You are on page 1of 35

Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme in Muslim and Christian Polemic in Spain Author(s): Norman Roth Source:

Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 54 (1987), pp. 203236 Published by: American Academy for Jewish Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622585 . Accessed: 01/06/2011 10:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajr. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Academy for Jewish Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

http://www.jstor.org

FORGERY AND ABROGATION OF THE TORAH: A THEME IN MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN POLEMIC IN SPAIN
BY NORMAN ROTH

Slow but steady progress is being made toward the point where we may be able to have a comprehensive synthetic analysis of the nature of medieval polemic and the Jewish response to it. The recent appearance of important works like David Berger's edition of the Ni44ahon ha-yashan, with his substantial commentary, is an indication of this progress. Considerably more attention has been given, however, to Christian polemical literature than to that of Islam.1 In connection with my research on relations between Jews, Muslims and Christians in medieval Spain, some important
The bibliography on Christian anti-Jewish polemic is substantial and familiar,of course.The best surveyof Muslim polemic, althoughbibliographiLiteracal only, remainsMoritz Steinschneider,Polemischeund apologetische tur in arabischerSprache zwischen Muslimen, Christenund Juden (Leipzig, VI. 1877 [Abhandlungen die Kundedes Morgenlandes 3], photo rpt. 1966). fur Other early work includes Martin Schreiner, "Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden und Muhammedaner," Z.D.M.G. 42 (1888) (not a very enlighteningarticle);H. Hirschfeld,"MuslimCriticismof the Bible,"J.Q.R. 13; and some articles by Ignaz Goldziher, which may readily be consulted in his GesammelteSchriften(Hildesheim, 1967), vol. I (now in the process of being translatedinto English).For relationsbetween Muslimsand Jews in generalin Relationsin Spain," medieval Spain, see my "SomeAspectsof Muslim-Jewish Estudiosen homenajea don ClaudioSdnchezAlbornozen sus 90 anios(Buenos Aires, 1983) II, 179-214. Naturally,EliahuAshtor, TheJews of Moslem Spain (Philadelphia, 173; two vols., an incomplete English translation from the Hebrew) is helpful for the period, as far as it covers. Berger'sedition and Debate in the High Middle Ages translation mentioned is Jewish-Christian with a very useful index to the commentary. (Philadelphia,1979)

204

NORMAN ROTH

[2]

examples of Muslim polemic, although few in number, have come to light. The most important single example is that of Ibn Hazm of C6rdoba, better known for his famous literary work "The Dove's Neck Ring" (Tauq al-hamdma).2 However, whereas in that work he said some rather positive things about Jews whom he had known, his attitude changed considerably after he became a theologian and jurist of renown, and after he had his dispute with Samuel Ibn Naghrillah, the Jewish prime minister and commander-in-chief of the Muslim kingdom of Granada. That story has often been told, and the short polemical treatise which he wrote against Ibn Naghrillah's attack on Islam has been analyzed.3 Less well known, although not entirely ignored, is Ibn Hazm's impressive history of the various religions of the world and their beliefs.4 One very long section of this deals exclusively with Judaism, although there are references to Judaism throughout the work, and it is the most polemical section of the entire work. Ibn Hazm was well versed in the Bible in Hebrew, as were numerous other Muslim writers both in Spain and elsewhere. Whereas his observations on biblical textual matters are often valuable, his real purpose was polemical and his attack apparently became the source for most subsequent Muslim polemics, particularly with regard to charges of "forgery" in the Torah.
2 The correct form of Ibn Hazm's name, often erroneouslygiven, is Abu Muhammad cAl b. Ahmad Ibn Hazm. The best edition and translation (French) of the Tauq is that of Leon Bercher (Alger, 1949). The English translation,TheRing of the Dove,by A.J. Arberry (London, 1953) is unsatisfactory, but the Spanish, El collar de la paloma, by E. Garcia Gomez (Madrid, 1952) is acceptable. 3 E. Garcia G6mez, "Polemica religiosaentre Ibn Hazm e Ibn al-Nagrila," 4 Al-Andalus (1936): 1-28; a less adequatetreatmentin Ashtor,Jews in Moslem Spain II, 122 ff. 4 The correct title of this work would seem to be Kitab alfa$l (not "fial") fi'l-milal wa'l-ahwa'(edition, Cairo, 1903 [photo rpt., Beirut, n.d. (1983?); Spanish translation, complete and quite accurate, by Miguel Asin Palacios, Abenhdzamde Cordoba[Madrid, 1927], especially vol. 2). The title means "Bookof distinction concerningthe religiouscommunities and sects."

[3]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

205

Long before Islam, the Samaritanshad already accused "the cursed Ezra" of forging the Law.5After the Samaritans, Porphyry also accused Ezra of forgery. In turn, the rabbis of the talmudic era accused the Samaritansof having made forgeries and corruptionsin the text.6 Muslim chargesof forgery(tahrif) of the scripturesare found already in the Qur'an (II. 174, those who "conceal"the Book shall consume fire;II. 75, "a party of them that heard the word of Allah, and then changed it," III. 187, they rejectedthe Book; V. 13, "changing"and forgettingmany things; cf. also V. 15). The foremost exponent of this chargein medieval Islam was none other than Ibn Hazm. After him, we find also the Jewish apostate Sama'ualal-Maghribi(who, if he did not live in Spain, at least originated from that country) referringto Ezra's "forgery." The editor of Sama'ual'swork expressed his doubt that Ibn Hazm could have influenced Sama'ual, since the former's work was "probably" not widely circulated because of his theological views.7 This is itself doubtful, and in any case unsubstantiated,and certainly Ibn Hazm's work was known at least in al-Andalus (and, as we shall see, later even in Catalonia), and therefore most certainly was known to Sama'ual. In any event, we need not conjecturethat this is so, as the harmony in views and even wording is striking evidence. In a subsequent paper, the editor furtherdiscussed this, and there referredto Spinoza's opinion that Ezra was the author of the Torah and the historical books of the Bible. But Spinoza declared that Moses was does not say that AbrahamIbn CEzra
5 See AbrahmSpiro, "Samaritans, Tobiads and Judahitesin Pseudo-Philo," Polemic Against PAAJR20 (1951: 287, n. 24; AbrahamS. Halkin, "Samaritan the Jews,"ibid. 7 (1936): 13-59. 6 Salo W. Baron,A Social and Religious Historyof the Jews (N.Y., 1957) II,
158 and 38; Sifre Devarim, ed. Louis Finkelstein (N.Y., 1969), p. 123.

7Ijam al-yahud,ed. and tr. Moshe Perlmann(N.Y., 1964 [PAAJR32]), p. 51 (text), p. 55 (tr.), and cf. p. 97, note B45, and p. 20. Sama'ual'sparentswere marriedin Baghdad,but his fatherwas from al-Andalusand it is possible that Sama'ualwas born there.

206

NORMAN ROTH

[4]

not the author of the Torah, as claimed there; rather, this was Spinoza's own opinion based on his misinterpretationof Ibn cEzra,who is paraphrasedat length by him (Spinoza's knowledge of the Hebrewwas very inadequate,and thus he must have depended on the ChristianLatin translationand summariesof commentaries,just as he had to do for his parts of Ibn CEzra's meant only knowledge of the Bible and Mishnah). Ibn CEzra that the specific passages he cited could not have been written by Moses or during his lifetime. It was dangerous enough, indeed, for a medieval exegete to suggesteven minor interpolations in the text of the Torah, which is why he couched his suggestion in terms that could be understood only by the scholar, but he was certainly no heretic and would never have dared to state that the Torah in general was not written by Moses. Thus, the further conjecture in that paper that Sama'ual received his idea of Ezra's "forgery" the Torah from no less of an authority than Ibn CEzra, through the latter's son Isaac who supposedly converted to Islam (doubtful, at best), has nothing
to support it.8

In fact, long before Ibn cEzrawe find that Ibn Hazm already deduced from the account of the death of Moses (Deut. 34.5 if.) that "this one passage is a faithful witness and perfect proof, a decisive and true argument, that their Torah was altered and that it is a history which a [human]writerwrote, inspired in his ignorance or founded in his imagination,"and not the revela-

8 Perlmann,"The Medieval Polemics Between Islam and Judaism,"in S.D. Goitein, ed., Religion in a ReligiousAge (Cambridge, Mass., 1974),pp. 133-34, n. 18; Benedict Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus ch. viii (in the I, translationof R.H.M. Elwes[N.Y., 1951], p. 120 ff., especiallypp. 129-30; Ibn cEzraon Deut. 1.2, Gen. 12.6 (cf. the "Peirush"to his commentary in the Miqra'otgedolot["rabbinical" Bible], and Gen. 22.14, 3.11, 36.31, Deut. 31.22 and 34.10. Neither does the poet Moses Ibn cEzra'sstatement, cited by wa'l-muPerlmann,have anythingto do with this (see his Kitab al-muhad4ara ddkara,ed. and tr. A.S. Halkin [Jerusalem1975], pp. 86-87, line 44 ff.).

[5]

FORGERY ABROGATION THETORAH AND OF

207

tion of God. He claims to have found altogether 57 passages containing contradictions and errors in the Torah.9 In general, he argues, the transmission of the texts of Jewish and Christianscripturesis lacking in guaranteeof authenticity, for their books have been "enormously altered" and interpolated to the point where they are apocryphal (muftaCal; fabricated, forged). Also, during the long period of Israel's political life, the Torah remained in the hands of the priest (kohen;here as elsewhere Ibn Hazm employs the Hebrew word in Arabic transliteration), so that it could have been corrupted then, as were the books of the Zoroastriansand the Christians.10 The Samaritans,he says, possess an altogetherdifferent text of the Torah, althoughno doubt it is also corrupted(he has not seen it, for they do not consider it permissibleto remove it from Palestine and the Jordan region)." Finally, he concludes his lengthy, and at times perceptive, critique of the Torah by noting that he has discussed its history from the death of Moses to the returnof the Jews to Jerusalem, when Ezra (CAzrainstead of the usual Arabic "Uzayr;both another indication of his transliteration directly from the Hebrew, and an innovation on his part with respect to Muslim tradition) wrote the Torah.'2 Ibn Khaldin, who is particularlyof interest because he is one of the few late medieval (fourteenthcentury)Muslim writersof
9 Kitab al-fal I, 186; Asin Palacios, AbenhdzamII, 337 (futurecitations of the Arabic text will be "Fazl,"and to the Spanish translation"Abenhdzam," that the referenceis to these respectivevolumes of the with the understanding edition and of the translation). 10Fal$, 114-15; Abenhdzam,223. " Fa$l, 117; Abenhdzam,239-40. In the thirteenth century in Baghdad, a Jewish writer attempted to refute precisely this charge, in the context of a broader polemic; cf. Ibn Kammana's Examination of the Three Faiths, tr. Moshe Perlmann(Berkeley,1971), pp. 49-53. 12 Fa1l, 187; Abenhdzam, 338. Of some interest is his statement that the Sadducees alone claimed that CUzayr(so, not Ezra, which he consistently was as transliterates CAzra) the "sonof God,"and that in this they differedfrom the rest of the Jews (FasI, 99; Abenhdzam,211). Thus, it would appearthat Ibn

208

NORMAN ROTH

[6]

Spanish origin, says that it is "well known" (i.e., commonly argued) that the Jews altered the Torah, but adds that this opinion is nevertheless "unacceptable to thorough scholars," for divinely revealed scripture would not be dealt with in such a manner. Perhaps he had become convinced by Jewish arguments. Some Muslim theologians, indeed, rejected the charge of forgery because of doubts this might cast on the authenticity of Islam's own pretensions to biblical traditions.13 Such Muslim charges did not pass unnoticed by Jewish scholars in Spain. An important reply to the charge of forgery is found in Abraham Ibn Daud's philosophycal work ha-Emunah ha-ramah ("the exalted faith"), written in 1168 in Toledo, where he discusses this at length and concludes: And we find the Torah known everywhere in one text, in which there is no change, among the communities of Israel from India to the extremities of Spain and the Maghrib [West] in the settled world, from the borders of Ifriqiya [moder Tunisia], Ethiopia, and Yemen in the South to the ends of the cities of al-Migus in the ocean which encircles the North... And how could it be possible that Ezra got the agreement of all the people everywhere to follow after 'his' covenant?14

to Hazm, at least, did not considerCUzayr be the same as Ezra,as some Islamic traditions maintained. This, too, was apparentlytaken over from him by the apostate Sama'ual,who arguesthat Ezracannot be CUzayr (Ifham,p. 63 [text], p. 60 [tr.]),which is furtherproofof Ibn Hazm'sinfluenceon him, as therecould be no other sourcefor this (see generallythe article"'Uzayr"in Encyclopedia of Islam, or, better, ShorterEncyclopediaof Islam). 3 Ibn Khaldin, The Muqaddimah,tr. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton, 1967) I, 20. See the article "Tatrif' in Shorter Encylcopedia of Islam (articles on religious subjectsare often of better quality there than in the more complete Encyclopedia Islam). of 14Ha-Emunahha-ramah(Frankfurt a.M., 1853), p. 80; my copy of the book lacks the German translation,and the above is my own translationfrom the Hebrew.The cities of al-Mugusshouldprobablybe understoodas al-Majuj; i.e., Magogof the mythicallands of Gog and Magog(cf. Fasl, 120, where the same term is used), thus, the extremitiesof northernEuropeand Asia.

[7]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

209

In other words, how could this "forgery"be so universally accepted, and in the same text everywhere?Of course, this is not a convincing rebuttal,for it could easily be maintained that the text of the Torah was established in its final form long after Ezra, by the Masoretes, and it was this text which was universally accepted (indeed, there were still significantvariations in the text in medieval manuscripts,as the scholarsof Spain knew well). Maimonides may very well have been inspired by this argument of Ibn Daud when he wrote in his "Letter to Yemen" concerning certain Jews who had converted to Islam and were apparently impressed by the argument of abrogation of the Torah: And when they [Muslims] did not find a single proof in all the Torah, neither a passagenor analogue [shibh],to which they could attach themselves, they found it necessary to say: 'You have substituted the Torah and altered it and eradicated the name of that one [Muhammad] from it.' And they did not find a better argumentthan this, although it is most abominableand repulsive, and its nullificationis obvious to everyone [lil-Cammaw'al-khay4al]since the Torah was expounded [translated]in the Syrian language and the Greek and the Persian and Romance hundreds of years before this ignoble one [Muhammad]arose. (14a)

'4 IggeretTeiman,Epistleto Yemen,ed. AbrahamS. Halkin,Englishtr. Boaz Cohen (N.Y., 1952), p. 38 (text). Since the Hebrewtranslations,and especially Cohen's English translation from the Hebrew (p. viii) are all more or less inexact, the translation here is my own. It should be noted that al-La(tnf, especially when used by an Andalusian author (which Maimonides always thus is answered and consideredhimself to be), means "Romance" not "Latin;" Halkin's difficultyin n. 56 there. Also, note that Maimonides uses the term al-fusul for Muhammad, which could be the Arabic word meaning "low, ignoble,"or could as easily be the Hebrewpasul. In eithercase, it is a homonym in for rasul, "prophet," an obviously derogatorysense. This term was frequent both in rabbinicaland Qaraite anti-Muslimpolemics. Halkin made no comment on this in the text, where there should be a note.

210

NORMAN ROTH

[8]

Qaraite scholars even took the offensive against such Muslim charges. While the present study is limited to medieval Spain, nevertheless an example of Qaraite rebuttal can be cited from Yafet (not "Yefet") b. CAli,an important exegete frequently cited by Ibn cEzra,in his commentary(in Arabic)on Isa. 47.910, where he refers to "their book the Qur'an [which is] a lie which has no foundation. Muhammad and his companions gathered things from the Torah and wrote them in their book and pretended it was a revelation from God. Thus, they were even worse than sorcerersand magicians...'15 In addition to attackingthe Torah itself, and the rest of the Bible, Ibn Hazm also attacked rabbinical and mystical literature. In his refutation of Ibn Naghrillah, he had already called attention to the mystical treatise shiCur qomah ("measureof the [divine] body")and objectedthat in this workthe distance from the front to the back of God is described;and in Seder nashim (transcribedagain in Arabiccharacters),it is said that God has a crown of a certain height. These charges are repeated in the Fasl: In one of their books, ShiCur qomah, of the books of the Talmud (and the Talmud is their foundation and base of their jurisprudence [fiqh]and ordinances [ahkam] of their religion and law), and it is of the doctrine [aqwal] not 'sayings' [aqdwrl] of their rabbis without disagreement [khilaf] of any of them...16
15Text of Yafet cited from two mss. in HaggaiBen-Shammai,"Mahadurah ve-nusha'otmi-peirusheyYafet b. cAllla-miqra"(Hebrew),Alei Sefer2 (1976): 23-24. In the ms. in Arabicscript,the offensivepassagesare largelyin Hebrew, with the Qur'anbeing called, as usal, qalon(Hebrew"disgrace"). the ms. in In even more of the offensive passages are rendered in Hebrew Judeo-Arabic, commentedon this strangefact, but offeredno explanation).On (Ben-Shammai the decreeof al-Mutawwakil 850 C.E. concerningthe thingsmentionedin the in text, see the text of al-Tabari,translatedin BernardLewis, Islam (N.Y., 1974), II, 224-25. 16 Garcia G6mez, "Polemicareligiosaentre Ibn Hazm e Ibn al-Nagrila,"p. 21. Fasl, 221; Abenhdzam,385-86. The edited Arabictext reads "shcar tuma" for Shi'urqomah,but this could easily be a copyist's errorsince Arabict and q

[9]

FORGERYAND ABROGATIONOF THE TORAH

211

In otherwords,he believedthatthis workwasactually partof a the Talmud, and not midrashbut rather of binding legal validity. Theattitude themedieval of Jewsto thismystical treatise was Whilethe geonimSherira Hai (Hayyah) and at bestambiguous. was may have acceptedit, Sacadyah inclinedto be skeptical, the and in any event "allegorized" statementabout God's of (as too, height.IbncEzra, madeit an allegory the macrocosm in fact, MosesNarboniclaimedforMaimonides). Maimonides, had second at first acceptedthe work, and then apparently thoughtsand rejectedit as the work of ByzantineJewish becausehe becameawareof Muslimhostilpreachers (possible as to the views expressed, in the workof Ibn Hazm).'7 ity OtherMuslimwriters knewof the work.Jamalal-DinAbu'lal-Rahman b. cAli, known as Ibn al-Jawzi (1116Faraj CAbd

1200, not to be confusedwith anotherwriterof that name),a scholarand respected and famous"Hanbalite" preacher travof eler,raisedthe charge "association" formswiththe deity) (of of in his workTalbisIblfs("Deception the devil").He cites the
are quite easily confused. See generallyAlexanderAltmann,"MosesNarboni's Epistleon the Shi'urQomah,"in AlexanderAltmann,ed., JewishMedievaland RenaissanceStudies (Cambridge,Mass., 1967), p. 228. Altmann refers to the translation of Ibn Hazm's work, and correctly objects that Asin missed the qomahto be, not partof the "dicta,"but point that Ibn Hazm assertsthe Shicur of the doctrine of the rabbis. I believe that by the world aqawil, Ibn Hazm intendedaggadicsayingsof the Talmud,Midrash,etc., and that his point is that this work is "officialtheology" (my translation differs in some minor points from that of Altmannthere). 17 For details on these various opinons, see Altmann'scited article, pp. 226, 227, 230, 231-32, 239-40. However, the fifteenth-centurySpanish Jewish scholarsShemTov Ibn ShemTov had no reservationsabout acceptingthe work as that of Judah ha-nasi, redactorof the Mishnah!(Sefer ha-emunot[Ferrara, theories, 1555;photo rpt., 1969], f. 23a). For medieval microcosm-macrocosm see JosephIbn Saddiq,Der Mikrokosmos ('Olamha-qatan)(Breslau,1903), and generallyGeorge P. Conger, Theoriesof Macrocosmsand Microcosmsin the History of Philosophy(N.Y., 1950), p. 36 ff., Henry Malter'sbrilliant article of "Personifications Soul and Body,"J.Q.R. (n.s.) 2 (1912): 453 ff., and Samuel

212

NORMAN ROTH

[ 10]

"Hanbalite" theologian Abu cAbdallah b. Hamid who said "the Jews maintain that God who is to be worshipped is a man of light upon a throne of light, having on his head a crown of light, and having the same members as a human being."18 There can be no doubt that this is a reference to the ShiCur qomah. According to the extant fragments of that text, exaggerated measurements are given for various parts of the divine body, and it is said: "His body is like a crystal [or beryl; tarshish] and its brightness shines greatly from the midst of the dark-

ness..."19
Ibn al-Jawzi's charge that the Jews teach that God has a crown of light comes also from Ibn Hazm, who cites the Seder nashim, which he says is a "commentary on the laws of menstruation" (tafJir ahkam al-hai4), which mentions the crown of God and the angel responsible for it, Sandalfut (Sandalfon, of course). According to this, he could only have been referring to the tractate Niddah, which deals with menstruation. In fact, these things are found not in Niddah, but in Hagigah 13b (part of the order MoCed, not Nashim): Sandalfon forms crowns for God, which is explained there as an allegory for the prayers of men which ascend and become "crowns."20All of these matters
Kotteck, "Microcosmand Macrocosm According to Some Jewish Medieval WorksUp to the Twelfth Century," Janus 64 (1977): 205-15. "8Tr. D.S. Islamic by Margoliouth,"'TheDevil's Delusion' By Ibn al-Jauzi," Culture9 (1935): 1-21, 187-208, 377-99 (the polemical section), 553-51. The citation here is from p. 377 (this article,and the workitself, has been ignoredby all writerswho have dealt with Muslim anti-Jewishpolemic). 19I cite the text of one of the versions,found in an earlyprintededition of the mystical work Sefer Raziel, as reprintedin Judah Eisenstein, OSarha-midrashim (N.Y., 1915) II, 563a. None of the moder authorities(Scholem,Altmann, etc.) have noted this text, which is more readilyaccessiblethan the Merkavah Shlemah(Jerusalem,1922), which they cite. 20 Fasl, 221; Abenhdzam,386. The statement in .Hagigah 13b is repeatedin the midrash "Macyan hokhmah"in A. Jellinek, ed., Beit ha-midrash(Leipzig, 1853-77; rpt. Jerusalem,1967) I, 58, and in Eisenstein,op. cit. II, 306; German translation in A. Wunsche, Aus Israels Lehrhallen (Leipzig, 1907-09; rpt. Hildesheim, 1967) I, 127

[11]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

213

have to do with the visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, which were referred to in Jewish tradition as the "Work of the Chariot" (ma'aseh merkavah),considered esoteric knowledgewhich was not to be discussed publicly or with the improperly prepared
student.21

The objection to the referencesto God sitting on a throne is a bit more difficultto understand,for the throne of Allah occupies a prominent place in Muslim theology (Qur'an VII.52; X.2; XIII.2; XXVII.25; XXXII.4; and of course the all-important "Throne verse," 11.255, which became part of the confession [shahada]of Islam). Referencesto the allegoryof the "throneof God" in rabbinic literatureare too numerous to list.22 The allegorical nature of the Throne is particularlyemphasized by Maimonides, and almost certainly he was reacting, at least in part, to Muslim polemic such as that of Ibn al-Jawzi,as well as to the doctrine of the Throne generally in Islam. According to Maimonides, "throne"when applied to God, is nothing but an allegory for the heavens, which indicates to those who reflectupon them "the greatnessof Him who caused them to exist and move," and the throne ought not to be imagined as "a thing outside His essence or as a created being from among the beings created by him" (so Pines' translation; actually the text reads "created [thing]," not "being"),which Much of what he would be heresy(kufr;not mere "infidelity").23 there appears to have been influenced by Ibn Sina (Avisays cenna), who wrote:

21 See, e.g., Moses b. Maimon, Guide of the Perplexed, tr. Shlomo Pines (Chicago, 1963), III, introduction; pp. 415-16, 417-30; Mishneh Torah, Mada'c Yesodey ha-Torah, 2.11-12. 22 See, e.g., C.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (Philadelphia, 1960), index, s.v., "throne;" Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, tr. Gerald Friedlander (N.Y., 1965), index. 23 Guide I.1, p. 23; 1.9, pp. 34-35; I. 28, p. 61; I. 70, p. 172; II. 26, p. 330 ff. Pines somewhat incorrectly translated "created being" (p. 35), confusing makluq with makaliq (the former means simply "created," a created thing).

214

NORMANROTH

[12]

religious laws generally state that God is on the throne. Among other things this expression means that the throne is the last of the createdcorporeal[physicial]existents. The anthropomorphistsamong the adherents of religious laws claim that God, the Exalted,is on the throne... The philosopherswho adhereto religiouslaws have agreedthat what is meant [is the heaven, or ninth celestial sphere].24 Nevertheless, Maimonides here conveniently ignored such blatant statementsas: "Seven things were createdbefore the world was created... [including] the throne of glory" (Pesahim 54a; Nedarim 39b), although he mentions this later (p. 331) as a "strange" teaching. Ibn Hazm also argues against the Jews who claim that the Torah cannot be abrogated,and insists that abrogationsimply means that "God commands the practiceof a certainthing for a certain time, after which, with the passing of that time, he prohibits its practice."For instance, all Jews recognize that the law of Jacob differedfrom the law of Moses; e.g., Jacob married both Leah and Rachel and had them as wives simultaneously, "whichwas prohibited by the law of Moses" (cf. Lev. 18.18).25 As further examples of apparent ch;angesin God's law he gives the order to kill all the peoples of Canaan (Deut. 7.1-5), but when the Gibeonites tricked the Hebrews into making a
24

"On the Proof of Prophecies"(Ft ithbat al-nubuwwat),tr. Michael E. Marmulain Ralph Lernerand MuhsinMahdi,eds., MedievalPoliticalPhilosophy (Ithaca,N.Y., 1963), p. 118. I think there is no doubt that Maimonideswas influencedby Ibn Sina here;cf. also the commentaryof"Efodi"(Isaacb. Moses ha-Levy,ProfiatDuran) in the Hebreweditions of Guidewith commentaries, on 1.9.Some examplesof the influenceof Muslimphilosopherson Maimonides are given in the chapter"Maimonidesand Some Muslim Sources"in my book Maimonides.Essays and Texts(Madison,Wisc., 1986). 25 FaSl, 101; Abenhdzam,214. On abrogation,see already Sacadyah Gaon, Book of Beliefsand Opinions,tr. SamuelRosenblatt(New Haven, 1948), p. 147 if., and Mosesb. Maimon,MishnehTorah: Shoftim, "Melakhim" 11.4,3 (only in the uncensored Rome, 1480 edition; rpt., Jerusalem, 1955). This is also discussed, and the passagetranslated,in my Spanisharticle (see n.59 below).

[ 13]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

215

pact with them, God himself ordered them not to be killed (Joshua9). He also objects that Isa. 66. 18-21 permitsministers in the Temple from among the Persians (which he either deduced from referencesthere to other nations, or apparently he misunderstood Sacadyah's Arabic translation of Isaiah, which he may have consulted, where he translated verse 20:
"horse [or chariots] and riders" as khail wa'l-fursan, "horses and

riders,"which Ibn Hazm may have understood as the plural of


al-furs, "Persians").26 "In whatever sense, therefore, in which

the Jews interpretthese wordsof Isaiah,"he says, "it must result in an abrogation[naskh]of that which the Torahestablished.In truth, it is foretelling [indhdn]of the Muslim religion by which the Persians,Arabsand other peoples have come to occupy the Temple and the rest of the houses of Allah." Unfortunately,we possess almost no comments in any of the rabbinicalliteratureon this passage, and of the medieval commentaries in which we would be interested; only that of Ibn CEzra Isaiahis extant. He says on verse 21: "thosethat come I on shall take to be priestsbefore me, and Levites."Both Rashi and as (so, Qimhi cite the statement of Rabbi Elcazar not "Elicezer" in the printed texts) in the "AggadatTehillim" (according to Rashi) that God will take from among the Gentilespriests and Levites ("from those who bring [=Gentiles] and from those who are brought [=Israelites]," accordingto Qimhi's text; but in fact the edited text of the citation has "fromthose who bring but not from those who are brought,"which obviously makes no sense. Thus, Qimhi's version, supported also by the Yalqut,is correct.). This statement is found, in fact, in two different
midrashim.27
Fa4l, 101-02; Abenhdzam,216, with Asin's unlikely explanationthere in n.93. Sa'adyah'stranslation (Judeo-Arabic)of Isaiah in his Oeuvres,ed. J. Derenbourg(Paris, 1893-99; rpt. Hildesheim, 1979) I, 100. 27 PeirushRabbenu ed. AvrahamIbn cEzraCalYesha'yahu, and tr. M. Friedlander(London, 1873; rpt. N.Y., n.d.), p. 115 (text). MidrashTehillim(which was known as "Aggadat Tehillim"),ed. Solomon Buber (Vilna, 1891; rpt. Jerusalem,1977) on Ps. 87, section 6 (p. 190), and Mekilta (Mekhilta),ed. and
26

216

NORMANROTH

[14]

Thus, indeed, Jewish interpretation agreed here with Ibn Hazm, at least to the extent that in the messianic era priests and Levites would be chosen also from among the Gentiles. Ibn al-Jawzi also addressed the subject of abrogation of the laws of the Torah, noting that "Adam"was permitted marriage with sisters (he confused Jacob, who married both Leah and Rachel, with Adam), and was allowed to work on the Sabbath, both of which were prohibited by Moses.28Sama'ual al-Maghribi also mentions the prohibition of work on the Sabbath previously permitted as proof of abrogation, but makes no mention of Jacob's marriageof sisters.29 Since Islam is a religion predicated on the belief in Muhammad as the "messenger"and prophet of God par excellence, it was only natural that Muslims should attribute to other reliManicheism,Judaism)a similardoctrine gions (Zoroastrianism, of "belief' in their prophets. Also with regardto Christianity, while denying as blasphemy of the worst kind the belief in the divinity of Jesus, Muslims were willing to accept Jesus as a prophet. However, the truth is that Judaism is not predicated on a belief in Moses, who was merely a transmitter (however elevated above other prophets he may have been) of divine revelation. The belief, in other words, is in the message and not in the messenger. As a result of this mistaken understandingof Judaism, Muslim polemics focuses also on the "miracles"of Moses as presumed proof (from the Jewish viewpoint) of his superiority.Ibn Hazm states that Muslims only believe in Moses and Jesus as prophets because they supposedly foretold the coming of Muhammad. Indeed, he questions why Moses should be believed at all; if because of miracles,he (Ibn Hazm) has already demonstratedin previous chaptersthat there is no differencein
tr. JacobLauterbach Buberdid not (Philadelphia,1949) I, 93-94 (surprisingly, notice the citation in Mekhilta,nor did Lauterbach mentionMidrashTehillin). 28 Margoliouth,op. cit., p. 378. 29 Ijam, pp. 8-9 (text), pp. 34-35 (tr.).

[15]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

217

this respectbetween miracles performedby Moses and those of others. Jesus and Muhammad should equally be believed on this basis. There is no differencebetween the Jews who admit the prophecy of some and deny that of others and the Magians who admit the divine mission of Zoroaster but deny that of Moses and the other prophets, or the Manicheans who believe in the mission of Jesus, and the Sabeans who deny that of Abrahamand the prophetsbut admit that of Enoch (Idris) and others. Indeed, "each of these sects and religions says much more of Moses and the rest of your prophets than [Jews] say of Jesus and Muhammad. They [the prophets] are spoken of in their books, and this is famous and well known."30 Sama'ual also criticizes the Jews for their "belief' in the miracles of Moses merely on the basis of tradition. He returns again to the charge about miracles, asserting that traditions concerningthe miracles of Jesus and Muhammadmust equally validate their prophecies.31 Again, it is obvious he derived these ideas from Ibn Hazm. Maimonides certainly was aware of Sama'ual'sbook, and it seems that he respondedspecificallyto it in his letter to the Jews of Yemen (there is nc space to discuss this in detail here, but it will be fully analyzed in a forthcoming book on relations between Jews and Gentiles in Spain). It would also seem probablethat he was familiar with the work of Ibn Hazm (why should he not have been, when in the Guide he says he read every book ever written on the histories of religions?), and therefore that he had in mind these polemical remarks about Moses and miraclesin his own discussion of these in the Guide. There, he firstrefersto his earlierdistinctions between Moses and the prophets. In one of these, he stated that Moses was the chief of all prophetsbefore and afterhim, "superiorin attaining knowledgeof God to any person who ever lived or will live... All
30 Fal1, 104, 102; Abenhdzam, 219, 216-17 sentence there is incorrect). 31 Op. cit., pp. 12-13 (text), pp. 36-37 (tr.).

(his translation of the last

218

NORMAN ROTH

[16]

his powers of sense [the senses] and fantasy were repressedand pure reason remained."There is no mention here of miracles
whatsoever.32

Also in the Mishneh Torah, the same general distinctions between Moses and the prophets are made, again with no mention of miracles.On the contrary,he specificallydenies that Moses was believed because of miracles: Moses our teacherwas not believed by Israelbecause of the miracles he did, for one who believes because of miracles has in his heart a doubt that possibly the miracle is done by enchantment and magic. Rather, all the miracles which Moses did in the wildernesswere because of necessity, not to bring proofs as to his prophecy... In what did they believe in him? Because of the presence at Mt. Sinai har [maCamad Sinay], which we saw with our eyes and not a stranger,and our ears heard and not another's.33 Similarly, in the Guide, he notes that Moses differed from the of prophetsin "apprehension" God, which was different"allthe from the apprehension of all those who came in other more, religious communities."34
32 Introductionto "IHeleq" (commentaryon mishnahSanhedrin,ch. 10.1), in Moses b. Maimon, Mishnah cim peirush..., ed. Joseph Kafib (not "Kafah") (Jerusalem,1963), vol. 3, pp. 142-43; there is an Englishtranslationby Arnold Wolf, reprintedin IsadoreTwersky,ed., A MaimonidesReader(N.Y., 1972), p. 419 (the translationof that passageis reliable,unlike most of the rest of it). 33Mishneh Torah:Madac,"Yesodey ha-Torah" 8.2. Incidentally,the expression macamad Sinay is one of severalfirstcoined by Maimonides,here and har in the commentaryon Avot 1.17 (cf. also Epistle to Yemen,ed. A.S. Halkinand tr. Boaz Cohen [N.Y., 1952],p. vi of the translation,n. 4; however,Maimonides does not there use the expression, and Ibn Tibbon's translationof Sacadyah, where he used the expression,was made in 1186, thus long after the Mishneh Torah[finallyredactedin 1178] from which he of courseborrowedit). See also M.T. there, 7.6, on Moses and prophecy(and cf. my Maimonides, index s.v. "prophecy"). 4 Guide11.35,pp. 367-68. Generally,Maimonideswas skepticalconcerning miracles; see especially Guide II.29, p. 345, and, concerning the miracles discussedthere,p. 368, and his apparentapprovalof the rationalinterpretation of Moses Ibn Chiqatillah, see Uriel Simon, Arbacagishot le-Sefer Tehillim

[ 17]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

219

Ibn Hazm also claims that Jews have denied the transformation of physical entities (ihalat al-tabd'iC, change of natural

characteristic)into anotherby loss of its essential attributes,or the creation of phenomena impossible by nature, the denial of which is like the denial of prophecy, for only these things distinguish a prophet from one who is not.35 Goldziher also published the text of a statement by Muhammad b. al-Hasanal-Shaybani(d. 805 C.E., he was the foremost authority of the "Hanafite"school of law) to the effect that all the Jews of cIraqrecognizethat Allah is the true God (i.e., is the same as God), but they claim that Muhammad was sent as a prophet only to the Arabs but not to the Jews, taking literally the statement(Qur'anLXII.2) that Allah sent the Prophetto the nations (the Arabs)only. Thus, the Jews are not to "unlettered" if they claim to believe in Allah and his prophet,for be believed they mean God, and that the Prophet was sent to the Arabs. Even if a Jew professesfaith in Islam, this may merelymean the "truth"of his own law (Judaism).36 We see, therefore,that the issue of the natureof prophecywas of great importance not only in theoretical polemical debate, but in the practicalitiesof actual life. Other criticisms of the Bible found in Muslim polemics, and especially in great detail in Ibn Hazm, include the charge of "anthropomorphism."He begins his attack with Gen. 1.26, God making man in his image (form) and likeness. "Form" (Sura)would be acceptableas an attribute,as when it is said "the
(Ramat Gan, 1982;cf. my review of this importantbook in HebrewStudies25 [1984]: 210-13), pp. 97-98, and n. 9; and see also the commentaryof Qimhi on I Kings 17.17, citing "somewho say,"almostverbatimas in the Guide,and thus obviously he means Ibn Chiqatillah. 35FaSl, 155;Abenhdzam, 296. Maimonidesdoes cite the view of the rabbisin the Midrash,which is also his view, that there is no permanentchange in the naturalorder,and that miraclesare only that which is ordainedin the natureof a thing (Guide11.29,p. 345; cf. also I. 73, p. 207). 36"Usagesjuifs d'apres la litteraturereligieusedes Musulmans,"R.E.J. 28 (1894): 91-92; rpt. in his GesammelteSchriftenIII, 338-39.

220

NORMANROTH

[18]

work of Allah" or "formedby Allah," but "likeness"(shabah) There is much more implies an image of God, which is false.37 of this kind of thing, detailing anthropomorphicexpressionsin the Bible. Of course, the Qur'an itself contains anthropomorphisms which Muslim commentaryattempted to explain away. Elsewherein the Fail, he also criticized stronglythe views of alAshcari on divine attributes, which he considered anthropomorphic. Sama'ual also criticized anthropomorphismin the Bible, but ratherbriefly.38 Again, it is obvious that Maimonides was responding to Muslim polemic when, in the Guide and elsewhere, he dismissed all anthropomorphicstatementsin the Bible as allegory; especially when he discusses this very passage in Genesis, and says: "People have thought that in the Hebrew languageimage [4elem] denotes the shape and configurationof a thing," and goes on to explain that "image"here refers to the intellectual apprehension of man, and that this is an "equivocal" or "amphibolous" term (in Arabic mushakkak, which simply means "doubtful,uncertain").39 Many passagesin the Guideare devoted to explaining allegoricallyvarious apparentanthropomorphisms of the Bible. Ibn Hazm's attackon the anthropomorphism,and in fact his entire polemic, is not of mere academic interest as a written treatise alone, for he specificallystates that he debated publicly, ("before the people") with "some Jews" about these matters. We know that one of the Jews with whom he debated was Ibn Naghrillah,but accordingto this statementthere were others as well.
also pp. 161, 164;Abenhdzam,240, 303, 308. Ifham, p. 45 (text), p. 52 (tr.). 39 Guide I.1, pp. 21-22. See the importantcommentaryof Moses Narboni (ed. J. Goldenthal [Vienna, 1828; rpt. in Qadmoney meforsheyha-Moreh, Jerusalem, 1961]) and also the commentaryof Solomon Maimon Giv'athaMoreh,f. 2b. See the observationsof HarryA. Wolfson, "TheJewish Kalam," Volume theJewishQuarterly Review(Philadelphia, Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of 1967), pp. 563-68.
38

37 Fayl, 117-18,

[19]

OF FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH

221

It would appearthat AbrahamIbn Daud was at least partially influencedby Muslim beliefs such as those found in Ibn Hazm's treatise when he wrote that the Hebrewwords for "God"in the Bible (Elohim, etc.) do not always mean God, but sometimes angels and the like. The Christians always translate the Tetragrammaton as "Lord" in such expressions as "And YHVH said," etc., "however, the Muslim never admitted that God, may he be blessed, spoke with the prophets or appeared to [them], but it is found that they refer to Gabriel or the faithful spirit and similar names." Some ignorant Jews, on the other hand, interpretall such statements in the Bible literally and so come to the error of anthropomorphism.There are even some "of the ignorantof our people"who take the verse "Letus make man in our form and image" literally, and "forthe majority[of people] the form is matter... especially the face, and therefore they think this passage requiresthat God made man according to his matter and image, and thus fall into complete error."40 Judah b. Barzilai of Barcelonawho wrote in the same period as Ibn Daud, also complained of Jewish heretics who accused the rabbis of anthropomorphicviews:

40 ha Emunah ha-ramah, p. 91. This is furtherproof that many Jews actually b. did hold anthropomorphic views, as Abraham David of Posquierestatedin his strictureson Maimonides, and contraryto Wolfson in the article cited, p. 571 (therep. 562, he discussedan earlierstatementin ha-Emunahha-ramah,p. 47, but partlybecausehe overlookedthe passageherequotedhis conclusionson the passage he did discuss cannot be accepted). On anthropomorphism,see also Isaac Ibn Latif, "Iggeretha-teshuvah," QoveSal-yad, 1: 55 and the letter of in Moses b. Maimon, Qoves teshuvot,ed. A. in "Iggrot Nahmanides qena'ot" Lichtenberg(Leipzig, 1859; photo rpt. Westmead,England, 1969)III, 9d; and of the letter of an unknowncontemporary AbrahamMaimuni, ed. and tr. A.S. Halkin in Tarbiz 25 (1956): 420 (tr.), 426 (text); and see the letter of the Damascus nasi Hodayah b. Yishay to AbrahamMaimuni denouncingall the French Jews for their belief in anthropomorphism(ed. David Simonsen in FestschriftJ. Guttmann,p. 221). All these substantiatethe fact that anthropomorphicbeliefs were much more common among medieval Jewsthan Wolfson assumed.

222

[20] we have found in the world the divided of heart,the wicked of the land, heretics who are pursuersof Israel and stand among us and blind themselves [cf. Lam. 3.65 and the commentaryof Ibn cEzra]to say to the sages of Israel, God forbid, that they ascribeimage or form to our creator- far be it from all the holy seed to do this at all; may [God] punish the heretical evil ones... and all the more so the rest of the peoples of evil who deny the essence [of faith] and say many errors.41
NORMAN ROTH

Since he describes these heretics as "standing among us" and distinguishes them from the "peoples of evil" (by which he always means the Christians),there is no doubt that he refers here to Jewish heretics (minim) and not Christians.Indeed, we never hear of Christianswho raised a charge of anthropomorphism againstthe Jews, for they themselves were "guilty"of this position and were attacked along with Jews for this in Muslim polemic. Undoubtedly, the most interestingJewish reply to Ibn Hazm comes from an unlikely source, Solomon Ibn Adret, a thirteenth-centuryrabbi of Barcelona.The manuscriptof his "letter" (the title given to it by the editor, but there is no evidence that it was a "letter"to anyone; rather it was an independent treatise) was published in the last century. The existence of this treatise was noted by Steinschneider, who didn't seem to consider it of much importance and was even somewhat doubtful as to its authenticity. Only two other scholars have noted the existence of the work: Schreiner,who correctlyrealized that it was a reply to Ibn Hazm, and Zucker, who completely denied its authenticity but also argued that it was a reply to Ibn Hazm (he was unaware that Schreinerhad already established this far more satisfactorily).42
PeirushSefer YeSirah (Berlin, 1885; photo rpt. Jerusalem,1971), p. 13. Text ed. J. Perles, R. Salomo b. Abrahamb. [sic] Adereth[sic] (Breslau, 1863), Hebrew section, pp. 1-24. Steinschneider,op. cit., pp. 3, 363. Martin Schreiner,"Die apologetischeSchrift des Salomo b. Adret gegen Muhammedaner," Z.D.M.G. 48 (1894); 39-42. Moshe Zucker, "Berurimbe-toldot ha42

41

[21]

OF FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH

223

Since Steinschneider,unlike his usual practice,did not examine the treatise carefully at all, we can dismiss his doubts. However, it is necessary to consider Zucker's objections, in spite of the fact that he ignored Schreiner'sconclusions. The fact that Ibn Adret was not apparently aware of what Zucker Muslim polemic on the forgeryof the called the "considerable" is not surprising,since he did not know Arabic;nor, in Torah fact, is Muslim polemic on this subject so "considerable." Neither SaladyahGaon nor Judahha-Levymention this specifically, contrary to what Zucker claimed, but only dealt in a generalway with the impossibility of the Torah ever changing. Furthermore,it is clear from the treatise that the author never saw the complete original work of Ibn Hazm or even a detailed summary of it. This fact alone precludesthe possibility, which Zucker suggested, that it could have been written by an eleventh-centuryauthor, who certainly would have known Arabic and would have seen Ibn Hazm's entire work (as Maimonides, for instance, undoubtedly did still in the twelfth century). Furthermore,the style and language are unquestionablythose of Ibn Adret in his other writings, and show a definite resemblance to his similar anti-Christianpolemical treatise (discussed below). He begins with a reply to Ibn Hazm by saying:"I saw a fool, wise in his eyes, a certain Muslim idiot [kesil e.ad YishmaCel]" who presumed to speak against the Torah. Now, this certainly does not mean that he actually "saw" this man, but rather learned of it second hand. Since Ibn Adret did not know Arabic at all, he may have seen a short synopsis of Ibn Hazm's translated in Hebrew (although extensive search failed to turn up any referenceto what might have been such a translation),or more likely he may have heard about it from Jews who did understandArabic, either in Castile or even in Aragon-Catalonia.
vikuhim ha-datiym she-bein ha-yahadut ve-ha-Islam," Festschrift Armand Kaminka (Wien, 1937), pp. 31-48.

224

ROTH NORMAN

[22]

Ibn Adret expresseshis amazement and outrageat the charge of forgeryin the Torah, saying that "all"the religions agreethat the Torah is in its entirety that which was received by Moses from God. "We have not heard one of the masters of the religions disagree with this and deny the essentials, and the Christians and Muslims are all in agreement on this without any reservation."Such a statement, of course, could not have been made by an eleventh-centuryauthor, or by anyone familiar with Muslim polemic. He continues: "And the Christians, who are antecedent to the Muslim people who whore after their [Christians']error,and who [the Christians]are our antagonists in this faith and dig after us so that they do not leave a thing [by which] to turn us away, abstained from this [charge]... and if this [charge]were true, they without doubt would have arrived at this conclusion" (that the Torah was forged).43 He refers specifically to Ibn Hazm's charge (without ever naming him, for he apparently did not know who the author was) about the exaggeratednumbers of the descendants of the sons of Jacob. He denies that he ever could have debated these matters with a Jewish scholar ("And as to his saying that many of our scholars were confused by the reply of his errors, the thing is a lie and he bears false testimony againstthe scholarsor he distorts, for he never spoke with one of our scholars").In fact, Ibn Hazm there states that he discussed this with Ibn Naghrillah,who certainlywas a scholarknown by reputationto Ibn Adret; but either he did not recognize the name (which is corrupt in the Arabic text), or, more likely, no name was mentioned in the summaryhe used.44 Further, he complains, the "madman"(which he repeatedly calls the author)claims that the Torahwas never in the hands of the people, but only in the hands of a priest, which is false (as we have seen, Ibn Hazm indeed said this). Also, he claimed that the prayerswhich Jews recite daily were not decreedby Moses, only
43

44

Text cited, p. 2. Ibid., p. 3; cf. Ibn Hazm, Fayl, 169-70; Abenhdzam,315.

[23]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

225

the sacrifices. Ibn Adret's reply to this is of great interest, distinguishingthree classes of commandments(an expansion of his very important similar analysis in his Responsa I, 94, which is absolute proof that Ibn Adret was the author of this treatise). While his reply, frankly, is not a very satisfactory rebuttal, and certainly does not deal with the most important charges made by Ibn Hazm (which, of course, he did not see in their complete form), it is of interest in demonstratingthat Jews in the thirteenth century in Spain were still sensitive to Muslim polemics. Of more profound significance is his reply to a Christian critic of Judaism,which deals with some of the issues found also in Ibn Hazm, and thus gives us a good idea of what Ibn Adret would have replied had he had access to the complete text. The circumstances of his debate with the Christian scholar can be learned from his reference to it in one of his responsa.45 The Jewish community of Lerida informed him that one of the "scholars of the Muslims" spoke against the Jewish religion. The community requestedIbn Adret'shelp in writing a reply to this attack. He answered:"ThereforeI have decided to write a book concerning the debate I had with one of their scholars on these same matters and more than this... and I arrangebefore you in an abridgedform what the disputantsaid and the essence of my reply."From the ratherdetailed summarywhich follows,
45 Text, ed. Perles,p. 24 ff. It may also be seen in part in Ibn Adret,Hidushey ha-RashbaCal aggadotha-Shas(Jerusalem,1966), pp. 30-36; however, it is not on partof the commentary the aggadot,an erroneousidentificationmadealready by Perles. It is, in fact, the "book"which Ibn Adret himself mentions (She'elot IV. u-teshuvot 187).Neither Baer,Epstein,Neuman, or otherswho have written on the Jews of Spain have seen any of these works.Thereis a very brief note, of little consequence,on the responsumonly, in Sefarad 39 (1979): 111-20. The anti-Christianpolemical treatise(only) of Ibn Adret has been discussedbriefly und by Ina Willi-Plein and Thomas Willi, Glaubensdoch Messiasbeweis(Neu87-100, and less satisfactorily JeremyCohen, The by kirchen-Vluyn,1980), pp. Friars and the Jews (Ithaca, N.Y., 1982), pp. 156-63. They have tended to emphasize rather differentaspects of the work, even with regardto the antiChristianpolemic, than those discussed here.

226

ROTH NORMAN

[24]

it is possible to see that this is taken precisely from Ibn Adret's polemical treatise of his debate with a Christianscholar. There we find almost verbatim the same exchange concerning the controversialpassage(Gen. 49.10): "the sceptreshall not depart from Judah."Preciselywhere the ms. of that polemical treatise breaks off, the rest of the argumentcan in part be restored on the basis of the summary in this responsum. Thus, there is no doubt that when Ibn Adret said in his reply to the community of Lerida that he had a debate with one of "their"scholars, he meant a Christian, and when he stated his intent to write a "book"about this, he referredto the polemical treatise mentioned. This raises some doubt as to the text of the Lerida question, where perhaps instead of "one of the scholars

ha-ummot of the Muslims"(ehad mi-hakhmey yishmaCelim;


anyway an awkward phrase), it should read "Christians" (ha-ummotha-no4rim),and perhaps it was changed because of the censors. Nevertheless, Lerida had been an important Muslim center in the earlymedieval period, and there still remained a Mudejar(Muslims under Christian domination) population. It is possible that it was from one of these that Ibn Hazm's arguments came indirectly to the attention of Ibn Adret. Nevertheless, Ibn Adret in his reply clearlyrefersto his polemical treatisebased on a debatewith a Christianscholar,and there he says specifically "one of the Christian scholars replied to me"46 editor, indeed, quite plausiblysuggestedthat this was (the none other than Ram6n Marti, whose Pugiofidei deals with the same ideas debated here). Ibn Adret begins this treatisewith the praise of the Torahand the wisdom it brings. He says the peoples of the world are divided into two classes, the first being the "philosophizers" who refuse to acknowledge religions or revelation at all (he specifically excludes the "great philosophers" like Plato and
4 Text in Perles, p. 30. Perles' suggestionof the relationshipof the Christian's argumentswith those of the Pugiofidei is rathermore valid than Cohen, op.cit.,would indicate.

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF 227 [251 Aristotle from this charge); the second are the peoples who acknowledge revelation, and these are the Hebrews, the Muslims, and the Christians "and possibly more." One of these, however (the Christians), divide commandments into three categories: allegorical and figurative; literal, but given for a specific time (like sacrificiallaws, etc.); and those that remain but are changed in meaning by them (Sabbath, etc.). Another (the Muslims) agree that the commandments are literal, but assert that they are limited to a specific period in history, and replacedby a new prophet (Muhammad).47 Ibn Adret rejects the "allegorical"interpretation of commandments; first, because God spoke to Moses "face to face" and gave him the commandments, and secondly, hecause it is impossible to say that some should be literal and some allegorical. Even the Christians, "who dispute with us and search and investigate after us", admit this and do not charge Jews with any change in the Law. They even investigate every letter of the text, so that if a scribal change (tiqqunsoferim)has been made, the Christians accuse the Jews of deliberate falsification (but never of changingthe commandments).48 The Christian scholar (possibly, as mentioned, Ram6n Marti) argued that the commandments were given only to accustom the Jews to serve God, and after a time they were abrogated except for those dealing with the holiness of God, prayer,etc. Ibn Adret easily dismissed this argument.

47 Perles, pp. 24-26.

These are corrections in the pointing of vowels and other changes to improvethe reading,made by the Massoretes.Thereis yet no good book on the processof the formationof the Hebrewtext of the Bible, and even the articlesin the Cambridge Historyof the Bible are of little help on this. The best available to discussion is still that of ChristianD. Ginsburg,Introduction the MassoreticCriticalEdition of the HebrewBible (London, 1897; rpt. N.Y., 1966), pp. 34763. Ibn Adret deals with tiqqunsoferim and their purposeat some length, pp. 32-34, which is of interest if anyone ever desires to write the much-needed historyof the Hebrewtext of the Bible.This was, indeed, also one of the subjects raised by Marti in Pugiofidei.
48

228

NORMANROTH

[26]

The second part of the debate begins with the abrogationof the entire Torah and the Christian claim that the commandments are only "figures"alluding to future matters, and once these events have taken place, the commandments alluding to them are abrogated. An example is the sacrificial lamb of Passover "which is a memorial to allude to what they [Christians] claim happened"(the crucifixion).49 Anotherobjection raised is the length of the present exile, for which no specific duration was stated in the Bible (as, supposedly, was done for the firstexile). Also, the Christianargued from the Talmud itself that there is proof of the abrogationof the Torah in the future. His firstproof is Berakhot 12b: "Ben Zoma said to the sages, Since when do we referto the exodus from Egyptin the days of the messiah?,"etc., from which the Christian arguedthat it is implied the commandmentsare given only for a specified time (many commandmentsare said to be for the purposeof remembering the exodus; thus, if this does not apply in the messianic era, apparentlythese commandments are abrogated). The second proof is from Niddah 61b: "Rabbi Joseph said, This means the commandmentsare abrogatedin the future."50 The third is from cAvodah zarah 3a, where the statement is made that in the future God will judge the Gentiles because they did not accept the Torah, and when they claim that they are now willing to observe it, it can be said that it is written:"the commandments which I command you today" - today to do them, and not tomorrow."Andthese mistaken ones [the Christians] explain 'tomorrow'as [meaning]after the resurrection,"
35 (again,these points are found in Pugiofidei). 50Here,"thefuture"(atridla-vo) most probablymeansafterthe resurrection; cf. the discussionof this text by AlejandroDiez Macho,",Cesarala 'Tora'en la edad mesianica?,"Estudios biblicos 13 (1954): 47-48 (an important and virtuallyunknownarticle,in vol. 12 [1953]: 115-58, and 13: 5-51); and cf. my article mentioned below in n. 59, which deals with these issues and with Diez Macho'sprovocativearticle.
49 Op. cit., p.

[27]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

229

Ibn Adret concludes, and they claim this is a proof that "the sages of Israeladmitted that the commandments are not eternal and shall be abrogatedin the future, and thereforethe quarreler [the disputant]has permission to say that even in this time they are abrogated since there is no difference between us except a greater or lesser length of time" (i.e., he thinks that even the rabbisadmit that commandmentsare abrogatedin the messianic era, and the only quarrelis whether the messianic era has arrived or not). Ibn Adret'sreplyto the firstobjection is based on the Talmud (Berakhot 12b), for he says the purpose of reciting the creed (Shemac Yisrael; Deut. 6.4-9, etc.) is to recall the miracles which God performed in the exodus, and God's providence, and this intention will be fulfilled(in the days of the messiah) in the gatheringof the Jews from among all the peoples from the lands all over the world, which will be an ever greatermiracle than the exodus. As to the second objection, the commandments are abrogatedin the future, he replies that "future"can refer to any time from near to the distance, but that in this statement (Niddah 61b) it means after death and that the dead are exempt from commandments. Similarly, the statement in refers to the day of judgement, but not to the days of the CA.Z. messiah which are to be no different than this present time. The Christian further argued that most of the commandments are only figuresof things that were to come in the future (i.e., in the time of Jesus), and that the present exile was made long only because the Jews did not admit this and because "they hated him [Jesus] groundlessly."He sought to bring proof for this from the statement (Yoma 9b) that the first Temple was destroyed because of idolatry, adultery and murder, and the second was destroyed because of groundlesshatred. To this Ibn Adret replied with a question: Who made this statement? If it was a Jew, he could have been referringto hatred of Jesus; if a Christian,we do not believe him; and if a Jewish heretic (min), neither Jews nor Christiansshould trust a heretic. Furthermore, inasmuch as the Christian had argued that this "groundless

230

ROTH NORMAN

[28]

hatred" must have been something equal to the three sins for which the first Temple was destroyed (and thus could not refer to hatredbetween men, but ratherto the Jews' hatred of Jesus), the reply is that according to Christian belief the Jews also murderedJesus and had rejectedJesus (as God), and this would surelybe worse than any idolatryat the time of the firstTemple. Therefore, "groundlesshatred"would be nothing compared to such "crimes," for which the Temple should have been destroyed. The fact that only "groundlesshatred"is given as the cause for the destructionof the second Temple thereforeshows that it had nothing to do with Jesus. Next he deals with the problem of the extended duration of the exile, and after explaining why the Christian doctrine of original sin must be rejected,he explains that there is sin which many people are guilty of, and all feel the effectsand sufferfrom it. Thus, the exile is a punishment for all, the guilty and the innocent who must sufferwith them because of the sins of the many. He then refutes the possibility of incarnation. The chief objection is that God, by definitionwithout body or form, could not in any way be contained in a body without placing a limitation of physical form on him. The Christian replied that "these are philosophicalarguments,and you won't find religion by way of philosophy, which producesseveral difficultiesfor all
religions."51

After the debate on Gen. 49.10, where the ms. breaksoff, the debate continued (as can be seen in the summary in the responsum cited) on the statement of the Talmud (Yevamot 82a) that there is only a first and second "inheritance"(conquest of the land of Israel), but not a third; thus, there is apparentlyno hope for the Jews to regain their land. In his reply, Ibn Adret explains that the sanctity of the Land

51Text, p. 45 (this is probablythe only time that Ibn Adret, generallyan

opponent of philosophy,was accusedof being a philosopher!).

[29]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

231

was bestowed by the conquest of Joshua52and that the sages have debated whether this sanctity (with regard to certain commandments dependent on the Land) was nullified by the exile or not. There are those who maintain that the first "inheritance,"the conquest of Joshua, caused no sanctification (i.e., no permanentsanctification),since Joshua, being a prophet, knew that the Jews would be exiled to Babylon. Therefore, when Ezrareturned,he had to sanctify the Land a second time, but even he only sanctifiedcertainlocalities. Further,there is an argumentas to whether that sanctificationby Ezra was eternal and the commandments dependent on the Land even now are to be consideredbiblical, or whetherthat sanctificationwas also only temporary and the commandments are rabbinical. Ibn Adret himself accepts this second interpretation,and says that the prophecies of the Bible concerning the restoration of the Jews permanentlyto their homeland refers of necessity to this diaspora and its end.53 Having concluded our analysis both of Ibn Adret's polemic against Ibn Hazm and against the Christiandisputant (possibly Ram6n Marti), we see that the question of the annulment of commandments in some future time was central to medieval polemic.54It may be useful, therefore, to review briefly the
The subject of the conquests and sanctityof the Land of Israel is a very complex one in Jewish law, deserving a monograph.See, e.g., Megillah 1Oa, Yevamot82b (and Tosafotthere), Niddah 47a (all of which are quoted by Ibn Adret; unfortunately,the editor did not supply the sources of any of the talmudic citations), Shevi'it 6.1, Hallah 4.8, and Moses b. Maimon, M.T. Terumot 1.6 and Beit ha-behirahch. 6, etc., and see especially "EshtorihaParhi," (sometimes called Issac b. Moses), Kaftor va-ferak,ed. A.M. Luncz (Jerusalem, 1897), I. 221 ff., ch. 10 (there was an earlier edition by Ziv Edelmann [Berlin, 1851; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1980] which contains many errors,althoughthe notes are sometimesof value;in that edition, it is p. 37 ff.). 53The summaryof the remainderof the debate is in She'elot u-teshuvot IV, 187. 54 This seems to have been overlooked by Wilhelm Bacher, Traditionund Tradentenin den Schulen Palastinas und Babyloniens (Leipzig, 1914; rpt. Berlin, 1966), e.g., pp. 507, 512, 514, where he enumeratedthe discussions
52

232

NORMAN ROTH

[30]

talmudic statementsconcerningthis and the discussion of these by some of the rabbinicalauthorities of medieval Spain. The Talmud (Niddah 61b) explains Ps. 88.6 "freeamong the dead"that since they are dead, they are free from the obligation of the commandments. It is unfortunatethat we have neither the laws of Isaac al-Fasi nor the commentaries of any of the Spanish rabbis on this section of the Talmud (Nahmanides, whose commentaryis extent, says nothing on this). The statement is found also in Shabbat 30a and 15lb. In the former citation, it is said, "Always let a man occupy himself with Torah and the commandmentsbefore he dies, for when he is dead he is exempt from the Torah and the commandments" (all talmudic citations are in my own translation here). It then cites the same verse from Psalms, giving the same explanation. In the latter citation, simply the verse from Psalms and the explanationis given, but the Talmud then goes on to say that in the days of the messiah there is neither merit nor obligation (i.e., reward or punishment), which was interpreted by the medieval authoritiesto mean that the commandmentsare to be annulled. In Niddah 61b, the statement is made that a garment of kelaim (prohibited mixed threads) may be made into a shroud for the dead, which Rav Joseph says indicates that commandments shall be annulled in the future, and again the verse of Psalms is cited as support. Even more striking is the statement in J. Megillah 1.5: "R. Yohanan said, The prophets and the writings [Hagiographa] shall in the future be annulled, but the Pentateuch shall not; what is the reason?'a great voice which was not heard again' [Deut. 5.19; the Hebrew implies "wasnot added to"]. R. Simon b. Laqish said, Even the book of Esther and the laws [of Purim] shall not be annulled in the future."54 Maimonides faithfully follows the decision of both authoribetween R. Yohanan and Resh Laqish. Fuller details on the question of the annulmentof the commandmentsand of Esther,etc., will be found in my article cited in n. 59 below.

[31]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

233

ties in the JerusalemTalmud cited, and rules that "allthe books of the prophetsand the writings shall be annulled in the future, in the days of the messiah, except for the book of Estherwhich shall continue to exist like the Pentateuch and the laws of the oral Torah which are not to be annulled ever"(M.T. Zemanim, "Megillah"2.18). Abraham b. David in his strictures there makes an incredible statement: "Not a word shall be annulled from all the books, since there is not a book in which there is nothing to be learned [!], but thus they said: even if the rest of the books cease to be read, the book of Esther shall not cease being read in the congregation." This is, obviously, sheer nonsense; but also probably indicates that he had not seen or did not rememberthe JerusalemTalmud cited above. There is, however, a problem which the medieval rabbis (or, specifically, Ibn Adret) noted and explained. There would appear to be a contradiction in that it is the same R. Yohanan who in Niddahis reportedto have said that the commandments are to be annulled in the future.Ibn Adret explained there is no contradiction,for there he refersto the period when a person is dead, but in the JerusalemTalmud he refers to the days of the messiah when people are alive, and the commandments will still be in force.55 Yom Tov Ishbili, however, cites Shabbat 15lb as proof that the "futuretime" is the time of the messiah, in which there is neither rewardnor punishment, and adds that the statement in Niddah does not contradictSamuel(Shabbat151b), as some say (by whom he means Ibn Adret),inasmuchas Samuelagreesthat the commandments shall be annulled in the future, but holds that the resurrectiondoes not occur in the days of the messiah, but "afterwardsat the end of everything;"however, he agrees that the dead do not observe commandments.56

55 Ibn Adret,Hidushey...agadot ha-Shas,on Berakhot12b.


56 Niddah (Jerusalem,1978), pp. 388-89; cf. Ishbili, H.idushey ha-RITVA... Ibn Adret, Hidusheyha-RaSHBA (standardeds.) on Berakhot18b, "Dalyyeh."

234

ROTH NORMAN

[32]

More important is the connection which Ishbili makes with Christianpolemic: And if a heretic of the disciples of Jesus should murmurto you saying that since the commandments are annulled in the future, this means the Torah was given only for a finite period of time, and thereforeJesus was able to add to and delete from it, say to him that only one who is afraid [literally, "whose heart bruises him" - Megillah 6b; note that in modem Hebrew the expression has a completely different meaning] could say this; for the Torah was not given for a finite period but for as long as the world exists allowed to add to or delete from it. But in the world to come, when there is neither merit nor punishment, it shall be annulled ipso facto, and the scripture says, 'Today to fulfill them, and tomorrow to receive their reward'[Deut. 7.11, as interpretedin CEruvin 22a]. Just as it is annulledin the future world, so it is annulled for the dead in the grave, since they are exempt from commandments. He adds that this is also the opinion of his teacher (Aaron b. Joseph ha-Levy of Barcelona),but notes the opinion of "some" (again, Ibn Adret) that the commandments are never to be annulled, even after the resurrection, and that the talmudic statement only refers to the dead who are exempt from the commandments;an opinion with which he disagrees.57 Ishbili, who himself was a student of Ibn Adret as well as his colleagueAaronb. Joseph ha-Levy,is also apparentlythe last of the Jewish authorities in medieval Spain to have expressed strong polemical reaction to Islam (Simon b. Semah Duran, whose Qeshet u-magen contains anti-Muslim polemic, fled Majorcain 1391 and went to North Africa where he composed that treatise). Although he agreed with Maimonides, with respect to the debate over wine, that Muslims "do not worship idols at all,"he is elsewheresaid to have written that the faith of
57 Ishbili, op. cit., pp. 390-91; Ibn Adret on Berakhot,and Nissim b. Reuben there; cf. also Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet, She'elot u-teshuvot(Vilna, 1878; rpt. Jerusalem,1968), No. 124.

- while there is merit or punishment - and one is neither

[33]

FORGERYAND ABROGATION THE TORAH OF

235

Muslims, even though they believe in the unity of God, is considered "completeidolatry"with regardto the law requiring Jews to be killed ratherthan transgressby conversion;"for one who admits their faith denies that the Torah of Moses is true, as it is found in our hands, and everythinglike this is idolatry."58 This, too, was of course diametrically opposed to the wellknown view of Maimonides with regardto the Almohad "persecution" that one was not required to die rather than give at least the appearance of conversion (of course, Maimonides himself certainlydid not convert to Islam at any time, in spite of the fact that some modem writerscontinue to believe the longdisproven myth). It is clear that Ishbili was led to take his extreme position only because of the Muslim chargesof forgery and abrogation of the Torah, with which he must have been familiar from Ibn Adret's treatise.

Conclusions
In this article, we have brought to light some new aspects of medieval anti-Jewishpolemic, both Muslim and Christian,and some Jewish responsesto it in medieval Spain. These texts, and even the subjects with which they deal, have generally been ignored in previous discussion of polemics. They are an important aspect of the history of the Jews of medieval Spain. We have shown that, contrary to earlier assertions, the important and at times even perceptive criticisms of Ibn Hazm did indeed influence subsequent Muslim anti-Jewish polemic, including the apostate Sama'ual. Ibn Hazm's polemic was also widely known in the Jewish world, and elicited significant response from Abraham Ibn Daud, Maimonides, and Ibn Adret. The extent to which Maimonides, in particular,responded to Muslim polemical attacks in his writing has not been previously mentioned.

58 Ishbili, Hidushey ha-RITVAPesaIim, ed. Judah Leibowitz (Jerusalem, 1983) to f. 25b (p. 56).

236

ROTH NORMAN

[34]

In many ways, the most important text discussed here is the reply of Ibn Adret, and the comparison of that treatise to his response to the Christiandisputant, probablyRamon Marti. The similarities of the polemical chargesin the Muslim and Christianmaterial lie chiefly in the attack on the Torah. In the former, the charge is forgery and deliberate falsification of stories and numbersand the like, whereasin the latter the chief chargeis the abrogationof the Torah and of specific commandments which were supposedly intended only for a specified time. New material from the Jewish sources dealing with these issues, in part the subject also of a companion article elseis where,59 presented here. There is yet another similarity. Ibn Hazm was, without doubt, the most learned Muslim scholar of religions, with a thorough knowledge of the Bible, and with at least some acquaintancewith talmudic and Jewish mystical sources(more, indeed, than has been presented in this article). The Christian disputant of Ibn Adret, most likely Ram6n Marti, was also quite thoroughlyversed in talmudic and midrashicliterature,as is evident not only from this polemic but from his Pugio fidei (some, indeed, have even mistakenly written that he was himself of Jewish origin). The result is that we have, in these two figures, a degree of sophistication and knowledge in their polemical arguments which was considerablyabove the level that usuallyprevailedin medieval polemics. This makes the study of their charges,and of the Jewish response to them, all the more significantfor the broaderhistory of polemic, as well as for the history of the Jews of medieval Spain.

9 "Seisedadesdurarael mundo.Temasde la polemicaespaiiola,"Ciudadde Dios 99 (1986): 45-65.

You might also like