Issues in Jewish Philosophy

4th EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 23rd to 26th July 2001

When the EAJS was founded almost exactly 20 years ago, in May 1981, it saw as its first task the organization of international congresses once every three or four years in one of the countries of Europe. A further step was taken after the 1994 congress in Copenhagen, when it became clear that the intervals of four years between congresses were too long to keep interest in the Association going. It was then that a permanent Secretariat was founded, the Newsletter began to (re)appear in its present form, and a start was made to organize the annual Summer Colloquia at Yarnton Manor, home of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Cooperation with the Jerusalem-based International Centre for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization led to a special EAJS/ECUTJC formula for these colloquia. They should be devoted to well-defined topics within Jewish Studies and, unlike many other academic meetings of a similar nature, their programme should feature explicitly the teaching of the subject at hand. In addition, the papers to be given at the colloquia should be scheduled in such a way that there would be plenty of time for discussion and the exchange of ideas between scholars devoted to the same specialization. It is difficult to say how much these lofty ideals have actually been realized, but they seem to have greatly benefited the atmosphere of the colloquia which have taken place so far.

The first colloquium in 1996, on “Medieval Jewish Bible Exegesis”, was considered a great success by all participants, who were pleasantly surprised by the stimulating format of limited presentations and ample discussion. The next was devoted to the study and teaching of “Classical Rabbinic Judaism” and took place in much the same atmosphere. 1998 was the year of the Toledo Congress, and plans for the 1999 Colloquium could unfortunately not be realized. But last year’s colloquium on “Medieval Hebrew Poetry” was so successful that the participants decided to repeat the event in the near future, with the result that another colloquium on “Medieval Hebrew Poetry” is scheduled for next February in Granada; it is conceived as the next link in a chain of future colloquia on Hebrew poetry under the auspices of the EAJS.

This year’s Summer Colloquium, on “Issues in Jewish Philosophy”, was organized by Renier Munk (Amsterdam Center for Jewish Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). Fifteen scholars participated, both medievalists and scholars of modern Jewish thought. The combination of medieval and modern philosophy was intentional and elicited many favourable comments by the participants, although the medieval section was not completely unanimous on this point. In any case, the discussions revealed once again that not only is the study of philosophy a historical discipline, but it occasions creative thinking as well, whereby the impact of current debates is obvious.

In the opening session on Monday Alexander Samely (Manchester) philosophized on “The Temporality of Textual Meaning”, and Arthur Hyman (Yeshiva University) addressed “The Problem of Religious Language in Medieval philosophy”, with special attention to the contribution of Gersonides. The afternoon was rounded off by the festive presentation of Howard Kreisel’s new book Prophecy. The History of an Idea in Medieval Hewish Philosophy, which appeared as no. 8 of the Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, edited by Renier Munk.

During a long Tuesday Norman Solomon (Oxford) spoke on “The Changing Concept of Torah”, Sara Klein-Braslavy (Tel Aviv) on “The Solution of the Apories in Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord”, and Steven Harvey (Bar-Ilan) presented, as a first instalment of his Haqdamology, a lecture on “The Author’s Introduction as a Key to Understanding Trends in Jewish Philosophy: The Pre-Maimonideans”.

Matthias Morgenstern (Tübingen) described “The ‘Marxist’ Elements in Isaac Breuer’s Philosophy of Religion” and Francesca Albertini (Fribourg) spoke on “Death as a Phenomenological Problem in Franz Rosenzweig’s Star of Redemption”. The day’s programme, which also included a discussion on the teaching of Jewish philosophy in academic setting, chaired by Martin Goodman (Oxford), closed with Mauro Zonta’s presentation of “Hebrew Scholasticism in Fifteenth-century Italy and Spain”.

On Wednesday Gad Freudenthal (CNRS Paris) discussed Maimonides’ ‘astral indeterminism’ in his lecture on “The Four Globes in Guide II: 9-10”, and James Robinson (Harvard University) extensively described “Natural Science in Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes”.

Resianne Fontaine (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) described the motif of “The Three Worlds in Judah ha-Cohen’s Midrash ha-Hokhmah” and pointed to parallels with Joachim da Fiore’s eschatological prophecies. Howard Kreisel (Ben Gurion University) traced the difficulties for the Jewish scholars of medieval Provence in acquiring philosophical knowledge and discussed the role of “Levi ben Abraham’s Livyat Hen” in that process. Tamra Wright (London School of Jewish Studies) contrasted Levinas’s view on “The Scandal of Theodicy” with other moral and existential views on the problem of evil.

The colloquium concluded with a discussion on the present state of research in Jewish philosophy. All participants agreed that, however the future of the discipline develops, the free and leisurely talk on the many issues of their interest as was possible during these three days, had been a most stimulating experience for everyone there, albeit an occasion all too rarely available. The EAJS and the Centre for Jewish Philosophy are looking for ways to honour the participants’ wish to have this colloquium on Jewish philosophy ‘institutionalized’ by organizing a follow-up in the early summer of 2003.

Albert van der Heide

University of Leiden

Medieval Hebrew Poetry in Its Religious and Secular Context

3rd EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 24th to 27th July 2000.

Between 24 and 27 July 2000 a unique meeting of twenty-five participants took place under the aegis of the European Association for Jewish Studies, with the central focus being the Hebrew poetry of the Middle Ages. The series of lectures was opened by Esperanza Alfonso who reformulated the functions of the body terminology pertaining to the mamduh or benefactor in poetry of praise. Also Ulf Haxen, Karen Almbladh and Aurora Salvatierra Ossorio presented views and questions concerning Hebrew-Andalusian qasidahs, while Arie Schippers compared the allusions to biblical and koranic quotations defined as figures of speech. Mordecai Cohen dealt with the concept of metaphor in Moses ibn Ezra’s poetics, and Ottfried Fraisse showed the interrelationship of philosophy, exegesis and poetry in Moses ibn Tibbon’s thirteenth-century commentary on The Song of Songs.

A majority of the papers discussed trends and developments in Hebrew poetry from the thirteenth-century onwards: Jonathan Decter demonstrated the literary subtleties of Sefer Tahkemoni by Judah al-Harizi in contrast with Jacob ben Eleazar’s Sefer ha-Meshalim, proving that both authors express different attitudes towards the Andalusian past. Joseph Yahalom presented an important work on the theory of Hebrew poetry by the Baghdadi poet Eleazar ben Jacob ha-Bavli. Judith Dishon analysed the book of homonyms, The Perfumed Flower Beds, composed by Joseph ben Tanhum ha-Yerushalmi in fourteenth-century Egypt. Angel Sáenz-Badillos presented fascinating aspects of the satirical verses in Solomon Bonafed’s diwan and Judit Taragona summarized the present state of the manuscripts concerning the diwan of Solomon de Piera. Aviva Doron discussed the craft of poetry in Christian Spain and the poet’s commitment to telling the truth. Ann Brener characterised Isaac ha-Gorni, whose poetry opens a window onto the troubadour world of his own day and age, and Tova Beeri showed that in the Ottoman Empire Hebrew poetry gradually conformed to the demands of Turkish musical forms. Shlomo Berger described how ibn Gabirol’s Keter Malkhut retained its importance in seventeenth-century Yiddish translations. Hebrew verse from Spain and its aftermath was certainly not the exclusive theme of the Colloquium: others like Elisabeth Hollender, Zvi Malachi and Simha Goldin dealt with the poetry of Ashkenaz. Young lecturers like Yehoshua Granat and Naoya Katsumata discussed the concept of intertextuality and the Hebrew style of the hymnist Samuel the Third respectively. The contributions of these and other doctoral researchers to the interdisciplinary dimensions of the field in an open atmosphere of questioning and observing were a particular stimulant to the participants of a meeting which was a great success and has led to request for further similar colloquia in the future.

Wout van Bekkum

Early Rabbinic Judaism

2nd EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 22nd to 26th September 1997.

A successful colloquium was held in Yarnton Manor in September by the European Centre for the University Teaching of Jewish Civilization. It was convened by Martin Goodman (Oxford) and Philip Alexander (Manchester), under the auspices to the EAJS.

The colloquium, on the theme of Early Rabbinic Judaism, was attended by over forty scholars from France, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, England, Wales, Israel and the United States. The twenty-six speakers approached the study of rabbinic Judaism in the six centuries after the destruction of the Temple from a great variety of perspectives. Papers focused both on very specific issues and on more general methodological questions. Subjects tackled included (among others) the relationship of rabbinic texts to evidence (literary and archaeological) from the non-Jewish world; the history of the transmission of Talmudic texts; the dating of texts and their structural analysis; the relationship between Jewish and Christian biblical interpretation; the analysis of rabbinic liturgical behaviour as described in the texts; the historical background to rabbinic vocabulary; the nature of the targumim as literary products; the relation of rabbinic law to the Dead Sea Scrolls; and the use of computers in the exploration of rabbinic literature. It became apparent that no single approach to the teaching of the subject is possible or desirable. In the extended discussion much practical information was exchanged about the resources available for scholars and teachers.

Extract from Summary of the Colloquium:

“How do we convey to our students the body of knowledge which we call Early Rabbinic Judaism? First, I would like to stress the importance of languages. It is perfectly clear from all the papers we have heard that knowledge of the original languages is vital. The kind of work that was presented to us is impossible without a high level of linguistic competence. If access to the texts in their original languages is important at a research level, then it should be important at the level of teaching as well. Within the higher education system, at least in Britain, there is a strong bias against the learning of foreign languages. Languages have been dropped in many subjects where once they were a requirement. Foreign languages are increasingly being taught in translation. I think that somehow we have to fight to maintain the centrality of language acquisition to the teaching of our discipline.

Second, the content of our teaching should comprise both a body of information and a set of analytical tools. The body of information is provisional and changes as research develops. The tools are, in my view, more fixed. It is important that we convey to our students the provisional nature of the information we give them, and train them in the use of a variety of analytical methods, which will allow them to construct their own view of Early Rabbinic Judaism.

Third, we must respect what I would call the historical evolution of the discipline. This brings me back to the point that applying cultural studies approaches may be premature in the field of Rabbinics. We practice our particular craft within universities. But universities are evolving institutions. Moreover, they are institutions in which different disciplines are evolving at different speeds. This is a direct function of the application of resources. It is inevitable that large fields, such as the literary criticism of the major world literatures, which have huge manpower, should develop faster than smaller fields like our own, and should in a sense make the intellectual running. I do not think this should worry us unduly. We cannot short-circuit this process. If I might illustrate by an analogy: It used to be thought, I believe, that the foetus as it develops in the womb, recapitulates the various stages of human evolution. The same may be said of any discipline in the humanities. Broadly speaking, all have to pass through the same stages of development. So it is in our field. We must be careful not to force the pace of development too hard. If we do so, if we try to skip certain stages, we are likely to end up with an abortion.

There is a final observation I would like to make, and it relates to the growing technicalization of our field of study. Knowledge is accumulating at an alarming rate. Subjects which twenty years ago were only beginning to be broached, so that one scholar could basically encompass all that there was to know about them, are now so complex that doctoral students are working in one corner of them. Heikhalot mysticism is a case in point. This accumulation of knowledge, this growing technicalization and specialization within the field, has the effect of carrying research ever further from the grasp of students. The problem is exacerbated by an absence of textbooks. I know that the writing of textbooks carries little kudos in our discipline, and may not be a smart career move, but I think we all need to take seriously the problem of how to bridge the widening gap between research and the classroom. If we do not write textbooks, I can assure you that others less qualified will certainly try. The dangers of such pseudo-scholarship are well illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would like to leave you with a slogan which for me sums up what we should be trying to do. It is taken from the distinguished American literary critic Lionel Trilling. Trilling suggested that the purpose of scholarship should be ‘to give our notion of history an appropriate complication’. That surely puts it in a nutshell. The aim of our research is to achieve ‘an appropriate complication’; the aim of our teaching is to convey that sense of complication to our students.

Philip Alexander

Medieval Jewish Bible Exegesis

1st EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 15th to 19th July 1996.

One of the new initiatives of the EAJS Executive Committee proposed last year was the organisation by the European Centre for the University Teaching of Jewish Civilization (ECUTJC) of annual summer colloquia, to be held in Oxford under the auspices of the EAJS. The first meeting of this kind was held this summer from 15 to 19 July. It provided a clear indication that the initiative has the potential to become a valuable element of EAJS activities in the future.

The first EAJS/ECUTJC colloquium was devoted to medieval Jewish Bible exegesis. During five glorious summer days 25 participants met in Yarnton Manor’s lofty Long Gallery and enjoyed 18 contributions on, or related to, the interpretation of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Participants from the UK, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Israel and the United States were responsible for a very varied and lively programme.

In his opening lecture, chairman and convenor of the colloquium, Albert van der Heide (Leiden University), pointed out that the status of Jewish Bible exegesis as a separate and clearly definable field of research is rather a problematical one. Indeed, the programme for the ensuing days reflected the fact. Of course, it would have been possible to draw up a programme of lectures exclusively devoted to Rashi, Kimchi and Ibn Ezra studies. But it is questionable whether the results would have been as lively and stimulating as the actual programme turned out to be, in which classical rabbinic literature, the world of Islam and Arabic, poetry, and polemics were related to the role of the Bible in medieval Judaism.

Contributions from the centre of medieval exegesis were given by Mordechai Z. Cohen from Yeshiva University, New York (‘Two types of metaphor in Radak’s figurative exegesis’), Yaakov Elman from the same institution (‘Nahmanides’ view of the nature and function of the Book of Deuteronomy’), Yehoshofat Nevo, Kfar Chasidim (‘The relation between peshat and derash in the French commentary’), and Robin B. Salters from St Andrew’s University (‘Lamentations: medieval Jewish observations’). Aspects of the relation between exegesis and rabbinic literature were treated by Marc Bregman, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem (‘Midrash Rabbah as a medieval midrashic anthology’), Zvi Malachi, Tel Aviv University (‘Midrashic interpretation of biblical words’), Ulrich Berzbach, Cologne University (‘The use of the Bible and Bible exegesis in Seder Eliyahu Rabba/Tanna debe Eliyahu’) and Dagmar Börner-Klein, Cologne University (‘Alfa-Beta de ben Sira: a medieval polemic against rabbinic Bible exegesis’). The Arabic factor in biblical exegesis – a subject in the ascendance due to the results of Geniza research – was represented in the contributions by Wout J. van Bekkum, University of Groningen (‘Language and exegesis: some approaches to inyan or ma’na’), Camilla Adang, Tel Aviv University (‘Jewish reactions to Muslim exegesis of the Bible in Spain’), Meira Polliack, Tel Aviv University (‘Karaite methods of interpreting biblical narrative: the Arabic translations of Genesis 2:15-25’), and Arie Schippers, University of Amsterdam (‘The Arabic words in the Maqre Dardeqe and their relation to Saadya Gaon’s Bible translations and comments’). Relations between medieval poetry and the Bible were highlighted by Eleazar Gutwirth, Tel Aviv University (‘History, exegesis, poetry: Zarc Barfat’s poetical adaptation of the book of Job and its cultural context’), Angel Sáenz-Bardillos and Judit Targarona, Universidad Complutense, Madrid (‘Exegesis in medieval secular poetry’), Elisabeth Hollender, Cologne University (‘Bible commentary in piyyut commentary’). Finally, Hanne Trautner-Kromann, Lund University, and Ursula Ragacs, University of Vienna, spoke on the tension between the Jewish and Christian appeal to the authority of the Bible (‘Bible exegesis in medieval Jewish polemics’) and ‘The Capistrum Judaeorum of Raymond Martini as an example of Christian knowledge and the use of Jewish literature in the Middle Ages’).

The time scheduling being rather loose, there was sufficient time for discussion. All participants agreed that not only the quality of the lectures, but especially the interchange of views and ideas between scholars at various stages of their careers contributed to an atmosphere in which the true, literal meaning of the word ‘colloquium’ could be realised. It was felt that the diversity of subjects and specialisms, focused as they were on a central topic, provided a happy formula which can be applied in future colloquia in order to further the aims of EAJS and ECUTJC alike.

Albert van der Heide