The Language of Union in Jewish Neoplatonism

Chapter 5 “As Light Unites with Light”: The Language of Union in Jewish Neoplatonism

Like their Christian and Muslim counterparts, Jewish writers between the 10th and 13th centuries increasingly expressed the soul’s transformation and prog- ress towards God in Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Neo-Aristotelian terms. These philosophical systems provided models that not only allowed the human soul to come close to God, but also enabled union with Him, through mediating spiritual or mental elements. In the early writings of Jewish Neoplatonists, under the direct influence of Arab Neoplatonism, the notion of mystical union was articulated for the first time since Philo. The Neoplatonist “axis of return”, which constitutes the odyssey of the soul to its origin in the divine, became creatively absorbed into rabbinic Judaism. Judaism was synthesized once again with Platonism, this time in the form of the Platonism of Proclus and Plotinus and their enhanced idea and experience of mystical henōsis with the “Nous” and the “One”.1 In their classic study on Isaac Israeli (855–955),2 Alexander Altmann and Samuel Stern, claimed that this 10th-century Jewish-Arab Neoplatonist articulated for the first time a Jewish-Arabic version of henōsis as ittihad. In his Neoplatonic understanding of Judaism, Isaac Israeli incorporated the ideas of spiritual return and mystical union into his systematic exposition of rabbinic Judaism. Israeli interpreted this spiritual return as a religious journey, and viewed the three stages of Proclus’s ladder of ascension—purification, illumination, and mystical union—as the inner meaning of Judaism and its religious path. His synthesis paved the way for the extensive employment of the termi- nology of devequt—but significantly, in the Neoplatonic sense of henōsis—in medieval Jewish literature, both philosophical and Kabbalistic. Israeli was the first medieval Jewish author to articulate a Jewish version of unio mystica after Philo. Several of his theories reflect the path of transformation and draw directly from Proclus, and were later quoted by 13th-century

1 Tamar Rudavsky, “Medieval Jewish Neoplatonism,” In History of Jewish Philosophy, Eds. Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman (London: Routledge, 1997), 149–187. 2 Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli.

“Neoplatonic” Kabbalists.3 Altmann argues convincingly that the fusion of rabbinic Judaism and Neoplatonism caused the birth of a new concept of devequt and union, as well as the entire axis of spiritual transformation and return. Israeli played a crucial role in the reshaping of rabbinic Judaism and the rebirth of the spiritual and mystical interpretation of the biblical “devequt” in Platonic terms. As part of his revolutionary interpretation of Judaism in Neoplatonic categories, Israeli articulated his understanding of theories of emanation, along with a detailed theory of illumination and transformation which the soul undergoes upon returning to its origins.4 In Israeli’s writings in Arabic, a direct link between Plotinus and Proclus and medieval Jewish thought is evident: the Greek concept of henōsis which signifies the final union is depicted by the Arabic terms of ittisal and ittihad. With the translation into Hebrew of these terms by the use of the Hebrew term devequt with its new meaning, a Jewish synthesis with Platonism was in place, creating a Jewish form of henōsis.5 This significant transformation has been largely overlooked by scholars, due—I would argue—to their theological bias against the idea of a Jewish theory of mystical union. This crucial moment of synthesis, recognized by Altmann, must be understood as a fundamental moment in the histories of Jewish philosophy and Jewish mysticism alike. It is therefore crucial to revisit Israeli with a fresh eye, and reconsider the history of unio mystica in Judaism in light of his writings. While Altmann claims that Israeli developed a Jewish conception of henōsis, he nevertheless raises the question of whether and in what manner Israeli articulated a Jewish version of Proclus’s path of return, and to what extent it include an element of mystical union. Some of the sources he sets forth are ambiguous, but several others speak of union loud and clear, espe- cially as reflected in the writings of Israeli’s student, ibn Tamim. Israeli’s importance lies not only his writing about Neoplatonic union as a Jewish thinker, or reintroducing a Jewish understanding of henōsis for the first time since Philo, but in his bold reinterpretation of the biblical commandment to “cleave to God” and its rabbinic understandings using the Neoplatonic

3 See Alexander Altmann, “Isaac Israeli’s Chapter on the Elements,” Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1956): 31–57; Moshe Idel, “Nishmat ‘Eloha: On the Divinity of the Soul in Nahmanides and His Schools,” in Life as a Midrash, Perspectives in Jewish Psychology, ed. Shahar Arzy et al. (Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronot, 2004), 344–345 (Hebrew). 4 See Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 185–217; Afterman, Devequt, 49–53. 5 An Arabic partial translation, or perhaps paraphrase, of Plotinus ‘Enneads was circulated under the pseudo-epigraphic title The Theology of Aristotle in two recessions (the short and long versions); Paul Fenton, “The Arabic and Hebrew,” 241–264.