The Theology of Jacob Ben El'azar's Hebrew Version Of

Alan VERSKIN Columbia University

THE THEOLOGY OF JACOB BEN EL‘AZAR’S HEBREW VERSION OF IBN AL-MUQAFFA‘’S KALILAH WA-DIMNAH1

RÉSUMÉ

Kalilah va-dimnah, de Jacob ben Éléazar (mort en 1233), est une version hébraïque du célèbre texte arabe de conseils pour les princes écrit par ‘Abdallah Ibn al- Muqaffa‘ (mort vers 756), qui présente un point de vue sceptique envers la religion organisée et qui glorifie le pouvoir de la raison indépendante — position clairement opposée aux enseignements des rabbins. C’était un des nombreux textes arabes non- juifs qui posaient un problème à deux niveaux aux médiateurs culturels qui voulaient transmettre la littérature arabe aux lecteurs juifs. (1) Les traducteurs de l’arabe voulaient créer une expression hébraïque qui préserverait l’élan et l’esprit de l’original et montrerait la richesse de la langue hébraïque. Pour atteindre cet objectif, Ben Éléazar employait des réarrangements créatifs de citations bibliques en prose rimée. Quelques-unes des citations ne sont que de l’ornementation littéraire, mais il y en a d’autres qui sont des figures de style intertextuelles dont le sens doit être déterminé à partir de leurs contextes bibliques originaux. (2) Ben Éléazar espérait aussi judaï- ser le contenu de l’œuvre d’Ibn al-Muqaffa‘. Son travail est en fait une réinterpré- tation du texte original. Ben Éléazar formule une réponse complexe et subtile, bien qu’évidemment rabbinique, aux enseignements d’Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, et il offre sa propre théorie de la nature du mal humain, des problèmes de la théodicée, et de la nature du sort décrété par Dieu. Il adapte et transforme la Kalilah wa-dimnah d’Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, texte de pragmatisme politique, en un texte d’édification religieuse.

ABSTRACT

Jacob ben El‘azar’s (d.1233) Kalilah va-dimnah is a Hebrew version of the famous eighth-century Arabic work of advice for princes by ‘Abdallah Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (d.c. 756), who expressed a skeptical view of organized religion and celebrated the power of unaided human reason, a view clearly at odds with the teachings of the rabbis. It was one of the many Arabic non-Jewish texts which posed a dual set of problems for cultural mediators who wished to bring Arabic literature to a Jewish

1. I am grateful to Andras Hamori for having commented upon a previous version of this paper. This paper was completed in 2007 and its bibliography has not been subsequently updated.

Revue des études juives, 170 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2011, pp. 465-475. doi: 10.2143/REJ.170.3.2141803

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 465465 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 466 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH

audience. (1) Translators from Arabic felt the need to create a Hebrew mode of expression which had the vitality and wit to do justice to the original and demonstrate the richness of the Hebrew language. To accomplish this, Ben El‘azar used creative rearrangements of biblical quotations in rhymed prose. While some of these quotations are used merely as a means of literary ornamentation, others are intertextual devices whose broader meaning must be determined with reference to their original biblical contexts. (2) Ben El‘azar also wished to judaicize the content of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s work. His work is in fact a reimagining of the original text. Ben El‘azar articulates a complex and subtle response to Ibn al-Muqaffa’s teachings, and, in so doing, offers his own particular, although recognizably rabbinic, approach to the nature of human evil, the problems of theodicy, and the nature of divinely ordained fate. He adapts and transforms Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s Kalilah wa-Dimnah from a text on political pragmatism to one of religious edification.

The works of Jacob Ben El‘azar (d. 1233), an Iberian poet and philoso- pher, have received relatively little scholarly attention.2 One of his surviving works is a translation of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s Arabic work, Kalilah wa-Dim- nah.3 Although Ben El‘azar himself refers to his work as a translation, it is really a creative development of his Vorlage in rhymed prose,4 meticulously adapted to a Jewish worldview. The changes that he makes to his Vorlage, however, are not, as they first appear, a bowdlerization motivated by a slav- ish pietism, but actually represent the articulation of a complex and subtle theology.5

2. For further information on his life and works, see JACOB BEN EL‘AZAR, Kitab al-Kamil, ed. N. ALLONY, Jerusalem, 1977, pp. 1-6; Sipurei ahavah shel Ya‘akov Ben El‘azar, ed. Y. DAVID, Tel Aviv, 1992, pp. 7-11. J. DECTER, A Myrtle in the Forest: Displacement and Renewal in Medieval Hispano-Jewish Literature, Ph. D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2002, pp. 176 ff. M. STEINSCHNEIDER, Die Hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher, Graz, 1956, pp. 878-83; and M. STEINSCHNEIDER, Die Arabische Literatur der Juden, Frankfurt, 1902, pp. 157-158. 3. The work is known from a unique and incomplete manuscript, see J. DERENBOURG, Deux versions hébraïques du livre Kalîlâh et Dimnâh, la première accompagnée d’une traduc- tion française, pub. d’après les manuscrits de Paris et d’Oxford, Paris, 1881, p. VIII; and Á. NAVARRO PEIRO, ‘La versión hebrea de “Calila y Dimnah” de Ya‘aqob ben El‘azar’, Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century I, ed. J. TARGARONA BORRÁS, Leiden, 1999, p. 468. All references in this paper to Ben El‘azar’s translation refer to the pages and line numbers of Derenbourg’s edition. 4. On the genre of rhymed prose in Hebrew literature, see D. PAGIS, ‘Variety in Medieval Rhymed Narratives’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 27, 1978, pp. 79-98. 5. It should be noted that Ben El‘azar was active in the movement to promote the literary use of Hebrew among Arabic speaking Jews. Such Jews saw Hebrew literature in general, and poetry in particular, as a way of advancing Jewish cultural nationalism in Arabic-speaking lands. Thus Ben El‘azar’s translation of Kalilah wa-Dimnah was not written to spread Arabic culture among Jews who could not read Arabic, but to demonstrate the richness, eloquence and versatility of the Hebrew language to a Jewish audience steeped more in Arabic than in Hebrew literary culture. As a result of this, Ben El‘azar is quite strict in excising Arabic words

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 466466 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH 467

The story of Kalilah and Dimnah was popular in many medieval languag- es.6 The original story is believed to have been composed by a Vishnuite Brahman in approximately 300 CE and is known from its recension in the Panchatantra, a work intended to instruct princes in the laws of politics through animal fables.7 It is thought that in the sixth century the work was translated into Middle Persian8 and that it is from this translation that Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ created his Arabic version.9 I refer to his work as a version, rather than a translation, because of the considerable liberties that he takes with the text.10 Like the Panchatantra, the intention of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s work is to instruct courtiers in the art of politics. In broad outline, the story that he tells can be summarized thus. It is framed with a story about a pre-Islamic Per-

from his prose. He will not, for example, make do with the word faylasuf, but instead employs dod ha-Ìokhmot (358.25). He is, however, occasionally compelled to make use of Arabic words where he is unable to find Hebrew equivalents. This occurs quite frequently with animal names. See, for example, 347.17, 348.31, 351.15, and 351.29. For Ben El‘azar’s position on the use of the Hebrew language, see Kitab al-Kamil (n. 2 above), pp. 6-11; and Sipurei ahavah (n. 2 above), p. 7. On Jewish cultural nationalism in medieval Spain in general, see R. BRANN, The Compunctious Poet: Cultural Ambiguity and Hebrew Poetry in Muslim Spain, Baltimore, 1991, pp. 23ff.; and N. ROTH, ‘Jewish Reactions to the ‘Arabiyya and the Renaissance of Hebrew in Spain’, Journal of Semitic Studies 28, 1983, pp. 63-84. 6. C. BROCKELMANN, ‘Kalila wa-Dimna’, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed. Leiden, 1986- 2004, IV, pp. 503ff. My transliteration of the names of the characters is in accordance with the forms in which they are most commonly known in English. I have chosen to do this because there is some variation in the names even between versions of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s Arabic version. 7. J. HERTEL, Das Pañcatantra, seine Geschichte und seine Verbreitung, Leipzig-Berlin, 1914. 8. F. de BLOIS, Burzoy’s Voyage to India and the Origin of the Book of Kalilah wa Dim- nah, London, 1990, p. 1. 9. Ibid., p. 3. In this paper, I have consulted the following two editions of Ibn al-Muqaf- fa‘’s Kalilah wa-Dimnah. The first is edited by L. CHEIKHO, Amsterdam, 1981, and the second is edited by ‘A. al-W. ‘AZZAM and T. HUSAYN, Cairo, 1980. For a brief overview of the life and works of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, see M. COOPERSON, ‘Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (circa 723-759)’, Arabic Literary Culture 500-925, in The Dictionary of Literary Biography, ed. M. COOPERSON, vol. 311, Detroit, 2005, pp. 150-163; and J. D. LATHAM, ‘Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and Early ‘Abbasid Prose’, in The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: ‘Abbasid Belles-Lettres, ed. J. ASHTIANY, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 48-77. 10. There is some uncertainty as to whether Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ himself was responsible for these textual divergences for two reasons. First, one cannot compare his version with the Middle Persian original because it is no longer extant. Second, there is considerable variation in the manuscript tradition of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s Arabic version as copyists frequently added to, subtracted from, and altered its stories. On the basis of a comparison with a 6th century Syriac translation also made from Middle Persian, most scholars are reasonably certain that he was responsible for a large number of these divergences. On the significance of the Syriac translation, see G. BICKELL, Kalilag und Damnag: alte syrische Übersetzung des indischen Furstenspiegels, Leipzig, 1876, pp. XXX-XCII and T. Nöldeke’s review of the work in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 30, 1876, pp. 752-72.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 467467 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 468 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH

sian sage called Burzoe who travels to India in search of a famous book containing wisdom for kings. He manages to find and copy the book, and Kalilah wa-Dimnah is the name of its main story. The story begins with the Indian King Dabshalim asking Bidpai, his vizier, to tell him a tale about a close friendship which is broken by a liar. The vizier obliges by telling the tale of two jackals, Kalilah and Dimnah, at the court of a lion king. For purely selfish reasons, Dimnah, an avid social climber, engineers a friendship between the lion and Shanzabah, a guileless and gullible bull, who has been abandoned by his human owners. The friendship is such a success that Dimnah becomes envious of the bull and cunningly tricks the lion into kill- ing him. Up until now, the story closely resembles its Vorlage in the Pan- chatantra with the main exception that the Panchatantra, of course, does not frame its narrative with the story of Burzoe. But here the two stories diverge. Whereas the Panchatantra simply ends with the death of the bull, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ adds a section in which Dimnah is tried for his crimes and executed. It is generally thought that Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ added this section because he felt embarrassed at telling an amoral story to a Muslim audience, a story in which the villain manages to evade punishment for his misdeeds. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s modified version of the story was popular among medieval Jews even in rabbinic circles.11 It was not, however, sufficiently in conformity with rabbinic theology for its Hebrew translator, Jacob Ben El‘azar, who therefore felt free to make his own changes.12 Ben El‘azar’s first concern is to assure his reader that his version of Kalilah wa-Dimnah, in spite of its Indian origins, does not in any way contain idolatrous mate- rial.13 To this end, he reworks Burzoe’s story by adding a discussion of necromancy which does not appear in Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s version. At the beginning of his quest, Ben El‘azar explains that Burzoe is under the misap- prehension that his search in India is for the magical herbs which grow in the mountains and which can resurrect the dead. He is corrected by the Indian sages who explain that he has misconstrued a parable by taking it literally. They teach him that the dead are the fools, the mountains are the sages, and the herbs are their wisdom through which the fools will be awak-

11. See, for example, the view of Hai Gaon in B. M. LEWIN, OÒar Ha-Ge’onim, 6.2, Sukkah, 1934, pp. 31-32 referred to in M. SAPERSTEIN, Jewish Preaching, 1200-1800, New Haven, 1989, p. 95, n. 13. 12. Ben El‘azar dislikes literal translations in general saying that “it is neither possible nor proper to literally translate a book from one language to another.” Rather, literal translations cause textual corruption and diminish the splendor of a text (314.12). 13. The work had already been purged of specific references to Indian gods by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 468468 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH 469

ened.14 The work is thus effectively exempted from charges that it contains forbidden idolatrous matter. For those who may still consider a story in which moral guidance issues from the mouths of animals to be in some way suspect, Ben El‘azar quotes scripture: “Ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the sky, they will tell you… the fish of the sea, they will inform you.”15 Ben El‘azar’s use of biblical quotations occupies an important role in the judaization of his Vorlage.16 The sheer ubiquity of its biblical quotations assures the reader of the harmony of the work with Jewish values. As is typical of medieval Hebrew Andalusian poetry, these biblical quotations are often employed solely for the purpose of literary flare or ornamentation — what Ross Brann refers to as “stylistic, semantically neutral, decorative ‘references’.”17 Sometimes, however, the significance of these quotations goes deeper and their meaning cannot be understood properly except by reference to their biblical context. They function as intertextual devices which, as Brann puts it, “confer upon the line of poetry, or deflect from it, the associations, thematic content, context, and meaning of the original biblical passage.”18 With a writer as sophisticated as Ben El‘azar, it is not always easy to determine whether his biblical quotations are merely orna- mental or are intended as intertextual references.19 Biblical quotations and their potential intertextuality are clearly incongru- ous in a translation of a non-prophetic work of Indian origin. In a number of places, Ben El‘azar playfully draws this problem to the reader’s attention.20 At one point, Dimnah, expressing surprise at Shanzabah the bull’s ignorance, rebukes him saying: “Have you not heard the parable in scripture (mikra)?”21 whereupon he proceeds to quote from scripture. Another example is Ben El‘azar’s use of the words Bathsheba spoke when accusing Adon-

14. 319.22-320.2. 15. Job 12.7-8. 16. For a systematic treatment of the problem of biblical allusions, see D. PAGIS, Change and Tradition in Secular Hebrew Poetry (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 70-75. Cf. BRANN, The Compunctious (n. 5 above), pp. 40 ff. On the theme of biblicization in translations, see Cf. A. LAVI, ‘The Rationale of al-Îarizi in Biblicizing the Maqamat of al-Îariri’, Jewish Quarterly Review 74, 1984, p. 280. 17. BRANN, The Compunctious (n. 5 above), p. 40. 18. Ibid., pp. 40-41. 19. For a different approach to Ben El‘azar’s use of intertextuality, see L. M. GIRÓN- NEGRÓN, ‘How the Go-Between Cut Her Nose: Two Ibero-Medieval Translations of a Kalilah wa Dimnah Story’, in Under the Influence: Questioning the Comparative in Medieval Castile, ed. C. ROBINSON and L. ROUHI, Leiden, 2005, pp. 243 ff. 20. 313.23 ff. 21. 338.15.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 469469 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 470 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH

ijah of trying to usurp King David’s throne. She said that Adonijah had “gathered the heads of the regiments both near and far to sacrifice bulls, fatlings, and sheep.” When Dimnah denounces Shanzabah, accusing him of trying to usurp the lion’s throne, he uses the same words. Shanzabah the bull, he says, “has gathered the heads of the regiments both near and far to sacrifice bulls, fatlings, and sheep.”22 The intentionally absurd result of the choice of this quotation is that of cannibalism on the part of the bull. The absurdity increases when Dimnah concludes his denunciation with a grave warning to the lion regarding the responsibilities that an owner has for his bull, as described in Exodus 21:29-36. Ben El‘azar’s moral message differs significantly from that of Ibn al- Muqaffa‘. In his introduction, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ expresses a skeptical view of organized religion and an appreciation of human reason23 which Ben El‘azar excises from his introduction. More importantly, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s work is primarily intended to convey political advice. This political message is muted by Ben El‘azar. Significantly, in Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s introduction, it is the king who orders Burzoe to seek the wisdom of India. In Ben El‘azar’s introduction, Burzoe does so on his own initiative, and it is only later that the king is persuaded of the value of what he has done. This is because Ben El‘azar wishes to tell a story about a quest for theological and ethical truths which are unconnected with and therefore uncomplicated by political considerations. He lays the groundwork thus. According to him, the inhabitants of early India possessed no prophets, with the result that they lacked guidance and were greatly perplexed. When they saw that no prophets would be granted to them, they sought a way to illuminate their darkness and began to reflect upon the great wisdom inherent in creation24: Who created all of this and prepared it? Who placed each man at his post? Who will show us the creator of the heavens and teach us his ways?25

There were times when they almost lost hope of finding what they were searching for, but in the end they managed to grasp something of the truth and decided to compose a book of parables and ethical guidance which

22. 344.13 quoting I Kings 1.19. Translations of biblical quotations are taken, with some modifications, from the The Jewish Publication Society Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1999. 23. IBN AL-MUQAFFA‘, Kalilah wa-Dimnah, ed. CHEIKHO (n. 9 above), pp. 20ff. See also M. CHOKR, Zandaqa et Zindiqs en Islam au second siècle de l’hégire, Damascus, 1993, pp. 179-208. 24. 313.23-25. 25. 314.3-6.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 470470 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH 471

would serve as “instruction and testimony.”26 The Indians are thus depicted as a humble and admirable people who turn to reason out of desperation when they realize that they will not receive a revelation. Thus, unlike Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, Ben El‘azar writes an introduction that does not pit rational knowledge against revealed knowledge. In the Panchatantra, the main purpose of the story of Kalilah and Dimnah is not to show how justice is meted out to the evildoer, but rather to show how someone who is crafty can destroy firm bonds of friendship.27 The author simply accepts without comment the fact that Dimnah, the villain of the tale, is not punished for his actions. It is only in the chapter that Ibn al- Muqaffa‘ adds to his Arabic version that the themes of good and evil and of reward and punishment suddenly emerge, so assuaging a Muslim audience’s theological qualms about the wicked escaping punishment.28 Ben El‘azar’s Hebrew version gives this theology much greater prominence. Whereas Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ limits these themes to his concluding chapter, Ben El‘azar makes them permeate his entire narrative. Apart from a short introductory gloss,29 Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s version follows the Panchatantra in initially presenting Dimnah’s intentions in such a way that they do not seem particularly evil. To begin with, Dimnah emerges as a character who wishes to pursue that which is noble, rather than that which is base. To Kalilah’s argument that each person has an assigned rank, Dim- nah articulates a model of social mobility in which people rise and fall based upon their own merit regardless of how humble or great their initial rank may be.30 It is true that Dimnah’s selfish sentiments are clearly expressed even at this stage. He declares that he wishes to take advantage of the lion’s weakness in order to receive a good position from him.31 Although he says that he intends to give the lion good advice, he immediately adds that decep- tion is legitimate and he speaks with approval of the person who makes the truth seem false and the false seem true.32 However, one does not feel that he is any more reprehensible than the overly ambitious courtiers sometimes described in Fürstenspiegel literature. At this early stage, Dimnah is presented as a pragmatist, an individual lacking in morality but not to such an

26. Isaiah 8.20. 27. The Panchatantra, tr. A. W. RYDER, Chicago, 1925, pp. 20 ff. 28. BLOIS, Burzoy’s (n. 8 above), p. 14. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s own theological views were, in all probability, much less pious. See CHOKR, Zandaqa (n. 23 above), pp. 179 ff. 29. IBN AL-MUQAFFA‘, Kalilah wa-Dimnah, ed. CHEIKHO (n. 9 above), p. 55. 30. Ibid., p. 56. 31. Ibid., p. 57. Cf. IBN AL-MUQAFFA‘, Kalilah wa-Dimnah, ed. ‘AZZAM and HUSAYN (n. 9 above), p. 48. 32. Ibid., p. 58.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 471471 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 472 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH

extent as to make him a villain. Kalilah himself seems to understand Dim- nah’s intentions in this manner, as can be seen from the fact that he makes his first arguments against Dimnah’s plans on the basis of pragmatic rather than moral considerations. For example, he warns Dimnah to mind his own business lest he encounter harm, he asks how Dimnah can attain standing with the lion when he has had no experience in dealing with royalty, he suggests that the ruler only befriends those who are close to him, not those who are most noble, and he warns Dimnah of the danger of keeping com- pany with a sovereign.33 It is only after Shanzabah has been killed that Kalilah’s tone changes and he reprimands Dimnah for being evil.34 This progression is entirely absent from Ben El‘azar’s version. Ben El‘azar immediately establishes Dimnah as an evil character and Kalilah berates him for this from the very first. Kalilah’s pragmatic warnings which appear in the Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ version are not excised, but almost all are accompanied by additional moral warnings. For example, Kalilah’s pragmatic warning that Dimnah should mind his own business is accompanied by a passionate call to Dimnah to “purge his heart of evil thoughts.”35 In Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s version, it appears that the source of Dimnah’s evil is envy and greed.36 Ben El‘azar does not exclude these, but for him Dim- nah’s sin is far greater. The doctrine of divine reward and punishment is a fundamental motif in Ben El‘azar’s version, and Dimnah is evil because he challenges this doctrine. In Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s version, Kalilah tells Dimnah that he should not be greedy and envious, but should be satisfied with his station.37 In Ben El‘azar’s version this advice is supplemented with a discourse on the justice of God. Although God has ordained a hier- archical universe, it is also a just universe38 in which the wicked will not enjoy the station which is due to the righteous.39 Since this hierarchy is in perfect balance, Kalilah tells Dimnah that it is futile for him to attempt to change his station. Dimnah responds by remarking that “everything depends upon planetary influence (mazal).” For the rabbis, this dictum carries a sinister meaning in that it implies that there can be no form of divine intervention, such as reward and punishment, since everything is

33. Ibid. 34. 354.1 ff. 35. 332.23. 36. On the theme of envy in Kalilah wa-Dimnah, see C.-F. AUDEBERT, ‘La condition humaine d’après Kalilah wa Dimnah’, Arabica 46, 3, 1999, pp. 293-294 and ‘La violence dans Kalilah wa Dimnah’, Alif 13, 1993, pp. 26 ff. 37. IBN AL-MUQAFFA‘, Kalilah wa-Dimnah, ed. CHEIKHO (n. 9 above), p. 56. 38. 333.22-23. 39. 333.28-29.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 472472 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH 473

preordained.40 Since Dimnah has this worldview, it is no wonder that Ben El‘azar has him explicitly cast off the yoke of heaven when he declares that Kalilah must cease his attempts to persuade him because, as he says, he would not be moved to change his mind even by a prophet.41 Thus Dimnah’s main sin is not his envy and greed, but his impious theology. It is for this that he is punished. In Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s version, Shanzabah’s fate poses a challenge to those who believe that suffering only occurs as a punishment for sin, since he is presented as being entirely innocent. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s additional chapter in which Dimnah is punished does nothing to deal with this problem. In contrast, Ben El‘azar presents two different explanations. The first is given by the omniscient narrator who presents a typical theodicy according to which there is no suffering without sin. He suggests that Shanzabah is not entirely free of sin and that he therefore deserves to suffer. In a scene not present in Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s version, Shanzabah, after he manages to free himself from the mud, is left alone in the country where no human beings exist to demand what was decreed (nigzar) concerning him. Shanzabah rejoices in this freedom, grazing, dancing, and kicking as he pleases. He takes such pleasure in doing this that he becomes proud and thus, com- ments the narrator, does not realize that evil has touched him.42 Shanza- bah’s sin is, in a way, similar to that of Dimnah, for the latter also takes pleasure in being free from the divinely ordained cosmic hierarchy. This sin is exacerbated when he becomes the companion of the lion, a station to which he was not assigned. Seen in this light, it is evident that Shanzabah’s situation requires correction. The second explanation of Shanzabah’s fate is given by Shanzabah himself and might be termed an antitheodicy. Zachary Braiterman explains the term thus:

40. In Babylonian Talmud Shabat 156a, R. YoÌanan says that Israel is not subject to planetary influence (mazal). The consequence of this view is that Divine providence nullifies the decrees of astrology. Since providence depends upon righteous behavior, Israel is rewarded and punished only for her deeds and her fate is not preordained. However, the assumption of the Talmud’s discussion seems to be that all other nations do not receive such providence, and that their fate does depend upon planetary influence. In post-Talmudic literature, this idea is further developed. The person who says “everything depends upon planetary influence” represents a well-known category of heretic who denies that God has power over the affairs of the world. It is with this category of person that Ben El‘azar wishes to associate Dimnah. For examples of the use of the phrase “everything depends upon planetary influence”, see Y.-T.B. A. ISHBILI, Îidushei Ha-Ritva, vol. 2, Jerusalem, 1993, Mo‘ed Qatan 28a; and J. b. SHU‘AYB, Sefer Derashot, ed. Z. METZGER, Jerusalem, 1992, II, 5. 41. 333.32-33. 42. 332.11-13.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 473473 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 474 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH

Antitheodicy mirrors theodicy… In both theodicy and antitheodic discourse, religious believers address the relation that they see between God, providence, evil and human suffering. However, by definition, antitheodic statements… neither justify, explain… [nor] theologically rectify the presence of evil in human affairs.43

Braiterman says, however, that “antitheodicy does not constitute atheism; it might even express stubborn love that human persons have for God.”44 Ben El‘azar’s Shanzabah seems to engage in exactly this kind of speculation when he struggles to understand why he is being threatened with death by the lion. Shanzabah begins by positing an entirely naturalistic explanation. It is a part of the nature of a lion, he says, to devour prey. Since he placed himself near the lion, he must be prepared to bear the consequences. He likens his position to that of a person who swims in a powerful current and whose blood is therefore considered to be on his own head.45 He then directs his mind to the problem of why such dangers exist in the first place. His investigation highlights the full difficulty of believing in a strict theodicy. On the one hand, he openly affirms the devastating nature of certain acts of God, “Who sends forth destruction on the stronghold,”46 Who has created a world in which criminals are more numerous than the innocent, and Who decrees great hardships upon His creatures from which they are unable to escape. On the other hand, he also affirms the justice of God, Who “saves the poor person from one stronger than he, the poor and needy person from his despoiler.”47 Perhaps suggesting that these two images of God are irrec- oncilable, he paraphrases Job, saying that there is no fathoming either God’s greatness or His great deeds.48 Shanzabah ends this section of his speech with a short description of the “Creator of Everything”. The speech is formed from three quotations from the Book of Daniel: “His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion endures throughout the generations;”49 “He delivers and saves;”50 and “he put to death whom he wished, and whom he wished he let live.”51

These quotations effectively adumbrate Shanzabah’s deliberations on his fate. The first two quotations affirm the justice and goodness of God,

43. Z. BRAITERMAN, (God) after Auschwitz: Tradition and Change in Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought, Princeton, 1998, p. 37. 44. Ibid., p. 4. 45. 348.4-5. For similar analogies, see 348.30-349.5. 46. 348.16 quoting Amos 5. 9. 47. Psalms 35. 10. 48. 348.16-17. Cf. Job 9. 10. 49. Daniel 3. 33. 50. Daniel 6. 28. 51. Daniel 5. 19.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 474474 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15 THE THEOLOGY OF HEBREW KALILAH WA-DIMNAH 475

whereas the last focuses upon the unfathomable and sometimes destructive nature of the divine will. A problem of interpretation, however, arises when one looks at the context of these biblical quotations. In the Book of Daniel, only the first two passages describe God. The third passage does not describe God at all. It describes the actions of Nebuchadnezzar’s father for which he was chastised. It is difficult to determine whether this last quotation is to be regarded simply as a literary flourish which must be looked at without reference to its scriptural context or whether Ben El‘azar intended the scriptural context to add to his meaning. If the latter is the case, is Ben El‘azar hinting to his alert reader, one who is able to read the only Aramaic passage in his book, that the destructiveness of God is not always balanced by His justice?52 Does he believe that by putting this view in the mouth of Shanzabah he thereby absolves himself of responsibility for it? The answer is far from clear. What is clear, however, is that it is the knowledge of this inscrutable reality which ultimately induces Shanzabah to resign himself to his fate. To conclude, Ben El‘azar’s version of Kalilah wa-Dimnah works out the implications of a strict theodicy according to which there is no suffering without sin. His plot clearly reflects this. Not only is Dimnah given his just desserts, but unlike Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, Ben El‘azar identifies the sins of Shan- zabah so that the latter’s sufferings do not seem entirely undeserved. He thus presents a system of reward and punishment in which each individual is rendered his due and which can be enthusiastically embraced by pious Jews. This system replaces the embarrassing amoral nature of the Panchatantra that Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ rectified only partially in his additional chapter in which, although Dimnah is punished for his misdeeds, Shanzabah is left to suffer without having sinned. At the same time, through the speeches of Shanzabah, Ben El‘azar presents a well-articulated theological development of the amoral implications of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s story. Ben El‘azar does not comment on this antitheodicy that Shanzabah expresses. He thus allows the reader to choose whether to dismiss it as the last desperate words of a suffering soul or to accept it as a profound reflection on the human condition.

Alan VERSKIN [email protected]

52. Further study of Ben El‘azar’s understanding of providence is necessary. Perhaps light may be shed on the matter through further research on his still largely unpublished philo- sophical works: Sefer pardes rimonei ha-Ìokhmah va-‘arugat bosem ha-mezimah and Sefer gan ha-te‘udot va-‘arugot Ìuqot Ìamudot. The former consists of 23 gates of which gates 13-23 have been published by I. Davidson on the basis of Taylor-Schechter 18K 8/7 in Ha-∑ofeh le-Îokhmat Yisra’el 10, 1926, pp. 94-105. On its ascription to Ben El‘azar together with references to other more complete manuscripts, see Sipurei ahavah (n. 2 above), p. 10 n. 10.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_06_Verskin.indd 475475 221/12/111/12/11 09:1509:15