1. Ravitzky, Aviezer, “The Thought of Zerahiah ben Isaac ben She'altiel Hen and Maimonidean-Tibbonian Philosophy in the Thirteenth Century” [Hebrew] (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979)Google Scholar; idem, , “The Possibility of Existence and Its Accidentally in Thirteenth-Century Maimonidean Interpretation” [Hebrew], Da 'at 2–3 (1978–1979): 67–97Google Scholar; idem, , “The Hypostasis of Divine Wisdom in Thirteenth-Century Jewish Thought in Italy” [Hebrew], Italia 3, nos. 1–2 (1981): 7–38Google Scholar; idem, , “Samuel ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed” AJS Review 6 (1981): 88–123Google Scholar; idem, , “Aristotle's Book of Meteorology and the Ways of Maimonidean Exegesis in the Account of Creation” [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 9 (1990): 225–249Google Scholar. Ibn Tibbon's significance was also acknowledged by George Vajda in bis study of ibn Tibbon's Ma 'amar Yiqqavu Ha-Mayim and its refutation by Sheshet, Jacob ben in Recherche sur la philosophie et la Kabbale dans la penseejuive du Moyen Age (Paris: Mouton, 1962), pp. 14–31Google Scholar. A somewhat abridged English version of this chapter appeared as “An Analysis of Ma'amar yiqqawu Ha-Mayim by Tibbon, Samuel ben Judah Ibn,” Journal of Jewish Studies 10, nos. 3–4 (1959): 137–149. See also the recent article of Tzvi Langermann, “A New Source for Samuel ibn Tibbon's Translation of the Guide of the Perplexed and His Notes on It” [Hebrew], Pe'amim 72 (Summer 1997): 51–74 I would like to take this opportunity to thank Avi Ravitzky, as perhaps the foremost expert on ibn Tibbon, for reading this paper and offering valuable suggestions for improving its content. I would also like to thank Larry Kaplan for doing the same.Google Scholar

2. The esoteric orientation of ibn Tibbon's interpretation of Maimonides is already evident in his early works: epistles, critical notes appended to his translation of the Guide, a glossary of philosophical terms, and introductions to his translations of Maimonides. But it is extensively developed in his two major works, his Commentary on Ecclesiastes and Ma 'amar Yiqqavu Ha-Mayim. Ibn Tibbon saw himself as one of the few interpreters uniquely able to comprehend Maimonides' esoteric doctrines, a claim that finds support in a statement by Abraham Maimuni, Maimonides' son, who testifies that his father considered ibn Tibbon a great sage and one who understood the secrets of the Guide; see Qoves Teshuvot Ha-Rambam Ve- 'Iggerotav (Leipzig, 1859; repr. Jerusalem, 1967), vol. 3, p. 16. Even though ibn Tibbon's works were composed before the first major wave of the Maimonidean controversy in the 1230s, he shows awareness of the fact that the Jewish community since Maimonides' lifetime had been divided over his writings and that his reading of Maimonides would be criticized. In fact, they were, in particular by the Kabbalist Jacob ben Sheshet who attacked ibn Tibbon in bis work Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim; see Vajda, Recherche sur la philosophie et la Kabbale. A comprehensive discussion of these issues can be found in Ravitzky, “Samuel ibn Tibbon.”Google Scholar

3. Ravitzky, , “Samuel ibn Tibbon,” pp. 88. The influence of ibn Tibbon on thirteenth-century European and Italian philosophical exegesis is discussed extensively throughout Ravitzky's.Google Scholar

4. A key element uniting this school of philosophical exegesis was a theory developed by ibn Tibbon and adopted by subsequent interpreters regarding Jewish intellectual history, a theory designed to justify the writing of philosophical commentaries. Ibn Tibbon echoes the thoughts of previous Jewish philosophers, including Maimonides, in believing that philosophy was an esoteric tradition originating with the Jews. But ibn Tibbon took this theory in an original direction by giving an elaborate description of how the esoteric truths of this philosophical tradition had been gradually revealed from biblical times onward in response to the circumstances of various epochs in Jewish history. Ibn Tibbon saw Maimonides' Guide as only the latest in a series of attempts to bring this tradition to light. See Ravitzky's discussion, ibid, pp. 108–116.

5. This treatise (hereafter cited as MYH) was editedsomewhat inadequatelyby M. L. Bisliches (Pressburg, 1837). All citations will be from this edition. Ibn Tibbon's discussion of Job is contained in chapters 15–18, pp. 100–117.

6. The solution is discussed in MYH, pp. 133–135, 143–146. Neither Vajda nor Ravitzky attempts to tackle this difficult issue. A variety of interpretations of ibn Tibbon's views on creation can be found in medieval sources and are discussed by Ravitzky in “Aristotle's Book of Meteorology” pp. 244–250. Ibn Tibbon adopts an esoteric method of writing in order to conceal his true views which in this case appears to have been all too effective.

7. This letter was published by Diesendruck, Z. in “Samuel and Moses ibn Tibbon on Maimonides' Theory of Providence,” Hebrew Union College Annual 11 (1936): 341–365. The book of Job is discussed by ibn Tibbon on pp. 355–356.Google Scholar

8. For the dating of this treatise, see Moritz Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), p. 200.

9. These difficulties are, in varying degrees, characteristic of Ma 'amar Ttqqavu Ha-Mayim as a whole.

10. A number of interpretations of Maimonides' reading of Job have been provided by modern commentators. The differences between them underscore the difficulty of interpreting this section of the Guide. See Kravitz, Leonard S., “Maimonides on Job: An Enquiry as to the Method of the Moreh,” Hebrew Union College Annual 38 (1968): 149–158Google Scholar; Touati, Charles, “Les Deux Theories de Maimonide sur la Providence,” in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History. Presented to Alexander Altmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Siegfried, Stein and Raphael, Loewe (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1979), pp. 331–334Google Scholar; Kasher, Hannah, “The Image and Views of Job in the Guide of the Perplexed,” Da'at 15 (Summer 1985): 81–89Google Scholar; Raffel, Charles, “Providence as Consequent Upon the Intellect: Maimonides' Theory of Providence,” AJS Review 12, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 25–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levinger, Jacob S., “Maimonides' Exegesis of the Book of Job,” in Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics Throughout the Centuries, ed. Benjamin, Uffenheimer and Reventlow, Henning Graf (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), pp. 81–88.Google Scholar

11. MYH, pp. 100–101. Psalm 73 is given a lengthy treatment in MYH, pp. 70–100.

12. Ibid, p. 101.

13. Ibid.

14. Guide of the Perplexed 111:23, pp. 492–493. All citations from the Guide are from the translation of Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963).Google Scholar

15. Maimonides' views on the precise content of this higher philosophical awareness and what it is in Job's outlook that brings peace to him by the end of the story are not entirely clear. See the sources cited in n. 10 above for a range of views on this matter.

16. We might also note that the prooftext of Job 42:6, which is key for ibn Tibbon in the passage from MYHjust cited, was also of central importance for Maimonides. See Guide 111:23, p. 493, and 111:24, p. 497.

17. Guide 111:23, pp. 494–497.Google Scholar

18. MYH, pp. 101–102.Google Scholar

19. In fact, a good portion of Maimonides' discussion of Job is taken up by the figure of Satan (Guide 111:22, pp. 486–487). The commentators on Maimonides who believe that he connects Satan with matter or privation base themselves on his central discussion about evil in Guide 111:8–12, where he identifies privation and matter as explanations for the existence of evil. The two explanations appear to be closely related in that matter is the substratum for privationthough Maimonides never entirely clarifies the relationship. The full range of views on Maimonides' understanding of Satan are treated by Avraham Nuriel in his article “Towards a Clarification of the Concept of Satan in the Guide of the Perplexed” [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thoughts (1986): 83–91. Nuriel recounts the theories of various commentators regarding the referent for Satan in Maimonides' thinkingincluding the identification of Satan with matter. Nuriel, however, offers his own original view in arguing that in his reading of Job Maimonides has two conceptions of Satan which are not necessarily related: Satan represents both chance occurrence and privation. Nuriel also takes up Maimonides' identification of Satan with the evil inclination, which is also mentioned in his exposition on Job and is based on a rabbinic source in 5.7! Bava Batra 16a. Maimonides appears to equate the evil inclination with the imagination. Nuriel argues, however, that this understanding of Satan seems to have no impact on his reading of the Job story (p. 91).Google Scholar

20. See, for instance, MYH, pp. 114–115, part of which is cited below, p. 282.

21. My translations of the biblical text generally follow that of the New Jewish Publication Society version (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985); however, in some instances I have made significant changes in order that the wording better reflect the meaning intended by ibn Tibbon. Here, for instance, the subject of the second clause is “God” rather than “man” in the NJPS translation because, as we will explain, ibn Tibbon understood the verse in this manner. The Hebrew original, in fact, is ambiguous here, since the impersonal subject of the clause is co–opted into the third–person masculine verb, yeshurenah.

22. MYH, p. 104.

23. I translate the term shahat here as “destruction” rather than “Pit,” as in the NJPS translation. The term “destruction” better signifies the loss of immortality to which ibn Tibbon is referring here.

24. MYH, p. 105.

25. As we will later argue, both forms of providence imply that ibn Tibbon conceives of God in impersonal terms.

26. MYH, pp. 106 f.

27. Again, I have departed from the NJPS translation by translating mal'akh as “angel,” which is the way ibn Tibbon understands the term, rather than “representative.”

28. MYH, pp. 105–106.

29. Angels are dealt with in a number of places in the Guide. But Maimonides' most important programmatic statement about the equivocal nature of this concept is in Guide 111:6, pp. 261–265, especially p. 262.

30. A wide variety of views have been given regarding the identity of this angel. I will mention the views found among modern interpreters of Maimonides which were cited in n. 10 above. Kravitz equates the angel with the Active Intellect. Touati also equates the angel with the Active Intellect but gives a reading different from Kravitz on other details of Maimonides' exegesis. Raffel argues that the angel is the practical intellect. Levinger takes the position that the angel is the perfected human intellect as a whole.

31. A reference to an earlier section of ibn Tibbon's discussion, MYH, p. 106.

32. Ibid, p. 108.

33. Guide 111:23, p. 495.

34. Standard traditional Hebrew editions of the Guide, 111:17, p. 23b.

35. Diesendruck, “Samuel and Moses ibn Tibbon,” p. 356. This is an issue which we will be discussing at greater length below.

36. MYH, p. 109.

37. Ibid, p. 110.

38. Ibid, pp. 114–115.

39. Guide 111:22, p. 487. Maimonides is clearly picking up on the cue in the very opening line of Job, which describes him as “blameless and upright,'' one who “feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1) but makes no reference to bis intellectual achievements.

40. See above, p. 276.

41. Guide m–.n, p. 465.

42. MYH, p. 106. The esoteric reading would therefore require that the upper–case H in my translation be converted to lower–case. Ibn Tibbon notes that other commentators have opted for the exoteric reading, an observation that is borne out by looking at how Rashi and ibn Ezra deal with the same passage. Our understanding of ibn Tibbon helps make sense of a highly cryptic passage in which ibn Tibbon has more to say about this section of Elihu's speech; see MYH, pp. 108–109.

43. The reference here is to one who responds to suffering by prayer or one who has been saved by the angeli.e., general providencecases discussed previously by ibn Tibbon in his exposition of Job 33:14–31.

44. The reference here is to the Separate Intellects.

45. MYH, p. 107.

46. Ibid. The reference to God here as “first cause” of events in the world below, including suffering, also has philosophically suggestive overtones for the astute reader. This phrase calls to mind Aristotle's Prime Mover, who is the impersonal source of all events in the universe. We may also note that the first type of providence referred to by Elihu, by which the righteous person receives prophecy guiding him to understand that material rewards are of no value, is also presented in highly naturalistic terms. If one looks carefully at ibn Tibbon's wording in his description of this form of providence, he actually refers to prophecy and wisdom interchangeably, as if to imply that prophecy provides the same message as philosophical wisdom attained without any direct communication from God. See MYH, pp. 104 105.

47. Ravitzky, , “Samuel ibn Tibbon,” pp. 118–119.Google Scholar

48. MYH, p. 117.

49. Ibid.

50. Another point in common is that the different opinions of Job's friends represent different schools of thought regarding providence. In one passage cited above, p. 270, Bildad and Zophar are identified with precisely the same schools of Islamic theology that Maimonides associates with them.

51. Ibid.

52. Guide 111:23, pp. 495–496. The translation of verses from Job here follows that of Pines.

53. Diesendruck, , “Samuel and Moses ibn Tibbon,” pp. 355–356.Google Scholar

54. We should note that in the letter, ibn Tibbon goes on to describe another facet of providence in Maimonides' esoteric doctrine which is equated with the workings of nature. All events in nature are the product of natural laws implemented by God, including the actions of man, which are controlled by his intellect Hence, providence over man also expresses itself in the very existence and activity of the human intellect which helps protect man from harm. See ibid, p. 357. Both facets of Maimonides' esoteric doctrine on providence are adopted by ibn Tibbon in his reading of Job. The notion that true providence is immortality becomes the centerpoint of ibn Tibbon's own interpretation of Job. The other aspect of providence is reflected in ibn Tibbon's notion that the natural order, identified with the “angel,” has a crucial role to play in saving the righteous person from harm and allowing him to discover what true providence is. See Ravitzky, “Samuel ibn Tibbon,” p. 94, who also mentions the two aspects of providence in ibn Tibbon's reading of Maimonides.

55. There are in fact very few references to immortality in the Guide. However, there are a number of passages which indicate that Maimonides saw intellectual perfection as a prerequisite for immortality. Perhaps the most explicit is a passage in Guide 111:54, p. 635, where Maimonides states that the acquisition of “rational virtues” leads one to achieve “permanent perdurance,” an obvious reference to immortality. Love of God, which is described primarily in Guide 111:51, appears to enhance one's chances for immortality in that it is an intense emotional connection to God one cultivates after achieving intellectual perfection that allows for easy separation of the soul from the body at the point of death. See especially, Guide 10:51, pp. 627–628.

56. Guide 111:22, p. 492.

57. A similar point is made by Ravitzky with respect to ibn Tibbon's views on creation. Here too ibn TibborTs differences with Maimonides are exegetical and not philosophical. See Ravitzky, , “Aristotle's Book of Meteorology,” pp. 239–244.Google Scholar

58. See above, p. 278.

59. MYH, pp. 110–114. Ibn Tibbon is also apologetic about disagreeing with Maimonides but claims that one must speak the truth as one sees it. I chose not to discuss this part of ibn Tibbon's presentation because it does not seem essential to his understanding of the story. Ibn Tibbon also disagrees with Maimonides on how to read Job 33:29, in which Elihu states that the angel rescues someone “two or three times.” According to ibn Tibbon, Maimonides reads this statement as saying that the angel saves a man only three times in his life, given that no human being escapes from death. Ibn Tibbon argues that Job, being well aware that all men die, did not need to learn such a lesson. Instead, Elihu is teaching Job that the angel can come and save a man any number of times, the number three having no significance here. See MYH, pp. 109–110.

60. In fact, one might argue that in this instance ibn Tibbon goes against Maimonideseven philosophically. In Guide III: 17, Maimonides rejects the rabbinic concept of “sufferings of love” (yisurin she 'ahavah), which claims “that misfortunes befall an individual not because of his having sinned before, but in order that his reward should be greater” (Guide 111:17, p. 471). The reason Maimonides cannot accept his idea, which he sees as similar to that of the Mutazilites, is that it is nowhere found in the Torah. Maimonides goes on to adopt the view that he feels is that of the Torahnamely, that good and evil befall human beings on account of their past actions, not because of any reward they might receive in the future (Ibid.). However, in all likelihood ibn Tibbon believed that his views had little to do with those that Maimonides had criticized, since Maimonides argues specifically against rabbinic and Mutazilite views which see God as bringing suffering deliberately as a means to grant future reward. Ibn Tibbon, unlike the rabbis or the Mutazilites, does not see providence as a force coming from a personal Godat least not the type which manifests itself with suffering. In fact, ibn Tibbon brings out the distinction between his views and those of the Islamic theologians explicitly in a passage cited earlier. In explicating Elihu's remarks, ibn Tibbon adds the following: “Do not understand from my words that God brings suffering essentially (be– 'esem) upon him who has not sinned and has acted according to His willlike the opinion of the Asharites and the Mutazilites [who believe this]; this was the opinion of Bildad and Zophar. Rather, they come upon him because of Satanthat is, by reason of some of the [celestial] intermediaries to whom He has surrendered man on account of his [being composed of] matter (homer)that is, his body, not his soul, if he should want to preserve it” (MYH, pp. 102–103, cited above, p. 270). Ibn Tibbon seems eager to point out that his views differ from those of the Islamic theologians, Asharites and Mutazilites, because they believe that suffering comes “essentially” from God, while he does not. But even if ibn Tibbon is not disagreeing with Maimonides here on fundamental philosophical issues, by arguing that the equation of suffering with providence is a major theme in Job, ibn Tibbon is drawing an important philosophical lesson out of Job that is not present in Maimonides' reading.

61. Guide 111:23, p. 496.

62. MYH, p. 115.

63. See above, p. 273.

64. A lively debate on this question is recorded in B.T. Bava Batra 15a–b.

65. The notion that the study of philosophy is prerequisite for the redemption of the Jewish people from exile is also voiced by other medieval Jewish philosophers. See, for example, Anatoli's, JacobMalmad Ha-Talmidim (Lyck: Mekisei Nirdamim, 1866), p. 160b.Google Scholar

66. Ravitzky, , “Samuel ibn Tibbon,” pp. 89–90.Google Scholar