Isaac Abarbanel

Title page of the second edition of Abarbanel's commentary on the Passover Haggadah, Sefer Zebach Pesacḥ from 1545

Title page of a 1642 Hebrew and Latin edition of Abarbanel's commentary on the minor prophets, Perush 'al Nevi'im ahronim

Abarbanel composed commentaries on the Torah and Nevi'im. These were published in three works: "Perush" (Commentary) on the Torah (Venice, 1579); "Perush" on the Earlier Prophets (Pesaro, 1511?); "Perush" on the Later Prophets (Pesaro, 1520?).[3] He may also have composed a commentary on Song of Songs.[10][11]

His commentaries are divided into chapters, each of which is preceded by a list of questions or difficulties that he sets out to explain over the course of the chapter. Not only did this make it easier for scholars to find the answers they were looking for, but these lists of difficulties aided the average student in studying Abarbanel's work. In his commentary on the Torah, these questions have no fixed number, sometimes amounting to over 40, but in his commentary to the Prophets he limits himself to six. Abarbanel rarely forayed into the world of grammatical or philological investigation in the vein of Abraham ibn Ezra or David Kimhi before him, instead focusing on a content-based investigation of the Scripture at hand.

Occasionally, Abarbanel digresses from the subject under discussion, particularly in his commentary on the Torah. His style and presentations are prolix and often repetitive. Some of his interpretations derive from homilies delivered in the synagogue. He vehemently fought the extreme rationalism of philosophical interpretation, as well as interpretations based on philosophical allegory. At the same time, he himself had recourse, especially in his commentary on the Torah, to numerous interpretations based on philosophy.

His opposition to philosophical allegory must also be ascribed to the conditions of his time, the fear of undermining the unquestioning faith of the simple Jew, and the danger to Jewish survival in exile. This also explains Abarbanel's faith in the Messianic concepts of Judaism, as well as his need to make his work accessible to all Jews instead of writing merely for the scholars of his time. Although his commentary often differed from kabbalistic interpretations, Abarbanel nonetheless believed that the Torah had a hidden meaning in addition to its overt significance, thus he interpreted passages in the Torah in various ways. His commentary to Deuteronomy 25:5 demonstrates both his knowledge and endorsement of kabbalists and kabbalistic understanding of Scripture. Side by side with philosophical concepts (entitled "the analytical way", "the scientific", or "the method of wisdom") he gives "the way of the Torah", i.e., the moral and religious tenets to be derived from the text.

He quoted extensively from the Midrash, but allowed himself to criticize his source, when in his view, it did not align with the literal meaning of the text. He explains, "I shall not refrain from pointing to the weakness inherent in their statements where they are homiletical in nature and are not accepted by them as authoritative" (Introduction to Joshua).

Overall, Abarbanel's exegetical writings are notable for these distinctions:

1. His comparison of the social structure of society in biblical times with that of the European society in his day (for example, in dealing with the institution of monarchy, I Samuel 8). He had wide recourse to historical interpretation, particularly in his commentaries to the Major and Minor Prophets and to the Book of Daniel, but in numerous instances his interpretations are anachronistic (for example, Judges 18).
2. Preoccupation with Christian exegesis and exegetes. He generally disputed their christological interpretations, especially those of Jerome. But he did not hesitate to borrow from them when their interpretation seemed correct to him. "Indeed I regard their words in this matter to be more acceptable than those of the rabbis to which I have referred" (I Kings 8, reply to the sixth question).
3. His introductions to the books of the prophets, which are much more comprehensive than those of his predecessors. In them, he deals with the content of the books, the division of the material, their authors, and the time of their compilation, and also drew comparisons between the method and style of the various prophets. His investigations are made in the spirit of medieval scholasticism. He may consequently be considered as a pioneer of the modern science of Bible propædeutics.

However, the major characteristic that separated Abarbanel from his predecessors was his unflagging commitment toward using the Scripture as a means of elucidating the status quo of his surrounding Jewish community; as a historical scholar, Abarbanel was able to contemporize the lessons of the historical eras described in the Scripture and apply them successfully in his explanations of modern Jewish living. Abarbanel, who had himself taken part in the politics of the great powers of the day, believed that mere consideration of the literary elements of Scripture was insufficient, and that the political and social life of the characters in the Tanakh must also be taken into account.[3] Due to the overall excellence and exhaustiveness of Abarbanel's exegetical literature, he was looked to as a beacon for later Christian scholarship, which often included the tasks of translating and condensing his works.

His exegetical writings are set against a richly conceived backdrop of the Jewish historical and sociocultural experience, and it is often implied that his exegesis was sculpted with the purpose of giving hope to the Jews of Spain that the arrival of the Messiah was imminent in their days. This idea distinguished him from many other philosophers of the age, who did not rely as heavily on Messianic concepts.

Part of a series on
Jewish philosophy
Hellenistic Positions: Hasmonean Sadducean Pharisee Boethusian People: Aristobulus of Alexandria Philo of Alexandria
Medieval Influenced by: Brethren of Purity Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) Ismaili philosophy Jewish Kalam Kabbalah Rabbinic Judaism Spanish and European: Hasdai ibn Shaprut Ibn Gabirol Abraham bar Hiyya Bahya ibn Paquda Judah Halevi Abraham ibn Daud Joseph ibn Tzaddik Abraham ibn Ezra Maimonides Nachmanides Samuel ibn Tibbon Joseph ben Judah Shem-Tov ibn Falaquera Gersonides Moses of Narbonne Isaac ben Sheshet Hasdai Crescas Joseph Albo Elia del Medigo Judah Minz Isaac Abarbanel Judah Leon Abravanel Yemenite: Natan'el al-Fayyumi Mansur ibn Sulayman al-Ghamari Other: Isaac Israeli Saadia Gaon al-Mukkamas Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat Ibn Kammuna Positions: Maimonidean / Anti-Maimonidean Kabbalist Karaism Talmudic Tosafist
Modern Positions: Orthodox Sephardic Chabad Chassidic Conservative Reform Existentialist Reconstructionist Holocaust Renewal Neo-Hasidic Mussar Rambamist People: Francisco Sanches Uriel da Costa Baruch Spinoza Salomon Maimon Joseph Solomon Delmedigo Elijah Ba'al Shem of Chelm Eliezer ben Elijah Ashkenazi Tzvi Ashkenazi Jacob Emden Samuel Hirsch Shneur Zalman of Liadi Simcha Bunim of Peshischa Samson Raphael Hirsch Jacob Abendana Isaac Cardoso David Nieto Isaac Orobio de Castro Moses Mendelssohn Samuel David Luzzatto Elijah Benamozegh Moses Hess Eliezer Berkovits Eliyahu Dessler Monsieur Chouchani Emmanuel Levinas Martin Buber Gershom Scholem Abraham Isaac Kook Joseph Soloveitchik Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Topics Anger Chosen people Eschatology Ethics Faith God Happiness Holiness Holocaust Messiah Microcosm–macrocosm Righteousness

Abarbanel's Jewish predecessors in the realm of philosophy did not receive the same tolerance at his hands as the Christians did. Men such as Isaac Albalag, Shem-Tov ibn Falaquera, Gersonides, Moses ben Joshua, and others, were denounced by Abarbanel as infidels and misleading guides for assuming a comparatively liberal standpoint in religiophilosophical questions. Abarbanel was essentially an opponent of philosophy, despite his authority on the subject, because his entire understanding of the Jewish religion was based on God's revelation in Jewish history.[3] Jewish exegesis had become philosophical and far removed from the underlying truth of the text, according to Abarbanel.[12]

A characteristic instance of his vacillation is afforded by his most important religious work, the Rosh Amanah (The Pinnacle of Faith) (Amsterdam, 1505), whose title derives from Song of Songs 4:8. This work, devoted to the championship of the Maimonidean 13 articles of belief against the attacks of Hasdai Crescas and Joseph Albo, ends with the statement that Maimonides compiled these articles merely in accordance with the fashion of other nations, which set up axioms or fundamental principles for their science. However, he holds that Judaism has nothing in common with human science; that the teachings of the Torah are revelations from God, and therefore are all of equal value; that among them are neither principles nor corollaries from principles.[3]

Abarbanel agrees with and supports some of Maimonides' ideas, but he assails Maimonides' conception that the prophetic visions were the creations of imagination. Abarbanel will not hear of this explanation, even for the bat kol of the Talmud, which, according to him, was an actual voice made audible by God—a miracle, in fact.[13][3]

In like manner, Abarbanel exceeded all his predecessors in combating Maimonides' theory of the "Heavenly Chariot" in Ezekiel.[14][3]

Title page of a 1647 edition of Abarbanel's commentary on Daniel, Ma'yanei ha-Yeshu'ah.

Abarbanel felt deeply the hopelessness and despair, which possessed Spanish Jews in the years following their expulsion from Spain, and set himself, therefore, to champion and strengthen their Messianic belief. With this aim, he wrote these works:[3]

1. "The Wellsprings of Salvation" (מעייני הישועה‎, Maʿyānei haYəshuʿāh, 1496), which is a commentary on the Book of Daniel;
2. "The Salvation of His Anointed" (ישועות משיחו‎, Yəshuʿot Meshiho, 1497), an interpretation of rabbinic literature about the Messiah
3. "Announcing Salvation" (משמיע ישועה‎, 1498), a commentary on the messianic prophecies in the prophetical books

These three books are considered the separate parts of a larger work entitled Tower of Salvation (מגדל ישועות‎, Migdāl Yəshuʿot).

The first work is in the form of a commentary upon Daniel, in which he controverts both the Christian exposition of and the Jewish rationalistic approach to this book. Curiously enough, in opposition to the Talmud and all later rabbinical tradition, he counts Daniel among the prophets, coinciding therein—but therein only—with the current Christian interpretation. He is impelled to this by the fact that Daniel furnishes the foundation for his Messianic theory. The remainder of his commentary is devoted to an exhaustive and caustic criticism of the Christian exposition.[3]

The second work is probably unique in being an exposition of the doctrine concerning the Messiah according to the traditional testimony of Talmud and Midrash. His third apologetic work contains a collection of Messianic passages of the Bible and their interpretations, in the course of which Abarbanel criticizes the Christian interpretation of these passages.[3]

Other works by Abarbanel include:[3]

• "The Crown of the Ancients" (Ateret Zkenim)
• "The Pinnacle of Faith" (Rosh Amanah)
• "Inheritance of the Fathers" (Nachlat Avot)
• "The Forms of the Elements" (Tzurot Hayesodot)
• "New Heavens" (Shamayim Hadashim)
• "Deeds of God" (Mifalot Elohim)
• "Passover Offering" (Zevach Pesach)

Ironically, according to David Brion Davis, a Yale historian who specializes in slavery, Abarbanel played a pivotal role in providing the conceptual basis for black slavery: "[...] the great Jewish philosopher and statesman Isaac ben Abravanel, having seen many black slaves both in his native Portugal and in Spain, merged Aristotle's theory of natural slaves with the belief that the biblical Noah had cursed and condemned to slavery both his son Ham and his young grandson Canaan. Abravanel concluded that the servitude of animalistic black Africans should be perpetual."[15] Abarbanel's view on slavery, however, stood in direct contradiction to that of Rashi, who, citing an earlier Talmudic source,[16] wrote that the heathen were never included in the sanction of possessing slaves as the children of Israel were permitted to do, for the Scripture says (Leviticus 25:44): "Of them you shall buy, etc.", meaning, "Israel alone is permitted to buy from them [enslaved persons], but they are not permitted to buy [enslaved persons] from you, nor from one another."[17]

Scholars including Jonathan Schorsch and David M. Goldenberg point out Abarbanel's comments on the Book of Amos as indicating very humanistic sentiments: "[Abarbanel] responded with unconcealed anger to the comment of a tenth-century Karaite from Jerusalem, Yefet b. Ali, on the issue of Black [promiscuity]. Yefet had interpreted a biblical verse (Amos 9:7) to refer to Black women as being 'promiscuous and therefore no one knows who his father is.' Abarbanel: 'I don't know who told Yefet this practice of promiscuity among Black women, which he mentions. But in the country of my birth [Portugal] I have seen many of these people and their women are loyal to their husbands unless they are prisoners and captive to their enemies. They are just like any other people.'"[18] Schorsch argues that concerning Abarbanel's views about the connection between slavery and the curse of Ham, Abarbanel was influenced by the writings of his contemporaries and predecessors, including Christian and Muslim writers, as well as the culture around him, and was hardly considered unique in his views.[19] Abarbanel's commentary on Amos 9:7 and other writings, argues Schorsch, show the complexity of Abarbanel's views of Blacks. "Abarbanel's conflicting passages regarding Blacks were written at different times and addressed different realms of discourse, the one abstract myth, the other actual living Blacks."[20] Schorsch shows how contemporary travel books described Ethiopians as barbarians, stealing each other's children to sell to Muslim foreigners. "Hence, the many statements that Ethiopians engaged in relations... with their siblings or parents. In this view, families, a cultured product, would not have been known to primitives who lived like animals. Yet Abarbanel dismissed all these derogatory notions when defending the behavior of actual Blacks living in Portugal."[20]