Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/388

346 Avenger Averroism

THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

acknowledged by the

Biblical law (Num. xxxv. 19 Deut. xix. 12); although, according to the higher conception of the Bible, a murder is not so much a crime against the individual as against the community. This conception is carried still further by the rabbinical law, under which the avenging relative has no rights left. The hunting down of a murderer is no longer the business of the avenger, etseg.;

but of the

any relative or not, whether the relative lodges complaint or not, the state must prosecute the murderer (Sifre, Num. 160 on xxv. 19; Deut. 181). Every murderer, or one who had committed manslaughter, state; accordingly,

whether there

is

fled to one of the cities of refuge before his case was investigated; and there he was secure from any attack on the part of the avenger, who was forbidden, under penalty of death, to assail such a fugitive iu his asylum (Mishnah Mak. ii. 6; Sifre, Num.

160 on xxv. 25). It was obligatory upon the court of justice to arrest the fugitive there, bring him to court, try him, and, if found guilty, to execute him.

was proved that

the death was a case of careand not of intentional murder, he was sent back to the city of refuge in care of armed officers of the court, so as to protect him from the avenger (Mishnah Mak. ii. 5, 6). Should he leave his place of refuge, the avenger had, according to R. 'Akiba, If

it

lessness

— —

the right and, according to R. Jose the Galilean, the duty to slay him, but only when the fugitive had voluntarily left his retreat (ib. 7). But even here it is evident that the avenger enjoyed no peculiar prerogative; for, should the fugitive be slain by a disinterested party, the latter was not held accountfor the correct reading of this passage able (ib. compare Rabbinowicz, " Varia? Lectiones, " on the One teacher, however, goes so far as to passage). maintain that neither the avenger nor, still less, a third party can be permitted to take the man's life,

should he have

Gemara

ib.

left his

asylum

(Tosef.,

Mak.

ii.

7;

12a).

All these details, however, are hardly to be considered as ever having been matters of actual enforcement; for, although it is highly probable that rabbinical tradition contained much concerning the cities of refuge which existed during the second

Temple (see Asylum in Rabbinical Literature), the regulations concerning the Avenger of Blood are rather of an academic nature and are scarcely drawn from actual life. L. G. k. or ABTTL MTTHAM-

AVERROES,

WALID

MED IBN AHMAD IBN ROSHD



Arabian

philosopher of the twelfth century born at Cordova Although himself a prolific in 1126; died in 1198. writer on philosophy and medicine, his chief importance is as a commentator upon the works of Aristotle, and for this reason he is often styled "the commentator par excellence." Like Avicenna, who

also

commented

Aristotle,

Averroes wrote an

origi-

nal compendium of philosophy of his author, and, in addition to this, wrote the so-called " Middle Commentaries," which latter follow the text, with, howand ever, the omission of passages here and there finally he made a full and copious exposition of every Aristotelian statement, incorporating the sentence indistinguishably with his text. His reputation was

346

so great that his books found their way during his even into Egypt, where, in 1190, Maimon-

lifetime

Jewish Preservation of His Writing's,

ides made their acquaintance. As a matter of course, Averroes' views frequently conflicted with those of his Mohammedancoreligionists,andhisworks were therefore extensively condemned

and prohibited.

owing to his Jew-

It is

ish admirers that his writings are preserved to-day,

for only in the shape of

Hebrew

by a charac-

translations or

transliteration of the Arabic text in

Hebrew

escaped the fanaticism of the Moors. between Averroes and Maimonides, which has frequently been misconceived, it is quite certain that Maimonides can not be called a disciple of Averroes, nor Averroes a pupil of Maimonides. The latter read Averroes' writings far too late to permit of his having used them in his own works. Both, it is true, coincide on many points. Both are strong Aristotelians and energetically opposed to the teachings of the Motakallemin concerning atoms and the non-existence of natural laws. Both deny to the Deity the possession of " attributes. Their theories of the intellect are identical, and both take the same position as regards the relation of faith and knowledge. It has yet to be determined whether these striking resemblances are not founded upon some third or common source not yet discovered. In a letter to his favorite pupil, Joseph b. Judah Aknin, dated Cairo, 1190, Maimonides writes: "I have recently received Ibn Roshd's Relation work upon Aristotle, besides the book, to MaiDe Sensu et Sensito and I have read monides. enough to perceive that he has hit the truth with great precision but I lack the leisure now to make a study of it. " A passage in a letter to Samuel Tibbon, 1199, in which he recommends Averroes' commentaries, is not quite clear. Less known than his commentaries upon Aristotle are Averroes' own original writings, although they have left indubitable traces upon Jewish thought. His essay on " The Relation of Faith to Knowledge " (published by Joseph Mailer with German translation, Munich, 1875) seems to have inspired Shem-Tob Falaquera to write his "Iggeret Havikkuah." It is extant in an anonymous Hebrew translation dated 1340, as is also another work of Averroes of similar tendency, " The Book of the Revelation of the Method of Proof Touching the Principles of Religion " both ters did they

As

to the relation

'

'







works were familiar to Kalonymus ben Kalonymus and Simon Duran in 1428. Better known than these his reply to Gazzali's book, "A Confutation of Philosophers," Averroes calling his "A Confutation of the Confutation." Kalonymus, son of David b. Todros, translated this book into HeOriginal brew in 1328 and there is also another Works. translation by an unknown author. Kalonymus gives a curious reason for his undertaking. Knowing that Averroes is justly condemned as a denier of God, he protests that he translates it only because it contains in its text the whole work of Gazzali, who defended religion; had he been able to procure Gazzali's book, he would not have undertaken the ungrateful task or translated a single word of Averroes' specious argumentation. Kalonymus' translation was rendered into Latin by is