Responsum: On Philosophy

On the thirty-third day of the counting [of the Omer, i.e., Lag b’Omer]. May there be tranquility and pleasantness in your chamber of Torah. May God continuously save the beautiful pearl, for whom the paths of heaven are as clear as the paths on earth [see b. Berakhot 58b]. No secret, small or great, is hidden from him—my beloved relative, the Gaon, our teacher, R. Solomon [Luria], may his lamp shine. I ask only that he may enjoy peace, and may his Torah have peace.

Behold, my beloved master, your honor’s letter reached me on Friday, the thirty-first day of the [Omer] counting of the children of Israel [see Deuteronomy 32:8]. When I saw it, I stood up, shaking, as I realized that the entire scroll was full of open reproach and concealed love. Perhaps my master reproves the one whom he loves [see Proverbs 3:12]. Now, if I were to respond, the letter would be very lengthy, and it is possible that in the multitude of words there will be no lack of transgression (Proverbs 10:19). I will therefore keep my mouth closed while my master is before me, and I will merely declare that R. Solomon is just in his cause [see Proverbs 18:17]. Likewise, I decided I will make no further mention of one of the various cases under debate, lest I am burnt by your coals, for I see that the fire of the Torah is burning within your honor. However, there is in my heart something like a burning fire; I weary myself to hold it in [see Jeremiah 20:9]. Consequently, I am unable to refrain from responding to my master regarding some of the cases, and the rest I will leave aside.

I will first address the issue which caused my master such consternation—the fact that in my first letter I quoted something of Greek wisdom and their main philosopher. Regarding this, my master wrote that the Torah dons sackcloth, etc. I will simply say that this is an old dispute between the sages, and there is no need for me to reply to such a claim. For there is already a fine responsum placed in the corner [see b. Kiddushin 66a], in the responsa of the Rashba [Solomon Ibn Adret (1235–1310)] (section 414), which cites the answer given by the scholars of Provence to the Rashba, of blessed memory, on this matter. Even the Rashba only wrote there that it should be forbidden to a person in his youth, before he has studied the wisdom of the Talmud, which is the meat and wine mentioned by the Rambam [Maimonides] in [Mishneh Torah,] Book of Knowledge (Laws of the Principles of the Torah, ch. 4). Do we have a greater scholar than the Rambam, of blessed memory—and he composed his Guide, which is entirely a work of this type? Admittedly, it is written in the responsum of R. Isaac ben Sheshet [Rivash] (section 45) that he did so only in order to respond to heretics, as his honor well knows. However, I actually have two answers to this claim, and as far as I can make out, they are both accurate. First, they were interested only in learning the cursed Greek books, such as Aristotle’s Physics and his Metaphysics, as stated in that aforementioned responsum. In this regard they are correct, as they were concerned that people might be convinced and accept one of those beliefs and thereby be seduced by their wine, which is the wine of serpents [see Deuteronomy 32:33], and by erroneous opinions. But they did not prohibit the study of those scholars’ works and their investigations into the essence of things and their natures. On the contrary, in this manner the greatness of the Creator of the universe is revealed. This is the meaning of the “measure of height” [Shi‘ur komah (The Measure of the [Divine] Body), 7th or 8th century], regarding which they stated: “whoever knows [the measure of God is guaranteed a place in the world to come].” Although the kabbalists have a different explanation of this concept, both interpretations are valid. Even if the source is from the gentile scholars, the sages have themselves stated in tractate Megillah (16a) that anyone who says something wise, even among the nations of the world, is called wise. All the sages followed this practice of citing the comments of those scholars in their books, as is well known to all from the Guide and the Ba‘al ‘akedah [Isaac Arama, (ca. 1420–1494)], and all the rest of the authors, both great and small. Certainly, one who does not enter into their marvelous buildings at any depth, to make inferences as I did, but only to quote what they state, has no cause for concern at all.

My second point is that even if we grant that they prohibited the study of any of their books, as a safeguard against the forbidden material which they contain, nevertheless, it never entered anyone’s mind to forbid the works of our own sages, of blessed memory, from whose waters we drink. This applies especially to the Rambam, regarding whom there is no concern at all that his books might include any worthless opinions, as attested by the author of Beḥinat ha-‘olam [Yedaiah Bedersi; ca. 1270–ca. 1340]: the bottom line, my heart, is that you should trust in what was believed by the last of the Geonim, the foremost of whom is the Rambam, etc. Although some sages disagreed with him and burned his writings, his books have already spread among all the later scholars, and they all placed them like a crown upon their heads, citing his statements as proofs, like laws given to Moses at Sinai.

I therefore maintain that I am clear of blame in this regard, for although I did quote some comments of Aristotle’s, I call upon heaven and earth as my witnesses that I have never delved into any of his books. I simply found this material in the Guide, which I studied in depth, and other books on nature, such as Sha‘ar ha-shamayim [Gershom ben Solomon of Arles, late 13th century] and the like, which were written by sages. My quotations from Aristotle were taken from such works. Why wouldn’t I do so, when Rambam has written in The Guide II.22 that everything that Aristotle grasped up to the sphere of the moon is all true, etc.? He further stated that all of his statements accord with the opinions of the talmudic sages, with the exception of certain articles of faith concerning the Blessed Lord, His angels, and the heavenly spheres. Only in these instances did he depart from the truth.

As for my master’s claim that this has caused some youths to recite Aristotle’s prayer, etc., far be it for me or for any of my father’s descendants to see such a thing without objecting. Rather, this is all still a root bearing gall and wormwood (Deuteronomy 29:17) that they inherited from their ancestors, from those who let themselves be drawn after the philosophers and followed their ways. I, however, have never seen nor heard of such a thing, and had my master not told me so directly, I would not have believed that there remains a trace of such beliefs anywhere.

Regarding your statement that you also know these things, but your honor stays far away from them, etc., I am well aware that I have no knowledge that you do not possess. Yet I maintain that if I were to flee, I would be running away more from the study of kabbalah, and my efforts to understand their opinions on my own, than fleeing philosophy. For the greater concern is that one should not err in these matters, as my master knows from the Ramban’s [Naḥmanides] comments in the introduction to his commentary on the Torah. I am also surprised that your honor, in your reply to me, would cite the responsum of the Rivash regarding those who study philosophy, for his comments on kabbalists appear alongside those statements, as your honor knows, and which I need not specify, aware as I am that everything is revealed before your honor. I claim regarding both of these pursuits that they are equally good, and that the righteous will walk in them, etc. (Hosea 14:10). In any case, Heaven is my witness that I dealt with such matters only on Sabbaths, festivals, and the intermediate festival days, at those times when people take strolls, whereas on the weekdays I am fully occupied—in accordance with my meager understanding—with the Mishnah, Talmud, halakhic authorities, and their commentaries, and “it is permitted for a Torah scholar to make himself known [in a place where he is not known, if this is necessary.” See b. Nedarim 62a].

With regard to my master’s claim that I made grammatical errors involving certain words—indeed, you cited examples to this effect—my response is that I am not one of those great speakers, or a stylist, for I am slow of speech and tongue [see Exodus 4:10]. My focus is on the meaning rather than the words (which make no difference to the law itself). I admit that I am unfamiliar with the master’s manner of speaking, but I will simply say that I am very much a pauper in this regard, for which I hope you will forgive me. For every intelligent person understands that this can happen to all great rabbis—when he is thinking deeply about an issue he can make mistakes in his words. Certainly, it is difficult for such a person to be careful about full and defective words, as in your example of my writing Meshullam full, for my writings do not have the status of a Torah scroll that they can be invalidated by such errors. It is true that I sometimes move from the second to the third person, but this is on purpose, as we find in the formula of blessings and in scripture, and this is a respectable form of address. In any case, I will not boast of a quality I do not possess, as I have never studied grammar. However, the errors in the examples you brought were not a result of my lack of knowledge, but rather were caused by the pressures of the circumstances. In some cases, I intentionally wrote the word in full, such as the word master, in order to differentiate between one honor and a greater honor,¹ and the same applies to all similar cases. See also the comments of the Ba‘al ‘akedah, at the end of the last portion of the Torah, that the Ralbag [Gersonides] made a mistake and quoted a verse from a chapter in which it does not appear, and this was caused by the burdens of the hour. All the more so that this can occur to me as well, on account of the stress and the speed at which I write. For I do not have a ready scribe who can copy down my statements, and it is also too much work for me to transcribe it a second time. Rather, I simply jot down the thoughts that occur to me.

Now, I do not treat your honor in the same manner, for there is nobody like me in your household [see Numbers 12:7] of a faithful spirit who conceals such matters [see Proverbs 11:13]. For when I found something that I thought might be a mistake on your part, I assumed that it was a copyist error, and I judged you favorably. Indeed, it is very clever to employ a copyist, and I have not yet had a chance to do so. (In this correspondence too, the scribe made several errors involving the grammar in which you take such pride. He wrote “dons sackcloth and laments itself” [ . . . ] which is clearly a mistake. This phrase is in fact taken from verses in [Joel and] Jeremiah: girded with sackcloth (Joel 1:8); call for the mourning women (Jeremiah 9:16). It must be that it was written that way in the source from which he copied, but the copy that I have states mourning women, and this is the correct version.) The truth is that were it not for your exactitudes, I would not have noticed this, as all these mistakes are caused by stress. I merely wrote about it when I saw that your honor had criticized me incorrectly. [ . . . ]

A thousand wishes of peace are sent to you from my elderly father, may his lamp shine, and from my brother-in-law, Meshullam; written defectively. You have no need to worry about your brother, for I will do as much good for you, with my kindness, as I am able, if only he will listen to my counsel.