The Book of the Correction of the Negligence Found in the Books of the Head of the Academy, al-Fayyūmī: Criticisms

And concerning that which he [Se‘adya Ga’on] wrote in this section, [namely,] his statement that Ḥīwī al-Balkhī said that [the verse] And God saw the light, that it was good (Genesis 1:4) proves that the Lord did not see [the] light before this, he [Se‘adya] said: “This is from his [Ḥīwī’s] ignorance of the Hebrew language, because they [the Jews] call knowing, seeing, as in His word: And Jacob saw there were provisions in Egypt (Genesis 42:1).”

[But] Mubashshir says: Had he [Se‘adya] thoughtfully considered what Ḥīwī needed us to know, he [Se’adya] [would have understood] that this is [precisely] the word that needed to be said in this chapter. And that [is because] all things that are known are only known insofar as they are found [in existence], and regarding that [the light], we cannot know of it if it is absent [i.e., nonexistent]. And if a thing is absent, it is impossible for it to be known. And the light that Ḥīwī mentioned is the first light that came into existence, which means, in truth, that it was the first light that the Creator saw.

And you will force us to [entertain] an ugly distortion by that which Ḥīwī mentions, if we say that the light already existed, but the Creator had not seen it when it first existed. But if we were to say that it [the light] was absent, and He was seeing it for the first time [since] its creation, there is no slander upon us in this statement because it is a condition of all things that are known that you can know [them] only when they exist, not when they are absent. [ . . . ]

And concerning that about which he [Se‘adya] took issue, as opposed to my view, in the section [that begins]: “And it was on the eighth day,” his [Se‘adya’s] statement: “‘Anan thinks that [the phrase] ‘impure by death’ [means] ‘he is impure’”—it does not say this at all in the narrative, but rather refers to [the verse]: and any open vessel that is not sealed is impure (Numbers 19:15), and behold, this has nothing to do with people. But we shall not argue with him [‘Anan] about that which he imagines regarding “impure by death,” [meaning] “he is impure,” for his imagination preceded his reason.

Mubashshir responds: The matter is not as he [Se‘adya] says; rather, the delusion regarding it, may the Lord have mercy, did not come upon ‘Anan, because [in truth] it is found [in scripture]—regarding: “impure by death, [means] he is impure”—[in] the following verse: And should a man become impure and not be cleansed, then that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the community, for the sanctuary of the Lord he has defiled; the cleansing waters were not cast upon him; he is impure (Numbers 19:20).¹ [ . . . ]

And concerning that which is found by him [Se‘adya], may the Lord be pleased with him, in the Book of Documents, [the] statement: It should be distinguished between [that which] one says: ‘So-and-so shall be given such-and-such,’ and [that which] one says: ‘[He] shall not be given except such-and-such,’ as there is a difference between them in [Jewish] law, as [we learn from] their statement:

One who says, “Give my children a shekel [to buy food] for the week”—if it is fitting² to give them a sela [twice the weight in silver of a shekel, instead], then we give them a sela. But if he said, “Don’t give them [anything] but a shekel,” then we give them nothing but a shekel [per week for food]. [see b. Ta‘anit 21a; b. Ketubbot 69b; b. Bava Batra 129a]

Mubashshir says: The matter is not as he [Se‘adya] mentions, because the Writings [i.e., the Talmud] say that there is no difference between the two expressions, as they [the rabbis] have said:

R. Ḥisda said [that] Mar ‘Uqba said: The ruling is, whether he said “give” or said “don’t give,” we give them what they need [anyhow], for we hold as R. Meir, who said: It is a divine imperative to fulfill the words of the deceased, that is, his final words [i.e., wishes], and thus does this make sense. But that which he said [i.e., to give only a shekel] was only said to motivate them [i.e., the children]. And thus, this makes clear to you that there is no difference whether the will-maker says give [them] a shekel or whether he says give [them nothing] but a shekel. [b. Ketubbot 70a]