this evil is inflicted upon the good man to forgive his sins4 ,real reward and punishment are in the future life1 and as that life is spiritual1 the reward as well as the punishment is timeless4 ,the ,mutakallimun think that animals and little children are also rewarded in the next world for ill treatment1 suffering and death which are inflicted upon them in this world4 ,so we find in ,joseph al ,basir's ,mansuri4 ,but this is absurd4 ,if the killing of animals is a wrong1 ,god would not have commanded us to do it1 any more than he ordered us to kill human beings in order that he may reward them later4 ,moreover1 we should then deserve punishment for killing animals if that is wrong1 and there would follow the absurdity that ,god commanded us to do that for which we deserve punishment4 ,besides1 if the animals deserve reward and punishment1 they should have been given commandments and laws like ourselves4 ,if this was not done because animals are not rational1 reward and punishment are equally out of place for the same reason4 ,when the soul leaves the body in death1 if she exercised her reason in the pursuit of knowledge1 she will continue her existence forever in the upper world4 ,this is her happiness1 her reward and her paradise1 namely1 to cleave to her own world1 and to shine with the true light emanating from ,god directly4 ,this is the end of the human soul4 ,but if she did not exercise her reason and did not pursue right conduct1 she will not be able to return to the spiritual world1 for she will have lost her own spirituality4 ,she will be similar to the body1 desiring this world and its pleasures4 ,her fate will be to revolve forever with the sphere in the world of fire1 without being able to return to her world4 ,thus she will be forever in pain1 and homeless4 ,when the ,messiah comes1 the pious men of our nation1 the ,prophets1 the ,patriarchs and those who died for the sanctification of the name1 i4 e41 the martyrs1 will be brought back to life in the body1 and will never die again4 ,there will be no eating and drinking1 but they will live like ,moses on the mountain basking in the divine light4 ,the wicked will also be joined to their bodies and burned with fire4#agg ,,chapter ,x ,,judah ,,halevi ,in ,judah ,halevi the poet got the better of the rationalist4 ,not that ,judah ,halevi was not familiar with philosophical thinking and did not absorb the current philosophical terminology as well as the ideas contained therein4 ,quite the contrary4 ,he shows a better knowledge of ,aristotelian ideas than his predecessors1 and is well versed in ,neo-,platonism4 ,while he attacks all those views of philosophers which are inconsistent to his mind with the religion of ,judaism1 he speaks in other respects the philosophic language1 and even makes concessions to the philosophers4 ,if the reason should really demand it1 he tells us1 one might adopt the doctrine of the eternity of matter without doing any harm to the essence of ,judaism4#agh ,as for the claims of reason to rule our beliefs1 he similarly admits that that which is really proved in the same absolute manner as the propositions in mathematics and logic cannot be controverted4 ,but this opinion need cause one no difficulty as there is nothing in the ,bible which opposes the unequivocal demands of the reason4#agi ,he cannot consistently oppose all philosophy and science1 for he maintains that the sciences were originally in the hands of the ,jews1 and that it was from them that the ,chaldeans borrowed them and handed them over to the ,persians1 who in turn transferred them to ,greece and ,rome1 their origin being forgotten4#ahj ,at the same time he insists that philosophy and reason are not adequate means for the solution of all problems1 and that the actual solutions as found in the writings of the ,aristotelians of his day are in many cases devoid of all demonstrative value4 ,then there are certain matters in theory as well as in practice which do not at all come within the domain of reason1 and the philosophers are bound to be wrong because they apply the wrong method4 ,revelation alone can make us wise as to certain aspects of ,god's nature and as to certain details in human conduct2 and in these philosophy must fail because as philosophy it has no revelation4 ,with all due respect therefore to the philosophers1 who are the most reliable guides in matters not conflicting with revelation1 we must leave them if we wish to learn the truth concerning those matters in which they are incompetent to judge4 ,this characterization of ,judah ,halevi's attitude is brief and inadequate4 ,but before proceeding to elaborate it with more detail and greater concreteness1 it will be well to sketch very briefly the little we know of his life4#aha ,judah ,halevi was born in ,toledo in the last quarter of the eleventh century4 ,this is about the time when the city was taken from the ,mohammedans by the emperor ,alphonso ,,vi1 king of ,leon1 ,castile1 ,galicia and ,navarre4 ,at the same time ,toledo remained ,arabic in culture and language for a long while after this1 and even exerted a great influence upon the civilization of ,christendom4 ,the ,jews were equally well treated in ,toledo by ,mohammedan emir and ,christian king4 ,the youth of ,halevi was therefore not embittered or saddened by ,jewish persecutions4 ,it seems that he was sent to ,lucena1 a ,jewish centre1 where he studied the ,talmud with the famous ,alfasi1 and made friends with ,joseph ibn ,migash1 ,alfasi's successor1 and ,baruh ,albalia1 the philosopher4 ,a poet by nature1 he began to write ,hebrew verses early1 and soon became famous as a poet of the first order in no manner inferior to ,gabirol4 ,his living he made not from his verses1 but like many others of his day by practicing the art of medicine4 ,later in life he visited ,cordova1 already in its decline through the illiberal government of the ,almoravid dynasty4 ,the rulers were strict religionists1 implicit followers of the fukaha1 the men devoted to the study of ,mohammedan religion and law2 and scientific learning and philosophy were proscribed in their domains4 ,men of another faith were not in favor1 and the ,jews who1 unlike the ,christians1 had no powerful emperor anywhere to take their part1 had to buy their lives and comparative freedom with their hard earned wealth4 ,here ,halevi spent some time as a physician4 ,he was admitted in court circles1 but his personal good fortune could not reconcile him to the sufferings of his brethren1 and his letters give expression to his dissatisfaction4 ,he wrote a variety of poems on subjects secular and religious2 but what made him famous above all else was his strong nationalism1 and those of his poems will live longest which give expression to his intense love for his people and the land which was once their own4 ,that it was not mere sentiment with ,judah ,halevi he proved late in life when he decided to leave his many friends and his birthplace and go to ,palestine to end his life on the soil of his ancestors4 ,it was after #aadj that he left ,spain for the ,east4 ,unfavorable winds drove him out of course to ,egypt1 and he landed at ,alexandria4 ,from there he went to ,cairo at the invitation of his admirers and friends4 ,everywhere he was received with great honor1 his fame preceding him1 and he was urged to remain in ,egypt4 ,but no dissuasion could keep him from his pious resolve4 ,we find him later in ,damietta2 we follow him to ,tyre and ,damascus1 but beyond the last city all trace of him is lost4 ,we know not whether he reached ,jerusalem or not4 ,legend picks up the thread where history drops it1 and tells of ,judah ,halevi meeting his death at the gates of the holy city as with tears he was singing his famous ode to ,zion4 ,an ,arab horseman1 the story goes1 pierced him through with his spear4 ,this sketch of ,halevi's life and character1 brief and inadequate as it is1 will prepare us to understand better his attitude to philosophy and to ,judaism4 ,his was not a critical intellect whose curiosity is not satisfied until the matter in dispute is proved in logical form4 ,reason is good enough in mathematics and physics where the objects of our investigation are accessible to us and the knowledge of their nature exhausts their significance4 ,it is not so with the truths of ,judaism and the nature of ,god4 ,these cannot be known adequately by the reason alone1 and mere knowledge is not enough4 ,god and the ,jewish religion are not simply facts to be known and understood like the laws of science4 ,they are living entities to be acquainted with1 to be devoted to1 to love4 ,hence quite a different way of approach is necessary4 ,and not everyone has access to this way4 ,the method of acquaintance is open only to those who by birth and tradition belong to the family of the prophets1 who had a personal knowledge of ,god1 and to the land of ,palestine where ,god revealed himself4#ahb ,we see here the nationalist speaking1 the lover of his people and of their land and language and institutions4 ,david ,kaufmann has shown that ,judah ,halevi's anti-philosophical attitude has much in common with that of the great ,arab writer ,al ,gazali1 from whom there is no doubt that he borrowed his inspiration4#ahc ,gazali began as a philosopher1 then lost confidence in the logical method of proof1 pointed to the contradictions of the philosophers1 to their disagreements among themselves1 and went over to the ,sufis1 the pietists and mystics of the ,mohammedan faith4 ,there are a number of resemblances between ,gazali and ,halevi as ,kaufmann has shown1 and there is no doubt that skepticism in respect of the powers of the human reason on the one hand1 and a deep religious sense on the other are responsible for the point of view of ,gazali as well as ,halevi4 ,but there is this additional motive in ,halevi that he was defending a persecuted race and a despised faith against not merely the philosophers but against the more powerful and more fortunate professors of other religions4 ,he is the loyal son of his race and his religion1 and he will show that they are above all criticism1 that they are the best and the truest there are4 ,maimonides1 too1 found it necessary to defend ,judaism against the attacks of philosophy4 ,but in his case it was the ,jew in him who had to be defended against the philosopher in him4 ,it was no external enemy but an internal who must be made harmless1 and the method was one of reconciliation and harmonization4 ,it is still truer to say that with ,maimonides both ,judaism and philosophy were his friends1 neither was an enemy4 ,he was attached to one quite as much as to the other4 ,and it was his privilege to reconcile their differences1 to the great gain1 as he thought1 of both4 ,judah ,halevi takes the stand of one who fights for his hearth and home against the attacks of foreign foes4 ,he will not yield an inch to the adversary4 ,he will maintain his own4 ,the enemy cannot approach4 ,thus ,halevi begins his famous work ,kusari3 ,i was asked what ,i have to say in answer to the arguments of philosophers1 unbelievers and professors of other religions against our own4 ,instead of working out his ideas systematically1 he wanted to give his subject dramatic interest by clothing it in dialogue form4 ,and he was fortunate in finding a historical event which suited his purpose admirably4 ,some three or four centuries before his time1 the king of the ,chazars1 a people of ,turkish origin living in the ,caucasus1 together with his courtiers and many of his subjects embraced ,judaism4 ,hasdai ibn ,shaprut1 the ,jewish minister and patron of learning of ,cordova1 in the tenth century corresponded with the then king of the ,chazars1 and received an account of the circumstances of the conversion4 ,in brief it was that the king wishing to know which was the true religion invited representatives of the three dominant creeds1 ,judaism1 ,christianity and ,mohammedanism1 and questioned them concerning the tenets of their respective faiths4 ,seeing that the ,christian as well as the ,mohammedan appealed in their arguments to the truth of the ,hebrew ,bible1 the king concluded that ,judaism must be the true religion1 which he accordingly adopted4 ,this story gave ,halevi the background and framework for his composition4 ,he works out his own ideas in the form of a dialogue between the ,jewish ,rabbi and the king of the ,chazars1 in which the former explains to the king the essentials of the ,jewish religion1 and answers the king's questions and criticisms1 taking occasion to discuss a variety of topics1 religious1 philosophical and scientific1 all tending to show the truth of ,judaism and its superiority to other religions1 to philosophy1 ,kalam1 and also to ,karaism4 ,the story is1 ,halevi tells us1 in the introduction to his book1 that the king of the ,chazars had repeated dreams in which an angel said to him1 ,your intentions are acceptable to ,god1 but not your practice4 ,his endeavors to be faithful to his religion1 and to take part in the services and perform the sacrifices in the temple in person only led to the repetition of the dream4 ,he therefore consulted a philosopher about his belief1 and the latter said to him1 ,in ,god there is neither favor nor hatred1 for he is above all desire and purpose4 ,purpose and intention argue defect and want1 which the fulfilment of the intention satisfies4 ,but ,god is free from want4 ,hence there is no purpose or intention in his nature4 ,god does not know the particular or individual1 for the individual constantly changes1 whereas ,god's knowledge never changes4 ,hence ,god does not know the individual man and1 needless to say1 he does not hear his prayer4 ,when the philosophers say ,god created man1 they use the word created metaphorically1 in the sense that ,god is the cause of all causes1 but not that he made man with purpose and intention4 ,the world is eternal1 and so is the existence of man4 ,the character and ability of a person depend upon the causes antecedent to him4 ,if these are of the right sort1 we have a person who has the potentialities of a philosopher4 ,to realize them he must develop his intellect by study1 and his character through moral discipline4 ,then he will receive the influence of the ',active ,intellect1' with which he becomes identified so that his limbs and faculties do only what is right1 and are wholly in the service of the active ,intellect4 ,this union with the active ,intellect is the highest goal of man2 and he becomes like one of the angels1 and joins the ranks of ,hermes1 sculapius1 ,socrates1 ,plato1 ,aristotle4 ,this is the meaning of the expression 'favor of ,god4' ,the important thing is to study the sciences in order to know the truth1 and to practice the ethical virtues4 ,if one does this1 it matters not what religion he professes1 or whether he professes any religion at all4 ,he can make his own religion in order to discipline himself in humility1 and to govern his relations to society and country4 ,or he can choose one of the philosophical religions4 ,purity of heart is the important thing1 and knowledge of the sciences4 ,then the desired result will come1 namely1 union with the active intellect1 which may also result in the power of prophecy through true dreams and visions4 ,the king was not satisfied with the statement of the philosopher1 which seemed to him inadequate because he felt that he himself had the necessary purity of heart1 and yet he was told that his practice was not satisfactory1 proving that there is something in practice as such apart from intention4 ,besides1 the great conflict between ,christianity and ,islam1 who kill one another1 is due to the difference in religious practice1 and not in purity of heart4 ,moreover1 if the view of the philosophers were true1 there should be prophecy among them1 whereas in reality prophecy is found among those who did not study the sciences rather than among those who did4 ,the king then said1 ,i will ask the ,christians and the ,mohammedans4 ,i need not inquire of the ,jews1 for their low condition is sufficient proof that the truth cannot be with them4 ,so he sent for a ,christian sage1 who explained to him the essentials of his belief1 saying among other things1 ,we believe in the creation of the world in six days1 in the descent of all men from ,adam1 in revelation and ,providence1 in short1 in all that is found in the law of ,moses and in the other ,israelitish ,scriptures1 which cannot be doubted because of the publicity which was given to the events recorded therein4 ,he also quoted the words of the gospel1 ,i did not come to destroy any of the commandments of ,israel and of ,moses their teacher2 ,i came to confirm them4 ,the king was not convinced by the ,christian belief1 and called a ,mohammedan doctor1 who in describing the specific tenets of ,mohammedanism also mentioned the fact that in the ,koran are quoted the ,pentateuch and ,moses and the other leaders1 and the wonderful things they did4 ,these1 he said1 cannot be denied2 for they are well known4 ,seeing that both ,christian and ,mohammedan referred to the law of ,moses as true1 and as evidence that ,god spoke to man1 the king determined to call a ,jewish sage also1 and hear what he had to say4 ,the ,jewish ,haber1 as ,judah ,halevi calls him1 began his discourse by saying1 ,we ,jews believe in the ,god of ,abraham1 ,isaac and ,jacob1 who took the children of ,israel out of ,egypt1 supported them in the wilderness1 gave them the land of ,canaan1 and so on4 ,the king was disappointed and said1 ,i had determined not to consult the ,jews in this matter at all1 because their abject condition in the world did not leave them any good quality4 ,you should have said1 he told the ,jew1 that you believe in him who created the world and governs it2 who made man and provides for him4 ,every religionist defends his belief in this way4 ,the ,jew replied1 ,the religion to which you refer is a rational religion1 established by speculation and argument1 which are full of doubt1 and about which there is no agreement among philosophers1 because not all the arguments are valid or even plausible4 ,this pleased the king1 and he expressed a wish to continue the discourse4 ,the ,rabbi then said1 ,the proper way to define one's religion is by reference to that which is more certain1 namely1 actual experience4 ,jews have this actual experience4 ,the ,god of ,abraham1 ,isaac and ,jacob spoke to ,moses and delivered the ,israelites out of ,egypt4 ,this is well known4 ,god gave ,israel the ,torah4 ,to be sure1 all others not of ,israel who accept the ,law will be rewarded1 but they cannot be equal to ,israel4 ,there is a peculiar relation between ,god and ,israel in which the other peoples do not share4 ,as the plant is distinguished from the mineral1 the animal from the plant1 and man from the irrational animal1 so is the prophetic individual distinguished above other men4 ,he constitutes a higher species4 ,it is through him that the masses became aware of ,god's existence and care for them4 ,it was he who told them things unknown to them2 who gave them an account of the world's creation and its history4 ,we count now forty-five hundred years from the creation4 ,this was handed down from ,adam through ,seth and ,enos to ,noah1 to ,shem and ,eber1 to ,abraham1 ,isaac and ,jacob1 to ,moses1 and finally to us4 ,moses came only four hundred years after ,abraham in a world which was full of knowledge of heavenly and earthly things4 ,it is impossible that he should have given them a false account of the division of languages and the relations of nations without being found out and exposed4 ,the philosophers1 it is true1 oppose us by maintaining that the world is eternal4 ,but the philosophers are ,greeks1 descended from ,japheth1 who did not inherit either wisdom or ,torah4 ,divine wisdom is found only in the family of ,shem4 ,the ,greeks had philosophy among them only during the short time of their power4 ,they borrowed it from the ,persians1 who had it in turn from the ,chaldeans4 ,but neither before nor after did they have any philosophers among them4 ,aristotle1 not having any inherited tradition concerning the origin of the world1 endeavored to reason it all out of his own head4 ,eternity was just as hard to believe in as creation4 ,but as he had no true and reliable tradition1 his arguments in favor of eternity seemed to him to be the stronger4 ,had he lived among a people who had reliable traditions on the other side1 he would have found arguments in favor of creation1 which is more plausible than eternity4 ,real demonstration cannot be controverted2 and there is nothing in the ,bible which opposes what the reason unequivocally demands4 ,but the matter of eternity or creation is very difficult4 ,the arguments on one side are as good as those on the other4 ,and tradition from ,adam to ,noah and ,moses1 which is better than argument1 lends its additional weight to the doctrine of creation4 ,if the believer in the ,torah were obliged to hold that there is a primitive eternal matter from which the world was made1 and that there were many worlds before this one1 there would be no great harm1 as long as he believes that this world is of recent origin and ,adam was the first man4#ahd ,we see now the standpoint of ,judah ,halevi1 for the ,haber is of course his spokesman4 ,philosophy and independent reasoning on such difficult matters as ,god and creation are after all more or less guess work1 and cannot be made the bases of religion except for those who have nothing better4 ,the ,jews fortunately have a surer foundation all their own4 ,they have a genuine and indisputable tradition4 ,history is the only true science and the source of truth2 not speculation1 which is subjective1 and can be employed with equal plausibility in favor of opposite doctrines4 ,true history and tradition in the case of the ,jews goes back ultimately to first hand knowledge from the very source of all truth4 ,the prophets of ,israel constitute a higher species1 as much superior to the ordinary man as the ordinary man is to the lower animal1 and these prophets received their knowledge direct from ,god4 ,in principle ,judah ,halevi agrees with the other ,jewish philosophers that true reason cannot be controverted4 ,he differs with them in the concrete application of this abstract principle4 ,he has not the same respect as ,maimonides for the actual achievements of the unaided human reason1 and an infinitely greater respect for the traditional beliefs of ,judaism and the ,biblical expressions taken in their obvious meaning4 ,hence he does not feel the same necessity as ,maimonides to twist the meaning of ,scriptural passages to make them agree with philosophical theories4 ,according to this view ,judah ,halevi does not find it necessary with the philosophers and the ,mutakallimun painfully to prove the existence of ,god4 ,the existence of the ,jewish people and the facts of their wonderful history are more eloquent demonstrations than any that logic or metaphysics can muster4 ,but more than this4 ,the philosophical view of ,god is inadequate in more ways than one4 ,it is inaccurate in content and incorrect in motive4 ,in the first place1 they lay a great deal of stress on nature as the principle by which objects move4 ,if a stone naturally moves to the centre of the world1 they say this is due to a cause called nature4 ,and the tendency is to attribute intelligence and creative power to this new entity as an associate of ,god4 ,this is misleading4 ,the real ,intelligence is ,god alone4 ,it is true that the elements1 and the sun and moon1 and the stars exert certain influences1 producing heat and cold1 and various other effects in things material1 by virtue of which these latter are prepared for the reception of higher forms4 ,and there is no harm in calling these agencies ,nature4 ,but we must regard these as devoid of intelligence1 and as mere effects of ,god's wisdom and purpose4#ahe ,the philosopher denies will in ,god on the ground that this would argue defect and want4 ,this reduces ,god to an impersonal force4 ,we ,jews believe ,god has will4 ,the word we use does not matter4 ,i ask the philosopher what is it that makes the heavens revolve continually1 and the outer sphere carry everything in uniform motion1 the earth standing immovable in the centre8 ,call it what you please1 will or command2 it is the same thing that made the air shape itself to produce the sounds of the ten commandments which were heard1 and that caused the characters to form on the ,tables of ,stone4#ahf ,the motive of the philosopher is also different from that of the believer4 ,the philosopher seeks knowledge only4 ,he desires to know ,god as he desires to know the exact position and form of the earth4 ,ignorance in respect to ,god is no more harmful in his mind than ignorance respecting a fact in nature4 ,his main object is to have true knowledge in order to become like unto the ,active ,intellect and to be identified with it4 ,as long as he is a philosopher it makes no difference to him what he believes in other respects and whether he observes the practices of religion or not4#ahg ,the true belief in ,god is different in scope and aim4 ,what ,god is must be understood not by means of rational proofs1 but by prophetic and spiritual insight4 ,rational proofs are misleading1 and the heretics and unbelievers also use rational proofs--those for example who believe in two original causes1 in the eternity of the world1 or in the divinity of the sun and fire4 ,the most subtle proofs are those used by the philosophers1 and they maintain that ,god is not concerned about us1 and pays no attention to our prayers and sacrifices2 that the world is eternal4 ,it is different with us1 who heard his words1 his commands and prohibitions1 and felt his reward and his punishment4 ,we have a proper name of ,god1 ,jhvh1 representative of the communications he made to us1 and we have a conviction that he created the world4 ,the first was ,adam1 who knew ,god through actual communication and the creation of ,eve from one of his ribs4 ,cain and ,abel came next1 then ,noah and ,abraham1 ,isaac and ,jacob1 and so on to ,moses and the ,prophets1 who came after him4 ,all these called him ,jhvh by reason of their insight4 ,the people who received the teaching of the ,prophets1 in whom they believed1 also called him ,jhvh1 because he was in communication with men2 and the select among them saw him through an intermediate agency1 called variously1 ,form1 ,image1 ,cloud1 ,fire1 ,kingdom1 ,shekinah1 ,glory1 ,rainbow1 and so on1 proving that he spoke to them4#ahh ,as the sun's light penetrates different objects in varying degrees1 for example1 ruby and crystal receive the sun's light in the highest degree2 clear air and water come next1 then bright stones and polished surfaces1 and last of all opaque substances like wood and earth1 which the light does not penetrate at all2 so we may conceive of different minds varying in the degree to which they attain a knowledge of ,god4 ,some arrive only as far as the knowledge of ,elohim1 while others attain to a knowledge of ,jhvh1 which may be compared to the reception of the sun's light in ruby and crystal4 ,these are the prophets in the land of ,israel4 ,the conception involved in the name ,elohim no intelligent man denies2 whereas many deny the conception of ,jhvh1 because prophecy is an unusual occurrence even among individuals1 not to speak of a nation4 ,that is why ,pharaoh said 7,exod4 #e1 #b71 ,i know not ,jhvh4 ,he knew ,elohim1 but not ,jhvh1 that is a ,god who reveals himself to man4 ,elohim may be arrived at by reasoning2 for the reason tells us that the world has a ruler2 though the various classes of men differ as to details1 the most plausible view being that of the philosophers4 ,but the conception of ,jhvh cannot be arrived at by reason4 ,it requires that prophetic vision by which a person almost becomes a member of a new species1 akin to angels4 ,then the doubts he formerly had about ,elohim fall away1 and he laughs at the arguments which led him to the conception of ,god and of unity4 ,now he becomes a devotee1 who loves the object of his devotion1 and is ready to give his life in his love for him1 because of the great happiness he feels in being near to him1 and the misery of being away from him4 ,this is different from the philosopher1 who sees in the worship of ,god only good ethics and truth1 because he is greater than all other existing things2 and in unbelief nothing more than the fault of choosing the untrue4#ahi ,here there is clearly a touch of religious poetry and mysticism1 which reveals to us ,halevi's real attitude1 and we have no difficulty in understanding his lack of sympathy with what seemed to him the shallow rationalism of the contemporaneous ,aristotelian1 who fancied in his conceit that with a few logical formul he could penetrate the mysteries of the divine1 when in reality he was barely enabled to skim the surface2 into the sanctuary he could never enter4 ,though1 as we have just seen1 ,halevi has a conception of ,god as a personal being1 acting with purpose and will and1 as we shall see more clearly later1 standing in close personal relation to ,israel and the land of ,palestine1 still he is very far from thinking of him anthropomorphically4 ,in his discussion of the divine attributes he yields to none in removing from ,god any positive quality of those ascribed to him in the ,bible4 ,the various names or appellatives applied to ,god in ,scripture1 except the tetragrammaton1 he divides1 according to their signification1 into three classes1 actional1 relative1 negative4 ,such expressions as making high1 making low1 making poor1 almighty1 strong1 jealous1 revengeful1 gracious1 merciful1 and so on1 do not denote1 he says1 feeling or emotion in ,god4 ,they are ascribed to him because of his visible acts or effects in the world1 which we judge on the analogy of our own acts4 ,as a human being is prompted to remove the misery of a fellowman because he feels pity1 we ascribe all instances of divine removal of misery from mankind to a similar feeling in ,god1 and call him merciful4 ,but this is only a figure of speech4 ,god does remove misery1 but the feeling of pity is foreign to him4 ,we call therefore the attribute merciful and others like it actional1 meaning that it is ,god's acts which suggest to us these appellations4 ,another class of attributes found in the ,bible embraces such expressions as blessed1 exalted1 holy1 praised1 and so on4 ,these are called relative1 because they are derived from the attitude of man to ,god4 ,god is blessed because men bless him1 and so with the rest4 ,they do not denote any essential quality in ,god4 ,and hence their number does not necessitate plurality in ,god4 ,finally we have such terms as living1 one1 first1 last1 and so on4 ,these too do not denote ,god's positive essence1 for in reality ,god cannot be said to be either living or dead4 ,life as we understand it denotes sensation and motion1 which are not in ,god4 ,if we do apply to ,god the term living1 we do so in order to exclude its negative1 dead4 ,living means not dead2 one means not many2 first means not having any cause antecedent to him2 last means never ceasing to be4 ,hence we call these attributes negative4#aij ,we see that ,judah ,halevi is at one with ,bahya and ,joseph ibn ,zaddik in his understanding of the divine attributes4 ,the slight difference in the mode of classification is not essential4 ,this ,god chose ,israel and gave them the ten commandments in order to convince them that the ,law originated from ,god and not from ,moses4 ,for they might have had a doubt in their minds1 seeing that speech is a material thing1 and believe that the origin of a law or religion is in the mind of a human being1 which afterwards comes to be believed in as divine4 ,for this reason ,god commanded the people to purify themselves and be ready for the third day1 when they all heard the word of ,god1 and were convinced that prophecy is not what the philosophers say it is--a natural result of man's reason identifying itself with the ,active ,intellect through the help of the imagination1 which presents true visions in a dream--but a real communication from ,god4 ,not only did they hear the word of ,god1 but they saw the writing of ,god on the ,tables of ,stone4 ,this does not mean that we believe in the corporeality of ,god2 ,heaven forbid1 we do not even think of the soul of man as corporeal4 ,but we cannot deny the things recorded1 which are well known4 ,just as ,god created heaven and earth1 not by means of material tools as a man does1 but by his will1 so he might have willed that the air should convey articulate sounds to the ear of ,moses1 and that letters should be formed on the ,tables of ,stone to convey to the people the ideas which he wanted them to know4 ,they might have happened in a still more wonderful way than ,i have been able to conceive4 ,this may seem like an unwarranted magnifying of the virtues of our people4 ,but in reality it is true that the chain of individuals from ,adam to ,moses and thereafter was a remarkable one of godly men4 ,adam was surely a godlike man since he was made by the hand of ,god and was not dependent on the inherited constitution of his parents1 and on the food and climate he enjoyed in the years of his growth4 ,he was made perfect as in the time of mature youth when a person is at his best1 and was endowed with the best possible soul for man4 ,abel was his successor in excellence1 also a godly man1 and so down the line through ,seth and ,noah1 and so on4 ,there were many who were unworthy and they were excluded4 ,but there was always one in every generation who inherited the distinguished qualities of the ,adam line4 ,and even when1 as in the case of ,terah1 the individual was unworthy in himself1 he was important as being destined to give birth to a worthy son1 who would carry on the tradition1 like ,abraham4 ,among ,noah's sons1 ,shem was the select one1 and he occupied the temperate regions of ,palestine1 whereas ,japheth went north and ,ham went south--regions not so favorable to the development of wisdom4#aia ,the laws were all given directly to ,moses with all their details so that there is no doubt about any of them4 ,this was absolutely necessary1 for had there been any detail left out1 a doubt might arise respecting it which would destroy the whole spiritual structure of ,judaism4 ,this is not a matter which philosophical reasoning can think out for itself4 ,as in the natural generation of plant and animal the complexity of elements and conditions is so great that a slight tilting of the balance in the wrong direction produces disease and death1 so in the spiritual creation of ,israel the ceremonies and the laws are all absolutely essential to the whole1 whether we understand it or not1 and none could be left to speculation4 ,all were given to ,moses4 ,moses addressed himself to his own people only4 ,you say it would have been better to call all mankind to the true religion4 ,it would be better also perhaps that all animals should be rational4 ,you have forgotten what ,i said about the select few that worthily succeeded ,adam as the heart of the family to the exclusion of the other members1 who are as the peel1 until in the sons of ,jacob all twelve were worthy1 and from them ,israel is descended4 ,these remarkable men had divine qualities which made them a different species from ordinary men4 ,they were aiming at the degree of the prophet1 and many of them reached it by reason of their purity1 holiness and proximity to the ,prophets4 ,for a prophet has a great influence on the one who associates with him4 ,he converts the latter by awakening in him spirituality and a desire to attain that high degree which brings visible greatness and reward in the world to come1 when the soul is separated from the senses and enjoys the heavenly light4 ,we do not exclude anyone from the reward due him for his good works1 but we give preference to those who are near to ,god1 and we measure their reward in the next world by this standard4 ,our religion consists not merely in saying certain words1 but in difficult practices and a line of conduct which bring us near to ,god4 ,outsiders too may attain to the grade of wise and pious men1 but they cannot become equal to us and be prophets4#aib ,not only is ,israel a select nation to whom alone prophecy is given as a gift1 but ,palestine is the most suitable place in the world for communion with ,god1 as a certain spot may be best for planting certain things and for producing people of a particular character and temperament4 ,all those who prophesied outside of ,palestine did so with reference to ,palestine4 ,abraham was not worthy of the divine covenant until he was in this land4 ,palestine was intended to be a guide for the whole world4 ,the reason the second ,temple did not last longer than it did is because the ,babylonian exiles did not sufficiently love their fatherland and did not all return when the decree of ,cyrus permitted them to do so4#aic ,israel is the heart among the nations4 ,the heart is more sensitive than the rest of the body in disease as in health4 ,it feels both more intensely4 ,it is more liable to disease than the other organs1 and on the other hand it becomes aware sooner of agencies dangerous to its health and endeavors to reject them or ward them off4 ,so ,israel is among the nations4 ,their responsibility is greater than that of other nations and they are sooner punished4 ,only you have ,i loved out of all the families of the earth1 says ,amos 7#c1 #b71 therefore will ,i visit upon you all your iniquities4 ,on the other hand1 ,god does not allow our sins to accumulate as he does with the other nations until they deserve destruction4 ,he pardons the iniquities of his people by causing them to pass away in due order4 ,as the heart is affected by the other organs1 so ,israel suffers on account of their assimilation to the other nations4 ,israel suffers while the other nations are in peace4 ,as the elements are for the sake of the minerals1 the minerals for the sake of the plants1 the plants for the sake of the animals1 the animals for the sake of man1 so is man for the sake of ,israel1 and ,israel for the sake of the ,prophets and the pious men4 ,with the purification of ,israel the world will be improved and brought nearer to ,god4#aid ,associated with ,israel and ,palestine as a third privilege and distinction is the ,hebrew language4 ,this is the original language which ,god spoke to ,adam4 ,the etymologies of ,biblical names prove it4 ,it was richer formerly1 and has become impoverished in the course of time like the people using it4 ,nevertheless it still shows evidence of superiority to other languages in its system of accents which shows the proper expression in reading1 and in its wonderful system of vowel changes producing euphony in expression and variation in meaning4#aie ,the highest type of man1 we have seen1 is the ,prophet1 for whose sake ,israel and the whole of humanity exists4 ,he is the highest type because he alone has an immediate knowledge of ,jhvh as distinguished from ,elohim1 the concept of universal cause and power1 which the philosopher also is able to attain4 ,jhvh signifies1 as we have seen1 the personal ,god who performs miracles and reveals himself to mankind through the prophet4 ,we wish to know therefore how ,judah ,halevi conceives of the essence and process of prophetic inspiration4 ,we are already aware that he is opposed to the philosophers who regard the power of prophecy as a natural gift possessed by the man of pure intellect and perfect power of imagination4 ,to these ,aristotelians1 as we shall have occasion to see more clearly later1 the human intellect is nothing more than an individualized reflection1 if we may so term it1 of the one universal intellect1 which is--not ,god1 but an intellectual substance wholly immaterial1 some nine or ten degrees removed from the ,godhead4 ,it is called the ,active ,intellect1 and its business is to govern the sublunar world of generation and decay4 ,as pure thought the ,active ,intellect embraces as its content the entire sublunar world in essence4 ,in fact it bestows the forms 7in the ,aristotelian sense7 upon the things of this world1 and hence has a timeless knowledge of all the world and its happenings4 ,the individualized reflection of it in the human soul is held there so long as the person is alive1 somewhat as a drop of water may hold the moon until it evaporates1 and the reflection is reabsorbed in the one real moon4 ,so it is the ,active ,intellect which is the cause of all conceptual knowledge in man through its individualizations1 and into it every human intellect is reabsorbed when the individual dies4 ,some men share more1 some less in the ,active ,intellect2 and it is in everyone's power1 within limits1 to increase and purify his participation in the influence of the ,active ,intellect by study and rigorous ethical discipline4 ,the prophet differs from the ordinary man and the philosopher in degree only1 not in kind4 ,his knowledge comes from the influence of the ,active ,intellect as does the knowledge of the philosopher4 ,the difference is that in the prophet's case the imagination plays an important rle and presents concrete visions instead of universal propositions1 and the identification with the ,active ,intellect is much closer4 ,this conception of prophecy1 which in its essentials1 we shall see1 was adopted by ,abraham ibn ,daud1 ,maimonides and ,gersonides1 naturally would not appeal to ,judah ,halevi4 ,prophecy is the prerogative of ,israel and of ,palestine4 ,the philosophers have nothing to do with it4 ,a mere philosopher has no more chance of entering the kingdom of prophecy than a camel of passing through the eye of a needle4,b ,have the philosophers ever produced prophets8 ,and yet1 if their explanation is correct1 their ranks should abound in them4 ,prophecy is a supernatural power1 and the influence comes from ,god4 ,the prophet is a higher species of mortal4 ,he is endowed with an internal eye1 a hidden sense1 which sees certain immaterial objects1 as the external sense sees the physical objects4 ,no one else sees those forms1 but they are none the less real1 for the whole species of prophetic persons testify to their existence4 ,in ordinary perception we tell a real object from an illusion by appealing to the testimony of others4 ,what appears to a single individual only may be an illusion4 ,if all persons agree that the object is there1 we conclude it is real4 ,the same test holds of the prophetic visions4 ,all prophets see them4 ,then the intellect of the prophet interprets the vision1 as our intellect interprets the data of our senses4 ,the latter give us not the essence of the sensible object1 but the superficial accidents1 such as color1 shape1 and so on4 ,it is the work of the reason to refer these qualities to the essence of the object1 as king1 sun4 ,the same holds true of the prophet4 ,he sees a figure in the form of a king or a judge in the act of giving orders2 and he knows that he has before him a being that is served and obeyed4 ,or he sees the form in the act of carrying baggage or girded for work2 and he infers that he is dealing with a being that is meant for a servant4 ,what these visions really were it is not in all cases possible to know with certainty4 ,there is no doubt that the ,prophets actually saw the hosts of heaven1 the spirits of the spheres1 in the form of man4 ,the word angel in the ,bible 7,heb4 ,malak7 means messenger4 ,what these messengers or angels were we cannot tell with certainty4 ,they may have been specially created from the fine elementary bodies1 or they belonged to the eternal angels1 who may be the same as the spiritual beings of whom the philosophers speak4 ,we can neither reject their view nor definitely accept it4 ,similarly the expression1 ,the ,glory of ,jhvh1 may denote a fine body following the will of ,god and formed every time it has to appear to a prophet1 or it may denote all the angels and spiritual beings1 ,throne and ,chariot and ,firmament1 and ,ofannim and ,galgalim1 and other eternal beings constituting1 so to speak1 the suite of ,god4 ,b ,this simile represents ,halevi's thought4 ,he does not use this expression4 ,even such phrases as1 ,they saw the ,god of ,israel 7,exod4 #bd1 #aj71 ,he saw the form of ,jhvh 7,num4 #ab1 #h71 the ,rabbinic expression ,maase ,merkaba 7work of the divine chariot1 cf4 above1 p4 xvi71 and the later discussions concerning the ,measure of the divine stature 7,shiur ,komah71 must not be rejected4 ,these visual images representative of ,god are calculated to inspire fear in the human soul1 which the bare conception of the ,one1 ,omnipotent1 and so on1 cannot produce4#aif ,as ,judah ,halevi is unwilling to yield to the philosophers and explain away the supernaturalism of prophecy1 maintaining rather on the contrary that the supernatural character of the prophetic vision is an evidence of the superior nature of ,israel as well as of their land and their language1 so he insists on the inherent value of the ceremonial law1 including sacrifices4 ,to ,saadia1 and especially to ,bahya and ,maimonides1 the test of value is rationality4 ,the important laws of the ,bible are those known as the rational commandments4 ,the other class1 the so-called traditional commandments1 would also turn out to be rational if we knew the reason why they were commanded4 ,and in default of exact knowledge it is the business of the philosopher to suggest reasons4 ,bahya lays the greatest stress upon the commandments of the heart1 i4 e41 upon the purity of motive and intention1 upon those laws which concern feeling and belief rather than outward practice4 ,judah ,halevi's attitude is different4 ,if the only thing of importance in religion were intention and motive and moral sense1 why should ,christianity and ,islam fight to the death1 shedding untold human blood in defence of their religion4 ,as far as ethical theory and practice are concerned there is no difference between them4 ,ceremonial practice is the only thing that separates them4 ,and the king of the ,chazars was told repeatedly in his dreams that his intentions were good but not his practice1 his religious practice4 ,to be sure the ethical law is important in any religion1 but it is not peculiar to religion as such4 ,it is a necessary condition of social life1 without which no association is possible1 not even that of a robber band4 ,there is honesty even among thieves4 ,religion has its peculiar practices1 and it is not sufficient for an ,israelite to observe the rational commandments alone4 ,when the ,prophets inveigh against sacrifices2 when ,micah says 7#f1 #h71 ,he hath shewed thee1 ,o man1 what is good2 and what doth the ,lord require of thee1 but to do justly1 and to love mercy1 and to walk humbly with thy ,god1 they mean that the ceremonies alone are not sufficient2 but surely a man is not fully an ,israelite if he neglects the ceremonial laws and observes only the rational commandments4 ,we may not understand the value of the ceremonial laws1 the meaning of the institution of sacrifices4 ,but neither do we understand why the rational soul does not attach itself to a body except when the parts are arranged in a certain manner and the elements are mixed in a certain proportion1 though the reason needs not food and drink for itself4 ,god has arranged it so1 that only under certain conditions shall a body receive the light of reason4 ,so in the matter of sacrifices ,god has ordained that only when the details of the sacrificial and other ceremonies are minutely observed shall the nation enjoy his presence and care4 ,in some cases the significance of certain observances is clearer than in others4 ,thus the various festivals are also symbolic of certain truths of history and the divine government of the world4 ,the ,sabbath leads to the belief in the exodus from ,egypt and the creation of the world2 and hence inculcates belief in ,god4#aig ,in his views of ethics ,judah ,halevi is more human than ,bahya1 being opposed to all manner of asceticism4 ,the law1 he says1 does not demand excess in any direction4 ,every power and faculty must be given its due4 ,our law commends fear1 love and joy as means of worshipping ,god2 so that fasting on a fast day does not bring a man nearer to ,god than eating and drinking and rejoicing on a feast day1 provided all is done with a view to honoring ,god4 ,a ,jewish devotee is not one who separates himself from the world4 ,on the contrary1 he loves the world and a long life because thereby he wins a share in the world to come4 ,still his desire is to attain the degree of ,enoch or ,elijah1 and to be fit for the association of angels4 ,a man like this feels more at home when alone than in company of other people2 for the higher beings are his company1 and he misses them when people are around him4 ,philosophers also enjoy solitude in order to clarify their thoughts1 and they are eager to meet disciples to discuss their problems with them4 ,in our days it is difficult to reach the position of these rare men4 ,in former times when the ,shekinah rested in the ,holy ,land1 and the nation was fit for prophecy1 there were people who separated themselves from their neighbors and studied the law in purity and holiness in the company of men like them4 ,these were the ,sons of the ,prophets4 ,nowadays when there is neither prophecy nor wisdom1 a person who attempted to do this1 though he be a pious man1 would come to grief2 for he would find neither prophets nor philosophers to keep him company2 nor enough to keep his mind in that high state of exaltation needed for communion with ,god4 ,prayer alone is not sufficient1 and soon becomes a habit without any influence on the soul4 ,he would soon find that the natural powers and desires of the soul begin to assert themselves and he will regret his separation from mankind1 thus getting farther away from ,god instead of coming nearer to him4 ,the right practice of the pious man at the present day is to give all the parts of the body their due and no more1 without neglecting any of them2 and to bring the lower powers and desires under the dominion of the higher2 feeding the soul with things spiritual as the body with things material4 ,he must keep himself constantly under guard and control1 making special use of the times of prayer for self-examination1 and striving to retain the influence of one prayer until the time comes for the next4 ,he must also utilize the ,sabbaths and the festivals and the ,great ,fast to keep himself in good spiritual trim4 ,in addition he must observe all the commandments1 traditional1 rational1 and those of the heart1 and reflect on their meaning and on ,god's goodness and care4#aih ,judah ,halevi has no doubt of the immortality of the soul and of reward and punishment after death1 though the ,bible does not dwell upon these matters with any degree of emphasis4 ,other religions1 he admits1 make greater promises of reward after death1 whereas ,judaism offers divine nearness through miracles and prophecy4 ,instead of saying1 ,if you do thus and so1 ,i will put you in gardens after death and give you pleasures1 our ,law says1 ,i will be your ,god and you will be my people4 ,some of you will stand before me and will go up to heaven1 walking among the angels2 and my angels will walk among you1 protecting you in your land1 which is the holy land1 not like the other nations1 which are governed by nature4 ,surely1 he exclaims1 we who can boast of such things during life are more certain of the future world than those whose sole reliance is on promises of the hereafter4 ,it would not be correct1 the ,rabbi says to the king of the ,chazars1 who was tempted to despise the ,jews as well as their religion because of their material and political weakness1 to judge of our destiny after death by our condition during life1 in which we are inferior to all other people4 ,for these very people1 like the ,christians and ,mohammedans1 glory in their founders1 who were persecuted and despised1 and not in the present power and luxury of the great kings4 ,the ,christians in particular worship the man who said1 ,whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek1 turn to him the other also4 ,and if a man 444 take away thy coat1 let him have thy cloak also 7,matth4 #e1 #ci74 ,accordingly our worth is greater in the sight of ,god than if we were prosperous4 ,it is true that not all of us accept our miserable condition with becoming humility4 ,if we did1 ,god would not keep us so long in misery4 ,but after all there is reward awaiting our people for bearing the yoke of the exile voluntarily1 when it would be an easy matter for any one of us to become a brother to our oppressors by the saying of one word4 ,our wise men1 too1 have said a great deal about the pleasures and sufferings awaiting us in the next world1 and in this also they surpass the wise men of other religions4 ,the ,bible1 it is true1 does not lay stress on this aspect of our belief2 but so much is clear from the ,bible also1 that the spirit returns to ,god4 ,there are also allusions to the immortality of the soul in the disappearance of ,elijah1 who did not die1 and in the belief of his second coming4 ,this appears also from the prayer of ,balaam1 ,let me die the death of the righteous1 and may my last end be like his 7,num4 #bc1 #aj71 and from the calling of ,samuel from the dead4 ,the idea of paradise 7,gan ,eden7 is taken from the ,torah1 and ,gehenna is a ,hebrew word1 the name of a valley near ,jerusalem1 where fire always burned1 consuming unclean bones1 carcases1 and so on4 ,there is nothing new in the later religions which is not already found in ours4#aii ,an important ethical problem which ,judah ,halevi discusses more thoroughly than any of his predecessors is that of free will1 which he defends against fatalistic determinism1 and endeavors to reconcile with divine causality and foreknowledge4 ,we have already seen 7p4 xxi7 that this was one of the important theses of the ,mutazilite ,kalam4 ,and there is no doubt that fatalism is opposed to ,judaism4 ,a fatalistic determinist denies the category of the contingent or possible4 ,he says not merely that an event is determined by its proximate cause1 he goes further and maintains that it is determined long in advance of any of its secondary causes by the will of ,god4 ,it would follow then that there is no way of preventing an event thus predetermined4 ,if we take pains to avoid a misfortune fated to come upon us1 our very efforts may carry us toward it and land us in its clutches4 ,literature is full of stories illustrating this belief1 as for example the story of ,o,edipus4 ,against this form of belief ,judah ,halevi vindicates the reality of the contingent or possible as opposed to the necessary4 ,no one except the obstinate and perverse denies the possible or contingent4 ,his preparations to meet and avoid that which he hopes and fears prove that he believes the thing amenable to pains and precautions4 ,if he had not this belief1 he would fold his hands in resignation1 never taking the trouble to supply himself with arms to meet his enemy1 or with water to quench his thirst4 ,to be sure1 we may argue that whether one prepare himself or omit to do so1 the preparation or neglect is itself determined4 ,but this is no longer the same position as that maintained at the outset4 ,for we now admit that secondary causes do play a part in determining the result1 whereas we denied it at first4 ,the will is one of these secondary causes4 ,accordingly ,judah ,halevi divides all acts or events into four classes1 divine1 natural1 accidental and voluntary4 ,strictly divine events are the direct results of the divine will without any intermediate cause4 ,there is no way of preparing for or avoiding these2 not1 that is1 physically2 but it is possible to prepare oneself mentally and morally1 namely1 through the secrets of the ,torah to him who knows them4 ,natural events are produced by secondary causes1 which bring the objects of nature to their perfection4 ,these produce their effects regularly and uniformly1 provided there is no hindrance on the part of the other three causes4 ,an example of natural events would be the growth of a plant or animal under favorable conditions4 ,accidental events are also produced by secondary causes1 but they happen by chance1 not regularly and not as a result of purpose4 ,their causes are not intended for the purpose of bringing perfection to their chance effects4 ,these too may be hindered by any one of the other three causes4 ,an example of a chance event might be death in war4 ,the secondary cause is the battle1 but its purpose was not that this given person might meet his death there1 and not all men die in war4 ,finally1 voluntary acts are those caused by the will of man4 ,it is these that concern us most4 ,we have already intimated that the human will is itself a secondary cause and has a rle in determining its effect4 ,it is true that the will itself is caused by other higher causes until we get to the first cause1 but this does not form a necessary chain of causation4 ,despite the continuous chain of causes antecedent to a given volition the soul finding itself in front of a given plan is free to choose either of the two alternatives4 ,to say that a man's speech is as necessary as the beating of his pulse contradicts experience4 ,we feel that we are masters of our speech and our silence4 ,the fact that we praise and blame and love and hate a person according to his deliberate conduct is another proof of freedom4 ,we do not blame a natural or accidental cause4 ,we do not blame a child or a person asleep when they cause damage1 because they did not do the damage deliberately and with intention4 ,if those who deny freedom are consistent1 they must either refrain from being angry with a person who injures them deliberately1 or they must say that anger and praise and blame and love and hate are delusive powers put in our souls in vain4 ,besides there would be no difference between the pious and the disobedient1 because both are doing that which they are by necessity bound to do4 ,but there are certain strong objections to the doctrine of freedom4 ,if man is absolutely free to do or forbear1 it follows that the effects of his conduct are removed from ,god's control4 ,the answer to this is that they are not absolutely removed from his control4 ,they are still related to him by a chain of causes4 ,another argument against free will is that it is irreconcilable with ,god's knowledge4 ,if man alone is the master of his choice1 ,god cannot know beforehand what he will choose4 ,and if ,god does know1 the man cannot but choose as ,god foreknew he would choose1 and what becomes of his freedom8 ,this may be answered by saying that the knowledge of a thing is not the cause of its being4 ,we do not determine a past event by the fact that we know it4 ,knowledge is simply evidence that the thing is4 ,so man chooses by his own determination1 and yet ,god knows beforehand which way he is going to choose1 simply because he sees into the future as we remember the past4#bjj ,judah ,halevi's discussion of the problem of freedom is fuller than any we have met so far in our investigation4 ,but it is not satisfactory4 ,apart from his fourfold classification of events which is open to criticism1 there is a weak spot in the very centre of his argument1 which scarcely could have escaped him4 ,he admits that the will is caused by higher causes ending ultimately in the will of ,god1 and yet maintains in the same breath that the will is not determined4 ,as free the will is removed from ,god's control1 and yet it is not completely removed1 being related to him by a chain of causes4 ,this is a plain contradiction1 unless we are told how far it is determined and how far it is not4 ,surely the aspect in which it is not determined is absolutely removed from ,god's control and altogether uncaused4 ,but ,judah ,halevi is unwilling to grant this4 ,he just leaves us with the juxtaposition of two incompatibles4 ,we shall see that ,hasdai ,crescas was more consistent1 and admitted determinism4 ,we have now considered ,judah ,halevi's teachings1 and have seen that he has no sympathy with the point of view of those people who were called in his day philosophers1 i4 e41 those who adopted the teachings ascribed to ,aristotle4 ,at the same time he was interested in maintaining that all science really came originally from the ,jews2 and in order to prove this he undertakes a brief interpretation of the ,sefer ,yezirah 7,book of ,creation71 an early mystic work of unknown authorship and date1 which ,judah ,halevi in common with the uncritical opinion of his day attributed to ,abraham4#bja ,not to lay himself open to the charge of inconsistency1 he throws out the suggestion that the ,sefer ,yezirah represented ,abraham's own speculations before he had the privilege of a prophetic communication from ,god4 ,when that came he was ready to abandon all his former rationalistic lucubrations and abide by the certainty of revealed truth4#bjb ,we may therefore legitimately infer that ,judah ,halevi's idea was that the ,jews were the originators of philosophy1 but that they had long discarded it in favor of something much more valid and certain2 whereas the ,greeks and their descendants1 having nothing better1 caught it up and are now parading it as their own discovery and even setting it up as superior to direct revelation4 ,natural science in so far as it had to do with more or less verifiable data could not be considered harmful1 and so we find ,judah ,halevi taking pains to show that the sages of ,rabbinical literature cultivated the sciences1 astronomy in connection with the ,jewish calendar2 anatomy1 biology and physiology in relation to the laws of slaughter and the examination of animal meat 7laws of ,terefa74#bjc ,but so great was the fascination philosophy exerted upon the men of his generation that even ,judah ,halevi1 despite his efforts to shake its authority and point out its inadequacy and evident inferiority to revelation1 was not able wholly to escape it4 ,and we find accordingly that he deems it necessary to devote a large part of the fifth book of the ,kusari to the presentation of a bird's eye view of the current philosophy of the day4 ,to be sure1 he does not give all of it the stamp of his approval2 he repeatedly attacks its foundations and lays bare their weakness4 ,at the same time he admits that not every man has faith by nature and is proof against the erroneous arguments of heretics1 astrologers1 philosophers and others4 ,the ordinary mortal is affected by them1 and may even be misled for a time until he comes to see the truth4 ,it is therefore well to know the principles of religion according to those who defend it by reason1 and this involves a knowledge of science and theology4 ,but we must not1 he says1 in the manner of the ,karaites1 advance all at once to the higher study of theology4 ,one must first understand the fundamental principles of physics1 psychology1 and so on1 such as matter and form1 the elements1 nature1 ,soul1 ,intellect1 ,divine ,wisdom4 ,then we can proceed to the more properly theological matters1 like the future world1 ,providence1 and so on4 ,accordingly ,judah ,halevi gives us in the sequel a brief account such as he has just outlined4 ,it will not be worth our while to reproduce it all here1 as in the first place ,judah ,halevi does not give it as the result of his own investigation and conviction1 and secondly a good deal of it is not new2 and we have already met it in more or less similar form before in ,joseph ibn ,zaddik1 ,abraham bar ,hiyyah1 and others4 ,we must point out1 however1 the new features which we did not meet before1 explain their origin and in particular indicate ,judah ,halevi's criticisms4 ,in general we may say that ,judah ,halevi has a better knowledge of ,aristotelian doctrines than any of his predecessors4 ,thus to take one example1 which we used before 7p4 #ach71 ,aristotle's famous definition of the soul is quoted by ,isaac ,israeli1 ,saadia1 ,joseph ibn ,zaddik as well as by ,judah ,halevi4 ,israeli does not discuss the definition in detail4#bjd ,saadia and ,ibn ,zaddik show clearly that they did not understand the precise meaning of the definition4 ,judah ,halevi is the first who understands correctly all the elements of the definition4 ,and yet it would be decidedly mistaken to infer from this that ,judah ,halevi studied the ,aristotelian works directly4 ,by a fortunate discovery of ,s4 ,landauer#bje we are enabled to follow ,judah ,halevi's source with the certainty of eyewitnesses4 ,the sketch which he gives of the ,aristotelian psychology is taken bodily not from ,aristotle's ,de ,anima1 but from a youthful work of ,ibn ,sina4 ,judah ,halevi did not even take the trouble to present the subject in his own words4 ,he simply took his model and abridged it1 by throwing out all argumentative1 illustrative and amplificatory material4 ,apart from this abridgment he follows his authority almost word for word1 not to speak of reproducing the ideas in the original form and order4 ,this is a typical and extremely instructive instance2 and it shows how careful we must be before we decide that a medival writer read a certain author with whose ideas he is familiar and whom he quotes4 ,in the sketch of philosophical theory ,judah ,halevi first speaks of the hyle 7,greek3 hyl7 or formless matter1 which according to the philosophers was in the beginning of things contained within the lunar sphere4 ,the water in the second verse of ,genesis 7and the spirit of ,god moved upon the face of the water7 is supposed by them to denote this primitive matter1 as the darkness in the same verse and the chaos 7,tohu7 in the first verse signify the absence of form and composition in the matter 7the ,aristotelian ,greek3 stersis74 ,god then willed the revolution of the outermost sphere1 known as the diurnal sphere1 which caused all the other spheres to revolve with it1 thereby producing changes in the hyle in accordance with the motions of the sphere4 ,the first change was the heating of that which was next to the lunar sphere and making it into pure fire1 known among the philosophers as natural fire1 a pure1 fine and light substance1 without color or burning quality4 ,this became the sphere of fire4 ,the part that was further away changed as a result of the same revolution into the sphere of air1 then came the sphere of water1 and finally the terrestrial globe in the centre1 heavy and thick by reason of its distance from the place of motion4 ,from these four elements come the physical objects by composition4 ,the forms 7in the ,aristotelian sense7 of things are imposed upon their matters by a divine power1 the ,intellect1 and ,giver of ,forms2 whereas the matters come from the hyle1 and the accidental proximity of different parts to the revolving lunar sphere explains why some parts became fire1 some air1 and so on4 ,to this mechanical explanation of the formation of the elements ,judah ,halevi objects4 ,as long as the original motion of the diurnal sphere is admittedly due not to chance but to the will of ,god1 what is gained by referring the formation of the elements to their accidental proximity to the moving sphere1 and accounting for the production of mineral1 plant and animal in the same mechanical way by the accidental composition of the four elements in proportions varying according to the different revolutions and positions of the heavenly bodies8 ,besides if the latter explanation were true1 the number of species of plants and animals should be infinite like the various positions and formations of the heavenly bodies1 whereas they are finite and constant4 ,the argument from the design and purpose that is clearly visible in the majority of plants and animals further refutes such mechanical explanation as is attempted by the philosophers4 ,design is also visible in the violation of the natural law by which water should always be above and around earth2 whereas in reality we see a great part of the earth's surface above water4 ,this is clearly a beneficent provision in order that animal life may sustain itself1 and this is the significance of the words of the ,psalmist 7#acf1 #f71 ,to him that stretched out the earth above the waters4 ,the entire theory of the four elements and the alleged composition of all things out of them is a pure assumption4 ,take the idea of the world of fire1 the upper fire as they call it1 which is colorless1 so as not to obstruct the color of the heavens and the stars4 ,whoever saw such a fire8 ,the only fire we know is an extremely hot object in the shape of coal1 or as a flame in the air1 or as boiling water4 ,and whoever saw a fiery or ary body enter the matter of plant and animal so as to warrant us in saying that the latter are composed of the four elements8 ,true1 we know that water and earth do enter the matter of plants1 and that they are assisted by the air and the heat of the sun in causing the plant to grow and develop1 but we never see a fiery or ary body4 ,or whoever saw plants resolved into the four elements8 ,if a part changes into earth1 it is not real earth1 but ashes2 and the part changed to water is not real water1 but a kind of moisture1 poisonous or nutritious1 but not water fit for drinking4 ,similarly no part of the plant changes to real air fit for breathing1 but to vapor or mist4 ,granted that we have to admit the warm and the cold1 and the moist and the dry as the primary qualities without which no body can exist2 and that the reason resolves the composite objects into these primary qualities1 and posits substances as bearers of these qualities1 which it calls fire1 air1 water and earth--this is true conceptually and theoretically only4 ,it cannot be that the primary qualities really existed in the simple state extra animam1 and then all existing things were made out of them4 ,how can the philosophers maintain such a thing1 since they believe in the eternity of the world1 that it always existed as it does now8 ,these are the criticisms of their theory of the elements4 ,according to the ,torah ,god created the world just as it is1 with its animals and plants already formed4 ,there is no need of assuming intermediate powers or compositions4 ,the moment we admit that the world was created out of nothing by the will of ,god in the manner in which he desired1 all difficulties vanish about the origin of bodies and their association with souls4 ,and there is no reason why we should not accept the firmament1 and the waters above the heaven1 and the demons mentioned by the ,rabbis1 and the account of the days of the ,messiah and the resurrection and the world to come4#bjf ,another theory he criticizes is that developed by ,alfarabi and ,avicenna1 the chief ,aristotelians of the ,arabs before ,averroes4 ,it is a combination of ,aristotelianism with the ,neo-,platonic doctrine of emanation1 though it was credited as a whole to ,aristotle in the middle ages4 ,we have already seen in the ,introduction 7p4 xxxiv7 that ,aristotle conceived the world as a series of concentric spheres with the earth in the centre4 ,the principal spheres are eight in number1 and they carry in order1 beginning with the external sphere1 7#a7 the fixed stars1 7#b7 ,saturn1 7#c7 ,jupiter1 7#d7 ,mars1 7#e7 ,mercury1 7#f7 ,venus1 7#g7 ,sun1 7#h7 ,moon4 ,to account for the various motions of the sun and the planets additional spheres had to be introduced amounting in all to fifty-six4 ,but the principal spheres remained those mentioned4 ,each sphere or group of spheres with the star it carries is moved by an incorporeal mover1 a spirit or ,intelligence1 and over them all is the first unmoved mover1 ,god4 ,he sets in motion the outer sphere of the fixed stars1 and so the whole world moves4 ,there is nothing said in this of the origin of these spheres and their intelligible movers4 ,on the other hand1 in the ,neo-,platonic system of ,plotinus all existence and particularly that of the intelligible or spiritual world issues or emanates from the ,one or the ,good4 ,intellect is the first emanation1 ,soul the second1 ,nature the third and ,matter the last4 ,on account of the confusion which arose in the middle ages1 as a result of which ,neo-,platonic writings and doctrines were attributed to ,aristotle1 ,alfarabi and ,avicenna worked out a scheme which combined the motion theory of ,aristotle with the doctrine of emanation of ,plotinus4 ,the theory is based upon a principle alleged to be ,aristotle's that from a unitary cause nothing but a unitary effect can follow4 ,hence1 said ,avicenna1 ,god cannot have produced directly all the world we see in its complexity4 ,he is the direct cause of the first ,intelligence only1 or first angel as ,judah ,halevi calls him4 ,this ,intelligence contemplates itself and it contemplates its cause4 ,the effect of the latter act is the emanation of a second intelligence or angel2 the effect of the former is a sphere--that of the fixed stars1 of which the first ,intelligence is the mover4 ,the second ,intelligence again produces a third ,intelligence by its contemplation of the ,first ,cause1 and by its self-contemplation it creates the second sphere1 the sphere of ,saturn1 which is moved by it4 ,so the process continues until we reach the sphere of the moon1 which is the last of the celestial spheres1 and the ,active ,intellect1 the last of the ,intelligences1 having in charge the sublunar world4 ,this fanciful and purely mythological scheme arouses the antagonism of ,judah ,halevi4 ,it is all pure conjecture1 he says1 and there is not an iota of proof in it4 ,people believe it and think it is convincing1 simply because it bears the name of a ,greek philosopher4 ,as a matter of fact this theory is less plausible than those of the ,sefer ,yezirah2 and there is no agreement even among the philosophers themselves except for those who are the followers of the same ,greek authority1 ,empedocles1 or ,pythagoras1 or ,aristotle1 or ,plato4 ,these agree not because the proofs are convincing1 but simply because they are members of a given sect or school4 ,the objections to the theory just outlined are manifold4 ,in the first place why should the series of emanations stop with the moon8 ,is it because the power of the ,first ,cause has given out8 ,besides why should self-contemplation result in a sphere and contemplation of the ,first ,cause in an ,intelligence or angel8 ,it should follow that when ,aristotle contemplates himself he produces a sphere1 and when he contemplates the ,first ,cause he gives rise to an angel4 ,granting the truth of the process1 one does not see why the mover of ,saturn should not produce two more emanations1 one by contemplating the ,intelligence immediately above it1 and the other by contemplating the first ,intelligence1 thus making four emanations instead of two4#bjg ,in his outline of the philosophers' psychology1 which as we have seen 7p4 #age7 is borrowed verbally from ,avicenna1 what is new to us is the exposition of the inner senses and the account of the rational faculty4 ,we must therefore reproduce it here in outline together with ,judah ,halevi's criticism4 ,the three kinds of soul1 vegetative1 animal and rational1 we have already met before4 ,we have also referred to the fact that ,judah ,halevi analyzes correctly the well-known ,aristotelian definition of the soul4 ,we must now give a brief account of the inner senses as ,judah ,halevi took it from ,avicenna4 ,the five external senses1 seeing1 hearing1 touching1 smelling and tasting1 give us merely colors1 sounds1 touch sensations1 odors and tastes4 ,these are combined into an object by the common sense1 known also as the forming power4 ,thus when we see honey we associate with its yellow color a sweet taste4 ,this could not be done unless we had a power which combines in it all the five senses4 ,for the sense of sight cannot perceive taste1 nor can color be apprehended by the gustatory sense4 ,there is need therefore of a common sense which comprehends all the five external senses4 ,this is the first internal sense4 ,this retains the forms of sensible objects just as the external senses present them4 ,then comes the composing power or power of imagination4 ,this composes and divides the material of the common sense4 ,it may be true or false1 whereas the common sense is always true4 ,both of these give us merely forms2 they do not exercise any judgment4 ,the latter function belongs to the third internal sense1 the power of judgment4 ,through this an animal is enabled to decide that a given object is to be sought or avoided4 ,it also serves to rectify the errors of reproduction that may be found in the preceding faculty of imagination4 ,love1 injury1 belief1 denial1 belong likewise to the judging faculty together with such judgments as that the wolf is an enemy1 the child a friend4 ,the last of the internal senses is that of factual memory1 the power which retains the judgments made by the faculty preceding4 ,in addition to these sensory powers the animal possesses motor faculties4 ,these are two1 the power of desire1 which moves the animal to seek the agreeable2 and the power of anger1 which causes it to reject or avoid the disagreeable4 ,all these powers are dependent upon the corporeal organs and disappear with the destruction of the latter4 ,the highest power of the soul and the exclusive possession of man 7the faculties mentioned before are found also in animals7 is the rational soul4 ,this is at first simply a potentiality4 ,actually it is a tabula rasa1 an empty slate1 a blank paper4 ,but it has the power 7or is the power7 of acquiring general ideas4 ,hence it is called hylic or material intellect1 because it is like matter which in itself is nothing actual but is potentially everything1 being capable of receiving any form and becoming any real object4 ,as matter receives sensible forms1 so the material intellect acquires intelligible forms1 i4 e41 thoughts1 ideas1 concepts4 ,when it has these ideas it is an actual intellect4 ,it is then identical with the ideas it has1 i4 e41 thinker and thought are the same1 and hence the statement that the actual intellect is intelligent and intelligible at the same time4 ,as matter is the principle of generation and destruction the rational soul1 which is thus shown to be an immaterial substance1 is indestructible1 hence immortal4 ,and it is the ideas it acquires which make it so4 ,when the rational soul is concerned with pure knowledge it is called the speculative or theoretical intellect4 ,when it is engaged in controlling the animal powers1 its function is conduct1 and is called the practical intellect4 ,the rational soul1 i4 e41 the speculative intellect1 is separable from the body and needs it not1 though it uses it at first to acquire some of its knowledge4 ,this is proved by the fact that whereas the corporeal powers1 like the senses1 are weakened by strong stimuli1 the reason is strengthened by hard subjects of thought4 ,old age weakens the body1 but strengthens the mind4 ,the activities of the body are finite2 of the mind1 infinite4 ,we must also show that while the rational soul makes use of the data of sense perception1 which are corporeal1 as the occasions for the formation of its general ideas1 it is not wholly dependent upon them1 and the sense data alone are inadequate to give the soul its intellectual truths4 ,empirical knowledge is inductive1 and no induction can be more general and more certain than the particular facts from which it is derived4 ,as all experience1 however rich1 is necessarily finite1 empirical knowledge is never universally certain4 ,but the soul does possess universally certain knowledge1 as for example the truths of mathematics and logic2 hence the origin of these truths can not be empirical4 ,how does the soul come to have such knowledge8 ,we must assume that there is a divine emanation cleaving to the soul1 which stands to it in the relation of light to the sense of sight4 ,it is to the illumination of this intellectual substance and not to the data of sense perception that the soul owes the universal certainty of its knowledge4 ,this divine substance is the ,active ,intellect4 ,as long as the soul is united with the body1 perfect union with the ,active ,intellect is impossible4 ,but as the soul becomes more and more perfect through the acquisition of knowledge1 it cleaves more and more to the ,active ,intellect1 and this union becomes complete after death4 ,thus the immortality of the soul is proved by reason4 ,it is based upon the conviction that the soul is an immaterial substance and that its perfection lies in its acquisition of intellectual ideas4#bjh ,judah ,halevi cannot help admitting the fascination such speculation exercises upon the mind of the student4 ,but he must warn him against being misled by the fame of such names as ,plato and ,aristotle1 and supposing that because in logic and mathematics the philosophers give us real proofs1 they are equally trustworthy in metaphysical speculation4 ,if the soul is1 as they say1 an intellectual substance not limited in place and for this reason not subject to genesis and decay1 there is no way to distinguish one soul from another1 since it is matter which constitutes individual existence4 ,how then can my soul be distinguished from yours1 or from the ,active ,intellect and the other ,intelligences1 or from the ,first ,cause itself8 ,the souls of ,plato and ,aristotle should become one so that the one should know the secret thoughts of the other4 ,if the soul gets its ideas through divine illumination from the ,active ,intellect1 how is it that philosophers do not intuit their ideas at once like ,god and the ,active ,intellect1 and how is it they forget8 ,then as to their ideas about immortality4 ,if immortality is a necessary phenomenon due to the intellectual nature of the soul and dependent upon the degree of intellectual knowledge it possesses1 how much knowledge must a man have to be immortal8 ,if any amount is sufficient1 then every rational soul is immortal1 for everybody knows at least the axioms of logic and mathematics1 such as that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other1 that a thing cannot both be and not be1 and so on4 ,if a knowledge of the ten categories is necessary1 and of the other universal principles which embrace existence conceptually1 though not practically1 this knowledge can be gotten in a day1 and it is not likely that a man can become an angel in a day4 ,if on the other hand one must know everything not merely conceptually but in detail1 no one can ever acquire universal knowledge and no one is immortal ,the philosophers may be excused because this is the best they can do with the help of pure reason4 ,we may commend them for their mode of life in accordance with the moral law and in freedom from the world1 since they were not bound to accept our traditions4 ,but it is different with us4 ,why should we seek peculiar proofs and explanations for the immortality of the soul1 since we have promises to that effect whether the soul be corporeal or spiritual8 ,if we depend upon logical proof1 our life will pass away without our coming to any conclusion4#bji ,judah ,halevi takes issue also with the ,mutakallimun4 ,these1 as we know1 were ,mohammedan theologians who1 unlike the philosophers1 were not indifferent to religion4 ,on the contrary their sole motive in philosophizing was to prove the dogmas of their faith4 ,they had no interest in pure speculation as such4 ,judah ,halevi has no more sympathy with them than with the philosophers4 ,owing to the fact that the ,karaites were implicit followers of the ,kalam and for other reasons1 no doubt1 more objective1 he thinks less of them than he does of the philosophers4 ,the only possible use1 he tells us1 of their methods is to afford exercise in dialectics so as to be able to answer the arguments of unbelievers4 ,to the superficial observer the ,mutakallim may seem to be superior to the prophet1 because he argues1 whereas the latter affirms without proving4 ,in reality1 however1 this is not so4 ,the aim of the ,mutakallim is to acquire the belief which the prophet has by nature4 ,but his ,kalam may injure his belief instead of confirming it1 by reason of the many difficulties and doubts it introduces4 ,the prophet1 who has natural belief1 teaches not by means of dialectic discussion4 ,if one has a spark of the true belief in his nature1 the prophet by his personality will benefit him by a slight hint4 ,only he who has nothing of true belief in his nature must have recourse to ,kalam1 which may benefit him or injure4 ,judah ,halevi follows up this general comment by a brief sketch of the system of the ,kalam1 but we need not enter into this matter as there is little there that we do not already know1 and there is no detailed criticism on the part of ,judah ,halevi4#baj ,the ,rabbi concludes his discourse with the king of the ,chazars by declaring his intention to leave the land in order to go to ,jerusalem4 ,although the visible ,shekinah is no longer in ,palestine1 the invisible and spiritual presence is with every born ,israelite of pure heart and deed2 and ,palestine is the fittest land for this communion1 being conducive to purity of heart and mind4#baa ,,chapter ,,xi ,,moses ,,and ,,abraham ,,ibn ,,ezra #a4 ,moses ibn ,ezra ,among the ,jewish ,neo-,platonists must be included the two ,ibn ,ezras1 ,moses and ,abraham4 ,they were contemporary and came from ,spain4 ,moses1 the older of the two1 was born at ,granada about #ajgj and died after #aach4 ,abraham1 who travelled all over the world1 was born at ,toledo in #ajib and died in #aafg4 ,neither is particularly famous as a philosopher4 ,moses's celebrity rests on his poetic productions1 secular as well as religious1 which are highly praised by ,harizi1 above even those of ,halevi4 ,abraham is best known as a grammarian and ,biblical commentator1 particularly the latter1 though his versatility is remarkable4 ,besides grammar and exegesis he wrote on mathematics1 astronomy and astrology1 on religious philosophy1 and was a poet of no mean order2 though1 as ,zunz says1#bab flashes of thought spring from his words1 but not pictures of the imagination4 ,all that is accessible in print of ,moses ,ibn ,ezra's philosophical treatise is a ,hebrew translation of extracts under the title ,arugat ha-,bosem 7,bed of ,spices74#bac ,if we may judge of the rest of the work by these ,hebrew fragments1 we should say that philosophy was not ,ibn ,ezra's forte4 ,he dabbled in it as any poet of that age did1 but what caught his fancy was more the mysteriously sounding phrases of celebrated authorities like ,pythagoras1 ,empedocles1 ,socrates1 ,plato1 ,aristotle1 ,hermes 7whom he identifies with ,enoch71 than a strictly reasoned out argument4 ,accordingly the ,hebrew selections consist of little more than a string of quotations on the transcendence and unknowableness of ,god1 on the meaning of philosophy1 on the position of man in the universe1 on motion1 on nature and on intellect4 ,it is of historical interest to us to know that ,moses ibn ,ezra1 so famous as a poet1 was interested in philosophy1 and that the views which appealed to him were those of ,ibn ,gabirol1 whose ,fountain of ,life he knew1 and from which he quotes a celebrated mystical passage4 ,a few details will suffice to make this clear4 ,man is a microcosm1 a world in miniature1 and there is nothing above or below1 the counterpart of which is not found in man4 ,there is no sphere1 or star1 or animal1 or plant1 or mineral1 or power1 or nature1 but something similar1 mutatis mutandis1 is found in man4 ,the ten categories1 which according to the philosophers embrace all existence1 are also found1 all of them1 in man4 ,the perfection of man's creation points to a wise ,creator4 ,man comes after multiplicity1 ,god is before multiplicity4 ,man is like the great universe1 and in both the spiritual cannot come in direct contact with the corporeal1 but needs intermediating powers to bring the extremes together4 ,in man soul and spirit stand between intellect and body4 ,hence a man must know himself before he can know the universe1 else he is like a person who feeds other people while he is himself hungry4 ,to know the ,creator1 the soul must first know herself1 and this is one of the definitions of philosophy1 to know one's own soul4 ,he who can strip his soul of his corporeal senses and worldly desires1 and rise to the sphere will find there his reward4 ,other similarly ascetic and mystical expressions are quoted from ,aristotle7671 ,pythagoras1 and one of the modern philosophers4 ,the last is none other than ,ibn ,gabirol1 and the passage quoted is the same as that cited above1 7p4 #fi74 ,unity precedes the unitary object as heat comes before the hot object4 ,unity alone is self-subsistent4 ,numerical unity is prior to two1 and is the very root and essence of number4 ,god's unity is above all other unities1 hence it cannot be described1 because it has no cause1 being the cause of everything else4 ,as our eye cannot see the sun by reason of its very brilliance1 so our intellect cannot comprehend ,god because of the extreme perfection of his existence4 ,the finite and imperfect cannot know the infinite and perfect4 ,hence no names can apply to ,god except metaphorically4 ,when we say that ,god knows1 we mean that he is knowledge itself1 not that knowledge is an attribute which he possesses4 ,socrates767 said in his prayers1 ,thou art not far from me so that ,i should raise my voice to thee1 nor art ,thou near unto me that ,i should content myself with a low whisper and the meditation of the heart2 nor art ,thou on any side of me so that ,i may turn toward ,thee2 for nearness and distance have measure1 but there is no measure between me and ,thee4 ,thou art united with me and embracest me more closely than my intellect and soul4 ,he who knows most of the secret of the ,creator1 knows least2 and he who knows least1 knows most4 ,as the limbs of the body and the senses cannot know the intelligible ideas because the latter are superior to them1 so the intellect cannot know the essence of the ,creator because he is above the sphere of the intellect4 ,although the intellect is spiritual1 it cannot comprehend the ,creator because he is above all intellectual powers1 and is infinite4 ,what is infinite has no division or multiplication1 or part or whole4 ,the ,gentiles make use of the anthropomorphic expressions in the ,bible to annoy us1 charging us with believing in a corporeal ,god4 ,would that we had strength to silence their impudence by a crushing reply4 ,but alas6 their tyranny prevents us from raising our voice4 ,but it is still more aggravating to hear men of our own people1 heretics1 repeating the same charge against the ,bible and ,talmud1 when they ought to know better1 since the expressions in question are metaphorical4 ,saadia has made this sufficiently clear4 ,the ,active ,intellect is the first of ,god's creations4 ,it is a power emanating from the ,will4 ,it is a simple1 pure and transparent substance1 bearing in itself the forms of all existing things4 ,the human intellect is known as the passive intellect4 ,the rational soul is a pure substance giving perfection to a natural body1 etc4 ,it is inferior to the intellect1 and the animal soul is inferior to the rational4 ,the soul is the horseman1 the body represents the soldiers and the arms4 ,as the horseman must take care of his arms that he may not be put to death1 so the soul must take care of the body that she may not perish4 ,and the senses must be taken into account1 for the powers of the soul are dependent upon the powers of the body4 ,if the food of the body is in proper proportion1 the activity of the soul is proper and right4 ,similarly if one neglects moderation in food1 he is bound to suffer morally and spiritually4 ,the above selections1 which are representative of the accessible portion of ,moses ibn ,ezra's philosophical treatise1 except that such recurring phrases have been omitted as ,and the philosopher said1 ,and they say1 etc41 show that the work is nothing but a compilation of sayings on various philosophical topics1 without any attempt on the author's part to think out the subject or any part thereof1 for himself4 #b4 ,abraham ibn ,ezra ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra did not write any special work on philosophy1 and his importance lies chiefly in his ,biblical commentary1 which unlike that of ,rashi1 is based upon a scientific and philological foundation4 ,ibn ,ezra was thoroughly familiar with ,arabic and well versed in the philological1 scientific and philosophical studies cultivated by ,arabs and ,jews in his native land4 ,for reasons not known to us--poverty was very likely one of them--he left his native ,spain and wandered as far as ,rome in the east1 ,egypt and ,morocco in the south1 and ,london in the north4 ,everywhere he was busy with literary activity1 and as he wrote in ,hebrew his purpose must have been1 as the result certainly proved to be1 the enlightenment of the non-,arabic speaking ,jews of ,england1 ,france and ,italy1 by bringing before them in a language that they knew the grammar of ,hayyuj1 the mathematics and astronomy of the ,greeks and the ,arabs1 the philosophy of ,neo-,platonism1 and the scientific and rationalistic spirit generally1 as enlightened ,spain had developed it in ,jew and ,arab alike4 ,we are interested here more particularly in ,ibn ,ezra's philosophical views4 ,these are scattered through his ,biblical commentaries and in a few other small works devoted to an investigation of the laws of the ,pentateuch and the meaning of the names of ,god4#bad ,for though ,ibn ,ezra favors the philological method as the best way to arrive at the true meaning of ,scripture1 and decries allegory as well as ,midrash when pushed too far1 and though his commentary is for the most part based upon the philological method of interpretation1 he was too much a child of his age to be able to refrain from finding in the ,bible views akin to those he learned from ,gabirol1 the ,brethren of ,purity and what other philosophical literature of the ,arabs he read and was influenced by4 ,and so he1 too1 the grammarian and philologist1 succumbed to the allegorical and symbolical method he condemned4 ,without denying the historical reality of the ,garden of ,eden1 the ,tree of ,knowledge and the ,tree of ,life1 he also sees in these expressions symbols of cosmological1 psychological and ethical ideas4 ,in the fashion of ,philo he sees in ,eden a representation of the higher world of the divinity1 in the ,garden the intermediate world of the spheres and ,intelligences1 in the river issuing from the ,garden the substance of the sublunar world1 in the four heads into which the river divides the four elements1 and so on4 ,he speaks of these symbolic meanings as the secrets1 and so we have the secret of the ,garden1 of the rivers1 of the coats4 ,and in the same way he speaks of the secret of the ,cherubim1 of the ark and the ,tabernacle4 ,these objects also symbolize metaphysical and cosmological truths4 ,he was a believer in astrology1 and laid this pseudo-science also under contribution in the interpretation of ,holy ,writ4 ,here the various numbers found in the ,bible in connection with ritual prescriptions1 the construction of the ,tabernacle1 and so on1 were of great service to ,ibn ,ezra in his symbolizations4 ,like ,philo and the ,neo-,pythagoreans he analyzes the virtues and significances of the different numbers1 and thus finds a symbol in every number found in the ,bible4 ,writing as he did for the ,jews of central ,europe1 who were not trained in secular science and philosophy1 ,ibn ,ezra was not prepared to shock the sensibilities of his readers by his novel and1 to them1 heretical views2 and hence he expressed himself in cryptic phrases and allusions1 which often make his meaning difficult if not impossible to decipher4 ,this1 taken together with the fact that his views are not laid down anywhere systematically and in connected fashion1 but are thrown out briefly1 often enigmatically1 in connection with the explanation of ,biblical verses and phrases1 accounts for the difference among critics concerning the precise doctrines of ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra4 ,of his predecessors among the ,jewish philosophers ,ibn ,ezra shows closest relation to ,solomon ibn ,gabirol4 ,he does not quote the ,fountain of ,life1 but he names its author as a great thinker and writer of poems1 and shows familiarity with ,gabirol's doctrines4 ,like ,gabirol he says that all except ,god consists of substance 7matter7 and form4 ,not only the sublunar things1 subject to generation and decay1 but the higher incorporeal things1 also1 are in essence two1 i4 e41 are composed of two elements1 subject and predicate4 ,god alone is ,one2 he is subject only and not predicate4 ,and ,ibn ,ezra also has some allusion to the divine ,will as taught by ,gabirol4 ,in giving a connected sketch of ,ibn ,ezra's philosophical ideas1 the most one can do is to collect all the sayings bearing upon our subject which are found scattered through ,ibn ,ezra's writings1 and classify them and combine them into a connected whole4 ,this has been done before by ,nahman ,krochmal#bae and by ,david ,rosin1#baf and we shall follow the latter in our exposition here4 ,god is the ,one4 ,he gives forms to all things1 and is himself all things4 ,god alone is the real existent1 all else is an existent by virtue of him4 ,unity is the symbol of ,god because in number also the unit is the foundation of all number1 and yet is not itself number4 ,it exists by virtue of itself and needs not the numbers that come after4 ,at the same time the unit is also all number1 because all number is made up of the unit4 ,god alone is one1 because he alone is not composed of matter and form1 as everything else is4 ,god has neither likeness nor form1 for he is the creator of all things1 i4 e41 of all likeness and form4 ,he is therefore incorporeal4 ,in ,god the subject knowing and the object of his knowledge are one and the same thing4 ,else he would not be one4 ,in knowing himself1 therefore1 he knows the universe4 ,god as the cause and creator of all things must know all things1 the universal as well as the particular1 the world soul as well as the various species1 and even every single creature1 but he knows the particular in a general way4 ,for ,god knows only what is permanent1 whereas the particular is constantly changing1 hence he does not know the particular as such1 but only as involved in the general and permanent4 ,as ,god is incorporeal he is not subject to corporeal accidents or human feelings4 ,hence the many expressions in the ,bible which ascribe such accidents and feelings to ,god must be understood as metaphors4 ,it is a psychological necessity for man wishing to communicate his ideas to other men to speak in human terms1 whether he speak of beings and things inferior or superior to him4 ,the result is that the metaphor he finds it necessary to employ either raises or lowers the object to which it refers4 ,it elevates the sub-human and lowers the superhuman to the human4 ,this is the explanation of such phrases as the mouth of the earth the hand of the ,jordan1 the head of the dust of the world1 and so on1 in which the figure is that of personification4 ,and the fundamental explanation is the same in such phrases as ,the ,lord repented1 ,the ,lord rested1 ,the ,lord remembered1 ,he that dwelleth in heaven laughs1 and so on1 where the process is the reverse of personification4 ,the motive common to both is to convey some idea to the reader4 ,the ,hebrew word bara1 ordinarily translated created1 which implies to most people the idea of creatio ex nihilo1 ,ibn ,ezra renders1 in accordance with its etymology1 to limit1 to define1 by drawing or incising a line or boundary4 ,having said this1 ,ibn ,ezra1 in his wonted mysterious manner1 stops short1 refusing to say more and preferring to mystify the reader by adding the tantalizing phrase1 ,the intelligent will understand4 ,he means apparently to indicate that an eternal matter was endowed with form4 ,in fact he seems to favor the idea of eternal creation and maintenance of the universe1 the relation of which to ,god is as the relation of speech to the speaker1 which exists only so long as the speaker speaks4 ,the moment he ceases speaking the sounds cease to exist4 ,the two ideas of eternal emanation of the world from ,god after the manner of the ,neo-,platonists and of an eternal matter which ,god endows with forms1 are not really quite consistent1 for the latter implies that matter is independent of ,god1 whereas according to the former everything owes its existence and continuance to ,god1 from whom it emanates4 ,but it is difficult from the fragmentary and laconic sayings of ,ibn ,ezra to extract a consistent and certain system4 ,the world consists of three parts1 three worlds ,ibn ,ezra calls them4 ,the highest world consists of the separate ,intelligences or angels1 including the world-soul of which the human soul is a part4 ,the intermediate world consists of the spheres1 planets and fixed stars4 ,finally the lower world contains the four elements and the product of their various mixtures1 minerals1 plants1 animals1 man4 ,these three worlds1 ,ibn ,ezra appears to intimate in his oracular manner1 are symbolized by the three divisions of the ,tabernacle1 the holy of holies typifying the world of spirits1 the holy pointing to the spheres1 while the outer court represents the sublunar world4 ,the highest world1 the world of ,intelligences and angels1 is eternal1 though it too is dependent upon ,god for its existence4 ,the angels1 too1 are composed of matter and form1 and their function is to move the bodies of the intermediate world1 the spheres and their stars4 ,through the instrumentality of the heavenly bodies1 the angels form the lower world4 ,this amounts to saying that the corporeal world is the last stage in the descending series of emanations from the ,one1 and is preceded by the heavenly bodies and the ,intelligences4 ,the angels are also the immediate agents in prophetic inspiration4 ,not all mention of angels in the ,bible1 however1 must be identified with a separate ,intelligence or a spheral soul 7for the latter too is called angel by ,ibn ,ezra74 ,there are instances of the expression angel which refer to a momentary1 special creation of a light or air for the special benefit of the people4 ,this explains a number of theophanies in the ,bible1 such as the burning bush1 the glory of the ,lord1 the cloud in the wilderness1 and so on4 ,the intermediate world of spheres is also eternal and consists of nine spheres1 that of the ,intelligences making up the perfect number ten4 ,the nine spheres are arranged as follows1 the spheres of the seven planets1 the sphere of the fixed stars1 and the diurnal sphere without stars1 which gives the motion from east to west to the whole heaven4 ,the lower world1 the sublunar and corporeal world of generation and decay1 was created in time4 ,this1 however1 does not mean that there was time before this creation1 for time exists only with motion and change4 ,creation here signifies the formation of the chaotic matter4 ,as ,god cannot come in contact with the material and changeable 7we have already seen that he cannot know it as such71 it follows that this lower world was not made directly by him1 but by the angels1 hence the word ,elohim is used in the first chapter of ,genesis1 which means primarily the angels1 and secondarily ,god as acting through the angels4 ,in this lower world man is the noblest creature4 ,by means of his soul he may attain eternal life as an individual like ,god and the angels 7i4 e41 the ,intelligences71 whereas all other creatures of the lower world are permanent in species only but not as individuals4 ,this is the meaning of the expression in ,genesis1 ,let us make man in our image1 in the image1 that is1 of ,god and the angels4 ,man is a microcosm1 a universe in little1 for like the great universe he consists of a body animated by a soul4 ,as the noblest part of man is his soul1 it becomes his duty to know it4 ,he must know whether it is substance or accident1 whether it will die when it is separated from the body1 and for what purpose it was brought into union with the body4 ,in order to learn all this one must first study the preparatory branches1 grammar1 logic1 mathematics and physics4 ,in the study of psychology we learn that man has three souls1 vegetative1 animal and rational1 and the latter alone is immortal4 ,it is a part of the world soul1 having existed before it came into the body1 and under favorable conditions will return again to the world soul when separated from the body4 ,the condition which must be fulfilled by the soul before it can return to the world soul is the acquisition of wisdom1 for this is the purpose for which it was put into the body1 namely1 in order that it may learn the work of its master and observe his commandments4 ,there are many sciences1 but they are related to each other1 all leading up to the one highest science1 the knowledge of ,god and his goodness4 ,a person must advance gradually in studying the work of ,god from the knowledge of minerals1 plants1 animals1 the human body1 to the knowledge of the spheres and heavenly bodies1 the causes of eclipses1 etc41 and from this he will gradually come to know ,god4 ,the commandments of the ,bible are also of importance for this purpose4 ,to understand the secret of the commandments is to gain eternal life4 ,for wisdom is the form of the soul1 and hence the soul does not die like a body4 ,the reward of the soul is re-absorption in the world soul of which it is a part1 and the punishment of the unworthy soul that neglected to acquire knowledge is destruction4 ,what ,ibn ,ezra means by the ,hebrew word abad 7ordinarily rendered to perish1 to be destroyed7 is not clear4 ,it is hard to see how a pre-existing soul can perish utterly4 ,rosin suggests that ,ibn ,ezra is alluding to transmigration1#bag but it is not clear4 ,we have seen that ,ibn ,ezra holds that the events of the sublunar world and the destinies of men are governed by the positions and motions of the heavenly bodies1 which in turn are determined by the ,intelligences or angels4 ,the heavenly bodies1 he tells us1 follow necessary laws imposed upon them1 and are not responsible for any good or evil which results to mankind from them1 since the effects are not of their intention1 and they cannot change them if they would4 ,accordingly it is foolish to pray to the heavenly bodies in order to appease them and prevent evil1 as some of the heathen are accustomed to do4 ,the motions of the heavenly bodies are determined and invariable1 and no prayer will change them4 ,this1 however1 does not mean to say that no one can escape the evil which is destined for him in the stars4 ,ordinarily1 it is true1 ,god does not know the particular individual as such4 ,he knows him only as implied in the whole1 and his destiny is determined accordingly4 ,but there are exceptions when a person by developing his soul and intellect1 as we saw above1 succeeds in his lifetime in separating his soul from the corporeal and particular1 and brings it into contact with the spiritual and universal4 ,in that case he attracts to himself the special providence of ,god1 which enables him to evade the evil threatened by his star1 without in any way changing the star's natural course or ordinary effects4 ,how this is done1 ,ibn ,ezra illustrates by an example4#bah ,suppose1 he says1 that it is fated according to the stars that a given city shall be flooded by a river and its inhabitants drowned4 ,a prophet comes and warns them1 urging them to repent of their evil ways before their fate is sealed4 ,they obey him1 return to ,god with all their heart and leave the city to offer prayer to ,god4 ,the river rises in their absence1 as often happens1 and floods the city4 ,the wolf is satisfied and the lamb is whole4 ,the decree of the stars is not interfered with1 and the good man is delivered from evil4 ,in this way ,ibn ,ezra endeavors to reconcile natural law 7or astrological fatalism7 with the ethical purpose of divine providence4 ,and he also vindicates free will and responsibility4 ,the rational soul of man has power1 he says1 to counteract in part the indications of the stars1 though it cannot annul them entirely4 ,the punishment of the wicked is that they are left entirely to the fates determined for them by their constellations4 ,the highest good of man1 we have seen1 is the knowledge of ,god and his work4 ,there are two ways of knowing ,god4 ,one is through a study of nature1 the work of ,god4 ,this is described in the first part of the nineteenth ,psalm1 ,the ,heavens declare the glory of ,god2 and the firmament showeth his handiwork4 ,but there is a second and1 in a sense1 a better way of knowing ,god4 ,this is derived from his revelation in the ,law4 ,as we are told in the second part of the above ,psalm 7v4 #g71 ,the law of the ,lord is perfect1 restoring the soul4 ,the law of the ,lord restores the soul1 ,ibn ,ezra says1 by removing doubt from it4 ,for the first method of knowing ,god1 with all its importance for the man of wisdom and reason1 is not fit for all persons2 and not everything can be proved by reason4 ,revelation in the ,law is necessary for the simple minded4 ,i am the ,lord thy ,god 7,exod4 #bj1 #b7 is a hint to the philosopher1 who need not depend on hearsay1 for real knowledge is proved knowledge4 ,but as not everyone is in a position to have such knowledge1 the ,bible adds1 which brought thee out of the land of ,egypt4 ,this all can understand1 the simple minded as well as the philosopher4 ,the ,law has also a practical purpose1 to strengthen the rational soul so as to prevent the body from gaining the upper hand4 ,god's messenger1 through whom his will is made known1 is the prophet4 ,he seeks retirement so as to get in communion with ,god1 and receives such influence as he is capable of getting4 ,moses was the greatest of the prophets4 ,he was able to communicate with ,god whenever he chose1 whereas the others had to wait until the inspiration came4 ,the revelation of ,god to ,moses was without an intermediary1 and without visions and likenesses4 ,moses saw the things presented to him in their true form4 ,the laws may be divided into #a4 ,innate or rational laws1 i4 e41 laws planted by ,god in the mind of every rational being4 ,there are many such in the ,torah4 ,all the laws of the ,ten ,commandments belong to this class1 with the exception of the ,sabbath4 ,hence all mankind believe in them1 and ,abraham observed them all before ever the ,law was given on ,sinai4 #b4 ,hidden laws1 i4 e41 laws1 the reason of which is not given4 ,we must not suppose for a moment that there is any law which is against reason1 ,heaven forbid6 ,we must observe them all1 whether we understand the reason or not4 ,if we find a law that apparently is unreasonable1 we must assume that it has some hidden meaning and is not to be taken in its literal sense4 ,it is our duty1 then1 to look for this hidden meaning1 and if we cannot find it1 we must admit that we do not understand it4 ,the laws may also be classified as #a4 ,commandments of the heart1 #b4 ,commandments of the tongue1 and #c4 ,commandments of action4 ,an example of commandments of the heart is1 ,thou shalt love the ,lord thy ,god1 ,thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart1 and so on4 ,to the commandments of the tongue belong the reading of the ,shema1 grace after meals1 the priestly benediction1 and so on4 ,the laws of the third class are so numerous that there is no need of mentioning them4 ,the laws of the heart are the most important of all4 ,the reader will recognize in this two-fold classification ,saadia's division of the laws into rational and traditional1 and ,bahya's classification of duties of the heart and duties of the limbs4 ,this second class includes ,ibn ,ezra's second and third classes1 tongue and action4#bai ,the problem of evil ,ibn ,ezra solves by saying that from ,god comes good only4 ,the world as a whole is good2 evil is due to the defect of the object receiving higher influence4 ,to argue that because of the small part of evil the whole world1 which is good1 should not have been created1 is foolish4 ,the highest good of man is to develop his reason4 ,as the traveller and the captive long to return to the land of their birth and be with their family1 so the rational soul is eager to rise to the upper world which is not made of clay4 ,this it can do only if it purifies itself from the uncleanness of corporeal desire which drags it down1 and takes pains to know its own nature and origin1 with the help of ,wisdom whose eyes are undimmed4 ,then she will know the truth1 which will remain indelibly impressed upon her when she separates from the body1 where she was put for her own good4 ,the suffering she underwent here for a time will give place to everlasting rest and joy4 ,all man's work is vain1 for man can neither create nor annihilate a substance4 ,all his corporeal activity consists in combination and separation of accidents4 ,the only thing of value is the fear of ,god4 ,but no man can rise to this stage until he has ascended the ladder of wisdom1 and has acquired understanding4#bbj ,more concretely the way to purify the soul from the body is by uniting the rational and spirited soul1 as ,plato has it1 against the appetitive1 and giving the reason the mastery over the spirited soul as well4 ,a moderate degree of asceticism is to be recommended as favoring the emancipation of the soul from the tyranny of the body4 ,this is the meaning of the institution of the ,nazirite2 and the offering he must bring after the expiration of his period is to atone for the sin of returning to a life of indulgence4 ,but one should not go to extremes4 ,too much praying and fasting results in stupefaction4 ,it is a mistake to develop one side of one's nature at the expense of another4 ,every one of the three souls 7the rational1 the spirited and the appetitive7 must be given its due4 ,but the most important activity of man1 which leads to eternal life and happiness1 is the knowledge of ,god4 ,this knowledge cannot be attained at once4 ,it must be preceded by a study of one's own soul and of the natural sciences4 ,through a knowledge of oneself and nature1 one arrives finally at a knowledge of ,god4 ,the soul1 originally a tabula rasa1 is gradually perfected by the ideas which theoretical speculation acquires4 ,these ideas are identified with the rational soul1 and there results the acquired ,intellect1 which1 as absolutely immaterial1 is immortal and becomes one with the world soul of which it is a part4 ,during life complete union with the spiritual world is impossible4 ,even ,moses could only see the rear part of ,god4 ,but when one has during life kept as far as possible away from the sensuous and corporeal1 then at the time of death1 when the soul is separated from the body1 he will be completely absorbed in the world soul and possess the knowledge of ,god4 ,,chapter ,,xii ,,abraham ,,ibn ,,daud ,what was poison to ,judah ,halevi is meat to ,abraham ,ibn ,daud4 ,we must1 he says1 investigate the principles of the ,jewish religion and seek to harmonize them with true philosophy4 ,and in order to do these things properly a preliminary study of science is necessary4 ,nowadays all this is neglected and the result is confusion in fundamental principles1 for a superficial and literal reading of the ,bible leads to contradictory views1 not to speak of anthropomorphic conceptions of ,god which cannot be the truth4 ,many of our day think that the study of philosophy is injurious4 ,this is because it frequently happens in our time that a person who takes up the study of philosophy neglects religion4 ,in ancient times also this happened in the person of ,elisha ben ,abuya1 known by the name of ,aher4 ,nevertheless science was diligently studied in ,rabbinic times4 ,witness what was said concerning ,rabbi ,yohanan ben ,zakkai1 ,samuel and the ,synhedrin4#bba ,it cannot be that ,god meant us to abstain from philosophical study1 for many statements in the ,bible1 such as those relating to freedom of the will1 to the nature of ,god and the divine attributes1 to the creation of the world1 and so on1 are a direct stimulus to such investigation4 ,surely mental confusion cannot be the purpose ,god had in mind for us4 ,if he preferred our ignorance he would not have called our attention to these matters at all4#bbb ,this1 as we see1 is decidedly a different point of view from that of ,judah ,halevi4 ,the difference between them is not due to a difference in their age and environment1 but solely to personal taste and temperament4 ,toledo was the birthplace of ,ibn ,daud as it was of ,halevi4 ,and the period in which they lived was practically the same4 ,judah ,halevi's birth took place in the last quarter of the eleventh century1 whereas ,ibn ,daud is supposed to have been born about #aaaj1 a difference of some twenty-five or thirty years4 ,the philosopher whom ,judah ,halevi presents to us as the typical representative of his time is an ,aristotelian of the type of ,alfarabi and ,avicenna4 ,and it is the same type of philosophy that we meet in the pages of the ,emunah ,ramah 7,exalted ,faith71 ,ibn ,daud's philosophical work4#bbc ,whereas1 however1 ,judah ,halevi was a poet by the grace of ,god1 glowing with love for his people1 their religion1 their language and their historic land1 ,ibn ,daud leaves upon us the impression of a precise thinker1 cold and analytical4 ,he exhibits no graces of style1 eloquence of diction or depths of enthusiasm and emotion4 ,he passes systematically from one point to the next1 uses few words and technical1 and moves wholly in the ,peripatetic philosophy of the day4 ,in #aafa1 the same year in which the ,emunah ,ramah was composed1 he also wrote a historical work1 ,sefer ,hakabala 7,book of ,tradition71 which we have2 and in #aahj1 regarded by some as the year of his death1 he published an astronomical work1 which is lost4 ,this gives an index of his interests which were scientific and philosophic4 ,mysticism1 whether of the poetic or the philosophic kind1 was far from his nature2 and this too may account for the intense opposition he shows to ,solomon ,ibn ,gabirol4 ,on more than one occasion he gives vent to his impatience with that poetic philosopher1 and he blames him principally for two faults4 ,choosing to devote a whole book to one purely metaphysical topic1 in itself not related to ,judaism1 ,gabirol1 we are told by ,ibn ,daud1 gave expression to doctrines extremely dangerous to the ,jewish religion4 ,and apart from his heterodoxy1 he is philosophically incompetent and his method is abominable4 ,his style is profuse to the point of weariness1 and his logic carries no conviction4#bbd ,while ,abraham ,ibn ,daud is thus expressly unsympathetic to ,gabirol and tacitly in disagreement with ,halevi 7he does not mention him71 he shows the closest relation to ,maimonides1 whose forerunner he is4 ,we feel tempted to say that if not for ,ibn ,daud there would have been no ,maimonides4 ,and yet the irony of history has willed that the fame of being the greatest ,jewish philosopher shall be ,maimonides's own1 while his nearest predecessor1 to whose influence he owed most1 should be all but completely forgotten4 ,the ,arabic original of ,ibn ,daud's treatise is lost1 and the ,hebrew translations 7there are two7 lay buried in manuscript in the ,european libraries until one of them was published by ,simson ,weil in #aheb4bbe ,abraham ,ibn ,daud is the first ,jewish philosopher who shows an intimate knowledge of the works of ,aristotle and makes a deliberate effort to harmonize the ,aristotelian system with ,judaism4 ,to be sure1 he too owes his ,aristotelian knowledge to the ,arabian exponents of the ,stagirite1 ,alfarabi and ,avicenna1 rather than to the works of ,aristotle himself4 ,but this peculiarity was rooted in the intellectual conditions of his time1 and must not be charged to his personal neglect of the sources4 ,and ,maimonides does nothing more than repeat the effort of ,ibn ,daud in a more brilliant and masterly fashion4 ,the development of the three religious philosophies in the middle ages1 ,jewish1 ,christian and ,mohammedan1 followed a similar line of progression4 ,in all of them it was not so much a development from within1 the unfolding of what was implicit and potential in the original germ of the three respective religions1 as a stimulus from without1 which then combined1 as an integral factor1 with the original mass1 and the final outcome was a resultant of the two originally disparate elements4 ,we know by this time what these two elements were in each case1 ,hellenic speculation1 and ,semitic religion in the shape of sacred and revealed documents4 ,the second factor was in every case complete when the process of fusion began4 ,not so the first4 ,what ,i mean is that not all of the writings of ,greek antiquity were known to ,jew1 ,christian and ,mohammedan at the beginning of their philosophizing career4 ,and the progress in their philosophical development kept equal step with the successive accretion of ,greek philosophical literature1 in particular ,aristotle's physical1 psychological and metaphysical treatises1 and their gradual purgation of ,neo-,platonic adhesions4 ,the ,syrian ,christians1 who were the first to adopt ,greek teachings1 seem never to have gone beyond the mathematical and medical works of the ,greeks and the logic of ,aristotle4 ,the ,arabs began where their ,syrian teachers ended1 and went beyond them4 ,the ,mutakallimun were indebted to the ,stoics1#bbf the ,pure ,brethren to the ,neo-,platonists2 and it was only gradually that ,aristotle became the sole master not merely in logic1 which he always had been1 but also in physics1 metaphysics and psychology4 ,alfarabi1 ,avicenna and ,averroes represent so many steps in the ,aristotelization of ,arabic philosophy4 ,christian medival thought1 which was really a continuation of the ,patristic period1 likewise began with ,eriugena in the ninth century under ,platonic and ,neo-,platonic influences4 ,of ,aristotle the logic alone was known1 and that too only in small part4 ,here also progress was due to the increase of ,aristotelian knowledge2 though in this case it was not gradual as with the ,arabs before them1 but sudden4 ,in the latter part of the twelfth and the early part of the thirteenth century1 through the ,crusades1 through the ,moorish civilization in ,spain1 through the ,saracens in ,sicily1 through the ,jews as translators and mediators1 ,aristotle invaded ,christian ,europe and transformed ,christian philosophy4 ,albertus ,magnus1 ,thomas ,aquinas1 ,duns ,scotus1 ,william of ,occam are the results of this transformation4 ,the same thing holds true of the ,jews4 ,their philosophizing career stands chronologically between that of their ,arab teachers and their ,christian disciples4 ,and the line of their development was similar4 ,it was parallel to that of the ,arabs4 ,first came ,kalam in ,saadia1 ,mukammas1 the ,karaites ,al ,basir and ,jeshua ben ,judah4 ,then ,neo-,platonism and ,kalam combined1 or pure ,neo-,platonism1 in ,bahya1 ,gabirol1 ,ibn ,zaddik and the two ,ibn ,ezras1 ,abraham and ,moses4 ,in ,judah ,halevi1 so far as philosophy is represented1 we have ,neo-,platonism and ,aristotelianism4 ,finally in ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides1 ,neo-,platonism is reduced to the vanishing point1 and ,aristotelianism is in full view and in possession of the field4 ,after ,maimonides the only philosopher who deviates from the prescribed path and endeavors to uproot ,aristotelian authority in ,judaism is ,crescas4 ,all the rest stand by ,aristotle and his major domo1 ,maimonides4 ,this may seem like a purely formal and external mode of characterizing the development of philosophical thought4 ,but the character of medival philosophy is responsible for this4 ,their ideal of truth as well as goodness was in the past4 ,knowledge was thought to have been discovered or revealed in the past1#bbg and the task of the philosopher was to acquire what was already there and to harmonize contradictory authorities4 ,thus the more of the past literature that came to them1 the greater the transformation in their own philosophy4 ,the above digression will make clear to us the position of ,ibn ,daud and his relation to ,maimonides4 ,ibn ,daud began what ,maimonides finished--the last stage in the ,aristotelization of ,jewish thought4 ,why is it then that so little was known about him1 and that his important treatise was neglected and practically forgotten8 ,the answer is to be found partly in the nature of the work itself and partly in historical circumstances4 ,the greatest and most abiding interest in intellectual ,jewry was after all the ,bible and the ,talmud4 ,this interest never flagged through adversity or through success4 ,the devotion paid to these ,jewish classics and sacred books may have been fruitful in original research and intelligent application at one time and place and relatively barren at another4 ,great men devoted to their study abounded in one country and were relatively few in another4 ,the nature of the study applied to these books was affected variously by historical conditions1 political and economic2 and the cultivation or neglect of the sciences and philosophy was reflected in the style of ,biblical and ,talmudical interpretation4 ,but at all times and in all countries1 under conditions of comparative freedom as well as in the midst of persecution1 the sacred heritage of ,israel was studied and its precepts observed and practiced4 ,in this field alone fame was sure and permanent4 ,all other study was honored according to the greater or less proximity to this paramount interest4 ,in times of freedom and of great philosophic and scientific interest like that of the golden era in ,spain1 philosophical studies almost acquired independent value4 ,but this independence1 never quite absolute1 waned and waxed with external conditions1 and at last disappeared entirely4 ,if ,ibn ,daud had made himself famous by a ,biblical commentary or a halakic work1 or if his philosophic treatise had the distinction of being written in popular and attractive style1 like ,bahya's ,duties of the ,hearts1 or ,halevi's ,cusari1 it might have fared better4 ,as it is1 it suffers from its conciseness and technical terminology4 ,add to this that it was superseded by the ,guide of the ,perplexed of ,maimonides1 published not many years after the ,emunah ,ramah1 and the neglect of the latter is completely explained4 ,abraham ibn ,daud tells us in the introduction to his book that it was written in response to the question of a friend concerning the problem of free will4 ,the dilemma is this4 ,if human action is determined by ,god1 why does he punish1 why does he admonish1 and why does he send prophets8 ,if man is free1 then there is something in the world over which ,god has no control4 ,the problem is made more difficult by the fact that ,biblical statements are inconsistent1 and passages may be cited in favor of either of the theories in question4 ,this inconsistency is to be explained1 however1 by the circumstance that not all ,biblical phrases are to be taken literally--their very contradiction is a proof of this4 ,now the passages which require exegetic manipulation are in general those which seem opposed to reason4 ,many statements in the ,bible are in fact intended for the common people1 and are expressed with a view to their comprehension1 and without reference to philosophic truth4 ,in the present instance the objections to determinism are much greater and more serious than those to freedom4 ,in order to realize this1 however1 it is necessary to investigate the principles of the ,jewish religion and seek to harmonize them with true philosophy4 ,this in turn cannot be done without a preliminary study of science4 ,a question like that of determinism and freedom cannot be decided without a knowledge of the divine attributes and the consequences flowing from them4 ,but to understand these we must have a knowledge of the principles of physics and metaphysics4#bbh ,accordingly ,abraham ,ibn ,daud devotes the entire first part of the ,emunah ,ramah to general physics and metaphysics in the ,aristotelian conception of these terms4 ,concerning the kind of persons for whom he wrote his book1 he says1 ,i advise everyone who is perfectly innocent1 who is not interested in philosophical and ethical questions like that of determinism and freedom on the ground that man cannot grasp them2 and is entirely unconcerned about his ignorance--,i advise such a person to refrain from opening this book or any other of a similar nature4 ,his ignorance is his bliss1 for after all the purpose of philosophy is conduct4 ,on the other hand1 those who are learned in the principles of religion and are also familiar with philosophy need not my book1 for they know more than ,i can teach them here4 ,it is the beginner in speculation who can benefit from this work1 the man who has not yet been able to see the rational necessity of beliefs and practices which he knows from tradition4 ,that the principles of the ,jewish religion are based upon philosophic foundations is shown in ,deuteronomy #d1 #f3 ,keep therefore and do them2 for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples1 which shall hear all these statutes1 and say1 surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people4 ,this cannot refer to the ceremonial precepts1 the so-called traditional commandments2 for there is nothing in them to excite the admiration of a non-,jew4 ,nor can it refer to the political and moral regulations1 for one need not profess the ,jewish or any other religion in order to practice them2 they are a matter of reason pure and simple4 ,the verse quoted can only mean that the other nations will be seized with admiration and wonder when they find that the fundamental principles of the ,jewish religion1 which we received by tradition and without effort1 are identical with those philosophical principles at which they arrived after a great deal of labor extending over thousands of years4#bbi ,ibn ,daud is not consistent in his idea of the highest aim of man4 ,we have just heard him say that the purpose of philosophy is conduct4 ,this is true to the spirit of ,judaism which1 despite all the efforts of the ,jewish philosophers to the contrary1 is not a speculative theology but a practical religion1 in which works stand above faith4 ,but as an ,aristotelian1 ,ibn ,daud could not consistently stand by the above standpoint as the last word in this question4 ,accordingly we find him elsewhere in true ,aristotelian fashion give priority to theoretical knowledge4 ,judging from the position of man among the other creatures of the sublunar world1 we come to the conclusion1 he tells us1 that that which distinguishes him above his surroundings1 namely1 his rational soul1 is the aim of all the rest2 and they are means and preparations for it4 ,the rational soul has two forms of activity4 ,it may face upward and receive wisdom from the angels 7theoretical knowledge74 ,or it may direct its attention downwards and judge the other corporeal powers 7practical reason74 ,but it must not devote itself unduly or without system to any one occupation4 ,the aim of man is wisdom1 science4 ,of the sciences the highest and the aim of all the rest is the knowledge of ,god4 ,the body of man is his animal1 which leads him to ,god4 ,some spend all their time in feeding the animal1 some in clothing it1 and some in curing it of its ills4 ,the latter is not a bad occupation1 as it saves the body from disease and death1 and so helps it to attain the higher life4 ,but to think of the study of medicine as the aim of life and devote all one's time to it is doing injury to one's soul4 ,some spend their time in matters even less significant than this1 viz41 in studying grammar and language2 others again in mathematics and in solving curious problems which are never likely to happen4 ,the only valuable part here is that which has relation to astronomy4 ,some are exclusively occupied in twisting threads4 ,this is an expression used by an ,arabian philosopher1#bcj who compares man's condition in the world to that of a slave who was promised freedom and royalty besides if he made the pilgrimage to ,mecca and celebrated there4 ,if he made the journey and was prevented from reaching the holy city1 he would get freedom only2 but if he did not undertake the trip he would get nothing4 ,the three steps in the realization of the purpose are thus3 making the preparations for the journey1 getting on the road and passing from station to station1 and finally wandering about in the place of destination4 ,one small element in the preparation for the journey is twisting the threads for the water bottle4 ,medicine and law as means of gaining a livelihood and a reputation represent the stage of preparing for the journey4 ,they are both intended to improve the ills of life1 whether in the relations of man to man as in law2 or in the treatment of the internal humors as in medicine4 ,medicine seems more important1 for on the assumption of mankind being just1 there would be no need of law1 whereas the need for medicine would remain4 ,to spend one's whole life in legal casuistry and the working out of hypothetical cases on the pretext of sharpening one's wits1 is like being engaged in twisting threads continually--a little is necessary1 but a great deal is a waste of time4 ,it would be best if the religious man would first learn how to prove the existence of ,god1 the meaning of prophecy1 the nature of reward and punishment and the future world1 and how to defend these matters before an unbeliever4 ,then if he has time left1 he may devote it to legalistic discussions1 and there would be no harm4 ,self-examination1 in order to purify oneself from vices great and small1 represents the second stage of getting on the road and travelling from station to station4 ,the final stage1 arriving in the holy city and celebrating there1 is to have a perfect knowledge of ,god4 ,he who attains this is the best of wise men1 having the best of knowledge1 which deals with the noblest subject4 ,the reader must not expect to find it all in this book4 ,if he reads this and does not study the subject for himself1 he is like a man who spent his time in reading about medicine and cannot cure the simplest ailment4 ,the knowledge of ,god is a form that is bestowed from on high upon the rational soul when she is prepared by means of moral perfection and scientific study4 ,the prophet puts all three functions of the soul on the same level1 and gives preference to knowledge of ,god4 ,thus saith the ,lord1 says ,jeremiah 7#i1 #bb71 ,let not the wise man glory in his wisdom rational soul1 neither let the mighty man glory in his might spirited soul1 let not the rich man glory in his riches nutritive soul3 but let him that glorieth glory in this1 that he understandeth1 and knoweth me4444 ,jeremiah also recommends 7ib47 knowing ,god through his deeds--,that ,i am the ,lord which exercise loving-kindness--in order that man may imitate him4#bca ,we have now a general idea of ,ibn ,daud's attitude and point of view2 and in passing to the details of his system it will not be necessary to rehearse all the particulars of his thought1 much of it being common to all medival writers on ,jewish philosophy4 ,we shall confine ourselves to those matters in which ,ibn ,daud contributed something new1 not contained in the writings of his predecessors4 ,following the ,aristotelian system1 he begins by describing substance and accident and gives a list and characterization of the ten categories4 ,this he follows up by showing that the classification of the ten categories lies at the basis of the #acith ,psalm4 ,it needs not our saying that it must be an extraordinary mode of exegesis that can find such things in such unusual places4 ,but the very strangeness of the phenomenon bears witness to the remarkable influence exerted by the ,aristotelian philosophy upon the thinking of the ,spanish ,jews at that time4#bcb ,from the categories he passes to a discussion of the most fundamental concepts in the ,aristotelian philosophy1 matter and form4 ,and here his method of proving the existence of matter is ,aristotelian and new4 ,it is based upon the discussion in ,aristotle's ,physics1 though not necessarily derived from there directly4 ,primary matter1 he says1 is free from all form4 ,there must be such1 for in the change of one thing to another1 of water to air for example1 it cannot be the form of water that receives the form of air2 for the form of water disappears1 whereas that which receives the new form must be there4 ,reason therefore leads us to assume a common substrate of all things that are subject to change4 ,this is primary matter1 free from all form4 ,this matter being at the basis of all change and becoming1 could not itself have come to be through a similar process1 or we should require another matter prior to it1 and it would not be the prime matter we supposed it to be4 ,this last argument led ,aristotle to the concept of an eternal matter1 the basis of becoming for all else besides1 itself not subject to any such process4 ,it is an ultimate1 to ask for the origin of which would signify to misunderstand the meaning of origin4 ,all things of the sublunar world originate in matter1 hence matter itself is the unoriginated1 the eternal4 ,ibn ,daud as a ,jew could not accept this solution1 and so he cut the knot by saying that while it is true that matter cannot originate in the way in which the composite objects of the sublunar world come to be1 it does not yet follow that it is absolutely ultimate and eternal4 ,god alone is the ultimate and eternal2 nothing else is4 ,matter is a relative ultimate2 relative1 that is1 to the composite and changeable objects of our world2 but it is itself an effect of ,god as the universal cause4 ,god created it outright4 ,prime matter1 therefore1 represents the first stage in creation4 ,the next stage is the endowment of this formless matter with corporeality in the abstract1 i4 e41 with extension4 ,then come the specific forms of the four elements1 then their compounds through mineral1 plant and animal to man4 ,this is not new2 we have already met with it in ,gabirol and ,ibn ,zaddik4 ,nor is the following significant statement altogether new1 though no one before ,ibn ,daud expressed it so clearly and so definitely4 ,it is that the above analysis of natural objects into matter1 universal body1 the elements1 and so on1 is not a physical division but a logical4 ,it does not mean that there was a time when prime matter actually existed as such before it received the form of corporeality1 and then there existed actually an absolute body of pure extension until it received the four elements4 ,no1 nothing has existence in actu which has not individuality1 including not only form1 but also accidents4 ,the above analysis is theoretical1 and the order of priority is logical not real4 ,in reality only the complete compound of matter and form 7the individual7 exists4 ,allusion to matter and form is also found in the ,bible in ,jeremiah 7#ah1 #a;ff471 ,arise and go down to the potter's house4444 ,then ,i went down to the potter's house1 and1 behold1 he wrought his work on the wheels4444 ,behold as the clay in the potter's hand4444#bcc ,the next important topic analyzed by ,ibn ,daud is that of motion4 ,this is of especial importance to ,ibn ,daud because upon it he bases a new proof of the existence of ,god1 not heretofore found in the works of any of his predecessors4 ,it is taken from ,aristotle's ,physics1 probably from ,avicenna's treatises on the subject1 is then adopted by ,maimonides1 and through his example no doubt is made use of by ,thomas ,aquinas1 the great ,christian ,scholastic of the thirteenth century1 who gives it the most prominent place in his ,summa ,contra ,gentiles4 ,ibn ,daud does not give ,aristotle's general definition of motion as the actualization of the potential qua potential 7cf4 above1 p4 xxxii71 but his other remarks concerning it imply it4 ,motion1 he says1 is applied first to movement in place1 and is then transferred to any change which is gradual1 such as quantitative or qualitative change4 ,sudden change is not called motion4 ,as the four elements have all the same matter and yet possess different motions--earth and water moving downward1 fire and air upward--it cannot be the matter which is the cause of their motions4 ,it must therefore be the forms1 which are different in different things4 ,nothing can move itself4 ,while it is true that the form of a thing determines the kind of motion it shall have1 it cannot in itself produce that motion1 which can be caused only by an efficient cause from without4 ,the case of animal motions may seem like a refutation of this view1 but it is not really so4 ,the soul and the body are two distinct principles in the animal2 and it is the soul that moves the body4 ,the reason why a thing cannot move itself is because the thing which is moved is potential with reference to that which the motion is intended to realize1 whereas the thing causing the motion is actual with respect to the relation in question4 ,if then a thing moved itself1 it would be actual and potential at the same time and in the same relation1 which is a contradiction4 ,the ,bible1 too1 hints at the idea that every motion must have a mover by the recurring questions concerning the origin of prophetic visions1 of the existence of the earth1 and so on4 ,such are the expressions in ,job 7#ch1 #cf1 #cg73 ,who hath put wisdom in the inward parts8 ,who can number the clouds by wisdom8 ,in ,proverbs 7#cj1 #d73 ,who hath established all the ends of the earth8 and in many passages besides4#bcd ,the question of infinity is another topic of importance for proving the existence of ,god4 ,we proceed as follows3 ,an infinite line is an impossibility4 ,for let the lines a------------b be infinite in the c-----------d e directions b1 d4 ,take away from cd a finite length ce1 and pull up the line ed so that e coincides with c4 ,now if ed is equal to ab1 and cd was also equal to ab by hypothesis1 it follows that ed cd1 which is impossible1 for ed is a part of cd4 ,if it is shorter than cd and yet is infinite1 one infinite is shorter than another infinite1 which is also impossible4 ,the only alternative left is then that ed is finite4 ,if then we add to it the finite part ce1 the sum1 ce ed cd1 will be finite1 and cd being equal to ab by hypothesis1 ab is also finite4 ,hence there is no infinite line4 ,if there is no infinite line1 there is no infinite surface or infinite solid1 for we could in that case draw in them infinite lines4 ,besides we can prove directly the impossibility of infinite surface and solid by the same methods we employed in line4 ,we can prove similarly that an infinite series of objects is also an impossibility4 ,in other words1 infinite number as an actuality is impossible because it is a contradiction in terms4 ,a number of things means a known number2 infinite means having no known number4 ,a series is something that has beginning1 middle and end4 ,infinite means being all middle4 ,we have thus proved that an actual infinite is impossible1 whether as extension or number4 ,and the ,bible also alludes to the finiteness of the universe in the words of ,isaiah 7#dj1 #ab73 ,who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand4441 intimating that the universe is capable of being measured4 ,we must prove next that no finite body can have an infinite power4 ,for let the line ae ------------- be a finite line having an infinite a b c d e power4 ,divide into the several parts ab1 be1 cd1 de1 etc4 ,if every one of the parts has an infinite power1 ab has an infinite power1 ac a greater infinite power1 ad a still greater1 ae a still greater1 and so on4 ,but this is absurd1 for there cannot be anything greater than the infinite4 ,it follows then that each of the parts has a finite power2 and as the sum of finites is finite1 the line ae also has a finite power4 ,all these principles we must keep in mind1 for we shall by means of them prove later the existence and incorporeality of ,god4#bce ,as the concepts of physics are essential for proving the existence of ,god1 so are the principles of psychology of importance in showing that there are intermediate beings between ,god and the corporeal substances of the world4 ,these are called in the ,bible angels4 ,the philosophers call them secondary causes4 ,accordingly ,ibn ,daud follows his physical doctrines with a discussion of the soul4 ,there is nothing new in his proof that such a thing as soul exists4 ,it is identical with the deduction of ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik 7supra1 p4 #acd74 ,stone and tree and horse and man are all bodies and yet the last three have powers and functions which the stone has not1 viz41 nutrition1 growth and reproduction4 ,horse and man have in addition to the three powers above mentioned1 which they have in common with tree1 the powers of sensation and motion and imagination1 which plants have not4 ,finally man is distinguished above all the rest of animal creation in possessing the faculty of intelligence1 and the knowledge of art and of ethical discrimination4 ,all these functions cannot be body or the result of body1 for in that case all corporeal objects should have all of them1 as they are all bodies4 ,we must therefore attribute them to an extra-corporeal principle2 and this we call soul4 ,as an incorporeal thing the soul cannot be strictly defined1 not being composed of genus and species2 but we can describe it in a roundabout way in its relation to the body4 ,he then gives the ,aristotelian definition of the soul as the first entelechy of a natural body having life potentially 7cf4 above1 p4 xxxv74 ,like many of his predecessors who treated of the soul1 ,ibn ,daud also finds it necessary to guard against the materialistic theory of the soul which would make it the product of the elemental mixture in the body1 if not itself body4 ,this would reduce the soul to a phenomenon of the body1 or in ,aristotelian terminology1 an accident of the body1 and would deprive it of all substantiality and independence1 not to speak of immortality4 ,how can that which is purely a resultant of a combination of elements remain when its basis is gone8 ,accordingly ,ibn ,daud takes pains to refute the most important of these phenomenalistic theories1 that of ,hippocrates and ,galen4 ,their theory in brief is that the functions which we attribute to the soul are in reality the results of the various combinations of the four elementary qualities1 hot1 cold1 moist1 dry4 ,the more harmonious and equable the proportion of their union1 the higher is the function resulting therefrom4 ,the difference between man and beast1 and between animal and plant is then the difference in the proportionality of the elemental mixture4 ,they prove this theory of theirs by the observation that as long as the mixture is perfect the activities above mentioned proceed properly2 whereas as soon as there is a disturbance in the mixture1 the animal becomes sick and cannot perform his activities1 or dies altogether if the disturbance is very great4 ,the idea is very plausible and a great many believe it1 but it is mistaken as we shall prove4 ,his refutation of the accident or mixture theory of the soul1 as well as the subsequent discussion of the various functions1 sensuous and rational1 of the tripartite soul1 are based upon ,ibn ,sina's treatment of the same topic1 and we have already reproduced some of it in our exposition of ,judah ,halevi4 ,we shall therefore be brief here and refer only to such aspects as are new in ,ibn ,daud1 or such as we found it advisable to omit in our previous expositions4 ,his main argument against the materialistic or mechanistic theory of the soul is that while a number of phenomena of the growing animal body can be explained by reference to the form of the mixture in the elementary qualities1 not all aspects can be thus explained4 ,its growth and general formation may be the result of material and mechanical causes1 but not so the design and purpose evident in the similarity1 to the smallest detail1 of the individuals of a species1 even when the mixture is not identical4 ,there is no doubt that there is wisdom here working with a purpose4 ,this is soul4 ,there is another argument based upon the visible results of other mixtures which exhibit properties that cannot be remotely compared with the functions we attribute to the soul4 ,the animal and the plant exhibit activities far beyond anything present in the simple elements of the mixture4 ,there must therefore be in animals and plants something additional to the elements of the mixture4 ,this extra thing resides in the composite of which it forms a part1 for without it the animal or plant is no longer what it is4 ,hence as the latter is substance1 that which forms a part of it is also substance2 for accident1 as ,aristotle says1 is that which resides in a thing but not as forming a part of it4 ,we have now shown that the soul is substance and not accident4 ,we must still make clear in which of the four senses of the ,aristotelian substance the soul is to be regarded4 ,by the theory of exclusion ,ibn ,daud decides that the soul is substance in the sense in which we apply that term to form4 ,the form appears upon the common matter and specifies it1 and makes it what it is1 bringing it from potentiality to actuality4 ,it is also the efficient and final cause of the body4 ,the body exists for the sake of the soul1 in order that the soul may attain its perfection through the body4 ,as the most perfect body in the lower world is the human body1 and it is for the sake of the soul1 it follows that the existence of the sublunar world is for the sake of the human soul1 that it may be purified and made perfect by science and moral conduct4 ,while we have proved that soul is not mixture nor anything like it1 it is nevertheless true that the kind of soul bestowed upon a given body depends upon the state of the mixture in the elementary qualities of that body4 ,thus we have the three kinds of soul1 vegetative1 animal and human or rational4 ,we need not follow ,ibn ,daud in his detailed descriptions of the functions of the several kinds of soul1 as there is little that is new and that we have not already met in ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik and ,judah ,halevi4 ,avicenna 7,ibn ,sina7 is the common source for ,halevi and ,ibn ,daud1 and the description of the inner senses is practically identical in the two1 with the slight difference that ,halevi attributes to the common sense the two functions which are divided in ,ibn ,daud between the common sense and the power of representation4 ,the soul is not eternal4 ,it was created and bestowed upon body4 ,when a body comes into being1 the character of its mixture determines that a soul of a certain kind shall be connected with it4 ,the other alternatives are 7#a7 that the soul existed independently before the body1 is then connected with the body and dies with the death of the latter2 or 7#b7 it remains after the death of the body4 ,the first alternative is impossible2 because if the soul is connected with the body in order to die with it1 its union is an injury to the soul1 for in its separate existence it was free from the defects of matter4 ,the second alternative is equally impossible2 for if the soul was able to exist without the body before the appearance of the latter and after its extinction1 of what use is its connection with the body8 ,far from being of any benefit1 its union with the body is harmful to the soul1 for it is obliged to share in the corporeal accidents4 ,divine wisdom never does anything without a purpose4 ,the truth is that the soul does not exist before the body4 ,it arises at the same time as1 and in connection with body1 realizing and actualizing the latter4 ,seed and sperm have in them the possibility of becoming plant and animal respectively4 ,but they need an agent to bring to actuality what is in them potentially4 ,this agent--an angel or a sphere1 or an angel using a sphere as its instrument--bestows forms upon bodies1 which take the places of the previous forms the bodies had4 ,the sphere or star produces these forms 7or souls7 by means of its motions1 which motions ultimately go back to the first incorporeal mover1 by whose wisdom forms are connected with bodies in order to perfect the former by means of the latter4 ,now the human soul has the most important power of all other animals1 that of grasping intelligibles or universals4 ,it is also able to discriminate between good and evil in conduct1 moral1 political and economic4 ,the human soul1 therefore1 has1 it seems1 two powers1 theoretical and practical4 ,with the former it understands the simple substances1 known as angels in the ,bible and as secondary causes and separate intelligences among the philosophers4 ,by this means the soul rises gradually to its perfection4 ,with the practical reason it attends to noble and worthy conduct4 ,all the other powers of the soul must be obedient to the behests of the practical reason4 ,this in turn is subservient to the theoretical1 putting its good qualities at the disposition of the speculative reason1 and thus helping it to come into closer communion with the simple substances1 the angels and ,god4 ,this is the highest power there is in the world of nature4 ,we must now show that the rational power in man is neither itself body nor is it a power residing in a corporeal subject4 ,that it is not itself body is quite evident1 for we have proved that the lower souls too1 those of animals and plants1 are not corporeal4 ,but we must show concerning the rational power that it is independent of body in its activity4 ,this we can prove in various ways4 ,one is by considering the object and content of the reason4 ,man has general ideas or universal propositions4 ,these are not divisible4 ,an idea cannot be divided into two halves or into parts4 ,reason in action consists of ideas4 ,now if reason is a power residing in a corporeal subject1 it would be divisible like the latter4 ,take heat as an example4 ,heat is a corporeal power1 i4 e41 a power residing in a body4 ,it extends through the dimensions of the body1 and as the latter is divided so is the former4 ,but this is evidently not true of general ideas1 such as that a thing cannot both be and not be1 that the whole is greater than its part1 and so on4 ,hence the rational power is independent of body4 ,ibn ,daud gives several other proofs1 taken from ,aristotle and ,avicenna1 to show that reason is independent1 but we cannot reproduce them all here4 ,we shall1 however1 name one more which is found in the ,de ,anima of ,aristotle and is based on experience4 ,if the reason performed its thinking by means of a corporeal organ like the external senses1 the power of knowing would be weakened when confronted with a difficult subject1 and would thereby be incapacitated from exercising its powers as before4 ,this is the case with the eye1 which is dazzled by a bright light and cannot see at all1 or the ear1 which cannot hear at all when deafened by a loud noise4 ,but the case of knowledge is clearly different4 ,the more difficult the subject the more is the power of the reason developed in exercising itself therein4 ,and in old age1 when the corporeal organs are weakened1 the power of reason is strongest4 ,although it is thus true that the rational soul is independent of the body1 nevertheless it did not exist before the body any more than the lower souls4 ,for if it did1 it was either one soul for all men1 or there were as many souls as there are individual men4 ,the first is impossible2 for the same soul would then be wise and ignorant1 good and bad1 which is impossible4 ,nor could the separate souls be different1 for being all human souls they cannot differ in essence1 which is their common humanity4 ,but neither can they differ in accidental qualities1 for simple substances have no accidents4 ,they cannot therefore be either one or many1 i4 e41 they cannot be at all before body4 ,nor must we suppose because the reason exercises its thought functions without the use of a corporeal organ that it appears full fledged in actual perfection in the person of the infant4 ,experience teaches otherwise4 ,the perfections of the human soul are in the child potential4 ,later on by divine assistance he acquires the first principles of knowledge about which there is no dispute1 such as that two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other1 that two contrary predicates cannot apply to the same subject at the same time in the same relation1 and so on4 ,some of these are the fundamental principles of mathematics1 others of other sciences4 ,then he progresses further and learns to make premises and construct syllogisms and argue from the known to the unknown4 ,we have thus three stages in the development of the reason4 ,the first potential stage is known as the hylic or potential intellect4 ,the second is known as the actual intellect1 and the third is the acquired intellect4 ,if not for the body the person could not make this progress4 ,for without body there are no senses1 and without senses he would not see how the wine in the barrel ferments and increases in volume1 which suggests that quantity is accident and body is substance4 ,nor would he learn the distinction between quality and substance if he did not observe a white garment turning black1 or a hot body becoming cold4 ,there is need therefore of the body with its senses to lead to a knowledge of the universals4 ,but this knowledge once acquired1 the soul needs not the body for its subsequent existence2 and as the soul is not a corporeal power1 the death of the body does not cause the extinction of the soul4 ,some think that because the soul is the form of the body it is dependent upon it and cannot survive it1 as no other form survives its substance4 ,but this inference is not valid4 ,for if the human soul is included in the statement that no form survives its matter1 we assume what we want to prove1 and there is no need of the argument4 ,if it is not as a matter of fact included1 because it is the question at issue1 its comparison with the other observed cases is simply a matter of opinion and not decisive4 ,the reader will see that the problem of the rational soul gave ,ibn ,daud much concern and trouble4 ,the pre-existence of the soul as ,plato teaches it did not appeal to him for many reasons1 not the least among them being the statement in ,genesis 7#b1 #g71 ,and ,god breathed into his nostrils the breath of life1 which seems to favor the idea of the soul originating with the body2 though1 to be sure1 a harmless verse of this kind would not have stood in his way1 had he had reason to favor the doctrine of pre-existence4 ,immortality was also a dogma which he dared not deny4 ,the arguments against it seemed rather strong4 ,from the doctrine of the soul's origin with the body and its being fitted to the material composition of the latter1 would seem to follow the soul's extinction with the death of the body4 ,the same result was apparently demanded by the observation that the intellect develops as the body matures1 and that without the senses and their data there would be no intellect at all4 ,the fluctuation of intellectual strength with the state of bodily health would seem to tend to the same end1 against the doctrine of immortality4 ,moreover1 the ,aristotelian definition of the soul as the entelechy or form of the body1 if it applies to the rational faculty as well as to the lower powers1 implies necessarily that it is a form like other forms and disappears with the dissolution of its substance4 ,to avoid all these pitfalls ,ibn ,daud insists upon the incorporeal character of the reason's activity1 i4 e41 its independence of any corporeal organ1 and its increasing power in old age despite the gradual weakening of the body4 ,he admits that its development is dependent on the data of sense perception1 but insists that this is not incompatible with its freedom from the body when fully developed and perfected4 ,as for its being a form of body1 not all forms are alike2 and it is not so certain that the rational power is a form of body4 ,neither the difficulties nor the solution are of ,ibn ,daud's making4 ,they are as old as ,aristotle1 and his successors grappled with them as best they could4 ,there is still the question of the manner of the soul's survival4 ,the same reasons which ,ibn ,daud brings forward against the possibility of the existence of many souls before the body1 apply with equal cogency to their survival after death4 ,if simple substances having a common essence cannot differ either in essence or in accident1 the human souls after the death of the body must exist as one soul1 and what becomes of individual immortality1 which religion promises8 ,ibn ,daud has not a word to say about this1 and it is one of the weak points religiously in his system as well as in that of ,maimonides1 which the critics and opponents of the latter did not fail to observe4 ,before leaving the problem of the soul ,ibn ,daud devotes a word to showing that metempsychosis is impossible4 ,the soul of man is suited to the character of his elemental mixture1 which constitutes the individuality of his body4 ,hence every individual's body has its own peculiar soul4 ,a living person cannot therefore have in him a soul which formerly resided in a different body unless the two bodies are identical in all respects4 ,but in that case it is not transmigration but the re-appearance of the same person after he has ceased to be4 ,but this has never yet happened4 ,finally ,ibn ,daud finds it necessary to defend the ,bible against those who criticize the ,jews on the ground that there is no mention of the future world and the existence of the soul after death in the ,biblical writings4 ,all the rewards and punishments spoken of in the ,bible1 they say1 refer to this world4 ,his answer offers nothing new4 ,judah ,halevi had already tried to account for this phenomenon1 besides insisting that altogether devoid of allusion to the future world the ,bible is not4 ,ibn ,daud follows in ,halevi's footsteps 7cf4 above1 p4 #agj74bcf ,abraham ,ibn ,daud closes the first1 the purely scientific part of his treatise1 by a discussion of the heavenly spheres and their motions4 ,in accordance with the view of ,aristotle1 which was shared by the majority of writers throughout the middle ages1 he regards the spheres with their stars as living beings1 and their motions as voluntary1 the result of will and purpose1 and not simply natural1 i4 e41 due to an unconscious force within them called nature4 ,one of his arguments to prove this is derived from the superiority of the heavenly bodies to our own4 ,their size1 their brightness and their continued duration are all evidence of corporeal superiority4 ,and it stands to reason that as the human body1 which is the highest in the sublunar world1 has a soul that is nobler than that of plant or animal1 so the heavenly bodies must be endowed with souls as much superior to the human intellect as their bodies are to the human body4 ,the ,bible alludes to this truth in the nineteenth ,psalm1 ,the heavens declare the glory of ,god4444 ,there is no speech nor language4444 ,the last expression signifies that they praise ,god with the intellect4 ,there are other passages in the ,bible besides1 and particularly the first chapter of ,ezekiel1 which make it clear that the heavenly bodies are living and intelligent beings2 not1 to be sure1 in the sense of taking nourishment and growing and reproducing their kind and making use of five senses1 but in the sense of performing voluntary motions and being endowed with intellect4#bcg ,we have now concluded our preliminary discussion of the scientific principles lying at the basis of ,judaism4 ,and our next task is to study the fundamental doctrines of ,jewish theology which form the highest object of knowledge1 dealing as they do with ,god and his attributes and his revelation4 ,the first thing to prove then is the existence of ,god1 since we cannot define him4 ,for definition means the designation of the genus or class to which the thing defined belongs1 whereas ,god cannot be put in a class4 ,as the essence of a thing is revealed by its definition1 we cannot know ,god's essence and are limited to a knowledge of his existence4 ,the principles for this proof we have already given4 ,they are that a thing cannot move itself1 and that an actual infinite series is impossible4 ,the argument then proceeds as follows3 ,nothing can move itself1 hence everything that moves is moved by something other than itself4 ,if this is also moving1 it must be moved by a third1 and so on ad infinitum4 ,but an actual infinite series of things moving and being moved is impossible1 and unless we ultimately arrive at a first link in this chain1 all motion is impossible4 ,hence there must be a first to account for the motion we observe in the world4 ,this first must not itself be subject to motion1 for it would then have to have another before it to make it move1 and it would not be the first we supposed it to be4 ,we have thus proved1 therefore1 the existence of a primum movens immobile1 a first unmoved mover4 ,we must now show that this unmoved mover is incorporeal4 ,this we can prove by means of another principle of physics1 made clear in the first part4 ,we showed there that a finite body cannot have an infinite power4 ,but ,god is infinite4 ,for1 being immovable1 his power is not affected by time4 ,hence ,god cannot be body4 ,this proof1 as we said before1 is new in ,jewish philosophy4 ,in ,bahya we found a proof which bears a close resemblance to this one 7cf4 above1 p4 #hg72 but the difference is that ,bahya argues from being1 ,ibn ,daud from motion4 ,bahya says if a thing is1 some cause must have made it to be1 for a thing cannot make itself4 ,as we cannot proceed ad infinitum1 there must be a first which is the cause of the existence of everything else4 ,the objection here1 of course1 is that if a thing cannot make itself1 how did the first come to be4 ,the ,aristotelian proof of ,ibn ,daud knows nothing about the origin of being4 ,as far as ,aristotle's own view is concerned there is no temporal beginning either of being or of motion4 ,both are eternal1 and so is matter1 the basis of all genesis and change4 ,god is the eternal cause of the eternal motion of the world1 and hence of the eternal genesis and dissolution1 which constitutes the life of the sublunar world4 ,how to reconcile the idea of eternal time and eternal motion with the doctrine that an actual infinite is impossible we shall see when we treat ,maimondes 7p4 #bea74 ,ibn ,daud does not adopt eternity of motion even hypothetically1 as ,maimonides does4 ,but this merely removes the difficulty one step4 ,for the infinity which is regarded impossible in phenomena is placed in ,god4 ,but another more serious objection is the adoption of an ,aristotelian argument where it does not suit4 ,for the argument from motion does not give us a creator but a first mover4 ,for ,aristotle there is no creator1 and his proof is adequate4 ,but for ,ibn ,daud it is decidedly inadequate4 ,we are so far minus a proof that ,god is a creator ex nihilo4 ,ibn ,daud simply asserts that ,god created matter1 but this argument does not prove it4 ,as to the incorporeality of ,god ,aristotle can prove it adequately from the eternity of motion4 ,if a finite body 7and there is no such thing as an infinite body7 cannot have an infinite power1 ,god1 whose causing eternal motion argues infinite power1 is not a body4 ,ibn ,daud's attempt to prove ,god's infinity without the theory of infinite motion on the ground that time cannot affect what is immovable1 is decidedly less satisfactory4 ,on the whole then this adoption of ,aristotle's argument from motion is not helpful1 as it leads to eternity of matter1 and ,god as the mover rather than the ,creator4 ,gersonides was frank enough and bold enough to recognize this consequence and to adopt it4 ,we shall see ,maimonides's attitude when we come to treat of his philosophy4 ,ibn ,daud may have been aware of the inadequacy of his argument from motion1 and therefore he adds another1 based upon the distinction between the possible existent and the necessary existent--a distinction and an argument due to ,alfarabi and ,avicenna4 ,a possible existent is a thing whose existence depends upon another1 and was preceded by non-existence4 ,it may exist or not1 depending upon its cause2 hence the name possible existent4 ,a necessary existent is one whose existence is in itself and not derived from elsewhere4 ,it is a necessary existent because its own essence cannot be thought without involving existence4 ,now the question is1 ,is there such a thing as a necessary existent1 or are all existents merely possible8 ,if all existents are possible1 we have an infinite series1 every link of which is dependent for its existence upon the link preceding it2 and so long as there is no first there is nothing to explain the existence of any link in the chain4 ,we must therefore assume a first1 which is itself not again dependent upon a cause prior to it4 ,this is by definition a necessary existent1 which is the cause of the existence of everything else4 ,this proof is compatible with ,god as a ,creator4 ,having shown the existence and incorporeality of ,god we must now prove his unity4 ,we shall base this proof upon the idea of the necessary existent4 ,such an existent cannot have in it any multiplicity2 for if it has1 its own essence would not be able to keep the elements together1 and there would be need of an external agent to do this4 ,but in this case the object would be dependent upon something else1 which is incompatible with the idea of a necessary existent4 ,nor is it possible there should be two necessary existents2 for the necessary existent1 we have just shown1 must be of the utmost simplicity1 and hence cannot have any attribute added to its essence4 ,now if there is a second1 there must be something by which the first differs from the second1 or they are identical4 ,either the first or the second therefore would not be completely simple1 and hence not a necessary existent4 ,we have thus shown that ,god is one both in the sense of simple and in the sense of unique4 ,to have a clear insight into the nature of his unity1 we must now show that nothing else outside of ,god is really one1 though we apply the term one to many things4 ,no one will claim that a collective is one2 but neither is an individual really one1 for an individual man1 for example1 consists of many organs4 ,you might think that a homogeneous and continuous elementary mass like air or water is one4 ,but this is not true either1 for everything that is corporeal is composed of matter and form4 ,if then we set aside corporeal objects and aim to find real unity in mathematical entities like line and surface1 which are not corporeal1 we are met with the difficulty that line and surface are divisible1 and hence potentially multiple4 ,but neither are the simple intellectual substances1 like the angels1 true ones2 for they are composed of their own possible existence and the necessary existence they acquire from another4 ,the only being therefore that may be a true one is that which is not corporeal and not dependent upon another for its existence4 ,considering the question of unity from a different aspect1 in its relation1 namely1 to the thing designated as one1 we find that unity never forms the essence of anything called by that name2 but is in every case an accident4 ,thus if it were the essence of man as man that he is one1 there could not on the one hand be many men1 and on the other there could not also at the same time be one horse1 one tree1 one stone4 ,in ,god his unity cannot be an accident1 since as simple he has no accidents4 ,hence his unity is his essence4 ,and if we examine the matter carefully we find that it is a negative concept4 ,it involves two things4 ,first1 that every other unity involves plurality in some form or another4 ,and second that being unlike anything else1 he cannot bear having other things associated with him to make the result many1 as we can in the case of man4 ,a1 for example1 is one2 and with ,b1 ,c1 and ,d he becomes many4 ,this is not applicable to ,god4#bch ,the divine attributes form the next topic we must consider4 ,here ,ibn ,daud offers little or nothing that is essentially new4 ,he admits neither essential nor accidental attributes1 for either would bring plurality and composition in the nature of ,god4 ,the only attributes he admits are negative and relative4 ,when we speak of ,god as cause we do not place any special entity in his essence1 but merely indicate the dependence of things upon him4 ,the truest attributes are the negative1 such as that he is not body1 that his existence is not dependent upon another1 and so on2 the only difficulty being that negative attributes1 though removing many doubts1 do not give us any positive information4 ,all the anthropomorphic attributes in the ,bible endowing ,god with human functions like sleeping and waking1 or ascribing to him human limbs1 eyes1 ears1 hands1 feet1 etc41 must be understood metaphorically4 ,for the ,bible itself warns us against corporealizing ,god1 ,take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves2 for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the ,lord spake unto you in ,horeb 7,deut4 #d1 #ae74 ,when the ,bible speaks of ,god's anger and favor1 the meaning is that good deeds bring man near to ,god and cause happiness which is known as paradise 7,gan ,eden71 and bad deeds remove far away from ,god and lead to misfortune1 called ,gehenna4 ,it is like the apparent motion of the trees and the mountains to the traveller1 when in reality it is he that is moving4 ,so here ,god is said to approach and depart1 to be angry with and favor1 when in reality it is man who by his deeds comes near to ,god or departs far from him4 ,when we assign many attributes to ,god we do not mean that there is any multiplicity in his nature4 ,this cannot be4 ,it is like the case of a man whose eyes are not properly co-ordinated4 ,he sees double when there is only one4 ,so we too suffer from intellectual squinting1 when we seem to see many attributes in the one ,god4 ,the most common and most important attributes are the following eight3 ,one1 existent1 true1 eternal1 living1 knowing1 willing1 able4 ,it can be easily shown 7and ,ibn ,daud does proceed to show1 though we shall not follow him in his details7 that all these are at bottom negative4 ,unity means that there is nothing like him and that he is indivisible4 ,eternal means he is not subject to change or motion4 ,true means he will never cease existing and that his existence does not come from another1 and so on with the rest4 ,he closes his discussion of the attributes by intimating that he has more to say on this topic1 but had better be content with what has been said so far1 for a more thorough discussion of these matters in a book might do harm to those who do not understand and interpret the author's words incorrectly4 ,this reminds us of ,maimonides's adjuration of the reader to keep what he finds in the ,guide of the ,perplexed to himself and not to spread it abroad4 ,philosophy clearly was a delicate subject and not meant for intellectual babes1 whose intellectual digestion might be seriously disturbed4#bci ,we have now concluded our theory of ,god and his attributes2 and in doing so we made use of principles of physics1 such as matter and form1 potentiality and actuality1 motion and infinity4 ,the next step is to prove the existence and nature of intermediate spiritual beings between ,god and the corporeal objects of the superlunar and sublunar worlds1 called angels in the ,bible1 and secondary causes by the philosophers4 ,for this purpose we shall have to apply the principles we have proved concerning the soul and the motions of the heavenly bodies4 ,we have proved above that the human soul is at first in the child intelligent potentially and then becomes intelligent actually4 ,this requires an agent1 in whom the end to which the potential is proceeding is always actual4 ,as the rational soul is neither body nor a corporeal power1 this actual agent cannot be either of these1 hence it is neither a sphere nor the soul of a sphere1 but it must be a simple substance called ,active ,intellect4 ,the prophets call it ,holy ,spirit 7,ruah ,ha-,kodesh74 ,we thus have a proof of the existence of at least one such simple intellectual substance1 or angel1 the relation of which to the human soul is as that of light to vision4 ,without light vision is potential1 light makes it actual4 ,so the active intellect makes the potential soul actual and gives it first the axioms1 which are universally certain1 and hence could not have originated by induction from experience4 ,similarly we can prove the existence of other simple substances from the motions of the heavenly spheres4 ,we have already shown that the spheres are living beings and endowed with souls4 ,but souls1 while causing motion in their bodies are at the same time themselves in a sort of psychic motion4 ,this must be caused by unmoved movers1 or intellects1 who are also the causes of the souls4 ,to make this difficult matter somewhat clearer and more plausible1 we may instance an analogy from familiar experience4 ,a ship is made by the shipbuilder1 who is its corporeal cause4 ,but there is also an incorporeal cause1 likewise a ship1 viz41 the ship in the mind of the shipbuilder4 ,the analogy is imperfect1 because the incorporeal ship in the mind of the builder cannot produce an actual corporeal ship without the builder employing material1 such as wood1 iron1 etc41 and in addition to that expending time and physical exertion on the material4 ,but if he had the power to give the form of a ship to the material as soon as the latter was prepared for it without time and physical manipulation1 we should have an instance of what we want to prove1 namely1 the existence of simple immaterial substances causing forms to emanate upon corporeal existences4 ,this is the nature of the active intellect in its relation to the soul of man1 and it is in the same way that the philosophers conceive of the motions of the heavenly spheres4 ,god is the first unmoved mover4 ,the angels or simple substances stand next to him2 and they1 too1 are always actual intelligences1 and move the heavenly bodies as the object of love and desire moves the object loving it without itself being moved4 ,the heavenly bodies move therefore because of a desire to perfect themselves1 or to become like unto their movers4 ,so far ,ibn ,daud agrees with the philosophers1 because the doctrines so far expounded are not incompatible with the ,bible4 ,but when the philosophers raise the question1 ,how can the many originate from the ,one1 the manifold universe from the one ,god1 and attempt to answer it by their theory of successive emanations1 ,ibn ,daud calls a halt4 ,the human mind is not really so all-competent as to be able to answer all questions of the most difficult nature4 ,the doctrine of successive emanations is that elaborated by ,alfarabi and ,avicenna1 which we have already seen quoted and criticized by ,judah ,halevi 7cf4 above1 p4 #agh f474 ,it is slightly more complicated in ,ibn ,daud1 who speaks of the treble nature of the emanations after the first ,intelligence--an intelligence1 a soul and a sphere--whereas in ,halevi's account there were only two elements1 the soul not being mentioned4#bdj ,we have so far dealt with the more theoretical part of theology and religion1 so much of it as may be and is accepted by nations and religions other than ,jews4 ,it remains now to approach the more practical and the more specifically ,jewish phases of religion2 though in the purely ethical discussions and those relating to ,providence we have once more a subject of general application1 and not exclusively ,jewish4 ,as the introduction to this second part of the subject1 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud devotes a few words to the theoretical defence of tradition1 or rather of mediate knowledge4 ,he does so by analyzing the various kinds of knowledge4 ,knowledge1 he says1 is either intelligible or sensible4 ,sensible knowledge is either directly perceived by the subject or received by him from another who perceived it directly1 and whom he believes or not as the case may be4 ,that is why some things believed by some people are not believed by others4 ,the ignorant may think that this weakness is inherent in matters received from others4 ,as a matter of fact such indirect knowledge is at the basis of civilization and makes it possible4 ,if every man were to judge only by what he sees with his own eyes1 society could never get along2 there would be no way of obtaining justice in court1 for the judge would not put credence in witnesses1 and the parties would have to fight out their differences1 which would lead to bloodshed and the disruption of social life4 ,the different attitude of different persons to a given matter of belief is due not necessarily to the uncertainty of the thing itself1 but to the manner in which the object of the belief came down to us4 ,if a thing rests upon the testimony of one man1 its warrant is not very strong4 ,but if a whole nation witnessed an event1 it is no longer doubtful1 unless we suppose that the account itself is due to one writer1 and the event never happened4 ,we shall discuss these matters in the sequel4#bda ,having justified in a general way the knowledge derived from the testimony of others by showing that society could not exist without depending upon such knowledge2 though admitting at the same time that caution should be exercised and criticism in determining what traditional testimony is valid or not1 we now take up one of these traditional phenomena which plays perhaps the most important rle in ,jewish theology1 namely1 the phenomenon of prophecy4 ,before discussing the traditional aspect of this institution and its purpose in the history of religion we must consider it from its natural and psychological aspect4 ,the explanation of ,ibn ,daud--it was not original with him1 as we have already seen the non-religious philosopher in ,halevi's ,cusari giving utterance to the same idea1 and in ,jewish philosophy ,israeli touches on it--the explanation of ,ibn ,daud is grounded in his psychology1 the ,aristotelian psychology of ,avicenna4 ,the first degree of prophecy1 he says1 is found in true dreams1 which happen to many people4 ,just as waking is a state of the body in which it uses the external as well as the internal senses1 so sleeping is a state of the body in which the soul suppresses the external senses by putting them to sleep1 and exercises its natural powers only1 such as the beating of the heart pulse1 respiration1 and so on4 ,the internal senses are also at work during sleep1 or at least some of them4 ,in particular the power of imagination is active when the external senses are at rest4 ,it then makes various combinations and separations and brings them to the common sense4 ,the result is a dream1 true or false4 ,when the senses are weak for one reason or another this power becomes active and1 when not controlled by the reason1 produces a great many erroneous visions and ideas1 as in the delusions of the sick4 ,the ,deity and the angels and the ,active ,intellect have a knowledge of the past1 present and future1 and we already know that the soul1 i4 e41 the rational soul1 receives influence from the ,active ,intellect as a natural thing in every person4 ,now just as it gets from it science and general ideas1 so it may receive a knowledge of hidden things if the soul is adequately prepared4 ,the reason it cannot receive information of hidden things from the ,active ,intellect in its waking state1 is because the soul is then busy in acquiring knowledge through the senses4 ,in sleep1 too1 it may be prevented by the thick vapors rising from the food consumed during the day1 or by anxiety due to want of food or drink4 ,the imagination also sometimes hinders this process by the constant presentation of its foolish combinations to the common sense4 ,but sometimes this power comes under the control of the reason1 and then the rational soul is prepared to receive hidden things from the ,active ,intellect4 ,in those cases the imagination transforms these facts into images1 which are true dreams4 ,if they concern an individual or a particular event1 we do not call them prophecy1 or at least the share of prophecy they may have is very small4 ,we call them prophetic dreams when they concern important matters and have reference to a whole nation or nations1 and come to pass in the distant future4 ,an example of such a dream is that recorded in ,daniel #g1 #a4 ,sometimes the information comes to the prophet without the aid of an image1 when the reason prevails over the imagination1 like the dream of ,abraham at the covenant of the pieces 7,gen4 #ae1 #ab;ff474 ,sometimes1 also1 the activity of the senses does not prevent the prophet from seeing the hidden things of the future1 and he receives prophetic inspirations while awake4 ,the prophet sometimes faints as he is overcome by the unusual phenomenon1 at other times he succeeds in enduring it without swooning4 ,all these cases can be illustrated from the ,bible1 and examples will readily occur to the reader who is familiar with the various instances and descriptions of prophetic visions and activities in ,scripture4 ,the purpose of prophecy is to guide the people in the right way4 ,with this end in view ,god inspires a proper man as a prophet and gives him superior powers to perform miracles4 ,not every man is capable of prophecy1 only one who has a pure soul4 ,for the most part the prophetic gift is innate1 at the same time study and good associations help to develop this power in him who has it4 ,witness the company of prophets1 whose example inspired ,saul 7#a ,sam4 #ai1 #bj71 and ,elisha as the disciple of ,elijah4 ,while we thus see ,ibn ,daud1 unlike ,halevi1 adopting the philosophical explanation of prophecy1 which tries to bring it within the class of natural psychological phenomena and relates it to dreams1 he could not help recognizing that one cannot ignore the supernatural character of ,biblical prophecy without being untrue to the ,bible4 ,he accordingly adds to the above naturalistic explanation a number of conditions which practically have the effect of taking the bottom out of the psychological theory4 ,if ,judah ,halevi insists that only ,israelites in the land of ,palestine and at the time of their political independence had the privilege of the prophetic gift1 we realize that such a belief is of the warp and woof of ,halevi's innermost sentiment and thinking1 which is radically opposed to the shallow rationalism and superficial cosmopolitanism of the philosophers of his day4 ,but when the champion of ,peripateticism1 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 after explaining that prophecy is of the nature of true dreams1 and though in most cases innate1 may be cultivated by a pure soul through study and proper associations--repeats with ,judah ,halevi that the time and the place are essential conditions and that ,israelites alone are privileged in this respect1 he is giving up1 it seems to us1 all that he previously attempted to explain4 ,this is only one of the many indications which point to the essential artificiality of all the medival attempts to harmonize a given system of philosophy with a supernaturalistic standpoint1 such as is that of the ,bible4 ,it is not in this way that the ,bible is to be saved if it needs saving4#bdb ,the next practical question ,ibn ,daud felt called upon to discuss was that of the possibility of the ,law being repealed1 abrogated or altered4 ,this he found it necessary to do in order to defend the ,jewish standpoint against that of ,christianity in particular4 ,how he will answer this question is of course a foregone conclusion4 ,we are only interested in his manner of argument4 ,he adopts a classification of long standing of the ,biblical laws into rational and traditional4 ,the first1 he says1 are accepted by all nations and can never be changed4 ,even a band of thieves1 who disregard all laws of right and wrong as they relate to outsiders1 must observe them in their own midst or they cannot exist4 ,these laws bring people of different nationalities and beliefs together1 and hence there can be no change in these4 ,nor can there be any alteration in that part of the ,law which is historical in content4 ,an event of the past cannot be repealed4 ,it only remains therefore to see whether abrogation may possibly be compatible with the nature of the traditional or ceremonial laws4 ,without arguing like the philosophers that change of a divine law is incompatible with the nature of ,god1 which is unchangeable1 our sages nevertheless have a method of explaining such phrases as1 ,and it repented the ,lord that he had made man 7,gen4 #f1 #f71 so as to reconcile the demands of reason with those of tradition4 ,now if there were laws of the traditional kind stated in the ,bible without any indication of time and without the statement that they are eternal1 and afterwards other laws came to change them1 we should say that the ,lord has a certain purpose in his laws which we do not know1 but which is revealed in the new law taking the place of the old4 ,but as a matter of fact the ,bible states explicitly in many cases that the laws are not to be changed1 ,a statute for ever throughout your generations 7,num4 #aj1 #h1 and passim74 ,arguments from phrases like1 ,your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth1 etc4 7,is4 #a1 #ad71 have no validity1 for there is no indication here that sacrifices are abolished4 ,the meaning of ,isaiah is that sacrifices in conjunction with wrong living are undesirable4 ,our opponents also argue that ,biblical expressions to the effect that the laws are eternal prove nothing1 for we know of similar instances in which promises have been withdrawn as in the priesthood of ,eli's family and the royalty of the house of ,david1 where likewise eternity is mentioned4 ,we answer these by saying1 first1 that in ,david's case the promise was withdrawn only temporarily1 and will return again1 as the ,prophets tell us4 ,besides the promise was made only conditionally1 as was that made to ,eli4 ,but there is no statement anywhere that the ,law is given to ,israel conditionally and that it will ever be taken away from them4 ,the claim of those who say that the laws of the ,old ,testament were true1 but that they were repealed and the ,new ,testament took its place1 we meet by pointing to a continuous tradition against their view4 ,we have an uninterrupted tradition during two thousand four hundred and seventy-two years that there was a man ,moses who gave a ,law accepted by his people and held without any break for two thousand four hundred and seventy-two years4 ,we do not have to prove he was a genuine prophet since they do not deny it4 ,some of them say that in the captivity in ,babylon the old ,law was forgotten and ,ezra made a new law1 the one we have now4 ,this is absurd4 ,the law could not have been forgotten1 for the people did not all go into captivity at one time4 ,they were not all put to death2 they were led into exile in a quiet fashion1 and there were great men among them like ,hananiah1 ,mishael1 ,azariah1 ,daniel and others who surely could not have forgotten the ,law4 ,besides ,ezra could never have had the consent of all the people scattered everywhere if he had made a law of his own4 ,as a matter of fact the ,law as we have it is the same in all details throughout the world4#bdc ,the next problem we must consider is the perennial one--the problem of evil and of freedom4 ,it is the purpose of the entire book1 as ,ibn ,daud tells us in his introduction4 ,the further a thing is removed from matter the more perfect is its knowledge4 ,for1 as we have already said1 it is matter that hinders knowledge4 ,all defect and evil is the result of the potential4 ,hence the farther a thing is removed from potentiality the more perfect it is and the freer it is from defect4 ,god's essence is the most perfect thing there is2 and as he knows his essence1 his is the most perfect knowledge4 ,god knows1 too1 that his perfection is not stationary in him1 but that it extends and communicates itself to all other things in order4 ,and the further a thing is from him the less is its perfection and the greater is its imperfection4 ,we have thus a graduated series1 at one end the most perfect being1 at the other the least perfect1 viz41 matter4 ,now it is impossible from any point of view1 either according to reason or ,bible or tradition1 that evil or defect should come from ,god4 ,not by reason1 for two contradictories in the same subject are impossible4 ,now if good and evil both came from ,god1 he would have to be composite just like man1 who can be the cause of good and evil1 the one coming from his rational power1 the other from the spirited or appetitive4 ,but ,god is simple and if evil comes from him1 good cannot do so1 which is absurd4 ,besides1 the majority of defects are privational in character and not positive1 like for example darkness1 poverty1 ignorance1 and so on1 which are not things1 but the negations of light1 wealth1 wisdom1 respectively4 ,being negative1 not positive1 they are not made by any body4 ,one may argue that it is in the nature of man that he should have understanding and perfection2 and if ,god deprives him of it1 he does evil4 ,the answer is that the evil in the world is very small in comparison with the good4 ,for evil and defect are found only in things composed of the elements1 which have a common matter1 receiving forms in accordance with the mixture of the elementary qualities in the matter4 ,here an external cause sometimes prevents the form from coming to the matter in its perfection4 ,the seed1 for example1 depends upon the character of the soil which it finds for its growth4 ,now it does not follow that ,god was bound to give things the highest perfection possible4 ,for in that case all minerals would be plants1 all plants animals1 all animals men1 all men angels2 and there would be no world1 but only ,god and a few of the highest angels4 ,in order that there shall be a world1 it was necessary to make a graduated series as we actually have it4 ,and as a matter of fact the very defects in the material composites are a good when we have in view not the particular thing but the whole4 ,thus if all men were of a highly intellectual type1 there would be no agriculture or manual labor4 ,now there are men whose temperament is such that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong1 and they follow their inclinations4 ,to counteract these bad qualities ,god gave his commandments and warnings4 ,this shows that it is not impossible to oppose these evil tendencies1 for in that case the commandments would be useless4 ,the acts of man come neither under the category of the necessary1 nor under that of the impossible1 but under the category of the possible4 ,there are two senses in which we may understand the term possible4 ,a thing may be possible subjectively1 i4 e41 in relation to our ignorance1 though objectively it may be necessary and determined4 ,thus we in ,spain do not know whether the king of ,babylon died to-day or not2 and so far as we are concerned1 it is possible that he is dead or that he is alive4 ,in reality it is not a question of possibility but of necessity4 ,god knows which is true4 ,the same thing applies to the occurrence of an eclipse in the future for the man who is ignorant of astronomy4 ,such possibility due to ignorance does not exist in ,god4 ,but there is another sense of the word possible2 the sense in which an event is objectively undetermined4 ,an event is possible if there is nothing in the previous chain of causation to determine the thing's happening in one way rather than another4 ,the result is then a matter of pure chance or of absolute free will4 ,now ,god may make a thing possible in this objective sense1 and then it is possible for him also4 ,if you ask1 but is ,god then ignorant of the result8 ,we say1 this is not ignorance4 ,for to assume that it is1 and that everything should be determined like eclipses1 and that ,god cannot create things possible1 means to destroy the order of the world1 of this world as well as the next4 ,for why shall man engage in various occupations or pursue definite lines of conduct since his destiny is already fixed8 ,the truth of the matter is that there are several orders of causes4 ,some are directly determined by ,god1 and there is no way of evading them2 others are entrusted to nature1 and man is able to enjoy its benefits and avoid its injuries by proper management4 ,a third class contains the things of chance1 and one may guard against these also4 ,so we are bidden in the ,bible to make a parapet on the roofs of our houses to guard against the possibility of falling down4 ,finally there is the fourth class1 those things which depend upon the free choice of the individual4 ,right and wrong conduct are matters of choice1 else there would be no use in prophets1 and no reward and punishment4 ,when a person makes an effort to be good1 his desire increases1 and he obtains assistance from the angels4 ,since freedom is supported by reason1 ,scripture and tradition1 the passages in the ,bible which are in favor of it should be taken literally1 and those against it should be interpreted figuratively4 ,when the ,bible says that ,god hardened ,pharaoh's heart1 it means simply that ,pharaoh was allowed to proceed as he began4 ,all the ancient sages of our nation were in favor of freedom4#bdd ,if we compare the above discussion of the problem of freedom with that of ,judah ,halevi 7above1 p4 #aga71 we see that ,ibn ,daud is more consistent1 whatever we may think of his success in solving the insoluble problem4 ,he frankly insists on the absolute freedom of the will and on the reality of the objectively contingent1 not shrinking before the unavoidable conclusion that the events which are the results of such freedom or chance are no more known beforehand to ,god than they are to man4 ,and he tries to avoid the criticism of attributing imperfection to ,god by insisting that not to be able to foretell the contingent is not ignorance1 and hence not an imperfection4 ,the reader may think what he pleases of this defence1 but there seems to be a more serious difficulty in what this idea implies than in what it explicitly says4 ,if the contingent exists for ,god also1 it follows that he is not the complete master of nature and the world4 ,to say as ,ibn ,daud does that ,god made the contingent1 i4 e41 made it to be contingent1 sounds like a contradiction1 and reminds one of the question whether ,god can make a stone so big that he cannot lift it himself4 ,his proofs in favor of freedom and the contingent are partially identical with those of ,judah ,halevi1 but in so far as he does not explicitly admit that the will may itself be influenced by prior causes he evades1 to be sure1 the strongest argument against him1 but he does so at the expense of completeness in his analysis4 ,halevi is less consistent and more thorough1 ,ibn ,daud is more consistent1 because he fails to take account of real difficulties4 ,in the final outcome of their respective analyses1 ,halevi maintains ,god's foreknowledge at the expense of absolute freedom1 or rather he does not see that his admissions are fatal to the cause he endeavors to defend4 ,ibn ,daud maintains absolute freedom and frankly sacrifices foreknowledge2 though his defence of freedom is secured by blinding himself to the argument most dangerous to that doctrine4 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud concludes his ,emunah ,ramah by a discussion of ethics and the application of the principles thus discovered to the laws of the ,bible4 ,he entitles this final division of his treatise1 ,medicine of the ,soul1 on the ground that virtue is the health of the soul as vice is its disease4 ,in his fundamental ethical distinctions1 definitions and classifications he combines ,plato's psychology and the virtues based thereon with the ,aristotelian doctrine of the mean1 which he also applies in detail4 ,he omits wisdom as one of the ,platonic virtues and1 unlike ,plato for whom justice consists in a harmony of the other three virtues and has no psychological seat peculiar to it1 ,ibn ,daud makes justice the virtue of the rational soul4 ,the end of practical philosophy is1 he says1 happiness4 ,this is attained1 first1 by good morals2 second1 by proper family life2 and third1 by means of correct social and political conduct4 ,the human soul consists of three principal faculties1 vegetative1 animal1 rational4 ,corresponding to these the principal virtues and vices are also three4 ,the vegetative power1 whose functions are nourishment1 growth and reproduction1 is related to appetite1 and is called the appetitive soul4 ,the animal power as being the cause of sensation1 voluntary motion1 cruelty1 revenge1 mercy and kindness1 is called the spirited soul1 because these qualities are dependent upon the energy or weakness of the spirit4 ,the rational power has two aspects4 ,one is directed upwards and is the means of our learning the sciences and the arts4 ,the other aspect is directed downwards1 and endeavors to control 7successfully or not as the case may be71 the two lower powers of the soul1 guarding them against excess and defect4 ,this function we call conduct1 and virtue is the mean between the two extremes of too much and too little4 ,the mean of the appetitive power is temperance2 of the spirited power1 bravery and gentleness2 of the rational soul1 justice4#bde ,justice consists in giving everything its due without excess or defect4 ,justice is therefore the highest of all qualities1 and is of value not merely in a person's relations to his family and country1 but also in the relations of his powers one to another4 ,the rational power must see to it that the two lower faculties of the soul get what is their due1 no more and no less4 ,this quality has an important application also in the relations of a man to his maker4 ,it is just that a person should requite his benefactor as much as he received from him1 if possible4 ,if he cannot do this1 he should at least thank him4 ,hence the reason for divine worship1 the first of commandments4 ,this quality1 the greatest of men possessed in the highest degree4 ,moses said to him that did the wrong1 wherefore smitest thou thy fellow8 7,ex4 #b1 #ac74 ,and when the shepherds came and drove away the daughters of the priest of ,midian1 ,moses stood up and helped them1 and watered their flock 7ib4 #ag74 ,this is the reason why ,god sent him to deliver ,israel4 ,god showed the care he had of his nation by revealing himself to them1 and thus showing them the error of those who think that ,god gave over the rule of this world to the stars1 and that he and the angels have no further interest in it4 ,hence the first commandment is ,i am the ,lord thy ,god1 which is followed by ,you shall have no other gods1 ,thou shalt not take the name of the ,lord thy ,god in vain 7,ex4 #bj1 #b;ff474 ,remember the ,sabbath day is for the purpose of condemning the belief in the eternity of the world1 as is evident from the conclusion1 ,for in six days the ,lord made heaven and earth1 the sea1 and all that in them is4444 7ib4 #aa74 ,honor thy father and thy mother 7ib4 #ab7 is intended to inculcate the duty of honoring the cause of one's being1 including ,god4 ,thus the first five commandments all aim to teach the revelation and ,providence of ,god4 ,the rest deal with social and political conduct1 especially the last one1 ,thou shalt not covet1 which is important in the preservation of society4 ,the commandment to love ,god involves the knowledge of ,god1 for one cannot love what one does not know4 ,a man must know therefore ,god's attributes and actions4 ,he must be convinced likewise that no evil comes from ,god1 or he cannot love him as he should4 ,he may fear him but not with the proper fear4 ,for there are two kinds of fear1 and the one that is commanded is fear of majesty and awe1 not fear of punishment4 ,divine service means not merely prayer three times a day1 but constant thought of ,god4 ,to develop and train this thought of ,god in us we are commanded to put on phylacteries and fringes1 and to fasten the mezuzah to our door posts4 ,for the same reason we celebrate the festivals of ,passover1 ,tabernacles1 ,hanukkah and ,purim1 as a remembrance of ,god's benefits to our people4 ,all these observances are ultimately based upon the duty of thanking our benefactor1 which is part of justice1 the highest of the virtues4 ,among moral virtues we are also commanded to practice suppression of anger1 and its inculcation is emphasized by making it a divine attribute1 ,the ,lord1 the ,lord1 a ,god full of compassion and gracious4444 7,ex4 #cd1 #f74 ,other virtues of the same kind are1 not to repay evil for evil1 not to be jealous1 to practice humility like ,moses1 and so on4 ,in fact all the virtues laid down by ethical philosophers are found better expressed in the ,bible4 ,in respect to family virtues1 we are bidden to care for and protect the members of our family1 wife1 children and slaves4 ,of social virtues we have love of our neighbor1 honesty in dealing1 just weights and measures1 prohibition of interest and of taking a pledge from the poor1 returning a find to the loser1 and a host of other teachings4 ,there are1 however1 some of the traditional laws1 the purpose of which is not known1 especially the details of sacrifices and the like4 ,in explanation of these we must say that the law consists of a rule of life composed of several parts4 ,first is belief2 second1 moral qualities2 third1 family life2 fourth1 social and political life2 fifth1 the commandments above referred to1 which we shall characterize as dictated by divine wisdom1 though we do not understand them4 ,not all the parts of the ,law are of the same order of value4 ,the fundamental portion and the most important is that dealing with belief4 ,next in importance are the laws governing social and moral conduct1 without which society is impossible4 ,that is why all nations agree about these2 and there is honesty even among thieves4 ,the last class of commandments1 whose purpose is not known1 are the least in importance1 as is clear also from statements in the ,bible1 such as1 ,i spake not unto your fathers1 nor commanded them in the day that ,i brought them out of the land of ,egypt1 concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices4444 7,jer4 #g1 #bb74 ,at the same time we cannot deny that there are some reasons for their observance4 ,thus sacrifice leads to repentance as a result of reflection1 even if the person does not confess his sin1 as he is bidden to do in certain cases4 ,in fact there is one aspect which gives this class of commandments even greater importance than the social duties4 ,it is the principle of implicit obedience even when we do not see the value of the commandment4 ,i do not mean that a man should not study science1 particularly what concerns the knowledge of ,god4 ,this is not to be recommended4 ,but when a man is convinced that there is such a thing as genuine prophecy1 showing ,god's providence1 as we see in the case of ,moses who delivered his nation1 performed wonders for them and was always honored and believed--he should not balk at the acceptance of some laws given by such a divine man simply because he does not understand them4 ,abraham is a good example4 ,for when ,god promised him that ,isaac would become a great nation1 and then commanded him to sacrifice his only child1 he did not ask any questions and was ready to do ,god's behest4 ,his example is meant to be followed by all4 ,this is the purpose of these subtle commandments1 which are made with wisdom4 ,through them we may see the difference between belief and unbelief4#bdf ,the above discussion is extremely typical of the rationalistic attitude of ,ibn ,daud and his school1 which includes such men as ,maimonides1 ,gersonides and others4 ,reason1 theory1 science1 explanation--these are the important considerations in things philosophical1 as well as things religious4 ,theory is more important than practice1 and belief stands higher than mere conduct4 ,no wonder that ,maimonides was not satisfied until he elaborated a creed with a definite number of dogmas4 ,dogmas and faith in reason go together4 ,it is the mystic who is impatient of prescribed generalities1 for he is constantly refreshed by the living and ever flowing stream of individual experience4 ,the rationalist has a fixed unchangeable ,idea or reason or method1 whose reality and value consists in its unity1 permanence and immutability4 ,in favor of this hypostatised reason1 the rationalist ,ibn ,daud is ready to sacrifice so fundamental an institution as sacrifice in the face of the entire book of ,leviticus1 pretending that a single verse of ,jeremiah entitles him to do so4 ,but the ,jew ,ibn ,daud in the end asserted himself1 and he finds it necessary to admit that in a sense these non-rational laws may be of even greater importance than the rational2 not1 however1 as a simple believer might say1 because we must not search the wisdom of ,god1 but for the reason that unreasoned obedience is itself a virtue4 ,in conclusion we remind the reader that ,ibn ,daud was the precursor of ,maimonides1 touching upon1 and for the most part answering every question treated by his more famous successor4 ,ibn ,daud was the first to adopt ,aristotelianism for the purpose of welding it with ,judaism4 ,he showed the way to follow4 ,maimonides took his cue from ,ibn ,daud and succeeded in putting the latter in the shade4 ,historic justice demands that ,ibn ,daud be brought forward into the light and given the credit which is deservedly his due4 ,,chapter ,,xiii ,,moses ,,maimonides ,with ,maimonides we reach the high water mark of medival ,jewish philosophy4 ,he was by far the most comprehensive mind of medival ,jewry1 and his philosophy was the coping stone of a complete system of ,judaism4 ,in his training and education he embraced all ,jewish literature1 ,biblical and ,rabbinic1 as well as all the science and philosophy of his day4 ,and his literary activity was fruitful in every important branch of study4 ,he was well known as a practicing physician1 having been in the employ of the ,caliph's visier at ,cairo 7,fostat71 and he wrote on medical theory and practice4 ,he was versed in mathematics and astronomy1 and his knowledge of these subjects served him in good stead not merely as an introduction to theology and metaphysics1 but was of direct service in his studies and writings on the ,jewish calendar4 ,it goes without saying that he knew logic1 for this was the basis of all learning in medival times2 but in this branch1 too1 ,maimonides has left us a youthful treatise1#bdg which bears witness to his early interest in science and his efforts to recommend its study as helpful to a better understanding of ,jewish literature4 ,but all these activities and productions were more or less side issues1 or preparations for a magnum opus1 or rather magna opera4 ,from his youth we can trace the evident purpose1 not finally completed until toward the end of his brilliant and useful career1--the purpose to harmonize ,judaism with philosophy1 to reconcile the ,bible and ,talmud with ,aristotle4 ,he was ambitious to do this for the good of ,judaism1 and in the interest of a rational and enlightened faith4 ,thus in his commentary on the ,mishna1#bdh the earliest of his larger works1 he had already conceived the idea of writing a composition of a harmonizing nature1 viz41 to gather all the homiletical disquisitions of the ,talmud 7the derashot7 and explain them in a rationalistic manner so as to remove what appears on the surface to be offensive to sound reason4 ,but instead of proceeding at once to the performance of this cherished object of his philosophic ambition1 he kept it in his bosom1 brooding over it during a life of intense literary and practical activity1 until it was in the end matured and brought to fruition in a manner quite different from that at first intended4 ,the book explanatory of the ,rabbinic legends was given up for reasons which will appear later4 ,but the object that work was to realize was carried out in a much more effective manner because it was delayed1 and was published toward the end of his life as the systematic and authoritative pronouncement of the greatest ,jew of his time4 ,the ,guide of the ,perplexed would not have attracted the attention it did1 it would not have raised the storm which divided ,jewry into two opposed camps1 if it had not come as the mature work of the man whom all ,jewry recognized as the greatest ,rabbinic authority of his time4 ,others had written on philosophy before ,maimonides4 ,we have in these pages followed their ideas--,saadia1 ,gabirol1 ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,abraham ,ibn ,daud4 ,the latter in particular anticipated ,maimonides in almost all his ideas4 ,none had the effect of upsetting the theological equilibrium of ,jewry4 ,everyone had his admirers1 no doubt1 as well as his opponents4 ,gabirol was forgotten1 ,ibn ,zaddik and ,ibn ,daud were neglected1 and ,jewish learning continued the even tenor of its course4 ,maimonides was the first to make a profound impression1 the first who succeeded in stirring to their depths the smooth1 though here and there somewhat turbid1 ,rabbinic waters1 as they flowed not merely in scientific ,spain and ,provence1 or in the ,orient1 but also in the strictly ,talmudic communities of northern ,france4 ,it was the ,commentary on the ,mishna and the ,talmudic code known as the ,yad ha-,hazaka that was responsible for the tremendous effect of the ,more ,nebukim 7,guide of the ,perplexed74 ,in these two ,rabbinical treatises1 and particularly in the ,yad ha-,hazaka1 the ,rabbinic ,code1 ,maimonides showed himself the master of ,rabbinic literature4 ,and all recognized in him the master mind4 ,having been written in ,hebrew the ,code soon penetrated all ,jewish communities everywhere1 and ,maimonides's fame spread wherever there were ,jews engaged in the study of the ,talmud4 ,his fame as a court physician in ,egypt and as the official head of ,oriental ,jewry enhanced the influence of his name and his work4 ,jealousy no doubt had its share in starting opposition to the ,code itself even before the publication of the ,guide1 and during the lifetime of its author4 ,when the ,more ,nebukim was translated from the original ,arabic into ,hebrew1 so that all could read it1 and ,maimonides was no longer among the living1 the zealots became emboldened and the storm broke1 the details of which1 however1 it is not our province to relate4 ,for completeness' sake let us set down the facts of his life4 ,moses ben ,maimon was born in the city of ,cordova on the fourteenth of ,nissan 7#cjth of ,march7 at one o'clock in the afternoon1 on a ,sabbath which was the day before ,passover1 in the year #aace4 ,it is not often that the birth of a medival ,jewish writer is handed down with such minute detail4 ,usually we do not even know the year1 to say nothing of the day and the hour4 ,cordova had long fallen from its high estate4 ,it was no longer the glorious city of the days before the ,almoravid conquest4 ,and it was destined to descend lower still when the fanatical hordes of the ,almohades renewed the ancient motto of the early ,mohammedan conquerors1 ,the ,koran or the ,sword4 ,maimonides was barely thirteen when his native city fell into the hands of the zealots from ,morocco1 and henceforth neither ,jew nor ,christian dared avow his faith openly in ,cordova4 ,adoption of ,islam1 emigration or death were the choices held out to the infidel4 ,many ,jews adopted the dominant faith outwardly--that was all that was demanded of them--while in the secret of their homes they observed ,judaism4 ,some emigrated1 and among them was the family of ,moses' father4 ,for a time they wandered about from city to city in ,spain1 and then crossed over to ,fez in ,morocco4 ,this seems to us like going from the frying pan into the fire1 for ,fez was the lion's den itself4 ,the conquerors of ,cordova came from ,morocco4 ,and there seems to be some evidence too that the ,maimon family had to appear outwardly as ,mohammedans4 ,be that as it may1 ,maimonides did not stay long in ,fez4 ,on the #ahth of ,april1 #aafe1 the family set sail for ,palestine1 and after a month's stormy voyage they arrived in ,acco4 ,he visited ,jerusalem and ,hebron1 but did not find ,palestine a promising place for permanent residence and decided to go to ,egypt4 ,he settled in ,old ,cairo 7,fostat71 and with his brother ,david engaged in the jewel trade4 ,his father died soon after1 and later his brother met an untimely death when the ship on which he was a passenger on one of his business trips was wrecked in the ,indian ,ocean4 ,thereafter ,maimonides gave up the jewel business and began to practice medicine1 which at first did not offer him more than the barest necessities4 ,but in the course of time his fame spread and he was appointed physician to ,saladin's grand visier ,alfadhil4 ,he was also made spiritual head,c of the ,jews of ,egypt1 and what with his official duties as court physician1 leader of the ,jewish community1 practicing physician among the people1 and his literary activities1 ,jewish and secular1 ,rabbinical and scientific1 he was a busy man indeed2 so much so that he dissuades ,samuel ,ibn ,tibbon1 the translator of the ,guide1 from paying him a visit on the ground that he would scarcely have time to spare to see him1 much less to enter into scientific discussions with him4#bdi ,maimonides died on ,monday1 ,december #ac 7#bj ,tebeth71 #abjd4 ,c ,not a paid post4 ,the philosophy of ,maimonides is contained in the ,guide of the ,perplexed1 his last great work1 which was published in ,arabic in #aaij4bej ,some philosophic and ethical material is also found in the introductory chapters of his commentary on the ,mishnaic treatise ,abot 7the so-called ,eight ,chapters--,shemonah ,perakim71#bea in the introduction to the eleventh chapter 7,helek7 of the ,talmudic treatise ,sanhedrin1 and in the introductory sections of the ,code 7,hilkot ,yesode ha-,torah and ,hilkot ,deot74 ,here1 however1 the treatment is popular and elementary1 and is intended for popular consumption4 ,he lays down results in their simplest form without discussing their origin or the arguments pro and con4 ,the ,guide of the ,perplexed1 on the other hand1 is intended for a special class of persons1 for the sophisticated2 for those who are well trained in science and philosophy1 not to speak of ,bible and ,talmud1 and are as a result made uneasy by the apparent disagreement of philosophical teaching with the ideas expressed in the ,biblical and ,rabbinic writings4 ,his purpose is deliberately apologetic and concordistic4 ,the work is not a treatise of science or philosophy4 ,the latter are presupposed4 ,he introduces philosophic principles1 ,aristotelian or ,kalamistic1 only with a view to their relation to ,jewish theology4 ,and he either accepts them1 provisionally or absolutely1 if he regards them as proven1 as true and useful2 or he refutes and rejects them if untenable4 ,in the former case he shows by proper interpretation that similar principles are taught in ,bible and ,talmud2 in the latter he contents himself by proving that ,aristotle or the ,mutakallimun1 as the case may be1 did not prove their point4 ,his method1 in general1 of quieting the doubts of the perplexed is the old one--as old as ,philo and beyond--of regarding ,biblical phrases as metaphors and allegories1 containing an esoteric meaning beside or opposed to the literal4 ,accordingly he lays the greatest stress on the explanation of ,scriptural homonyms1 as he calls them1 borrowing an ,aristotelian term4 ,a homonym is a word which has more than one meaning2 a word which denotes several things having nothing in common4 ,thus when ,i apply the word dog to the domestic animal we know by that name1 as well as to ,sirius1 known as the dog-star1 ,i use dog as a homonym4 ,the star and the animal have nothing in common4 ,so the word merciful1 one of the attributes of ,god in the ,bible1 is a homonym4 ,that is1 we denote by the same word also a quality in a human being2 but this quality and that which is denoted by the same word when applied to ,god have nothing in common4 ,they are not merely different in degree but in kind4 ,in fact1 as ,maimonides insists1 there is really nothing in ,god corresponding to the word merciful4 ,there are besides certain passages in the ,bible which while having an acceptable meaning when taken literally1 contain besides a deeper signification which the practiced eye can detect4 ,thus in the description of the harlot in the seventh chapter of ,proverbs there is beside the plain meaning of the text1 the doctrine of matter as the cause of corporeal desires4 ,the harlot1 never faithful to one man1 leaving one and taking up with another1 represents matter which1 as ,aristotle conceives it1 never is without form and constantly changes one form for another4 ,there is really nothing new in this1 and ,philo apart1 whom ,maimonides did not know1 ,ibn ,daud anticipated ,maimonides here also in making use of the term homonym as the basis of this method of interpretation4#beb ,but whereas ,ibn ,daud relegates the chapter treating of this principle to a subordinate place1 his interest being as he tells us primarily ethical--to solve the problem of free will2 ,maimonides places it in the very centre of his system4 ,the doctrine of attributes as leading to a true conception of ,god1--of ,god as absolutely incorporeal and without any resemblance or relation whatsoever to anything else--is the very keystone of ,maimonides's philosophical structure4 ,his purpose is to teach a spiritual conception of ,god4 ,anything short of this is worse than idolatry4 ,he cannot reconcile the ,bible to such a view without this homonymic tool4 ,hence the great importance of this in his system2 and he actually devotes the greater part of the first book of the ,guide to a systematic and exhaustive survey of all terms in the ,bible used as homonyms4#bec ,all this is preparatory to his discussion of the divine attributes4 ,this consideration will account also for the fact that1 systematic and logical thinker as he was1 he perpetrates what might appear at first sight as a logical blunder4 ,instead of first proving the existence of ,god and then discussing his nature and attributes1 as ,saadia1 ,bahya1 ,ibn ,daud and others did before him1 he treats exhaustively of the divine attributes in the first book1 whereas the proof of the existence of ,god does not appear until the second book4 ,this inversion of the logical order is deliberate4 ,maimonides's method is directed ad hominem4 ,the ,jews for whom he wrote his ,guide did not doubt the existence of ,god4 ,but a great many of them had an inadequate idea of his spiritual nature4 ,and apparently the ,bible countenanced their anthropomorphism4 ,hence ,maimonides cast logical considerations to the wind1 and dealt first with that which was nearest to his heart4 ,the rest could wait1 this could not4 ,i promised in my commentary on the ,mishna1 he tells us in the introduction to the ,guide1 to explain the allegories and ,midrashim in two works to be entitled ,the ,book of ,reconciliation and ,the ,book of ,prophecy4 ,but after reflecting on the matter a number of years ,i decided to desist from the attempt4 ,the reasons are these4 ,if ,i expressed my explanations obscurely1 ,i should have accomplished nothing by substituting one unintelligible statement for another4 ,if1 on the other hand1 ,i were really to make clear the matters that require explanation1 the result would not be suitable for the masses1 for whom those treatises were intended4 ,besides1 those ,midrashim when read by an ignorant man are harmless because to such a person nothing is impossible4 ,and if they are read by a person who is learned and worthy1 one of two things is likely to happen4 ,either he will take them literally and suspect the author of ignorance1 which is not a serious offence2 or he will regard the legendary statements as containing an esoteric meaning and think well of the author--which is a good thing1 whether he catch the meaning intended or not4 ,accordingly ,i gave up the idea of writing the books mentioned4 ,in this work ,i am addressing myself to those who have been philosophizing2 who are believers in the ,bible and at the same time know science2 and are perplexed in their ideas on account of the homonymous terms4 ,having made clear ,maimonides's chief interest and purpose in his masterpiece we need not follow his own method of treatment1 which often gives the impression of a studied attempt to conceal his innermost ideas from all but the initiated4 ,at least he is not willing that anyone who has not taken the trouble carefully to study and scrutinize every chapter and compare it with what precedes and follows1 should by a superficial browsing here and there arrive at an understanding of the profound problems treated in the work4 ,he believes that the mysterious doctrines passing by the name of ,maase ,bereshit and ,maase ,merkaba in the ,talmud 7cf4 ,introduction1 p4 xvi7 denote respectively ,physics and ,metaphysics--the very sciences of which he treats in the ,guide4 ,accordingly he tells us that following the instructions of the ,rabbis he must not be expected to give more than bare allusions4 ,and even these are not arranged in order in the book1 but scattered and mixed up with other subjects which he desires to explain4 ,for1 as he says1 ,i do not want to oppose the divine intention1 which concealed the truths of his being from the masses4 ,you must not suppose1 he continues1 that these mysteries are known to anybody completely4 ,by no means4 ,but sometimes the truth flashes upon us and it is day2 and then again our natural constitution and habits shut them out1 and we are again in darkness4 ,the relative proportion of light and darkness which a person enjoys in these matters1 makes the difference in the grade of perfection of great men and prophets4 ,the greatest of the prophets had comparatively little if any darkness4 ,with those who never see light at all1 namely the masses of the people1 we have nothing to do in this book4 ,finally he adjures the reader not to explain to anyone else the novel ideas found in his work1 which are not contained in the writings of his predecessors4 ,heaven knows1 he exclaims1 ,i hesitated long before writing this book1 because it contains unknown matters1 never before treated by any ,jewish writer in the ,galut4 ,but ,i relied on two ,rabbinic principles4 ,one is that when it is a question of doing something for a great cause in a critical time1 it is permitted to transgress a law4 ,the other is the consciousness that my motives are pure and unselfish4 ,in short1 he concludes1 ,i am the man who1 when he finds himself in a critical position and cannot teach truth except by suiting one worthy person and scandalizing ten thousand fools1 chooses to say the truth for the benefit of the one without regard for the abuse of the great majority4 ,as we are not bound by ,maimonides's principle of esoterism and mystery1 nor are we in fear of being an offence and a stumbling block to the fools1 we shall proceed more directly in our exposition of his philosophy2 and shall begin with ,maimonides's general ideas on the need of science for intelligent faith and the relation thereto of ,jewish history and literature4 ,the highest subject of study is metaphysics or theology1 the knowledge of ,god 7cf4 below1 p4 #bhe74 ,this is not merely not forbidden in the ,bible1 but it is directly commanded4 ,when ,moses says1 ,that ,i may know thee1 to the end that ,i may find grace in thy sight 7,exod4 #cc1 #ac71 he intimates that only he finds favor with ,god who knows him1 and not merely who fasts and prays4#bed ,besides1 the commandment1 ,thou shalt love the ,lord thy ,god1 cannot be fulfilled without a study and understanding of the whole of nature4#bee ,thus1 as we shall see1 it is only by a study of physics that we come to understand that affection is a defect and must therefore be removed from the conception of ,god4 ,the same thing applies to the ideas of potentiality and actuality4 ,we should not know what they signify without a study of physics1 nor should we understand that potentiality is a defect and hence not to be found in ,god4 ,it is therefore a duty to study both physics and metaphysics for a true knowledge of ,god4#bef ,at the same time we must recognize that human reason has a limit and that there are matters which are beyond its ken4 ,not to realize this and to deny what has not been proved impossible is dangerous1 and may lead a man astray after the imagination and the evil desires which quench the light of the intellect4 ,and it is this the ,bible and the ,rabbis had in mind in such passages as1 ,hast thou found honey8 eat so much as is sufficient for thee2 lest thou be filled therewith1 and vomit it 7,prov4 #be1 #af72 or in the following from the ,mishna1 ,whoever pries into four things1 had better not come into the world1 viz41 what is above and what is below1 what was before and what will be after 7,hagigah1 ch4 #b74 ,the meaning is not1 as some fools think1 that the ,rabbis forbid the use of the reason entirely to reach what is in its power4 ,it is abuse of the reason that they prohibit1 and neglect of the truth that the human reason has a limit4#beg ,accordingly while the study of metaphysics and the explanation of the allegories of ,scripture are thus shown to be a necessity of intelligent belief1 it is not proper to begin with these difficult subjects4 ,one must first be mature intellectually and possessed of the preliminary sciences4 ,otherwise the study of metaphysics is likely not merely to confuse the mind in its belief1 but to destroy belief entirely4 ,it is like feeding an infant on wheat bread and meat and wine4 ,these are not bad in themselves1 but the infant is not prepared to digest them4 ,that is why these matters are given in the ,bible in the form of allegories1 because the ,bible is intended for all--men1 women and children--not because metaphysical ideas are injurious in themselves1 as some fools imagine1 who believe they are wise men4 ,for beginners it is sufficient that they have the right view by tradition and know the existence of certain beings1 without being able to prove the opinions they hold1 or to understand the essence of the being in the existence of which they believe4 ,this they will acquire gradually if they are capable4#beh ,there are five causes preventing the study of metaphysics on the part of the general masses4 ,first1 the difficulty of the subject itself4 ,second1 the limitations of all people's minds at the beginning4 ,third1 the great amount of preparatory training that is necessary1 and which everybody is not ready to undertake1 however eager he may be to know the results4 ,and to study metaphysics without preliminary training is worse than not to study it at all4 ,for there is nothing in existence except ,god and his creation4 ,to know ,god's existence and what is and is not proper to ascribe to him we must examine his creation2 and thus arithmetic1 the nature of number1 and the properties of geometrical figures help us a great deal in determining what attributes are inapplicable to ,god4 ,even much more important for metaphysics is the study of spherical astronomy and physics1 which throw light on the relation of ,god to the world4 ,then there are some theoretical topics which1 while not directly of help in metaphysics1 are useful in training the mind and enabling it to know what is true demonstration4 ,one who wishes therefore to undertake the study of metaphysics1 must first study logic1 then the mathematical sciences in order1 then physics1 and not until he has mastered all these introductory branches should he take up metaphysics4 ,this is too much for most people1 who would die in the midst of their preparatory studies1 and if not for tradition would never know whether there is a ,god or not1 not to speak of knowing what attributes are applicable to him and what are not4 ,the fourth cause which keeps people away from the study of metaphysics is their natural disposition4 ,for it has been shown that intellectual qualities are dependent upon moral2 and the former cannot be perfect unless the latter are4 ,now some persons are temperamentally incapable of right thinking by reason of their passionate nature2 and it is foolish to attempt to teach them1 for it is not medicine or geometry1 and not everybody is prepared for it4 ,this is the reason1 too1 why young men cannot study it1 because of the passions which are still strong in them4 ,finally as a fifth reason1 the necessities of the body and its luxuries1 too1 stand in the way of a person's devoting enough time and attention to this subject4#bei ,like many others before him1 ,christians as well as ,jews1 ,maimonides also believed that in ancient times the ,jews diligently cultivated the sciences1 which were gradually forgotten on account of foreign domination4 ,maimonides adds another reason for their disappearance1 namely1 that they were not disseminated abroad4 ,they were confined to a select few and were not put down in writing but handed down by word of mouth4 ,as a result only a few hints are found in the ,talmud and ,midrashim1 where the kernel is small and the husk large1 so that people mistake the husk for the kernel4#bfj ,he then traces the history of philosophical thinking in ,jewish medival literature from the time of the ,geonim1 and tells us that the little that is found of the ,kalam concerning the ,unity of ,god and related topics in the works of some of the ,geonim and the ,karaites in the ,east is borrowed from the ,mutakallimun of the ,mohammedans and constitutes a small fraction of the writings of the latter on this subject4 ,the first attempt in this direction among the ,moslems was that of the party known as the ,mutazila1 whom our people followed4 ,later came the party of the ,ashariya with different opinions which1 however1 were not adopted by any of our people4 ,this was not due1 he tells us1 to a deliberate decision in favor of the ,mutazila1 but solely to the historical accident of their chronological priority4 ,on the other hand1 the ,spanish ,jews of ,andalusia adopted the views of the philosophers1 i4 e41 the ,aristotelians1 so far as they are not in conflict with our religion4 ,they do not follow the ,mutakallimun1 and hence what little of the subject is found in the works of the later writers of this class resembles our own method and views4#bfa ,there seems no doubt that whatever other ,spanish writers ,maimonides had in mind1 whose works are not extant1 his characterization fits admirably the ,emunah ,ramah of ,abraham ,ibn ,daud 7cf4 above1 p4 #bag71 and in a less degree it is also true of ,ibn ,gabirol1 ,bahya1 ,judah ,halevi1 ,moses and ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra4 ,bahya as we saw above 7p4 #hf7 still retains a good deal of ,kalamistic material and so does ,ibn ,zaddik 7p4 #abf74 ,as for ,mukammas1 ,saadia and the two ,karaites ,al ,basir and ,jeshua ben ,judah1 we have seen 7pp4 #ag1 #bd1 #dh1 #ef7 that they move wholly in the ideas of the ,mutakallimun4 ,it becomes of great interest for us therefore to see what ,maimonides thinks of these ,islamic theologians1 of their origins1 of their methods and of their philosophical value4 ,maimonides's exposition and criticism of the principles of the ,mutakallimun is of especial interest1 too1 because up to recent times his sketch of the tenets of this school was the only extensive account known2 and it has not lost its value even yet4 ,we shall1 however1 be obliged to abridge his detailed exposition in order not to enlarge our volume beyond due limits4 ,besides1 there is no occasion for repeating what we have already said of the ,kalam in our ,introduction 7p4 xxi ff472 though the account there given was not taken from ,maimonides and does not follow his order4 ,maimonides is aware that the ,arabs are indebted to the ,christians1 ,greeks as well as ,syrians4 ,the ,mutazila and ,ashariya1 he says1 base their opinions upon premises and principles borrowed from ,greek and ,syrian ,christians1 who endeavored to refute the opinions of the philosophers as dangerous to the ,christian religion4 ,there was thus a ,christian ,kalam prior to the ,mohammedan4#bfb ,their method was to lay down premises favorable to their religion1 and by means of these to refute the opinions opposed to them4 ,when the ,mohammedans came upon the scene and translated the works of the philosophers1 they included in their work of translation the refutations composed by the ,christians4 ,in this way they found the works of ,philoponus1 ,yahya ben ,adi and others2 and adopted also the opinions of the pre-,socratic philosophers1 which they thought would be of help to them1 though these had already been refuted by ,aristotle1 who came after4 ,such are the atomic theory of matter and the belief in the existence of a vacuum4 ,these opinions they carried to consequences not at all contemplated by their authorities1 who were closer to the philosophers4 ,to characterize briefly the methods of the ,mutakallimun1 ,maimonides continues1 ,i would say that the first among them1 the ,greeks and the ,mohammedans1 did not follow reality1 but adopted principles which were calculated to help them in defending their religious theses1 and then interpreted reality to suit their preconceived notions4 ,the later members of the school no longer saw through the motives of their predecessors and imagined their principles and arguments were bona fide refutations of philosophical opinions4 ,on examination of their works ,i found1 he continues1 that with slight differences they are all alike4 ,they do not put any trust in reality and nature4 ,for1 they say1 the so-called laws of nature are nothing more than the order of events to which we are accustomed4 ,there is no kind of necessity in them1 and it is conceivable they might be different4 ,in many cases the ,mutakallimun follow the imagination and call it reason4 ,their method of procedure is as follows4 ,they first state their preliminary principles1 then they prove that the world is new1 i4 e41 created in time4 ,then they argue that the world must have had an originator1 and that he is one and incorporeal4 ,all the ,mutakallimun follow this method1 and they are imitated by those of our own people who follow in their footsteps4 ,to this method ,i have serious objections1 continues ,maimonides1 for their arguments in favor of the creation of the world are not convincing unless one does not know a real demonstration from a dialectical or sophistic4 ,the most one can do in this line is to invalidate the arguments for eternity4 ,but the decision of the question is by no means easy1 as is shown by the fact that the controversy is three thousand years old and not yet settled4 ,hence it is a risky policy to build the argument for the existence of ,god on so shaky a foundation as the newness of the world4 ,the best way then1 it seems to me1 is to prove ,god's existence1 unity and incorporeality by the methods of the philosophers1 which are based upon the eternity of the world4 ,not that ,i believe in eternity or that ,i accept it1 but because on this hypothesis the three fundamental doctrines are validly demonstrated4 ,having proved these doctrines we will then return to the problem of the origin of the world and say what can be said in favor of creation4#bfc ,this is a new contribution of ,maimonides4 ,all the ,jewish writers before ,halevi followed in their proofs of the existence of ,god the method designated by ,maimonides as that of the ,kalam4 ,judah ,halevi criticised the ,mutakallimun as well as the philosophers in the interest of a point of view all his own 7pp4 #agf ff41 #ahb74 ,ibn ,daud tacitly ignored the ,kalam and based his proof of the existence of ,god upon the principles of motion as exhibited in the ,aristotelian ,physics1 without1 however1 finding it necessary to assume even provisionally the eternity of motion and the world 7p4 #bag ff474 ,his proof of the incorporeality of ,god is1 as we have seen 7ibid471 weak1 just because he does not admit the eternity of motion1 which alone implies infinity of power in ,god and hence incorporeality4 ,maimonides is the first who takes deliberate account of the ,mutakallimun1 gives an adequate outline of the essentials of their teaching and administers a crushing blow to their principles as well as their method4 ,he then follows up his destructive criticism with a constructive method1 in which he frankly admits that in order to establish the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god--the three fundamental dogmas of ,judaism--beyond the possibility of cavil1 we must make common cause with the philosophers even though it be only for a moment1 until they have done our work for us1 and then we may fairly turn on our benefactors and taking advantage of their weakness1 strike them down1 and upon their lifeless arguments for the eternity of the world establish our own more plausible theory of creation4 ,the attitude of ,maimonides is in brief this4 ,if we were certain of creation1 we should not have to bother with the philosophers4 ,creation implies the existence of ,god4 ,but the question cannot be strictly demonstrated either way4 ,hence let us prove the existence of ,god on the least promising hypothesis1 namely1 that of eternity1 and we are quite secure against all possible criticism4 ,of the twelve propositions of the ,mutakallimun enumerated by ,maimonides as the basis of their doctrine of ,god1 we shall select a few of the most important4#bfd #a4 ,the ,theory of ,atoms4 ,the entire universe is made up of indivisible bodies having no magnitude4 ,their combination produces magnitude and corporeality4 ,they are all alike4 ,genesis and dissolution means simply the combination or rather aggregation of atoms and their separation4 ,these atoms are not eternal1 as ,epicurus believed them to be1 but created4 #b4 ,this atomic theory they extend from magnitude to time4 ,time also according to them is composed of moments or atomic units of time4 ,neither magnitude1 nor matter1 nor time is continuous or infinitely divisible4 #c4 ,applying these ideas to motion they say that motion is the passage of an atom of matter from one atom of place to the next in an atom of time4 ,it follows from this that one motion is as fast as another2 and they explain the apparent variation in speed of different motions1 as for example when two bodies cover unequal distances in the same time1 by saying that the body covering the smaller distance had more rests in the intervals between the motions4 ,the same thing is true in the flight of an arrow1 that there are rests even though the senses do not reveal them4 ,for the senses cannot be trusted4 ,we must follow the reason4 ,maimonides's criticism of the atomic theory of matter and motion just described is that it undermines the bases of geometry4 ,the diagonal of a square would be the same length as its side4 ,the properties of commensurability and incommensurability in lines and surfaces1 of rational and irrational lines would cease to have any meaning4 ,in fact all that is contained in the tenth book of ,euclid would lose its foundation4 #d4 ,the atom is made complete by the accidents1 without which it cannot be4 ,every atom created by ,god1 they say1 must have accidents1 such as color1 odor1 motion1 and so on1 except quantity or magnitude1 which according to them is not accident4 ,if a substance has an accident1 the latter is not attributed to the body as a whole1 but is ascribed to every atom of which the body is composed4 ,thus in a white body every atom is white1 in a moving body every atom is in motion1 in a living body every atom is alive1 and every atom is possessed of sense perception2 for life and sense and reason and wisdom are accidents in their opinion like whiteness and blackness4 #f4 ,accident does not last more than one moment of time4 ,when ,god creates an atom he creates at the same time an accident with it4 ,atom without accident is impossible4 ,the accident disappears at the end of the moment unless ,god creates another of the same kind1 and then another1 and so on1 as long as he wants the accident of that kind to continue4 ,if he ceases to create another accident1 the substance too disappears4 ,their motive in laying down this theory of accidents is in order to destroy the conception that everything has a peculiar nature1 of which its qualities and functions are the results4 ,they attribute everything directly to ,god4 ,god created a particular accident at this moment1 and this is the explanation of its being4 ,if ,god ceases to create it anew the next moment1 it will cease to be4 #g4 ,all that is not atom is accident1 and there is no difference between one kind of accident and another in reference to essentiality4 ,all bodies are composed of similar atoms1 which differ only in accidents2 and animality and humanity and sensation and reason are all accidents4 ,hence the difference between the individuals of the same species is the same as that between individuals of different species4 ,the philosophers distinguish between essential forms of things and accidental properties4 ,in this way they would explain1 for example1 why iron is hard and black1 while butter is soft and white4 ,the ,mutakallimun deny any such distinction4 ,all forms are accidents4 ,hence it would follow that there is no intrinsic reason why man rather than the bat should be a rational creature4 ,everything that is conceivable is possible1 except what involves a logical contradiction2 and ,god alone determines at every instant what accident shall combine with a given atom or group of atoms4 #h4 ,it follows from the above also that man has no power of agency at all4 ,when we think we are dyeing a garment red1 it is not we who are doing it at all4 ,god creates the red color in the garment at the time when we apply the red dye to it4 ,the red dye does not enter the garment1 as we think1 for an accident is only momentary1 and cannot pass beyond the substance in which it is4 ,what appears to us as the constancy and regularity of nature is nothing more than the will of ,god4 ,nor is our knowledge of to-day the same as that of yesterday4 ,yesterday's is gone and to-day's is created anew4 ,so when a man moves a pen1 it is not he who moves it4 ,god creates motion in the hand1 and at the same time in the pen4 ,the hand is not the cause of the motion of the pen4 ,in short they deny causation4 ,god is the sole cause4 ,in respect to human conduct they are divided4 ,the majority1 and the ,ashariya among them1 say that when a person moves a pen1 ,god creates four accidents1 no one of which is the cause of the other4 ,they merely exist in succession1 but no more4 ,the first accident is the man's will to move the pen2 the second1 his ability to move it2 the third1 the motion of the hand2 the fourth1 the motion of the pen4 ,it follows from this that when a person does anything1 ,god creates in him a will1 the ability and the act itself1 but the act is not the effect of the ability4 ,the ,mutazila hold that the ability is the cause of the effect4 #i4 ,impossibility of the ,infinite4 ,they hold that the infinite is impossible in any sense1 whether actual or potential or accidental4 ,that an actual infinite is impossible is a matter of proof4 ,so it can be and has been proved that the potential infinite is possible4 ,for example extension is infinitely divisible1 i4 e41 potentially4 ,as to the accidental infinite1 i4 e41 an infinity of parts of which each ceases to be as soon as the next appears1 this is doubtful4 ,those who boast of having proved the eternity of the world say that time is infinite1 and defend their view against criticism by the claim that the successive parts of time disappear4 ,in the same way these people regard it as possible that an infinite number of accidents have succeeded each other on the universal matter1 because here too they are not all present now1 the previous having disappeared before the succeeding ones came4 ,the ,mutakallimun do not admit of any kind of infinite4 ,they prove it in this way4 ,if past time and the world are infinite1 then the number of men who died up to a given point in the past is infinite4 ,the number of men who died up to a point one thousand years before the former is also infinite4 ,but this number is less than the other by the number of men who died during the thousand years between the two starting points4 ,hence the infinite is larger than the infinite1 which is absurd4 ,if the accidental infinite were really impossible the theory of the eternity of the world would be refuted at once4 ,but ,alfarabi has shown that the arguments against accidental infinity are invalid4 #aj4 ,distrust of the ,senses4 ,the senses1 they say1 cannot be regarded as criteria of truth and falsehood2 for many things the senses cannot see at all1 either because the objects are so fine1 or because they are far away4 ,in other cases the senses are deceptive1 as when the large appears small at a distance1 the small appears great in the water1 and the straight appears broken when partly in water and partly without4 ,so a man with the jaundice sees everything yellow1 and one with red bile on his tongue tastes everything bitter4 ,there is method in their madness4 ,the motive for this sceptical principle is to evade criticism4 ,if the senses testify in opposition to their theories1 they reply that the senses cannot be trusted1 as they did in their explanation of motion and in their theory of the succession of created accidents4 ,these are all ancient theories of the ,sophists1 as is clear from ,galen4#bfe ,having given an outline of the fundamental principles of the ,mutakallimun and criticised them1 ,maimonides next gives their arguments based upon these principles in favor of creation in time and against eternity4 ,it will not be worth our while to reproduce them here as they are not adopted by ,maimonides1 and we have already met some of them though in a somewhat modified form before 7cf4 above1 pp4 #bi ff474#bff ,the ,kalamistic proofs for the unity of ,god are similarly identical for the most part with those found in ,saadia1 ,bahya and others1 and we need only mention ,maimonides's criticism that they are inadequate unless we assume with the ,mutakallimun that all atoms in the universe are of the same kind4 ,if1 however1 we adopt ,aristotle's theory1 which is more plausible1 that the matter of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the sublunar world1 we may defend dualism by supposing that one ,god controls the heavens and the other the earth4 ,the inability of the one to govern the domain of the other would not necessarily argue imperfection1 any more than we who believe in the unity of ,god regard it as a defect in ,god that he cannot make a thing both be and not be4 ,this belongs to the category of the impossible2 and we should likewise class in the same category the control of a sphere that is independent of one and belongs to another4 ,this is purely an argumentum ad hominem1 for ,maimonides does not regard the sublunar and superlunar worlds as independent of each other4 ,he recognizes the unity of the universe4#bfg ,maimonides closes his discussion of the ,kalamistic system by citing their arguments for incorporeality1 which he likewise finds inadequate1 both because they are based upon ,god's unity1 which they did not succeed in proving 7,saadia1 in so far as he relates the two1 bases unity upon incorporeality71 and because of inherent weakness4#bfh ,having disposed of the arguments of the ,mutakallimun1 ,maimonides proceeds to prove the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god by the methods of the philosophers1 i4 e41 those who1 like ,alfarabi and ,avicenna1 take their arguments from ,aristotle4 ,the chief proof#bfi is based upon the ,aristotelian principles of motion and is found in the eighth book of ,aristotle's ,physics4 ,we have already met this proof in ,ibn ,daud 7cf4 above1 p4 #bag71 and the method in ,maimonides differs only in form and completeness1 but not in essence4 ,there is1 however1 this very important difference that ,ibn ,daud fights shy of ,aristotle's theory of the eternity of motion and time1 thus losing his strongest argument for ,god's infinite power and incorporeality 7cf4 p4 #bah72 whereas ,maimonides frankly bases his entire argument from motion 7provisionally to be sure7 upon the ,aristotelian theory1 including eternity of motion4 ,with this important deviation there is not much in this part of the ,maimonidean discussion which is not already contained1 though less completely1 in the ,emunah ,ramah of ,abraham ,ibn ,daud4 ,we should be tempted to omit these technical arguments entirely if it were not for the fact that it is in the form which ,maimonides gave them that they became classic in ,jewish philosophy1 and not in that of ,ibn ,daud4 ,the second proof of ,god's existence1 unity and incorporeality1 that based upon the distinction between possible and necessary existent1#bgj which has its origin in ,alfarabi and ,avicenna1 is also found in ,ibn ,daud4#bga ,the other two proofs#bgb are ,maimonides's own1 i4 e41 they are not found in the works of his ,jewish predecessors4 ,as in the exposition of the theory of the ,mutakallimun ,maimonides began with their fundamental principles1 so here he lays down twenty-six propositions culled from the ,physics and ,metaphysics of ,aristotle and his ,arabian commentators1 and applies them later to prove his points4 ,he does not attempt to demonstrate them1 expecting the reader to take them for granted1 or to be familiar with them from a study of the philosophical sources4 ,ibn ,daud presupposed less from his readers1 having written as he said1 for beginners2 hence he proves many of the propositions which ,maimonides lays down dogmatically4 ,possibly ,maimonides expected his readers to be familiar with the work of his immediate ,jewish predecessor4 ,the twenty-six propositions of the philosophers are as follows3 #a4 ,there can be no infinite object possessing magnitude4 #b4 ,there cannot be an infinite number of bodies possessing magnitude1 all at the same time4 #c4 ,there cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect1 even if these links are not possessed of magnitude1 for example1 intellects4 #d4 ,change is found in four categories4 ,in substance--genesis and decay4 ,in quantity--growth and diminution4 ,in quality--qualitative change4 ,in place--motion of translation4 #e4 ,all motion is change1 and is the realization of the potential4 #f4 ,motion may be per se1 per accidens1 forcible1 partial1 the latter coming under per accidens4 ,an example of motion per se is the motion of a body from one place to the next2 of motion per accidens1 when the blackness of an object is said to move from one place to another4 ,forcible motion is that of the stone when it is forced upward4 ,partial motion is that of a nail of a ship when the ship moves4 #g4 ,every changeable thing is divisible2 hence every movable thing is divisible1 i4 e41 every body is divisible4 ,what is not divisible is not movable1 and hence cannot be body4 #h4 ,that which is moved per accidens is necessarily at rest because its motion is not in itself4 ,hence it cannot have that accidental motion forever4 #i4 ,a body moving another must itself be in motion at the same time4 #aj4 ,being in a body means one of two things3 being in it as an accident1 or as constituting the essence of the body1 like a natural form4 ,both are corporeal powers4 #aa4 ,some things which are in a body are divided with the division of the body4 ,they are then divided per accidens1 like colors and other powers extending throughout the body4 ,some of the things which constitute the body are not divisible at all1 like soul and intellect4 #ab4 ,every power which extends throughout a body is finite1 because all body is finite4 #ac4 ,none of the kinds of change mentioned in #d is continuous except motion of translation2 and of this only circular motion4 #ad4 ,motion of translation is the first by nature of the motions4 ,for genesis and decay presuppose qualitative change2 and qualitative change presupposes the approach of the agent causing the change to the thing undergoing the change4 ,and there is no growth or diminution without antecedent genesis and decay4 #ae4 ,time is an accident following motion and connected with it4 ,the one cannot exist without the other4 ,no motion except in time1 and time cannot be conceived except with motion4 ,whatever has no motion does not come under time4 #af4 ,whatever is incorporeal cannot be subject to number1 unless it is a corporeal power2 in which case the individual powers are numbered with their matters or bearers4 ,hence the separate forms or ,intelligences1 which are neither bodies nor corporeal powers1 cannot have the conception of number connected with them1 except when they are related to one another as cause and effect4 #ag4 ,everything that moves1 necessarily has a mover1 either outside1 like the hand moving the stone1 or inside like the animal body1 which consists of a mover1 the soul1 and a moved1 the body proper4 ,every mobile of the last kind is called a self-moving thing4 ,this means that the motor element in the thing is part of the whole thing in motion4 #ah4 ,if anything passes from potentiality to actuality1 the agent that caused this must be outside the thing4 ,for if it were inside and there was no obstruction1 the thing would never be potential1 but always actual2 and if there was an obstruction1 which was removed1 the agency which removed the obstruction is the cause which caused the thing to pass from potentiality to actuality4 #ai4 ,whatever has a cause for its existence is a possible existent in so far as itself is concerned4 ,if the cause is there1 the thing exists2 if not1 it does not4 ,possible here means not necessary4 #bj4 ,whatever is a necessary existent in itself1 has no cause for its existence4 #ba4 ,every composite has the cause of its existence in the composition4 ,hence it is not in itself a necessary existent2 for its existence is dependent upon the existence of its constituent parts and upon their composition4 #bb4 ,all body is composed necessarily of two things1 matter and form2 and it necessarily has accidents1 viz41 quantity1 figure1 situation4 #bc4 ,whatever is potential and has in it a possibility may at some time not exist as an actuality4 #bd4 ,whatever is potential is necessarily possessed of matter1 for possibility is always in matter4 #be4 ,the principles of an individual compound substance are matter and form2 and there must be an agent1 i4 e41 a mover which moves the object or the underlying matter until it prepares it to receive the form4 ,this need not be the ultimate mover1 but a proximate one having a particular function4 ,the idea of ,aristotle is that matter cannot move itself4 ,this is the great principle which leads us to investigate into the existence of the first mover4 ,of these twenty-five propositions1 ,maimonides continues1 some are clear after a little reflection1 some again require many premises and proofs1 but they are all proved in the ,physics and ,metaphysics of ,aristotle and his commentators4 ,my purpose here is1 as ,i said1 not to reproduce the writings of the philosophers4 ,i will simply mention those principles which we must have for our purpose4 ,i must add1 however1 one more proposition1 which ,aristotle thinks is true and more deserving of belief than anything else4 ,we will grant him this by way of hypothesis until we explain what we intend to prove4 ,the proposition is3 #bf4 ,time and motion are eternal and actual4 ,hence there must be a body moving eternally and existing actually4 ,this is the matter constituting the substance of the heavenly bodies4 ,hence the heavens are not subject to genesis and decay1 for their motion is eternal4 ,this presupposes the possibility of accidental infinity 7cf4 above1 p4 #bea74 ,aristotle regards this as true1 though it does not seem to me that he claims he has proved it4 ,his followers and commentators maintain that it is a necessary proposition and demonstrated4 ,the ,mutakallimun1 on the other hand1 think it is impossible that there should be an infinite number of states in succession 7cf4 ibid474 ,it seems to me it is neither necessary nor impossible1 but possible4 ,this is1 however1 not the place to discuss it4#bgc ,now follows the classical proof of the existence of ,god from motion4 ,it is in essence the same as that given by ,ibn ,daud1 but much more elaborate4 ,we shall try to simplify it as much as possible4 ,the numbers in parentheses in the sequel refer to the preliminary propositions above given4 ,we start with something that is known1 namely1 the motion we see in the sublunar world1 the motion which is involved in all the processes of genesis and decay and change generally4 ,this motion must have a mover 7#be74 ,this mover must have another mover to move it1 and this would lead us to infinity1 which is impossible 7#c74 ,we find1 however1 that all motion here below ends with the motion of the heaven4 ,let us take an example4 ,the wind is blowing through an opening in the wall4 ,i take a stone and stop up the hole4 ,here the stone is moved by the hand1 the hand by the tendons1 the tendons by the nerves1 the nerves by the veins1 the veins by the natural heat1 the natural heat by the animal soul1 the animal soul by a purpose1 namely1 to stop the hole from which the wind comes1 the purpose by the wind1 the wind by the motion of the heavenly sphere4 ,but this is not the end4 ,the sphere must also have a mover 7#ag74 ,this mover is either outside the sphere it moves or within it4 ,if it is something outside1 it is either again a body like the sphere1 or an incorporeal thing1 a ,separate ,intelligence4 ,if the mover of the sphere is something within the sphere1 two alternatives are again possible4 ,the internal moving power of the sphere may be a corporeal force extended throughout the body of the sphere and divisible with it like heat1 or an indivisible power like soul or intellect 7#aj1 #aa74 ,we thus have four possibilities in all4 ,the mover of the heavenly sphere may be 7a7 a body external to the sphere2 7b7 a separate incorporeal substance2 7c7 an internal corporeal power divisible with the division of the sphere2 7d7 an internal indivisible power4 ,of these four1 7a7 is impossible4 ,for if the mover of the sphere is another body1 it is likewise in motion 7#i7 and must have another to move it1 which1 if a body1 must have another1 and so on ad infinitum1 which is impossible 7#b74 ,the third hypothesis1 7c71 is likewise impossible4 ,for as the sphere is a body it is finite 7#a71 and its power is also finite 7#ab71 since it is divisible with the body of the sphere 7#aa74 ,hence it cannot move infinitely 7#bf74 ,nor can we adopt the last alternative1 7d74 ,for a soul residing within the sphere could not alone be the cause of continuous motion4 ,for a soul that moves its body is itself in motion per accidens 7#f72 and whatever moves per accidens must necessarily sometime stop 7#h71 and with it the thing set in motion by it will stop also4 ,there is thus only one alternative left1 7b71 viz41 that the cause of the motion of the sphere is a separate 7i4 e41 incorporeal7 power1 which is itself not subject to motion either per se or per accidens2 hence it is indivisible and unchangeable 7#g1 #e74 ,this is ,god4 ,he cannot be two or more1 for separate essences which are not body are not subject to number unless one is cause and the other effect 7#af74 ,it follows1 too1 that he is not subject to time1 for there is no time without motion 7#ae74 ,we have thus proved with one stroke ,god's existence as well as his unity and incorporeality4 ,but1 it will be observed1 if not for the twenty-sixth proposition concerning the eternity of motion1 which implies an infinite power1 we should not have been forced to the alternative 7b71 and could have adopted 7c7 as well as 7d74 ,that is1 we might have concluded that ,god is the soul of the heavenly sphere resident within it1 or even that he is a corporeal force pervading the extension of the sphere as heat pervades an ordinary body4 ,but we must admit that in this way we prove only the existence of a ,god who is the cause of the heavenly motions1 and through these of the processes of genesis and decay1 hence of all the life of our sublunar world4 ,this is not the ,god of ,jewish tradition1 who creates out of nothing1 who is the cause of the being of the universe as well as of its life processes4 ,maimonides was aware of this defect in the ,aristotelian view1 and he later repudiates the ,stagirite's theory of eternal motion on philosophical as well as religious grounds4 ,before1 however1 we speak of ,maimonides's attitude in this matter1 we must for completeness' sake briefly mention three other proofs for the existence of ,god as given by ,maimonides4 ,they are not strictly ,aristotelian1 though they are based upon ,peripatetic principles cited above and due to the ,arabian commentators of ,aristotle4 ,the second proof is as follows4 ,if we find a thing composed of two elements1 and one of these elements is also found separately1 it follows that the other element is found separately also4 ,now we frequently find the two elements of causing motion and being moved combined in the same object4 ,and we also find things which are moved only1 but do not cause motion1 as for example matter1 or the stone in the last proof4 ,it stands to reason therefore that there is something that causes motion without being itself subject to motion4 ,not being subject to motion1 it is indivisible1 incorporeal and not subject to time1 as above4 ,the third proof is based upon the idea of necessary existence4 ,there is no doubt that there are existing things1 for example the things we perceive with our senses4 ,now either all things are incapable of decay1 or all are subject to genesis and decay1 or some are and some are not4 ,the first is evidently untrue for we see things coming into1 and passing out1 of being4 ,the second hypothesis is likewise untrue4 ,for if all things are subject to genesis and decay1 there is a possibility that at some time all things might cease to be and nothing should exist at all4 ,but as the coming and going of individuals in the various species in the world has been going on from eternity1 the possibility just spoken of must have been realized--a possibility that is never realized is not a possibility--and nothing existed at all at that moment4 ,but in that case how could they ever have come into being1 since there was nothing to bring them into being8 ,and yet they do exist1 as ourselves for example and everything else4 ,there is only one alternative left1 therefore1 and that is that beside the great majority of things subject to genesis and decay1 there is a being not subject to change1 a necessary existent1 and ultimately one that exists by virtue of its own necessity 7#ai74 ,whatever is necessary per se can have no cause for its existence 7#bj7 and can have no multiplicity in itself 7#ba72 hence it is neither a body nor a corporeal power 7#ab74 ,we can also prove easily that there cannot be two necessary existents per se4 ,for in that case the element of necessary existence would be something added to the essence of each1 and neither would then be necessary per se1 but per that element of necessary existence which is common to both4 ,the last argument against dualism may also be formulated as follows4 ,if there are two ,gods1 they must have something in common--that in virtue of which they are ,gods--and something in which they differ1 which makes them two and not one4 ,if each of them has in addition to divinity a differential element1 they are both composite1 and neither is the first cause or the necessary existent 7#ai74 ,if one of them only has this differentia1 then this one is composite and is not the first cause4 ,the fourth proof is very much like the first1 but is based upon the ideas of potentiality and actuality instead of motion4 ,but when we consider that ,aristotle defines motion in terms of potentiality and actuality1 the fourth proof is identical with the first4 ,it reads in ,maimonides as follows3 ,we see constantly things existing potentially and coming into actuality4 ,every such thing must have an agent outside 7#ah74 ,it is clear1 too1 that this agent was first an agent potentially and then became one actually4 ,this potentiality was due either to an obstacle in the agent himself or to the absence of a certain relation between the agent and its effect4 ,in order that the potential agent may become an actual agent1 there is need of another agent to remove the obstacle or to bring about the needed relation between the agent and the thing to be acted upon4 ,this agent requires another agent1 and so it goes ad infinitum4 ,as this is impossible1 we must stop somewhere with an agent that is always actual and in one condition4 ,this agent cannot be material1 but must be a separate 7#bd74 ,but the separate in which there is no kind of potentiality and which exists per se1 is ,god4 ,as we have already proved him incorporeal1 he is one 7#af74bgd ,we must now analyze the expressions incorporeal and one1 and see what in strictness they imply1 and how our logical deductions agree with ,scripture4 ,many persons1 misled by the metaphorical expressions in the ,bible1 think of ,god as having a body with organs and senses on the analogy of ours4 ,others are not so crude as to think of ,god in anthropomorphic terms1 nor are they polytheists1 and yet for the same reason1 namely1 misunderstanding of ,scriptural expressions1 ascribe a plurality of essential attributes to ,god4 ,we must therefore insist on the absolute incorporeality of ,god and explain the purpose of ,scripture in expressing itself in anthropomorphic terms1 and on the other hand emphasize the absolute unity of ,god against the believers in essential attributes4 ,belief in ,god as body or as liable to suffer affection is worse than idolatry4 ,for the idolater does not deny the existence of ,god2 he merely makes the mistake of supposing that the image of his own construction resembles a being which mediates between him and ,god4 ,and yet because this leads to erroneous belief on the part of the people1 who are inclined to worship the image itself instead of ,god 7for the people cannot discriminate between the outward act and its idea71 the ,bible punishes idolatry with death1 and calls the idolater a man who angers ,god4 ,how much more serious is the error of him who thinks ,god is body6 ,he entertains an error regarding the nature of ,god directly1 and surely causes the anger of ,god to burn4 ,habit and custom and the evidence of the literal understanding of the ,biblical text are no more an excuse for this erroneous belief than they are for idolatry2 for the idolater1 too1 has been brought up in his wrong ideas and is confirmed in them by some false notions4 ,if a man is not himself able to reason out the truth1 there is no excuse for his refusing to listen to one who has reasoned it out4 ,a person is not an unbeliever for not being able to prove the incorporeality of ,god4 ,he is an unbeliever if he thinks ,god is corporeal4#bge ,the expressions in the ,bible which have led many to err so grievously in their conceptions of ,god are due to a desire on the part of their authors to show all people1 the masses including women and children1 that ,god exists and is possessed of all perfection1 that he is existent1 living1 wise1 powerful1 and active4 ,hence it was necessary to speak of him as body1 for this is the only thing that suggests real existence to the masses4 ,it was necessary to endow him with motion1 as this alone denotes life2 to ascribe to him seeing1 hearing1 and so on1 in order to indicate that he understands2 to represent him as speaking1 in order to show that he communicates with prophets1 because to the minds of common people this is the only way in which ideas are communicated from one person to another4 ,as we are active by our sense of touch1 ,god1 too1 is described as doing4 ,he is given a soul1 to denote that he is alive4 ,then as all these activities are among us done by means of organs1 these also are ascribed to ,god1 as feet1 hands1 ear1 eye1 nose1 mouth1 tongue1 voice1 fingers1 palm1 arm4 ,in other words1 to show that ,god has all perfections1 certain senses are ascribed to him2 and to indicate these senses the respective organs are related to them1 organs of motion to denote life1 of sensation to denote understanding1 of touch to denote activity1 of speech to denote revelation4 ,as a matter of fact1 however1 since all these organs and perceptions and powers in man and animals are due to imperfection and are for the purpose of satisfying various wants for the preservation of the individual or the species1 and ,god has no wants of any kind1 he has no such powers or organs4#bgf ,having disposed of crude anthropomorphism we must now take up the problem of attributes1 which endangers the unity4 ,it is a self-evident truth that an attribute is something different from the essence of a thing4 ,it is an accident added to the essence4 ,otherwise it is the thing over again1 or it is the definition of the thing and the explanation of the name1 and signifies that the thing is composed of these elements4 ,if we say ,god has many attributes1 it will follow that there are many eternals4 ,the only belief in true unity is to think that ,god is one simple substance without composition or multiplicity of elements1 but one in all respects and aspects4 ,some go so far as to say that the divine attributes are neither ,god's essence nor anything outside of his essence4 ,this is absurd4 ,it is saying words which have nothing corresponding to them in fact4 ,a thing is either the same as another1 or it is not the same4 ,there is no other alternative4 ,the imagination is responsible for this error4 ,because bodies as we know them always have attributes1 they thought that ,god1 too1 is made up of many essential elements or attributes4 ,attributes may be of five kinds3 #a4 ,the attributes of a thing may be its definition1 which denotes its essence as determined by its causes4 ,this everyone will admit cannot be in ,god1 for ,god has no cause1 hence cannot be defined4 #b4 ,an attribute may consist of a part of a definition1 as when we say1 man is rational1 where the attribute rational is part of the definition of man1 rational animal being the whole definition4 ,this can apply to ,god no more than the first2 for if there is a part in ,god's essence1 he is composite4 #c4 ,an attribute may be an expression which characterizes not the essence of the thing but its quality4 ,quality is one of the nine categories of accident1 and ,god has no accidents4 #d4 ,an attribute may indicate relation1 such as father1 master1 son1 slave4 ,at first sight it might seem as if this kind of attribute may be applicable to ,god2 but after reflection we find that it is not4 ,there can be no relation of time between ,god and anything else2 because time is the measure of motion1 and motion is an accident of body4 ,god is not corporeal4 ,in the same way it is clear that there cannot be a relation of place between ,god and other things4 ,but neither can there be any other kind of relation between ,god and his creation4 ,for ,god is a necessary existent1 while everything else is a possible existent4 ,a relation exists only between things of the same proximate species1 as between white and black4 ,if the things have only a common genus1 and still more so if they belong to two different genera1 there is no relation between them4 ,if there were a relation between ,god and other things1 he would have the accident of relation1 though relation is the least serious of attributes1 since it does not necessitate a multiplicity of eternals1 nor change in ,god's essence owing to change in the related things4 #e4 ,an attribute may characterize a thing by reference to its effects or works1 not in the sense that the thing or author of the effect has acquired a character by reason of the product1 like carpenter1 painter1 blacksmith1 but merely in the sense that he is the one who made a particular thing4 ,an attribute of this kind is far removed from the essence of the thing so characterized by it2 and hence we may apply it to ,god1 provided we remember that the varied effects need not be produced by different elements in the agent1 but are all done by the one essence4 ,those who believe in attributes divide them into two classes1 and number the following four as essential attributes1 not derived from ,god's effects like creator1 which denotes ,god's relation to his work1 since ,god did not create himself4 ,the four essential attributes about which all agree are1 living1 powerful1 wise1 possessed of will4 ,now if by wise is meant ,god's knowledge of himself1 there might be some reason for calling it an essential attribute2 though in that case it implies living1 and there is no need of two4 ,but they refer the attribute wise to ,god's knowledge of the world1 and then there is no reason for calling it an essential attribute any more than the word creator1 for example4 ,in the same way powerful and having will cannot refer to himself1 but to his actions4 ,we therefore hold that just as we do not say that there is something additional in his essence by which he created the heavens1 something else with which he created the elements1 and a third with which he created the ,intelligences1 so we do not say that he has one attribute with which he exercises power1 another with which he wills1 a third with which he knows1 and so on1 but his essence is simple and one4#bgg ,four things must be removed from ,god3 7#a7 corporeality1 7#b7 affection1 7#c7 potentiality1 7#d7 resemblance to his creatures4 ,the first we have already proved4 ,the second implies change1 and the author of the change cannot be the same as he who suffers the change and feels the affection4 ,if then ,god were subject to affection1 there would be another who would cause the change in him4 ,so all want must be removed from him2 for he who is in want of something is potential1 and in order to pass into actuality requires an agent having that quality in actu4 ,the fourth is also evident2 for resemblance involves relation4 ,as there is no relation between ,god and ourselves1 there is no resemblance4 ,resemblance can exist only between things of the same species4 ,all the expressions including existent are applied to ,god and to ourselves in a homonymous sense 7cf4 above1 p4 #bdj74 ,the use is not even analogical2 for in analogy there must be some resemblance between the things having the same name1 but not so here4 ,existence in things which are determined by causes 7and this includes all that is not ,god71 is not identical with the essence of those things4 ,the essence is that which is expressed in the definition1 whereas the existence or non-existence of the thing so defined is not part of the definition4 ,it is an accident added to the essence4 ,in ,god the case is different4 ,his existence has no cause1 since he is a necessary existent2 hence his existence is identical with his essence4 ,so we say ,god exists1 but not with existence1 as we do4 ,similarly he is living1 but not with life2 knowing1 but not with knowledge2 powerful1 but not with power2 wise1 but not with wisdom4 ,unity and plurality are also accidents of things which are one or many as the case may be4 ,they are accidents of the category of quantity4 ,god1 who is a necessary existent and simple cannot be one any more than many4 ,he is one1 but not with unity4 ,language is inadequate to express our ideas of ,god4 ,wishing to say he is not many1 we have to say he is one2 though one as well as many pertains to the accidents of quantity4 ,to correct the inexactness of the expression1 we add1 but not with unity4 ,so we say eternal to indicate that he is not new1 though in reality eternal is an accident of time1 which in turn is an accident of motion1 the latter being dependent upon body4 ,in reality neither eternal nor new is applicable to ,god4 ,when we say one1 we mean merely that there is none other like him2 and when ,scripture speaks of him as the first and the last1 the meaning is that he does not change4 ,the only true attributes of ,god are the negative ones4 ,negative attributes1 too1 by excluding the part of the field in which the thing to be designated is not contained1 bring us nearer to the thing itself2 though unlike positive attributes they do not designate any part of the thing itself4 ,god cannot have positive attributes because he has no essence different from his existence for the attributes to designate1 and surely no accidents4 ,negative attributes are of value in leading us to a knowledge of ,god1 because in negation no plurality is involved4 ,so when we have proved that there is a being beside these sensible and intelligible things1 and we say he is existent1 we mean that his non-existence is unthinkable4 ,in the same way living means not dead2 incorporeal is negative2 eternal signifies not caused2 powerful means not weak2 wise--not ignorant2 willing denotes that creation proceeds from him not by natural necessity like heat from fire or light from the sun1 but with purpose and design and method4 ,all attributes therefore are either derived from ,god's effects or1 if they have reference to himself1 are meant to exclude their opposites1 i4 e41 are really negatives4 ,this does not mean1 however1 that ,god is devoid of a quality which he might have1 but in the sense in which we say a stone does not see1 meaning that it does not pertain to the nature of the stone to see4#bgh ,all the names of ,god except the tetragrammaton designate his activities in the world4 ,jhvh alone is the real name of ,god1 which belongs to him alone and is not derived from anything else4 ,its meaning is unknown4 ,it denotes perhaps the idea of necessary existence4 ,all the other so-called divine names used by the writers of talismans and charms are quite meaningless and absurd4 ,the wonderful claims these people bespeak for them are not to be believed by any intelligent man4#bgi ,the above account of ,maimonides's doctrine of attributes shows us that he followed the same line of thought as his predecessors4 ,his treatment is more thorough and elaborate1 and his requirements of the religionist more stringent4 ,he does not even allow attributes of relation1 which were admitted by ,ibn ,daud4 ,negative attributes and those taken from ,god's effects are the only expressions that may be applied to ,god4 ,this is decidedly not a ,jewish mode of conceiving of ,god1 but it is not even ,aristotelian4 ,aristotle has very little to say about ,god's attributes1 it is true1 but there seems no warrant in the little he does say for such an absolutely transcendental and agnostic conception as we find in ,maimonides4 ,to ,aristotle ,god is pure form1 thought thinking itself4 ,in so far as he is thought we may suppose him to be similar in kind1 though not in degree1 to human thought4 ,the only source of ,maimonides's ideas is to be sought in ,neo-,platonism1 in the so-called ,theology of ,aristotle which1 however1 ,maimonides never quotes4 ,he need not have used it himself4 ,he was a descendant of a long line of thinkers1 ,christian1 ,mohammedan and ,jewish1 in which this problem was looked at from a ,neo-,platonic point of view2 and the ,theology of ,aristotle had its share in forming the views of his predecessors4 ,the idea of making ,god transcendent appealed to ,maimonides1 and he carried it to the limit4 ,how he could combine such transcendence with ,jewish prayer and ceremony it is hard to tell2 but it would be a mistake to suppose that his philosophical deductions represented his last word on the subject4 ,as in ,philo so in ,maimonides1 his negative theology was only a means to a positive4 ,its purpose was to emphasize ,god's perfection4 ,and in the admission1 nay maintenance1 of man's inability to understand ,god lies the solution of the problem we raised above4 ,prayer is answered1 man is protected by divine ,providence2 and if we cannot understand how1 it is because the matter is beyond our limited intellect4 ,having discussed the existence and nature of ,god1 our next problem is the existence of angels and their relation to the ,separate ,intelligences of the philosophers4 ,in this matter1 too1 ,ibn ,daud anticipated ,maimonides1 though the latter is more elaborate in his exposition as well as criticism of the extreme philosophic view4 ,he adopts as much of ,aristotelian 7or what he thought was ,aristotelian7 doctrine as is compatible in his mind with the ,bible and subject to rigorous demonstration1 and rejects the rest on philosophic as well as religious grounds4 ,the existence of separate intelligences he proves in the same way as ,ibn ,daud from the motions of the celestial spheres4 ,these motions cannot be purely natural1 i4 e41 unconscious and involuntary like the rectilinear motions of the elements1 fire1 air1 water and earth1 because in that case they would stop as soon as they came to their natural place1 as is true of the elements 7cf4 above1 p4 xxxiii72 whereas the spheres actually move in a circle and never stop4 ,we must therefore assume that they are endowed with a soul1 and their motions are conscious and voluntary4 ,but it is not sufficient to regard them as irrational creatures1 for on this hypothesis also their motions would have to cease as soon as they attained the object of their desire1 or escaped the thing they wish to avoid4 ,neither object can be accomplished by circular motion1 for one approaches in this way the thing from which one flees1 and flees the object which one approaches4 ,the only way to account for continuous circular motion is by supposing that the sphere is endowed with reason or intellect1 and that its motion is due to a desire on its part to attain a certain conception4 ,god is the object of the conception of the sphere1 and it is the love of ,god1 to whom the sphere desires to become similar1 that is the cause of the sphere's motion4 ,so far as the sphere is a body1 it can accomplish this only by circular motion2 for this is the only continuous act possible for a body1 and it is the simplest of bodily motions4 ,seeing1 however1 that there are many spheres having different kinds of motions1 varying in speed and direction1 ,aristotle thought that this difference must be due to the difference in the objects of their conceptions4 ,hence he posited as many separate ,intelligences as there are spheres4 ,that is1 he thought that intermediate between ,god and the rational spheres there are pure incorporeal intelligences1 each one moving its own sphere as a loved object moves the thing that loves it4 ,as the number of spheres were in his day thought to be fifty1 he assumed there were fifty separate ,intelligences4 ,the mathematical sciences in ,aristotle's day were imperfect1 and the astronomers thought that for every motion visible in the sky there must be a sphere1 not knowing that the inclination of one sphere may be the cause of a number of apparent motions4 ,later writers making use of the more advanced state of astronomical science1 reduced the number of ,intelligences to ten1 corresponding to the ten spheres as follows3 the seven planetary spheres1 the sphere of the fixed stars1 the diurnal sphere embracing them all and giving all of them the motion from east to west1 and the sphere of the elements surrounding the earth4 ,each one of these is in charge of an ,intelligence4 ,the last separate ,intelligence is the ,active ,intellect1 which is the cause of our mind's passing from potentiality to actuality1 and of the various processes of sublunar life generally4 ,these are the views of ,aristotle and his followers concerning the separate ,intelligences4 ,and in a general way his views1 says ,maimonides1 are not incompatible with the ,bible4 ,what he calls ,intelligences the ,scriptures call angels4 ,both are pure forms and incorporeal4 ,their rationality is indicated in the nineteenth ,psalm1 ,the heavens declare the glory of ,god4 ,that ,god rules the world through them is evident from a number of passages in ,bible and ,talmud4 ,the plural number in ,let us make man in our image 7,gen4 #a1 #bf71 ,come1 let us go down and confuse their speech 7ib4 #aa1 #g7 is explained by the ,rabbis in the statement that ,god never does anything without first looking at the celestial 'familia4' 7,bab4 ,talm4 ,sanhedrin #ch;b47 ,the word looking 7,mistakkel7 is striking2#bhj for it is the very expression ,plato uses when he says that ,god looks into the world of ,ideas and produces the universe4#bha ,for once ,maimonides in the last ,rabbinic quotation actually hit upon a passage which owes its content to ,alexandrian and possibly ,philonian influence4 ,having no idea of the ,alexandrian ,school and of the works of ,philo and his relation to some theosophic passages in the ,haggadah1 he made no distinction between ,midrash and ,bible1 and read ,plato and ,aristotle in both alike1 as we shall see more particularly later4 ,maimonides's detailed criticism of ,aristotle we shall see later4 ,for the present he agrees that the philosophic conception of separate ,intelligences is the same as the ,biblical idea of angels with this exception that according to ,aristotle these ,intelligences and powers are all eternal and proceed from ,god by natural necessity1 whereas the ,jewish view is that they are created4 ,god created the separate ,intelligences2 he likewise created the spheres as rational beings and implanted in them a desire for the ,intelligences which accounts for their various motions4 ,now ,maimonides has prepared the ground and is ready to take up the question of the origin of the world1 which was left open above4 ,he enumerates three views concerning this important matter4 #a4 ,the ,biblical ,view4 ,god created everything out of nothing4 ,time itself is a creation1 which did not exist when there was no world4 ,for time is a measure of motion1 and motion cannot be without a moving thing4 ,hence no motion and no time without a world4 #b4 ,the ,platonic ,view4 ,the world as we see it now is subject to genesis and decay2 hence it originated in time4 ,but ,god did not make it out of nothing4 ,that a composite of matter and form should be made out of nothing or should be reduced to nothing is to the ,platonists an impossibility like that of a thing being and not being at the same time1 or the diagonal of a square being equal to its side4 ,therefore to say that ,god cannot do it argues no defect in him4 ,they believe therefore that there is an eternal matter1 the effect of ,god to be sure1 but co-eternal with him1 which he uses as the potter does the clay4 #c4 ,the ,aristotelian ,view4 ,time and motion are eternal4 ,the heavens and the spheres are not subject to genesis and decay1 hence they were always as they are now4 ,and the processes of change in the lower world existed from eternity as they exist now4 ,matter is not subject to genesis and decay2 it simply takes on forms one after the other1 and this has been going on from eternity4 ,it results also from his statements1 though he does not say it in so many words1 that it is impossible there should be a change in ,god's will4 ,he is the cause of the universe1 which he brought into being by his will1 and as his will does not change1 the universe has existed this way from eternity4 ,the arguments of ,aristotle and his followers by which they defend their view of the eternity of the world are based partly upon the nature of the world1 and partly upon the nature of ,god4 ,some of these arguments are as follows3 ,motion is not subject to beginning and end4 ,for everything that comes into being after a state of non-existence requires motion to precede it1 namely1 the actualization from non-being4 ,hence if motion came into being1 there was motion before motion1 which is a contradiction4 ,as motion and time go together1 time also is eternal4 ,again1 the prime matter common to the four elements is not subject to genesis and decay4 ,for all genesis is the combination of a pre-existing matter with a new form1 namely1 the form of the generated thing4 ,if therefore the prime matter itself came into being1 there must be a previous matter from which it came1 and the thing that resulted must be endowed with form4 ,but this is impossible1 since the prime matter has no matter before it and is not endowed with form4 ,among the proofs derived from the nature of ,god are the following3 ,if ,god brought forth the world from non-existence1 then before he created it he was a creator potentially and then became a creator actually4 ,there is then potentiality in the creator1 and there must be a cause which changed him from a potential to an actual creator4 ,again1 an agent acts at a particular time and not at another because of reasons and circumstances preventing or inducing action4 ,in ,god there are no accidents or hindrances4 ,hence he acts always4 ,again1 how is it possible that ,god was idle an eternity and only yesterday made the world8 ,for thousands of years and thousands of worlds before this one are after all as yesterday in comparison with ,god's eternity4 ,these arguments ,maimonides answers first by maintaining that ,aristotle himself1 as can be inferred from his manner1 does not regard his discussions favoring the eternity of the world as scientific demonstrations4 ,besides1 there is a fundamental flaw in ,aristotle's entire attitude to the question of the ultimate principles and beginnings of things4 ,all his arguments in favor of eternity of motion and of the world are based upon the erroneous assumption that the world as a whole must have come into being in the same way as its parts appear now after the world is here4 ,according to this supposition it is easy to prove that motion must be eternal1 that matter is not subject to genesis1 and so on4 ,our contention is that at the beginning1 when ,god created the world1 there were not these laws2 that he created matter out of nothing1 and then made it the basis of all generation and destruction4 ,we can also answer the arguments in favor of eternity taken from the nature of ,god4 ,the first is that ,god would be passing from potentiality to actuality if he made the world at a particular time and not before1 and there would be need of a cause producing this passage4 ,our answer is that this applies only to material things but not to immaterial1 which are always active whether they produce visible results or not4 ,the term action is a homonym 7cf4 above1 p4 #bdj71 and the conditions applying to it in the ordinary usage do not hold when we speak of ,god4 ,nor is the second argument conclusive4 ,an agent whose will is determined by a purpose external to himself is subject to influences positive and negative1 which now induce1 now hinder his activity4 ,a person desires to have a house and does not build it by reason of obstacles of various sorts4 ,when these are removed1 he builds the house4 ,in the case of an agent whose will has no object external to itself this does not hold4 ,if he does not act always1 it is because it is the nature of will sometimes to will and sometimes not4 ,hence this does not argue change4#bhb ,so far our results have been negative4 ,we have not proved that ,god did create the world in time2 we have only taken the edge off the ,aristotelian arguments and thereby shown that the doctrine of creation is not impossible4 ,we must now proceed to show that there are positive reasons which make creation a more plausible theory than eternity4 ,the gist of ,maimonides's arguments here is that the difference between eternity and creation resolves itself into a more fundamental difference between an impersonal mechanical law as the explanation of the universe and an intelligent personality acting with will1 purpose and design4 ,aristotle endeavors to explain all motions in the world above the moon as well as below in terms of mechanics4 ,he succeeds pretty well as far as the sublunar world is concerned1 and no one who is free from prejudice can fail to see the cogency of his reasoning4 ,if he were just as convincing in his explanation of celestial phenomena on the mechanical principle as he is in his interpretation of sublunar events1 eternity of the world would be a necessary consequence4 ,uniformity and absolute necessity of natural law are more compatible with an eternal world than with a created one4 ,but ,aristotle's method breaks down the moment he leaves the sublunar sphere4 ,there are too many phenomena unaccounted for in his system4 ,aristotle tries to find a reason why the heavens move from east to west and not in the opposite direction2 and his explanation for the difference in speed of the motions of the various spheres is that it is due to their relative proximity to the outer sphere1 which is the cause of this motion and which it communicates to all the other spheres under it4 ,but his reasons are inadequate1 for some of the swift moving spheres are below the slow moving and some are above4 ,when he says that the reason the sphere of the fixed stars moves so slowly from west to east is because it is so near to the diurnal sphere 7the outer sphere71 which moves from east to west1 his explanation is wonderfully clever4#bhc ,but when he infers from this that the farther a sphere is from the fixed stars the more rapid is its motion from west to east1 his conclusion is not true to fact4 ,or let us consider the existence of the stars in the spheres4 ,the matter of the stars must be different from that of the spheres1 for the latter move1 whereas the stars are always stationary4 ,now what has put these two different matters together8 ,stranger still is the existence and distribution of the fixed stars in the eighth sphere4 ,some parts are thickly studded with stars1 others are very thin4 ,in the planetary spheres what is the reason 7since the sphere is simple and uniform throughout7 that the star occupies the particular place that it does8 ,this can scarcely be a matter of necessity4 ,it will not do to say that the differences in the motions of the spheres are due to the separate ,intelligences for which the respective spheres have a desire4 ,for the ,intelligences are not bodies1 and hence do not occupy any position relative to the spheres4 ,there must therefore be a being who determines their various motions4 ,further1 it is argued on the philosophical side that from a simple cause only a simple effect can follow2 and that if the cause is composite1 as many effects will follow as there are simple elements in the cause4 ,hence from ,god directly can come only one simple ,intelligence4 ,this first ,intelligence produces the second1 the second produces the third1 and so on 7cf4 above1 p4 #agh74 ,now according to this idea1 no matter how many ,intelligences are produced in this successive manner1 the last1 even if he be the thousandth1 would have to be simple4 ,where then does composition arise8 ,even if we grant that the farther the ,intelligences are removed from the first cause the more composite they become by reason of the composite nature of their ideas or thoughts1 how can we explain the emanation of a sphere from an ,intelligence1 seeing that the one is body1 the other ,intellect8 ,granting again this also on the ground that the ,intelligence producing the sphere is composite 7since it thinks itself and another71 and hence one of its parts produces the next lower ,intelligence and the other the sphere1 there is still this difficulty that the part of the ,intelligence producing the sphere is simple1 whereas the sphere has four elements--the matter and the form of the sphere1 and the matter and the form of the star fixed in the sphere4 ,all these are difficulties arising from the ,aristotelian theory of mechanical causation1 necessity of natural law and eternity of the world4 ,and they are all removed at a stroke when we substitute intelligent cause working with purpose1 will and design4 ,to be sure1 by finding difficulties attaching to a theory we do not disprove it1 much less do we prove our own4 ,but we should follow the view of ,alexander1 who says that where a theory is not proved one should adopt the view which has the least number of objections4 ,this1 we shall show1 is the case in the doctrine of creation4 ,we have already pointed out a number of difficulties attaching to the ,aristotelian view1 which are solved if we adopt creation4 ,and there are others besides4 ,it is impossible to explain the heavenly motions as a necessary mechanical system4 ,the hypotheses made by ,ptolemy to account for the apparent motions conflict with the principles of the ,aristotelian ,physics4 ,according to these principles there is no motion of translation1 i4 e41 there is no change of place1 in the heavenly spheres4 ,also there are three kinds of motion in the world1 toward the centre 7water1 earth71 away from the centre 7air1 fire7 and around the centre 7the celestial spheres74 ,also motion in a circle must be around a fixed centre4 ,all these principles are violated in the theories of the epicycle and eccentric1 especially the first4 ,for the epicycle is a sphere which changes place in the circumference of the large sphere4 ,finally1 an important objection to the doctrine of eternity as taught by ,aristotle1 involving as it does necessity and absolute changelessness of natural phenomena1 is that it subverts the foundations of religion1 and does away with miracles and signs4 ,the ,platonic view 7cf4 above1 p4 #bfi7 is not so bad and does not necessitate the denial of miracles2 but there is no need of forcing the ,biblical texts to that opinion so long as it has not been proved4 ,as long as we believe in creation all possible questions concerning the reasons for various phenomena such as prophecy1 the various laws1 the selection of ,israel1 and so on1 can be answered by reference to the will of ,god1 which we do not understand4 ,if1 however1 the world is a mechanical necessity1 all these questions arise and demand an answer4#bhd ,it will be seen that ,maimonides's objections to eternity and mechanical necessity 7for these two are necessarily connected in his mind71 are twofold1 philosophic and religious4 ,the latter objection we may conceive ,maimonides to insist upon if he were living to-day4 ,mechanical necessity as a universal explanation of phenomena would exclude free will and the efficacy of prayer as ordinarily understood1 though not necessarily miracles1 if we mean by miracle simply an extraordinary phenomenon not explicable by the laws of nature as we know them1 and happening only on rare occasions4 ,but in reality this is not what we mean by miracle4 ,a miracle is a discontinuity in the laws of nature brought to pass on a special occasion by a personal being in response to a prayer or in order to realize a given purpose4 ,in this sense miracles are incompatible with the doctrine of necessity1 and ,maimonides's objections hold to-day1 except for those to whom religion is independent of the ,bible1 tradition or any external authority4 ,as concerns the scientific objections1 the case is different4 ,we may allow ,maimonides's negative criticism of the ,aristotelian arguments1 namely1 that they are not convincing4 ,his positive criticism that ,aristotle's interpretation of phenomena on the mechanical principle does not explain all the facts is not valid4 ,aristotle may be wrong in his actual explanations of particular phenomena and yet be correct in his method4 ,modern science1 in fact1 has adopted the mechanical method of interpreting phenomena1 assuming that this is the only way in which science can exist at all4 ,and if there is any domain in which mechanical causation is still denied1 it is not the celestial regions about which ,maimonides was so much concerned--the motions of the heavenly bodies have been reduced to uniformity in accordance with natural law quite as definitely as1 and in some cases more definitely than1 some terrestrial phenomena--but the regions of life1 mind and will4 ,in these domains the discussion within the scientific and philosophic folds is still going on4 ,but in inanimate nature modern science has succeeded in justifying its method by the ever increasing number of phenomena that yield to its treatment4 ,maimonides fought an obsolete philosophy and obsolete scientific principles4 ,it is possible that he might have found much to object to in modern science as well1 on the ground that much is yet unexplained4 ,but an objection of this sort is captious1 particularly if we consider what ,maimonides desires to place in science's stead4 ,science is doing its best to classify all natural phenomena and to discover the uniformities underlying their behavior4 ,it has succeeded admirably and is continually widening its sphere of activity4 ,it has been able to predict as a result of its method4 ,the principle of uniformity and mechanical necessity is becoming more and more generally verified with every new scientific discovery and invention4 ,and what does ,maimonides offer us in its stead8 ,the principle of intelligent purpose and design4 ,this1 he says1 is not open to the objections which apply to the ,aristotelian principles and methods4 ,it is as if one said the coward is a better man than the brave warrior1 because the latter is open to the danger of being captured1 wounded or killed1 whereas the former is not so liable4 ,the answer obviously would be that the only way the coward escapes the dangers mentioned is by running away1 by refusing to fight4 ,maimonides's substitution is tantamount to a refusal to fight1 it is equivalent to flight from the field of battle4 ,aristotle tries to explain the variation in speed of the different celestial motions1 and succeeds indifferently4 ,another man coming after ,aristotle and following the same method may succeed better4 ,this has actually been the case4 ,leverrier without ever looking into a telescope discovered ,neptune1 and told the observers in what part of the heavens they should look for the new planet4 ,substitute ,maimonides's principle1 and death to science6 ,why do the heavenly bodies move as they do8 ,maimonides replies in effect1 because so ,god's wisdom has determined and his wisdom is transcendent4 ,there is no further impulse to investigation in such an answer4 ,it is the reply of the obscurantist1 and it is very surprising that ,maimonides the rationalist should so far have forgotten his own ideal of reason and enlightenment4 ,he is here playing into the hands of those very ,mutakallimun whom he so severely criticises4 ,they were more consistent4 ,distrustful of the irreligious consequences of the philosophical theories of ,aristotle and his ,arabian followers1 they deliberately denied causation and natural law1 and substituted the will of ,god as interfering continuously in the phenomena of nature4 ,a red object continues red because and as long as ,god creates the accident red and attaches it to the atoms of which the object is composed4 ,fire taking hold of wood burns it and reduces it to ashes because ,god wills at the particular moment that this shall be the result4 ,the next moment ,god may will otherwise and the fire and the wood will lie down in peace together and no harm done4 ,this makes miracles possible and easy4 ,maimonides would not think of going so far2 he has no names harsh enough to describe this unscientific1 unphilosophic1 illogical1 irrational1 purely imaginary procedure4 ,but we find that he is himself guilty of the same lack of scientific insight when he rejects a method because it is not completely successful1 and substitutes something else which will always be successful because it will never tell us anything at all and will stifle all investigation4 ,were ,maimonides living in our day1 we may suppose he would be more favorably inclined to the mechanical principle as a scientific method4 ,having laid the philosophical foundations of religion in proving the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god1 and purposeful creation in time1 ,maimonides proceeds to the more properly religious doctrines of ,judaism1 and begins with the phenomenon of prophecy4 ,here also he follows ,aristotelian ideas as expressed in the writings of the ,arabs ,alfarabi and ,avicenna1 and was anticipated among the ,jews by ,ibn ,daud4 ,his distinction here as elsewhere is that he went further than his model in the manner of his elaboration of the doctrine4 ,he cites three opinions concerning prophecy3 #a4 ,the ,opinion of the ,masses4 ,god chooses any person he desires1 be he young or old1 wise or ignorant1 and inspires him with the prophetic spirit4 #b4 ,the ,opinion of the ,philosophers4 ,prophecy is a human gift and requires natural aptitude and hard preparation and study4 ,but given these qualifications1 and prophecy is sure to come4 #c4 ,the ,opinion of ,judaism4 ,this is very much like that of the philosophers1 the only difference being that a man may have all the qualifications and yet be prevented from prophesying if ,god1 by way of punishment1 does not desire that he should4 ,prophecy is an inspiration from ,god1 which passes through the mediation of the ,active ,intellect to the rational power first and then to the faculty of the imagination4 ,it is the highest stage a man can attain and is not open to everyone4 ,it requires perfection in theoretical wisdom and in morals1 and perfect development of the imaginative power4 ,this latter does its work when the senses are at rest1 giving rise to true dreams1 and producing also prophetic visions4 ,dream and prophecy differ in degree1 not in kind4 ,what a man thinks hard in his waking state1 that the imagination works over in sleep4 ,now if a person has a perfect brain2 develops his mind as far as a man can2 is pure morally2 is eager to know the mysteries of existence1 its causes and the ,first ,cause2 is not susceptible to the purely animal desires1 or to those of the spirited soul ambitious for dominion and honor--if a man has all these qualifications1 he without doubt receives through his imagination from the ,active ,intellect divine ideas4 ,the difference in the grade of prophets is due to the difference in these three requirements--perfection of the reason1 perfection of the imagination and perfection of moral character4 ,according to the character and development of their reasons and imaginations men may be divided into three classes4 #a4 ,those whose rational faculties are highly developed and receive influences from the ,active ,intellect1 but whose imagination is defective constitutionally1 or is not under the influence of the ,active ,intellect4 ,these are wise men and philosophers4 #b4 ,when the imagination also is perfect in constitution and well developed under the influence of the ,active ,intellect1 we have the class of prophets4 #c4 ,when the imagination alone is in good condition1 but the intellect is defective1 we have statesmen1 lawgivers1 magicians1 dreamers of true dreams and occult artists4 ,these men are so confused sometimes by visions and reveries that they think they have the gift of prophecy4 ,each of the first two classes may be further divided into two according as the influence from above is just sufficient for the perfection of the individual himself1 or is so abundant as to cause the recipient to seek to impart it to others4 ,we have then authors and teachers in the first class1 and preaching prophets in the second4 ,among the powers we have in varying degrees are those of courage and divination4 ,these are innate and can be perfected if one has them in any degree4 ,by means of the power of divination we sometimes guess what a person said or did under certain conditions1 and guess truly4 ,the result really follows from a number of premises1 but the mind passes over these so rapidly that it seems the guess was made instantaneously4 ,the prophet must have these two faculties in a high degree4 ,witness ,moses braving the wrath of a great king4 ,some prophets also have their rational powers more highly developed than those of an ordinary person who perfects his reason by theoretical study4 ,the same inspiration which renders the activity of the imagination so vivid that it seems to it its perceptions are real and due to the external senses--this same inspiration acts also upon the rational power1 and makes its ideas as certain as if they were derived by intellectual effort4 ,the prophetic vision 7,heb4 ,marah7 is a state of agitation coming upon the prophet in his waking state1 as is clear from the words of ,daniel1 ,and ,i saw this great vision1 and there remained no strength in me3 for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption1 and ,i retained no strength 7,dan4 #aj1 #h74 ,in vision also the senses cease their functions1 and the process is the same as in sleep4 ,whenever the ,bible speaks of prophecy coming to anyone1 it is always through an angel and in a dream or vision1 whether this is specifically stated or not4 ,the expression1 ,and ,god came to 444 in a dream of the night1 does not denote prophecy at all4 ,it is merely a dream that comes to a person warning him of danger4 ,laban and ,abimelech had such dreams1 but no one would credit these heathens with the prophetic power4 ,whenever an angel is met in ,scripture speaking or communicating with a person1 it is always in a dream or vision4 ,examples are1 ,abraham and the three men1 ,jacob wrestling with the angel1 ,balaam and the ass1 ,joshua and the angel at ,jericho2--all these were in a dream or vision4 ,sometimes there is no angel at all1 but merely a voice that is heard by such as are not deserving of prophecy1 for example ,hagar1 and ,manoah and his wife4 ,the prophets see images in their visions4 ,these images are sometimes interpreted in the vision itself2 sometimes the interpretation does not appear until the prophet wakes up4 ,sometimes the prophet sees a likeness1 sometimes he sees ,god speaking to him1 or an angel2 or he hears an angel speaking to him1 or sees a man speaking to him1 or sees nothing at all but only hears a voice4 ,in this way we distinguish eleven grades of prophecy4 ,the first two are only preparatory1 not yet constituting one who has them a prophet4 #a4 ,when one is endowed by ,god with a great desire to save a community or a famous individual1 and he undertakes to bring it about1 we have the first grade known as the ,spirit of ,god4 ,this was the position of the ,judges4 ,moses always had this desire from the moment he could be called a man1 hence he killed the ,egyptian and chided the two quarreling men1 and delivered the daughters of ,jethro from the shepherds1 and so on4 ,the same is true of ,david4 ,not everyone1 however1 who has this desire is a prophet until he succeeds in doing a very great thing4 #b4 ,when a person feels something come upon him and begins to speak--words of wisdom and praise or of warning1 or relating to social or religious conduct--all this while in a waking state and with full consciousness1 we have the second stage called the ,holy ,spirit4 ,this is the inspiration which dictated the ,psalms1 the ,proverbs1 ,ecclesiastes1 ,song of ,songs1 ,daniel1 ,job1 ,chronicles and the other sacred writings 7,hagiographa74 ,balaam's discourses also belong to this class4 ,david1 ,solomon and ,daniel belong here1 and are not in the same class with ,isaiah1 ,jeremiah1 ,nathan1 ,ahiah1 and so on4 ,god spoke to ,solomon through ,ahiah the ,shilonite2 at other times he spoke to him in a dream1 and when ,solomon woke up1 he knew it was a dream and not a prophecy4 ,daniel's visions were also in dreams4 ,this is why his book is classed in the third division of the ,biblical writings 7,hagiographa71 and not in the second 7,prophets74 #c4 ,this is the first grade of real prophecy1 i4 e41 when a prophet sees a picture in a dream under the proper conditions1 and the picture is explained to him in the dream itself4 ,most of the dreams of ,zechariah are of this nature4 #d4 ,when he hears speech in a prophetic dream1 but does not see the speaker1 as happened to ,samuel in the beginning of his career4 #e4 ,when a man speaks to him in a dream1 as we find in some of the prophecies of ,ezekiel1 ,and the man said unto me1 son of man4444 #f4 ,when an angel speaks to him in a dream4 ,this is the condition of most prophets1 as is indicated in the expression1 ,and an angel of ,god said to me in a dream4 #g4 ,when it seems to him in a prophetic dream as if ,god is speaking to him2 as we find in ,isaiah1 ,i saw the ,lord 444 and he said1 whom shall ,i send and who will go for us 7,isa4 #f1 #a1 #h74 #h4 ,when a vision appears to him and he sees pictures1 like ,abraham at the covenant of the pieces 7,gen4 #ae74 #i4 ,when he hears words in a vision1 as in the case of ,abraham1 ,and1 behold1 the word of the ,lord came unto him saying1 ,this man shall not be thine heir 7,gen4 #ae1 #d74 #aj4 ,when he sees a man speaking to him in a prophetic vision4 ,examples1 ,abraham in the plain of ,mamre1 ,joshua in ,jericho4 #aa4 ,when he sees an angel speaking to him in a vision1 like ,abraham in the sacrifice of ,isaac4 ,this is the highest degree of prophecy1 excepting ,moses4 ,the next higher stage would be that a prophet should see ,god speaking to him in a vision4 ,but this seems impossible1 as it is too much for the imaginative faculty4 ,in fact it is possible that in a vision speech is never heard at all1 but only likenesses are seen4 ,in that case the eleven grades are reduced to eight4 ,all the details of actions and travels that are described in prophetic visions must not be understood as having actually taken place1 as for example ,hosea's marrying a harlot4 ,they appear only in the prophet's vision or dream4 ,many expressions in the prophets are hyperbolical or metaphorical1 and must not be taken literally4 ,moses was the greatest of the prophets4 ,he alone received his communications direct from ,god4 ,all the others got their divine messages through an angel4 ,moses performed his miracles before the whole people as no one else did4 ,the standing still of the sun produced by ,joshua was not in the presence of all the people4 ,besides it may be the meaning is that that day seemed to the people the longest of any they experienced in those regions4 ,moses alone1 by reason of his superiority to all other prophets before or after1 called the people to the ,law4 ,no one before him did this1 though there were many prophets before ,moses4 ,abraham taught a few people1 and so did others4 ,but no one like ,moses said to the people1 ,the ,lord sent me to you that you may do thus and so4 ,after ,moses all the prophets urge upon the people obedience to the law of ,moses4 ,this shows that the law of ,moses will never change4 ,for it is perfect1 and any change in any direction would be for the worse4#bhe ,from the theoretical part of philosophy we pass to the practical4 ,this includes ethics and other topics related thereto1 theodicy1 providence1 free will and its compatibility with ,god's omniscience4 ,to give his ethical doctrine a scientific character1 ,maimonides bases it upon a metaphysical and psychological foundation4 ,the doctrine of matter and form gives him a convenient formula underlying his ethical discussion4 ,sin and vice are due to matter1 virtue and goodness to form4 ,for sensuous desires1 which are due to matter1 are at the basis of vice2 whereas intellectual pursuits1 which constitute the noblest activity of the soul1 the form of the living body1 lead to virtue4 ,we may therefore state man's ethical duty in broad philosophical terms as follows3 ,despise matter1 and have to do with it only so far as is absolutely necessary4#bhf ,this is too general to be enlightening1 and it is necessary to have recourse to psychology4 ,ethics has for its subject-matter the improvement and perfection of character4 ,making use of a medical analogy we may say that as it is the business of the physician to cure the body1 so it is the aim of the moral teacher to cure the soul4 ,we may carry this figure further and conclude that as the physician must know the anatomy and physiology of the body before he can undertake to cure it of its ills1 so the moralist must know the nature of the soul and its powers or faculties4 ,in the details of his psychology ,maimonides follows ,alfarabi instead of ,avicenna who was the model of ,judah ,halevi and ,ibn ,daud 7pp4 #age1 #baa74 ,the soul consists of five parts or faculties3 the nutritive1 the sensitive1 the imaginative1 the appetitive and the rational4 ,the further description of the nutritive soul pertains to medicine and does not concern us here4 ,the sensitive soul contains the well known five senses4 ,the imaginative faculty is the power which retains the forms of sensible objects when they are no longer present to the external senses4 ,it also has the function of original combination of sense elements into composite objects having no real existence in the outside world4 ,this makes the imagination an unreliable guide in matters intellectual4 ,the appetitive faculty is the power of the soul by which a person desires a thing or rejects it4 ,acts resulting from it are the pursuit of an object and its avoidance2 also the feelings of anger1 favor1 fear1 courage1 cruelty1 pity1 love1 hate1 and so on4 ,the organs of these powers1 feelings and activities are the members of the body1 like the hand1 which takes hold of an object2 the foot1 which goes toward a thing or away from it2 the eye1 which looks2 the heart1 which takes courage or is stricken with fear2 and so with the rest4 ,the rational faculty is the power of the soul by which a person reflects1 acquires knowledge1 discriminates between a praiseworthy act and a blameworthy4 ,the functions of the rational soul are practical and theoretical4 ,the practical activity of the reason has to do with the arts directly1 as in learning carpentry1 agriculture1 medicine1 seamanship2 or it is concerned with reflecting upon the methods and principles of a given art4 ,the theoretical reason has for its subject-matter the permanent and unchangeable1 what is known as science in the true sense of the term4#bhg ,now as far as the commandments1 mandatory and prohibitive1 of the ,bible are concerned1 the only parts of the soul which are involved are the sensitive and the appetitive4 ,for these are the only powers subject to control4 ,the nutritive and the imaginative powers function in sleep as well in waking1 hence a person cannot be held responsible for their activities1 which are involuntary4 ,there is some doubt about the rational faculty1 but it seems that here too a person is responsible for the opinions he holds1 though no practical acts are involved4 ,virtues are divided into ethical and intellectual 7dianoetic72 and so are the contrary vices4 ,the intellectual virtues are the excellencies of the reason4 ,such are science1 which consists in the knowledge of proximate and remote causes of things2 pure reason1 having to do with such innate principles as the axioms2 the acquired reason1 which we cannot discuss here2 clearness of perception and quick insight4 ,the intellectual vices are the opposites or the contraries of these4 ,the ethical virtues are resident in the appetitive faculty4 ,the sensitive soul is auxiliary to the appetitive4 ,the number of these virtues is large4 ,examples are2 temperance1 generosity1 justice1 modesty1 humility1 contentment1 courage1 and so on4 ,the vices of this class are the above qualities carried to excess1 or not practiced to the required extent4 ,the faculties of nutrition and imagination have neither virtues nor vices4 ,we say a person's digestion is good or it is poor2 his imagination is correct or it is defective1 but we do not attach the idea of virtue or vice to these conditions4 ,virtue is a permanent and enduring quality of the soul occupying an intermediate position between the two opposite extremes each of which is a vice1 sinning by exceeding the proper measure of the golden mean or by falling short of it4 ,a good act is that form of conduct which follows from a virtuous disposition as just defined4 ,a bad act is the result of a tendency of the soul to either of the two extremes1 of excess or defect4 ,thus temperance or moderation is a virtue4 ,it is the mean between over-indulgence in the direction of excess1 and insensibility or indifference in the direction of defect4 ,the last two are vices4 ,similarly generosity is a mean between niggardliness and extravagance2 courage is a mean between foolhardiness and cowardice2 dignity is a mean between haughtiness and loutishness2 humility is a mean between arrogance and self-abasement2 contentment is a mean between avarice and slothful indifference2 kindness is a mean between baseness and excessive self-denial2 gentleness is a mean between irascibility and insensibility to insult2 modesty is a mean between impudence and shamefacedness4 ,people are often mistaken and regard one of the extremes as a virtue4 ,thus the reckless and the foolhardy is often praised as the brave2 the man of no backbone is called gentle2 the indolent is mistaken for the contented2 the insensible for the temperate1 the extravagant for the generous4 ,this is an error4 ,the mean alone is worthy of commendation4 ,the ethical virtues and vices are acquired as a result of repeated practice during a long time of the corresponding acts until they become a confirmed habit and a second nature4 ,a person is not born virtuous or vicious4 ,what he will turn out to be depends upon the way he is trained from childhood4 ,if his training has been wrong and he has acquired a vicious disposition in a particular tendency1 he may be cured4 ,and here we may borrow a leaf from the book of medicine4 ,as in bodily disease the physician's endeavor is to restore the disturbed equilibrium in the mixture of the humors by increasing the element that is deficient1 so in diseases of the soul1 if a person has a decided tendency to one of the vicious extremes1 he must as a curative measure1 for a certain length of time1 be directed to practice the opposite extreme until he has been cured4 ,then he may go back to the virtuous mean4 ,thus if a person has the vice of niggardliness1 the practice of liberality is not sufficient to cure him4 ,as a heroic measure he must practice extravagance until the former tendency has left him4 ,then he may return to the liberal mean4 ,the same thing applies to the other virtues1 except that it is necessary to use proper judgment in the amount of practice of a vicious extreme necessary to bring about a satisfactory result4 ,too great deviation and too long continued from the mean would in some cases be dangerous1 as likely to develop the opposite vice4 ,thus it is comparatively safe to indulge in extravagance as a cure for niggardliness2 the reverse process must be used with caution4 ,care should likewise be taken in trying to wean a person away from a habit of insensibility to pleasure by means of a rgime of indulgence4 ,if it is not discontinued in time1 he may become a pleasure seeker1 which is even worse than total indifference4 ,it is in this way that we must explain the conduct of certain pious men and saints who were not content with following the middle way1 and inclined to one extreme1 the extreme of asceticism and self-abasement4 ,they did this as a measure of cure1 or because of the wickedness of their generation1 whose example they feared would contaminate them by its contagion4 ,hence they lived a retired and solitary life1 the life of a recluse4 ,it was not meant as the normal mode of conduct1 which would be as unwholesome to the soul as an invalid's drugs would be dangerous if taken regularly by a person of sound health4 ,the will of ,god is that we should follow the middle way and eat and drink and enjoy ourselves in moderation4 ,to be sure1 we must be always on our guard against slipping into the forbidden extreme1 but it is not necessary for this purpose to inflict additional burdens upon ourselves or to practice mortification of the flesh and abstention from food and drink beyond what is prescribed in the ,law4 ,for many of the regulations in the ,pentateuch have been laid down for this very purpose4 ,the dietary laws1 the laws of forbidden marriages1 the laws of tithes1 the laws prescribing that the corner of the field1 the dropped and forgotten ears and the gleanings of the vintage should be left to the poor1 the laws of the sabbatical year1 the ,jubilee1 and the regulations governing charity--all these are intended to guard us against avarice and selfishness4 ,other laws and precepts are for the purpose of moderating our tendency to anger and rage1 and so with all the other virtues and vices4 ,hence it is folly and overscrupulousness to add restrictions of one's own accord except in critical instances1 as indicated above4 ,the purpose of all human life and activity is to know ,god as far as it is possible for man4 ,hence all his activities should be directed to that one end4 ,his eating and drinking and sleeping and waking and motion and rest and pleasure should have for their object the maintenance of good health and cheerful spirits1 not as an end in themselves1 but as a means to intellectual peace and freedom from worry and care in order that he may have leisure and ability to study and reflect upon the highest truths of ,god4 ,good music1 beautiful scenery1 works of art1 splendid architecture and fine clothing should not be pursued for their own sake1 but only so far as they may be necessary to relieve the tedium and monotony of toil and labor1 or as a curative measure to dispel gloom and low spirits or a tendency to melancholy4 ,the same thing applies to the arts and sciences4 ,medicine is of assistance in maintaining bodily health and curing it of its ills4 ,the logical1 mathematical and physical sciences are either directly helpful to speculative theology1 and their value is evident2 or they serve to train the mind in deduction and analysis1 and are thus indirectly of benefit for the knowledge of ,god4#bhh ,the ethical qualities similarly conduce to intellectual perfection1 and the difference between one prophet and another is in large measure dependent upon relative ethical superiority4 ,thus when the ,rabbis say that ,moses saw ,god through a luminous mirror1 and the other prophets through a non-luminous1 the meaning is that ,moses had intellectual and moral perfection1 so far as a human being is capable of having them1 and the only partition separating him from a complete vision of ,god was his humanity4 ,the other prophets had other defects besides1 constituting so many additional partitions obscuring the divine view4#bhi ,some foolish astrologers are of the opinion that a man's character is determined in advance by the position of the stars at the time of his birth4 ,this is a grave error1 as can be shown from reason as well as tradition4 ,the ,bible as well as the ,greek philosophers are agreed that a man's acts are under his own control1 and that he himself and no one else is responsible for his virtues as well as his vices4 ,it is true that a person's temperament1 which is constitutional and over which he has no control1 plays an important rle in his conduct4 ,there is no denying that men are born with certain tendencies4 ,some are born phlegmatic1 some are passionate and hot-blooded4 ,one man has a tendency to fearlessness and bravery1 another is timid and backward4 ,but while it is true that it is more difficult for the hot-blooded to develop the virtue of temperance and moderation than it is for the phlegmatic1 that it is easier for the warm-tempered to learn courage than it is for the cold-tempered--these are not impossible4 ,virtue1 we have seen before1 is not a natural state1 but an acquired possession due to long continued discipline and practice4 ,one man may require longer and more assiduous practice than another to acquire a certain virtue1 but no matter what his inherited temperament1 he can acquire it if he undertakes to do so1 or if properly trained4 ,if man's character and conduct were determined1 all the commandments and prohibitions in the ,bible would be in vain1 for without freedom command has no effect4 ,similarly there would be no use in a person's endeavoring to learn any trade or profession2 for if it is determined beforehand that a given individual shall be a physician or a carpenter1 he is bound to be one whether he studies or not4 ,this would make all reward and punishment wrong and unjust whether administered by man or by ,god4 ,for the person so rewarded or punished could not help doing what he did1 and is therefore not responsible4 ,all our plans and preparations would on this supposition be useless and without meaning1 such as building houses1 acquiring food1 avoiding danger1 and so on4 ,all this is absurd and opposed to reason as well as to sense4 ,it undermines the foundation of religion and imputes wrong to ,god4 ,the ,bible says distinctly1 ,see1 ,i have set before thee this day life and the good1 death and the evil 444 therefore choose thou life4444 7,deut4 #cj1 #ae1 #ai47 ,there are some passages in the ,bible which apparently lend color to the idea that a person's acts are determined from on high4 ,such are the expressions used in relation to ,pharaoh's conduct toward the ,israelites in refusing to let them go out of ,egypt4 ,we are told there that ,god hardened the heart of ,pharaoh that he should not let the ,israelites go4 ,and he did this in order to punish the ,egyptians4 ,the criticism here is twofold4 ,first1 these expressions indicate that a person is not always free2 and second1 it seems scarcely just to force a man to act in a certain way and then to punish him for it4 ,the explanation ,maimonides gives to this passage is as follows3 ,he admits that in ,pharaoh's case there was a restriction of ,pharaoh's freedom4 ,but this was a penal measure and exceptional4 ,normally a man is free1 but he may forfeit this freedom if he abuses it4 ,so ,pharaoh's primary offence was not that he would not let the children of ,israel go out of ,egypt4 ,his sin consisted in his tyrannical treatment of ,israel in the past1 which he did of his own accord and as a result of free choice4 ,his loss of freedom in complying with ,moses's request to let the ,israelites go was already in the nature of a punishment1 and its object was to let all the world know that a person may forfeit his freedom of action as a punishment for abusing his human privilege4 ,to be sure ,god does not always punish sin so severely1 but it is not for us to search his motives and ask why he punishes one man in one way and another in another4 ,we must leave this to his wisdom4 ,another argument against free will is that it is incompatible with the knowledge of ,god4 ,if ,god is omniscient and knows the future as well as the past and the present1 he knows how a given person will act at a given moment4 ,but since ,god's knowledge is certain and not liable to error1 the person in question cannot help acting as ,god long foreknew he would act1 and hence his act is not the result of his free will4 ,maimonides's answer to this objection is virtually an admission of ignorance4 ,he takes refuge in the transcendence of ,god's knowledge1 upon which he dwelt so insistently in the earlier part of his work 7p4 #bfj ff474 ,god is not qualified by attributes as we his creatures are4 ,as he does not live by means of life1 so he does not know by means of knowledge4 ,he knows through his own essence4 ,he and his existence and his knowledge are identical4 ,hence as we cannot know his essence1 we cannot have any conception of his knowledge4 ,it is mistaken therefore to argue that because we cannot know a future event unless it is already determined in the present1 ,god cannot do so4 ,his knowledge is of a different kind from ours1 and he can do what we cannot4 #bij ,the next problem ,maimonides takes up is the doctrine of evil4 ,the presence of evil in the world1 physical as well as moral1 was a stumbling block to all religious thinkers in the middle ages4 ,the difficulty seems to find its origin in ,neo-,platonism1 or1 farther back still1 in ,philo of ,alexandria1 who identified ,god with the ,good4 ,if he is the ,good1 evil cannot come from him4 ,how then account for the evil in the world8 ,the answer that was given was extremely unsatisfactory4 ,it was founded on a metaphysical distinction which is as old as ,plato1 namely1 of matter as the non-existent4 ,matter was considered a principle without any definite nature or actual being1 and this was made the basis of all imperfection1 death1 sin4 ,evil partakes of the non-existence of matter1 it is nothing positive1 but only a negation or privation of good as darkness is the absence of light2 hence it needs no creator1 it has no efficient cause1 but only a deficient cause4 ,in this way physical evil was accounted for4 ,moral evil as the result of man's inhumanity to man could easily be explained by laying it to the charge of man's free will or even to the free will of the fallen angels as ,origen conceives it4 ,this removes from ,god all responsibility for evil4 ,we shall find that ,maimonides has nothing essentially new to contribute to the solution of the problem4 ,strictly speaking1 he says1 only a positive thing can be made1 negation or privation cannot4 ,we may speak loosely of the negative being produced when one removes the positive4 ,so if a man puts out a light1 we say he made darkness1 though darkness is a negation4 ,evil is nothing but the negation of the positive1 which is good4 ,all positive things are good4 ,hence ,god cannot be said to produce evil4 ,the positive thing which he produces is good2 the evil is due to defect in the thing4 ,matter also is good so far as it is positive1 i4 e41 so far as it causes continued existence of one thing after another4 ,the evil in matter is due to its negative or privative aspect as the formless1 which makes it the cause of defect and evil4 ,all evil that men do to each other is also due to negation1 namely1 absence of wisdom and knowledge4 ,many people think there is more evil in the world than good4 ,their mistake is due to the fact that they make the experience of the individual man the arbiter in this question1 thinking that the universe was made for his sake4 ,they forget that man is only a small fraction of the world1 which is made by the will of ,god4 ,even so man should be grateful for the great amount of good he receives from ,god1 for many of the evils of man are self-inflicted4 ,in fact the evils befalling man come under three categories4 #a4 ,the evil that is incident to man's nature as subject to genesis and decay1 i4 e41 as composed of matter4 ,hence arise the various accidents to which man is liable on account of bad air and other natural causes4 ,these are inevitable1 and inseparable from matter1 and from the generation of individuals in a species4 ,to demand that a person of flesh and blood shall not be subject to impressions is a contradiction in terms4 ,and with all this the evils of this class are comparatively few4 #b4 ,they are the evils inflicted by one man upon the other4 ,these are more frequent than the preceding4 ,their causes are various4 ,and yet these too are not very frequent4 #c4 ,these are the most common4 ,they are the evils man brings upon himself by self-indulgence and the formation of bad habits4 ,he injures the body by excess1 and he injures the mind through the body by perverting and weakening it1 and by enslaving it to luxuries to which there is no end4 ,if a person is satisfied with that which is necessary1 he will easily have what he needs2 for the necessaries are not hard to get4 ,god's justice is evident in affording the necessaries to all his creatures and in making all the individuals of the same species similar in power and ability4#bia ,the next problem ,maimonides discusses is really theoretical and should have its place in the discussion of the divine attributes1 for it deals with the character of ,god's knowledge4 ,the reason for taking it up here is because1 according to ,maimonides1 it was an ethical question that was the motive for the formulation of the view of the opponents4 ,accordingly the problem is semi-ethical1 semi-metaphysical1 and is closely related to the question of ,providence4 ,observing that the good are often wretched and the bad prosperous1 the philosophers came to the conclusion that ,god does not know individual things4 ,for if he knows and does not order them as is proper1 this must be due either to inability or to jealousy1 both of which are impossible in ,god4 ,having come to this conclusion in the way indicated1 they then bolstered it up with arguments to justify it positively4 ,such are that the individual is known through sense and ,god has no sensation2 that the number of individual things is infinite1 and the infinite cannot be comprehended1 hence cannot be known2 that knowledge of the particular is subject to change as the object changes1 whereas ,god's knowledge is unchangeable4 ,against us ,jews they argue that to suppose ,god knows things before they are connects knowledge with the non-existent2 and besides there would be two kinds of knowledge in ,god1 one knowledge of potential things1 and another of actual things4 ,so they came to the conclusion that ,god knows only species but not individuals4 ,others say that ,god knows nothing except his own essence1 else there would be multiplicity in his nature4 ,as the entire difficulty1 according to ,maimonides1 arose from the supposed impropriety in the government of individual destinies1 he first discusses the question of ,providence and comes back later to the problem of ,god's knowledge4#bib ,he enumerates five opinions concerning ,providence4 #a4 ,the ,opinion of ,epicurus4 ,there is no ,providence at all2 everything is the result of accident and concurrence of atoms4 ,aristotle has refuted this idea4 #b4 ,the ,opinion of ,aristotle4 ,some things are subject to ,providence1 others are governed by accident4 ,god provides for the celestial spheres1 hence they are permanent individually2 but1 as ,alexander says in his name1 ,providence ceases with the sphere of the moon4 ,aristotle's doctrine concerning ,providence is related to his belief in the eternity of the world4 ,providence corresponds to the nature of the object in question4 ,as the individual spheres are permanent1 it shows that there is special ,providence which preserves the spheres individually4 ,as1 again1 there proceed from them other beings which are not permanent individually but only as species1 namely1 the species of our world1 it is clear that with reference to the sublunar world there is so much ,providential influence as to bring about the permanence of the species1 but not of the individual4 ,to be sure1 the individuals too are not completely neglected4 ,there are various powers given to them in accordance with the quality of their matters2 which powers determine the length of their duration1 their motion1 perception1 purposive existence4 ,but the other incidents and motions in individual human as well as animal life are pure accident4 ,when a storm scatters the leaves of trees1 casts down some trunks and drowns a ship with its passengers1 the incident is as accidental with the men drowned as with the scattered leaves4 ,that which follows invariable laws ,aristotle regards as ,providential1 what happens rarely and without rule is accidental4 #c4 ,the ,view of the ,ashariya4 ,this is the very opposite of the preceding opinion4 ,the ,ashariya deny all accident4 ,everything is done by the will of ,god1 whether it be the fall of a leaf or the death of a man4 ,everything is determined1 and a person cannot of himself do or forbear4 ,it follows from this view that the category of the possible is ruled out4 ,everything is either necessary or impossible4 ,it follows also that all laws are useless1 for man is helpless1 and reward and punishment are determined solely by the will of ,god1 to whom the concepts of right and wrong do not apply4 #d4 ,the ,opinion of the ,mutazila4 ,they vindicate man's power to do and forbear1 thus justifying the commands and prohibitions1 and the rewards and punishments of the laws4 ,god does not do wrong4 ,they also believe that ,god knows of the fall of a leaf1 and provides for all things4 ,this opinion1 too1 is open to criticism4 ,if a person is born with a defect1 they say this is due to ,god's wisdom1 and it is better for the man to be thus4 ,if a pious man is put to death1 it is to increase his reward in the next world4 ,they extend this to lower animals also1 and say that the mouse killed by the cat will be rewarded in the next world4 ,the last three opinions all have their motives4 ,aristotle followed the data of nature4 ,the ,ashariya refused to impute ignorance to ,god4 ,the ,mutazila object to imputing to him wrong1 or to denying reason1 which holds that to cause a person pain for no offence is wrong4 ,their opinion leads to a contradiction1 for they say ,god knows everything and at the same time man is free4 #e4 ,the ,opinion of our ,law4 ,a fundamental principle of the law of ,moses is that man has absolute freedom in his conduct1 and so has an irrational animal4 ,no one of our religion disputes this4 ,another fundamental principle is that ,god does no wrong1 and hence all reward and punishment is justly given4 ,there is only one exception mentioned by the ,rabbis1 what they call suffering for love1 i4 e41 misfortunes which are not in the nature of punishment for sins committed1 but in order to increase reward4 ,there is no support1 however1 for this view in the ,bible4 ,all this applies only to man4 ,nothing is said in the ,bible or in the ,talmud of reward and punishment of animals4 ,it was adopted by some of the later ,geonim from the ,mutazila4 ,after citing these five opinions on the nature of ,providence1 ,maimonides formulates his own to the following effect3 ,my own belief in the matter1 not as a result of demonstration1 but based upon what seems to me to be the meaning of ,scripture is that in the sublunar world man alone enjoys individual ,providence4 ,all other individual things besides are ruled by chance1 as ,aristotle says4 ,divine ,providence corresponds to divine influence or emanation4 ,the more one has of divine influence1 the more one has of ,providence4 ,thus in plants and animals divine ,providence extends only to the species4 ,when the ,rabbis tell us that cruelty to animals is forbidden in the ,torah1 the meaning is that we must not be cruel to animals for our own good1 in order not to develop habits of cruelty4 ,to ask why ,god does not provide for the lower animals in the same way as he does for man1 is the same as to ask why he did not endow the animals with reason4 ,the answer would be1 so he willed1 so his wisdom decreed4 ,my opinion is not that ,god is ignorant of anything or is incapable of doing certain things1 but that ,providence is closely related to reason4 ,one has as much of ,providence as he has of the influence of the divine reason4 ,it follows from this that ,providence is not the same for all individuals of the human species1 but varies with the person's character and achievements4 ,the prophets enjoy a special ,providence2 the pious and wise men come next2 whereas a person who is ignorant and disobedient is neglected and treated like a lower animal1 being left to the government of chance4#bic ,having disposed of the question of ,providence1 we may now resume the discussion undertaken above 7p4 #bhi7 of the nature of ,god's knowledge4 ,the idea that ,god does not know the particular things in our world below is an old one and is referred to in the ,bible often4 ,thus1 to quote one instance from the ,psalms1 the idea is clearly enunciated in the following passage1 ,and they say sc4 the wicked1 ,how doth ,god know8 ,and is there knowledge in the most ,high8 ,behold1 these are the wicked2 and1 being alway at ease1 they increase in riches4 ,surely in vain have ,i cleansed my heart1 and washed my hands in innocency4444 7#gc1 #aa-ac74 ,the origin of this notion is in human experience1 which sees the adversity of the good and the prosperity of the wicked1 though many of the troubles are of a man's own doing1 who is a free agent4 ,but this view is wrong4 ,for ignorance of any kind is a defect1 and ,god is perfect4 ,david pointed out this when he said1 ,he that planted the ear shall he not hear8 ,he that formed the eye shall he not see8 7#id1 #i74 ,this means that unless ,god knows what the senses are1 he could not have made the sense organs to perceive4 ,we must now answer the other metaphysical arguments against ,god's knowledge of particulars4 ,it is agreed that no new knowledge can come to ,god which he did not have before1 nor can he have many knowledges4 ,we say therefore 7we who are believers in the ,torah7 that with one knowledge ,god knows many things1 and his knowledge does not change as the objects change4 ,we say also that he knows all things before they come into being1 and knows them always2 hence his knowledge never changes as the objects appear and disappear4 ,it follows from this that his knowledge relates to the non-existent and embraces the infinite4 ,we believe this and say that only the absolutely non-existent cannot be known2 but the non-existent whose existence is in ,god's knowledge and which he can bring into reality can be known4 ,as to comprehending the infinite1 we say with some thinkers that knowledge relates primarily to the species and extends indirectly to the individuals included in the species4 ,and the species are finite4 ,the philosophers1 however1 decide that there cannot be knowledge of the non-existent1 and the infinite cannot be comprehended4 ,god1 therefore1 as he cannot have new and changing knowledge knows only the permanent things1 the species1 and not the changing and temporary individuals4 ,others go still further and maintain that ,god cannot even know the permanent things1 because knowledge of many things involves many knowledges1 hence multiplicity in ,god's essence4 ,they insist therefore that ,god knows only himself4 ,my view is1 says ,maimonides1 that the error of all these people is that they assume there is a relation of resemblance between our knowledge and ,god's knowledge4 ,and it is surprising that the philosophers should be guilty of such an error1 the very men who proved that ,god's knowledge is identical with his essence1 and that our reason cannot know ,god's essence4 ,the difference between our knowledge and ,god's knowledge is that we get our knowledge from the data of experience1 upon which it depends4 ,each new datum adds to our knowledge1 which cannot run ahead of that which produces it4 ,it is different in the case of ,god4 ,he is the cause of the data of experience4 ,the latter follow his knowledge1 and not vice versa4 ,hence by knowing himself he knows everything else before it comes into being4 ,we cannot conceive of his knowledge1 for to do this would be to have it ourselves4#bid ,the last topic ,maimonides considers in his philosophical work is the reason and purpose of the commandments of the ,bible1 particularly the ceremonial precepts which apparently have no rational meaning4 ,in fact there are those who maintain that it is vain to search for reasons of the laws where none are given in the ,bible itself2 that the sole reason in those cases is the will of ,god4 ,these people labor under the absurd impression that to discover a rational purpose in the ceremonial laws would diminish their value and reduce them to human institutions4 ,their divine character and origin is attested in the minds of these people by their irrationality1 by the fact that they have no human meaning4 ,this is clearly absurd1 says ,maimonides the rationalist4 ,it is tantamount to saying that man is superior to ,god2 and that whereas a man will command only that which is of benefit1 ,god gives orders which have no earthly use4 ,the truth is quite the reverse1 and all the laws are for our benefit4#bie ,accordingly ,maimonides undertakes to account for all the laws of the ,bible4 ,the ,law1 he says1 has two purposes1 the improvement of the body and the improvement of the soul or the mind4 ,the improvement of the soul is brought about by study and reflection1 and the result of this is theoretical knowledge4 ,but in order to be able to realize this perfectly a necessary prerequisite is the improvement of the body4 ,this is inferior in value to perfection of the soul1 but comes naturally and chronologically first as a means to an end4 ,for bodily perfection one must have health and strength as far as one's constitution permits1 and for this purpose a person must have his needs at all times4 ,social life is necessary for the supply of the individuals' needs1 and to make social life possible there must be rules of right and wrong to be observed4#bif ,applying what has just been said to the ,law1 we may divide its contents broadly into four classes1 7#a7 ,precepts inculcating true beliefs and ideas1 such as the existence of ,god1 his unity1 knowledge1 power1 will1 eternity4 7#b7 ,legal and moral precepts1 such as the inculcation of justice and a benevolent disposition for the good of society4 7#c7 ,the narratives and genealogies of the ,law4 7#d7 ,the ceremonial prescriptions4 ,of these the purpose of the first two divisions is perfectly clear and admitted by all4 ,true beliefs and ideas regarding ,god and his government of the world are directly conducive to the highest end of man1 knowledge and perfection of the soul4 ,honorable and virtuous conduct is a preliminary requisite to intellectual perfection4 ,the genealogies and narratives of the ,bible are also not without a purpose4 ,they are intended to inculcate a theoretical doctrine or a moral1 and to emphasize the one or the other1 which cannot be done so well by a bare statement or commandment4 ,thus1 to take a few examples1 the creation of the world is impressed upon the reader beyond the possibility of a doubt by a circumstantial narrative of the various steps in the process1 the gradual peopling of the earth by the multiplication of the human race descended from the first pair1 and so on4 ,the story of the flood and of the destruction of ,sodom and ,gomorrah has for its purpose to emphasize the truth that ,god is a just judge1 who rewards the pious and punishes the wicked4 ,the genealogy of the kings of ,edom in ,genesis 7#cf1 #ca7 is intended as a warning to ,israel in the appointment of kings4 ,these kings of the ,edomites were all of them foreigners not of ,edom1 and it is probable that the history of their tyrannical rule and oppression of their ,edomite subjects was well known to the people in ,moses's time4 ,hence the point of the enumeration of the list of kings and their origin is to serve as a deterring example to the ,israelites never to appoint as king of ,israel a man who came from another nation1 in accordance with the precept in ,deuteronomy 7#ag1ae71 ,thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee1 which is not thy brother4#big ,there remains the division of the ceremonial laws1 which are the subject of dispute4 ,the purpose in these precepts is not evident1 and opinions are divided as to whether they have any purpose4 ,i will endeavor to show1 says ,maimonides1 that these also have one or more of the following objects3 to teach true beliefs and opinions1 to remove injustice and to inculcate good qualities4 ,abraham grew up among the ,sabeans1 who were star worshippers and believers in the eternity of the world4 ,the object of the law is to keep men away from the erroneous views of the ,sabeans1 which were prevalent in those days4 ,the ,sabeans believed that the worship of the stars helps in the cultivation of the ground to make it fruitful4 ,for this reason they think highly of the husbandmen and laborers on the land4 ,they also respect cattle and prohibit slaughtering them because they are of benefit in the cultivation of the land4 ,in the interest of agriculture they instituted the worship of the stars1 which they believed would cause the rain to fall and the earth to yield its fertility4 ,on this account we find the reverse of this in the ,bible1 telling us that worship of the stars will result in lack of rain and infertility4 ,in the life of nature we see how one thing serves another1 and certain objects are not brought about except through certain others1 and development is gradual4 ,so1 for example1 a young infant cannot be fed on meat and solid food1 and nature provides milk in the mother's breast4 ,similarly in governing the people of ,israel1 who were living in a certain environment1 ,god could not at once tear them away from the habits of thought to which they were accustomed1 but he led them gradually4 ,hence as they were accustomed to sacrificing to the stars1 ,god ordered them to sacrifice to him1 the object being to wean them away from the idols in the easiest way possible4 ,this is why the prophets do not lay stress on the sacrifices4 ,to be sure1 it was not impossible for ,god to form their minds so that they would not require this form of training1 and would see at once that ,god does not need sacrifices1 but this would have been a miracle4 ,and while ,god does perform miracles sometimes for certain purposes1 he does not change the nature of man2 not because he cannot1 but because he desires man to be free and responsible4 ,otherwise there would be no sense in laws and prophets4 ,among the purposes of the law are abstention from self-indulgence in the physical appetites1 like eating and drinking and sensuous pleasure1 because these things prevent the ultimate perfection of man1 and are likewise injurious to civil and social life1 multiplying as they do sorrow and trouble and strife and jealousy and hate and warfare4 ,another purpose is to inculcate gentleness and politeness and docility4 ,another is purity and holiness4 ,external cleanliness is also recommended1 but not as a substitute for internal4 ,the important thing is internal purity1 external takes a secondary place4 ,maimonides ends the discussion of the ,pentateuchal laws by dividing them into fourteen classes 7following in this the divisions in his great legal code1 the ,yad ,ha-,hazakah7 and explaining the purposes of each class4 ,it will be useful briefly to reproduce the division here4 #a4 ,those laws that concern fundamental ideas of religion and theology1 including the duty of learning and teaching1 and the institutions of repentance and fasting4 ,the purpose here is clear4 ,intellectual perfection is the greatest good of man1 and this cannot be attained without learning and teaching2 and without wisdom there is neither good practice nor true opinion4 ,similarly honoring the wise1 swearing by ,god's name1 and not to swear falsely--all these lead to a firm belief in ,god's greatness4 ,repentance is useful to guard against despair and continuance in evil doing on the part of the sinner4 #b4 ,the precepts and prohibitions relating to idolatry4 ,here are included also the prohibition to mix divers kinds of seeds in planting1 the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years of its growth1 and against wearing a garment made of a mixture of wool and flax4 ,the prohibition of idolatry is evident in its purpose1 which is to teach true ideas about ,god4 ,the other matters above mentioned are connected with idolatry4 ,magic is a species of idolatry because it is based on a belief in the direct influence of the stars4 ,all practices done to produce a certain effect1 which are not justified by a reason or at least are not verified by experience1 are forbidden as being superstitious and a species of magic4 ,cutting the beard and the earlocks is forbidden on a similar ground because it was a custom of the idolatrous priests4 ,the same thing applies to mixing of cotton and flax1 to men wearing women's garments and vice versa1 though here there is the additional reason1 to prevent1 namely1 laxness in sexual morality4 #c4 ,the precepts relating to ethical and moral conduct4 ,here the purpose is clear1 namely1 to improve social life4 #d4 ,the rules relating to charity1 loans1 gifts1 and so on4 ,the purpose is to teach kindness to the poor1 and the benefit is mutual1 for the rich man to-day may be poor to-morrow4 #e4 ,laws relating to injury and damages4 ,the purpose is to remove wrong and injustice4 #f4 ,laws relating to theft1 robbery1 false witnesses4 ,the purpose is to prevent injury by punishing the offender4 #g4 ,the regulation of business intercourse1 like loan1 hire1 deposits1 buying and selling1 inheritance1 and so on4 ,the purpose here is social justice to make life in society possible4 #h4 ,laws relating to special periods1 such as the ,sabbath and the festivals4 ,the purpose is stated in each case in the ,law itself1 and it is either to inculcate a true idea like the creation in the case of the ,sabbath1 or to enable mankind to rest from their labors1 or for both combined4 #i4 ,the other practical observances like prayer1 the reading of ,shema1 and so on4 ,these are all modes of serving ,god1 which lead to true opinions concerning him1 and to fear and love4 #aj4 ,the regulations bearing upon the temple and its service4 ,the purpose of these was explained above in connection with the institution of sacrifice1 namely that it was a concession to the primitive ideas and customs of the people of those times for the purpose of gradually weaning them away from idolatry4 #aa4 ,laws relating to sacrifices4 ,the purpose was stated above and under #aj4 #ab4 ,laws of cleanness and uncleanness4 ,the purpose is to guard against too great familiarity with the ,temple in order to maintain respect for it4 ,hence the regulations prescribing the times when one may1 and the occasions when one may not1 approach or enter the ,temple4 #ac4 ,the dietary laws4 ,unwholesome food is forbidden1 also unclean animals4 ,the purpose in some cases is to guard against excess and self-indulgence4 ,some regulations like the laws of slaughter and others are humanitarian in their nature4 #ad4 ,forbidden marriages1 and circumcision4 ,the purpose is to guard against excess in sexual indulgence1 and against making it an end in itself4#bih ,to sum up1 there are four kinds of human accomplishments or excellencies1 7#a7 ,acquisition of wealth1 7#b7 ,physical perfection1 strength1 beauty1 etc41 7#c7 ,moral perfection1 7#d7 ,intellectual and spiritual perfection4 ,the last is the most important4 ,the first is purely external2 the second is common to the lower animals2 the third is for the sake of one's fellowmen1 in the interest of society1 and would not exist for a solitary person4 ,the last alone concerns the individual himself4 ,jeremiah expresses this truth in his statement1 ,thus saith the ,lord1 ,let not the wise man glory in his wisdom1 neither let the mighty man glory in his might1 let not the rich man glory in his riches3 but let him that glorieth glory in this1 that he understandeth1 and knoweth me1 that ,i am the ,lord which exercise loving kindness1 judgment and righteousness in the earth 7,jer4 #i1 #bb74 ,wise man in the above quotation means the man of good morals4 ,the important thing1 ,jeremiah says1 is to know ,god through his actions and to imitate him4#bii ,maimonides's ethics as well as his interpretation of the ,pentateuchal laws is intellectualistic1 as the foregoing account shows4 ,and it is natural that it should be4 ,the prevailing trend of thought in the middle ages1 alike among the ,arabs1 ,jews and ,christians1 was of this character4 ,aristotle was the master of science1 and to him intellectual contemplation is the highest good of man4 ,the distinction of man is his rational faculty1 hence the excellence and perfection of this faculty is the proper function of man and the realization of his being4 ,this alone leads to that eudaimonia or happiness for which man strives4 ,to be sure complete happiness is impossible without the complete development of all one's powers1 but this is because the reason in man is not isolated from the rest of his individual and social life2 and perfection of mind requires as its auxiliaries and preparation complete living in freedom and comfort4 ,but the aim is after all the life of the intellect1 and the dianoetic virtues are superior to the practical4 ,theoretic contemplation stands far higher than practical activity4 ,add to this that ,aristotle's ,god is pure thought thinking eternally itself1 the universal mover1 himself eternally unmoved1 and attracting the celestial spheres as the object of love attracts the lover1 without itself necessarily being affected1 and the intellectualism of ,aristotle stands out clearly4 ,maimonides is an ,aristotelian1 and he endeavors to harmonize the intellectualism and theorism of the ,stagirite with the diametrically opposed ethics and religion of the ,hebrew ,bible4 ,and he is apparently unaware of the yawning gulf extending between them4 ,the ethics of the ,bible is nothing if not practical4 ,no stress is laid upon knowledge and theoretical speculation as such4 ,the wisdom and the wise man of the book of ,proverbs no more mean the theoretical philosopher than the fool and the scorner in the same book denote the one ignorant in theoretical speculation4 ,the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the ,lord4 ,this is the keynote of the book of ,proverbs1 and its precepts and exhortations are practical and nothing else4 ,that the ,pentateuchal law is solely concerned with practical conduct1 religious1 ceremonial and moral1 needs not saying4 ,it is so absolutely clear and evident that one wonders how so clear-sighted a thinker like ,maimonides could have been misled by the authority of ,aristotle and the intellectual atmosphere of the day to imagine otherwise4 ,the very passage from ,jeremiah which he quotes as summing up his idea of the summum bonum1 speaks against him1 and he only succeeds in manipulating it in his favor by misinterpreting the word wise4 ,whatever the wise man may denote in the book of ,proverbs1 here in ,jeremiah he is clearly contrasted with the person who in imitation of ,god practices kindness1 judgment and righteousness4 ,the word does not denote the theoretical philosopher1 to be sure1 but it approximates it more closely than the expression describing the ideal man of ,jeremiah's commendation4 ,it is in line with ,maimonides's general rationalistic and intellectualistic point of view when he undertakes to find a reason for every commandment1 where no reason is given in the ,law4 ,he shows himself in this an opponent of all mysticism1 sentimentality and arbitrariness4 ,reason is paramount4 ,the intellect determines the will1 and not even ,god's will may be arbitrary4 ,his will is identical with his reason1 hence there is a reason in everything that he wills4 ,we may not in every case succeed in finding the reason where he himself did not choose to tell us1 but a reason there always is1 and the endeavor on our part to discover it should be commended rather than condemned4 ,the details of his motivation of the ceremonial laws are very interesting1 and in many cases they anticipated1 though in a cruder form1 the more scientific theories of modern critics4 ,take his interpretation of the institution of sacrifices4 ,take away the personal manner of expression1 which might seem to imply that ,god spoke to ,moses in some such fashion as this3 ,you and ,i know that sacrifices have no inherent meaning or value4 ,they rather smack of superstition and idolatry4 ,but what can we do8 ,we cannot1 i4 e41 we must not1 change the nature of these people4 ,we must train them gradually to see the truth for themselves4 ,they are now on the level of their environment1 and believe in the efficacy of killing sheep and oxen to the stars and the gods4 ,we will use a true pedagogical method if we humor them in this their crudity for the purpose of transferring their allegiance from the false gods to the one true ,god4 ,let us then institute a system of sacrifices with all the details and minutiae of the sacrificial systems of the heathens and star worshippers4 ,we shall impose this system upon our people for the time being1 and in the end as they grow wiser they will outgrow it--take away this mode of expression in ,maimonides's interpretation1 which is not essential1 and the essence may be rendered in more modern terms thus4 ,man's religion is subject to change and development and progress like all his other institutions4 ,the forms they successively take in the course of their development are determined by the state of general intelligence and positive knowledge that the given race or nation possesses4 ,the same thing holds of religious development4 ,the institution of sacrifices is prevalent in all religious communities at a certain stage in their career4 ,it starts with human sacrifice1 which is later discarded and replaced by sacrifices of animals4 ,and this is again in the course of time discontinued1 leaving its traces only in the prayer book1 which in ,judaism has officially taken the place of the ,temple service4 ,while the merit of ,maimonides in foreshadowing this modern understanding of ancient religion cannot be overestimated1 it is clear that in some of his other interpretations of ,jewish ceremonial1 he is wide of the mark4 ,his rationalism could not take the place of a knowledge of history4 ,his motivation of the dietary laws on the score of hygiene or of moderation and self-restraint is probably not true4 ,nor is the prohibition against mixing divers seeds1 or wearing garments of wool and flax mixed1 or shaving the corner of the beard1 and so on1 due to the fact that these were the customs of the idolaters and their priests4 ,if ,maimonides was bold enough to pull the sacrificial system down from its glorious pedestal in ,jewish tradition and admit that being inherently nothing but a superstition1 it was nevertheless instituted with such great pomp and ceremony1 with a priestly family1 a levitical tribe and a host of prescriptions and regulations1 merely as a concession to the habits and prejudices of the people1 why could he not apply the same method of explanation to the few prohibitions mentioned above8 ,why not say the ancient ,hebrews were forbidden to mix divers seeds because they had been from time immemorial taught to believe that there was something sinful in joining together what ,god has kept asunder2 and in order not to shock their sensibilities too rudely the new religion let them have these harmless notions in order by means of these to inculcate real truths8 ,before concluding our sketch of ,maimonides we must say a word about his ,bible exegesis4 ,though the tendency to read philosophy into the ,bible is as old as ,philo1 from whom it was borrowed by ,clement of ,alexandria and ,origen and by them handed down to the other ,patristic writers1 and though in the ,jewish middle ages too1 from ,saadia down1 the verses of the ,bible were employed to confirm views adopted from other considerations2 though finally ,abraham ,ibn ,daud in the matter of exegesis1 too1 anticipated ,maimonides in finding the ,aristotelian metaphysic in the sacred scriptures1 still ,maimonides as in everything else pertaining to ,jewish belief and practice1 so in the interpretation of the ,bible also obtained the position of a leader1 of the founder of a school and the most brilliant and most authoritative exponent thereof1 putting in the shade everyone who preceded him and every endeavor in the same direction to which ,maimonides himself owed his inspiration4 ,maimonides's treatment of the ,bible texts and their application to his philosophical disquisitions is so much more comprehensive and masterly than anything in the same line done before him1 that it made everything else superfluous and set the pace for manifold imitation by the successors of ,maimonides1 small and great4 ,reading the ,bible through ,aristotelian spectacles became the fashion of the day after ,maimonides4 ,joseph ,ibn ,aknin1 ,samuel ,ibn ,tibbon1 ,jacob ,anatoli1 ,joseph ,ibn ,caspi1 ,levi ,ben ,gerson and a host of others tried their hand at ,biblical exegesis1 and the ,maimonidean stamp is upon their work4 ,we have already spoken of ,maimonides's general attitude toward the anthropomorphisms in the ,bible and the manner in which he accounts for the style and mode of expression of the ,biblical writers4 ,he wrote no special exegetical work1 he composed no commentaries on the ,bible4 ,but his ,guide of the ,perplexed is full of quotations from the ,biblical books1 and certain sections in it are devoted to a systematic interpretation of those ,biblical chapters and books which lend themselves most easily and1 as ,maimonides thought1 imperatively to metaphysical interpretation4 ,it is impossible here to enter into details1 but it is proper briefly to point out his general method of treating the ,biblical passages in question1 and to state what these passages are4 ,we have already referred more than once to the ,talmudic expressions ,maase ,bereshit 7,work of ,creation7 and ,maase ,merkaba 7,work of the ,chariot74 ,maimonides says definitely that the former denotes the science of physics1 i4 e41 the fundamental notions of nature as treated in ,aristotle's ,physics1 and the latter signifies metaphysics or theology1 as represented in ,aristotle's ,metaphysics4 ,the creation chapters in ,genesis contain beneath their simple exterior of a generally intelligible narrative1 appealing to young and old alike1 women as well as children1 a treatment of philosophical physics4 ,and similarly in the obscure phraseology of the vision of ,ezekiel in the first and tenth chapters of that prophet's book1 are contained allusions to the most profound ideas of metaphysics and theology1 concerning ,god and the separate ,intelligences and the celestial spheres4 ,as the ,rabbis forbid teaching these profound doctrines except to one or two worthy persons at a time1 and as the authors of those chapters in the ,bible clearly intended to conceal the esoteric contents from the gaze of the vulgar1 ,maimonides with all his eagerness to spread abroad the light of reason and knowledge hesitates to violate the spirit of ,bible and ,talmud4 ,his interpretations of these mystic passages are therefore expressed in allusions and half-concealed revelations4 ,the diligent student of the ,guide1 who is familiar with the philosophy of ,aristotle as taught by the ,arabs ,alfarabi and ,avicenna will be able without much difficulty to solve ,maimonides's allusions1 the casual reader will not4 ,without going into details it will suffice for our purpose to say that in the creation story ,maimonides finds the ,aristotelian doctrines of matter and form1 of the four elements1 of potentiality and actuality1 of the different powers of the soul1 of logical and ethical distinctions 7the true and the false on one hand1 the good and the bad on the other71 and so on4#cjj ,in the ,vision of ,ezekiel he sees the ,peripatetic ideas of the celestial spheres1 of their various motions1 of their souls1 their intellects and the separate ,intelligences1 of the ,active ,intellect1 of the influence of the heavenly bodies on the changes in the sublunar world1 of the fifth element 7the ether7 and so on4#cja ,don ,isaac ,abarbanel has already criticized this attempt of ,maimonides by justly arguing that if the meaning of the mysterious vision of ,ezekiel is what ,maimonides thinks it is1 there was no occasion to wrap it in such obscurity1 since the matter is plainly taught in all schools of philosophy4#cjb ,we might1 however1 reply that no less a man than ,plato expresses himself in the ,timus in similarly obscure terms concerning the origin and formation of the world4 ,be this as it may1 ,munk is certainly right when he says that if1 as is not improbable1 ,ezekiel's vision does contain cosmological speculations1 they have nothing to do with the ,aristotelian cosmology1 but must be related to ,babylonian theories4#cjc ,another favorite book of the ,bible for the exegesis of philosophers was the book of ,job4 ,in this ,maimonides sees reflected the several views concerning ,providence1 divine knowledge and human freedom1 which he enumerates 7p4 #bij ff474#cjd ,the influence of ,maimonides upon his contemporaries and immediate successors was indeed very great1 and it was not confined to ,judaism4 ,christian ,scholastics and ,mohammedan theologians studied and used the ,guide of the ,perplexed4 ,maimonides himself1 it seems1 though he wrote his ,guide in the ,arabic language1 did not desire to make it accessible to the ,mohammedans1 fearing possibly that some of his doctrines concerning prophecy might be offensive to them4 ,hence he is said to have instructed his friends and disciples not to transliterate the ,hebrew characters1 which he in accordance with general ,jewish usage employed in writing ,arabic1 into ,arabic characters4 ,but he was powerless to enforce his desire and there is no doubt that such transcriptions were in use4 ,samuel ,tibbon himself1 the ,hebrew translator of the ,guide1 made use of manuscript copies written in ,arabic letters4 ,we are told that in the ,mohammedan schools in the city of ,fez in ,morocco1 ,jews were appointed to teach ,maimonides's philosophy1 and there is extant in ,hebrew translation a commentary by a ,mohammedan theologian on the twenty-five philosophical propositions laid down by ,maimonides as the basis of his proof of the existence of ,god 7p4 #bed74cje ,the influence of ,maimonides on ,christian scholasticism is still greater4 ,we have already said 7p4 #aii f47 that the philosophical renaissance in ,latin ,europe during the thirteenth century was due to the introduction of the complete works of ,aristotle in ,latin translation4 ,these translations were made partly from the ,arabic versions of the ,mohammedans1 partly from the ,greek originals1 which became accessible after the capture of ,constantinople by the ,crusaders in #abjg4cjf ,before this time the scope of philosophical research and investigation in ,christian ,europe was limited1 and its basis was the ,platonism of ,st4 ,augustine and fragments of ,aristotle's logic4 ,in general ,platonism was favorable to ,christian dogma4 ,plato according to ,augustine came nearest to ,christianity of all the ancient ,greek philosophers4#cjg ,and the dangers to ,church doctrine which lurked in philosophical discussion before the thirteenth century were a tendency to ,pantheism on the part of thinkers imbued with the ,neo-,platonic mode of thought1 and an undue emphasis either on the unity of ,god as opposed to the ,trinity 7,ablard71 or on the ,trinity at the expense of the unity 7,roscellinus of ,compigne7--conclusions resulting from the attitudes of the thinkers in question on the nature of universals4 ,in the early part of the thirteenth century for the first time1 the horizon of the ,latin schoolmen was suddenly enlarged and brilliantly illumined by the advent of the complete ,aristotle in his severe1 exacting and rigorous panoply4 ,all science and philosophy opened before the impoverished schoolmen1 famished for want of new ideas4 ,and they threw themselves with zeal and enthusiasm into the study of the new philosophy4 ,the ,church took alarm because the new ,aristotle constituted a danger to accepted dogma4 ,he taught the eternity of the world1 the uniformity of natural law1 the unity of the human intellect1 denying by implication ,providence and freedom and individual immortality4 ,some of these doctrines were not precisely those of ,aristotle but they could be derived from ,aristotelian principles if interpreted in a certain way2 and the ,arab intermediators between ,aristotle and his ,christian students had so interpreted him4 ,averroes in particular1 who gained the distinction of being the commentator par excellence of ,aristotle1 was responsible for this mode of interpretation2 and he had his followers among the ,masters of ,arts in the ,university of ,paris4 ,these and similar tendencies the ,church was striving to prevent1 and it attempted to do this at first crudely by prohibiting the study and teaching of the ,physical and ,metaphysical works of ,aristotle4 ,failing in this the ,papacy commissioned three representatives of the ,dominican order to expurgate ,aristotle in order to render him harmless4 ,you might as well think of expurgating a book on geometry6 ,the task was never carried out4 ,but instead something more valuable for the welfare of the ,church was accomplished in a different way4 ,albertus ,magnus and ,thomas ,aquinas undertook the study of ,aristotle and the interpretation of his works with a view to harmonizing his teachings with the dogmas of ,christianity4 ,albertus ,magnus began the task1 ,thomas ,aquinas1 his greater disciple1 the ,maimonides of ,christian philosophy1 completed it4 ,and in this undertaking ,maimonides was ,thomas ,aquinas's model4#cjh ,the ,guide of the ,perplexed was translated into ,latin not long after its composition4#cji ,before ,albertus ,magnus1 ,alexander of ,hales1 the ,franciscan leader1 and ,william of ,auvergne1 the ,bishop of ,paris1 had read and made use of ,maimonides's philosophical masterpiece4 ,albertus ,magnus was still more diligent in his adoption of ,maimonidean views1 or in taking account of them1 where he is opposed to their adoption4 ,but it remained for ,thomas ,aquinas1 who made the most systematic attempt in the medival schools to harmonize the philosophy of ,aristotle with the doctrine of the ,church1 to use ,maimonides as his guide and model4 ,like ,maimonides he employs ,aristotelian proofs for the existence of ,god1 proofs based on the eternity of motion2 and like him ,aquinas argues that if motion is not eternal and the world was made in time1 the existence of ,god is still more readily evident4 ,in his discussion of the divine attributes1 of angels1 of ,providence1 of ,prophecy1 of free will1 of the ceremonial laws in the ,pentateuch1 ,thomas ,aquinas constantly takes account of ,maimonides's views1 whether he agrees with them or not4 ,it is no doubt an exaggeration to say that there would have been no ,aquinas if ,maimonides had not preceded him4 ,for ,aquinas had access to the works of ,aristotle and his ,arabian commentators1 the former of whom he studied more diligently than ,maimonides himself4 ,but there is no doubt that the method of harmonizing ,aristotelian doctrine with traditional teaching so far as the common elements of ,judaism and ,christianity were concerned was suggested to ,aquinas by his ,jewish predecessor4 ,it is not our province here to go into details of the system of ,aquinas to show wherein he agrees or disagrees with ,maimonides1 nor is it possible to do more than mention the fact that after ,aquinas also1 ,duns ,scotus1 the head of the ,franciscan school1 had the ,guide before him1 and in comparatively modern times1 such celebrities as ,scaliger and ,leibnitz speak of the ,jewish philosopher with admiration and respect4#caj ,that ,maimonides's influence upon ,jewish theology and thought was deep and lasting is a truism4 ,the attitude of the prominent theologians and philosophers who succeeded him will appear in the sequel in connection with our treatment of the post-,maimonidean writers4 ,here a word must be said of the general effect of ,maimonides's teaching upon ,jews and ,judaism throughout the dispersion4 ,his fame as the greatest ,jew of his time--great as a ,talmudical authority1 which appealed to all classes of ,jewish students1 great as a physician with the added glory of being a favorite at court1 great as the head of the ,jewish community in the ,east1 and finally great as a philosopher and scientist--all these qualifications1 never before or after united in the same way in any other man1 served to make him the cynosure of all eyes and to make his word an object of notice and attention throughout the ,jewish diaspora4 ,what he said or wrote could not be ignored whether people liked it or not4 ,they could afford to ignore a ,gabirol even1 or an ,ibn ,daud4 ,but ,maimonides must be reckoned with4 ,the greater the man1 the greater the alertness of lesser1 though not less independent1 spirits1 to guard against the enslavement of all ,judaism to one authority1 no matter how great4 ,and in particular where this authority erred in boldly adopting views in disagreement with ,jewish tradition1 as it seemed to many1 and in setting up a new source of truth alongside of1 or even above1 the revelation of the ,torah and the authority of tradition1 to which these latter must be bent whether they will or no--his errors must be strenuously opposed and condemned without fear or favor4 ,this was the view of the traditionalists1 whose sole authorities in all matters of theology and related topics were the words of ,scripture and ,rabbinic literature as tradition had interpreted them4 ,on the other hand1 the rationalistic development during the past three centuries1 which we have traced thus far1 and the climax of that progress as capped by ,maimonides was not without its influence on another class of the ,jewish community1 particularly in ,spain and southern ,france2 and these regarded ,maimonides as the greatest teacher that ever lived4 ,their admiration was unbounded for his personality as well as his method and his conclusions4 ,his opponents were regarded as obscurantists1 who1 rather than the object of their attack1 were endangering ,judaism4 ,all ,jewry was divided into two camps1 the ,maimunists and the anti-,maimunists2 and the polemic and the struggle between them was long and bitter4 ,anathema and counter anathema1 excommunication and counter excommunication was the least of the matter4 ,the arm of the ,church ,inquisition was invoked1 and the altar of a ,parisian ,church furnished the torch which set on flame the pages of ,maimonides's ,guide in the ,french capital4 ,more tragic even was the punishment meted out to the ,jewish informers who betrayed their people to the enemy4 ,the men responsible had their tongues cut out4 ,the details of the ,maimunist controversy belong to the general historian4#caa ,our purpose here is to indicate in brief outline the general effect which the teaching of ,maimonides had upon his and subsequent ages4 ,the thirteenth century produced no great men in philosophy at all comparable to ,moses ,ben ,maimon or his famous predecessors4 ,the persecutions of the ,jews in ,spain led many of them to emigrate to neighboring countries1 which put an end to the glorious era inaugurated three centuries before by ,hasdai ,ibn ,shaprut4 ,the centre of ,jewish liberal studies was transferred to south ,france1 but the literary activities there were a pale shadow compared with those which made ,jewish ,spain famous4 ,philosophical thought had reached its perigee in ,maimonides1 and what followed after was an attempt on the part of his lesser disciples and successors to follow in the steps of their master1 to extend his teachings1 to make them more widespread and more popular4 ,with the transference of the literary centre from ,spain to ,provence went the gradual disuse of ,arabic as the medium of philosophic and scientific culture1 and the age of translation made its appearance4 ,prior to1 and including1 ,maimonides all the ,jewish thinkers whom we have considered1 with the exception of ,abraham ,bar ,hiyya and ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra1 wrote their works in ,arabic4 ,after ,maimonides ,hebrew takes the place of ,arabic1 and in addition to the new works composed1 the commentaries on the ,guide which were now written in plenty and the philosophico-exegetical works on the ,bible in the ,maimonidean spirit1 the ancient classics of ,saadia1 ,bahya1 ,gabirol1 ,halevi1 ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides himself had to be translated from ,arabic into ,hebrew4 ,in addition to these religio-philosophical works1 it was necessary to translate those writings which contained the purely scientific and philosophical branches that were preliminary to the study of religious philosophy4 ,this included logic1 the various branches of mathematics and astronomy1 medical treatises and some of the books of the ,aristotelian corpus with the ,arabic compendia and commentaries thereon4 ,the grammatical and lexical treatises of ,hayyuj and ,ibn ,janah were also translated4 ,the most famous of the host of translators1 which the need of the times brought forth1 were the three ,tibbonides1 ,judah 7#aabj-aaij71 ,samuel 7#aaej-abcj7 and ,moses 7fl4 #abdj-abhc71 ,jacob ,anatoli 7fl4 #aaid-abef71 ,shemtob ,falaquera 7#abbe-abij71 ,jacob ,ben ,machir 7#abcf-acjd71 ,moses of ,narbonne 7d4 after #acfb71 and others4 ,some of these wrote original works besides4 ,samuel ,ibn ,tibbon wrote a philosophical treatise1 ,maamar ,yikkawu ha-,mayim1#cab and commentaries in the ,maimonidean vein on ,ecclesiastes and the ,song of ,songs4 ,his greater fame rests on his translation of the ,guide of the ,perplexed4 ,he translated besides ,maimonides's ,letter on ,resurrection1 the ,eight ,chapters1 and other ,arabic writings on science and philosophy4 ,moses ,ibn ,tibbon was prolific as an original writer as well as a translator4 ,joseph ,ibn ,aknin 7#aafj-abbf71 the favorite pupil of ,maimonides1 for whom the latter wrote his ,guide1 is the author of treatises on philosophical topics1 and of exegetical works on certain books of the ,bible and on the ,mishnic treatise1 the ,ethics of the ,fathers4#cab;a ,jacob ,anatoli1 in addition to translating ,ptolemy's ,almagest and ,averroes's commentaries on ,aristotle's logic1 wrote a work1 ,malmad ha-,talmidim1 on philosophical homiletics in the form of a commentary on the ,pentateuch4#cac ,shemtob ,falaquera1 the translator of portions of ,gabirol's ,fons ,vit1#cad is the author of a commentary on the ,guide1 entitled ,moreh ha-,moreh1#cae and of a number of ethical and psychological works4#caf ,jacob ,ben ,machir translated a number of scientific and philosophical works1 particularly on astronomy1 and is likewise the author of two original works on astronomy4 ,joseph ,ibn ,caspi 7#abig-acdj7 was a very prolific writer1 having twenty-nine works to his credit1 most of them exegetical1 and among them a commentary on the ,guide4#cag ,moses of ,narbonne wrote an important commentary on the ,guide1#cah and is likewise the author of a number of works on the philosophy of ,averroes1 of whom he was a great admirer4 ,the translations of ,judah ,ibn ,tibbon1 the father of translators as he has been called1 go back indeed to the latter half of the twelfth century1 and ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra translated an astronomical work as early as #aafj4 ,but the bulk of the work of translation is the product of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries4 ,the result of these translations was that scientific and philosophical works became accessible to all those who knew ,hebrew instead of being confined to the lands of ,arabian culture4 ,another effect was the enlargement of the ,hebrew language and the development of a new ,hebrew dialect with a philosophical and scientific terminology4 ,these translations so far as they relate to pure science and philosophy were neglected in the closing centuries of the middle ages1 when conditions among the ,jews were such as precluded them from taking an interest in any but purely religious studies4 ,continuous persecutions1 the establishment of the ,ghettoes1 the rise of the ,kabbala and the opposition of the pietists and mystics to the rationalism of the philosophers all tended to the neglect of scientific study and to the concentration of all attention upon the ,biblical1 ,rabbinic and mystical literature4 ,the ,jews at the close of the middle ages and the beginning of modern times withdrew into their shell1 and the science and learning of the outside had little effect on them4 ,hence1 and also for the reason that with the beginning of modern times all that was medival was1 in the secular world1 relegated1 figuratively speaking1 to the ash-heap1 or literally speaking to the mouldering dust of the library shelves--for both of these reasons the very large number of the translations above mentioned were never printed1 and they are still buried on the shelves of the great ,european libraries1 notably of the ,british ,museum1 the national library of ,paris1 the ,bodleian of ,oxford1 the royal library of ,munich1 and others4 ,the reader who wishes to have an idea of the translating and commenting activity of the ,jews in the thirteenth and following centuries in the domains of logic1 philosophy1 mathematics1 astronomy1 medicine and folklore is referred to the monumental work of the late ,moritz ,steinschneider1 the prince of ,hebrew ,bibliographers1 ,die ,hebrischen ,uebersetzungen des ,mittelalters und die ,juden als ,dolmetscher1 7,the ,hebrew translations of the middle ages1 and the ,jews as dragomen7 ,berlin1 #ahic1 containing #ajgg pages of lexicon octavo size devoted to brief enumerations and descriptions of extant editions and manuscripts of the translations referred to4#cai ,,chapter ,,xiv ,,hillel ,,ben ,,samuel ,in the post-,maimonidean age all philosophical thinking is in the nature of a commentary on ,maimonides whether avowedly or not4 ,the circle of speculation and reflection is complete4 ,it is fixed by the ,guide of the ,perplexed1 and the efforts of those who followed ,maimonides are to elaborate in his spirit certain special topics which are treated in his masterpiece in a summary way4 ,in the case of the more independent thinkers like ,levi ben ,gerson we find the further attempt to carry out more boldly the implications of the philosophical point of view1 which1 as the latter thought1 ,maimonides left implicit by reason of his predisposition in favor of tradition4 ,hasdai ,crescas went still farther and entirely repudiated the authority of ,aristotle1 substituting will and emotion for rationalism and logical inference4 ,not knowledge of ,god as logically demonstrated is the highest aim of man1 but love of ,god4 ,but even in his opposition ,crescas leans on ,maimonides's principles1 which he takes up one by one and refutes4 ,maimonides was thus the point of departure for his more rigorous followers as well as for his opponents4 ,in the matter of external sources philosophical reflection after ,maimonides was enriched in respect to details by the works of ,averroes on the ,arabic side and those of the chief ,christian scholastics among the ,latin writers4 ,albertus ,magnus and ,thomas ,aquinas furnished some material to men like ,hillel of ,verona in the thirteenth century and ,don ,isaac ,abarbanel in the fifteenth4 ,maimonides was limited to the ,aristotelian expositions of ,alfarabi and ,avicenna4 ,the works of ,averroes1 his contemporary1 he did not read until toward the end of his life4 ,after his death ,averroes gained in prestige and influence until he succeeded in putting into the shade his ,arabian predecessors and was regarded by ,jew and ,christian alike as the ,commentator of ,aristotle par excellence4 ,his works were rapidly translated into ,hebrew and ,latin1 and the ,jewish writers learned their ,aristotle from ,averroes4 ,the knowledge of the ,arabic language was gradually disappearing among the ,jews of ,europe1 and they were indebted for their knowledge of science and philosophy to the works translated4 ,philosophy was declining among the ,arabs themselves owing to the disfavor of the powers that be1 and many of the scientific writings of the ,arabs owe their survival to the ,hebrew translations or transcriptions in ,hebrew characters which escaped the proscription of the ,mohammedan authorities4 ,the one problem that came to the front as a result of ,averroes's teaching1 and which by the solution he gave it formed an important subject of debate in the ,parisian schools of the thirteenth century1 was that of the intellect in man1 whether every individual had his own immortal mind which would continue as an individual entity after the death of the body1 or whether a person's individuality lasted only as long as he was alive1 and with his death the one human intellect alone survived4 ,this was discussed in connection with the general theory of the intellect and the three kinds of intellect that were distinguished by the ,arabian ,aristotelians1 the material1 the acquired and the active4 ,the problem goes back to ,aristotle's psychology1 who distinguishes two intellects in man1 passive and active 7above1 p4 xxxvi74 ,but the treatment there is so fragmentary and vague that it gave rise to widely varying interpretations by the ,greek commentators of ,aristotle1 ,alexander of ,aphrodisias and ,themistius1 as well as among the ,arabs1 ,alfarabi1 ,avicenna and ,averroes4 ,the latter insisted on the unity of the intellect for the human race1 thereby destroying individual immortality1 and this ,averroistic doctrine1 adopted by some ,masters of ,arts at the ,university of ,paris1 was condemned among other heresies1 and refuted in the writings of ,albertus ,magnus and ,thomas ,aquinas4 ,maimonides does not discuss these problems in detail in his ,guide4 ,he drops a remark incidentally here and there1 and it would appear that for him too1 as for ,averroes1 the intellect when in separation from the body is not subject to individual distinction1 that there cannot be several human intellects1 since matter is the principle of individuation and the immaterial cannot embrace a number of individuals of the same species4#cbj ,the problem of immortality he does not treat ex professo in the ,guide4 ,hence this was a matter taken up by his successors4 ,hillel ben ,samuel as well as ,levi ben ,gerson discuss this question in detail4 ,hillel ben ,samuel does not tower as a giant in medival ,jewish literature4 ,his importance is local1 as being the first devotee of ,jewish learning and philosophy in ,italy in the middle of the thirteenth century1 at the close of a period of comparative ignorance4 ,the ,italian ,jews before his time contributed little to knowledge and learning despite their external circumstances1 which were more favorable than in some other countries4 ,hillel ben ,samuel 7#abbj-abie7 was a strong admirer of ,maimonides and undertook to comment on the ,guide of the ,perplexed4 ,he defended ,maimonides against the aspersions of his opponents1 and was so confident in the truth of his master's teachings that he proposed a conference of the learned men of ,jewry to judge the works and doctrines of ,maimonides and to decide whether the ,guide should be allowed to live or should be destroyed4 ,another interest attaching to ,hillel ben ,samuel is that he was among the first1 if not the first ,jew who by his knowledge of ,latin had access to the writings of the scholastics1 to whom he refers in his ,tagmule ha-,nefesh 7,the ,rewards of the ,soul7 as the wise men of the nations4 ,he was also active as a translator from the ,latin4 ,his chief work1 which entitles him to brief notice here1 is the ,tagmule ha-,nefesh just mentioned4#cba ,he does not offer us a system of philosophy1 but only a treatment of certain questions relating to the nature of the soul1 its immortality and the manner of its existence after the death of the body1 questions which ,maimonides passes over lightly4 ,with the exception of the discussion relating to the three kinds of intellect and the question of the unity of the acquired intellect for all mankind1 there is not much that is new or remarkable in the discussion1 and we can afford to pass it by with a brief notice4 ,men of science know1 he tells us in the introduction1 that the valuable possession of man is the soul1 and the happiness thereof is the final purpose of man's existence4 ,and yet the number of those who take pains to investigate the nature of the soul is very small1 not even one in a hundred4 ,and even the few who do undertake to examine this subject are hindered by various circumstances from arriving at the truth4 ,the matter itself is difficult and requires long preparation and preliminary knowledge4 ,then the vicissitudes of life and the shortness of its duration1 coupled with the natural indolence of man when it comes to study1 completely account for the lack of true knowledge on this most important topic4 ,induced by these considerations ,hillel ben ,samuel undertook to collect the scattered notices in the extensive works of the philosophers and arranged and expounded them briefly so as not to discourage those who are in search of wisdom4 ,his purpose is the knowledge of truth1 which is an end in itself4 ,he desires to explain the existence of the soul1 its nature and reward4 ,the soul is that which makes man man1 hence we should know the nature of that which makes us intelligent creatures1 else we do not deserve the name4 ,another reason for the importance of knowing the nature of the soul is that error in this matter may lead to more serious mistakes in other departments of knowledge and belief4 ,thus if a man who calls himself pious assumes that the soul after parting from the body is subject to corporeal reward and punishment1 as appears from a literal rendering of passages in ,bible and ,talmud1 he will be led to think that the soul itself is corporeal4 ,and since the soul1 it is believed1 comes from on high1 the upper world must have bodies and definite places1 and hence the angels too are bodies4 ,but since the angels are emanations from the divine splendor1 ,god too is body6 ,thus you see how serious are the consequences of a belief1 in itself perhaps not so dangerous1 as that of the corporeality of the soul4#cbb ,we must first prove the existence of the soul4 ,this can be shown in various ways4 ,we see that of natural bodies some take food1 grow1 propagate their like1 while others1 like stones1 do not do these things4 ,this shows that the powers and functions mentioned cannot be due to the corporeal part of the objects performing them1 else stones1 too1 would have those powers1 as they are also corporeal like the rest4 ,there must therefore be a different principle1 not body1 which is responsible for those activities4 ,we call it soul4 ,as all existents are divided into substance and accident1 the soul must be either the one or the other4 ,now an accident1 according to ,aristotle1 is that which may be or not be without causing the being or destruction of the object in which it is4 ,but the body cannot be a living body without the soul4 ,hence the soul is not an accident2 it is therefore a substance4 ,substance may be corporeal or incorporeal4 ,the soul cannot be a corporeal substance1 for all body is divisible1 and subject to motion and change1 whereas the soul1 as will be shown later1 is not movable1 not changeable and not divisible4 ,it might seem that the soul is subject to motion1 since it descends into the body and rises again when it leaves the body4 ,but this is not so4 ,descent and ascent when thus applied to the soul are metaphorical4 ,the union of soul and body is not a spatial relation4 ,the upper world from which the soul comes is not corporeal1 hence there is no such thing as place there1 nor anything limited by space4 ,hence the coming of the soul from the spiritual world and its return thither are not motions at all4 ,the relation of the soul to the body is as that of form to matter1 as ,aristotle says4 ,granted that the soul's union with and separation from the body are not motions1 is not the soul subject to motion while in the body8 ,hillel's answer is that it is not1 and he proves his point in the prescribed fashion by making use of ,aristotle's classification of motion into 7#a7 genesis and 7#b7 decay1 7#c7 increase and 7#d7 diminution1 7#e7 qualitative change and 7#f7 motion proper1 or motion of translation4 ,he then undertakes to show that the soul can have none of the kinds of motion here enumerated4 ,the arguments offer nothing striking or interesting1 and we can afford to omit them4 ,it is worth while1 however1 to refer to his interpretation of emotion4 ,the passage of the soul from joy to grief1 from anger to favor1 might seem to be a kind of motion4 ,hillel answers this objection by saying that these emotions do not pertain to the soul as such4 ,their primary cause is the state of mixture of the humors in the body1 which affects certain corporeal powers in certain ways2 and the soul shares in these affections only so far as it is united with the body4 ,in its own nature the soul has no emotions4 ,we can also prove that the soul is not divisible4 ,for a divisible thing must have parts4 ,now if the soul is divided or divisible1 this means either that every part of the soul1 no matter how small1 has the same powers as the whole1 or that the powers of the soul are the resultant of the union of the parts4 ,the first alternative is impossible1 for it leads us to the absurd conclusion that instead of one soul every person has an infinite number of souls1 or at least a great number of souls4 ,the second alternative implies that while the soul is not actually divided1 since its powers are the summation of the parts1 which form a unit1 it is potentially divisible4 ,but this signifies that at some time this potential divisibility will be realized 7or potentiality would be vain and meaningless7 and we are brought back to the absurdity of a multiplicity of souls in the human body4 ,having shown that the soul is not movable1 changeable or divisible1 we are certain of its incorporeality1 and we are ready to give a definition of the soul4 ,hillel accordingly defines the soul as a stage of emanation1 consisting of a formal substance1 which subsists through its own perfection1 and occupies the fourth place in the emanatory process1 next to the ,active ,intellect4 ,its ultimate source is ,god himself1 who is the ultimate perfection and the ,good1 and it emanates from him indirectly through the mediation of the separate ,powers standing above it in the scale of emanation4 ,the soul constitutes the first entelechy of a natural body4#cbc ,the above definition is interesting4 ,it shows that ,hillel did not clearly distinguish the ,aristotelian standpoint from the ,neo-,platonic1 for in the definition just quoted1 the two points of view are combined4 ,that all medival ,aristotelianism was tinged with ,neo-,platonism1 especially in the doctrine of the ,active ,intellect1 is well known4 ,but in ,hillel's definition of the soul we have an extreme form of this peculiar combination1 and it represents a step backward to the standpoint of ,pseudo-,bahya and ,ibn ,zaddik4 ,the work of ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides in the interest of a purer ,aristotelianism seems not to have enlightened ,hillel4 ,the ,neo-,platonic emanation theory is clearly enunciated in ,hillel's definition4 ,the soul stands fourth in the series4 ,the order he has in mind is probably 7#a7 ,god1 7#b7 ,separate ,intelligences1 7#c7 ,active ,intellect1 7#d7 ,soul4 ,we know that ,hillel was a student of the ,neo-,platonic ,liber de ,causis 7cf4 above1 p4 xx71 having translated some of it into ,hebrew1 and he might have imbibed his ,neo-,platonism from that ,proclean book4 ,continuing the description of the soul in man1 he says that the noblest part of matter1 viz41 the human body1 is endowed with the rational soul1 and becomes the subject of the powers of the latter4 ,thereby it becomes a man1 i4 e41 a rational animal1 distinguished from all other animals1 and similar to the nature of the angels4 ,the ,active ,intellect causes its light to emanate upon the rational soul1 thus bringing its powers out into actuality4 ,the ,active ,intellect1 which is one of the ten degrees of angels1 is related to the rational power in man as the sun to the power of sight4 ,the sun gives light1 which changes the potentially seeing power into actually seeing1 and the potentially visible object into the actually visible4 ,moreover1 this same light enables the sight to see the sun itself1 which is the cause of the actualization in the sight4 ,so the ,active ,intellect gives something to the rational power which is related to it as light to the sight2 and by means of this something the rational soul can see or understand the ,active ,intellect itself4 ,also the potentially intelligible objects become through this influence actually intelligible1 and the man who was potentially intelligent becomes thereby actually intelligent4 ,intellect 7sekel7 in man is distinguished from wisdom 7hokmah74 ,by the former power is meant an immediate understanding of abstract principles4 ,the latter is mediate understanding4 ,wisdom denotes speculation about universals through inference from particulars4 ,intellect applies directly to the universals and to their influence upon the particulars4#cbd ,hillel next discusses the live topic of the day1 made popular by ,averroes1 namely1 whether there are in essence as many individual souls as there are human bodies1 or1 as ,averroes thought1 there is only one universal soul1 and that its individualizations in different men are only passing incidents1 due to the association of the universal soul with the human body1 and disappear when the body dies4 ,the sages of the ,gentiles1 ,hillel tells us1 regard ,averroes's notion as heretical1 and leading besides to the absurd conclusion that the same soul is both rewarded and punished2 a view which upsets all religion4 ,averroes employs a number of arguments to prove his point1 among them being the following4 ,if there are many souls1 they are either all existing from eternity or they are created with the body4 ,the first is impossible1 for since the soul is a form of the body1 we should have actually an infinite number of forms1 and this would necessitate the actual existence of an infinite number of bodies also2 else the existence of these souls for the purpose of joining the bodies would be in vain4 ,but it is absurd to suppose that there has been from eternity an infinite number of bodies created like the number of souls1 and yet they have not become real bodies with souls until now4 ,the second alternative is also impossible4 ,for if there are many souls which came into being with the bodies1 they either came from nothing or from something4 ,from nothing is impossible1 for nothing comes from nothing except by way of creation1 which is a miracle2 and we do not believe in miracles unless we have to4 ,that they came from something is also impossible2 for this something can be neither matter nor form4 ,it cannot be matter1 for form1 the actual and superior1 cannot come from the potential and inferior4 ,it cannot be form1 for then form would proceed from form by way of genesis and dissolution1 which is not true4 ,matter is the cause of generation and dissolution1 not form4 ,we are thus forced to the conclusion that the soul is one and eternal1 one in substance and number2 and that it becomes many only per accidens1 by virtue of the multiplicity of its receiving subjects1 comparable to the light of the one sun1 which divides into many rays4 ,the ,bible cannot help us to decide this question1 for its expressions can be interpreted either way4 ,hillel then undertakes to adjudicate between the contending views by striking a compromise4 ,he feels that he is contributing to the solution of an important problem by an original suggestion1 which he says is to be found nowhere else expressed with such clearness and brevity4 ,here again ,hillel's ,neo-,platonic tendencies are in evidence4 ,for he assumes both a universal soul and a great number of individual souls emanating from it in a descending series4 ,the objection that forms cannot come from other forms by way of generation and dissolution1 ,hillel says1 is not valid1 for no such process is here involved4 ,generation and dissolution is peculiar to the action of body upon body1 which is by contact4 ,a spiritual form acts upon other forms not through contact1 because it is not limited by time or place4 ,we know concerning the ,intelligences that each comes from the one previous to it by way of emanation1 and the same thing applies to the issue of many human souls from the one universal soul4 ,after death the rational part of every soul remains2 that part which every soul receives from the ,active ,intellect through the help of the possible or material intellect1 and which becomes identified with the ,active and separate ,intellect4 ,this is the part which receives reward and punishment1 whereas the one universal soul from which they all emanate is a divine emanation1 and is not rewarded or punished4#cbe ,we must now discuss further the nature of the three grades of intellect4 ,for this it will be necessary to lay down three preliminary propositions4 #a4 ,there must be an intellect whose relation to the material intellect is the same as that of the object of sense perception is to the sense4 ,this means that just as there must be a real and actual object to arouse the sense faculty to perceive1 so there must be an actual intelligible object to stir the rational power to comprehend4 #b4 ,it follows from #a that as the material sense has the power of perceiving the sensible object1 so the material intellect has the power of perceiving this other intellect4 #c4 ,if it has this power1 this must at some time be realized in actu4 ,therefore at some time the material intellect is identified with the other intellect1 which is the ,active ,intellect4 ,we must now prove #a4 ,this is done as follows3 ,we all know that we are potentially intelligent1 and it takes effort and pains and study to become actually intelligent4 ,in fact the process of intellection has to pass several stages from sense perception through imagination4 ,now our intellect cannot make itself pass from potentiality to actuality4 ,hence there must be something else as agent producing this change2 and this agent must be actually what it induces in us4 ,hence it is an active intellect4 ,the material intellect has certain aspects in common with the sense faculty1 and in certain aspects it differs4 ,it is similar to it in being receptive and not active4 ,but the mode of receptivity is different in the two4 ,as the intellect understands all forms1 it cannot be a power residing in a body in the sense of extending through it and being divided with the division of the body1 as we see in some of the powers of sense4 ,this we can prove as follows3 #a4 ,if the intellect were receptive in the same manner as the senses1 it would receive only a definite kind of form1 as for example the sense of sight does not receive taste4 #b4 ,if the intellect were a power in body and had a special form1 it could not receive that form1 just as for example if the eye were colored1 it could not perceive colors4 #c4 ,if the intellect were a corporeal power1 it would be affected by its object and injured by a powerful stimulus1 as is the case in the senses of sight and hearing4 ,a dazzling light injures the eye1 a deafening noise injures the ear1 so that thereafter neither sense can perform its normal function properly4 ,this is not true with the intellect4 ,an unusually difficult subject of thought does not injure the intellect4 #d4 ,if the intellect were similar in its activity to sense perception1 it would not be self-conscious1 as the sense faculties cannot perceive themselves4 #e4 ,the intellect1 if it were like sense1 would not be able to comprehend a thing and its opposite at the same time1 or it would do so in a confused manner1 as is the case in the powers of sense4 #f4 ,the intellect perceives universals2 the sense1 particulars4 ,this being the case1 there is a difference of opinion as to the nature of the material intellect4 ,some say that it has no definite nature in itself except that of possibility and capacity1 though it is different from other possibilities in this respect that it is not resident in1 and dependent upon a material subject like the others4 ,that is why ,aristotle says that the material intellect is not anything before it intellects2 that it is in its essence potential with reference to the intelligibilia1 and becomes actual when it understands them actually4 ,themistius says it is not any of the existents actually1 but a potential essence receiving material forms4 ,its nature is analogous to that of prime matter2 hence it is called material intellect4 ,it is best to call it possible intellect4 ,being a potential existent it is not subject to generation and dissolution any more than prime matter4 ,alexander of ,aphrodisias thinks the material intellect is only a capacity1 i4 e41 a power in the soul1 and appears when the soul enters the body1 hence is not eternal a parte ante4 ,averroes holds that the possible intellect is a separate substance1 and that the capacity is something it has by virtue of its being connected with the body as its subject4 ,hence this capacity is neither entirely distinct from it nor is it identical with it4 ,according to him the possible intellect is not a part of the soul4 ,which of these views is correct1 says ,hillel1 requires discussion1 but it is clear that whichever of these we adopt there is no reason opposing the conjunction of the possible intellect with the ,active4 ,for if it is an eternal substance1 potential in its nature1 like primary matter1 then it becomes actual when it understands the intelligible objects4 ,the same is true if it is a capacity residing in the soul4 ,hillel is thus of the opinion in this other question debated in those days1 whether the intellect of man is capable of conjunction during life with the angelic ,active ,intellect1 that it is4 ,the ,active ,intellect1 he says1 in actualizing the material intellect influences it not in the manner of one body acting upon another1 i4 e41 in the manner of an efficient or material cause1 but rather as its formal or final cause1 leading it to perfection4 ,it is like the influence which the separate ,intelligences receive from one another1 the influence of emanation1 and not a material influence comparable to generation4 ,this reception of influence from the ,active ,intellect on the part of the potential is itself conjunction4 ,it means that the agent and the thing acted upon become one1 and the same substance and species4 ,the material intellect becomes a separate substance when it can understand itself4#cbf ,before taking up the more theological problem of reward and punishment1 he devotes the last section of the theoretical part of his book to a discussion of the relation of the possible or material intellect to the rest of the human soul4 ,this problem also arose from ,averroes's interpretation of the ,aristotelian psychology1 and is closely related to the other one of the unity of the human intellect4 ,it is needless for us to enter into the technical details which are a weariness to the flesh of the modern student1 but it is worth while to state briefly the motives underlying the opposing views4 ,averroes1 who had no theological scruples1 interpreted ,aristotle to mean that the part of the soul which was intimately associated with the body as its form1 constituting an indissoluble organism in conjunction with it1 embraced its lower faculties of sense1 imagination and the more concrete types of judgment4 ,these are so intimately bound up with the life of the body that they die with its death4 ,the reason on the other hand1 which has to do with immaterial ideas1 or intelligibles as they called them1 is eternal and is not the form of the body4 ,it is a unitary immaterial substance and is not affected by the life or death of the body4 ,to be sure it comes in contact with the human soul during the life of the body1 thus bringing into existence an individualized human reason as a passing episode4 ,but this individualized phase of the intellect's life is dependent upon the body and ceases when the body dies1 or is reabsorbed in the universal intellect4 ,the theological implications of this view were that if there is any reward and punishment after death1 it would either have to be administered to the lower faculties of the soul1 which would have to be made immortal for the purpose1 or if the rational soul is the subject of retribution1 this cannot affect the individual1 as there is no individual rational soul4 ,hence the ,christian opponents of ,averroes1 like ,albertus ,magnus and ,thomas ,aquinas 7,hillel speaks of them here as the ,religionists1 or the ,sages who believe in religion71 endeavored to vindicate for the ,aristotelian definition of the soul as the form of the body1 also the rational part1 thus maintaining the view that the reason too has an individual existence both during life and after death4 ,thomas ,aquinas1 as a truer interpreter of ,aristotle1 goes so far as to maintain that the ,active ,intellect itself is also a part of the human soul1 and not one of the angelic separate ,intelligences4 ,neither ,maimonides nor ,hillel ben ,samuel1 nor any other ,jewish philosopher was able to depart so widely from their ,arabian masters or to undertake an independent study of ,aristotle's text1 as to come to a similar conclusion4 ,hence the ,active ,intellect in ,jewish ,philosophy is unanimously held to be the last of the ,angelic substances1 and the proximate inspirer of the prophet4 ,the discussion therefore in ,hillel's work concerns the possible intellect1 and here he ventures to disagree with ,averroes and decides in favor of the possible intellect as a part of the soul and the subject of reward and punishment4#cbg ,concerning the nature of reward and punishment after death opinions are divided4 ,some think that both reward and punishment are corporeal4 ,some say reward is spiritual1 punishment is corporeal2 while a small number are of the opinion that both are spiritual4 ,hillel naturally agrees with the latter and gives reasons for his opinion4 ,if the soul1 as was shown before1 is incorporeal1 immaterial and a formal substance1 it cannot be influenced by corporeal treatment4 ,for corporeal influence implies motion on the part of agent and patient1 and the pervasion of the influence of the former through the parts of the latter2 whereas a spiritual substance has no parts4 ,besides1 if reward and punishment are corporeal1 and ,paradise is to be taken literally1 then why separate the soul from the body1 why not reward the living person with eternal life and give him the enjoyment of paradise while on earth8 ,the effect would be much greater upon the rest of mankind1 who would see how the righteous fare and the wicked4 ,the objection that this would make people mercenary does not hold1 for they are mercenary in any case1 since they expect reward2 whether in this life or in the next makes no difference4 ,reward must therefore be spiritual1 and so must punishment1 since the two go together4#cbh ,when ,god in his kindness favored the human race by giving them a soul1 which he united with the body1 he also gave them the possibility of attaining eternal happiness4 ,for this purpose he arranged three grades of ascent1 viz41 the three intellects spoken of above1 the material or possible intellect1 the acquired intellect 7this is the actual functioning of the possible intellect and the result thereof7 and the active intellect4 ,the second intellect is partly speculative or theoretical and partly practical4 ,the theoretical intellect studies and contemplates all intelligible existents which are separate from matter4 ,there is nothing practical in this contemplation1 it is just the knowledge of existents and their causes4 ,this is called the science of truth1 and is the most important part of philosophy4 ,the practical intellect is again divided into the cogitative and the technological4 ,the former decides whether a thing should be done or not1 and discriminates between the proper and the improper in human actions and qualities4 ,it is important as a guide to the happiness of the soul because it instructs the appetitive power in reference to those things which are subject to the will1 and directs it to aim at the good and to reject the evil4 ,the technological intellect is that by which man learns arts and trades4 ,the practical intellect is also theoretical in the sense that it has to think in order to discriminate between the proper and the improper1 and between the beneficial and injurious in all things pertaining to practice4 ,the difference between the speculative and practical intellects is in the respective objects of their comprehension1 and hence is accidental and not essential4 ,the objects of the theoretical intellect are the true and the false2 of the practical1 the good and the bad4 ,the acquired intellect gives these intelligibles to the soul through the possible intellect1 and is intermediate between the latter and the ,active ,intellect1 which is one of the separate ,intelligences above soul4 ,the ,active ,intellect watches over the rational animal that he may attain to the happiness which his nature permits4 ,men differ according to their temperamental composition and their human conduct4 ,this leads to differences in the power of understanding and in the amount of influence received from the ,active ,intellect4 ,hillel quotes ,maimonides in support of his view that the prophetic stage is an emanation of glory from ,god through the medium of the ,active ,intellect1 which exerts its influence upon the rational power and upon the imagination1 so that the prophet sees his vision objectified extra animam4 ,the three conditions requisite for prophecy are perfection in theory1 perfection in imagination and perfection in morals4 ,the first without the second and third produces a philosopher2 the second without the first and third gives rise to a statesman or magician4 ,it is important to know1 he tells us1 that the cultivation of the reason and imagination alone is not sufficient4 ,practice of the commandments is very important4 ,hence a man must guide properly the two powers of sense perception and desire1 which are instruments of the rational power4 ,for1 as ,maimonides says in his commentary on ,aboth 7cf4 p4 #bhb71 all observance and violation of the commandments1 good and bad qualities depend upon those two powers4 ,without a proper training of these the influence of the active intellect upon the reason and imagination may lead to evil4 ,beginning with sense perception a man must train all his five senses to attend only to what is good and to turn away from evil4 ,when he satisfies his sensuous desires1 he must do this in order to preserve his body that he may be enabled to serve ,god in the best possible way4 ,the same applies to the power of desire4 ,this is the power which directs one to pursue the agreeable and shun the disagreeable4 ,from it proceed also courage1 confidence1 anger1 good will1 joy1 sorrow1 humility1 pride4 ,all these qualities must be used in the service of ,god4 ,if a man do this1 he will attain the grade of an angelic being even during life1 and will be able to perform miracles like the prophets and the sages of the ,talmud4 ,after death the souls of such men reach even a higher degree than they had before entering the body1 as a reward for not allowing themselves to be degraded by their corporeal desires1 but on the contrary directing these to higher aims4#cbi ,as for the nature of reward and punishment more particularly1 we may say that the soul of the wicked loses all the glory promised to her and descends to a position lower than was hers originally4 ,she is expelled from the land of life and remains in darkness forever1 without returning to her original station4 ,knowing what she has lost1 she will feel continuous distress1 sorrow and fear1 for the power of imagination remains with the soul after death4 ,but there is no physical burning with fire4 ,on the other hand1 the soul of the righteous will return to ,god4 ,the doctrine of the resurrection and the explanation for it are a further proof that the soul after death is not punished corporeally4 ,the motive of the resurrection is that the soul and body may receive their compensation together as in life4 ,if then the retribution of the soul is corporeal1 there is no need of resurrection4#ccj ,hillel then proceeds to show that the words of the ,rabbis which seem to speak for corporeal retribution are not to be taken literally4 ,in this connection it is worth while to reproduce his classification of the contents of the ,talmud and his attitude toward them4 ,he enumerates six classes4 #a4 ,passages in the ,talmudic and ,midrashic literature which must be taken literally4 ,these are the discussions of the ,halaka 7the legal and ceremonial portions74 ,to pervert these from their literal meaning1 or to maintain that the intention of the law is the important thing and not the practice of the ceremony1 is heresy and infidelity2 though it is meritorious to seek for an explanation of every law1 as the ,rabbis themselves do in many instances4 #b4 ,passages which should be understood as parables and allegories with a deeper meaning4 ,these are the peculiar ,haggadahs1 or the strange interpretations of ,biblical verses where no ceremonial precept is involved4 #c4 ,statements similar to those of the ,prophetical books of the ,bible1 which were the result of the influence of the ,active ,intellect and came to the sages in a dream or in the waking state1 speaking of the future in an allegorical manner4 ,these are the extraordinary tales found in the ,talmud1 which cannot be understood literally1 as they involve a violation of the order of nature2 and no miracle must be believed unless for a very important reason4 #d4 ,the homilies addressed to the people on the occasion of holidays for the purpose of exhorting them to divine worship and observance of the ,law4 ,many of these are hyperbolical in their expression1 especially in the promises concerning the future blessings in store for the people4 ,these were in the nature of encouragement to the people to make their burdens easier to bear4 ,here belong also unusual interpretations of ,biblical verses1 explanations which do not give the original meaning of the verse in question1 but are suggested in order to interest the people4 ,we must add1 too1 stories of the good things that came to pious people in return for their piety4 ,these must be taken for the most part literally1 unless they are clearly improbable4 #e4 ,jokes and jests by way of relief from the strain of study4 ,hyperboles belong here4 #f4 ,narratives of miracles done for pious people1 such as reviving the dead1 punishing with death by means of a word1 bringing down rain1 and so on4 ,all these must be taken literally4 ,to disbelieve is heresy4 ,this is true only where the alleged miracles were done for a high purpose1 otherwise we need not believe them4 ,the reason the ,bible and the ,talmud express themselves in corporeal terms concerning reward and punishment is in order to frighten the people and to impress them with the terrible punishment consequent upon wrongdoing4 ,the people do not understand any reward and punishment unless it is physical and corporeal4 ,in reality spiritual existence is more real than physical4#cca ,,chapter ,,xv ,,levi ,,ben ,,gerson ,among the men who devoted themselves to philosophical investigation in the century and a half after ,maimonides's death1 the greatest and most independent was without doubt ,levi ben ,gerson or ,gersonides1 as he is also called4 ,there were others who were active as commentators1 translators and original writers1 and who achieved a certain fame1 but their work was too little original to merit more than very brief notice in these pages4 ,isaac ,albalag#cca;a 7second half of thirteenth century7 owes what reputation he enjoys to the boldness with which he enunciated certain doctrines1 such as the eternity of the world and particularly the notion1 well enough known among the ,averroists of the ,university of ,paris at that time and condemned by the ,church1 but never before announced or defended in ,jewish philosophy--the so-called doctrine of the twofold truth4 ,this was an attitude assumed in self-defence1 sincerely or not as the case may be1 by a number of scholastic writers1 who advanced philosophic views at variance with the dogma of the ,church4 ,they maintained that a given thesis might be true and false at the same time1 true for philosophy and false for theology1 or vice versa4#ccb ,shem ,tob ,falaquera 7#abbe-abij7 is a more important man than ,albalag4 ,he was a thorough student of the ,aristotelian and other philosophy that was accessible to him through his knowledge of ,arabic4 ,munk's success in identifying ,avicebron with ,gabirol 7p4 #fc7 was made possible by ,falaquera's translation into ,hebrew of extracts from the ,fons ,vit4 ,of great importance also is ,falaquera's commentary of ,maimonides's ,guide1 which1 with that of ,moses of ,narbonne 7d4 after #acfb71 is based upon a knowledge of ,arabic and a thorough familiarity with the ,aristotelian philosophy of the ,arabs1 and is superior to the better known commentaries of ,shemtob1 ,ephodi1 and ,abarbanel4 ,falaquera also wrote original works of an ethical and philosophical character4 ,joseph ,ibn ,caspi 7#abig-acdj7 is likewise a meritorious figure as a commentator of ,maimonides and as a philosophical exegete of ,scripture4 ,but none of these men stands out as an independent thinker with a strong individuality1 carrying forward in any important and authoritative degree the work of the great ,maimonides4 ,great ,talmudic knowledge1 which was a necessary qualification for national recognition1 these men seem not to have had2 and on the other hand none of them felt called upon or able to make a systematic synthesis of philosophy and ,judaism in a large way4 ,levi ben ,gerson 7#abhh-acdd7 was the first after ,maimonides who can at all be compared with the great sage of ,fostat4 ,he was a great mathematician and astronomer2 he wrote supercommentaries on the ,aristotelian commentaries of ,averroes1 who in his day had become the source of philosophical knowledge for the ,hebrew student2 he was thoroughly versed in the ,talmud as his commentary on the ,pentateuch shows2 and he is one of the recognized ,biblical exegetes of the middle ages4 ,finally in his philosophical masterpiece ,milhamot ,adonai 7,the ,wars of the ,lord71#ccc he undertakes to solve in a thoroughly scholastic manner those problems in philosophy and theology which ,maimonides had either not treated adequately or had not solved to ,gersonides's satisfaction4 ,that despite the technical character and style of the ,milhamot1 ,gersonides achieved such great reputation shows in what esteem his learning and critical power were held by his contemporaries4 ,his works were all written in ,hebrew1 and if he had any knowledge of ,arabic and ,latin it was very limited1 too limited to enable him to make use of the important works written in those languages4#ccd ,his fame extended beyond the limits of ,jewish thought1 as is shown by the fact that his scientific treatise dealing with the astronomical instrument he had discovered was translated into ,latin in #acgg by order of ,pope ,clement ,,vi1 and his supercommentaries on the early books of the ,aristotelian logic were incorporated1 in ,latin translation1 in the ,latin editions of ,aristotle and ,averroes of the #afth century4#cce ,levi ben ,gerson's general attitude to philosophical study and its relation to the content of ,scripture is the same as had become common property through ,maimonides and his predecessors4 ,the happiness and perfection of man are the purpose of religion and knowledge4 ,this perfection of man1 or which is the same thing1 the perfection of the human soul1 is brought about through perfection in morals and in theoretical speculation1 as will appear more clearly when we discuss the nature of the human intellect and its immortality4 ,hence the purpose of the ,bible is to lead man to perfect himself in these two elements--morals and science4 ,for this reason the ,law consists of three parts4 ,the first is the legal portion of the ,law containing the #fac commandments1 mandatory and prohibitive1 concerning belief and practice4 ,this is preparatory to the second and third divisions of the ,pentateuch1 which deal respectively with social and ethical conduct1 and the science of existence4 ,as far as ethics is concerned it was not practicable to lay down definite commandments and prohibitions because it is so extremely difficult to reach perfection in this aspect of life4 ,thus if the ,torah gave definite prescriptions for exercising and controlling our anger1 our joy1 our courage1 and so on1 the results would be very discouraging1 for the majority of men would be constantly disobeying them4 ,and this would lead to the neglect of the other commandments likewise4 ,hence the principles of social and ethical conduct are inculcated indirectly by means of narratives exemplifying certain types of character in action and the consequences flowing from their conduct4 ,the third division1 as was said before1 contains certain teachings of a metaphysical character respecting the nature of existence4 ,this is the most important of all1 and hence forms the beginning of the ,pentateuch4 ,the account of creation is a study in the principles of philosophical physics4#ccf ,as to the relations of reason and belief or authority1 ,levi ben ,gerson shares in the optimism of the ,maimonidean school and the philosophic middle age generally1 that there is no opposition between them4 ,the priority should be given to reason where its demands are unequivocal1 for the meaning of the ,scriptures is not always clear and is subject to interpretation4#ccg ,on the other hand1 after having devoted an entire book of his ,milhamot to a minute investigation of the nature of the human intellect and the conditions of its immortality1 he disarms in advance all possible criticism of his position from the religious point of view by saying that he is ready to abandon his doctrine if it is shown that it is in disagreement with religious dogma4 ,he developed his views1 he tells us1 because he believes that they are in agreement with the words of the ,torah4#cch ,this apparent contradiction is to be explained by making a distinction between the abstract statement of the principle and the concrete application thereof4 ,in general ,levi ben ,gerson is so convinced of man's prerogative as a rational being that he cannot believe the ,bible meant to force upon him the belief in things which are opposed to reason4 ,hence1 since the ,bible is subject to interpretation1 the demands of the reason are paramount where they do not admit of doubt4 ,on the other hand1 where the traditional dogma of ,judaism is clear and outspoken1 it is incumbent upon man to be modest and not to claim the infallibility of direct revelation for the limited powers of logical inference and deduction4 ,we must now give a brief account of the questions discussed in the ,milhamot ,adonai4 ,and first a word about ,gersonides's style and method4 ,one is reminded1 in reading the ,milhamot1 of ,aristotle as well as ,thomas ,aquinas4 ,there is no rhetoric and there are no superfluous words4 ,all is precise and technical1 and the vocabulary is small4 ,one is surprised to see how in a brief century or so the ,hebrew language has become so flexible an instrument in the expression of ,aristotelian ideas4 ,levi ben ,gerson does not labor in the expression of his thought4 ,his linguistic instrument is quite adequate and yields naturally to the manipulation of the author4 ,gersonides1 the minute logician and analyst1 has no use for rhetorical flourishes and figures of speech4 ,the subject1 he says1 is difficult enough as it is1 without being made more so by rhetorical obscuration1 unless one intends to hide the confusion of one's thought under the mask of fine writing4#cci ,like ,aristotle and ,thomas ,aquinas1 he gives a history of the opinions of others in the topic under discussion1 and enumerates long lists of arguments pro and con with rigorous logical precision4 ,the effect upon the reader is monotonous and wearisome4 ,aristotle escapes this by the fact that he is groping his way before us4 ,he has not all his ideas formulated in proper order and form ready to deliver4 ,he is primarily the investigator1 not the pedagogue1 and the brevity and obscurity of his style pique the ambitious reader and spur him on to puzzle out the meaning4 ,not so ,thomas ,aquinas and the scholastics generally4 ,as the term scholastic indicates1 they developed their method in the schools4 ,they were expositors of what was ready made1 rather than searchers for the new4 ,hence the question of form was an important one and was determined by the purpose of presenting one's ideas as clearly as may be to the student4 ,add to this that the logic of ,aristotle and the syllogism was the universal method of presentation and the monotony and wearisomeness becomes evident4 ,levi ben ,gerson is in this respect like ,aquinas rather than like ,aristotle4 ,and he is the first of his kind in ,jewish literature4 ,since the larger views and problems were already common property1 the efforts of ,gersonides were directed to a more minute discussion of the more technical details of such problems as the human intellect1 prophecy1 ,providence1 creation1 and so on4 ,for this reason1 too1 it will not be necessary for us to do more than give a brief rsum of the results of ,gersonides's lucubrations without entering into the really bewildering and hair-splitting arguments and distinctions which make the book so hard on the reader4 ,we have already had occasion in the ,introduction 7p4 xxxvi7 to refer briefly to ,aristotle's theory of the intellect and the distinction between the passive and the active intellects in man4 ,the ideas of the ,arabs were also referred to in our treatment of ,judah ,halevi1 ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides 7pp4 #ahj f41 #bac f41 #bhb74 ,hillel ben ,samuel1 as we saw 7p4 #cag ff471 was the first among the ,jews who undertook to discuss in greater detail the essence of the three kinds of intellect1 material1 acquired and active1 as taught by the ,mohammedan and ,christian ,scholastics1 and devoted some space to the question of the unity of the material intellect4 ,levi ben ,gerson takes up the same question of the nature of the material intellect and discusses the various views with more rigor and minuteness than any of his ,jewish predecessors4 ,his chief source was ,averroes4 ,the principal views concerning the nature of the possible or material intellect in man were those attributed to ,alexander of ,aphrodisias1 the most important ,greek commentator of ,aristotle 7lived about #bjj of the ,christian ,era71 ,themistius1 another ,aristotelian ,greek commentator who lived in the time of ,emperor ,julian1 and ,averroes1 the famous ,arabian philosopher and contemporary of ,maimonides4 ,all these three writers pretended to expound ,aristotle's views of the passive intellect rather than propound their own4 ,and ,levi ben ,gerson discusses their ideas before giving his own4 ,alexander's idea of the passive intellect in man is that it is simply a capacity residing in the soul for receiving the universal forms of material things4 ,it has no substantiality of its own1 and hence does not survive the lower functions of the soul1 namely1 sensation and imagination1 which die with the body4 ,this passive intellect is actualized through the ,active ,intellect1 which is not a part of man at all1 but is identified by ,alexander with ,god4 ,the ,active ,intellect is thus pure form and actuality1 and enables the material or possible intellect in man1 originally a mere potentiality1 to acquire general ideas1 and thus to become an intellect with a content4 ,this is called the actual or acquired intellect1 which though at first dependent on the data of sense1 may succeed later in continuing its activity unaided by sense perception4 ,and in so far as the acquired intellect thinks of the purely immaterial ideas and things which make up the content of the divine intellect 7the ,active ,intellect71 it becomes identified with the latter and is immortal4 ,the reason for supposing that the material intellect in man is a mere capacity residing in the soul and not an independent substance is because as having the capacity to receive all kinds of forms it must itself not be of any form4 ,thus in order that the sense of sight may receive all colors as they are1 it must itself be free from color4 ,if the sight had a color of its own1 this would prevent it from receiving other colors4 ,applying this principle to the intellect we make the same inference that it must in itself be neutral1 not identified with any one idea or form1 else this would color all else knocking for admission1 and the mind would not know things as they are4 ,now a faculty which has no form of its own1 but is a mere mirror so to speak of all that may be reflected in it1 cannot be a substance1 and must be simply a power inherent in a substance and subject to the same fate as that in which it inheres4 ,this explains the motive of ,alexander's view and is at the same time a criticism of the doctrine of ,themistius4 ,this commentator is of the opinion that the passive intellect of which ,aristotle speaks is not a mere capacity inherent in something else1 but a real spiritual entity or substance independent of the lower parts of the soul1 though associated with them during the life of the body1 and hence is not subject to generation and destruction1 but is eternal4 ,in support of this view may be urged that if the passive intellect were merely a capacity of the lower parts of the soul1 we should expect it to grow weaker as the person grows older and his sensitive and imaginative powers are beginning to decline2 whereas the contrary is the case4 ,the older the person the keener is his intellect4 ,the difficulty1 however1 remains that if the human intellect is a real substance independent of the rest of the soul1 why is it that at its first appearance in the human being it is extremely poor in content1 being all but empty1 and grows as the rest of the body and the soul is developed8 ,to obviate these difficulties1 ,averroes in his commentary on the ,de ,anima of ,aristotle practically identifies 7according to ,levi ben ,gerson's view of ,averroes7 the material intellect with the ,active ,intellect4 ,the ,active ,intellect according to him is neither identical with the divine1 as ,alexander maintains1 nor is it a part of man1 as ,themistius and others think1 but is the last of the separate ,intelligences1 next to the spiritual mover of the lunar sphere4 ,it is a pure actuality1 absolutely free from matter1 and hence eternal4 ,this ,active ,intellect in some mysterious manner becomes associated with man1 and this association results in a temporary phase represented by the material intellect4 ,as a result of the sense perceptions1 images of the external objects remain in the imagination1 and the ,active ,intellect takes hold of these images1 which are potentially universal ideas1 and by its illumination produces out of them actual ideas and an intellect in which they reside1 the material intellect4 ,the material intellect is therefore the result of the combination of the ,active ,intellect with the memory images1 known as phantasmata 7,greek3 phantasmata71 in the human faculty of imagination4 ,so long as this association exists1 the material intellect receives the intelligible forms as derived from the phantasmata1 and these forms are represented by such ideas as all animal is sensitive1 all man is rational1 i4 e41 ideas concerning the objects of this world4 ,this phase of man's mind ceases when the body dies1 and the ,active ,intellect alone remains1 whose content is free from material forms4 ,the ,active ,intellect contemplates itself1 a pure intelligence4 ,at the same time it is possible for man to identify himself with the ,active ,intellect as he acquires knowledge in the material intellect1 for the ,active ,intellect is like light which makes the eye see4 ,in seeing1 the eye not merely perceives the form of the external object1 but indirectly also receives the light which made the object visible4 ,in the same way the human soul in acquiring knowledge as implicit in its phantasmata1 at the same time gets a glimpse of the spiritual light which converted the phantasma into an explicit idea 7cf4 above1 p4 #cbj74 ,when the soul in man perfects itself with all the knowledge of this world it becomes identified with the ,active ,intellect1 which may be likened to the intellect or soul of the corporeal world4 ,in this combination of the views of ,alexander and ,themistius ,averroes succeeds in obviating the criticisms levelled at the two former4 ,that the power of the material intellect grows keener with age though the corporeal organs are weaker1 supports ,averroes's doctrine as against ,alexander1 to whom it is a mere capacity dependent upon the mixture of the elements in the human body4 ,but neither is he subject to the objection applying to ,themistius's view1 that a real independent entity could scarcely be void of all forms and a mere receptacle4 ,for the material intellect as it really is in itself when not in combination with the human body is not a mere receptacle or empty potentiality4 ,it is the ,active ,intellect1 which combines in itself all immaterial forms and thinks them as it thinks itself4 ,it is only in its individualized aspect that it becomes a potential intellect ready to receive all material forms4 ,but what ,averroes gains here he loses elsewhere4 ,there are certain considerations which are fatal to his doctrine4 ,thus it would follow that theoretical studies which have no practical aim are useless4 ,but this is impossible4 ,nature has put in us the ability as well as the desire to speculate without reference to practical results4 ,the pleasure we derive from theoretical studies is much greater than that afforded by the practical arts and trades4 ,and nature does nothing in vain4 ,theoretical studies must therefore have some value4 ,but in ,averroes's theory of the material intellect they have none4 ,for all values may be divided into those which promote the life of the body and those which lead to the final happiness of man4 ,the former is clearly not served by those theoretical speculations which have no practical aim4 ,on the contrary1 they hinder it4 ,deep students of the theoretical sciences forego all bodily pleasures1 and often do without necessities4 ,but neither can there be any advantage in theoretical speculation for ultimate human happiness4 ,for human happiness according to ,averroes 7and he is in a sense right1 as we shall see later7 consists in union with the ,active ,intellect4 ,but this union takes place as a matter of course according to his theory at the time of death1 whether a man be wise or a fool4 ,for the ,active ,intellect then absorbs the material4 ,another objection to ,averroes's theory is the following4 ,if the material intellect is in essence the same as the ,active ,intellect1 it is a separate1 immaterial substance1 and hence is1 like the ,active ,intellect1 one4 ,for only that which has matter as its substratum can be quantitatively differentiated4 ,thus ,a is numerically different from ,b1 though ,a and ,b are both men 7i4 e41 qualitatively the same71 because they are corporeal beings4 ,forms as such can be differentiated qualitatively only4 ,horse is different from ass in quality4 ,horse as such and horse as such are the same4 ,it follows from this that the material intellect1 being like the ,active ,intellect an immaterial form1 cannot be numerically multiplied1 and therefore is one only4 ,but if so1 no end of absurdities follows4 ,for it means that all men have the same intellect1 hence the latter is wise and ignorant at the same time in reference to the same thing1 in so far as ,a knows a given thing and ,b does not know it4 ,it would also follow that ,a can make use of ,b's sense experience and build his knowledge upon it4 ,all these inferences are absurd1 and they all follow from the assumption that the material intellect is in essence the same as the ,active ,intellect4 ,hence ,averroes's position is untenable4#cdj ,gersonides then gives his own view of the material intellect1 which is similar to that of ,alexander4 ,the material intellect is a capacity1 and the prime matter is the ultimate subject in which it inheres4 ,but there are other powers or forms inhering in matter prior to the material intellect4 ,prime matter as such is not endowed with intellect1 or all things would have human reason4 ,prime matter when it reaches the stage of development of the imaginative faculty is then ready to receive the material intellect4 ,we may say then that the sensitive soul1 of which the imaginative faculty is a part1 is the subject in which the material intellect inheres4 ,the criticism directed against ,alexander1 which applies here also1 may be answered as follows4 ,the material intellect is dependent upon its subject1 the sensitive soul1 for its existence only1 not for the manner of receiving its knowledge4 ,hence the weakening or strengthening of its subject cannot affect it directly at all4 ,indirectly there is a relation between the two1 and it works in the reverse direction4 ,when the sensitive powers are weakened and their activities diminish1 there is more opportunity for the intellect to monopolize the one soul for itself and increase its own activity1 which the other powers have a tendency to hinder1 since the soul is one for all these contending powers4 ,it follows of course that the material intellect in man is not immortal4 ,as a capacity of the sensitive soul1 it dies with the latter4 ,what part of the human soul it is that enjoys immortality and on what conditions we shall see later4 ,but before we do this1 we must try to understand the nature of the ,active ,intellect4#cda ,we know now that the function of the ,active ,intellect is to actualize the material intellect1 i4 e41 to develop the capacity which the latter has of extracting general ideas from the particular memory images 7phantasmata7 in the faculty of imagination1 so that this capacity1 originally empty of any content1 receives the ideas thus produced1 and is thus constituted into an actual intellect4 ,from this it follows that the ,active ,intellect1 which enables the material intellect to form ideas1 must itself have the ideas it induces in the latter1 though not necessarily in the same form4 ,thus an artisan1 who imposes the form of chair upon a piece of wood1 must have the form of chair in his mind1 though not the same sort as he realizes in the wood4 ,now as all the ideas acquired by the material intellect constitute one single activity so far as the end and purpose is concerned 7for it all leads to the perfection of the person71 the agent which is the cause of it all must also be one4 ,hence there are not many ,active ,intellects1 each responsible for certain ideas1 but one ,intellect is the cause of all the ideas realized in the material intellect4 ,moreover1 as this ,active ,intellect gives the material intellect not merely a knowledge of separate ideas1 but also an understanding of their relations to each other1 in other words of the systematic unity connecting all ideas into one whole1 it follows that the ,active ,intellect has a knowledge of the ideas from their unitary aspect4 ,in other words1 the unity of purpose and aim which is evident in the development of nature from the prime matter through the forms of the elements1 the plant soul1 the animal soul and up to the human reason1 where the lower is for the sake of the higher1 must reside as a unitary conception in the ,active ,intellect4 ,for the ,active ,intellect has another function besides developing the rational capacity in man4 ,we can arrive at this insight by a consideration undertaken from a different point of view4 ,if we consider the wonderful and mysterious development of a seed1 which is only a piece of matter1 in a purposive manner1 passing through various stages and producing a highly complicated organism with psychic powers1 we must come to the conclusion1 as ,aristotle does1 that there is an intellect operating in this development4 ,as all sublunar nature shows a unity of purpose1 this intellect must be one4 ,and as it cannot be like one of its products1 it must be eternal and not subject to generation and decay4 ,but these are the attributes which1 on grounds taken from the consideration of the intellectual activity in man1 we ascribed to the ,active ,intellect4 ,hence it is the ,active ,intellect4 ,and we have thus shown that it has two functions4 ,one is to endow sublunar nature with the intelligence and purpose visible in its processes and evolutions2 the other is to enable the rational power in man to rise from a tabula rasa to an actual intellect with a content4 ,from both these activities it is evident that the ,active ,intellect has a knowledge of sublunar creation as a systematic unity4 ,this conception of the ,active ,intellect1 ,levi ben ,gerson says1 will also answer all the difficulties by which other philosophers are troubled concerning the possibility of knowledge and the nature of definition4 ,the problems are briefly these4 ,knowledge concerns itself with the permanent and universal4 ,there can be no real knowledge of the particular1 for the particular is never the same1 it is constantly changing and in the end disappears altogether4 ,on the other hand1 the universal has no real existence outside of the mind1 for the objectively real is the particular thing4 ,the only really existing man is ,a or ,b or ,c2 man in general1 man that is not a particular individual man1 has no objective extra-mental existence4 ,here is a dilemma4 ,the only thing we can really know is the thing that is not real1 and the only real thing is that which we cannot know4 ,the ,platonists solve this difficulty by boldly declaring that the universal ideas or forms are the real existents and the models of the things of sense4 ,this is absurd4 ,aristotle's solution in the ,metaphysics is likewise unsatisfactory4 ,our conception1 however1 of the ,active ,intellect enables us to solve this problem satisfactorily4 ,the object of knowledge is not the particular thing which is constantly changing2 nor yet the logical abstraction which is only in the mind4 ,it is the real unity of sublunar nature as it exists in the ,active ,intellect4 ,the problem of the definition is closely related to that of knowledge4 ,the definition denotes the essence of every individual of a given species4 ,as the individuals of a given species have all the same definition1 and hence the same essence1 they are all one4 ,for what is not in the definition is not real4 ,our answer is that the definition represents that unitary aspect of the sublunar individuals which is in the ,active ,intellect4 ,this aspect is also in a certain sense present in every one of the individual objects of nature1 but not in the same manner as in the ,active ,intellect4#cdb ,we are now ready to take up the question of human immortality4 ,the material intellect as a capacity for acquiring knowledge is not immortal4 ,being inherent in the sensitive soul and dependent for its acquisition of knowledge upon the memory images 7phantasmata7 which appear in the imagination1 the power to acquire knowledge ceases with the cessation of sense and imagination4 ,but the knowledge already acquired1 which1 we have shown above1 is identical with the conceptions of sublunar nature in the ,active ,intellect1 is indestructible4 ,for these conceptions are absolutely immaterial2 they are really the ,active ,intellect in a sense1 and only the material is subject to destruction4 ,the sum of acquisition of immaterial ideas constitutes the acquired or actual intellect1 and this is the immortal part of man4 ,further than this man cannot go4 ,the idea adopted by some that the human intellect may become identified completely with the ,active ,intellect1 ,levi ben ,gerson rejects4 ,in order to accomplish this1 he says1 it would be necessary to have a complete and perfect knowledge of all nature1 and that too a completely unified and wholly immaterial knowledge just as it is in the ,active ,intellect4 ,this is clearly impossible4 ,but it is true that a man's happiness after death is dependent upon the amount and perfection of his knowledge4 ,for even in this life the pleasure we derive from intellectual contemplation is greater the more nearly we succeed in completely concentrating our mind on the subject of study4 ,now after death there will be no disturbing factors such as are supplied in this world by the sensitive and emotional powers4 ,to be sure this lack will also prevent the acquisition of new knowledge1 as was said before1 but the amount acquired will be there in the soul's power all at once and all the time4 ,the more knowledge one has succeeded in obtaining during life1 the more nearly he will resemble the ,active ,intellect and the greater will be his happiness4#cdc ,the next topic ,levi ben ,gerson takes up is that of prognostication4 ,there are three ways in which certain persons come to know the future1 dreams1 divination and prophecy4 ,what we wish to do is to determine the kind of future events that may be thus known beforehand1 the agency which produces in us this power1 and the bearing this phenomenon has on the nature of events generally1 and particularly as concerns the question of chance and free will4 ,that there is such knowledge of future events is a fact and not a theory4 ,experience testifies to the fact that there are certain people who are able to foretell the future1 not as a matter of accident or through a chance coincidence1 but as a regular thing4 ,diviners these are called1 or fortune tellers4 ,this power is even better authenticated in prophecy1 which no one denies4 ,we can also cite many instances of dreams1 in which a person sees a future event with all its particulars1 and the dream comes true4 ,all these cases are too common to be credited to chance4 ,now what does this show as to the nature of the events thus foreseen8 ,clearly it indicates that they cannot be chance happenings1 for what is by chance cannot be foreseen4 ,the only conclusion then to be drawn is that these events are determined by the order of nature4 ,but there is another implication in man's ability to foretell the future1 namely1 that what is thus known to man is first known to a higher intellect which communicates it to us4 ,the first of these two consequences leads us into difficulties4 ,for if we examine the data of prognostication1 whether it be of dream1 divination or prophecy1 we find that they concern almost exclusively such particular human events as would be classed in the category of the contingent rather than in that of the necessary4 ,fortune tellers regularly tell people about the kind of children they will have1 the sort of things they will do1 and so on4 ,in prophecy similarly ,sarah was told she would have a son 7,gen4 #ah1 #aj74 ,we also have examples of prognostication respecting the outcome of a battle1 announcement of coming rain1--events due to definite causes--as well as the prediction of events which are the result of free choice or pure accident1 as when ,samuel tells ,elisha that he will meet three men on the way1 who will give him two loaves of bread1 which he will accept2 or when the prophet in ,samariah tells the prophet in ,bethel that he will be killed by a lion4 ,the question now is1 if these contingent things can be known in advance1 they are not contingent2 and if these are not1 none are4 ,for the uniform events in nature are surely not contingent4 ,if then those events usually classed as contingent and voluntary are not such1 there is no such thing as chance and free will at all1 which is impossible4 ,our answer is that as a matter of fact those contingent happenings we call luck and ill luck do often come frequently to certain persons1 whom we call lucky or unlucky1 which shows that they are not the result of pure chance1 and that there is some sort of order determining them4 ,moreover1 we know that the higher in the scale of being a thing is1 the more nature takes care to guard it4 ,hence as man is the highest being here below1 it stands to reason that the heavenly bodies order his existence and his fortune4 ,and so the science of astrology1 with all its mistakes on account of the imperfect state of our knowledge1 does say a great many things which are true4 ,this1 however1 does not destroy freedom and chance4 ,for the horoscope represents only one side of the question4 ,man was also endowed with reason and purpose1 which enable him whenever he chooses to counteract the order of the heavenly bodies4 ,in the main the heavenly bodies by their positions and motions and the consequent predominance of certain elemental qualities in the sublunar world over others affect the temperaments of man in a manner tending to his welfare4 ,the social order with its differentiation of labor and occupation is worked out wonderfully well--better than the system of ,plato's ,republic--by the positions and motions of the heavenly bodies4 ,if not for this1 all men would choose the more honorable trades and professions1 there would be no one to do the menial work1 and society would be impossible4 ,at the same time there are certain incidental evils inherent in the rigid system which would tend to destroy certain individuals4 ,to counteract these unintended defects1 ,god endowed man with reason and choice enabling him to avoid the dangers threatening him in the world of nature4 ,the solution of our problem then is this4 ,these human events have a twofold aspect4 ,they are determined so far as they follow from the order of the heavenly bodies2 and in so far they can be foretold4 ,they are undetermined so far as they are the result of individual choice1 and in so far they cannot be known beforehand4 ,there are also pure chance events in inanimate nature1 bearing no relation to human fortune4 ,these cannot be foretold4#cdd ,we said above that there must be an intellect which knows these contingent events predicted in dreams1 divination and prophecy and imparts a knowledge of them to these men4 ,this can be no other than the ,active ,intellect1 whose nature we discussed above4 ,for the ,active ,intellect knows the order of sublunar things1 and gives us a knowledge of them in the ideas of the material intellect4 ,moreover1 he is the agent producing them through the instrumentality of the heavenly bodies4 ,hence the heavenly bodies are also his instrument in ordering those contingent events which are predicted in dreams and prophetic visions4 ,the purpose of this information is to protect man against the evil destined for him in the order of the heavenly bodies1 or in order that he may avail himself of the good in store for him if he knows of it4 ,there is a difference in kind between prophecy on the one hand and divination and dream on the other4 ,prophecy comes from the ,active ,intellect directly acting on the material intellect4 ,hence only intelligent men can be prophets4 ,divination and dream come from the ,active ,intellect indirectly4 ,they are caused by the heavenly bodies1 and the action is on the imagination4 ,the imagination is more easily isolated from the other parts of the soul in young people and simpletons4 ,hence we find examples of dreams and divination among them4#cde ,in discussing the problem of ,god's knowledge1 ,gersonides takes direct issue with ,maimonides4 ,the reader will recall that the question turns upon the knowledge of particulars4 ,some philosophers go so far as to deny to ,god any knowledge of things other than his own essence2 for the known is in a sense identified with the knower1 and to bring in a multiplicity of ideas in ,god's knowledge would endanger his unity4 ,others1 however1 fell short of this extreme opinion and admitted ,god's knowledge of things other than himself1 but maintained that ,god cannot know particulars for various reasons4 ,the particular is perceived by sense1 a material faculty1 whereas ,god is immaterial4 ,particulars are infinite and cannot be measured or embraced1 whereas knowledge is a kind of measuring or embracing4 ,the particulars are not always existing1 and are subject to change4 ,hence ,god's knowledge would be subject to change and disappearance1 which is impossible4 ,if ,god knows particulars how is it that there is often a violation of right and justice in the destinies of individual men8 ,this would argue in ,god either inability or indifference1 both of which are impossible4 ,maimonides insists on ,god's knowledge of all things of which he is the creator1 including particulars4 ,and he answers the arguments of the philosophers by saying that their objections are valid only if we assume that ,god's knowledge is similar to ours1 and since with us it is impossible to know the material except through a material organ1 it is not possible in ,god4 ,as we cannot comprehend the infinite2 as we cannot know the non-existent1 nor the changing without a change in our knowledge1 ,god cannot do so4 ,but it is wrong to assume this4 ,god's knowledge is identical with his essence1 which these same philosophers insist is unlike anything else1 and unknowable4 ,surely it follows that his knowledge is also without the least resemblance to our knowledge and the name alone is what they have in common4 ,hence all the objections of the philosophers fall away at one stroke4 ,we cannot in one act of knowing embrace a number of things differing in species2 ,god can1 because his knowledge is one4 ,we cannot know the non-existent1 for our knowledge depends upon the thing known4 ,god can4 ,we cannot know the infinite1 for the infinite cannot be embraced2 ,god can4 ,we cannot know the outcome of a future event unless the event is necessary and determined4 ,if the event is contingent and undetermined we can only have opinion concerning it1 which may or may not be true2 we are uncertain and may be mistaken4 ,god can know the outcome of a contingent event1 and yet the event is not determined1 and may happen one way or the other4 ,our knowledge of a given thing changes as the thing itself undergoes a change1 for if our knowledge should remain the same while the object changes1 it would not be knowledge but error4 ,in ,god the two are compatible4 ,he knows in advance how a given thing will change1 and his knowledge never changes1 even though that which was at one moment potential and implicit becomes later actual and explicit4 ,at this point ,gersonides steps in in defence of human logic and sanity4 ,he accuses ,maimonides of not being quite honest with himself4 ,maimonides1 he intimates1 did not choose this position of his own free will--a position scientifically quite untenable--he was forced to it by theological exigencies4#cdf ,he felt that he must vindicate1 by fair means or foul1 ,god's knowledge of particulars4 ,and so ,gersonides proceeds to demolish ,maimonides's position by reducing it ad absurdum4 ,what does ,maimonides mean by saying that ,god knows the contingent8 ,if he means that ,god knows that the contingent may as contingent happen otherwise than as he knows it will happen1 we do not call this in us knowledge1 but opinion4 ,if he means that ,god knows it will happen in a certain way1 and yet it may turn out that the reverse will actually take place1 then we call this in our case error1 not knowledge4 ,and if he means that ,god merely knows that it may happen one way or the other without knowing definitely which will happen1 then we call this in our experience uncertainty and perplexity1 not knowledge4 ,by insisting that all this is in ,god knowledge because1 forsooth1 ,god's knowledge is not like our knowledge1 is tantamount to saying that what is in us opinion1 uncertainty1 error1 is in ,god knowledge--a solution far from complimentary to ,god's knowledge4 ,besides1 the entire principle of ,maimonides that there is no relation of resemblance between ,god's attributes and ours1 that the terms wise1 just1 and so on1 are pure homonyms1 is fundamentally wrong4 ,we attribute knowledge to ,god because we know in our own case that an intellect is perfected by knowledge4 ,and since we have come to the conclusion on other grounds that ,god is a perfect intellect1 we say he must have knowledge4 ,now if this knowledge that we ascribe to ,god has no resemblance whatsoever to what we understand by knowledge in our own case1 the ground is removed from our feet4 ,we might as well argue that man is rational because solid is continuous4 ,if the word knowledge means a totally different thing in ,god from what it means in us1 how do we know that it is to be found in ,god8 ,if we have absolutely no idea what the term means when applied to ,god1 what reason have we for preferring knowledge as a divine attribute to its opposite or negative8 ,if knowledge does not mean knowledge1 ignorance does not mean ignorance1 and it is just the same whether we ascribe to ,god the one or the other4 ,the truth is that the attributes we ascribe to ,god do have a resemblance to the same attributes in ourselves2 only they are primary in ,god1 secondary in ourselves1 i4 e41 they exist in ,god in a more perfect manner than in us4 ,hence it is absurd to say that what would be in us error or uncertainty is in ,god knowledge4 ,our problem must be solved more candidly and differently4 ,there are arguments in favor of ,god's knowing particulars 7,maimonides gives some71 and there are the arguments of the philosophers against the thesis4 ,the truth must be between the two1 that ,god knows them from one aspect and does not know them from another4 ,having shown above that human events are in part ordered and determined by the heavenly bodies1 and in part undetermined and dependent upon the individual's choice1 we can now make use of this distinction for the solution of our problem4 ,god knows particulars in so far as they are ordered1 he does not know them in so far as they are contingent4 ,he knows that they are contingent1 and hence it follows that he does not know which of the two possibilities will happen1 else they would not be contingent4 ,this is no defect in ,god's nature1 for to know a thing as it is is no imperfection4 ,in general ,god does not know particulars as particulars but as ordered by the universal laws of nature4 ,he knows the universal order1 and he knows the particulars in so far as they are united in the universal order4 ,this theory meets all objections1 and moreover it is in agreement with the views of the ,bible4 ,it is the only one by which we can harmonize the apparent contradictions in the ,scriptures4 ,thus on the one hand we are told that ,god sends ,prophets and commands people to do and forbear4 ,this implies that a person has freedom to choose1 and that the contingent is a real category4 ,on the other hand1 we find that ,god foretells the coming of future events respecting human destiny1 which signifies determination4 ,and yet again we find that ,god repents1 and that he does not repent4 ,all these apparent contradictions can be harmonized on our theory4 ,god foretells the coming of events in so far as they are determined in the universal order of nature4 ,but man's freedom may succeed in counteracting this order1 and the events predicted may not come4 ,this is signified by the expression that ,god repents4#cdg ,levi ben ,gerson's solution1 whatever we may think of its scientific or philosophic value1 is surely very bold as theology1 we might almost say it is a theological monstrosity4 ,it practically removes from ,god the definite knowledge of the outcome of a given event so far as that outcome is contingent4 ,gersonides will not give up the contingent1 for that would destroy freedom4 ,he therefore accepts free will with its consequences1 at the risk of limiting ,god's knowledge to events which are determined by the laws of nature4 ,maimonides was less consistent1 but had the truer theological sense1 namely1 he kept to both horns of the dilemma4 ,god is omniscient and man is free4 ,he gave up the solution by seeking refuge in the mysteriousness of ,god's knowledge4 ,this is the true religious attitude4 ,the question of ,providence is closely related to that of ,god's knowledge4 ,for it is clear that one cannot provide for those things of which he does not know4 ,gersonides's view in this problem is very similar to that of ,maimonides1 and like him he sees in the discussions between ,job and his friends the representative opinions held by philosophers in this important problem4 ,there are three views1 he says1 concerning the nature of ,providence4 ,one is that ,god's providence extends only to species and not to individuals4 ,the second opinion is that ,god provides for every individual of the human race4 ,the third view is that some individuals are specially provided for1 but not all4 ,job held the first view1 which is that of ,aristotle4 ,the arguments in favor of this opinion are that ,god does not know particulars1 hence cannot provide for them4 ,besides1 there would be more justice in the distribution of goods and evils in the world if ,god concerned himself about every individual4 ,then again man is too insignificant for ,god's special care4 ,the second view is that of the majority of our people4 ,they argue that as ,god is the author of all1 he surely provides for them4 ,and as a matter of fact experience shows it2 else there would be much more violence and bloodshed than there is4 ,the wicked are actually punished and the good rewarded4 ,this class is divided into two parts4 ,some think that while ,god provides for all men1 not all that happens to a man is due to ,god2 there are also other causes4 ,the others think that every happening is due to ,god4 ,this second class may again be divided according to the manner in which they account for those facts in experience which seem to militate against their view4 ,maintaining that every incident is due to ,god1 they have to explain the apparent deviation from justice in the prosperity of the wicked and the adversity of the righteous4 ,one party explains the phenomenon by saying that the prosperity and the adversity in these cases are only seeming and not real2 that they in fact are the opposite of what they seem1 or at least lead to the opposite4 ,the second party answers the objection on the ground that those we think good may not really be such1 and similarly those we think bad may not really be bad4 ,for the way to judge a person's character is not merely by his deeds alone1 but by his deeds as related to his temperament and disposition1 which ,god alone knows4 ,eliphaz the ,temanite belonged to those who think that not all which happens is due to ,god2 that folly is responsible for a man's misfortune4 ,bildad the ,shuchite believed that all things are from ,god1 but not all that seems good and evil is really so4 ,zophar the ,naamathite thought we do not always judge character correctly2 that temperament and disposition must be taken into account4 ,of these various opinions the first one1 that of ,aristotle1 cannot be true4 ,dreams1 divination1 and especially prophecy contradict it flatly4 ,all these are given to the individual for his protection 7cf4 above1 p4 #cdb74 ,the second opinion1 namely1 that ,god's providence extends to every individual1 is likewise disproved by reason1 by experience and by the ,bible4 ,we have already proved 7p4 #cde7 that ,god's knowledge does not extend to particulars as such4 ,he only knows things as ordered by the heavenly bodies2 and knows at the same time that they may fail to happen because of man's free will4 ,now if ,god punishes and rewards every man according to his deeds1 one of two things necessarily follows4 ,either he rewards and punishes according to those deeds which the individual is determined to do by the order of the heavenly bodies1 or according to the deeds the individual actually does4 ,in the first case there would be often injustice1 for the person might not have acted as the order of the heavenly bodies indicated he would act1 for he is free to act as he will4 ,the second case is impossible1 for it would mean that ,god knows particulars as particulars--a thesis we have already disproved4 ,besides1 evil does not come from ,god directly1 since he is pure form and evil comes only from matter4 ,hence it cannot be said that he punishes the evil doer for his sin4 ,experience also testifies against this view1 for we see the just suffer and the wicked prosper4 ,the manner in which ,eliphaz1 ,bildad and ,zophar wish to defend ,god's justice will not hold water4 ,man's own folly will account perhaps for some evils befalling the righteous and some good coming to the wicked4 ,but it will not account for the failure of the good man to get the reward he deserves1 and of the wicked to receive the punishment which is his due4 ,the righteous man often has troubles all his life no matter how careful he is to avoid them1 and correspondingly the same is true of the wicked1 that he is prosperous1 despite his lack of caution and good sense4 ,to avoid these objections as ,eliphaz does by saying that if the wicked man himself is not punished1 his children will be1 is to go from the frying pan into the fire4 ,for it is not just either to omit to punish the one deserving it1 or to punish another innocent man for him4 ,nor is ,zophar's defence any better4 ,for the same man1 with the same temperament and disposition1 often suffers more when he is inclined to do good1 and is prosperous when he is not so scrupulous4 ,bildad is no more successful than the other two4 ,the evils coming to the righteous are often real and permanent4 ,but neither does the ,bible compel us to believe that ,god looks out for all individuals4 ,this is especially true in reference to punishment1 as can be gathered from such expressions as ,i will hide my face from them1 and they shall be given to be devoured 7,deut4 #ca1 #ag71 or ,as thou hast forgotten the law of thy ,god1 so will ,i myself also forget thy children 7,hosea #d1 #f74 ,these expressions indicate that ,god does not punish the individuals directly1 but that he leaves them to the fate that is destined for them by the order of the heavenly bodies4 ,true there are other passages in ,scripture speaking of direct punishment1 but they may be interpreted so as not to conflict with our conclusions4 ,having seen that neither of the two extreme views is correct1 it remains to adopt the middle course1 namely1 that some individuals are provided for specially1 and others not4 ,the nearer a person is to the ,active ,intellect1 the more he receives divine providence and care4 ,those people who do not improve their capabilities1 which they possess as members of the species1 are provided for only as members of the species4 ,the matter may be put in another way also4 ,god knows all ideas4 ,man is potentially capable of receiving them in a certain manner4 ,god1 who is actual1 leads man from his potentiality to actuality4 ,when a man's potentialities are thus realized1 he becomes similar to ,god1 because when ideas are actualized the agent and the thing acted upon are one4 ,hence the person enjoys divine providence at that time4 ,the way in which ,god provides for such men is by giving them knowledge through dream1 divination or prophecy or intuition or in some other unconscious manner on the individual's part1 which knowledge protects him from harm4 ,this view is not in conflict with the truth that ,god does not know particulars as such4 ,for it is not to the individual person as such that providence extends as a conscious act of ,god4 ,the individualization is due to the recipient and not to the dispenser4 ,one may object that after all since it is possible that bad men may have goods as ordered by the heavenly bodies1 and good men may have misfortune as thus ordered1 when their attachment to ,god is loosened somewhat1 there is injustice in ,god if he could have arranged the heavenly spheres differently and did not1 or incapacity if he could not4 ,the answer is briefly that the order of the spheres does a great deal of good in maintaining the existence of things4 ,and if some little evil comes also incidentally1 this does not condemn the whole arrangement4 ,in fact the evils come from the very agencies which are the authors of good4 ,the view of providence here adopted is that of ,elihu the son of ,barachel the ,buzite in the book of ,job 7ch4 #cb71 and it agrees also with the opinion of ,maimonides in the ,guide of the ,perplexed 7cf4 above1 p4 #bib74cdh ,instead of placing his cosmology at the beginning of his system and proceeding from that as a basis to the other parts of his work1 the psychology and the ethics1 ,levi ben ,gerson1 whose ,milhamot ,hashem is not so much a systematic work as an aggregation of discussions1 reversed the process4 ,he begins as we have seen with a purely psychological analysis concerning the nature of the human reason and its relation to the ,active ,intellect4 ,he follows up this discussion with a treatment of prognostication as exhibiting some of the effects of the ,active ,intellect upon the reason and imagination of man4 ,this is again followed by a discussion of ,god's knowledge and providence4 ,and not until all these psychological 7and in part ethical7 questions have been decided1 does ,levi ben ,gerson undertake to give us his views of the constitution of the universe and the nature and attributes of ,god4 ,in this discussion he takes occasion to express his dissatisfaction with ,aristotle's proofs of the existence of the spheral movers and of the unmoved mover or ,god1 as inadequate to bear the structure which it is intended to erect upon them4 ,it will be remembered that the innovation of ,abraham ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides in making ,jewish philosophy more strictly ,aristotelian than it had been consisted in a great measure in just this introduction of the ,aristotelian proof of the existence of ,god as derived from the motions of the heavenly bodies4 ,levi ben ,gerson's proofs are teleological rather than mechanical4 ,aristotle said a moving body must have a mover outside of it1 which if it is again a body is itself in motion and must have a mover in turn4 ,and as this process cannot go on ad infinitum1 there must be at the end of the series an unmoved mover4 ,as unmoved this mover cannot be body2 and as producing motion eternally1 it cannot be a power residing in a body1 a physical or material power1 for no such power can be infinite4 ,gersonides is not satisfied with this proof4 ,he argues that so far as the motions of the heavenly bodies are concerned there is no reason why a physical power cannot keep on moving them eternally4 ,the reason that motions caused by finite forces in our world come to a stop is because the thing moved is subject to change1 which alters its relation to its mover2 and secondly because the force endeavors to move the object in opposition to its own tendency1 in opposition to gravity4 ,in the case of the heavenly bodies neither of these conditions is present4 ,the relation of the mover to the moved is always the same1 since the heavenly bodies are not subject to change2 and as they are not made of the four terrestrial elements they have no inherent tendency to move in any direction1 hence they offer no opposition to the force exerted upon them by the mover4 ,a finite power might therefore quite conceivably cause eternal motion4 ,similarly an unmoved mover cannot be body1 to be sure1 but it may be a physical power like a soul1 which in moving the body is not itself moved by that motion4 ,aristotle's proofs therefore are not sufficient to produce the conviction that the movers of the spheres and ,god himself are separate ,intelligences4#cdi ,gersonides accordingly follows a different method4 ,he argues that if a system of things and events exhibits perfection not here and there and at rare intervals but regularly1 the inference is justified that there is an intelligent agent who had a definite purpose and design in establishing the system4 ,the world below is such a system4 ,hence it has an intelligent agent as its author4 ,this agent may be a separate and immaterial intelligence1 or a corporeal power like a soul4 ,he then shows that it cannot be a corporeal power1 for it would have to reside in the animal sperm which exhibits such wonderful and purposive development1 or in the parent animal from which the sperm came1 both of which1 he argues1 are impossible4 ,it remains then that the cause of the teleological life of the sublunar world is an immaterial power1 a separate intellect4 ,this intellect1 he argues further1 acts upon matter and endows it with forms1 the only mediating power being the natural heat which is found in the seed and sperm of plants and animals4 ,moreover1 it is aware of the order of what it produces4 ,it is the ,active ,intellect of which we spoke above 7p4 #ccg74 ,the forms of terrestrial things come from it directly1 the heat residing in the seed comes from the motions of the spheres4 ,this shows that the permanent motions of the heavenly bodies are also intelligent motions1 for they tend to produce perfection in the terrestrial world and never come to a standstill1 which would be the case if the motions were natural like those of the elements1 or induced against their nature like that of a stone moving upward4 ,we are justified in saying then that the heavenly bodies are endowed with intellects and have no material soul4 ,hence their movers are pure ,intelligences1 and there are as many of them as there are spheres1 i4 e41 forty-eight1 or fifty-eight or sixty-four according to one's opinion on the astronomical question of the number of spheres4 ,now as the ,active ,intellect knows the order of sublunar existence in its unity1 and the movers of the respective spheres know the order of their effects through the motions of the heavenly bodies1 it follows that as all things in heaven above and on the earth beneath are related in a unitary system1 there is a highest agent who is the cause of all existence absolutely and has a knowledge of all existence as a unitary system4#cej ,the divine attributes are derived by us from his actions1 and hence they are not pure homonyms 7cf41 p4 #bdj74 ,god has a knowledge of the complete order of sublunar things1 of which the several movers have only a part4 ,he knows it as one1 and knows it eternally without change4 ,his joy and gladness are beyond conception1 for our joy also is very great in understanding4 ,his is also the perfect ,life1 for understanding is life4 ,he is the most real ,substance and ,existent1 and he is ,one4 ,god is also the most real ,agent1 as making the other movers do their work1 and producing a complete and perfect whole out of their parts4 ,he is also properly called ,bestower1 ,beneficent1 ,gracious1 ,strong1 ,mighty1 ,upright1 ,just1 ,eternal1 ,permanent4 ,all these attributes1 however1 do not denote multiplicity4#cea ,from ,god we now pass again to his creation1 and take up the problem which caused ,maimonides so much trouble1 namely1 the question of the origin of the world4 ,it will be remembered that dissatisfied with the proofs for the existence of ,god advanced by the ,mutakallimun1 ,maimonides1 in order to have a firm foundation for the central idea of religion1 tentatively adopted the ,aristotelian notion of the eternity of motion and the world4 ,but no sooner does ,maimonides establish his proof of the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god than he returns to the attack of the ,aristotelian view and points out that the problem is insoluble in a strictly scientific manner2 that ,aristotle himself never intended his arguments in favor of eternity to be regarded as philosophically demonstrated1 and that they all labor under the fatal fallacy that because certain laws hold of the world's phenomena once it is in existence1 these same laws must have governed the establishment of the world itself in its origin4 ,besides1 the assumption of the world's eternity with its corollary of the necessity and immutability of its phenomena saps the foundation of all religion1 makes miracles impossible1 and reduces the world to a machine4 ,gersonides is on the whole agreed with ,maimonides4 ,he admits that ,aristotle's arguments are the best yet advanced in the problem1 but that they are not convincing4 ,he also agrees with ,maimonides in his general stricture on ,aristotle's method1 only modifying and restricting its generality and sweeping nature4 ,with all this1 however1 he finds it necessary to take up the entire question anew and treats it in his characteristic manner1 with detail and rigor1 and finally comes to a conclusion different from that of ,maimonides1 namely1 that the world had an origin in time1 to be sure1 but that it came not ex nihilo in the absolute sense of the word nihil1 but developed from an eternal formless matter1 which ,god endowed with form4 ,this is the so-called ,platonic view4 ,we cannot enter into all his details which are technical and fatiguing in the extreme1 but we must give a general idea of his procedure in the investigation of this important topic4 ,the problem of the origin of the world1 he says1 is very difficult4 ,first1 because in order to learn from the nature of existing things whether they were created out of a state of non-existence or not1 we must know the essence of existing things1 which is not easy4 ,secondly1 we must know the nature of ,god in order to determine whether he could have existed first without the world and then have created it1 or whether he had to have the world with him from eternity4 ,the fact of the great difference of opinion on this question among thinkers1 and the testimony of ,maimonides that ,aristotle himself had no valid proof in this matter are additional indications of the great difficulty of the subject4 ,some think the world was made and destroyed an infinite number of times4 ,others say it was made once4 ,of these some maintain it was made out of something 7,plato72 others1 that it was made out of absolute nothing 7,philoponus1 the ,mutakallimun1 ,maimonides and many of our ,jewish writers74 ,some on the other hand1 namely1 ,aristotle and his followers1 hold the world to be eternal4 ,they all have their defenders1 and there is no need to refute the others since ,aristotle has already done this4 ,his arguments are the best so far1 and deserve investigation4 ,the fundamental fallacy in all his proofs is that he argues from the laws of genesis and decay in the parts of the world to the laws of these processes in the world as a whole4 ,this might seem to be the same criticism which ,maimonides advances1 but it is not really quite the same1 ,maimonides's assertion being more general and sweeping4 ,maimonides says that the origin of the world as a whole need not be in any respect like the processes going on within its parts2 whereas ,gersonides bases his argument on the observed difference in the world between wholes and parts1 admitting that the two may be alike in many respects4 ,in order to determine whether the world is created or not1 it is best to investigate first those things in the world which have the appearance of being eternal1 such as the heavenly bodies1 time1 motion1 the form of the earth1 and so on4 ,if these are proven to be eternal1 the world is eternal2 if not1 it is not4 ,a general principle to help us distinguish a thing having an origin from one that has not is the following3 ,a thing which came into being in time has a purpose4 ,an eternal thing has no purpose4 ,applying this principle to the heavens we find that all about them is with a purpose to ordering the sublunar world in the best way possible4 ,their motions1 their distances1 their positions1 their numbers1 and so on are all for this purpose4 ,hence they had a beginning4 ,aristotle's attempts to explain these conditions from the nature of the heavens themselves are not successful1 and he knew it4 ,again1 as the heavenly bodies are all made of the same fifth element 7the ,aristotelian ether71 the many varieties in their forms and motions require special explanation4 ,the only satisfactory explanation is that the origin of the heavenly bodies is not due to nature and necessity1 which would favor eternity1 but to will and freedom1 and the many varieties are for a definite purpose4 ,hence they are not eternal4#ceb ,gersonides then analyzes time and motion and proves that ,aristotle to the contrary notwithstanding1 they are both finite and not infinite4 ,time belongs to the category of quantity1 and there is no infinite quantity4 ,as time is dependent on motion1 motion too is finite1 hence neither is eternal4 ,another argument for creation in time is that if the world is eternal and governed altogether by necessity1 the earth should be surrounded on all sides by water according to the nature of the lighter element to be above the heavier4 ,hence the appearance of parts of the earth's surface above the water is an indication of a break of natural law for a special purpose1 namely1 in order to produce the various mineral1 plant and animal species4 ,hence once more purpose argues design and origin in time4 ,finally if the world were eternal1 the state of the sciences would be more advanced than it is4 ,a similar argument may be drawn from language4 ,language is conventional2 which means that the people existed before the language they agreed to speak4 ,but man being a social animal they could not have existed an infinite time without language4 ,hence mankind is not eternal4#cec ,we have just proved that the world came into being1 but it does not necessarily follow that it will be destroyed4 ,nay1 there are reasons to show that it will not be destroyed4 ,for there is no destruction except through matter and the predominance of the passive powers over the active4 ,hence the being that is subject to destruction must consist of opposites4 ,but the heavenly bodies have no opposites1 not being composite2 hence they cannot be destroyed4 ,and if so1 neither can the sublunar order be destroyed1 which is the work of the heavenly bodies4 ,there is of course the abstract possibility of their being destroyed by their maker1 not naturally1 but by his will1 as they were made2 but we can find no reason in ,god for wishing to destroy them1 all reasons existing in man for destroying things being inapplicable to ,god4#ced ,that the world began in time is now established4 ,the question still remains1 was the world made out of something or out of nothing8 ,both are impossible4 ,the first is impossible1 for that something out of which the world was made must have had some form1 for matter never is without form1 and if so1 it must have had some motion1 and we have a kind of world already1 albeit an imperfect one4 ,the second supposition is also impossible2 for while form may come out of nothing1 body cannot come from not-body4 ,we never see the matter of any object arise out of nothing1 though the form may4 ,nature as well as art produces one corporeal thing out of another4 ,hence the generally accepted principle1 ex nihilo nihil fit4 ,besides it would follow on this supposition that before the world came into existence there was a vacuum in its place1 whereas it is proved in the ,physics that a vacuum is impossible4 ,the only thing remaining therefore is to say that the world was made partly out of something1 partly out of nothing1 i4 e41 out of an absolutely formless matter4 ,it may be objected that to assume the existence of a second eternal thing beside ,god is equivalent to a belief in dualism1 in two gods4 ,but this objection may be easily answered4 ,eternity as such does not constitute divinity4 ,if all the world were eternal1 ,god would still be ,god because he controls everything and is the author of the order obtaining in the world4 ,in general it is the qualitative essence that makes the divine character of ,god1 his wisdom and power as the source of goodness and right order in nature4 ,the eternal matter of which we are speaking is the opposite of all this4 ,as ,god is the extreme of perfection so is matter the extreme of imperfection and defect4 ,as ,god is the source of good1 so is matter the source of evil4 ,how then can anyone suppose for a moment that an eternal formless matter can in any way be identified with a divine being8 ,another objection that may be offered to our theory is that it is an established fact that matter cannot exist at all without any form1 whereas our view assumes that an absolutely formless matter existed an infinite length of time before the world was made from it4 ,this may be answered by saying that the impossibility of matter existing without form applies only to the actual objects of nature4 ,god put in sublunar matter the nature and capacity of receiving all forms in a certain order4 ,the primary qualities1 the hot and the cold and the wet and the dry1 as the forms of the elements1 enable this matter to receive other higher forms4 ,the very capacity of receiving a given form argues a certain form on the part of the matter having this capacity2 for if it had no form there would be no reason why it should receive one form rather than another2 whereas we find that the reception of forms is not at random1 but that a given form comes from a definite other form4 ,man comes only from man4 ,but this does not apply to the prime matter of which we are speaking4 ,it may have been without form4 ,nay1 it is reasonable to suppose that as we find matter and form combined1 and we also find pure forms without matter1 viz41 in the separate ,intelligences1--it is reasonable to suppose that there is also matter without form4 ,finally one may ask if the world has not existed from eternity1 what determined the author to will its existence at the time he did and not at another8 ,we cannot say that he acquired new knowledge which he had not before1 or that he needed the world then and not before1 or that there was some obstacle which was removed4 ,the answer to this would be that the sole cause of the creation was the will of ,god to benefit his creatures4 ,their existence is therefore due to the divine causality1 which never changes4 ,their origin in time is due to the nature of a material object as such4 ,a material object as being caused by an external agent is incompatible with eternity4 ,it must have a beginning1 and there is no sense in asking why at this time and not before or after1 for the same question would apply to any other time4 ,gersonides cites other objections which he answers1 and then he takes up one by one the ,aristotelian arguments in favor of eternity and refutes them in detail4 ,we cannot afford to reproduce them here as the discussions are technical1 lengthy and intricate4#cee ,having given his philosophical cosmology1 ,gersonides then undertakes to show in detail that the ,biblical story of creation teaches the same doctrine4 ,nay1 he goes so far as to say that it was the ,biblical account that suggested to him his philosophical theory4 ,it would be truer to say that having approached the ,bible with ,aristotelian spectacles1 and having no suspicion that the two attitudes are as far apart as the poles1 he did not scruple to twist the expressions in ,genesis out of all semblance to their natural meaning4 ,the ,biblical text had been twisted and turned ever since the days of ,philo1 and of the ,mishna and ,talmud and ,midrash1 in the interest of various schools and sects4 ,motives speculative1 religious1 theological1 legal and ethical were at the basis of ,biblical interpretation throughout its long history of two millennia and more--the end is not yet--and ,gersonides was swimming with the current4 ,the ,bible is not a law1 he says1 which forces us to believe absurdities and to practice useless things1 as some people think4 ,on the contrary it is a law which leads us to our perfection4 ,hence what is proved by reason must be found in the ,law1 by interpretation if necessary4 ,this is why ,maimonides took pains to interpret all ,biblical passages in which ,god is spoken of as if he were corporeal4 ,hence also his statement that if the eternity of the world were strictly demonstrated1 it would not be difficult to interpret the ,bible so as to agree4 ,but in the matter of the origin of the world1 ,gersonides continues1 it was not necessary for me to force the ,biblical account4 ,quite the contrary1 the expressions in the ,bible guided me to my view4#cef ,accordingly he finds support for his doctrine that the world was not created ex nihilo1 in the fact that there is not one miracle in the ,bible in which anything comes out of nothing4 ,they are all instances of something out of a pre-existent something4 ,the miracle of the oil in the case of ,elisha is no exception4 ,the air changed into oil as it entered the partly depleted vessel4 ,the six days of creation must not be taken literally4 ,god's creation is timeless1 and the six days indicate the natural order and rank in existing things proceeding from the cause to the effect and from the lower to the higher4 ,thus the movers of the heavenly bodies come before the spheres which they move as their causes4 ,the spheres come before the terrestrial elements for the same reason4 ,the elements are followed by the things composed of them4 ,and among these too there is a certain order4 ,plants come before animals1 aquatic animals before aerial1 aerial before terrestrial1 and the last of all is man1 as the most perfect of sublunar creatures4 ,all this he reads into the account of creation in ,genesis4 ,thus the light spoken of in the first day represents the angels or separate ,intelligences or movers of the spheres1 and they are distinguished from the darkness there1 which stands for the heavenly bodies as the matters of their movers1 though at the same time they are grouped together as one day1 because the form and its matter constitute a unit4 ,the water1 which was divided by the firmament1 denotes the prime formless matter1 part of which was changed into the matter of the heavenly bodies1 and part into the four terrestrial elements4 ,form and matter are also designated by the terms ,tohu and ,bohu in the second verse in ,genesis1 rendered in the ,revised ,version by without form and void4 ,and so ,gersonides continues throughout the story of creation1 into the details of which we need not follow him4#ceg ,the concluding discussion in the ,milhamot is devoted to the problem of miracles and its relation to prophecy4 ,maimonides had said that one reason for opposing the ,aristotelian theory of the eternity of the world is that miracles would be an impossibility on that assumption4 ,hence ,maimonides insists on creation ex nihilo1 though he admits that the ,platonic view of a pre-existent matter may be reconciled with the ,torah4 ,gersonides1 who adopted the doctrine of an eternal matter1 finds it necessary to say by way of introduction to his treatment of miracles that they do not prove creation ex nihilo4 ,for as was said before all miracles exhibit a production of something out of something and not out of nothing4 ,to explain the nature of miracles1 he says1 and their authors1 it is necessary to know what miracles are4 ,for this we must take the ,biblical records as our data1 just as we take the data of our senses in determining other matters4 ,on examining the miracles of the ,bible we find that they may be classified into those which involve a change of substance and those in which the substance remains the same and the change is one of quality or quantity4 ,an example of the former is the change of ,moses's rod into a serpent and of the water of ,egypt into blood2 of the latter1 ,moses's hand becoming leprous1 and the withering of the hand of ,jeroboam4 ,we may further divide the miracles into those in which the prophet was told in advance1 as ,moses was of the ten plagues1 and those in which he was not1 as for example the reviving of the dead by ,elijah and many other cases4 ,our examination also shows us that all miracles are performed by prophets or in relation to them4 ,also that they are done with some good and useful purpose1 namely1 to inculcate belief or to save from evil4 ,these data will help us to decide who is the author of miracles4 ,miracles cannot be accidental1 as they are performed with a purpose2 and as they involve a knowledge of the sublunar order1 they must have as their author one who has this knowledge1 hence either ,god or the ,active ,intellect or man1 i4 e41 the prophet himself4 ,now it is not reasonable to suppose that ,god is the author of miracles1 for miracles come only rarely and are of no value in themselves but only as a means to a special end1 as we said before4 ,the laws of nature1 however1 which control all regular events all the time1 are essentially good and permanent4 ,hence it is not reasonable to suppose that the ,active ,intellect who1 as we know1 orders the sublunar world1 has more important work to do than ,god4 ,besides if ,god were the author of miracles1 the prophet would not know about them1 for prophetic inspiration1 as we know 7p4 #cdb71 is due to the ,active ,intellect and not directly to ,god4 ,nor do we need waste words in proving that man cannot be the author of miracles1 for in that case the knowledge of them would not come to him through prophetic inspiration1 since they are due to his own will4 ,besides man1 as we have seen1 cannot have a complete knowledge of the sublunar order1 and hence it is not likely that he can control its laws to the extent of changing them4 ,there is therefore only one alternative left1 namely1 that the author of miracles is the same as the inspirer of the prophets1 the controlling spirit of the sublunar world1 whose intellect has as its content the unified system of sublunar creation as an immaterial idea1 namely1 the ,active ,intellect1 of whom we have spoken so often4 ,the prophet knows of the miracles because the ,active ,intellect1 who is the author of them1 is also the cause of the prophetic inspiration4 ,this will account too for the fact that all miracles have to do with events in the sublunar world and are not found in the relations and motions of the heavenly bodies4 ,the case of ,joshua causing the sun and moon to stand still is no exception4 ,there was no standing still of the sun and moon in that case4 ,what is meant by the expressions in ,joshua #aj is that the ,israelites conquered the enemy in the short time that the sun occupied the zenith1 while its motion was not noticeable for about an hour1 as is usually the case about noon4 ,in the case of ,isaiah moving the sun ten degrees back for ,hezekiah 7,isai4 #ch1 #h71 there was likewise no change in the motion of the sun1 but only in that of the cloud causing the shadow4 ,miracles cannot be of regular occurrence1 for if natural phenomena and laws were changed by miracle as a regular thing1 it would signify a defect in the original order4 ,miracles cannot take place to violate the principle of contradiction1 hence there can be no miracles in reference to mathematical truths1 nor in matters relating to the past4 ,thus a miracle cannot make a thing black and white at the same time2 nor a plane triangle whose angles are less than two right angles2 nor is it possible by miracle now to make it not to have rained in ,jerusalem yesterday1 when as a matter of fact it did rain4 ,for all these involve a denial of the logical law of contradiction that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time4#ceh ,a prophet is tested 7#a7 by being able to foretell miracles before they come1 and 7#b7 by the realization of his prophetic messages4 ,the question is raised concerning the statement of ,jeremiah that one may be a true prophet and yet an evil prophecy may remain unfulfilled if the people repent4 ,does this mean that a good prophecy must always come true8 ,in that case a good deal of what comes within the category of the possible and contingent becomes determined and necessary6 ,the answer is that a good prophecy too sometimes fails of realization1 as is illustrated in ,jacob's fear of ,esau after he was promised protection by ,god4 ,but this happens more rarely on account of the fact that a man endeavors naturally to see a good prophecy realized1 whereas he does his best to counteract an evil prophecy4#cei ,gersonides's entire discussion of miracles shows a deep seated motive to minimize their extent and influence4 ,the study of science and philosophy had the effect of planting in the minds of the medival philosophers a great respect for reason on the one hand and natural law on the other4 ,a study of history1 archology and literary criticism has developed in modern times a spirit of scepticism regarding written records of antiquity4 ,this was foreign to medival theologians generally4 ,no one doubted for a moment the accuracy of the ,biblical records as well as their inspiration in every detail4 ,hence prophecy and miracles had to be explained or explained away4 ,interpretation held the place of criticism4 ,,chapter ,,xvi ,,aaron ,,ben ,,elijah ,,of ,,nicomedia ,the chronological treatment of ,jewish philosophy which we have followed makes it necessary at this point to take up a ,karaite work of the fourteenth century that is closely modelled upon the ,guide of the ,perplexed4 ,in doing this we necessarily take a step backward as far as the philosophical development is concerned4 ,for while it is true that the early ,rabbanite thinkers like ,saadia1 ,bahya1 ,ibn ,zaddik and others moved in the circle of ideas of the ,mohammedan ,mutakallimun1 that period had long since been passed4 ,judah ,halevi criticized the ,kalam1 ,ibn ,daud is a thorough ,aristotelian1 and ,maimonides gave the ,kalam in ,jewish literature its deathblow4 ,no ,rabbanite after ,maimonides would think of going back to the old arguments made popular by the ,mutakallimun--the theory of atoms1 of substance and accident in the ,kalamistic sense of accident as a quality which needs continuous creation to exist any length of time1 the denial of law and natural causation1 the arguments in favor of creation and the existence of ,god based upon creation1 the doctrine of the divine will as eternal or created1 residing in a subject or existing without a subject1 the world as due to ,god's will or to his wisdom1 the nature of right and wrong as determined by the character and purpose of the act or solely by the arbitrary will of ,god--these and other topics1 which formed the main ground of discussion between the ,mutazilites and the ,ashariya1 and were taken over by the ,karaites and to a less extent by the early ,rabbanites in the tenth and eleventh centuries1 had long lost their significance and their interest among the ,rabbanite followers of ,maimonides4 ,aristotelianism1 introduced by ,alfarabi1 ,avicenna and ,averroes among the ,arabs1 and ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides among the ,jews1 dominated all speculative thought1 and the old ,kalam was obsolete and forgotten4 ,gersonides no longer regards the ,kalamistic point of view as a living issue4 ,he ignores it entirely4 ,his problems as we have seen are those raised by the ,averroistic system4 ,in this respect then a reading of ,aaron ben ,elijah's ,ez ,hayim 7,tree of ,life7#cfj affects us like a breath from a foreign clime1 like the odor of a thing long buried4 ,and yet ,aaron ben ,elijah was a contemporary of ,levi ben ,gerson4 ,he was born about #acjj1 and died in #acfi4 ,he lived in ,nicomedia1 ,cairo1 ,constantinople4 ,the reason for the antiquated appearance of his work lies in the fact that he was a ,karaite1 and the ,karaites never got beyond the ,mutazilite point of view4 ,karaism was only a sect and never showed after the days of ,saadia anything like the life and enthusiastic activity of the great body of ,rabbanite ,judaism1 which formed the great majority of the ,jewish people4 ,the ,karaites had their important men in ,halaka as well as in religious philosophy and ,biblical exegesis4 ,solomon ben ,yeroham1 ,joseph ,ha-,maor 7,al-,kirkisani71 ,joseph ,al ,basir 7p4 #dh ff471 ,jeshua ben ,judah 7p4 #ee ff471 ,yefet ,ha-,levi1 ,judah ,hadassi1 ,aaron ben ,joseph--all these were prominent in ,karaitic literature4 ,but they cannot be compared to the great men among the ,rabbanites4 ,there was no ,maimonides among them4 ,and ,aaron ben ,elijah cherished the ambition of being to the ,karaites what ,maimonides was to the ,rabbanites4 ,accordingly he undertook to compose three works representing the three great divisions of ,karaitic ,judaism--a book of ,laws1 a work on ,biblical exegesis and a treatise on religious philosophy4 ,the last was written first1 having been composed in #acdf4 ,the ,sefer ,ha-,mizvot1 on the religious commandments1 was written in #aced1 and his exegetical work1 known as ,keter ,torah 7,the ,crown of the ,law7 was published in #acfb4 ,it is the first that interests us1 the ,ez ,hayim4 ,as was said before1 this book is closely modelled upon the ,more ,nebukim1 though the arrangement is different1 being more logical than that of the ,guide4 ,instead of beginning1 as ,maimonides does1 with interpreting the anthropomorphic expressions in the ,bible1 which is followed by a treatment of the divine attributes1 long before the existence of ,god has been proved or even the fundamental principles laid down upon which are based the proofs of the existence of ,god1 ,aaron ben ,elijah more naturally begins with the basal doctrines of physics and metaphysics1 which he then utilizes in discussing the existence of ,god4 ,as ,maimonides brought to a focus all the speculation on philosophy and religion as it was handed down to him by ,arab and ,jew1 and gave it a harmonious and systematic form in his masterpiece2 so did ,aaron ben ,elijah endeavor to sum up all ,karaitic discussion in his work1 and in addition declare his attitude to ,maimonides4 ,the success with which he carried out this plan is not equal4 ,as a source of information on schools and opinions of ,arabs and ,karaites1 the ,ez ,hayim is of great importance and interest4 ,but it cannot in the least compare with the ,guide as a constructive work of religious philosophy4 ,it has not the same originality or any degree remotely approaching it4 ,the greater part of the ,aristotelian material seems bodily taken from ,maimonides1 and so is the part dealing with the anthropomorphic expressions in the ,bible4 ,there is a different point of view in his exposition of the ,mutazilite physics1 which he presents in a more systematic and favorable light than ,maimonides1 defending it against the strictures of the latter4 ,but everywhere ,aaron ben ,elijah lacks the positiveness and commanding mastery of ,maimonides4 ,he is not clear what side of a question to espouse4 ,for the most part he places side by side the opposed points of view and only barely intimates his own attitude or preference4 ,under these circumstances it will not be necessary for us to reproduce his ideas in extenso4 ,it will be sufficient if we indicate his relation to ,maimonides in the problems common to both1 adding a brief statement of those topics which ,aaron ben ,elijah owes to his ,karaite predecessors1 and which ,maimonides omits4 ,his general attitude on the relation of religion or revelation to reason and philosophy is somewhat inconsistent4 ,for while he endeavors to rationalize ,jewish dogma and ,scriptural teaching like ,maimonides1 and in doing so utilizes ,aristotelian terminology in matters physical1 metaphysical1 psychological1 ethical and logical1 he nevertheless in the beginning of his work condemns philosophy as well as philosophers1 meaning of course the ,aristotelians4#cfa ,he nowhere expressly indicates the manner of reconciling this apparent contradiction4 ,but it would seem as if he intended to distinguish between the philosophical method and the actual teachings of the ,aristotelians4 ,their method he approves1 their results he condemns4 ,the ,aristotelians taught the eternity of the world1 the immutability of natural law1 ,god's ignorance of particulars and the absence of special ,providence4 ,these doctrines must be condemned4 ,maimonides too rejects these extreme teachings while praising ,aristotle and maintaining that philosophy was originally a possession of the ,israelitish people1 which they lost in the exile4 ,aaron ben ,elijah is not willing to follow the philosophers as far as ,maimonides4 ,he admits positive attributes in ,god1 which ,maimonides rejects2 he admits an absolute will in ,god and not merely a relative like ,maimonides2 he extends ,god's providence to all individuals including irrational creatures1 whereas ,maimonides limits special providence to the individuals of the human species1 and so on4 ,and so he condemns the philosophers1 though he cannot help using their method and even their fundamental doctrines1 so far as they are purely theoretical and scientific4 ,he is willing to go the full length of the ,aristotelians only in the unity and incorporeality of ,god1 though here too he vindicates sense perception to ,god1 i4 e41 the knowledge of that which we get through our sense organs4 ,he too like the philosophers insists on the importance of the reason as the instrument of truth and knowledge4 ,abraham was the first1 he tells us1 who proved the existence of ,god with his intellect4 ,then came the law of ,moses1 which strengthened the same idea4 ,the ,gentiles hated and envied ,israel for their superiority and their true opinions2 hence they endeavored to refute their ideas and establish others in their stead4 ,this was the work of the ancient ,greek philosophers1 who are called enemies in the ,bible 7,psalms #aci1 #ba74 ,at the time of the second ,temple1 seeing that the ,jewish religion and its teachings were true1 they took advantage of the advent of ,jesus to adopt his false teachings1 thus showing their hatred and envy of ,israel4 ,at the same time1 however1 they were obliged to borrow some views and methods of proof from ,israel1 for religion as such is opposed to philosophy4 ,still the true nature of ,god was unknown to them4 ,then came the ,arabs1 who imitated the ,christians in adopting a belief different from ,judaism1 at the same time borrowing views from the ,bible4 ,these are the ,mutazila and the ,ashariya4 ,later when on account of the exile differences arose among the ,jews1 there were formed the two parties of the ,karaites and the ,rabbanites4 ,the ,karaites followed the ,mutazila1 and so did some of the ,rabbanites1 because their views coincided with those of the ,bible1 from which they were borrowed4 ,the views of the philosophers as being opposed to the ,bible they naturally rejected4 ,nevertheless some ,rabbanites adopted the views of the philosophers1 though believing in the ,bible4 ,this is a mistake1 for even the ,christians rejected the views of the philosophers4#cfb ,here we see clearly the difference in general attitude between ,aaron ben ,elijah and ,maimonides4 ,the latter has no use whatsoever for the ,mutazila4 ,he realizes the immeasurable superiority of the ,aristotelians 7this is the meaning of the word philosophers in medival ,jewish and ,arabic literature74 ,his task is therefore to harmonize the ,bible with ,aristotelian doctrine wherever possible4 ,aaron ben ,elijah is still1 in the fourteenth century1 a follower of the ,kalam1 and believes the ,mutazila are closer to ,scripture than ,aristotle4 ,he is two centuries behind ,maimonides philosophically1 and yet he has the truer insight because less debauched by ,aristotelian learning4 ,as was said before1 ,aaron ben ,elijah follows a more logical arrangement in the disposition of his work than ,maimonides4 ,in reality it is the old arrangement of the ,kalamistic works 7cf4 p4 #bd74 ,the purpose of all ,jewish investigators1 he says1 is the same1 namely1 to prove the existence and nature of ,god1 but there is a difference among them in the method of proving ,god's existence4 ,some base their proofs on the assumption of the creation of the world1 others on that of the world's eternity4 ,the ,mutakallimun follow the former method1 the philosophers1 the latter4 ,their respective views of the origin of the world are determined by their opinions concerning the principles of existence and the existent1 that is1 the fundamental principles of physics and metaphysics4 ,accordingly ,aaron ben ,elijah finds it necessary to give a preliminary account of the ,kalamistic as well as the philosophic theories1 as ,maimonides did before him 7p4 #bdi ff474 ,it is not necessary for us to reproduce here his sketch of the philosophical views1 as we know them sufficiently from our studies of ,ibn ,daud and ,maimonides4 ,but it will be of value to refer to his account of the ,kalamistic principles1 though we have already discussed them in the introduction 7p4 xxi7 and in our study of ,maimonides 7p4 #bdi ff474 ,this is due principally to the fact that ,aaron ben ,elijah endeavors to defend the ,mutakallimun against ,maimonides's charge that they were influenced by preconceived notions and allowed their religious views to dictate to them their interpretation of nature1 instead of letting the latter speak for itself4 ,thus ,maimonides specifically accuses them of having adopted the atomic theory of the pre-,aristotelian philosophers not because they were really and independently convinced of its scientific truth--how could that be since ,aristotle proved it impossible8--but because on this theory they could prove the creation of the world1 which they must at all hazards maintain as a religious dogma fundamental in its nature1 since upon it is based the proof of the existence of ,god4 ,aaron ben ,elijah denies this charge1 maintaining the philosophical honesty of the ,mutakallimun4 ,epicurus too1 he says1 believed in the atomic theory1 though he regarded the world as eternal4 ,hence there is no necessary connection between atoms and creation4#cfc ,the atomic theory is defensible on its own merits1 and the motives of the ,mutakallimun in adopting it are purely scientific1 as follows3 ,according to the ,mutakallimun there are only body or substance and its accidents or qualities4 ,this is the constitution of material objects4 ,there are1 however1 two kinds of qualities or attributes1 viz41 characters1 and accidents4 ,characters are such attributes as are essential to body and without which it cannot exist4 ,accidents may disappear1 while body continues4 ,since1 then1 body may exist with or without accidents1 there must be a cause which is responsible for the attachment of accidents to body when they are so attached4 ,this cause we call union4 ,when a body is united with accidents it owes this to the existence of a certain something1 a certain property1 let us say1 in it which we have called union4 ,hence when the body is separated from accidents1 when it is without accidents1 it is because there is no union4 ,further1 every body possessed of magnitude or extension is divisible1 hence it must have union to hold its parts together4 ,but this union is not essential to all existents2 for we have seen that its function is to unite accidents with body4 ,and as accidents are separable while body may continue to exist without them1 union disappears together with the accidents4 ,bodies without union are therefore possible and real4 ,but we have just seen that all bodies possessing magnitude have union4 ,it follows therefore that if there are union-less bodies1 they are without magnitude1 and hence atoms4 ,this is the proof of the atomic theory and it has nothing to do with the matter of the origin of the world4#cfd ,as a matter of fact the ,mutakallimun believe that the atoms were created ex nihilo4 ,but the creation of the world can be proved whichever view we adopt concerning the nature of the existent1 whether it be the atomic theory of the ,mutakallimun or the principles of matter and form of the ,aristotelians4 ,the important principle at the basis of this proof is the well-known ,kalamistic one that if an object cannot do without an attribute originating in time1 the object itself has its origin in time4 ,now on either view of the constitution of the existent1 body must have form or accidents respectively1 and as the latter are constantly changing1 body or matter has its origin in time1 hence the world is not eternal4 ,besides1 not to speak of the inconclusive character of the philosophical arguments in favor of eternity and the positive arguments for creation 7all or most of which we have already met in our previous studies1 and need not therefore reproduce ,aaron ben ,elijah's version of them71 the philosophers themselves without knowing it are led to contradict themselves in their very arguments from the assumption of eternity4 ,the doctrine of creation follows as a consequence from their own presuppositions4 ,thus on the basis of eternity of motion they prove that the heavenly spheres are endowed with soul and intellect1 and their motions are voluntary and due to conceptions which they endeavor to realize 7cf4 p4 #bfg74 ,this makes the sphere a composite object1 containing the elements1 sphericity1 soul1 intellect4 ,everything composite is a possible existent1 because its existence depends upon the existence of its parts4 ,what is a possible existent may also not exist4 ,moreover1 that which is possible must at some time become actual4 ,hence the sphere must at some time have been non-existent1 and it required an agent to bring it into being4 ,we are thus led to contradict our hypothesis of eternity from which we started4#cfe ,creation is thus established1 and this is the best way to prove the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god4 ,maimonides attempts to prove creation from the peculiarities of the heavenly motions1 which cannot be well accounted for on the theory of natural causes4 ,adopting the latter in the main1 he makes an exception in the case of the spherical motions because the philosophers cannot adequately explain them1 and jumps to the conclusion that here the philosophical appeal to mechanical causation breaks down and we are dealing with teleology1 with intelligent design and purpose on the part of an intelligent agent4 ,this leads to belief in creation4 ,but this argument of ,maimonides is very weak and inconclusive4 ,ignorance of causes in a special case1 due to the limitations of our reason1 proves nothing4 ,mechanical causes may be the sole determinants of the heavenly motions even though the philosophers have not yet discovered what they are 7cf4 above1 p4 #bgj ff474#cff ,nor is ,maimonides to be imitated1 who bases his proof of the existence of ,god on the theory of eternity4 ,the ,bible is opposed to it4 ,the ,bible begins with creation as an indication that this is the basis of our knowledge of ,god's existence1 revelation and providence4 ,this is the method ,abraham followed and this is what he meant when he swore by the most high ,god1 the creator of heaven and earth 7,gen4 #ad1 #bb74 ,abraham arrived at this belief through ratiocination and endeavored to convince others4 ,the same thing is evident in the words of ,isaiah 7#dj1 #bf71 ,lift up your eyes on high and see who created these4 ,he was arguing with the people who believed in eternity1 and proved to them the existence of ,god by showing that the world is created4 ,all these indications in the ,bible show that the doctrine of creation is capable of apodeictic proof4#cfg ,the reader will see that all this is directed against ,maimonides1 though he is not mentioned by name4 ,maimonides claimed against the ,mutakallimun that it is not safe to base the existence of ,god upon the theory of creation1 because the latter cannot be strictly demonstrated4 ,and while he believed in it himself and gave reasons to show why it is more plausible than eternity1 he admitted that others might think differently2 and hence based his proofs of ,god's existence on the ,aristotelian theory of eternity in order to be on the safe side4 ,it is never too late to prove ,god's existence if the world is created4 ,we must be sure of his existence1 no matter what the fate of our cosmological theories might be4 ,this did not appeal to the ,karaite and ,mutakallim1 ,aaron ben ,elijah4 ,his idea is that we must never for a moment doubt the creation of the world4 ,to follow the procedure of ,maimonides would have the tendency of making people believe that the world may be eternal after all1 as happened in fact in the case of ,gersonides4 ,aaron ben ,elijah will not leave a way open to such a heresy4 ,in the doctrine of attributes ,aaron ben ,elijah likewise maintains the views of the ,mutazilite ,karaites against the philosophers1 and especially against ,maimonides4 ,the general problem is sufficiently familiar to us by this time1 and we need only present the salient points in the controversy4 ,the question is whether there are any positive attributes which may be applied to ,god as actually denoting his essence--hence positive essential attributes4 ,maimonides denied it1 the ,karaites affirmed it4 ,the arguments for ,maimonides's denial we saw before 7p4 #bfb f474 ,and his conclusion is that the only attributes that may be applied to ,god are the negative1 and those positive ones which do not denote any definite thing corresponding to them in ,god's essence1 but are derived from the effects of ,god's unitary and simple being on the life of man and nature4 ,he is the author of these effects1 and we characterize him in the way in which we would characterize a human being who would do similar things2 but this must not be done4 ,aaron ben ,elijah insists that there are positive essential attributes1 which are the following five3 ,omnipotent1 ,omniscient1 ,acting with ,will1 ,living1 ,existent4 ,he agrees with ,maimonides that these essential attributes must be understood in a manner not to interfere with ,god's simplicity and unity1 but is satisfied that this can be done4 ,for we must not conceive of them as additions to ,god's essence1 nor as so many distinct elements composing ,god's essence1 but as representing the multiplicity of powers issuing from him without detriment to his unity4 ,we call them essential attributes1 meaning that they are the essence of ,god1 but not that they are different from each other and each makes up part of ,god's essence4 ,we do not know ,god's essence1 and these terms are simply transferred from our human experience1 and do not indicate that ,god's activity can be compared to ours in any sense4 ,the five attributes above named are all identical with ,god's simple essence4 ,living denotes ability to perceive1 hence is identical with ,omniscient4 ,acting with will likewise denotes just and proper action1 which in turn involves true insight4 ,hence identity of will and knowledge4 ,omnipotent also in the case of an intellectual being denotes the act of the intellect par excellence1 which is knowledge4 ,and surely ,god's existence is not distinct from his essence1 else his existence would be caused1 and he would not be the necessary existent all agree him to be4 ,it follows then that ,god is one1 and his essence is nevertheless all these five attributes4 ,there are all the reasons in the world why we should apply attributes to ,god4 ,the same reason as we have for applying names to anything else exists for giving names to ,god4 ,in fact it would be correct to say that we should have more names for ,god than for anything else1 since in other things we can avoid naming them by pointing to them1 as they can be perceived by the senses4 ,not so ,god4 ,we are forced to use words in talking about him4 ,god has given himself names in the ,bible1 hence we may do the same4 ,maimonides and his school endeavor to obviate the criticisms of the philosophers1 who are opposed to all attributes1 by excluding all but negative terms4 ,but this does not help the matter in the least4 ,a negative attribute is in reality no different from a positive1 and in the end leads to a positive4 ,thus if we say not mineral1 not plant1 we clearly say animal4 ,the advocates of negative attributes answer this criticism by saying that they understand pure negation without any positive implications1 just as when we say a stone is not seeing1 we do not imply that it is blind4 ,but this cannot be1 for when they say ,god is not ignorant1 they do not mean that he is not knowing either1 for they insist that he is power and knowledge and life1 and so on4 ,this being the case1 it is much more proper to use positive attributes1 seeing that the ,prophets do so4 ,when they say that the ,prophets meant only to exclude the negative2 that by saying1 ,able1 ,knowing1 they meant to exclude weak ignorant1 they ipso facto admit that by excluding the latter we posit the former4 ,the arguments against positive essential attributes we can easily answer4 ,by saying that certain attributes are essential we do not claim to know ,god's essence4 ,all we know is ,god's existence1 which we learn from his effects1 and according to these same effects we characterize ,god's existence by means of attributes of which also we know only the existence1 not the essence4 ,for we do not mean to indicate that these terms denote the same thing in ,god as they denote in us4 ,they are homonyms1 since in ,god they denote essence1 whereas in us they are accidents4 ,the plurality of attributes does not argue plurality in ,god1 for one essence may perform a great many acts1 and hence we may characterize the essence in accordance with those acts4 ,the error of composition arises only if we suppose that the various acts point to various elements in their author4 ,of the various kinds of terms those only are applicable to ,god which denote pure essence or substance like knowledge1 power2 and those denoting activity like creating1 doing1 and so on4#cfh ,in reference to the will of ,god ,aaron ben ,elijah refuses to agree with the peculiar view of the ,mutakallimun2 but unlike ,maimonides1 who can afford to ignore their discussions entirely and dismiss their fanciful notion with a word 7,guide1 ,i4 #ge1 proof #c71 ,aaron ben ,elijah takes up the discussion seriously4 ,the ,mutakallimun 7or the ,ashariya1 according to ,aaron ben ,elijah7 were in dread of anything that might lend some semblance to eternity of the world4 ,hence they argued1 ,if the will of ,god is identical with his essence like the other essential attributes1 it follows that as his essence is eternal and unchangeable so is his will4 ,and if we grant this1 then the objects of his will too must be eternal and unchangeable1 and we have the much abhorred doctrine of the eternity of the world4 ,to avoid this objectionable conclusion they conceived of ,god's voluntary acts as due to an external will4 ,but this external will also offered difficulties4 ,it cannot be a power or quality residing in ,god as its subject1 for ,god is not a material substance bearing accidents4 ,it cannot be a quality inherent in another subject1 for then it would not be ,god's will at all2 it would be the will of this other being1 and ,god's acts would be determined by someone else4 ,they were thus forced to assume a subject-less will newly created with every act of ,god4 ,this notion ,aaron ben ,elijah rejects on the ground that a subject-less will is an impossibility4 ,an accident must have a subject1 and will implies life as its subject4 ,besides1 the relation between ,god and this subject-less accident1 will1 would be the cause of much logical difficulty4 ,aaron ben ,elijah therefore accepts the ordinary sane view that the will of ,god is identical with his essence2 that ,god wills through his own essence4 ,and he does not fear that this will lead to eternity of the world4 ,he identifies ,god's will with his wisdom1 and ,god's wisdom with right action4 ,as we do not know the essence of ,god's wisdom1 so we do not know how it is that it prompts him to realize his will at one time and not at another1 though his will is always the same4#cfi ,aaron ben ,elijah also follows his party in attributing to ,god sense perception1 not1 to be sure1 the same kind of perception as we have1 acquired by means of corporeal organs2 for this is impossible in ,god for many reasons4 ,god is not corporeal1 and he cannot be affected or changed by a corporeal stimulus4 ,but it is clear beyond a doubt that nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that the creator of the sense organs does not understand the purpose which they serve and the objects which they perceive4 ,what we mean then is that the objects which we perceive with our senses ,god also perceives1 though in an incorporeal manner4 ,hence it does not follow that there is any change in ,god due to the external object he perceives1 nor that the multiplicity of objects involves plurality in ,god2 for even our power of perception is one1 though it perceives many things and opposite4 ,we conclude then that ,god has perception as well as intelligence1 but they are not two distinct powers in him4 ,it is the object perceived that determines the power percipient4 ,hence one and the same power may be called perception when we are dealing with a sensible object1 and intelligence when it has an intelligible as its object4#cgj ,in his discussion of the nature of evil we once more are brought in contact with ,kalamistic views recalling the old ,karaite works of the eleventh century 7cf4 pp4 #eb1 #eg74 ,thus the notion that good and bad are adjectives applied to acts not in view of their inherent character1 which is per se neither good nor bad1 but solely to indicate that they have been commanded or forbidden2 the idea that only the dependent subject can do wrong1 but not the master1 since his will is the source of all right and wrong--these views are frequently discussed in the ,mutazilite works of ,arabs and ,karaites4 ,the ,rabbanites scarcely ever mention them4 ,aaron ben ,elijah enumerates six views on the nature of evil1 with all of which except the last he disagrees4 ,the opinion named above that an act is made good or bad by being commanded or prohibited1 he refutes as follows3 ,such a view removes the very foundation of good and bad4 ,for if the person in authority chooses to reverse his order1 the good becomes bad1 and the bad good1 and the same thing is then good and bad1 which is absurd4 ,besides1 if there are two authorities giving opposite orders1 the same act is good and bad at the same time4 ,to say that ,god's command alone determines the character of an act is incorrect1 because as long as commanding and prohibiting as such determine the goodness or badness of an act1 the person issuing the command is immaterial4 ,we do say quite generally that an act which ,god commands is good1 and one which he prohibits is bad2 but we mean by this merely that the command or prohibition is an indication to us1 who are ignorant of the true nature of acts4 ,again1 on this theory of the value of acts1 what will you do with such an act as the investigation of the existence and nature of ,god8 ,surely such an important matter cannot be indifferent4 ,it must be good or bad4 ,and yet we cannot apply to it the above test of command and prohibition1 for this test implies the existence of ,god1 which the act endeavors to prove4 ,it follows therefore that the value of an act is inherent in it and not determined and created by command and prohibition4 ,aaron ben ,elijah is similarly dissatisfied with another view1 which regards evil as a negation4 ,we have heard this opinion before and we know that ,maimonides adopted it 7p4 #bhh74 ,its motive as we know is to remove from ,god the responsibility for evil4 ,if evil is nothing positive it is not caused by the activity of an agent4 ,all essential activity is good1 and all the acts of ,god are good4 ,evil consists in the absence of good2 it is due to matter1 and does not come from ,god4 ,aaron ben ,elijah objects properly that as good is a positive act1 a doing of something positive1 so is evil1 even on the theory of its negative character1 a removal of something positive1 hence a positive act4 ,besides1 granting all that the opponent claims1 the argument should work both ways1 and if ,god is not held responsible for the evil in the world because it is mere privation1 why should man be held responsible for doing evil1 i4 e41 for removing the positive8 ,he clinches his argument by quoting ,isaiah 7#e1 #bj71 ,woe unto those who say of evil it is good1 and of good it is evil 444 that put bitter for sweet1 and sweet for bitter4 ,good and evil are placed parallel with sweet and bitter1 which are both positive4 ,hence the ,bible is opposed to the negative conception of evil4 ,his own view is that good and evil are qualities pertaining to an act by reason of its own nature1 but these are not absolute conceptions like true and false4 ,the good and the bad are conventional constructs1 and the value of an act is relative to the end or purpose it serves4 ,the purpose of human convention in regarding certain acts as good and others as bad is the protection of the human race4 ,an act which conduces to human welfare is good1 one that militates against it is bad4 ,still there are instances in which an act generally regarded as bad may assume a different character when in the given instance it serves a good purpose1 as for example when pain is inflicted to obviate more serious danger4 ,the surgeon1 who amputates a leg to save the patient's life1 does good1 not evil4 ,the judge1 who punishes the criminal with imprisonment or death for the protection of society and to realize justice1 does good1 not evil4 ,in this way we must explain the evil which ,god brings upon man4 ,god cannot be the cause of evil4 ,for evil in man is due to want or ignorance4 ,neither is found in ,god1 hence he has no motive to do wrong4 ,all the evil of which we complain is only apparent4 ,in reality it is good1 because it is either brought upon us to prevent still greater evils1 or it is in the nature of just punishment for wrongdoing4 ,in either case it is a good4#cga ,aaron ben ,elijah's discussion of ,providence follows closely the plan of the corresponding arguments in ,maimonides4 ,the problem is treated by both in connection with ,god's knowledge1 and both maintain that the real motive of those who denied ,god's knowledge of particulars is their observation of apparent injustice in the happenings of this world 7cf4 above1 p4 #bhi74 ,both again preface their own views of the question of ,providence by a preliminary statement of the various opinions held by other sects4 ,here too the two accounts are in the main similar1 except that ,aaron ben ,elijah is somewhat more detailed and names a few sects not mentioned by ,maimonides1 among them being the ,manicheans and the followers of the ,syrian ,gnostic ,bardesanes4 ,in their own views1 however1 ,aaron ben ,elijah and ,maimonides differ2 the latter approaching the view of ,aristotle1 the former that of the ,mutazila4 ,maimonides as we know 7p4 #bib7 denies special providence for the individuals of the sublunar world with the exception of man4 ,in the case of the lower animals1 the species alone are protected by divine providence1 hence they will continue forever1 whereas the individual animals are subject to chance4 ,man1 as a rational animal1 is an exception4 ,he is a free and responsible agent1 hence he is under divine guidance and is rewarded and punished for his conduct4 ,the extent of the divine care depends upon the degree to which the individual develops his reason1 actualizing his potential intellect4 ,aaron ben ,elijah argues that this view is erroneous1 for it is not proper to make a distinction between ,god's knowledge and his providence4 ,if it would argue imperfection in ,god not to know certain things1 the same objection applies to limiting his providence1 and the two should be coextensive4 ,to say that ,god's providence extends to superior and important things and ignores the inferior is to make ,god guilty of injustice4 ,aaron ben ,elijah believes therefore that ,providence extends to all individuals1 including animals4 ,and he quotes the ,bible in his support1 ,the ,lord is good to all1 and his mercies are over all his works1 7,ps4 #ade1 #i71 and1 ,thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together 7,deut4 #bb1 #aj74 ,maimonides1 he says1 was led to his opinion by his idea that death and suffering always involve sin2 and not being able to apply this dictum to the suffering of animals that are slaughtered1 he removed ,providence from their individuals entirely4 ,when the ,bible orders us to consider the feelings of the animal1 he says the object is to train our own faculties in mercy1 and prevent the formation of habits of cruelty1 not for the sake of the animal4 ,but he cannot remove all difficulties in this way4 ,what will he do with the case of a person born crippled1 and the sufferings of little children8 ,the idea that death and suffering in all cases involve sin must be given up4 ,maimonides is also wrong when he says that reward is purely intellectual and is dependent upon the development of the acquired intellect4 ,it would follow from this that right conduct as such is not rewarded2 that it serves merely as a help to realizing the acquired intellect4 ,all this is opposed to ,biblical teaching4#cgb ,the prosperity of the wicked and the adversity of the righteous ,aaron ben ,elijah endeavors to explain as follows4 ,the prosperity of the wicked may be due to former good deeds2 or by way of punishment1 that he may continue in his evil deeds and be punished more severely4 ,it may be in order that he may use the good fortune he has in whatever way he pleases1 for good or ill4 ,finally his good fortune may be given him as a matter of grace1 like his creation4 ,correspondingly we may explain the adversity of the righteous in a similar manner4 ,it may be due to former sins4 ,if he has no sins1 his sufferings may be intended to test him in order to add to his reward4 ,if he dies without having enjoyed life1 he will be rewarded in the next world4 ,the pleasures of this world must not be considered4 ,for since they are given as a matter of grace1 they may come or not without involving any injustice4 ,when a man has both good deeds and sins1 he may be rewarded for his good deeds and punished for his bad1 or he may be paid according to the element which predominates4 ,those who are born crippled and the sufferings of children will be rewarded later4 ,in reference to the slaughter of animals1 ,aaron ben ,elijah does not agree with the ,mutazila that the animals will be recompensed for their undeserved sufferings4 ,there is no immortal part in animals1 hence no reward after death4 ,he can assign no reason for their sufferings except that men need them for food1 but he sees nothing wrong in taking an animal's life for food1 for as the life of animals was given to them as a matter of grace1 there is no wrong in taking it away4 ,however1 to inflict pain in a way different from the manner permitted by ,god is wrong4#cgc ,aaron ben ,elijah lays great stress upon what he considers an important difference of opinion between the ,rabbanites and the ,karaites concerning the nature and purpose of divine punishment4 ,the ,rabbanites according to him insist that there is no death without sin1 nor suffering without guilt1 whereas the ,karaites admit that some of the sufferings of the righteous are not in the nature of punishment at all1 but are what are known as chastisements of love4 ,their purpose is to increase the man's reward later in the future world1 and at the same time they have a pedagogical value in themselves in strengthening the person spiritually4 ,accordingly ,aaron ben ,elijah1 who in the main follows the opinions of the ,karaites1 differs with the ,rabbanites and particularly ,maimonides in the interpretation of the trials of ,adam1 ,abraham1 ,job4 ,so far as ,job is concerned1 we know the opinions of ,maimonides on the subject4 ,in his ,guide of the ,perplexed he interprets the book of ,job in connection with his discussion of ,providence 7cf4 above1 p4 #cjd74 ,in the general nature of suffering the idea of chastisement of love is quite familiar to the ,rabbis1 though ,maimonides does not care to insist on it1 claiming that there is no support for it in the ,bible4 ,the idea of trial according to him is neither that ,god may know what he did not know before2 nor is it to make a man suffer that he may be rewarded later4 ,the purpose of trial is that mankind may know whatever it is desired to teach them in a given case4 ,in the trial of ,abraham when he was told to sacrifice ,isaac1 there was a two-fold reason2 first1 that all may know to what extent the love of ,god may go in a pious man2 and second to show that a prophet is convinced of the reality of his visions as an ordinary person is of the data of his senses4#cgd ,the book of ,job is to ,maimonides a treatise on ,providence1 and the five characters in the drama represent the various opinions on the nature of ,providence as they were held by different schools of philosophy and theology in ,maimonides's day4 ,job has the ,aristotelian view that ,god cares nothing for man4 ,eliphaz represents the correct ,jewish view that everything is reward or punishment for merit and demerit4 ,bildad maintains the ,mutazilite opinion that many misfortunes are for the purpose of increasing reward in the world to come4 ,zophar stands for the view of the ,ashariya that all is to be explained by reference to the will of ,god1 and no questions should be asked4 ,elihu finally insists that the individual man is the object of the divine care1 but that we must not compare ,god's providence with our own interest in1 and care for things2 that there is no relation at all between them except in name 7cf4 above1 p4 #cjd74 ,the ,rabbis1 who do not make of ,job a philosopher1 naturally do not understand the matter as ,maimonides does1 but they nevertheless agree with him that ,job deserved the punishment he received4 ,the ,karaites on the other hand classed ,job's sufferings with chastisements of love1 which would mean that ,job was a perfect man and did not deserve any punishment4 ,the sole motive for inflicting pain and tribulation upon him was to reward him the more later4 ,aaron ben ,elijah agrees in the main with his ,karaite predecessors that ,job was not punished for any fault he had committed4 ,he does not see in the arguments of ,job's friends any difference of opinion on the general question of ,providence1 and ,job was not an ,aristotelian4 ,unlike ,aristotle1 he did believe in ,god's care for man1 as is evident from such statements as 7,job #aj1 #aj71 ,behold like milk didst thou pour me out1 and like cheese didst thou curdle me4 ,the ,karaites1 he holds1 are correct in their main contention that ,job's sufferings were not in the nature of punishment for previous guilt and wrongdoing1 but they are mistaken in supposing that ,job was altogether right in his conception of the meaning and reason of his sufferings2 that they had no other purpose except to increase his reward in the future4 ,aaron ben ,elijah then explains his own view of trial4 ,man1 he says1 is composed of body and soul1 and must therefore endeavor to gain this world and the next4 ,if he is punished for guilt or offence1 the punishment corresponds to the offence4 ,corporeal guilt is followed by corporeal punishment1 spiritual guilt by spiritual punishment4 ,adam offended spiritually and was punished spiritually by being driven from the ,garden of ,eden as will be explained later4 ,abraham endeavored to do justice to both the constituent parts of his being2 and hence ,god in his kindness1 wishing to strengthen ,abraham spiritually1 gave him the opportunity in the trial of ,isaac4 ,at the same time the physical suffering was compensated by the promise to ,abraham of the continuity of ,isaac's descendants4 ,job's sufferings were of the same kind1 except that they came to him without his knowledge and without his being told their purpose4 ,and at first he thought they were in order to give him future reward1 but without any use in themselves4 ,later he discovered that they benefited him directly by increasing his spiritual strength4#cge ,aaron ben ,elijah differs also from ,maimonides in reference to the purpose of the world4 ,maimonides maintains that while there is sense in inquiring for the purpose of the parts of the world1 the question of the ultimate purpose of the world as a whole is meaningless4 ,the purpose of a given event or law of nature lies in its relation to the other events and laws1 hence there is a relative purpose in particular things2 thus1 given the existence of animals they must have food1 sense perception1 and so on4 ,but if we ask why the universe as a whole1 the only answer that can be given is ,god's wisdom1 which we do not understand4 ,in particular ,maimonides will not admit that the world is for the sake of man1 as this view clashes with experience and makes it impossible to explain a great many phenomena in nature1 which are distinctly of no benefit to man and take no cognizance of his interests4#cgf ,aaron ben ,elijah agrees with ,maimonides that ,god's wisdom rather than his arbitrary will1 as the ,ashariya maintain1 must be appealed to in answering the question of the purpose of the world4 ,but he is inclined to regard man as the purpose of the lower world1 admitting that we cannot know the purpose of the higher worlds of the spheres and ,intelligences1 as they transcend the powers of our comprehension4#cgg ,we can pass over ,aaron ben ,elijah's discussion of prophecy very briefly because there is no new attitude or contribution in his views4 ,without saying it1 he reluctantly perhaps1 leans upon ,maimonides1 and with apparent variations in form really adopts the classification of the ,guide 7p4 #bgg74 ,he gives no psychological explanation of prophecy because he disagrees with the philosophers1 to whom prophecy is a purely natural gift which cannot fail to manifest itself when the requisite conditions are there1 namely1 perfection in intellect and imagination4 ,in fact when he gives the different views on the nature of prophecy1 he refuses to identify what seems to stand in his book for the view of ,maimonides 7the fourth view7 with that of the followers of the ,mosaic law4 ,whereas ,maimonides following the philosophers insists on the two important elements in prophecy1 namely1 intellect and imagination1 adding thereto also moral perfection1 ,aaron ben ,elijah in giving the opinion of those who follow the law of ,moses1 says nothing of the imagination4 ,he insists only on perfection in intellect and in ethical character4 ,this difference is1 however1 only apparent2 and further on he refers to the imagination as an important element1 which determines1 in its relation to the reason1 the character of a man as a prophet or a mere statesman or philosopher--all in the manner of ,maimonides4 ,his idea of the purpose of prophecy he develops1 as it seems1 with an eye to the criticism of the ,brahmins of ,india1 whom he quotes as denying prophecy1 though admitting ,providence1 on the ground that it can serve no purpose4 ,the reason alone1 they say1 is sufficient to decide what is right and what is wrong4 ,accordingly ,aaron ben ,elijah meets their objection as follows3 ,it is true that man might have gotten along without prophecy through the laws which his own reason established for right and wrong1 good and evil4 ,those who followed these rational laws would have attained long life1 and the others would have perished4 ,but a good man living in a bad environment would have been involved in the downfall of the majority1 which would not be just4 ,hence it was necessary that ,god should warn the man1 that he might save himself4 ,this is the first beginning of prophecy4 ,witness ,noah and ,lot4 ,abraham was a great advance on his predecessors4 ,he endeavored to follow ,god's will in respect to both body and soul4 ,hence ,god saved him from the danger to which he was exposed in ,ur of the ,chaldees1 and wanted to benefit his descendants also that they should perfect their bodies and their souls4 ,this is impossible for a whole nation without special laws to guide them4 ,this is particularly true of the traditional laws 7ceremonial71 which are not in themselves good or bad1 but are disciplinary in their nature4 ,a prophet must have both intellectual and ethical perfection4 ,for he must understand the nature of ,god in order to communicate his will2 and this cannot be had without previous ethical perfection4 ,hence the twofold requirement4 ,this is the reason1 he says1 why we do not believe in the religions of ,jesus and ,mohammed1 because they were not possessed of intellectual perfection4 ,and besides they tend to the extinction of the human species by reason of their monastic and celibate ideal4 ,they were misled by the asceticism of the prophets1 who meant it merely as a protest against the material self-indulgence of the time1 and called attention to the higher life4 ,but those people in their endeavor to imitate the prophets mistook the means for the end1 with the result that they missed both1 perfection of soul as well as of body1 and merely mortified the flesh1 thinking it the will of ,god4 ,hence1 ,aaron ben ,elijah continues1 we shall never accept a religion which does not preach the maintenance of this world as well as of the next4 ,not even miracles can authenticate a religion which preaches monasticism and celibacy4 ,moses was superior to the other prophets4 ,all the others received their messages in a vision or a dream1 ,moses had his inspiration while awake4 ,the others were inspired through the medium of an angel1 i4 e41 through the imagination1 hence their language abounds in allegories and parables4 ,moses did not use the imagination1 hence the plain character of his speech4 ,the others were overcome by the vision and physically exhausted1 as we read in ,daniel 7#aj1 #ag71 ,there remained no strength in me1 and no breath was left in me4 ,moses was free from this weakness--,and the ,lord spoke unto ,moses face to face1 as a man speaketh unto his neighbor 7,exod4 #cc1 #aa74 ,the others required preparation1 ,moses did not4 ,moses's testimony1 too1 was stronger than that of all the rest4 ,his authority in the end was made plain to all the people directly and openly1 so that there remained not a shred of a doubt4 ,this is why we accept his law and no other1 because none is so well authenticated4 ,the ,law cannot change without implying that the standard of perfection has changed1 or the world has changed1 or ,god's knowledge has changed4 ,all this is impossible4 ,the ,law says besides1 ,thou shalt not add thereto1 and thou shalt not diminish therefrom 7,deut4 #ac1 #a74 ,therefore1 concludes ,aaron ben ,elijah the ,karaite1 we do not believe in the oral or traditional law because of the additions to1 and subtractions from1 the written law which it contains4#cgh ,aaron ben ,elijah agrees with ,maimonides that all the commandments of the ,bible1 including the ceremonial laws1 have a purpose and are not due to the arbitrary will of ,god4 ,the ceremonial laws are for the sake of the rational1 serving a pedagogical and disciplinary purpose1 and the ,law as a whole is for the purpose of teaching the truth and inculcating the good4 ,he goes further than ,maimonides in vindicating the rational and ethical purpose of all the details of the various laws1 and not merely of the several commandments as a whole 7cf4 above1 p4 #bid74cgi ,a problem that occupied the minds of the ,mutakallimun1 ,arabs as well as ,karaites1 but which ,maimonides does not discuss1 is the purpose of ,god's giving commandments to those who he knew would remain unbelievers1 and refuse to obey4 ,that ,god's knowledge and man's freedom co-exist and neither destroys the other1 has already been shown4#chj ,if then ,god knows1 as we must assume1 that a given person will refuse to obey the commandments1 what is the use of giving them to him8 ,and granting that for some reason unknown to us they have been given1 is it just to punish him for disobedience when the latter might have been spared by not giving the man in question any commandments8 ,aaron ben ,elijah answers these questions by citing the following parallel4 ,a man prepares a meal for two guests and one does not come4 ,the absence of the guest does not make the preparation improper1 for the character of the act does not depend upon the choice of the guest to do or not to do the desire of the host4 ,the invitation was proper because the host meant the guest's benefit4 ,to be sure1 the case is not quite parallel1 and to make it so we must assume that the host expects that the guest will not come4 ,his intention being good1 the invitation is proper4 ,in our problem knowledge takes the place of expectation4 ,god does not merely expect1 he knows that the man will not obey4 ,but as ,god's desire is to benefit mankind and arouse them to higher things1 the command is proper1 no matter what the person chooses to do4 ,to punish the man for disobedience is not unjust because ,god intended to benefit him by the command4 ,if he disobeyed1 that is his lookout4 ,if the benefit could have been had without the command1 then the punishment would be unjust1 but not otherwise4 ,if only good men were commanded and the rest ignored1 the danger would be that the former being thereby assured of reward1 might be tempted to do wrong2 and the others in despair might be worse than they would be under ordinary circumstances4 ,god saw that man has evil tendencies1 and needs warning and guidance from without4 ,and just as he gave men understanding and ability to believe though he knew that a given person would not avail himself thereof1 so he gave all men commandments1 though he knew that some would not obey4#cha ,the rest of the book is devoted to such questions as reward and punishment after death1 immortality of the soul1 the problem of the soul's pre-existence1 the nature of the future life1 repentance--questions which ,maimonides left untouched in the ,guide on the ground that whatever religion and tradition may say about them1 they are not strictly speaking scientific questions1 and are not susceptible to philosophical demonstration4 ,aaron ben ,elijah proves that there must be reward and punishment after death4 ,for as man is composed of body and soul1 there must be reward for each according as man endeavors to maintain and perfect them4 ,thus if a man cares for his body alone1 he will be rewarded in his body1 i4 e41 in this world4 ,the other man who looks out for both body and soul must have the same reward in this world as the other1 since their physical efforts were similar4 ,at the same time he must have something over and above the other in the nature of compensation for his soul1 and this must be in the next world4 ,the prosperity of the wicked and the misery of the righteous are also to be explained in part1 as we have seen 7p4 #cgf71 by reference to their respective destinies in the next world1 where the inequalities of this world will be adjusted4 ,finally1 material reward cannot be the consequence of intellectual and spiritual merit2 it would mean doing the greater for the sake of the smaller4 ,and besides the soul is not benefited by physical goods and pleasures1 and would remain without reward4 ,hence there must be another kind of reward after death4 ,in order to deserve such reward the soul must become wise4 ,at the same time the common people1 who observe the ceremonial commandments1 are not excluded from a share in the world to come1 because the purpose of these laws is also intellectual and spiritual1 as we said before 7p4 #chb71 and hence their observance makes the soul wise1 and gives it immortality4 ,this last comment is clearly directed against the extreme intellectualism of ,maimonides and ,gersonides1 according to whom rational activity alone confers immortality 7p4 #cci74chb ,the considerations just adduced imply the immortality of the soul1 to which they lend indirect proof4 ,but ,aaron ben ,elijah endeavors besides to furnish direct proof of the soul's continuance after the death of the body4 ,and the first thing he does is to disarm the criticism of the philosophers1 who deny immortality on the ground that the soul being the form of the body1 it must like other material forms cease with the dissolution of the things of which they are the forms4 ,he answers this by showing that the soul as the cause of knowledge and wisdom--immaterial faculties--is itself immaterial4 ,being also the cause of the body's motion1 it is not itself subject to motion1 hence not to time1 and therefore not destructible like a natural form4 ,besides the composition of body and soul is different from that of matter and form in the ordinary sense4 ,for in the former case each of the constituent parts is already a composite of matter and form4 ,the body has both matter and form1 and the soul has likewise4 ,for the acquired intellect is the form of the soul1 which is the matter4 ,other proofs are as follows3 ,the rational soul performs its functions without help from the body1 hence it is independent in its existence4 ,the proof of the last statement is that the power of the rational soul is not limited1 and does not become weary1 as a corporeal power does4 ,hence it can exist without the body4 ,again1 as the corporeal powers grow stronger1 the intellectual powers grow weaker1 and vice versa as the corporeal powers grow weaker in old age1 the intellect grows stronger4 ,hence the soul is independent of the body1 and when the physical powers cease entirely in death1 the intellect is at its height4#chc ,the question of the soul's pre-existence before coming in contact with the body1 ,aaron ben ,elijah answers in the affirmative1 though his arguments in favor of the opposite view are stronger4 ,his sole argument in favor of its pre-existence is that the soul1 being a self-subsisting substance and not an accident1 is not dependent upon the body1 and must have existed before the body4 ,the consequence which some have drawn from this supposition combined with the soul's immortality1 namely1 that the soul is eternal1 he refuses to adopt4 ,the soul existed before the body1 but like all things which are not ,god it was created in time4 ,though we have thus seen that the soul existed before the body1 it is mistaken to suppose that it was completely developed4 ,for though the gradual progress in knowledge and understanding as the individual matures proves nothing for the soul's original imperfection1 as we may account for this progress by the gradual adaptation of the physical elements to the functions of the soul1 there is a more valid objection4 ,if the soul was perfectly developed before entering the body1 all souls should be alike when they leave it1 which is not the case4 ,we come to the conclusion therefore that the soul does acquire knowledge while in contact with the body4 ,the human soul is a unit1 and from its connection with the body arise the various powers1 such as growth1 life1 reason4 ,when the soul is separated from the body1 those powers which functioned with the aid of the body perish2 the others remain4#chd ,in the matter of eschatology ,aaron ben ,elijah gives a number of views without declaring himself definitely for any of them4 ,the main difference among the three points of view quoted concerns the possibility of the resurrection of the body1 and the meaning of the terms revival of the dead 7,tehiyat ha-metim7 and the world to come 7,olam ha-ba74 ,aaron ben ,elijah seems to incline to the first1 in favor of resurrection4 ,we must endeavor1 he says1 to get some notion of final reward and punishment4 ,for without any idea of its nature a man's hope or fear is taken away from him1 and he has no motive for right conduct4 ,to be sure it is not possible to get a clear understanding of the matter1 but some idea we must have4 ,the first view which he seems to favor is that revival of the dead and world to come are the same thing2 that the end of man is the resurrection of the body and its reunion with the soul4 ,this is the future life1 and this is meant by reward and punishment4 ,there is ,biblical support for this view in such expressions as1 ,thy dead shall live1 thy dead bodies shall arise 7,isa4 #bf1 #ai74 ,the ,lord killeth1 and maketh alive2 he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up 7#a ,sam4 #b1 #f74 ,there is nothing to object in this1 he says1 for the same ,god who made man of the dust can revive him after death4 ,besides1 there seems to be a logical propriety in bringing soul and body together for reward and punishment just as they were during conduct in life4 ,when the soul is once reunited with the body in the resurrection1 it is never separated again4 ,the expression garden of ,eden for paradise is a figure of speech for eternal life free from pain4 ,the second opinion is expressed by those who do not believe in bodily resurrection4 ,the end of man according to these is the return of the soul to the world of souls4 ,this is the meaning of world to come2 and revival of the dead means the same thing4 ,for it is not possible that the soul should be reunited with the body1 which is temporary in its nature and subject to dissolution4 ,besides1 the body has organs1 such as those of food and reproduction1 which would be useless in the future life4 ,the advocates of this theory also believe in transmigration of souls as a punishment4 ,aaron ben ,elijah rejects metempsychosis on the ground that there is some relation between a soul and its body1 and not every body can receive every soul4 ,aaron ben ,elijah also quotes without comment the classification1 already familiar to us 7p4 #aai71 of human souls into 7#a7 dead1 7#b7 alive1 7#c7 healthy1 and 7#d7 sick4 ,death denotes evil deeds2 life1 good deeds2 health1 intellectual knowledge2 disease1 ignorance4 ,this classification is applied in determining the destiny of the soul after death4 ,if one is alive and healthy1 i4 e41 has knowledge and good deeds1 he has a share in the world to come4 ,if he is healthy and dead 7knowledge evil deeds71 the soul is kept in an intermediate world forever4 ,if he is alive and sick 7good deeds ignorance71 the soul rises to the upper air1 whence it returns again and again to the body until it acquires wisdom to be able to rise to the world of angels4 ,if he is dead and sick 7evil deeds ignorance71 the soul dies like an animal4 ,finally1 the third opinion is a combination of resurrection and future world4 ,seeing that some of the functions of the soul are performed with the help of the body1 while others are not1 the advocates of this view maintain that the soul will be rewarded in both conditions--with the body1 in resurrection1 without the body1 in the world to come4 ,if a man has merits and demerits1 his good and evil deeds are balanced against each other1 and the surplus determines his reward or punishment according to its nature4#che ,,chapter ,,xvii ,,hasdai ,,ben ,,abraham ,,crescas 7#acdj-adaj7 ,the influence of ,aristotle on ,jewish thought1 which began as early as ,saadia and grew in intensity as the ,aristotelian writings became better known1 reached its high water mark in ,ibn ,daud1 ,maimonides and ,gersonides4 ,to ,maimonides ,aristotle was the indisputable authority for all matters pertaining to sublunar existence1 but he reserved the right to differ with the ,stagirite when the question concerned the heavenly spheres and the influences derived from them4 ,hence he denied the eternity of motion and the fundamental principle at the basis of this ,aristotelian idea1 that necessity rules all natural phenomena4 ,in his doctrine of creation in time1 ,maimonides endeavored to defend ,god's personality and voluntary and purposeful activity4 ,for the same reason he defended the institution of miracles4 ,gersonides went further in his rationalistic attitude1 carried the ,aristotelian principles to their inevitable conclusions1 and did not shrink from adopting to all intents and purposes the eternity of the world 7strictly speaking the eternity of matter71 and the limitation of ,god's knowledge to universals4 ,aristotle's authority was now supreme1 and the ,bible had to yield to ,aristotelian interpretations1 as we have seen abundantly4 ,maimonides and ,gersonides were the great peaks that stood out above the rest2 but there was any number of lesser lights1 some who wrote books and still more who did not write1 taking the great men as their models and looking at ,jewish literature and belief through ,aristotelian spectacles4 ,intellectualism is the term that best describes this attitude4 ,it had its basis in psychology1 and from there succeeded in establishing itself as the ruling principle in ethics and metaphysics4 ,as reason and intellect is the distinguishing trait of man--the part of man which raises him above the beast--and as the soul is the form of the living body1 its essence and actuating principle1 it was argued that the most important part of man is his rational soul or intellect1 and immortality was made dependent upon theoretical ideas4 ,speculative study made the soul2 and an intellect thus constituted was immortal1 for it was immaterial4 ,the heavenly world1 consisting of the separate ,intelligences and culminating in ,god1 was also in its essence reason and intellect4 ,hence thought and knowledge formed the essence of the universe4 ,by thought is man saved1 and through thought is he united with the ,most ,high4 ,all else that is not pure thought acquires what value it has from the relation it bears to thought4 ,in this way were judged those divisions of ,judaism that concerned ceremony and ethical practice4 ,their value consisted in their function of promoting the ends of the reason4 ,judah ,halevi1 influenced by ,al ,gazali1 had already before ,maimonides protested against this intellectualistic attitude in the name of a truer though more naive understanding of the ,bible and ,jewish history4 ,but ,judah ,halevi's nationalism and the expression of his poetical and religious feelings and ideas could not vie with the dominating personality of ,maimonides1 whose rationalistic and intellectualistic attitude swept everything before it and became the dominant mode of thinking for his own and succeeding ages4 ,it remained for ,hasdai ,crescas 7born in ,barcelona1 in #acdj71 who flourished in ,christian ,spain two centuries after ,maimonides and over a half century after ,gersonides1 to take up the cudgels again in behalf of a truer ,judaism1 a ,judaism independent of ,aristotle1 and one that is based more upon the spiritual and emotional sides of man and less upon the purely intellectual1 theoretical and speculative4 ,himself devoid of the literary power and poetic feeling of ,judah ,halevi1 ,crescas had this in common with the medival national poet that he resented the domination of ,jewish belief and thought by the alien ,greek speculation4 ,in a style free from rhetoric1 and characterized rather by a severe brevity and precision1 he undertakes to undermine the ,aristotelian position by using the ,stagirite's own weapons1 logical analysis and proof4 ,his chief work is the ,or ,adonai1 ,light of the ,lord4#chf ,agreeing with all other ,jewish writers that the existence of ,god is the basis of ,judaism1 he sees in this very fact a reason why this principle cannot be regarded as one of the six hundred and thirteen commandments4 ,for a commandment implies the existence of one who commands4 ,hence to regard the belief in the existence of ,god as a commandment implies the very thing which the commandment expresses4 ,the existence of ,god therefore as the basis of all commandments cannot itself be a commandment4 ,besides only those things can form the objects of a command which can be controlled by the will4 ,but a matter of belief like the existence of ,god is not subject to will1 it is a matter of fact and of proof4#chg ,maimonides1 as we know1 based his proofs of the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god upon twenty-six philosophical propositions taken from the works of ,aristotle and his ,arabian interpreters4 ,as he was not writing a book on general philosophy1 ,maimonides simply enumerates twenty-five propositions1 which he accepts as proved by ,aristotle and his followers4 ,to these he adds provisionally another proposition1 number twenty-six1 concerning the eternity of motion1 upon which he bases his proof of the existence of ,god in order to be safe from all criticism4 ,in the sequel he discusses this last proposition and shows that unlike the other twenty-five1 it is not susceptible of rigid demonstration1 and the arguments in favor of the origin of motion and the world in time are more plausible4 ,crescas goes further than ,maimonides1 and controverts most of the other propositions as well1 maintaining in particular against ,aristotle and ,maimonides that an infinite magnitude is possible and exists actually2 that there is an infinite fulness or void outside of this world1 and hence there may be many worlds1 and it need not follow that the elements would pour in from one world into the next1 so that all earth should be together in the centre1 all fire together in the outer circumference1 and the intermediate elements1 air and water1 between these two4 ,the elements may stay in their respective worlds in the places assigned to them4 ,it will not be worth our while to wade through all the technical and hair-splitting discussions of these points4 ,the results will be sufficient for our purpose4 ,the proof of the existence of an unmoved mover in ,aristotle and ,maimonides is based upon the impossibility of a regress to infinity4 ,if ,hasdai ,crescas admits the infinite1 the ,aristotelian proof fails4 ,similarly ,god's unity in ,maimonides is among other things based upon the finiteness of the world and its unity4 ,if infinite space is possible outside of this world1 and there may be many worlds1 this proof fails for ,god's unity4 ,so ,crescas takes up in detail all the ,maimonidean proofs of the existence1 unity and incorporeality of ,god and points out that they are not valid because in the first place they are based upon premises which ,crescas has refuted1 and secondly were the premises granted ,maimonides's results do not follow from them4#chh ,it remains then for ,crescas to give his own views on this problem which1 he says1 the philosophers are unable to solve satisfactorily1 and the ,bible alone is to be relied upon4 ,at the same time he does give a logical proof which in reality is not different from one of the proofs given by ,maimonides himself4 ,it is based upon the distinction insisted upon by ,alfarabi and ,avicenna between the possible existent and the necessary existent4 ,whatever is an effect of a cause is in itself merely possible1 and owes the necessity of its existence to its cause4 ,now1 argues ,crescas1 whether the number of causes and effects is finite or infinite1 there must be one cause of all of them which is not itself an effect4 ,for if all things are effects they are possible existents as regards their own nature1 and require a cause which will make them exist rather than not4 ,this self-subsisting cause is ,god4#chi ,he then endeavors to prove the unity of ,god in the two senses of the term2 unity in the sense of simplicity1 and unity in the sense of uniqueness4 ,unity as opposed to composition--the former sense of the term--is neither the same as the essence of a thing1 nor is it an accident added to the essence4 ,it cannot be essence1 for in that case all things called one would have the same essence4 ,nor is it accident1 for that which defines and separates the existing thing is truly called substance rather than accident2 and this is what unity does4 ,accordingly ,crescas defines unity as something essential to everything actually existing1 denoting the absence of plurality4 ,this being true1 that existent which is before all others is most truly called one4 ,also that being which is most separated from other things is best called one4#cij ,crescas disagrees with ,maimonides's opinion that no positive attributes can be applied to ,god1 such as indicate relation to his creatures1 and so on4 ,his arguments are that we cannot avoid relation to creatures even in the term cause1 which ,maimonides admits2 and in the attributes of action--the only kind of positive attributes allowed by ,maimonides--it is implied that before a given time ,god did not do a particular thing1 which he did later1 a condition in ,god which ,maimonides will not admit4 ,besides1 if there are no positive attributes1 what could be the meaning of the tetragrammaton1 about which ,maimonides has so much to say8 ,if it expressed a negative attribute1 why was its meaning kept so secret8 ,crescas's own view is that there are positive attributes1 and that there is a relation between ,god and his creatures1 though not a similarity1 as they are far apart1 the one being a necessary existent1 the other a possible existent2 one being infinite1 the other finite4#cia ,we must now try to show that ,god is one in the sense that there are no other ,gods besides4 ,we may proceed as follows3 ,if there are two ,gods1 one of them controls only part of the world or he does not control it at all4 ,the first is impossible because the unitary world must be due to one agent4 ,but there may be more than one world and hence more than one agent4 ,this is1 however1 answered by the thought that being infinite in power one could control them all4 ,there is still another alternative1 viz41 that one agent controls the whole world and the other does nothing4 ,here speculation can go no further1 and we must have recourse to ,scripture1 which says1 ,hear1 ,o ,israel1 the ,lord our ,god1 the ,lord is ,one4#cib ,we see here that ,crescas is interested in discrediting the logic chopping of the philosophers4 ,no merely logical argument1 is his idea1 can give us absolute certainty even in so fundamental a doctrine as the unity of ,god4 ,like ,judah ,halevi1 ,crescas took his inspiration from ,algazali1 whose point of view appealed to him more than that of ,maimonides and ,gersonides1 who may be classed with ,alfarabi1 ,avicenna and ,averroes4 ,having discussed the fundamental principles of all religion and philosophy1 namely1 the existence and nature of ,god1 ,crescas next takes up the following six fundamental dogmas of ,judaism1 ,god's knowledge of existing things1 ,providence1 ,power1 ,prophecy1 ,freedom1 ,purpose4 ,there are three things to be remembered in the matter of ,god's knowledge4 ,he knows the infinite1 for he knows particulars4 ,he knows the non-existent1 as he knows the future2 and his knowledge of the contingent does not remove its contingent character4 ,maimonides and ,gersonides had difficulty with this problem and we know their respective solutions4 ,gersonides1 for reasons metaphysical as well as ethical1 does not scruple to limit ,god's knowledge to universals4 ,maimonides endeavors to reconcile the dilemma by throwing the blame upon our limited understanding4 ,in ,god's knowledge which is toto coelo different from ours1 and of which we have no conception1 all oppositions and contradictions find their ultimate harmony4 ,crescas1 as we might naturally expect1 agrees with ,maimonides in this matter rather than with ,gersonides4 ,to limit ,god's knowledge is opposed to the ,bible1 and would involve us in greater difficulties than those we endeavor to escape4#cic ,related to the question of ,god's knowledge is the problem of ,providence4 ,for ,god must know the individual or thing for which he provides1 and if ,god has no knowledge of particulars1 there can be no such thing as special providence4 ,this latter as we know is virtually the opinion of ,gersonides 7cf4 p4 #cde74 ,crescas1 we have seen1 defends ,god's knowledge of particulars1 hence he sees no difficulty in special providence on this score4 ,he takes1 however1 the term in a broad sense4 ,all evidence of design in nature1 all powers in plant and animal which guide their growth1 reproduction and conservation are due to ,god's providence4 ,providence1 he says1 is sometimes exercised by ,god directly1 without an intermediate voluntary agent1 sometimes with such mediation4 ,god's relations to ,moses and to the ,israelites in ,egypt at the time of the tenth plague were without intermediate agency4 ,in all other cases there is mediation of angels1 or prophets1 or wise men1 or1 according to some1 the heavenly bodies1 which are living and intelligent beings4 ,providence itself is of different kinds4 ,there is the most general and natural exhibited in the equipment of the various species of plant and animal life for their protection and growth and conservation4 ,there are the more special powers found in the human race4 ,these forms of providence have little to do with the person's deserts4 ,they are purely dependent upon the constitution and influence of the stars4 ,then there is the more special providence of the ,jewish nation1 then of the male members of this nation1 and of the priests and the levites4 ,finally comes the special providence of the individual1 who is rewarded and punished according to his conduct4 ,the reward and punishment of this world are not strictly controlled by conduct1 the reward and punishment of the next world are4 ,in this last remark ,crescas cuts the knot which has been the cause of so much discussion in religious philosophy4 ,if the real reward and punishment are in the next world1 the prosperity of the wicked and the adversity of the righteous in this world do not form so great a problem4 ,at the same time an explanation of this peculiar phenomenon is still wanting4 ,for surely the righteous man does not deserve to suffer for his righteousness1 even though his good deeds will not go unrewarded in the next world4 ,in this discussion also ,crescas takes issue with the intellectualistic point of view of ,maimonides and particularly ,gersonides4 ,the solution of these men that evil does not come from ,god directly but by accident and by reason of matter1 and the corollary drawn therefrom that ,god does not punish the wicked directly1 that he merely neglects them1 leaving them to the accidents of nature and chance1 ,crescas does not approve4 ,nor is he more favorably inclined to the theory that the good man is provided for because the more he cultivates his mind1 the more closely he comes in contact with ,god1 in whom are contained actually all the ideas of which man has some potentially4 ,his main criticism is that the theory is opposed to clear statements in the ,bible1 which imply special and individual reward and punishment in a miraculous and supernatural manner1 which cannot be due to intellectual perfection1 nor to the order of the heavenly bodies4 ,besides1 if a man who is highly intellectual did much wrong1 he should be punished in his soul1 but on the intellectualist theory such a soul is immortal and cannot be destroyed4 ,accordingly ,crescas goes back to the religious doctrine of reward and punishment as ordinarily understood4 ,god rewards and punishes because man obeys or disobeys his will and command4 ,the complaint raised on account of the misery of the good and the prosperity of the wicked he answers by saying that real reward and punishment are in the next world4 ,the goods and evils of this world are also to be considered1 and he gives the ordinary excuses for the apparent deviation from what ought to be1 such as that evil is sometimes a good in disguise and vice versa2 that one sometimes inherits evil and good from one's parents2 that the individual is sometimes involved in the destinies of the majority1 and so on1 and so on4 ,evil in the sense of moral evil1 i4 e41 wrong1 does not come from ,god1 it is true1 but punishment does come from ,god1 and as its aim is justice1 it is a good1 not an evil4 ,the providence extended to ,israel is greatest4 ,there is more ,providence in ,palestine than elsewhere1 not because there is any difference in the relation on ,god's side1 but there is on the side of the man enjoying this providence4 ,his character and disposition change with the place1 and similarly with the time and the season4 ,hence certain seasons of the year1 like that about the time of the ,day of ,atonement1 are more propitious for receiving ,god's providence4#cid ,another fundamental doctrine of ,judaism is ,god's omnipotence4 ,weakness would be a defect4 ,hence ,god can do everything except the contradictory4 ,his power is infinite not merely in duration1 but also in intensity4 ,from ,aristotle's proof of the necessity of an immovable mover as based upon the eternity of motion 7p4 #bef f471 we gather only that ,god's power is infinite in duration2 whereas our doctrine of creation ex nihilo shows that there is no relation at all between ,god's power and the work he does2 hence his power is infinite4 ,this is shown also in the miracles1 some of which took place instantaneously1 as the destruction of the first born in ,egypt at midnight precisely4 ,crescas insists that the ass of ,balaam did speak1 and refers with disapproval to those who doubt it and say it was in a vision 7,gersonides74#cie ,in his discussion of ,prophecy the interest lies once more in his anti-intellectualistic attitude4 ,maimonides agrees with the philosophers that the prophetic power is a psychological process attainable by the man who in addition to moral perfection possesses a highly developed intellect and power of imagination4 ,to anticipate the objection that if this be so1 why are there no prophets among the philosophers1 ,maimonides adds that divine grace is necessary besides1 and that if this is lacking1 one may have all the qualifications and yet not be a prophet4 ,crescas sees the forced nature of this explanation1 and once more frankly returns to the plain intent of ,scripture and ,jewish tradition that the prophet is the man chosen by ,god because he is a student of the ,torah and follows its commandments1 and because he cleaves to ,god and loves him4 ,the prophet receives his inspiration from ,god directly or through an intermediate agent1 and the information received may concern any topic whatsoever4 ,it is not to be limited to certain topics to the exclusion of others1 as ,gersonides tries to make out2 and its purpose is to give guidance to the prophet himself or to others through him4#cif ,the most original contribution of ,crescas to philosophical theory is his treatment of the ever living problem of freedom4 ,so fundamental has it seemed for ,judaism to maintain the freedom of the will that no one hitherto had ventured to doubt it4 ,maimonides no less than ,judah ,halevi1 and with equal emphasis ,gersonides1 insist that the individual is not determined in his conduct4 ,this seemed to be the only way to vindicate ,god's justice in reward and punishment4 ,but the idea of man's freedom clashed with the doctrine of ,god's omniscience4 ,if nothing in the past determines a man's will in a given case1 then up to the moment of the act it is undetermined1 and no one can know whether a given act will take place or its opposite4 ,on the other hand1 if ,god does know everything in the future as well as in the past1 man is no longer free to act in a manner contrary to ,god's foreknowledge4 ,this difficulty was recognized by ,maimonides as well as by ,gersonides1 and they solved it in different ways4 ,maimonides gives up neither ,god's omniscience nor man's absolute freedom1 and escapes the dilemma by taking refuge in his idea of ,god's transcendence4 ,human knowledge is incompatible with human freedom2 ,god's knowledge is not like human knowledge1 and we have no conception what it is4 ,but it is consistent with human freedom4 ,gersonides1 who objects to ,maimonides's treatment of the divine attributes1 and insists that they must resemble in kind though not in degree the corresponding human attributes1 can avoid the difficulty only by a partial blunting of the sharp points of either horn of the dilemma4 ,accordingly he maintains freedom in all its rigor1 and mitigates the conception of omniscience4 ,god's omniscience extends only to the universal and its consequences2 the contingent particular is by definition not subject to foreknowledge1 and hence it argues no defect in ,god's knowledge if it does not extend to the undetermined decisions of the will4 ,crescas embraces the other horn of the dilemma4 ,god's omniscience must be maintained in all its rigor4 ,it is absurd to suppose that the first universal and absolute cause should be ignorant of anything pertaining to its effects4 ,is man then not free8 ,has he no choice at all1 no freedom in the determination of his conduct8 ,if so how justify ,god's reward and punishment1 if reward and punishment are relative to conduct and imply responsibility8 ,crescas's answer is a compromise4 ,determinism is not fatalism4 ,it does not mean that a given person is preordained from eternity to act in a given way1 no matter what the circumstances are4 ,it does not mean that command and advice and warning and education and effort and endeavor are useless and without effect4 ,this is contradicted by experience as well as by the testimony of ,scripture4 ,but neither is it true on the other hand that a person's will and its conduct are causeless and undetermined until the moment of action4 ,this idea is equally untrue to reason and experience4 ,we know that every effect has a cause and the cause has a cause1 and this second cause has again a cause1 until we reach the first necessary cause4 ,two individuals similar in every respect would have the same will unless there is a cause which makes them different4 ,we have already intimated that ,god's foreknowledge1 which we cannot deny1 is incompatible with absolute freedom1 and in the ,bible we have instances of ,god's knowing future events which are the results of individual choice1 as in the case of ,pharaoh4 ,the only solution then is that the act of will is in a sense contingent1 in a sense determined4 ,it is contingent in respect to itself1 it is determined by its cause1 i4 e41 the act is not fated to take place1 cause or no cause4 ,if it were possible to remove the cause1 the act would not be2 but given the cause1 the effect is necessary4 ,effort is not in vain1 for effort is itself a cause and determines an effect4 ,commandments and prohibitions are not useless1 for the same reason4 ,reward and punishment are not unjust1 even though antecedent causes over which man has no control determine his acts1 any more than it is unjust that fire burns the one who comes near it1 though he did so without intention4 ,reward and punishment are a necessary consequence of obedience and disobedience4 ,this is a bold statement on the part of ,crescas1 and the analogy between a man's voluntary act in ethical and religious conduct and the tendency of fire to burn irrespective of the person's responsibility in the matter can be valid only if we reduce the ethical and religious world to an impersonal force on a plane with the mechanism of the physical world order4 ,this seems a risky thing to do for a religionist4 ,and ,crescas feels it1 saying that to make this view public would be dangerous1 as the people would find in it an apology for evil doers1 not understanding that punishment is a natural consequence of evil4 ,this latter statement ,crescas does not wish to be taken in its literal strictness1 nor should the analogy with the burning fire be pressed too far4 ,for it would then follow even if a person is physically compelled to do evil that he would be punished1 just as the fire would not refrain from burning a person who was thrown into it by force4 ,the determination of the will1 he says1 must not be felt by the agent as a constraint and compulsion1 else the act is not free and no punishment should follow2 for command and prohibition can have no effect on a will constrained4 ,reward and punishment have a pedagogical value generally1 even if in a given case they are not deserved4 ,even though in reality every act is determined1 still where there is no external compulsion the person is so identified with the deed that it is in a real sense the product of his own soul1 bringing about a union with1 or separation from ,god2 and hence reward and punishment are necessarily connected with it4 ,where there is external compulsion1 on the other hand1 the act is not in reality his own and hence no reward or punishment4 ,the question arises1 however1 why should there be punishment for erroneous belief and opinion8 ,these have nothing to do with the will1 and are determined if anything is1 i4 e41 the person having them is constrained to believe as he does by the arguments1 over which he has no control4 ,this matter offers no difficulty to those who1 like ,maimonides and ,gersonides1 regard intelligence as the essence of the soul1 and make immortality dependent upon intellectual ideas4 ,a soul acquiring true ideas1 they say1 becomes ipso facto immortal4 ,it is not a question of right and wrong or of reward and punishment4 ,but this is not the ,biblical view1 and if it were true1 there would be no need of the many ceremonial regulations4 ,geometry would play a greater rle in immortality than the ,torah4 ,crescas's answer is that reward and punishment in this case are not for the belief itself1 but rather for the pleasure one finds in it and the pains one takes to examine it carefully4 ,even in conduct one is not rewarded or punished for deeds directly1 but for the intention and desire4 ,deed without intention is not punished4 ,intention without deed is2 though the two together call for the greatest punishment or reward4 ,a burnt offering1 say the ,rabbis1 atones for sinful thoughts2 sin committed through compulsion is not punished4#cig ,it is of interest here to know that ,spinoza1 as has been shown by ,joel1#cih owed his idea of man's freedom to ,crescas4 ,he also like ,crescas denies the absolute indeterminism of a person's conduct that is insisted upon by the majority of the medival ,jewish philosophers4 ,and ,joel shows moreover that ,spinoza's final attitude to this question as found in his ,ethics was the outcome of a gradual development1 and the result of reading ,crescas4 ,in some of his earlier writings he insists that anything short of absolute omniscience in ,god is unthinkable4 ,he sees the difficulty of reconciling this with man's freedom1 but is not ready to sacrifice either1 and like ,maimonides decides that we must not deny it simply because we cannot understand it4 ,later1 however1 he maintains that ,god's omniscience and man's freedom are absolutely incompatible1 and solves the difficulty in a manner similar to that of ,crescas by curtailing freedom as formerly understood4 ,the next topic of which it is necessary to have a clear idea for a complete understanding of ,judaism1 is the purpose of the ,law1 and in general the purpose of man4 ,here also appears clearly the anti-intellectualism of ,crescas and his disagreement with ,maimonides and ,gersonides4 ,the final purpose of the ,law is of course1 he says1 a good4 ,the ,bible teaches us to perfect our morals2 it inculcates true beliefs and opinions2 and it promises by means of these happiness of body and happiness of soul4 ,which of these four is the ultimate end8 ,clearly it must be the best and most worthy4 ,and it seems as if this quality pertains to the eternal happiness of the soul1 to which as an end the other three tend4 ,corporeal happiness is a means to the perfection of the soul since the latter acts through the means of bodily organs4 ,similarly moral perfection assists in purifying the soul4 ,as for perfection in ideas1 some think that it alone makes the soul immortal by creating the acquired intellect1 which is immaterial and separate1 and enjoys happiness in the next world incomparably greater than the joy we feel here below in the acquisition of knowledge4 ,there is a difference of opinion as to the subject-matter which bestows immortality4 ,according to some it is all knowledge1 whether of sublunar things or of the separate substances4 ,according to others it is only the knowledge of ,god and the angels that confers immortality4 ,all these views are wrong from the ,scriptural as well as the philosophical point of view4 ,the ,bible makes it clear repeatedly that eternal life is obtained by performance of the commandments2 whereas according to the others practical observance is only a means and a preparation to theory1 without which practice alone is inadequate4 ,according to ,scripture and tradition certain offences are punished with exclusion from eternal life1 and certain observances confer immortality1 which have nothing to do with theoretical truths4 ,but philosophically too their views are untenable4 ,for it would follow from their opinions that the purpose of the ,law is for something other than man1 for the acquired intellect is separate1 and hence cannot be the form of man4 ,it is different in kind from man1 for unlike him it is eternal as an individual4 ,besides it is not true that the acquired intellect is made as a substance by its ideas1 while being separate from the material intellect2 for as immaterial it has no matter as its subject from which it could come into being4 ,it must therefore come into being ex nihilo1 which is absurd4 ,and there are other reasons against their view4 ,for if all knowledge confers immortality1 one may acquire it by studying geometry1 which is absurd4 ,and if this privilege can be gained only by a knowledge of ,god and the separate substances1 the objection is still greater2 for1 as ,maimonides has shown1 the only knowledge that may be had of these is negative2 and it is not likely that such imperfect knowledge should make an eternal intellect4 ,if then theoretical knowledge does not lead to immortality as they thought1 and the other perfections are preparatory to theoretical1 it follows that the ultimate purpose of the ,law and of man is attained primarily neither by theory alone nor by practice alone1 but by something else1 which is neither quite the one nor the other4 ,it is the love and fear of ,god4 ,this is demanded alike by ,scripture1 tradition and philosophy4 ,that it is the view of religion is clear enough from the many passages in the ,bible urging love of ,god4 ,but it is also demanded by philosophy4 ,for the soul is a spiritual substance1 hence it is capable of separation from the body and of existing by itself forever1 whether it has theoretical knowledge or not2 since it is not subject to decay1 not being material4 ,further1 the perfect loves the good and the perfect2 and the greater the good and the perfection the greater the love and the desire in the perfect being4 ,hence the perfect soul loves ,god with the greatest love of which it is capable4 ,similarly ,god's love for the perfect soul1 though the object as compared with him is low indeed1 is great1 because his essence and perfection are great4 ,now as love is the cause of unity even in natural things1 the love of ,god in the soul brings about a unity between them2 and unity with ,god surely leads to happiness and immortality4 ,as love is different from intellectual apprehension1 the essence of the soul is love rather than intelligence4 ,there are many ,talmudical passages confirming this view logically derived4 ,we are told that the souls of the righteous enjoy the splendor of the ,shekinah1 and the wicked suffer correspondingly4 ,this agrees with our conception of immortality and not with theirs4 ,for enjoyment is impossible on their showing1 though they try to make it plausible4 ,pleasure is different from apprehension2 and as the essence of the acquired intellect is apprehension1 there is no room for the pleasure1 the intellect being simple4 ,according to our view love is rewarded with pleasure4 ,the pleasure we feel here below in intellectual work 7,gersonides1 p4 #cci7 proves nothing1 for it is due to the effort and the passing from potential knowledge to actual knowledge1 i4 e41 to the process of learning4 ,proof of this is that we find no pleasure in axioms and first principles1 which we know without effort4 ,but the acquired intellect after the death of the body does not learn any new truths1 hence can have no pleasure4 ,the ,rabbis also speak of definite places of reward and punishment1 which cannot apply to the acquired intellect1 since it is a separate substance and can have no place4 ,the soul as we understand it can have a place1 just as it is connected with the body during life4 ,the ,rabbis often speak of the great reward destined for school children4 ,but surely the acquired intellect cannot amount to much in children4 ,the truth is that the soul becomes mature and complete as soon as it acquires the rational faculty in the shape of the first principles or axioms4 ,then it is prepared for immortality as a natural thing without regard to reward4 ,the purpose of the soul as we showed is to love ,god4 ,this object the ,bible attains by the commandments1 which may be classified with reference to their significance in seven groups4 ,they exalt ,god2 they show his great kindness to us2 they give us true ideas concerning the nature of ,god2 they call our attention to his providence2 they give us promises of corporeal and spiritual reward2 they call our attention to ,god's miracles in order to keep our attention from flagging2 and finally they command love of ,god and union with him as the final aim of man4#cii ,in addition to the six fundamental doctrines of ,judaism mentioned above 7p4 #cib71 there are true beliefs which are essential to ,judaism1 and the denial of which constitutes heresy2 though they are not as fundamental as the other six1 in the sense that the ,law would continue to exist without them4 ,they are 7#a7 ,creation1 7#b7 ,immortality1 7#c7 ,reward and ,punishment1 7#d7 ,resurrection1 7#e7 ,eternity of the ,law1 7#f7 ,the superiority of ,moses to the other prophets1 7#g7 ,the priest's learning the future through the ,urim and ,tumim1 7#h7 ,belief in the ,messiah4 ,the list of thirteen articles of the creed given by ,maimonides 7cf4 below1 p4 #dji7 is open to criticism4 ,if he meant fundamental dogmas1 there are not as many as thirteen2 there are no more than seven or eight--the six mentioned before 7p4 #cib71 and1 if one chooses1 the existence of ,god1 making seven1 and revelation as the eighth4 ,on the other hand1 if ,maimonides meant to include true beliefs1 there are more than fifteen1 the six enumerated above 7p4 #cib71 existence of ,god and revelation1 and the eight true beliefs named at the head of this section1 not counting a great many specific commandments4#djj ,having made this criticism of ,maimonides's thirteen articles1 ,crescas proceeds to discuss every one of the eight true beliefs named at the beginning of the last paragraph4 ,for our purpose it will not be necessary to reproduce the minute arguments here4 ,we will select a few of the more important topics and state briefly ,crescas's attitude4 ,the doctrine of creation formed the central theme in ,maimonides and ,gersonides4 ,it was here1 as we have seen1 that ,maimonides stopped short in his devotion to ,aristotle and took pains to show that the arguments of the latter in favor of eternity are not valid1 and that ,aristotle knew it4 ,he endeavored to show1 moreover1 that the doctrine of creation can be made more plausible than its opposite1 and hence since creation is essential to ,judaism1 it must be regarded as a fundamental dogma4 ,gersonides could not see his way clear to accepting creation ex nihilo1 among other things because as matter cannot come from form1 the material world cannot come from ,god4 ,accordingly he compromised by saying that while the present world as it is is not eternal1 it came from a primitive hyle or matter1 which was eternal4 ,thus our world is dependent for its forms upon ,god1 for its matter upon the prime and eternal hyle4 ,here ,crescas takes up the problem and points out that whether we accept or not an eternal hyle1 everything that exists must be dependent upon ,god as the only necessary existent4 ,everything outside of him1 be it eternal matter or not1 is only a possible existent and owes its existence to ,god4 ,creation ex nihilo means no more4 ,to be sure1 if we assume that the existence of the world and its emanation from ,god is eternal1 because his relation to his product is the same at all times1 it will follow that the emanation of the world from ,god is a necessary process4 ,but necessity in this case does not exclude will1 nay it implies it4 ,for the only way in which anything can come from a rational cause is by way of conception4 ,the rational cause forms a conception of the world order and of himself as giving existence to this world order as a whole and in its parts4 ,will means no more than this4 ,this will also solve the old philosophic difficulty1 how can the many come from the ,one4 ,our answer is that the good ,god created a good world4 ,the goodness of the world is its unity1 i4 e41 the parts contribute to making a whole which is good4 ,on the other hand1 an agent is perfectly good when he acts with will4 ,god's will also makes miracles possible4 ,moreover1 eternal creation is not inconsistent with continued creation1 and we have creation ex nihilo every moment4 ,maimonides is wrong therefore when he thinks that eternity would upset ,judaism and make miracles impossible4 ,creation in time is therefore not a fundamental dogma with which ,judaism stands and falls4 ,at the same time it is a true belief as taught in the first verse of ,genesis4#dja ,another of the true beliefs is reward and punishment4 ,this consists of two kinds1 corporeal and spiritual4 ,corporeal is spoken of in the ,bible and is not opposed to reason4 ,for as the purpose of creation is to do man good and enable him to achieve perfection1 it stands to reason that ,god would remove any obstacles in the way of man's perfecting himself1 and this is the kind of reward mentioned first1 ,all the diseases which ,i put upon the ,egyptians ,i shall not put upon thee1 for ,i the ,lord am thy healer 7,exod4 #ae1 #bf74 ,punishment is primarily for the same purpose4 ,as for spiritual reward and punishment1 they are not mentioned specifically in the ,bible1 but the ,talmud is full of it4 ,rationally they can be explained as follows4 ,as the soul is spiritual and intellectual1 it enjoys great pleasure from being in contact with the world of spirit and apprehending of the nature of ,god what it could not apprehend while in the body4 ,on the other hand1 being restrained from the world of spirit and kept in darkness gives it pain2 and this may lead to its ultimate destruction4 ,the essence of the soul1 as was said above1 is not intellectuality1 but love and desire2 hence pain may destroy it4 ,the reason spiritual reward and punishment1 which is the more important of the two1 is not mentioned in the ,bible1 is because it was taken as a matter of fact4 ,corporeal reward and punishment was not so regarded1 hence the need of specifying it4 ,a difficulty that presents itself is1 ,how is it consistent with justice to punish the soul by itself1 when it was the composite of body and soul that sinned8 ,this may be answered by saying that the soul is the form of the body and does not change when separated4 ,hence1 being the more important of the two elements composing man1 it receives the more important punishment1 namely1 spiritual4 ,besides1 it is true that the composite also receives compensation4 ,and this is the purpose of resurrection4#djb ,resurrection of the body is not universal1 but is reserved only for some1 as is clear from the passage in ,daniel 7#ab1 #b71 ,and many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake1 some to everlasting life1 and some to disgrace and everlasting abhorrence4 ,at the same time it is difficult to know who these some are4 ,it cannot be the perfect and the good only1 since some of those rising will go to disgrace and everlasting abhorrence4 ,we can decide this better later1 when we have learned more of resurrection4 ,the variety of opinions concerning the time of the resurrection ,crescas endeavors to reconcile by supposing that all agreed it would take place as soon as the ,temple was built1 but that the ,messiah would precede the building of the ,temple by some length of time4 ,the purpose of the resurrection is to strengthen belief in those who have it and to impress it upon those who have it not4 ,at the time of the resurrection those who come back to life will tell the living how they fared when their souls left their bodies4 ,another purpose of resurrection is1 as mentioned above1 in order to reward and punish the composite of body and soul which acted during life4 ,the dogma of resurrection is regarded so seriously by the ,rabbis1 who exclude the unbeliever in it from a portion in the world to come1 because in this act is completed the form of man2 and because thereby is realized the justice of ,god1 and the faith is strengthened in the minds of the believers4 ,it seems at first sight impossible that the elements of the body1 which were dispersed at the time of the body's death and formed part of other substances1 can be gathered together again4 ,but it is not really so strange1 for in the first place ,god may so arrange matters that these elements may be in a position to return4 ,besides1 this is not really necessary4 ,it is quite sufficient that ,god create a body exactly like the first in temperament and form1 and endow it with the old soul1 which will then behave like the old person2 and being endowed with memory besides1 the identity of personality will be complete4 ,for the purpose of showing ,god's justice and strengthening man's faith it is sufficient to resurrect the perfectly good and the completely bad4 ,the intermediate classes do not deserve this extraordinary miracle1 and their spiritual reward will be sufficient4#djc ,,chapter ,,xviii ,,joseph ,,albo 7#achj-addd7 ,of the post-,maimonidean philosophers ,crescas is the last who contributes original views of philosophical value4 ,joseph ,albo1 of ,monreal in ,aragon1 is of little importance as a philosopher4 ,he rehashes the problems which occupied a ,maimonides1 a ,gersonides and a ,crescas1 and sides now with one1 now with the other4 ,he benefited by the writings of his predecessors1 particularly ,maimonides1 ,crescas1 and ,simon ,duran2#djc;a and the philosophical discussions in the last three sections of his ,book of ,roots 7,sefer ,ikkarim7 give the impression of an eclectic compilation in the interest of a moderate conservatism4 ,the style is that of the popularizer and the homilist2 and to this he owes his popularity1 which was denied his more original teacher1 ,crescas4 ,but philosophy as such was not ,albo's forte1 nor was it his chief interest4 ,while it is true that all the ,jewish thinkers of the middle ages were for a great part apologetes1 this did not prevent a ,maimonides or a ,gersonides from making a really thorough and disinterested study of science and philosophy2 and often their scientific and philosophic conviction was so strong that the apologia was pro philosophia sua rather than pro ,judaismo4 ,the central theme therefore in the majority of ,albo's philosophical predecessors was the equally metaphysical and theological1 of ,god and his attributes4 ,these were proved by reason and confirmed by ,scripture and tradition4 ,judaism had to be formulated and defended with a view not so much to the dangers threatening from ,christianity and ,mohammedanism as to those endangering all religions alike1 namely1 the opinions of science and philosophy as taught especially by the ,aristotelians4 ,hence ,maimonides treated for the most part of the same problems as the ,mohammedan ,mutakallimun before him1 and ,thomas ,aquinas the ,christian had no scruple in making the ,jewish philosopher's method his own when he undertook to defend the ,catholic faith contra ,gentiles4 ,different were the circumstances as well as the attitude of ,joseph ,albo4 ,the purely philosophic interest was not strong in his day4 ,he was not confronted by the necessity of proving the existence and incorporeality of ,god by reason4 ,no one doubted these things and they had been abundantly written about in times gone by4 ,in the interest of completeness and for the benefit of those who were not trained in technical philosophy1 ,albo found it desirable to restate the results of previous discussions of these topics in a style more accessible to the readers of his day4 ,but the central interest in his age was shifted4 ,it was a time of religious disputations and forced conversions4 ,albo himself had taken part in such a disputation held at ,tortosa in #adac-ad1 and he had to defend ,judaism against ,christianity4 ,he had to show his own people that ,judaism was the true religion and ,christianity spurious4 ,hence it was religion as such he had to investigate1 in order to find what marks distinguished a divine law from a human1 and a genuine divine law from one that pretended to be such4 ,to make this investigation logically complete he had to show that there must be such a thing as a divine law1 and that no such law can be conceived without assuming certain basal beliefs or dogmas4 ,a discussion of religious dogma was essential1 for upon the nature of these fundamental beliefs depended one's judgment of a given law and its character as divine or human1 genuine or spurious4 ,hence the title of ,albo's treatise1 ,book of religious ,roots dogmas4 ,and while it is true that ,maimonides1 the systematizer and codifier1 could not fail to put down in his commentary on the ,mishna a list of articles of the ,jewish creed1 nothing is said of this in his philosophical work1 the ,guide of the ,perplexed4 ,with ,albo the establishment of the fundamental dogmas is the central theme4 ,at the same time ,albo was anticipated even in this1 his more original contribution4 ,crescas1 his teacher1 had written1 beside the ,or ,adonai1 a work against ,christianity4#djd ,and in the ,or ,adonai itself he devotes considerable space to the question of the fundamental dogmas of ,judaism1 and takes occasion to criticize ,maimonides for his faulty method in the selection of the thirteen articles1 on the ground that he did not distinguish between what was fundamental and what was derivative4 ,this suggestion gave ,albo his cue1 which he developed in his own way4#djd;a ,human happiness1 ,albo tells us1 depends upon theory and practice1 as ,aristotle says4 ,but the human mind is inadequate to know by itself the truth touching these two4 ,hence there is need of something superior to the human mind which will define right practice and the true ideas4 ,this can be only by divine guidance4 ,hence everyone must be able to tell the divine legislation from those which are not divine4 ,for this it is necessary to know what are the principles without which a divine law cannot exist4 ,this is the purpose of the book1 to explain the essential principles of a divine law4#dje ,a knowledge of the principles of religion would seem easy1 for all people profess some religion or other1 and hence are presumed to know upon what their religions are based4 ,but this question has not been treated adequately before1 and there is no agreement among previous writers about the number of the principles or their identity4 ,some say there are thirteen 7,maimonides71 some say twenty-six1 some six 7,crescas71 without investigating what are the principles of divine religion generally4 ,for we must distinguish between the general principles which pertain to divine legislation as such and hence are common to all religions1 and special principles which are peculiar to a particular religion4 ,seeing the importance of this subject1 ,albo continues1 ,i undertook this investigation4 ,i came to the conclusion that there are three general principles of divine religion1 existence of ,god1 ,revelation1 and ,reward and ,punishment after death4 ,then there are special principles peculiar to a particular religion4 ,from the general principles 7,ikkarim7 follow particular or derivative principles 7,shorashim47#djf ,the investigation of the principles of religion is a delicate matter because one is in danger of being reckoned an infidel if he denies what is considered by others a fundamental dogma4 ,thus according to ,maimonides the belief in the ,messiah is fundamental1 and he who denies it is a heretic and has no share in the world to come4 ,and yet ,rabbi ,hillel in the ,talmud 7,sanhedrin1 #ii;a7 said1 ,israel need expect no ,messiah1 for they had the benefit of one in the days of ,hezekiah1 ,king of ,judah4 ,on the other hand1 ,maimonides does not regard creation ex nihilo as fundamental1 whereas others do2 and to their mind ,maimonides is open to the charge of unbelief4 ,the truth is that only he is an unbeliever who deliberately and knowingly contradicts the ,bible4 ,a person who believes in the ,bible but is led mistakenly to misinterpret it1 and denies real principles because he thinks the ,bible does not require us to believe them as principles1 or does not require us to believe them at all1 is guilty of error and in need of forgiveness1 but is not a heretic4#djg ,having thus defined his attitude and purpose1 ,albo proceeds to criticize the list of dogmas laid down by ,maimonides and modified by ,crescas1 and then defends his own view4 ,a fundamental principle 7,ikkar1 lit4 root7 is one upon which something else depends and without which this latter cannot exist4 ,maimonides counts thirteen principles of ,judaism as follows3 7#a7 ,existence of ,god1 7#b7 ,unity1 7#c7 ,incorporeality1 7#d7 ,eternity1 7#e7 ,he alone must be worshipped1 7#f7 ,prophecy1 7#g7 ,superiority of the prophecy of ,moses1 7#h7 ,revelation1 7#i7 ,immutability of the ,law1 7#aj7 ,god's ,omniscience1 7#aa7 ,reward and ,punishment1 7#ab7 ,messiah1 7#ac7 ,resurrection4#djh ,this list is open to criticism4 ,if ,maimonides intended to admit strict principles only without which ,judaism cannot exist1 we understand why he named 7#a71 7#f71 7#h71 7#aj71 7#aa71 which are general principles of any divine religion1 and 7#g7 and 7#i7 as special principles of ,judaism4 ,but we cannot see why he included 7#b7 and 7#c74 ,for while they are true1 and every ,jew should believe them1 ,judaism can be conceived as existing without them4 ,it is still more strange that 7#e7 should be counted as a principle4 ,to be sure1 it is one of the ten commandments1 ,thou shalt have no other ,gods before me4444 ,thou shalt not bow thyself down to them1 nor serve them 444 7,exod4 #bj1 #ce71 but ,judaism can be conceived to exist even with the belief in a mediator4 ,similarly it is not clear why 7#ac7 should be considered as a fundamental dogma4 ,on the other hand1 he omitted ,tradition and ,free ,will as beliefs essential to any divine religion4 ,if1 in defence of ,maimonides1 we say that he intended to name not only fundamental principles1 but also true beliefs1 whether fundamental or derivative1 then there are many others he might have mentioned1 such as creation ex nihilo1 belief in miracles1 that ,god rests in ,israel through the ,torah1 and so on4 ,another writer counts twenty-six principles1 including everything that occurred to his mind1 such as the attributes of eternity1 wisdom1 life1 power1 will and others1 counting paradise and hell as two1 and other absurd ideas4 ,others again1#dji criticizing ,maimonides's principles1 reduce them to six1 viz4 7#a7 ,god's knowledge1 7#b7 ,providence1 7#c7 ,power1 7#d7 ,prophecy1 7#e7 ,free ,will1 7#f7 ,purpose1 adding thereto the three proved by ,maimonides1 ,god's existence1 unity and incorporeality4 ,the objection to this list is that it does not contain the special dogmas of ,judaism1 and does not give us a principle by which we can distinguish between the genuine and spurious divine religion4 ,for the dogmas named in the above list give us the necessary requirements for a divine law1 but not the sufficient4 ,we may have all these principles and yet not have a divine religion4 ,as to ,free ,will and ,purpose1 they are essential to divine legislation to be sure1 but not qua divine2 they are also essential to a conventional human law4 ,divine religion has a special purpose peculiar to it4#daj ,having laid bare the defects in the attempts at a list of fundamental dogmas of ,judaism made by his predecessors1 ,albo categorically lays down the following three principles as fundamental to divine religion3 7#a7 ,existence of ,god1 7#b7 ,providence1 and reward and punishment1 7#c7 ,revelation4 ,to justify this statement ,albo finds it necessary to make clear what is meant by divine law or religion1 and what relation it bears to other laws1 not divine4 ,this necessitates an explanation of existing laws and their motives and causes4 ,animal life1 we are told1 may be divided into three classes according to the mode of living adopted by each4 ,beasts of prey live separately and not in groups4 ,mankind must live in communities1 as one individual is dependent upon the work of another1 and social life is essential to their existence4 ,intermediate between beast of prey and man are the gregarious animals1 which keep together not as a matter of necessity1 as is the case in man1 but for convenience1 for the sake of being together4 ,man is social by nature2 and in order to make communal life possible1 there must be some order in the community which prohibits violence1 robbery1 and so on4 ,this is known as natural law4 ,in addition to this there are in many places conventional laws1 made by kings and emperors1 regulating more carefully and with greater detail than the natural law the affairs of the members of the community4 ,but this is not all4 ,there is still another kind of law due directly to ,god's providence4 ,the providence of ,god is seen even in the lower animals1 in the constitution of their bodies1 not merely in matters essential to the preservation of the animal1 but also in the interest of comfort and convenience1 as for example the duplication of the sense organs4 ,it stands to reason therefore that there is a divine influence which provides for man even to a greater degree4 ,this providence may extend only to one individual1 but this person brings about the perfection of the race2 just as in the individual man the heart is instrumental in giving life to all the other limbs4 ,the law which is promulgated through this person is a divine law4 ,the term law 7,dat7 applies to any system of directions embracing a large aggregate of men1 whether it contains many commands or one4 ,there are thus three kinds of law1 natural1 conventional and divine4 ,natural law is the same for all persons1 times and places4 ,conventional law is ordered by a wise man or men in conformity with the necessity of the persons1 times and places1 as the reason dictates1 without special divine suggestion4 ,divine law is ordered by ,god through a prophet4 ,the purpose of natural law is to remove wrong and promote right1 keeping men from robbery and theft so that society may be able to exist4 ,conventional law goes further and tends to remove the unseemly and to promote the becoming4 ,divine law has for its purpose to guide men to true happiness1 which is the happiness of the soul and its eternal life4 ,it points out the way to follow to reach this end1 showing what is the true good for man to pursue1 and what is the real evil which one must shun2 though it also lays down the law of right and wrong like the other two4#daa ,the conventional law is inferior to the divine in a number of ways4 ,the conventional law only orders human conduct for the purpose of improving social life1 but does not concern itself with perfection in theoretical speculation and knowledge1 which leads the soul to eternal life4 ,the divine law embraces both the parts upon which human perfection depends1 conduct and theory4 ,it embraces the becoming and unbecoming 7practice71 and the true and untrue 7theory74 ,as the ,psalmist has it1 ,the ,law of the ,lord is perfect1 restoring the soul 7,psal4 #ai1 #h74 ,the conventional law1 being human1 cannot always decide with certainty what is becoming and what unbecoming4 ,it is liable to error4 ,this is particularly the case in matters of theory1 such as the creation or eternity of the world4 ,the divine law gives us certainty in all things1 ,the testimony of the ,lord is sure1 making wise the simple 7ib474 ,the person guided by the conventional law is not sure that he is always guided aright2 hence he cannot feel the satisfaction and the joy of the man whose guide is the divine law1 making him certain of being right--,the precepts of the ,lord are upright1 rejoicing the heart 7ib4 #i74 ,the conventional law can give general rules only1 but is unable to advise in a particular case4 ,so ,aristotle in the ,ethics points out that virtue is a mean1 but he cannot determine exactly the proper measure at a given time4 ,this is the function of the divine law--,the commandment of the ,lord is clear1 enlightening the eyes 7ib474 ,the conventional law is subject to change in the course of time4 ,witness the marriage of sisters in the early period of ,adam and ,abel4 ,the divine law alone does not change--,the fear of the ,lord is pure1 enduring for ever 7ib4 #aj74 ,the conventional law cannot estimate exactly the merited amount and kind of reward and punishment2 whereas1 ,the ordinances of the ,lord are the truth2 they are just altogether 7ib474#dab ,freedom and ,purpose are principles of conventional law4 ,without freedom there is no sense in giving orders4 ,for this reason ,freedom and ,purpose are not correctly given as fundamental dogmas of divine law1 for while the latter cannot get along without them1 they are not peculiar to divine law as such1 but are common also to conventional law4 ,this is why ,maimonides omitted ,freedom in his creed4 ,the same is true of ,purpose in general4 ,the divine law1 however1 has a special purpose1 perfection and eternal life1 hence ,maimonides did include it in his list4#dac ,the fundamental dogmas of divine law are1 as we said before1 ,existence of ,god1 ,revelation1 ,reward and ,punishment4 ,it is evident that there cannot be a divine law without the first two4 ,the third is also necessary2 for the purpose of divine law must be a perfection greater than the conventional law can accomplish4 ,this is eternal life1 and is signified by ,reward and ,punishment4 ,as all agree that the ,law of ,moses is divine1 it is proper to use it as a standard in order to discover what a divine law must have4 ,accordingly if we examine the first four chapters of ,genesis1 we find the principle of the existence of ,god in chapter one1 describing creation4 ,the second and third chapters give evidence of revelation1 or communication of ,god with man for the purpose of directing his conduct4 ,finally in the ,cain incident in chapter four is illustrated the third dogma of ,reward and ,punishment4#dad ,creation ex nihilo is a true belief but not a fundamental principle4 ,for though the ,aristotelian view of eternity is heretical1 as it takes away the possibility of miracles1 nay even the possibility of ,moses and the ,messiah 7for these could exist only after the lapse of an infinite number of individuals71 one who believes like ,plato in a primitive matter is not necessarily in contradiction with the ,biblical miracles1 for they were not ex nihilo#dae 7cf4 above1 p4 #ceh74 ,it is not sufficient to believe in the three principles mentioned to be considered a believer and to be entitled to a share in the world to come4 ,one must believe also in the derivative principles following from them4 ,thus from the existence of ,god follow his unity and incorporeality4 ,and if a man does not believe in incorporeality1 he disbelieves in the real nature of ,god1 and it is as if he denied the original principle4 ,the derivative principles 7,shorashim roots7 are as follows4 ,from existence of ,god are derived four3 7#a7 ,unity1 7#b7 ,incorporeality1 7#c7 ,independence of time1 7#d7 ,freedom from defects4 ,from ,revelation are derived three3 7#a7 ,god's knowledge1 7#b7 ,prophecy1 7#c7 ,authenticity of ,god's messenger4 ,from ,reward and ,punishment is derived one--,providence in the sense of special ,providence4 ,in all there are eleven dogmas4#daf ,a particular commandment of the ,law is not reckoned either as a fundamental principle or as a derivative4 ,he who trangresses it is a sinner and is punished for his misdeed1 but is not a heretic who loses his share in the world to come1 unless he denies that the commandment in question is from ,god4 ,in that case he comes in the category of those who deny revelation4 ,similarly the belief in tradition is not a principle because it is a particular commandment4 ,unity of ,god is a principle though it is apparently a special commandment1 because the term unity contains two concepts2 first1 that ,god is one and there is not another like him2 second1 that being one and free from any multiplicity or composition1 he is the cause of all the multiplicity in the world4 ,the latter is not a particular commandment1 but a principle derived from the existence of ,god4 ,the former is a particular commandment4 ,if particular commandments were regarded as principles1 we should have as many principles as there are commandments in the ,bible4#dag ,the above distinction between the two senses of the term unity1 one of which is rationally derived from the existence of ,god1 whereas the other not being so derivable is not a principle1 and is given in the ,bible as a special commandment1 is clearly due to ,crescas1 who after a few attempts at proving the unity of ,god in the sense of excluding dualism1 gives it up as incapable of proof logically1 and falls back upon the testimony of ,scripture1 ,hear1 ,o ,israel1 the ,lord our ,god1 the ,lord is ,one4 ,the other sense of the word unity ,crescas proves by reason4 ,hence ,albo counts it among the derivative principles 7cf4 above1 p4 #cib74 ,if a particular commandment is not a principle1 which means that a fundamental or derivative dogma cannot itself be a commandment1 but must lie at the basis of all commandments1 the question arises whence come these principles1 and who is to warrant their truth4 ,in the sciences we know that the basal principles of a given science are not proved in that science itself1 but are borrowed from another science in which they are proved4 ,thus physics takes the concepts of substance and accident from metaphysics4 ,in turn the latter takes the idea of a first mover from physics4 ,among the laws1 too1 the conventional law takes its principles1 freedom and purpose1 from political philosophy4 ,whence does divine law take its principles8 ,the existence of ,god can be demonstrated philosophically from premises going back to axioms and first principles4 ,but this is not true of ,prophecy and ,providence4 ,the answer ,albo gives to this question is that of ,judah ,halevi and ,crescas4 ,the principles of the divine law are known empirically1 i4 e41 by experience4 ,adam knew of the existence of ,god1 of prophecy and reward and punishment from personal experience4 ,similarly ,noah and ,abraham4 ,nowadays we know the law by tradition1 but the majority of the principles thus known are so certain that there is neither difference of opinion nor doubt entertained by anyone concerning them4 ,such is the status for example of the principle of ,revelation4 ,other principles again1 like the existence of ,god1 are1 as was said before1 known by theoretical speculation4#dah ,to find out whether a religion professing to be of divine origin is really so or not1 it must be examined first with reference to the three fundamental1 and the other derivative principles4 ,if it opposes them1 it is spurious and not genuine4 ,if it is not opposed to the principles in question1 it must be further examined with a view to determining whether the promulgator is a genuine messenger of ,god or not4 ,and the test here must be a direct one4 ,miracles and signs are no conclusive proof of prophecy1 and still less do they prove that the person performing them is a messenger sent by ,god to announce a law4 ,they merely show that the person is considered worthy of having miracles performed through him1 provided the miracles are genuine and not performed through magic4 ,the test of the prophet and the messenger of ,god must be as direct as it was in the case of ,moses1 where the people actually saw that he was addressed by ,god and commissioned with a message for them4#dai ,this opinion of ,albo is clearly intended as a defence of ,judaism against ,christianity's claim that ,jesus performed miracles1 a claim which the ,rabbis of the middle ages were inclined to recognize4 ,in addition to the three fundamental and eight derivative principles of divine legislation1 there are six dogmas1 which every follower of the ,mosaic law must believe4 ,they are 7#a7 ,creation ex nihilo1 7#b7 ,superiority of ,moses to other prophets1 7#c7 ,immutability of the ,law1 7#d7 ,that human perfection can be attained by any one of the commandments of the ,law1 7#e7 ,resurrection1 7#f7 ,messiah4 ,creation ex nihilo is neither a fundamental nor a derivative principle of religion generally or of ,judaism specially because1 as we saw before 7p4 #dac71 they can exist without this dogma4 ,at the same time it is a truth which it behooves every religionist and particularly every ,jew to believe4 ,it follows from the principle of the existence of ,god4 ,if ,god cannot create ex nihilo1 there is a defect in him4 ,for creation ex nihilo is admitted in a certain sense even by those who hold that the world is eternal4 ,they admit that ,god is the cause of everything else2 hence matter is his effect through the mediation of the separate ,intellect4 ,but how can a separate ,intellect be the cause of matter if there is no creation ex nihilo4 ,this is ex nihilo as much as anything can be4 ,to say that we can find no reason why he should create at a particular time rather than at another1 and hence the world must be eternal1 is no argument2 for this reasoning can apply only to action from necessity4 ,voluntary action is just of this kind1 that it takes place at a particular time4 ,in the above argument for creation the reader will not fail to see reminiscences of ,maimonides as well as ,crescas 7cf4 pp4 #bga and #djc74 ,the superiority of ,moses to other prophets is not essential to ,judaism1 nevertheless it behooves every ,jew to believe it1 as it is included in the principle of ,revelation1 and the ,bible tells us1 ,and there arose not a prophet since then in ,israel like unto ,moses 7,deut4 #cd1 #aj74 ,the ,immutability of the ,law will be treated in detail later4 ,here it will suffice to say that while it is not a sine qua non of ,judaism1 every ,jew should believe it1 as it is included in the derivative principle of the ,authenticity of ,god's messenger4 ,it stands to reason that human perfection can be attained by the performance of any one of the commandments of the ,law4 ,for if it requires the performance of all the commandments for this purpose1 then the ,law of ,moses makes it more difficult to reach perfection than the previous laws1 which is not in consonance with the statement of the ,rabbis that ,god gave ,israel so many laws and commandments because he wished to make them meritorious 7,tal4 ,bab4 ,makkot1 #bc b74 ,resurrection will be treated more at length later4 ,it must be believed because it has been accepted by ,israel and has come down to us by tradition4 ,the same thing applies to the belief in the ,messiah4 ,this is also a traditional belief and is related to the principle of ,reward and ,punishment1 though it is not like the latter indispensable either to religion in general or to ,judaism in particular4#dbj ,the difference1 it will be seen1 between ,albo and ,maimonides in the question of ,jewish dogmas is simply one of classification and grading4 ,albo includes in his enumeration all the thirteen dogmas of ,maimonides with the exception of the fifth1 namely1 that ,god alone be worshipped1 but instead of placing them all on the same level of importance as equally essential to the structure of ,judaism1 as ,maimonides apparently intended1 ,albo divides them into three categories of descending rank as follows3 fundamental principles1 derived principles1 true beliefs4 ,of ,maimonides's list the last two1 ,messiah and ,resurrection1 belong to the last category4 ,none the less ,albo believed strictly in both and held it incumbent upon every ,jew to believe in them4 ,it was only a question of the status of a person who mistakenly denies these true beliefs4 ,according to ,maimonides1 it would seem1 he would be called a heretic and be excluded from a share in the world to come equally with one who denied the existence of ,god2 whereas according to ,albo a person so guilty is a sinner and needs forgiveness1 but is not a heretic4 ,of the other eleven dogmas of ,maimonides1 7#a71 7#h7 and 7#aa7 are placed by ,albo in his first class1 7#b71 7#c71 7#d71 7#f7 and 7#aj7 belong to the second class1 while 7#g7 and 7#i7 come under true beliefs along with ,messiah and ,resurrection4 ,the difference between the first and the second class is purely logical and not practical4 ,as we saw before 7p4 #dac71 one who denies incorporeality 7a principle of the second class7 disbelieves in the true nature of ,god1 which is tantamount to denying the principle of the existence of ,god4 ,before concluding this general discussion of the fundamental dogmas of religion and ,judaism1 ,albo undertakes to answer two questions which must have been near his heart1 and which were on the tongues no doubt of a great many honest people in those days of religious challenge and debate4 ,the first question is1 ,is it proper1 or perhaps obligatory1 to analyze the fundamental principles of one's religion1 to see if they are true2 and if one finds another religion which seems to him better1 is one permitted to adopt it in place of his own8 ,albo sees arguments against both sides of the dilemma4 ,if a man is allowed to analyze his religion and to choose the one that seems best to him1 it will follow that a person is never stable in his belief1 since he is doubting it1 as is shown by his examination4 ,and if so1 he does not deserve reward for belief1 since belief1 as ,albo defines it elsewhere 7,pt4 ,i1 ch4 #ai71 means that one cannot conceive of the opposite being true4 ,again1 if he finds another religion which he thinks better and is allowed to exchange his own religion for the new one1 he will never be sure of any religion2 for he may find a third still better1 and a fourth1 and so on1 and as he cannot examine all the possible religions1 he will remain without any religious convictions4 ,on the other hand1 if he is not allowed to investigate the foundations of his belief1 it follows either that all religions alike bring their believer happiness1 no matter how contradictory they are1 which is absurd2 or ,god would seem unfair if only one religion leads its devotees to happiness and no one is allowed to change his religion for one that seems to him the true one4 ,the answer of ,albo to this interesting question is characteristic4 ,it shows that he armored himself in advance1 before he risked such a delicate question4 ,he makes it clear that it really does not expose to any danger the religion of ,judaism1 the mother of the other two1 which they came to supersede4 ,if all religions in the world1 ,albo tells us1 were opposed to one another1 and regarded each other as untrue1 the above difficulty would be real4 ,but it is not so4 ,all religions agree in respect to one of them that it is divine2 but they say that it is superseded4 ,hence every religionist who is not a ,jew must investigate his religion to see if it is justified in opposing the religion which is acknowledged to be divine4 ,similarly the professor of the admittedly divine religion should investigate to see if his religion is temporary or eternal4 ,in this investigation he must first see if the religion conforms to the principles of divine religion above mentioned4 ,if it does this and in addition endeavors to order human affairs in accordance with justice1 and leads its devotees to human perfection1 it is divine4 ,it is still1 however1 possible that it is the work of a wise man of good character4 ,it is therefore necessary to investigate the character of the promulgator1 to find out whether he is a genuine divine messenger or not4 ,this test1 as was said above 7p4 #dae71 must be a direct test and not an indirect4#dba ,the other question is whether there can be more than one divine religion4 ,apparently there can be only one1 since the giver is one1 and the recipients are of one species4 ,but in reality the receivers vary in temperament according to difference in inheritance and environment4 ,hence there may be a difference in the law according to the character of the people for whom it is intended4 ,since1 however1 the difference is due to the receiver and not to the giver1 it must reside in those elements which are dependent upon the receiver1 i4 e41 in particulars and details1 not in the principles1 fundamental or derived4 ,so the ,noachite and the ,mosaic laws differ only in details1 not in fundamental principles4#dbb ,we have now completed the exposition of the part of ,albo's teaching that may be called distinctly his own4 ,and it seems he was aware that he had nothing further to teach that was new1 and would have been content to end his book with the first part1 of which we have just given an account4 ,but his friends1 he tells us in the concluding remarks to the first part of the ,ikkarim1#dbc urged him to proceed further and discuss in detail the principles1 fundamental and derived1 the true beliefs and the so-called branches1 which he barely enumerated in the first part4 ,he was persuaded by their advice and added the other three sections1 each devoted to one of the three fundamental dogmas and the corollaries following from it4 ,here ,albo has nothing new to teach4 ,he follows the beaten track1 reviews the classic views of ,maimonides1 takes advantage of the criticisms of ,gersonides and ,crescas1 and settles the problems sometimes one way sometimes another1 without ever suggesting anything new4 ,accordingly it will not be worth our while to reproduce his discussions here4 ,it will suffice briefly to indicate his position on the more important problems4 ,the second section deals with the existence of ,god and the derived principles and branches growing out from this root4 ,in proving the existence of ,god he refers to ,maimonides's four proofs 7cf4 p4 #beg ff471 and selects the third and fourth as really valid and beyond dispute4 ,the first and second are not conclusive2 the one because it is based upon the eternity of motion1 which no ,jew accepts2 the other because the major premise is not true4 ,it does not follow if one of the two elements a1 b1 of a composite a b is found separately1 that the other must be found existing separately likewise4#dbd ,we have seen that from the principle of the existence of ,god follow four derivative dogmas1 unity1 incorporeality1 independence of time1 freedom from defects4 ,we are now told that from these secondary roots issue a number of branches4 ,from ,unity it follows that no attributes either essential or accidental can be applied to ,god1 such as wisdom1 strength1 generosity1 and so on1 for they would cause multiplicity4 ,from incorporeality we infer that ,god is not subject to corporeal affections like fear1 sorrow1 joy1 grudge1 and so on4 ,independence of time implies infinite power and want of resemblance to other things4 ,freedom from defect implies absence of such qualities as ignorance1 weakness1 and so on4#dbe ,in the discussion of the divine attributes ,albo has nothing new to offer1 but instead he argues forward and backward1 now with ,maimonides1 now against him1 reproducing a good deal of ,maimonides's classification1 embodying some material of ,bahya on unity1 and after this rambling and not very consistent discussion1 he comes to the conclusion that none but active and negative attributes are applicable to ,god2 and yet some essential attributes too must be his1 but these must be understood as implying only the aspect of perfection1 and not that other aspect of attribute which is responsible for multiplicity4#dbf ,he asks the question so often asked before1 ,how can multiplicity come from unity8 ,and after giving ,ibn ,sina's scheme of the emanation of the ,intelligences one after the other1 and criticizing it in the manner of ,gazali and ,maimonides1 he gives his own solution that the variety and multiplicity of the world tends to one end1 which is the order of the world4 ,and thus are reconciled plurality and unity4 7cf4 ,gersonides above1 p4 #cea74dbg ,he discusses the question of angels or ,intellects1 gives the views of the philosophers concerning their nature and number1 each being the effect of the superior and the cause of the inferior1 and objects to their idea on the ground that these cannot be the same as the ,biblical angels1 who are messengers of ,god to mankind4 ,he then gives his own view that the number of angels is infinite1 not as the philosophers say ten or fifty1 and that they are not related to each other as cause and effect1 but that though they are immaterial ,intellects they are individuated and differentiated according to the degree of understanding they have of ,god4#dbh ,in discussing the second fundamental principle1 ,revelation1 ,albo argues in the good old fashion that man is the noblest creature of the sublunar world1 and the most distinctive and noblest part of man--his form and essence--is the theoretical reason4 ,hence the purpose of man must be the realization of the theoretical intellect4 ,at the same time1 and with little consistency1 ,albo takes the part of ,judah ,halevi and ,crescas1 employing their arguments1 without naming them1 that the philosophers and the philosophizing theologians are wrong who make human immortality1 perfection and happiness depend solely upon intellectual activity4 ,he comes to the conclusion1 therefore1 that spiritual understanding1 which gives perfection of soul when in combination with practice1 is not acquisition of ideas but the intention of doing the will of ,god in the performance of good deeds1 and not that of pleasure or reward4#dbi ,this being so1 it becomes an important question what are the practices which tend to human perfection1 and what are those which tend the other way4 ,in general we may conclude1 as like desires and rejoices in like1 that those deeds which give the soul pleasure before and after performance are good and helpful1 while those which cause subsequent pain1 regret and sorrow are bad1 and tend away from the soul's perfection4 ,but the criterion of pleasure and pain just suggested is not sufficient as a guide in conduct1 for a great deal depends upon a man's temperament4 ,what a hot-blooded man may commend and find pleasure in1 the phlegmatic temperament will object to1 and will feel discomfort in doing4 ,besides1 as the good deed is always a mean between two extremes1 which it is hard to measure precisely2 and as the good deed is that which pleases ,god1 and beyond generalities we cannot tell what does1 and what does not please ,god1 since we do not know his essence1 it was necessary for man's sake that ,god should reveal his will to mankind through a prophet4 ,thus ,revelation is proved by reason4#dcj ,this leads to the problem of prophecy1 one of the derivative principles of ,revelation4 ,the divine influence from which man gets a knowledge of the things pleasing and displeasing to ,god1 he cannot obtain without the divine will4 ,instead of magic1 divination1 and communication with evil spirits and the dead1 which the ancient heathen employed in order to learn the future1 ,god sent prophets to ,israel1 to tell the people of the will of ,god4 ,foretelling the future was only secondary with them4 ,prophecy is a supernatural gift1 whether it takes place with the help of the imagination or not4 ,if it were a natural phenomenon dependent upon the intellectual power of the individual and his faculty of imagination1 as the philosophers and some ,jewish theologians think1 there should have been prophets among the philosophers4 ,here again we see ,albo adopt the view of ,halevi and ,crescas against the intellectualism of ,maimonides and ,gersonides4 ,his further classification of the grades of prophecy is based upon ,maimonides1 though ,albo simplifies it4 ,instead of eleven ,albo recognizes four grades in all1 including that of ,moses4 ,the great majority of mankind1 he says1 stop with the ability to analyze1 such as is exhibited in the analysis of things into matter and form1 and so on1 though not all of them go so far4 ,but there are some few who go farther and are enabled to speak words of wisdom and to sing praises to ,god without being able to account for the power4 ,this is the holy spirit 7,ruah ha-,kodesh74 ,some go still farther1 and through the strength of their reason and imagination they dream true dreams and receive prophecies2 though1 the imagination having the upper hand1 they struggle very hard and tremble and faint1 almost losing their soul4 ,this is the first stage of prophecy4 ,the second stage is when the imagination and reason are equal4 ,in that case there is no struggle or fainting4 ,visions come to the prophet at night in dreams1 or in a revery at daytime4 ,the forms that appear are not real1 but the meanings they convey are4 ,such are the figures of women1 horses1 basket of summer fruit1 and so on1 in the visions of ,zechariah and ,amos4 ,the third stage is when the reason gets the better of the imagination and there are no forms or images1 but real essences and ideas1 like the visions of ,ezekiel1 which represent real things in the secrets of nature and divinity4 ,the prophet in this stage also hears an angel speaking to him and giving him information of importance to himself or others4 ,in all these cases the will of ,god is essential4 ,no preparation can replace it4 ,finally the fourth stage is reached when the imagination does not come into play at all4 ,in this stage there is no angel or form1 and the message comes to the prophet at daytime while he is awake4 ,he hears a voice telling him what he desires to know2 and whenever he chooses he can summon this power4 ,moses alone attained to this final stage4 ,outside of the prophets1 the righteous and the pious have various degrees of power according to the degree of their union with ,god4 ,some can in this way influence the powers of nature to obey them1 as a person can1 by thinking of food1 make his mouth water4 ,so they can by taking thought cause rain and storm4 ,others can bring down fire from above and revive the dead4 ,through the influence of a prophet the gift of prophecy may sometimes rest upon individuals who are themselves unprepared and unworthy4 ,witness the revelation on ,sinai where the entire people1 six hundred thousand in number1 were endowed with the spirit of prophecy1 and that too of the highest degree1 like ,moses himself4 ,the prophetic medium reflects the spirit of prophecy on others as a smooth surface reflects the light of the sun upon dark bodies4 ,this is why prophecy is found only in ,israel and in ,palestine1 because the ark and the ,tables of ,stone1 upon which the ,shekinah rests1 reflect the divine spirit upon those who are worthy and have in them something resembling the contents of the ark1 namely1 the ,torah and the commandments4#dca ,among the true beliefs we have seen 7p4 #daf7 that ,immutability of the ,law is related to the principle of ,revelation4 ,hence this is the place to discuss this question4 ,can a divine religion change with time or not8 ,it would seem at first sight that it cannot4 ,for the giver expresses his will in the ,law1 and his will never changes4 ,the receivers are the same1 i4 e41 the same nation1 and a nation does not change4 ,finally the purpose of the ,law or religion is to give people true opinions1 and these never change4 ,and yet on further reflection there seems no reason why religion should not change with the change of the recipient1 as the physician changes his prescription with the progress of the patient1 and as a matter of fact we find that the commandments given to ,adam were different from those given to ,noah and to ,abraham and to ,moses4 ,adam was not allowed to eat meat1 ,noah was4 ,abraham was commanded circumcision4 ,high places were at first permitted and later forbidden4 ,maimonides makes the immutability of the ,law a fundamental dogma1 relying upon the commandment1 ,thou shalt not add thereto1 and thou shalt not diminish therefrom 7,deut4 #ac1 #a74 ,but in the first place the verse refers to changes in the mode of observing the laws2 and besides1 it says nothing about ,god himself changing the ,law4 ,the phrases an eternal statute1 throughout your generations1 it is a sign for ever1 are no proof of the eternity of the ,law2 for not all commandments have these expressions attached1 and this shows rather that the others are subject to change4 ,besides1 the expressions1 for eternity1 and so on1 are not to be taken absolutely4 ,they are often used to express finite periods of time4 ,after the ,babylonian ,exile two changes were made4 ,they changed the characters in which the ,bible was written1 and the order and names of the months1 beginning with ,tishri instead of ,nisan4 ,there is no reason1 therefore1 why other laws might not change1 too4 ,we need not1 then1 regard ,immutability of the ,law as a fundamental dogma with ,maimonides4 ,hasdai ,crescas also classes it with true beliefs and not with fundamental principles4 ,albo resolves the problem as follows3 ,a matter that is revealed by ,god himself cannot be changed by a prophet unless it is changed by ,god himself4 ,the first two commandments1 ,i am the ,lord thy ,god1 c41 and ,thou shalt not have other gods1 c41 were heard by the people directly from ,god without the intervention of ,moses1 hence they cannot be changed by any prophet4 ,it follows therefore that the three fundamental dogmas1 existence of ,god1 ,revelation and ,reward and ,punishment can never be changed by a prophet1 for they are implied in the first two commandments1 which were heard from ,god himself4 ,the rest of the commandments1 as they were heard from ,god through the interpretation of ,moses1 can be changed by a prophet as a temporary measure4 ,the other laws which were given by ,moses may be changed by a later prophet even permanently4 ,but the prophet must be greater than ,moses1 and he must show this by the greatness1 number1 publicity and permanence of his miracles1 which must excel those of ,moses4 ,he must likewise show that he was sent by ,god to change the ,law1 as clearly as ,moses proved that he was sent to give it4 ,but it is unlikely that any such prophet will come1 for the ,torah says that there never was or will be any prophet like ,moses4#dcb ,before discussing the third fundamental dogma1 ,albo finds it desirable to dispose first of a few other problems implied by this dogma1 one of which1 ,god's knowledge1 was postponed to this place1 though it is connected with ,revelation1 because it cannot well be separated in discussion from the problem of ,freedom4 ,providence is the other related problem1 which is derived from the dogma of ,reward and ,punishment4 ,there is nothing that is new in ,albo's treatment of knowledge and ,freedom4 ,he insists like ,maimonides that ,god must be omniscient1 and on the other hand the contingent cannot be denied1 and neither can freedom4 ,he gives the stock arguments1 which it is not necessary to reproduce at this late hour4 ,and his solution is that of ,maimonides that in ,god human freedom and divine ,omniscience are reconcilable because ,god's knowledge is not our knowledge4#dcc ,nor is there anything original in ,albo's discussion of the problem of ,providence4 ,he recognizes with ,maimonides and others that a strong argument against special ,providence is the observed inequality between the destinies of men and their apparent merits4 ,and he endeavors in the well worn method to give reasons and explanations for this inequality which will not touch unfavorably ,god's justice or his special ,providence4 ,the reasons are such as we met before and we shall not repeat them4 ,albo also gives a few positive arguments to prove the reality of special ,providence for man4 ,he sees in various natural and human phenomena evidence of deviation from the merely natural as demanded by the principles of ,aristotle's ,physics or the laws of uniformity4 ,this shows special ,providence4 ,thus the existence of dry earth1 the heaviest element1 above water1 cannot be accounted for by the laws of ,physics4 ,the phenomenon of rain cannot be reduced to law1 hence it argues will and purpose and ,providence4 ,admonition in dreams is direct evidence of special ,providence1 and it is scarcely likely that man1 who has special equipment above the other animals in his reason1 should not also receive special care above that which the lower animals have4 ,now they are protected in the species1 hence man is provided for as an individual4#dcd ,having disposed of the auxiliary dogmas1 ,albo takes up the fundamental principle of ,reward and ,punishment4 ,he cites various opinions on the subject1 which are dependent upon the idea one entertains concerning the nature of the soul4 ,thus if one holds that the human soul is not different in kind from the animal soul1 it follows that as there is no reward and punishment for the animal1 there is none for man4 ,and if one regards the human soul as merely a capacity or possibility of intelligence he must necessarily conclude that the soul perishes with the body and there is no spiritual reward and punishment after death4 ,the only reward there is must therefore be corporeal1 during life4 ,on the other hand1 our general experience1 which brings before us many cases of good men suffering and bad men enjoying prosperity1 would seem to argue against corporeal reward and punishment in this world4 ,this taken together with the philosophical opinion that the soul is an immaterial and indestructible substance gives rise to the third view that the only recompense is spiritual after death4 ,none of these views is satisfactory to ,albo4 ,the first two because they are based upon an erroneous notion of the soul4 ,all agree1 philosophers as well as theologians1 that the human soul is different in kind from the soul of the animal2 and it is likewise admitted that the human soul is immortal4 ,his criticism of the third view so far as it is based upon the intellectualist idea that the thing of highest value is intellectual effort1 and the only reward is immortality which intellectual activity engenders1 is similar to that of ,halevi and ,crescas in its endeavor to refute this notion and to substitute for it the religious view that the soul is an independent substance having a capacity for intelligence in ,god's service4 ,the degree in which a person realizes this service determines his reward and punishment4 ,the argument from experience ,albo does not answer here1 but we may suppose he regards it as answered by what he said in his discussion of ,providence1 where he tries to account for the prosperity of the wicked and the adversity of the righteous4 ,albo's own view accordingly is that which he also attributes to the ,bible that there is a twofold reward1 in this world and in the next4 ,there is still a difference of opinion concerning the nature of the true and ultimate reward1 whether it is given to the soul alone1 or to body and soul combined in resurrection4 ,he quotes ,maimonides's opinion1 with whom he agrees1 that the real reward is purely spiritual enjoyed by the soul alone4 ,to be sure1 after the coming of the ,messiah the bodies of the righteous will be resurrected to make known abroad ,god's wonders1 or to give these people bodily pleasure for the pain they suffered during life1 or to give them additional opportunity to acquire perfection so that they may have a greater reward later4 ,but this state of resurrected life will last only for a time1 and then all will die again1 and the souls will enjoy spiritual life forever4 ,the other opinion1 held by ,nachmanides1 is that the real and ultimate reward is that of body and soul united to everlasting life4 ,albo is not satisfied with this view1 his objections being among others that if only the perfect are resurrected1 the rest will remain without any reward at all1 not to mention the difficulty that it is not likely that the human body--a perishable thing--will change into a matter that will last forever4 ,as to the nature of reward and punishment after death1 ,albo tells us that reward will consist in the soul's realization that its endeavors in this world were correct1 and in the next world it will be prepared to join the spiritual beings1 which will give it great joy4 ,the erring soul will find itself in a position where it will still desire the corporeal pleasures of this world1 but will not be able to have them for want of corporeal organs4 ,at the same time it will also entertain the other more natural desire of a spiritual substance to join the other spiritual beings in the other world4 ,this feeling too it will not be able to satisfy because of its want of perfection4 ,this division of desires unsatisfied will cause the soul excruciating torture1 and this is its punishment4#dce ,,conclusion ,our task is done4 ,we have now reached the limit we have assigned ourselves4 ,we have traced objectively and with greater or less detail the rationalistic movement in medival ,jewry from its beginnings in the ninth and tenth centuries in ,babylon among the ,karaites and ,rabbanites to its decline in ,spain and south ,france in the fifteenth century4 ,we have followed its ascending curve from ,saadia through ,gabirol1 ,bahya and ,ibn ,daud to its highest point in ,maimonides1 and we likewise traced its descent through ,gersonides1 ,crescas and ,albo4 ,we took account of its essential nature as being a serious and conscientious attempt to define a ,jewish ,weltanschauung in the midst of conflicting claims of religions and philosophies4 ,the ,jewish sacred writings had to be studied and made consistent with themselves in regard to certain ethical and metaphysical questions which forced themselves upon the minds of thinking men4 ,in this endeavor it was necessary to have regard to the system of doctrine that was growing up among their ,mohammedan neighbors and masters--itself inherited from ,greece--and adjust its teachings to those of ,judaism4 ,the adjustment took various forms according to the temperament of the adjuster4 ,it embraced the extremes of all but sacrificing one of the two systems of doctrine to the other1 and it counted among its votaries those who honestly endeavored to give each claim its due4 ,the system of ,judaism was the same for all throughout the period of our investigation1 excepting only the difference between ,karaites and ,rabbanites4 ,this was not the case with the system of philosophic doctrine4 ,there we can see a development from ,kalam through ,neo-,platonism to ,aristotelianism1 and we accordingly classified the ,jewish thinkers as ,mutakallimun1 ,neo-,platonists or ,aristotelians1 or combinations in varying proportions of any two of the three systems mentioned4 ,it was not our province to treat of the mystic movement in medival ,jewry as it developed in the ,kabbalistic works and gained the ground yielded in the course of time by the healthier rationalism4 ,to complete the picture it will suffice to say that as the political and economic conditions of the ,jews in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries deteriorated1 and freedom and toleration were succeeded by persecution and expulsion1 the ,jews became more zealous for their own spiritual heritage as distinguished from foreign importations2 philosophy and rationalism began to be regarded askance1 particularly as experience showed that scientific training was not favorable to ,jewish steadfastness and loyalty4 ,in suffering and persecution those who stuck to their posts were as a rule not the so-called enlightened who played with foreign learning1 but the simple folk who believed in ,torah and tradition in the good old style4 ,the philosophical and the scientific devotees were the first to yield1 and many of them abandoned ,judaism4#dcf ,thus it was that mysticism and obscurantism took the place of enlightenment as a measure of self-defence4 ,the material walls of the ,ghetto and the spiritual walls of the ,talmud and the ,kabbala kept the remnant from being overwhelmed and absorbed by the hostile environment of ,christian and ,mohammedan4 ,the second half of the fourteenth1 and the fifteenth century were not favorable to philosophical studies among the ,jews1 and the few here and there who still show an interest in science and philosophy combine with it a belief in ,kabbala and are not of any great influence on the development of ,judaism4 ,shemtob ben ,joseph ibn ,shemtob 7ab4 #addj7 author of a work entitled ,emunot1#dcg is a strong opponent of ,greek science and philosophy4 ,he is not content with attacking the lesser lights and extremists like ,albalag or ,gersonides or ,abraham ibn ,ezra4 ,he goes to the very fountain-head of ,jewish ,aristotelianism and holds ,maimonides responsible for the heresies which invaded the ,jewish camp4 ,he takes up one doctrine after another of the great ,jewish philosopher and points out how dangerous it is to the true ,jewish faith4 ,judah ,halevi and ,nachmanides represent to him the true ,jewish attitude4 ,the mysteries of the ,jewish faith are revealed not in philosophy but in the ,kabbala1 which ,maimonides did not study1 and which he would not have understood if he had studied it1 for he had no ,kabbalistic tradition4 ,unlike ,shemtob1 his son ,joseph ben ,shemtob 7d4 #adhj7dch shows great admiration for ,aristotle and ,maimonides4 ,but he is enabled to do so by lending credence to a legend that ,aristotle in his old age recanted his heretical doctrines1 in particular that of the eternity of the world4 ,joseph ben ,shemtob made a special study of ,aristotle's ,ethics1 to which he wrote a commentary1 and endeavored to show that the ,stagirite's ethical doctrines had been misunderstood2 that the highest good of man and his ultimate happiness are to be sought according to ,aristotle not in this world but in the next4 ,it was likewise a misunderstanding1 he thinks1 when ,maimonides and others make ,aristotle deny special ,providence4 ,true science is not really opposed to ,judaism4 ,at the same time he too like his father realizes the danger of too much scientific study1 and hence agrees with ,solomon ben ,adret that the study of philosophy should be postponed to the age of maturity when the student is already imbued with ,jewish learning and religious faith4 ,the son of ,joseph1 bearing the name of his grandfather1 ,shemtob ben ,joseph 7fl4 ab4 #adfa-hi71 followed in his father's footsteps1#dci and wrote a commentary on the ,guide of the ,perplexed of ,maimonides1 whom he defends against the attacks of ,crescas4 ,isaac ben ,moses ,arama 7#adbj-adid7ddj is the author of a philosophico-homiletical commentary on the ,pentateuch entitled1 ,akedat ,yizhak1 and a small treatise on the relations of philosophy and theology4 ,he was also interested in ,kabbala and placed ,jewish revelation above philosophy4 ,don ,isaac ,abarbanel 7#adcg-aejh71dda the distinguished ,jewish statesman who went with his brethren into exile at the time of the expulsion of the ,jews from ,spain in #adib1 was a prolific writer on ,biblical exegesis and religious philosophy4 ,though a great admirer of ,maimonides1 on whose ,guide he wrote a commentary1 and whose thirteen articles of the creed he defended against the strictures of ,crescas and ,albo1 he was nevertheless an outspoken opponent of the rationalistic attitude and has no phrases strong enough for such men as ,albalag1 ,gersonides1 ,moses of ,narbonne and others1 whom he denounces as heretics and teachers of dangerous doctrines4 ,he does not even spare ,maimonides himself when the latter attempts to identify the traditional ,maase ,bereshit and ,maase ,merkaba with the ,aristotelian ,physics and ,metaphysics 7cf4 above1 p4 #cjc f471 and adopts ,kabbalistic views along with philosophic doctrines4 ,he is neither original nor thoroughly consistent4 ,his son ,judah ,leo ,abarbanel 7#adgj-aecj7ddb is the author of a philosophical work in ,italian1 ,dialoghi di ,amore1 7,dialogues of ,love71 which breathes the spirit of the ,renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in ,italy4 ,it is under the influence of ,plato and ,plotinus and identifies ,god with love1 which is regarded as the essential principle of all life and activity in the world1 including even the inorganic natural processes4 ,there is no attempt made to construct a ,jewish philosophy1 and though all evidence is against it1 some have made it out that ,judah ,abarbanel was a convert to ,christianity4 ,in the same country1 in ,italy1 ,judah ben ,yechiel ,messer ,leon of ,mantua#ddc 7#adej-adij7 made a name for himself as a student of ,cicero and of medival ,latin scholasticism4 ,he wrote a rhetoric in ,hebrew based upon ,cicero and ,lactantius1 and composed logical works based upon ,aristotle's ,latin text and ,averroes4 ,as an original student of philosophy he is of no importance4 ,two members of the ,delmedigo family of ,crete1 ,elijah 7#adfj-adih7 and ,joseph ,solomon1#ddd are well known as students of philosophy and writers on philosophical and scientific subjects4 ,thus the stream of philosophical thought which rose among the ,jews in ,babylonia and flowed on through the ages1 ever widening and deepening its channel1 passing into ,spain and reaching its high water mark in the latter half of the twelfth century in ,maimonides1 began to narrow and thin out while spreading into ,france and ,italy1 until at last it dried up entirely in that very land which opened up a new world of thought1 beauty and feeling in the fifteenth century1 the land of the ,renaissance4 ,jewish philosophy never passed beyond the scholastic stage1 and the freedom and light which came to the rest of the world in the revival of ancient learning and the inventions and discoveries of the modern era found the ,jews incapable of benefiting by the blessings they afforded4 ,oppression and gloom caused the ,jews to retire within their shell and they sought consolation for the freedom denied them without in concentrating their interests1 ideals and hopes upon the ,rabbinic writings1 legal as well as mystical4 ,there have appeared philosophers among the ,jews in succeeding centuries1 but they either philosophized without regard to ,judaism and in opposition to its fundamental dogmas1 thus incurring the wrath and exclusion of the synagogue1 or they sought to dissociate ,judaism from theoretical speculation on the ground that the ,jewish religion is not a philosophy but a rule of conduct4 ,in more recent times ,jewry has divided itself into sects and under the influence of modern individualism has lost its central authority making every group the arbiter of its own belief and practice and narrowing the religious influence to matters of ceremony and communal activity of a practical character4 ,there are ,jews now and there are philosophers1 but there are no ,jewish philosophers and there is no ,jewish philosophy4 ,,bibliography,d ,,general ,,works ,,solomon ,,munk1 ,mlanges de ,philosophie ,juive et ,arabe1 ,paris #ahei1 pp4 #dfa-eaa4 ,a brief historical rsum of philosophical authors and books4 ,german translation by ,beer1 ,philosophie und philosophische ,schriftsteller der ,juden1 ,leipzig1 #aheb4 ,english translation by ,isidor ,kalisch1 ,philosophy and ,philosophical ,authors of the ,jews1 ,cincinnati1 #ahha4 ,a4 ,,schmiedl1 ,studien ber jdische1 insonders jdisch-arabische ,religionsphilosophie1 ,wien1 #ahfi4 ,,moritz ,,eisler1 ,vorlesungen ber die jdischen ,philosophen des ,mittelalters 7#c parts71 ,wien1 #ahgj-hd4 ,,david ,,kaufmann1 ,geschichte der ,attributenlehre in der jdischen ,religionsphilosophie des ,mittelalters von ,saadia bis ,maimuni1 ,gotha1 #ahgg4 ,,simeon ,,bernfeld1 ,hebrew3 ,da'at ,elohim1 ,toldot ,hafilosofiya ,hadatit ,b'yisrael1 ,warsaw1 #ahig4 ,s4 ,,horovitz1 ,die ,psychologie bei den jdischen ,religions-,philosophen des ,mittelalters1 von ,saadia bis ,maimuni1 ,breslau1 #ahih-aiab 7includes so far ,saadia1 ,gabirol1 ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,abraham ibn ,daud74 ,j4 ,,pollak1 ,entwicklung der arabischen und jdischen ,philosophie im ,mittelalter in ,archiv fr ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 vol4 ,,xvii 7#aijd71 pp4 #aif-bcf1 #dcc-dei4 ,,ueberweg-,,baumgartner1 ,grundriss der ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 vol4 ,,ii1 #ajth ed41 ,berlin1 #aiae1 pp4 #che-djc4 ,,david ,,neumark1 ,geschichte der jdischen ,philosophie des ,mittelalters1 nach ,problemen dargestellt1 vol4 ,i1 ,berlin1 #aijg1 vol4 ,,ii1 part ,i1 ,berlin1 #aiaj4 ,,ignaz ,,goldziher1 ,die jdische ,philosophie in ,allgemeine ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 von ,w4 ,wundt1 etc4 7,die ,kultur der ,gegenwart ,i1 #e71 pp4 #gj-gg 7#bnd ed41 pp4 #cja-ccg74 ,,kalam ,,in ,,jewish ,,philosophy ,,martin ,,schreiner1 ,der ,kalam in der jdischen ,literatur1 ,berlin1 #ahie4 ,,isaac ,,israeli ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 ,die philosophischen ,lehren des ,isaak ben ,salomon ,israeli1 ,mnster i4 ,w4 #aiaa4 ,,al ,,mukammas ,,abraham ,,harkavy1 in ,russian periodical ,woskhod1 ,sept4 #ahih4 ,,saadia ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie des ,saadia1 ,gttingen1 #ahhb4 ,d4,j4 ,,engelkemper1 ,saadja ,gaon's religionsphilosophische ,lehre ber die heilige ,schrift1 bersetzt und erklrt1 ,mnster1 #aijc4 ,,joseph ,,al ,,basir ,p4 ,f4 ,,frankl1 ,ein ,mutazilitischer ,kalam aus dem #aj4 ,jahrhundert1 ,wien1 #ahgb4 ,,miksa ,,klein1 ,jszuf ,al-,baszr1 ,al-,kitb ,al-,muh4tav1 ,budapest1 #aiac4 ,,ern ,,morgenstern1 ,jszuf ,al-,baszr1 ,al ,kitb ,al ,muh4tav1 ,budapest1 #aiac4 ,,jeshua ,,ben ,,judah ,,martin ,,schreiner1 ,studien ber ,jeschua ben ,jehuda1 ,berlin1 #aijj4 ,,solomon ,,ibn ,,gabirol ,s4 ,,munk1 ,mlanges1 etc41 ,paris1 #ahei1 pp4 #aea-cjf4 ,,seyerlen1 in ,zeller's ,theologische ,jahrbcher1 vols4 ,,xv and ,,xvi4 ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 ,die ,philosophie des ,salomon ibn ,gabirol1 ,gttingen1 #ahhi4 ,,david ,,kaufmann1 ,studien ber ,salomon ibn ,gabirol1 ,budapest1 #ahii4 ,,bahya ,,ibn ,,pakuda ,,david ,,kaufmann1 ,die ,theologie des ,bachja ,ibn ,pakuda1 in ,gesammelte ,schriften von ,david ,kaufmann 7ed4 ,brann71 vol4 ,,ii1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aiaj1 pp4 #a-ih4 ,j4 ,h4 ,,hertz1 ,bachya1 ,the ,jewish ,thomas ,kempis1 ,new ,york1 #ahih 7in ,sixth ,biennial ,report of the ,jewish ,theological ,seminary ,association74 ,,pseudo-,,bahya ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 ,eine bisher unbekannte1 dem ,bachja ibn ,pakuda zugeignete ,schrift1 ,monatschrift f4 ,g4 u4 ,w4 d4 ,j41 vol4 ,,xli 7#ahig71 p4 #bda ff4 ,,abraham ,,bar ,,hiyya ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 in ,monatschrift f4 ,g4 u1 ,w4 d4 ,j41 #aijj4 ,,joseph ,,ibn ,,zaddik ,,max ,,doctor1 ,die ,philosophie des ,joseph ,ibn ,zaddik1 nach ihren ,quellen1 insbesondere nach ihren ,beziehungen zu den ,lauteren ,brdern und zu ,gabirol untersucht1 ,mnster1 #ahie4 ,,leopold ,,weinsberg1 ,der ,mikrokosmos1 ein angeblich im #ab4 ,jahrhundert von dem ,cordubenser ,joseph ibn ,zaddik verfasstes philosophisches ,system1 nach seiner ,echtheit untersucht1 ,breslau1 #ahhh4 ,,judah ,,halevi ,,ad4 ,,frankl-,,gr,n1 ,die ,ethik des ,juda ,halevi1 ,bilin1 s4 a4 ,,david ,,kaufmann1 ,jehuda ,halewi1 ,versuch einer ,charakteristik1 ,breslau1 #ahgg2 reprinted in ,gesammelte ,schriften 7ed4 ,brann71 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aiaj1 vol4 ,,ii1 pp4 #ii-aea4 ,,david ,,neumark1 ,jehuda ,hallevi's ,philosophy in its ,principles1 ,cincinnati1 #aijh4 ,,julius ,,guttmann1 ,das ,verhltniss von ,religion und ,philosophie bei ,jehuda ,halewi1 in ,israel ,lewy's ,festschrift 7ed4 ,brann and ,elbogen71 ,breslau1 #aiaa1 pp4 #cbg-ceh4 ,,abraham ,,ibn ,,ezra ,,nachman ,,krochmal1 ,hebrew3 ,more ,nevochey ,hazman1 ,warsaw1 #ahid1 p4 #bff ff4 ,,david ,,rosin1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie ,abraham ibn ,esras1 in ,monatschrift f4 ,g4 u4 ,w4 d4 ,j4 vols4 ,,xlii 7#ahih7 and ,,xliii 7#ahii74 ,g4 ,,orschansky1 ,abraham ibn ,esra als ,philosoph1 ,breslau1 #aijj4 ,,abraham ,,ibn ,,daud ,,gugenheimer1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie des ,r4 ,abraham ben ,david ha-,levi nach dessen noch ungedruckter ,schrift ,emuna ,rama in ihrem inneren und historischen ,zusammenhange entwickelt1 ,augsburg1 #ahej4 ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie des ,abraham ibn ,daud aus ,toledo1 ,gttingen1 #ahgi4 ,,maimonides ,m4 ,,joel1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie des ,mose ben ,maimon1 ,breslau1 #ahgf4 ,,simon ,b4 ,,scheyer1 ,das ,psychologische ,system des ,maimonides1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #ahde4 ,,david ,,rosin1 ,die ,ethik des ,maimonides1 ,breslau1 #ahgf4 ,,moses ,,ben ,,maimon1 sein ,leben1 seine ,werke und sein ,einfluss1 heraus-gegeben von der ,gesellschaft zur ,frderung der ,wissenschaft des ,judenthums1 ,band ,i1 ,leipzig1 #aijh4 ,,louis-,,germain ,,levy1 ,mamonide1 ,paris1 #aiaa 7,les ,grands ,philosophes74 ,j4 ,m,,nz1 ,moses ben ,maimon1 sein ,leben und seine ,werke1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aiab4 ,m4 ,,joel1 ,verhltniss ,albert des ,grossen zu ,moses ,maimonides1 ,breslau1 #ahgf4 ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 ,der ,einfluss der ,maimonidischen ,philosophie auf das christliche ,abendland1 in ,moses ben ,maimon 7see above71 pp4 #ace-bcj4 ,,david ,,kaufmann1 ,der ,fhrer ,maimni's in der ,weltliteratur1 ,archiv fr ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 vol4 ,,xi 7#ahih71 pp4 #cce-cgf2 reprinted in ,gesammelte ,schriften 7ed4 ,brann71 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aiaj1 vol4 ,,ii1 pp4 #aeb-ahi4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,wickersham ,,crawford1 ,the ,vision ,delectable of ,alfonso de la ,torre and ,maimonides' ,guide of the ,perplexed1 ,publications of the ,modern ,language ,association of ,america1 ,,xxviii1 #b 7#aiac71 pp4 #ahh-bab4 ,,isaac ,,husik1 ,an ,anonymous ,medieval ,christian ,critic of ,maimonides1 ,jewish ,quarterly ,review1 ,new ,series1 vol4 ,,ii1 #aiaa1 pp4 #aei-aij4 ,,gersonides ,m4 ,,joel1 ,lewi ben ,gerson als ,religionsphilosoph1 ,breslau1 #ahfb4 ,isidore ,weil1 ,philosophie ,religieuse de ,levi ben ,gerson1 ,paris1 #ahfh4 ,,benzion ,,kellermann1 ,die ,kmpfe ,gottes von ,lewi ben ,gerson1 ,uebersetzung und ,erklrung des handschriftlich revidierten ,textes1 ,erster ,teil1 ,berlin1 #aiad4 ,contains the ,german translation of the first book of the ,milhamot ,adonai4 ,the translation is faulty in many places1 as the present writer has shown in an article entitled1 ,studies in ,gersonides1 which will appear in the ,jewish ,quarterly ,review1 ,new ,series1 in the course of the year #aiag4 ,,hasdai ,,crescas ,m4 ,joel1 ,don ,chasdai ,creskas' religionsphilosophische ,lehren in ihrem geschichtlichen ,einflusse dargestellt1 ,breslau1 #ahff4 ,,philipp ,,bloch1 ,die ,willensfreiheit von ,chasdai ,kreskas1 ,mnchen1 #ahgi4 ,,julius ,,wolfsohn1 ,der ,einfluss ,gazl's auf ,chisdai ,crescas1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aije4 ,,david ,,neumark1 ,crescas and ,spinoza1 in ,commemoration of the ,fifth ,centenary of the ,publication of the ,or ,adonai2 in ,year ,book of the ,central ,conference of ,american ,rabbis1 ,,xviii1 #aijh1 pp4 #bgg-cah4 ,,joseph ,,albo ,,samuel ,,back1 ,joseph ,albo's ,bedeutung in der ,geschichte der jdischen ,religionsphilosophie1 ,breslau1 #ahfi4 ,,jaulus1 in ,monatschrift f4 ,g4 u4 ,w4 d4 ,j41 #ahgd1 p4 #dfb ff4 ,a4 ,t,,nzer1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie ,joseph ,albo's nach seinem ,werke ,ikkarim systematisch dargestellt und erlutert1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #ahif4 ,,biblical ,,exegesis ,w4 ,,backer1 ,die ,bibelexegese der jdischen ,religionsphilosophen des ,mittelalters vor ,maimni1 ,budapest1 #ahib4 ,,id41 ,die ,jdische ,bibelexegese vom ,anfange des zehnten his zum ,ende des fnfzehnten ,jahrhunderts1 ,treves1 #ahib1 reprinted from ,winter und ,wnsche1 ,die ,jdische ,literatur seit ,abschluss des ,kanons1 ,,ii1 #bci-cci1 where a full bibliography is given4 ,,id41 ,jewish ,encyclopedia1 s4 v4 ,bible ,exegesis1 #ad-af4 ,,influence ,,of ,,jewish ,,philosophy ,,on ,,scholasticism ,the works of ,joel1 ,guttmann1 ,kaufmann1 ,crawford and ,husik mentioned above under ,maimonides2 and besides ,,jacob ,,guttmann1 ,das ,verhltniss des ,thomas von ,aquino zum ,judenthum und zur jdischen ,litteratur1 ,gttingen1 #ahia4 ,,id41 ,die ,scholastik des dreizehnten ,jahrhunderts in ihren ,beziehungen zum ,judenthum und zur jdischen ,literatur1 ,breslau1 #aijb4 ,for further references see the notes4 ,d ,this bibliography contains a selection of the more important works of exposition4 ,for original sources see the notes4 ,,notes ,black figures denote the page1 the light figures the notes xv1 #a4 ,see below1 p4 #cie ff4 xvi1 #b4 ,talm4 ,bab4 ,hagiga #aa;b4 #c4 ,ibid4 #d4 ,see ,zeller1 ,die ,philosophie der ,griechen1 ,,iii1 #b1 #c;d ed4 p4 #cdg2 ,maimonides1 ,guide of the ,perplexed1 ,i1 ch4 #ga1 beginning4 xvii1 #e4 ,see ,wenrich1 ,de ,auctorum ,graecorum ,versionibus et ,commentariis ,syriacis1 ,arabicis1 ,armeniacis ,persicisque1 ,leipzig1 #ahdb1 p4 #d ff2 ,de ,boer1 ,geschichte der ,philosophie im ,islam1 ,stuttgart1 #aija1 p4 #ag ff 7,english translation by ,jones1 ,london1 #aijc1 pp4 #aa-cj74 ,duval1 ,la ,littrature ,syriaque #bnd ed41 ,paris1 #aijj1 ch4 ,,xiv1 #b1 p4 #bec ff4 xx1 #f4 ,see ,dieterici1 ,die ,theologie des ,aristotles 7,arabic text71 ,leipzig1 #ahhb2 ,german translation by the same1 ,leipzig1 #ahhc4 #g4 ,see ,bardenhewer1 ,die ,pseudoaristotelische ,schrift ber das reine ,gute1 bekannt unter dem ,namen ,liber de causis1 ,freiburg i4 ,br41 #ahhb4 #h4 ,see ,valentinus ,rose1 ,deutsche ,literaturzeitung1 #ahhc1 p4 #hdc4 #i4 ,see ,husik1 ,judah ,messer ,leon's ,commentary upon the ,vetus ,logica1 ,leyden1 #aijf1 p4 #aa1 #ig note4 xxi1 #aj4 ,for the following sketch of the ,kalam see ,goldziher1 ,vorlesungen ber den ,islam1 ,heidelberg1 #aiaj1 #ajj ff1 #abg f4 xxiv1 #aa4 ,see below1 p4 #bdg4 xxv1 #ab4 ,see ,schreiner1 ,der ,kalam in der jdischen ,literatur1 ,berlin1 #ahie1 p4 #c2 ibid41 ,studien ber ,jeschua ben ,jehuda1 ,berlin1 #aijj1 p4 #ab ff4 xxvi1 #ac4 ,see ,l4 ,ginzberg1 in ,jewish ,encyclopedia1 s4 v4 ,anthropomorphism4 #ad4 ,see ,talm4 ,bab4 ,berakot1 #cc;b4 ,hebrew3 ,modim ,modim ,mashtikin ,oto #ae4 ,see ,talm4 ,bab4 ,megillah1 #be;b4 ,hebrew3 ,hakol ,beyidei ,shamayim ,chutz ,meyeriat ,shamaim #af4 ,schreiner1 ,studien ber ,jeschua ben ,jehudah1 p4 #ae note #b4 #ag4 ,see ,bab4 ,talm4 ,pesakim1 #ed;a1 ,hebrew3 ,shiv'a ,dvarim ,nivreu ,kodem ,shenivra ,ha'olam ,ve'eylu ,hen ,torah4444 ,torah ,dechtiv 7,mishley ,khet7 ,hashem ,kanani ,reyshit ,darko4 #ah4 ,schreiner #a4 c4 p4 #ab4 #ai4 ,ibid4 #bj4 ,schreiner1 ,der ,kalam in der jdischen ,literatur1 p4 #c1 #d4 xxvii1 #ba4 ,guide of the ,perplexed1 ,i1 ch4 #ga4 #bb4 ,see below1 p4 #bdf ff4 #bc4 ,see ,goldziher1 ,vorlesungen ber den ,islam1 p4 #aee ff4 xxviii1 #bd4 ,see ,yahuda1 ,al-,hidaja ,ila ,faraid ,al-,qulub des ,bachja ibn ,joseph ,ibn ,paquda1 ,leyden1 #aiab1 p4 #ec ff4 xxxvii1 #be4 ,cf4 above1 note #f4 #a1 #bf4 ,see ,steinschneider1 ,die ,hebrischen ,uebersetzungen des ,mittelalters und die ,juden als ,dolmetscher1 ,berlin1 #ahic1 #dgi and notes4 #a1 #bg4 ,see ,guttmann1 ,die ,scholastik des dreizehnten ,jahrhunderts in ihren ,beziehungen zum ,judenthum und zur jdischen ,literatur1 ,breslau1 #aijb1 ,p4 #ee ff4 #bh4 ,omnia ,opera ,ysaac1 ,lugduni1 7,lyons71 #aeae4 #b1 #bi4 ,see ,hebrew3 ,igrot ,harambam1 ed4 ,amsterdam1 p4 #ad;b4 #cj4 ,s4 ,fried1 ,das ,buch ber die ,elemente 7,hebrew3 ,sefer ,hayesodot71 ,drohobycz1 #aijj4 #ca4 ,published by ,hirschfeld in ,festschrift zum achtzigsten ,geburtstag ,moritz ,steinschneiders1 ,leipzig1 #ahif1 ,,pp4 #aca-ada2 cf4 also pp4 #bcc-d4 #cb4 ,see note #bh and the two preceding notes4 #e1 #cc4 ,hebrew3 ,sefer ,haruach ,v'hanefesh published by ,steinschneider in the ,hebrew periodical ,hebrew3 ,hakarmel ,i1 pp4 #dja-dje4 cf4 ,guttmann1 ,die philosophischen ,lehren des ,isaak ben ,salomon ,israeli1 ,mnster i4 ,w41 #aiaa1 p4 #ca1 note #a4 #aj1 #cd4 ,fried1 ,hebrew3 ,sefer ,hayesodot1 p4 #ab;f4 #ag1 #ce4 ,berlin1 #ahhe1 pp4 #fe1 #gg-hc1 #aea-aed4 #cf4 ,see the ,russian paper ,woskhod1 ,september1 #ahih4 #bd1 #cg4 ,arabic text edited by ,s4 ,landauer1 ,kitab al-,amanat wal-,itiqadat1 ,leyden #ahhj4 ,the ,hebrew translation of ,judah ibn ,tibbon has been published in many editions4 ,the references in the following notes are to the ,yozefov edition4 #be1 #ch4 ,cf4 below1 p4 #bdi ff4 #ci4 ,pt4 ,i1 ch4 #a1 third argument1 p4 #eh of ,yozefov edition4 #dj4 ,ibid41 fourth argument1 p4 #ei4 #bf1 #da4 ,ibid41 ch4 #c1 p4 #fc ff42 cf4 ,guttmann1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie des ,saadia1 ,gttingen1 #ahhb1 p4 #de f4 #db4 ,pt4 ,,ii1 chs4 #i-ab1 pp4 #ie-aja4 #dc4 ,pt4 ,,vi1 ch4 #a1 p4 #adi4 #dd4 ,pt4 ,,ii1 ch4 #b1 pp4 #hh-i4 #bg1 #de4 ,introduction1 pp4 #ch-ci4 #df4 ,ibid41 p4 #dj4 #bh1 #dg4 ,ibid41 pp4 #dc-dh4 #dh4 ,ibid41 p4 #dh4 #di4 p4 #di #ej4 p4 #ea4 #bi1 #ea4 ,pt4 ,i4 ,introduction1 p4 #ed f4 #eb4 ,ibid41 ch4 #a1 p4 #ef4 #cj1 #ec4 ,ibid41 p4 #eg4 #ed4 ,ibid41 p4 #eh4 #ee4 ,ibid41 p4 #ei4 #ca1 #ef4 ,ch4 #b1 p4 #fj ff4 #eg4 ,ch4 #c1 third opinion1 p4 #ff ff4 #cb1 #eh4 ,ch4 #d1 pp4 #hj-hb4 #ei4 ,pt4 ,,ii1 ,introduction1 p4 #hf4 #fj4 ,ibid41 ch4 #a1 p4 #hh4 #cc1 #fa4 ,pt4 ,i1 ch4 #c1 fifth opinion1 p4 #fh4 #fb4 ,pt4 ,,ii1 ch4 #b1 p4 #hi4 #cd1 #fc4 ,ibid41 chs4 #d-e1 pp4 #ia-ic4 #fd4 ,see ,graf1 ,die ,philosophie und ,gotteslehre des ,jahja ibn ,adi und spteren ,autoren1 ,mnster1 #aiaj1 p4 #cb1 note1 p4 #eb4 #ce1 #fe4 ,,iii1 ch4 #aj1 p4 #abb2 ,v1 ch4 #h1 p4 #adg2 ,,vii1 ch4 #b1 p4 #afe4 #ff4 ,,ii1 chs4 #i-ab1 pp4 #ie-ajb4 #cg1 #fg4 ,,vi1 chs4 #a-d1 pp4 #adh-aef4 #ch1 #fh4 ,,iii chs4 #a-c1 pp4 #ajd-aaj4 #dj1 #fi4 ,ibid41 chs4 #d-e1 pp4 #aaj-aac4 #gj4 ,ch4 #f1 pp4 #aac-aad4 #ga4 ,chs4 #g-i1 pp4 #aad-aba4 #da1 #gb4 ,,iv1 pp4 #abd-acf4 #db1 #gc4 ,v1 chs4 #a-c1 pp4 #acf-adj4 #dc1 #gd4 ,,ix1 chs4 #a-d1 pp4 #ahe-aij4 #dd1 #ge4 ,,vi1 ch4 #h1 pp4 #afj-afb4 #de1 #gf4 ,,vii1 chs4 #a-i1 pp4 #afb-agd4 #gg4 ,,viii1 pp4 #age-ahe4 #gh4 ,,ix1 chs4 #e-aa1 pp4 #aij-aig4 #df1 #gi4 ,x1 pp4 #aig-bae4 #dh1 #hj4 ,the following sketch is based upon ,frankl1 ,ein ,mutazilitischer ,kalam aus dem #ajten ,jahrhundert1 ,wien1 #ahgb4 #ee1 #ha4 ,the following sketch is based upon ,schreiner1 ,studien ber ,jeschua ben ,jehuda1 ,berlin1 #aijj4 #fj1 #hb4 ,hebrew3 ,igrot ,harambam 7,letters of ,maimonides71 ed4 ,amsterdam1 p4 #ad;b4 #fa1 #hc4 ,see ,munk1 ,mlanges de ,philosophie ,juive et ,arabe1 ,paris1 #ahei1 p4 #bia ff2 ,guttmann1 ,die ,scholastik des ,dreizehnten ,jahrhunderts1 ,breslau1 #aijb1 pp4 #fj-he4 ,id41 ,die ,philosophie des ,salomon ibn ,gabirol1 ,gttingen1 #ahhi1 p4 #ed ff4 ,this last work and that of ,munk represent the best exposition and criticism of ,gabirol's philosophy and of his sources and influences4 #fb1 #hd4 ,cf4 ,baeumker1 ,avencebrolis ,fons ,vit1 ,mnister1 #ahib-ie1 ,prolegomena4 #fc1 #he4 ,jourdain1 ,a41 ,recherches ,critiques sur l'ge et l'origine des traductions ,latines d' ,aristote1 #b ed4 ,paris1 #ahdc1 p4 #aig note4 #hf4 ,munk1 ,mlanges1 etc4 7see note #hc71 contains the ,hebrew extracts of ,falaquera4 ,the ,latin translation was published by ,clemens ,baeumker in the ,beitrge zur ,geschichte der ,philosophie des ,mittelalters1 vol4 ,i1 pts4 #b-d 7cf4 above note #hd74 ,see also ,seyerlen in ,theologische ,jahrbcher1 edited by ,zeller1 ,,xv and ,,xvi4 #fd1 #hg4 ,cf4 ,munk1 ,le ,guide des gars1 ,,ii1 p4 #be1 note #a1 end4 #hh4 ,see ,kaufmann1 ,studien ber ,salomon ibn ,gabirol1 ,budapest1 #ahii4 #hi4 ,baeumker1 ,fons ,vit1 ,v1 p4 #cac1 #f4 #fe1 #ij4 ,f4 ,v4 ,v1 #ccc-cce1 ,falaquera in ,munk's ,mlanges1 ,v1 #fg-fi4 #ia4 ,f4 ,v4 ,,iv1 #h ff41 ,falaquera ,,iv1 #a4 #ib4 ,f4 ,v4 ,v1 #bif1 #aj4 #ic4 ,f4 ,v4 ,,iv1 #bdc1 #aj4 #id4 ,f4 ,v4 ,,iii1 p4 #aif1 #e ff41 ,falaq4 ,,iii1 #aj4 #ie4 ,f4 ,v4 ,,iii1 #bjh1 #ae2 ,falaq4 ,,iii1 #dd4 #fg1 #if4 ,f4 ,v4 ,,iii1 #age1 #aj ff42 ,falaq4 ,,iii #bg ff4 #ig4 ,f4 ,v4 ,,iv1 #baa1 #i ff41 #bac1 #ag ff41 #bag1 ,,ii ff41 #bah1 #ah2 ,falaq4 ,,iv1 #a-d and ff4 #ih4 ,f4 ,v4 ,v1 #beh1 #ai2 #bei1 #a2 #bfh1 #h1 #ad1 #ae2 #cbb1 #ab2 ,falaq4 ,v1 #ee4 #fh1 #ii4 ,f4 ,v4 ,v1 #cjf1 #g ff42 ,falaq4 ,v1 #cd ff4 #ajj4 ,f4 ,v4 ,v1 #ccj1 #ae ff42 ,falaq4 ,v1 #fd ff4 #aja4 ,f4 ,v4 ,v1 #cbf1 #c ff42 ,falaq4 ,v1 #fj ff4 #gj1 #ajb4 ,f4 ,v4 ,,iii1 #bjd1 #ac ff42 ,falaq4 ,,iii1 #cg4 #ga1 #ajc4 ,s4 ,wise1 ,improvement of the ,moral ,qualities1 ,new ,york1 #aija4 7,columbia ,university ,oriental ,studies1 vol4 #a47 #gb1 #ajd4 ,f4 ,v4 ,i1 #d1 #bd ff42 ,falaq4 ,i1 #b4 #gh1 #aje4 ,see ,munk1 ,mlanges1 #aff ff4 #hj1 #ajf4 ,yahuda1 ,prolegomena zu einer erstmaligen ,herausgabe des ,kitab ,al-,hidaja ,ila ,faraid ,al-,qulub1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aijd1 #ab ff42 id41 ,al-,hidaja ,ila ,faraid ,al-,qulub des ,bachja ibn ,joseph ibn ,paquda1 ,leyden1 #aiab1 #fc f4 #ajg4 ,neumark1 ,geschichte der jdischen ,philosophie des ,mittelalters1 ,i1 ,berlin1 #aijg1 #dhe-dic4 #ha1 #ajh4 ,in his commentary on ,deut4 #cb1 #ci4 ,cf4 ,yahuda1 ,prolegomena1 p4 #ab1 note #b1 where #ce should be corrected to #ci4 #aji4 ,yahuda1 ,al-,hidaja1 etc41 p4 #ig4 #he1 #aaj4 ,hebrew3 ,chovat ,halevavot 7,duties of the ,hearts7 ed4 ,warsaw1 #ahge1 ,introduction1 pp4 #i-bh4 #hf1 #aaa4 ,ibid41 ,introduction1 #bh-cg4 #aab4 ,yahuda1 ,al-,hidaja1 pp4 #ec-aab4 #hh1 #aac4 ,duties of the ,hearts1 ,i1 chs4 #a-f1 pp4 #da-eh4 #hi1 #aad4 ,duties1 ,i1 ch4 #f1 pp4 #eg-h4 #ib1 #aae4 ,ibid41 ch4 #g1 pp4 #eh-fi4 #ic1 #aaf4 ,ch4 #h1 pp4 #fi-gb4 #aag4 ,ch4 #i1 pp4 #gb-gf4 #ie1 #aah4 ,ch4 #aj1 pp4 #gf-hd4 #if1 #aai4 ,guide of the ,perplexed ,i1 ch4 #ec4 #abj4 ,duties1 ch4 #a1 p4 #dd4 #aba4 ,ibid41 ch4 #aj1 end1 p4 #ib f4 #ig1 #abb4 ,duties1 ,,ii1 pp4 #ie-acg4 #ii1 #abc4 ,,iii1 pp4 #ach-aig4 #aja1 #abd4 ,,iv1 pp4 #aih-bef4 #abe4 ,duties1 #bnd volume1 part ,v1 pp4 #c-ce4 #ajb1 #abf4 ,,vi1 pp4 #cf-eh4 #ajc1 #abg4 ,,vii1 pp4 #eh-hb4 #ajd1 #abh4 ,,viii1 pp4 #hb-abf4 #aje1 #abi4 ,,ix1 pp4 #abf-aej4 #acj4 ,x1 pp4 #aea-afh4 #ajf1 #aca4 ,broyd1 ,les ,reflexions sur l'me par ,bahya ben ,joseph ibn ,pakouda1 ,paris1 #ahif2 ,hebrew title1 ,hebrew3 ,sefer ,torot ,hanefesh4 #acb4 ,goldziher1 ,kitab ,maani al-,nafs1 ,berlin1 #aijg4 #acc4 ,see ,guttmann in ,monatschrift fr ,geschichte und ,wissenschaft des ,judenthums1 ,,xli 7#ahig71 #bda ff4 #ajg1 #acd4 ,arabic text1 p4 #da1 #ab and #df1 #b2 ,hebrew1 p4 #ee1 #a and #fa1 #e4 #ace4 ,ch4 #b1 p4 #d1 #bi 7,heb4 p4 #e1 last line74 #acf4 ,ibid41 p4 #f1 #a 7,heb4 p4 #g1 #c74 #acg4 ,ibid41 p4 #e1 #af f4 7,heb4 #f1 #af f474 #ach4 ,ibid41 ch4 #i1 p4 #cd1 #ac ff4 7,heb4 p4 #dd1 #aj74 #aci4 ,ch4 #b1 p4 #f1 #f ff4 7,heb4 p4 #g1 #h f474 #adj4 ,ch4 #ab1 p4 #db1 #bc 7,heb4 p4 #ef1 #bc74 #ajh1 #ada4 ,chs4 #a-b4 #aaa1 #adb4 ,chs4 #af-ag4 #adc4 ,chs4 #f and #aa-ab4 #aab1 #add4 ,ch4 #b4 #ade4 ,ch4 #i4 #aac1 #adf4 ,ch4 #g4 #adg4 ,chs4 #ai and #ba4 #aad1 #adh4 ,hebrew3 ,sefer ,higayon ,hanefesh1 edited by ,freimann1 ,leipzig1 #ahfj4 ,german title1 ,sefer ,hegjon ha-,nefesch4 #aae1 #adi4 p4 #b;a4 #aej4 ,ibid41 also #d;b4 #aea4 ,see1 however1 below1 p4 #aai4 #aeb4 p4 #b;b4 #aaf1 #aec4 p4 #a4 #aag1 #aed4 pp4 #a-b4 #aah1 #aee4 pp4 #d;b-#e;a4 #aef4 pp4 #b;b-#d;a4 #abb1 #aeg4 pp4 #e;b-#h;a4 #aeh4 p4 #h;b ff4 #abc #aei4 p4 #aa;a4 #afj4 pp4 #aj-ab4 #abd1 #afa4 p4 #cj;b ff4 #abe1afb4 ,see ,doctor1 ,die ,philosophie des ,joseph ibn ,zaddik1 ,mnster1 #ahie1 pp4 #a-c2 ,horovitz1 ,der ,mikrokosmos des ,joseph ,ibn ,saddik1 ,breslau1 #aijc1 ,i-,,ii4 #afc4 ,horovitz1 ,mikrokosmos1 ,,xiii1 ff4 #afd4 ,letters of ,maimonides1 ed4 ,amsterdam1 #ad;b4 #abf1 #afe4 ,horovitz1 ,mikrokosmos1 #g1 #bd-h1 #b4 #abg1 #aff4 ,ibid41 #dd-df2 #ec-ed2 cf4 below1 p4 #ade4 #afg4 ,ibid41 p4 #cg1 #b ff42 cf4 below1 p4 #ach4 #abi1 #afh4 pp4 #a-b4 #acj1 #afi4 pp4 #c-f4 #acc1 #agj4 pp4 #g-ai4 #acd1 #aga4 pp4 #ai-be4 #acg1 #agb4 pp4 #be-cc4 #ada1 #agc4 pp4 #cc-dc4 #adb1 #agd4 pp4 #dc-dg4 #ade1 #age4 pp4 #dg-eg #adf1 #agf4 pp4 #eg-eh4 #adi1 #agg4 pp4 #ei-gi4 #aej1 #agh4 ,al-,chazari1 ,i1 #fg1 ed4 ,hirschfeld1 ,leipzig1 #ahhg1 p4 #bi1 #bd4 #agi4 ,ibid41 p4 #bi1 #ai-bj4 #ahj4 ,i1 #fc2 ,,ii1 #ff2 pp4 #bi and #abe4 #aea1 #aha4 ,see ,kaufmann1 ,jehuda ,halewi in ,gesammelte ,schriften1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aiaj1 vol4 #b1 pp4 #ii-aea4 #aeb1 #ahb4 ,al-,chazari ,,iv1 #ac1 #ae2 p4 #bec1 #ah ff41 #beg1 #f ff4 #aec1 #ahc4 ,kaufmann1 ,geschichte der ,attributenlehre in der jdischen ,religionsphilosophie des ,mittelalters1 ,gotha1 #ahgg1 pp4 #aai-adj4 #aeg1 #ahd4 ,al-,chazari ,i1 #a-fg1 pp4 #a-bi4 #aeh1 #ahe4 ,ibid41 #gj ff41 p4 #ca ff4 #aei1 #ahf4 ,,ii1 #f2 p4 #ge1 #bb ff4 #ahg4 ,,ix1 #ac2 p4 #bec1 #ah ff4 #afj1 #ahh4 ,,iv1 #c2 p4 #bbi1 #aj ff4 #ahi1 ,ibid41 #ae ff42 p4 #beg1 #f ff4 #afa1 #aij4 ,,ii1 #b-d2 pp4 #ga-ge4 #afc1 #aia4 ,i1 #hg ff42 p4 #ci ff4 #afd1 #aib4 ,i1 #ii ff42 p4 #ec ff4 #aic4 ,,ii1 #aj ff42 p4 #gg ff4 #aid4 ,ibid41 #cf ff42 p4 #ajc ff4 #afe1 #aie4 ,ibid41 #fh f42 p4 #abe f4 #afg1 #aif4 ,,iv1 #c ff42 p4 #bcg1 #i ff4 #afh1 #aig4 ,,ii1 #bf1 p4 #ie2 #dh1 p4 #ajg f4 #afi1 #aih4 ,ibid41 #ej1 p4 #aji1 #bd f42 ,,iii1 #a ff41 p4 #ada ff4 #agj1 #aii4 ,i1 #aji ff42 p4 #ei ff4 #agc1 #bjj4 ,v1 #bj ff41 p4 #ccg ff4 #bja4 ,,iv1 #be1 p4 #bfg ff4 #bjb4 ,ibid41 #bg1 p4 #bhc f4 #agd1 #bjc4 ,ibid41 #bi ff41 p4 #bhe ff4 #age1 #bjd4 ,see above1 p4 #h4 #bje4 ,zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen ,gesellschaft1 ,,xxix 7#ahge71 pp4 #cce-dah4 #agg1 #bjf4 ,v1 #a ff41 p4 #bie ff4 #agi1 #bjg4 ,,iv1 #be1 p4 #bha1 #bd ff4 #aha1 #bjh4 ,v1 #ab1 p4 #caa ff4 #ahb1 #bji4 ,ibid41 #ad1 p4 #cbc ff4 #ahc1 #baj4 ,ibid41 #af ff41 p4 #cca ff4 #baa4 ,ibid41 #bb ff41 p4 #ceg ff4 #ahd1 #bab4 ,quoted by ,bacher in ,jewish ,encyclopedia1 s4 v4 ,ibn ,ezra1 ,abraham4 #bac4 ,published by ,dukes in ,zion1 ,,ii1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #ahdb1 pp4 #aag-abc1 #acd-acg1 #aeg-aei1 #age4 ,cf4 also ,literaturblatt des ,orients1 ,x1 #gdh1 where ,dukes publishes a brief passage from the ,arugat ,habosem1 not found in ,zion4 ,he derived it from a different manuscript4 #ahg1 #bad4 ,jesod ,mora1 published with ,german translation by ,m4 ,creizenach1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 and ,leipzig1 #ahdj4 ,hebrew title ,hebrew3 ,yisod ,mora4 ,sefer ,ha-,schem1 ed4 ,lippmann1 #ahcd4 ,cf41 ,bacher1 ,jewish ,encyclopedia1 s4 v4 #ahi1 #bae4 ,hebrew3 ,more ,nevochey ,hazman1 ,warsaw1 #ahid1 ch4 #ag 7,hebrew3 ,chochmat ,hamisken71 pp4 #bff ff4 #baf4 ,die ,religionsphilosophie ,abraham ,ibn ,esra's1 in ,monatschrift fr ,geschichte und ,wissenschaft des ,judenthums1 #db and #dc 7#ahih and #ahii74 #aib1 #bag4 ,ibid41 #db 7#ahih71 pp4 #ded-dee4 #aic1 #bah4 ,commentary on ,exod4 #cc1 #ba1 towards the end of the long excursus4 #aie1 #bai4 ,commentary on ,exod4 #bj1 #b4 #bbj4 ,introduction to his commentary on ,ecclesiastes4 #aig1 #bba4 ,emunah ,ramah 7,heb4 title ,hebrew3 ,emunah ,ramah71 published with ,german translation by ,simson ,weil1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aheb1 p4 #b 7,heb474 #bbb4 ,em4 ,ram41 p4 #hc4 #aih1 #bbc4 ,see note #bba4 #bbd4 ,em4 ,ram41 #b-c4 #bbe4 ,see note #bba4 #aii1 #bbf4 ,see ,horovitz1 ,ueber den ,einfluss der griechischen ,philosophie auf die ,entwicklung des ,kalam1 ,breslau1 #aiji4 #bjj1 #bbg4 ,but see below1 p4 #ced1 l4 #ca4 #bjb1 #bbh4 ,em4 ,ram41 p4 #a ff4 #bjc1 #bbi4 ,ibid41 #d4 #bjd1 #bcj4 ,al ,gazali4 ,cf4 ,guttmann1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie des ,abraham ibn ,daud aus ,toledo1 ,gttingen1 #ahgi1 p4 #aag1 note4 #bje1 #bca4 ,em4 ,ram41 #dd-df4 #bcb4 ,ibid41 #d-h4 #bjg1 #bcc4 ,ibid41 #i-ac4 #bjh1 #bcd4 ,ibid41 #ac-ae4 #bji1 #bce4 ,ibid41 #ae-bj4 #baf1 #bcf4 ,em4 ,ram41 #bj-da4 #bcg4 ,ibid41 #da-dc4 #bbj1 #bch4 ,em4 ,ram41 #dd-ea4 #bba1 #bci4 ,ibid41 #ea-eg4 #bbc1 #bdj4 ,ibid41 #eg-fi4 #bbd1 #bda4 ,ibid41 #fi-gj4 #bbf1 #bdb4 ,ibid41 #gj-ge4 #bbh1 #bdc4 ,ibid41 #ge-ha4 #bcj1 #bdd4 ,ibid41 #ic-ih4 #bcb1 #bde4 ,see ,guttmann1 ,die ,religionsphilosophie des ,abraham ,ibn ,daud1 p4 #bbj1 note #b4 #bce1 #bdf4 ,ibid41 #ih-ajd4 #bcf1 #bdg4 ,hebrew3 ,be'oor ,milot ,ha'higayon1 ,breslau1 #ahbh4 ,for other editions and interesting information concerning this treatise see ,steinschneider1 ,die ,hebrischen ,uebersetzungen des ,mittelalters1 ,berlin1 #ahic1 #bea1 and ,die ,arabische ,literatur der ,juden1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aijb1 p4 #bjh1 #e4 #bdh4 ,introduction to the eleventh chapter 7ch4 ,helek7 of the treatise ,sanhedrin4 #bci1 #bdi4 ,letters of ,maimonides1 ed4 ,amsterdam1 pp4 #ac;b-#ad4 #bej4 ,the ,arabic text was published with a ,french translation and extremely valuable notes by ,solomon ,munk1 under the title1 ,le ,guide des gars1 #c volumes1 ,paris1 #ahef-ff4 ,english translation by ,m4 ,friedlnder in #c vols41 ,london1 #ahha-ahhe1 re-issued in one volume1 with omission of notes1 ,london1 #aiaj4 ,for other translations1 editions and commentaries see ,kaufmann1 ,der ',fhrer' ,maimnis in der ,weltliteratur1 ,archiv fr ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 ,,xi 7#ahih71 pp4 #cce-cgf1 republished in ,kaufmann's ,gesammelte ,schriften ed4 ,brann1 vol4 #b1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aiaj1 pp4 #aeb-ahi4 ,see also ,friedlnder's translation1 ,london1 #aiaj1 p4 ,,xxvii ff4 #bea4 ,the ,arabic text was published with a ,german translation by ,m4 ,wolff under the title1 ,ms ,maimni's ,acht ,kapitel1 #bnd edition1 ,leyden1 #aijc4 ,hebrew text with ,english translation by ,joseph ,i4 ,gorfinkle1 ,the ,eight ,chapters of ,maimonides on ,ethics1 ,new ,york1 #aiab 7,columbia ,university ,oriental ,studies1 vol4 ,,vii74 #bdj1 #beb4 ,emunah ,ramah1 p4 #ha ff4 #bda1 #bec4 ,guide1 ,i1 chs4 #a1 #c-af1 #ah-cj1 #cg-de1 #fd-fg1 #gj4 #bdc1 #bed4 ,ibid41 ch4 #ed4 #bee4 ,,iii1 #bh4 #bef4 ,i1 #ee4 #bdd1 #beg4 ,i1 #cb4 #beh4 ,ibid41 ch4 #cc4 #bde1 #bei4 ,ch4 #cd4 #bfj4 ,ch4 #ga4 #bdf1 #bfa4 ,ibid4 #bdg1 #bfb4 ,cf41 however1 above1 p4 xxv f4 7the view that ,kalam originated in ,judaism74 #bdh1 #bfc4 ,ch4 #ga4 #bdi1 #bfd4 ,the following numbers do not correspond to those of ,maimonides4 #beb1 #bfe4 ,guide1 ,i1 #gc4 #bff4 ,ibid41 #gd4 #bec1 #bfg4 ,ibid41 #ge4 #bfh4 ,ibid41 #gf4 #bfi4 ,see below1 p4 #beg4 #bgj4 ,below1 p4 #bei4 #bga4 ,above1 p4 #bah4 #bgb4 ,below1 p4 #beh1 last line1 and #bfj4 #beg1 #bgc4 ,guide ,,ii1 ,introduction4 #bfj1 #bgd4 ,ibid41 ch4 #a4 #bfa1 #bge4 ,ch4 #cf4 #bfb1 #bgf4 ,ch4 #df4 #bfd1 #bgg4 ,ibid41 chs4 #ea-ec4 #bfe1 #bgh4 ,chs4 #ee-eh4 #bgi4 ,ch4 #fa4 #bfh1 #bhj4 ,see ,munk1 ,guide des gars ,,ii1 p4 #fi1 note #a4 #bha4 ,guide ,,ii1 chs4 #c-f4 #bga1 #bhb4 ,chs4 #ac-ah4 #bgb1 #bhc4 ,munk understands the preceding sentence differently4 ,see his edition1 vol4 ,,ii1 p4 #aeg1 note #b4 #bgd1 #bhd4 ,guide ,,ii1 chs4 #ai-be4 #bha1 #bhe4 ,ibid41 chs4 #cb-dh4 #bhf4 ,,iii1 ch4 #h4 #bhb1 #bhg4 ,eight ,chapters1 ch4 #a4 #bhe1 #bhh4 ,ibid41 chs4 #b-e4 #bhi4 ,ch4 #g4 #bhh1 #bij4 ,ch4 #h4 #bhi1 #bia4 ,guide ,,iii1 chs4 #aj-ab4 #bij1 #bib4 ,ibid41 ch4 #af4 #bib1 #bic4 ,ibid41 chs4 #ag-ah4 #bid1 #bid4 ,ibid41 chs4 #ai-ba4 #bie4 ,ibid41 chs4 #bf and #ca4 #bie1 #bif4 ,ibid41 ch4 #bg4 #big1 ,ibid41 ch4 #ej4 #bih1 #bih4 ,ibid41 chs4 #bi-ej4 #bii1 #bii4 ,ibid41 ch4 #ed4 #cjd1 #cjj4 ,ibid41 ,,ii1 ch4 #cj4 #cja4 ,ibid41 ,,iii1 chs4 #a-g4 #cjb4 ,see ,munk1 ,le ,guide des gars1 ,,iii1 p4 #h1 note4 #cjc4 ,ibid4 #cjd4 ,guide ,,iii1 chs4 #bb-bc4 #cje1 #cje4 ,see ,kaufmann1 ,der ,fhrer ,maimnis in der ,weltliteratur in ,archiv fr ,geschichte der ,philosophie ,,xi 7#ahih7 p4 #cad f42 reprinted in ,kaufmann's ,gesammelte ,schriften1 ed4 ,brann1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #aiaj1 p4 #aeh f4 #cjf4 ,see ,jourdain1 ,recherches critiques sur l'ge et l'origine des traductions ,latines d',aristote1 #bnd ed41 ,paris1 #ahdc4 ,german transl4 by ,stahr1 ,halle1 #ahca4 #cje1 #cjg4 ,augustine1 ,de ,civitate ,dei1 ,book ,,viii1 ch4 #e1 ,nulli nobis quam isti sc41 ,platonici propius accesserunt2 ch4 #i1 ,platonem de ,deo ista sensisse1 quae multum congruere veritati nostrae religionis agnoscunt4 #cjf1 #cjh4 ,see ,mandonnet1 ,siger de ,brabant et l',averrosme ,latin au ,,xiiime ,sicle1 ,louvain1 #aiaa1 chs4 #a-b2 ,isaac ,husik1 ,an ,anonymous ,medieval ,christian ,critic of ,maimonides1 ,jewish ,quarterly ,review1 ,new ,series1 vol4 ,,ii1 ,phila4 #aiaa1 p4 #aei ff4 #cji4 ,see ,j4 ,perles1 ,die in einer ,mnchener ,handschrift aufgefundene erste lateinische ,uebersetzung des ,maimonidischen ,fhrers1 in ,monatschrift fr ,geschichte und ,wissenschaft des ,judenthums1 ,,xxiv 7#ahge71 p4 #i ff4 #cjg1 #caj4 ,see ,m4 ,joel1 ,verhltniss ,albert des ,grossen zu ,moses ,maimonides1 ,breslau1 #ahgf1 in ,m4 ,joel1 ,beitrge zur ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 ,breslau1 #ahgf4 ,j4 ,guttmann1 ,das ,verhltniss des ,thomas von ,aquino zum ,judenthum und zur jdischen ,literatur1 ,gttingen1 #ahia2 id41 ,die ,scholastik des dreizehnten ,jahrhunderts in ihren ,beziehungen zum ,judenthum und zur jdischen ,literatur1 ,breslau1 #aijb2 id41 ,der ,einfluss der ,maimonidischen ,philosophie auf das christliche ,abendland1 in ,moses ben ,maimon1 vol4 ,i1 ,leipzig1 #aijh4 #cjh1 #caa4 ,see ,graetz1 ,history of the ,jews1 index volume1 s4 v41 ,maimunist ,controversy4 #cji1 #cab4 ,published by ,m4 ,l4 ,bisliches1 ,pressburg1 #ahcg4 #cab;a4 ,edited by ,w4 ,bacher under the title ,sefer ,musar1 ,berlin1 #aiaj4 #cac4 ,published by the ,mekize ,nirdamim ,society1 ,lyck1 #ahff4 #caj1 #cad4 ,published by ,munk in ,mlanges de ,philosophie ,juive et ,arabe1 ,paris1 #ahei4 #cae4 ,published by ,bisliches1 ,pressburg1 #ahcg4 #caf4 ,see ,munk1 ,mlanges1 p4 #did1 note #a2 ,h4 ,malter1 ,shem ,tob ,palquera1 in ,jewish ,quarterly ,review1 new series1 vol4 ,i1 pp4 #aea-aha1 #dea-eja4 #cag4 ,published by ,werbluner1 ,josephi ,kaspi 444 ,commentaria hebraica in ,r4 ,mosis ,maimonides ,tractatum ,dalalat al ,haiirin1 ,frankfurt a4 ,m41 #ahdh4 #cah4 ,edited by ,goldenthal1 ,wien1 #aheb4 #caa1 #cai4 ,the ,english reader will also find a good deal of material in the pages of the ,jewish ,encyclopedia under the names of the translators and writers above mentioned4 #cac1 #cbj4 ,guide ,i1 ch4 #gd1 #gth proof1 end4 #cad1 #cba4 ,published by the ,mekize ,nirdamim1 ,lyck1 #ahgd4 #cae1 #cbb4 ,tagm4 ,hanef4 #a4 #cag1 #cbc4 ,ibid41 #a;b-#g;b4 ,the definition occurs1 p4 #g;b1 ll4 #bh ff4 #cah1 #cbd4 ,ibid41 #h;a4 #cai1 #cbe4 ,ibid41 #h;a-#aj;a4 #cbb1 #cbf4 ,ibid41 #aj;a-#ac;b4 #cbc1 #cbg4 ,ibid41 #ac;b-#ai;b4 #cbd1 #cbh4 ,ibid41 #bj;a-#ba;b4 #cbf1 #cbi4 ,ibid41 #ba;b-#bd;b4 #ccj4 ,ibid41 #bd4 #cbg1 #cca4 ,ibid41 #be;a-#cb4 #cbh1 #cca;a4 ,see ,heimann ,auerbach1 ,albalag und seine ,uebersetzung des ,maksid al-,gazzalis1 ,breslau1 #aijf1 p4 vii f42 ,guttmann1 ,die ,stellung des ,simon ben ,zemach ,duran in der ,geschichte der jdischen ,religionsphilosophie in ,monatschrift fr ,geschichte und ,wissenschaft des ,judenthums1 vol4 ,,lvii 7#aiac71 p4 #ahd f4 #cbh1 #ccb4 ,see ,maywald1 ,die ,lehre von der zweifachen ,wahrheit1 ,berlin1 #ahga2 ,mandonnet1 ,siger de ,brabant et l',averrosme ,latin au ,,xiiime ,sicle1 ,louvain1 #aiaa1 vol4 #a1 p4 #adh ff4 #cbi1 #ccc4 ,first edition1 ,riva di ,trento1 #aefj2 modern edition1 ,leipzig1 #ahff4 ,the references in the sequel are to the ,leipzig edition4 #ccd4 ,see ,husik1 ,judah ,messer ,leon's ,commentary on the ,vetus ,logica1 ,leyden1 #aijf1 p4 #aa4 #cce4 ,see ,joel1 ,lewi ben ,gerson als ,religionsphilosoph1 ,breslau1 #ahfb1 p4 #i;f4 7in ,m4 ,joel1 ,beitrge zur ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 ,breslau1 #ahgf74 #ccj1 #ccf4 ,introduction to ,gersonides' commentary on the ,pentateuch4 #ccg4 ,introduction to ,milhamot ,adonai1 pp4 #f-g4 #cca1 #cch4 ,milhamot ,i1 ch4 #ad1 p4 #ia4 #cci4 ,ibid41 ,introduction1 p4 #h4 #ccf1 #cdj4 ,i1 chs4 #a-d1 pp4 #ab-ce4 #ccg1 #cda4 ,ibid41 ch4 #e1 pp4 #ce-cf4 #cci1 #cdb4 ,ch4 #f1 pp4 #cf-dh4 #cdj1 #cdc4 ,ibid41 chs4 #aj-ab1 pp4 #fa-hh4 #cdb1 #cdd4 ,milhamot ,,ii1 chs4 #a-b1 pp4 #ib-ih4 #cde4 ,ibid41 chs4 #c1 #e and #f1 pp4 #ih f41 #ajd1 #aaa f4 #cdd1 #cdf4 ,milhamot ,,iii1 ch4 #c1 p4 #acb4 #cde1 #cdg4 ,,iii1 chs4 #a-f1 pp4 #abj-aej4 #cdi1 #cdh4 ,,iv1 chs4 #a-g1 pp4 #aea-ahg4 #cej1 #cdi4 ,v1 #c1 ch4 #f1 p4 #bfd f4 #cea1 #cej4 ,ibid41 chs4 #d-f1 pp4 #bdg-bfd4 #ceb1 #cea4 ,ch4 #ab1 pp4 #bgh-bhe4 #ced1 #ceb4 ,,vi1 #a1 chs4 #a-i1 pp4 #bic-cbh4 #cec1 ,ibid41 chs4 #aj-ac1 pp4 #cbh-cec2 ch4 #ae1 p4 #cef f4 #cee1 #ced4 ,ch4 #af1 pp4 #cei-cfa4 #ceg1 #cee4 ,chs4 #ag-bh1 pp4 #cfb-daf4 #cef1 ,,vi1 #b1 ch4 #a1 p4 #dai4 #ceh1 #ceg4 ,,vi1 #b1 chs4 #a-h1 pp4 #dah-dda4 #cfj1 #ceh4 ,ibid41 chs4 #i-ab1 pp4 #dda-dfj4 #cei4 ,chs4 #ac-ad1 pp4 #dfj-dfc4 #cfc1 #cfj4 ,published by ,delitzsch and ,steinschneider1 ,leipzig1 #ahda4 #cfd1 #cfa4 ,ez ,hayim1 p4 #d4 #cff1 #cfb4 ,e4 ,h41 pp4 #c-e4 #cfg1 #cfc4 p4 #ae1 l4 #f f41 also p4 #ah1 l4 #aj f4 #cfd4 ,ch4 #d1 pp4 #ab-ac1 l4 #bd4 #cfh1 #cfe4 ,ch4 #i1 pp4 #bf-bg4 #cfi1 #cff4 p4 #ag1 l4 #af4 #cfg4 p4 #cc4 #cgb1 #cfh4 ,chs4 #ff-gb1 pp4 #hj-hi4 #cfi4 ,ch4 #ge1 pp4 #ic-if4 #cgc1 #cgj4 ,chs4 #gf-gh1 pp4 #if-ii4 #cge1 #cga4 ,chs4 #gi-ha1 pp4 #ajj-ajg4 #cgf1 #cgb4 ,chs4 #hb-hi1 pp #ajg-acc4 #cgg1 #cgc4 ,ch4 #hi1 pp4 #acc-acf4 #cgh1 #cgd4 ,guide ,,iii1 #bd4 #cgi1 #cge4 ,ez ,hayim1 ch4 #ij1 pp4 #acf-add4 #cgf4 ,guide ,,iii1 chs4 #ab1 #ac1 #be end4 #chj1 #cgg4 ,ez ,hayim1 ch4 #id1 pp4 #adi-aed4 #chb1 #cgh4 ,chs4 #if-ajj1 pp4 #afj-agf4 #cgi4 ,chs4 #aja-ajb1 pp4 #agg-aha4 #chj4 ,ez ,hayim1 pp4 #aaf-aag4 #chc1 #cha4 ,ch4 #ajc1 pp4 #aha-ahe4 #chd1 #chb4 ,chs4 #ajd-aje1 pp4 #ahe-ahg4 #che1 #chc4 ,ch4 #ajf1 p4 #ahg ff42 ch4 #aji1 p4 #aid ff4 #chd4 ,chs4 #ajg-ajh4 #chg1 #che4 ,chs4 #aaj-aab4 #chi1 #chf4 ,ed4 ,ferara1 #aeef 7no pagination74 #cij1 #chg4 ,or ,adonai1 ,introduction1 pp4 #f-g 7not numbered74 #cia1 #chh4 ,book ,i1 sections #a-b4 #chi4 ,ibid41 section #c1 ch4 #b4 #cij4 ,ibid41 ch4 #c4 #cib1 #cia4 ,ibid4 #cib4 ,ibid41 ch4 #d4 #cic1 #cic4 ,book ,,ii1 section ,i4 #cie1 #cid4 ,ibid41 section #b4 #cie4 ,section #c4 #cif4 ,section #d4 #cih1 #cig4 ,section #e4 #cih4 ,see ,m4 ,joel1 ,don ,chasdai ,creskas' religionsphilosophische ,lehren1 ,breslau1 #ahff 7in ,m4 ,joel1 ,beitrge zur ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 ,breslau1 #ahgf71 p4 #ed f4 #djb1 #cii4 ,or ,adonai1 ,,ii1 section #f4 #djj4 ,ibid41 ,,iii1 introduction4 #djc1 #dja4 ,ibid41 section #a4 #djd1 #djb4 ,section #c4 #dje1 #djc4 ,section #d4 #djf1 #djc;a4 ,simon ben ,zemach ,duran 7#acfa-addd74 ,he was a relative of ,gersonides1 a ,rabbinical authority1 and the author of a scientific and philosophical work1 entitled ,magen ,abot4 ,unlike his more distinguished relative1 ,simon ,duran was opposed to the extreme views adopted by such men as ,albalag1 ,moses of ,narbonne or ,gersonides himself1 and favored a return to the more moderate standpoint of ,maimonides4 ,without laying any claim to originality his work shows wide reading and familiarity with the scientific and philosophic literature of the time4 ,see ,guttmann1 ,die ,stellung des ,simon ben ,zemach ,duran in der ,geschichte der jdischen ,religionsphilosophie1 in ,monatschrift fr ,geschichte und ,wissenschaft des ,judenthums1 vol4 #eb 7#aijh71 pp4 #fda-fgb1 vol4 #ec 7#aiji71 pp4 #df-ig1 #aii-bbh4 ,from ,guttmann's investigations it appears that ,albo cannot claim any originality even for the reduction of the fundamental dogmas of ,judaism to three4 ,the first part of the ,ikkarim turns out to be a compilation from ,crescas and ,duran1 and is no more original than the rest of the book4 ,when we consider that though he owes the central point of his contribution to ,duran1 ,albo never mentions him1 the charge of plagiarism brought against him is not far from justified4 ,see below1 p4 #djg4 #djg1 #djd4 ,hebrew3 ,bitul ,ikarei ,hanotzrim1 published by ,ephraim ,deinard1 ,carney1 ,n4 ,j41 #aijd4 ,the work was originally composed in ,spanish1 and was translated into ,hebrew by ,joseph ,ibn ,shemtob4 #djd;a4 ,see also note #djc;a4 #djh1 #dje4 ,hebrew3 ,sefer ,ha'ikarim1 ed4 ,warsaw1 #ahgg1 pp4 #ac-ad4 #djf4 ,ibid41 pp4 #ad-ag4 #dji1 #djg4 pp4 #ba-be4 #djh4 ,in the introduction to his commentary on the eleventh chapter of the ,mishnic treatise ,sanhedrin 7chapter ,helek74 #daj1 #dji4 ,crescas2 cf4 above1 p4 #cib4 #daj4 ,ikkarim1 ,i1 ch4 #c1 pp4 #be-ca4 #daa1 #daa4 ,chs4 #d-g1 pp4 #ca-ci4 #dab1 #dab4 ,ch4 #h1 pp4 #ci-df4 #dac4 ,ch4 #i1 pp4 #df-dh4 #dac1 #dad4 ,chs4 #aj-aa1 pp4 #dh-eh4 #dae4 ,ch4 #ab1 pp4 #eh-fj4 #daf4 ,chs4 #ac and #ae1 pp4 #fj-fa and #fd-fh4 #dad1 #dag4 ,ch4 #ad1 pp4 #fa-fd4 #dae1 #dah4 ,ch4 #ag1 pp4 #g-gf4 #dai4 ,ch4 #ah1 pp4 #gf-gh4 #daf1 #dbj4 ,ch4 #bc1 pp4 #hd-hf4 #dah1 #dba4 ,ch4 #bd1 pp4 #hg-ij4 #dbb1 ,ch4 #be1 pp4 #ij-ib4 #dai1 #dbc4 ,ch4 #bf1 p4 #ic4 #dbd4 ,book ,,ii1 chs4 #d-e1 pp4 #ajg-aad4 #dbe4 ,ibid41 ch4 #g1 pp4 #aag-aah4 #dbj1 #dbf4 ,chs4 #h-aj1 pp4 #aah-abe4 #dbg4 ,chs4 #aa-ac1 pp4 #abe-adj4 #dbh4 ,ch4 #ab1 pp4 #abi-acc4 #dba1 #dbi4 ,book ,,iii1 chs4 #a-e1 pp4 #aig-bad4 #dcj4 ,chs4 #f-g1 pp4 #bad-bah4 #dbc1 #dca4 ,chs4 #h-aa1 pp4 #bah-bbh4 #dbd1 #dcb4 ,chs4 #ac-bj1 pp4 #bbi-bdf4 #dcc4 ,book ,,iv1 chs4 #a-f1 pp4 #bgi-bid4 #dbe1 #dcd4 ,chs4 #g-ae1 pp4 #bid-cac4 #dbg1 #dce4 ,chs4 #bi-ce1 pp4 #cch-cef4 #dbi1 #dcf4 ,see ,guttmann ,die ,familie ,schemtob in ihren ,beziehungen zur ,philosophie1 ,monatschrift fr ,geschichte und ,wissenschaft des ,judenthums1 vol4 #eg 7#aiac71 p4 #agg ff4 #dcg4 ,see ,guttmann as in preceding note4 #dch4 ,see preceding note4 #dcj1 #dci4 ,see note #dcf4 #ddj4 ,see ,jewish ,encyclopedia s4 v4 #dda4 ,j4 ,e4 s4 v4 #dca1 #ddb4 ,see ,zimmels1 ,leo ,hebraeus1 ein jdischer ,philosoph der ,renaissance1 ,leipzig1 #ahhf2 ,appel1 ,leone ,medigos ,lehre vom ,weltall und ihr ,verhltniss zu griechischen und zeitgenssischen ,anschauungen1 in ,archiv fr ,geschichte der ,philosophie1 vol4 ,,xx1 pp4 #chg-djj1 #dif-ebj2 ,munk1 ,mlanges1 pp4 #ebb-ebh4 #ddc4 ,husik1 ,judah ,messer ,leon's ,commentary on the ,vetus ,logica1 ,leyden1 #aijf4 #ddd4 ,jewish ,encyclopedia1 s4 v4 ,,list ,,of ,,biblical ,,and ,,rabbinic ,,quotations ,,bible ,,genesis3 #a1 #a1 p4 #aaj2 #a1 #b1 p4 #aah2 #a1 #c1 p4 #abj2 #a1 #f1 p4 #aah2 #a1 #i1 p4 #aba2 #a1 #aa1 p4 #aba2 #a1 #ba1 p4 #aba2 #a1 #be1 p4 #aba2 #a1 #bf1 pp4 #aba1 #bfh2 #a1 #bg1 pp4 #id1 #aba2 #a1 #bh1 p4 #aba2 #b1 #g1 p4 #aba1 #bad2 #b1 #ai1 p4 #aba2 #f1 #f1 p4 #bbg2 #h1 #ba1 p4 #ajb2 #aa1 #g1 p4 #bfh2 #ad1 #bb1 p4 #cfi2 ch4 #ae1 p4 #bhj2 #ae1 #d1 p4 #bhj2 #ae1 #ab ff41 p4 #bbe2 #ah1 #aj1 p4 #cdj2 #bg1 #cd-da1 p4 #gd2 #bh1 #ac1 p4 #id2 #bh1 #bj1 p4 #aje2 #cf1 #ca1 p4 #bie4 ,,exodus3 #b1 #ac1 p4 #bcb2 #b1 #ag1 p4 #bcb2 #c1 #ad1 p4 #ie2 #e1 #b1 p4 #afj2 #g1 #c1 pp4 xiv1 #db2 #i1 #ab1 p4 #gd2 #ae1 #bf1 p4 #djc2 #bj1 #b1 pp4 #aid1 #bcc2 #bj1 #aa-ab1 p4 #bcc2 #bj1 #ag1 p4 #hc2 #bj1 #ce1 p4 #dji2 #bb1 #bf1 p4 #gd2 #bc1 #ba1 p4 #aji2 #bd1 #aj1 p4 #afg2 #cc1 #aa1 p4 #cha2 #cc1 #ac1 p4 #bdc2 #cc1 #bc1 p4 #cg2 #cd1 #f1 p4 #bcc4 ,,leviticus3 #ai1 #ag1 p4 #hc2 #ai1 #ah1 p4 #hc4 ,,numbers3 #aj1 #h1 p4 #bbg2 #ab1 #h1 p4 #afg2 #ae1 #ci1 p4 #hc2 #bc1 #aj1 p4 #agj4 ,,deuteronomy3 #b1 #cj1 p4 xiv2 #d1 #ae1 pp4 #ce1 #ie2 #d1 #ci1 pp4 #hd1 #aae1 #bbj2 #f1 #d1 p4 #gd2 #ac1 #a1 pp4 #chb1 #dbc2 #ae1 #g1 p4 #hc2 #ag1 #ae1 p4 #bie2 #cj1 #ae1 p4 #bhf2 #cj1 #ai1 pp4 xiv1 #da1 #bhf2 #ca1 #ag1 p4 #cdh2 #cc1 #d1 p4 #da2 #cd1 #aj1 p4 #daf4 ,,joshua3 ch4 #aj1 p4 #cfj4 ,i4 ,,samuel3 #b1 #f1 p4 #chf2 #ai1 #bj1 p4 #bbf4 ,,ii4 ,,samuel3 #bc1 #b1 p4 #cd4 ,i4 ,,kings3 #bb1 #bj1 p4 xiv4 ,,isaiah3 #a1 #ad1 p4 #bbg2 #a1 #aa-ag1 p4 #hb2 #e1 #bj1 p4 #cgd2 #f1 #a1 #h1 p4 #bhj2 #aa1 #a-d1 p4 #aab2 #bf1 #ai1 p4 #chf2 #dj1 #ab1 p4 #bjh2 #dj1 #bf1 p4 #cfi2 #dc1 #a1 p4 #abb2 #dc1 #g1 p4 #aba2 #de1 #ah1 p4 #ajd2 #ei1 #ai1 p4 #aji4 ,,jeremiah3 #g1 #bb1 p4 #bcd2 #i1 #bb-bc1 pp4 #abd1 #adh1 #bje1 #bii2 #ah1 #a ff41 p4 #bjg2 #ca1 #cc1 p4 #ada4 ,,ezekiel3 #h1 #i1 p4 #aji4 ,,hosea3 #d1 #f1 p4 #cdh2 #f1 #c1 p4 #ada4 ,,amos3 #c1 #b1 p4 #afd2 #e1 #f1 p4 #ada4 ,,micah3 #f1 #h1 p4 #afh4 ,,zephaniah3 #b1 #c1 p4 #adh4 ,,malachi3 #a1 #i1 p4 #da4 ,,psalms3 #ai1 p4 #baf2 #ai1 #b1 p4 #aic2 #ai1 #g1 p4 #aic2 #ai1 #h1 p4 #daa2 #ai1 #i-aj1 p4 #dab2 #gc1 #aa-ac1 p4 #bic2 #id1 #i1 p4 #bic2 #acf1 #f1 p4 #agf2 #aci1 p4 #bje2 #ade1 #i1 p4 #cgf4 ,,proverbs3 #h1 #bb1 p4 #aji2 #be1 #af1 p4 #bdd2 #cj1 #d1 p4 #bjh4 ,,job3 #aj1 #aj1 p4 #cgh2 #ai1 #bf1 p4 #aaf2 #bc1 #ac1 p4 xxvi2 ch4 #cb1 p4 #cdi2 #ch1 #cf-cg1 p4 #bjh4 ,,ecclesiastes3 #a1 #ad1 p4 #dg2 #b1 #c1 p4 #dg4 ,,daniel3 #g1 #a1 p4 #bbe2 #aj1 #h1 p4 #bgh2 #aj1 #ag1 p4 #cha2 #ab1 #b1 p4 #djd4 ,,nehemiah3 #i1 #e1 p4 #ie4 ,,mishna ,,and ,,talmud ,,berakot 7,bab4 ,tal473 #ag a1 p4 #dd2 #cc b1 p4 xxvi1 note #ad1 p4 #da4 ,,berakot 7,jer4 ,tal473 ,i1 p4 #hc4 ,,pesakim3 #ed a1 p4 xxvi1 note #ag4 ,,megillah3 #be b1 p4 xxvi1 note #ae4 ,,hagigah3 ch4 #b1 p4 #bdd2 #aa b1 p4 xvi1 notes #b and #c4 ,,sanhedrin3 #ch b1 p4 #bfh2 #ii a1 p4 #djh2 #ajf b1 p4 #hc4 ,,makkot3 #bc b1 p4 #daf4 ,,abot3 ch4 #d1 p4 #dd4 ,,index ,aaron ben ,elijah1 xli1 #cfb-chg2 relation to ,maimonides1 #cfc f42 to the ,mutazila1 #cfd2 reason and faith1 #cfd f42 physics1 #cff ff42 defends atomic theory1 #cfg f42 creation1 ibid42 existence of ,god1 #cfh f42 unity1 ibid42 incorporeality1 ibid42 attributes1 #cfi f42 will of ,god1 #cgb2 problem of evil1 #cgc f41 #cgf f42 ,providence1 #cge f42 reward and punishment1 #cgi1 #chc2 purpose of the world and of man1 #cgi f42 prophecy1 #chj f42 immutability of the ,law1 #chb2 reason of the commandments1 ibid42 immortality1 #chd2 resurrection1 #che f4 ,aaron ben ,joseph1 #cfc ,abarbanel1 ,don ,isaac1 #cjd1 #cab1 #cbh1 #dcj ,abarbanel1 ,judah ,leo1 #dca ,abd ,al ,rahman ,,iii1 #ei ,ablard1 #cje ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 xlvi1 #aad-abd2 standpoint1 #aae2 physics1 #aaf f42 matter1 ibid42 form1 #aag ff42 intellect1 soul and nature1 #aai2 ethics1 #aai1 #abb f42 reward and punishment1 #aai1 #abb ff42 immortality1 #abj f42 problem of evil1 #abc f41 #abh1 #aci1 #age1 #cji1 #dce sculapius1 #aee ,afer1 ,constantinus1 #a ,aher1 #aig ,akiba1 ,rabbi1 xxvi ,al-,ashari1 xxiii ,albalag1 ,isaac1 #cbh1 #dbi1 #dcj1 #ddg1 note #djc;a ,albalia1 ,baruh1 #aea ,al ,basir1 ,joseph1 xxv1 xlvii1 #dh-ee2 priority of reason1 #dh2 atomic theory1 #di2 existence of ,god1 #di f42 creation1 ibid42 attributes1 #ej2 divine will1 ibid42 eternity1 #ea2 incorporeality1 unity1 simplicity1 ibid1 f42 ,god's word1 #eb2 ethics1 ibid1 f42 problem of evil1 #ed2 freedom1 #ed f42 and foreknowledge1 ibid42 reward and punishment1 #ee1 #ef1 #eg1 #ha1 #abf1 #abg1 #abh1 #ada1 #adf1 #bjj1 #bdf1 #cfc1 #dcd ,albertus ,magnus1 #a1 #bjj1 #cjf1 #cab1 #cac1 #cbc ,albo1 ,joseph1 ,i1 #djf-dbg2 standpoint1 #djf ff42 purpose of his work1 #djh2 principles of religion1 ibid42 criticism of ,maimonides's #ac articles1 #dji ff42 ,albo's own view1 #daj f42 divine law distinguished from natural and conventional1 #djh ff42 freedom1 a principle1 #dab2 creation1 #dac1 #dae2 existence of ,god1 #dai f42 attributes1 #dbj2 angels1 ibid42 revelation1 #dbj f42 prophecy1 #dba2 immutability of the ,law1 #dbc2 ,god's knowledge1 #dbd2 and human freedom1 ibid42 ,providence1 #dbe2 reward and punishment1 #dbe f42 #dbh1 #dcj1 #dcf1 #ddg1 note #djc;a ,alexander of ,aphrodisias1 xviii1 #g1 #fj1 #bij1 #cac1 #cba1 #ccb1 #ccd1 #cce1 #ccf ,alexander the ,great1 xvii ,alexander of ,hales1 #cjf ,alfadhil1 #bci ,alfarabi1 xx1 xxi1 xxxix1 xlvi1 #b1 #bf1 #fj1 #agg1 #agh1 #aih1 #aii1 #bah1 #bbc1 #beb1 #bec1 #bgf1 #bha1 #cjb1 #cab1 #cac1 #cfb1 #cia1 #cib ,alfasi1 #aea ,algazali1 xxxix1 #hj1 #aeb1 #aec1 #chi1 #cib1 #dbj1 #ddc1 note #bcj ,ali1 #hf ,al-,kirkisani1 ,joseph ,ha-,maor1 #cfc ,almohades1 #bch ,alphonso ,,vi1 #aea ,al-,mansur1 #a ,almoravid1 #aea ,anatoli1 ,jacob1 #cjb1 #cji ,angels1 xlvi2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aij f42 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bba f42 in ,maimonides1 #bff f42 in ,albo1 #dbj ,anthropomorphism1 xxii1 xxvi1 xlv1 #ce1 #ie1 #ahf1 #bfj f4 ,appel1 #ddh1 note #ddb ,aquinas1 ,thomas1 #a1 #fa1 #fc1 #bjj1 #bjg1 #cjf1 #cjg1 #cab1 #cac1 #cbc1 #cca1 #ccb1 #djf ,arama1 ,isaac1 #dcj ,archimedes1 xviii ,aristotelians1 xl1 #aej1 #afe1 #bdf1 #cfd1 #cfe1 #cff1 #cfh1 #dbh ,aristotle1 xvi1 xviii1 xix1 xx1 xxi1 xxix ff41 xxxvii1 xxxix1 xl1 xli1 xlii1 xlv1 xlvi1 #g1 #h1 #i1 #ac1 #bj1 #bf1 #fj1 #fb1 #fd1 #gb1 #hi1 #ib1 #ajg1 #aaa1 #abf1 #acb1 #ach1 #aci1 #aee1 #aeg1 #agc1 #age1 #agg1 #agh1 #agi1 #aha1 #ahb1 #ahd1 #ahe1 #aii1 #bjj1 #bjf1 #bjg1 #baj1 #bac1 #baf1 #bag1 #bah1 #bcf1 #bdj1 #bdg1 #beb1 #bec1 #bed1 #bef1 #beh1 #bff1 #bfg1 #bfh1 #bfi1 #bgj1 #bga1 #bgc1 #bgd1 #bge1 #bgf1 #bij1 #bia1 #bii1 #cjj1 #cjc1 #cje1 #cjf1 #cjg1 #cji1 #cab1 #cac1 #cae1 #caf1 #cba1 #cbi1 #cca1 #ccb1 #ccc1 #ccd1 #cch1 #cdf1 #cdg1 #cej1 #ceb1 #cec1 #ced1 #cff1 #cfg1 #cge1 #cgh1 #chh1 #chi1 #cij1 #cie1 #djb1 #djh1 #dab1 #dbe1 #dbi1 #dcj1 #dca ,arugat ,habosem1 #ahd ,ashariya1 xxiii1 xxvii1 xlvii1 #bc1 #bdf1 #bea1 #bia1 #cfb1 #cfe1 #cgb1 #cgh1 #cgi ,atomic theory1 in the ,kalam1 xxii1 #bdi f42 in ,saadia1 #be2 in ,al ,basir1 #di2 in ,jeshua ben ,judah1 #ef2 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cfg f4 ,attributes1 doctrine of1 in the ,kalam1 xxiii1 xxvii1 xl1 xliv2 in ,saadia1 xliv1 #cc f42 in ,mukammas1 #ah ff42 in ,al ,basir1 #ej2 in ,bahya1 #ic f42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #ade f42 in ,judah ,halevi1 #afa ff42 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bbj f42 in ,maimonides1 xlv1 #bfb ff42 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 xlv1 #cdd f41 #cea f42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cfi f42 in ,crescas1 #cia f42 in ,albo1 #dbj ,auerbach1 ,heimann1 #dde1 note #cca;a ,augustine1 xli1 #ea1 #cje1 #dde1 note #cjg ,averroes 7,ibn ,roshd71 xx1 xxi1 xxxix1 xli1 xlvi1 xlvii1 #g1 #fj1 #fb1 #abe1 #agg1 #aii1 #cjf1 #cji1 #caj1 #cab1 #cac1 #cah1 #cba1 #cbb1 #cbc1 #cbi1 #ccb1 #ccd1 #cce1 #ccf1 #cfb1 #cib1 #dca ,avicebron1 see ,gabirol1 ,solomon ,ibn ,avicenna 7,ibn ,sina71 xx1 xxi1 xxxix1 xlvi1 #b1 #bf1 #fj1 #fb1 #ajg1 #ajh1 #age1 #agg1 #agh1 #agi1 #aih1 #aii1 #bjg1 #baj1 #baa1 #bac1 #bah1 #bbc1 #bbd1 #bec1 #bgf1 #bha1 #cjb1 #cab1 #cac1 #cfb1 #cia1 #cib1 #dbj ,bacher1 ,w41 #dcg1 #ddc1 notes #bab and #bad2 #dde1 note #cab;a ,back1 ,samuel1 #dcf ,baeumker1 ,clemens1 #ddj1 note #hd2 #dda1 notes #hf and #hi ,bahya1 ,ibn ,pakuda1 xix1 xxviii1 xxxix1 xlii1 #a1 #hj-aje2 duties of the limbs and duties of the heart1 #hb f42 sources of knowledge1 #hc2 creation1 #hf ff42 unity1 #hi f42 attributes1 #ic f42 study of nature1 #if f42 gratitude to ,god1 #ig f42 submission to ,god1 #ih2 freedom1 ibid42 the laws1 #ih f42 trust in ,god1 #ii f42 unity of conduct1 #aja f42 humility1 ibid42 repentance1 #ajb2 self-examination1 #ajc2 temperance1 #ajd2 asceticism1 ibid42 love of ,god1 #aje2 #ajf1 #abf1 #abh1 #adf1 #adg1 #afb1 #afg1 #afh1 #aie1 #bjj1 #bja1 #bag1 #bda1 #bdf1 #beb1 #cji1 #cfb1 #dbh1 #dcd ,baradus1 ,jacob1 #cd ,bardenhewer1 #dci1 note #g ,bardesanes1 #cge ,becker1 ,c4 ,h41 xxvi1 xxvii ,beer1 #dcc ,bernfeld1 ,simon1 viii1 #dcc ,bisliches1 ,m4 ,l41 #dde1 notes #cab and #cae ,bloch1 ,philipp1 #dcf ,brahmins1 #chj ,brethren of ,purity1 xxxix1 #fj1 #ajg1 #abe1 #abf1 #abh1 #aci1 #ahg1 #aii ,broyd1 ,isaac1 #ajf1 #dda1 note #aca ,cicero1 #dca ,clement ,,vi1 ,pope1 #cbi ,clement of ,alexandria1 #cjb ,chazars1 #aec ,crawford1 ,j4 ,p4 ,w41 #dcf ,creation1 in ,kalam1 xxii1 xlii1 #bd1 #bdg1 #beb2 in ,saadia1 xlii1 #bd2 in ,israeli1 #e ff42 in ,al ,basir1 #di f42 in ,jeshua ben ,judah1 #ef2 in ,gabirol1 #fh2 in ,bahya1 xlii1 #hf ff42 in ,pseudo ,bahya1 #aaj2 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #aaf ff42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 xlii1 #adc2 in ,judah ,halevi1 #aeg2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aij2 in ,maimonides1 #bfi ff42 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #ceb f42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cfg f42 in ,albo1 #dac1 #dae ,creed1 articles of1 l2 in ,maimonides1 #dji f42 in ,crescas1 #cib ff42 in ,albo1 #daj f4 ,creizenach1 ,m41 #ddc1 note #bad ,crescas1 ,hasdai1 xv1 xix1 xxvii1 xxxix1 xl1 xlii1 xlix1 l1 #agc1 #bjj1 #cab1 #chh-dje2 standpoint1 #chi2 existence of ,god1 #chi f42 unity1 #cia f42 attributes1 ibid42 fundamental dogmas of ,judaism1 #cib ff42 ,god's knowledge1 #cib f42 ,providence1 #cic f42 problem of evil1 #cid2 prophecy1 #cie2 freedom1 #cif f42 influence on ,spinoza1 #cih f42 purpose of the ,law1 #cii f42 immortality1 #djj2 creation1 #djb2 criticism of ,maimonides's #ac articles of the creed1 #djb1 #djd2 reward and punishment1 #djc f42 resurrection1 #djd f41 #djf1 #djg1 #djh1 #dji1 #dad1 #daf1 #dai1 #dbj1 #dba1 #dbd1 #dbf1 #dbh1 #dcj1 #dcf1 #ddg1 notes #djc;a and #dji ,cusari1 see ,kusari ,daud1 ,abraham ,ibn1 xix1 xx1 xxvii1 xxxix1 xlii1 xliii1 xlv1 xlvi1 xlvii1 xlviii1 xlix1 #fa1 #fb1 #fc1 #ga1 #gi1 #abe1 #aff1 #aig-bce2 standpoint1 #aig f42 ,ibn ,daud neglected1 #bja2 purpose of his book1 #bja f42 duty to study philosophy1 #bjb2 relative value of the sciences1 #bjc f42 categories1 #bje2 physics1 #bje ff42 matter and form1 ibid42 motion1 #bjg2 infinity1 #bjh2 psychology1 #bji ff42 rational soul1 #bab ff42 the three kinds of intellect1 #bad2 immortality1 #bae2 metempsychosis1 #bae f42 the heavenly spheres1 #baf2 existence of ,god1 #bag ff42 incorporeality1 #bag2 unity1 #bai f42 attributes1 #bbj f42 angels1 #bba f42 active intellect1 #bbb2 emanation of ,intelligences1 #bbc2 tradition1 #bbc f42 prophecy1 #bbd f42 abrogation of the ,law1 #bbf f42 freedom1 #bja f41 #bbi ff42 problem of evil1 #bbh f42 and foreknowledge1 #bbi f42 ethics1 #bca ff42 virtues1 #bcb2 reason of commandments1 #bcc f41 #bcg1 #bdj1 #bda1 #bdf1 #bdh1 #bec1 #bed1 #beg1 #bff1 #bfg1 #bgf1 #bha1 #cjb1 #cjg1 #cji1 #cag1 #ccb1 #cej1 #cfb1 #cff1 #chh1 #dbh1 #dce ,de ,boer1 #dci1 note #e ,definitions1 ,book of1 #b1 #d1 #fj ,deinard1 ,e41 #ddg1 note #djd ,delitzsch1 #ddf1 note #cfj ,delmedigo1 ,elijah1 #dca ,delmedigo1 ,joseph ,solomon1 #dca ,democritus1 xxii1 #c ,dieterici1 #dci1 note #f ,doctor1 ,max1 #dce1 #ddb1 note #afb ,dominicus ,gundissalinus1 #fa1 #fc ,dukes1 #ddc1 note #bac ,dunash ben ,labrat1 #ei ,duns ,scotus1 #fa1 #fc1 #bjj1 #cjg ,duran1 ,simon1 #djf1 #ddg1 note #djc;a ,duties of the ,hearts1 #hj1 #ha ,duval1 #dci1 note #e ,eight ,chapters1 #bci ,eisler1 ,moritz1 #dcc ,elements1 ,book of1 #b1 #c1 #d1 #aj1 #fj ,elias of ,nisibis1 #cd ,elisha ben ,abuya1 #aig ,empedocles1 #fj1 #fa1 #fd1 #abf1 #abg1 #ade1 #agi1 #ahd ,emunah ,ramah1 #aih ,emunot ve-,deot1 #bd ,engelkemper1 ,d4 ,j41 #dcd ,entelechy1 xxxv1 #bji ,ephodi1 #cbh ,epicurus1 #bij1 #cfg ,eriugena1 #bjj ,ethics1 in ,jewish ,philosophy1 xlvii f42 in ,saadia1 #df f42 in ,al ,basir1 #eb f42 in ,jeshua ben ,judah1 #eg2 in ,gabirol1 #ga ff42 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #aai ff42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adh2 in ,judah ,halevi1 #afh2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aie2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bbh ff41 #bca ff42 in ,maimonides1 #bha ff42 in ,hillel ben ,samuel1 #cbe4 ,see also ,virtue4 ,euclid1 xviii1 #ij ,evil1 ,problem of1 in ,al ,basir1 #ed2 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #abc f42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adh2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aie2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bbh f42 in ,maimonides1 #bhh f42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cgc f42 in ,crescas1 #cid ,exegesis1 ,biblical1 xvi1 xxxvii2 in ,saadia1 #ce2 in ,gabirol1 #gh f42 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #ahg f42 in ,maimonides1 #cjb ff42 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #ceg f41 #dcg ,ez ,hayim1 #cfc ,ezekiel1 ,vision of divine chariot1 xvii1 #cjc ,falaquera1 ,shem ,tob1 #fa1 #fc1 #fd1 #cji1 #cbh1 #dda1 note #hf ,fons ,vit1 #fj1 #fa1 #gb1 #hj1 etc4 ,fountain of ,life1 see ,fons ,vit ,frankl1 ,p4 ,f41 #dcd1 #ddj1 note #hj ,frankl-,grn1 ,ad41 #dce ,freedom of the ,will1 xiv1 xlvii2 in ,saadia1 #da f42 in ,al ,basir1 #ed f42 in ,bahya1 #ih2 in ,judah ,halevi1 xlviii1 #aga ff42 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aic2 in ,ibn ,daud1 xlviii1 #bbi f42 in ,maimonides1 xlviii1 #bhe ff42 in ,crescas1 xlviii1 #cif ff42 in ,albo1 #dab1 #dbd ,freimann1 #ddb1 note #adh ,fried1 ,s41 #dci1 note #cj2 #ddj1 note #cd ,friedlnder1 ,m41 #ddd1 note #bej ,gabirol1 ,solomon ,ibn1 xix1 xxxix1 xlvi1 #ei-gi2 fate of ,g4 in ,jewish ,literature1 #fj f42 tendency of his work1 #fc f42 ,g4 a ,neo-,platonist1 #fd2 his doctrine1 #fd ff42 emanation1 #fe2 matter in spiritual substances1 #fe1 #fg2 man typical of the universe1 #fe2 ,intelligence1 ,soul1 ,nature1 #ff2 matter1 #ff f42 creation1 #fh2 will1 #fh f41 #gj2 mystic knowledge1 #fi f42 ethics1 #ga ff42 the virtues1 #gb f42 the ,royal ,crown 7,keter ,malkut71 #ge f42 ,biblical exegesis1 #gh f42 influence on ,jewish ,philosophy1 #gi2 on ,kabbala1 ibid41 #hj1 #ha1 #hi1 #ia1 #ajg1 #abf1 #abg1 #aca1 #aea1 #ahd1 #ahe1 #ahg1 #ahh1 #aih1 #bjj1 #bjf1 #bcg1 #bdf1 #cjg1 #cji1 #cbh1 #dbh1 #dcd ,galen1 xviii1 #b1 #c1 #gb1 #bji1 #beb ,genesis1 creation story1 xvii1 xxix1 #cjc ,gersonides1 see ,levi ben ,gerson ,ginzberg1 ,l41 #dci1 note #ac ,god1 in ,aristotle1 xxxiii2 existence of ,g4 in ,kalam1 xlii1 #bd1 #bdg2 in ,saadia1 xlii1 #bh ff42 in ,al ,basir1 #di f42 in ,jeshua ben ,judah1 #eg2 in ,bahya1 xlii1 #hf ff42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 xlii1 #adc2 in ,ibn ,daud1 xlii f41 #bag ff42 in ,maimonides1 xliii1 #bdh1 #beg ff42 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #cej f42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cfh f42 in ,crescas1 #chi ff42 in ,albo1 #dai f4 ,goldenthal1 #dde1 note #cah ,goldziher1 ,ignaz1 #ajf1 #dcc1 #dci1 notes #aj and #bc2 #ddb1 note #acb ,gorfinkle1 ,joseph ,i41 #ddd1 note #bea ,graetz1 ,h41 #dde1 note #caa ,graf1 #ddj1 note #fd ,gugenheimer1 #dce ,guide of the ,perplexed1 #bci ,guttmann1 ,jacob1 #dcd1 #dce1 #dcf1 #dci1 note #bg2 #ddj1 notes #cc1 #da and #hc2 #ddb1 note #acc2 #ddc1 notes #bcj and #bde2 #dde1 notes #caj and #cca;a2 #ddg1 notes #djc;a1 #dcf and #dcg ,guttmann1 ,julius1 #dce ,halevi1 ,judah1 xix1 xxxix1 xl1 xlv1 xlvi1 xlviii1 xlix1 #abe1 #aej-ahc2 his standpoint1 #aej1 #aeb1 #aeg f42 his life1 #aea f42 philosophy and religion1 #aeb2 influence of ,algazali1 #aeb f42 the ,kusari1 #aec ff42 the philosopher's creed1 #aed f42 the ,christian's1 #aee f42 the ,mohammedan's1 #aef2 the ,jew's1 #aef ff42 creation1 #aeg2 existence of ,god1 #aeh2 will1 #aei2 motives of philosopher and believer1 #aei f42 meaning of the name of ,jhvh1 #aei f41 #afe2 of ,elohim1 #afj1 #afe2 mysticism in ,h41 #afj2 attributes1 #afa ff42 incorporeality1 #afb2 superiority of ,israel1 #afb f42 need of revelation1 #afc2 superiority of ,palestine1 #afd2 ,israel the heart among the nations1 #afd2 superiority of the ,hebrew language1 #afd f42 prophecy1 #afe f42 the active ,intellect1 #afe f42 the ceremonial law1 #afg f42 ethics1 #afh f42 immortality1 #afi f41 #aha f42 future world and reward and punishment1 #agj2 freedom1 #aga ff42 and foreknowledge1 #agb f42 interpretation of ,sefer ,yezirah1 #agc f42 the ,rabbis knew the sciences1 #agd2 exposition of the current philosophy1 #agd ff42 ,h4 understands ,aristotle's definition of the soul1 #age2 physics1 #age ff42 matter1 #age2 criticism1 #agf f42 emanation of ,intelligences1 #agh2 criticism1 #agh f42 psychology1 #agi f42 criticism1 #aha f41 #aig1 #aih1 #bjj1 #bja1 #baj1 #baa1 #baf1 #bbc1 #bbd1 #bbf1 #bcj1 #bca1 #bdf1 #bdh1 #bha1 #cji1 #ccb1 #cfb1 #chi1 #cib1 #cif1 #dad1 #dbj1 #dba1 #dbf1 #dbi1 #dce ,harizi1 ,judah1 #abe1 #ahd ,harkavy1 ,abraham1 #ag1 #dcc ,hasdai ,ibn ,shaprut1 #ei1 #aec1 #cjh ,hayyuj1 #ahg1 #cji ,hefez ben ,yazliah1 #hd ,hegyon ha-,nefesh1 #aad ,hermes1 #fj1 #aee1 #ahd ,hertz1 ,j4 ,h41 #dcd ,hillel ben ,samuel1 xlvi1 #cab-cbg2 standpoint1 #cad2 the soul1 #cad ff42 definition of soul1 #cag2 active intellect1 #cag ff42 reward and punishment1 #cbc ff42 prophecy1 #cbe2 ethics1 ibid42 resurrection1 #cbf2 interpretation of ,rabbinic writings1 #cbf f41 #ccb ,hippocrates1 xviii1 #b1 #c1 #gb1 #bji ,hirschfeld1 #ddj1 note #ca2 #ddb1 note #agh ,hobot ha-,lebabot1 see ,duties of the ,hearts ,homonym1 #bdj1 #cea1 #cga ,horovitz1 ,s41 #dcc1 #ddb1 notes #afb1 #afc and #afe2 #ddc1 note #bbf ,husik1 ,isaac1 #dcf1 #dci1 note #i2 #dde1 note #cjh2 #ddf1 note #ccd2 #ddh1 note #ddc ,hypostasis1 xxxviii1 #f1 #ia1 #aae ,ibn ,aknin1 ,joseph1 #cjb ,ibn ,badja1 #fj ,ibn ,caspi1 ,joseph1 #cjb1 #caj1 #cbi ,ibn ,daud 7,aven ,death71 #fa ,ibn ,daud1 ,abraham1 see ,daud1 ,abraham ,ibn ,ibn ,ezra1 ,abraham1 xxxix1 #gi1 #hj1 #ha1 #aad1 #ahd1 #ahg-aif2 ,biblical exegesis1 #ahg f42 unity of ,god1 #ahi2 incorporeality1 ibid42 creation1 #aij2 matter1 ibid42 the universe1 #aij f42 ,intelligences1 ibid42 angels1 ibid42 soul1 #aia f42 reward and punishment1 #aib2 transmigration1 #aib2 freedom1 #aic2 and foreknowledge1 ibid42 knowledge of ,god1 #aic f42 prophecy1 #aid2 classification of the laws1 #aid2 problem of evil1 #aie2 ethics1 ibid41 #bjj1 #bdf1 #cji1 #caj1 #dbi1 #dce ,ibn ,ezra1 ,moses1 xxxix1 xlvi1 #gi1 #abe1 #ahd-ahg2 man a microcosm1 #ahe2 definition of philosophy1 #ahe2 unity of ,god1 ibid42 active intellect1 #ahf1 #bjj1 #bdf ,ibn ,migash1 ,joseph1 #aea ,ibn ,janah1 #hd1 #cji ,ibn ,roshd1 see ,averroes ,ibn ,sina1 see ,avicenna ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,joseph1 xix1 xxxix1 xlii1 xlv1 xlvi1 xlix1 #fj1 #gi1 #abe-adi2 standpoint1 #abe f42 division of his book1 #abh2 purpose1 #abi2 definition of philosophy1 #abi2 process and sources of knowledge1 #abi f42 physics1 #acj ff42 matter and form1 ibid42 substance1 #aca2 the sphere1 #aca f42 the four elements1 #acb f42 the human body1 #acc f42 the soul1 #acd f42 the three souls1 ibid42 the emotions1 ibid42 life1 #acf2 death1 ibid42 sleep and waking1 ibid42 the rational soul1 #acg2 definition of soul1 #ach2 intellect1 #aci2 world soul1 #adj2 duty to use the reason1 ibid42 criticism of the ,kalam1 #ada f42 creation1 #adc2 existence of ,god1 ibid42 unity1 ibid42 self-sufficiency1 #add2 will of ,god1 ibid42 attributes1 #ade f42 commandments1 #adg2 rational and traditional1 ibid42 the virtues1 #adh2 reward and punishment1 #adh2 evil1 #adh f42 ,messiah1 #adi1 #afb1 #age1 #ahd1 #bjj1 #bjf1 #bji2 #baa1 #bcg1 #bdf1 #cji1 #cag1 #cfb1 #dce ,ikkarim1 #djf ,immortality1 in ,pseudo-,bahya1 #aab f42 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #abj f42 in ,judah ,halevi1 #afi f41 #aha f12 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bae2 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #cci ff42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #chd2 in ,crescas1 #djj ,incorporeality1 in ,kalam1 xliv1 #bec2 in ,saadia1 #cb2 in ,al ,basir1 #ea2 in ,jeshua ben ,judah1 #eg2 in ,judah ,halevi1 #afb2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #ahi f42 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bag2 in ,maimonides1 xliv1 #beg ff41 #bfj ff42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cfh f4 ,infinity1 in ,kalam1 #bea f42 in ,saadia1 #be1 #cj2 in ,bahya1 #hf1 #hg2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bjh2 in ,maimonides1 #bea f41 #bed1 #bef f42 in ,crescas1 #cij ,intellect1 active1 xli2 in ,jewish ,philosophy1 xlvi f42 acquired i41 xlvii2 active i4 in prophecy1 xlix1 #aji2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #aci2 in ,judah ,halevi1 #aee1 #afb1 #afe1 #aha2 in ,moses ibn ,ezra1 #ahf2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bbb2 in ,maimonides1 #bfh1 #bgg2 in ,hillel ben ,samuel1 #cag ff42 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #ccg ff4 ,see also ,intelligence1 ,soul ,intelligence1 xlvi2 in ,israeli1 #f f42 in ,gabirol1 #fe1 #ff2 in ,pseudo-,bahya1 #aji2 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #aai2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aij f42 in ,maimonides1 #bff f4 ,israeli1 ,isaac1 xix1 xlvi1 xlix1 #a-af2 ,maimonides on ,i41 #a f42 his works1 #b2 his sources1 ibid42 theory of the elements1 #c1 #ab2 definition of philosophy1 #d2 creation1 #e ff42 ,intelligence1 #f f42 ,soul1 #h ff42 three kinds of soul1 #aj ff42 element and principle1 #ab f42 prophecy1 #ae1 #ag1 #bd1 #ca1 #fj1 #gb1 #ia1 #abg1 #age1 #bbd1 #dcd ,jabariya1 xxi1 xlvii ,jacob ben ,machir1 #cji1 #caj ,jacobites1 xviii1 #cd ,jaulus1 #dcg ,jeshua ben ,judah1 xxv1 xlvii1 #ee-eh2 priority of reason1 #ef2 atomic theory1 ibid42 creation1 ibid42 existence of ,god1 #eg2 incorporeality1 ibid42 good and evil1 ibid42 #bjj1 #bdf1 #cfc1 #dcd ,jesus1 xxvii1 #hf1 #ia ,job1 xv1 xxvi1 #cjd1 #cdf1 #cgg f4 ,joel1 ,m41 #cih1 #dce1 #dcf1 #dde1 note #caj2 #ddf1 notes #cce and #cih2 #ddg1 note #cih end ,johannes ,hispanus1 #fa ,joseph ben ,shemtob1 #dbi1 #dcj1 #ddg1 note #djd ,joseph ibn ,zaddik1 see ,ibn ,zaddik1 ,joseph ,jourdain1 ,a41 #fc1 #dda1 note #he2 #dde1 note #cjf ,judah ben ,barzilai1 #ag ,judah ,hadassi1 #cfc ,judah ,halevi1 see ,halevi1 ,judah ,judah ,messer ,leon1 #dca ,justinian1 xvii ,kabbala1 #gi1 #dbi1 #dcj ,kadariya1 xxi1 xxii1 xxiii1 #bc ,kalam1 xxiv1 xxvii1 #af1 #ag1 #dh1 #ej1 #eb1 #ee1 #hf1 #ajf1 #abe1 #abh1 #ada f41 #adf1 #aed1 #aga1 #ahc1 #bjj1 #bde1 #bdf ff41 #cfb1 #cff1 #dbh1 #dcc1 #dci1 note #aj ,kalisch1 ,isidor1 #dcc ,karaites1 xiii1 xxiv1 xxv1 xli1 xlvii1 #bc1 #bd1 #dh1 #ee1 #ei1 #ajh1 #abe1 #abf1 #adf1 #aed1 #agd1 #ahc1 #bjj1 #bde1 #bdf1 #cfb1 #cfc1 #cfd1 #cfe1 #cgj1 #cgc1 #cgg1 #cgh1 #dbh ,kaufmann1 ,david1 #aeb1 #aec1 #dcc1 #dcd1 #dce1 #dcf1 #dda1 note #hh2 #ddb1 note #aha2 #ddd1 notes #bej and #cje ,kellermann1 ,benzion1 #dcf ,keter ,malkut1 see ,royal ,crown ,kindi1 ,al1 xxxix ,klein1 ,miksa1 #dcd ,knowledge1 sources of1 xl2 in ,saadia1 #bg f42 in ,bahya1 #hc2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #abi f4 ,koran1 xxi1 xxii1 xxiii1 xxvi1 xxvii1 xxix1 xliv1 #cd1 #aef ,krochmal1 ,nahman1 #ahi1 #dce ,kusari1 #aec ,lactantius1 #dca ,landauer1 ,s41 #age1 #ddj1 note #cg ,laws1 rational and traditional1 #a2 in ,saadia1 #ch f42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adg2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aid2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bcc f42 in ,maimonides1 #bid ff42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #chb ,lebid-ibn ,al-,asam1 xxvi ,leibnitz1 #cjg ,leverrier1 #bge ,levi ben ,gerson1 xix1 xx1 xxxix1 xli1 xliii1 xlvii1 xlix1 #g1 #af1 #aff1 #bag1 #bce1 #cjb1 #cab1 #cac1 #cbh-cfa2 standpoint1 #cbi f42 reason and authority1 #ccj f42 his style and method1 #cca2 the passive intellect1 #ccb ff42 active intellect1 #ccg ff42 problem of knowledge1 #cch2 of definition1 #cci2 immortality1 #cci f42 prognostication and prophecy1 #cdj ff42 and the contingent1 ibid42 ,god's knowledge1 #cdb ff42 attributes1 #cdd f41 #cea f42 ,providence1 #cdf ff42 existence of ,god1 #cej f42 origin of the world1 #ceb f42 eternal matter1 #cee f42 interpretation of creation story in ,genesis1 #ceg2 miracles1 #ceh f41 #cfb1 #cfc1 #cfi1 #chd1 #chh1 #cib1 #cic1 #cid1 #cie1 #cif1 #cih1 #cii1 #dja1 #djb1 #djf1 #dai1 #dbj1 #dba1 #dbh1 #dbi1 #dcj1 #dcf1 #ddg1 note #djc;a ,levy1 ,louis-,germain1 #dcf ,liber de ,causis1 xx1 #b1 #fd1 #cag ,lippmann1 #ddc1 note #bad ,logos1 xxvii1 xli1 #eb1 #ga1 #ia ,maamar ,yikkawu ha-,mayim1 #cji ,maase ,bereshit1 xvi1 #bdb1 #cjc1 #dcj ,maase ,merkaba1 xvi1 #bdb1 #cjc1 #dcj ,maimonides1 ,moses1 xvi1 xix1 xx1 xxiv1 xxv1 xxvii1 xxxix1 xli1 xlii1 xliii1 xlv1 xlvi1 xlvii1 xlix1 l1 #a1 #b1 #af1 #be1 #fj1 #fb1 #fc1 #gi1 #hh1 #ie1 #if1 #aad1 #abe1 #abf1 #adf1 #aec1 #aeh1 #aff1 #afg1 #aih1 #aii1 #bjj1 #bja1 #bjg1 #bah1 #bba1 #bce1 #bcf-caa2 his life1 #bch f42 his chef d'oeuvre1 #bci f42 his method1 #bdj2 his standpoint1 #bdj ff42 importance of science1 #bdc f42 difficulty of metaphysics1 #bdd f42 sketch of ,jewish ,philosophy1 #bde f42 exposition of the ,kalam1 #bdf ff42 propositions of the philosophers1 #bed ff42 existence of ,god1 #beg ff42 unity1 ibid42 incorporeality1 ibid41 #bfj ff42 attributes1 #bfb ff42 meaning of ,jhvh1 #bfe2 angels1 #bff f42 origin of the world1 #bfi ff42 emanation of ,intelligences1 #bgb f42 criticism of ,aristotle1 #bga ff42 psychology1 #bha ff42 virtue1 #bhb ff42 freedom1 #bhe ff42 and foreknowledge1 #bhg f42 problem of evil1 #bhh ff42 ,god's knowledge1 #bhi ff42 reason of the commandments1 #bid ff42 ,bible exegesis1 #cjb ff42 influence of ,m41 #cje ff42 on ,scholasticism1 #cje-cjg2 on ,judaism1 #cjg-caa1 #cab1 #cac1 #cad1 #cag1 #cbc1 #cbe1 #cbi1 #ccb1 #cdb1 #cdc1 #cdd1 #cde1 #cdf1 #cej1 #ceb1 #cec1 #ceg1 #ceh1 #cfb1 #cfc1 #cfd1 #cfe1 #cff1 #cfh1 #cfi1 #cgj1 #cga1 #cgb1 #cgd1 #cge1 #cgf1 #cgg1 #cgh1 #cgi1 #chj1 #chb1 #chc1 #chd1 #chh1 #chi1 #cij1 #cia1 #cib1 #cic1 #cid1 #cie1 #cif1 #cih1 #cii1 #djj1 #djb1 #djc1 #djf1 #djg1 #djh1 #dji1 #daj1 #dab1 #daf1 #dag1 #dai1 #dbj1 #dba1 #dbc1 #dbd1 #dbe1 #dbf1 #dbh1 #dbi1 #dcj1 #dca1 #dce1 #ddg1 note #djc;a ,malmad ,hatalmidim1 #cji ,malter1 ,h41 vii1 #dde1 note #caf ,mandonnet1 ,p41 #dde1 note #cjh2 #ddf1 note #ccb ,manicheans1 #cge ,matter1 rejected by ,mutakallimun1 xxii2 doctrine of1 in ,aristotle1 xxix ff42 in ,plotinus1 xxxviii2 as source of evil1 #ch2 in ,gabirol1 #ff f42 in ,pseudo-,bahya1 #aji2 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #aag2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #acj ff42 in ,judah ,halevi1 #age2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aij2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bje f42 in ,maimonides1 #bef1 #bgj2 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #cee f4 ,maywald1 #ddf1 note #ccb ,mekize ,nirdamim1 #dde1 notes #cac and #cba ,mekor ,hayim1 see ,fons ,vit ,menahem ben ,saruk1 #ei ,messiah1 in ,saadia1 #de2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adi2 in ,crescas1 #djb1 #djd2 in ,albo1 #djh ,metempsychosis1 see ,transmigration ,microcosmus1 #fj1 #abe ,milhamot ,adonai1 #cbi ,miracles1 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #ceh f4 ,mohammed1 xxv1 #hf ,monophysites1 xviii1 #cd ,more ,ha-moreh1 #caj ,more ,nebukim1 #bch ,morgenstern1 ,ern1 #dcd ,moses ben ,enoch1 #ei ,moses ben ,maimon1 see ,maimonides ,moses of ,narbonne1 #cji1 #caj1 #cbh1 #dcj1 #ddg1 note #djc;a ,motion1 in ,aristotle1 xxvi2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bjg2 in ,maimonides1 #bed1 #bfi ,mukammas1 ,david ,al1 #b1 #ag-bb2 definition of science and philosophy1 #ag f42 attributes1 #ah ff42 unity1 #ah2 reward and punishment1 #ba f41 #cd1 #eb1 #ha1 #hd1 #ie1 #bjj1 #bdf1 #dcd ,munk1 ,solomon1 #fc1 #cjd1 #cbh1 #dcc1 #dcd1 #ddj1 note #hc2 #dda1 notes #hf1 #hg and #aje2 #ddd1 notes #bej1 #bhj and #cjb2 #dde1 notes #cad and #caf2 #ddh1 note #ddb ,mnz1 ,j41 #dcf ,mutakallimun1 xxi f41 xl1 xli1 xlvii1 #i1 #aa1 #bd1 #be1 #bf1 #dh1 #ha1 #hh1 #if1 #ajf1 #abe1 #abf1 #abg1 #abh1 #aci1 #adb1 #ade1 #adi1 #aeh1 #ahb1 #ahc1 #aii1 #bdj1 #bdf-bec1 #bef1 #bge1 #ceb1 #cec1 #cfb1 #cff f41 #cfi1 #cgb1 #chb1 #djf1 #dbh ,mutazila1 xxii ff41 xxvii1 xlvii1 #c1 #ag1 #ba1 #bc1 #bd1 #bf1 #dh1 #ajh1 #aga1 #bdf1 #bea1 #bia1 #bib1 #cfb1 #cfe1 #cff1 #cge1 #cgg ,nachmanides1 #dbf1 #dbi ,nature1 in ,plotinus1 xxxviii2 in ,gabirol1 #fe1 #ff2 in ,pseudo-,bahya1 #aji2 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #aai ,neo-,platonic1 xx1 xxviii1 xxxix1 xlvi1 #b1 #f1 #ac1 #bd1 #ch1 #fd1 #gi1 #ha1 #hf1 #hi1 #ij1 #ib1 #ajf1 #ajg1 #aad1 #aae1 #abe1 #abf1 #abg1 #abi1 #ach1 #aci1 #agg1 #agh1 #aii1 #bjj1 #bff1 #cje1 #cag1 #cai ,neo-,platonism1 xxix1 #ag1 #fd1 #gj1 #gi1 #ia1 #aad1 #aej1 #ahg1 #bjj1 #bff1 #bhh1 #cag1 #dbh ,neo-,platonists1 xl1 #ca1 #fd1 #ia1 #ajf1 #ahd1 #aii ,neo-,pythagoreans1 #ahh ,nestorians1 xviii1 #cd ,neumark1 ,david1 viii1 #dcc1 #dce1 #dcf1 #dda1 note #ajg ,nous1 xxxviii1 #g1 #ia ,olam ,katon1 see ,microcosmus ,or ,adonai1 #chi ,origen1 #bhh1 #cjb ,orschansky1 ,g41 #dce ,perles1 ,j41 #dde1 note #cji ,philo1 xvi1 xxvii1 xxxviii1 xli1 #bc1 #ia1 #ie1 #ahh1 #bdj1 #bff1 #bfh1 #bhh1 #cjb ,philoponus1 #bdg1 #cec ,philosophy1 and religion1 xiii2 content of ,jewish ,p41 xl-l2 defined by ,israeli1 #d2 by ,ibn ,zaddik1 #abi2 by ,moses ,ibn ,ezra1 #ahe ,physics1 in ,kalam1 xxii1 xli2 in ,aristotle1 xxx2 in ,israeli1 #c1 #e1 #ab2 in ,saadia1 xli2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 xlii1 #acj ff42 in ,judah ,halevi1 #age ff42 in ,ibn ,daud1 xlii1 #bje ff42 in ,maimonides1 xlii1 #bed ff41 #bfi ff42 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #ceb f41 #cee f42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 xli1 #cff ff42 in ,crescas1 xlii1 #chi ,plato1 xxix1 xli1 xlv1 #e1 #g1 #h1 #cg1 #dg1 #ij1 #ia1 #abb1 #ach1 #aee1 #agi1 #aha1 #ahb1 #ahd1 #aie1 #bca1 #bfh1 #bfi1 #bhh1 #cjd1 #cje1 #cec1 #dac1 #dca ,plato of ,tivoli1 #aad ,plotinus1 xx1 xxxvii f41 xxxix1 #f1 #fd1 #fe1 #ia1 #ajg1 #aae1 #abf1 #aci1 #agh1 #dca ,pollak1 ,j41 #dcc ,porphyry1 #fj ,proclus1 xx1 #c ,prophecy1 xlvi1 xlix f42 in ,israeli1 xlix1 #ae2 in ,saadia1 #dj2 in ,judah ,halevi1 xlix1 #afe2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aid2 in ,ibn ,daud1 xlix1 #bbd ff42 in ,maimonides1 xlix1 #bgf ff42 in ,hillel ben ,samuel1 #cbe2 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 xlix1 #cdj ff42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #chj f42 in ,crescas1 #cie2 in ,albo1 #dba ,providence1 xl2 in ,maimonides1 #bij ff42 in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #cdf ff42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cge f42 in ,crescas1 #cic f42 in ,albo1 #dbe ,pseudo-,bahya1 xlvi1 xlix1 #ajf-aac2 standpoint1 #ajf f42 the soul1 #ajh ff41 #aaa ff42 ,intelligence1 ,soul1 ,nature1 #ajh f41 #aaj2 matter1 #aji2 creation1 #aaj2 virtue1 #aab2 immortality1 #aab f42 reward and punishment1 #aac1 #abb1 #abf1 #aci1 #adh1 #cag1 #dcd ,ptolemy1 xviii1 #bgc1 #cji ,pythagoras1 #fj1 #agi1 #ahd1 #ahe ,pythagoreans1 #i ,rashi1 #ahg ,raymond1 ,bishop of ,toledo1 #fa ,reason1 and authority1 xiii2 r4 in ,aristotle1 xxxvi2 active and passive1 xxxvi f42 in ,plotinus1 xxxviii2 r4 as a source of knowledge1 xl2 r4 and authority in ,levi ben ,gerson1 #ccj f4 ,see also ,intellect1 ,soul ,resurrection1 l2 in ,saadia1 #dd f42 in ,hillel ben ,samuel1 #cbf2 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #che f42 in ,crescas1 #djd ,reward and ,punishment1 xlvii1 xlviii1 l2 in ,mukammas1 #ba f42 in ,saadia1 #db f42 in ,al ,basir1 #ee2 in ,pseudo-,bahya1 #aac2 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #aai ff42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adh2 in ,judah ,halevi1 #agj2 in ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra1 #aib2 in ,hillel ben ,samuel1 #cbc ff42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cgi1 #chc2 in ,crescas1 #djc f42 in ,albo1 #dbe f4 ,roscellinus of ,compigne1 #cje ,rose1 ,valentinus1 #dci1 note #h ,rosin1 ,david1 #ahi1 #aib1 #dce ,royal ,crown1 the1 #ge f4 ,saadia1 xix1 xxv1 xli1 xlii1 xlv1 xlvi1 xlix1 #a1 #ag1 #bc-dg2 his ,emunot ve-,deot1 #bd f42 modelled on the ,kalam1 ibid42 atomic theory1 #be2 reason for writing1 #bf f42 sources of truth1 #bg f42 speculation not forbidden1 #bh2 necessity of revelation1 ibid42 existence of ,god1 #bh ff42 incorporeality1 #cb2 unity1 #cb f42 attributes1 #cc f42 categories inapplicable to ,god1 #ce f42 theophanies1 #cf2 soul1 #cg f42 laws and commandments1 #ch f42 rational and traditional1 ibid42 prophecy1 #dj2 written and oral law1 #dj2 abrogation of ,law1 #dj f42 freedom1 #da f42 and foreknowledge1 ibid42 reward and punishment1 #db f41 #df2 future world1 #dc f42 resurrection1 #dd f42 ethics1 #df f41 #dh1 #ej1 #eb1 #ei1 #ha1 #hb1 #hc1 #hd1 #hg1 #hh1 #hi1 #ib1 #id1 #ie1 #if1 #abf1 #abg1 #abh1 #adf1 #adg1 #afg1 #age1 #ahf1 #aie1 #bjj1 #bcg1 #bda1 #bdf1 #beb1 #bec1 #cjb1 #cji1 #cfb1 #cfc1 #chh1 #dbh1 #dcd ,sabeans1 #bif ,saladin1 #bci ,samuel1 #aig ,scaliger1 #cjg ,scheyer1 ,simon ,b41 #dce ,schmiedl1 ,a41 #dcc ,schreiner1 ,m41 xxv1 xxvii1 #dcc1 #dcd1 #dci1 notes #ab1 #af1 #ah and #bj2 #ddj1 note #ha ,sefer ,ha-,kabbala1 #aih ,seyerlen1 #fc1 #dcd1 #dda1 note #hf ,shemtob ben ,joseph1 #dcj ,shemtob ben ,joseph ibn ,shemtob1 #dbi ,socrates1 xxix1 #aee1 #ahd1 #ahe ,solomon ben ,adret1 #dcj ,solomon ben ,yeroham1 #cfc ,sophists1 xxix ,soul1 in ,aristotle1 xxxv2 world soul in ,plotinus1 xxxviii2 s4 in ,jewish philosophy1 xlv f42 world-soul in ,jewish ,neo-,platonists1 xlvi2 s4 in ,israeli1 #e1 #h ff42 in ,saadia1 #cg f42 in ,gabirol1 #fe1 #ff2 in ,pseudo-,bahya1 #ajh ff42 in ,abraham bar ,hiyya1 #aai2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #acd f41 #acg f42 world-soul in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adj2 s4 in ,judah ,halevi1 #agi ff42 in ,abraham ,ibn ,ezra1 #aia f42 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bji ff42 in ,maimonides1 #bha ff42 in ,hillel ben ,samuel1 #cad ff42 in ,crescas1 #djj4 ,see also ,intellect1 ,reason ,spinoza1 #cih f4 ,spirit and ,soul1 ,book of1 #e ,steinschneider1 ,moritz1 #caa1 #dci1 note #bf2 #ddj1 notes #ca and #cc2 #ddc1 note #bdg2 #ddf1 note #cfj ,st4 ,ephrem of ,nisibis1 xviii ,sufis1 xxvii f41 #hf1 #aec ,syrians1 xvii ff41 #aii1 #bdf ,tagmule ha-,nefesh1 #cad ,tnzer1 ,a41 #dcg ,themistius1 #g1 #fj1 #cac1 #cba1 #ccb1 #ccc1 #ccd1 #cce ,theology of ,aristotle1 xx1 xxxix1 #fd1 #bff ,theophrastus1 xviii ,tibbon1 ,judah ,ibn1 #ga1 #cji1 #caj ,tibbon1 ,moses ,ibn1 #cji1 #ddj1 note #cg ,tibbon1 ,samuel ,ibn1 #b1 #fj1 #abe1 #bci1 #cjb1 #cji ,tikkun ,midot ha-,nefesh1 #ga ,torot ha-,nefesh1 #ajf ,tradition1 xiii1 xli1 #bh1 #bbc f4 ,transmigration1 in ,saadia1 #dd2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #aib2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bae f4 ,trinity1 xliv1 #cc1 #cd1 #ga1 #ia ,truth1 twofold1 #cbh ,twenty ,chapters1 #ag ,ueberweg-,baumgartner1 #dcc ,unity of ,god1 in ,kalam1 xxii1 xliii f41 #beb2 in ,mukammas1 #ah2 in ,saadia1 #cb f42 in ,al ,basir1 #ea2 in ,bahya1 #hi f42 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adc2 in ,moses ibn ,ezra1 #ahe2 in ,abraham ibn ,ezra1 #ahi2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bai f42 in ,maimonides1 xliv1 #beg ff42 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cfh f42 in ,crescas1 #cia f4 ,vincent of ,beauvais1 #a ,virtue1 xlix2 in ,gabirol1 #gb f42 in ,pseudo-,bahya1 #aab2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #adh2 in ,ibn ,daud1 #bcb2 in ,maimonides1 #bhb ff4 ,weil1 ,isidore1 #dcf ,weil1 ,simson1 #aih1 #ddc1 note #bba ,weinsberg1 ,leopold1 #dce ,wenrich1 #dci1 note #e ,werbluner1 #dde1 note #cag ,will of ,god1 in ,al ,basir1 #ej2 in ,gabirol1 #fh f42 in ,bahya1 #ij2 in ,ibn ,zaddik1 #add2 in ,aaron ben ,elijah1 #cgb ,william of ,auvergne1 #ga1 #cjf ,william of ,occam1 #bjj ,wise1 ,stephen ,s41 #ga1 #dda1 note #ajc ,wolff1 ,m41 #ddd1 note #bea ,wolfsohn1 ,julius1 #dcf ,yahuda1 #hj1 #hf1 #dci1 note #bd2 #dda1 notes #ajf1 #ajh1 #aji and #aab ,yahya ben ,adi1 #bdg ,yefet ,ha-,levi1 #cfc ,yezirah1 ,sefer #ag1 #id1 #agc1 #agi ,yohanan ben ,zakkai1 #aig ,zeller1 #dci1 note #d2 #dda1 note #hf ,zeno1 #be ,zimmels1 #ddh1 note #ddb ,zunz1 ,leopold1 #ahd ,printed in the ,united ,states of ,america4