The Account of the Chariot in Maimonidean Philosophy Till the End of the Thirteenth Century

CHAPTER TWO FROM ESOTERICISM TO SCIENCE: THE ACCOUNT OF THE CHARIOT IN MAIMONIDEAN PHILOSOPHY TILL THE END OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY Howard Kreisel Introduction In his commentary on the Guide of the Perplexed, written at the turn of the fifteenth century, Don Isaac Abarbanel presents twenty eight strictures to Maimonides’ interpretation of the Account of the Chariot.1 The first captures the essence of Maimonides’ interpretation and the reason for Abarbanel’s rejection of it: If what Ezekiel apprehended was in accordance with the opinion of the Master [Maimonides] in the manner he elucidated, then Ezekiel’s apprehension is similar to what is apprehended by the philosophers of the natural sciences or metaphysics. It is very strange that rational investigation should attain what is given by prophetic emanation. If this were the case, our Sages would not so emphatically command to con- ceal this subject . Behold in the academies of the Gentile nations they expound these matters in assemblies of tens of thousands, consisting of young and old, making no effort at concealment. Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon already was aware of this stricture, and Rabbi Hasdai Crescas expanded upon it in his treatise, The Light of the Lord. Narboni, however, wrote that the Master’s intent is to show that this is what is apprehended 1 Abarbanel completed his commentary on the Guide of the Perplexed after 1496 while living in Italy, but apparently wrote the strictures earlier while he was still in Spain. Commenting on Abarbanel’s view of Maimonides’ interpretation of the Account of the Chariot, Eric Lawee notes: “If, as regards Maimonides’ interpretation of the ‘Account of the Beginning,’ Abarbanel accepted the ‘good’ (most notably what he generally believed was Maimonides’ literal interpretation of the opening verses of Genesis 1) and rejected the ‘bad’ (what he deemed Maimonides’ partial annulment of the contextual sense of Genesis 2–3), things were otherwise in the case of Maimonides’ interpretation of the ‘Account of the Chariot’: here Abarbanel found only degrees of bad.” See Lawee, “‘The Good We Accept and the Bad We Do Not’: Abarbanel’s Stance towards Maimonides,” in Beerot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky, ed. Jay M. Harris (Cambridge, Mass., 2005), p. 149. 22 howard kreisel by those engaged in speculation. For this reason Maimonides states in the introduction to the third part that the reward of one who conceals the secrets of the Torah, which are lucid and clear to those engaged in speculation, is very great . The Master’s contention that they are “clear to those engaged in speculation” is his own fabrication, for the Sages made no such assertion.2 Abarbanel’s stricture points to a remarkable development in medieval Jewish thought. The cream of Jewish esoteric wisdom, the Account of the Chariot, is identified by Maimonides and his disciples with Aristo- telian philosophy—both metaphysics and the natural sciences, at least according to Abarbanel’s description. How and why this identification came about and its implications for the study of the Bible and of rabbinic midrash—that is to say, for the study of Judaism—encompasses much of the history of Jewish philosophy. In this article I would like to touch upon some of the salient points of this story, from its rabbinic origins to Jewish philosophy in Provence at the end of the thirteenth century. Early Traditions of the Account of the Chariot The first mishnah of the second chapter of Tractate agigah reads: The [subject of] forbidden relations may not be expounded in the presence of three, nor the Account of Creation in the presence of two, nor the [Account of the] Chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands by his own intelligence.3 While the subject matter of the first category, forbidden relations, is evident, though the reason for the restriction less so,4 and that of the second, the Account of Creation, is also obvious, as is its esoteric nature, the subject matter of the third category, the Account of the Chariot, is in itself a mystery. Clearly a biblical text is involved as the term “expound” (dorshin) indicates.5 The Babylonian Talmud elaborates upon some of 2 See Sefer Moreh Nevukhim . im Arbaah Perushim ( Jerusalem, 1960), part 3, p. 71b. All translations in this article are my own unless otherwise noted. 3 As translated by Israel Abrahams (with some modifications) in The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Moed (London, 1938), vol. 4 (agigah), p. 59. 4 The talmudic discussion following the mishnah does not bring any mystical tradition associated with this subject, nor do the early commentators. 5 The only biblical text that deals with chariots in a prophetic context is Zechariah 6, but it is hard to discern how this prophecy warrants the severe restrictions placed .

Load more