AARON BEN ELIJAH OF NICOMEDIA
The chronological treatment of Jewish philosophy which we have followed
makes it necessary at this point to take up a Karaite work of the
fourteenth century that is closely modelled upon the "Guide of the
Perplexed." In doing this we necessarily take a step backward as far as
the philosophical development is concerned. For while it is true that
the early Rabbanite thinkers like Saadia, Bahya, Ibn Zaddik and others
moved in the circle of ideas of the Mohammedan Mutakallimun, that period
had long since been passed. Judah Halevi criticized the Kalam, Ibn Daud
is a thorough Aristotelian, and Maimonides gave the Kalam in Jewish
literature its deathblow. No Rabbanite after Maimonides would think of
going back to the old arguments made popular by the Mutakallimun--the
theory of atoms, of substance and accident in the Kalamistic sense of
accident as a quality which needs continuous creation to exist any
length of time, the denial of law and natural causation, the arguments
in favor of creation and the existence of God based upon creation, the
doctrine of the divine will as eternal or created, residing in a subject
or existing without a subject, the world as due to God's will or to his
wisdom, the nature of right and wrong as determined by the character and
purpose of the act or solely by the arbitrary will of God--these and
other topics, which formed the main ground of discussion between the
Mu`tazilites and the Ashariya, and were taken over by the Karaites and
to a less extent by the early Rabbanites in the tenth and eleventh
centuries, had long lost their significance and their interest among the
Rabbanite followers of Maimonides. Aristotelianism, introduced by
Alfarabi, Avicenna and Averroes among the Arabs, and Ibn Daud and
Maimonides among the Jews, dominated all speculative thought, and the
old Kalam was obsolete and forgotten. Gersonides no longer regards the
Kalamistic point of view as a living issue. He ignores it entirely. His
problems as we have seen are those raised by the Averroistic system. In
this respect then a reading of Aaron ben Elijah's "Ez Hayim" (Tree of
Life)[360] affects us like a breath from a foreign clime, like the odor
of a thing long buried. And yet Aaron ben Elijah was a contemporary of
Levi ben Gerson. He was born about 1300, and died in 1369. He lived in
Nicomedia, Cairo, Constantinople. The reason for the antiquated
appearance of his work lies in the fact that he was a Karaite, and the
Karaites never got beyond the Mu`tazilite point of view. Karaism was
only a sect and never showed after the days of Saadia anything like the
life and enthusiastic activity of the great body of Rabbanite Judaism,
which formed the great majority of the Jewish people. The Karaites had
their important men in Halaka as well as in religious philosophy and
Biblical exegesis. Solomon ben Yeroham, Joseph Ha-Maor (Al-Kirkisani),
Joseph Al Basir (p. 48 ff.), Jeshua ben Judah (p. 55 ff.), Yefet
Ha-Levi, Judah Hadassi, Aaron ben Joseph--all these were prominent in
Karaitic literature. But they cannot be compared to the great men among
the Rabbanites. There was no Maimonides among them. And Aaron ben Elijah
cherished the ambition of being to the Karaites what Maimonides was to
the Rabbanites. Accordingly he undertook to compose three works
representing the three great divisions of Karaitic Judaism--a book of
Laws, a work on Biblical exegesis and a treatise on religious
philosophy. The last was written first, having been composed in 1346.
The "Sefer Ha-Mizvot," on the religious commandments, was written in
1354, and his exegetical work, known as "Keter Torah" (The Crown of the
Law) was published in 1362. It is the first that interests us, the "Ez
Hayim." As was said before, this book is closely modelled upon the "More
Nebukim," though the arrangement is different, being more logical than
that of the "Guide." Instead of beginning, as Maimonides does, with
interpreting the anthropomorphic expressions in the Bible, which is
followed by a treatment of the divine attributes, long before the
existence of God has been proved or even the fundamental principles laid
down upon which are based the proofs of the existence of God, Aaron ben
Elijah more naturally begins with the basal doctrines of physics and
metaphysics, which he then utilizes in discussing the existence of God.
As Maimonides brought to a focus all the speculation on philosophy and
religion as it was handed down to him by Arab and Jew, and gave it a
harmonious and systematic form in his masterpiece; so did Aaron ben
Elijah endeavor to sum up all Karaitic discussion in his work, and in
addition declare his attitude to Maimonides. The success with which he
carried out this plan is not equal. As a source of information on
schools and opinions of Arabs and Karaites, the "Ez Hayim" is of great
importance and interest. But it cannot in the least compare with the
"Guide" as a constructive work of religious philosophy. It has not the
same originality or any degree remotely approaching it. The greater part
of the Aristotelian material seems bodily taken from Maimonides, and so
is the part dealing with the anthropomorphic expressions in the Bible.
There is a different point of view in his exposition of the Mu`tazilite
physics, which he presents in a more systematic and favorable light than
Maimonides, defending it against the strictures of the latter. But
everywhere Aaron ben Elijah lacks the positiveness and commanding
mastery of Maimonides. He is not clear what side of a question to
espouse. For the most part he places side by side the opposed points of
view and only barely intimates his own attitude or preference. Under
these circumstances it will not be necessary for us to reproduce his
ideas _in extenso_. It will be sufficient if we indicate his relation to
Maimonides in the problems common to both, adding a brief statement of
those topics which Aaron ben Elijah owes to his Karaite predecessors,
and which Maimonides omits.
His general attitude on the relation of religion or revelation to reason
and philosophy is somewhat inconsistent. For while he endeavors to
rationalize Jewish dogma and Scriptural teaching like Maimonides, and in
doing so utilizes Aristotelian terminology in matters physical,
metaphysical, psychological, ethical and logical, he nevertheless in the
beginning of his work condemns philosophy as well as philosophers,
meaning of course the Aristotelians.[361] He nowhere expressly indicates
the manner of reconciling this apparent contradiction. But it would seem
as if he intended to distinguish between the philosophical method and
the actual teachings of the Aristotelians. Their method he approves,
their results he condemns. The Aristotelians taught the eternity of the
world, the immutability of natural law, God's ignorance of particulars
and the absence of special Providence. These doctrines must be
condemned. Maimonides too rejects these extreme teachings while
praising Aristotle and maintaining that philosophy was originally a
possession of the Israelitish people, which they lost in the exile.
Aaron ben Elijah is not willing to follow the philosophers as far as
Maimonides. He admits positive attributes in God, which Maimonides
rejects; he admits an absolute will in God and not merely a relative
like Maimonides; he extends God's providence to all individuals
including irrational creatures, whereas Maimonides limits special
providence to the individuals of the human species, and so on. And so he
condemns the philosophers, though he cannot help using their method and
even their fundamental doctrines, so far as they are purely theoretical
and scientific. He is willing to go the full length of the Aristotelians
only in the unity and incorporeality of God, though here too he
vindicates sense perception to God, _i. e._, the knowledge of that which
we get through our sense organs. He too like the philosophers insists on
the importance of the reason as the instrument of truth and knowledge.
Abraham was the first, he tells us, who proved the existence of God with
his intellect. Then came the law of Moses, which strengthened the same
idea. The Gentiles hated and envied Israel for their superiority and
their true opinions; hence they endeavored to refute their ideas and
establish others in their stead. This was the work of the ancient Greek
philosophers, who are called enemies in the Bible (Psalms 139, 21). At
the time of the second Temple, seeing that the Jewish religion and its
teachings were true, they took advantage of the advent of Jesus to adopt
his false teachings, thus showing their hatred and envy of Israel. At
the same time, however, they were obliged to borrow some views and
methods of proof from Israel, for religion as such is opposed to
philosophy. Still the true nature of God was unknown to them. Then came
the Arabs, who imitated the Christians in adopting a belief different
from Judaism, at the same time borrowing views from the Bible. These are
the _Mu`tazila_ and the _Ashariya_. Later when on account of the exile
differences arose among the Jews, there were formed the two parties of
the Karaites and the Rabbanites. The Karaites followed the Mu`tazila,
and so did some of the Rabbanites, because their views coincided with
those of the Bible, from which they were borrowed. The views of the
philosophers as being opposed to the Bible they naturally rejected.
Nevertheless some Rabbanites adopted the views of the philosophers,
though believing in the Bible. This is a mistake, for even the
Christians rejected the views of the philosophers.[362]
Here we see clearly the difference in general attitude between Aaron ben
Elijah and Maimonides. The latter has no use whatsoever for the
Mu`tazila. He realizes the immeasurable superiority of the Aristotelians
(this is the meaning of the word philosophers in mediæval Jewish and
Arabic literature). His task is therefore to harmonize the Bible with
Aristotelian doctrine wherever possible. Aaron ben Elijah is still, in
the fourteenth century, a follower of the Kalam, and believes the
Mu`tazila are closer to Scripture than Aristotle. He is two centuries
behind Maimonides philosophically, and yet he has the truer insight
because less debauched by Aristotelian learning.
As was said before, Aaron ben Elijah follows a more logical arrangement
in the disposition of his work than Maimonides. In reality it is the old
arrangement of the Kalamistic works (_cf._ p. 24). The purpose of all
Jewish investigators, he says, is the same, namely, to prove the
existence and nature of God, but there is a difference among them in the
method of proving God's existence. Some base their proofs on the
assumption of the creation of the world, others on that of the world's
eternity. The Mutakallimun follow the former method, the philosophers,
the latter. Their respective views of the origin of the world are
determined by their opinions concerning the principles of existence and
the existent, that is, the fundamental principles of physics and
metaphysics. Accordingly Aaron ben Elijah finds it necessary to give a
preliminary account of the Kalamistic as well as the philosophic
theories, as Maimonides did before him (p. 249 ff.). It is not necessary
for us to reproduce here his sketch of the philosophical views, as we
know them sufficiently from our studies of Ibn Daud and Maimonides. But
it will be of value to refer to his account of the Kalamistic
principles, though we have already discussed them in the introduction
(p. xxi) and in our study of Maimonides (p. 249 ff.). This is due
principally to the fact that Aaron ben Elijah endeavors to defend the
Mutakallimun against Maimonides's charge that they were influenced by
preconceived notions and allowed their religious views to dictate to
them their interpretation of nature, instead of letting the latter speak
for itself. Thus Maimonides specifically accuses them of having adopted
the atomic theory of the pre-Aristotelian philosophers not because they
were really and independently convinced of its scientific truth--how
could that be since Aristotle proved it impossible?--but because on this
theory they could prove the creation of the world, which they must at
all hazards maintain as a religious dogma fundamental in its nature,
since upon it is based the proof of the existence of God.
Aaron ben Elijah denies this charge, maintaining the philosophical
honesty of the Mutakallimun. Epicurus too, he says, believed in the
atomic theory, though he regarded the world as eternal. Hence there is
no necessary connection between atoms and creation.[363] The atomic
theory is defensible on its own merits, and the motives of the
Mutakallimun in adopting it are purely scientific, as follows: According
to the Mutakallimun there are only body or substance and its accidents
or qualities. This is the constitution of material objects. There are,
however, two kinds of qualities or attributes, _viz._, "characters," and
accidents. Characters are such attributes as are essential to body and
without which it cannot exist. Accidents may disappear, while body
continues. Since, then, body may exist with or without accidents, there
must be a cause which is responsible for the attachment of accidents to
body when they are so attached. This cause we call "union." When a body
is "united" with accidents it owes this to the existence of a certain
something, a certain property, let us say, in it which we have called
"union." Hence when the body is "separated" from accidents, when it is
without accidents, it is because there is no "union." Further, every
body possessed of magnitude or extension is divisible, hence it must
have "union" to hold its parts together. But this "union" is not
essential to all existents; for we have seen that its function is to
unite accidents with body. And as accidents are separable while body may
continue to exist without them, "union" disappears together with the
accidents. Bodies without "union" are therefore possible and real. But
we have just seen that all bodies possessing magnitude have "union." It
follows therefore that if there are "union"-less bodies, they are
without magnitude, and hence atoms. This is the proof of the atomic
theory and it has nothing to do with the matter of the origin of the
world.[364] As a matter of fact the Mutakallimun believe that the atoms
were created _ex nihilo_. But the creation of the world can be proved
whichever view we adopt concerning the nature of the existent, whether
it be the atomic theory of the Mutakallimun or the principles of matter
and form of the Aristotelians. The important principle at the basis of
this proof is the well-known Kalamistic one that if an object cannot do
without an attribute originating in time, the object itself has its
origin in time. Now on either view of the constitution of the existent,
body must have form or accidents respectively, and as the latter are
constantly changing, body or matter has its origin in time, hence the
world is not eternal.
Besides, not to speak of the inconclusive character of the philosophical
arguments in favor of eternity and the positive arguments for creation
(all or most of which we have already met in our previous studies, and
need not therefore reproduce Aaron ben Elijah's version of them), the
philosophers themselves without knowing it are led to contradict
themselves in their very arguments from the assumption of eternity. The
doctrine of creation follows as a consequence from their own
presuppositions. Thus on the basis of eternity of motion they prove that
the heavenly spheres are endowed with soul and intellect, and their
motions are voluntary and due to conceptions which they endeavor to
realize (_cf._ p. 267). This makes the sphere a composite object,
containing the elements, _sphericity_, _soul_, _intellect_. Everything
composite is a _possible_ existent, because its existence depends upon
the existence of its parts. What is a possible existent may also not
exist. Moreover, that which is possible must at some time become actual.
Hence the sphere must at some time have been non-existent, and it
required an agent to bring it into being. We are thus led to contradict
our hypothesis of eternity from which we started.[365]
Creation is thus established, and this is the best way to prove the
existence, unity and incorporeality of God. Maimonides attempts to prove
creation from the peculiarities of the heavenly motions, which cannot be
well accounted for on the theory of natural causes. Adopting the latter
in the main, he makes an exception in the case of the spherical motions
because the philosophers cannot adequately explain them, and jumps to
the conclusion that here the philosophical appeal to mechanical
causation breaks down and we are dealing with teleology, with
intelligent design and purpose on the part of an intelligent agent.
This leads to belief in creation. But this argument of Maimonides is
very weak and inconclusive. Ignorance of causes in a special case, due
to the limitations of our reason, proves nothing. Mechanical causes may
be the sole determinants of the heavenly motions even though the
philosophers have not yet discovered what they are (_cf._ above, p. 270
ff.).[366]
Nor is Maimonides to be imitated, who bases his proof of the existence
of God on the theory of eternity. The Bible is opposed to it. The Bible
begins with creation as an indication that this is the basis of our
knowledge of God's existence, revelation and providence. This is the
method Abraham followed and this is what he meant when he swore by the
"most high God, the creator of heaven and earth" (Gen. 14, 22). Abraham
arrived at this belief through ratiocination and endeavored to convince
others. The same thing is evident in the words of Isaiah (40, 26), "Lift
up your eyes on high and see who created these." He was arguing with the
people who believed in eternity, and proved to them the existence of God
by showing that the world is created. All these indications in the Bible
show that the doctrine of creation is capable of apodeictic proof.[367]
The reader will see that all this is directed against Maimonides, though
he is not mentioned by name. Maimonides claimed against the Mutakallimun
that it is not safe to base the existence of God upon the theory of
creation, because the latter cannot be strictly demonstrated. And while
he believed in it himself and gave reasons to show why it is more
plausible than eternity, he admitted that others might think
differently; and hence based his proofs of God's existence on the
Aristotelian theory of eternity in order to be on the safe side. It is
never too late to prove God's existence if the world is created. We must
be sure of his existence, no matter what the fate of our cosmological
theories might be. This did not appeal to the Karaite and Mutakallim,
Aaron ben Elijah. His idea is that we must never for a moment doubt the
creation of the world. To follow the procedure of Maimonides would have
the tendency of making people believe that the world may be eternal
after all, as happened in fact in the case of Gersonides. Aaron ben
Elijah will not leave a way open to such a heresy.
In the doctrine of attributes Aaron ben Elijah likewise maintains the
views of the Mu`tazilite Karaites against the philosophers, and
especially against Maimonides. The general problem is sufficiently
familiar to us by this time, and we need only present the salient points
in the controversy. The question is whether there are any positive
attributes which may be applied to God as actually denoting his
essence--hence _positive essential_ attributes. Maimonides denied it,
the Karaites affirmed it. The arguments for Maimonides's denial we saw
before (p. 262 f.). And his conclusion is that the only attributes that
may be applied to God are the negative, and those positive ones which do
not denote any definite thing corresponding to them in God's essence,
but are derived from the effects of God's unitary and simple being on
the life of man and nature. He is the author of these effects, and we
characterize him in the way in which we would characterize a human being
who would do similar things; but this must not be done.
Aaron ben Elijah insists that there are positive essential attributes,
which are the following five: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Acting with Will,
Living, Existent. He agrees with Maimonides that these essential
attributes must be understood in a manner not to interfere with God's
simplicity and unity, but is satisfied that this can be done. For we
must not conceive of them as additions to God's essence, nor as so many
distinct elements composing God's essence, but as representing the
multiplicity of powers issuing from him without detriment to his unity.
We call them essential attributes, meaning that they are the essence of
God, but not that they are different from each other and each makes up
part of God's essence. We do not know God's essence, and these terms are
simply transferred from our human experience, and do not indicate that
God's activity can be compared to ours in any sense.
The five attributes above named are all identical with God's simple
essence. "Living" denotes ability to perceive, hence is identical with
"Omniscient." "Acting with will" likewise denotes just and proper
action, which in turn involves true insight. Hence identity of will and
knowledge. "Omnipotent" also in the case of an intellectual being
denotes the act of the intellect _par excellence_, which is knowledge.
And surely God's existence is not distinct from his essence, else his
existence would be caused, and he would not be the necessary existent
all agree him to be. It follows then that God is one, and his essence is
nevertheless all these five attributes.
There are all the reasons in the world why we should apply attributes to
God. The same reason as we have for applying names to anything else
exists for giving names to God. In fact it would be correct to say that
we should have more names for God than for anything else, since in other
things we can avoid naming them by pointing to them, as they can be
perceived by the senses. Not so God. We are forced to use words in
talking about him. God has given himself names in the Bible, hence we
may do the same.
Maimonides and his school endeavor to obviate the criticisms of the
philosophers, who are opposed to all attributes, by excluding all but
negative terms. But this does not help the matter in the least. A
negative attribute is in reality no different from a positive, and in
the end leads to a positive. Thus if we say "not mineral," "not plant,"
we clearly say "animal." The advocates of negative attributes answer
this criticism by saying that they understand pure negation without any
positive implications, just as when we say a stone is "not seeing," we
do not imply that it is blind. But this cannot be, for when they say God
is "not ignorant," they do not mean that he is not "knowing" either, for
they insist that he is power and knowledge and life, and so on. This
being the case, it is much more proper to use positive attributes,
seeing that the Prophets do so. When they say that the Prophets meant
only to exclude the negative; that by saying, "Able," "Knowing," they
meant to exclude "weak" "ignorant," they _ipso facto_ admit that by
excluding the latter we posit the former.
The arguments against positive essential attributes we can easily
answer. By saying that certain attributes are essential we do not claim
to know God's essence. All we know is God's existence, which we learn
from his effects, and according to these same effects we characterize
God's existence by means of attributes of which also we know only the
existence, not the essence. For we do not mean to indicate that these
terms denote the same thing in God as they denote in us. They are
homonyms, since in God they denote essence, whereas in us they are
accidents. The plurality of attributes does not argue plurality in God,
for one essence may perform a great many acts, and hence we may
characterize the essence in accordance with those acts. The error of
composition arises only if we suppose that the various acts point to
various elements in their author. Of the various kinds of terms those
only are applicable to God which denote pure essence or substance like
knowledge, power; and those denoting activity like creating, doing, and
so on.[368]
In reference to the will of God Aaron ben Elijah refuses to agree with
the peculiar view of the Mutakallimun; but unlike Maimonides, who can
afford to ignore their discussions entirely and dismiss their fanciful
notion with a word ("Guide," I. 75, proof 3), Aaron ben Elijah takes up
the discussion seriously. The Mutakallimun (or the Ashariya, according
to Aaron ben Elijah) were in dread of anything that might lend some
semblance to eternity of the world. Hence they argued, If the will of
God is identical with his essence like the other essential attributes,
it follows that as his essence is eternal and unchangeable so is his
will. And if we grant this, then the objects of his will too must be
eternal and unchangeable, and we have the much abhorred doctrine of the
eternity of the world. To avoid this objectionable conclusion they
conceived of God's voluntary acts as due to an external will. But this
external will also offered difficulties. It cannot be a power or quality
residing in God as its subject, for God is not a material substance
bearing accidents. It cannot be a quality inherent in another subject,
for then it would not be God's will at all; it would be the will of this
other being, and God's acts would be determined by someone else. They
were thus forced to assume a subject-less will newly created with every
act of God. This notion Aaron ben Elijah rejects on the ground that a
subject-less will is an impossibility. An accident must have a subject,
and will implies life as its subject. Besides, the relation between God
and this subject-less accident, will, would be the cause of much logical
difficulty. Aaron ben Elijah therefore accepts the ordinary sane view
that the will of God is identical with his essence; that God wills
through his own essence. And he does not fear that this will lead to
eternity of the world. He identifies God's will with his wisdom, and
God's wisdom with right action. As we do not know the essence of God's
wisdom, so we do not know how it is that it prompts him to realize his
will at one time and not at another, though his will is always the
same.[369]
Aaron ben Elijah also follows his party in attributing to God sense
perception, not, to be sure, the same kind of perception as we have,
acquired by means of corporeal organs; for this is impossible in God for
many reasons. God is not corporeal, and he cannot be affected or changed
by a corporeal stimulus. But it is clear beyond a doubt that nothing can
be more absurd than to suppose that the creator of the sense organs does
not understand the purpose which they serve and the objects which they
perceive. What we mean then is that the objects which we perceive with
our senses God also perceives, though in an incorporeal manner. Hence it
does not follow that there is any change in God due to the external
object he perceives, nor that the multiplicity of objects involves
plurality in God; for even our power of perception is one, though it
perceives many things and opposite. We conclude then that God has
perception as well as intelligence, but they are not two distinct powers
in him. It is the object perceived that determines the power percipient.
Hence one and the same power may be called perception when we are
dealing with a sensible object, and intelligence when it has an
intelligible as its object.[370]
In his discussion of the nature of evil we once more are brought in
contact with Kalamistic views recalling the old Karaite works of the
eleventh century (_cf._ pp. 52, 57). Thus the notion that good and bad
are adjectives applied to acts not in view of their inherent character,
which is _per se_ neither good nor bad, but solely to indicate that they
have been commanded or forbidden; the idea that only the dependent
subject can do wrong, but not the master, since his will is the source
of all right and wrong--these views are frequently discussed in the
Mu`tazilite works of Arabs and Karaites. The Rabbanites scarcely ever
mention them. Aaron ben Elijah enumerates six views on the nature of
evil, with all of which except the last he disagrees. The opinion named
above that an act is made good or bad by being commanded or prohibited,
he refutes as follows: Such a view removes the very foundation of good
and bad. For if the person in authority chooses to reverse his order,
the good becomes bad, and the bad good, and the same thing is then good
and bad, which is absurd. Besides, if there are two authorities giving
opposite orders, the same act is good and bad at the same time. To say
that God's command alone determines the character of an act is
incorrect, because as long as commanding and prohibiting as such
determine the goodness or badness of an act, the person issuing the
command is immaterial. We do say quite generally that an act which God
commands is good, and one which he prohibits is bad; but we mean by this
merely that the command or prohibition is an indication to us, who are
ignorant of the true nature of acts.
Again, on this theory of the value of acts, what will you do with such
an act as the investigation of the existence and nature of God? Surely
such an important matter cannot be indifferent. It must be good or bad.
And yet we cannot apply to it the above test of command and prohibition,
for this test implies the existence of God, which the act endeavors to
prove. It follows therefore that the value of an act is inherent in it
and not determined and created by command and prohibition.
Aaron ben Elijah is similarly dissatisfied with another view, which
regards evil as a negation. We have heard this opinion before and we
know that Maimonides adopted it (p. 288). Its motive as we know is to
remove from God the responsibility for evil. If evil is nothing positive
it is not caused by the activity of an agent. All essential activity is
good, and all the acts of God are good. Evil consists in the absence of
good; it is due to matter, and does not come from God. Aaron ben Elijah
objects properly that as good is a positive act, a doing of something
positive, so is evil, even on the theory of its negative character, a
removal of something positive, hence a positive act. Besides, granting
all that the opponent claims, the argument should work both ways, and if
God is not held responsible for the evil in the world because it is mere
privation, why should man be held responsible for doing evil, _i. e._,
for removing the positive? He clinches his argument by quoting Isaiah
(5, 20), "Woe unto those who say of evil it is good, and of good it is
evil ... that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Good and evil
are placed parallel with sweet and bitter, which are both positive.
Hence the Bible is opposed to the negative conception of evil.
His own view is that good and evil are qualities pertaining to an act by
reason of its own nature, but these are not absolute conceptions like
true and false. The good and the bad are conventional constructs, and
the value of an act is relative to the end or purpose it serves. The
purpose of human convention in regarding certain acts as good and
others as bad is the protection of the human race. An act which conduces
to human welfare is good, one that militates against it is bad. Still
there are instances in which an act generally regarded as bad may assume
a different character when in the given instance it serves a good
purpose, as for example when pain is inflicted to obviate more serious
danger. The surgeon, who amputates a leg to save the patient's life,
does good, not evil. The judge, who punishes the criminal with
imprisonment or death for the protection of society and to realize
justice, does good, not evil. In this way we must explain the evil which
God brings upon man. God cannot be the cause of evil. For evil in man is
due to want or ignorance. Neither is found in God, hence he has no
motive to do wrong. All the evil of which we complain is only apparent.
In reality it is good, because it is either brought upon us to prevent
still greater evils, or it is in the nature of just punishment for
wrongdoing. In either case it is a good.[371]
Aaron ben Elijah's discussion of Providence follows closely the plan of
the corresponding arguments in Maimonides. The problem is treated by
both in connection with God's knowledge, and both maintain that the real
motive of those who denied God's knowledge of particulars is their
observation of apparent injustice in the happenings of this world (_cf._
above, p. 289). Both again preface their own views of the question of
Providence by a preliminary statement of the various opinions held by
other sects. Here too the two accounts are in the main similar, except
that Aaron ben Elijah is somewhat more detailed and names a few sects
not mentioned by Maimonides, among them being the Manicheans and the
followers of the Syrian Gnostic Bardesanes. In their own views, however,
Aaron ben Elijah and Maimonides differ; the latter approaching the view
of Aristotle, the former that of the Mu`tazila.
Maimonides as we know (p. 292) denies special providence for the
individuals of the sublunar world with the exception of man. In the case
of the lower animals, the species alone are protected by divine
providence, hence they will continue forever, whereas the individual
animals are subject to chance. Man, as a rational animal, is an
exception. He is a free and responsible agent, hence he is under divine
guidance and is rewarded and punished for his conduct. The extent of
the divine care depends upon the degree to which the individual develops
his reason, actualizing his potential intellect.
Aaron ben Elijah argues that this view is erroneous, for it is not
proper to make a distinction between God's knowledge and his providence.
If it would argue imperfection in God not to _know_ certain things, the
same objection applies to limiting his providence, and the two should be
coextensive. To say that God's providence extends to superior and
important things and ignores the inferior is to make God guilty of
injustice. Aaron ben Elijah believes therefore that Providence extends
to all individuals, including animals. And he quotes the Bible in his
support, "The Lord is good to all, and his mercies are over all his
works," (Ps. 145, 9), and, "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass
together" (Deut. 22, 10). Maimonides, he says, was led to his opinion by
his idea that death and suffering always involve sin; and not being able
to apply this dictum to the suffering of animals that are slaughtered,
he removed Providence from their individuals entirely. When the Bible
orders us to consider the feelings of the animal, he says the object is
to train our own faculties in mercy, and prevent the formation of habits
of cruelty, not for the sake of the animal. But he cannot remove all
difficulties in this way. What will he do with the case of a person born
crippled, and the sufferings of little children? The idea that death and
suffering in all cases involve sin must be given up. Maimonides is also
wrong when he says that reward is purely intellectual and is dependent
upon the development of the "acquired intellect." It would follow from
this that right conduct as such is not rewarded; that it serves merely
as a help to realizing the acquired intellect. All this is opposed to
Biblical teaching.[372]
The prosperity of the wicked and the adversity of the righteous Aaron
ben Elijah endeavors to explain as follows. The prosperity of the wicked
may be due to former good deeds; or by way of punishment, that he may
continue in his evil deeds and be punished more severely. It may be in
order that he may use the good fortune he has in whatever way he
pleases, for good or ill. Finally his good fortune may be given him as a
matter of grace, like his creation. Correspondingly we may explain the
adversity of the righteous in a similar manner. It may be due to former
sins. If he has no sins, his sufferings may be intended to test him in
order to add to his reward. If he dies without having enjoyed life, he
will be rewarded in the next world. The pleasures of this world must not
be considered. For since they are given as a matter of grace, they may
come or not without involving any injustice. When a man has both good
deeds and sins, he may be rewarded for his good deeds and punished for
his bad, or he may be paid according to the element which predominates.
Those who are born crippled and the sufferings of children will be
rewarded later. In reference to the slaughter of animals, Aaron ben
Elijah does not agree with the Mu`tazila that the animals will be
recompensed for their undeserved sufferings. There is no immortal part
in animals, hence no reward after death. He can assign no reason for
their sufferings except that men need them for food, but he sees nothing
wrong in taking an animal's life for food, for as the life of animals
was given to them as a matter of grace, there is no wrong in taking it
away. However, to inflict pain in a way different from the manner
permitted by God is wrong.[373]
Aaron ben Elijah lays great stress upon what he considers an important
difference of opinion between the Rabbanites and the Karaites concerning
the nature and purpose of divine punishment. The Rabbanites according to
him insist that "there is no death without sin, nor suffering without
guilt," whereas the Karaites admit that some of the sufferings of the
righteous are not in the nature of punishment at all, but are what are
known as "chastisements of love." Their purpose is to increase the man's
reward later in the future world, and at the same time they have a
pedagogical value in themselves in strengthening the person spiritually.
Accordingly Aaron ben Elijah, who in the main follows the opinions of
the Karaites, differs with the Rabbanites and particularly Maimonides in
the interpretation of the "trials" of Adam, Abraham, Job.
So far as Job is concerned, we know the opinions of Maimonides on the
subject. In his "Guide of the Perplexed" he interprets the book of Job
in connection with his discussion of Providence (_cf._ above, p. 304).
In the general nature of suffering the idea of "chastisement of love" is
quite familiar to the Rabbis, though Maimonides does not care to insist
on it, claiming that there is no support for it in the Bible. The idea
of "trial" according to him is neither that God may know what he did not
know before; nor is it to make a man suffer that he may be rewarded
later. The purpose of trial is that mankind may know whatever it is
desired to teach them in a given case. In the trial of Abraham when he
was told to sacrifice Isaac, there was a two-fold reason; first, that
all may know to what extent the love of God may go in a pious man; and
second to show that a prophet is convinced of the reality of his visions
as an ordinary person is of the data of his senses.[374]
The book of Job is to Maimonides a treatise on Providence, and the five
characters in the drama represent the various opinions on the nature of
Providence as they were held by different schools of philosophy and
theology in Maimonides's day. Job has the Aristotelian view that God
cares nothing for man. Eliphaz represents the correct Jewish view that
everything is reward or punishment for merit and demerit. Bildad
maintains the Mu`tazilite opinion that many misfortunes are for the
purpose of increasing reward in the world to come. Zophar stands for the
view of the Ashariya that all is to be explained by reference to the
will of God, and no questions should be asked. Elihu finally insists
that the individual man is the object of the divine care, but that we
must not compare God's providence with our own interest in, and care for
things; that there is no relation at all between them except in name
(_cf._ above, p. 304). The Rabbis, who do not make of Job a philosopher,
naturally do not understand the matter as Maimonides does, but they
nevertheless agree with him that Job deserved the punishment he
received. The Karaites on the other hand classed Job's sufferings with
"chastisements of love," which would mean that Job was a perfect man and
did not deserve any punishment. The sole motive for inflicting pain and
tribulation upon him was to reward him the more later.
Aaron ben Elijah agrees in the main with his Karaite predecessors that
Job was not punished for any fault he had committed. He does not see in
the arguments of Job's friends any difference of opinion on the general
question of Providence, and Job was not an Aristotelian. Unlike
Aristotle, he did believe in God's care for man, as is evident from such
statements as (Job 10, 10), "Behold like milk didst thou pour me out,
and like cheese didst thou curdle me." The Karaites, he holds, are
correct in their main contention that Job's sufferings were not in the
nature of punishment for previous guilt and wrongdoing, but they are
mistaken in supposing that Job was altogether right in his conception of
the meaning and reason of his sufferings; that they had no other purpose
except to increase his reward in the future. Aaron ben Elijah then
explains his own view of "trial."
Man, he says, is composed of body and soul, and must therefore endeavor
to gain this world and the next. If he is punished for guilt or offence,
the punishment corresponds to the offence. Corporeal guilt is followed
by corporeal punishment, spiritual guilt by spiritual punishment. Adam
offended spiritually and was punished spiritually by being driven from
the Garden of Eden as will be explained later. Abraham endeavored to do
justice to both the constituent parts of his being; and hence God in his
kindness, wishing to strengthen Abraham spiritually, gave him the
opportunity in the trial of Isaac. At the same time the physical
suffering was compensated by the promise to Abraham of the continuity of
Isaac's descendants. Job's sufferings were of the same kind, except that
they came to him without his knowledge and without his being told their
purpose. And at first he thought they were in order to give him future
reward, but without any use in themselves. Later he discovered that they
benefited him directly by increasing his spiritual strength.[375]
Aaron ben Elijah differs also from Maimonides in reference to the
purpose of the world. Maimonides maintains that while there is sense in
inquiring for the purpose of the parts of the world, the question of the
ultimate purpose of the world as a whole is meaningless. The purpose of
a given event or law of nature lies in its relation to the other events
and laws, hence there is a relative purpose in particular things; thus,
given the existence of animals they must have food, sense perception,
and so on. But if we ask why the universe as a whole, the only answer
that can be given is God's wisdom, which we do not understand. In
particular Maimonides will not admit that the world is for the sake of
man, as this view clashes with experience and makes it impossible to
explain a great many phenomena in nature, which are distinctly of no
benefit to man and take no cognizance of his interests.[376] Aaron ben
Elijah agrees with Maimonides that God's wisdom rather than his
arbitrary will, as the Ashariya maintain, must be appealed to in
answering the question of the purpose of the world. But he is inclined
to regard man as the purpose of the lower world, admitting that we
cannot know the purpose of the higher worlds of the spheres and
Intelligences, as they transcend the powers of our comprehension.[377]
We can pass over Aaron ben Elijah's discussion of prophecy very briefly
because there is no new attitude or contribution in his views. Without
saying it, he reluctantly perhaps, leans upon Maimonides, and with
apparent variations in form really adopts the classification of the
"Guide" (p. 277). He gives no psychological explanation of prophecy
because he disagrees with the philosophers, to whom prophecy is a purely
natural gift which cannot fail to manifest itself when the requisite
conditions are there, namely, perfection in intellect and imagination.
In fact when he gives the different views on the nature of prophecy, he
refuses to identify what seems to stand in his book for the view of
Maimonides (the fourth view) with that of the followers of the Mosaic
law. Whereas Maimonides following the philosophers insists on the two
important elements in prophecy, namely, intellect and imagination,
adding thereto also moral perfection, Aaron ben Elijah in giving the
opinion of those who follow the law of Moses, says nothing of the
imagination. He insists only on perfection in intellect and in ethical
character. This difference is, however, only apparent; and further on he
refers to the imagination as an important element, which determines, in
its relation to the reason, the character of a man as a prophet or a
mere statesman or philosopher--all in the manner of Maimonides.
His idea of the purpose of prophecy he develops, as it seems, with an
eye to the criticism of the Brahmins of India, whom he quotes as denying
prophecy, though admitting Providence, on the ground that it can serve
no purpose. The reason alone, they say, is sufficient to decide what is
right and what is wrong. Accordingly Aaron ben Elijah meets their
objection as follows: It is true that man might have gotten along
without prophecy through the laws which his own reason established for
right and wrong, good and evil. Those who followed these rational laws
would have attained long life, and the others would have perished. But a
good man living in a bad environment would have been involved in the
downfall of the majority, which would not be just. Hence it was
necessary that God should warn the man, that he might save himself. This
is the first beginning of prophecy. Witness Noah and Lot. Abraham was a
great advance on his predecessors. He endeavored to follow God's will in
respect to both body and soul. Hence God saved him from the danger to
which he was exposed in Ur of the Chaldees, and wanted to benefit his
descendants also that they should perfect their bodies and their souls.
This is impossible for a whole nation without special laws to guide
them. This is particularly true of the "traditional" laws (ceremonial),
which are not in themselves good or bad, but are disciplinary in their
nature.
A prophet must have both intellectual and ethical perfection. For he
must understand the nature of God in order to communicate his will; and
this cannot be had without previous ethical perfection. Hence the
twofold requirement. This is the reason, he says, why we do not believe
in the religions of Jesus and Mohammed, because they were not possessed
of intellectual perfection. And besides they tend to the extinction of
the human species by reason of their monastic and celibate ideal. They
were misled by the asceticism of the prophets, who meant it merely as a
protest against the material self-indulgence of the time, and called
attention to the higher life. But those people in their endeavor to
imitate the prophets mistook the means for the end, with the result that
they missed both, perfection of soul as well as of body, and merely
mortified the flesh, thinking it the will of God. Hence, Aaron ben
Elijah continues, we shall never accept a religion which does not preach
the maintenance of this world as well as of the next. Not even miracles
can authenticate a religion which preaches monasticism and celibacy.
Moses was superior to the other prophets. All the others received their
messages in a vision or a dream, Moses had his inspiration while awake.
The others were inspired through the medium of an angel, _i. e._,
through the imagination, hence their language abounds in allegories and
parables. Moses did not use the imagination, hence the plain character
of his speech. The others were overcome by the vision and physically
exhausted, as we read in Daniel (10, 17), "There remained no strength in
me, and no breath was left in me." Moses was free from this
weakness--"And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh
unto his neighbor" (Exod. 33, 11). The others required preparation,
Moses did not. Moses's testimony, too, was stronger than that of all the
rest. His authority in the end was made plain to all the people
directly and openly, so that there remained not a shred of a doubt. This
is why we accept his law and no other, because none is so well
authenticated. The Law cannot change without implying that the standard
of perfection has changed, or the world has changed, or God's knowledge
has changed. All this is impossible. The Law says besides, "Thou shalt
not add thereto, and thou shalt not diminish therefrom" (Deut. 13, 1).
Therefore, concludes Aaron ben Elijah the Karaite, we do not believe in
the oral or traditional law because of the additions to, and
subtractions from, the written law which it contains.[378]
Aaron ben Elijah agrees with Maimonides that all the commandments of the
Bible, including the ceremonial laws, have a purpose and are not due to
the arbitrary will of God. The ceremonial laws are for the sake of the
rational, serving a pedagogical and disciplinary purpose, and the Law as
a whole is for the purpose of teaching the truth and inculcating the
good. He goes further than Maimonides in vindicating the rational and
ethical purpose of all the details of the various laws, and not merely
of the several commandments as a whole (_cf._ above, p. 294).[379]
A problem that occupied the minds of the Mutakallimun, Arabs as well as
Karaites, but which Maimonides does not discuss, is the purpose of God's
giving commandments to those who he knew would remain unbelievers, and
refuse to obey. That God's knowledge and man's freedom co-exist and
neither destroys the other, has already been shown.[380] If then God
knows, as we must assume, that a given person will refuse to obey the
commandments, what is the use of giving them to him? And granting that
for some reason unknown to us they have been given, is it just to punish
him for disobedience when the latter might have been spared by not
giving the man in question any commandments?
Aaron ben Elijah answers these questions by citing the following
parallel. A man prepares a meal for two guests and one does not come.
The absence of the guest does not make the preparation improper, for the
character of the act does not depend upon the choice of the guest to do
or not to do the desire of the host. The invitation was proper because
the host meant the guest's benefit. To be sure, the case is not quite
parallel, and to make it so we must assume that the host expects that
the guest will not come. His intention being good, the invitation is
proper. In our problem knowledge takes the place of expectation. God
does not merely expect, he knows that the man will not obey. But as
God's desire is to benefit mankind and arouse them to higher things, the
command is proper, no matter what the person chooses to do.
To punish the man for disobedience is not unjust because God intended to
benefit him by the command. If he disobeyed, that is his lookout. If the
benefit could have been had without the command, then the punishment
would be unjust, but not otherwise.
If only good men were commanded and the rest ignored, the danger would
be that the former being thereby assured of reward, might be tempted to
do wrong; and the others in despair might be worse than they would be
under ordinary circumstances. God saw that man has evil tendencies, and
needs warning and guidance from without. And just as he gave men
understanding and ability to believe though he knew that a given person
would not avail himself thereof, so he gave all men commandments, though
he knew that some would not obey.[381]
The rest of the book is devoted to such questions as reward and
punishment after death, immortality of the soul, the problem of the
soul's pre-existence, the nature of the future life, repentance--questions
which Maimonides left untouched in the "Guide" on the ground that
whatever religion and tradition may say about them, they are not strictly
speaking scientific questions, and are not susceptible to philosophical
demonstration.
Aaron ben Elijah proves that there must be reward and punishment after
death. For as man is composed of body and soul, there must be reward for
each according as man endeavors to maintain and perfect them. Thus if a
man cares for his body alone, he will be rewarded in his body, _i. e._,
in this world. The other man who looks out for both body and soul must
have the same reward in this world as the other, since their physical
efforts were similar. At the same time he must have something over and
above the other in the nature of compensation for his soul, and this
must be in the next world.
The prosperity of the wicked and the misery of the righteous are also to
be explained in part, as we have seen (p. 376), by reference to their
respective destinies in the next world, where the inequalities of this
world will be adjusted.
Finally, material reward cannot be the consequence of intellectual and
spiritual merit; it would mean doing the greater for the sake of the
smaller. And besides the soul is not benefited by physical goods and
pleasures, and would remain without reward. Hence there must be another
kind of reward after death. In order to deserve such reward the soul
must become wise. At the same time the common people, who observe the
ceremonial commandments, are not excluded from a share in the world to
come, because the purpose of these laws is also intellectual and
spiritual, as we said before (p. 382), and hence their observance makes
the soul wise, and gives it immortality. This last comment is clearly
directed against the extreme intellectualism of Maimonides and
Gersonides, according to whom rational activity alone confers
immortality (p. 339).[382]
The considerations just adduced imply the immortality of the soul, to
which they lend indirect proof. But Aaron ben Elijah endeavors besides
to furnish direct proof of the soul's continuance after the death of the
body. And the first thing he does is to disarm the criticism of the
philosophers, who deny immortality on the ground that the soul being the
form of the body, it must like other material forms cease with the
dissolution of the things of which they are the forms. He answers
this by showing that the soul as the cause of knowledge and
wisdom--immaterial faculties--is itself immaterial. Being also the cause
of the body's motion, it is not itself subject to motion, hence not to
time, and therefore not destructible like a natural form. Besides the
composition of body and soul is different from that of matter and form
in the ordinary sense. For in the former case each of the constituent
parts is already a composite of matter and form. The body has both
matter and form, and the soul has likewise. For the acquired intellect
is the form of the soul, which is the matter. Other proofs are as
follows: The rational soul performs its functions without help from the
body, hence it is independent in its existence. The proof of the last
statement is that the power of the rational soul is not limited, and
does not become weary, as a corporeal power does. Hence it can exist
without the body. Again, as the corporeal powers grow stronger, the
intellectual powers grow weaker, and _vice versa_ as the corporeal
powers grow weaker in old age, the intellect grows stronger. Hence the
soul is independent of the body, and when the physical powers cease
entirely in death, the intellect is at its height.[383]
The question of the soul's pre-existence before coming in contact with
the body, Aaron ben Elijah answers in the affirmative, though his
arguments in favor of the opposite view are stronger. His sole argument
in favor of its pre-existence is that the soul, being a self-subsisting
substance and not an accident, is not dependent upon the body, and must
have existed before the body. The consequence which some have drawn from
this supposition combined with the soul's immortality, namely, that the
soul is eternal, he refuses to adopt. The soul existed before the body,
but like all things which are not God it was created in time.
Though we have thus seen that the soul existed before the body, it is
mistaken to suppose that it was completely developed. For though the
gradual progress in knowledge and understanding as the individual
matures proves nothing for the soul's original imperfection, as we may
account for this progress by the gradual adaptation of the physical
elements to the functions of the soul, there is a more valid objection.
If the soul was perfectly developed before entering the body, all souls
should be alike when they leave it, which is not the case. We come to
the conclusion therefore that the soul does acquire knowledge while in
contact with the body. The human soul is a unit, and from its connection
with the body arise the various powers, such as growth, life, reason.
When the soul is separated from the body, those powers which functioned
with the aid of the body perish; the others remain.[384]
In the matter of eschatology Aaron ben Elijah gives a number of views
without declaring himself definitely for any of them. The main
difference among the three points of view quoted concerns the
possibility of the resurrection of the body, and the meaning of the
terms "revival of the dead" ("Tehiyat ha-metim") and "the world to come"
("Olam ha-ba"). Aaron ben Elijah seems to incline to the first, in favor
of resurrection.
We must endeavor, he says, to get some notion of final reward and
punishment. For without any idea of its nature a man's hope or fear is
taken away from him, and he has no motive for right conduct. To be sure
it is not possible to get a clear understanding of the matter, but some
idea we must have. The first view which he seems to favor is that
_revival of the dead_ and _world to come_ are the same thing; that the
end of man is the resurrection of the body and its reunion with the
soul. This is the future life, and this is meant by reward and
punishment. There is Biblical support for this view in such expressions
as, "Thy dead shall live, thy dead bodies shall arise" (Isa. 26, 19).
"The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave and
bringeth up" (1 Sam. 2, 6). There is nothing to object in this, he says,
for the same God who made man of the dust can revive him after death.
Besides, there seems to be a logical propriety in bringing soul and body
together for reward and punishment just as they were during conduct in
life. When the soul is once reunited with the body in the resurrection,
it is never separated again. The expression "_garden_ of Eden" for
paradise is a figure of speech for eternal life free from pain.
The second opinion is expressed by those who do not believe in bodily
resurrection. The end of man according to these is the return of the
soul to the world of souls. This is the meaning of "world to come"; and
"revival of the dead" means the same thing. For it is not possible that
the soul should be reunited with the body, which is temporary in its
nature and subject to dissolution. Besides, the body has organs, such as
those of food and reproduction, which would be useless in the future
life. The advocates of this theory also believe in transmigration of
souls as a punishment. Aaron ben Elijah rejects metempsychosis on the
ground that there is some relation between a soul and its body, and not
every body can receive every soul.
Aaron ben Elijah also quotes without comment the classification, already
familiar to us (p. 119), of human souls into (1) dead, (2) alive, (3)
healthy, and (4) sick. Death denotes evil deeds; life, good deeds;
health, intellectual knowledge; disease, ignorance. This classification
is applied in determining the destiny of the soul after death. If one is
alive and healthy, _i. e._, has knowledge and good deeds, he has a share
in the world to come. If he is healthy and dead (knowledge + evil
deeds), the soul is kept in an intermediate world forever. If he is
alive and sick (good deeds + ignorance), the soul rises to the upper
air, whence it returns again and again to the body until it acquires
wisdom to be able to rise to the world of angels. If he is dead and sick
(evil deeds + ignorance), the soul dies like an animal.
Finally, the third opinion is a combination of resurrection and "future
world." Seeing that some of the functions of the soul are performed with
the help of the body, while others are not, the advocates of this view
maintain that the soul will be rewarded in both conditions--with the
body, in resurrection, without the body, in the world to come.
If a man has merits and demerits, his good and evil deeds are balanced
against each other, and the surplus determines his reward or punishment
according to its nature.[385]