The following is a revised and much condensed version of my “‘Inheritance of the Fathers’: Aspects of Isaac Abarbanel's Stance Towards Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1993), chap. 2 (hereafter cited as “Inheritance”). The writing of this chapter was made possible by grants from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture and Harvard's Center for Jewish Studies, to both of which I express my sincere gratitude. I am especially indebted to my teachers Isadore Twersky, Bernard Septimus, and James L. Kugel for many observations which greatly improved the chapter. Parts of this essay were delivered as a paper at the International Conference on Don Isaac Abarbanel held at Queens College and the Graduate Center of City University of New York in 1992.

1. The formulation is Bate's, Walter Jackson in The Burden of the Past and the English Poet(Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Saperstein, Marc, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah(Cambridge, Mass., 1980), p. 208.Google Scholar

3. Perush 'al ha-torah,3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1964), 1:88.

4. Ibid., 3:230–233.

5. (KÖnigsberg. 1861), p. 17v. For examples of Abarbanel acting (or seeking to act) on tl commitment, see “Inheritance,” pp. 238–360.

6. On the distinction between “traditional” and “traditionalistic,” the latter implying degree of self-consciousness absent from the former, see the pioneering discussion of Jose R. Levenson in Confucian China and Its Modern Fate: A Trilogy(Berkeley, 1968), vol. 1, 7 Problem of Intellectual Continuity,pp. xxi, xxvii-xxvix. For a useful overview of Levensoi approach and of modern scholarly developments in the field in the two decades following t appearance of his study, see Waldman, Marilyn, “Tradition as a Modality of Chanj Islamic Examples,” History of Religions 25 (1986): 318–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. For a convenient summary, see Barzilay, Isaac, Between Reason and Faith(T Hague—Paris, 1967), pp. 79–130.Google Scholar

8. Rosh 'amanah,ed. Menachem Kellner (Ramat-Gan, 1993), pp. 146–150. (Fordiscussi of the difficulties that attend this famous position of Abarbanel's, see Kellner's introductic pp. 22–29, and the literature cited there.)

9. The subject awaits further systematic study. See for now Moshe Idel, “Qabbal u-filosofiyah qedumah 'esel R. Yishaq ve-Yehudah 'Abarbanel,” in Pilosofiyat ha-'ahav, shel Yehudah 'Abarbanel,ed. Dorman, Menahem and Levi, Zevi (Haifa, 1985), pp. 73–11 “Inheritance,” pp. 532–554.Google Scholar

10. Perush ‘al nevi’im rishonim(Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 342–343.

11. For programmatic statements, see Perush ‘al nevi’im aharonim(Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 297–298, 434. For exegetical applications, see, e.g., Ibid., pp. 382, 514, 571. For discussion, see my “On the Threshold of the Renaissance: New Methods and Sensibilities in the Biblical Commentaries of Isaac Abarbanel,” Viator26 (1995): 298–299; Moshe Greenberg, “Jewish Conceptions of the Human Factor in Biblical Prophecy,” in Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson,ed. Douglas, KnightA. and Peter, Paris (Atlanta, 1989), p. 159.Google Scholar

12. Perush ‘al nevi’im rishonim,pp. 543–544. See “Threshold,” pp. 299–300.Google Scholar

13. For examples, see Wiesner, J., “Abravanels Thorakommentar, namentlich in seinem Verhaltnesse zur Halacha,” Forschungen des wissenschaftlich-talmudischen Vereins 17 (= Beilage zu Ben Chananja12 [1876]): 254–256, 174–175, 197–200, 209–212.Google Scholar

14. See my “The ‘Ways of Midrash’ in the Biblical Commentaries of Isaac Abarbanel,” Hebrew Union College Annual67 (1996).Google Scholar

15. “Threshold,” pp. 300–304. For an English translation of the relevant passage, see my “Don Isaac Abarbanel: Who Wrote the Books of the Bible?”, Tradition30 (1996): 65–73.Google Scholar

16. On this work's date, see “Inheritance,” p. 48 n. 37. 'Ateret zeqenim(hereafter cited as AT)was first printed in Sabbionetta, Italy, in 1557. Subsequent printed editions are Amsterdam (1739), Lemberg (1859), and Warsaw (1894). My references are to the Warsaw edition. Translations of the text are my own. A check of the first printed edition (reproduced in Don Isaac Abravanel: Opera Minora[London, 1972]) and various manuscripts (at the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem) yielded no significant variants for the sections of the work with which I am concerned. On Surot ha-yesodot,an earlier work seemingly viewed by Abarbanel as incomplete, see Netanyahu, B., Don Isaac Abravanel: Statesman and Philosopher,3rd ed. (Philadelphia, 1972), pp. 15, 268 n. 34; “Inheritance,” pp. 26–28.Google Scholar

17. One reason among several why Netanyahu's characterization of the work as “a brief dissertation on God and the meaning of prophecy” (Don Isaac Abravanel,p. 16) is so deficient is that it fails to convey the work's exegetical character. Like Louis Rabinowitz before him (“Abravanel as Exegete,” in Isaac Abravanel: Six Lectures,ed. J. B. Trend and H. Loewe [Cambridge, 1937], p. 77), Gregorio Ruiz correctly identifies the genre to which 'Ateret zeqenimbelongs by calling it a “commentary,” but like Rabinowitz, he errs when he calls it “a commentary on Exodus 23:20” (Don Isaac Abrabanel y su comentario al Libra de Amos[Madrid, 1984], p. 81 n. 113; idem, “Actualidad de la exegesis de Don Isaac Abrabanel,” Identitad y Testimonio[Madrid, 1979], p. 133). The primacy of exegesis in ‘Ateret zeqenimfinds expression in a remark made at the end of chapter 19 (p. 73) where Abarbanel observes that having discussed a certain point, it would now be appropriate for him to examine Maimonides’ approach to the same, but that he will postpone this undertaking so as not to interrupt the flow of his exegetical account.

18. Rosh 'amanah,p. 64. She 'elot le-he-hakham Sha 'ul ha-Kohen sha 'al me- 'et... Yishaq 'Abarbanel(Venice, 1574), p. 8r (actual as opposed to printed pagination).

19. See for now “Inheritance,” pp. 532–548.

20. For a linguistic perspective, see Janos Kristos Nyiri, “ ‘Tradition’ and Related Terms: A Semantic Survey,” Tradition and Individuality(Dordrecht, 1992), pp. 61–74.

21. See Shils, Edward, Tradition(Chicago, 1981), pp. 63–310, 328–30.Google Scholar

22. There is a vast literature (theoretical, sociological, theological, and so forth) on the subject of religion's relationship to tradition in its various guises (see, e.g., the many references in Innovation in Religious Traditions: Essays in the Interpretation of Religious Change,ed. Michael A. Williams, Collett Cox, and Martin S. Jaffee [The Hague, 1992]), but considerably less attention has been paid to the place of the writer within the complex of problems related to this theme. For studies centered around the persistence or appropriation of tradition in modern Jewish thought and life, see The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era,ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York, 1992; see also the account of how Fiddler on the Roofevolved from stories by Sholom Aleichem into a hit Broadway musical as related in the opening pages of Jaroslav Pelikan's The Vindication of Tradition[New Haven, 1984], pp. 3–4). For the medieval Hebrew intellectual-literary milieu, see Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis,pp. 208, 275 n. 27. For a few striking medieval and early modern Latin examples of many that could be adduced, see Richard of St. Victor's Prologus in visionem Ezechielisas cited in Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages(Notre Dame, 1964), pp. 108–109, as well as the comments of Jacob Wimpheling as adduced in Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation(Cambridge, Mass., 1995), pp. 96–97. A recent collection which takes up the theme for the Christian Middle Ages is Ad litteram: Authoritative Texts and Their Medieval Readers,ed. Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr. (Notre Dame, 1992). (A kindred issue in the world of medieval Christendom is addressed in James S. Preus, “Theological Legitimation for Innovation in the Middle Ages,” Viator3 [1972]: 1–26.) For an example from the medieval Islamic sphere, see Muhsin Mahdi, “Man and His Universe in Medieval Arabic Philosophy,” in L 'homme et son Univers au Moyen Age,ed. Christian Wenin (Louvain-La-Neuve, 1986), p. 103. Examples of later Jewish writers exercised by the question of the relationship between traditional authority and individual creativity are Eliezer Ashkenazi in the sixteenth century and Abraham Azulai (Hida) in the eighteenth. See Alan Cooper, “An Extraordinary Sixteenth-Century Biblical Commentary: Eliezer Ashkenazi on the Song of Moses,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume(= Jewish History6), ed. Barry Walfish, 2 vols. (Haifa, 1993), 1:132; and the material in Dov Zlotnick, “The Commentary of Rabbi Abraham Azulai to the Mishnah,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research40 (1972): 163–167. For a contemporary reflection, including readings of rabbinic texts that reflect late-twentieth-century challenges, see Holtz, Barry W., Finding Our Way: Jewish Texts and the Lives We Lead Today(New York, 1990), pp. 15–38.Google Scholar

23. AZ,p. 3.

24. Ibid., pp. 4, 22.

25. Ibid., p. 3.

26. The work can be divided into five sections. In the first three, Abarbanel raises questions concerning the verses in the pericope under investigation (chaps. 1–10), sets forth propositions that he will use to answer them (chaps. 11–14), and proposes solutions to the difficulties enumerated (chaps. 15–22). In the last two, he rebuts Maimonides' interpretation of Exodus 24:11 (chaps. 23–24) and discourses on the unique qualities of the Jewish people (chap. 25). Only in chapters 8, 19, 23, and 24 does Abarbanel touch on the problem of the nobles, and of these, only in chapters 8 and 19 does he deal with this issue directly.

27. AZ,pp. 23–24.

28. Ibid., p. 2.

29. There is, then, an element of irony implicit in the work's title, drawn as it is from a biblical verse which depicts a wholly idyllic picture of the relationship between earlier and later generations. Whether this irony was intended is hard to say, as the phrase of the verse which constitutes the title is obviously removed from its scriptural context. This interpretive difficulty recurs throughout the work's introduction, which is largely a pastiche of biblical verses artfully woven together to express Abarbanel's thoughts. On the problem of interpreting this manner of Hebrew expression (the so-called “mosaic style”) as it pertains to medieval Hebrew poetry, see Dan Pagis, Hiddush u-mesoret be-shirat ha-hol(Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 70–77.

30. For the phrase, see Arnold Eisen, “The Search for Authority in Twentieth-Century Judaism,” in Religion and the Authority of the Past,ed. Tobin Siebers, with an introduction by Wendy Doniger (Ann Arbor, 1993), p. 250 (where, interestingly in the current context, the “near synonymous usage of 'tradition' and 'the fathers' or 'the ancestors' in much contemporary [twentieth-century] Jewish thought” is also referred to).

31. Leviticus Rabbah20:10.

32. See, e.g., in addition to the passage just cited, Numbers Rabbah15:24; Midrash tanhuma, Beha 'lotekha16. For an overview of rabbinic and later interpretations, see Menahem M. Kasher, Torah shelemah,43 vols. (New York, 1949–92), 14:272–273.

33. AZ,p. 1 (emphasis added). Abarbanel embeds the charge in a pun on 1 Kings 17:4 (yom tet 'adonai geshem),employing the concluding word of this biblical phrase in its medieval philosophic sense of “body.”

34. The Guide of the Perplexed,I, 5 (trans. Shlomo Pines) (Chicago, 1963], p. 30).

35. AZ,p. 1.

36. Ibid., p. 2.

37. Ibid.

38. Guideintroduction (Pines, pp. 15–16). Cf. 'Avot1:6.

39. GuideI, 5 (Pines, p. 30).

40. Early in the introduction to 'Ateret zeqenim,Abarbanel describes the nobles' detractors as men who “judge them unfavorably” (yadinu le-khaf hovah).Now he appeals to the most formidable of these to support his contention that they should be judged in precisely the opposite way (le-khaf zekhut).

41. AZ,p. 2.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid., pp. 2–3.

45. In so doing, and in his concomitant affirmation that midrashim which reflect “received tradition” are binding, Abarbanel employs categories invoked by earlier Iberian Jewish writers. See “Inheritance,” pp. 66–70, 127–128. Abarbanel never seems to have gone much beyond this negative formulation, however, and the effort to define his stance before midrashic authority is further complicated by the diverse contexts in which he confronted the question as well as the subtlety and complexity of his “rhetoric of tradition” (see, for facets of the problem, “Inheritance,” pp. 201–209,322–332). Note that with regard to the nobles, Abarbanel's argument permitting rejection of midrashic views is strengthened by the fact that these not only disagree but actually contradict one another (“some interpreting it positively and some interpreting it negatively”). It seems clear, however, that he does not regard this circumstance as a necessary condition for his dissent; mere multiplicity of opinion suffices. (Contrast, e.g., David Kimhi's commentary to Joshua 3:2, as inMiqra'otgedolot ha-keter,ed. Menachem Cohen, vol. 1, Sefer\ yehoshua'–sefer shofetim[(Ramat-Gan, 1992], p. 11.) j

46. AZ,p. 3. Abarbanel puns on his first name through invocation of Genesis 21:6–kolj ha-shomea' yisahaq li).j

47. Cf. Hullin7a: “My fathers have left me room whereby I might distinguish (lehitgadder)] myself.” Abarbanel would later summon this slogan to justify his claim that one should write many books without fear that earlier authorities had already said all there was to say. See Commentary on Jeremiahin Perush 'al nevi'im 'aharonim,p. 297. For earlier medieval invocations of this talmudic dictum, see, e.g., Menahem ha-Meiri, Bet ha-behirah, Berakhot(Jerusalem, 1965), p. 23, wherein the right of talmudists to exercise critical judgment in halakhic study is defended (in a way that preserves the superiority of earlier scholars); Hanokh al-Constantini, Marot 'elohim,ed. Colette Sirat (Jerusalem, 1976), p. 22; Anselm Astruc, Midreshei torah,ed. Shimon Eppenstein (Berlin, 1900), p. 202. For invocations in the works of other fifteenth-century Iberian writers, see, for Abarbanel's Lisbon teacher Joseph Hayyun, “Ma'amar la-hakham ha-nizkar [R. Yosef Hayyun] 'al het Mosheh ve-'Aharon,” in Abraham Gross, R. Yosef ben 'Avraham Hayyun: manhig qehilat lisbon ve-yesirato(Ramat-Gan, 1993), p. 216; Abraham Saba, 'Eshkol ha-kofer 'al megillat Rut(Bartfeld, 1907), p. 21r. For a useful collection of rabbinic and medieval texts on the theme of the “decline of the generations” and a case study in Maimonidean teachings on this point, see Menachem Kellner, Maimonides on the “Decline of the Generations ” and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority(Albany, N.Y., 1996).

48. Abarbanel grafts a phrase from Psalms 115:13 onto the end of this Mosaic proclamation in order to underscore that the covenant embraces all, “the lesser and the greater.” His appeal to Moses' remarks as to the ongoing nature of the divine covenant with Israel is akin to the full and emphatic declaration of the right and even duty to engage in innovation made by Eliezer Ashkenazi based on Mosaic statements found later in Deuteronomy (29:13–14: “neither with you only do I make this covenant and oath but... also with the one who is not here with us this day”). See Ma 'aseh 'adonai, 2vols. (1871; photo-offset ed., Jerusalem, 1972), 2:75v.

49. Cf. 'Eruvin53a: “The hearts [i.e., minds] of the earlier ones (rishonini)are like the door of the 'ulam[a chamber in the Temple the door of which was twenty cubits wide] and that of the later ones ('aharonim)like the door of the hekhal[a smaller Temple chamber the door of which was ten cubits wide] but ours are like the eye of a fine needle.” The implication is that criticism of one's predecessors is never legitimate.

50. AZ,p. 3.

51. For the attribution to Bernard, see ofSalisbury, John, Metalogicon,ed. Webb, C.C.J. (Oxford, 1929), p. 136. For the ample secondary literature on this maxim, see the sources cited in Jacqueline T. Miller, Poetic License: Authority and Authorship in Medieval and Renaissance Contexts(New York, 1986), pp. 178–182 nn. 1,5, and 16. A well-known eccentric and digressive overview of this motif's afterlife is Robert K. Merton, On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript(New York, 1965). For an extremely long list of premodern and modern Hebrew usages of the aphorism and secondary literature concerning some of these, see Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Dwarfs on the Shoulders of Giants,” Tradition27 (1993): 93–94 n. 10. A usage contemporary with Abarbanel to be added to this list is that of Abraham Bibago in Derekh 'emunahII–6 (as noted in Alan Lazaroff, The Theology of Abraham Bibago: A Defense of the Divine Will, Knowledge, and Providence in Fifteenth-Century Spanish-Jewish Philosophy[University, Ala., 1981], p. 3; Bibago uses the dictum to justify his innovative claim that Moses did not sin, traditional rabbinic opinion to the contrary notwithstanding). An illuminating discussion of the theme of cumulative intellectual progress as it emerges in the thought and writings of Abarbanel's older Byzantine contemporary Mordechai Komtino is Jean-Christophe Attias, Le commentaire biblique: Mordekhai Komtino ou I'hermeneutique du dialogue(Paris, 1991), pp. 135–161. Until recently, it was assumed that the image was introduced into medieval Hebrew literature in a responsum of Isaiah of Trani the Elder. (See Teshuvot ha-Rid,ed. Abraham J. Wertheimer [Jerusalem, 1967], no. 61 [translated in Leiman, “Dwarfs,” pp. 91–92].) See, however, Avraham Melamed, “Li-meqorotav shel dimui he-hagav ve-ha-'anaqim be-'nedod hesir 'oni' le-rabbi 'Avraham ibn 'Ezra,” Mehqerei yerushalayim be-sifrut 'ivrit13 (1992): 95–102 (in which a version of the parable found in a poem of Abraham ibn Ezra written soon after Bernard of Chartres' coinage is discussed). For analysis of the parable's significance, see Isadore Twersky, “The Contribution of Italian Sages to Rabbinic Literature,” Italia Judaica: Atti del I Convegno internazionale Bari(Rome, 1983), pp. 396–397, and, in greater detail, Miller, Poetic License,pp. 9–20. My presentation of the dictum's purport concurs with Miller's conclusion concerning the “double-edged nature of the analogy”Google Scholar (Ibid, p. 179 n. 5) even in its medieval usages (i.e., as conveying a sense of “modern” superiority in addition to an assertion of ancient greatness).

52. More could be said about the introduction's rhetoric, which at times tempers the substance of Abarbanel's argument (as here, where deferential rhetoric softens otherwise forceful assertions of independence) and at times reinforces his point (as when, wishing to emphasize the) impudence implicit in condemnation of the nobles, Abarbanel repeatedly alludes to their venerableness and wisdom: On yet other occasions, Abarbanel's diction gives the ostensibly deferential sharp bite, as when he speaks of the “great men of old who have pursued (radefu)the nobles of the people.” The negative connotations of “pursuer” are evoked even as those said to have engaged in the activity are described as “great men.” Deference is laced with rebuke.

53. Cf. Prov. 1:17: “For in vain the net is spread / In the eyes of any bird.” A later passage suggests what this appellation might be intended to connote. Abarbanel speaks of Maimonides' having “spoken wondrously in the eyes of any bird–[i.e.] the masters of true traditional investigation (ba 'alei ha- 'iyyun ha- 'amiti ha-toriyyi; AZ,p. 75).” One could, then, reasonably suspect that Abarbanel inserted this peculiar expression here in order to intimate that even well-meaning traditional scholars have been caught in the net spread by the nobles' accusers; caution is called for, however, since Abarbanel uses this phrase often in later writings with no obvious special intent (see, e.g., Pirqei 'avot 'im perush Mosheh ben Maimon ve- 'im perush nahalat 'avot[New York, 1953], p. 271; Yeshu'ot meshiho,p. 4v).

54. AZ,p. 3 (emphasis added). The key passage reads:

55. AZ,p. 3.

56. See above, n. 26.

57. The very form of 'Ateret zeqenim,which Abarbanel himself delineates (AZ,pp. 3–4), itself reveals a yen for structured discourse. Abarbanel first raises questions concerning the biblical passage under consideration, then sets forth the premises needed to address them, then answers the questions raised. Individual chapters of 'Ateret zeqenimalso exhibit attention to structure, with Abarbanel scholastically enumerating the views of other authorities, the objections to those views, philosophic propositions, and so forth. On concern with structure as a key feature of Abarbanel's hermeneutic sensibilities and writing, see my “Isaac Abarbanel's Intellectual Achievement and Literary Legacy in Modern Scholarship: A Retrospective and Opportunity,” Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature III,ed. Isadore Twersky and Jay M. Harris. In Press.

58. See Shaul, Regev, “Re'iyat 'asilei benei yisra'el be-filosofiyah ha-yehudit bi-yemei ha-benayim,” Mehqerei yerushalayim be-mahashevet yisra 'el 4 (1984–1985): 281–302.Google Scholar

59. Ibid., pp. 298–302. For Abarbanel's positive evaluations of ibn Shem Tov see Perush 'al ha-torah,2:253; Perush 'al nevi 'im rishonim(Jerusalem, 1955), p. 285. Abarbanel was also a purveyor of ibn Shem Tov's wisdom; see David Kaufmann, “La Famille de Yehiel de Pise,” Revue des etudes juives26 (1893): 81.

60. “Perush la-hakham ha-nizkar [R. Yosef Hayyun] be-farashat beha'alotekha,” as in Gross, Hayyun,p. 203. Hayyun treats the question in the course of explaining Moses' complaint in Numbers 11:14, “I am not able to bear all this people myself alone.” In response, God commands Moses to “gather seventy men of the elders of Israel” to help him rule over the people. But were there not, Hayyun asks, seventy elders (i.e., the nobles) to assist Moses since the time of the revelation at Sinai? Hayyun answers: “since the [earlier] elders were not prophetssuch that the Israelites would be affected by them and heed their words, Moses requested that there be other prophets with whom God would also speak....” Hayyun's works generally date from the third quarter of the fifteenth century; see Hacker, Yosef, “R. Yosef Hayyun ve-dor ha-gerush mi-portugal,” Ziyyon 48 (1983): 279. Thus, it is likely though not entirely beyond dispute that these remarks were penned prior to the composition of 'Ateret zeqenim.Google Scholar

61. Abarbanel would continue to associate the rabbinic and Maimonidean critiques in later years; see Perush 'al ha-torah,3:48–49, where he uses Maimonidean language in relating the midrashic view of the nobles.

62. GuideI, 5 (Pines, p. 30).

63. See the addendum in Harvey, Zev, “Kesad lehathil lilmod 'et moreh nevukhim heleq 'aleph pereq 'aleph,” Daat 21 (1988): 22 n. 6, and, for further elaboration on the case of Elisha, Sara Stroumsa, “Elisha Ben Abuyah and Muslim Heretics in Maimonides* Writings,” Maimonidean Studies3 (1992–93): 175–181.Google Scholar

64. For the most recent study of Maimonides' battle against biblical (and rabbinic) anthropomorphism, see Harvey, Zev, “ ‘Gadol kohan shel nevi'im’,” Daat 37 (1996): 53–61.Google Scholar

65. See Randall, John, Aristotle(New York, 1960), pp. 207–18.Google Scholar

66. Cf. GuideII, 26 and III, 4. Note that an undisceming or even careful reader might easily miss the relationship of these chapters to the nobles' vision, not only because the vision is mentioned only fleetingly therein but also because the chapters occur long after Maimonides' explicit exposition of the nobles vision in GuideI, 5 and I, 28 is complete.

67. AZ,p. 23. The interpretation which Abarbanel cites does not appear in Narboni's commentary on GuideI, 5 nor, as best I was able to determine, in any other relevant place in his commentary. To compound the difficulty, Abarbanel suggests in his Commentary on the Guide (Moreh nevukhim[1872; reprint Jerusalem, 1961], part 1, p. 22r) that Narboni's interpretation accords with his own view as developed both in 'Ateret zeqenimand the Commentary on the Guide– something he here denies. Cf. Maurice R. Hayoun, Moshe Narboni(Tubingen, 1986), p. 98, who mentions the references to Narboni in 'Ateret zeqenimand Abarbanel's Commentary on the Guidebut offers no enlightenment as to the location of the said interpretation in Narboni's writings.

68. Cf. GuideII, 4 (Pines, p. 258): “the relation of the Active Intellect to the elements and that which is composed of them is similar to the relation obtaining between every separate intellect particularly related to a sphere and that sphere.” The implication is that, as the separate intellects move the spheres to which they are related, so the Active Intellect moves the elements which ultimately derive from “first matter”. This understanding accords precisely with that which Narboni – in Abarbanel's version of him – ascribes to the nobles.

69. According to Jacob Guttmann (Die Religionsphilosophischen Lehren des Isaak Abravanel[Breslau, 1916], p. 38), the reference is to Zerahiah (Ferrer Saladin) Halevi, a student of Hasdai Crescas. Cp. Moritz Steinschneider, “Hiyyunim le-toldot R. Zerahiah ben Yishaq ben She'alti'el Hen,” 'Osar nehmad 2(1857): 231, who notes that the reference could not be to the prominent thirteenth-century Maimonidean commentator Zerahiah b. Isaac b. She'altiel Hen since it would then be impossible on chronological grounds to understand Abarbanel's subsequent suggestion that Zerahiah's interpretation may have been influenced by Gersonides.

70. GuideIII, 29 (Pines, pp. 514–15).

71. 'Amudei khesefasin Sheloshah qadmonei mefareshei ha-moreh(Jerusalem, 1961), p. 20.

72. Moreh nevukhim,p. 21r.

73. AZ,p. 23.

74. Ibid.

75. She'elot u-teshuvot,pp. 18r-18v. Cf. Harry A. Wolfson, Crescas' Critique of Aristotle(Cambridge, 1929), pp. 99 ff., 579–590; Arthur Hyman, “Aristotle's 'First Matter' and Avicenna's and Averroes' 'Corporeal Form',” Essays in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy,ed. Arthur Hyman (New York, 1977), pp. 335–406.

76. Pines, p. 61.

77. AZ,p. 23.

78. Ibid., p. 24.

79. Ibid., p. 26.

80. Ibid., pp. 24–25.

81. Moreh nevukhim,pp. 21r-22r.

82. Cp. Guide II, 4. The spheres express their desire by seeking to emulate the higher beings; this they do by performing the most perfect action possible. The spheres being corporeal, this action takes the form of the most perfect action of which a body is capable, which is perpetual circular motion.

83. AZ,p. 25.

84. Ibid., p. 26.

85. See Pines's remark in his introductory essay to his translation (“The Philosophic Sources of the Guide of the Perplexed,”p. lviii).

86. Guide,introduction (Pines, pp. 15–20).

87. For an overview of esoteric interpretation of Maimonides through the ages see Aviezer Ravitzky, “Sitrei torato shel moreh nevukhim: ha-parshanut be-dorotav u-vedorotenu,” 'Alda 'at ha-maqom(Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 147–49.

88. AZ,p. 70.

89. See, e.g., Samuel ibn Tibbon, Perush ha-millot ha-zarot,s.vv. 'ekhutand 'eyem;Jacob Klatzkin, 'Osar ha-munahim ha-pilosofiyim,3 vols. (Berlin, 1930), 3:154 ff.

90. AZ,p. 70.

91. Ibid.

92. Ibid., p. 68.

93. Ibid., p. 71.

94. Ibid., pp. 26–27.

95. To support the contention already found in the Guide (II, 41) that “God's hand” at times refers to prophecy, Abarbanel adduces Ezekiel 37:1 and 40:1, both of which contain the expression “the hand of the Lord was upon me.” Nonetheless, the application of the Maimonidean notion here is, on strict exegetical grounds, hard to accept. Though “yad” refers to prophecy on a few occasions in the Bible, the idiom shalah yad (usually followed by preposition be but, as in Exodus 24:11, occasionally by other prepositions) almost exclusively means “to stretch forth one's hand against.” Of course, it is this standard significance of the idiom that prompts the rabbinic interpretation of the nobles that Abarbanel seeks to overturn (“He laid not His hand,” whence it may be inferred that they “were deserving that [His] hand should be laid on them”). Two of Abarbanel's contemporaries, Isaac Arama ('Aqedat yishaq, ed. H. J. Pollak, 6 vols. [1849; reprint Jerusalem 1960], 2:147v) and Abraham Saba (Seror ha-mor [Benei Berak, 1991], p. 343) adopt the same interpretation of “hand” as Abarbanel. Though not unprecedented in medieval Hebrew exegesis (see, e.g., Joseph ibn Kaspi, Maseref le-khesef [Cracow, 1905], p. 214; Aaron Aboulrabi, Perushim le-Rashi [Constantinople, 1625; photo-offset New York, 1990], on Exod. 24:11; Leqah lov, cited in Kasher, Torah shelemah, p. 273, no. 101), these contemporaries might have adopted this interpretation under Abarbanel's influence. If such is the case, we would — given the early date of 'Ateret zeqenim — have an instance of Arama borrowing from Abarbanel as opposed to the usual reverse situation (regarding which see Sarah Heller-Wilensky, R. Yishaq 'Aramah u-mishnato [Jerusalem, 1956], pp. 53–57).

96. AZ,p. 71.

97. For elaboration see Kellner, Menachem, “Maimonides on the Science of the Mishneh Torah:Provisional or Permanent?,” AJS Review 18 (1993): 180–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98. Moreh nevukhim,p. 22v (though note that Abarbanel does not abide by this policy throughout his commentary; see, e.g., his remarks on Guide1,9 [p. 26v] and the lengthy critique of Maimonidean prophetology in the commentary to GuideII, 32 [Ibid., part 2, pp. 69r-70r]).

99. On the chapter's teaching and place in the overall structure of the Guide,see Leo Strauss, “How to Begin to Study The Guide of the Perplexed,”in Guide,trans. Pines, p. xxviii (whose understanding of the chapter's main concern differs from Abarbanel's; cf. Moreh nevukhim,p. 21r). On the pertinence of the chapter's teaching to the official addressee of the Guide,Joseph ben Judah, see Joel L. Kraemer, “Maimonides on Aristotle and Scientific Method,” in Moses Maimonides and His Time,ed. Eric L. Ormsby (Washington, D.C., 1989), pp. 56–59. Much contemporary scholarly debate surrounds especially the question of the precise relationship of perfection in deed to intellectual perfection in Maimonidean thought; for the main views and ample bibliography, see Menachem Kellner, Maimonides on Human Perfection(Atlanta, 1990).

100. Pines, p. 29.

101. Moreh nevukhim,p. 22v.

102. Ibid., p. 55r.

103. Be'ur la-morehas in Sheloshah qadmonei mefareshei ha-moreh,p. 3. Duran presumably borrowed this line of interpretation from Narboni as was his wont even though he never cites Narboni by name (Hayoun, Moshe Narboni,pp. 89–91).

104. Moreh nevukhim,p. 22v.

105. Perush 'al ha-torah, 2:23\.

106. Pines, pp. 363–66. For a survey of treatments of this question and cognate ones proffered by Maimonides and his followers, see Shaul Regev, “Hitgalut qoleqtivit u-ma‘amad har sinai ’esel ha-Rambam u-mefareshav,” Mehqerei yerushalayim be-mahashevet yisra 'el4 (1985): 251–65.

107. Abarbanel's argument is clarified at its deepest theoretical level through reference to the discussion in Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History(Chicago, 1950), pp. 83–84Google Scholar

108. On whom see Goetschel, Roland, “Elie Hayyim de Genazzano et la Kabbale,” Revuedes études juives 142 (1983): 91–108; Alexander Altmann, “Me-‘al li-gevul ha-pilosofiyah: demuto shel ha-meqqubal R. ’Eliyah Hayyim Genazzano,” Mehqerei yerushalayim be-mahashevet yisra'ell (\9%%):61–101.Google Scholar

109. Altmann (p. 64) plausibly uses Abarbanel's arrival in Italy in 1492 to fix the terminus ad quernfor 'Iggeret hamudot,arguing that Elijah would not have referred to Abarbanel as “this man from Portugal” if so well-known a figure were already on Italian soil as he wrote.

110. 'Iggeret hamudot,ed. Greenup, A.W. (London, 1912), pp. 13–14. As has already been observed, only a few chapters of 'Ateret zeqenimare ultimately devoted to the issue of the nobles. Hence, Elijah's comment that the work's “fundamental purpose” ('iqqar)is to refute the negative view of the nobles must be understood either as a reflection of Abarbanel's assertions in the work's introduction that this aim provided his “initial inspiration” or of Elijah's cursory reading of Abarbanel's tract. Elijah's presentation of Abarbanel's approach to the nobles as a dissent from all earlier commentators is also problematic. Elijah does deal with the favorable account of Onkelos ('Iggeret hamudot,p. 20.), seeking to demonstrate (rather improbably, and contra Abarbanel's understanding) its concord with the negative view of the nobles found in other rabbinic sources but he ignores the approbatory view of the nobles found in the commentaries of Abraham ibn Ezra, Nahmanides, and Gersonides to which, indeed, Abarbanel had made reference (AZ,pp. 27–28). However this may be, Elijah apparently distinguished between Abarbanel's (to his way of thinking) uniquely brazen departure from midrashic dicta and those of earlier Jewish writers. Thus, he charges that Abarbanel “criticized midrash improperly – not in secret, quietly, and by way of hint. Rather, he desecrated the name of [the aggadists (ba‘alei ’aggadah)]in public.”Google Scholar

111. 'Iggeret hamudot,p. 13. I hope to treat the conceptual components and intellectual contexts of Elijah's critique in a separate study.

112. She'eot, p.lr.

113. E.g., Abraham J. Heschel, Don Jizchak Abravanel(Berlin, 1937), pp. 6–7. Heschel writes that Abravanel was “conservative in his essence and thought” and that “the title of the work of his youth ‘The Crown of the Elders’ expresses this stance.” Cp. Ruiz, Don Isaac Abrabanel,p. xxx; Ephraim Shemueli, Don Yishaq 'Abravanel ve-gerush sefarad(Jerusalem, 1963), p. 87.

114. I owe this coinage to Grene, David, Greek Political Theory(Chicago, 1965), p. v.Google Scholar