Shem-Tov ben Joseph ibn Falaquera (ca. 1225–1295), sometime poetand Jewish philosopher, is generally overlooked in histories of Jewishphilosophy and is not well known even by students in the field; yetfew medieval Jewish philosophers matched his learning and knowledge ofthe writings of the ancient Greek and medieval Islamic and Jewishphilosophers. Falaquera’s primary goal seems to have been to interestand educate his co-religionists in philosophy and science, both forits own sake and for the sake of understanding Scripture properly. Inso doing, he made important contributions to the history of Jewishphilosophy.

• 1. Life
• 2. Falaquera as popularizer
• 3. Falaquera as paraphraser
• 4. Falaquera as an encyclopedist
• 5. Falaquera as a commentator
• 6. Falaquera as an exegete
• 7. Conclusion: Falaquera as a philosopher
• Bibliography
  • Primary Sources
  • Secondary Sources
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1. Life

Not very much is known of Falaquera’s life, apart from hiswritings. Most scholars believe that Falaquera was born and lived inSpain, but even this is not known with certainty (see Jospe,Torahand Sophia, 2–4). His approximate year of birth iscalculated from his comment inSefer ha-Mevaqqesh (9;trans. 2), written in October-November 1263 (Heshvan 5024), that hehad passed the midpoint of seventy years and was approaching hisfortieth year. His year of death is estimated from references in hislast known writing, the letter in defense of Maimonides’Guide ofthe Perplexed. The “midpoint” of life, mentioned byFalaquera inSefer ha-Mevaqqesh, may have had somesignificance for him. He explains there (11; trans. 5):

After his middle years, the rational soul awakens in him and converseswith him. At that time, the life of the body is on the decline and, asphysical existence approaches complete extinction, it descends lowerand lower, while the soul rises higher and higher. Then the flames ofconfusion are extinguished, and the sun of the eternal soul shinesforth.

Whether or not Falaquera himself went through some sort of mid-lifecrisis, he tells us that his book is a “bill ofdivorcement” from the poetry of his youth – an art in which,by his own account, he excelled and composed some 20,000 stanzas ofrhymed verse, about half of which he wrote down. In the same breath heannounces his betrothal to wisdom, with the implication that abigamous attachment to both poetry and wisdom is not desirable andshould not be tolerated. Falaquera’s new attitude toward poetryreflects the concern with this art shared by ancient and medievalphilosophers: Poetry is dangerous because it persuades men not by itscontent and its truth, but by its beauty and eloquence (on Falaquera’sattitude toward poetry, see Harvey,Falaquera’s Epistle,128–132). While Falaquera seems, for the most part, indeed tohave abandoned writing poetry, he was hardly faithful to her, even inhis youth. He openly acknowledges his flirtation with wisdom inSefer ha-Mevaqqesh, listing seven works that he calls“the progeny of my thoughts during my early years” (12;trans., 7–8). It is hard to know how seriously to take suchproclamations, although it is certainly true that Falaquera’s twolengthy philosophic works, the encyclopedicDe‘otha-Filosofim and his commentary on Maimonides’Guide ofthe Perplexed, are not listed among these writings. The latterwork was written in 1280 (5040) (Moreh ha-Moreh, 365), and isone of his most mature writings. Steinschneider wrote ofthis work that the “abundance of its citations was sufficient toconfer on those who copied from it the appearance of greaterudition” (Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, 422), andthe same can be said regarding theDe‘otha-Filosofim. An additional point of interest for Falaquera’sbiography is his plaint inSefer ha-Mevaqqesh (11–12; trans.,7–8) of the “difficult times under the powerful hand of thenon-Jewish nations who prevailed over us.” This is a theme foundin several of his works, and apparently the subject of his lostMegillat ha-Zikkaron. It is a stark reminder today of thebackground against which medieval Jewish thinkers such as Falaqueraengaged in their writing and study.

Jospe makes a reasoned attempt at a chronology of Falaquera’swritings, based in part on Falaquera’s listing inSeferha-Mevaqqesh, but it is not completely convincing (Torah andSophia, 31–33). For example, it is not clear thatFalaquera’s listing of books is itself chronological andcomplete. Moreover, it is possible that a reference in one book toanother may be a later addition and not necessarily an indication ofwhich book was written first. An important factor that must beconsidered in any future attempt to fix the chronology of Falaquera’swritings is the technical terms he uses and the wording of histranslations from other authors. As Jospe himself points out in hisbook, Falaquera paid great attention to terminology and chose hisphilosophic terms carefully (18–29). He also, in the course ofhis career, changed his preference for certain Hebrew words thattranslate key Arabic philosophic terms. This can be seen most clearlyby comparing his different translations in different works of the sameArabic passages. Consider, for example,Shelemutha-Ma‘asim, the first six chapters of which comprise anabridged Hebrew version of theSumma Alexandrinorum, anepitome of Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethics. The language herediffers from Falaquera’s citations from theSumma in hisyouthfulSefer ha-Ma‘alot. On the other hand,Falaquera’s citations from theSumma in theMorehha-Moreh seem to be drawn from his ownShelemutha-Ma‘asim. Thus theSefer ha-Ma‘alot waswritten before theShelemut ha-Ma‘asim, which waswritten before theMoreh ha-Moreh.

2. Falaquera as popularizer

Scholars of the past century have, in general, been quick to dismissFalaquera as a mediocre and unoriginal thinker, and thus hardly worthyof our attention. While it is no doubt true that Falaquera himself didnot seek originality, research of the past decades has shown himto be a remarkably industrious, well-read, and impressive scholar.Moreover, in certain respects, as we shall see, Falaquera was quiteoriginal. That Falaquera did not seek originality is clear from hisown statements. For example, he writes in his introduction toReshit Hokhmah (9):

Most of my words concerning the sciences in this book are the words ofthe leading philosophers and experts. I have myself not added anythingnew other than to gather [their words] from their books.

What then was he trying to do in such compilations? Falaquera’sagenda is clearly seen in his delightful little treatise,Iggeretha-Vikkuah (The Epistle of the Debate), whose subtitle is:“In Explanation of the Agreement that Exists between the Law andWisdom.” At the outset of this treatise he makes known that itspurpose is “to explain that the study of the true sciences bywhoever is worthy of them and whom God in his mercy has favored withan intellect to discover their depths is not prohibited from the pointof view of our Law, and that the truth hidden in them does notcontradict a word of our belief” (56; trans., 14–15)Unlike the first two great Jewish Aristotelian philosophers of thecentury before him, Abraham Ibn Daud and Maimonides, who sought in theintroductions to their philosophico-theological works to dissuade theunworthy from reading on, Falaquera wished to awaken hisco-religionists to the importance of philosophy. Falaquera, like hisdistinguished predecessors, realized that philosophy is not foreveryone. He explicitly stated that it “is not necessary for allmen, but for the one who is meticulous in his faith and endeavors toascend the rank of the perfect man and to conceive what he conceivesby way of the intellect, not by way of the imagination. As for theothers who do not perceive this degree, tradition without theirknowing the reason is sufficient” (65; trans., 29). Yet, thereis a definite sense that Falaquera believed that philosophy could beof benefit to a far greater percentage of Jews than Ibn Daud orMaimonides thought. HisIggeret ha-Vikkuah, which is intendedas an introduction to philosophy, provides a good indication ofthis. It is a dialogue between a scholar and a pietist, both observantJews, in which the scholar – who investigates the secrets ofwisdom and studies the philosophic books – tries to persuade thepietist – who considers such books a stumbling-block and cause ofheresy and therefore forbidden – of the permissibility anddesirability of philosophic study. The pietist is not perplexed andwould certainly not be considered by Maimonides among the few for whomhe intended theGuide, yet he is the type of reader Falaqueraseeks to win over to philosophy. There may have been an additionalreason for Falaquera’s interest in persuading the pietist. Falaquerawrote during the respite between the Maimonidean controversy of the1230s and the controversy that culminated in 1305 with the ban issuedby Solomon ibn Adret against the study of Greek philosophy and scienceby anyone under the age of twenty-five. In writing theIggeretha-Vikkuah, he was influenced by the epistolary debate of theformer controversy between David Kimhi and Judah Alfakhar, andapparently sought in his dialogue to have his scholar accomplish whatKimhi and the other Maimonideans could not. Perhaps he hoped that ifhe could counter in his debate the real objections of theanti-Maimonideans with sensitive convincing responses, he couldpersuade future anti-rationalists of the religious importance ofphilosophy and the sciences and that the study of them was permissibleand required of those who had the intellectual ability to undertake it(Harvey, “Maimonidean Controversy of the 1230s”). If hewished thereby to prevent future such controversies, he did notsucceed (cf. in this connection, his much laterMikhtav ‘alDevar ha-Moreh, in defense of Maimonides’Guide). In anycase, by the end of the dialogue, the scholar indeed convinces thepietist, and promises to write for him three books:ReshitHokhmah,Sefer ha-Ma‘alot, andDe‘otha-Filosofim. Falaquera in fact wrote this trilogy. These workscondense into three volumes the finest writings of the Greco-Islamicphilosophic tradition and offer the Hebrew reader a rich program ofeducation, beginning with a classification of the sciences andculminating with an encyclopedia of Aristotelian natural science andmetaphysics. For Falaquera, philosophy and science are necessary for acomplete and true understanding of the Divine Law and for theattainment of ultimate human felicity. His goal in the trilogy seemsto have been to interest his fellow Jews in philosophy and science andthen to educate them by making available to them the choicest fruitsof the philosophic tradition in a form and language they couldunderstand. TheIggeret ha-Vikkuah was one attempt atleading his readers to philosophy and the path to perfection. Anotherattempt – quite well known to students of Hebrewliterature – whosemaqâmah form bespeaks theauthor’s desire to reach a wide audience and popularize philosophy,was hisSefer ha-Mevaqqesh, the tale of a young man’s searchfor wisdom. The search concludes with the seeker’s encounter with aphilosopher.

3. Falaquera as paraphraser

Falaquera sought to make available in Hebrew the most importantwritings of the Greek and Islamic philosophers. Interestingly,Falaquera rarely simply translated a text and rarely identified hisprecise source. A good illustration of this is Falaquera’sReshitHokhmah. His intention in this book is to treat concisely“whatever the seeker of wisdom needs to apprehend at thebeginning of his studies” (9). He divides it into three parts.Part one is on the moral virtues, for as Falaquera explains,“Whoever wishes to engage in the study of science and toapprehend its truth must begin to accustom himself to the moralvirtues” (10). This part blends Biblical verses and rabbinicsayings with short passages from theSumma Alexandrinorum andconcludes with a pseudo-Aristotelian letter. The second part is anenumeration of the sciences, which is primarily an abridged version ofAlfarabi’sIhsâ’ al-‘ulûm(Enumeration of the Sciences), but also incorporates other writings byAlfarabi such as hisKitâb al-hurûf (Book ofLetters) and small sections from Avicenna’sFî aqsâmal-‘ulûm al-‘aqliyyah (On the Division of theRational Sciences). Falaquera integrates these texts into his versionof Alfarabi’s enumeration of the sciences in order to make a newcoherent work, which provides important material not present in hisprimary text. Thus, for example, chapters 2 and 4 from part 2 ofReshit Hokhmah, “On How Language Originates in aNation” and “On How the Sciences Originate amongMen” – the two selections from theKitâbal-hurûf – introduce respectively chapters 3 onlanguage and chapters 5–9 on logic and the sciences – chapters translated fromIhsâ’al-‘ulûm. For another example, a section onpolitical science from Avicenna’s division of the sciences follows theparallel discussion in Alfarabi, and provides the reader with thetraditional Aristotelian division of practical science into governanceof the city, governance of the household, and governance of oneself orethics. Part 3 ofReshit Hokhmah, on explaining thatphilosophy is necessary for the attainment of true happiness, is anabridged translation of Alfarabi’s trilogy on the philosophy of Platoand Aristotle. In this part, Falaquera focuses on the Alfarabian textshe is presenting and incorporates no other texts, but through ajudicious choice of what to translate and what not, Falaquera is ableto adapt the works to suit his own purposes. Thus, he omits from hisparaphrase Alfarabi’s controversial statements on the relation betweenphilosophy and religion, such as those that suggest that philosophyalone is necessary for human happiness and perfection, andthat religion is an imitation of philosophy that is useful forteaching and governing the multitude, but does not contribute to theperfection of the philosopher’s intellect (see Harvey,“Falaquera’s Alfarabi”). Another aspect of Falaquera’sparaphrasing of texts is his occasional Judaizing of his sourcesthrough the insertion of Biblical or Talmudic citations and referencesor the addition of Jewish material. An example of the latter is in thebeginning ofReshit Hokhmah, part 2, where he adds toAlfarabi’s list of benefits of an enumeration of sciences that itmakes clear that these sciences do not contradict the Torah and thatit is permissible for Jews to study them. It may be added thatFalaquera’s Hebrew abridgements of Alfarabi’s books in parts two andthree are not attributed to their author; Falaquera simply explainsthat all “these words on the sciences are the words of Aristotleor those philosophers of his school” (61). Falaquera’sselective translation of texts and his not mentioning his sources givehim the leeway to alter the content and message of those texts in waysthat are not possible for faithful translators.

While in books likeReshit Hokhmah (particularly parts 2 and3), Falaquera basically pieces together abridged versions of books byothers without mentioning their names, theSeferha-Ma‘alot – the book that followsReshitHokhmah in the trilogy – is filled with numerous shortquotations, most of which are attributed to an author, such as Plato,Aristotle (although often in connection with citations from theSumma Alexandrinorum and the Pseudo-Aristotle,Theologyof Aristotle), Alfarabi, and Maimonides, or to the Philosopher(by which he usually means Ibn Bâjjah) or to the Scholar (bywhich he usually means Averroes). This work is also replete withquotations from the Bible and rabbinic literature

4. Falaquera as an encyclopedist

Falaquera’s use of his sources is a bit different in hisDe‘ot ha-Filosofim, one of the first Hebrewencyclopedias of science and philosophy, and the third book of thetrilogy. Falaquera states his goals and methods in his encyclopedia inhis introduction.

I endeavored to translate these opinions [of the philosophers] fromArabic to Hebrew, and to compile them from the books that arescattered there, so that whoever wishes to grasp these [opinions] willfind them in one book, and will not need to weary himself by readingall the books [on these subjects], for all the opinions [of thephilosophers], general and particular, on natural science and divinescience are included in this composition. … There is not a wordin this entire composition that I say of my own; rather all that Iwrite are the words of Aristotle as explained in the commentaries ofthe scholar Averroes, for he was the last of the commentators and heincorporated what was best from the [earlier]commentaries.

Falaquera’s goal in the encyclopedia, his longest work, was to makepossible the serious study of the sciences by his fellow Jews. Theencyclopedia is divided into two parts, one on the natural beings andone on the divine ones. The first part basically follows thetraditional order of Aristotle’s books on natural science. WhenFalaquera writes that there “is not a word in this entirecomposition that I say of my own,” he is hardlyexaggerating. His main source in the work is usually the middlecommentaries of Averroes or his epitomes when the middle commentarieswere not available. These texts are often translated literally, butwith no hesitation to abridge them and to blend them with othersources, in particular other commentaries by Averroes, for the sake ofclarification or completeness. Short passages from other works andother authors are inserted when it suits Falaquera’s purposes. Butapart from connecting phrases, references to other parts of the book,and occasional attributions, there is indeed hardly a word that isFalaquera’s own. It is thus remarkable that Falaquera was often ableto improve upon his sources and even intentionally part from themsolely through his combining of texts. It has been shown, for example,that “by advisedly and creatively combining [Averroes’]commentaries [on theMeteorology],” Falaquera was ableto present an account of Aristotle’s teachings clearer than that ofeither of Averroes’ commentaries [Fontaine, “Why Is the SeaSalty?” 213–218], and that by inserting a brief passagefrom Avicenna into his abridged paraphrase of Averroes’Epitome ofthe Parva naturalia, he was able to provide a response toAverroes’ argument therein that theoretical knowledge cannot beacquired in dreams [Harvey, “Falaquera’sDe‘otha-Filosofim,” 232–233]. Other such examples abound, butcan usually be detected only through a careful comparison of theencyclopedia with its sources. Falaquera’s intended reader, who didnot know Arabic, would thus have been unaware of his skill andparticular goals in weaving together his sources, but this would nothave bothered Falaquera. He had a far greater goal in mind. TheDe‘ot ha-Filosofim presents the reader with anambitious and comprehensive account of Aristotelian science andphilosophy, indeed the first full in-depth treatment of Aristotelianscience in Hebrew.

5. Falaquera as a commentator

Reference has been made to Falaquera’sMoreh ha-Moreh, one ofthe first commentaries on Maimonides’Guide of thePerplexed. The commentary is not on the entire book, but on onlya little over a quarter of its chapters. Yet Maimonides had urgedreaders of theGuide “not to comment upon a single wordof it and not to explain to another anything in it.” Falaquerawas aware of this plea, but also knew that people were alreadymisreading and misinterpreting the text. His own commentary is thefirst scholarly study of Maimonides’ philosophic sources, a topic thatcontinues to engage scholars to this day. The knowledge of thesesources – usually cited by Falaquera by name or epithet –and Maimonides’ agreement or disagreement with them is essential for aproper understanding of theGuide. Like theDe‘ot ha-Filosofim, most of thecommentary is pieced together from translated passages from otherworks, although here in the commentary he allows himself to comment,usually briefly and in his own name, on these passages. In addition totranslating these sources, Falaquera retranslated his selections fromtheGuide.

It is noteworthy that Falaquera speaks explicitly in his own name inthe commentary, but rarely in most of his other works. Shiffmancharacterizes Falaquera in the commentary as a “critical thinkerwho does not hesitate to disagree with those he cites, accepting onlythose opinions which he considers philosophically sound”(“Falqerah As Interpreter,” 7 [219]). On occasionFalaquera disagrees with and even criticizes Maimonides. At times thesources cited by Falaquera strengthen Maimonides’ views and attimes they part from them. In one instance, in his commentaryonGuide I, 68, Falaquera uncharacteristically adds a word(ha-maskil, the intellecting Subject) in his citation of theArabic translation ofMetaphysics Λ, perhaps in orderfor it to agree exactly with Maimonides’ statement withreference to God that He is Intellect, intellecting Subject, andObject of intellection [Harvey, “Notes on Maimonides’Formulations”]. The idea to explain theGuide and itsteachings through citations of Maimonides’ possible sources isthe great innovation of the commentary. Usually these passages speakfor themselves with only short comments added by Falaquera.Occasionally he is more verbose, but even when not, there is a sensethat he is considering the passage at hand carefully to determine towhat extent Maimonides followed its teachings and to what extent hehimself should. This is one of Falaquera’s last writings andlikely the most useful of his books for discerning his own views ontheological-philosophical matters, such as creation from eternalmatter; God’s will; the negation of corporeality, privation, andpotentiality with regard to God; the nature of prophecy; thepossibility of conjunction with the Active Intellect; and the ultimateand intermediate causes in nature, will, and chance.

6. Falaquera as an exegete

Falaquera in his various writings shows great familiarity with theBible and rabbinic literature. It is possible to understand quite abit from these books on how Falaquera read the Bible. In general,Falaquera repeatedly states that he views the Torah as a source oftruth, and that its teachings are in accord with the true teachings ofphilosophy and science for which there are demonstrative proofs. Inother words, if the Torah seems to contradict something that has beenproven demonstratively, the passage in the Torah needs to beinterpreted. Indeed, for Falaquera, philosophy is at times necessaryfor the correct interpretation of Scripture. The correctinterpretation of it is not always apparent, but philosophy can helpus to uncover it. Moreover, for Falaquera, Scripture is replete withscientific teachings and allusions (Iggeret ha-Vikkuah,69–71; trans., 34–37). On the other hand, he never tires ofreiterating in almost all his works that if a statement of thephilosophers contradicts something from the Torah, we reject it. Aclose examination of Falaquera’s proof texts in his various writingsreveals his methods of Biblical interpretation. For example, theallegorical interpretation of Prov. 27:26 and Song of Songs 4:11 asreferring to the need to conceal certain profound matters from themany (Iggeret ha-Vikkuah, 74; trans., 42); or the reading ofJer. 9:22 as referring to man’s confusing the pseudo-perfections forthe true one (Reshit Hokhmah, 72); or the understanding ofProv. 25:5 as teaching that man needs divine help in order to attainthe truth (Iggeret ha-Halom, 488); or simply takingPs. 31:20, 27:13, and 69:29 to each be referring to man’s eternal life(Sefer ha-Ma‘alot, 15).

A clearer picture of Falaquera as an exegete may be drawn from therecent editions and translations of extant passages from his lostcommentaries on the Bible (Jospe,Torah and Sophia,468–484, and Jospe and Schwartz, “Falaquera’s Lost BibleCommentary,” 186–200).

Here one can see Falaquera’s focus on understanding the meaning ofcertain equivocal terms in Scripture; on explicating certain ambiguousterms; on providing scientific explanations of certain terms; onpointing out that certain verses must be taken metaphorically; and onsuggesting the inner meaning (‘inyan penimi) whenappropriate. At times Falaquera strove to understand and explain theliteral meaning of the verse, while at other times he sought touncover its allegorical interpretation and secret meaning.

7. Conclusion: Falaquera as a philosopher

Shem-Tov Falaquera sought to interest his fellow Jews in philosophyand science and to make available to them in Hebrew the most importantteachings of the ancient Greek and medieval Islamic philosophers. Asis clear from his encyclopedia of science, he was an Aristotelian, andlike virtually all post-Maimonidean Jewish Aristotelians, his twoleading philosophic authorities were Averroes and Maimonides.Nonetheless, he had an open mind and seems to have been influencedalso by Neoplatonic writings. This is most evident from his decisionto prepare Hebrew versions of Ibn Gabirol’sFons vitae andPseudo-Empedocles’Five Substances, and from his manycitations from Ibn Gabirol in hisMoreh ha-Moreh (seeShiffman’s intro., 83–85). He knew the works of the Islamicfalâsifah better than any Jewish thinker of his time,and made many of them available to the Hebrew reader – oftenwithout attribution (as inReshit Hokhmah); yet he was nothesitant to modify unobtrusively their texts when it suited hispurposes. In this way, for example, he turned Alfarabi’s account ofthe origin of philosophic religion into a discussion of the origin ofthe virtuous city (Harvey, “Falaquera’s Alfarabi,”104–109).

Falaquera did not seek originality, yet was quite creative in hispresentation of philosophy and science. He was, for example, one ofthe first Hebrew authors to write a philosophic dialogue, anencyclopedia of science and philosophy, a commentary on theGuideof the Perplexed, and poetic philosophic tales. His method ofseamlessly blending various philosophic texts together to form acoherent whole is perhaps unique to him. But the fact is that his mostimportant works are comprised of Hebrew versions of the writings ofothers. We have seen that his personal views ontheological-philosophical matters may be discerned from hisMorehha-Moreh, particularly when he speaks in his own name. Yet evenin his earlier works, he often asserted his personal views, but heusually let his sources do the talking. When proper care is taken inthe study of these works not to jump to conclusions regarding hisviews on the basis of his translations, it is possible to uncover hisown theology. The role played by his occasional critical comments inhis commentary is played by the selection, blending, and abridgment ofsources in the earlier works. The theology derived from such carefulstudy of his translations and from his commentary may not alwaysaccord completely with that expressed in his more popular independenttreatises (such as theIggeret ha-Vikkuah andIggeretha-Halom), where he explicitly maintains the existence and unityof God, His knowledge of particulars, His providence over humanindividuals, His creation of the world, divine prophecy, miracles,reward and punishment, and eternal life, which is the World toCome. Scholars will no doubt debate his views on particular topics,but the thinker who emerges from virtually all his writings is amoderate Maimonidean, committed to the essential harmony between thetrue teachings of Torah and those of philosophy.

The problem of creation of the world is a good illustration of a topicwhere Falaquera seems to convey different opinions in differentworks. In his popular introductory works, Falaquera writes that amongthe true opinions of the Torah is that God “brought intoexistence the rest of the existents from non-existence”(Iggeret ha-Halom, 489), that it is the “root of theTorah to believe that there is a Creator of the world … and Hebrought into existence all the created beings from nothing, and tobelieve that the world is produced and is not eternal”(Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh, 65), and that while most of thephilosophers disagree with our beliefs concerning creation, some ofthem actually do “believe in the production [of the world], butnot in the way that we believe in it” (Iggeretha-Vikkuah, 77; trans., 46). He thus seems to propound a view ofcreationex nihilo, while acknowledging that mostphilosophers believe in eternity, although some believe in creation,but in a way different than we do, that is perhaps, creation frometernal matter. Falaquera does state in these works that knowledge ofthe true sciences is needed to comprehend the secrets of the Torah(e.g.,Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh, 70–72). One could wonder that ifknowledge of philosophy and science is necessary for understanding thesecrets of the Torah and if creation is one of these secrets, why thephilosophers do not believe in it “in the way that we believe init.” In theMoreh ha-Moreh, Falaquera clearly statesthat among the divine secrets is “how God, may He be exalted,created the created beings” (116). In this commentary, perhapsof all Falaquera’s writings the least likely to be read by themultitude, he reveals his own opinion that the world is not createdfrom nothing. His precise view is debated, but he seems to hold thatthe world is created from eternal matter, a view that Maimonides hadascribed to Plato. In his introduction, he suggests that Plato’s viewthat the world is created and never destroyed derives from the Sages,but since the Sages knew the true interpretation of the Torah, thiswould seem to mean that Plato’s view was the true one (117). Later inthe commentary, he repeats this view and writes that it appears to himthat “Plato’s opinion inclines toward the opinion of our holyTorah” (259, onGuide II, 13). A bit later in thechapter he writes explicitly (261):

It appears to me that there is no need to say that the Creator, may Hebe exalted, brought into existence the existent from non-existence[me-ha-he‘der], but rather that he brought it intoexistenceafter complete non-existence, for this is possibleaccording to our faith. Therefore, those that say that He, may He beexalted, brought [the world] into existence from nothing [do] not[express] a precise belief; rather, He brought it into existence afternothing, that is, He brought it into existence after the thing did notexist.

In other words, Falaquera in the context of his commentary onMaimonides’Guide reveals his own view on creation of theworld, one of the secrets of the Torah. This view differs from the onecommonly held in the Jewish community of his time, which he himselfcalled a root and true opinion of the Torah in his more popular works.The view presented in the commentary – for Falaquera, the trueinterpretation of the teaching of the Torah and a precise formulationof it – still speaks of God’s creation, not exnihilo,but ratherafter non-existence (aharha-he‘der) or after privation of form. In other words, itappears that for Falaquera, creation is through informing prime matter(cf. Shiffman, “Falqerah As Interpreter,” 7–14[220]). This interpretation of Falaquera’s teaching is strengthened byhis explanation of ‘creation’ (beri‘ah) inhisCommentary on the Torah: “The word‘creation’ teaches creation of the substance and quiddityof the thing, through which it is what it is … for the givingof the spirit to the bodies of this world is called‘creation’. … [God] gives all creatures substantiveform, that is, specific form, by which the thing is distinguished fromsomething else” (Jospe,Torah and Sophia, 468). ForFalaquera then, some of the philosophers do share a view of creationof the world precisely “in the way that we believe init.”

The importance of Falaquera for the history of philosophy is not,however, in his personal beliefs regarding theological-philosophicalsubjects. It is rather in his broad and profound knowledge of theteachings of the ancient and medieval philosophers, his mastery oftheir science, his commitment to the ultimate accord between theirtrue teachings and the correctly interpreted teachings of the Torah,and his life-long effort to interest his fellow Jews in science andphilosophy and to make their teachings available to them. Toaccomplish his goals, as we have seen, Falaquera, perhaps more thanany other medieval Jewish philosopher, employed a wide variety ofdifferent literary forms (see further, Hughes andRobinson 2019).

Bibliography

Shem-Tov ibn Falaquera was a prolific author. Most of his philosophicworks and translations are extant and have been edited at leastonce. In fact, the only extant work of Falaquera’s that has not beenedited and printed is his encyclopedia of science and philosophy,De‘ot ha-Filosofim (The Opinions of the Philosophers),which is extant in two manuscripts, and Ilya Levkovich is currently engaged in editing parts of it. Falaquera mentions in his writingsbooks of his that are no longer extant:Megillat ha-Zikkaron(Scroll of Remembrance), in which “I spoke of our trials of thepast, for at present, hordes of afflictions come upon us daily”(Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh, 12; trans., 7]);Seferha-Derash, apparently a philosophic commentary on the Midrashim(Moreh ha-Moreh, II, 26, 287); aCommentary on theTorah and aCommentary on other books of the Bible(Moreh ha-Moreh, introduction, 116), and aCommentary onProverbs (Moreh ha-Moreh, addendum chap. 1, 337; cf.Reshit Hokhmah, 10, andSefer ha-Ma‘alot, 39).He also expresses his intention to write aCommentary onEcclesiastes (Iggeret ha-Vikkuah, 71; trans., 37).Passages from Falaquera’s lost Bible commentaries and perhaps alsofrom hisSefer ha-Derash have been preserved in two writingsof Samuel ibn Sarsa. These have been edited and translated in Jospe,Torah and Sophia, 468–484 (from Ibn Sarsa’sMeqorHayyim) and in Jospe and Schwartz, “Falaquera’s Lost BibleCommentary,” 186–200 (from Ibn Sarsa’sMikhlolYofi).

Below is a list of editions and translations of Falaquera’sworks. References above are to the first edition listed. For adescription of these works and for information on additional editionsof them, see Jospe,Torah and Sofia, 31–76. Whereeditions are available on-line without charge, I have provided theURL. Some of these editions are quite faulty and must be checkedagainst the modern critical editions (where available). A selectedlist of the secondary literature follows that of Falaquera’swritings. The past decades have seen a dramatic increase in studies onvarious aspects of Falaquera’s philosophic writing. In part, this isdue to Colette Sirat, whoseHistory of Jewish Philosophy in theMiddle Ages (in various languages) was the first history todiscuss Falaquera’s thought and to recognize the importance of lesserknown Jewish philosophers for the history and development of Jewishthought. In general, special attention may be paid to the writings ofthe following present-day scholars who have carefully studied thephilosophy and science of Falaquera: Bruno Chiesa, Resianne Fontaine,Steven Harvey, Raphael Jospe, Yair Shiffman, and Mauro Zonta.

Primary Sources

• Battei Hanhagat Guf ha-Bari’; Battei Hanhagatha-Nefesh (Verses on the Regimen of the Healthy Body; Verses onthe Regimen of the Soul). Ed. and Spanish trans. MaríaEncarnación Varela Moreno,Versos para la sanaconducción del cuerpo; versos para la conducción delalma de Šem Tob ibn Falaquera. Granada: Universidad deGranada, 1986.
• De‘ot ha-Filosofim (The Opinions of thePhilosophers). Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit MS Or. 4758/3(Warn. 20) (IMHM 17368), fols. 104r-343v. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina,MS 3156 (De Rossi 164) (IMHM 13897), fols. 1r-291r. Parts of theintroduction are edited with an Italian trans. in M. Zonta,L’introduzione. Other parts of the introduction are trans. inR. Gatti,Ermeneutica e filosofia,161–172. Book I, Part IV (On Plants), chaps. 1 and 3, is edited and translated inNicolaus Damascenus, De Plantis: Five Translations,ed. H. J. Drossaart Lulofs and E. L. J. Poortman (Leiden: Brill,1989), 388–405.

  Ilya Levkovich is completing a critical edition of Book I, Part VI: A and B (On the Soul), which will appear soon. Tomás Jesús Urrutia Sánchez edited and prepared a Spanish trans. of Book I, Part VII, as part of his Ph.D. thesis at the Universidad de Granada (2010), entitled:“La parte séptima delDe‘ot ha-Pilosofim de Shem Tob Ibn Falaquera, edición, traducción y studio.” A detailed outline of theDe‘otby Raphael Jospe is found in S. Harvey (ed.) 2000, 238–247.

• Iggeret ha-Ḥalom (Treatise of the Dream). Ed. and Englishsummary by Henry Malter, “Shem Tob ben Joseph Palquera: HisTreatise of the Dream.”Jewish QuarterlyReview 1 (1910–1911): 451–501.[Available online]

  A critical ed. and Spanish trans. has recently been made by SaraCalderer Espigares, “’Iggeret ha-Ḥalom(Tratado del sueño) de Šem Tob ibnFalaquera.”MEAH (sección Hebreo) 55 (2006):427–473.

• Iggeret ha-Musar (Treatise onEthics). Ed. A. M. Haberman, “Rabbi Shem Tov Falaquera’s Iggeretha-Musar.”Qoves ‘al Yad 1 (1936): 43–90.
• Iggeret ha-Vikkuaḥ (The Epistle of the Debate). Ed. andEnglish trans. in S. Harvey,Falaquera’s Epistle of theDebate: An Introduction to Jewish Philosophy, 55–80;trans., 13–52.Editio princeps: Constantinople,ca. 1577. Italian trans. in Harvey,L’“Opuscolo dellacontesa” di Falaquera, 49–111. Spanish trans. AngelSáenz-Badillos, “La Carta del Debate de Šem Tobibn Falaqera.”Meah 42 (1993): 105–133. French trans. David Lemler,L’accord de la Torah et de la philosophie: Épître de la controverse. Paris: Hermann, 2014. Latin trans.“Epistola dialogi: une traduction latine del’Iggeret ha-Vikuah de Shemtov ibn Falaquera, étude etédition,” ed. Gilbert Dahan.Sefarad 39 (1979):47–85, 237–264. [Vienna 1875 ed. available online]
• Liqqutim mi-Sefer ha-‘Asamim ha-Ḥamishah (Excerptsfrom [Pseudo-Empedocles’]The Book of FiveSubstances). Ed. David Kaufmann in hisStudien überSalomon ibn Gabirol (Budapest, 1899).
• Liqqutim mi-Sefer Meqor Ḥayyim (Excerpts from [Solomonibn Gabirol’s]The Source of Life). Ed. and Frenchtrans. S. Munk in hisMélanges de philosophie juive etarabe. Paris, 1859. Ed. and Italian trans. by RobertoGatti.Shelomoh ibn Gabirol, Fons Vitae. Genova: IlMelangolo, 2001. English trans. by Charles H. Manekin, in hisMedieval Hebrew Philosophical Writings, 23–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

  It was Munk who showed on the basis of Falaquera’sHebrew version that Avicebron was Jewish and none other than IbnGabirol, and that theFons vitae was Ibn Gabirol’sMeqorHayyim.

• Mikhtav ‘al Devar ha-Moreh (Letter regarding theGuide). Ed. David Lemler inZutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture 9 (2012): 40–50.Editio princeps: In Abba Mari ben Moses of Lunel,MinhatQena‘ot. Pressburg, 1838, 182–185.
• Moreh ha-Moreh (The Guide to the Guide), on Maimonides’Guide of the Perplexed. Ed. Yair Shiffman. Jerusalem: WorldUnion of Jewish Studies, 2001.Editio princeps: Pressburg,1837. An English translation of the beginning of this commentary (Shiffman, 112–123) can be found in Igor H. De Souza,Rewriting Maimonides: Early Commentaries on the “Guide of the Perplexed”, 152–171. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018.
• Reshit Ḥokhmah (The Beginning of Wisdom). Ed. MoritzDavid. Berlin, 1902. Latin trans. is extant in MS Paris 6691. [Berlin 1902 ed. available online]
• Sefer ha-Ma‘alot (The Book of Degrees). Ed. LudwigVenetianer. Berlin, 1894. [Available online]
• Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh. Ed. M. Tamah. Hague, 1778. Trans. ofPart 1, M. Herschel Levine,Falaquera’s Book of theSeeker. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1976.Editioprinceps: Cracow, 1646. [Hague 1778 ed. available online]
• Sefer ha-Nefesh (The Book of the Soul). Ed. andtrans. Raphael Jospe,Torah and Sophia, 275–319;trans., 321–409.Editio princeps: Lemberg,1835. Spanish trans. Ana M. Riaño López and FranciscoSamaranch Kriner,Libro del alma. Granada: Universidad deGranada, 1990. [Warsaw 1924 ed. available online]
• Seri ha-Yagon (Balm of Sorrow). Ed. and trans. RobertaKlugman Barkan, “Shem Tob ben Joseph ibn Falaquera’s ‘SoriYagon’ or ‘Balm for Assuaging Grief’: Its LiterarySources and Traditions.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University,1971.Editio princeps: Cremona, 1557.
• Shelemut ha-Ma‘asim (The Perfection ofActions). Ed. Raphael Jospe,Torah and Sophia,417–458.

Secondary Sources

• Chiesa, Bruno, 1986, “Note su al-Fârâbî,Averroe’ e Ibn Bâgga (Avempace) in traduzioneebraica.”Henoch, 8: 79–86.
• –––, 1989, “Shem Tob ibn Falaqueratraduttore di al-Fârâbî e di Averroè.”Sefarad, 49: 21–35.
• –––, 1990, “Una fonte sconosciutadell’Etica di Falaquera: laSumma Alexandrinorum.” InBiblische und judaistische Studien, Festschrift für PaoloSacchi, ed. Angelo Vivian, 583–612. Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.
• –––, 1991, “Etica e antropologia nelpensiero di Shem Tob Ibn Falaquera.” InSangue eantropologia nella teologia medievale, ed. F. Vattioni, Rome:Edizioni Pia Unione Preziosissimo Sangue, 363–384.
• Chiesa, Bruno and Caterina Rigo, 1993, “La tradizionemanoscritta delSefer ha-Ma‘alot di Shem Tob IbnFalaquera e una citazione ignorata dellaRisâla fi ismal-falsafa di al-Farabi.”Sefarad, 53: 3–15.
• De Souza, Igor H., 2018,Rewriting Maimonides: Early Commentaries on the “Guide of the Perplexed”. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Di Donato, Silvia, 2019, “Notes on Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera as a Translator of theGuide of the Perplexed.”Yod: Revue des études hébraïques et juives, 22: 155–182. Open access: https://journals.openedition.org/yod/3813.
• Elgrably-Berzin, Gabriella, 2015,Avicenna in Medieval Hebrew Translation, 131–156. Leiden:Brill.
• Fenton, Paul, 1992, “Passages from theTheology ofAristotle in Ibn Falaquera’sSeferha-Ma‘alot” (in Hebrew).Daat, 29:27–39.
• Fontaine, Resianne, 2000, “Between Scorching Heat andFreezing Cold: Medieval Jewish Authors on the Inhabited andUninhabited Parts of the Earth.”Arabic Sciences andPhilosophy, 10: 101–137.
• –––, 2002, “The Reception of Aristotle’sMeteorology in Hebrew Scientific Writings of the ThirteenthCentury.”Aleph, 1: 101–139.
• –––, 1995, “Why Is the Sea Salty? TheDiscussion of Salinity in Hebrew Texts of the ThirteenthCentury.”Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 5:195–218.
• Freudenthal, Gad, 2000, “Providence, Astrology, andCelestial Influences on the Sublunar World in Shem-Tov ibn Falaquera’sDe‘ot ha-Filosofim.” InThe Medieval HebrewEncyclopedias of Science and Philosophy, S. Harvey (ed.) 2000,335–370.
• Gatti, Roberto, 2003,Ermeneutica e filosofia: Introduzione alpensiero ebraico medioevale (secoli XII-XIV). Genova: IlMelangolo.
• Harvey, Steven, 1987,Falaquera’s Epistle of theDebate: An Introduction to Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press. Italian trans. Raffaele Di Noia,L’“Opuscolo della contesa” di Falaquera: Introduzionealla filosofia ebraica medioevale, ed. Roberto Gatti. Genova: IlMelangolo, 2005.
• –––, 1992, “Falaquera’sEpistle of theDebate and the Maimonidean Controversy of the 1230s.” InTorah and Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman, ed. RuthLink-Salinger, 75–86. New York: Shengold Publishers. Italiantrans. inL’“Opuscolo della contesa” diFalaquera, Genova: Il Nuovo Melangolo, 2005, 223–239.
• –––, 1998a, “The Quiddity ofPhilosophy according to Averroes and Falaquera, a Muslim Philosopherand his Jewish Interpreter.”Miscellanea Mediaevalia,26: 910–1.
• –––, 1998b, “The Sources of theQuotations from Aristotle’sEthics in theGuide of thePerplexed and theGuide to the Guide” (inHebrew).Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 14 (= JosephBaruch Sermoneta Memorial Volume): 87–102 (English summary,ix–x).
• –––, 2000a, “Shem-TovFalaquera’sDe‘ot ha-Filosofim: Its Sources and Use ofSources.” In S. Harvey (ed.) 2000, 211–237.
• –––, ed., 2000b,The MedievalHebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy. Amsterdam Studiesin Jewish Thought, Volume 7, Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.
• –––, 2002, “Falaquera’s Alfarabi: AnExample of the Judaization of the IslamicFalâsifah.”Trumah, 12:97–112.
• –––, 2007–2008, “Shem-Tov Falaquera, aParagon of an Epigone, and the Epigone’s Importance for the Study ofJewish Intellectual History.”Studia Rosenthaliana,40: 61–74.
• –––, 2019, “Leo Strauss’s Developing Interest in Alfarabi and Its Reverberations in the Study of Medieval Islamic Philosophy.” InThe Pilgrimage of Philosophy: A Festschrift for Charles E. Butterworth, ed. by Rene M. Paddags, Waseem El-Rayes, and Gregory A. McGrayer, 60–83, esp. 63–73. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.
• –––, 2020, “Notes on Maimonides’ Formulations of Principle K.”Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 69.
• Hughes, Aaron W., and James T. Robinson, 2019,Medieval Jewish Philosophy and Its Literary Forms. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Ivry, Alfred L. “The Soul of the HebrewEncyclopedists.” In S. Harvey (ed.) 2000, 390–413.
• Jospe, Raphael, 1988,Torah and Sophia:The Life and Thought ofShem Tov Ibn Falaquera. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union CollegePress.
• Jospe, Raphael and Dov Schwartz, 1993, “Shem Tov IbnFalaquera’s Lost Bible Commentary.”Hebrew Union CollegeAnnual, 64: 167–200.
• Lerner, Ralph, 2000, “Persuasive Speech: Falaquera’sEpistle of the Debate.” Chap. 7 inMaimonides’Empire of Light: Popular Enlightenment in an Age ofBelief. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Malter, Henry, 1910–1911, “Shem Tob ben JosephPalquera: A Thinker and Poet of the Thirteenth Century.”Jewish Quarterly Review, 1: 151–181. [Available online]
• Plessner, M., 1954–1956, “The Importance ofR. Shem-Tov ibn Falaquera for the Study of the History ofPhilosophy” (in Hebrew). InHomenaje aMillás-Vallicrosa, Barcelona: Consejo Superior deInvestigaciones Científicas, Volume 2, 161–186.
• Roberts-Zauderer, Dianna Lynn, 2019,Metaphor and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Thought: Moses ibn Ezra, Judah Halevi, Moses Maimonides, and Shem Tov ibn Falaquera. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Salvatierra Ossorio, Aurora, 2004, “La Torah y suinterpretación: un pasaje delSefer ha-mébaqqesde Ibn Falaquera.”Meah, 53: 361–385.
• –––, 2006, “Un hindú en lasinagoga: un personaje paradójico en laIggeretha-musar de Ibn Falaquera.”Sefarad, 66:265–284.
• –––, 2007, “El bálsamo de la aflicción (Ṣeri ha-yagon) de Ibn Falaquera en la tradición de la literatura de Consuelo.”Miscelánea de estudios árabes y hebráicos (Sección de hebreo), 56: 111–137.
• –––, 2008, “Shem Tov ibn Falaquera: FromLogic to Ethics: A Redefinition of Poetry in the ThirteenthCentury.”Comparative Literature Studies, 45:165–181.
• Sarfati, Gad, 1972, “The Hebrew Translations of Alfarabi’s‘Classification of the Sciences’”(Hebrew).Bar-Ilan Annual, 9: 413–422.
• Shiffman, Yair, 1992–1993, “Shem Tob Ibn Falqerah AsInterpreter of Maimonides’Guide of thePerplexed – Outlines of His Thought” (in Hebrew).Maimonidean Studies, 3: 1–29 (English summary,219–221).
• –––, 1999, “The Differences between theTranslations of Maimonides’Guide of the Perplexed byFalaquera, Ibn Tibbon and Al-Harizî, and Their Textual andPhilosophical Implications.”Journal of SemiticStudies, 44: 47–61.
• Sirat, Colette, 1985,A History of Jewish Philosophy in theMiddle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Steinschneider, Moritz, 1893,Die hebraeischenÜbersetzungen des Mittelalters. Berlin; reprint, Graz:Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956. Updated Englishtranslation of the section on the encyclopedias by Charles H. Manekin,“Steinschneider on the Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias: anAnnotated Translation fromDie hebraeischen Übersetzungen desMittelalters.” In S. Harvey (ed.) 2000, 465–519. A revised version appears inSteinschneider’s “The Hebrew Translations of the Middle Ages”: Vol II. General Works. Logic. Christian Philosophers, ed. Charles H. Manekin and Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).
• Strauss, Leo, 1936, “Eine vermisste SchriftFârâbîs.”Montatsschrift fürGeschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 80: 96–106.
• Urrutia Sánchez, Tomás Jesús, 2010, “Shem Tob Ibn Falaquera como discípulo y crítico de MaimónidesEl Moreh ha Moreh.” La interculturalidad en Al-Andalus, 1: 85–92.
• Zonta, Mauro, 1990, “Shem Tob ibn Falaquera e la suaopera.”Henoch, 12: 207–226.
• –––, 1992,Un dizionario filosofico ebraicodel XIII secolo: L’introduzione al “Sefer De‘ot ha-Filosofim” di Shem Tob ibn Falaquera. Torino: SilvioZamorani editore.
• –––, 1993, “Shem Tob ibn Falaquera e lafilología ebraica medievale.”Sefarad, 52: 321–343.
• –––, 1995a, “The Reception ofAl-Fârâbî’s and Ibn Sînâ’sClassifications of the Mathematical and Natural Sciences in the HebrewMedieval Philosophical Literature.”MedievalEncounters, 1: 358–382.
• –––, 1995b,Un interprete ebreodella filosofia di Galeno: Gli scritti filosofici di Galeno nell’operadi Shem Tob ibn Falaquera. Torino: Silvio Zamorani editore.
• –––, 1996a, “Mineralogy, Botanyand Zoology in Medieval Hebrew Encyclopaedias.”ArabicSciences and Philosophy, 6: 262–315.
• –––, 1996b,La filosofia antica nelMedioevo ebraico. Brescia: Paideia.
• –––, 1999, “The Zoological Writings in theHebrew Tradition.” InAristotle’s Animals in the Middle Agesand Renaissance, ed. Carlos Steel, Guy Guldentops, and PieterBeullens, 44–67. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Place of AristotelianMetaphysics in the Thirteenth-century Encyclopedias.” InS. Harvey (ed.) 2000, 414–426.
• –––, 2004, “Hebrew Transmission of Arabic Philosophy and Science: A Reconstruction of ShemTov Ibn Falaquera’s ‘Arabic Library.’” InL’interculturalità dell’ebraismo, ed. Mauro Perani, 121–137. Ravenna: A. Longo Editore.
• –––, 2017, “A Note about Two Newly-Discovered Hebrew Quotations of Averroes’ Works Lost in their Original Arabic Texts.” InStudies in Hebrew Literature and Jewish Culture: Presented to Albert van der Heide on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by Martin F. J. Baasten and Reinier Munk, 241–50. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Zwiep, Irene E., 1993, “Everything You Always Wanted To Knowabout Grammar… Logic and Linguistics in Shem Tov IbnFalaquera’sSefer ha-Mevaqqesh.” InFrom Narbonneto Regensburg: Studies in Medieval Hebrew Texts, ed. N. A. vanUchelen and I. E. Zwiep, 21–43. Amsterdam: Juda PalacheInstitute.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Related Entries

al-Farabi |Arabic and Islamic Philosophy, historical and methodological topics in: influence of Arabic and Islamic Philosophy on Judaic thought |Ibn Daud, Abraham |Ibn Rushd [Averroes] |Maimonides