Abstract
Judah ben Solomon ha-Cohen’s Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah is, in certain respects, the richest and most interesting of the medieval Hebrew encyclopedias. It is the only encyclopedia to treat the exact sciences in depth; and it is the only one to include within its compass a systematic exposition of biblical and rabbinic texts. Moreover, it is no mere compilation or anthology; Judah incorporates many fresh insights of his own, some of which involve pointed criticism of classical authorities.1 In addition to these characteristics, which relate to its contents, Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah has some unique linguistic and cultural features that make it highly interesting for the historian. It is, perhaps, the only encyclopedia written by a Jew in Arabic;2 and it is certainly the only one to have been translated by its author into Hebrew.3
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
Mauro Zonta has recently characterized the whole first part of Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah as an unoriginal paraphrase (“Mineralogy, Botany, and Zoology in Medieval Hebrew Encyclopaedias,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 6 (1996): 263–315, esp. 274–5). Although I have not made a close study of this part of Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah, this claim certainly does not hold for the astronomical sections, nor does it hold for the exegetical sections, nor, I submit, does it hold for the conception of encyclopedism which underlies the work as a whole, giving it purpose and unity. In general, Quellenforschungen are a useful apparatus to historical research and do not need to be justified by sweeping generalizations.
Abraham Maimonides’ Kifâyat al-’âbidîn may have qualified as an encyclopedia. It is purported to have covered astronomy, philosophy, and other subjects. Unfortunately only a relatively small portion of the work has survived.
However, it does not seem to be the only specimen of a translation by an author of his own book, which was originally written in Judaeo-Arabic, presumably in response to the realization that a considerable segment of his audience could read only Hebrew. Joseph Naḥmias is thought to have translated his own astronomical work into Hebrew. Concerning Naḥmias’ book, see Tzvi Langermann, “The ‘True Perplexity’: The Guide of the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 24,” in Perspectives on Maimonides: Philosophical and Historical Studies (Oxford, 1991), 159–74, esp. 173. Naḥmias and Judah also shared an admiration for al-Biṭrûjî; see below.
Abulafia’s achievement is discussed in depth by Bernard Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah (Cambridge, Mass., 1982); the surviving fragment of a philosophical poem written by him is discussed in ibid., 19.
Colette Sirat, “Juda b. Salomon ha-Cohen: philosophe, astronome et peut-être kabbaliste de la première moitié du XIIIe siècle,” Italia 2 (1978): 39–61.
The following analysis of Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah is based upon my examination of two manuscripts: Oxford, Bodleian MS Michael 551 (hereafter, MH, Oxford) and Parma MS Palatina 2769 (= De Rossi 421) (hereafter, MH, Parma).
Ptolemy’s Almagest, translated and annotated by G.J. Toomer (London, 1984); B. R. Goldstein, Al-Biṭrûjî: On the Principles of Astronomy (New Haven, 1971).
The Hebrew zaqen, like the Arabic shaykh (which presumably was the word used in the original), literally means “old man,” but can also be used for “wise man” or “teacher.”
MH, Oxford, fol. 160r. Cf. the partial translation of this passage, made on the basis of Vatican MS 338, in Zonta, “Mineralogy, Botany, and Zoology,” 307, n. 134. Zonta’s interpretation of the implications of the passage for the nature and scope of Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah does not hold for the passage when read in its entirety and taken in context.
See the now classic study of A.I. Sabra, “The Andalusian Revolt against Ptolemaic Astronomy: Averroes and al-Biṭrûjî,” in Transformation and Tradition in the Sciences, ed. Everett Mendelsohn (Cambridge, 1984), 133–53 (reprint, in A. I. Sabra, Optics, Astronomy and Logic: Studies in Arabic Science and Philosophy [London, 1994]); and Langermann, “The ‘True Perplexity’,” for an analysis of the views of Maimonides in particular.
MH, Parma, fol. 147v; cf. Almagest, 61–3.
MH, Oxford, fol. 192v. On Sâ ‘id’s role in the preparation of the Toledan Tables see Lutz Richter-Bernburg, “Sâ’id, the Toledan Tables, and Andalusi Science,” in From Deferent to Equant: A Volume of Studies in the History of Science in the Ancient and Medieval Near East in Honor of E.S. Kennedy, ed. David A. King and George Saliba (New York, 1987), 357–401. Professor Bernard R. Goldstein pointed out to me that, given an interval of 900 years between Ptolemy and Sâ ‘id, the cumulative difference would be between 3.5 and 3.75 days, depending on how one rounded off the calculation.
Almagest, 123.
MH, Oxford, fol. 160r. On Avicenna’s purported observation, see Bernard R. Goldstein, “Some Medieval Reports of Venus and Mercury Transits,” Centaurus 14 (1969): 49–59. Goldstein cites Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah in ibid., 52.
The Hebrew word that I have translated as “largesse” is vitur. Forms of this word are used to convey the ethical virtues of liberality, generosity, and largesse (see Jacob Klatzkin, Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae [New York, 1968], part 1, 249–250). Judah wishes to say that Ibn Naḥmias has gone a bit too far in his geometrical ambition; see the following note.
MH, Parma, fol. 141v; see Almagest, 25, and esp. n. 40. The proof that the circle has the greatest area for shapes having the same perimeter is given by Zenodorus, Pappus, and Theon. However, I know of no attempt by an ancient or medieval geometer to square the circle by means of a pentagon. W. Knorr, The Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems (New York, 1993), 48, n. 88, notes that a special case of Hippocrates’ quadrature by lunules does yield a regular pentagon; and Hippocrates’ construction was studied by Hispano-Jewish geometers (see Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Medieval Hebrew Texts on the Quadrature of the Lune,” Historia Mathematica 23 [1996]: 31–53). However, as Knorr points out, there is no indication that Hipparchus himself, nor any medieval geometer, was aware of this possibility.
MH, Oxford, fols. 156r-v.
Almagest, 39.
MH, Parma, fol. 141r.
Almagest, 39.
Ibn al-Haytham’s evolving views on this are discussed in detail by A. I. Sabra, The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham: Books I-III On Direct Vision (London, 1989), Vol. 2, xxxv-xl. See further A. I. Sabra, “Psychology versus Mathematics: Ptolemy and Alhazen on the Moon Illusion,” in Mathematics and its Application to Natural Philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. Edward Grant and John E. Murdoch, (Cambridge, 1987), 217–47.
See Sabra, Optics of Ibn al-Haytham, Vol. 2, xxxvi.
MH, Parma, fol. 148r.
Al-Biṭrûjî, Astronomy, Vol. 1, 40–3. We may add to the list of al-Biṭrûjî’s Jewish followers the unnamed author of a homily on the Ten Commandments found in Casanatense MS 222, fols. 51v-68v. In this homily, commandments 2–10 are matched to the orbs, and the ordering of the inner planets matches that of al-Biṭrûjî.
MH, Oxford, fol. 161v; cf. the corresponding passage in al-Biṭrûjî, Astronomy, pars. 18–20.
MH, Parma, fols. 60r ff.
MH, Oxford, fols. 168v-169r. Cf. the corresponding passage in al-Biṭrûjî, Astronomy, pars. 161–2. Clearly the verse from Deuteronomy was not in the original, which presumably displayed a verse from the Quran. There is no verse in Goldstein’s text; elsewhere (e.g. passage 53) the translator, Moses ibn Tibbon translates a verse from the Quran, rather than replacing it with one from the Hebrew Bible. Since Judah says that he is quoting the text literally, the differences between the texts should be attributed to different manuscript traditions.
See the summary in Sirat, “Juda b. Salomon,” 47–8. My exposition here is based upon MH, Oxford, fols. 174r-187r. It is significant that the doctrine of astral cycles, called by Judah yovelot, is not included in the section on astrology, but rather in the section on the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. These cycles form the basis for Judah’s messianic calculation.
MH, Oxford, fols. 178v-179r.
Sirat, “Juda b. Salomon,” 50. Sirat observes that Judah’s affirmation of metempsychosis is his closest point of contact with the kabbalạh (ibid., 48). However, that doctrine was accepted by Plotinus (see, e.g., Enneads III, 4, 2); it was also known to Sa’adyạh (see, e.g., al-Mukhtâr fî al-amânât wa’li’tiqâdât, ed. Yosef Qâfih [Jerusalem, 1970], VI, 8, 214–7; English trans. Samuel Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions [New Haven, Conn., 1948], 259–63), who rejected it. In a different study, “La Qabbale d’après Juda b. Salomon ha-Cohen,” in Hommages à Georges Vajda (Louvain, 1980), 191–202, Sirat shows convincingly that kabbalah, in the usage of Judah, refers to tradition, not necessarily mystical.
See, e.g., Midrash Otiyyot di-Rebbe ‘Aqiva and other texts collected in Battei Midrashot, ed. S. A. Wertheimer, second edition (Jerusalem, 1989), 333–465; and the highly unusual Yemenite book known as Ḥafiṣah, which is described in Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Ha-Hibbur ha-Teimani ha-Mekhunneh Ḥafiṣah” Kiryat Sefer 61 (1986/7): 363–7 (reprint, Mi-Ginzei ha-Makhonle-Taṣlumei Kitvei ha-Yad ha-’Ivriyyim, ed. Abraham David [Jerusalem, 1996], 53–7).
MH, Oxford, fol. 189v. A number of references to the role this verse, Isa. 9:6, played in Jewish-Christian polemics have been collected from a variety of sources by Yehuda Liebes, “Christian Influences in the Zohar,” (Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2 (1982–3): 54–7.
MH, Oxford, fol. 187v.
MH, Oxford, fol. 187v. In his explication of the Talmudic aggadot, Judah states explicitly that he has received an oral tradition; see Sirat, “La Qabbale,” 194.
MH, Oxford, fol. 188r.
MH, Oxford, fol. 188v. Judah criticized this same practice of contemporary astrologers earlier on, in the astrological section of Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah; see MH, Parma, fol. 210r. The haylaj is a point on the celestial equator that is fixed according to a process known as tasyîr, kadhkhudah is a set of numbers associated with the planets, and it too is used in horoscopic astrology. See further O. Schirmer’s entry in the, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed., s.v. “al-Tasyîr”; Michio Yano, ed. and transi., Kushyâr ibn Labbân’s Introduction to Astrology (Tokyo, 1997), 173–9. Note that Ptolemy seems to be guilty of the same reliance upon the planets in prorogation that is criticized by Judah; see Tetrabiblos III, 10.
Almagest, 254. In a note ad loc, Toomer fully justifies Ptolemy’s simplification.
MH, Oxford, fol. 188v.
MH, Oxford, fol. 187v.
MH, Oxford, fol. 189v.
See Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Maimonides’ Repudiation of Astrology,” Maimonidean Studies 2 (1991): 123–58, esp. 145–6.
Milan, MS Ambrosiana 87/G-3 sup., fol. 190v.
MH, Oxford, fol. 161v.
Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Science and the Kuzari,” Science in Context 10 (1997): 495–522, esp. 507–8. I am contemplating a more systematic study of the myth of the Jewish origin of the sciences. See also the following notes.
One possible allusion is the seemingly abstruse calculation that Judah displays in the section on divine science (I consulted Milan MS Ambrosiana 87/G-3 sup., fols. 191v-192r; a French translation of the entire passage is available in Sirat, “La Qabbale,” 199). On the basis of the Talmudic homily on Zechariah’s vision of the flying scroll (b’Eruv 21a), Judah arrives at the figure 3200, which signifies Moses’ “hole in the rock” (Ex. 33:22), i.e., humanly attainable knowledge in its entirety. It seems to me that this may connect to the thirty-two paths mentioned at the beginning of Sefer Yeṣirah.
Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Qiddush ha-Ḥodesh xi.3. Some commentators to the Kuzari indicated that Maimonides and Halevi were of one mind concerning the Jewish origin of the sciences; their views are noted in my “Science and the Kuzari,” 516–19.
With some degree of overstatement, this describes the approach of Moses Nahmanides. See Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Acceptance and Devaluation: Nahmanides’ Attitude towards Science,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1 (1992): 223–45.
See, e.g., MH, Oxford, fols. 195v-196r; MH, Parma, fol. 138v.
The fragment, which deals with the question of the eternity of the world, is found in Taymur MS Ḥikmah 117, 256–61. See Paul Kraus, “Plotin chez les Arabes,” Bulletin de l’Institut d’Egypte 23 (1940/41): 263–95, esp. 280 (reprint, in Rémi Brague, ed., Paul Kraus, Alchemie, Ketzerei, Apokryphen im frühen Islam. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Hildesheim, 1994), 313–45, esp. 330).
I thank my colleague Rahel Nissan for bringing this manuscript to my attention. My colleague Dr. Eliezer Schlossberg and I are planning to publish some of this material.
The codex contains as well philosophical writings by Bahya, Ibn Gabirol, Abraham ibn Ezra, and others.
Sirat, “Juda b. Salomon,” 48.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Langermann, Y.T. (2000). Some Remarks on Judah Ben Solomon Ha-Cohen and his Encyclopedia, Midrash ha-Ḥokhmah . 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_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9389-2_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5428-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9389-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive