Jewish Philosophy - a contradiction in terms? Featuring: R’ Sa’adia Gaon, Dreams and Monkeys in space.

In a sentence, R. Saadia Gaon is a pioneering figure in Jewish history for his systematic exposition of Jewish philosophy, his synthesis of rationalism with a religious worldview, his polemics against the Karaites and important contributions towards grammar and liturgy. End of sentence.

Yet what I want to start by focusing on are the words of one biographer that: "no other Gaon, or medieval Jew, for that matter, ever burned with such a sense of mission." Sa'adia felt that he was personally responsible for the fate of the Jewish people and acted accordingly. So what, you ask? Why is this of any importance?

This takes me to the film Despicable me; Gru, the main character and evil villain, reminisces about how his childhood dreams had been crushed early on. In his youth, young Gru had showed his mother a picture of him landing on the moon, clearly indicating his ambition. In response, his mother cruelly replies: “ Eh. ... NASA isn't sending the monkeys anymore.” As much as I mentioned this simply because it is hilarious, it touches on a fundamental assumption. Dreams are for children. Adulthood is meant to carry with it a healthy dose of realism and the understanding that you will inevitably head down a well-trodden path. 

What is significant about this aspect of Sa’adia’s character was a conviction in the uniqueness of his mission and purpose. And this made him pursue and search far more widely than he would have otherwise done. Any of the handful of areas that he addressed would have been enough to establish his importance, either as a communal figure or as a scholar of great repute. But this sense of responsibility to the Jewish people and sense of his own importance enabled him to expand his intellectual and communal scope leaving a legacy virtually unsurpassed in terms of diversity by any medieval thinker bar Maimonides.

This gave me a lot to reflect upon. Sometimes it feels that society and popular expectation can make the transition into adulthood a sort of card trick: In theory there are many options but you will always choose the one the magician wants you to. Familiarity can become intoxicating. Whether these are naïve musings or something more substantial is not really for me to decide but the point here is that it takes a great deal simply to think beyond established paradigms, let alone act on an inner sense of destiny.

On this note, I would like to comment on the originality and quite revolutionary nature of one of the crowning achievements of Saadia’s literary career: His attempt to synthesise the Torah with a rationalist philosophy that had become prevalent due to the influence of Arab philosophers and the rediscovery of ancient Greek philosophical writings. This work, Emunot Ve Deot, which I have not yet had the privilege of studying beyond a few excerpts, attempts to systematically address the problems faced by believing Jews and the correct way to respond to them.

 Now whilst this can lead to a discussion regarding the value of secular, ‘external’ studies within Jewish thought, I would first like to start with my understanding of a very simple issue: What is the big deal with philosophy and what is its threat? In addition, is the need to interpret Torah and Mitzvos in the light of an apparently new way of understanding things a compromise on the purity of faith by finding the need to rationalise? 

I would like to start by suggesting that contrary to popular ‘educated’ assumptions, there are real challenges in broadening one’s spectrum of knowledge to engage with foreign ideologies as a religious Jew. This is not necessarily a matter of simple-minded understanding of Judaism or a fear of finding things out that may not be appealing (These are both valid criticisms, the operative word here was necessarily). It is a question of focus. In fact, what Sa’adia attempted to do by attempting to fuse rationalist philosophies and religious teachings together is far more daring than what many appear to think is simply applying intelligent reason to faith.

The Revelation at Sinai is fundamental to Judaism. The fact that G-d appeared to us at Mount Sinai and gave Moshe the Torah is the key context behind our faith. The well known mantra found in the Torah of ‘Na’’aseh v’Nishma”  (We will do and then we will hear) exemplifies the idea that our first point of reference is surrender and deference towards the will of G-d. The Jew seeks to understand the word of G-d and his mission in life within this context. 

In many ways, the whole concept of philosophy undermines this basic assumption. Man is at the centre and it is what he thinks and speculates that is important. Greek philosophers emphasised that all knowledge is the product of our own mind, the fruit of observation and experience. The power of the mind is supreme and if revelation is accepted it is merely an apparent compromise to a lack of understanding. God, if acknowledged at all, was understood as an inference, found through demonstration and not through a direct relationship. Man's greatest achievements involved mental refinement and intellectual understanding. The whole idea of a ‘philosophy’ of Judaism, many have argued over the ages, is a contradiction in terms.

Even if we look at more contemporary thinkers, this issue has remained a prominent theme. R’ S.R. Hirsch is particularly emphatic on this point in his ‘19 letters’ and accuses Maimonides + the rationalist school of medieval thinkers in particular of approaching Judaism from ‘without’ when in fact it has to be understood in its own terms. If I continue writing for that long, I will attempt to tackle Judaism’s fascinating confrontation/integration with Enlightenment philosophy. Judaism, R. Hirsch argues, is not so much a religion (which implies a human perspective on the divine) as a ‘theonomy’ (a system of divine laws).[1]  This is also very much in line with R.Yehudah ha Levi’s attack on philosophy and many of Maimonides’ opponents. Nachmanides, for example, whilst being a staunch defender of Maimonides in many areas, is very forthright in stating that he had been too easily drawn into the world of Greek philosophy. 

So what R. Sa’adia did was certainly not a simple matter. It took great courage and a truly unique vantage point which has influenced Jewish thinkers ever since. Stay tuned...  

---

[1] Read Dayan I. Grunfeld’s introduction to Hirsch’s Horeb (Soncino ed.). Great stuff. Interestingly, Moses Mendelssohn says something pretty similar.