Jewish Studies Quarterly, vol. 13(2006) No. 1, pp. 27-49.

Isaac Arama and His Theory of Two Matches (Zivvugim)

Julia Schwartzmann

Introduction

The negative attitude of medieval Jewish thinkers toward women and

femininity is well established.1 At the same time we may discover that some
thinkers are less blatant, some opinions less offensive. This seems to be the
case with Isaac Arama (1420-1492). Arama’s biography may explain his
moderate attitude toward women. Misogynist statements appear, as a rule, in
philosophical commentaries on the Torah intended for intellectuals. Arama’s
Akedat Itzhac,2 by contrast, is based on sermons3 that addressed a
heterogeneous congregation.4 Although we don't know which changes the
sermons had undergone in his book, it is possible that as a rabbi, Arama
could not ignore the wives, the mothers and the daughters who were part of
his audience.5 As a rabbi he could not proclaim in his Saturday sermon that
the woman is intellectually closer to the animals than to the man, a statement
that could – and did -- appear in philosophical commentaries.6 Although
Arama is certainly not a feminist, the reader can feel his genuine empathy

1
R. Jospe, Torah and Sophia: The Life and Thought of Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera, Hebrew Union
College Press, Cincinnati, 1988, pp. 142-146; M. Kellner, “Philosophical Misogyny in Medieval
Jewish Philosophy – Gersonides v. Maimonides” (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, v.
XIV (1998/99), pp. 113-128; D. Schwartz, The Philosophy of a Fourteenth Century Jewish
Neoplatonic Circle (in Hebrew), Bialik Institute, Ben Zvi Institute, Jerusalem, 1998, pp. 231-239; J.
Schwartzmann, “Was She Created in the Image of God Too? The Medieval Philosophical
Interpretation of the Creation of Woman” (in Hebrew), Da’at 39 (1997), pp. 69-87; Ibid., “Gender
Concepts of Medieval Jewish Thinkers and the Book of Proverbs”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 7 (2000)
No.3, pp. 183-202.
2
Isaac Arama, Sefer Akedat Itzhac, Israel, 1974, hereafter AI.
3
S.O. Heller-Wilensky, Isaac Arama and His Philosophical Teaching (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1956,
pp. 26-28. Although based on sermons, Akedat Itzhac is certainly not a transcript of sermons, but a
literary creation. M. Saperstein, Jewish Preaching 1200-1800, Yale University Press, pp. 17-18.
4
Ibid., “Your Voice Like a Ram’s Horn”, Hebrew Union College Press, p. 76.
5
Although women have no halachic obligation to pray in public, they have always tended to attend
Saturday service at least as an opportunity to socialize. E. Ashtor, Jews of Moslem Spain, Philadelphia,
1984, v. 3, p. 140. R. Levine-Melamed, Sephardi Women in the Medieval and Early Modern Period,
J.R. Baskin (ed.), Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, Wayne University Press, 1991, p. 117-118.
6
This is what Gersonides claims in his commentary on Gen. 3:20. Gersonides’ Commentaries on the
Torah (in Hebrew), Genesis, Jerusalem, 1992, p. 64. The same claim is made by 14th cent.
Neoplatonist Yosef Tov Elem in his biblical supercommentary: see D. Schwartz, The Philosophy of a
Fourteenth Century Jewish Neoplatonic Circle, pp. 231-232.
 2

toward women, and especially his touching faith in a true and lifelong marital
love, based on mutual respect and attraction.
When looking for the reason of such an unusual attitude, we will not
find the answer in the domain of social history, which became so popular in
the scholarship. It is obvious that Isaac Arama's stand cannot be attributed to
some social change that could have occurred during his lifetime. Although
Arama lived in the Renaissance Christian Spain, his world view, like that of
other Jewish thinkers of his time, was set in the medieval Muslim Spain. His
mentors and opponents were Aristotle and Maimonides. As states H. Tirosh-
Rothchild, "to paraphrase A.N. Whitehead, Jewish philosophy from the
thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries was but a set of "footnotes" to
Maimonides."7
Except for a few prominent Jews, who enjoyed wealth and respect of
the Spanish society as well as its cultural achievements, most of the Jews
belonged to a low social stratum of urban artisans and shop keepers.8 They
lived in closed communities, which provided all their needs.9 They might have
witnessed the changes that the Spanish society was undergoing, but being
constantly on alert against Christianization, they rebuffed anything connected
with this society.
Same can be said of Jewish women in the 15th century Spain. Christian
women in Spain may have acquired some civil rights and independence10,
yet Jewish women11 could hardly have noticed it. They were predominantly
illiterate,12 emotionally neglected and confined to the private space (unless

7
H. Tirosh-Rothchild, Human Felicity – Fifteenth-Century Sephardic Perspectives on Happiness, B.D.
Cooperman (ed.), In Iberia and Beyond, Newark: University of Delaware Press, London: Associated
University Presses, 1988, p. 203.
8
A. Mackay, Spain in the Middle Ages, The MacMillan Press LTD., 1977, p. 185.
9
B. Leroy, L' Espagne de Torquemada – catholiques, Juifs et convertis au XV siecle, Maisonneuve et
Larose, 1995, pp. 64-66.
10
I. Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Woman, Cambridge University Press, 1980.
11
Apparently Ashkenazi and Italian Jewish women enjoyed some social changes in the same period.
Thus Ashkenazi men were monogamous. Y. Asis, , The Ordinance of Rabbenu Gershom and
Polygamous Marriages in Spain, (in Hebrew), Zion v. XLVI 1981, p. 284. C. Roth, The Jews in the
Renaissance, NY, 1965, pp. 44-58.
12
There was a considerable number of women-writers in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, but
none of them was Jewish . It is a shameful fact that half of the society who cherished so much learning
was kept illiterate.
 3

they were sole breadwinners for their family).13 While monogamy was
proclaimed a religious and social law of Christian Spain, Sephardic rabbis saw
nothing wrong in bigamy. Thus, Jews of Aragon, where Isaac Arama lived and
preached most of his life, never adopted the ordinance of Rabbenu
Gershom.14 Even women's outstanding part in the preservation of Jewish faith
within the crypto-Jewish community is usually attributed to their alienation
from the Christian society which offered new opportunities to the Christianized
men, but was out of the reach for the women.15
It is true that we learn from responsa as well as from official Spanish
sources about unfaithful Jewish wives and Jewish prostitutes,16 women who
had challenged the social code of the community.17 Yet, one cannot draw
conclusion about a whole society on the basis of a few dozens of spicy cases.
On the other hand, we are told about Benvenida Abarvanel and Garcia Nasi,
learned independent Jewish women, whose contribution to the well-being of
the Italian Jewry is unquestionable.18 Yet the example of these two
remarkable women is unique for this period. It is symbolic, that Benvenida
Abarvanel was the niece and the daughter-in-law of Isaac Abarvanel, an
original thinker and outspoken misogynist.
Since we cannot point to any social reasons that could have affected
Isaac Arama's attitude toward women, we shoud look for the answer in his
literary sources: Aristotle's Ethics19, midrash, the Guide of the Perplexed and
the Book of Zohar..
In this article I show that Arama, a syncretic thinker not committed to
the rigid principles of Aristotelian philosophy, develops a more moderate
attitude toward women than that of his fellow philosophers. Arama does so
not by suggesting new ideas, but by carefully choosing out of predominantly

13
A. Grossman, Pious and Rebellious (in Hebrew), the Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History,
Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 21, 299-301. Y. Asis, Sexual Behaviour in Hispano-Jewish Society, A. Rapoport-
Albert, S.Y. Zipperstein (eds.), Jewish History, Peter Halban, London, 1988, pp. 33-35.
14
Y. Asis, The Ordinance of Rabbenu Gershom and Polygamous Marriages in Spain, (in Hebrew),
Zion v. XLVI 1981, p. 257.
15
J.M. Anderson, Daily Life During the Spanish Inquisition, Greenwood Press, 2002, p. 101.
16
Isaac Arama attacks the community that tacitly accepted this fact. AI ch. 20 162a.
17
Y. Asis, op. cit., pp. 25-59.
18
C. Roth, op. cit. NY, 1965, pp. 54-55.
19
B. Septimus, “Yitzhaq Arama and Aristotle’s Ethics”, in Y. Asis, Y. Kaplan (eds.), Jews and
Conversos at the Time of the Expulsion, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, Jerusalem,
1999, pp. 1*-24*.
 4

misogynist Rabbinic sayings those that strengthen his more balanced attitude
toward women. Yet all this changes when he engages in metaphysical
deliberation, where he rediscovers the traditional misogynist discourse.
In this article I use the example of Arama’s theory of two matches
(zivvugim) to show how his attitude toward women shifts from moderate
toward openly negative, depending on the context of the discussion.

Background

It appears that the misogyny of medieval philosophers stems from their

typically Aristotelian20 obsession with order and classification. Aristotle’s world
is a well organized structure where nothing happens accidentally and
everything exists for a certain end.21 All the beings within this structure are
organized in a strict hierarchy.22 The more perfect the end of a being, the
higher his position within this hierarchy. In Aristotle’s pyramid–shaped world
the lower exists for the higher while the higher rules the lower. This principle is
true for Aristotle’s physics,23 metaphysics,24 psychology,25 ethics,26
sociology,27 and biology.28
According to Aristotle’s world view,29 the male is the highest being in
the biological, moral, and social structures not only because he is indeed the
most perfect of all material beings, but because his superiority is a logical
necessity.30 On the basis of this hierarchical vision of the world Aristotle
comes to a logically inevitable conclusion about women’s inferiority. Because

20
In fact, this obsession was rooted in Greek culture before and after Aristotle. See M.M. Sassi, The
Science of Man in Ancient Greece, University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 82- 139. I use the term
“Aristotelian” in a broad sense, because it was understood as such by medieval thinkers who studied
Aristotle through commentaries on his writings. As to the so-called "Platonic tradition", whose
adherents supposedly developed a different attitude toward genders, it seems that it had somehow
eluded Jewish philosophers.
21
Aristotle, Hist. An. VIII 588b 4-12; Gen. An. II 731b 30–732a 12.
22
G.E.R. Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 26-43.
23
Aristotle, Phys. I 192a 15-25.
24
Aristotle, Met. XII 1072a 20-35.
25
Aristotle, Nich. Et. I 1102b 28-35.
26
Aristotle, Nich. Et. I 1102b 30-35; VIII 1158b 12-20.
27
Aristotle, Polit. I 1252b 1-10; 1253a 19; 1254b 5-1255a 5; 1259a 35-1260a 15.
28
Aristotle, Gen. An., II 731b 30 – 732a 12; IV 775a 15.
29
For a detailed and conclusive discussion of the classical vision of women see P. Allen, The Concept
of Woman, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.
30
In fact, male logically necessary superiority mirrors the logically necessary superiority of the First
Cause.
 5

this inferiority is grounded in universal laws, it need no further proof or

separate discussion. And so it happens that most of Aristotle’s dealing with
women is not with women per se, but with women as compared with men.31
Aristotle’s rock solid conviction of the male’s superiority is grounded in
his metaphysical principles and strengthened by his multidisciplinary
observations. Medieval Jewish thinkers, on their part, although fully agreeing
with Aristotle’s metaphysical principles, could not engage in a more diverse
discussion of women and femininity. The scope of medieval Jewish
philosophy was constrained by two factors. First, the theological objectives of
Jewish philosophy delegitimized any serious anthropological discussion.
Second, the humiliating social situation of the Jewish male wiped out any
gendered social distinctions within Jewish society.32 While their Christian
neighbors were forging standards of virility after the image of the medieval
knight – the heroic warrior, the nobleman and the gallant lover, what ideal
maleness could Jewish authors praise?33
Thus Aristotle’s broad androcentrism was reduced by medieval Jewish
authors to intellectual superiority,34 the only superiority that did not really
bother Aristotle himself. Yet, while Aristotle was speaking of woman’s
biological, emotional, and social inferiority, medieval Jewish thinkers, by
contrast, emphasized woman’s physical and emotional stamina. Once
intellectual perfection was declared man’s end and prerogative, the woman
could share something that was valueless anyway - physical equality.35
Exempted from intellectual obligations, she could contribute her share
to the human pyramid by attending to the material needs of the household. As
the helper to her husband she was supposed now not only to take care of the

31
Aristotle, Hist. An., IX 608b6-10.
32
M. Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, Harvard University Press, 1980, p. 95. L. Mirrer, Women, Jews
and Muslims in the Texts of Reconquest Castile, The University of Michigan Press, 1996, pp. 3-5.
W. Johnson, The Myth of Jewish Male Menses, Journal of Medieval Philosophy, v. 24, #3, pp. 273-295.
33
The ideal Christian male was matched with an ideal Christian female. Together they explored a new
kind of relationship – courtly love. This channel of inter-gender relationship, totally impossible within
the Jewish reality, had its repercussions in Christian theology. B.Newman, From Virile Woman to
WomanChrist, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995, pp. 137-167.
34
It seems that this philosophical androcentrism is motivated by the same reasons as the exclusion of
women from the study of Torah in the Rabbinic period. D. Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct, University of
California Press, 1997, pp. 151-185.
35
Abarvanel, Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1979, p. 69.
 6

daily needs of the household, but also of the moral values of her children,
ethics ethics was considered a less challenging domain of philosophy.36
It is obvious that philosophical biblical hermeneutics, one of the most
important achievement of medieval Jewish philosophy, contributed its share of
misogyny to the Jewish intellectual tradition. Once biblical stories were
interpreted as allegorical representations of philosophical concepts, the whole
scope of feminine heroines was reduced to a single abstraction. They were all
condensed into one essence – an empty yet restless and disturbing
substance – matter, or its derivatives (primitive impulses, sensory faculties or
vegetative soul). The word “woman” became a metaphor for the low, the
transient, the irrational.37 The differentiation between “good” and “bad”
woman/matter was based not on woman’s/matter’s immanent qualities (matter
is an entity devoid of quality!), but on the measure of authority exercised by
the male/form/intellect over her.
It is true that misogynic tendencies appear both in medieval Jewish
philosophy and in Rabbinic thought, but with a difference. First, while we can
speak of the Aristotelian stand on the feminine issue, we cannot do so in the
case of the Rabbinic thought. There is no clear cut Rabbinic attitude toward
women. Along with negative statements, which constitute the majority of
sayings about women, there is a fair number of positive sayings concerning
women.38 Not many would pass the feminist test, yet at least they break the
monotonous pattern of misogyny. Second, although there are clear anti-
feminine tendencies in Rabbinic literature, they lack the scientific
argumentation of medieval Jewish philosophy. Instead, they are rather
sporadic and folkloristic in character.39

36
J. Schwartzmann, “Gender Concepts of Medieval Jewish Thinkers and the Book of Proverbs”,
Jewish Studies Quarterly 7 (2000) No.3, pp. 186-190.
37
For a very harsh analysis of matter see Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, Book 3 ch. 8.
Everytime the word “matter” appears there it can be substituted for “woman” and vice versa.
It seems that initially feminine qualities were attributed to matter, a purely theoretical construct, not the
other way around. Yet gradually, as happens with theoretical concepts, matter became a household
name in the philosophical discourse. From this point on the roles changed: matter became a metaphor
for women.
38
Ambivalence, created by the multivocality of the Rabbinic narrative, appears to be an essential
quality of the Rabbinic discourse in general, not only in the case of gender. It is rooted in the character
of the Talmudic narrative, woven from different opinions with no attempt to settle the differences. D.
Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture, University of California Press, Oxford,
1993, pp. 26-29.
39
For example they are considered talkative, gossip loving, prying, jealous etc. Bereshit Rabba 12(12).
 7

Not seeking intellectual perfection as an end, the Sages do not

specifically propagate the idea of female intellectual deficiency. Even
women’s exclusion from the ritual, the main area for discrimination against
women in Judaism, is usually given practical reasons, not attributed to their
innate ineptitude to perform religious commandments.40 The general
impression is that the Rabbis are rather apologetic on this issue.41
Finally, while medieval Jewish philosophers see marriage as an
unnatural cohabitation of two essentially different beings brought together by
practical reasons, Rabbinic thought idealizes marriage as a fusion of two parts
of the same being. A woman may be ridiculed as a separate individual, but
once she is united with her true match, she is elevated to an almost divine
status.42

Arama’s Theory of Two Matches

Isaac Arama is perfectly aware of both these tendencies. He smoothly

moves between them depending on the focus of his discussion. When
speaking of the “inner” meaning of the biblical text he usually embraces the
allegorical interpretation with all its rules and stereotypes. Once real human
beings and their relationships are at stake he turns to those Rabbinic sources
that he considers not offensive toward women.43 As much as we can judge by
Arama’s occasional remarks, at a personal level he seems to have a positive
opinion of women. Although he often uses the allegorical (misogynist)
interpretation of the Torah, he does not embrace the philosophers’ prejudice
against women as real beings.
Yet, as much as Arama’s attitude toward women may seem moderate
and even positive, his inability, or refusal, to speak in one voice creates a

40
A famous explanation of women’s exemption from “positive time-bound commandments” appears
in the 14th century in Sefer Abudraham Part 3. For a review of the problem see T. Fishman, “A
Kabbalistic Perspective on Gender-Specific Commandments: On the Interplay of Symbols and
Society” The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies v. XVII, no. 2 (1992), pp. 208-215.
41
J.R. Wegner, “The Image and Status of Women in Classical Rabbinic Judaism” in J.R. Baskin (ed.),
Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, Wayne State University Press, 1991, pp. 84-85. J.R. Baskin,
Midrashic Women, Brandeis University Press, 2002, p. 82.
42
J.R. Baskin, Midrashic Women, pp. 17, 63-64, 88, 95-99.
43
Arama often quotes from Midrash HaNe’elam or attributes Sages’ sayings to it, yet he seems to be
interested in the story, not its Kabbalistic interpretation. S. O. Heller-Wilensky, Isaac Arama and his
Philosophical Teaching ( in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1956, pp. 45-47.
 8

serious inconsistency in his thought. Though obvious, this inconsistency does

not seem to bother him. Arama’s lack of logical rigor could be attributed to his
being primarily a preacher who is not interested in creating a systematic
teaching.44
In order to understand Arama’s position on the question of women and
gender roles one should turn to his theory of two matches (zivvugim).
Originally the Sages introduced the concept to resolve the apparent
contradiction between two sayings: “Forty days before the child is conceived,
a match is made in heaven” and “A man is matched with a woman according
to his deeds”.45 The first suggests predetermination, the second, on the
contrary, emphasizes free choice. The Sages explain that the sayings deal
with two different matches in one’s life. Here is a new problem: what are these
two matches? Later interpreters try to settle the problem by suggesting either
that the Sages have in mind a first and second marriage, or matches in
different reincarnations.
Arama begins his discussion of the problematic sayings with a
hermeneutical remark. Both our common sense and philosophy teach us, he
explains, to learn from the immediate causes about remote ones. In other
words, our real life serves as an allegory for metaphysical matters. Thus the
story of the creation of the First Man in Gen. 2:7 is an allegory for the union of
form with matter. The same allegorical interpretation holds for other stories,
such as The Strange Woman and the Woman of Valor in the Book of
Proverbs. We should enjoy both the literal and the allegorical meanings, since
the literal meaning serves us in our daily life, while the allegorical one
enriches our spirituality (AI ch. 8, 78b-79a).
In the spirit of this hermeneutical statement Arama explains that the
first match in the Rabbinic saying pertains to the union of matter and form
made forty days before the child is conceived, whereas the second one is the
real life match. While the first match is predetermined and is perfect, the
second one depends on man’s deeds ( AI ch. 8, 82a).

44
B. Septimus labels Arama’s work as “philosophical preaching”. Op. cit. p. *7. Such a definition
seems to be exaggerated.
45
Sotah 2a
 9

To illustrate his understanding of these two matches, Arama turns to

Psalms 45:10-16. The literal sense of the psalm, he explains, deals with the
right relationship within a couple: the wise and excellent man (ha-ish ha-
hacham ha-me’uleh) and the intelligent important woman (ha-ishah ha-
mascelet ha-hashuvah)46. The wife in the literal interpertation is identified with
the second match - the real wife - obedient, diligent, and dedicated.
The allegorical interpretation of the psalm, deals with the structure of
the human soul (AI ch. 8, 80b). The man is an allegory for two main faculties
of the intellect (theoretical and practical). Whereas his wife (shegal) is an
allegory for the appetitive faculty (ha-koah ha-mit’orer), a “material power”,
served by “all the daughters of kings” i.e., all the senses. This appetitive
faculty is identified here with the first match. The husband (intellect) is the sole
owner of both kinds of intellect, while the wife (appetitive faculty) helps him
diligently but quietly (“All glorious is the princess within her chamber”) and is
ready to do whatever he desires. (AI ch. 8, 81a).
In the psalm the woman is urged to forget her parents’ home. Arama
explains that this is necessary to avoid the husband’s jealousy. In a marriage,
he adds, each partner has a specific role. If matter (wife) is obedient and
submissive to intellect (husband), it allows the intellect (husband) to act
perfectly. The aim of the relationship is not the enjoyment of matter (wife), but
that of intellect (husband). The metaphysical order sets the example for the
real life wife: “And because of this it is suitable for you [real wife – J.S.] to
welcome his mastery and adore him. How right is this useful teaching for both
women!” (AI ch. 8, 81a).
After discussing the two matches in general terms Arama turns to a
more detailed study of each. The issue of matches appears on three different
occasions in Akedat Itzhac: the story of Creation, Primordial Sin, and the
death of Sarah.

46
Arama joins two different expressions here. The “intelligent woman” is from Prov. 19:14. The
expression “important woman” appears first in Pesahim 108a.
 10

a) The Story of Creation

Before turning to the allegorical interpretation of the creation of the First

Man, Arama elaborates on the issue of marital love. The discussion is
inspired by the verse “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18), which
inevitably brings him to the “second match”, i.e. the real life woman. Arama
states that his analysis of marital love is inspired by Aristotle’s theory of
friendship (φιλία).47 However, a closer examination shows that the similarity is
rather vague.
While Arama is interested specifically in the marital relationship, for
Aristotle friendship between husband and wife is based on the same
principles as other kinds of friendship. It is similar to friendship between two
people of same sex, between states, between parent and child. Any
friendship, Aristotle claims, should be based on one or all three of the
following elements: pleasure, utility and virtue. Although he admits that a
friendship between husband and wife may be based on all three, he totally
ignores the emotional bond within the couple,48 the one bond that is so
important to Arama. According to Aristotle, a friendship between man and
woman is a natural need of both of them, yet it is not based on equality.
Whereas for Aristotle a marriage has two objectives - procreation and mutual
help, Arama has a different understanding of the essence of the marital bond.
Like Aristotle Arama postulates that human beings need love (hibbah,
ahavah) for a proper existence. Yet unlike Aristotle, he is certain that any love
should be based on similarity and equality. Love grows stronger the more
alike people are: that is why a person loves himself (herself) more than
anybody else (AI ch. 8, 82b). Love is a true union of two lovers in one

47
Aristotle, Nich. Eth. Book 8, especially 1158b 30-35; 1162a 15-25. Medieval Hebrew translations of
Ethics translate φιλία as hibbah. See Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean
Ethics in the Hebrew Version of Samuel ben Judah, Critical Edition with an Introduction, Notes and
Glossary by L.V. Berman, The Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, 1999. Arama
uses the word ahavah speaking of love in general and of marital love in particular, although in
medieval Jewish thought it is usually reserved for a theological context. For the Arabic roots of the
word and its theological use see S. Harvey, “The Meaning of Terms Designating Love in Judeo-Arabic
Thought and Some Remarks on the Judeo-Arabic Interpretation of Maimonides” in N. Golb (ed.),
Judeo-Arabic Studies, Harwood Academic Publishers, London, 1997, pp. 175-196.
48
The concept of love and attraction between two human beings is not strange to Aristotle. In fact,
most of Nich. Et. Book 9 deals with it, yet never specifically in the context of love between man and
woman.
 11

substance and is based on affection (hibat ha-hevrah) and mutual attraction.

(AI ch. 8, 83b). It is important to preserve the equality and similarity of the
lovers in a union, for once they grow apart and the similarity disappears, love
goes away too (AI ch. 8, 83b).
Aristotle, on his part, considers love/friendship between equals as only
one among different kinds of love. It is certainly not the kind of friendship one
expects in a marriage. On the contrary, speaking of friendship between
husband and wife Aristotle emphasizes the inequality of the partners.49 He
does not see the woman as an ideal spiritual or even sexual companion to the
man. It is likely that for company and affection a man would seek someone of
his own kind.50
Arama, on his part, seems more interested in the emotional bond
between husband and wife. In this context he differentiates between an
essential and a natural need for a spouse. The company of the other sex is an
essential need for human beings, whereas the preservation of the species
comes second as a natural need. For this reason God made the relationship
between male and female a special personal one (ishi me’yuhad), to
strengthen their love and friendship. That is why God said “It is not good for
man to be alone” meaning that each one of them (male and female) needs
each other’s company. “A helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:19) means that
woman will help man and will be equal to him (AI ch. 8, 84a). Arama rejects
the midrash claiming that Adam in his search for a helper first tried to copulate
with animals.51 Adam contemplated all the animals, explains Arama, and
came to the conclusion that he needs someone specially designed for him.
Arama’s attitude toward the woman as a companion to the man is a
romantic one. It does not mean that he is free of prejudice against women. On
the contrary, he is well equipped with all possible negative stereotypes. He is
certain that the woman is an auxiliary to the man and that her most precious
qualities are obedience and modesty. Yet, while Aristotle and his medieval
followers see the woman as some sort of animated kitchen gadget whose only
goal in life is procreation and taking care of man’s needs, Arama stresses

49
Aristotle, Nich. Et. 8 1160b 30-35; 1161a 22-25.
50
Aristotle, Nich. Et. 9 1171b30-1172a8. This pragmatic attitude toward marriage is fully adopted by
medieval Jewish philosophers.
51
Yevamot 63a
 12

man’s inherent need to love and to cherish. Thus he tells us that when
creating Eve, God put Adam to sleep so as to give him a pleasant surprise.
The fact that man and woman are made from the same body makes them
alike, a necessity for love and friendship.52 The Torah uses the word “built”
(va-iven) when describing the manner in which Eve appeared, instead of
“create” or “produce”, to emphasize that both man and woman were created
equal. We should not think, he explains, that one served as matter for the
other. There is no difference between them but in their image, like a chair and
a table made of the same wood: they are different in shape but have the same
material foundation (AI ch. 8, 84b).
It is important to emphasize the rarity in the Middle Ages of Arama’s
insistence on ontological equality between men and women, which is certainly
absent in the Jewish philosophers. The latter claim that women have a lower
ontological status than men, because only the First Man was created in the
image of God.53
Following Bereshit Rabba54 Arama explains that it was necessary for
man to be created first out of clay and the woman out of his body “so that
there will be no man’s nature apart from woman’s nature, and this will be the
great reason for their love and the strength of their affection which are
essential for their way of life” (AI ch. 8, 85b).55 This is a real match made in
heaven. When the match is not successful the Sages look at the bright side of
marriage: at least the wife brings up their children and satisfies their sexual
needs.56
Arama finds it significant that the relationship between man and woman
is not motivated by physiological impulses, but is a personal spiritual one. The
woman, explains Arama, was called ishah in order to show the special human
(ishi) relationship between man and woman as opposed to the relationship
based on the preservation of the species (mini) of other animated beings:
otherwise she would be called adamah. “This bond (devekut) will not change

52
For comparison,. Gersonides is certain that the woman is ontologically different from man and the
story about her creation out of his rib should not be understood literally. Op. cit., p. 61
53
J. Schwartzmann, “Was She Created in the Image of God Too? The Medieval Philosophical
Interpretation of the Creation of Woman”, pp. 69-87;
54
Bereshit Rabba 8 (8).
55
Ha-midrash Ha-gadol Gen. 2:24.
56
Yevamot 63a.
 13

and will not become different because one had been impressed on the other
in order to be made like two pieces of the same flesh, which have that
relationship and wonderful likeness in order to cling together. And so they will
be joined both of them in love and in peace to make a home and look to their
needs, and this would not be so if their provenance was different” (AI ch. 8,
85a).
Yet one of the signs of human excellence is that Adam was created
first, not like the animals that were created together. Because the woman was
made second she depends on the man in her decisions. “Your desire will be
to your husband” (Gen. 3:16) – means that she will always have to fulfill his
desire in all his needs and he will rule over her to lead her in the path of
honesty and piety (hasidut), so that there exists between them the good and
the enjoyable and the useful all together as it is said by the Scholar in ch. 12
Book 8 of the Book of Ethics” (AI ch. 8, 85b-86a).
After discussing the nature of love and woman’s (“second match”’) role
in marriage, Arama turns to the allegorical meaning of the story, i.e. to the
“first match”. One can sense an abrupt passage from a romantic elation to a
technical analysis.
The creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib is explained by Arama as the
material creation of man. God took some of His plentitude (shefa)) and put it
into material form. The allegorical Eve is the material vehicle for the “hylic
form”. “God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep” (Gen. 2:21) - means
“that the woman was nothing but the sleep of the intellect and its hiding place.
When the intellect, the male faculty, is present in its perfection, the female
faculty, which is matter, is hiding, [and when the first] is hiding the second is
present”(AI ch. 8, 88a). Arama reckons that this phenomenon is of great
importance, a “mystery” suggested in the structure of the language. When a
word is of masculine gender the feminine gender is hidden inside it, when a
word is of feminine gender the masculine form is hidden in it (AI ch. 8, 88a).
“…she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man” (Gen.
2:23) means, that, although it contains matter, this “first match” is an
intellectual entity: isha comes from ish, by definition a thinking being (hai
medaber) (AI ch. 8, 88a). We can see that Arama is uncomfortable with the
routine allegorical interpretation of the woman as matter. Although he does
 14

not reject it, he tends to see the “allegorical wife” as an intellectual entity. Yet
we can sense the difference in his tone when Arama speaks of the real
marriage and the allegorical one. In the real marriage, examined with the help
of Rabbinic sources, he emphasizes the ontological equality of the partners.
Marriage is a positive formative act in the life of a human being. The
allegorical “marriage” is based on innate inequality of intellect and matter.
Here “marriage” is essentially a negative act, because it sets boundaries to
the intellect.
Arama differentiates between three “synonyms”: adam (human), ish
(man), and basar (flesh). These three words refer to the human being at
different stages of his existence. Adam means God’s image, i.e. general
intellect. When the Torah says “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh; she will be called woman (isha) …” (Gen. 2:23) it means that the union
with matter transformed the general intellect into the “partial hylic intellect” of a
man (isha) (AI ch. 8, 88a). Because of the special relationship between it and
its material vehicle, the intellect leaves his father and mother, i.e. its high
source (God), who is considered male (bemadregat hazachar) (AI ch. 8,
88b).57 Now he descends from the position of adam to that of ish. First the
woman was called isha because she was taken from him, now he is called ish
because he clings to her. His passion will not be satisfied till they become one
flesh. This descent to a lower stage is expressed in the discovery of
nakedness after the Primordial Sin.
Despite the usual philosophical resentment toward matter in Arama’s
words, his traditional Jewish roots make him accept the utility of the evil
inclination (yezer ha-ra).58 God said “very good” (Gen. 1:31) about the union
of intellect with matter, which created the evil inclination. This evil inclination
makes a man want a wife and children, a house and money.59 Otherwise,
Arama adds to Sages’ words, he would be always ruled by rationality (AI ch.
8, 87b).
This last sentence seems to illustrate the difference between the
philosophical and the traditional Jewish concepts of the purpose of human

57
Arama recurs again to the allegory of God as male and husband in AI ch. 45 124a-b, ch. 58 15a.
58
On the Rabbinic attitude toward the evil inclination, see D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, pp. 61-67.
59
Bereshit Rabba 9(7).
 15

existence. Arama’s critique of philosophy here appears to have no anti-

rational or theological basis: it is generated by a genuine concern for person's
full self-realization, which is repressed and criticized by philosophers. He
exhorts against fear of sensual pleasures and social achievements because
God wanted us to enjoy this world. On a different occasion Arama tells us that
“the way of a man with his beloved wife is not restricted to the known times
(onot yeduot), but is [ruled] by his imagination and the thought of his lust
(reayon ta’avato) like a flame of the basic fire that burns within him” (AI ch. 9,
90a). How different are Arama’s words from those of Maimonides, who
compares the satisfaction of one’s physiological needs with a humiliating
punishment of transporting dung from one place to another.60 Doubtless
Arama voices a different stand here.

b) Primordial Sin

Arama’s theory of two matches is discussed again within the context of

Primordial Sin. As often happens in allegorical commentaries, it is sometimes
difficult to discern his allegorical interpretation of the story from the literal one:
Adam and Eve appear sometimes as form and matter, yet immediately are
spoken of as real people.
At the allegoric level Arama understands the story of Primordial Sin not
as a dramatic event, but as a description of the human condition.61 The cause
of sin is the intimate proximity of pure intellect (Adam) to a deficient substance
i.e., matter/senses (Eve). The grim outcome of such proximity, is not restricted
to the metaphysical level (first match), but is true for the real life wife (second
match) (AI ch. 9, 89a). Yet first he deals with the allegorical meaning of the
story.
Arama’s interpretation of the Primordial Sin opens with a sharp
criticism of Maimonides’ claim that ethics is outside the scope of divine
knowledge.62 Not only is God the supreme ethical authority, he claims, but the
knowledge of ethics logically precedes the metaphysical knowledge (AI ch. 9,
60
Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed III ch. 8.
61
Arama’s interpretation of sin brings to mind Gersonides, op. cit., p. 65.
62
Maimonides, op. cit., Book I, ch. 2.
 16

88b). Contrary to Maimonides' interpretation of the Primordial Sin, Arama is

certain that Adam and Eve were endowed with ethical knowledge before they
sinned. Moreover, they were even allowed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge
prior to the Sin, they just did not do it correctly. As the result of the Sin
knowledge of good and evil became difficult to acquire.
Although Arama’s interpretation of the Primordial Sin at first glance
appears to represent the exact opposite of Maimonides’, his understanding of
the Tree of Knowledge may be different from that of Maimonides. Thus on
another occasion he identifies the Tree of Knowledge with philosophy, while
the Tree of Life is the tree of prophetic knowledge which is “the end of
everything and above the human intellect”(AI ch. 7, 77b). It seems that for
both Maimonides and Arama the Tree of Knowledge represents a lower kind
of knowledge: only their interpretation of this knowledge is different.
Arama begins his allegorical interpretation of the Primordial Sin with a
discussion of the nature of matter, that is, of “her” defects (AI ch. 9, 89b-90a).
Quite naturally his study brings him to the parable of the Strange Woman
(Prov. 7). The main quality of matter is unquenchable lust, which makes “her”
constantly look for new “partners”. Unbridled matter leads to the destruction of
the soul and of all its faculties. In order to rectify this abnormal situation, in
which the slave rules over the master, God gave “her” husband (intellect) the
Torah “to guide her on the right path, to teach and correct by restricting her to
righteous deeds…” (AI ch. 9, 90b)63.
As in his introductory interpretation of Psalm 45, Arama’s attitude
toward matter here is Aristotelian. Yet despite his intention to discuss the
metaphysical essence of the story, his regular recurrence to real life figures
(husband, wife, adulteress) proves that before his eyes are two different kinds
of relationship between real spouses. On one hand there is a dysfunctional
marriage in which the helpless husband is dragged along by a destructive and
unstable wife. On the other, there is a “normal” marriage in which the husband
knows how to restrain and to channel his wife’s temperament to good
purposes.

63
Compare with Guide of the Perplexed, Translated by S. Pines, III, ch. 8, p. 433: “…the
commandments and prohibitions of the Law are only intended to quell all the impulses of matter”.
 17

After elaborating on the volatility of matter, which implies avid sexuality,

Arama returns to the literal meaning of the biblical story and to the curse of
Eve. “Your desire will be for your husband” (Gen. 3:16) – is interpreted by the
Sages as woman’s submission to her husband’s sexual needs.64 Arama
admits that man’s libido is stronger than woman’s. He explains it by man’s
obligation to fulfill the commandment of procreation. “This is not in the nature
of the male to be ashamed of sexual intercourse as it is in the nature of the
female. Although this is an animal lust of flesh restricted to the sense of touch
which is our shame, the man comes to it because of an essential need. He
resembles someone who steals in order to survive as it is said “Men do not
despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving” (Prov.
6:30). The woman, by contrast, resembles someone who steals in order to
satisfy his soul, not to be sated” (AI ch. 9, 92a).
Obviously there is a contradiction between Arama’s allegorical “female”
with her greedy sexuality and the women that surrounded him in real life.
Moreover, the real male, driven by animal impulses, hardly resembles his
philosophical counterpart – the intellect. In fact, it seems logical for lustful
matter to be associated with the male. Yet Arama, clearly aware of the
contradiction but unable to break away from the traditional stereotype, tries to
justify male sexuality. He finds one “fundamental” difference: male sexuality is
rational and legitimate, being a religious obligation, while matter’s sexuality is
impulsive and senseless.65
Sin changed woman’s essence, continues Arama. "When Adam first
saw her bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh he decided that she will
partakes in human perfection like a man (ish) that is why he called her woman
(ishah).66 Yet after he saw all the consequences of her company, [that is] all
the evil and the curse she brought on him, he changed his mind and called
her by another name indicating her female essence “because she would
become the mother of all the living” (Gen. 3:20). (Al ch. 9 92b). The man

64
Eruvin 100b.
65
It seems that the Sages consider both women and men as having equal sexual desire. Yet contrary to
women, men can control their impulses. M.L. Satlow, Tasting the Dish, Brown Judaic Studies 303,
1995, pp. 158-169.
66
Compare with Bereshit Rabba 17(2).
 18

perceived suddenly that woman’s only role in this world was procreation, and
that he was in sole charge of human perfection (AI ch. 9 92b).
So far Arama’s view of the purpose of woman does not differ from that
of any other Jewish thinker of his time. Yet, as mentioned earlier, Arama
understands the story of the Primordial Sin as a description of the human
condition, not as a dramatic event. It means that the First Woman did not lose
her intellectual perfection. “Here in these two names it became clear that a
woman has two ends. The one is shown in the name woman (ishah), “for she
was taken out of man” (Gen. 2:23) and just like him she will understand and
learn matters of intellect and piety as did the Matriarchs and some righteous
women and prophetesses as we learn from the literal sense of the portion
Woman of Valor…and the second end is the matter of giving birth and being a
means for it and keeping to the labor and to the rearing of children as it is
indicated in the name of Eve ‘mother of all the living’. And yet, if there is a
woman that does not give birth for some reason and is deprived of the minor
end, she will do good and evil like a man that cannot beget, and will seek the
perfection common to the human species, because righteous people give
birth to good deeds…” (AI ch. 9, 92b).
This may be a rare instance in medieval Jewish thought that a thinker
admits that woman’s end is no different from men: both should strive to
achieve intellectual perfection. Moreover, unlike most of Jewish thinkers,
Arama does not consider child bearing as the essence of woman’s existence.
Reproduction is a “minor end” equally shared by both men and women,
equally important to both. There are times, adds Arama, that a female acts
like a woman (ishah), that is according to her true human end, but there are
other times when she forsakes her true essence and descends to the status
of Eve, “the mother of all the living”.67
In this context it is interesting to compare Arama’s attitude with that of
Gersonides and Isaac Abarvanel. Arama was acquainted with Gersonides’
works and probably had read his commentary on Genesis.68 As to Isaac

67
Although Arama in no way promotes sexual abstinence, his attitude toward barren women as
participants in human perfection in some ways recalls the Christian attitude toward feminine virginity.
B. Newman, op. cit., pp. 28-34.
68
Arama mentions Gersonides’ interpretation of “Sun, stand still over Gibeon” (Josh. 10:12) in AI ch.
22, 180b. Elsewhere (AI ch. 13) he criticizes his rationalistic interpretation of this miracle in Wars of
 19

Abarvanel, he was not only influenced by Arama, but also "borrowed" widely
from his writings.69 In their commentaries on Genesis, both Gersonides and
Abarvanel express despite some three hundred years that separate them a
very similar resentment towards women, to the point of denying that they are
human beings.70
Speaking of woman’s part in Primordial Sin Arama, does not blame it
on her intellectual deficiency, as Jewish sources usually do.71 On the contrary,
he claims that the Serpent enticed Eve by “very truthful words” (devarim
amitiim meod) (AI ch. 9, 93a). Using the midrash, Arama explains that the
Serpent (imaginative faculty) convinced the woman (matter) that if they did not
eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God would create someone greater than
they who would rule them.72 Intellect (man) who is very intimate with matter
was convinced by this argument, which indeed seems sound at first.
Eve was misled by the Serpent, who promised her philosophical
knowledge of God. (AI ch. 9, 93b). First she protested, saying that philosophy
was valid only for natural matters not for metaphysics. But the Serpent won
her trust by providing “good knowledge”, i.e. he proved to her the existence of
the First Cause, the Oneness and the incorporeity of God. By doing so he
enticed her to turn to “bad knowledge”, i.e. the negation of providence,
prophecy and retribution. According to Arama, prior to the Sin both man and
woman were perfect and absolutely equal, both intellectually and morally.
Now Arama comes to the aftermath of the Sin. The opening of the eyes
symbolizes the loss of faith in the immortality of the soul. Once Adam and Eve
understood that they were mortal, they went to all the other trees trying to
acquire wisdom, but nothing helped them, because they had lost the most
fundamental faith in the immortality of the soul. In their desperation they went
from tree to tree looking for an answer, but the only tree ready to accept them

the Lord Book VI, part. II, ch. 12. M. Kellner, “Gersonides and His Cultured Despisers: Arama and
Abravanel”, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1976), pp. 269-296.
69
S.O. Heller-Wilensky, op. cit., pp. 50-57.
70
See above, note 42.
71
Most sources claim that the serpent enticed the woman because she is “light headed”. Pirkei de-
Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 12; R. David Kimhi, RaDaK’s Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), Jerusalem
1970, Gen. 3:7; Sforno’s commentary on Gen. 3:1; Gersonides’ Commentaries on the Torah (in
Hebrew), Genesis, Jerusalem 1992, p. 62. Isaac Abarvanel claims that Eve was enticed by promises of
sensual pleasure. Isaac Abarvanel , Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1979, p. 107.
72
Bereshit Rabba, 19(6).
 20

was the Tree of (philosophical) Knowledge.73 As immortality is achieved

through the Tree of Life, i.e. traditional Jewish faith, Adam and Eve traded it
for a lower substitute in the form of philosophical knowledge. (AI ch. 9, 93b-
94a). In other words, for Arama Primordial Sin is identical with an
undiscriminating acceptance of the medieval rationalism.
As to the curses, Arama interprets them not as a definite change in
human life, but as different phases of life. When man concentrates on thought
about God he is not cursed: once he diverts his thought from God he is (AI ch.
9, 95a). The lesson the man learned is clear: “From now on after the man
understood the measure of evil to follow from trusting this woman, whom he
was sure of because she was a close wife because she was taken from man.
Now he gives her a special name, Eve, after the name of the Serpent that
trails after her, which means that he should keep away from her as [he should
keep away] from the Serpent and he will resort to her only for the needs
essential for procreation” (AI ch. 9, 95a).
The inconsistency of Arama’s words here is puzzling. On one hand he
depicts the First Woman as an intellectual eager for knowledge. While other
interpreters claimed that the woman was enticed by the Serpent because of
her intellectual deficiency or her unquenchable sexual lust, Arama tells us that
the reason for her sin was her passion for truth and knowledge. She did slip,
she indeed brought calamities on the man, but her intention was noble. The
Serpent used her thirst for metaphysical knowledge to divert her from the right
path. On the other hand, Arama echoes the traditional blame of the First
Woman as the source of evil and judges her unable to achieve human
(intellectual) perfection.
Arama’s interpretation of Primordial Sin is obviously directed against
Jewish philosophers. Although he does not mention Maimonides, he seems to
have him in mind when criticizing philosophers for their wrong choices. It is
interesting that Arama blames the First Woman for seeking philosophical
truth, while his philosopher opponents claim that women are impervious to
philosophy.

73
Arama compares the readiness of philosophy’s to accept the First Man back with the readiness of a
woman once seduced by a man to take him back.
 21

c) The Death of Sarah

One issue Arama deals with in connection with his theory of two
matches is the question of predetermination and free will. The discussion is
inspired by the Sages’ claim that person’s character and fate are
predetermined, only the choice to be righteous or a sinner is left to free will.74
Arama explains that this moral choice depends on man’s two matches. He
differentiates again between the “natural wife” i. e., the first match (matter),
who is with man from the day of his birth, and is called “woman” (ishah) in the
parables of the Torah, and the other one whom he marries in this world (AI ch.
22, 174a).
With both his “wives”, claims Arama, man behaves in a similar way. As
he is absorbed by his lust he clings to them (karuch achare’ha) and does
whatever they want. There is a great similarity between the two wives. If the
first one is not honest, neither will the second one be so.75 A man with two
such wives at his side will not be able to avoid evil (AI ch. 22, 174a). He
brings the example of Samson, Solomon and Ahab and their “two women”. In
all these cases the “first wife” with her carnal inclination never left them.
It seems, says Arama, that the perfection of a man depends on the two
women in his life. Yet the Sages claim that man’s first match is determined in
heaven forty days before he is conceived, which means that a good first
match is a question of luck (Sotah 2a). Arama is not ready to accept such a
deterministic conclusion. A man, he claims, can change his luck with the help
of intellect and determination (AI ch. 22 176a). Moreover, his real wife can
help him too. Man’s second match can influence his first, because there is a
constant interaction between both matches as in the case of the Patriarchs.
Arama is certain that Abraham’s first match was marked by good luck and
thanks to his upright deeds he was given the gift of the second match (AI ch.
22, 176b). And Isaac in his turn was given a good and beautiful portion
(manah) in the figure of Rebekah.76 Then Jacob came and was the most

74
Niddah 16a.
75
It is not clear how man’s negative inclinations affect the character of his wife. Maybe it means that a
person looks for someone like himself.
76
Arama is particularly impressed by Rebekah’s intellectual and moral qualities. AI, ch. 22, 185a-188a.
 22

perfect of all. This tradition of good matches did not stop until after the time of
Moses.
Arama urges that the matter of two matches be taken seriously
because they are the key to man’s success in both worlds. Here the
allegorical interpretation of the first match is different from the previous
chapters. Suddenly the first match (matter) is not responsible for man’s carnal
inclinations. Instead, "she" is in charge of man’s intellect (sechel) and she
paves his way to real happiness in this world and the world to come. In the
course of time she helps him solve day-to-day problems that arise in this
world. The second wife is in charge of man’s material needs. The first wife
helps the second one in her mission.77 (AI ch. 22, 176b). Arama interprets
Woman of Valor further in this spirit.78
Of special interest to Arama is the relationship between Abraham and
Sarah.79 In this allegorical interpretation Sarah represents “good matter” of
Abraham (a pure soul) which did not leave him until his death (AI ch. 22,
180a). Logically, a pure soul should be glad to part with its matter, yet we
know that Abraham mourned Sara’s death (Gen. 23:2).80 Instead of adopting
the philosophical attitude toward matter Arama turns to an allegorical
interpretation he finds in the Zohar.81 He explains at great length the special
bond between soul and matter in the righteous, which does not exist in the
case of the sinners. A sinner’s soul disappears right after his death, while the
soul of a righteous one who acquired immortality must get used to its new
condition. In this transitional period it clings to its matter and mourns their
separation. (AI ch. 22, 181a-b). Arama’s sudden change of attitude toward the
“first match” does not seem to be motivated here by a positive attitude toward
women, but by the significance of the story. Identifying the First Woman with
deficient matter was one thing: doing the same to the Matriarchs is another.
Arama prefers inconsistency to irreverence.

77
The idea of two feminine entities (Shechinah and the wife) guiding as a team the man through his life
appears in the Zohar I 49b-50.
78
For Arama’s interpretation of Woman of Valor see J. Schwartzmann, op. cit., pp. 199-201.
79
Arama already discussed Sara's exceptional qualities in AI ch. 18, 156a-157a.
80
The real Sarah, explains Arama, died only a material death, while her spiritual essence was
conserved as in the case of all the righteous (AI ch. 22, 180b).
81
Zohar, Midrash Ne’elam on the Torah, portion Hayei Sarah.
 23

Using the example of Abraham and Sara Arama dwells on the special
bond between a husband and a wife. The Patriarchs’ tradition of burial
alongside their wives is a natural necessity: “[He] will return to the land
androgynous (du-parzufin), because this is the essence of the man and his
substance that they will unite together to cling to God and to live to eternity”
(AI ch. 22, 182a). Once they part with their matter this union is purely
spiritual.82 That his wife should be buried separately from him is equivalent to
a man’s agreement that his body should be divided between two graves (AI
ch. 22, 183b).83
Arama does not limit his exploration of marital life to theoretical
deliberations. He gives some practical advice to a potential husband. He
should start looking for a match after he makes his way to perfection. An early
marriage will stand in the way of accomplishment (AI ch. 22, 184a). Following
the Sages84, Arama calls it absolute nonsense to take a wife at an early stage.
He gives the example of Isaac, who did not marry until the age of forty, “the
age of understanding” (binah) (AI ch. 22, 185a). Moreover, a man should not
start a family as long as he cannot support it.
Arama’s view on this issue is quite different from that of medieval
philosophers. While the philosophers see the wife as an auxiliary that makes
possible husband’s ascend to intellectual perfection, Arama urges his readers
not to get married before achieving perfection.

Conclusion

Arama’s theory of two matches serves him as a means to explore both

the allegorical (“first match”) and the literal (“second match”) aspect of women
and femininity. To the reader it serves as an opportunity to dwell on Arama’s
attitude toward women in particular and gender roles in general.

82
Bava Batra 58a.
83
Arama carefully chooses his Rabbinic sources, because this romantic attitude toward wives and
marital union is far from unanimous in Rabbinic literature. See e.g. Sanhedrin 75a; Maimonides in
Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ha-Deot 3:2 also voices these negative attitudes. For more examples of
affectionless attitude toward wives and marriage see M.L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity,
Princeton University Press, 2001, pp. 225-258.
84
Kiddushin 29b.
 24

When engaged in the allegorical interpretation of the Torah, Arama

tends to accept the traditional philosophical attitude toward woman, which
sees her as a metaphor for what is volatile, irrational and devoid of quality.
Yet when speaking of the allegorical meaning of such specific feminine figures
as the Matriarchs, Arama abandons the traditional allegorical interpretation in
favor of a positive vision. These shifts create a serious inconsistency in his
thought.
Although Arama’s attitude toward women as real beings is not without
stereotypes and prejudice, it is markedly different from that of other medieval
Jewish thinkers. Thus he emphasizes the ontological and intellectual equality
of men and women. While for most such thinkers a male - a perfect being in
himself - can establish a perfect human relationship only with an equal, i.e.,
with another man, Arama praises the affection and the intimacy of the man
with his wife. He emphasizes the essential bond and mutual need that exists
between husband and wife. They represent a unity as the result of their
creation from one source. While for his fellows philosophers sex is a
demographical necessity, for Arama sexual attraction between husband and
wife is vital for a perfect marriage.
In the spirit of the Aristotelian philosophy Jewish thinkers tend to
understand marriage as a social contract with practical objectives. Arama on
his part comes up with no practical reasons for marriage. Wives are neither
for hard work, nor for childbearing, since for both men and women being a
parent is a by-product of being human.
Instead of speaking of the differences between men and women, he
emphasizes their similarity: both should strive for human perfection. For a rare
moment in the history of Jewish medieval thought women are considered as
human beings in their own right.
25