It is tragic even bizarre that most rabbis today sermonize by quoting Midrashim as if what the Midrash states, despite being contrary to nature, actually occurred. They also quote the views of mystics, but not rational thinkers such as Maimonides other than to quote a legal view of his that parallels those of mystics, leading congregants to think that the rabbi is teaching them what Judaism wants them to know. They do not tell congregants that Midrashim are parables, stories designed like Aesop’s fables to make us think. They do not encourage congregants to think. They are, in essence, anti-rational. In view of this tragic practice, it is a good idea to view the ideas of some rational Jewish thinkers such as Gersonides. He was not of the intellectual level as Maimonides, but he was a thinker and will prompt us to think as well.
Who was Gersonides?
In his 254 page 2010 book “Judaism within the Limits of Reason,” published by the prestigious Littman Library, Professor Seymour Feldman tells us the following.
Levi ben Gershom, Gersonides in Latin, known also in Hebrew as Ralbag, (1288-1344), was one of several great Jewish rationalistic philosophers. He lived in Provence, France, and wrote books on philosophy, science, and Bible commentary. He wasn’t as deep a thinker as Maimonides and ibn Ezra, who preceded him, but far more intellectual and innovative than most people. All three had unconventional opinions that the public doesn’t know or misunderstand: ideas about God, creation, miracles, prophecy, life, death, the functioning of the world, and human responsibilities. Everyone should know these things. Seymour Feldman gives readers an excellent introduction to Gersonides, describes his thoughts in language appropriate for scholars and the general community, and compares his views with those of other thinkers. The following are some of them.
The three great rationalistic philosophers stressed the use of reason. Human perfection, they wrote, is based on an improved and effective use of reason, not tradition or beliefs. Individuals must study the sciences, how the world functions. The Torah begins by teaching about creation to emphasize the importance of understanding science. Reason even supersedes the literal meaning of the Bible: “For when the Torah, interpreted literally, seems to conflict with doctrines that have been proved (to be true) by reason, it is proper to interpret these passages according to philosophical understanding” and not accept the biblical words literally.
Gersonides was convinced that the Bible teaches philosophy, not only history and laws. But while Maimonides and most ancient thinkers, Jewish and non-Jewish, recognized that the majority of people lack the education and intellect to understand philosophy, Gersonides felt that they could and should understand it. Thus Maimonides composed his writings so that the intellectual would understand it one way, the true way, but the masses would only see their mistaken notions reflected in his writings and think that the Great Eagle, as Maimonides was called, thought as they thought. Maimonides called the untrue ideas that he taught, such as the idea of physical resurrection, “essential truths,” ideas that the general public needed to believe in order to enjoy life without fear. The Greek philosopher Plato (428 or 427 BCE to 348 or 347 BCE), long before Maimonides, called them “noble lies.” But Gersonides wrote his philosophy and philosophical interpretations of Scripture openly, convinced that everyone would understand his views.
Feldman does not read Maimonides in this dual – one might call it elitist – manner. He feels, as most scholars, that Maimonides was hiding nothing. Thus he reads Maimonides repeating the conventional belief that God created the world out of nothing. Other scholars, such as Straus and Pines, and this reviewer, contend that Maimonides could be saying that God created the world out of preexisting matter, which he formed into the currently existing universe. In any event, Gersonides takes the latter view and states it clearly.
End of the World
Both Maimonides and Gersonides, but not ibn Ezra, agree that the world will last forever. Ibn Ezra accepted the notion in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a, that the world would last only six thousand years in his commentaries on Genesis 1:5, 8:22, and Leviticus 25:2.
Can we reject the view of talmudic rabbis?
Maimonides wrote that one may rebuff rabbinical opinions about non-legal matters. Thus he rejected the rabbis’ superstitious notions. Gersonides felt the same, but he accepted many of them. He also accepted as true many biblical tales that are contrary to reason, tales that Maimonides said were untrue, just parables or dreams.
Since scholars read Maimonides differently, some say he thought miracles occur and others the opposite. Gersonides and ibn Ezra are also unclear. Yet, even those who insist that the three believed in miracles say that they felt that miracles are rare and that the world generally (or always) functions according to the laws of nature. The scholarly understanding that miracles do not occur seems correct because it is consistent with the three thinkers’ feelings about God’s knowledge.
As startling as it may appear, all three of these rationalistic philosophers were convinced that God doesn’t know details about people; God only knows the general rules of the laws of nature, what could possibly occur, but people can subvert the laws of nature. Needless to say, since God does not know the details of human activities, the idea that God punishes people for their misdeeds and rewards them for proper acts, is impossible. Therefore they reject this common conception (this essential truth) and contend that people should use their intellect and act properly because it is better for them and society.
Since God has no specific idea of what is happening, it would be illogical to say that God speaks to people and sends them messages how to behave. Thus, the three define prophecy as a higher level of intelligence, not a divine communication. Prophets are intelligent people of high moral integrity, with imaginative skills that give them the ability to communicate, who understand events, and share their understanding with others because they realize that this is their moral duty. Thus, many scholars contend that the three would say that the pagan Aristotle, who had these qualities, was a prophet.
Dreams, divination, and astrology
Nevertheless, seemingly inconsistently, Gersonides and ibn Ezra were convinced that some people receive a kind of mental experience that enables them to avoid danger or obtain a benefit. This occurs through dreams, divination, and astrology. They were not alone. Most ancient people, including rabbis, believed this, but not Maimonides.
Maimonides and Gersonides reject the generally held view that a person’s soul survives the body’s death. The two felt that only people’s intellect lives after them. Like other philosophers who had this opinion, Maimonides is unclear whether this surviving intellect can recall the person’s prior life. Most likely, Maimonides felt that this was a subject he better not reveal to people. Some are certain that Maimonides thought that the surviving intellect has no recollection of the past, but this is mere conjecture by these scholars. However, Gersonides writes openly that the surviving intellect could recall its pre-death thoughts, spends eternity contemplating them, but learns nothing new, since the intellect now lacks the five senses that are used to acquire knowledge. (Some readers might call this constant chewing on old ideas for eternity hell.)
According to the scholars who read Maimonides taking a dual tract, one for intellectuals and one for the general population, Maimonides did not think that people will be resurrected after death. All scholars recognize that he said that the messiah will be human and the messianic age will be like current times except that Jews will no longer be persecuted. However, Gersonides believed in resurrection and wrote that the messianic age would be one that is filled with “marvelous miracles that will be seen by all the earth.” (This seems inconsistent with his general view about miracles, but Gersonides is not known for pure consistency.)
Most rabbis and scholars recognize and respect the vast and deep learning of Gersonides – as well as the wisdom of ibn Ezra and Maimonides – but they cannot accept Gersonides’s radical heterodox conclusions concerning the creation of the earth out of preexisting matter; that miracles don’t occur, even though biblical people thought they did; God doesn’t know the details of human behavior, only the laws of nature; neither the soul nor personality of people survive their death, only their intellect; when the Torah differs with scientific proofs the Torah must be interpreted according to science; people who study Torah and Talmud, even daily, haven’t fulfilled their human duty, which is to study and understand the sciences and use the knowledge to improve themselves and society; and similar unorthodox stances.
Readers may prefer the conservative positions instead of Gersonides’s views. They may also be bothered at first by the fact that not everyone agrees how to interpret Gersonides or Maimonides, and be annoyed at what seems like Gersonides’ inconsistencies. But they will find that they will profit from this well-written and thought-provoking book because Dr. Feldman presents Gersonides’ ideas in a clear and understandable fashion, and contrasts them with the thinking of Maimonides and ibn Ezra. Readers will finish Feldman’s book learning how to think more deeply and how to delve into and better understand their own ideas, something many rabbinical sermons rebuff.
Thank you for making this list about Ralbag. He held many unusual, but mostly rational views. Like the idea that G-d doesn’t know people as individuals. This makes sense.
Yes, he is often rational, but not always. He said women are beings between animals and men.
Dear Rabbi Drazin,
Thank you for another thought provoking article. I admire and thank you for your wisdom, learning and courage in once again shining your light into the corners of concepts and teachings to make me think.
Thank you Cris.
Viver de acordo com a razão, é viver de acordo com a realidade e consequentemente viver o momento presente.