Jewish Studies Quarterly, vol. 7(2000) No. 3, pp. 183-202.

Gender Concepts of Medieval Jewish Thinkers

and The Book of Proverbs

Julia Schwartzmann

The progress in spirituality consists in deciding against the direct sense perception in favor of the so-called higher intellectual processes – that is to say, in favor of memories, reflection, and deduction. An example of this would be the decision that paternity is more important than maternity…

S. Freud, Moses and Monotheism

Discussions of gender issues are extremely rare in medieval philosophy in general and in Jewish medieval philosophy in particular. Biblical commentaries seem to be the only source of information about Jewish thinkers’ attitude toward gender and gender roles. The present article studies the gender concepts emerging from medieval commentaries on the Book of Proverbs. It does not intend to prove the misogyny of medieval intellectuals, which needs no proof. Its purpose is to study exegetical patterns and value judgments commentators use to find support for gender inequality in the biblical text. As this article will try to show, the sayings attributed to King Solomon became in the hands of medieval thinkers incontrovertible proof of a hierarchy of genders as well as of a metaphysical and social order.

It is no exaggeration to claim that the Book of Proverbs is the most gender concerned book of the Bible.1 No other book deals so intensely with gender differences, either by hammering home stereotypes, like the one of the femme fatale, or by destroying them, like mother as teacher. While gender concepts of the Book of Proverbs itself have been thoroughly researched in recent years, those of Jewish medieval thinkers are less known. Although influenced by the exegetical creation of the Sages, medieval commentaries are much more elaborate and reflect a distinctive philosophical influence, even if some of the commentators belong to an anti-philosophical current.

1 In the preface to his commentary on the Book of Proverbs Emanuel of Rome claims that “most of the Book of Proverbs is about woman” adding - “it is surely about the Strange Woman, who is most frequent, because the Woman of Valor is extremely rare...” The Book of Proverbs with the commentary of Emanuel of Rome (1487, reprinted Jerusalem, 1981) 1. As A. Ravitzky shows in his article “On the Sources of the Commentary on the Book of Proverbs by Emanuel of Rome” (Hebrew), Kiryat Sefer 46 (1981) 732, Emanuel of Rome borrowed this statement from Shmuel Ibn Tibbon.

2

For the purpose of this article six medieval commentaries on the Book of Proverbs have been studied,2 representing different intellectual currents. Thus, Rabbi David Kimhi (12th -13th cent.), while not a professional philosopher, was influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy. Gersonides (14th cent.), Zerachiah ben Isaac ben Shealtiel Chen (13th cent.), Emanuel of Rome (13th-14th cent.) and Menachem Hameiri (13th-14th cent.), on the other hand, were representatives of the Aristotelian philosophy. Isaac Aramah (15th cent.), was an outspoken opponent of philosophy. It seems that such a range of intellectual attitudes makes these commentaries adequately representative of Jewish thinkers’ gender concepts.

The article will deal with three gender related issues raised in the Book of Proverbs: a) gender roles of father and mother; b) personification and de-personification of wisdom; c) the Strange Woman versus the Woman of Valor .

Modern Scholarship Such a division may seem odd to those acquainted with the interpretation of

Proverbs in modern biblical scholarship. Most modern scholars place wisdom and her antithesis the Strange Woman, along with her “twin sister” Folly in the same category.3 Moreover, it has been claimed, that the very figure of wisdom was created in the post-exilic social context as a warning against the outside (strange) woman in particular and exogamy in general.4 No such idea occurs in the medieval commentaries.

Herein lies the radical difference between modern and medieval interpretation.

While modern scholars have no doubt whatsoever about the feminine identity of wisdom, most medieval commentators bluntly ignore the gender issue when interpreting this concept. While it would be easy simply to accuse the medieval thinkers of misogyny, we have to admit that the issue is more complicated than that.

Modern scholarship tends to create a collage portrait of wisdom from materials

within the scope of wisdom literature. True, in Ben Sira and in Wisdom of Solomon, wisdom is again and again a metaphorical bride, wife or mother;5 at times there are erotic allusions used to describe the author’s love for wisdom.6 Yet medieval Jewish thinkers concentrate solely on the Book of Proverbs. In Proverbs itself the gender identity of wisdom is indicated by (some of) her social functions, though not explicitly stated. Contrary to the Strange Woman who radiates sexuality, the personified wisdom of Proverbs bears no sexual characteristics. It is puzzling that C. Camp, one of the

2 The commentary of David Kimhi covers only the first 21 chapters of the Book of Proverbs. 3 J. Blenkinsopp, “The Social Context of the ‘Outsider Woman’ in Proverbs 1-9” Biblica 72 (1991) 457-473. Gale A. Yee, “’I Have Perfumed my Bed with Myrrh’: The Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1-9” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43 (1989) 66. 4 J. Blenkinsopp, “The Social Context…” 467. Athalya Brenner, The Israelite Woman (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 44. 5 Wisdom of Solomon 7:12, 8:2,10:5. Ben Sira 4:11, 15:2. 6 Ben Sira 51:15-21.

3

greatest authorities on gender issues in wisdom literature, claims that “in Proverbs, we are met first by a strong, exalted, almost deified female figure in personified Wisdom, surely the apex of biblical female imagery.”7

Scholars have aptly noted that wisdom and the Strange Woman are armed with

eloquence.8 Yet, apart from grammatical gender, nothing in the content of wisdom’s harsh, threatening speeches suggests her feminine identity. It is worth comparing in this context the honied invitation of the Strange Woman in Prov. 7:15-20 with wisdom’s unappealing invitation to the table in Prov 9:4-6.9

Most important, wisdom’s very ontological status is not clear: is she a

hypostasis, a metaphor or a real entity? While biblical scholars of previous generations dwelled on this difficulty,10 modern scholarship tends to ignore the issue altogether. As for medieval commentators, they are inclined to interpret wisdom as a divine attribute or as a genderless hypostasis.

No doubt that medieval commentators, sensitive to every letter of the biblical

text, were aware of the indications of wisdom’s gender when they preferred to avoid this problem. The question of the reason for such unanimous silence, deserves systematic treatment. Modern scholarship, on the other hand, has sometimes been overzealous in its striving to load wisdom with sexual and social interpretations.11

Much had been written in recent years about the Strange Woman of Proverbs.

It seems that both medieval commentators and modern scholars are as fascinated with the Strange Woman as they are bored with the .12 Both are attracted by the former’s untamed sexuality, yet for different reasons. Medieval scholars, though not totally indifferent to her feminine qualities, interpret her either in a metaphysical context as an allegory for matter, or in an ethical one as an embodiment of evil forces and animal impulses threatening the achievement of intellectual perfection. Feminist scholars on the other hand, consider her as the very essence of womanhood so feared by men. To feminist scholars this Strange Woman symbolizes the revolt against male domination and the social structures created by men to preserve it. In their hands the Strange 7 C.V.Camp, Wise and Strange: an Interpretation of the Female Imagery in Proverbs in Light of Trickster Mythology” Semeia 42(1988)33. 8 Athalya Brenner, The Israelite Woman (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 44. Carol Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom” in P.L. Day, ed., Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 157. Nehama Aschkenasy, Eve’s Journey (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986) 47. 9 When G.P. Streete claims that “Wisdom acts like a good wife”(106) one suddenly understands why her “husband” might be attracted to the Strange Woman. G.P. Streete, The Strange Woman, (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) 106. 10 H.Ringgren, Word and Wisdom, (Lund:H. Ohlssons Boktr, 1947). Ringgren claims that wisdom of Proverbs is “a personal form” (99). 11 G.P. Streete, for example, learns somehow from Prov 4:5-9; 7:4-5 about “the sexual dimension of knowledge”. G.P. Streete, The Strange Woman, (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) 106. 12 As far as I know no study has been dedicated so far to the Woman of Valor. She might be admirable but she surely has a poor rating.

4

Woman, who epitomized evil for generations of commentators and readers, receives sympathetic treatment.13

Father and mother The combination of words “father” and “mother” appears in different forms

(e.g. “your father” and “your mother” (Prov 6:20) or “his father” and “his mother” (Prov10:1; 20:20) some eleven times in the Book of Proverbs.14 Parents appear first (Prov 1-6) as the subject of sayings. They are described as people responsible for the education of their son: the father transmits to his son instruction (musar) and commands (mitzvot), while the mother is responsible for teaching (torah). Then, in later chapters (Prov 10-30) the son becomes the subject of the sayings while his parents appear as the object of their son’s intellectual and moral qualities.

The first group of sayings, where the parents are active in their son’s life, interests us more, and appear to receive more attention from the commentators too. While the words “father” and “mother” in the first group receive an allegorical as well as an occasional literal interpretation, the second group receives only a literal interpretation, if any.

The allegorical interpretation appears as early as in the Babylonian Talmud (Ber. 35b), where “father” is interpreted as God and “mother” as Knesset Israel. Later, Midrash Mishlei (7th-9th cent.) interprets “father” and “mother” as Written and Oral Law respectively. Following this interpretation,15 medieval commentators often identify the father with God, as do such prominent commentators as David Kimhi and Gersonides.16 Zerachiah Chen and Emanuel of Rome, on the other hand, chose a philosophical interpretation, identifying the father with the intellectual form.

The persona of the mother is more problematic: once the father is identified with God, the mother becomes a theological liability. Although understood as inferior to the father, she is still essential to the creation of a new life, which is obviously incompatible with the theological principle of oneness. Commentators’ attempts to give an allegorical interpretation to the existence of two parents are unconvincing.

According to Gersonides, the mother is an allegory for the Active Intellect, “which was identified with a female because it receives its power from the Blessed One” 17. Gersonides shifts the accent from the essentialness of the mother, repeatedly stressed in the Book of Proverbs, to her causal dependency on the father. A similar

13 For a typical example of such a sympathetic attitude see G.P.Streete, The Strange Woman, 103. 14Prov 1:8; 4:3; 6:20; 10:1; 15:20; 19:26; 20:20; 23:22; 23:25; 28:24; 30:11. 15Identification of God as father appears already in the Bible - Isa 63:16; Jer 3:4; Ps 2:7 16 The same interpretation is adopted by Rashi. 17Gersonides’ commentary on Proverbs (Prov 1:8). He adds that this is why the Active Intellect is called Metatron, which, he says, means “mother” in Latin. In fact, the etymology of the word Metatron is not clear . See Saul Lieberman, “Metatron, the Meaning of his Name and his Functions” in I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leyden: Brill, 1980) 235-41. See also 3 Enoch (reprinted Jerusalem: Ktav, 1973) 125-42. H. Odeberg cites there Gersonides’ explanation as one of numerous options, 135.

5

idea of causal dependency is adopted by David Kimhi, who identifies the mother with the Torah.18 Neither Gersonides nor Kimhi seem to mind the inconsistency of such a metaphor: father and mother are supposed to have the same ontological status, which cannot be said of God and the Active Intellect or the Torah.

It should be mentioned that Rashi resolves this theological problem differently. While identifying the father with God, he resorts to a homily to explain the mother. He claims that when using the word “mother” (em) the author of Proverbs had in mind “nation” (ummah). According to this interpretation, God and the nation are responsible for the formation of an individual. For Rashi, the nation, an abstract concept, can be a legitimate match to God without challenging his sovereignty. Despite the etymological closeness between these two words, however, the mother and not the nation is certainly the subject of the verse.

The same interpretation of mother as nation appears in Emanuel of Rome’s commentary, though Emanuel identifies the father with a teacher. He explains, that the teacher, who actualizes his student’s intellect becomes his spiritual father. Here again, the commentator finds an adequate pair of concepts: the teacher, responsible for the education of his student, can be paired with the nation, because both play a formative role in a person’s life. As a more philosophical option Emanuel suggests that mother may be identified either with matter, or body or soul, while the father is interpreted as intellect.19 The same mother = matter interpretation is adopted by Zerachiah Chen.20

Another problem the commentators face is the parental division of roles. Medieval commentators are certain to find in Proverbs a clear subordination of mother to father. This preconception is incompatible with the fact that the author of Proverbs entrusts the mother with teaching (torah), while the father is responsible for instruction (musar) and commandments (mitzvot). Without trying to understand the original meaning of these words in Proverbs, it is certain that medieval commentators, on their part, had very clear ideas. In the medieval philosophical vocabulary the word “torah” is associated with a vast domain, which includes theoretical learning, ethics and practical aspects of religion. “Musar” and “mitzvot” represent practical aspects of the Torah, essential, yet inferior to the whole scope of learning. According to such an interpretation, “My son, keep your father’s commands and do not forsake your mother’s teaching” (Prov 6:20), would imply a superiority of the mother over the father. Needless to say, such a reading is unacceptable to medieval thinkers.21

Gersonides simply ignores the textual link between the mother and the teaching (torah). First, he claims that both parents are responsible for the instruction (musar) of

18The Commentaries on Proverbs of the Kimhi Family (Jerusalem, 1990) Prov 1:8. Kimhi explains the source of the allegory: as a baby is nurtured by his mother’s milk, so a person finds his vital force in the Torah. 19The Book of Proverbs with the Commentary of Emanuel of Rome (Jerusalem 1981) 7. 20 Zerachiah Chen, Imrei Da’at (1871) 9. 21 For a modern traditional interpretation see J.B.Soloveitchik, “A Tribute to the Rebbitzen of Talne,” Tradition 17(1978) 73-83. There “your mother’s teaching” is interpreted as “a living experience” of Judaism, while “your father’s commands” are explained as theoretic hallachic learning (76-77).

6

their son.22 Later, he makes use of the similar sounding of the words musar (ethics) and meyaser (wearies). He explains, that parents weary their son to prepare him for the instruction (musar) which he will later receive from the Torah. Gersonides bluntly restructures the verse (Prov 1:8) to break the link between the mother and the higher sphere of knowledge. By doing so he in effect excludes not only the mother but both parents from the educational process.

Menachem Hameiri too makes use of the apparent similarity between musar and meyaser, but without mentioning the mother as Gersonides did. According to Hameiri, the father is the one responsible for the perfection (probably, intellectual perfection) of his son. To fulfill his duty he wearies his son with admonitions. The mother, on the other hand, is responsible for the behavior and the moral qualities of her son, because her intellect cannot influence him as his father’s can.23 While Gersonides simply ignores the word “torah,” Hameiri replaces its intellectual connotation with a moral one, when applied to the mother. Hameiri bases his interpretation on the structure of Prov 1:8. The half of the parallelism dealing with the father (“Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction”), is an affirmative, while the other half, dealing with the mother (“...do not forsake your mother’s teaching”), is phrased negatively. The very structure of the verse shows, according to Hameiri, that father’s instruction is superior to mother’s teaching.24 While Gersonides restructures the verse to support his interpretation, Hameiri resorts to the structure itself to make his point.

Zerachiah Chen, the most misogynist of all the commentators, sticks to an allegorical interpretation of parents’ roles.25. According to him, “mother’s teaching” is a reminder not to neglect the body and to strive toward a harmony between form (father) and matter (mother).26 To explain the far from obvious link between the Torah and matter, he claims that most sayings of the Torah endeavor to improve matter, because it is impossible to improve form without first improving matter. This statement, which reduces the role of the Torah to a practical one, seems extreme even for a rationalist philosopher.27 In his effort to deprive women of any trace of spirituality Zerachiah Chen is ready to sacrifice the spiritual message of the Torah. While Menachem Hameiri interpreted the word “torah” as “a teaching,” which gave him some room to maneuver, Zerachiah Chen interprets it as “the Teaching.”

Despite Isaac Aramah’s repeated attacks against philosophers and philosophy, his concepts are rooted in philosophical tradition. According to him, “father’s instruction” is an allegory for the intelligibles (muscalot), while “mother’s teaching” is

22Gersonides’ commentary on Prov 1:8. 23Hameiri’s Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (Jerusalem, 1969) 20. 24Ibid. 25A good example of his philosophy of life: “As long as the wife remains with you, your life will remain vain; I know, that all the toil and loss a man suffers is because of matter; he [King Solomon] saw all that when he associated a vain life with woman, to show you her debasement and the debasement of him who remains with her.” (Imrei Da’at, 10). 26Ibid. 27Maimonides claims that the Torah’s aim is to improve both body and soul - Guide of the Perplexed III. 27.

7

an allegory for the practical knowledge essential for the daily life. The place of the intelligibles is in the head (“a garland to grace your head” Prov 1:9). The mother teaches her son economic and political wisdom which are inferior to metaphysics (“a chain to adorn you neck” Prov 1:9). Aramah, an overt adversary of rationalism, repeatedly28 places the intelligibles above any other knowledge, even if by interpreting musar as intelligibles he contradicts both the literal and the traditional allegorical meaning of the word. According to Aramah, the mother passes her practical knowledge to her son by telling him Bible stories that contain an ethical message. Although he reminds his readers that women have a “weak intellect” that weakens further in old age, he warns them not to despise their old mothers’ teaching, which is always true.29

Personification and De-personification of Wisdom

The feminine personification of wisdom, its meaning and sources is among the most discussed issues of the Book of Proverbs.30 As it has been already noted, most modern studies emphasizing the feminine imagery of wisdom are influenced in one way or another by all three books of proverbial wisdom (Proverbs, Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon). It seems that these books were popular among Christian thinkers. As far as medieval Jewish commentators are concerned, we have reason to believe, that their main and, perhaps, only opportunity to encounter the image of wisdom was in the Book of Proverbs.31 No doubt that the cumulative effect and the intensity of feminine imagery created by the three books is far greater than that of Proverbs alone.

Still, even the reading of Proverbs alone, will result in two interrelated conclusions: a) Prov 1:20-33; 8:12-31 present a concept of hypostatized wisdom; b) Prov 9:1-6 alludes to a feminine personification of wisdom, whether this personification be interpreted as a hypostasis, a metaphor, or a polytheistic residue32. This female imagery is often attributed to the grammatical gender of the word wisdom (hokmah) in Hebrew.33 Whatever the reasons, wisdom in Proverbs has some definitely

28 Isaac Aramah, Commentary on Proverbs (reprinted Israel, 1968) 75-76. 29Ibid. 30To cite a few titles: Bernhard Lang, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs (New York: Pilgrim, 1986). Norman C. Habel, “The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9,” Interpretation 26 (1972) 131-157. Carol Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom,” in P.L. Day, ed., Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel ( Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). Claudia.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Bible and Literature; Decatur: Almond, 1985). R.L. Wilken, ed., Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975). Athaliya Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 31The Hebrew original of Ben Sira was considered lost, and only its Greek translation was known until the 19th cent. Wisdom of Solomon was written originally in Greek. Neither book appears to have been popular among Jewish readers. 32Bernhard Lang , Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs (New York: Pilgrim, 1986). 33Morton W. Bloomfield, “A Grammatical Approach to Personification Allegory” Modern Philology 60 (1963) 161-71.

8

feminine features: a) she performs tasks traditionally associated with women - cooking and setting the table (though not building) and she is assisted by numerous maids, also characteristic of women; b) wisdom appears as an antithesis to the woman Folly (Prov 9:13-18).

Despite all this, Jewish commentators of Proverbs, who dwell at length on the nature and duties of women, totally ignore the feminine qualities of wisdom. This strange silence is broken by Philo (1st. cent), who identified wisdom (Prov 8:22), at least at a metaphorical level, with “the mother and the nurse of all.”34 In fact, with all the complexity of Philo’s interpretation of wisdom, he is considered the only Jewish thinker to attribute some kind of feminine identity to the wisdom of Proverbs.35 In Christian thought the situation is quite different. Although in early times wisdom was identified with Christ, during the Middle Ages the figure of Lady Wisdom (Sophia, Sapientia) as God’s faithful consort was widely accepted among both philosophers and mystics36

This reluctance of the Jewish commentators to acknowledge the feminine identity of wisdom cannot be explained by theological reasons alone. As we shall see, at least one commentator saw no harm in the existence of a hypostatized wisdom. The reason cannot be gender connected either, for metaphorical feminine imagery is not alien to Jewish sources.37 So why do they not accept, at least on a metaphorical level, the feminine identity of wisdom? Could Jewish commentators have been put off by the mythical flavor of Prov 8:12-33; 9:1-6? Might it be that the wisdom of Proverbs was too much like the Gnostic Sophia?38 Is it a coincidence that in the Kabbalah the sephirah of Hokmah is so undoubtedly male?

Contrary to most commentators, who identify wisdom with philosophy, David Kimhi understands it as traditional Jewish learning. The maids (Prov 9:3), consequently, are interpreted as sages, whose role is to teach wisdom to the people.39

34Philo, Ebr. 31. The quotation appears in Jean. Laporte, “Philo in the Tradition of Wisdom,” in R.L. Wilken ed., Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975) 115. R.A. Baer claims that Philo’s identification of wisdom with feminine entities is purely metaphorical. See Richard A. Baer Jr., Philo’s Use of Categories Male and Female (Leyden: Brill, 1970) 62-63. 35Philo identifies wisdom with feminine figures not only in the context of Proverbs. See Praem. 49-59, where Sarah and Rebecca are interpreted as metaphors for wisdom. Yet for Philo the feminine identity of wisdom is only nominal, while its real identity is masculine (Fug. 51-51). 36Barbara Newman, Sister of Wisdom (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1987) 42-88. Early Christianity identified Wisdom-Sophia with Christ, creating an awkward gender problem. Later Wisdom-Sophia was identified with Mary, thus paving the way in the 19th cent. to Sophiology. See Fiorenza.E. Schlusser, In Memory of Her (New York: Croassroads, 1983) 134-140. George H. Tavard, Woman in Christian Thought (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1973) 158-167. 37Feminine personification of concepts appears already in Isa 66:7-14 in the figure of Zion and reaches its pinnacle in the figure of Shekinah in the Cabbala. For feminine personifications in the Bible see Mary Callaway, Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 77-89. 38Rose Horman Arthur, The Wisdom Goddess (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984). Deirdre Joy Good, Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). 39The Commentaries on Proverbs of the Kimhi Family (Jerusalem, 1990) 372.

9

Kimhi, a linguist more sensitive to words than to theological principles, interprets the words of wisdom in Prov 8:23 in a most unusual way: “From the beginning of the world God gave me princedom, that is rule. Before the world was created I was the queen like God, He anointed me to be the lady of kingdom all the days of the world.”40 This is the most amazing, though the most literal, interpretation of this verse. Nothing similar appears either in other commentaries, nor in Kimhi’s own commentary. The quotation looks more like a slip of the tongue than a concept. Hence no conclusion about Kimhi’s beliefs can be drawn from it.

No doubt that medieval commentators are aware of the feminine personification of Sophia in scholastic philosophy41, yet they are cautious not to project it on the Book of Proverbs. Thus Gersonides identifies the wisdom of Prov 8-9 with philosophical learning, yet bluntly ignores the imagery behind the speech of wisdom. For him Prov 8-9 deals with the process of acquiring knowledge. Wisdom (hokmah) represents the preparatory stage, which is continued by understanding (binah). Gersonides speaks of understanding as supported by seven branches (pillars) of wisdom. We deduce, then, that he is acquainted with the medieval interpretation of Prov 9:1, which speaks of the seven liberal arts as pillars of knowledge. Yet he seems to ignore that they are traditionally pictured as daughters of Sophia. Following the same line of de-personifying interpretation he explains that Woman Folly is an allegory for the human body, which stands in the wasy of knowledge. It is hard to believe that a serious commentator like Gersonides could have overlooked gender allusions in Prov 8-9. It seems, that his commentary on these chapters aims to de-personify wisdom.

Zerachiah Chen is even more extreme in his interpretation of Prov 8-9. Not only does he ignore the feminine imagery behind wisdom, he opposes wisdom to women. “About the woman he said “her feet never stay at home”(Prov 7:11), while of wisdom he said the opposite “where the paths meet, she takes her stand”(Prov 8:2), meaning that wisdom takes her stand and remains there to reward those who acknowledge and seek her, while the woman repays with evil those who were enticed and attracted by her.”42 It is interesting that the commentator brings together two absolutely symmetrical verses to support two opposed judgments. In Zerachiah’s blindly misogynist world wisdom i.e., philosophy, pertains to men, while women in general (not just the Strange Woman of Proverbs) are an obstruction on men’s way toward wisdom.43

To make his point Zerachiah Chen does not mind tearing apart the poetical structure of the poem. By de-feminizing wisdom he destroys the antithetical relationship created by the author of Proverbs 7-9 between two ontologically similar

40Ibid., 370. 41Probably, the most famous feminine personification of Sophia appears in Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy. 42Zerachiah Chen, Imrei Da’at, 43. 43An attitude extreme, even by medieval standards, toward women appears in Imrei Da’at, 10, where such a positive verse as “Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love...” (Eccl 9:9) is given a misogynist interpretation.

10

figures - the Strange Woman (or Woman Folly) and Lady Wisdom. Instead, he opposes wisdom, a general abstract concept, to woman, a material being. Later, as if to justify this exegetical brutality, he explains, that both wisdom and folly are qualities, yet folly is represented in Proverbs by Woman Folly, because folly pertains more to women than to men.44

For Zerachiah Chen wisdom is not just a (masculine) quality. In his commentary on Proverbs he attributes ontological independence to wisdom. According to him, wisdom is God’s first creation and it is the first of the Separate Intellects. It is a separate substance, ontologically different from all other beings and the cause of all subsequent creation.45 Zerachiah’s attitude toward wisdom deviates from the medieval Aristotelian concept, which sees wisdom as God’s attribute. Such an unorthodox personal concept of wisdom does not appear to bother Zerachiah Chen, so his de-feminization of wisdom does not seem to be guided by scrupulous theological considerations.

While personifying wisdom Zerachiah Chen engages in a de-personification of women. For him women in Proverbs are a kind of metaphor for all the wrong and evil in the world and as such they are opposed to wisdom. In fact, wisdom and women are, according to Zerachiah, two main subjects of Proverbs.46

Like Zerachiah Chen, Emanuel of Rome and Menachem Hameiri ignore the feminine imagery of wisdom in Prov 8-9. With them, the wisdom of Proverbs is equated to Aristotelian philosophy in general and to metaphysics in particular.47 Menachem Hameiri finds a special reason for the similarity of the speech of Wisdom to that of the Strange Woman in Prov 9. The author of Proverbs, explains Hameiri, acts like a judge who, after listening to the Strange Woman and Wisdom separately in previous chapters, summons them to present their case together before he makes his decision.48 Here again, wisdom as an abstract concept is opposed to women.

Yet it would be wrong to accuse medieval thinkers of totally denying wisdom to women. Gersonides explains, for instance, that a wise woman helps her husband to achieve perfection.49 Although Emanuel of Rome is certain that most women are naturally stupid,50 he too admits that there are wise women. Wise women, he explains, are the modest ones who stay in the inner rooms of the house, while foolish women run

44 Ibid., 52. 45Ibid., 48. Avi ezer Ravitzky , “The Hypostasis of the Divine Wisdom. A Neoplatonic Reaction to a Theological Problem in 13th cent. Jewish Philosophy in Italy” (in Hebrew) Italia 1-2 (1982) 31-38. A. Ravitzky stresses the peculiarity of such a concept of wisdom in a work otherwise Aristotelian. 46Imrei Da’at, 52. 47The Book of Proverbs with the Commentary of Emanuel of Rome (reprinted Jerusalem, 1981) 40. While Gersonides interpreted wisdom as a preparatory stage for understanding (binah), Emanuel of Rome thinks that understanding is mathematics, i.e. inferior to metaphysics, ibid. 38. 48Hameiri’s Commentary on Proverbs (Jerusalem, 1969) 79. 49Gersonides’ commentary on Prov 14:1. It is Gersonides’ conviction that women were created in order to help men to achieve intellectual perfection. Julia Schwartzmann, “Was She Created in the Image of God Too? The Medieval Philosophical Interpretation of the Creation of Woman” (in Hebrew), Da’at 39 (1997) 79-82. 50The Book of Proverbs with the Commentary of Emanuel of Rome (reprinted Jerusalem, 1981) 110.

11

the streets.51 The identity wise woman = modest woman seems to be a social law of the medieval world. Feminine wisdom is best demonstrated by silence. The eloquence of the Strange Woman, her ability to use words as a lethal weapon, is interpreted as foolishness. It is symbolic that in a culture that identifies language with intellect, the only way a woman can prove her wisdom is by remaining silent.

Probably the most interesting interpretation of wisdom belongs to Isaac Aramah. Aramah identifies the distinctively positive biblical figure of wisdom with the negative figure of the Strange Woman. This identification is not groundless. It has been already mentioned that modern scholars emphasize a striking resemblance between the Strange Woman and wisdom. Both are mobile, free, boldly independent and their power lies in their eloquence.52 Yet, despite these common features, wisdom and the Strange Woman represent in Proverbs two polar choices, one leading to happiness and longevity, the other - to suffering and death. Aramah simply ignores this opposition. For him, wisdom is synonymous with the Strange Woman and an allegorical representation of philosophy. Wisdom, an embodiment of alien learning, entices Jewish scholars away from the Torah, represented in Proverbs by the Woman of Valor. In fact, according to Aramah, Prov 8-9 is composed of the speeches of these two women. Prov 8:1-11 is a call by philosophical wisdom to study branches of philosophy, like logic, mathematics, ethics, political philosophy, astronomy, physics, and metaphysics. The rest of the chapter is the answer by the divine Torah exalting her own qualities over those of philosophy.

Aramah attacks his fellows Jews, who prefer Greek philosophy to authentic Jewish wisdom. “Here is this Strange Woman, isn’t she called by her people simply Wisdom, all this because of the rudeness of their spirit and their arrogance. And this is the truth these days, for if you ask even someone who knows little of logic, and say, are you studying Mikra, Mishna, or Talmud, he will answer you none of these, but will say, wisdom am I studying.”53 This alien wisdom resembles a harlot who roams near places where people toil, and tempts inexperienced young men and children to study Aristotle and his commentators instead of the laws of ritual slaughtering taught by Abbaye and Rabba.54

The division of Prov 8-9 into two different speeches is somewhat artificial and is dictated by Aramah’s attitude toward philosophy. Prov 8:1-11 and 9:1-11 are speeches of a bold independent person. The speaker proudly demonstrates her freedom and femnine incentive in order to attract followers. The content of the speech is secular. The content of Prov 8:12-36, on the other hand, does not even suggest speaker’s gender. The content of the sequence is cosmological and centers on the relationship between wisdom and God, on the role of wisdom in Creation. Aramah

51Ibid., 47. 52Athalya Brenner, The Israelite Woman (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 44. Carol Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom” in P.L. Day, ed., Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress ,1989) 157. Nehama Aschkenasy, Eve’s Journey (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986) 47. 53Isaac Aramah, Commentary on Proverbs (Israel, 1968) 24. 54Ibid.

12

calls wisdom zarah, a pejorative for the other wife in a polygamous marriage. For him, Prov 8- 9 is composed of the speeches of two women fighting over man. He adds, that the target audience of wisdom are foolish and shallow people, who are an easy prey. Wisdom here adopts the strategy of the Serpent, who deliberately chose to speak to the intellectually inferior woman and not to the man.55

Despite Aramah’s resentment toward wisdom, i.e. Aristotelian philosophy, his concepts and terminology are deeply rooted in philosophy, whether he is aware of it or not. For instance, he explains that the Torah is “the final cause” of the Creation. The very use of allegory, one of the main tools of Maimonidean hermeneutics, to attack philosophy, is quite illustrative. In fact, his opposition to philosophy is not sweeping. According to him, one may study philosophy, but first he should immerse himself in the Torah. Some branches of philosophy, like astronomy/astrology might be useful, but the Torah is far deeper and more important than any philosophical inquiry.

The Strange Woman versus the Woman of Valor

More than any feminine figure in Proverbs, the Strange Woman has aroused the interest of commentators, an interest far greater than her righteous opposite, the Woman of Valor. Commentators find it difficult to choose between the allegorical and the literal interpretation. While the allegorical interpretation is most suitable for a philosophical commentary, the literal-moralistic one is not to be neglected.

Gersonides tends to a traditional allegorical interpretation of verses dealing with both the Strange Woman and the Woman of Valor56. The Strange Woman is usually interpreted as the appetitive (mit awah) soul, hostile to man57. Sometimes he interprets the Strange Woman as the imaginative faculty of the soul58.

When interpreting the verses about the Strange Woman literally, Gersonides explains her as an adulteress who awakens the man’s animal instincts. He warns men against adultery as a mortal sin, much worse than theft: a thief steals because he is hungry, while an adulterer sins out of sheer greed. With his typical asceticism, Gersonides points to a connection between excessive sexual activity and the death of the man.59

As to the Woman of Worth, she is interpreted allegorically as a soul obedient to the intellect. This soul supplies material information used by the intellect.60 Gersonides’ allegorical interpretation of the relationship between the soul and the intellect reflects his idea of a perfect marriage. As the ideal wife should assist her husband in his efforts to acquire knowledge, so the imaginative faculties should serve

55Ibid, 29. Here Aramah adopts Maimonides’ attitude in Guide of the Perplexed, II. 30. 56The most famous interpretation of the Strange Woman of Prov 7 is in Maimonides’ introduction to Guide of the Perplexed. 57Gersonides’ commentary to Prov 2:16. 58Ibid., Prov 5:3. 59Ibid., Prov 6:27-28. 60Ibid., Prov 12:4.

13

the intellect in striving for perfection.61 Similarly the imaginative soul that leads the intellect astray, does not fulfill its duties. Such a soul is like a foolish woman, who hinders her husband from achieving perfection.62

Gersonides gives the poem “Woman of Valor” in Prov 31:11-31 a double interpretation. The allegorical one speaks of the matter serving the intellect, the literal one of the wife serving her husband in his efforts to achieve perfection. The second interpretation deviates sharply from the spirit of the poem. While the Woman of Valor in Proverbs is an industrious, independent person in command of her household, Gersonides draws a picture of a humble creature who, by hard physical work, paves her husband’s way to perfection.

Generally speaking, despite his use of some philosophical terminology, Gersonides does not seem to have a special philosophical interest in Proverbs, as he has in the Song of Songs, for example. His commentary lacks system, the allegorical interpretation mingling with the literal one.63

Zerachiah Chen does not differentiate between “good” and “bad” women. For him, woman is synonymous with evil. He seems torn by an urge to give way to his resentment toward women on one hand, and his professional obligation to an allegorical interpretation of Proverbs on the other. His commentary moves back and forth from warning against real women to the danger of letting matter overpower intellect. His commentary on Prov 5:5 is a good example: “...it is known that all that is corruption comes indeed from matter and because of matter, and man’s death sentence comes from it and is because of it. In a different way, it should be interpreted that what is called in a woman in a parabolic way “her feet” and “her steps” are two words meaning support of a thing and its existence. Similarly a woman is the foot and the support of the loss of the soul and the body and of its descent.... .”64 Both, matter and women, together and separately represent sexuality, with all the evil associated with it.

It is interesting, that when speaking of “the wife of your youth” (Prov 5:18) Zerachiah Chen mentions only its allegorical interpretation. According to him, this is an allusion to the soul: the soul hates matter but loves intellect. Those who repudiate matter and its pleasures, are gratified by true love, a real, passionate relationship, between the intellect and the soul.65 In Zerachiah’s world there is no room for a romantic triumvirate of the intellect/man, the matter/woman and the soul. The intellect/man is the master of his own destiny: he can either choose the matter/woman and bring death upon himself, or he can opt for a spiritual, long-lasting relationship with his soul. Without calling for abstinence, Zerachiah Chen calls for moderation: matter/woman should be a necessity, not a pleasure. Nonetheless, he gives a rather graphic description of the Strange Woman - she has a beautiful long body and

61Cf. 38. 62Gersonides’ commentary on Prov 17:1. 63For example, in his commentary to Prov 9:13, 11:16, 18:22, 20:16 Gersonides interprets the image of the woman allegorically, but in Prov 12:4, 14:12, 21:9, 21:19 literally. 64Zerachiah Chen, Imrei Da’at, 28. 65Ibid., 30.

14

prominent breasts.66 Judging from Zerachiah, beauty standards have not changed much since the 13th century.

It is difficult to know what Zerachiah Chen’s idea of a good woman is. In his lengthy commentary on Proverbs, the twenty verses of “Woman of Valor” are explained in sixteen lines, and the word “woman” mentioned only once toward the end of the commentary. Zerachiah explains that king Solomon praises the Woman of Valor in order to deter his readers from bodily pleasures.67 This statement seems another way of saying that there are wives -- and there are attractive women. As to the allegorical interpretation, he rather reluctantly explains that this good woman is an allegory for good matter obedient to the intellect.68 The impression is that for Zerachiah Chen “good” cannot be applied neither to women nor to matter.

Both Menachem Hameiri and Emanuel of Rome are not ready to dispense with the literal meaning of the parable of the Adulteress in Prov 7:6-21. Menachem Hameiri disagrees with Maimonides that the main purpose of that passage is to serve as a parable. For Hameiri the original purpose of these verses is to warn the man against the harlot, the philosophical meaning is secondary.69 Emanuel of Rome, who, in line with Maimonidean hermeneutics, usually prefers the allegorical interpretation, dwells on the literal meaning of the parable too. Only in the closing words does he suggest that the Strange Woman may be an allegory for strange ideas or for the vegetative or sensitive soul, alien to human essence.70

The Woman of Valor, by contrast, receives mainly an allegorical interpretation. According to Hameiri, the Woman of Valor is an allegory for “good” matter which has a natural predisposition to receive form in an appropriate way.71 (In medieval commentaries the adjective “good,” when applied to women is synonymous to “obedient.”) The whole range of qualities ascribed to the Woman of Valor in Proverbs is ignored by the commentators. Intelligence, diligence, independence, incentive are either ignored or given an allegorical interpretation. Thus Hameiri suggests that the expression “prudent wife” (Prov 19:14) is an allegory for wisdom.72 Hameiri, who ignored the feminine personification of wisdom in Prov 8-9, suddenly prefers as the lesser of the evils to ascribe some femininity to wisdom rather than wisdom to women.

As in the case of wisdom, Isaac Aramah’s interpretation of the Strange Woman and the Woman of Valor is the most interesting one. For most of the commentary Aramah follows the traditional patterns of the literal and the allegorical interpretation. Like all the other commentators he expresses disdain for women’s intellectual faculties.73 He gives the Strange Woman of Prov 7:6-27 a traditional allegorical

66Ibid., 42. 67Ibid., 84. 68Ibid., ibid.. 69Hameiri’s Commentary on Proverbs (Jerusalem, 1969) 63-64. 70The Book of Proverbs with the Commentary of Emanuel of Rome (reprinted Jerusalem, 1981) 38-39. 71Hameiri’s Commentary on Proverbs (Jerusalem, 1969) 114. See also Emanuel of Rome on Proverbs, 67. 72Ibid., 189. 73Isaac Aramah, Commentary on Proverbs (Jerusalem, 1968) 68.

15

interpretation, probably inspired by that of Maimonides.

All this changes when he gets to Woman of Valor. In the last pages of his commentary he develops a psychological theory, probably inspired by the Aggadah.74 Aramah bases his theory on the fact that the story of the creation of woman is told twice in first two chapters of Genesis. According to him, each story tells about a different creation. The first story is about the spiritual co-creation of man and his female match, the second one tells of the creation of the real woman, man’s partner in earthly life. Each man, Aramah tells us, has two wives in his life. The first (virtual) wife is in charge of man’s intellect, his ultimate happiness and intellectual immortality. Having this responsibility, she might interfere in the making of decisions in his daily life. Although the second wife is the one responsible for the material needs of her family, the first wife assists her in her duties. Man’s spiritual and physical well-being is in the hands of these two women. While the first wife is chosen for him by God, the second one is his own choice. If he is lucky, both his wives are good, but sometimes only one of them is good, and in the worse case -- neither.

Aramah interprets the Woman of Valor in the light of this theory. The two wives act as the parable and its inner meaning: the real life wife is the parable for the spiritual one, i.e. for man’s reason. At a certain point Aramah returns to his usual allegorical interpretation claiming that the “inner” woman is the Torah.

It is difficult to say, what makes Aramah elaborate on this dual feminine presence in man’s life. Is this just another attempt to explain the apparent contradiction between two stories of Creation, or rather his genuine conviction that a man is a complex creature? Either way, Aramah’s words about a man’s feminine side sound quite Jungian. Even more interesting is his claim, that man’s reason is controlled or even embodied by his female “half.” In a cultural tradition that denies the woman any access to the realm of reason such an attitude is startling.

Aramah’s monism and his theory of matching (zivugim) discussed on different occasions in his commentary on the Torah seem to be at the basis of his interpretation of the Woman of Valor. A real perfection is unity of complementing elements. Most of the times this unity is represented by two complimenting principles: two kinds of wisdom, the Jewish and the philosophical, two “wives” of the man or just two inner forces, male and female, forging the self. Aramah seems to regard human life in particular and the whole of the Creation in general as the result of a constant interaction between these ever active forces. We may say that despite his anti-philosophical stand, Aramah’s thought is the very product of such a dialectical process: the philosophical tools of his reasoning complement its traditional Jewish content.

Conclusion

Medieval thinkers held a clear idea of gender roles in general and of parents’ roles specifically. This idea does not necessarily reflect the intended meaning of the

74Sotah 2a. The same theory appears in Aramah’s commentary on Gen 23, 24:1-32 (“Sara lived...”).

16

Book of Proverbs, but rather the standards of their own epoch. Thus, the Book of Proverbs itself sees parents as a pedagogical team whose gender is not important for the process of education. Medieval commentators, on the contrary, are certain that educational responsibilities of the parents are forged along the lines of their gender identity: fathers are responsible for their sons’ theoretical education, while mothers provide them with practical tools. Commentators’ attempts to find similar gender concepts in the Book of Proverbs result in awkward allegorical interpretations, unjustified by any theological or metaphysical need, as in the case of the words “ torah” and “musar.”

While the Book of Proverbs draws a clear line between the image of mother and other women, the status of the mother in the eyes of the medieval commentators is as low as that of the others. The contempt toward women / mothers is based on the conviction that women are by definition intellectually inferior to men, resulting in their total immersion in the material things of life. In a culture that identifies perfection with pure meta-ethical existence, women have a dubious reputation as experts on ethics. No wonder that in such a context wisdom is either denied feminine identity or is interpreted as a feminine personification of an alien lore. Once proclaimed alien she may be identified with the Strange Woman, with all her negative connotations.

The exegetical patterns used by the commentators aim to prove their misogynic value judgments:

a) In order to prove women’s social and intellectual inferiority commentators may “reconstruct” the verse or, on the contrary, find support in its very structure. Sometimes verses are cut in the middle to make a point. A poem may be arbitrary divided into speeches of different people if it serves the commentator. Examples of such attitude are numerous and appear in most of the commentaries.

b) Another exegetical strategy is to empty off words of their literal meaning. Thus, “torah” when associated with mother would become a less general term than “musar” which is related to father. Yet, when father is in charge of his son’s intellectual formation, mother becomes responsible for a less demanding ethical education, which happens to be the same “musar” .

c) One of the exegetical tools used by Jewish commentators is “pseudo-etymology”. Words like “em” and “ummah” or “musar” and “meyaser” are considered as etymologically related in order to remove mother from the educational leadership.

d) The allegorical interpretation does not always serve theological or philosophical needs. A commentator may decide to interpret two parallel figures in different ways. Such is the case of the Strange Woman and the Woman of Valor. Medieval commentators tend to a literal reading of passages dealing with the Strange Woman, while the allegorical interpretation remains secondary. The “real” Strange Woman, the adulteress with her frightening message, seems to fascinate more than such abstract notions as matter or soul. The Woman of Valor, synonymous with such qualities as goodness and obedience, appears less real and attractive than her antithesis.

17

The parts of the commentaries that deal with her focus on the allegorical interpretation, as if the Woman of Valor were a purely theoretical construct.

e) It is obvious that medieval Jewish thinkers systematically ignore the feminine imagery of wisdom in the Book of Proverbs. Although they usually interpret wisdom as Aristotelian philosophy, they avoid the feminine connotation of Sophia, popular during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Possibly this effort to de-personify wisdom is dictated by theological reasons. Yet, Zerachiah’s theory of hypostatized wisdom, which recalls the Philonian logos with all its theological implications, does not seem to bother him. Aramah is probably the only Jewish thinker to acknowledge the feminine qualities of wisdom. Yet this feminine identification paves the way for her negative interpretation.

Most of these exegetical tools and concepts are traditional ones. In the commentaries on Proverbs these tools are used to attribute traditional medieval views about women to an ancient text. Finally, with the exception of Isaac Aramah, who demonstrates a creative interpretation of the feminine essence, all the commentators send a trite message of misogyny.