This paper introduces the reader to the medieval Hebrew tradition of logic by considering its treatment of Aristotelian syllogistic. Starting in the thirteenth century European Jews translated Arabic and Latin texts into Hebrew and produced commentaries and original compendia.Because they stood culturally and geographically at the cross-roads of two great traditions they were influenced by both.This is clearly seen in the development of syllogistic theory, where the Latin tradition ultimately replaces, though never entirely, its Arabic counterpart.Specific attention is devoted to (...) the debate about the so-called Galenian fourth figure.In medieval Hebrew logic one finds both defenders and detractors of the figure, the former appearing towards the beginning of the period in question.With the ascendancy of scholastic logic the fourth figure virtually disappears from Hebrew texts. (shrink)

Moses Maimonides was arguably the single most important Jewish thinker of the Middle Ages, with an impact on the later Jewish tradition that was unparalleled by any of his contemporaries. In this volume of new essays, world-leading scholars address themes relevant to his philosophical outlook, including his relationship with his Islamicate surroundings and the impact of his work on subsequent Jewish and Christian writings, as well as his reception in twentieth-century scholarship. The essays also address the nature and aim of (...) Maimonides' philosophical writing, including its connection with biblical exegesis, and the philosophical and theological arguments that are central to his work, such as revelation, ritual, divine providence, and teleology. Wide-ranging and fully up-to-date, the volume will be highly valuable for those interested in Jewish history and thought, medieval philosophy, and religious studies. (shrink)

In various writings Maimonides claims that God’s knowledge encompasses sublunar things, including human affairs, that we are incapable of understanding the nature of this knowledge, and that the term “knowing” is equivocal when said of God and of humans. In the fourteenth century these claims were given widely divergent interpretations. According to Levi ben Gershom, Maimonides was compelled by religious considerations to maintain that God knows sublunar particulars in all their particularity, and to adopt a position that was diametrically opposed (...) to the Aristotelian one. By contrast, Moses of Narbonne found Maimonides’ views on divine knowledge to be identical with those of the “ancient philosophers,” that is to say, the Peripatetics, as presented by Averroes. Whether ultimately convincing or not, Narboni’s Averroist interpretation forces the reader to admit that Maimonides shares a great deal more in common with Averroes on this topic than is often thought. By examining briefly the view of Maimonides and Averroes on these matters I hope to make Narboni’s interpretation appear less far-fetched. (shrink)

The ArgumentIt is well known that theTractatusof Peter of Spain was one of the most popular logic textbooks in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Less known is theTractatus'sconsiderable reputation and diffusion among the Jews, as evidenced by five translations, two commentaries, and what appears to be anabbreviatio— if not of theTractatusitself, then of a similar work. The present article attempts to understand the phenomenon of theTractatus'spopularity and offers an analysis of the three translations whose authors are known — those (...) by Shemaryah ha-Ikriti, Abraham Abigdor, and Judah b. Samuel Shalom — and their subsequent fate. The more popular versions of Abraham Abidgor and Judah Shalom provided Jewish students, many of whom would likely become physicians, with a grounding in logic comparable to that of their Christian counterparts. (shrink)