NAḤMANIDES (Moses b.

Naḥman, also known as Naḥamani

and RaMBaN – an acronym of Rabbi Moses Ben
Naḥman; 1194–1270), Spanish rabbi and scholar and one of
the leading authors of talmudic literature in the Middle Ages;
philosopher, kabbalist, biblical exegete, poet, and physician.
Naḥmanides was born in Gerona, Catalonia, and it was after
his native town that he was also referred to as Rabbenu
Moses Gerondi or Yerondi. His Spanish name was Bonastrug
da Porta. Naḥmanides was a descendant of Isaac b. Reuben,
a contemporary of Isaac b. Jacob *Alfasi. His mother was the
sister of Abraham, father of Jonah b. Abraham Gerondi. His
teachers included *Judah b. Yakar, a disciple of *Isaac b. Abraham
of Dampierre, who established his yeshivah in Barcelona,
and *Meir b. Isaac of Trinquetaille. From the first, he received
the tradition of the tosafists of northern France, while from
the second he learned the methods of study employed in the
yeshivot of Provence. He maintained close contact with Meir
b. Todros ha-Levi Abulafia of Toledo who replied to his queries,
and even more so with his cousin, Jonah b. Abraham of
Gerona. His colleagues also included Samuel b. Isaac *Sardi,
to whom he sent the largest number of his responsa, as well
as *Isaac b. Abraham of Narbonne. The responsa of Solomon
b. Abraham *Adret (part 1, 120, 167) relate that Naḥmanides
earned his livelihood as a physician. Even though there is no
information available on Naḥmanides’ yeshivah in Gerona,
there is no doubt that it existed. His disciples included the
leading halakhists of the following generation, such as Solomon
b. Abraham Adret, *Aaron b. Joseph ha-Levi, David
Bonafed, Jonah b. Joseph, Naḥmanides’ cousin, and many others.
There is reason to believe that after the death of Jonah b.
Abraham Gerondi in 1264, Naḥmanides acted as chief rabbi
of Catalonia until his emigration to Ereẓ Israel. The Spanish
rabbis of subsequent generations regarded him as their great
teacher and referred to him as ha-rav ha-ne’eman (“the trustworthy
rabbi”). In his Nomologia, Immanuel *Aboab states that
throughout Spain it was the custom to refer to him simply as
“the rabbi” or “the teacher.”
When the *Maimonidean controversy broke out in
*Montpellier in 1232, Naḥmanides attempted to find a compromise
between the opposing camps, although he agreed
with *Solomon b. Abraham of Montpellier and his followers
in condemning the detrimental use which had been made of
the works of Maimonides by the “philosophizers” to whom the
study of secular sciences was a principal object. On the one
hand, in the letters which he sent to the community leaders
of Aragon, Navarre, and Castile, he sought to prevent them
from taking measures against the extremists of Montpellier,
while on the other hand, in his famous letter “Before I raise
my voice, I err,” he requested the rabbis of France that they
annul the ḥerem which they had proclaimed against the writings
of Maimonides. He argued that these were not intended
for French Jewry, which was faithful to Jewish tradition, but
for the Jews of the south (Provence and Spain), among whom
philosophic culture had struck roots, with the objective of
bringing them back to the path of the faithful. In order to
avert a schism between the opposed communities and camps,
he proposed a detailed program which would suit the varying
conditions prevailing in France and Spain and would regulate
the study of the various sciences according to the age of
the students and the locality. Naḥmanides’ program failed
because the extremists in both camps gained the upper hand
and he was isolated.
He exercised extensive influence over Jewish public life
in Catalonia; even King James I (1213–1276) consulted him and
in 1232, on the strength of Naḥmanides’ opinion, rejected the
Naḥmanides
740 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14
claims of the *Alconstantini family to the position of dayyan
over all the Jews of the kingdom. In 1263 King James coerced
him into a public disputation in Barcelona with the apostate
Pablo *Christiani. The disputation, which was held in July in
the presence of the king and the leaders of the *Dominicans
and the *Franciscans, was a victory for Naḥmanides, the king
even presenting him with 300 dinars in appreciation of the
manner in which he had stated his arguments. (For further
details see *Barcelona, Disputation of.) At the request of the
bishop of Gerona, Naḥmanides summarized his views in a
book, apparently the Sefer ha-Vikku’aḥ, which is still extant.
The Dominicans, who had initiated the disputation, did not
remain inactive, and in April 1265 they called Naḥmanides to
trial for his supposed abuses against Christianity. Before the
tribunal Naḥmanides stated that his words had been spoken
during the disputation after the king had promised him freedom
of speech, and that he had written his work at the request
of the bishop. The king thereupon succeeded in extricating
Naḥmanides from the complications of the trial, which was
postponed for an indefinite period. Dissatisfied, the Dominicans
sought the aid of Pope *Clement IV, who sent a letter to
the king of Aragon requesting him to penalize Nah ̣manides
for writing the above work. Naḥmanides barely succeeded in
escaping from Spain and during the same year emigrated to
Ereẓ Israel.
A prayer in the spirit of the Psalms, which Naḥmanides
composed at sea while on his way to Ereẓ Israel, has been preserved.
He arrived in *Acre during the summer of 1267 and on
Elul 9 of that year he went to Jerusalem. In a letter to his son
Naḥman, he described the ruined state of the city seven years
after the invasion of the Tatar hordes. He found few Jews, “only
two brothers, dyers who bought their dye from the governor
and were joined by up to ten Jews in their home on Sabbaths
for prayers.” On his arrival in the town he organized the remnants
of the Jewish community and erected a synagogue in a
derelict house; it appears that he also founded a yeshivah. Reports
of his activities circulated rapidly; many Jews streamed
into Jerusalem. In 1268 Naḥmanides moved to Acre, where he
became the spiritual leader of the Jewish community, in succession
to *Jehiel b. Joseph of Paris. From this period a sermon
which he delivered in the synagogue on Rosh Ha-Shanah
in 1269 has been preserved. The site of his tomb has not been
ascertained; some believe that he was buried at the foot of
Mount Carmel; others that he was buried in Haifa, beside the
tomb of Jehiel b. Joseph of Paris; while others say that he was
interred in Acre. There is also a tradition that he was buried
in Jerusalem, under the slope of the mountain near the village
of Silwan, and another that his tomb is in Hebron.
Naḥmanides had three sons: Naḥman, to whom he sent
the above-mentioned letter from Jerusalem; Solomon, who
married the daughter of Jonah b. Abraham Gerondi; and Joseph,
who was a favorite at the court of the king of Castile and
owned an estate in *Valladolid. One of Naḥmanides’ daughters
married *Gershom b. Solomon, and their son was *Levi
b. Gershom.
Works
About 50 of Naḥmanides’ works have been preserved, in addition
to many works which are doubtfully attributed to him.
The majority of his works are novellae on the Talmud and
halakhah. He also wrote books and letters connected with his
public activities, including the Sefer ha-Vikku’aḥ already mentioned.
He devoted a special work to the nature of the belief
in Redemption, the Sefer ha-Ge’ullah, written in about 1263.
He was also a gifted paytan, writing a number of poems and
prayers, including a prayer which he composed on his entry
into Jerusalem. Four of his sermons have been preserved: Ha-
Derashah la-Ḥatunnah, dating from his youth; Torat ha-Shem
Temimah, which he apparently delivered after the disputation
of Barcelona; one on the Book of Ecclesiastes, which he delivered
before his departure for Ereẓ Israel; and the sermon
mentioned above, delivered in Acre on Rosh Ha-Shanah. All
his works bear the imprint of his original personality, a synthesis
of the culture of Spain and the piety of Germany, a talmudic
education together with the teachings of Kabbalah, as
well as a broad knowledge of sciences and Christian theological
works. An edition of his works has been published by Ch.
D. Chavel (see bibliography).
[Joseph Kaplan]
As Biblical Commentator
Naḥmanides wrote his commentary on the Torah in his old
age. He composed the main part in Spain, but added to it after
his arrival in Ereẓ Israel. In the introduction he states the
purpose of his commentary: “To appease the minds of the
students, weary through exile and trouble, when they read
the portion on Sabbaths and festivals.” It is an extensive commentary,
both on the narrative and legislative part of the Bible.
Unlike his most noted predecessors, *Rashi and Abraham *Ibn
Ezra, who devoted themselves chiefly to the elucidation of individual
words and verses, Naḥmanides, though he followed
strict philological procedure when he deemed it necessary
to establish the exact meaning of a word, concerns himself
mainly with the sequence of the biblical passages and with the
deeper meaning of the Bible’s laws and narrative. He makes
frequent use of the aggadic and halakhic interpretations of the
talmudic and midrashic sages, but whereas Rashi quotes these
without expressing his own opinions, Naḥmanides dwells on
them at length, analyzes them critically, develops their ideas,
and probes their compatibility with the biblical text.
The commentary of Naḥmanides is more than a mere
commentary. It reflects his views on God, the Torah, Israel,
and the world. The Torah is the word of God and is the source
of all knowledge. The narratives of the Bible are not simple records
of the past, but are portents of the future. The account
of the six days of creation contains prophecies regarding the
most important events of the succeeding 6,000 years, while
the Sabbath foreshadows the seventh millennium which will
be the Day of the Lord, and the accounts told about the patriarchs
foreshadow the history of the Jewish people as a whole.
Naḥmanides does not hesitate to criticize the patriarchs when
their actions seem to him unjustifiable. According to him
Naḥmanides
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14 741
(Gen. 12:11), Abraham “unintentionally committed a great sin,”
when, on coming to Egypt, he said out of fear for his life that
his wife Sarah was his sister, for in this way he exposed her to
moral corruption; rather, he should have had faith that God
would save both him and his wife. Naḥmanides demonstrates
great psychological insight when describing the behavior of
biblical personalities. In the story of Joseph the Bible relates
that “he fell on his neck and wept on his neck for a while”
(Gen. 46:29). The question arises: Who wept? Jacob or Joseph?
It is obvious who is more likely to weep at such a time,
Naḥmanides says, the old father who finds his son alive after
he had mourned for him as lost, not the son who has risen to
become a king. Naḥmanides explains the laws in the light of
halakhic tradition. He maintains that there is a reason for every
commandment. The commandments are all for the good
of man, either to keep from him something that is hurtful, to
remove from him evil beliefs and habits, to teach him mercy
and goodness, or to make him remember the miracles of the
Lord and to know him. He explains some of the dietary laws
in terms of health regulations; others he interprets as seeking
to keep us from eating foods that dull the mind and harden
the heart.
Naḥmanides very often quotes Rashi and Abraham ibn
Ezra. Despite his great reverence for Rashi, he polemicizes
with him. At times he praises Ibn Ezra, but attacks him sharply
for those of his views which run counter to tradition. He holds
Maimonides in high esteem, but rejects some of the reasons
given in the Guide of the Perplexed for the commandments.
He regards (Gen. 18:1) Maimonides’ view that the visit of the
angels to Abraham was a mere vision to contradict the Bible.
Naḥmanides was the first commentator to introduce Kabbalah
into his commentary.
The commentary, written in a lucid style, contains many
a word of encouragement and solace to the Jewish people. At
the end of the Song of Ha’azinu (Deut. 32), Naḥmanides writes:
“And behold there is nothing conditional in this song. It is a
charter testifying that we shall have to suffer heavily for our
sins, but that, nevertheless, God will not destroy us, being reconciled
to us (though we shall have no merits) and forgiving
our sins for His name’s sake alone…. And so our rabbis said:
‘Great is the song, embracing as it does the present, the past
(of Israel) and the future, this world and the world to come….’
And if this song were the composition of a mere astrologer
we should be constrained to believe in it, considering that
all its words were fulfilled. How much more have we to hope
with all our hearts and to trust to the word of God, through
the mouth of his prophet Moses, the faithful in all his house,
like unto whom there was none, whether before him or after
him.” Naḥmanides’ commentary became very popular and has
been widely drawn upon by later commentators. Supercommentaries
have been written upon it and kabbalistic treatises
have been composed on its kabbalistic allusions (see below).
Baḥya b. Asher and Jacob b. Asher incorporated large parts
of it into their commentaries. The commentary was printed
for the first time in Rome prior to 1480. A scholarly edition
based on manuscripts and early printings, prepared by Ch. D.
Chavel, was published in Jerusalem in 1959–60.
The commentary on Job, too, was probably written by
Naḥmanides in his old age. Naḥmanides regards Job as a
historical figure. He intimates that the answer to the problem
of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of
the wicked – the central theme of the book – is to be found
in the belief in the transmigration of souls. The righteous are
punished and the wicked rewarded for their deeds in an earlier
life. Comments on other books of the Bible are found
dispersed throughout Naḥmanides’ writings. His Book of Redemption
(Sefer ha-Ge’ullah) contains comments on various
passages of the Book of Daniel. He also wrote a commentary
on Isaiah 52:13–53:12.
[Tovia Preschel]
As Halakhist
Naḥmanides’ halakhic works rank among the masterpieces
of rabbinic literature, and some of them have become classics.
They may be divided into four categories: novellae on
the Talmud, halakhic monographs, *hassagot (“criticisms”),
and responsa.
Naḥmanides’ novellae, which originally covered the entire
orders of Mo’ed, Nashim, and Nezikin – from early times
the parts of the Talmud customarily studied in Spain – and
which are for the most part extant, mark the summit of the
halakhic and religious literary creativity of Spanish Jewry.
They also opened a new chapter in the cultural history of that
cultural community. In his novellae Naḥmanides based himself
on the best of the earlier Spanish tradition and constantly
availed himself of the writings of *Samuel ha-Nagid, most
of which are no longer extant, of *Hananel b. Ḥushi’el, Isaac
*Alfasi, Isaac *Ibn Ghayyat, *Judah al-Bargeloni, Joseph *Ibn
Migash, and their contemporaries. Nevertheless, he mainly
adopted the mode of learning characteristic of the French
*tosafists, whose teachings were previously little known in
Spain and whose method was not followed there. In this way
Naḥmanides created a new synthesis in the method of study
in Spain which was henceforward concerned with a comprehension
of the talmudic argumentation for its own sake after
the manner of the French scholars and not merely with elucidating
halakhah for practical purposes, as had until then
been customary among the Spanish scholars. Accordingly
Naḥmanides emphasizes in his work the theoretical meaning
and academic significance of the pronouncements and decisions
of the leading earlier Spanish codifiers. Thus he inaugurated
a new school in the method of studying the Oral Law
which laid the stress on an apprehension, for its own sake, of
the talmudic sugyah (“theme”) as a whole, in point both of
its inner tenor and of its relation to other relevant sugyot dispersed
throughout the Talmud, without, however, becoming
entangled in lengthy, sterile discussion. Yet there was no complete
dissociation from the practical halakhic aspect. While
these two trends are to be found side by side also in the tosafot,
Naḥmanides was undoubtedly the first fully to achieve
this synthesis, which pervades his novellae.
Naḥmanides
742 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14
A further local “Spanish” factor which he synthesized
with the French system was his constant search for ancient,
critically examined, and established texts of the Talmud so as
not to become involved in needless discussions to solve questions
arising from corrupt readings. The tosafists, too, were
aware of this problem, but not having access to enough ancient
texts, they were compelled to take such versions from secondary
sources, such as Hananel’s glosses or the works of the
geonim, available to them largely at second or third hand, or
they made conjectural emendations of the talmudic text which
led to a grave and protracted controversy among the tosafists.
In this respect, Naḥmanides enjoyed an obvious advantage.
Living in Spain, he had at his disposal the best talmudic texts
that had been sent to that country direct from the academies
of the Babylonian geonim 200–300 years earlier. Another factor,
chiefly Spanish and conspicuous in Naḥmanides, is his extensive
use of the geonic writings and the Jerusalem Talmud.
This system of Naḥmanides completely superseded the earlier
Spanish tradition. The greatest of his pupils, as also their pupils,
having continued, developed, and improved this system,
established it as the method for future generations among ever
broadening circles of students of the Oral Law.
In addition to the teachings of the French scholars, of
whom he speaks with profound esteem, Naḥmanides’ works
also contain the teachings of Provence, which he incorporated
into his system of study as an inseparable part of it. The teachings
of *Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne, *Abraham b. David of
Posquières, *Isaac b. Abba Mari, and many others, form an
integral part of his works, the last mentioned to a large extent
anonymously. Although not very apparent from a superficial
reading, his associations with the teachings of Provence are
even closer than with those of Spain. Besides the earlier Provençal
scholars, he mentions many others from Provence,
contemporaries of his, whose statements he discusses. This
threefold Spanish, French, and Provençal trend is undoubtedly
connected with two of his principal teachers, *Judah b. Yakar
and *Nathan b. Meir of Trinquetaille, both of whom were pupils
of *Isaac b. Abraham of Dampierre, the well-known tosafist.
Naḥmanides’ contemporary and relation, Jonah Gerondi,
who likewise studied under the tosafists, also based his teachings
on a similar method of study.
Naḥmanides’ novellae are notable for their wealth of
sources and mode of presentation, their clear, lucid style and
logical structure. In his desire to arrive at the authentic literal
meaning, he did not hesitate to disagree even with the geonim
and the most illustrious of the earlier authorities, such as *Hai
Gaon, Isaac *Alfasi, and others. He was among the first of those
who in their writings developed the theoretical method, at
once logical and profound, that aimed at comprehending the
pivotal argument on which the sugyah as a whole depends.
Often his novellae range far beyond the limits of the sugyah
under discussion to a fundamental investigation of various
subjects central to the halakhah. He also devotes much space
to methodological discussions, to be found dispersed in his
glosses, on the principles of the Talmud. The novellae on the
Talmud were not published simultaneously, the first to appear
having been those on Bava Batra (Venice, 1523) and the
last those on Bava Meẓia (Jerusalem, 1929) and, in a complete
edition, on Ḥullin (New York, ed. by S.Z. Reichmann, 1955).
Most of his novellae – those on Berakhot, on Mo’ed, Nashim,
Nezikin, and on Ḥullin and Niddah – were published between
1740 and 1840. His novellae to Ketubbot go to this day under
the name of Solomon b. Adret. Nearly all these were known
throughout the intervening years from many manuscripts, and
leading scholars, particularly among the Sephardim, quoted
them in their works. His novellae were published in their entirety
for the first time in 1928 in Jerusalem in two volumes.
Some of his novellae on a few tractates are extant in the form
of short extracts on several pages of a tractate only. He presumably
composed them in this manner and was unable to
complete the entire work.
Until the expulsion from Spain, Naḥmanides’ novellae
occupied, alongside Rashi’s commentary, the place that the
tosafot do among students of the Talmud. To such an extent
were his words minutely examined and debated that methodological
rules were laid down for them. In this respect,
Isaac *Campanton was especially notable, declaring that Naḥ-
manides’ statements are to be so closely studied that not a
single word should appear superfluous. He even established
many minute rules for extracting Naḥmanides’ underlying
meaning from every single passage. From the time his novellae
first appeared in print their influence has become increasingly
pronounced also among Ashkenazi students and
yeshivot. To this day their study occupies in yeshivot of Polish-
Lithuanian origin a principal place together with Rashi,
the tosafot, and Maimonides.
The second class of Naḥmanides’ halakhic literary
works comprises his halakhic monographs, of which there
are seven:
(1) Dinei de-Garme deals with a clarification of the laws
regarding inconvenience to a neighbor, injury to his property,
and their relation to the law of torts. Since the subject is
treated in the second chapter of Bava Batra, this short excellent
monograph was appended to his novellae on that tractate
from its first appearance in print. In it Naḥmanides summarizes
the principal views of the earlier authorities on the
various aspects of the laws of the *assailant and his victim in
general, including damage to a neighbor. In presenting the
various opinions Naḥmanides treats of each with great profundity.
On this subject he was, he says, forestalled by monographs
of French scholars, whose names, however, he does not
mention. In recent years there was published (in Hadorom, 23
(1966), 31–53), from a manuscript Gerama ve-Garme by one
of the tosafists, apparently *Ephraim b. Isaac of Regensburg,
and Naḥmanides may be referring to this or to a similar work.
This small work of Naḥmanides was highly praised by scholars,
several of whom wrote commentaries on it. A comparison
between his work and that of the scholar previously mentioned
clearly reveals Naḥmanides’ superiority as a writer of
glosses and systematizer.
Naḥmanides
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14 743
(2) Mishpetei ha-Ḥerem deals with the ways in which a
ban is imposed and release obtained from it. It also treats at
length of *Kol Nidrei, said on the eve of the Day of Atonement.
Although casting some doubt on its value, he nevertheless
states that those accustomed to say it should not be prevented
from doing so, since they rely on a custom instituted
by the earlier authorities.
(3–5) Hilkhot Bekhorot and Hilkhot Ḥallah written by
Naḥmanides as a supplement to Hilkhot ha-Rif of Alfasi, from
which these laws were omitted. Here Naḥmanides adopts, with
great fidelity, the Aramaic used by Alfasi, as well as his particular
style and mode of writing. Naḥmanides also wrote Hilkhot
Nedarim to fill a gap in Alfasi (those printed on tractate
Nedarim are not Alfasi’s). In this work Naḥmanides included,
to a much larger extent than is to be found in the writings of
Alfasi, novellae and argumentations in the style characteristic
of his glosses on the Talmud.
(6) Torat ha-Adam is a comprehensive and unique monograph
on all the laws concerning death, starting with what is
prohibited and permitted and what is a mitzvah as regards the
sick and dying, and concluding with the laws of mourning.
In point of fact this work is also in the nature of a “supplement”
to Hilkhot ha-Rif, but in it Naḥmanides, expatiating on
the subject, included many scores of talmudic and tannaitic
sources as also of Sephardi and Ashkenazi views, which he
compared and discussed at length in the light of the sources.
Very great importance was attached to the work by the leading
codifiers, *Jacob b. Asher incorporated it, in its actual order
and form and with corresponding sections, in his Tur, as
did Joseph *Caro later in his Shulḥan Arukh. Commentators
on the Talmud set great store by it when dealing with the interpretation
of the relevant sugyot in the Talmud. Of special
interest on its own account is Sha’ar ha-Gemul
of the work which, published separately some 30 years
before the whole (Naples, 1490), deals with reward and punishment
after death.
(7) Hilkhot Niddah was printed in Todat Shelamim (Venice,
1741) of Isaiah *Bassani.
The third category of Naḥmanides’ halakhic writings, and
the first to appear in print, comprises his works of criticism,
of which there are three:
(a) Hassagot (“criticisms”) of *Maimonides’ Sefer ha-
Mitzvot (Constantinople, 1510);
(b) Milḥamot Adonai (in Rif, Venice, 1552) attacking *Zerahiah
ha-Levi of Lunel’s criticisms of Hilkhot ha-Rif as well as
criticizing Zerahiah’s Sefer ha-Ẓava; and
(c) Sefer ha-Zekhut, (in Shivah Einayim, Leghorn, 1745)
attacking Abraham b. David’s criticisms of Alfasi.
These three share a common feature, namely Naḥ-
manides’ desire to vindicate the earlier authorities against
the criticism of later scholars, and hence their contents do
not everywhere reflect Naḥmanides’ own view; thus, Maimonides
having written his Sefer ha-Mitzvot mainly against the
enumeration of the 613 commandments by the author of the
Halakhot Gedolot, Naḥmanides took upon himself the task of
defending the earlier authority against this criticism. The most
important of them is Milḥamot Adonai which also has great intrinsic
value for the comprehension of a sugyah, Naḥmanides
devoting himself with his signal profundity and unique talents
to an accurate reconstruction of the earlier views that appear
to conflict with the sugyah. The style of the work is terse, vigorous,
and not always easy to understand, calling for much
concentration by the reader. In general Naḥmanides, in keeping
with the basic purpose of the work, limited himself to the
criticisms directed against Alfasi, but in its earlier parts the
author went beyond these self-imposed limits to include in
them arguments against Zerahiah ha-Levi even where the
subject matter did not touch directly on Alfasi.
Naḥmanides’ halakhic writings had a decisive influence
on the entire history of subsequent rabbinic literature. Solomon
b. Abraham Adret’s glosses on the Talmud are founded
on those of Naḥmanides, and Adret literally copied extracts
from his work. Based principally on Naḥmanides’ writings
are Sefer *Ha-Ḥinnukh (which is also based on Maimonides)
and Samuel b. Meshullam *Gerondi’s Ohel Mo’ed. A complete
series of works on Hilkhot ha-Rif by an anonymous author,
mistakenly identified as Nissim *Gerondi, are by a “pupil of
Naḥmanides” and based on his teachings. Menahem b. Solomon
*ha-Me’iri devoted an entire work, Magen Avot, to a controversy
with Naḥmanides’ pupils who had brought with them
to Provence their teacher’s customs, which were diametrically
opposed to those of Provence. The very great authority enjoyed
by Naḥmanides is apparent from the fact that ha-Me’iri found
himself compelled to defend the views of the leading earlier
authorities of Provence against those of Naḥmanides. Of his
responsa only a small number are extant; a large number of
them being written in reply to the questions of Samuel b. Isaac
ha-*Sardi, who incorporated them in their entirety in his Sefer
ha-Terumot. A few other responsa by him appeared in She’elot
u-Teshuvot ha-Ramban, the vast majority of which, despite the
title of the work, are by Solomon b. Abraham Adret.
It is difficult to fix the chronological order of Naḥ-
manides’ halakhic works. It is known that he composed
Hilkhot Nedarim in his youth, and it is clear that he wrote
Milḥamot Adonai before most of his novellae on the Talmud.
Since he composed his novellae over many years, it is impossible
to determine their order.
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]
In Kabbalah
There is evidence that in an earlier version of his Commentary
on the Pentateuch (Rome, 1480) Naḥmanides intended
to discuss kabbalistic matters more explicitly, but he fell
ill and was informed in a dream that he should desist. An extant
fragment from an earlier version seems to indicate such a
tendency. However, immediate doubts about the authenticity
of the fragment were raised by Naḥmanides’ students. Hints
of kabbalistic references sprinkle his prolific writings, especially
his commentary on the Pentateuch (Naples, 1490), commentary
on the Book of Job, and the sermons. Kabbalistic
concepts are woven into the eschatological discussion in the
Naḥmanides
744 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14
last section of his halakhic work, Torat ha-Adam; this section
has often been printed as a separate work titled Sha’ar ha-Gemul.
Kabbalistic elements are readily recognizable in his liturgical
poems, e.g., in Shir ha-Neshamah, and in the prayer
on the death of R. Abraham Ḥazzan, one of the kabbalists of
Gerona. Naḥmanides’ single work dealing exclusively with
the Kabbalah is his commentary on the first chapter of Sefer
Yeẓirah.
Despite the paucity of his kabbalistic writings, he came to
be known in his later years as an expert on the subject. Kabbalists

literary attempts to try and solve the secrets of Naḥmanides’

commentary on the Pentateuch. The most important commentaries
in this vein are Keter Shem Tov by R. Shem Tov *Ibn
Gaon and Me’irat Einayim by R. Isaac b. Samuel of Acre. Even
̣manides’ kabbalistic
writings were studied and relied upon to a far greater
degree than the *Zohar itself; a definite preference for the
Zohar became apparent only in about 1325.
In the course of time Naḥmanides came to be regarded
as such an authority that other authors’ works were wrongly
attributed to him, e.g., Ha-Emunah ve-ha-Bittaḥon (Korets,
1485), which has been proven to be the work of R. Jacob b.
Sheshet *Gerondi. G. Scholem has made intensive surveys of
Naḥmanides’ method in Kabbalah in his Ursprung und Anfaenge
der Kabbala (1962) and in his series of lectures, Ha-Kabbalah
be-Geronah, ed. by I. Ben Shlomo (1964).
[Efraim Gottlieb]
Naḥmanides’ Mysticism in Light of Late 20t Century
Research

Naḥmanides’ mystical teachings in the context of their

general and Jewish cultural contexts, and there were several
efforts to present his mysticism and theology systematically,
both by academic and Orthodox authors. In the 1980s a collection
was published in which various articles explored diverse
aspects of Naḥmanides and his thought: his Andalusian
background, his conservative transmission of kabbalistic traditions,
and the blatant contrast between Naḥmanides and
*Azriel of Gerona regarding Adam’s sin and other physical and
spiritual subjects. In the 1990s scholarly interest grew regarding
Naḥmanides’ exegetical writings and their social implications,
and major advances were made in focusing on Naḥ-
manides’ hermeneutics in their Jewish and general context.
MYSTICISM IN NAḥMANIDES’ BIBLE COMMENTARIES. Bible
commentaries formed the literary and spiritual context in
which Naḥmanides functioned as a kabbalist. His kabbalistic
creativity cannot be separated from its appearance in his Bible
commentary, and this exegetical work forms the essential context
for understanding his kabbalistic teaching. Naḥmanides
functioned in a context in which the literary genre of Bible
exegesis – especially exegesis of the peshat (plain meaning of
the text) – had already been developed by its classical exponents:
Abraham Ibn Ezra in Spain, and Rashi and his school
in France. In contrast with the peshat exegesis, which was thus
already an established and structured literary genre, there
was not yet any tradition of kabbalistic exegesis, especially in
the specific sense of attempting to explicate the secrets of the
Kabbalah in an exegesis following the peshat-exegetical paradigm.
Accordingly, Naḥmanides had to shape a new strategy
of writing, and made a highly significant choice to distinguish
between two different paths in the text: the path of peshat and
the path of truth. This choice created a problematical exacerbation
of the gap between prior bodies of knowledge and the
mysticism evolving in this period.
Whole sections of the Bible had, perhaps, not previously
been dealt with from a mystical perspective, and certain
parts of Scripture had no specific traditions of esoteric
interpretation, just as other parts had rich traditions of interpretation.
The question of attitude toward the Torah was especially
sharp.
Naḥmanides sought to compose a consistent and continuous
mystical commentary to the Torah, relying only on
existing mystical material or on established tradition. He
thereby encountered two complementary problems: (a) the
Torah contains passages lacking any mystical exegetical tradition;
(b) there are mystical doctrines which lack any clear
and direct relation to the text of the Torah. This does not mean
that Nahmanides faced discontinuity in the mystical tradition;
there is an essential and profound difference between what
seem to the reader to be “interpretative gaps” and what is lost
material. These two phenomena should not be confused. Even
if the exegete’s self-conception is related to lost knowledge, the
processes leading to this phenomenon are frequently related
to the gap resulting from a change in the focus of the exegesis.
Another complementary problem exists, namely that the
rules of preserving the mysteries, which were at the heart of
ancient mysticism, and which were also involved in oral transmission,
often led to their being lost.
CONSERVATISM AND INNOVATION. A lively controversy has
surrounded the question of Naḥmanides’ innovation or conservatism
in the Kabbalah. We can state, however, that both
factors are active in his Kabbalah, and we need to explicate
the relations between them. On the one hand, Nah ̣manides
transmitted bodies of knowledge which were transmitted in
whispers, carefully preserving their character; on the other
hand, he transmits them in a reorganized and different manner,
in the form of Bible exegesis. One facet of innovation
was his attempt to interpret the Bible mystically, an attempt
motivated by the notion, characteristic of his time, that “everything
is learned from the Torah.” Presenting the mystical
meaning while following the linear continuity of the text was
also related to his time, since prior mystical traditions were
not shaped in direct relation to the text of the Torah. To what,
and by means of what exegesis, and on the basis of which
texts, could the mystical traditions be connected? This was
the urgent and immediate question faced by the early kabbalists,
a question closely connected to the process of histori-
Naḥmanides
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14 745
cal and social uncovering of the Kabbalah and its becoming
written down.
Rabbi Ezra and Rabbi Azriel, in contrast with Naḥmanides,
chose to interpret the talmudic aggadot. Their choice
was simpler: they could review and write Kabbalistic commentaries
on aggadot which had a mystical background or
tendency. In this respect they remained closely and obviously
related to rabbinic materials arranged in a midrashic manner.
At the same time, the connection between what they chose
to interpret is related to specific points in the Talmud, just as
Naḥmanides did in his commentary to the Torah, which reflects
the fact that we are referring to a process of uncovering
existing knowledge, and not merely an exegetical decision.
CONCEPTIONS OF HISTORY AND TIME: CHRISTIANITY AND
ISLAM. Attitudes toward Christianity and Islam alike provide
additional contexts for Naḥmanides’ writings. His attitude toward

in his concept of history and his historiosophy. His attitude

toward Islam also finds occasional expression, but less in historical
references than in more substantive phenomenological
parallels to contemporary mystical doctrines known from
the Ismaili Islam.
Naḥmanides’ method regarding “the actions of the ancestors
are a sign for their children” and “pictures of things,”
implemented on the level of peshat, confirms the relationship
between his conception and Christian conceptions of history,
whereas his overall conception of time (of which the conception
of history is a part), such as his theory of shemitot (sabbatical
years of release) based on his theory of the *Sefirot, is
implemented on the mystical level, and is related to Ismaili
concepts of cyclical cosmic time.
NAḥMANIDES’ THEOLOGY: THE RELATION BETWEEN CONCEPT
AND SYMBOL. Naḥmanides’ thought, which can be
called kabbalistic thought or a “religious system,” connects
basic symbols of the mystical tradition and fundamental concepts
in Jewish religion. Naḥmanides was a creative theologian,
whose new system of thought includes such theological
and philosophical concepts as miracle, nature, providence,
exile, redemption, time, will, commandment, Torah, faith,
image and story. In turn, his thought influenced a broad spectrum
of Jewish thinkers, kabbalists and non-kabbalists alike,
including thinkers of an opposite point of view from his, such
as Crescas, Judah Loew ben Bezalel (Maharal), Isaac Luria,
Cordovero, Abraham Cardozo, Elijah ben Solomon Zalman
(Vilna Gaon), Moses Sofer (Ḥatam Sofer), Krochmal, Rabbi
Kook, the Satmar rebbe, and others. Basic ideas of his theology
are also subtly connected to a body of symbolic knowledge
and render Naḥmanides’ Kabbalah uniquely profound,
and resulted in its influencing a broader circle outside of Kabbalah
alone.
THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN TWO MYSTICAL THEORIES: NAḥ-
MANIDES AND THE ZOHAR. The conservative and normative
aspect of Naḥmanides’ mystical theory reflects his communal
and halakhic leadership as well as his being a kabbalist. However
this conservatism was expressed more in the oral manner
of his transmitting his theory than in its content. Recent
research has increasingly explored the social aspect of two different
conceptions of mysticism, related to two strategies of
transmission and writing.
The controversy between Naḥmanides’ school and the
school of the Zohar surrounds a core issue: a differing view
of God and man, which in turn is reflected in a differing view
of reality and history. Naḥmanides’ conception of God contains
a dimension of transcendence, absolutely beyond human
comprehension, expression, revelation or theurgy, and is experienced
by God’s remoteness from language. By the language
of the Sefirot, Naḥmanides was able to express a hierarchy
between two levels of divinity: the known and the unknown,
reminiscent of Pseudo-Dionysius.
The school of the Zohar, by contrast, provides a different
conception of God and man: the transcendent is open to
revelation, theurgic contact and even ecstasy (what can be
called theurgic ecstasy). The transcendent is experienced by
its absolute proximity to language. The concept of God and
man is thus “realized” in the concept of history as a gate open
to infinite fields. The acosmic vector of this concept applies
to history’s beginning or pre-history, and not to its end. By
giving up on the concept of cyclical shemitot, it cuts any link
to an apocalyptic world-view, and thus the center of gravity
shifts from the cosmos seeking its end, to a cosmos moved
by its beginning, and the shift from a cosmic process to a historical
process.
There is a close correlation between determining an unequivocal
and sharp end to the cosmos and history, and the
concept of a defined reservoir of souls, just as there is between
the infinity of history, especially in the transition to messianic
times, and the continual renewal of souls and the perpetual
self-perfection of God.
In recent research there have been diverse claims regarding
the pseudepigraphical authorship of the Zohar in relation
to the school of Naḥmanides, which faithfully preserved his
oral teachings in the generation after his death, and served
as guardians of canonical kabbalistic writing. The texts of
the school of the Zohar, on the other hand, did not exist as a

of the Zohar” take shape, in response to the canonization of

Naḥmanides’ commentary to the Torah and to the rise of a
genre of mystical exegesis.
COMMENTATORS ON NAḥMANIDES. Some of the commentators
on Naḥmanides are known by name; others are anonymous.
The supercommentaries of R. Joshua *Ibn Shuaib and
R. Shem Tov *Ibn Gaon are regarded as the most authoritative
for the transmission of the teachings of Naḥmanides and
his students Solomon ben *Adret and *Isaac Todros, and are
important to understanding Naḥmanides. Although *Isaac
of Acre’s commentary Me’irat Einayim also follows the order
naḤmanides
746 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14
of the biblical text, it is a topical key to Naḥmanides’ thought.
Other commentaries of an interpretative and homilectical
character are R. Joshua ibn Shuaib’s Derashot on the Torah
and Bahya ben Asher’s Torah commentary. R. Menahem Recanati’s
commentary to the Torah also contains commentary
on Naḥmanides and citations from the Zohar.
The works which present Naḥmanides’ teachings in a systematic
manner are anonymous, and differ in strategy from
super-commentaries: they uncover a system, rather than follow
step by step. These include Ma’arekhet ha-Elohut, and two
works referred to in scholarly literature as the unknown commentary
of Naḥmanides’ mysteries, and an anonymous commentary
from the circle of Solomon ben Adret, as well as a
commentary to the Sefer ha-Bahir.
Following these anonymous works written in Spain, the
literature of the circle of the Sefer ha-*Temunah in Byzantium
also needs to be mentioned. These writings discuss the meaning
of the shapes of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet together
with the theory of Sabbatical cycles. A similar combination
may also be found in the thought of Naḥmanides’ grandson,
R. David ben Judah he-Ḥasid, whose contacts with the circle
of the Zohar were complex. He combined knowledge of the
Zohar with knowledge of Naḥmanides’ teachings, and was a
primary conduit for the transmission of Naḥmanides’ Kabbalah
to the circle of Sefer ha-Temunah.
In the first and second generations after Naḥmanides,
there were thus students who received his teachings and transmitted
them, sometimes by personal word of mouth. Some of
them, however, combined his teachings with other kabbalistic
systems. In terms of content, many of the anonymous works
focus on the mysteries of time and the nature and character of
its historical or cosmic cycles. In this regard, they resemble ancient
apocalyptic literature. In terms of form, the anonymous
works break out of the limits of oral transmission.
Later developments, which follow in the path of Sefer ha-
Temunah and, like it, rely on Naḥmanides’ teachings, are Sefer
ha-*Kaneh and Sefer ha-Peli’ah, which reinforce its apocalyptic
paradigm, in which the shemitot cycles are also used to
explain the commandments, in terms of the cycle of human
religious life. The mystical transmission is no longer only oral
and within the family, but now includes revelation and written
transmission, personal revelations and revelations of Elijah.
Such transmission by anonymous revelation is dialectically
related to Naḥmanides’ own conceptions. It is not necessarily
opposed to his strict rules of oral transmission. Rather,
the rich power and agitation already existing in the oral circles
branched out in writing and revelation. Naḥmanides himself
had been described, shortly after his life, as someone capable
of restraining his horses while galloping at full speed.
NAḥMANIDES BETWEEN CATALONIA AND CASTILLE. The
great difference between the behavior of Naḥmanides’ students
and that of kabbalists in the area of Castille leads to the
conclusion that the earlier kabbalists of Naḥmanides’ circle,
who tended to preserve traditions and to obey strict rules of
transmission, were careful in the way they committed these
teachings to writing, at the same time that the Zohar was being
distributed and thereafter. This does not, however, provide
evidence of influence of Castille on Catalonia. To the contrary:
earlier material was uncovered later on, in diverse dialogical
relations with the kabbalists of Castille. Parallels between the
kabbalists of Catalonia and Castille do not necessarily mean
that the Catalonians internalized teachings from Castille,
but just the opposite: it is possible that the kabbalists in Castille
broke earlier restrictions and were the first to commit to
writing theories they learned from people close to the circle
of Solomon ben Adret, without accepting their strict rules of
secrecy, whereas Naḥmanides’ students were reticent to take
this step. We know about some of these people from the testimony
of R. Shem Tov Ibn Gaon, and one of them was likely
R. David ha-Kohen.
Such violation of the rules of transmission made possible
a much broader explication of mystical teachings than had
been previously known through oral transmission, whether
direct or indirect. Naḥmanides’ students, as well as those of
Solomon ben Adret and Isaac Todros, had committed themselves
to the strict restrictions of oral transmission. We have
the testimony of R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon, one of Adret’s students,
that his teachers made the condition that he only transmit
the kabbalistic teachings to a wise and humble student,
over the age of 40. His testimony also indicates that these
strict restrictions sometimes failed; the teachers occasionally
misjudged a person who had already learned Naḥmanides’
teachings.
The difference regarding innovation and knowledge is
not what divided the circle of Naḥmanides from the kabbalists
in Castille. It is merely an external symptom of a more extreme
struggle over the content of completely differing conceptions
of reality and God, and the dynamics of the controversy cannot
be separated from the essential content.
MOSES DE LEON’S CONTROVERSY WITH NAḥ MA NI DES.
*Moses de Leon’s attitude toward Naḥmanides was quite complex.
Their ideological and religious controversy was conducted
on several levels: the concept of transcendence; the
concept of God as binary (i.e., the dichotomy of good and evil,
being vs. destruction) or unitary; later on “positive” destruction
at the end of time (i.e., rest, identified with the good) or
“negative” destruction in the beginning (i.e., motion, identified
with evil); theurgy directed at part of the divine vs. a
theurgic connection to all of divinity; dimensions of divinity
closed to experiential knowledge vs. all levels of divinity being
open to contact in ecstatic revelation; the destiny of the
sinful soul after death: purification and immersion in water
(according to Naḥmanides’ circle) vs. purification by fire (according
to Moses de Leon); cosmic cycles of time vs. cycles
of the year, festivals and Sabbaths. A correct understanding
of Naḥmanides’ theories thus provides a criterion which may
permit a break-through in understanding how Moses de Leon’s
circle accepted and rejected Naḥmanides.
naḤmanides
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14 747
The awareness of the peshat was critical for the development
for Naḥmanides’ awareness of sod (mystical meaning)
as a defined exegetical layer of the text. Such refinement of
the concept of sod, not only in the content but also in the literary
expressions and forms of the text and its transmission
led to mystical exegesis, but also to a reaction against Naḥ-
manides in the Zohar, which rejected the distinction between
the two layers.
Naḥmanides conceived of the transcendent as entailing a
level closed to human attainment. This accords with the concept
of the infinite as a dimension lacking any representation
in the stories of the Torah, the concept of the three highest
Sefirot which the Torah’s commandments can only hint at but
not aim at them or affect them. In other words, theurgic contact
with them is absolutely precluded. Similarly, these sefirot
cannot be imagined in anthropomorphic terms of any human
bodily organ. There is a fundamental connection between the
concept of the divine image and the concept of the cycles of
shemitot, in other words between the anthropomorphic conception
of God in terms of only some of the Sefirot and the
limitations of religious language, and the conception of the
cosmos as limiting history. This conception of two dimensions
of God – the revealed and the hidden – may be congruent
to mystical doctrines known from Hasidei Ashkenaz and
from ancient mysticism; but in Naḥmanides’ teachings they
find additional expression.
The Zohar, on the other hand, in most places, offers a
different view: it mentions the Ein Sof (infinite), and it relates
to all the Sefirot, even to the highest ones, in anthropomorphic
terms, and provides a theurgic and ecstatic connection
with all of them.
THE CONTROVERSY OVER ESCHATOLOGY AND THE THEORY
OF SHEMITOT. The controversy described above, regarding
conceptions of God and the world, also involves completely
differing conceptions of exile, the present and the messianic
era. At this critical stage in the history of the Kabbalah and its
transition from esoteric to exoteric teaching, the apparently
temporary collapse of the theory cosmic cycles, namely the
ancient doctrine concerning the passage of time, is related to a
completely different conception of the present, an immeasurably
long exile, which the circle of the Zohar regarded as the
building blocks of the immeasurably long messianic future, to
be effected by the knowledge of God and influencing Him.
This early kabbalistic interest in eschatology is congruent
in some respects to general culture. On the level of the
fate of the individual soul there is prominent interest in locating
and characterizing the stages of the trial of the soul after
death. Such interest may already be found in Sa’adiah Gaon’s
Book of Beliefs and Doctrines and in Eleazar of Worms’ book
Wisdom of the Soul, and it is particularly prominent in Naḥ-
manides’ Sha’ar ha-Gemul as well as in the thought of his bitter
opponent, Moses de Leon. Naḥmanides’ work describes a
continuity from the time of illness to the time of dying and
death, to the fate of the soul after death, and also describes
allusions to a collective eschatology. Similar questions occupied
other kabbalistic trends of thought: where are paradise
and hell located – on heaven or on earth, or in both? What
is the essence of the judgment fortifying the soul for the life
of the world to come – burning in fire (according to Moses
de Leon) or immersion in water (according to Naḥmanides’
circle)? Is there an intermediate state, a liminal area in which
there is no right to be judged, or (in the Zohar’s terms) a naked
state? Can the ẓaddik effect an improvement of the sinful
souls of the dead? The kabbalists disagreed over these questions
and over their answers. In some cases they accommodated
their views to ideas they heard in contemporary Christianity,
but generally they related to a broad range of options
found in rabbinic sources.
Questions of esoterics vs. exoterics, of closed vs. open
knowledge, were only the tip of the iceberg in a much deeper
struggle over a wide spectrum of religious issues (theology
and praxis) grounded in differing world-views. Naḥmanides’
conservative theory of shemitot preserved a more ancient
worldview, which apparently no longer was relevant to the

A different conception of time bursts out of the writings

of the kabbalists in Castille, who rejected the theory of
shemitot. Instead, they regarded the present day as the time for
creative messianic activity, a view related to general processes
taking place in Christian European society, such as the rise of
the city and mercantile economy, with their concepts of time.
These new concepts of time were internalized in the religious
life of these kabbalists, and not merely in the way they supported
themselves financially. These differences split the world

changes of seasons in the conception of time were it not for the

conservative component in Naḥmanides’ teaching.
[Haviva Pedaya (2nd ed.)]
Bibliography: GENERAL: A. Yeruham, Ohel Raḥel (1942);
Y. Unna, R. Moses ben Naḥman (Heb., 1954); Hurwitz, in: Hadorom,
24 (1967), 39–48; I. Ta-Shma, in: KS, 43 (1968), 569–74; H. Chone,
Nachmanides (Ger., 1930); F. Rosenthal, in: J. Guttmann (ed.), Moses
Maimonides (vol. 1, 1908). IN THE KABBALAH: G. Scholem, in: KS, 6
(1930), 385–419; 21 (1044/45), 179–86; idem, Ursprung und Anfaenge
der Kabbala (1962); idem, Ha-Kabbalah be-Geronah, I. Ben Shlomo
(ed., 1964); Ch.D. Chavel, Kitvei ha-Ramban (1963); E. Gottlieb, in: J.
ben Sheshet, Meshiv Devarim Nekhoḥim, G. Vajda (ed., 1968), 18–20;
idem, in: KS, 40 (1964/65), 1–9; idem, in: Tarbiz, 39 (1970), 87–89;
M.Z. Eisenstadt, in: Talpiot 4 (1950), 606–21; T. Preschel, in: Sinai 57
(1961), 161–2; idem, in: Talpiot 8 (1961), 44–53; D. Chavel, Rabbenu
Moses ben Nahman (1967); Y. Hasida, in: Sinai 61 (1967); 240–8; D.
Margalit, in: Korot, 4 (1967); K. Cahana, in: Ha-Meayyan 9 (1969),
25–48; S. Abramson, in: Sinai 66 (1970), 185–94; idem, ibid., 68 (1971),
105–37; 235–69; E. Kupfer, in: Tarbiz 40 (1971), 64–83; J. Perles, in:
MGWJ 7 (1858), 81–97; 117–36; Z. Frankel, ibid., 17 (1868), 449–58;
A. Marmorstein, ibid., 71 (1927), 39–48; L.M. Epstein, in: Students’
Annual 1 (1914), 95–123; M. Grajwer, Die kabbalistischen Lehren des
Moses Nachmanides in seinem Kommentare zum Pentateuch (1933).
Add. Bibliography: I. Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nachmanides
(Ramban): Explorations on his Religious and Literary Virtuosity (1983),
naḤmanides
748 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 14
107–28; M. Idel, “Some Concepts of Time and History in Kabbalah,”
in: E. Carlebach, Y. Efron, D. Myers (eds.), Jewish History and Jewish
Memory, Essays in Honor of Yosef Haim Yerushalmi (1998), 153–88;
idem, “The Jubilee in Jewish Mysticism,” in: E.I. Rambaldi (ed), Millenarismi
nelle cultura contemporanea – Con un’appendice su yovel
abraico e giubileo cristiono (2000), 209–32; idem, Messianic Mystics
(1998); idem, “Kabbalah, Halakhah u-Manhigut Ruḥanit,” in: Tarbiz,
64 (1995), 535–80; D. Novak, The Theology of Naḥmanides Systematically
Presented (1992); idem, “Naḥmanides Commentary on the
Torah,” The Solomon Goldman Lectures, 5 (1990), 87–104; E. Gottlieb,
Ha-Kabbalah be-Khitvei Rabbenu Baḥya ben Asher (1970); M. Meira,
Ha-Ramban be-Ḥug Gerona (1980); H. Pedaya, Ha-Mareh ve-ha-
Dibbur: Iyyun be-Teva ha-Ḥavayah ha-Datit ba-Mistorin ha-Yehudi
(2002); idem, Ha-Ramban: Hitalut Zeman Maḥzori ve-Tekst Kadosh
(2003); idem, Ha-Shem ve-ha-Mikdash be-Mishnat Rabbi Yiẓḥak Sagi
Nahor: Iyyun Mashveh be-Khitvei Rishonei ha-Mekubbalim (2001); I.
Ta-Shma, Ha-Niglah she-ba-Nistar: Le-Ḥeker Shekiʿei ha-Halakhah be-
Sefer ha-Zohar (1995); D. Abrams, “Orality in the Kabbalistic School
of Naḥmanides: Preserving and Interpreting Esoteric Traditions and
Texts,” in: Jewish Studies Quarterly, 2 (1995), 85–102; R. Chazan, Barcelona
and Beyond (1992); J. Dan, “Naḥmanides and the Development of
the Concept of Evil in the Kabbalah,” in: Moses Ben Nahman i el seu
temps (1994), 159–82; idem, “The Vicissitudes of Kabbalah in Catalonia,”
in: M. Lazar (ed.), The Jews of Spain and the Expulsion of 1492
(1997), 25–40; E. Kanarfogel, “On the Assessment of R. Moses Ben
Nahman and His Literary Oeuvre,” in: Jewish Book Annual, 51 (1993),
158–72; Y.T. Langerman, “Acceptance and Devaluation; Nah ̣manides
Attitude to Science,” in: Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 1
(1992), 223–45; M. Saperstein, “Jewish Typological Exegesis after Nah ̣-
manides,” in: Jewish Studies Quarterly, 1 (1993–1994), 158–70; B. Septimus,
Hispano Jewish Culture in Transition (1982); E. Wolfson, “By
Way of Truth – Aspects of Naḥmanides Kabbalistic Hermeneutic,”
in: AJS Review, 14 (1989), 103–78; M. Halberthal, “Ha-Minhag ve-ha-
Historiyah shel ha-Halakhah be-Torato shel ha-Ramban,” in: Zion, 67
(1992), 25–26; idem, “Mavet, Ḥok u-Ge’ulah be-Mishnat ha-Ramban,”
in: Tarbiz, 71 (1992) 133–62; idem, “Torat ha-Nistar: Revadeha shel
Sharsheret ha-Ḥavayah be-Torat ha-Ramban,” in: Kabbalah, 7 (2002);
A. Funkenstein, “Parshanuto ha-Tipologit shel ha-Ramban,” in: Zion,
45a (1980), 35–59; S. Pines, “Divrei ha-Ramban al Adam ha-Rishon
be-Gan Eden,” in: Galut Aḥar Galut: Meḥkarim be-Toledot Am Yisrael
ha-Mugashim le-Prof. Ḥayyim Beinart (1988), 159–64.