In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

鵻 203 鵼 Chapter 8 鵻 Abarbanel and Tradition: Six Trends 鵼 T he foregoing has sought to show how vital features of Isaac Abarbanel’s religious outlook, intellectual cast, and mind at work come into view when his teachings and writings are regarded from the perspective of his defenses of, dissents from, and dialogues with Jewish tradition. It is time now to put the question of broader trends in his stance towards tradition. Supplementation and recasting of material canvassed above brings six such trends into view. Abarbanel as a Harvester of Tradition One very conspicuous trend is Abarbanel’s frequent assumption of the role of “harvester” 1 of tradition, to use an agricultural image invoked by a modern late medievalist but familiar to Abarbanel as well. Seeking to inject a note of humility (soon to be overcome by a more characteristically confident, self-assertive tone, as will be seen) into his deliberations concerning the biblical story of the binding of Isaac, Abarbanel states that having “seen the words of the writers and commentators concerning its details,” he would “‘come after the reapers’ [Ruth 2:7] and glean from the stocks.”2 There can be more to this harvesting mentality than Abarbanel’s propensity for a systematic scholarly method; though, to be sure, it was his wont to enumerate and discuss, for example, the views on creation of Aristotle, Plato, Anaxagoras, Empedicles, and Maimonides before clarifying his own.3 Harvesting assumes different forms. It can involve “simple” collation and arrangement of traditional materials, as when Abarbanel sees fit to enumerate here the details of all of the sacrifices. Not that I will innovate with regard to them anything on my own, since I will not diverge from that which the verses and true [rabbinic] tradition teach but will [instead] elaborate on matters in accordance with what Maimonides has explained of them. . . . 204 鵼 Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance Toward Tradition What I will do is order these things and gather them from all places to which they have been scattered and set them down in a correct, proper manner in methodical divisions.4 But as often as not there is an additional need, to separate wheat from chaff: Maimonides’ statements concerning the principle of resurrection were extremely terse. . . . Saadya Gaon considered this topic from every angle . . . but in his statements, too, I have observed serious difficulties. So it is with the words of the latter-day scholars, by whom I mean Nahmanides, Hasdai Crescas and others. I investigated this subject extensively . . . and clarified the correct from the incorrect in these rabbis’ views in my discourse entitled A Sedeq ‘olamim.5 On occasions, the need for sifting and synthesis remained clear and considerable : The gentile scholars said that the [structure of the] tabernacle alludes to [the construction of] the cosmos in general. . . . The latter-day Jewish commentators have trod this path as well. And seeing as it appears to be a straight path and they [the earlier commentators] curtailed its explanation and the manner of its reconciliation with the verses, I saw fit to expand the discourse concerning it [this approach] in order to complete it and relate it to the verses as much as possible. Regarding a few things, I will derive assistance from the words of the commentators, since the good we accept from them and that which is missing from their sacks God will accomplish through me and I will complete it.6 Two earlier opinions, each inadequate, could provide the raw materials for a true understanding of the “heavens” referred to in Gen. 1:1: “[Although] Maimonides’ view alone is incorrect and so too Nahmanides’ view alone is incorrect, these two, when combined, are correct. This would be if we say . . . .”7 Perhaps most notably, harvesting can mean bringing closure to long-standing debates over such matters as the reason for the exile in Egypt, ancient Israelite chronology, the explanation for the exclusively this-worldly blessings and execrations found at the end of Leviticus, the definition of the punishment of karet, the sin of Moses and Aaron at Meribah, and issues concerning the division of the Land of Israel.8 In the case of the Mosaic peroration prior to blessing the twelve tribes, Abarbanel had found divergent interpretations among “the holy [rabbinic] sages and among the commentators.” Though all were “the words of the living God,” he deemed it apt to “note those which are most consistent with the verses’ contextual sense, not as they interpreted the verses but rather as I have...

Share