This article is a condensation of the first chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation, “R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, Joseph b. Isaac ha-Levi, and Rationalism in Ashkenazic Jewish Culture, 1550–1650” (Harvard University, 1990). An earlier version was given as a talk at the AJS Annual Conference in Boston, 1990.1 must thank the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, which generously supported my research in 1987–1989.

1. After 1550, there was a certain amount of philosophical writing among Ashkenazic Jews; see Davis, “R.Yom Tov Lipman Heller,” pp.121–127.Before that there was none at all; but cf.n.12 below.Google Scholar

2. Grossman, Cf.Avraham, “Bein Sefarad le–Sarfat–ha–Qesharim bein qehilot Yisra'el shebi-Sefarad ha-Muslamit u-vein qehilot Sarfat,” in Galut ahar golah: mehqarim be-wldot 'am Yisra'el mugashim le-Prof.Hayyim Beinart, ed.,Mirski, Aaron et al.(Jerusalem, 1988), pp.73–101;Google ScholarElbaum, Jacob, “Qishrei tarbut bein Yehudei Polin ve-Ashkenaz le-vein Yehudei Italyah ba-me'ah ha-16,” Gal-Ed 7–8 (1985): 11–40;Google ScholarSchorsch, Ismar, “The Myth of Sephardic Supremacy,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 34 (1989): 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Tarbiz42 (1972): 113–147.Kupfer, Cf.E. and Mark, Bedfich, “Der Renesans in Italya un in Poyln un zayn virkung oyf di Yidn,” Bleterfar geshikhte 6, no.4 (1953): 4–99.Google Scholar

4. Yuval, Israel J., Hakhamim be-doram: ha-manhigut ha-ruhanit shel Yehudei Germanyah be-shilhei Yemei ha-Beinayim (Jerusalem, 1989), pp.286–311.Google Scholar

5. The work was published in Freiburg in 1560, again in Lublin in 1599, and a number of times since then.I have looked at MS.Oxford-Bodleian 1589/5 as well as the fifteenth-century manuscript, JTS MS.microf.no.2351.There are other manuscripts as well that I have not seen, such as Moscow-Guenzberg 482/2.The manuscript versions include a passage at the end not in the printed text.My references are to the Bartfeld (Hungary) 1911 edition.

6. Graetz, Heinrich, History of the Jews (reprint ed., Philadelphia, 1967), 4:134.Google Scholar

7. See Ibid., p.34 on R.Asher b.Yehiel.Cf.pp.293–295 on R.Judah Minz and R.Joseph Kolon.

8. Ibid., p.178.

9. Dor dor ve-dorshav(Berlin, 1924), 5:247–248.Graetz and Weiss, it should be noted, did not invent this view.In 1559, R.Joseph Ashkenazi claimed that the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century “Hasidim of Austria” used to deface and burn books of philosophy.See Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums47 (1903): 346.It is not clear whether this tradition is reliable.Cf.n.55 below.

10. Dor dor ve-dorshav,5:270.

11. Kupfer, “Li-Demutah,” pp.114–116, 134–147.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., p.117.On Solomon b.Judah, seeNehorai, Michael, “R.Shelomoh b.R.Yuda ha-Nasi u-feirusho le-Moreh ha-Nevukhim” (Ph.D.diss., Hebrew University, 1976).Google Scholar

13. Kupfer, “Li-Demutah,” pp.125–134.

14. Ibid., pp.130–131.

15. Kupfer briefly mentions two other pieces of evidence in “Li-Demutah,” and one more in a later article.In “Li-Demutah,” he mentions two manuscripts: one of the Guide,copied in Prague in 1396, and one of the philosophic textbook Ruah hen,with notes by R.Seligman Bing (fl.1450).In a later article (“Hasagot min hakham ehad 'al divrei he-hakham R.Yosef ha-Lo'azi she-katav ve-qara be-qol gadol neged ha-Rambam,” Qoves 'al yad21 [1985]: 221–222), he published an oath taken in 1467 by R.Moses Zart of Lichtenfels, in which R.Moses states his acceptance of all the doctrines taught in the Guide,with certain exceptions.Cf.n.87 below.Google Scholar

16. See Kupfer, “Li-Demutah,” p.131.This conclusion was endorsed by Lawrence Kaplan in “Rationalism and Rabbinic Culture in Sixteenth Century Eastern Europe: Jaffe's, R.Mordecai Levush Pinat Yikrat”(Ph.D.diss., Harvard University, 1975).The evidence for the period 1470–1530 is extremely weak, however.Google Scholar

17. See Kupfer, “Li-Demutah,” p.132.

18. History of the Jewish People(Cambridge, Mass., 1976), p.624.Cf.David Tamar's remark: “It is a mistake to suppose that the scholars of [Isserlein's] generation and the one that preceded it were limited to the 'four cubits of the law”; and Tamar gives a list of twelve rabbis whom he believes to have not been so limited.See Sinai32 (1952): 175.The list is based on Judah Kaufman, R.Yom Tov Lipman Muelhausen(New York, 1927), pp.2–12.Google Scholar

19. See e.g.(in addition to Kaplan's dissertation [above, n.17]): Israel Ta-Shema, “Heikhan Nithaber Sefer 'Alilot Devarim?” 'Alei sefer3 (1976): 44–53; Frank Talmage, “Vikuah anti-Nosri be-Mizrah Eiropa be-signon ha-pulmus bi-Sefarad–ketav-yad yahid,” Kiryat Sefer56 (1981): 369–372, and cf.p.750; Michael H.Shank, Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand: Logic, University, and Society in Late Medieval Vienna(Princeton, 1988);Langerman, Y.Zvi, “Hibbur Ashkenazi bilti noda' be-mada'ei ha-teva',” Kiryat Sefer 62 (1989): 448–449.Google Scholar

20. Hakhamim be-doram(Jerusalem, 1989), pp.286–311.Cf.Haym Soloveitchik's comment in “Religious Law and Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example,” AJS Review12 (1987): 213 n.12.Google Scholar

21. Yuval, ḥakhamim be-doram,p.301.

22. Yuval ignores R.Seligman Bing here; he will come back to him later on, in connection with his grandfather, R.Menahem Zioni.More significantly, he ignores R.Juda Obornik, who was a rabbi in Muenster in Westphalia.See Kupfer, “Li-Demutah,” p.127 n.84: see the responsa of R.Moses Minz, nos.97 and 100.

23. Kupfer inclined to the view that Shalem was an Ashkenazic Jew by birth and early education.He explains the name that Shalem is sometimes given, “Menahem Aglar,” as deriving from the Italian city of Aquileia, but suggests (p.124) that Shalem came to this city during “his wanderings” from Ashkenazic lands.Reuben Bonfil (“Sefer 'Alilot Devarim: pereq be-toldot he-hagut ha-Yehudit ba-me'ah ha-arba1 'esreh,” Eshel Be 'er Sheva'2 [1980]: 237 n.38) suggests that Aglar derives from Aguilar di Campo in Spain.Moshe Idel, in conversation, has said that he has strong evidence that Shalem came from Jerusalem (the name “Shalem” might indicate this).Evidence of an Ashkenazic background seems weak.

24. Yuval, Hakhamim be-doram,p.301.

25. See Ibid., pp.287–290.Cf.the discussion of Zioni in Davis, “R.Yom Tov Lipman Heller,” pp.90–95.

26. Yuval, Hakhamim be-doram,p.305.

27. Ibid., p.308.

28. The miraculous events of the year 1400 are described in Sefer Hadrat Qodesh(pp.43b-44b): “This year…four miracles were done to us.For it was written according to the laws of the Christians that the Jews were to be killed every fifty years….And thousands came and placed the sign of the cross on white garments, and formed a host, and wished to kill the Jews, and bands of Penitents formed a host, and they too thought to kill the Jews; and [so did] the reviled king [Wenceslas?] who had threatened us for many years.But the Lord saved us from them.” On the events of the period and their impact on the Jews, see recently Israel Yuval, “Yehudim, Husitim, ve-Germanim cal pi ha-keroniqah 'Gilgul Benei Hushim,” Zion54 (1989): 275–320; Zevi Baras, '“Al Behalat Yehudei Ashkenaz bi-yemei masa* ha-selav neged ha-Husitim (1421),” Zion55 (1990): 246–248.Google Scholar

29. See MS.Oxford-Bodleian 1589/5.The colophon reads: “Completed in Regensburg on the new moon of Nisan, 160 [=1400], and part of the commentary was completed twenty-six years afterwards.” The date 1400 is also given in the text, on p.44a of the printed edition.The work is quoted in the mid-fifteenth century by R.Seligman Bing; see Yuval, Hakhamim be-doram,p.296.In my thesis, I suggested that Hadrat Qodeshwas written in the year 1349.This was an error.

30. Yuval, Ḥakhamim be-doram,pp.295–300.I have found no other secondary literature on the work.

31. If Gerson Cohen is correct in his characterization of messianic attitudes among medieval Ashkenazic Jews (“Messianic Postures of Ashkenazim and Sefardim,” Studies of the Leo Baeck Institute[New York, 1967]), then the imminent messianism of Simeon ben Samuel, Menahem Zioni, and the others noted by Yuval (Hakhamim be-doram,pp.291–300) is (another) indication of the influence of Spanish Jewish culture.Note also the prediction of the scribe Isaac of Nuremberg, quoted by Judah Kaufman in Muelhausen,p.180.Gladstein, Cf.Ruth, “Eschatological Trends in Bohemian Jewry during the Hussite Period,” in Prophecy and Millenarianism: Essays in Honour ofMarjorie Reeves, ed.Williams, Ann (London, 1980), pp.239–256.Google Scholar

32. The use of the forms of rhymed prose and self-commenting text may also be seen as instances of the influence of Mediterranean culture.Other examples of self-commenting texts from the same period are the anonymous Sefer 'Alilot Devarimand Vidal Benveniste's Sefer Efer ve-Dinah.

33. N.B.also his gematriyoton the number thirteen: pp.33b, 34a.

34. Cf.Muelhausen's dogmas, which are also theologically more precise than Maimonides'.SeeTalmage, Frank, “Mavo,” in his edition of Muelhausen's Sefer Nisahon (Jerusalem, 1984), pp.21–22, where Talmage discusses the various manuscript and printed versions of Muelhausen's dogmas, and esp.p.22 n.80, where he compares Maimonides' text to Muelhausen's.Google Scholar

35. Hadrat Qodesh,p.34a.See Guide3.17.

36. See the discussion inKellner, Menahem Marc, Dogina in Medieval Jewish Thought (Oxford, 1986), pp.53–55.Maimonides revised the text of the Thirteen Principles later in life, but the text of Sefer Hadrat Qodeshis based on the unrevised list of dogmas.Kellner incidentally claims (p.196) that Yom Tov Lipman Muelhausen “was the only Ashkenazic Jew known to have commented on the principles of Judaism.” Clearly, this is not correct.Google Scholar

37. Hadrat Qodesh,p.30b.

38. Ibid., p.38a.Cf.p.29b.See Guide1.53.

39. See Ibid., pp.29b, 35b.Cf.pp.33a, 39b.

40. Ibid., pp.31a, 31b, 35a, 40a.

41. See Ibid., p.29a, from Guide1.53; p.30b, from Guide1.3; p.35b, from Guide2.29; p.38b, from Guide3.54.

42. Hadrat Qodesh,pp.29b, 30a, 30b.The seven gradations are: inanimate, plant, animal, man, elements, spheres, and Intellects.Cf.the parallel passage on the seven gradations from Muelhausen quoted in Kaufman, Muelhausen,p.186.

43. See Hadrat Qodesh,p.29a (cf.Guide2.6); p.28b (cf.Guide1.42

44. Ibid., p.28b.

45. Ibid., p.37b; cf.Guide2.11.

46. Ibid., p.37a.

47. Ibid., p.35b.Simeon b.Samuel discounts the aggadah (b.Sanh.97a) that the world will exist for six thousand years (“it has a secret meaning,” he writes) and quotes from Guide2.29.

48. Hadrat Qodesh,pp.39b-40a.The passage is based on Guide2.10; the author moves Maimonides' Neoplatonism in a kabbalistic direction.Cf.the similar passage in Muelhausen's Kavvanat ha-Tefilahin Kaufman, Muelhausen,p.189

49. Hadrat Qodesh,p.40b.

50. Ibid., pp.39a-b.

51. Ibid., p.32a.See Guide2.19.

52. Ibid., p.39a.Cf.Tosafot on Nidah17a; Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition,paperback ed.(New York, 1987), p.128.Compare also Sefer Zioni(Lvov, 1882; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1964), pp.51–52, on Lev.18:21 on the same topic, on which Zioni opposes “the Greeks.”

53. Compare Zioni's comment on Gen.1:2 (Sefer Zioni,p.5c: “there is no p a r t…of the earth and no place which does not have its correspondence above…and the proofof this is that one who draws a picture of a thief on a wall…and hits i t…will cause the thief to feel pain.” Cf.also p.55a on Lev.20:6: “Some of the wise [ha-maskilim]ask how the dead can speak…but this mystery was confirmed [immet oto]by the master of secrets [i.e., R.Eleazar of Worms] from the story of two witches.” (And he tells the story at length.)

54. See the references to the “small remnant” (yehidim ha-seridim),pp.33b, 34a, 41a, and elsewhere.Yuval discusses the author's rather extreme elitism, pp.298–299.

55. Cf.the studies listed above in n.20.In my dissertation, pp.76–110, I discussed a number of texts, some discussed also by Yuval and some not, which show some contact with philosophy.Note particularly Isaac, Shalom b. of Neustadt, Halakhot u-minhagei Rabeinu Shalom mi-Neustadt, ed.Shpizer, Shelomoh (Jerusalem, 1977), p.115, no.330.R.Shalom discusses “Aristotle's view of miracles,” which he explains as Maimonides' view of eternally destined exceptional events; he distinguishes this view from the “anthropological theory of miracles,” which he seems to endorse.Cf.also Israel of Brunn, She'elot u-Teshuvot,no.73.See also H.H.Ben-Sasson, “Mishnato ha-Hevratit shel R.Yohanan Luria,” Zion27 (1962): 166–198, and his “Jewish Christian Disputation in the Setting of Humanism and Reformation in the German Empire,” Harvard Theological Review59 (1966): 369–390.Additional examples also exist of the study of kabbalah: for instance, R.Solomon Kolon in Alsace.Judaism in Northern France in the fourteenth century may have been different from that in Germany, but note also that in a responsum (published by J.Goldblum from MS.Paris 676, fols.47–48, in Beit va'ad la-hakhamim7 [Leeds, 1903]: 39–45), R.Matityah b.Joseph Treves, while admitting that he himself had no knowledge of philosophy, did praisehis respondent as having studied Aristotle and Abu-Hamid al-Ghazzali.Cf.Roger Kohn, Les Juifs de la France du Nord dans la second moitii du XTVe siecle(Paris, 1988), pp.185–189, 219, 233, on Jewish doctors.Google Scholar

56. MS.Oxford-Bodleian 1368/1.See Neubauer's catalogue of the Oxford manuscripts.I have been unable to look at the manuscript.N.B.also MS.Paris hebr.934/1: a work by Averroes with Yiddish marginal comments, copied in 1466.

57. One of Saadiah's proofs is quoted by R.Moses of Coucy toward the beginning of Sefer Misvot Gadol.Saadiah is also quoted in works of the Hasidei Ashkenaz: e.g., the works of R.Eleazar b.Judah of Worms and R.Elhanan b.Yaqar of London.On the former, seeSoloveitchik, Haym, ‘Topics in the Hokhmath ha-Nefesh,“ Journal of Jewish Studies 18 (1967): 65–78,CrossRefGoogle Scholar andDan, Joseph, Torat ha-sod shel Hasidut Ashkenaz (Jerusalem, 1968), pp.22–24, 28–32, and 51–52; on the latter, G.Vajda, ”Peirush R.Elhanan b.Yaqar le-Sefer Yesirah,“ Qoves 'al yad16 (1966): 149.Saadiah's Emunot ve-De'otis quoted in the mid-thirteenth-century anti-Christian polemic, Sefer Yosef ha-Meqaneby Joseph b.Nathan Official (ed.J.Rosenthal [Jerusalem, 1970]), pp.31, 34, 39).At the end of the century, Saadiah is quoted on the question of resurrection in the name of R.Meir of Rothenburg in Sefer Tashbes,par.444.A work written in fourteenth-century France by a certain Joseph, discussed by G.Vajda in ”Un trait6 de morale d'origine judeo-franc, aise, “ Revue des eludes juives125 (1966): 267–285, quotes from, among other works, the Hebrew paraphrase of Emunot ve-De'ot,as well as Mivhar Peninim.Muelhausen (MS.Camb.243 [Add.393], fol.160a) refers to Saadiah on the question of the nature of the soul.Google Scholar

58. Although I have searched as carefully as possible, it is of course possible that there are references to the Guidethat escaped my attention.Cf.Israel Jacob Dienstag, ”Yahasam shel Ba'alei ha-Tosafot leha-Rambam,“ Sefer ha-yovel li-khvod Shmu 'el Qalntan Mirski(New York, 1958), pp.350–379.Samuel b.Abraham Saporta's response to the French rabbis does quote objections to passages from the Guide.Cecil Roth claims that David of Oxford ”probably“ owned a copy of the Guidein the late thirteenth century: Roth, ”R.Elijah of London,“ Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England15 (1946): 56.However, I do not find Roth's proposed identification very convincing.The references to the ”Moreh“in Sefer Moshav Zeqenim,a fourteenth-century collection of comments on the Torah (ed.Solomon David Sasoon [London, 1959], pp.24, 29, 492), are to Rashi rather than to Maimonides' Guide,although the Mishneh Torahis quoted (p.516), as well as Nahmanides.

59. Was Simeon b.Samuel identical to the “Simeon” for whom the Guidewas copied in 1396 by R.Isaac b.Joseph of Warsaw, a scribe in Prague? See Kupfer, “Li-Demutah,” p.147.

60. Ta-Shema notices the synchronicity in “Yedi'ot hadashot 'al Tosafot Gornish ve- 'inyano,” 'Alei sefer 2(1976): 89.On the rise of universities in German-speaking lands (much later than in France, England, or Italy), see James Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany(Princeton, 1984), pp.3–6; Shank, Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand,pp.3–25.

61. The University of Prague was the first university in the German Empire (not counting the imperial parts of Italy); it was founded in 1348.See Reginald Robert Betts, “The University of Prague: 1348” and “The Influence of Realist Philosophy on Jan Hus and His Predecessors in Bohemia,” in his Essays in Czech History(London, 1969), pp.1–12, 42–62.

62. See Hable, Guido, Geschichte Regensburgs: eine Ubersicht nach Sachgebieten (Regensburg, 1970), p.136, on intellectual life in medieval Regensburg.Several of the ranking clerics of the period had university training, and St.Emmeram had one of the major libraries of the Middle Ages.Christian-Jewish polemics as a context for the study of philosophy is discussed by Shank and Talmage (see above, n.19).Interestingly, at the end of the author's addition to Sefer Hadrat Qodeshin MS.Oxford-Bodleian 1589/5, he remarks again on his goal of esotericism, and then quotes (from the Gospels) the “saying of the sages of the rebels [morim],'do not throw pearls before swine.'”Google Scholar

63. But see Yuval's excellent discussion of book-lists, Hakhamim be-doram,pp.303–307.

64. Cf.generally Urbach, E.E., “Helqam shel Hakhmei Ashkenaz ve-Sarfat be-fulmus 'al ha-Rambam u-sefarav,” Zion 12 (1947): 149–159,Google Scholar and the corrections inShatzmiller, Joseph, “Li-Temunat ha-mahloqet ha-rishonah 'al kitvei ha-Rambam,” Zion 34 (1969): 126–144;Google Scholar J.Shatzmiller, “Igarto shel R.Asher b.Gershom le-Rabanei Sarfat,” in Mehqarim le-zekher Zvi Avineri(Tel Aviv, 1970), pp.129–140; Shohet, A., “Beirurim be-farashat ha-pultnus ha-rishon 'al sifrei ha-Rambam,” Zion 36 (1971): 27–60; and esp.Bernard Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Society in Transition: The Career and Controversies of R.Meir Abulafia(Cambridge, Mass., 1980), pp.49–51, 57–59, 76–79, 82.For the primary literature, see (1) the letter of R.Samson of Sens in R.Meir Abulafia, Kitab al-Rasa'il(Paris, 1871; reprinted., Jerusalem, 1967), pp.136–137; (2) the letter of two Northern French rabbis, R.Samuel b.Solomon of Falaise and his brother Isaac b.Solomon, published by Shatzmiller in “Li-Temunat ha-mahloqet,” p.139; (3) the letter of Samuel b.Abraham Saporta to the Northern French rabbis, printed in S.J.Halberstam, “Milhemet ha-dat: qevusat mikhtavim be-'inyenei ha-mahloqet 'al Sefer ha-Moreh veha-Mada',” Yeshurun8 (1875): 125–155; and (4) the letter of Asher b.Gershom, preserved in MS.Cambridge 507/1 but never published in full, discussed in J.Shatzmiller, “Igarto shel R.Asher b.Gershom” (see above in this note); (5) Moses b.Hasdai Taku, Ketav Tamim,ed.R.Kirchheim, Osar nehmad3 (1860): 58–99.Google Scholar

65. See Ketav Tamim,p.64; cf.Sarah Kamin, “Ha-Pulmus neged ha-aligoryah bi-devarav shel R.Yosef Bekhor Shor,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought[= Mehqerei Yerushalayim be-mahshevet Yisra'el]3 (1983): 367–392.Marc Saperstein, in his study of allegorical interpretation of aggadah, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth Century Commentary on the Aggadah(Cambridge, Mass., 1980), p.7, claims that Taku was “anachronistic…and isolated” in his literalist stance.I think that this is only true from a Spanish or Mediterranean perspective.Joseph Dan, by contrast, in the introduction to his edition of Ketav Tamim(Jerusalem, 1984), p.9, calls Taku “unexceptional”–i.e., unexceptional within Ashkenazicculture, in which opposition to allegory ran strong throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

66. Taku musters textual support for divine corporeality in Ketav Tamimon pp.59–62.On pp.69–70, he quotes texts that support the belief in absolute divine transcendence.On p.61, he offers a compromise: a parable of the magician, who can change his form at will.

67. Note Taku's defense of talmudic cosmology: Ketav Tamim,pp.68, 75, 84.Note also his insistence on the reality of the Divine “Throne”: p.85.Although certain of Taku's positions are clearly not based onlyon textual grounds–e.g., his objection (p.69) to the belief that God is present even in filth, or his rejection (p.63) of belief in a semi-divine intermediary–the preponderance of his views are grounded simply in a literal understanding of the Bible, the Talmud, and the prayers.My discussion here agrees with the thrust of Bernard Septimus's argument in Hispano-Jewish Society in Transitionon the difference between Spanish and Northern French opposition to the Guide.Taku's position may be a development of Rashbam's radical insistence on biblical peshatand rejection of metaphysics and esoteric doctrines, “the profound and superior wisdom,” as Rashbam calls it, that is not “necessary for the world.” (See his Peirush 'al Qohelet,ed.and trans, by Sarah Japhet and Robert B.Salters [Jerusalem, 1985], on Eccles.2:3.) “Do not wonder that the creation of angels is not recorded [in the Torah],” he writes in Genesis, “because Moses did not write here of angels or Hell or ma'aseh merkavah,but of things we see in the world” (Rashbam on Genesis 1:27).Cf.Sarah Kamin, “Rashbam's Conception of the Creation in Light of the Intellectual Currents of His Time,” Scripta Hierosolymitana31 (1986): 91–132.

68. Hadrat Qodesh,pp.30a, 39a.

69. AsDan, Joseph suggests in “Hibbur yihud Ashkenazi min ha-me'ah ha-14,” Tarbiz 44 (1975): 203–206, this position may be seen as a continuation or perhaps a revival of the position of the Hasidei Ashkenaz, who also accepted the equation of unity and incorpereality.(Dan refers there to Shalem's response to Klausner, but the same may be said of Simeon ben Samuel.Cf.Dan, “Sifrut ha-Yihud shel Hasidei Ashkenaz,” Kiryat Sefer41 [1966]: 533–544.) It is not a simple continuation, however.The Hasidei Ashkenaz had no notion of dogma and did not accuse their opponents of heresy.Simeon ben Samuel does.Google Scholar

70. Hadrat Qodesh,p.29b.Cf.p.44a.

71. Ibid., p.33a.He repeats the principle on p.38a and elsewhere.

72. Ibid., p.29b.Cf.p.31b.

73. See Talmage, “Mavo,” pp.21–22.

74. See Talmage, “Mi-Kitvei R.Avigdor ve-R.Menahem Shalem,” in Hagut u-ma'aseh: sefer zikkaron le-Shim'on Rawidowicz,ed.A.A.Greenbaum and Alfred Ivry (Haifa, 1983), pp.43–52.Cf.Muelhausen's poem in Kaufman, Muelhausen,p.79.

75. The comment is in the “liqutim”at the end of Sefer Maharil;it is quoted by Yuval, Hakhamim be-doratn,p.317.Cf.Khone Shmeruk, Sifrut Yidish: peraqim le-loldoteha(Tel Aviv, 1988), pp.43–47, on both Maharil and Avigdor Kara.For the same complaint, directed by R.Solomon Luria specifically at the saying of Yigdal, in the middle of the sixteenth century, see “Hanhagat Maharshal,” ed.Isaac Raphael, in Sefer yovel li-khvod ha-R….Shim'on Federbush,ed.J.L.Fishman-Maimon (Jerusalem, 1961), p.326, no.42.

76. See Shatzmiller, “Le-Temunat ha-mahloqet,” p.139.

77. See (1) the letter of Samuel b.Abraham Saporta, p.152, (2) J.Shatzmiller, “Igarto shel R.Asher b.Gershom,” p.139

78. On the general problem, see very recently David Weiss-Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis(Oxford, 1991), pp.23–28, 52–78.

79. See e.g.Eleazar, R. of Worms, Sefer Hokhmat ha-Nefesh (Jerusalem, 1968), p.30c: “Some written things should be interpreted in an intelligent way [derekh shiqul ha-da'atsuch as Exod.19:4 'I have carried you on eagle's wings,'…And there are things that may be understood as allegories, in the matter of the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom and the World of Judgment and the World of Mercy, although they are [also] literally true.” On the exegetical methods of R.Eleazar of Worms and R.Judah he-Hasid, see Ivan Marcus, “Exegesis for the Few and for the Many: Judah he-Hasid's Biblical Commentaries,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought8 (1989): 1–24 (Eng.sec).Cf.Joseph Dan, “Sefer ha-Hokhmah le-R.El'azar mi-Worms u-mashma'uto le-toldot toratah ve-sifrutah shel Hasidut Ashkenaz,” Zion27 (1964): 168–181.As Marcus mentions, medieval Ashkenazic exegesis after the twelfth century, including the exegesis of the Hasidei Ashkenaz, has not been properly studied.Google Scholar

80. See Hagahot Maymoniyot(a commentary on the Mishneh Torah,printed in the standard rabbinic editions) on Hilkhot Teshuvah8:1.See also his comment on Teshuvah3:7, where he rejects Maimonides' definition of heresy and suggests Rashi's: “The heretics [minim]are those who overturn the words of the living God.” A passage from the thirteenth-century polemical work, Vikuah R.Yehi'el mi-Paris,also seems to take a stance of aggadic literalism.“In [the aggadot] there are matters too wondrous for the koferand the apiqorosand the minto believe….If you wish, believe them; if you do not wish, do not believe them.For no law depends on them.However, I know that the sages of the Talmud wrote only that which is true and correct.And if [the aggadot] are strange to those who hear them, are there not very many like this in the Bible as well?” (ed.R.Margaliyot [Lvov, n.d], p.13).The author of the polemic rejects scriptural literalism, but here he suggests strongly that one who does not believe in the aggadot is a kofer,an apiqoros,and a min.This passage is often interpreted as a statement of the absence of authority in aggadic interpretation.It is not that.Cf.Muelhausen's Sefer Nisahon(repr.with introduction by Frank Talmage [Jerusalem, 1984]) par.112, a passage based on this one that goes much farther, however, in allowing that aggadot may not be literally true.Google Scholar

81. I have not been able to look at the manuscript of this work, which is in the Guenzberg Collection in Moscow (MS.no.508; there is also a microfilm in the Makhon le-Taslumei Kitvei Yad in Jerusalem).I rely entirely on the description and discussion by Israel Ta-Shema, “Sefer ha-Maskil:hibbur Yehudi-Sarfati bilti yadu'a mi-sof ha-me'ah ha-13,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought2 (1982): 416–438.See esp.pp.419–422.It may be significant that R.Asher b.Yehiel (yet another student of R.Meir of Rothenburg) does not mention literalism in his letters during the 1306 Maimonidean Controversy, neither in his letters published in Minhat Qena'otnor in his 1321 statement against philosophy in his responsa (55:9).Google Scholar

82. The commentary was published in the Soncino, 1484 edition of Mivhar Peninim.The comment is in chapter 2, Shar'ar ha-Yihud.

83. 'Es Hayyim,ed.Israel Brodie (Jerusalem, 1962), vol.1, pp.5–6.The list of attributes is from Yesodei ha-Torah1:11.

84. Hadrat Qodesh,p.33a.Cf.pp.29a, 38b.

85. Kupfer, “Li-Demutah,” p.135.

86. From Kavvanat ha-Tefilahin Kaufman, Muelhausen,p.182

87. From Sefer ha-Eshkol,printed in Kaufman, Muelhausen,p.143.

88. See n.16 above.The document is discussed by Yuval, Hakhamim be-doram,pp.308–310.I interpret it differently from Yuval in my thesis, pp.105–108.

89. Notice also Zioni's statement, which rejects allegorization of aggadah, but seems to identify peshatwith kabbalistic interpretation!).“Every intelligent person [maskil]will understand that there are many things in the words of the sages of blessed memory, in the aggadot, that sound to fools like riddles and parables.But to the kabbalists they are simple [peshutim],bright as the noonday sun” (Sefer Zioni,p.27b, on Exod.12:9).Zioni's example of a difficult aggadah is the statement (b.Ber.6a) that God wears tefilin.

90. See Isserlein, Bei'ur 'al Peirush Rashi(Rivo di Trento, 1562; reprint ed..New York[?], 1987), p.20a, on multiple interpretations; cf.p.10b on miracles, and pp.4b-5a on whether the patriarchs observed the commandments.

91. See Ibid., p.13b, a kabbalistic interpretation of the Tabernacle; p.8b, his reference to a kabbalistic understanding of the aggadah (b.Ta'anit5b) that Jacob did not die; and esp.p.19b on God's knowledge.Isserlein quotes Mishneh Torah, Yesodei ha-Torah2:10, where Maimonides distinguishes divine knowledge from human knowledge, to explain why the Targum does not translate the phrase “God…knew” (Deut.2:7) “according to its peshat.”Cf.Leqet Yosher,vol.1, p.119.On Isserlein's knowledge of kabbalah, see David Tamar, “Demuto ha-ruhanit shel R.Yisra'el Isserlein,” Sinai32 (1952): 177, and Yuval, Hakhamim be-doram,p.308.

92. See in Leqet Yosher,ed.Jacob Freimann (Berlin, 1903), vol.1, p.71 (leaven = evil inclination); p.98 (four camps = four holidays); pp.120–121 (seven fruits); p.122 (three gates).

93. On the Posen controversy, see esp.Philip Bloch, “Der Streit um den Morehdes Maimonides in Posen,” Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums47 (1903): 153–169, 263–279, 346–347; S.P.Rabinowitz, 'Iqvot shel hofesh de'ot ba-rabamtt shel Polin(Jerusalem, 1959); Gershom Scholem, “Yedi'ot hadashot 'al R.Yosef Ashkenazi ha-tana mi-Sefat,” Tarbiz28 (1958): 59–89 and 201–235.See Scholem, “Yedi'ot,” p.201, for Ashkenazi's admission of defeat.

94. The author refers to the Zohar (Hadrat Qodesh,p.34b, 40a), Sha'arei Orah(p.29a, 30b), Recanati (p.41a), Sefer Yesirah(p.31a), Sefer ha-Bahir(p.33a, 33b), R.Ezra (p.41a), Nahmanides (p.35a), Sefer Malki'el(p.39a), Ma'arekhet Eloqut(p.29a, 37b), and “the recent kabbalists” (p.39b).He uses Spanish kabbalistic phrases without references (e.g., pp.31a, 37b).He also quotes R.Judah Hasid: pp.30b, 38b.

95. See, e.g., Davis, “R.Yom Tov Lipman Heller,” pp.155–180.

96. Muelhausen did distinguish the two.On Muelhausen's kabbalistic views, cf.“Derashat Torat ha-Shem Temimah le-R.Yom Tov Lipman Muelhausen,” ed.Israel Weinstock, in Sinai84 (1979): 126–132; “Peirush Sefer Yesirah le-R.Yom Tov Lipman Muelhausen,” ed.Israel Weinstock, in Temirin2 (1981): 93–122.

97. Occasionally, Simeon ben Samuel uses his commentary to undercut or limit the Thirteen Principles.For example, the ninth principle, that the divine law is unchanging, he comments, does not really rule out changes by the “sages of the passing generations,…according to the time and place, for the needs of the hour” (p.34a).Also, his commentary on the fourth principle seems to identify ex nihilocreation with the emanation of the sefirot(p.31a).

98. See Weiss-HalSee Weiss-Halivni, Peshat and Derash(above n.78) pp.79–82.