Commentators:R. Chasdai Crescas/0

R. Chasdai Crescas – Intellectual Profile

R. Chasdai Crescas

Name	R. Chasdai Crescas ר' חסדאי בן ר' יהודה
Dates	c. 1340 – 1410/11
Location	Barcelona, Saragossa
Works	Ohr Hashem, Derashat HaPesach, Bittul Ikkarei HaNotzerim
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced by	Ran
Impacted on	R"Y Albo, Nimmukei Yosef

Background

Life

• Name – R. Chasdai b. R. Yehuda
  • Hebrew name – ר' חסדאי בן ר' יהודה‎¹
  • Catalan name – Crescas²
• Dates – c. 1340 – 1410/11
• Location – R. Chasdai was born in Barcelona to a family of rabbis and merchants, and moved to Saragossa in 1389.
• Occupation
  • Already by the 1370s, R. Chasdai was a prominent teacher of rabbinics and philosophy at the Barcelona yeshivah.³
  • In 1389, R. Chasdai assumed the position of rabbi of Saragossa, the capital of the crown of Aragon. He served as an advisor to John I and his queen, Violant of Bar. In 1390, the king and queen appointed R. Chasdai the supreme judge for all Jews of the kingdom.
  • After the catastrophic pogroms and mass conversions of 1391, R. Chasdai dedicated himself to rebuilding the communities of Aragon which had been destroyed.
• Family
  • First marriage: Married טולרנה and had a son who was martyred in Barcelona during the riots of 1391.
  • Second marriage: After his only son was martyred, R. Chasdai received permission from the king to take a second wife, as his first wife was no longer able to bear children. With his second wife, R. Chasdai fathered a son and three daughters.
• Teachers – R. Chasdai was a close disciple of R. Nissim b. Reuven of Gerona ("Ran"). He studied both traditional rabbinics and philosophy with R. Nissim.
• Contemporaries – R. Yitzchak b. Sheshet ("Rivash"),⁴ Profiat Duran (Efodi), R. Reuven b. R. Nissim (son of Ran).
• Students – R. Yosef Albo,⁵ R. Yosef ibn Habib,⁶ R. Avraham b. Yehuda,⁷ Zerachyah b. Yitzchak HaLevi, Mattityah HaYiẓhari, Moshe ibn Abbas, Astruc HaLevi.
• Notable events during his life:
  • 1348-1350 – The Black Plague strikes the Iberian Peninsula.
  • Peter IV of Aragon (Catalonia at that time belonged to the crown of Aragon) ruled from 1336-1387.
  • John I of Aragon succeeded his father Peter IV, and ruled from 1387-1396.
  • Martin of Aragon succeeded John I in 1396 and ruled until his death in 1410.
  • 1391 – Anti-Jewish riots and forced conversions throughout Castile and Aragon. Many Jewish communities were wiped out through wholesale slaughter and coerced mass baptisms, with local synagogues often being converted into churches.

Works

• Biblical commentaries – R. Chasdai did not write any Biblical commentaries.
• Jewish thought and Rabbinics:
  • Ohr Hashem⁸ – R. Chasdai's philosophical magnum opus.
    • According to its introduction, this was meant to be a comprehensive two-part work encompassing Jewish philosophy and Halakhah. R. Chasdai intended to replace Rambam's two great works – Guide to the Perplexed and Mishneh Torah, which he viewed as problematic.
    • In the Florence manuscript of Ohr Hashem,⁹ the colophon dates the completion of the work to 1410, near the end of R. Chasdai's life.¹⁰
    • The work is divided into four books, with each book subdivided into multiple layers of sections and subsections. The topics of the four books are:¹¹
      1. The presuppositions or roots ("שורשים") of Torah – A discussion and refutation of Aristotelian physics and metaphysics, a discussion of proofs of God's existence, and a presentation of R. Chasdai's views about the nature of God.
      2. The foundations ("פינות") of Torah – Including Divine knowledge, providence, and power, prophecy, freedom of the will, and the purpose of Torah.
      3. Other obligatory beliefs of Torah – Containing two parts. Part One includes discussions of: creation of the universe, immortality of the soul, reward and punishment, resurrection of the dead, Moshe's prophecy, the Urim VeTumim, and the messiah. Part Two discusses: prayer, repentance, and Jewish festivals.
      4. Some non-obligatory speculations – Thirteen separate discussions on topics such as: Will the universe exist forever? Are there infinite worlds? Do demons exist? Where are the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom?
  • Derashat HaPesach¹² – A sermon for the holiday of Passover that discusses issues such as the nature of miracles, the nature of belief, and determinism. The work is divided into two parts, a philosophical discussion¹³ and a discussion of the laws of Passover.¹⁴
  • Bittul Ikkarei HaNotzerim (Refutation of Christian Principles) – A polemical work originally written in Catalan; only the medieval Hebrew translation by Rabbi Yosef Ibn Shem Tov is extant.¹⁵ This work refutes ten Christian principles of faith. Its emphasis on philosophical critique, rather than scriptural, is unique among medieval anti-Christian polemics.
• Other works:
  • Sod HaKaddish¹⁶ – A kabbalistic commentary to the traditional Kaddish prayer; apparently written in R. Chasdai's youth.¹⁷
  • Cham Libi¹⁸ – A piyyut composed in 1370 by R. Chasdai as part of a friendly poetry competition between the poet R. Avraham b. Yitzchak HaLevi TaMaKH, in Gerona, and Ran and his students in Barcelona.¹⁹
  • Letter to Avignon²⁰ – A letter written by R. Chasdai in which he describes in detail the persecutions of 1391.

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts –
• Printings –
• Textual layers –

Biblical Exegesis

R. Chasdai is known mainly as a philosopher, and he wrote no biblical commentaries per se. However, he sometimes incorporated biblical exegesis into his philosophical discussions.

Characteristics

• Opposition to Maimonidean/Aristotelian Interpretation of Traditional Jewish Sources – R. Chasdai's approach to Scripture rejects the kind of rationalist/Maimonidean exegesis²¹ that was prevalent in his day.²² This can be seen in a number of key discussions in Ohr Hashem:²³
  • Accounts of Miracles Interpreted Literally²⁴ – R. Chasdai rejects allegorization of miracles,²⁵ yet his philosophical-scientific awareness drove him occasionally to modify the simple understanding of miracles.²⁶ Thus, R. Chasdai explains that Joshua did not completely stop the sun and moon (Joshua 10:12-14), but rather slowed their motion, along with that of all the celestial bodies in suitable proportion. This was more consonant with R. Chasdai's understanding of the scientific consequences involved in tampering with the motion of such bodies.
  • No Commandments to Believe – R. Chasdai maintains that belief in God's existence is not one of the 613 Commandments, and that the first statement of the Decalogue²⁷ cannot be a commandment, but is simply identifying the Tetragrammaton as the name of the deity who took Israel out of Egypt.²⁸ According to R. Chasdai, no verses should be interpreted as commanding belief – all commandments are practical in nature, not philosophical.²⁹ R. Chasdai offers both logical³⁰ and psychological³¹ arguments in support of his position.
  • The Terms Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkavah Relate to Jewish Esoteric Doctrines, Not Aristotelian Teachings³² – R. Chasdai³³ defines Ma'aseh Bereshit (Account of Creation) as the "description of the act of creation," which cannot be understood through philosophical investigation. Rather, it is described in the traditional esoteric text Sefer Yetzirah, and is connected with the secrets of the Divine Name. R. Chasdai's view of the meaning of Ma'aseh Merkavah (Account of the Chariot) is less clear, but it is likely he believes the term to refer to the nature of the ten sefirot of the Kabbalah.³⁴ R. Chasdai argued that Talmudic sources show that the terms Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkavah refer to matters of sublime sanctity that demand great secrecy.³⁵

Distinctive Views

• Determinism – In Ohr Hashem 1:5:1-3, R. Chasdai presents arguments for and against determinism, and reaches a deterministic conclusion that involves both theological and physical determinism.
  • Theological Determinism – A person's actions are determined because God has perfect knowledge of what he will do in the future.
  • Physical Determinism – A person's actions are determined because he is part of the chain of physical cause and effect.³⁶
  • Human Will Can Choose – R. Chasdai recognizes that human will "in itself" has the ability to choose (meaning, assuming there were no causes acting upon it), but that the choice is, in fact, determined by causes.
  • Distinction Between Voluntary and Involuntary Acts – While a person is not free to choose his actions, there is a difference between a voluntary act and an involuntary one. When a person lacks a subjective feeling of compulsion or necessity to perform an act, then the act is said to be voluntary. An involuntary act is one regarding which the agent feels compelled.
  • Justification of Reward and Punishment – Reward and punishment are justified for voluntary acts.³⁷
  • Human Efforts Still Required – R. Chasdai³⁸ maintains that Yaakov did not actually fear Esav³⁹ due to the Divine promise of protection.⁴⁰ Even when a future outcome is predetermined, a person is obligated to put forth efforts to realize this outcome.⁴¹
• Human Perfection and Purpose of Life – Emotional Rather than Intellectual⁴² – the ultimate goal is love of Hashem:
  • The purpose of the commandments relates more to man's emotions than his intellect.⁴³ The commandments' ultimate goal is to engender love - both among men,⁴⁴ and between man and God.⁴⁵
  • Man's fulfillment is found in his experience of love of God, which is mainly a product of fulfillment of the commandments. In R. Chasdai's system, the ultimate objective of life and Torah (i.e. the experience of an emotional attachment to God) is not limited to an intellectual elite, but is accessible to all men through mitzvah observance.
  • Divine providence and the afterlife are the lot of anyone who fulfills the commandments, regardless of intellectual achievement.⁴⁶
• Covenant of Circumcision Corrects Original Sin⁴⁷ – While R. Chasdai accepts an idea of original sin,⁴⁸ he states that the commandment of circumcision given to Avraham redeemed his descendants from damnation.⁴⁹ He thus argues that not only are the Christians wrong in assuming that Jesus is the savior from Adam's sin, but that they actually discarded the very covenant meant to play that role.
• Trials of the Righteous – the righteous are tested by Hashem (נסיונות) so they can actualize their love of God.⁵⁰
  • God knows the outcome of נסיונות in advance. They are given to help the person grow closer to God.
  • Such difficult trials are what the Talmudic sages refer to as "ייסורין של אהבה" ("afflictions of love"), which God sometimes brings upon a person even in total absence of sin.⁵¹ When a person fulfills God's will through these trying circumstances it brings them emotionally closer to God.
  • For examples, see the binding of Yitzchak (Bereshit 22),⁵² the bondage in Egypt,⁵³ the testing of the Israelites in the wilderness (Devarim 8:2), and the test of the people with a false prophet (Devarim 13:4).
  • This view of נסיונות fits with R. Chasdai's deterministic outlook.⁵⁴ Even though success in the trial is not the result of free choice, the experience will benefit the subject by strengthening his bond of love with God.
• Bondage in Egypt and the Pesach
  • Egyptian Exile was not a punishment for sin⁵⁵ – The exile and bondage in Egypt were intended to induce the Israelites to commit themselves to the worship of God.⁵⁶
  • Israelites in Egypt refused to adopt the Egyptian religion⁵⁷ – The Israelites maintained the monotheism they had inherited from the Patriarchs. If the Israelites had been willing to assimilate and adopt the Egyptian religion, the Egyptians would not have continued enslaving them.⁵⁸
  • Hardening of Paroh's Heart – God hardened Paroh's heart in order to bring plagues and miracles⁵⁹ – This was justified because Paroh was wicked, and it served the ultimate goal of instilling future generations of the Jewish people with faith in God.⁶⁰
  • Paschal Offering – The Pesach offering was an expression of gratitude⁶¹ The Israelites offered the Pesach lamb in their own stead, to express gratitude for God having passed over them during the slaughter of the Egyptian first born.
• Revelation, Prophecy, and Moshe's Status
  • Revelation at Sinai – The Sinaitic experience, rather than the miracles in Egypt, provides incontrovertible proof of the authenticity of Moshe and the Torah.⁶² Miracles as proof of God's existence or involvement can be doubted in two ways: they may have been performed through magic, or they may have been performed independently by the prophet. The miracles in Egypt could not completely dispel this second doubt. Only the direct experience of hearing God speak to Moshe at Sinai was indisputable proof for God's existence and Moshe's Divine agency.⁶³
  • Moshe's Prophecy – Moshe's prophecy was miraculous, while all other prophets prophesied in a natural manner.⁶⁴
  • Moshe's Miracles – Moshe's miracles were greater than those of all other prophets.⁶⁵
    • Based on Devarim 34:11-12, Moshe's miracles were greater in three ways: quantity ("in all the signs and the wonders"), renown among opponents ("which the Lord sent him to do… to Paroh, and to all his servants, and to all his land"), and persistence ("and in all the mighty hand").
    • The persistent miracles mentioned by R. Chasdai include the manna⁶⁶ the Clouds of Glory,⁶⁷ and Moshe's divine glow.⁶⁸
    • The greatest of Moshe's miracles was his bonding with the Divine Presence when prophesying.⁶⁹
  • Signs given to Moshe – Each miraculous sign given to Moses had its own unique purpose:⁷⁰
    • Staff Turning to Serpent – This sign was meant to show that Moses' power was not based on magic, as he used no incantations or sorcery techniques.
    • The Leprous Hand – This was meant to prove that Moses acted as an agent of God, and not on his own initiative.⁷¹
  • False Prophets – The false prophet can be established based on an inaccurate prophecy of either reward or punishment.⁷² Although even a true prophet's predictions will sometimes not be fulfilled (as God's providence reacts to changes in behavior – for the better or worse), when a true prophet speaks a prophecy meant to verify his authenticity, God will always fulfill the prophecy. Thus, the lack of fulfillment of any such prophecy, whether predicting reward or punishment, will indicate that the prophet is a false prophet.

Sources

Significant Influences

• Earlier Sources – Ramban
• Teachers – Ran
• Christian Influences – Abner of Burgos, Bernard Matege⁷³
• Foils – Rationalists such as Rambam and Ralbag.

Occasional Usage

Possible Relationship

• Gerona circle of Kabbalists⁷⁴

Impact

Jewish Scholars

• R. Chasdai influenced the religious views of Moses Mendelssohn, and the philosophical views of Yehudah Abarbanel (Leone Ebreo) and Spinoza.⁷⁵

Non-Jewish Scholars

• R. Chasdai's critique of Aristotelian science impacted Giovanni Pico della Mirandola⁷⁶ and Giordano Bruno.⁷⁷

¹ This is how R. Chasdai himself records his name in his introduction to Ohr Hashem. The standard print version incorrectly reads ר' חסדאי בן ר' אברהם בן ר' יהודה, see W.Z. Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai Crescas [Hebrew],(Israel, 2010): 15 (hereafter: Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai).

² His father Yehuda was known by the Aragonese name Crescas (or Cresques in Catalan), and following common practice in Catalonia, R. Chasdai's surname was his father's given name. While the meaning of this name is obscure, it may derive from the Latin "crescere" meaning "to grow" (Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 15).

³ In the colophon of the philosophical work אבן השתייה (published in a critical edition by Shalom Rosenberg), by R. Chasdai's student R. Avraham b. Yehuda, the author notes that he completed the work in 1378 in Barcelona while under the tutelage of R. Chasdai. He also implies that R. Chasdai supported his students financially.

⁴ In his responsa, Rivash cites several halakhic opinions of his good friend R. Chasdai.

⁵ Author of Sefer HaIkarim (Book of Principles).

⁶ Author of Nimmukei Yosef; see his reference to R. Chasdai in Nimmukei Yosef to Bava Batra 23a.

⁷ Author of the philosophical work אבן השתייה.

⁸ Also referred to as Ohr Adonai, Light of the Lord. The first edition, Ferrara (1555), was reprinted as a facsimile in Jerusalem, 1970. A new edition was published by Rabbi S. Fisher (Jerusalem, 1990).

⁹ This manuscript (Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Conventi Soppressi 417) is considered the most reliable manuscript of Ohr Hashem. One of its proofreaders identifies himself as a student of R. Chasdai.

¹⁰ However, scholars have identified an erased colophon dated 1405, implying that the work went through multiple stages of editing, and was likely composed over the course of many years. N. Ophir theorizes that R. Chasdai began working on it already in the last decades of 14th century, and that there may be as many as five distinct stages of editing in the work. See N. Ophir, "Rabbi Hasdai Crescas as Philosophic Exegete of Rabbinic Sources," [Hebrew] Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1993).

¹¹ These are cited from the entry Crescas, Hasdai ("Works" section by W.Z. Harvey) in Encyclopedia Judaica (1971), where one can find a more extensive discussion of the content of Ohr Hashem.

¹² Published in A. Ravitzky, Crescas' Sermon on the Passover and Studies in his Philosophy [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1988). See a review of this edition in: W.Z. Harvey, "The First Publication of the Sermon of Rabbi Hasdai Crescas," [Hebrew] Tarbiz 58 (1989): 531–5.

¹³ It is unclear when this was composed, and whether its views represent an early or late stage in R. Chasdai's thought. See Ravitzky, Sermon: 34–68.

¹⁴ While R. Chasdai was a significant halakhic authority in his time, this is his only extant halakhic work.

¹⁵ Published in D. Lasker (ed.), Refutation of the Christian Principles, (Beer Sheva,1990), and translated into English in D. Lasker, Refutation of the Christian Principles (Albany, 1992).

¹⁶ Published in N. Ophir, "Sod ha-Qadish: A Kabbalistic Text Attributed to Rabbi Hasdai Crescas," [Hebrew] Da'at 46 (2001): 13–28.

¹⁷ The editor of the critical edition, Dr. N. Ophir, argues that it was written while R. Chasdai was studying in Ran's yeshiva in Barcelona.

¹⁸ Published in L. Feldman, "An Exchange of Epistles and Poems between Nissim ben Reuben, Abraham bar Isaac Halevi, Don Judah bar Sheshet Crescas, and Don Hasdai Crescas," [Hebrew] Kovetz Al Yad 7 (1968): 125–60.

¹⁹ For a discussion of the content of this work, see Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 18-19.

²⁰ Translated in F. Kobler (ed.), Letters of Jews through the Ages (New York, 1952), I: 272–5.

²¹ R. Chasdai felt that Jewish Aristotelianism, besides being a flawed understanding of Judaism, contributed to the wave of conversions during and after the riots of 1391. Thus, R. Chasdai viewed his fight against Aristotelianism not only as a philosophical endeavor to defend the truth, but also as a holy mission with potential impact for the future of the Jewish religion. See Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 45.

²² R. Chasdai opposed the reading of Aristotelian teachings into traditional Jewish texts, whether Biblical or Rabbinic. See N. Ophir, "Rabbi Hasdai Crescas as Philosophic Exegete of Rabbinic Sources," [Hebrew] Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1993.

²³ In Ohr Hashem (1:1-2), R. Chasdai offers a comprehensive critique of Aristotelian physics and metaphysics. He presents all of the 26 Aristotelian propositions that Rambam lists as necessary for proving God's existence, unity, and incorporeality, and also explains Rambam's proofs. He then disproves most of the propositions and Rambam's six proofs.

R. Chasdai's thorough attack on the entire Aristotelian system presaged the scientific revolution that was to come centuries later, and may have even had direct and indirect influence on Renaissance thinkers. See the section below on R. Chasdai's Impact.

²⁴ On this topic see the discussion in Ohr Hashem 2:4:2-3, and 3:1:6:1. For a relatively lengthy discussion of the miracles in Shemot 4, see Derashat HaPesach (pp. 147-152). See also the discussion in Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 72-75.

²⁵ Medieval rationalists tended to view miracles in Scripture as natural events. Sometimes miracles were explained away as prophetic visions, while other times verses describing miracles were viewed as metaphorical or allegorical. R. Chasdai criticizes such approaches and prefers a simple reading of miracle accounts in the Bible. The fact that R. Chasdai generally interprets miracle accounts literally can be seen in an interesting argument he makes regarding the superiority of Moshe's miracles to Joshua's stoppage of the sun (R. Chasdai is motivated by his view that a prophet's level of greatness dictates the greatness of his miracles). He argues that some of Moshe's miracles involved changing the essence of a substance (e.g. a staff to a serpent, water to blood), while Joshua's miracle affected only the motion of a substance, but not its essence. For further discussion of this issue, see the section below on the superiority of Moshe's miracles.

²⁶ While R. Chasdai's rejection of allegorization represented a conservative religious position, there were more extreme traditionalists who completely spurned the philosophical tradition as a basis for interpretation of prophetic works (See the discussion in D.H. Frank, and Oliver Leaman, The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, 2003): 375. And see Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 74, where he cites R. Meir Ibn Gabai critique of R. Chasdai's interpretation of Joshua's miracle at Givon). Although R. Chasdai may have been anti-Aristotelian, he still felt that the laws of human reason must play some role in interpreting the prophetic texts.

²⁷ Exodus 20:2 reads: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage...".

²⁸ This issue is discussed in the preface to Ohr Hashem (R. Chasdai terms this preface: הצעה , and it appears after the general introduction). Much of the following discussion is based on M. Kellner, "Maimonides, Crescas, and Abarbanel on Exod. 20:2. A Medieval Jewish Exegetical Dispute", Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Jan., 1979): 129-157; and Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 107-113). R. Chasdai rejects Rambam's interpretation (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 1:1) that there is a commandment to believe/know that God exists.

²⁹ This attitude greatly contrasts with that of Rambam, who felt that the most fundamental commandments (those discussed in Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah) are philosophical in nature. For example, in Mishneh Torah and Guide of the Perplexed, Rambam describes the commandments to know that God exists, and to love and fear God, as being fulfilled through a scientific contemplation of the universe. See also Harvey, R. Hasdai: 110-111, where it is suggested that R. Chasdai's view of the commandments influenced the approaches of Moses Mendelssohn and Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

³⁰ One argument R. Chasdai offers for why Exodus 20:2 cannot be interpreted as a commandment is purely logical: If one does not already believe in the commander, any commandment is meaningless. Or, put another way, positing the existence of a commandment already assumes the existence of the commander. Thus, a commandment to believe in the existence of the commander would be absurd.

³¹ R. Chasdai contends that beliefs are not subject to choice of the human will, and it would thus not be reasonable for the Torah to give commands regarding belief. See below the section on R. Chasdai's determinism. R. Chasdai distinguishes between the deterministic nature of physical actions and that of beliefs. Whereas human will is part of the causal chain leading to actions (actions are caused by the will, which in turn is determined by other causes), in the case of beliefs the will plays no role whatsoever (See A. Ravitzky, "התפתחות השקפותיו של ר' חסדאי קרשקש בשאלת חופש הרצון", Tarbiz, 51:3 (1982): 447) and they are wholly involuntary (see the discussion in Ohr Hashem 2:5:5-6).

³² According to the Mishna (Chagigah 2:1), one may not teach the Account of Creation (a reference to Bereshit 1-2) to two people, and one may not teach the Account of the Chariot (the vision described in the first chapter of Ezekiel) to even one person, unless he be "wise and comprehend of his own accord". The precise nature of these secret teachings referred to by the Mishna is not clear, and was a matter of great controversy in the Middle Ages. For rationalists of the Maimonidean school, the Torah's great secrets were to be identified with the content of Aristotelian physics (Account of Creation) and metaphysics (Account of the Chariot).

³³ See Ohr Hashem 4:10.

³⁴ see Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 130.

³⁵ For R. Chasdai, Aristotelian physics and metaphysics were neither holy nor worthy of secrecy.

³⁶ In the most reliable manuscript of Ohr Hashem there are marginal notes that express reservations about physical determinism. It is possible that these notes indicate that R. Chasdai's position on physical determinism changed. It is also possible that R. Chasdai was hesitant about propagating an absolutely deterministic view among the masses, or that these reservations were not authored by R. Chasdai at all. See W.Z. Harvey, "The Authorship of the Reservations concerning Determinism in Crescas' Or Adonai, Kiryat Sefer 55 (1980): 210-238 [Hebrew].

³⁷ Ohr Hashem 2:5:3. R. Chasdai's approach to reward and punishment seems to have evolved. At one point, he views reward and punishment as part of the causal system influencing a person's actions. Elsewhere, though, he speaks of reward and punishment as necessary effects caused by the action, like a person getting burned if he touches fire. See A. Ravitzky, "התפתחות השקפותיו של ר' חסדאי קרשקש בשאלת חופש הרצון", Tarbiz 51:3 (1982): 445-470.

³⁸ See Ohr Hashem 2:4:2 and Abarbanel's discussion in Bereshit 32.

³⁹ Although Bereshit 32:8 states, "Then Jacob was greatly afraid and was distressed", this was merely Yaakov preparing himself emotionally to pray with great devotion, not an expression of doubt in God's prophecy.

⁴⁰ See Bereshit 28:15: "Behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back into this land; for I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken to you of."

⁴¹ While Yaakov was certain of the future that God had revealed to him, he was unsure through what means this outcome was to come about. He therefore prepared for the confrontation in various ways (see Bereshit 32:4-24), including sincere prayer before God.

⁴² This contrasts with Rambam's view that human perfection means perfection of the intellect.

⁴³ See the discussion in Ohr Hashem 2:6:1, and in Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 97-102.

⁴⁴ As exemplified by the commandment (Vayikra 19:18), "But you shall love your neighbor as yourself".

⁴⁵ As exemplified by verses such as (Devarim 6:5), "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart..." and (Devarim 1:12), "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him". For Rambam, on the other hand, the practical commandments are an indirect means to the end of intellectual perfection – they help a person perfect his personality so he may then progress toward perfection of the human intellect through cognition of the truths of physics and metaphysics.

⁴⁶ On Rambam's view, Divine providence affects a person based on his level of intellectual perfection, and perfection of the human intellect is what enables the survival of the soul after death. Those who fail to achieve an adequate level of intellectual perfection will not experience the afterlife.

⁴⁷ See discussion in Ohr Hashem 2:2:6 (near the beginning).

⁴⁸ An interpretation of Bereshit 3 generally rejected by Jewish thinkers.

⁴⁹ R. Chasdai also seems to say that the giving of the Torah at Sinai (Shemot 19-20) and the binding of Yitzchak (Bereshit 22) played roles in redeeming the Jewish nation from original sin. It is unclear how precisely all of these ideas fit together within R. Chasdai's approach.

⁵⁰ Ohr Hashem 2:2:4.

⁵¹ In his understanding of נסיונות and "ייסורין של אהבה", R. Chasdai is following in the footsteps of his teacher Ran (see Ran Bereshit 12:10-13, 15:13, and 15:14). However, while Ran emphasizes the power of the trial to induce submission before God, R. Chasdai highlights the trial's ability to engender love of God.

⁵² See the discussion of Abarbanel Bereshit 22.

⁵³ See below.

⁵⁴ See section on Determinism above.

⁵⁵ Ohr Hashem 3:1:8:2. See also Abarbanel Bereshit 15 Question 15, where he cites R. Chasdai as saying that God brought the Israelites to Egypt, the leading center of black magic, in order to perform many miracles that would prove God's power (as the greatest magicians would recognize that such things could not be performed through magic). While the idea that Egypt was the most effective place for God to publicize His miracles does appear in R. Chasdai's writings (see Derashat HaPesach (p.144) and Ohr Hashem 3:1:6:1), he does not explicitly state that this was the entire reason behind the exile.

⁵⁶ See above regarding "ייסורין של אהבה" and see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.

⁵⁷ See Ohr Hashem 3:1:3:3. See also Abarbanel's critique in his commentary to Bereshit 15 Question 15, and see Israelites' Religious Identity.

⁵⁸ Just as the Christians in R. Chasdai's time stopped persecuting those Jews who converted to Christianity.

⁵⁹ See Ohr Hashem 3:2:2:2 and see Hardened Hearts.

⁶⁰ This is based on Shemot 10:2 – "That you may tell in the ears of your son, and of your son's son, what I have wrought upon Egypt… that you may know that I am the Lord".

⁶¹ See Derashat HaPesach (p. 166) and see Purpose of the Pesach.

⁶² See Derashat HaPesach (pp. 145-147).

⁶³ This approach is based on that of his teacher Ran. See Derashot HaRan 5 version 2.

⁶⁴ Ohr Hashem 2:4:3. R. Chasdai was influence by Ran's view in Derashot HaRan 5. See also Abarbanel Devarim 34, and the section below on Moshe's miracles.

⁶⁵ Ohr Hashem 2:4:2 and 3:1:6:1.

⁶⁶ See Shemot 16.

⁶⁷ See Shemot 13:21-22 and Bemidbar 9:15-22.

⁶⁸ See Shemot 34:29-35.

⁶⁹ See the above section on Moshe's prophecy.

⁷⁰ See Shemot 4:1-9. R. Chasdai's lengthy exegesis of this passage is in Derashat HaPesach (pp.147-152). The third miracle – turning water to blood, is not listed here because R. Chasdai posited that it was not meant to be one of the signs authenticating Moses' agency, but simply the beginning of the plagues (i.e., God was telling Moshe that even if the Israelites do not believe in you after the two signs, you shall in any case commence performance of the plagues).

⁷¹ Although, according to R. Chasdai, a great prophet has the power to change material forms by himself, this would require great concentration and an intense desire for such a change to take place. This would make it nearly impossible for a prophet to effect a miracle that inflicts grave harm upon himself (as he cannot exhibit great desire for such a result), and thus this sign could only be an act of God.

⁷² Ohr Hashem 2:4:2. This opposes Rambam's view that unfulfilled prophecies of doom cannot disprove a prophet's authenticity, as God will sometimes cancel punishments if a person repents. See also the discussion in Abarbanel Devarim 18.

⁷³ According to Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 82-87, there seems to have been mutual influence between R. Chasdai and Matage.

⁷⁴ There are parallels between Sod Hakaddish and the commentary to the Kaddish of R. Azriel of Gerona. See Harvey, Rabbi Hasdai: 19.

⁷⁵ For a fuller discussion of R. Chasdai's influence, see the entry Crescas, Hasdai ("Influence in and Criticism of Or Adonai" section by W.Z. Harvey) in Encyclopedia Judaica (1971).

⁷⁶ Pico's writings transmitted R. Chasdai's critique of Aristotelian physics into the Latin literature, which subsequently influenced Galileo.

⁷⁷ An Italian philosopher who seems to have borrowed arguments from R. Chasdai.