Isaac Polqar – A Jewish Philosopher or a Philosopher and a Jew? A Study of the Relationship between Philosophy and Religion in Isaac Polqar’s ʿEzer ha-Dat [In Support of the Law] and Teshuvat Apikoros [A Response to the Heretic] A Thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Racheli Haliva Jewish Studies, McGill University, Montreal Supervisors: Carlos Fraenkel Lawrence J. Kaplan June 2015 © Copyright by Racheli Haliva 2015 Table of Contents Acknowledgments..……………………………………………………………..…iv-vi Abstract-English…..…………………………………………………….………....vii-ix Abstract- French…………………………………………………………………... x-xii Introduction……………………………………………………………………..….1- 14 Chapter One: The Literary form of ‘Ezer ha-Dat: between Dialogue and Essay...15-64 Introduction…………………………………………………………….....……...15-25 Treatise One………………………………………………………..…………..…25-29 Treatise Two………………………………………………………………….…..29-44 Treatise Three………………………………………………………………….…44-50 Treatise Four………………………………………………………………….…..50-57 Treatise Five……………………………………………………………………....57-64 Chapter 2: Philosophy and Religion…………………………………………....…65-148 2.1 The Harmonious Relationship between Philosophy and Judaism………..…65-71 2.2 Judaism against Christianity……………………….……………………..…72-130 2.2.1 The Existence of God…………………………………………..…..85-87 2.2.2 Monotheism vs. Trinity………………………………………….....87-93 2.2.3 The Incorporeality of God vs. the Incarnation of God…………..…94-101 2.2.4 The World to Come: Is the Soul Universal or Individual ?..............101-105 2.2.5 The Messiah to Come vs. the Messiah Who Already Came……….105-114 2.2.6 The Exile and its Meaning…………………………………………115-127 2.2.7 The Authority of the Talmud and the Jewish Sages……….……....127-130 2.3 Jews and Non-Jews – Essential Superiority or Practical Difference?.............131-148 ii Chapter 3: The Conception of God………………………………………………..149-197 3.1 God’s Will………………………………………………………………….. 149-160 3.2 God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will……………………….………..161-185 3.3 Divine Providence: Universal vs. Individual………………………..………186-197 Chapter 4: The Conception of the World……………………………………….....198-250 4.1 Cosmos: Creation Ex Nihilo or Eternity of the World? between Religious Tradition and Aristotle………………………………….198-217 4.2 Astrology: True Science or Invalid and Dangerous Doctrine?....…………...218-235 4.3 Miracles Within a Natural Framework…………………………….………..236-250 Chapter 5: The Conception of Man……………………………………….………251-295 5.1 Between a Prophet and a Philosopher…………………………………...…….251-268 5.2 The Mosaic Commandments: A Necessary Means to Man’s Ultimate Purpose …………………………………..………...………..269-282 5.3 Man’s Ultimate Purpose…………………………….……………...………….283-295 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………296-298 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….....299-316 iii Acknowledgments This dissertation would have not been completed without the help and support of a number of wonderful individuals. My first debt is to my advisors, Professors Carlos Fraenkel and Lawrence J. Kaplan. I am especially grateful to Professor Carlos Fraenkel, whose intellectual generosity knows no limits, and whose comments, insights, and suggestions were a source of valuable inspiration for me. My gratitude to Professor Lawrence Kaplan, The Rabbi, goes beyond words; his lectures and the meetings we had were always stimulating and thought-provoking, guiding me in articulating my arguments clearly. I am particularly grateful for the long hours he dedicated to clarifying my thinking, improving the dissertation, and oftentimes eliminating embarrassing errors. I would also like to thank the members of my committee; Professors Zeev Harey, Robert Wisnovsky, Gaëlle Fiasse, Yael Halevi-Wise, and Gershon D. Hundert, whose comments and insights brought much inspiration to this project. I thank my teachers at McGill University who encouraged, challenged, and supported me during my years in Montreal, especially during the long long (long) winters. My sincere thanks to Professor Alison Laywine of the Department of Philosophy at McGill University, who patiently shaped and sharpened my thinking, and to Shokry Gohar and to David (Daoud) Nancekivell of the Islamic Institute at McGill University, who improved my Arabic skills. I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Faculty of Art at McGill University for providing me with all the facilities necessary for my research and for allowing me to travel to the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem, as well as for supporting my participation in the Dissertation Writing Workshop. iv Many thanks, also, to the various libraries and librarians who assisted me in locating primary sources and allowed me to use these sources in my research: Breslau library, Frankfurt library, London, Beth Din & Beth Hamidrash library, London British Library, London Montefiore Library, Oxford Bodleian Library, Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, the Vatican’s Biblioteca Apostolica, and Warszaw’s Zydowski Instytut Historyczny. I especially would like to thank Yael Okun at the Institute for Microfilmed Manuscripts at the National Library of Israel. Finally, I thank Sonia Smith at the McGill Library, who always quickly provided all the books and materials necessary for my research. I also take this opportunity to express gratitude to the members of the Department of Jewish Studies for their help and support: To Professor Yael Halevi-Weise who opened her home and welcomed me into her family during my years in Montreal, and whose friendship and caring made this period wonderful. To Professor Igor Holanda de Souza who gave me a place of refuge when I needed it the most, and simply for being part of my small world. To Professor Daniel Heller who was there when I needed his feedback and whose comments made my papers better. To Stefka, my friend, who was there for me in good and bad times, and who made my life easy when I had to face a complicated bureaucracy. To Soroosh Shahriari, Bakinaz Khalifa and Briah Cahana who shared large parts of my journey, and whose comments helped me clarify my thinking. v To my students in the Department of Jewish Studies at McGill University who during the years often challenged me with profound questions and deep insights, and constantly reminded me what it is like to read a text for the first time. To Marie McDonough who read every word of this dissertation, my sincere gratitude for her acute comments. Last but not least, to my beloved parents to whom I owe everything else, I dedicate this work. Racheli Haliva Montreal, 2015 vi Abstract Isaac Polqar – A Jewish Philosopher or a Philosopher and a Jew? A Study of the relationship between Philosophy and Religion in Isaac Polqar’s ʿEzer ha-Dat [In Support of the Law] and Teshuvat Apikoros [A Response to the Heretic] Racheli Haliva Doctor of Philosophy Department of Jewish Studies McGill University 2015 Isaac Polqar, who belonged to the Jewish Averroist School, was active in northern Spain in the first half of the fourteenth century. In addition to his main philosophical book ‘Ezer ha-Dat (In Support of the Law), preserved in its entirety in a single manuscript, he wrote several other works, most of which are no longer extant. Among his lost works are commentaries on the books of Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms. In his extant works, Polqar does not provide details about his own life; however, his correspondence with his former teacher, Abner of Burgos, reveals the tense and complicated relationship between them. The two were in continuous debate, especially after Abner of Burgos converted to Christianity and used his expertise in Biblical, Talmudic, and philosophical texts to attack the faith of his birth. The present study is dedicated to Polqar’s two extant works: ‘Ezer ha-Dat, his main philosophical text, and Teshuvat Apikoros (A Response to the Heretic), a letter he wrote to Abner of Burgos, expressing his objection to Christianity. Polqar aims to defend three positions. The first is to defend hermeneutically and philosophically the superiority of Judaism over Christianity by arguing that Judaism accords with philosophical principles and is therefore a true religion, while Christianity, which possesses irrational doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, cannot be vii considered a true religion. The second is to defend Aristotelian philosophy as taught by Averroes. And the third is to defend his philosophical interpretation of Judaism against the accusations of Jewish sects, such as the Kabbalists. Influenced by Maimonides and Averroes, Polqar plays a unique role in giving a philosophical interpretation to Jewish principles. At first glance, Polqar appears to continue the Maimonidean project of reconciling Aristotelian philosophy with the principles of Judaism. Yet, despite the appearance of congruence between his ideas and those of Maimonides, my study brings to light their moments of divergence. While Polqar did not wish to publicly contradict Maimonides, a close examination of Polqar’s presentation of key concepts within the Jewish faith—the role of the commandments, creation vs. eternity of the world, and the difference between prophet and philosopher—shows that Polqar, owing to the influence of Averroes, consistently pushes Maimonides’ ideas in a more radical direction. In addition to his initial goal of giving the principles of Judaism a radically naturalistic Averroistic interpretation, Polqar, in a more apologetic vein, sought to defend that interpretation from criticisms leveled against it by Christians and converts, as well as by members