Conclusion

I

In the concluding pages of this book, I will argue that the philosophic ethos not only propelled the emergence of , but also was instrumental in forging the scholarly type of its first exponents. The Kabbalists in R. Isaac’s circle are notable for the fact that their scholar- ship focused entirely on matters of Kabbalah and not on the traditional fields of and Jewish law. It seems to me that the philosophic ethos gave legitimacy to this scholarly type. R. Judah ben Joseph Alfakar, a leading member of the anti- Maimonidean camp during the Maimonidean controversy, claims, in the context of an exchange of letters with the Maimonidean sup- porter, R. David Kimḥi, that the Maimonideans “cajoled many with blandishments to set aside the discussions of Abbayé and Raba, and to strive [instead] to ascend to the chariot.”1 “The discussions of Abbayé and Raba”—two Talmudic sages—is a reference to legalistic Talmudic study. “Ascending to the chariot” is a reference to the study of Aristo- telian metaphysics, which identified with the traditional esoteric topic of “the account of the chariot.” Therefore, R. Judah’s critique of the Maimonideans is that they abandon the study of Talmud for the study of divine science. To a certain extent, it seems to me that the critique leveled by Alfakar, who was not a Kabbalist, but a philosophically educated anti-rationalist, “who rejected not the permissibility, but the primacy of philosophical study,”2 could also be applied to the Kabbalists in R. Isaac’s circle, even though this was not his intent. This takes us to another aspect of R. Isaac’s circle. A corollary of the adoption of the value of investigating was a lessening of the centrality of traditional Jewish study. While members of this circle surely had knowledge of traditional subjects, and there is no reason

1 “Iggrot kannaʾut,” in Kovets teshuvot ha-Rambam ve-’iggrotav, ed. Abraham ben Aryeh Lichtenberg (Leipzig: H.L. Shnuis, 1859), 4b. Cf. 2c. 2 septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah, 92. 246 conclusion to think that they were antagonistic to halakhic study, their scholarly efforts were apparently primarily devoted to the study of Kabbalah, which they viewed as the “account of the chariot.” As seen, R. Isaac’s forebears, including his father, R. Abraham, and his grandfather, R. Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne, transmitted eso- teric traditions. However, their primary scholarly activity centered on Talmudic study. R. Isaac chose a different path. We only definitively know that he composed two documents. On the other hand, there are numerous teachings preserved in his name, which may have been recorded by other Kabbalists.3 These teachings are all Kabbalistic in character. Of the two documents that he did author, one is obviously Kabbalistic. I refer to a short letter written to his Catalonian counter- parts, R. Jonah Gerondi and Naḥmanides, which deals with the need to preserve the esotericism of Kabbalistic traditions and offers a Kab- balistic exegesis of Ps. 150.4 The second document is not self-evidently Kabbalistic. It is another letter, which deals with a halakhic matter: the appropriate ending of one of the blessings of the Shemoneh ‘Esreh prayer.5 This letter, which quotes extensively from halakhic sources, demonstrates that R. Isaac was well versed in halakhic literature, as we would expect from the son of R. Abraham. For my purposes, however, the crucial point is that although the letter does not make the matter explicit, it is apparent that he chose to write it for Kabbalistic reasons.6 That is to say, his pursuit of this halakhic issue was in the service of Kabbalah. In general terms, then, his knowledge of Jewish law

3 see introduction, n. 9. 4 Printed in Scholem, “Te‘udah ḥadashah le-toldot re’shit ha-kabbalah,” 7–39. 5 R. Isaac argued that the blessing regarding Jerusalem in the Shemoneh ‘Esreh prayer should conclude, “God of David and builder of Jerusalem,” instead of the more usual “builder of Jerusalem.” The text is printed in Shraga Abramson, ‘Inyanut be- sifrut ha-Ge’onim (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1974), 150–155. R. Isaac’s view on the matter is noted by the Kabbalists in his circle. See Azriel of Gerona, Commen- tary on the Talmudic Aggadoth, 83 and the material presented, there, n. 5; Jacob ben Sheshet, Sefer ha-’emunah veha-bittaḥon, in Kitvé Ramban, II, 396. 6 R. Isaac saw “David” (see the previous note) as a reference to the tenth sefirah, Shekhinah. For a full elaboration see Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah, 17–20; Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. , 148–177, esp. 164–169. It is also relevant to remark that, according to Scholem, R. Isaac’s letter “is in fact full of kabbalistic allusions” (Origins of the Kabbalah, 254). However, this point is not readily apparent, and unfortunately, Scholem did not elaborate on it.