Abstract
The Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah, a thirteenth-century compilation written by Judah ben Solomon ha-CoḤen, is often considered to be the oldest extant Hebrew encyclopedia of science.1 Considering that this text offers an overview of contemporary science and philosophy, the appellation “encyclopedia” indeed easily lends itself. However, to call this compilation an encyclopedia may well be problematic, given that the use of this term for a medieval text is anachronistic. Moreover, there seems to be no commonly accepted definition of what an encyclopedia actually is, 2 nor is there general agreement as to which and how many criteria a given text, be it a modern or a pre-modern one, should meet to qualify as an encyclopedia or to belong to the genre of encyclopedic writing. Although few people would dispute that an encyclopedia seeks to divulge knowledge and to introduce a lay public to specialist literature, it has by no means been settled whether these features constitute the hallmark of encyclopedic writing, or whether it is rather breadth of coverage or compreḤensiveness that can be considered to be the basic ingredients of an encyclopedia.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abraham bar Hiyya is reported to have composed an encyclopedia of science, but only a part of it has survived. For this encyclopedia and the question of whether its author ever completed it, see Mercedes Rubio, “The First Hebrew Encyclopedia of Science: Abraham Bar Ḥiyya’s Yesodei ha-Tevunah u-Migdal ha-Emunah” in the present volume.
For the question of definition, see Robert Collison, Encyclopedias: Their History throughout the Ages (New York and London, 1966), introduction, 1–20, and Abraham Melamed, “The Hebrew Encyclopedias of the Renaissance, “ in the present volume, 442. See also Roland Schaer, ed., Tous les savoirs du monde: Encyclopédies et bibliothèques, de Sumer au XXle siècle (Paris 1996), 19–23. questions, interesting as they may be, this article seeks to investigate the encyclopedic-ness of the Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah (hereafter, MH). To be more precise, this article will examine the extent to which the intention on the part of the author may be called encyclopedic as well as the extent to which this text displays encyclopedic characteristics in its organization and manner of compilation. I will address these questions by looking into the structure of the MH, its sources, its use of sources, and its underlying motivation.
The available information has been assembled by Colette Sirat, “Juda b. Salomon ha-CoḤen: philosophe, astronome et peut-être kabbaliste de la première moitié du XIIIe siècle, “ Italia 2 (1977): 39–61; idem, “La qabbale d’après Juda b. Salomon ha-CoḤen, “ in Hommage à Georges Vajda, ed. Gerard Nahon and Charles Touati (Louvain, 1980), 191–202.
The author is often referred to as Ibn Matqah. This appellation, however, seems to be a later addition. Cf. Sirat, ‘Juda b. Solomon, “ 40, n. 6. Since the extant manuscripts do not provide sufficient evidence to warrant the use of this appellation, it seems preferable not to refer to our author as Ibn Matqah. Professor Sirat suggested this in a report during the Tenth International Congress of Medieval Philosophy of the Société Internationale pour l’étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (Erfurt, 25–30 August, 1997).
Aristotle, Metaphysics VI, 1 1026al3–16 and cf. Physics 11, 7 198a29–30, where these classes of being are likewise associated with these three branches of study. See also Christel Hein, Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie: Von der spätantiken Einleitungsliteratur zur arabiscḤen Enzyklopädie (Frankfurt am Main, 1985), 163.
See the Appendix below. On the use of this tripartite division of the sciences as well as other classifications of the sciences in medieval Jewish Philosophy, see Harry A. Wolfson, “The Classification of Sciences in Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy, ” in Harry A. Wolfson, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, Vol. 1, ed. Isadore Twersky and George H. Williams (Cambridge, Mass., 1973): 493–545.
See further, Mauro Zonta, “The Reception of al-Fârâbî’s and Ibn Sînâ’s Classifications of the Mathematical and Natural Sciences in the Hebrew Medieval Philosophical Literature, “ Medieval Encounters 1 (1995): 358–82.
See Tony Lévy, “Mathematics in the Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah of Judah ben Solomon ha-CoḤen, “ in the present volume, 304.
MH, Oxford, MS Mich. 551 (hereafter, O), fol. 145r.
This passage is discussed in Bernard Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 20.
This translation is ascribed to Abu ‘Uthmân al-Dimashqî, but this is questioned by the editor of the text. See Hans-JocḤen Ruland, Die arabische Übersetzung der Schrift des Alexander von Aphrodisias über das Wachstum (Quaestio 1.5) (Göttingen, 1981), 61.
Averroes, Epitome of On Animals, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS héb. 956/9, fol. 419v.
MH, On the Soul, MS N, fol. 66r-v; cf. Averroes’ Middle Commentary on On the Soul, ed. Alfred L. Ivry (Cairo, 1994), 130–1.
MH, Meteorology, Oxford, MS Poc. 343 (hereafter, N), fol. 43r. The Arabic term for the non-porosity of the earth that he borrows is duf indifâ’ihi. It is found in Averroes’ Epitome of the Meteorology, but not in the corresponding section of his Middle Commentary. See the Epitome of the Meteorology in Rasâ’il Ihn Rushd (Hyderabad, 1947), 25, line 16. Judah renders these words in Hebrew as ḥulshat mesirato.
My discussion will be limited to the philosophical part of the MH.
MH, Almagest, MS O, fol. 160r: “ve-kavvanatenu be-zeh ha-sefer hu’ ha-qissur.” Judah is not always so concise, even in the section on astronomy. See, e.g., Y. Tzvi Langermann’s discussion in the present volume of the section on astronomy.
MH, On the Heavens, MS N, fol. 38v, which summarizes Aristotle, On the Heavens 11, 13 293al5-II, 14 298a20. Cf. Averroes, Middle Commentary on On the Heavens, ed. Jamal al-Dîn al-’Alawî (Fez, 1984), 251–76.
See Resianne Fontaine, “The Facts of Life: The Nature of the Female Contribution to Generation according to Judah ha-CoḤen’s Midrash ha-Hokhma and Contemporary Texts,” Medizinhistorisches Journal 29 (1994): 333–61.
MH, On the Soul, MS N, fol. 65v.
Namely mittuaḥ, rendering the Arabic madd (MH, Meteorology, MS N, fol. 43r).
MH, Meteorology, MS N, fol. 43v.
MH, On the Soul, MS N, fol. 62r-v.
Aristotle, Metaphysics 1, 1 981a23–30; 1, 3 983a25–26; and 11, 1 993b23–25. See also Physics 1, 1 184al0–14, and 11, 3 194M7–20.
MH, On Generation of Animals XV, MS N, fol. 53v. See further, Resianne Fontaine, “The Facts of Life,” 349.
See Melamed, “The Hebrew Encyclopedias of the Renaissance” (above, n. 2), 451.
MH, On Generation of Animals XVI, MS N, fol. 55r.
It is interesting to note that the various sources that relate this story have different versions as to the profession of the woman in question. Hippocrates and Galen call her a mousourgos (singing-girl), cf. Galen, De Semine 1.4, ed. and trans. Philipp de Lacy, Galen, On Semen (Berlin, 1992), 76, 11. 13–22 (English trans., 77); Averroes in his Kitâb al-kulliyyât fi al-ṭibb, ed. J.M. Forneás-Besteiro and C. Alvarez de Morales (Madrid, 1987), 73–4, describes her as a raqqâsah (dancing-girl), as does Falaquera, who refers to her as ha-ishah ha-meraqqedet, in his De’ot ha-Filosofim, MS Leiden 4758, fol. 247r. In his Epitome on On Animals (above, n. 11), fol. 463v, however, Averroes simply refers to “a woman, “ as does Gershom ben Solomon (Sha’ar ha-Shamayim [Roedelheim, 1801], 45a). Judah apparently felt no inclination to enter into such subtleties and uncompromisingly qualified the poor woman as a zonah (prostitute).
Edward Grant characterizes Pliny’s Historia naturalis as “a remarkable scissors and paste collection.” See Edward Grant, Physical Science in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1977), 7.
Schaer, Tous les savoirs (above, n. 2), 19.
Another matter which cannot be dealt with here is the question whether or not the MH offers a more adequate account of Aristotelian natural philosophy than do the other thirteenth-century encyclopedias, and, in a more general way, how useful and reliable encyclopedias actually are. That they may be misleading rather than guiding is evident from the very entry “Encyclopedias” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, of which the ten lines that are devoted to the MH contain at least four inaccuracies or mistakes.
Judah formulates his motivation in two passages, the first of which is to be found in the introduction to his work (MH, MS N, fol. 8v), and the second at the end of the section on logic (MH, MS O, fol. 45v); cf. Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture (above, n. 9), 98.
MH, introduction, MS N, fol. 7v. For an English translation of the passage in question, see Colette Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1985), 253.
MH, Metaphysics, MS O, fol. 101 r.
MH, Explanation of Biblical Verses, ed. David Goldstein, “The Commentary of Judah ben Solomon HakoḤen ibn Matqa to Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs, “ Hebrew Union College Annual 52 (1981): 224–6, lines 669–756.
MH, introduction, MS N, fol. 9r-v. Sirat presented this passage as an appendix to her article, cited above, n. 3.
Goldstein, “Commentary, “ 224, lines 674–675. 38 MH, On Generation and Corruption, MS N, fol. 40r.
On Judah’s criticisms of Ptolemy, see Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Some Remarks on Judah ben Solomon ha-CoḤen and His Encyclopedia, Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah” in the present volume, 373–379.
MH, Introduction, MS N, fol. 8r-v.
See the appendix below.
On the impact of this debate in Spain and the various positions taken by Spanish Jewish intellectuals, see Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture, chap. 5.
We do not know wḤen Judah drafted the Arabic version of his composition, nor wḤen he left Spain. However, if we lend credence to Judah’s own statement that he wrote the Arabic version wḤen still in Spain and that ten years of correspondence preceded his departure for the Emperor’s court where he translated it into Hebrew in 1247, this original version must date from the first half of the 1230s.
MH, Explanation of Biblical Verses, in Goldstein, “Commentary, “ 206, lines 1–4.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fontaine, R. (2000). Judah Ben Solomon Ha-CoḤen’s Midrash HA-Ḥokhmah: Its Sources and Use of Sources. In: Harvey, S. (eds) The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9389-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9389-2_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5428-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9389-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive