Gersonides’ Scientific Interpretation of the Tabernacle

For a comprehensive account of Gersonides’ life and thought, see Charles Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1992). For an annotated bibliography of works by and about Gersonides see: Menachem Kellner, "Bibliographia Gersonideana," in G. Freudenthal (ed.), Studies on Gersonides -- A Fourteenth Century Philosopher Scientist (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992): 367-414; updated in Kellner, “Bibliographia Gersonideana 1992–2002,” Aleph 3 (2003): 343–374. For a comprehensive account of his thought in English, see Seymour Feldman, Gersonides: Judaism within the Limits of Reason (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010). See also Menachem Kellner, Torah in the Observatory: Gersonides, Maimonides, Song of Songs (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2010); and Sara Klein-Braslavy, “Without Any Doubt”: Gersonides on Method and Knowledge (Leiden: Brill, 2011). See also Menachem Kellner, “Ralbag’s Surprising Take on Ruth’s Conversion,” TheTorah (2014).

He lived mostly in the cities of Orange and Avignon, the seat of the papacy during its 1309–1378 “Babylonian Captivity.”

That his father and at least one of his grandfathers were learned is evident from occasional comments cited in their names in his commentary on the Torah.

At the same time, Oded Horezky has shown that in many ways, Gersonides was more conservative than was Maimonides. See Oded Horezky, "Maimonides and Gersonides: A “Humanistic-Autonomous” Approach vs a “Theological-Heteronomious” Approach – ‘Radicalism’ and ‘Conservatism’," University of Haifa, 2018 (Hebrew). Horezky (p. 36) cites Julius Guttmann and Colette Sirat as examples of the tendency to characterize Gersonides as radical.. Charles Manekin, as noted by Horezky, discerned conservative aspects of Gersonides’ thought. See Manekin, "Conservative Tendencies in Gersonides' Religious Philosophy," in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003): 304-344.

Like most medievals (Maimonides being a dramatic exception), Gersonides viewed astrology as a science. See Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Gersonides and Astrology,” appendix to vol. 3 of Feldman’s translation of Wars (below, note 9), pp. 506–519.

Gilbert Dahan, “Les traductions latines médiévales des œuvres de gersonide,” in G. Dahan (ed.), Gersonide en son temps (Paris and Louvain: Peeters, 1991), pp. 329–368.

See Bernard R. Goldstein and David Pingree, "Levi Ben Gerson’s Prognostication for the Conjunction of 1345," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society (NS) 80, no. 6 (1990).

See Kellner, "Gersonides and His Cultured Despisers: Arama and Abravanel," Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1976): 269-296.

The title comes from Numbers 21:14. It is unclear whom Gersonides was battling in the book. Seymour Feldman translated the work in three volumes under the title Wars of the Lord (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1984–1999). The Hebrew original was published in a two-volume annotated edition by Ofer Elior: vol. 1, Tel Aviv University Press, 2018; vol. 2, Ben-Gurion University Press, 2020. Gersonides’ critics denounced the book as Wars Against the Lord.

Macaria was a physician who received permission from Cardinal Cristoforo Madruzzo, bishop of Trent, to establish a Hebrew printing press in Riva di Trento (in what is today northern Italy) in 1558, which ran for four years and published about thirty-five Hebrew titles.

On the commentaries, see “Appendix: Gersonides and Biblical Exegesis” in vol. 2 of Seymour Feldman’s translation of the Wars (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987), pp. 213-247. See also Feldman, Gersonides (above, note 1), p. 6: “The most prominent feature of his biblical exegesis is his belief that the Bible teaches philosophy, and that this philosophy is identical with the conclusions reached in his own philosophical works.” Further on Gersonides’ exegesis, see Robert Eisen, Gersonides on Providence, Covenant, and the Chosen People: A Study in Medieval Jewish Philosophy and Biblical Commentary (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995), pp. 178-183: "The Place of the Biblical Commentaries in Gersonides' Philosophy.” See also Carmiel Cohen, “Philosopher, Talmudic Scholar, and Biblical Commentator: R. Levi B. Gershom (Gersonides) and His Commentary on the Torah," Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 20 (2010): 167-88 (Hebrew). Two of Gersonides’ commentaries have been translated into English, by Abraham Lassen on Job (New York: Bloch, 1946) and by Menachem Kellner on Song of Songs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).

On the wide circulation of mss. of Ralbag’s biblical exegesis, see the introductions to the various volumes of the edition of Gersonides on the Torah by Baruch Braner et al. (Ma’aleh Adumim: Ma’aliyot, 1993-2017). See also Cohen (above, note 11), pp. 15-16. Texts of Gersonides Bible commentary used in this article are from the Braner edition (occasionally adopting alternative readings from the notes). The Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National Library (Jerusalem) has at least 30 full or partial manuscripts, and it was printed twice more in the middle ages, and once in the early modern period. His commentaries on the Pentateuch were printed in Mantua (before 1476—one of the first Hebrew books ever printed), Pesaro (1514), Venice (1547), and Amsterdam (1724–1727). The commentary was edited by Ya’akov Levi and published in five volumes (beginning in 1992) by Mossad ha-Rav Kook in Jerusalem. The Mikra’ot Gedolot published in Ramat Gan by Bar Ilan University Press, Mikra’ot Gedolot ha-Keter, also contains editions of Gersonides commentaries. For close to three hundred years, however, the Pentateuch commentaries were rare and largely unavailable.

Isaac Husik, A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy (1916), 345–346. This is the opposite of Hasdai Crescas (died c. 1412), who sacrificed human freedom on the altar of God’s knowledge of particulars.

Sometimes these lessons are connected to the Tabernacle in general, and other times with one specific element or another:

ואולם התועלות המגיעים מאלו המצוות הנזכרות בזאת הפרשה הם בדעות, וקצתם גם כן תועלת בענינים המדיניים. והנה התועלת המגיע מהם בדעות, קצתם משותף לכל עניני המקדש ולכל מיני העבודה הנעשים בו, וקצתו מיוחד לדבר דבר.

The lessons arising from the commandments in this passage (Ex. 25-30) involve doctrines; several also involve social [political] matters. Now, among the lessons arising in matters of doctrine, some of them relate to the sanctuary taken as a unit and the forms of worship performed therein, and some relate to specific aspects [of the sanctuary].

See Kenneth Seeskin, “The Tabernacle: A Concession to Human Religious Needs,” TheTorah (2020). Translations from Gersonides on Exodus are mine.

Ba-elohiyot uva-tivio’t. Metaphysics i.3; Physics i.3-4.

Gersonides opens his commentary on Genesis (p. 30) with this same claim: the Torah contained Moses’ fight against materialist philosophies. Compare Eisen (above, note 2), pp. 88-89 and 100. While Maimonides clearly understood Moses to be the greatest of philosophers, I do not recall him making the point explicitly, as does Gersonides here. I do not believe that either of them was familiar with Josephus’ description of “four philosophies” among the Jews during the Second Temple period.

He continues by claiming that misunderstanding these categories is what led to wrong philosophy such as that of Epicurus:

ומזה המקום נסתעפו דעות אפיקורוס וסיעתו, שהיה חושב שיהיו כל הענינים נופלים במקרה, מזולת סיבה פועלת כלל, וזה כלו היה מביא אל שנסכל חכמת הנמצאות, אשר ההשגה בה היא הצלחת הנפש; וזה, כי אין החכמה בהם דבר יותר מידיעת הצורות והפועל והתכלית, כי החומר הלקוח בגדר הוא עם צורות-מה, כמו שהתבאר במה שאחר הטבע. והיה זה מביא גם כן אל שנכפור במציאות השם יתעלה, ובהגעת הנבואה לאדם, וזה ממה שאין ספק בו למי שהתבונן התבוננות-מה באלו הענינים.

From this situation, the views of Epicurus and his followers branched out. Epicurus thought that everything happens by chance, without any efficient causes whatsoever. All this brought about ignorance of physical science, knowledge of which constitutes the felicity of the soul. This is so since there is nothing in physical science beyond knowledge of forms and the efficient and final [causes]; this is so since matter always appears with some form or other, as was made clear in Metaphysics. Thus, it came about that God’s existence was denied, as was [also] prophecy. None of this is doubted by those who have examined these issues even a little.

On Gersonides on the hierarchy of forms see Eisen, p. 88.

Compare Maimonides, Guide 1.63 (Pines 153–154).

Gersonides sees the Tabernacle as leading us to study physics and metaphysics. Maimonides sees the creation account in that light:

God – exalted be the very mention of Him - wished to perfect us and enhance our lives in society with His practical laws. But this required our attaining certain intellectual convictions – chiefly, an awareness of Him, so far as we are able. That depends on metaphysics, theological knowledge, which is won only after study of natural science. For physics borders on metaphysics and is its prerequisite, as its students clearly see. That is why God opens His book with the Account of Creation, which belongs to physics, as I explained.

I cite from the soon to appear translation of Lenn Goodman and Phillip Lieberman (Stanford University Press. In the Shlomo Pines translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 9.

What is the “active intellect”? God created the world such that there is a series of intellects which emanate from God (see the commentary on Exodus, p. 375) and which – without self-awareness of any sort – govern all natural processes. The tenth (and “lowest”) of these intellects is called ha-sekhel ha-po’el, the active (or agent) intellect, which, in Gersonides’ scheme, functions as a kind of lens through which the activities of the “higher” intellects are focused. This is the intellect of the lunar sphere which governs the sublunar world, endowing it with the intelligence and purpose visible in its processes and evolutions and actualizing man’s potential for knowledge. It is thus the cause of the order we find in what we call contingent events. The active intellect embodies in itself all the laws governing the influences of sublunar nature and all the laws governing the influences of the celestial bodies. This latter is possible because the active intellect is an emanation, not of the ninth intellect alone, but of all the separate intellects together. Thus, while it is inferior in degree to the other intellects, it has a view of all of sublunar nature while they each apprehend only one aspect of it. It apprehends the sum of what they apprehend. The active intellect is the immediate cause of prophecy and miracles. Further, see Kellner, Torah In the Observatory (above, note 1), pp. 207-234.

I.e., our potential for intellection.

Braner provides these sources.

כחזקת היד see Is 8:11.

For Maimonides on the cherubs, see Guide, ii.6. He sees the cherubs there as an allegory for the human intellect. This may have stimulated Gersonides’ interpretation, though he doesn’t say so. In contrast to Nahmanides, from whom Gersonides is traditionally thought to be descended—which is unlikely, since Gersonides never mentions him—who often argued with Maimonides in his own Torah commentary, Gersonides, rarely mentions Maimonides, the Great Eagle, preferring to agree or disagree with him silently. This is despite his own philosophical inclinations.

He continues on this theme with:

וכדי שנתבונן בזה, ונעמוד על הכוונה הזאת אשר בעבורה היו הכרובים על הארון בזה האופן, סיבב השם יתעלה בדרך המופת על ידי משה רבינו נביאו שבהגיע הנבואה למשה יראה על הארון רושם מוחש, והוא הענן, כאילו תגיעהו משם הנבואה. ולזה אמר: ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפורת מבין שני הכרובים אשר על ארון העדות וגו'. וכבר יתבאר לך שצורת הכרובים היא מורה על הצורות והנבדלות ממה שזכר יחזקאל מזה במעשה מרכבה [פרק י], וזה ממה שאין ספק בו למי שהתבונן בדברים ההם.

So that we examine this, and come to understand the intention of the cherubs being on the ark in this fashion, God brought about a miracle through Moses His prophet, so that when prophecy came to Moses a sensory perception ---the cloud--- would appear on the ark, as if prophecy came from the cloud. Therefore, it says (Exod 25:22): “There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you—from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Testimony—all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people.” It will thus become clear to you that the shape of the cherubs indicates the incorporeal forms, as mentioned by Ezekiel in the account of the chariot. There can be no doubt about this to anyone who has examined these matters.

He pays relatively little attention to the construction of the mishkan itself, to its dimensions, or to the priestly vestments, but does not ignore these issues altogether. For example, Gersonides explains that the mishkan is made of ten strips of cloth (yeriot) and fifty clasps (kerasim) to indicate that there are fifty separate intellects.

Medieval science, following Aristotle in de Anima, distinguished among three types, or levels, or degrees, or functions of soul: (a) the power of growth, nutrition, reproduction, found in plants and called the nutritive soul; (b) the power of locomotion and perception, found in animals and called the sensitive soul; and (c) the rational soul of human beings.

On pp. 298-300 Gersonides goes into exquisite detail on what can be learned from all the elements of the menorah. Among other ideas, we learn that the menorah has seven candles to indicate the seven planets. Further on the menorah, see Horezky, dissertation (above, note 12), pp. 233-234.

Gersonides’ maps were oriented towards the East, not the North, as are ours. See my translation of his commentary on Song of Songs, p. 135, fn 32.

In Aristotelian physics, all material entities are in a constant process of coming to be (out of the four elements) or disintegrating (back into the elements). In medieval Hebrew this process is called havayah (coming to be) and hefsed (usually translated as ‘corruption’).

On the altar’s horns (hollow, square protrusions at each corner) see Maimonides, “Laws of the Temple,” ii 7-8).

For a concise description of Gersonides’ Ptolemaic (i.e. pre-Copernican) picture of the cosmos, see Maimonides, “Laws of the Foundations of the Torah,” chapters 2-3. On Gersonides as astrologer, see Langermann’s appendix (above, note 5).

For a literary explanation for this phenomenon, see Amy Cooper Robertson, “Repetition and the Tabernacle: Eternity in the Face of Change,” TheTorah (2014).

For similar clear-cut statements, see his Commentary on Song of Songs, 1:4, 11:11, 1:12, and 2:4.