Sins of the Fauna

The Sins of the Fauna in Midrash Rashiand Their Medieval Interlocutors1

Eric Lawee

Chaste birds Beasts become celibate on command Midrashic literaturetells of such things not to mention donkeys and snakes engaged inappalling behavior Some midrashim go further in presenting animalsas participants in the moral order asserting their requital based ongood or bad conduct Such midrashic dicta point to issues at the centerof current philosophic speculation sociopolitical debate and appliedethics animal consciousness the animals$ moral status humankind$sspecial status the nature of the human-animal divide the propriety ofcross-breeding for medical purposes and more The conceptions thatinform such midrashim take on added significance in light of accusa-tions by those who espouse ldquoanimal liberationrdquo that ldquoJewish and Greekideasrdquo lie at the root of a longstanding western ldquoprejudicerdquo that hasyielded an ongoing ldquotyranny of human over nonhuman animalsrdquo theprejudice of ldquospeciesismrdquo2

While inquiry into Greek ideas about animals has flourished study ofpremodern Jewish teachings has been scant As a way into this topic thatcan contribute to the emergent field of ldquothe history of animalsrdquo thisessay explores medieval responses mainly of an exegetical cast3 to mid-

Jewish Studies Quarterly Volume 17 (2010) pp 56mdash98 Mohr Siebeck mdash ISSN 0944-5706

1 This article is part of a larger project being generously funded by the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to which I express my thanksIt benefited from comments of an anonymous reader to whom I also express thanksand from observations of participants in the inaugural Princeton Workshop on JewishThought who raised important larger questions (e g ldquodo exegetical texts make argu-mentsrdquo) that I was mostly unable to address in the current context

2 Peter Singer Animal Liberation 2nd ed (New York 1990) 189 v From a vastbibliography on issues mentioned in this paragraph I cite a single title David DeGra-zia Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status (Cambridge 1996) Ahalakhic perspective on crossbreeding for medical purposes is in John D Loike andMoshe D Tendler ldquoEthical Dilemmas in Stem Cell Research Human-Animal Chi-merasrdquo Tradition 40 (2007) 28ndash49

3 The better to remind us that ldquo[c]ommentaries and commentarial modes of think-ing dominated the intellectual history of most premodern civilizationsrdquo (John B Hen-

rashim that depict the antediluvian fauna in moral or quasi-moralterms4 These responses at once illuminate diverse understandings ofthe fauna$s place in the natural order and divine economy shed lightupon their authors$ divergent approaches to that segment of rabbinicdiscourse often subsumed under the rubric ldquogtaggadahrdquo5 and explicitlyor tacitly reflect a ldquomajor trendrdquo in Jewish religious-intellectual historythat given its significance is astonishingly under-researched the semi-nal role played by Rashi in bringing certain midrashic motifs to the foreof Jewish consciousness there to become foci of later reflection6 In

(2010) The Sins of the Fauna in Midrash and Rashi 57

derson Scripture Canon and Commentary A Comparison of Confucian and WesternExegesis [Princeton N J 1991] 3) Cf the remark of Isadore Twersky regarding themethodological challenge that besets efforts to extract thought from biblical exegesisldquothe attempt to systematize non-systematic writings to extrapolate rigorously struc-tured concepts from soft pliable molds is problematicrdquo (ldquoJoseph ibn Kaspi Portraitof a Medieval Jewish Intellectualrdquo in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature[I] ed Isadore Twersky [Cambridge 1979] 232ndash33)

4 A sequel in progress follows the story into early modern times when animals$moral capabilities became a cause celebre in the thought of Montaigne DescartesLeibniz and others See e g the source cited below n 188 and for the general earlymodern debate Peter Harrison ldquoThe Virtues of the Animals in Seventeenth-CenturyThoughtrdquo Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1998) 463ndash85 Erica Fudge introductionto Renaissance Beasts Of Animals Humans and Other Wonderful Creatures (Urbana2004) 1ndash17 For the emerging field of the history of animals see eadem ldquoA Left-Handed Blow Writing the History of Animalsrdquo in Representing Animals ed N Roth-fels (Bloomington Ind 2002) 3ndash18 On Greek teachings see e g Richard SorabjiAnimal Minds and Human Morals The Origins of the Western Debate (Ithaca 1993)John Heath The Talking Greeks Speech Animals and the Other in Homer Aeschylusand Plato (Cambridge 2005) Victor Aptowitzer studied rabbinic dicta in ldquoThe Re-warding and Punishing of Animals and Inanimate Objects On the Aggadic View ofthe Worldrdquo Hebrew Union College Annual 3 (1926) 117ndash55 (especially 131ndash40) Hisarticle which contains antecedent bibliography (119ndash20 n 5) focused on aggadic ex-pressions For legal rabbinic teachings (and diachronic investigation of biblical andrabbinic texts) see Noam Zohar ldquoBaltalei-h

˙ayyim ke-gtishim musariyyim sodan shel

hilkhot shor ha-nisqalrdquo Mah˙ashevet h

˙azal divrei ha-kenes ha-rishon (Haifa 1990)

67ndash83 Additional sources with little analysis appear in Elijah J Schochet AnimalLife in Jewish Tradition Attitudes and Relationships (New York 1984) My thanks toKalman Bland for sharing fascinating work in progress on animals in medieval Jewishliterature

5 See my Isaac Abarbanel2s Stance Toward Tradition Defense Dissent and Dialogue(Albany 2001) 83ndash92 Israel M Ta-Shma Ha-sifrut ha-parshanit la-talmud be-gteropahuvi-s

˙efon gtafriqah qorot gtishim ve-shit

˙ot 2 vols (Jerusalem 1999ndash2002) 2190ndash201

Jacob Elbaum Lehavin divrei h˙akhamim mivh

˙ar divrei mavogt le-gtaggadah ule-midrash

mi-shel h˙akhmei yemei ha-benayim (Jerusalem 2000)

6 See my ldquoFrom Sefarad to Ashkenaz A Case Study in the Rashi SupercommentaryTraditionrdquo AJS Review 36 (2006) 1ndash33 ldquoThe Reception of Rashi$s Commentary on theTorah in Spain The Case of Adam$s Mating With the Animalsrdquo Jewish Quarterly Re-view 97 (2007) 33ndash66 For the Commentary$s ldquocanonizationrdquo see Jordan PenkowerldquoTahalikh ha-qanonizas

˙iyah shel perush rashi la-torahrdquo in Limmud ve-daltat be-mah

˙a-

shavah yehudit ed H Kreisel (Beer Sheba 2006) 123ndash46

consequence of the prominence that Rashi gave the notion of the ante-diluvian fauna$s merits and sins this idea evoked interpretation inquiryand at times stiff resistance over centuries

I

Though focused on humankind rabbinic interest in the flood story alsoencompassed animals The main textual spur for the ancient midrashistswho commented on the topic was scripture$s attestation that ldquoall flesh(kol basar) had corrupted its way on earthrdquo (Gen 612)7 Taking thistestimony with literalist inclusivity some expositors inferred the fauna$sinvolvement in the conduct that elicited God$s plan to destroy ldquoall fleshrdquo(Gen 612ndash13 17) What is more these sages defined the fauna$s failingsquite specifically For example a talmudic tradition reported in thename of the third-century Palestinian gtamora R Yohanan stated ldquodo-mestic animals mated (hirbiltu) with beasts beasts with domestic animalsall with man and man with allrdquo By speaking of pairings of the domesticanimals (behemah) with the beasts (h

˙ayah) and vice-versa R Yohanan

implied the initiatory role of both of these groups in their interspecificencounters Similarly by juxtaposing ldquoall with manrdquo and ldquoman withallrdquo he implied that reciprocal initiatory role of man and beast in cross-ing that human-animal divide8

Of course as scripture made clear God$s plan to destroy ldquoall fleshrdquowas not as total as it sounded (or was at the least subject to modifica-tion) Noah and his family were preserved among humans as well as the

58 Eric Lawee JSQ 17

7 Biblical translations generally follow Tanakh The Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia1985)

8 Sanhedrin 108a The dictum$s hifltil form (hirbiltu) ndash probably echoing the proscrip-tion in Lev 1919 on Israelites causing animals to ldquocrouchrdquo together (i e mate) with aldquodifferent kindrdquo ndash yields an interpretive challenge Upon reading the dictum$s first halfone might think that ldquomanrdquo is the unstated subject and in keeping with hifltil$s causa-tive meaning take R Yohanan to be saying that human beings caused domestic beaststo mate with wild animals and vice versa Interpretation along these lines proves hardto sustain however since the juxtaposition of ldquoall with manrdquo and ldquoman with allrdquosuggests initiatives for intermating coming from both the human and sub-human sides(Elsewhere [Sanhedrin 54b] the Talmud envisions acts of bestiality in which the humanparticipants are passive) In some versions the phrase ldquoall with manrdquo was missing fromthis talmudic saying allowing for an exclusive ascription of agency to human beings asin the interpretation of Nissim ben Reuven discussed below (at n 162) Rashi failed togloss R Yohanan$s remark in his Talmud commentary He did however use hirbiltu in anearby gloss in a manner that indicated the subject$s participation in rather thanfacilitation of mating activity See Sanhedrin 108a s v ldquoh

˙us˙mi-tushlamirdquo ve-darko

shel gtoto ltof leharbialt kol beriyot (For this dictum see below n 26)

fauna who made it onto Noah$s ark (while both rabbinic and modernscholars inferred that specification of the demise of all terrestrial life[Gen 722] implied the survival of marine life)9 These survivors wouldregenerate life in the postdiluvian world but on what basis were theyelected for this task Noah$s case was apparently clear since God toldhim that ldquoyou alone have I found righteous before Me in this genera-tionrdquo (Gen 71) ndash though this finding did nothing to explain the survivalof Noah$s family nor even in the eyes of all Noah$s rescue10 By stres-sing God$s election of a lone human being due to his righteousnessscripture could be taken to imply the survival of particular animals inconsequence of an individually discriminating divine calculus Somemidrashists made this inference explicit while also inferring that theanimals that perished were noxious beings whose perdition was justlydecreed

To be sure despite their consignment to a watery death some exposi-tions from the rabbinic sphere excluded the fauna from the moral calcu-lus surrounding the flood Targum Onkelos clarified that the indictmentof ldquoall fleshrdquo related to humankind alone (ldquoltarei h

˙abilu kol bisra gtenash

yat gtorh˙ei ltal gtarltardquo) while some midrashists justified the sub-human crea-

tures$ destruction anthropocentrically that is on the premise that ani-mals were subservient beings that lacked purpose in a world devoid ofhumankind11 This view won the approval of some medievals even asothers promoted the competing idea of the fauna$s requital As shallbe seen presently Rashi aired both views though he gave greater pro-minence to the latter approach

Rashi expounded the fauna$s sins in his gloss on ldquoall fleshrdquo teachingthat ldquoeven domestic animals beasts and birds consorted with those notof their own kindrdquo (gtafilu behemah h

˙ayah ve-ltof nizqaqin le-she-gtenan min-


9 E g Sanhedrin 108a Nahum Sarna The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis (Phi-ladelphia 1989) 56

10 Members of R Ishmael$s school claimed (Sanhedrin 108a) that Noah meriteddestruction but survived by virtue of divine ldquogracerdquo (Gen 68) Abraham ibn Ezraand Nahmanides agreed that Noah$s family survived in his merit see Perushei ha-torahle-rabbenu gtAvraham ibn ltEzra ed A Weiser 3 vols (Jerusalem 1976) 1175 (on Gen68) and Perushei ha-torah le-rabbenu Moshe ben Nah

˙man ed C D Chavel 2 vols

(Jerusalem 1959) 151 58 (on Gen 67 81) For other rabbinic and extra-rabbinicteachings see Louis H Feldman ldquoQuestions about the Great Flood as Viewed byPhilo Pseudo-Philo Josephus and the Rabbisrdquo Zeitschrift fur die AlttestamentlischeWissenschaft 115 (2003) 413ndash17

11 As one of four explanations for their destruction despite their lack of free willPhilo asserted the animals$ creation for humankind$s sake (Feldman ldquoQuestionsrdquo405) For parallel rabbinic teachings see below n 37

an)12 This exposition filled out an earlier elaboration of God$s promiseto ldquoblot out hellip men together with the beasts creeping things and birdsof the skyrdquo (Gen 67) where Rashi noted lapses among both human-kind and the animals that ldquoalso corrupted their wayrdquo (hishh

˙itu dar-

kam)13 The claims that the corruption had ldquoevenrdquo or ldquoalsordquo infiltratedthe animal world underscored Rashi$s (or more precisely Rashi$s under-standing of God$s) principal concern with human failing yet they alsoimplied the animals$ partial responsibility for the depravity that evokeddivine retribution Complicating matters was Rashi$s gloss on ldquoI havedecided to put an end to all fleshrdquo (Gen 613) which asserted an ele-ment of indiscriminate punishment since ldquowhere gtandrolomosia [= andro-lepsy] comes to the world it kills good and badrdquo14 Yet the glosses onGenesis 67 and 612 clearly pulled in a different direction assigningtacitly or otherwise culpability to all who suffered in the flood ndash beastscreeping things and birds included With the possible exception of theldquocreeping thingsrdquo whose lack of liability he implied in a few placesRashi suggested that the fauna deserved to perish15


12 H˙amishah h

˙umshei torah Rashi ha-shalem 7 vols (Jerusalem 1986ndash ) Bereshit

173 Rashi$s formulation seemingly echoes Zavim 2213 Ibid 7014 Ibid 74 where rabbinic sources are cited (For the Greek term reflected in Ra-

shi$s remark see Marcus Jastrow A Dictionary of the Tagumim the Talmud Babli andYerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature 2 vols in 1 [New York 1982] 81) Floodselicit a human tendency to focus on their animal victims (as one can see by googlingldquoKatrina animalsrdquo) ndash in part one suspects because their fate heightens awareness ofthe event$s seemingly indiscriminate nature The biblical flood quickly becomes a pointof reference for those who witness animals in a flood seeking ldquothe gradually diminish-ing patches of higher ground in scenes redolent of Noah$s Arkrdquo See Peter H WilsonldquoThe Human Response to Floods A Psychological Perspectiverdquo in Flood EssaysAcross the Current ed P Thom (Lismore Australia 2004) 100

15 That Rashi may have exempted from liability the ldquocreeping thingsrdquo is suggestedby their omission in his gloss on Gen 612 which mentions animals beasts and birdsIn his gloss on Gen 67 ndash a verse that speaks explicitly of God$s intention to blot outldquobeasts creeping things and birdsrdquo ndash Rashi may also omit creeping things thoughevidence based on differing versions of his comment$s incipit is equivocal (To limitconsideration to the earliest printed editions Rome 1470 and Guadalajara 1476 haveldquoman together with beastrdquo while Reggio de Calabria 1475 has ldquoman together with thebeast etcrdquo implying the creeping things$ and birds$ inclusion Rashi ha-shalem 1326)Rashi posited virtuous avians (as will be seen) but not insects yet he did include creep-ing things in the covenant established at Gen 910 (ibid 99 s v 22mi-khol yos

˙e2ei ha-

tevah) Elsewhere on midrashic authority he inferred a prohibition on sub-humansexual activity (tashmish) on the ark Though the verse from which he derived it spokeof ldquobirds animals and everything that creepsrdquo he stated it only with respect to animalsand birds (ibid 196) In this case however the exclusion might reflect a belief thatinsects did not reproduce by way of tashmish (a point made in Joshua ibn ShulteibDerashot ltal ha-torah [Cracow 1573] 4v) rather than denial of the creeping things$moral agency If he did see insects as lacking a degree of volition enjoyed by higher

While filling out scripture$s picture of antediluvian debasement Ra-shi also highlighted exemplary exceptions ldquoRighteousrdquo Noah received amixed review16 but Rashi located unambiguous models of rectitudeamong the animals Apparently seeing ldquoof every kindrdquo as a pleonasmin the description of the avians who entered the ark (Gen 620) Rashiexplained that what was meant was that these birds had kept to theirkind and thereby ldquonot corrupted their wayrdquo17 He reprised the themewhen glossing the attestation that as the floodwaters abated God ldquore-membered Noah and all the beasts and all of the domestic animals thatwere with him in the arkrdquo (Gen 81) Wondering in what this recollec-tion could consist with respect to beasts and domesticated animals Ra-shi indicated that it involved a divine commendation (and not just asmodern biblicists would have it ldquoa focusing upon the object of memorythat results in actionrdquo)18 But what about the fauna$s conduct meritedcommendation Having posed the problematic issue himself Rashi pos-ited the surviving fauna$s twofold ldquomeritrdquo (zekhut) they had refrainedfrom interspecific mating prior to the flood and observed a prohibitionon conspecific coupling placed upon them (and their human counter-parts) while in the ark19 Completing the picture was Rashi$s unpackingof the odd description of the surviving fauna$s disembarkation by ldquofa-miliesrdquo (Gen 819) Did animals have families Even if so were not thesurvivors on board too few to form them Clearly what was meant thenwas that they renewed their commitment to ldquofamily valuesrdquo or in Ra-shi$s words ldquoresolved for themselvesrdquo (qibbelu 9alehem) to continueldquocleaving to their own kindrdquo upon returning to reproductive activity inthe post-diluvian world20

Though in asserting the antediluvian fauna$s merits and sins Rashicharacteristically followed rabbinic leads he ignored details and em-phases found in various midrashic sources Rashi did not specify thetextual trigger for his finding about the fauna$s sins like some midra-


animals Rashi would have been surprised by the trial of insects in his native Franceshortly after his death (below n 50)

16 In a comment on Gen 77 (Rashi ha-shalem 81 where rabbinic sources arenoted) Rashi cast Noah as a man of ldquolittle faithrdquo Glossing Gen 69 where Noah issaid to be righteous ldquoin his generationsrdquo Rashi famously cited a rabbinic dispute (San-hedrin 108a) over this qualification including the opinion that Noah$s righteousnesswas relative to the wicked among whom he lived

17 Rashi ha-shalem 17818 Sarna Genesis 56 Brevard S ChildsMemory and Tradition in Israel (Naperville

Ill 1962) 8819 Rashi ha-shalem 18720 Gloss on Gen 819 (ibid 93)

shim21 He spoke of interspecial mating in general (without indicatinghow species were defined for these purposes) where some midrashistshad restricted the corrupt coupling to members of the same reproductivecommunity (e g dog and wolf)22 and where others reported such fan-tastical unions as snakes with birds23 Rashi did not follow those rabbiswho equated the crime and punishment of ldquoall fleshrdquo human or other-wise24 And where R Yohanan had highlighted mating activity acrossthe human-animal divide (ldquoall with man and man with allrdquo) Rashi al-luded to it only fleetingly25 He omitted the cryptic addendum to theassertion of R Yohanan made by his third-century contemporary RAbba bar Kahana that although the animals and beasts did intermateldquoall of them reverted [or repented h

˙azeru] with the exception of the

tushlamirdquo26

In keeping with his aim of relaying contextual meaning (peshut˙o shel

miqra$)27 Rashi$s account of the deluge omitted homilies too divorcedfrom scripture$s immanent sense A midrash that explained how Goddid not ldquowithhold the reward of any creaturerdquo added ldquoeven the mousepreserved his familyrdquo and did not ldquominglerdquo (nitltarev) with another spe-


21 Sanhedrin 108a ldquoeven the animals perverted (qilqelu) with those not of theirspecies ndash horse with donkey donkey with horse snake with bird ndash as it says Qall fleshhad corrupted its ways$ It does not say Qall humankind$ but Qall flesh$rdquo Cp Bereshitrabbah 288 hish

˙it kol gtadam gten ketiv gtela ki hish

˙it kol basar

22 Bereshit rabbah 28823 Above n 2124 Midrash tanh

˙uma Bereshit No2ah

˙ 12 (Jerusalem 1972 42) ldquojust as He requited

the humans who sinned so He requited the domestic animals beasts and birdsrdquo sinceldquothey [the fauna] also admixed their families and would go to a species not of theirownrdquo Cf Midrash tanh

˙uma ha-qadum ve-ha-yashan in ibid appendix (hashlamot) 15

For adultery as the human equivalent of the beasts$ ldquoadmixture of familiesrdquo see theversion of this midrash cited by Menahem Recanati in his commentary on the Torah(as in Mordechai Yaffe Sefer levushei gtor yeqarot [Jerusalem 1961] 89r) on Deut 226(for Recanati$s superior version of these dicta in Midrash tanh

˙uma see Aptowitzer

ldquoRewardingrdquo 134 n 37)25 In a gloss on Gen 62 (Rashi ha-shalem 66) that described a litany of debauchery

that also included brides snatched from beneath the marriage canopy adultery andhomosexuality

26 Sanhedrin 108a For problems regarding this addendum see ltIyyun yaltaqov onSanhedrin 108a in Sefer lten yaltaqov (4 vols [New York 1989] 4106r [Hebrew pagina-tion]) Rashi cast the tushlami as a bird that retained its promiscuous ways presumablyeven after the flood His understanding of ldquoh

˙azerurdquo is reflected in the first translation

(ldquorevertedrdquo) but later commentators on Rashi like Judah Loew of Prague and JacobSlonik insisted on the usage$s moral significance (ldquorepentedrdquo) See H

˙umash gur gtaryeh

ed J Hartman 9 vols (Jerusalem 1989) 1138 Nah˙alat yaltaqov ed M Cooperman 3

vols (Jerusalem 1993) 16927 See e g Sarah Kamin Rashi peshut

˙o shel miqragt u-midrasho shel miqragt (Jeru-

salem 1986) 57ndash110

cies ndash ldquo[all this] in order to procure rewardrdquo (litol sekhar)28 Rashi ap-parently found no evidence for (or could not make his peace with) res-cued animals acting out of a wish for recompense Explaining thatNoah$s sons were rescued in their own merit a midrash claimed thatlike the domestic animals beasts and birds they too were ldquorighteousrdquo(zaddiqim)29 Rashi declined to designate the sub-human survivors assuch preferring to stress their avoidance of iniquity rather than thesort of active virtue that might have won them such a designation YetRashi did record as being applicable both to man and beast the inter-diction on conjugality aboard the ark even as he omitted talmudic tra-ditions of its violation by Noah$s son Ham the dog(s) and the ra-ven(s)30

Rashi also bypassed a question that exercised some how were theprimordial animals (or people for that matter) to know that they wererequired to ldquokeep to their kindrdquo As one rabbinic expositor put itldquowhence [do we learn] that from the time of the creation of the worldthe animals beasts and creeping things were commanded not to cleaveto those not of their speciesrdquo His answer was that in speaking of thecreation of a thing ldquoaccording to its kindrdquo (le-minah) (Gen 124ndash25)scripture intimated that ldquoeach and every speciesrdquo was required to ldquocleaveto its kindrdquo31 How rabbis who spoke in such terms understood thenotion of ldquocommandmentsrdquo addressed to animals is not clear For hispart Rashi not only recorded the aforementioned prohibition on animalcohabitation aboard the ark32 but glossed ldquoFor your own life-blood Iwill require a reckoning I will require it of every beastrdquo (Gen 95) asa directive to the post-diluvian beasts not to murder humans beings33

Yet even as he presumed some bar on animals coupling across specieshe nowhere recorded a prohibition to this effect

While clearly following rabbinic accounts of the fauna$s antediluviandoings Rashi developed these in original ways Though he owed to mid-rash his awareness of animals whose conduct had earned divine ldquore-


28 Midrash tanh˙uma ha-qadum ve-ha-yashan appendix (hashlamot) 15

29 Midrash tanh˙uma Bereshit No2ah

˙ 5 (p 32)

30 Sanhedrin 108b yTaltanit 1631 Midrash tanh


˙ 5 (p 32) Though the thirteenth-century He-

zekiah ben Manoah followed this midrash when glossing Gen 612 his gloss on Gen721 explained the punishment of human antediluvians in the absence of divinelymandated prohibitions in terms of their violation of crimes discernible by reason (se-varagt) H

˙izzequni perushei ha-torah le-rabbenu H

˙izqiyah b22r Mano2ah

˙ ed C D Chavel

(Jerusalem 1981) 3732 Above n 1933 Gloss to Gen 95 (Rashi ha-shalem Bereshit 197)

membrancerdquo and a pedigree of sorts (as scripture$s reference to disem-barkation by ldquofamiliesrdquo was understood)34 his ascription of ldquomeritrdquo(zekhut) to these animals and his account of their ldquoself-resolverdquo to re-tain their conjugal purity were it would seem original35 So too washis formulation of the antediluvian fauna$s sins nizqaqin le-she-gtenanminan This coinage found also in Rashi$s Talmud commentary36 be-came commonplace thereby testifying to Rashi$s decisive role in broad-casting the fauna$s sins to the Jewish world

In addition to ascribing misdeeds to the antediluvian fauna Rashivoiced an alternate rabbinic explanation of their fate Addressing thequestion ldquoif the human beings sinned [at the time of the flood] whereindid the animals sinrdquo R Joshua ben Korhah told a parable about afather who prepared elaborate nuptials for his son prior to the latter$spremature death (or in another version prior to the father killing theson) Noting that he had ldquoprepared this only for my sonrdquo the fatherdispersed the lavish matrimonial accouterments saying ldquonow that heis dead what need have I for nuptialsrdquo So God having created theanimals ldquofor man$s sakerdquo (bishvil gtadam) determined regarding the ani-mals ldquoDid I create the animals and beasts for aught but man Now thatman sins what need have I for animals and beastsrdquo37 Rashi echoed thisidea when glossing ldquomen together with the beastsrdquo (Gen 67) Afterasserting that the animals ldquoalso corrupted their wayrdquo he then placedin God$s mouth as ldquoanother explanationrdquo the rhetorical question sinceldquoeverything was created for the sake of humankind once it is destroyedwhat need is there for these [sub-human creatures]rdquo38

The two rabbinic approaches to the antediluvian fauna aired by Rashireappeared in commentaries of his northern French successors Regard-ing the fauna$s sins such writers mainly raised technical questions ormade good lacunae in Rashi$s presentation For example the thir-teenth-century Hezekiah ben Manoah sought to ground the assumptionthat the corrupt ldquowayrdquo announced in Genesis 6 referred to deviant sex-ual conduct by adducing Proverbs 3019 which referred to ldquothe way(derekh) of a man with a maidenrdquo39 On midrashic authority he also


34 See the rabbinic sources cited in Rashi ha-shalem 87 9335 Rabbinic sources that use terms like ldquomeritrdquo (zekhut) and ldquoliabilityrdquo (h

˙ovah) with

regard to animals do so to deny their applicability to sub-human creatures (e g Sema-khot 817 ldquou-mah gtim ha-behemah she-gten lah logt zekhut ve-logt h

˙ovah helliprdquo)

36 Commentary to Sanhedrin 108b s v ldquoshe-logt neltavdah bahen ltaverahrdquo37 Sanhedrin 108a Bereshit rabbah 28638 Rashi ha-shalem 17039 H˙izzequni 37 Cf Tosafot ha-shalem ed Y Gellis 9 vols (Jerusalem 1982) 1204

(on Gen 612 no 6)

stipulated that ldquoaccording to its kindrdquo in Genesis 1 encoded an injunc-tion to each species to cleave ldquoto its kindrdquo Finally in scripture$s refer-ence to ldquoall fleshrdquo he found a mooring for the rabbinic finding thatmarine life was spared in the flood as the later reference to the deathof all ldquoon dry landrdquo (Gen 722) confirmed40 By contrast the morepeshat

˙-oriented Joseph of Orleans (Bekhor Shor) chalked up the fauna$s

demise to their subservience to man while making no mention of theirsins41

In typical fashion Tosafists restricted their consideration of the fau-na$s sins and requital to exegetical concerns or the harmonization ofseemingly contradictory texts As a result they skirted larger theologicaldubieties and shed little light on Tosafist conceptions of the essentialproperties of man and beast What textual basis was there for inferencesregarding the nature of those sins How was Rashi$s global affirmationof sub-human intermating to be reconciled with his later assertion of itseschewal by some animals These were the sorts of issues that exercisedTosafist minds42 Certainly one would never know from such queries andthe episodic disquisitions that they occasioned that the question of thehuman-animal divide was being broached in a most pointed fashionduring the heyday of Tosafist activity by Christian thinkers and polemi-cists like Bernard of Clairvaux Odo of Cambrai and Peter the Vener-able of Cluny They cast Jews as more bestial than human (or in somecases simply inhuman) for failing to recognize Christianity$s truth43


40 H˙izzequni 37 For the rabbinic finding see n 9 above

41 Gloss on Gen 613 (Miqra2ot gedolot ha-keter ed M Cohen Bereshit 2 vols[Jerusalem 1997] 183) For Bekhor Shor and midrash see Yehoshafat Nevo ldquoYeh

˙aso

shel R Yosef Bekhor Shor parshan ha-torah le-h˙azalrdquo Tarbiz

˙54 (1985) 458ndash62

42 Tosafot ha-shalem 1203ndash204 (on Gen 612 nos 5 and 3 respectively)43 Peter compared Jews to the stupidest of beasts the ass on the grounds that just

as it ldquohears but does not understandrdquo so the Jew ldquohears but does not understandrdquo SeeAdversus Iudaeorum inveteratam duritiem cited in Jeremy Cohen Living Letters of theLaw Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley 1999) 259 For Bernard seeibid 230ndash31 Odo wondered ldquowhether Jews are animals rather than human beingsrdquosee Anna Sapir Abulafia ldquoBodies in the Jewish-Christian Debaterdquo in Framing Medie-val Bodies ed S Kay and M Rubin (Manchester 1994) 124 Christian animalisticinterpretation of such distinctive human activities as (Jewish) prayer are mentionedby Kenneth Stow in Jewish Dogs An Image and Its Interpreters (Stanford 2006) 31For claims of Jewish appropriation of Christian animal imagery in the service of anti-Christian polemic see Marc Michael Epstein Dreams of Subversion in Medieval JewishArt and Literature (University Park Pennsylvania 1997) A critique of this book thatunderscores indeterminacies that attend interpretation of medieval animal imagery isElliott Horowitz ldquoOdd Couples The Eagle and the Hare the Lion and the UnicornrdquoJewish Studies Quarterly 11 (2004) 248ndash56

Northern French assertions of the antediluvian fauna$s trespassessummon tantalizing questions about Ashkenazic attitudes towards ani-mals that merit further study but confining the issue to Rashi it is to benoted that his comments regarding animal volition and moral agencyhardly speak with one voice Elaborating midrashically on the closingphrase of the divine pronouncement that ldquoI will go through the land ofEgypt and strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt both manand beastrdquo (Exod 1212) he indicated that ldquoit is from the one whoinitiated the sin [the Egyptian people] that the punishment startsrdquo im-plying without clarifying the Egyptian beasts$ culpability as well44 In ahomily on ldquoyou shall cast it to the dogsrdquo (Exod 2230) Rashi observedthat dogs were made the first non-human beneficiaries of ldquoflesh tornfrom beastsrdquo because they did not voice resistance to the Israelites$ de-parture from Egypt (cf Exod 117) ndash a reminder that ldquothe Holy OneBlessed be He does not withhold reward from any creaturerdquo45 Yet com-menting on the rule of capital punishment for an animal involved inbestiality ndash a punishment that as understood by some modern biblicistsimplied the biblical view that ldquoanimals like humans bear guiltrdquo46 ndashRashi followed rabbinic sources in asking ldquoif the human being sinnedwherein did the animal sinrdquo His answer echoed his sources ldquobecausethe person$s opportunity to stumble was occasioned by it [the animal]therefore scripture says Qlet it be stoned$rdquo Indeed his midrash-basedmoralizing footnote took an animal$s moral incapacity as evidentldquohow much more [does punishment befit] a human being who [unlikethe animal] knows to distinguish between good and bad helliprdquo Here Rashiput himself in step with the rabbinic view that ldquoan animal does notknow how to distinguish between good and badrdquo47


44 For gloss rabbinic sources and debate among Rashi$s commentators over hisintention to implicate the animals see Rashi ha-shalem Shemot 1252ndash53

45 Rashi ha-shalem Shemot 3112 where the rabbinic source is noted For Christiancensorship of the other lesson derived by Rashi from this passage regarding the pre-ference for dogs over heathens in the distribution of carrion see Michael TWalton andPhyllis J Walton ldquoIn Defense of the Church Militant The Censorship of Rashi$sCommentary in the Magna Biblia Rabbinicardquo Sixteenth Century Journal 21 (1990)399

46 Barukh A Levine The JPS Torah Commentary Leviticus 138 Cf Zohar ldquoBalta-lei-h

˙ayyimrdquo 68ndash71

47 Sifra as cited in Zohar ldquoBaltalei-h˙ayyimrdquo 74 n 24 See gloss to Lev 2015 Cf

Sifra 115 and Sanhedrin 74 For discussion see Aptowitzer ldquoRewardingrdquo 138ndash39n 50 Needless to say a full understanding of Rashi$s understanding of animals mustbase itself on the Talmud commentary as well For example interpreting the distinctionbetween a human being ldquowho possesses mazelardquo and an animal that does not (Bavaqama 2b) Rashi indicated that the former possessed ldquodaltatrdquo (self-consciousness cogni-tion s v gtadam de-gtit leh mazela) Elsewhere a mild anthropomorphism is skirted in a

Taken together Rashi$s divergent expressions on the interior opera-tions of animals underline the need to judge the overall coherence of histeachings on the issue (if such there is) on the basis of broad evidence(Then too there is the problem of extracting systematic ideas from Ra-shi$s non-systematic writings)48 As has been seen some of Rashi$s ex-pressions are traceable to classical Jewish texts At the same time onemay surmise the influence of other factors such as his empirical obser-vations of them and experiences with them49 on Rashi$s perceptions ofanimals Account must also be taken of ideas circulating in Rashi$s lar-ger milieu some of which intersected with rabbinic teachings Though inabeyance in Rashi$s day a talmudic law mandated a formal trial invol-ving proper judicial procedures before a court of twenty-three judges foran animal who mortally injured a person In like manner animal felonsappeared in ecclesiastical and secular courts in the Middle Ages Indeednot long after Rashi$s death caterpillars flies and field mice were triedin his native France50 (Though Rashi might have countenanced the ideaof animal trials he would presumably have balked at the thirteenth-cen-tury French cult that coalesced around Saint Guinefort a greyhoundvenerated for protecting children)51 Talmudic sources that spoke of an-imals possessing an ldquo[evil] inclinationrdquo and acting with or without ldquoin-tentionrdquo (kavvanah)52 could have pointed Rashi in the direction of the


gloss on the dictum that the song sung by Levites in the Temple on Thursday reflectedGod$s creation on that day of birds and fish ldquoin order to praise His namerdquo (Rosh Ha-shanah 31a) In his comment (s v 22be-revilti she-baragt ltofot ve-dagim le-shabbeah

˙li-she-

mo) Rashi revises the plain sense and explains that it was not that these creatures singpraises but that upon seeing birds (and presumably fish) in their diversity people feelinspired to do so In this case it is unclear whether Rashi$s zoological-theologicalsensibilities or the grammar of the verse in question drove Rashi to interpret thus

48 Avraham Grossman ldquoHa-gtishah be-mishnato shel rashirdquo Tarbiz˙70 (2005) 157

(Cf the general comment of I Twersky cited above n 3)49 That Rashi could be quite precise in his taxonomy of and terminology regarding

animals birds and insects appears from his revised gloss to Deut 1416 See Yitzhak SPenkower ldquoHagahot rashi le-ferusho la-torahrdquo Jewish Studies Internet Journal 6(2007) 34

50 For the rabbinic rulings see Zohar ldquoBaltalei-h˙ayyimrdquo 74ndash78 Cf E P Evans The

Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals (1906 reprint London 1987)beginning on p 265 where the French case is mentioned For discussion see NicholasHumphrey$s foreword to the reprint edition (xixndashxxviii) and Peter Mason ldquoThe Ex-communication of Caterpillars Ethno-Anthropological Remarks on the Trial and Pun-ishment of Animalsrdquo Social Science Information 27 (1988) 271ndash72 Animal trials werenot confined to Europe or literate societies see Esther Cohen ldquoLaw Folklore andAnimal Lorerdquo Past and Present 110 (1986) 18

51 Joyce E Salisbury The Beast Within Animals in the Middle Ages (New York1994) 175

52 Aptowitzer ldquoRewardingrdquo 137

moral interpretations of animals that abounded in the Latin West53

albeit such interpretations eventually shaded off into a world of symbo-lism where Rashi may have declined to go These symbolic interpreta-tions of animals appeared in highest relief in bestiaries (moralized en-cyclopedias of animals) They also functioned in the thirteenth-centuryBible moralisee where images of crows ravens and cats signified Jewishavarice evil and heresy54 Two larger medieval trends are salient in thecurrent context First beginning in Rashi$s day many in Latin Christen-dom found it increasingly difficult to differentiate humans and animalsin the sexual sphere Second intensified efforts to curtail bestiality overthe course of the Middle Ages generated elaborate attempts to explainsanctions meted out to the beasts convicted of this crime55

Returning to ldquothe sins of the faunardquo questions remain regarding Ra-shi$s precise understanding of this motif and his degree of identificationwith it as one is not always sure how much Rashi endorsed each mid-rash set forth in his Commentary56 To a modern interpreter such asIsaac Heinemann the notion of the fauna$s sins might be classed withthose rabbinic dicta designed to fill in biblical details ldquoin an imaginativeway in order to find an answer to the questions of the listeners and toarrive at a depiction that acts on their feelingsrdquo57 Yet little in the rabbi-nic expositions of the fauna$s sins suggests that its original expositorssaw it as a mere imaginative flight of fancy58 (Had such expositions


53 L2animal exemplaire au Moyen Age (VendashXVe siecle) ed J Berlioz and M APolo de Beaulieu (Rennes 1999) Mary E Robbins ldquoThe Truculent Toad in the MiddleAgesrdquo in Animals in the Middle Ages A Book of Essays ed N C Flores (New York1996) 25 Christians variously portrayed animals as ldquomodels for ideal human beha-viorrdquo (Joyce E Salisbury ldquoHuman Animals of Medieval Fablesrdquo in Animals in theMiddle Ages 49) or as ldquodiabolical incarnationsrdquo (Evans The Criminal Prosecution 55)

54 Ron Baxter Bestiaries and their Users in the Middle Ages (Gloucester 1998) SaraLipton Images of Intolerance The Representation of Jews and Judaism in the Biblemoralisee (Berkeley Calif 1999) 43ndash44 88 90 Hebrew analogues of the popularChristian genre of the fable (most famously Berechiah Ha-Nakdan$s ldquoFox Fablesrdquo)developed after Rashi$s day See s v ldquofablerdquo in Encyclopaedia Judaica 1st edition (Jer-usalem 1972) vol 6 cols 1128ndash31

55 Salisbury The Beast Within 78ndash101 (101 for the cited passage)56 Avraham Grossman ldquoPolmos dati u-megamah h

˙inukhit be-ferush rashi la-tor-

ahrdquo in Pirke Neh˙amah sefer zikaron le-Neh

˙amah Lebovits edM Ahrend and R

Ben-Meir (Jerusalem 2001) 18957 Isaac Heinemann Darkhei ha-gtaggadah 3rd ed (Jerusalem 1974) 2158 On this score Zohar$s corrective of Aptowitzer$s approach itself displays a Ten-

denz by marginalizing aggadah and assuming with unjustifiable certainty the merelysymbolic purport (ldquonothing more than simple well-known literary tropesrdquo) of rabbinicstatements made regarding animal requital (ldquoBaltalei-h

˙ayyimrdquo 76 81ndash82) The Tendenz

is flagrant in Zohar$s treatment of antediluvian animals which adduces Joshua benKorhah to the effect that the animals$ perdition was due to humankind asserts that

imputed speech or interior monologue to the beasts then they couldmore easily be assigned to the sphere of didactic animal fables whichdid find a place in rabbinic literature59) Rather the notion of the fauna$ssins straddled the indistinct line separating the literal from the symbolicin rabbinic discourse over which so many other nonlegal rabbinic say-ings stood suspended As with many such midrashim Rashi relayed thenotion of the fauna$s sins ndash and other strange rabbinic dicta involvinganimals like one that had Adam mating with animals in paradise priorto encountering Eve60 ndash without any sign of compunction

Yet to understand the ldquosins of the faunardquo as fact rather than fableinvited a surfeit of questions Were animals subject to individual divineprovidence Were their mating habits not consequent upon impulserather than a freely willed choice If so why should reward and punish-ment attach to them Rashi$s characteristically ldquolaconic presentationrdquo61

tacitly posed such conundrums without resolving them Whether theytroubled Rashi or other scholars from the Franco-German sphere ishard to say As Rashi$s Commentary spread to points far and wide how-ever some Mediterranean scholars dismayed by the rabbinic motif of theldquosins of the faunardquo found themselves on a collision course with its tow-ering northern French champion

II

In seeking to understand the status and interior operations of animalsand the distinctions between them and human beings many medievalscholars turned to Aristotle His biological zoological and philosophicwritings taught that humans were animals with a difference reason (lo-gos) afforded people in contrast to animals the opportunity to engagein theoretical activity and purposive moral choice62 Human beingscould perceive the ldquogood and bad and just and unjustrdquo while animalscould not hence praise or blame attached to the latter only ldquometaphori-


ldquothe animals are judged solely in terms of the human contextrdquo (75 n 24) and ignoresthe midrashic claim on the same page regarding the ldquosins of the faunardquo

59 Haim Schwartzbaum ldquoTalmudic-Midrashic Affinities of Some Aesopic FablesrdquoLaographia 22 (1965) 466ndash83 Epstein Dreams of Subversion 9

60 See above n 661 Shalom Carmi$s apt phrase in ldquoBiblical Exegesis Jewish Viewsrdquo in Encyclopedia

of Religion ed L Jones 15 vols (Detroit 2005) 286562 A convenient overview is Michael P T Leahy Against Liberation Putting Ani-

mals in Perspective (London 1991) 76ndash80 For bibliography see Heath The TalkingGreeks 7 n 21

callyrdquo Like humans certain kinds of animals were gregarious perceivedldquothe painful and the pleasantrdquo and even communicated these percep-tions In contrast to humans however or at least human adults theylacked moral agency even as like human children they had a ldquosharein the voluntaryrdquo63

Medieval Peripatetics affirmed the ontological gulf between man andbeast while identifying continuities and commonalities between themAlfarabi told of a ldquowillrdquo (al-iradah) born of ldquosensing or imaginingrdquoshared by all animals including people Choice (al-ikhtiyar) howeverpertained only to people such that only human beings performed ldquocom-mendable or blamablerdquo acts subject to reward and punishment64 Dis-tinguishing ldquofullrdquo from ldquopartialrdquo voluntary activity Thomas Aquinasasserted the animals$ freedom from causality$s reign only in a secondarysense making the ascription of praise or blame to beasts inadmissible65

A century before Aquinas Moses Maimonides reprised similar con-ceptions Like Aristotle and the falasifa he taught man$s superiority toanimals by dint of reason insisting in Mishneh torah that the animalldquosoulrdquo by virtue of which the beast ldquoeats drinks reproduces feelsand broodsrdquo should not be confounded with the form of the humansoul defined by ldquointellectrdquo (deltah)66 Here and in Shemoneh PeraqimMaimonides argued for humankind$s complete non-animality claimingthat even sub-rational parts of the human soul differed from their com-parable parts in beasts because the form of each species affected all the


63 Nichomachean Ethics 1111b6ndash10 1149b30ndash35 (trans Martin Ostwald [Indiana-polis 1962] 58 193) Politics 1253a15ndash19 1254b10 (trans Carnes Lord [Chicago1984] 37 40)

64 Al-Farabi on the Perfect State Abu Nas˙r al-Farabi2s Mabadigt aragt ahl al-madına al-

fad˙ila ed R Walzer (Oxford 1985) 204ndash5 Kitab al-siyasah al-madaniyyah ed FM

Najjar (Beirut 1964) 72 (tans FM Najjar in Medieval Political Philosophy ed RLerner and M Mahdi [Ithaca 1963] 33ndash34) Rashi$s contemporary Abu Bakr ibnBajjah advanced a threefold division of human action into the ldquoinanimaterdquo (that isnecessary) ldquoanimalrdquo and distinctively human with only the latter reflecting choice(Steven Harvey ldquoThe Place of the Philosopher in the City According to Ibn Bajjahrdquoin The Political Aspects of Islamic Philosophy Essays in Honor of Muhsin S Mahdied C E Butterworth [Cambridge Mass 1992] 211)

65 Summa theologiae IndashII 6 2 (61 vols [New York 1964] 17 12ndash13) For discus-sion see Leahy Against Liberation 80ndash84 Peter Drum ldquoAquinas and the Moral Statusof Animalsrdquo American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 66 (1992) 483ndash88 For otherscholastic teachings see Alain Boureau ldquoL$animal dans la pensee scholastiquerdquo inL2animal exemplaire 99ndash109

66 H Yesodei ha-torah 48 (The Book of Knowledge ed Moses Hyamson [Jerusa-lem 1981] 39a) For ldquodeltahrdquo in Sefer ha-maddalt see Bernard Septimus ldquoWhat DidMaimonides Mean by Maddalt rdquo in Me2ah Sheltarim Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiri-tual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky ed E Fleischer et al (Jerusalem 2001) 96ndash100

soul$s parts including ones that people and animals seemingly shared67

Elsewhere in Mishneh torah Maimonides asserted the uniqueness of thehuman being$s autonomous moral knowledge and moral choice thesebeing a function of ldquohis reason (daltato) and deliberation (mah

˙ashavto)rdquo

which other species lacked68 Following Aristotle Maimonides did as-cribe to animals a voluntariness not strictly determined by nature Asanimals lacked a capacity for deliberative choice (al-ikhtiyar) howeverit followed that commandments and prohibitions did not appertain toldquobeasts and beings devoid of intellectrdquo69 That the homicidal beast wasput to death was a punishment not for it (ldquoan absurd opinion that theheretics impute to usrdquo) but rather for its owner Similarly beasts that laycarnally with people were put to death not in the manner of capitalpunishment but as a spur to owners to guard their beasts so as to ob-viate the act of bestiality in the first place70

Maimonides$ views regarding the human-animal boundary deviatedfrom Aristotle$s in some respects even as they evolved In his earlieryears Maimonides adopted Aristotle$s position that animals existed toserve humanity but he later abandoned this view in Guide of the Per-plexed71 As has been seen in early writings he denied man$s animality


67 Raymond L Weiss Maimonides2 Ethics The Encounter of Philosophic and Reli-gious Morality (Chicago 1991) 90

68 H Teshuvah 51 (Hyamson 86b) For mah˙ashavah (ldquofrequently used by Maimo-

nides for non-rational thoughtrdquo but here used for rational thought) see SeptimusldquoWhat Did Maimonides Meanrdquo 91 n 42 102 n 96

69 Guide of the Perplexed I 2 (trans S Pines 2 vols [Chicago 1963] 124) Cf Ni-chomachian Ethics 1111b6ndash9 for Aristotle$s distinction between ldquochoicerdquo (proairesis)which belongs to (rational) man alone and the ldquovoluntaryrdquo (hekousios) which extendsto animals See ibid 1113b21ndash29 for human choice as the basis for legislation anddispensation of justice In speaking in Guide II 48 of animals moving ldquoin virtue of theirown will (iradah)rdquo (Pines 2411) Maimonides approaches the passages in Alfarabi (n 64above) Based on an apparent parallel between human choice and animal volition in II48 Pines followed by Alexander Altmann concluded that Maimonides harbored aldquodeterministic theory that must be considered to represent his esoteric doctrinerdquo SeeAlexander Altmann ldquoFreeWill and Predestination in Saadia Bah

˙ya andMaimonidesrdquo

in his Essays in Jewish Intellectual History (Hanover N H 1981) 54ndash56 (ibid 64 n 143for Pines) Even if this reading is upheld (and it is far from certainly the teaching of theGuide let alone Maimonides$ other works) it does not necessarily yield a contradictionbetween the Guide and earlier writings as Pines and Altmann believed See Zeev HarveyldquoPerush ha-rambam li-vereshit 322rdquo Daat 12 (1984) 18 Cf Ya$akov Levinger Ha-rambam ke-filosof ukhe-fosek (Jerusalem 1989) 50 n 1 (for al-ikhtiyar)

70 Guide III 40 (Pines 2556) In Plato$s Laws (873e trans T Pangle [New York1980 269) an animal that kills is also made subject to punishment ldquoexcept in a casewhere it does such a thing when competing for prizes established in a public contestrdquo

71 Hannah Kasher ldquoAnimals as Moral Patients in Maimonides$ Teachingsrdquo Amer-ican Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76 (2002) 165ndash79 For Aristotle$s view that ani-mals exist for the sake of man see Politics 1256b15ndash20

completely but he affirmed Aristotle$s concept of man as a rationalanimal in the Guide where he also granted the animals$ status as moralpatients due to their ability to suffer pain In this same work he alsorecognized the existence of intermediate beings that were neither fullyanimal nor fully human72 Against Aristotle Maimonides assertedGod$s providence over ldquoindividuals belonging to the human speciesrdquo(though his actual teaching on this score proved considerably more com-plex than his sweeping generalization suggested) With Aristotle he as-cribed the fortunes of individual sub-human creatures to chance ex-plaining that scriptural passages that implied otherwise should be inter-preted in terms of God$s concern for species of animals73

Predictably Maimonides evaluated rabbinic and gaonic teachings onanimals within an empirical-scientific framework A letter that defendedthe existence of human freedom indicated that ldquospecies of trees andanimals and [animal] soulsrdquo lacked such freedom After referencing hisfuller expositions of this idea accompanied by indubitable ldquoproofsrdquoMaimonides warned against ldquoputting aside the things that we have ex-plainedrdquo in search of one or another rabbinic or gaonic saying thattaken literally negated his ldquowords of intelligencerdquo74 Though grantingthe existence of animal suffering in the Guide Maimonides denied thetheory of ltiwad

˙ according to which individual animals were compen-

sated for excessive affliction and blamed its gaonic proponents for en-dorsing a precept of Muslim theology without grounding in classicalJudaism75

But what of the sins of the fauna How Maimonides would haveexplained rabbinic dicta that affirmed these may be surmised from a


72 For this last point see Bland$s study (above n 4) For changes see Daniel HFrank ldquoThe Development of Maimonides$ Moral Psychologyrdquo American CatholicPhilosophical Quarterly 76 (2002) 89ndash105 Kasher ldquoAnimalsrdquo 180 For recent discus-sion of the moral ldquoconsiderabilityrdquo of animals (that is their status as beings who can beldquowronged in the morally relevant senserdquo) see Lori Gruen ldquoThe Moral Status of Ani-malsrdquo Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy July 2003 httpplatostanfordeduentriesmoral-animal (accessed Nov 9 2007)

73 Ibid III 17 (Pines 2471ndash73) For Maimonides on providence see Howard Krei-sel ldquoMoses Maimonidesrdquo in History of Jewish Philosophy ed D H Frank and OLeaman (London 1997) 368ndash72 Cf Guide III 18 (Pines 2475) for the crucial qua-lification that providence appertaining to individual humans is ldquograded as their humanperfection is gradedrdquo

74 gtIgerot ha-rambam ed Y Shailat 2 vols (Jerusalem 1987ndash88) 1236ndash3775 Maimonides posits animal suffering in Guide III 48 (Pines 2600) See Josef

Stern Problems and Parables of Law (Albany 1998) 53ndash55 76ndash77 Kasher ldquoAnimalsas Moral Patientsrdquo 170ndash80 For ltiwad

˙ see Daniel J Lasker ldquoThe Theory of Compensa-

tion (ltIwad˙) in Rabbanite and Karaite Thought Animal Sacrifices Ritual Slaughter

and Circumcisionrdquo Jewish Studies Quarterly 11 (2004) 59ndash72

responsum sent to the Alexandrian judge Pinchas ben Meshulam inwhich he addressed the problem of unspecified midrashim on ldquothosewho left the arkrdquo Here his stance clashed with the one espoused inhis Commentary on the Mishnah where Maimonides urged readers notto consider nonlegal rabbinic sayings ldquoof little staturerdquo and to appreciatetheir embodiment of ldquoprofound allusions and wondrous mattersrdquo76 Italso contrasted with a remark in the Guide in which he decried theldquoinequitablerdquo intellectual who failing to appreciate their esoteric pur-port might mock midrashim whose external meanings diverged ldquowidelyfrom the true realities of existencerdquo77 In the responsum by contrastMaimonides invoked a standard gaonic formula (also cited in the Guide)when he remarked that ldquono questions should be asked about difficultiesin the haggadahrdquo inasmuch as this segment of rabbinic discourse re-flected neither reliable ldquotradition (kabbalah)rdquo nor even in all cases rig-orously ldquoreasoned wordsrdquo (millei di-sevaragt) Individual readers couldtherefore evaluate a nonlegal midrash ldquoaccording to that which theydiscern from itrdquo on the understanding that ldquono issue of tradition hellipnor something prohibited or permittedrdquo was at stake78 PresumablyMaimonides would have opined similarly about midrashim on the ante-diluvian fauna$s virtues or vices Indeed he may have had such rabbinicsayings in mind when writing about midrashim on ldquothose who left thearkrdquo since as has been seen some of these deduced the fauna$s virtuesfrom the account of their departure from the ark in ldquofamiliesrdquo79

If nothing forced Maimonides to confront the motif of the ldquosins ofthe faunardquo directly (even as his teaching on providence implicitly dis-pensed with the idea) his thirteenth-century southern French discipleDavid Kimhi could not easily skirt the issue Author of running com-mentaries on biblical books Kimhi followed ldquothe master and guiderdquo onphilosophic matters In the case of retributive justice for animals how-ever he found things less clear-cut than Maimonides had claimed Kim-hi read Psalms 366 in Maimonidean fashion the Psalmist$s affirmationof God$s ldquofaithfulnessrdquo towards beasts referred to ldquopreservation of the


76 Haqdamot ha-rambam la-mishnah ed Y Shailat (Jerusalem 1996) 5277 Guide I 70 (Pines 1174)78 Teshuvot ha-rambam ed J Blau 4 vols (Jerusalem 1960) 2739 (458) Shailat

gtIgerot 2455ndash61 For ldquono questions should be askedrdquo see Elbaum Lehavin 47ndash64(esp 55ndash56 n 22) For Maimonides on aggadah see Edward Breuer ldquoMaimonidesand the Authority of Aggadahrdquo in Be2erot Yitzhak 25ndash45 Elbaum (Lehavin 117)notes the ldquorelativityrdquo of authority ascribed to aggadah by Maimonides in later writingsas opposed to the Commentary on the Mishnah

79 Above n 34

speciesrdquo80 An excursus on Psalms 14517 however granted the ldquogreatperplexityrdquo occasioned among the sages by the question of animal requi-tal Interpreting the Psalm$s assertion of the Lord$s beneficence ldquoin all Hiswaysrdquo some asserted that ldquowhen the cat preys upon the mouse and thelion on the lamb and the like it is punishment for the victim from GodrdquoKimhi found a similar view in the words of the rabbis (H

˙ullin 63a) ldquoWhen

Rabbi Yohanan would see a cormorant drawing fish from the sea hewould say QYour judgments are like the great deep [man and beast Youdeliver]$rdquo (Ps 367) Other sages however denied reward and punishmentldquofor any species of living creature save manrdquo Breaking with MaimonidesKimhi asserted the animals$ reward and punishment ldquoin connection withtheir dealings with menrdquo as attested in Genesis 95 (ldquoI will require it ofevery beastrdquo) and other verses and rabbinic dicta81

But if ldquoparticular providencerdquo attached to animals in some circum-stances what of the antediluvian fauna A pursuer of the ldquomethod ofpeshat

˙rdquo who nevertheless welcomed midrash into his commentaries as

long as a boundary between the two was clearly demarcated82 Kimhiinitially interpreted Genesis 612 only with reference to people Supportfor this reading was found in other verses in which the phrase ldquoall fleshrdquooccurred in a context that indicated (on Kimhi$s reckoning) its referenceto people exclusively ldquoAll flesh shall bless His holy namerdquo (Ps 14521)ldquoAll flesh shall come to worship Merdquo (Isa 6623) This interpretation ofldquoall fleshrdquo in Genesis 6 proved regnant among writers of the Andalusi-Provencal exegetical school83

Having elucidated Genesis 612$s contextual meaning Kimhi mighthave let matters be Instead he considered the animals$ fate as well


80 Frank Talmage ldquoDavid Kimhi and the Rationalist Traditionrdquo Hebrew UnionCollege Annual 39 (1968) 195 idem ldquoDavid Kimhi and the Rationalist TraditionrdquoHebrew Union College Annual 38 (1967) 228ndash29

81 Miqra2ot gedolot ha-keter Tehilim ed M Cohen 2 vols [Jerusalem 2003] 2235(following in the main Talmage$s translation in the first of the two articles cited in theprevious note pp 196ndash97) The passage is missing from most printed versions Fordiscussion of this phenomenon see Ezra Zion Melamed ldquoPerush radaq li-tehilimrdquogtAreshet 2 (1960) 35ndash95 (with thanks to Naomi Grunhaus for this reference)

82 Frank Ephraim Talmage David Kimhi the Man and the Commentaries (Cam-bridge Mass 1975) 54ndash134 (and especially 133) Yitzhak Berger ldquoPeshat and theAuthority of H

˙azal in the Commentaries of Radakrdquo AJS Review 31 (2007) 41ndash49

83 Miqra2ot gedolot ha-keter Bereshit 181 See below for the same view in JacobAnatoli Moses ben Nahman Eleazar Ashkenazi and Levi ben Gershom Alert to thisinterpretation Barukh Halevi Epstein (1860ndash1941) defended the midrashic reading asfollows since God pronounced anathema on ldquoall fleshrdquo and the fauna were in theevent included in the eventual destruction caused by the flood it stood to reasonthat ldquoin this pericope the usage Qall flesh$ referred explicitly to all creaturesrdquo (Torahtemimah 5 vols [Tel Aviv 1981] 141)

He had already tackled the issue at Genesis 67 observing ldquosince all ofthem [the fauna] were created for man$s sake and now man was not tobe what need was there for themrdquo So the animals were innocent butsubject to perdition nonetheless What is more no special divine inter-vention was required to ensure their demise With a flood decreed onman$s account the animals would naturally perish due to a loss of ha-bitat since individual animals lacked any special providence that couldyield a divinely wrought deliverance As for the providence that acted topreserve species it was operative in the command to Noah to shelterrepresentatives of each of these on the ark84 Having embraced this rab-binic position Kimhi might again have moved on Characteristicallyhowever he donned the mantle of midrashic expositor to explain thealternate view that ldquoanimals beasts and birds perverted themselves[by mating] with species not of their kindrdquo On the assumption thatthe Bible$s opening chapter clarified God$s wish that the integrity ofeach species be preserved the midrash was correct in its implied allega-tion that interspecific mating thwarted the divine will Here as elsewhereKimhi spokesperson for Maimonidean rationalism in the controversiesof the 1230s proved willing to defend even ldquomidrashim of the Qirra-tional$ varietyrdquo85 Yet apparently keen to end on a different note heconcluded that the ldquosins of the faunardquo was not a rabbinic consensusomnium and that some sages explained the animals$ fate in terms ofthe rationale implied in the question ldquoNow that man sins what needhave I for animals and beastsrdquo86

Like his southern French contemporary David Kimhi Jacob Anatoliwas a devotee of the rationalism brought to Provence by Andalusi scho-lars fleeing the Almohad invasion of Muslim Spain87 Anatoli$sMalmadha-talmidim a collection of sermons arranged around the weekly Torahportion carried forward the project of Maimonidean biblical commen-tary in a form that exposed ordinary Jews in southern France (andbeyond as far away as Yemen)88 to philosophic exegesis and a rational-


84 Miqra2ot gedolot ha-keter Bereshit 17985 Talmage David Kimhi 13186 Miqra2ot gedolot ha-keter Bereshit 17987 On Anatoli see James T Robinson ldquoThe Ibn Tibbon Family A Dynasty of

Translators in Medieval QProvence$rdquo in Be2erot Yitzhak 216ndash20 For religious upheavalupon the Andalusians$ arrival see Isadore Twersky ldquoAspects of the Social and CulturalHistory of Provencal Jewryrdquo in Studies in Jewish Law and Philosophy (New York1982) 180ndash202

88 Moshe Halbertal Ben torah le-h˙okhmah rabbi Menahem ha-Me2iri u-valtalei ha-

halakhah ha-maimonyim be-provans (Jerusalem 2000) 50 Marc Saperstein JewishPreaching 1200ndash1800 An Anthology (New Haven 1989) 112 n6

ist vision of Judaism For Anatoli the animals$ lack of moral agency wasas much a finality of science as the lack of ldquoparticularrdquo providence overbeasts was a finality of theology It remained to explain scriptural attes-tations that seemed to confound these certainties In the case of theantediluvian corruption of ldquoall fleshrdquo the task was simple this expres-sion referred to ldquohumankind$s conductrdquo alone But why then did scrip-ture speak of ldquoall fleshrdquo Anatoli$s elucidation of this anomaly rested ona broad-ranging interpretive principle that holy writ at times used ageneral term to refer to a single constituent encompassed by that termwhere the constituent in question comprised the majority (rov) in thecategory or its ldquochoice elementrdquo An example was Eve as ldquomother ofall the livingrdquo (Gen 320) It indicated her motherhood of people ter-restrial creation$s choice element and not all living things literally So itwas with ldquoall fleshrdquo in Genesis 612 which referred to the select compo-nent in the category namely humankind89

Anatoli$s insights built on those of his professed masters Maimonideshad articulated the notion (probably known to Anatoli directly fromAristotle) that a term could be used in both a general and particularsense90 With respect to ldquobasarrdquo in particular Anatoli might have noteda remark in his father-in-law$s Glossary of Unusual Terms in the Guidepublished with a revised translation of the Guide in 1213 In it Samuelibn Tibbon clarified how in his first Guide translation he had renderedMaimonides$ Judeo-Arabic references to human beings by way of He-brew ldquobasarrdquo and how his impulse to do so was informed by Genesis612$s ldquoall fleshrdquo which as ibn Tibbon evidently understood it referredto people alone91 Building on such leads Anatoli supplied the nuancethat in the Torah as elsewhere general terms at times referred to theldquochoice elementrdquo in the class they defined ndash thus the reference to ldquoallfleshrdquo in Genesis 612 where the term applied to human beings alone

A last potentially knotty point remained Anatoli interpreted (away)ldquoall fleshrdquo to his satisfaction but some sages using ldquothe method of de-


89 Malmad ha-talmidim ed L Silbermann (Lyck 1866) 10r Other late medievalrationalists like Eleazar Ashkenazi took a different tack in explaining the assertionthat Eve was ldquomother of all living thingsrdquo invoking her philosophic-allegorical statusas ldquomatterrdquo to justify (indeed to make at all comprehensible) scripture$s description ofher as the mother of all animate life ldquoman and all animals includedrdquo See S

˙afenat

paltneah˙ ed S Rapapport (Johannesburg 1965) 21 (on Gen 320)

90 Treatise on Logic ed I Efros in Proceedings of the American Academy for JewishResearch 8 (1937ndash38) 60 (assuming Maimonides$ authorship of this work cf HebertDavidson ldquoThe Authenticity of Works Attributed to Maimonidesrdquo inMe2ah Sheltarim118ndash25)

91 Perush ha-millot ha-zarot in Moreh nevukhim ed Y Even-Shemuel (Jerusalem1987) 38 On this work see Robinson ldquoThe Ibn Tibbon Familyrdquo 207ndash8

rashrdquo (derekh derash) preached the sins of the fauna on its basis Tocounter their exposition Anatoli deftly summoned a broader postulatefrom the repertory of rabbinic hermeneutics ldquoscripture may not to bedivested of its contextual sense (peshut

˙o)rdquo92 Pointedly contrasting

ldquothingsrdquo said according to ldquothe method of derashrdquo with what exitedfrom his analysis according to ldquothe method of truthrdquo Anatoli reaffirmedhumankind$s exclusive role in causing the flood93

Did Rashi stimulate Kimhi$s and Anatoli$s treatments of the fauna$ssins The question is not easily answered Certainly Rashi$s Commentarywas widely available in Provence in their day Indeed by the later twelfthcentury two giants of southern French talmudism Zerahiyah Halevi ofLunel and Avraham ben David of Posquieres cited it The circumstan-tial case for Rashi$s impact on Kimhi is more compelling than the onefor his influence on Anatoli The former drew on Rashi$s biblical com-mentaries in general and Torah commentary in particular and at timesldquofelt compelled to wrestlerdquo with midrashim that these works brought tothe fore94 Yet in his commentary on Genesis 6 Kimhi neither referredto Rashi nor cited the ldquosins of the faunardquo motif in Rashi$s distinctivereformulation of it Still it is reasonable to surmise that Rashi$s invoca-tion was part of the reason that the motif commanded Kimhi$s atten-tion Rashi$s role as a catalyst for Anatoli$s confrontation with the ldquosinsof the faunardquo motif is less likely since Rashi figured little in Anatoli$squest for exegetical understanding

A handsome summary of the rationalist response to the idea of thefauna$s sins issued from the pen of the fourteenth-century southernFrench exegete Levi ben Gershom ldquoYou should knowrdquo he instructedthat the fauna ldquowere not effaced due to the corruption of their wayssince they are not possessors of intellect such that it would be appro-priate to exact punishment from themrdquo Rather they perished due toldquothat generation [of humankind]rdquo and as beings who occupied a con-tingent space in the hierarchy of being Buttressing this understandingwas the rabbinic parable of the nuptial-scuttling father with its claimthat the animals were created for man$s sake Through the ark provi-dence insured the postdeluvian survival of sub-human species due to


92 Shabbat 63a Yevamot 11a 24a For discussion see Kamin Rashi 37ndash4893 Malmad ha-talmidim 10r94 Naomi Grunhaus ldquoThe Dependence of Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak) on Rashi in

His Quotation of Midrashic Traditionsrdquo The Jewish Quarterly Review 93 (2003) 417For Zerahiyah and Abraham see Maurice Liber Rashi (Philadelphia 1906) 205 Isa-dore Twersky Rabad of Posquieres A Twelfth-Century Talmudist (Cambridge Mass1962) 234

their indispensability for people Genesis 612 referred to ldquoall of human-kindrdquo on the pattern of Isaiah$s ldquoAll flesh shall come to worship Merdquo95

Not all rationalists rejected the midrashic motif of the ldquosins of thefaunardquo so tacitly ndash or gently A frontal attack was forthcoming fromLevi ben Gershom$s fourteenth-century eastern Mediterranean counter-part Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Natan Ha-Bavli author of a Torah com-mentary entitled S

˙afenat paltneah

˙ Though recasting it in philosophic

terminology Eleazar basically reprised as his understanding of the ante-diluvian animals$ perdition the midrash that the fauna died as a result oftheir subservience to man In his words the animals were ldquoerased withman since they were only created for man who is the final end (takhlit)[of terrestrial creation]rdquo That their destruction reflected a ldquosin residingin themrdquo was untenable (Eleazar taught early in his commentary theanimals$ lack of capacity for ldquochoicerdquo) all the more was it a ldquonullrdquo(bat˙t˙el) idea that animals should ldquopervertrdquo their nature Here was so

much ldquoridiculousness and risibilityrdquo (h˙ittul u-seh

˙oq) Interspecific mating

by animals was neither an expression of free will nor an act more un-natural than the more frequently attested animal behaviors of conspeci-fic mating and promiscuity in mating96 To these ideas Eleazar added atheological increment the lack of divine providence over and judgmentof animals All then buttressed the conclusion that the antediluviancorruption of ldquoall fleshrdquo referred to ldquoall human beingsrdquo Prooftexts in-cluded ldquoBe silent all flesh before the Lordrdquo (Zech 217) and ldquoAll fleshshall come to worship Merdquo (Isa 6623) Eleazar also summoned fromlater in the flood story the phrase ldquoall that lives of all fleshrdquo (Gen 619)Broader than ldquoall fleshrdquo this was the way that scripture indicated allanimate life rather than human beings alone97

Though his equation of ldquoall fleshrdquo with people was hardly innovativeEleazar broke new ground in addressing another question granting thatthis turn of phrase could be a figure for humankind why should scrip-ture have employed it in this way at Genesis 612 Eleazar$s response wasthat the phrase subtly pointed to the cause of the antediluvian calamitywhich was humankind$s surrender to ldquoits Qflesh$ this being the evil im-pulserdquo In so claiming Eleazar was here as elsewhere relying on his


95 H˙amishah h

˙umshei torah ltim perush rashi ve-ltim begtur rabenu Levi ben Gershom

(Ralbag) ed B Braner and E Fraiman (Jerusalem 1993ndash ) 1143 14796 S˙afenat paltneah

˙ 32 (on Gen 66ndash7) For the animals$ lack of free will and choice

see ibid 25 (on Gen 44) Cf Guide I 72 (Pines 1190) for a passage Eleazar may havehad in mind where an animal is described going about its affairs ldquoeating what it findsfrom among the things suitable to it hellip and copulating with any female it finds duringits heatrdquo

97 S˙afenat paltneah

˙ 33ndash34 (on Gen 612)

attuned reader to unpack his compressed Maimonidean code In theGuide Maimonides had imparted the idea of man$s detachment fromknowledge attained through reason and his lapse into an existence guidedby imagination He had also identified the evil impulse with imaginationexplaining that ldquoevery deficiency of reason or character is due to the ac-tion of the imaginationrdquo On this view people were distinguished fromanimals by virtue of their intellect rather than imagination Imaginationwas a faculty that people sharedwith beast The ldquoact of imaginationrdquo wasnot ldquothe act of the intellectrdquo but its opposite tied to the evil impulse98

Seen in these terms it was easy for Eleazar to find in the reference toldquoall fleshrdquo in Genesis 6 an allusion to the corrupt blurring of boundariesbetween the bestial and distinctively human among people in Noah$s daywhich advanced the human falling away fromman$s true purpose definedin terms of actualization of intellect Flesh then was a code word sum-moning not just the evil impulse but a series of other connotations (reallyequations) alluded to by Eleazar earlier in his commentary matter ima-gination sin serpent Satan angel of death ndash in short all that drew manaway from the intellect and left him ldquofleshlyrdquo that is ldquonaked and strippedof wisdomrdquo Certainly the phrase could not mean that the animals$ ldquowayhad been corruptedrdquo this being a moral indictment of beasts of whichthey were perforce innocent such that one could only ldquolaugh (lish

˙oq) at

the derash that every species paired with a species not of its kindrdquo99

Eleazar$s stance towards midrash is hard to figure At times he con-demned midrashim starkly while on other occasions he held them up asembodiments of profound insight and echoed Maimonides$ condemna-tion of those who maligned midrashim after interpreting them literallywhere such exegesis yielded ldquoimpossibilitiesrdquo that invited gentile deri-sion100 Still elsewhere Eleazar distinguished those for whom ldquoderashot


98 Guide I 73 (Pines 1209) For identification of ldquoevil impulserdquo with imaginationsee ibid II 12 (Pines 2280) For discussion see Sara Klein-Braslavy Perush ha-ram-bam le-sippurim 9al gtadam be-farashat bereshit peraqim be-toldot ha-gtadam shel ha-ram-bam (Jerusalem 1986) 212ndash15 Sarah Pessin ldquoMatter Metaphor and Privative Point-ing Maimonides on the Complexity of Human Beingrdquo American Catholic Philosophi-cal Quarterly 76 (2002) 75ndash88 Ruth Birnbaum ldquoImagination and Its Gender in Mai-monides$ Guiderdquo Shofar 16 (1997) 13ndash27


˙ 33ndash34 (on Gen 612) ibid 15 (on Gen 224ndash25) for man

(= intellect) becoming ldquofleshlyrdquo by conjoining as ldquoone fleshrdquo with woman (= matter)thereby finding himself devoid (ldquonakedrdquo) of wisdom ibid (on Gen 221) ki ha-basarhu ha-h

˙ote2 ve-hu ha-margish be-h

˙et ibid 16 (introduction to Genesis 3 ) and 26 (on

Gen 46) for such synonyms for the evil inclination as Satan angel of death and soforth

100 Abraham Epstein ldquoMagtamar ltal h˙ibbur S

˙afenat paltneah

˙rdquo in Kitvei R gtAvraham

ltEpsht˙ein ed AM Haberman 2 vols (Jerusalem 1949) 1123 Cf Haqdamot 133

agreeable to hear among women and childrenrdquo were appropriate and hisown target audience the ldquoperplexed individualrdquo (ha-navokh) seeking de-liverance from perplexity101 But if many midrashim were ldquopotent causesof the concealment of the Torah$s true meaning from our peoplerdquo102

why discuss them In a few places Eleazar signaled that even thosedelivered from perplexity could not overlook certain midrashim due totheir deployment by Rashi The question arises was the midrash on thefauna$s sins a case in point

To address this question it is important to note that Eleazar not onlyinveighed against midrashim cited by Rashi but at times sharpened hiscritique by punning on Rashi$s patronymic ldquoYitzhakrdquo He proclaimedthat ldquointelligent people will laugh (yisah

˙aqu)rdquo at the one who said that

Jacob blessed Pharaoh that the Nile should rise before him since ldquotheinterval when the Nile rises is known and is not dependent on Pharaohor any personrdquo103 Solomon ben Yitzhak had advanced this interpreta-tion He pronounced the gematriyah used to buttress the identificationof the three hundred and eighteen servants trained for war by Abrahamwith Abraham$s lone servant Eleazar a ldquojokerdquo (seh

˙oq) Rashi had im-

parted the midrash whereas Eleazar held that ldquothe numerical value ofletters is of no account in the Torah only in derashrdquo104 Eleazar reprovedRashi more directly when handling a midrash concerning the request forldquoseedrdquo directed to Joseph by the Egyptians despite years of famine stillto come Rashi had observed that ldquoas soon as Jacob came to Egypt ablessing came with his arrival and sowing began and the famineceasedrdquo105 This idea of ldquoha-yis

˙h˙aqirdquo countered Eleazar would leave

all who heard it ldquolaughingrdquo (yis˙ah˙aq) at Rashi Had it been within his

power to repeal the famine Jacob should have driven it from his ownhome instead of sending his sons to beg for sustenance in Egypt106 Evenwithout such allusions it would be reasonable to conclude that its ap-pearance in Rashi$s Commentary heightened Eleazar$s interest in theldquosins of the faunardquo motif The possible becomes probable when onenotes how Eleazar$s verbal formulations of his denigration of this motif


For examples of positive invocations of midrashic sayings see e g S˙afenat paltneah

˙ 22

(on Gen 322) 23 (on Gen 324 cf Guide I 49) 25 (on Gen 45) 26 (on Gen 46)101 S

˙afenat paltneah

˙59 (reading ha-nashim for gtanashim cf Epstein ldquoMa$amarrdquo 123)

102 Epstein ldquoMa$amarrdquo 1124103 Epstein ldquoMa$amarrdquo 118 Cf Rashi on Gen 4710 (Rashi ha-shalem Bereshit 3

137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah

˙ 49 Cf Rashi (and his sources) on Gen 1414 (Rashi ha-shalem

Bereshit 1143ndash44)105 Gloss on Gen 4719 (Rashi ha-shalem Bereshit 3143ndash44)106 Epstein ldquoMa$amarrdquo 124

brings ldquoha-yis˙h˙aqirdquo to mind (h

˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish

˙oq) And ha-Yitzha-

qi$s role becomes well-nigh certain in light of Eleazar$s account of thefauna$s sins in Rashi$s novel reworking107 To some eastern Mediterra-nean scholars like Eleazar the rising popularity of Rashi$s Commentarywas no joke108 Eleazar$s assault on the ldquosins of the faunardquo shows howscathing criticism of Rashi grounded in canons of philosophy and ra-tional scriptural exegesis could be

III

If few Jewish rationalists as diehard as Eleazar Ashkenazi inhabitedChristian Spain109 Hispano-Jewish rabbis even ones hostile to rational-ism generally possessed some philosophic awareness The sensibilitiesthat this awareness generated left them far from the thorough-goingliteralism that defined early and high medieval Ashkenazic approachesto aggadah The task of finding a balance between unreasonable litera-lism and rationally informed non-literal excess could however provedaunting Aversion of the rabbinic gaze from eccentric midrashim inwhich the problem might be especially acute was not always possibleHistorical events like the riots and mass conversions that overwhelmedSpanish Jewry in 1391 could press the problem of enigmatic midrashimas could their invocation in Christian attacks on rabbinic literature andmissionizing efforts When it came to strange sayings like R Hillel$s thatldquoIsrael has no messiahrdquo such forces in conjunction with others (likereflections on Jewish dogma) became powerful vectors of interpretativecreativity110

Another factor that made evasion of certain problematic midrashimdifficult was the advent of Rashi$s midrashically top-heavy Commentaryand the heed paid to it by the most influential biblical interpreter ever towrite on Spanish soil Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides) Much of


107 Where Rashi wrote ldquohellip nizqaqin le-she-gtenan minanrdquo (in some manuscripts ldquogtenominordquo) Eleazar wrote ldquokol min nizdaveg gtel she-gteno minordquo

108 See my ldquoMaimonides in the Eastern Mediterranean The Case of Rashi$s Resist-ing Readersrdquo inMaimonides after 800 Years Essays on Maimonides and His Influenceed J Harris (Cambridge Mass) 183ndash206

109 Members of the ldquoNeoplatonic schoolrdquo who authored supercommentaries onAbraham ibn Ezra come closest See Dov Schwartz Yashan be-qanqan h

˙adash mish-

nato ha-ltiyyunit shel ha-h˙ug ha-neoplat

˙oni be-filosofiyah ha-yehudit be-me2ah handash14 (Jer-

usalem 1996)110 See my ldquoQIsrael Has No Messiah$ in Late Medieval Spainrdquo Journal of Jewish

Thought and Philosophy 5 (1995) 245ndash79

Nahmanides$ variegated creativity stood at a nexus ldquobetween Ashkenazand Andalusiardquo111 with his stance towards Rashi$s biblical scholarshipbeing in many ways a case in point Nahmanides bestowed upon Rashithe status of the ldquofirst-bornrdquo among biblical commentators112 and en-gaged in an ongoing dialogue with him in his own commentary on theTorah113 He adduced Rashi in support of the right to audit midrashimcritically while exploring scripture$s ldquocontextual meaningsrdquo114 and com-mended some of Rashi$s midrashic readings115 As one selectively alle-giant to the tradition of Andalusian biblical scholarship Nahmanidesrejected midrashim that he considered unwarranted or unreasonableMany were among the ldquomidrashim and impregnable aggadotrdquo endorsedby Rashi that Nahmanides promised to audit critically116 In sum Nah-manides retained a critical distance from Rashi but played a crucial rolein enshrining him as a pivot of later Jewish Bible study all the whileoffering a ldquosustained critique of Rashi$s more midrashic interpretationsof Scripturerdquo117

Nahmanides$ intricate engagement with midrash and Rashi$s fre-quent role in sparking it both appear in his exposition of Genesis612 Nahmanides began by elucidating an implication of Rashi$s litera-list reading that Rashi had not clarified

If we interpret ldquoall fleshrdquo according to its literal denotation and say thateven domestic animals beasts and birds corrupted their way by cohabitingwith those not of their own kind as Rashi explained we would say that[God$s subsequent statement explaining the reason for the flood] Qfor theearth is filled with violence (h

˙amas) because of them$ (Gen 613) [means]

not because of all of them [including fauna though the first half of Genesis


111 The title of the concluding chapter in Moshe Halbertal ltAl derekh ha-gtemet ha-ramban vi-yes

˙iratah shel masoret (Jerusalem 2006)

112 Perushei ha-torah 1[16]113 Halbertal ltAl derekh ha-gtemet 342 On one estimate Nahmanides cites Rashi

close to forty percent of the time See Yaakov Licht ldquoLe-darko shel ha-rambanrdquoMeh˙qarim be-sifrut ha-talmud bi-leshon h

˙azal u-ve-farshanut ha-miqragt ed M A Fried-

man et al (Tel Aviv 1983) 228 The complexity of Nahmanides$ interactions withRashi are reflected in the excerpts in Ezra Zion Melamed Mefareshei ha-miqragt dar-kehem ve-shit

˙otehem 2 vols 2nd ed (Jerusalem 1979) 2989ndash96

114 Gloss to Gen 48 (Perushei ha-torah 157)115 Yosef Morgenstern ldquoHityah

˙asuto shel ha-ramban le-ferush rashi be-ferusho la-

torahrdquo (M A diss Bar Ilan University 2000) 43ndash48116 Perushei ha-torah 1[16] Cf Bernard Septimus ldquoQOpen Rebuke and Concealed

Love$ Nah˙manides and the Andalusian Traditionrdquo in Rabbi Moses Nah

˙manides

(Ramban) Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity ed I Twersky (Cam-bridge Mass 1983) 16

117 Isadore Twersky ldquoIntroductionrdquo Rabbi Moses Nah˙manides 4 Septimus ldquoOpen

Rebukerdquo 16 n 21 for the cited passage

613 spoke of ldquoall fleshrdquo] but because of some of them [since h˙amas does not

apply to fauna] and that what is related is humankind$s punishment alone118

Having carried forward Rashi$s approach to Genesis 612 into the fol-lowing verse (in a way that would eventually penetrate the Rashi super-commentary tradition)119 Nahmanides continued to probe possibilitieslatent in the midrashic approach by building on Rashi$s reading in lightof a thought advanced by Abraham ibn Ezra (Here Nahmanides in-deed stood ldquobetween Ashkenaz and Andalusiardquo) Glossing what he de-scribed as the ldquofittingrdquo (nakhon) view of ldquoour [rabbinic] predecessorsrdquothat the fauna had sinned ibn Ezra brought it within the ken of a nat-uralistic sensibility What was meant was that ldquoevery living thing failedto preserve its natural wayrdquo and ldquowarped the known path implanted[within it]rdquo Without mentioning ibn Ezra Nahmanides elaboratedldquothey did not preserve their nature such that all animals became pre-datory and the birds [became] raptors in which case they too engaged inviolencerdquo In short the antediluvian animals$ degeneracy expressed itselfin a new-found predatoriness making God$s condemnation of antedilu-vian ldquoviolencerdquo also applicable to them120

Enter Nahmanides the pashtan After going to some lengths to ratio-nalize Rashi$s midrashic approach121 he clarified that ldquoaccording to themethod of peshat

˙rdquo ldquoall fleshrdquo referred to


118 Perushei ha-torah 152119 See MS Parma 2382 De Rossi 1263 89r ldquoltmipenehemgt logt shav gtela le-gtadam she-

h˙amas hellip lo yipol bi-vehemahrdquo

120 Perushei ha-torah 152 The verbal parallel between ibn Ezra (logt shamar derekhtoledato Perushei ha-torah 137) and Nahmanides (logt shameru hellip toledotam) suggestsinfluence (For toledet as used here see Shlomo Sela Abraham ibn Ezra and the Rise ofMedieval Hebrew Science [Leiden 2003] 130ndash37) Elsewhere Nahmanides describedhow universally pacific animals lost their non-predatory character as a result ofAdam$s sin and how in messianic times the predators would cease to prey in keepingwith their ldquofirst naturerdquo (tevalt rishon) (Perushei ha-torah 2183 at Lev 266) For dis-cussion see Dov Raffel ldquoHa-ramban ltal ha-galut ve-ltal ha-ge$ulahrdquo in Ge2ulah u-medi-nah (Jerusalem 1979) 105ndash6 Dov Schwartz Ha-reltayon ha-meshih

˙i be-hagut ha-yehu-

dit bi-yemei ha-benayim (Ramat-Gan 1997) 104 Ephraim Kanarfogel ldquoMedievalRabbinic Conceptions of the Messianic Agerdquo in Me2ah Sheltarim 167ndash69 Apparentlyin his gloss on Gen 612 Nahmanides posits a further lapse At the time of the floodldquoallrdquo animals as he states in this gloss and not just those who had made ldquopreying theirhabitrdquo after Adam$s sin became predatory Nahmanides$ general approach apparentlyinforms J H Hertz The Pentateuch and Haftorahs 2nd ed (London 1979) 26 ldquoallflesh Including animals The corruption manifested itself in the development of fero-cityrdquo

121 A fact that illustrates Nahmanides$ greater inclination to work with midrash inits own terms ndash and not simply to take recourse to mystical interpretation to ldquosolverdquothe problem of challenging midrashim ndash than Halbertal allows (ltAl derekh ha-gtemet184)

all of humankind whereas further on [when designating the fauna as well] itwill specify ldquoall flesh in which there was breath of liferdquo (Gen 715) [or] ldquoofall that lives of all fleshrdquo (Gen 619) [meaning] all living things in a bodyBut kol basar here means all humankind [alone] Thus ldquoAll flesh shall cometo worship Me said the Lordrdquo (Isa 6623) [and] also ldquowhen the flesh ofone$s body sustains helliprdquo (Lev 1324)122

Nahmanides$ application of an Andalusian ldquomethod of peshat˙rdquo un-

known to Rashi123 yielded a plain-sense reading in line with Kimhi$sAnatoli$s and even that of the arch-Maimonidean Eleazar Ashkenaziwho may have taken his exegetical lead from Nahmanides124 Yet seenwithin the context of Nahmanides$ full gloss on Genesis 612 this plain-sense reading reflected a religious spirit at a far remove from Eleazar$sA biting denunciation of ldquothe derashrdquo on ldquoall fleshrdquo such as Eleazarpropounded was nowhere to be found More subtly where Anatoli ap-pealed to the rabbinic idea that scripture should not be divested of itscontextual sense in order to undermine the notion of the fauna$s sinsNahmanides stood true to his conception of the Torah as a multilayeredtext and he therefore sought to establish scripture$s contextual meaningalongside its midrashic counterpart125 Still while showing here as else-where how his ldquoAndalusian philological sensibilityrdquo could accommo-date midrash as a ldquolegitimate method distinct from and parallel to pe-shat˙rdquo126 Nahmanides left no doubt that on the level of peshat

˙ ldquoall

fleshrdquo meant human beings ndash Rashi notwithstandingSeen in terms of Genesis 6 alone Nahmanides$ encounter with Ra-

shi$s notion of the fauna$s sins might seem a mainly exegetical affair Infact while it did reflect an exegetical dispute over the plain-sense mean-ing of ldquobasarrdquo in this instance and Nahmanides$ more ldquoconceptual ap-proach to the plain sense of the [biblical] textrdquo127 it also reflected a


122 Perushei ha-torah 152123 A coinage of Abraham ibn Ezra (Septimus ldquoOpen Rebukerdquo 19 n 30) On

ldquomethod of peshat˙rdquo as absent in Rashi$s thinking see Kamin Rashi 58

124 Like Nahmanides (above n 122) Eleazar cites Gen 715 and Isa 6623125 Elsewhere albeit in a halakhic context Nahmanides invoked the maxim used by

Anatoli against the midrash on interspecial mating (ldquoscripture should not to be di-vested helliprdquo) to argue that both the midrashic and contextual meaning should be cred-ited (Sefer ha-mis

˙vot le-ha-rambam ltim hassagot ha-ramban ed C D Chavel [Jerusa-

lem 1981] 45) Cf Septimus ldquoOpen Rebukerdquo 22 n 41 For Nahmanides$ affirmationof the Torah$s multiple layers see ibid 22 n 41 discussed in Elliot R Wolfson ldquoByWay of Truth Aspects of Nahmanides$ Kabbalistic Hermeneuticrdquo AJS Review 14(1989) 112ndash29 (where however [pp 112 129] Nahmanides$ view of two layers ofmeaning is extended to the whole of scripture without explanation)

126 Septimus ldquoOpen Rebukerdquo 19127 Ibid (For Nahmanides as ldquoan extremely systematic thinkerrdquo and the centrality

divergence in world-view Overall Rashi seemingly remained in somesympathy with the outlook of some rabbinic sages that the physicalworld ndash inclusive of animals plants and even inanimate objects ndash ldquofeelsand thinksrdquo128 Though Nahmanides$ teaching on this score requiresfurther study it seems clear that that teaching and Nahmanides$ viewson animals in particular comprised a complex interlacing of scripturaldata respect for rabbinic authority mysticism empiricism and selectedsubscription to rationalist ideas that established the parameters in whichany plain-sense interpretation of Genesis 612 could fall

Consider God$s ldquoremembrancerdquo of the beasts (Gen 81) Rashi itwill be recalled saw in this remembrance a twofold commendation ofthe animals$ meritorious disavowal of intermating before the flood andcelibacy on the ark While granting that God$s remembrance of Noahrelated to his conduct as a ldquoperfectly righteous personrdquo Nahmanidesdenied that God$s recollection of the animals referred to their ldquomeritrdquo(zekhut) ndash he pointedly echoed Rashi$s language ndash since ldquoamong livingcreatures there is no merit or culpability save in man alonerdquo129 Ratherwhat God ldquorememberedrdquo was the original plan for a world ldquowith all thespecies that He created thereinrdquo Having recalled the plenitude of speciesmeant to swarm the earth God now took measures to restore the primalorder removing animals from the ark so their species ldquoshould not per-ishrdquo from the earth130 In short the animals$ deliverance was as Nah-manides had noted in his commentary on Genesis$ opening chapter ldquoinorder to preserve the speciesrdquo131 and as he later stressed ldquoin Noah$smeritrdquo132 In light of these views a disagreement with Rashi about themeaning of Genesis 6 was inevitable with various scientific and theolo-gical precepts and evaluations establishing the parameters in which Nah-manides$ plain-sense interpretation of ldquoall fleshrdquo could fall

Though Nahmanides$ understanding of animals remains to be deli-neated it clearly developed in dialogue with philosophically orientedtreatments of the subject especially as set forth by Maimonides Follow-


of the Torah Commentary in reconstructing his thought see Halbertal ltAl derekh ha-gtemet 14)

128 Aptowitzer ldquoRewardingrdquo 128129 Cf Joseph ibn Kaspi Mas

˙ref le-khessef in Mishneh khessef ed I Last (1906

photo-offset Jerusalem 1970) 232 h˙alilah she-yeheyeh zekhirat ha-shem le-noah

˙hellip

u-zekhirato hellip le-h˙ayah u-le-vehemah ltal madregah gtah

˙at

130 Perushei ha-torah 158 (For Nahmanides$ kabbalistic understanding of divineremembrance see Halbertal ltAl derekh ha-gtemet 238)

131 Gloss on Gen 129 (Perushei ha-torah 129)132 Gloss on Lev 1711 (ibid 297)

ing Maimonides Nahmanides held that there was ldquono merit or culpabil-ity save in man alonerdquo and like him (indeed citing him) Nahmanidesdenied particular providence over the ldquocreatures who do not speakrdquo133

Like the early Maimonides Nahmanides affirmed that ldquoGod created alllower creatures for the needs of manrdquo though his rationale for the ani-mals$ subservience ndash their inability to ldquorecognize the Creatorrdquo134 ndash dif-fered markedly from Aristotle$s In places Nahmanides noted continu-ities between man and beast even speaking of a dimension of ldquochoicerdquo(beh˙irah) with respect to animals regarding their welfare (tovatam) food

and flight-response135 Yet he retained the Maimonidean chasm dividing(rational) human beings from animals At times scientifically correctteachings of Aristotelian origin (or so he believed) governed Nahma-nides$ views In other cases kabbalistic teachings of which philosopherswere ignorant held sway Thus Nahmanides indicated that the ldquospark ofthe animal soulrdquo emerged from the Active Intellect136 True he may haveintroduced this pseudo-Aristotelian insight traceable to the tenth-cen-tury Jewish Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli in order to accentuate the philo-sophers$ obliviousness of the sefirotic origins of the higher faculties ofhumans137 Still Nahmanides did credit the philosophic idea as regardsthe animals even making it the basis for his observation that beastspossessed ldquoto some extent a full-fledged soulrdquo that put them in posses-sion of the sort of discretion (daltat) that led them to ldquoflee from harm


133 Gloss to Job 367 in Kitvei ramban 2 vols ed C D Chavel (Jerusalem1963) 1108 For discussion see David Berger ldquoMiracles and the Natural Order inNah

˙manidesrdquo in Rabbi Moses Nah

˙manides 118ndash21

134 Gloss on Lev 1711 (Perushei ha-torah 297) Torat hashem temimah in Kitveiramban 1142ndash43 u-varagt ha-gtadam she-yakir gtet bor2o Cf David Novak The Theologyof Nahmanides Systematically Presented (Atlanta 1992) 26 ldquoIt is only the relationshipwith God that differentiates man from the beastsrdquo

135 Gloss on Gen 129 (Perushei ha-torah 129) Nahmanides indicated human-kind$s primordial vegetarianism in the same passage stressing that since creatures cap-able of locomotion bore an affinity to the human ldquorational soulrdquo their consumption byhumans was inappropriate Only in Noah$s merit were animals put at humankind$sgastronomic disposal

136 Gloss on Lev 1711 (ibid 297ndash98)137 Moshe Idel ldquoNahmanides Kabbalah Halakhah and Spiritual Leadershiprdquo in

Jewish Mystical Leaders and Leadership in the 13th Century ed M Idel and M Ostow(Northvale New Jersey 1998) 57 On the source see Alexander Altmann and SMStern Isaac Israeli A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Earth Tenth Century (Oxford1958) 118ndash33 The account of the soul in Perushei ha-torah 197 (on Gen 27) isldquoreplete with allusions to the sefirotrdquo (Novak Theology 25) For the intersection ofthe comment on Lev 266 (referred to above n 120) with Kabbalah see Schwartz Ha-reltayon 104

and seek what is pleasant to it [the beast] and recognize familiar thingsand love themrdquo138

At the nexus of theology and law Nahmanides could where animalswere involved lean towards Maimonides over Rashi Rashi cast all ldquosta-tutesrdquo of Leviticus 1919 including the prohibition on breeding animalsldquowith a different kindrdquo as arbitrary expressions of God$s inscrutablewill (ldquodecrees of the King for which there is no reasonrdquo) After citingRashi Nahmanides denied that the prohibition on cross-breeding lackedrationale To cross-breed was to effect (or seek to effect) a permanentchange in creation implying that God ldquodid not bring to completion inthe world all that is necessaryrdquo In addition even in the best case cross-bred animals yielded species incapable of perpetuating themselves likethe mule Paraphrasing this second claim Josef Stern sees Nahmanidesarguing in a ldquosurprisingly Maimonidean spiritrdquo that cross-breeding wasproscribed due to the false beliefs on which it was based139

Whatever its empirical philosophic and mystical lineaments Nah-manides$ position on the differences between man and beast put himat odds with segments of midrashic thought that seconded by Rashiblurred some key distinctions The dispute ramified in many directionsWhereas Rashi had Adam before the sin in the garden sharing theanimals$ diet Nahmanides insisted that although primeval man wasvegetarian ldquothe food of all of them was hellip not the samerdquo140 WhereasRashi envisaged Adam before Eve$s creation coupling with beasts141

Nahmanides kept his silence regarding what he presumably deemed aproblematic midrashic idea Whereas Rashi explained on midrashicauthority that man$s unification with his wife as ldquoone fleshrdquo (Gen224) referred to offspring Nahmanides pronounced this understandingldquodistastefulrdquo if only because it failed to elevate the human marital bondabove animality After all ldquodomestic beasts and wild animals also be-


138 Gloss on Lev 1711 (Perushei ha-torah 297ndash98)139 Perushei ha-torah 2120 Cf Stern Problems and Parables 154ndash56 (Contra

Stern Nahmanides$ characterization of cross-breeding as ldquodeplorable and futilerdquo [inStern$s rendering ldquocontemptible and vainrdquo] seemingly applies to both his explanationsfor the prohibition not just the second one) Nahmanides$ stress on the divine aim forconstancy of speciation is reprised in a work that often took its bearings from Nahma-nidean ldquoreasons for commandmentsrdquo Sefer ha-h

˙innukh no 545 ([Jerusalem 1948]

325)140 See Rashi$s and Nahmanides$ glosses on Gen 129 (and Sanhedrin 59b for Ra-

shi$s point of departure) For Nahmanides see Perushei ha-torah 129 For primal dietas a reflection of the human-animal relationship see Jeremy Cohen ldquoBe Fertile andIncrease Fill the Earth and Master Itrdquo The Ancient and Medieval Career of a BiblicalText (Ithaca 1989) 23ndash24

141 Gloss to Gen 223 See above n 6

come one flesh hellip through their offspringrdquo To his mind the distinc-tively human feature highlighted was the willingness of the first model ofhumanity to ldquoclingrdquo exclusively to his wife a trait that distinguished himand his descendants from animals who lacked an abiding attachment(devequt) to their female partners142 Similarly Rashis vision of a post-diluvian world in which God felt constrained to caution (lehazhir) beastsagainst killing people143 left Nahmanides amazed How could beasts berequited given their lack of reason and resultant inability to distinguishgood from evil144

Seen in larger context then Nahmanides engagement with Rashisidea of the ldquosins of the faunardquo hardly appears as a local exegetical en-counter Rather it was one node in a network of thought and exegesisthat reflected a weave of Nahmanides understanding of animals teach-ings suffused with kabbalistic tradition on the nature of the human souland body and constitution of the animal world in the pristine past andeschatological future145 ldquoreasons for the commandmentsrdquo and as hasbeen stressed here intricate interlocutions with philosophic learningespecially as gleaned from Maimonides (This last facet of Nahmanidesldquomulti-faceted geniusrdquo has only recently come to be appreciated as asignificant feature of his intellectual profile)146 Though Nahmanidesviews on the human-animal divide appeared at points across his corpusone wonders whether his readers would have learned of his novellae onthe midrashic idea of the ldquosins of the faunardquo in particular had it notbeen espoused by the one whom he designated as ldquofirst-bornrdquo amongbiblical commentators147


142 Rashi ha-shalem 134 where Rashis interpretation of a rabbinic statement (San-hedrin 58a) is brought Nahmanides Perushei ha-torah 139ndash40 For further discussionof this dispute including some of the kabbalistic symbolism that informs it from theNahmanidean side see James Diamond ldquoNahmanides and Rashi on the One Flesh ofConjugal Union Lovemaking vs Dutyrdquo in Harvard Theological Review 102 (2009)193ndash224

143 Above n 33144 Gloss on Gen 95 (Perushei ha-torah 162)145 See e g for his understanding of human soul and body in prelapsarian and

post-messianic times Bezalel Safran ldquoRabbi Azriel and Nah˙manides Two Views of

the Fall of Manrdquo in Rabbi Moses Nah˙manides 75ndash106 Schwartz Ha-reltayon 105ndash9

For the eschatological side of Nahmanides on animals see the gloss on Lev 266 asdiscussed in the sources cited above n 120

146 For modern scholarly trends see Berger ldquoHow Did Nah˙manidesrdquo 135ndash37 (137

for the cited passage) For a startling sixteenth-century accusation that having beenldquoseduced by the Greeksrdquo Nahmanides ldquowished to make a hybrid of the ways of phi-losophy and hellip ways of the Kabbalahrdquo see Elbaum Lehavin 236 n 46

147 For Nahmanides promise to offer ldquonovellaerdquo (h˙iddushim) not only on scriptures

ldquocontextual meaningsrdquo but also on midrashic renderings of it see Perushei ha-torah18 For other interactions with midrash apparently born of Rashis invocations see

IV

Amplified by Nahmanides Rashi$s stress on the fauna$s misdeeds en-sured ongoing reflection on this rabbinic idea among a diversity of latemedieval scholars These included fourteenth-century kabbalists underNahmanides$ sway like Bahya ben Asher and Menahem Recanati(who perhaps also responded to the Zohar$s fleeting reference to thefauna$s sins)148 greater and lesser Spanish exegetes and homilists likeNissim ben Reuven Gerondi Anselm Astruc and Rashi supercommen-tator Moses ibn Gabbai and scholars of the ldquogeneration of the expul-sionrdquo like Isaac Abarbanel and Isaac Caro who ushered discussion ofthe fauna$s sins into early modern exegetical discourse

As Bahya cast it the flood provided a lesson in the workings of pro-vidence ldquoproof positiverdquo that God ldquopunishes and destroys evildoersfrom the world while retaining the righteousrdquo149 Though he consideredRashi a great exemplar of plain-sense interpretation and espoused theKabbalah of Nahmanides150 Bahya diverged from these forerunners(but followed another rabbinic precedent) in identifying the primarymanifestation of antediluvian corruption as ldquodestruction of seedrdquo ndashhence Genesis 612$s pointed reference to corruption of ldquofleshrdquo Justwhat motivated this resistance to procreation Bahya did not say but hedid observe that the sin was pervasive ldquonot only among people but alsoamong all the rest of the creaturesrdquo151 From here one might infer Bah-ya$s belief in the moral agency of animals God$s individual providenceover them and God$s requital of them yet Bahya denied such principleselsewhere152 leaving in doubt the relationship between his theology and


Miriam Sklarz ldquoYah˙as ramban le-midrash ha-aggadah ltal-pi perusho la-torah li-vere-

shit peraqim 12ndash36rdquo (Masters diss Bar-Ilan University 1998) 63 65 66148 The Zohar (168a) gave it play without elaboration While the Zohar was at

times influenced by Rashi (W Bacher ldquoL$exegese biblique dans le Zoharrdquo Revue desetudes juives 22 [1891] 41ndash42) it is not clear that this was so here

149 Be2ur ltal ha-torah ed C D Chavel 3 vols (Jerusalem 1966) 1107150 Ibid 5 For Nahmanides as his mystical mentor see Efraim Gottleib$s entry on

Bahya in Encyclopaedia Judaica vol 4 col 105151 Ibid 106 For the rabbinic sources see David M Feldman Marital Relations

Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law (New York 1974) 111152 See s v ldquoHashgah

˙ahrdquo in Kad ha-qemah

˙ in Kitvei rabbenu Bah

˙ya ed C D Cha-

vel (Jerusalem 1970) 137ndash38 (138 ldquoindividual providence hellip does not exist with re-spect to the rest of the animals all the more with respect to vegetationrdquo) A shiftingformulation involving providence appears at least once elsewhere in Bahya$s corpuswhen Bahya denies the monarchic imperative on grounds that God is ldquothe King whogoes amidst their [the Israelites$] camp and oversees (mashgi2ah

˙) their individual af-

fairsrdquo then asserts the necessity of a king when considering the question ldquoaccordingto Kabbalahrdquo (Be2ur ltal ha-torah 3354ndash55)

insistence on the antediluvian people$s and animals$ joint refusal to mul-tiply

Tackling the question of God$s insulation of animals from fortune$svagaries in another context Recanati broached the issue of the antedi-luvian fauna$s sins as well Explaining the requirement to release amother bird when capturing her young (Deut 226ndash7) he copiouslycited midrashim that implied God$s providential care over individualbeasts while noting Maimonides$ opposition to this concept In thecase of Genesis 6 Recanati harmonized the views by observing thatthe animals entering the ark embodied the remnant of their speciesthat as such merited providential concern ldquoon everybody$s reckoningrdquoincluding that of Maimonides Having become the object of providenceit made sense that the creatures rescued in order to preserve their speciesshould be the ldquorighteous onesrdquo (zaddiqim)153 Aware of Maimonides likeNahmanides before him Recanati nevertheless spoke of ldquorighteousrdquo an-imals where Nahmanides had demurred154

Approaching the fauna$s sins more scientifically was Nissim Gerondiwhose account began with what ldquothe rabbinic sages have midrashicallyexpoundedrdquo (dareshu h

˙azal) In an increasingly common pattern

though this leading Aragonese rabbi restated the rabbinic view not inany original formulation but in Rashi$s distinctive version hem hayunizqaqin le-she-gtenan minan155 As for the idea itself it ldquoastonishedrdquo Nis-sim Such instability in animal instinct and a mass lapse into interspecialindulgence in the span of a single generation could only be ascribed to achange in external circumstance not ldquochoice (beh

˙irah) coming from

them [the animals]rdquo The change might be one within nature It mightbe activated from without by the ldquoastral networkrdquo (maltarekhet) Ineither case the animals$ fall yielded a ldquoformidable vindication of thepeople of the generation of the floodrdquo whose immorality could be ex-culpated by the claim that the same force that influenced the animalscompelled the human beings as well156 Here was a ldquogreat challengerdquo tothe midrash$s ldquoinventorrdquo who clearly aimed to magnify rather than di-minish antediluvian evil


153 As above n 24 For Recanati as student of Nahmanidean Kabbalah see EfraimGottleib$s entry in Encyclopaedia Judaica vol 13 col 1608

154 Elsewhere Recanati discussed a concept at a very far remove from Maimonideanthought human reincarnation into animal bodies See Moshe Idel ldquoDiffering Concep-tions of Kabbalah in the Early Seventeenth Centuryrdquo in Jewish Thought in the Seven-teenth Century ed I Twersky and B Septimus (Cambridge Mass 1987) 159 n 106

155 Perush ltal ha-torah ed L A Feldman (Jerusalem 1968) 82 Nissim wrote ldquole-hizaqeqrdquo rather than ldquonizqaqinrdquo but otherwise reproduced Rashi$s formulation

156 Ibid

To address the challenge Nissim sought the precise concatenations ofcause and effect that generated the fauna$s aberrant behavior In locu-tions derived from the lexicon of philosophic Hebrew he set down twopremises that informed his first solution One ldquoto the degree that apatient (mitpaltel) prepares itself to receive an agent$s overflow theagent$s overflow intensifiesrdquo Two once such intensification occurseven a ldquopatient that is not prepared or does not prepare itself [to receivethe influence]rdquo could be affected by the stronger emanations now beingemitted from the causal agent Applying these postulates Nissim sur-mised that the human antediluvians$ turn to debauchery intensifiedldquothe forces that arouse desirerdquo such that these ldquoeven made an impressionon the irrational animalsrdquo causing their aberrant behavior Offering asecond solution to the conundrum of the fauna$s sins Nissim sum-moned the ldquowell knownrdquo proposition that debased sexual practices de-graded the atmosphere (gtavir) With humanity cultivating such practiceson a grand scale the ensuing environmental contamination created adisposition towards despicable liaisons that affected beasts (In his pithyformulation when people ldquoindulged that evil exceedingly their evilspread to the rest of the animalsrdquo)157 Both understandings of the fau-na$s sins shared common traits an assumption of the animals$ actualintermating explication of this activity in naturalistic terms stress on itsultimate cause in human sin freely chosen and the implication ofhumanity$s ultimate responsibility for environmental degradation Sounderstood the midrash not only escaped the ldquochallengerdquo to which itat first seemed exposed but imparted a bracing lesson Far from dimin-ishing human responsibility for the flood it taught the power of humansinfulness to impinge even on the amoral animal kingdom Nissim$sinterpretations also paid a handsome exegetical dividend in his viewexplaining the ostensibly otiose report that the corruption was ldquobecauseof themrdquo (Gen 613) a phrase that Nissim believed reinforced his in-sight that the corrupted ldquoway of the rest of the animals was caused bythem [human beings]rdquo158

Novel in its disclosure of a naturalistic causal chain beginning in hu-man free will and ending in animal depravity Nissim$s environmentalapproach built on Nahmanidean insights Seeking to explain the post-diluvian diminution in human life spans Nahmanides posited a dete-rioration in the ldquoatmosphererdquo (gtavir) caused by the flood159 Nissim re-


157 Ibid 82ndash83158 Gloss on Gen 613 (ibid 84)159 Gloss on Gen 54 (Perushei ha-torah 147ndash48) Cf Frank Talmage ldquoSo Teach

joined that if anything the punishment of a flood should have ex-punged sin and cleansed the environment of polluting elements160 Stillhe adroitly deployed the environmental approach to explain how enmasse instinctual animals might suddenly alter their coupling practicesdespite a lack of free will Another midrash this one on God$s pledge toldquodestroy them the earthrdquo (Gen 614) buttressed his case It spoke of aneed to destroy not only living creatures but to a depth of three hand-breadths the earth$s outer crust161 Nissim saw in this need further evi-dence that the antediluvian atmospheric structure had been ldquocon-foundedrdquo

Nissim developed one last approach to the animals$ deviant behaviorprior to the flood It too pointed to immoral choices by people as thatanimal behavior$s ultimate cause This explanation was facilitated by thepartial version of R Yohanan$s statement that Nissim seemingly pros-sessed It read ldquodomestic animals with beasts beasts with domestic ani-mals and man with allrdquo omitting this sage$s implied reference to theanimals$ initiatory role in the orgy of interspecific antediluvian fornica-tion162 Stressing his use of a causative verb Nissim proposed that RYohanan taught that the human antediluvians ldquomated domestic animalswith beasts and beasts with domestic animalsrdquo while at times also sexu-ally forcing themselves on the beasts (ldquoman with allrdquo)163 In short thefauna$s interspecial mating could be traced to externally coerced habi-tuation at which point (having what Mary Midgley calls ldquoopen instinctsrdquoin addition to genetically programmed ones) the animals could haveldquobecome used tordquo and perpetuated the deviance without external humanprompting164


Us to Number Our Days A Theology of Longevity in Jewish Exegetical Literaturerdquo inAging and the Aged in Medieval Europe ed MM Sheehan (Toronto 1990) 51ndash52

160 Gloss on Gen 54 (Perush 72ndash73)161 Genesis rabbah 317 Targum Onkelos ad loc162 See above n 8163 In his commentary to Bereshit rabbah 288 (s v ha-kol qilqelu maltasehem) Zev

Wolff Einhorn also stressed the significance of the hifltil form ndash this in order to recon-cile conflicting rabbinic formulations of the ldquosins of the faunardquo See Midrash rabbahmahadurah vilna 2 vols (Bnei Brak n d) 161r (Hebrew pagination) Cf Torah temi-mah 47 (on Gen 723) no 22 ldquothe language of hirbiltu indicates explicitly that thepeople caused and coerced them [the animals] helliprdquo Others posited sexual coercion inthe primordial human-animal relationship independently of the midrash See the anon-ymous Byzantine gloss on Gen 819 in Nicholas de Lange Greek Jewish Texts from theCairo Genizah (Tubingen 1996) 86 ldquohumans mated with beasts and made the beastsmate with themrdquo

164 Perush ha-torah 84 Cf Mary Midgley Beast and Man The Roots of HumanNature (New York 1978) 51ndash57

Nissim concluded his treatment of the fauna$s sins by confronting hispredecessors He remained vexed at Rashi$s implication that the animalshad corrupted themselves as Nahmanides$ reading of Rashi seeminglyconfirmed And while that reading apparently acknowledged some sud-den deviance on the part of the animals that was not due to direct hu-man intervention it left the deviance$s origins unexplained Only suchsupplementation as were afforded by his own environmental interpreta-tions made good this lacuna in Nahmanides$ presentation of the fauna$ssins concluded Nissim

Nissim$s handling of the sins of the fauna fit with his inclination toremove irrationalities from classical Jewish texts and his selective adher-ence to rationalist principles While Nahmanides ldquodespised Aristotle hellipand believed the secrets of the Torah to be embodied in mysticism ratherthan metaphysicsrdquo165 Nissim though wary of rationalist excess inclinedaway from mysticism (and apparently condemned Nahmanides$ exces-sive mystical preoccupations)166 If some Nahmanidean teachings re-flected ldquointuitions influenced by philosophyrdquo167 Nissim$s immersion inGreco-Arabic (and by some indications Latin) science was much dee-per168 By grounding the ldquosins of the faunardquo in causal principles opera-tive in the everyday postdiluvian world and by using figures from theHebrew philosophic corpus (like ldquooverflowrdquo for causality)169 Nissimmade intelligible even edifying a midrash that at first glance left scien-tifically informed Jews like himself ldquoastonishedrdquo

As Nissim$s engagement with Genesis 612 evidently received signifi-cant impetus from Rashi and Nahmanides so Rashi may have served asthe ldquoultimaterdquo cause (and Nahmanides and Nissim the ldquoproximaterdquoones) of the invocation of the ldquosins of the faunardquo in Anselm Astruc$s


165 Berger ldquoHow Did Nah˙manidesrdquo 136

166 See the sentiment cited in Isaac Bar Sheshet She2elot u-teshuvot ed D Metzger2 vols (Jerusalem 1993) 157 (1166) For reservations regarding rationalism seee g Sara Klein-Braslavy ldquoVerite prophetique et verite philosophique chez Nissim deGerone Une interpretation du QRecit de la Creation$ et du QRecit du Char$rdquo Revue desetudes juives 134 (1975) 75ndash99

167 Berger ldquoMiracles and the Natural Orderrdquo 116 Warren Harvey even states thatldquoNahmanides approved of the study of Greek philosophyrdquo as long as it did not lead todenial of miracles See ldquoAspects of Jewish Philosophy in Medieval Cataloniardquo inMosseben Nahman i el su temps (Girona 1994) 145

168 Warren Zev Harvey ldquoNissim of Gerona and William of Ockham on PrimeMatterrdquo in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume ed B Walfish 2 vols (Haifa1993) 96

169 E g Guide II 12 Nissim$s idea that the preparation of the recipient can affectthe agent is redolent of Kabbalah but as noted above Nissim was not given to kab-balistic expression

Midreshei torah Writing in the decade before the Spanish anti-Jewishriots that claimed his life in 1391170 Astruc sought clarification of thetestimony that ldquothe earth became corrupt before Godrdquo (Gen 611) Itbeing axiomatic to him that the phrase ldquobefore Godrdquo was not locativehe interpreted it in terms of corruption performed in forthright opposi-tion to the ldquodivine intentionrdquo as exemplified by the cross-breeding ofthe antediluvian animals Specifically this misdeed yielded ldquonullifica-tionrdquo of the constancy of speciation intended by God by forestallingfuture procreation as the mule$s sterility (the example cited by Nahma-nides in his treatment of Leviticus 1919) proved171

Though revealing little about his understanding of animals Astruc$sfleeting invocation of the fauna$s sins exposed his typically Spanish ap-proach to midrash In place of Rashi$s morally tinctured claim of inter-specific mating Astruc read the midrashic tradition upon which Rashibased himself in a manner compatible with the presumption of the ani-mals$ incapacity for moral action Rather than flouting some divineprohibition the animals$ altered mating habits reflected a mutation inldquonatural thingsrdquo that is a breakdown in inhibitions willed by God andinscribed in nature$s design In this way they partook of the larger dis-integration in God$s plan prior to the flood As for Rashi$s role in cat-alyzing Astruc$s recourse to this midrashic tradition it is attested not somuch by the fact that Astruc ldquovery often built on Rashi$s Commentaryrdquoeven where such indebtedness went unmentioned172 but as in the caseof Nissim by his citation of the ldquosins of the faunardquo motif in Rashi$sdistinctive verbal reformulation of it

If some late medieval Spanish exegetes like Astruc related to Rashi$sexegesis adventitiously others composed systematic supercommentarieson Rashi$s Torah commentary173 Though most did not feel impelled toelaborate on Rashi$s exposition of ldquoall fleshrdquo174 Moses ibn Gabbai aireda seemingly decisive objection how could iniquity be ascribed to a sub-


170 See Simon Eppenstein$s introduction toMidreshei torah (1899 photo-offset Jer-usalem 1965) for details on the author and work

171 Midreshei torah 10 For Nahmanides and his followers see above n 146172 Eppenstein ldquoIntroductionrdquo xi For defense of Rashi in the face of Nahmani-

dean critique see the gloss on Gen 617 (ibid 11)173 See my ldquoReceptionrdquo for discussion and bibliography174 E g Perush le-perush rashi me-ha-rav ha-gadol rabbi Shemu2el gtAlmosnino (Pe-

tah Tikvah 1998) and New York JTS MS Lutski 802 7v an anonymous fifteenth-century Spanish supercommentary eschewed exposition Another anonymous Spanishsupercommentator took a minimalist approach focused on the narrow question ofRashi$s textual trigger ldquohe [Rashi] deduced it [the fauna$s sins] from [the phrase] Qallflesh$rdquo (Warsaw Jewish Historical Institute MS 204 80r)

human creature lacking ldquointellect or understandingrdquo such that it couldnot be described as corrupting its way ldquoin order to punish himrdquo175 Toresolve this quandary ibn Gabbai invoked a feature of midrashic dis-course that some medieval writers (e g Saadya Gaon) had alsostressed Rashi$s gloss was ldquoin the manner of derashrdquo and in particularldquothe manner of hyperbolerdquo (guzmagt)176 ndash a feature of midrash uponwhich ibn Gabbai dilated in his supercommentary$s introduction177 Aconservative talmudist ibn Gabbai seemingly felt empowered to assertmidrash$s tendency to exaggerate due to a talmudic precedent178 Tell-ing though is his parade example the midrash that in messianic timesthe land of Israel would ldquobring forth ready baked rollsrdquo It was Maimo-nides who had proclaimed this midrash a hyperbole denying that ittestified to the supernatural bounty of messianic times and reading itin terms of auspicious conditions that would make earning a livelihoodduring that period exceedingly easy179 Echoing Maimonides and someof his gaonic predecessors ibn Gabbai observed that regarding suchmidrashic overstatements ldquono questions should be askedrdquo180

Having explained Rashi$s interpretation of ldquoall fleshrdquo ibn Gabbaiacquitted himself of his supercommentarial role181 In a rare shift fromsupercommentary to commentary proper however ibn Gabbai now ren-dered ldquoall fleshrdquo according to the ldquomethod of peshat

˙rdquo the phrase re-

ferred to people alone as Isaiah$s reference to ldquoall fleshrdquo worshippingGod showed Little sleuthing is required to discern his Nahmanideansource Going beyond Nahmanides ibn Gabbai explained the destruc-tion of the fauna in the flood in terms of the principle that ldquoall that wascreated for his [man$s] sake perished with himrdquo A traditionalist who


175 ltEved shelomo Oxford Bodleian Library MS Hunt Don 25 20v176 Ibid What this finding meant for the actuality of animal corruption in the ante-

diluvian period ibn Gabbai did not say For guzmagt in Saadya and other figures (Abra-ham ben Moses Maimonides Isaiah of Trani ldquothe Youngerrdquo Hillel of Verona) seeElbaum Lehavin 49 99ndash104 157ndash58 162ndash63 179

177 ltEved shelomo 2vndash3r178 He cites Rava$s statements at H

˙ullin 90b (ibid 2vndash3r) reporting them as a

rabbinic consensus omnium (gtameru h˙azal hellip)

179 Haqdamot 138180 ltEved shelomo 3v For ldquono questions should be askedrdquo see above n 78181 A writer who offers ldquohis own alternative interpretationrdquo has ldquogone beyond his

declared role as supercommentatorrdquo but adds Uriel Simon when this occurs as in ibnGabbai$s handling of Gen 612 the supercommentator still does not exceed thebounds of his literary genre ldquoso long as he refrains from glossing a new aspect of theverse with which the commentary did not deal firstrdquo (ldquoInterpreting the InterpreterSupercommentaries on Ibn Ezra$s Commentariesrdquo in Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra Studiesin the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Polymath ed I Twersky and J M Harris [Cam-bridge Mass 1993] 87)

decried those who criticized Rashi due to over-immersion in the ldquoevilwaters hellip of foreign sciencesrdquo182 ibn Gabbai yet remained a son of Se-farad whose discomfort with the empirically and theologically proble-matic implications of Rashi$s gloss on ldquoall fleshrdquo was palpable183

In the decades after ibn Gabbai Iberian Torah commentators operat-ing ldquoindependentlyrdquo of Rashi also felt compelled to take a stand on theldquosins of the faunardquo motif Isaac Abarbanel writing in Italy after the1492 expulsion tacitly followed Nahmanides in referring ldquoall fleshrdquo tohumankind alone (He cited two of the three biblical prooftexts adducedby Nahmanides to clinch the point) Yet as Abarbanel knew well thesages had ldquomidrashically expoundedrdquo (dareshu) this phrase to includebeasts and birds that ldquomated with those not of their kindrdquo As wasbecoming standard Abarbanel cited this midrashic exposition inRashi$s revised version suggesting that as elsewhere he grappled withit due to its invocation by Rashi184 Reprising Nissim Gerondi Abarba-nel averred that the animals$ fall could only have occurred due to astralarbitration yet this presumption yielded the ldquopotent questionrdquo asked byNissim with such causal forces unleashed why should antediluvianhumanity have been punished for succumbing to them After pronoun-cing Nissim$s effort to resolve the issue ldquounsatisfactoryrdquo (without deign-ing to explain) Abarbanel offered the straightforward if by no meansinstructive solution that the midrash in question was ldquoin the manner ofderashrdquo Inscrutability was to be expected or at least accepted heimplied even as such edification as this derash supplied remained farfrom clear185

Another exegete of the ldquogeneration of the expulsionrdquo Isaac Caroaddressing the antediluvian fauna$s sins in his Torah commentary Tole-dot yis

˙h˙aq immediately adverted to the sages$ ldquomidrashic expositionrdquo on

ldquoall fleshrdquo Like Nissim Astruc and Abarbanel he too cited Rashi$sdistinctive rewording of it While mainly recapitulating Nissim Caroadded a novel point to reinforce Nissim$s observation that the midrash$sinventor obviously aimed his moral condemnation at humankind andnot the animals Proof lay in his verbal formulation that ldquoevenrdquo thefauna creatures who lacked free will fell into corruption the implica-


182 Ibid 1v183 In glossing Gen 222 and 31 (ltEved shelomo 12v) ibn Gabbai asserted that

Rashi$s claim that Adam mated with beasts was ldquonot [to be understood] according toits plain senserdquo and denied the plain sense of Rashi$s midrashic assertion of sex be-tween Eve and the serpent

184 Lawee Isaac Abarbanel2s Stance 98ndash99185 Isaac Abarbanel Perush ltal ha-torah (Jerusalem 1964) 1151

tion being that people remained the focus of divine concern and oppro-brium186 Caro apparently failed to realize that the wording he so care-fully (or hypercritically) analyzed was not that of the midrash but ofRashi whose inclusion of the ldquosins of the faunardquo in his Commentaryhad done so much to bring the idea of the fauna$s sins to the fore ofJewish consciousness

V

Among Christians Jesus$ exhortation to ldquopreach the gospel to everycreaturerdquo (Mark 1615) elicited perplexity and a need for interpretationOn its basis some like St Francis famously preached to birds whileothers like St Gregory insisted that it referred to people alone187 Soit was among Jewish thinkers with Genesis 6$s indictment of ldquoall fleshrdquowhich inspired consideration of the role of animals in the bringing of theflood Spurred by the inclusivity of this scriptural phrase and the fauna$sactual destruction and yet other textual triggers (e g God$s ldquoremem-brancerdquo of the surviving fauna and scripture$s account of their depar-ture from the ark ldquoby familiesrdquo) some sages advanced the view that theanimals on the ark had been rewarded for their virtuous conduct whilethose that perished had engaged in the sinful behavior or interspecialmating Rashi incorporated these ideas into his running commentaryon Genesis though just how he understood them remains unclear Ap-parently he shared the propensity of some ancient rabbis to place manand beast on something of a moral continuum though one presumes heultimately drew some absolute distinctions between the human and ani-mal capacity for moral agency Mediterranean writers generally lessdeferent to aggadic authority to begin with could be troubled or irkedby such midrashic ideas Their juggling of exegetical variables in the caseof the ldquosins of the faunardquo was decisively altered by the scientific certi-tude that animals were devoid of moral volition the theological preceptthat animals were not requited for their deeds and in some cases byMaimonides$ teaching that divine providence over beasts extendedonly to species not individuals Accordingly these writers stressed the


186 Isaac Caro Toledot yis˙h˙aq (Jerusalem 1994) 66

187 Harrison ldquoThe Virtues of the Animalsrdquo 466 Note that in Roger of Wendover$saccount Francis orders the birds to ldquolisten to the Lord$s word in the name of him whocreated you and saved you from the flood in Noah$s arkrdquo (cited in F D KlingenderldquoSt Francis and the Birds of the Apocalypserdquo Journal of the Warburg and CourtauldInstitutes 16 [1953] 15)

ontological divide separating man from beast Uniting all of the writerssampled above whether they affirmed or denied the ldquosins of the faunardquowas the certainty that human beings stood high above animals in theldquogreat chain of beingrdquo

While a dozen or so midrashim scattered throughout the rabbiniccorpus might have generated sporadic later interest in the antediluvianbeasts$ doings it seems unlikely that they would have evolved into afulcrum of ongoing discussion without a significant catalyst In thiscase that catalyst was it has been argued Rashi whose distinctive ver-sion of the midrash later writers increasingly invoked in place of theactual rabbinic word188 By giving the antediluvian fauna$s interspecialprofligacy prominent billing Rashi turned a rabbinic idea that mighthave remained dormant not only into a ldquopedagogical instrument in theservice of the moral orderrdquo189 but a point of departure for centuries ofexegetical creativity and reflection on ldquowhat is beyond the animal inmanrdquo190


188 In Maltaseh gtadonai Eliezer Ashkenazi speaks of the ldquoaggadah that Rashi ad-ducedrdquo then cites Rashi$s distinctive version of the ldquosins of the faunardquo (2 vols [1871photo-offset Jerusalem 1972] pt 1 68r) For another case in which a distinctive re-formulation of a midrashic idea by Rashi itself became a focus of analysis see AviezerRavitzky ldquoQHas

˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s

˙iyyon gilgulo shel reltayonrdquo in ltAl daltat ha-maqom

(Jerusalem 1991) 34ndash73189 Jacques Voisenet Bete et hommes dans le monde medieval le bestiaire des clercs

du Ve au XIIe siecle (Turnhout Belgium 2000) 353ndash70190 Hans Jonas ldquoTool Image and Grave On What is beyond the Animal in Manrdquo

in Mortality and Morality A Search for the Good after Auschwitz ed L Vogel (Evan-ston 1996) 75ndash86

rashim that depict the antediluvian fauna in moral or quasi-moralterms4 These responses at once illuminate diverse understandings ofthe fauna$s place in the natural order and divine economy shed lightupon their authors$ divergent approaches to that segment of rabbinicdiscourse often subsumed under the rubric ldquogtaggadahrdquo5 and explicitlyor tacitly reflect a ldquomajor trendrdquo in Jewish religious-intellectual historythat given its significance is astonishingly under-researched the semi-nal role played by Rashi in bringing certain midrashic motifs to the foreof Jewish consciousness there to become foci of later reflection6 In


derson Scripture Canon and Commentary A Comparison of Confucian and WesternExegesis [Princeton N J 1991] 3) Cf the remark of Isadore Twersky regarding themethodological challenge that besets efforts to extract thought from biblical exegesisldquothe attempt to systematize non-systematic writings to extrapolate rigorously struc-tured concepts from soft pliable molds is problematicrdquo (ldquoJoseph ibn Kaspi Portraitof a Medieval Jewish Intellectualrdquo in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature[I] ed Isadore Twersky [Cambridge 1979] 232ndash33)

4 A sequel in progress follows the story into early modern times when animals$moral capabilities became a cause celebre in the thought of Montaigne DescartesLeibniz and others See e g the source cited below n 188 and for the general earlymodern debate Peter Harrison ldquoThe Virtues of the Animals in Seventeenth-CenturyThoughtrdquo Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1998) 463ndash85 Erica Fudge introductionto Renaissance Beasts Of Animals Humans and Other Wonderful Creatures (Urbana2004) 1ndash17 For the emerging field of the history of animals see eadem ldquoA Left-Handed Blow Writing the History of Animalsrdquo in Representing Animals ed N Roth-fels (Bloomington Ind 2002) 3ndash18 On Greek teachings see e g Richard SorabjiAnimal Minds and Human Morals The Origins of the Western Debate (Ithaca 1993)John Heath The Talking Greeks Speech Animals and the Other in Homer Aeschylusand Plato (Cambridge 2005) Victor Aptowitzer studied rabbinic dicta in ldquoThe Re-warding and Punishing of Animals and Inanimate Objects On the Aggadic View ofthe Worldrdquo Hebrew Union College Annual 3 (1926) 117ndash55 (especially 131ndash40) Hisarticle which contains antecedent bibliography (119ndash20 n 5) focused on aggadic ex-pressions For legal rabbinic teachings (and diachronic investigation of biblical andrabbinic texts) see Noam Zohar ldquoBaltalei-h

˙ayyim ke-gtishim musariyyim sodan shel

hilkhot shor ha-nisqalrdquo Mah˙ashevet h

˙azal divrei ha-kenes ha-rishon (Haifa 1990)

67ndash83 Additional sources with little analysis appear in Elijah J Schochet AnimalLife in Jewish Tradition Attitudes and Relationships (New York 1984) My thanks toKalman Bland for sharing fascinating work in progress on animals in medieval Jewishliterature

5 See my Isaac Abarbanel2s Stance Toward Tradition Defense Dissent and Dialogue(Albany 2001) 83ndash92 Israel M Ta-Shma Ha-sifrut ha-parshanit la-talmud be-gteropahuvi-s

˙efon gtafriqah qorot gtishim ve-shit

˙ot 2 vols (Jerusalem 1999ndash2002) 2190ndash201

Jacob Elbaum Lehavin divrei h˙akhamim mivh

˙ar divrei mavogt le-gtaggadah ule-midrash

mi-shel h˙akhmei yemei ha-benayim (Jerusalem 2000)

6 See my ldquoFrom Sefarad to Ashkenaz A Case Study in the Rashi SupercommentaryTraditionrdquo AJS Review 36 (2006) 1ndash33 ldquoThe Reception of Rashi$s Commentary on theTorah in Spain The Case of Adam$s Mating With the Animalsrdquo Jewish Quarterly Re-view 97 (2007) 33ndash66 For the Commentary$s ldquocanonizationrdquo see Jordan PenkowerldquoTahalikh ha-qanonizas

˙iyah shel perush rashi la-torahrdquo in Limmud ve-daltat be-mah

˙a-

shavah yehudit ed H Kreisel (Beer Sheba 2006) 123ndash46


I
























˙itu dar-



12 H˙amishah h





˙e2ei ha-











tushlamirdquo26






˙it kol basar













˙umash gur gtaryeh












˙ 5 (p 32)







˙ ed C D Chavel







˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s






I
























˙itu dar-



12 H˙amishah h





˙e2ei ha-











tushlamirdquo26






˙it kol basar













˙umash gur gtaryeh












˙ 5 (p 32)







˙ ed C D Chavel







˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s



















˙itu dar-



12 H˙amishah h





˙e2ei ha-











tushlamirdquo26






˙it kol basar













˙umash gur gtaryeh












˙ 5 (p 32)







˙ ed C D Chavel







˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s






˙itu dar-



12 H˙amishah h





˙e2ei ha-











tushlamirdquo26






˙it kol basar













˙umash gur gtaryeh












˙ 5 (p 32)







˙ ed C D Chavel







˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s














tushlamirdquo26






˙it kol basar













˙umash gur gtaryeh












˙ 5 (p 32)







˙ ed C D Chavel







˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s







tushlamirdquo26






˙it kol basar













˙umash gur gtaryeh












˙ 5 (p 32)







˙ ed C D Chavel







˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s












˙ 5 (p 32)







˙ ed C D Chavel







˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s










˙ovah) with


˙ovah helliprdquo)


(on Gen 612 no 6)








˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s












˙aso


˙54 (1985) 458ndash62














˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s
















˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s








˙li-she-


























II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s






















II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s








II




















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s

















˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s







˙ashavto)rdquo






























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s























79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s










79 Above n 34


























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s






























˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s

















˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s










˙afenat














˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s















˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s







˙afenat paltneah








95 H˙amishah h









˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s







˙oq) at












˙afenat paltneah








˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s










˙oq) Rashi had im-







˙ 22


˙afenat paltneah



137)104 S

˙afenat paltneah




˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s






˙ittul u-seh

˙oq yesh lish



III







˙adash mish-






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s






















˙manides



















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s




















˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s








˙ ldquoall



















˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s













˙hellip


˙at





































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s







































IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s




























IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s

















IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s





IV












˙ya ed C D Cha-









˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s










˙irah) coming from






156 Ibid



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s























































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s



















































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s












































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s



































V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s



























V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s















V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s






V









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s









˙ivi lakh s

˙iyyunim$ le-s





Documents

Sins of the Fauna