Abulafia'sSecrets of the Guide: A LinguisticTurn

I. BETWEEN AND IN MODERN SCHOLARSHIP

The main purpose of this studyis to elucidate some aspects of the relations between some writingsof a mystic,, the founderof ecstatic Kabbalah, and the medieval figurehe admiredmost, , the founderof JewishAristotelianism. This issue is to be understoodas part of a much broader topic,which is fundamentalfor the understanding of theJewish speculative corpora in theMiddle Ages: therelation between philosophy and .As seen below, this issue has been alreadyaborded by several scholars,one of the most eminent among thembeing Prof.Alexander Altmann. Therefore, before dwelling upon the details of the particularquestion let me surveybriefly the state of the field. The relationshipbetween philosophyand mysticismin Judaismhas been dis- cussed severaltimes by manyscholars and thinkers.Two of them,David Neumark1 and Franz Rosenzweig2have proposed a theory,which may be designatedas the « pendulum theory», whose basic assumptionis the existence of oscillations betweenthe dominanceof the speculativeand the mysticalin Jewishthought. The emergenceof the centraltrend in medieval Jewishmysticism, Kabbalah, is por- trayedby them as a reaction to the ascent of Jewish philosophyin the form presentedby Maimonides's Guide of the Perplexed.These authorsassume thatthe fluctuationbetween speculation and mysticismis to be tracedto ancienttimes, the medieval period being the most obvious and importantepisode of this ongoing oscillation.Motivated by a deep aversion toward Kabbalah, HeinrichGraetz, the most important19th century Jewish historian, has alreadyconsidered Kabbalah to be a pernicious medieval innovation,or invention,aiming to counteractthe influenceof the « enlightening» Aristotelianismof the « Great eagle »3. Last but not least, GershomScholem emphasizedthe importanceof the encounterbetween

1. Geschichteder juedischenPhilosophie des Mittelalters,Berlin, 1907, vol. I, d. 179-236. 2. KleinereSchriften, Berlin, 1937, p. 531. See also my remarkson this stand of Rosen- zweig's in « Franz Rosenzweigand the Kabbalah » in P. Mendes-Flohr, ed., The Philosophy of Franz Rosenzweig,University Press of New England. 1987. d. 168-171. 3. Geschichteder Juden,Leipzig, 1908, vol. VII, p. 385-402; For an adaptationof Graetz's thesis,with major changes, see my Kabbalah: New Perspectives,New Haven, London, 1988, p. 251-253; « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », in I. Twersky (ed.), Studiesin Maimonides,Cam- bridge,1990, p. 31-33; see too Mark Verman, The Book of Contemplation,Medieval Jewish MysticalSources, Albany,Suny, 1992, p. 20-24.

Revue de Métaphysiqueet de Morale, N° 4/1998 496 Moshe Idei an alleged mythicalGnosticism, presumably transmitted in Jewishesoteric circles for centurieson the one hand,and the philosophicalNeoplatonism as representedby the variousmedieval versions on theother hand, as his mainphenomenological description of the emergenceof Kabbalah4.Though Scholem did not ignorethe potentialimpact of the controversyconcerning Maimonides' writings on the earlyKabbalists, he was inclinedto regardit as a secondaryfactor; he indeed observedthe affinitybetween the opponentsto the Jewishphilosopher and thosewho were mysticallybiasecf . Jewishphilosophy and Kabbalah have, however,more oftenbeen regardedby some medieval thinkersand modernscholars as considerablydistinct speculative trends,a view to which I agree. If not always opposing each other,or competing for a impacton the souls and minds of the intelligentsia,they were portrayedas essentiallydiverse types of spirituality.Roughly speaking, this seems to me to be true, but only if we address the extremeforms of Kabbalah and philosophy. However, a perusal of JuliusGuttmann's Philosophies of ,and 's Major Trendsin JewishMysticism will put his dichotomyin medieval Jewishspeculation in a rathersharper relief. The two summae of long years of researchby the two great scholars who had establishedthe Jerusalemitestandard of research in their respectivefields, are not inclined to offermore synthetic surveysof the whole field of Jewishthought, and then locate theirown specific area of research. is marginalizedin Guttmann'sPhilosophies of Judaismwhile Jewishphilosophy is only rarelytreated in details in Scholem's Major Trends.A perusalof theextensive corpus of H.A. Wolfson,another colossus of the studyof Jewishphilosophy, reveals the same marginalizationof Kabbalah, by a major historianof Jewishthought. However,this initial strongdemarcation of areas did not remainso influential in the subsequentscholarship of Jewishthought. Other scholars, belonging to the next generation,the most importantamong them being the late Professors Alexander Altmann,Georges Vajda and - later on in their writings- also Shelomo Pines, JosephB. Sermonetaon the one hand or Isadore Twersky,Colette Sirat and S. O. Heller Wilenskyon the other,were less predisposedtoward strong dichotomies6.Especially importantfrom our point of view is the concept of « rationalmysticism » whichrecurs in scholarshipmore oftenlyin recentdecades, underthe impactof some of the aforementionedscholars, more eminently Georges Vajda, and therecurring attempts of scholars,in boththe historyof

4. Kabbalah, New York, 1974, p. 45: « Kabbalah, in its historicalsignificance, can be definedas the productof the interpénétrationof JewishGnosticism and ». 5. G. Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, tr. A. Arkush,R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (ed.), PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton,jps, Philadelphia,1987, p. 404-414. See, however,his statementin Major Trendsin JewishMysticism, New York, 1967, p. 24: « Kabbalah certainly did not arise as reactionagainst philosophical 'enlightenment' »; as well as his « Me-Hoqer li-Mequbbal», Tarbiz, vol. 6, 1935, p. 91-92 [Hebrew]; « Maïmonide dans l'œuvre des Kabbalistes», Cahiersjuifs, vol. 3, 1935, p. 104-105. 6. GeorgesVajda, « Un chapitrede l'histoiredu conflitentre la Kabbale et la philosophie: la polémique anti-intellectualistede Josephb. Shalom Ashkenazi» in Archivesd'histoire Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 497

and Neoplatonism,to highlightthe more mysticalimplications of those formsof thought7.A medieval example of an effortto bridge the gap between the two domainsof speculationis the attemptof some circlesof Kabbaliststo draw Maimo- nides' Guide of the Perplexedon the side of the mystics8.On the otherhand, there were Kabbalists,few indeed,who claimed thatKabbalah is the innerphilosophy9. More recently,more mystical readings of Maimonides'Guide of thePerplexed have been proposed by some scholars10,while the wide range of the philosophical sourcesand speculativeinterpretations of the Kabbalistictypes of thought,received more and more attentionin scholarship11.A crucial phase in the substantial

doctrinaleet littérairedu MoyenAge, vol. XXXI, 1956, p. 45-127, idem,Recherches sur la philosophieet la Kabbale dans la pensée juive du Moyen Age, Paris, Mouton, 1962; ibid., « Commentle philosophejuif Moïse de Narbonnecomprenait-il les paroles extatiquesdes soufis?» Actas del primercongreso de estudiosarabes islámicos,Madrid, 1964, p. 129-135; « Recherchessur la synthèsephilosophico-kabbalistique de Samuel ibn Motot», Ahdlma, vol. XXVII, 1960, p. 29-63. AlexanderAltmann, « Moses Narboni'sEpistle on Shfur Qomah », in A. Altmann (ed.), Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Cambridge, Mass. 1967, p. 242-244, ibid., « LurianicKabbalah in a PlatonicKey: AbrahamCohen Herrera's Puertadel Cielo », Hebrew Union College Annual,vol. 53, 1982, p. 321-324, as well as note 15 below. Dov Schwartz, « ContactsBetween JewishPhilosophy and Mysticismin the Rise of the FifteenthCentury », Daat, vol. 29, 1992, p. 41-68 [Hebrew]. 7. P. Hadot, Exercicesspirituels, Annuaire de la Ve sectionde l'École pratiquedes Hautes Études LXXXIV, p. 25-70; Phillip Merlan, Monopsychism,Mysticism, Metaconsciouness, Hague, 1963, RichardT. Wallis, « Nous as Experience», R. Baine Harris, (ed.), The Signi- ficance of Neoplatonism,Norfolk, 1976, p. 122 and 143 note 1 forthe pertinentbibliography; Michael Morgan, Platonic Piety,Philosophy & Ritual in Fourth-CenturyAthens, Yale Uni- versityPress, New Haven, London, 1990. 8. Scholem, « Mi-Hoqer li-Mequbbal». 9. M. Idel, «Major Currentsin Italian Kabbalah between 1560-1660», Italia Judaica [Roma, 1986], II, p. 243-262; reprintedin D.B. Ruderman,ed., Essential Papers on Jewish Culturein Renaissance and Baroque Italy [New York UniversityPress, New York, 1992], pp. 345-368. 10. David Blumenthal, « Maimonides' IntellectualistMysticism and the Superiorityof the Prophecyof Moses », Studies in Medieval Culture,vol. X, 198l,p. 51-67. 11. Ze'ev Harvey, «Kabbalistic Elements in R. Hasdai Cresças' book Or ha-Shem», JerusalemStudies in Jewish Thought,vol. 2, 1983, p. 75-109 [Hebrew]; Moshe Hayyim Weiler, « Inquiriesin the KabbalisticTerminology of R. JosephGikatilla and its Relationto Maimonides», HUCA vol.37, 1966, p. 13-44 [Hebrew]; Elliot R. Wolfson, « Merkavah Traditionsin PhilosophicalGarb: JudahHalevi Reconsidered», Proceedingsof theAmerican Academyfor JewishResearch, vol. LVII, 1991, p. 179-242; Charles Mopsik, «Philosophie et souci philosophique:les deux grandscourants de la pensee juive », Archiviodi filosofìa vol. LXI, 1993, p. 247-254; Dov Schwartz, « Divine in Medieval Jewish Philosophy», Journalfor JewishThought and Philosophy,vol. Ill, no. 2, 1994, p. 249-278; Idel, « Divine Attributesand in Jewish Theology», in S. O. Heller Willensky, M. Idel (eds.), Studies in JewishThought, Jerusalem, 1989, p. 87-112 [Hebrew]; ibid., « The StudyProgram of », Tarbiz, vol. 48, 1979, p. 303-330 [Hebrew], « The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretationsof Kabbalah in the Renaissance» in B. D. Coo- perman(ed.), JewishThought in the SixteenthCentury (Cambridge, Mass. 1983), p. 186-242; « DifferingConceptions of Kabbalah in Early 17thCentury », JewishThought in the Seven- teenthCentury, Isadore TwERSKY-BernardD. Septimus (eds.), [Cambridge,Mass., 1987], 498 Moshe Idei encounterbetween philosophy and mysticismin Judaismis the middleof the 13th centurySpain. Some figureswho constitutethe innovativeKabbalah, like Joseph Gikatilla and Abraham Abulafia and, to a less degree, Isaac ben Abraham ibn Latif12,, to a certainextent David ben Abrahamha-Lavan, and the anonymousauthor of theecstatic treatise named Shavarei Tzedeq, have movedfrom a philosophicalstage, representedby a studyof the Guide of the Perplexed,to differentforms of Kabbalah.13Though being Kabbalists,some of themnevertheless regardedthe Guide as an importantsource which has to be understoodin a more profoundmanner, by means of Kabbalistic concepts and exegetical devices. The writingsof all those Kabbalists- withthe importantexceptions of R. Moses de Leon whose metamorphosiswas much more radical than that of the others,and R. David ha-Lavan- can serveas an importantfield of researchfor the philosophico- mysticalzone. The name of theirgame is super-arcanization,namely offeringa secretreading of an alreadyesoteric treatise, Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed. The questionof the standof the greateagle himselfin relationto mysticismhas been treatedalready in the middle thirties:Gershom Scholem has discussed the spurious attributionof mystical and quasi-mysticaltraditions and writingsto Maimonidesby Kabbalists14.Another important contribution to thistopic is thatof the late Prof.Alexander Altmann, who has carefullyanalysed the differentapproa- ches in crucial mattersof religionas exposed by Maimonides and some Kabba- lists15.Altmann has already resorted,in this context,to Abraham Abulafia's commentarieson secretsof the Guide and the presentstudy is an attemptto offer a closer look to some of the questionsrelated to Abulafia's attemptto read the Guide16.In the following,three moves whichdistinguish Abulafia' s approachfrom thatof Maimonides', and presentin the former'scommentaries of theGuide, will

1987], p. 137-200; « Kabbalah, Platonismand Prisca Theologia: the Case of Menasseh ben Israel » in Y. Kaplan, H. Meshoulan, R. Popkin(eds.), Menasseh ben Israel and his World, Brill, Leiden, 1989, p. 207-219; Havah Tirosh-Rothschild, « Sefirothas the Essence of of God in the Writingsof David Messer Leon », Associationof JewishStudies Review, vol. 7- 8, 1982-1983,p. 409-425; Nissim Yosha, Mythand Metaphor,Jerusalem, Ben-Zvi Institute and The Magnes Press, 1994, [Hebrew]. 12. See Sara O. Heller- Wilensky, « Isaac ibn Latif, Philosopheror Kabbalist?» in A. Altmann (ed.), JewishMedieval and Renaissance Studies,Cambridge, Mass, 1967,p. 185- 223; « The Guide and the Gate, The Dialectical Influenceof Maimonideson Isaac ibn Latif and Early Spanish Kabbalah », RuthLink-Salinger et al. (eds.), A StraightPath, Studies in Medieval Philosophyand Culture,Essays in Honor ofArthur Hyman, Washington, D.C., The Catholic Universityof AmericaPress, 1988, p. 266-278; and « Messianism,Eschatology and Utopia in the Philosophical-MysticalTrend of Kabbalah of the 13thCentury », in Z. Baras (ed.), Messianismand Eschatology,Jerusalem, 1984, p. 221-238 [Hebrew]. 13. Isadore Twersky, Studies in Jewish Law and Philosophy, New York, KTAV PublishingHouse, 1982, p. 208 and Wilensky, « Messianism», ibid., p. 221. 14. Scholem, « Mi-Hoqer» [note 5 above]. On this issue see more below. 15. AlexanderAltmann, «Maimonides' Attitudetoward Jewish Mysticism», Studies in JewishThought, Detroit, A. Jospe (ed.), 1981, p. 200-219. 16. On this issue see also the importantstudy of Wirszubski,referred below note 22. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 499 be surveyed:Abulafia' s emphasison imminentsalvation, his unitive-philosophical concepts,and the role of language and linguisticissues in his system.Though a superficialunderstanding of the natureof the threemoves may assume thatthey representunrelated topics theyare, in Abulafia's writings,intertwinned matters. By analizingthe processes of Kabbalisticarcanization of the Guide I hope to show a time again, thatthe boundariesbetween philosophy and mysticismare not clear- cut in Judaismas they are also vague in other formsof religion. In order to exemplifythis statement,an analysis of some of the standsof AbrahamAbulafia, especiallyas expressedin his commentarieson the Guide will be undertaken.The main aim of the followingdiscussion is to point out to the mannerin which Abulafiadeviated from Maimonides' views expressedin thebook commentedupon.

II. SECRETS: FROM RESTORATION TO IMMINENT SALVATION

Maimonidesargued that Jewish esotericism as describedin his writings,old as it mighthave been in itself,is a matterof his own reconstruction17.This restoration is requestedbecause of the loss of those secretscaused by the vicissitudesof the exile. Maimonidesassumes thathe can restorethe brokenline of transmissionof the secretsof the , and recreate,thereby, an alreadyexisting ideal situation. Maimonidesdoes not offerany details as to what preciselyhas been the method of this retrieval,if this is a matterof his readingattentively the biblical texts,or by being inspiredby the rabbinichints on esoterictopics. In any case, thisproject can hardlybe describedas an eschatologicalone, at least fromthe historicalpoint of view. If personaleschatological implications can be discernedin his project,it depends more on the attitudeof the scholars.Maimonides' s treatiseis basically a past-orientedbook, an archeologicalendeavour intended, by the explicitconfession of its author,to guide the presentperplexed ones out of theirspiritual perplexion caused by the loss of secrets, which amounts to a misunderstandingof the scriptures.Indeed, someone may wonderif the restorationof the secrettradition is possible in the exile or, alternatively,if the restorationof the secret traditionis emblematicof a hiddeneschatological dimension, imminent in historicalmoment Maimonideslived in. By and large,Maimonides' projectin theGuide is an exege- tical one, which has importantrepercussions for his contemporaries'attitude to Judaism,who could findan interestingreligious outlook, especially forthe Jewish intelligentsiawich was exposed to non-Jewish forms of theologyand philosophy18. Accordingto othertraditions, however, secrets of the Torah will be revealedby the Messiah19.For some of those thinkers,this means a postponmentof the reve-

17. Guide, I, p. 71. 18. This is the case in some otherimportant figures of Jewishphilosophy, like Savadiah Gaon, Leone Ebreo, M. Mendelssohnand F. Rosenzweig. 500 Moshe Idei lationof those secretsto an indefinitefuture. Abraham Abulafia's interpretationof the secretsof the Torah takes place, accordingto his special awareness,under the aegis of the imminentredemption, both personal and nationalone. He himselfis the Messiah of himselfand the Messiah of the nation; in the introductionto his Commentaryon the Pentateuchhe indicatesthat he reveals secretsbecause of the imminenceof the redemption20.Indeed, his revelationof the secretsis facilitated by the feelingthat the nationaleschaton is close, a matterof some few years21, while the very revelationof the secrets was conceived as helping the mysticto reach a mysticalexperience which has conspicuous salvific characteron the per- sonal plane. Secrets of the Torah, are intendedto help the readers to attain a redemptiveexperience. The firstof Abulafia's commentariesto theGuide is named Sefer ha-Ge'ulah in its Latin translationLiber Redemptionis22while in another commentary,Abulafia assertsthat the thirty-sixsecrets of the Guide are « all the secrets to which he will pay attentionto understandthem, by a [concentrated] speculation, and undertandthe intentionintended by them, and 'he will be redeemed'23»24. The verse in Hebrew,Ge'ulah tihiehlo has been understoodby Abulafiain his particularway: redemptionwill be attainedby means of the thirty-sixsecrets, hinted at by the word lo. Here, the nexus between secrets and redemptionis explicit. A similar stand can be found also in the firstcommentary, Sefer ha- Ge'ulah wherehe identifiesthe « life of the soul » to the « life of the nextworld », both meaninghasagah, « comprehension»25. This view ocurs also in his second commentaryHayyei ha-Nefesh26and it should be understoodin a non-eschatolo- gical framework:the next world is not the realm of existenceafter death, but the ecstaticalexperience in this world, as we learn fromone of his most important books: The Life of the Next World.We witnesshere an importantinstant of spir-

19. See Giles Quispel, «From Logos to Mythos», Éranos Jahrbuch,vol. 19 [1970], p. 330; EphraimE. Urbach,The Sages, TheirConcepts and Beliefs,tr. I. Abrahams,[Magnes Press Jerusalem.19791. nn. 308-312. 20. See SitreiTorah, « These secretswill be revealedduring the adventof the Messianic era, by the prophetswho will arise [then]and by the Messiah himself,because throughthem [the secrets of the Torah] all of Israel and those who are drawn to them, will be strengthened.». Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 119a. 21. Abulafia's opinion was thatthe Messiah, apparentlyhe himself,will reveal himself in 1290. 22. A descriptionof the extantHebrew fragmentsand the Latin translationis foundin Chaim Wirszubski,« Liber Redemptionis-theEarly Version of R. AbrahamAbulafia's Kab- balistic Commentaryon the Guide of the Perplexed in the Latin Translationof », Divrei ha-Akademiaha-Le'umit ha-Israelit le-Mada'im, III, Jerusalem,1970, p. 139-149,which will be quoted below fromits reprintedform in Ch. Wirszubsky,Between the Lines, Kabbalah, ChristianKabbalah and Sabbateanism,M. Idel (ed.), Jerusalem,1990, p. 135-149 [Hebrew]. 23. Leviticus. 25:31. 24. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 117a. 25. Ms. Leipzig 39, f. 4b. See also below beside note 38. 26. Ms. Munich 408, f. Ib. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 501 tualisationof traditionaleschatological terminology, interpreted in termsof immi- nentindividual salvation, a phenomenonwell-known in the historyof mysticism27. In this context,another observation of Abulafia's may be quite relevant.As we shall see below, he indicatesthat the numberof the chaptersof theGuide are 177, a numberthat is equivalentto the numericalvalue of Gan ^Eden,namely Paradise28. It is less the need to attenuatethe perniciouseffects of the externalexile, as Maimonides'reconstruction aspires to, and muchmore the attemptto obliteratethe inner exile that is the main concern of Abulafian soteriology.In fact, the two approachesare not to be seen as drasticallydifferent but, at least insofaras Abu- lafia's views are concerned,as buildingupon the attainmentof Maimonides: the philosopherhas providedthe framework,which means a politicalWeltbild, a phi- losophyof natureand a neo-Aristotelianmetaphysics punctuated by some Platonic stands,and a psychology,which serve as startingpoints for an intensificationof the religiouslife, which will culminatein a mysticalexperience.

III. FROM PHILOSOPHICAL NOETICS TO MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE

Maimonideswas a moderatethinker, if we recall his view of the humanintellect as hardlyattaining a certainfirm knowledge of God, his view of language as a conventionalentity, and as such a weak instrumentof knowingGod or nature.The more modestcharacterizations of the powers of language and intellectare conso- nantto Maimonides'general search for the golden mean. The golden mean implies, however,also the negationof an extremereligious, or philosophicalattainment. The awarenessof the limitationsof the humanintellect, consonant to the stand of a sober philosopher,can be understood,as the late Prof. S. Pines proposed,as a pessimistic,almost tragic vision of the thinkingman29. The effortto push God beyond the range,though not of the scope, of human understandingin order to safeguardHis outmostpurity and spirituality,demanded a price in the realm of epistemology:the humanintellect, connected as it is withmatter, cannot experience the divine nature,though He is purelyintellectual. It is only in the momentof death thatthe few elite, Moses and the forefathers,were able to attainthe kiss of bliss, or an experienceof God30. has its sublimemoments, for which the philosopheroftenly pays in the cash of a verymodest noetic attainmentof the

27. This is quite obvious in the writingsof Al-Ghazzali, for example; See also below, note 32 the discussionof the kiss of God. 28. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 115b. More on this issue see below § IX. 29. Pines, « The Limitationsof Human Knowledgeaccording to Al-Farabi,Ibn Bajja and Maimonides», in I. Twersky (ed.), Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, Cambridge,Mass., 1979, p. 89-109. 30. Guide, 111:51. 502 Moshe Idei absolute intellectualrealm, the divine. Unitiveexperiences were not conceived as possible in his system,and it may well be thatMaimonides was deliberatelyreticent towardthe Neoplatonicviews on the cleavingof the soul to God, or the Averroistic unitivenoetics31. On the otherhand Abulafiaassumes thatthe deathby kiss of the forefathers,an experienceof hoary antiquity,should be seen in a much more exemplaryand relevantmanner; he assertsthat « whomever's soul will be separatedfrom him at thetime of pronouncing[the divine name]he willdie by a kiss»32. The prerogativeof the few perfectiin the past, accordingto the view of Maimo- nides, turnedinto the immediateachievement of the extrememystics available in the present33.Abulafia also assumes that human intellectcan become one entity withthe divine mind,an experiencethat could be designatedas mysticalunion. In my opinionthis development in Abulafia's thought,in comparisonto Maimonides' view, can be explainedboth by the acquaintancewith Averroistic stands concerning the possibilityof the unionbetween the humanand the cosmic intellect,which has been accepted by his teacherin mattersof philosophy,Rabbi Hillel of Verona34; and the mysticalexperiences Abulafia apparentlyunderwent, which have been understoodas pointingto a union withGod. So, forexample, he argues in one of his commentarieson the Guide thatthe actualizationof the intellectwill transform it into the entitythat caused this process,namely the Agent Intellect,and the two will become « one inseparableentity during the timeof thatact35 » In thisvein the perfectmystic is describedas follows:

«just as his Master36who is detachedfrom all matteris called the Knowledge,the Knowerand theKnown, all at thesame time, since all thethree are one in Him,so shall he,the exalted man, the master of theexalted Name, be calledintellect, while he is actually knowing;then he is also theknown like his Master, and then there is no differencebetween them,except that his Masterhas His supremerank by His ownright and notderived from othercreatures, while he is elevatedto his rankby theintermediary of the creatures »37.

31. The MysticalExperience in AbrahamAbulafia, Albany, Suny Press, 1987, p. 125. 32. Hayyei ha-'Olam ha-Ba', Ms. Oxford 1582, f. 14b; Idel, «Maimonides and Kabbalah » [note 3 above], p. 77-78. 33. For more on the death of kiss in kabbala in general see the materialcollected and analized in Idel, The Mystical Experience,note 31 above, p. 180-184 and more recently Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God, Seattle,Washington University Press, 1994, p. 39-41. 34. On this figuresee the studies of JosephB. Sermoneta,mentioned in his last article « Thine OintmentsHave a Goodly Fragrance: Rabbi Judah Romano and the Open Text Method», in M. Idel, W. Z. Harvey, E. Schweid (eds.), Jubilee Volume, vol.11, Jerusalem,1990, p. 77-114 [Hebrew]. 35. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, 774, f. 140a. 36. Namely the Agent Intellect,envisioned as Metatron.For more on this passage see Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, p. 10. 37. Commentaryon Sefer ha-yashar,Ms. -Angelica 38, f. 31b-32a; Major Trends, p. 382; Idel, The MysticalExperience, note 31 above, p. 126. Abulafiafs Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 503

This hyperevaluationof the intellectis coupled, as we shall see below, by a simultaneoushyperevaluation of speech. Language is both a domain of contempla- tion,higher than nature, and a techniquefor attaining a mysticalexperience, which has noetic features.In other words, the overactivationof the intellectand its mergingwith God, is achieved by an overactivationof language,as partof its use as a componentin a mysticaltechnique. The two extremesmeet, and both are characteristicof Abulafia's strongpropensity for actualizationof some of Maimo- nides' spiritualideals of the past. This view is expressedat the verybeginning of SitreiTorah whereAbulafia characterises the Guide as « concernedwith the expla- nationof homologiesand the interpretationof the parablesof the » while his own commentaryis intendedto deal with

« religiouswisdom, namely the interpretation of the rationale for the life of therational soul38,and the interpretation of the worship of God outof love.And even if thesubject of each of them[the two books] is uniquein itself,everything goes to thesame place »39.

In lieu of Maimonides' hermeneuticalproject, which is focused on naturaland metaphysicalframeworks, Abulafia proposes a spiritualinterpretation of the Bible as pointingnot only to the truemeaning of the Bible, and the propertheology, but more eminentlya pressingcall for an intensespiritual life. The intensificationof this spirituallife meant,in the case of Abulafia,involves an ecstatic path which was conceived of as inducingprophetic experiences which were understoodas indicativeof a Messianic status.

IV. FROM LOST SECRETS TO THEIR PUBLIC TRANSMISSION

Maimonides'Guide is a writtendocument, and the strategiesto whichthe author has resortedreflect this choice, as Leo Strauss has pointed out40.Maimonides' refusalto meetR. ,the translator of his maintheological writing, and in manyways the followerof Maimonides,in orderto discuss with him the contentof his book orallyis emblematicof his decision not to pass its secretsbut in a written,and thusallusive, form41. The secretshe claimed to have reconstructed were not supposed to become an oral tradition,as they were according to the

38. See also above beside note 25. 39. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 115b. 40. Leo Strauss, Persecutionand the Art of Writing,Chicago, 1952, p. 74. 41. For an up-to-datetreatment of esotericismin Maimonides and his followers see Aviezer Ravitsky, Al DaKat ha-Maqom, Studies in the Historyof JewishPhilosophy, Jeru- salem, 1991, p. 142-181 [Hebrew]. For an English versionof this chaptersee « Secrets of the Guide to the Perplexed: Between the Thirteenthand the TwentiethCenturies », in I. Twersky(ed.), Studies in Maimonides,Cambridge, Mass., HarvardUniversity Press, 1990, p. 159-207. 504 Moshe Idei

Rabbinic sources, but remainedburied in a writtentext, perplexingthe future generationsof intellectualJews. Kabbalists,however, unlike philosophers, have neverthelessargued that such an oral traditionrelated to the Guide is still available. Again, the concept of oral transmission,that has some sources in Jewishesoterics, but has silentlybeen put aside by Maimonides,was invokedby a Kabbalist in orderto interprethis book. Abulafiahas taughtthe Guide to some youngJewish intellectuals, and at least one of his commentarieswas written,according to Abulafia's claim, at the requestof his formerstudents. As a teacherof the Guide, Abulafia has conspicuouslybeen involvedin oral teachingand discussions,which are reflectedin a writtenfashion in the commentaries.Thus, oral transmissionof secretswas, forAbulafia, a praxis which,contradicting as it may be Maimonides' own explicit interdictionand the Kabbalists' esotericpropensity, was very much part of his activity:he taughtthe Guide in , and Italy42.His formulationson thismatter are muchcloser to Nahmanides' famous statementin the introductionto his Commentaryon the Pentateuch,concerning the transmissionof Kabbalah43.So, for example,Abulafia assertsthat

« the secretsof the Torah, and the secretsof reality44and the foundationsof the com- mandments,are not told but orally,from a perfectperson to someone who meritsto receive the perfection,face to face, afterthe test and the trial, [regarding]the intentionof the receiver,if he is meritousand it is rightto transmit[them] to him or not»45.

Abulafiawrites, again, in one of his ,that

« despite the fact thatKabbalah is transmittedto every illuminatiin general,not every listenerand receiveris able to actualize it because what it is transmittedfrom it [namelythe Kabbalah] are but headingsof chapters,[intended] to whomeveris wise, and understanding fromhis own knowledge»46.

Unlike the Maimonideanesoteric, which seems to be esotericfor at least two main reasons, the Rabbinic interdictionto disclose some secrets,as well as for more

42. Idel, « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », note 3 above, p. 59-62. For Abulafia's straight- forwardrejection of Kabbalisticesotericism see his declarationin Sefer 'Otzar *EdenGanuz: « I know thatthere are manyKabbalists who are not perfect,thinking as theydo thattheir perfectionconsists in not revealinga secretissue; I shall care neitherabout theirthought not about theirblaming me because of the disclosure,since my view on this is very different from,and even opposite,theirs », Oxford,Ms., 1580, f. 55a. 43. See note 91 below. 44. This phraseoccurs in the Guide, 11:26; S. Pines, Chicago, Chicago UniversityPress, 1963, p. 331 translatesit as « mysteryof being ». In generalI preferthe term« secret» to thatof mysteryin some instances. 45. ShomerMitzvah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 853, f. 74ab. 46. Sheva' Netivotha-Torah, printed in A. Jellinek, Philosophie und Kabbala, Leipzig, 1854, p. 12; ChayimHenoch, Nahmanides,Philosopher and Mystic,Jerusalem, 1978, p. 32, note 14 [Hebrew]. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 505 politicalreasons, stemming from the Platonictradition, in ecstaticKabbalah one of the main reasons is the fact thatthe recipientmust be a philosophicallyoriented personin orderto be initiatedinto the secretsof Kabbalah. The anonymousKabbalist who authoredSefer ha-Tzeruf an ecstatic Kabbalist himself,said that

« whateveris transmittedconcerning this lore, are 'heads of chapters',and this is why it needs the intellect,and it is called intellectualKabbalah47 because it is not like the other sciences, namelythe propadeuticones, which are transmittedalone... But this lore, known as Kabbalah, it is impossibleto transmitit in toto in an oral manner,even not in a written form,even forthousands of years.And whatevera kabbalistwill make an effortto interpret, everythingis a hintand a 'head of chapters'»48.

This Kabbalist,even more than Abulafia,understands Kabbalah in a more expe- rientialand hermeneuticalmanner that renders the experienceineffable and inter- pretationa neverending enterprise. Transmission of secretshas been prohibitedby the ancientRabbis for reasons that are not so clear and has been reinforcedby Maimonidesfor political reasons. Abulafia was readyto adopt a muchmore lenient positionon this issue, while the anonymousecstatic kabbalistquoted above has conceivedit as almostimpossible in its totality,provided both the experiencal cargo implied in the practiceof this lore and the vagueness of the linguisticmaterial relatedto transmission.Both the vaguenessof the experienceand the natureof the text,which cannotbe exhausted,necessitate the intellectualarticulation, and this is why the Kabbalah is, in the way it is presentedin oral or writtenmanner, an intellectuallore. Its linguisticexpressions entice alreadya certainexplication. The move fromthe political esotericismto the psychologicaland hermeneuticalpro- blems involvedin transmissioninvite a much greateremphasis on language from the point of view of the Kabbalists. While Maimonides would assume that the political secretscan be articulatedand thereforetransmitted - would such an act be advisable - the Kabbalistswould look fora contentthat is muchmore focused upon language itself,and not only conceiving language as a necessary,though inferior,communicative tool.

47. Qabbalah sikhlit.See also in the same book, Paris, Bibiliothèquenationale, ms. 770, f. 161b, 176b, wherethe same issue may be understoodboth by means of Kabbalah and the intellect.On fol. 163a, the authoradvises receivingthe Kabbalistictradition by means of the intellect,in a mannerreminiscent of Abulafia's position. 48. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ms. 770, f. 175b. Throughoutthis book, the phrase 'rashei peraqim' recurs,pointing in some instancesto the combinatorytechnique based on SeferYetzirah. See also Abulafia'sSefer 'ImreiShefer, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ms. 777, p. 91. 506 Moshe Idei

V. LANGUAGE:FROM CONVENTIONAL TO NATURAL

Maimonides' view on language,including Hebrew, is thatit is a conventional phenomenon.This view has farreachingrepercussions on his view of and Scripturesand it has been already analyzed by scholars49.It is on this issue that sharp critiquesof Kabbalists were addressedto Maimonides' thought.More evidentin some writingsof R. JosephGikatilla, a studentof Abulafia,or in a less conspicuousway by the elevationof the Hebrew to a sublime statusof a perfect language, in Abulafia's own books Maimonides is not criticisedon this point, thoughhis stand was not accepted. Let me startwith the more extremeformula- tions,which are characteristicof the beginningof a retreatfrom the Maimonidean thoughtin 13thcentury Castille. In a verystriking passage foundin a commentary on some topics in the Guide, printedas the work of Gikatilla,it is said that

« Regardingall the languagesof the world,with the exceptionof the holy language,there is no purpose in asking the reasons for the particularletters of a word, since theyare the resultsof humanconvention, and do not reflectnature, namely they are resultof a nation's decisionto call somethingsuch and so. Therefore,the wordsof theirlanguages do notpossess an innerstructure50. Whereas with the holy language this is not the case, because it is not a language thatpeople agreed upon, but rather,is indeed born of Divine wisdom which has no end, and is entirelyestablished in accordancewith Divine intent»51.

Gikatilla negates the naturalnessof the otherlanguages and, in contrast,sees Hebrew as the Divine language. Elsewhere,when criticisingMaimonides' concep- tion of language,he writes:

« But the meaning of [the verse]52'This is its name' is that it is its true name, in accordancewith Divine wisdom,based on the SupernalBook. For Adam received it all by the way of Kabbalah, and the Holy One Blessed be He informedhim as to the secretorders of the universe,and the secretsof His Chariotsand the ways of causality and the hidden potenciesbehind all orders,and afterHe had informedhim of these he was properlyable to call each thingby its truename, in accordancewith the Divine Intent»53.

49. On Maimonidesand language see Jean Robelin, Maïmonideet le langage religieux, PUF, Paris, 1991; ArthurHyman, «Maimonides on Religious Language», Kraemer,p. 175- 191. 50. Diqduq penimi. 51. Printedin She'elot la-hakhamR. Saul Ashkenazi,Venice, 5334-1574, f. 20c-d. On the attributionof Gikatilla,see Gottlieb, Mehqarimbe-Sifrut ha-Qabbalah, J. Hacker (ed.), Tel Aviv, 1976, p. 110. On the 'calling of names' as an expressionfor understandingthe link betweenphenomena in the lower world and theirroots in the supernalworld, see Roland Goetschel, R. Meirlbn Gabbai; Le Discours de la Kabbale espagnole,Leuven, 1981, p. 366- 367, 416. 52. Genesis 2:19. 53. She'elot le-Hakham,note 51 above, f. 27b-28a. For the importanceof the Adamic source of Kabbalah as centredon language see M. Idel, « Transmissionof Kabbalah in the 13thCentury » [forthcoming]. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 507

This tells us thatman issued names to phenomenaafter understanding their true nature« the secretorders of the world» « the ways of causality.» Thus, language is notonly a resultof revelationbut is the trueexpression of the essence of various phenomenaby the virtueof whatI would proposeto call 'linguisticimmanence'54. With this view in mind,we may say thatthe aforementionedquote fromBe' urei ha-Moreh« ...since theyare the resultsof humanconvention, and do not reflect nature» meansthat their languages are conventional,as opposed to Hebrew,which is conceivedto be a naturallanguage. In anotherpassage, stemmingfrom the circle of Gikatilla,we learn that « Andit is necessarythat we believethat the language of theTorah is nota resultof conventionas someillustrious rabbis of previousgenerations had thought.For if one were to say thatthe languagethat the Torah employsis a resultof convention,as is the case with the otherlanguages, we would end up denyingthe [Divine Revelation]of the Torah, which was in its entiretyimparted to us fromGod. And you alreadyknow [regardingthe verse]55 'For he desecratedthe word of God' that this refersto one who says that the Torah is conventional,but thatthe restis fromheaven, our sages have alreadystated that anyone who says thatthe entire Torah, save forone word,is of Divine origin,such a personhas desecrated the word of God56.And if the language of the Torah is in its originala conventionalone, like all otherlanguages, regarding which the Torah states 'for theredid God confoundthe language of all the earth,'it [Hebrew] would be like all otherlanguages. »57.

AnotherKabbalist, Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi, a youngercontemporary of Gikatillaand Abulafia,has actuallydenied thatMaimonides would expose a view of language as conventional.In a passage thatis significantfrom many points of view, he claims that

« God forbidthat Maimonides has intendedthis. Who has stood up among the geonim, who is like him? But his words are [to be understood]according to notes [Rashei peraqim] whichare understoodby someone who has receivedhis secretsorally »58. Here, the Kabbalist denies the ratherobvious Maimonideanview of the natureof as conventional,in favor of the Kabbalistic opinion as to its divine origin59.Thus, an oral secrettradition is invokedin orderto circumvent,or even deny,Maimonides' authenticopinion.

54. See M. Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and , Albany, Suny Press, 1995, p. 215-218. 55. Numbers16:31. 56. BabylonianTalmud, Sanhédrin, f. 99a. 57. Ma' amar Nal Penimiyyutha-Torah, printed by Gershom Scholem, in Qiryat Sefer, vol. 6, 1930, p. 111-112. On this text see also Gottlieb,Mehqarim [note 51 above], p. 128- 131. 61) See Idei, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics[note 59 above], pp. 11-14. 58. Perush ,Jerusalem, 1961, f. 3 Id. On oral traditionas necessaryfor the understandingof the Guide see also ibid., f. 55c and Idei, « Transmission» [note 53 above], Appendix. 59. On thisissue see Vajda, « Un chapitre» [note6 above], p. 49-56, 130-133;, Language, Torah and Hermeneuticsin AbrahamAbulafia, Albany, Suny, 1989, p. 1-29. 508 Moshe Idei

Some Kabbalists were, therefore,well aware of the ultimateimplications of the reductionof the sacrosanctlanguage, the portentof manytopics of Jewishmysti- cism, to a merelyconventional tongue. They understoodthat the acceptanceof the philosopher'sview on this issue may underminetheir spirituality, based upon a linguo-centricmentality, may endangertheir specific form of Kabbalah as well as the very foundationof the Torah. However, this fear appears in the writingsof kabbalistswho have alreadyshifted toward a more theosophicalmode of thought. Gikatilla was on this path when writingthe passage quoted above, while Joseph Ashkenaziwas alreadyan accomplishedtheosophical Kabbalist. Abulafia, however, thoughmoving from philosophy to Kabbalah, never embracedthe sefiroticKab- balah, but, at least in his latteryears, he offeredsome poignantcritiques to its address60.

VI. MAIMONIDES: SECRETS AND LINGUISTIC HERMENEUTICS

Even Abulafia,the mostardent of Maimonides' admirersamong the Kabbalists, tacitlydissents from him on thisissue61. In his case, a veryinteresting process can be discerned:Maimonides' attemptto reduce the importanceof language,in favor of a much more mentalisticapproach, has been ignoredby the ecstatic Kabbalist, who resortedprecisely to linguisticdevices in orderto achieve the very aims he conceived thatMaimonides' preached.The synthesisAbulafia offersis almost an attemptto reconcile the opposites; the elementsin Jewishtradition ignored by Maimonides,like Sefer Yetzirahfor example, become cornerstonesfor his interpre- tationsof the Guide. Or, to put it in anotherway: for Maimonides,language has a communicativefunction, but could serve neitheras a domain of contemplation nor as a catalystfor intellection.These two functionsare preciselythose which have been emphasizedby Abulafia.According to his view, language is higherthan natureand can thereforesubstitute the philosophicalcontemplation of nature62.On the otherhand, language, more preciselyHebrew, serves as an integralpart of the techniqueof bringingsomeone to a mysticalexperience63. This emphasisupon the paramountimportant of Hebrew is well taken in one of Abulafia's comparisons between Kabbalah and philosophy,where he declares that the existence of the Agent Intellect

« is achievedaccording to thepath of wisdom by means of every language but, according to Kabbalah,its speech cannot be attainedbut by means of the holy language alone. However,

60. See Abulafia's Ve-Zot li-Yihudah,printed by Adolph Jellinek, Auswahl kabbalistis- cher Mystik,Erstes Heft,Leipzig, 1853, p. 18-19. 61. See Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics[note 59 above], p. 11-14. 62. Ibid., p. 1-3. 63. Idel, The MysticalExperience [note 31 above], p. 22-24. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 509 the existenceof the [agent] intellectcan be understoodin every language,according to the view of everyperfect kabbalist »M.

Conspicuously,this hierarchyof languages shows that Maimonides' approach, expressed as everyoneknew in , is part of the path of wisdom, namely philosophy,which can impartknowledge, but not a revelationthat is conditioned by the resortto Hebrew.Is this insistenceupon the superiorityof the Hebrew over the regularphilosophical parlance a total misinterpretationof Maimonides' stand? In generalthe answeris yes. However,at least in one case, it seems thatAbulafia has a case forhis resortto one of his linguisticinterpretive approach in theGuide itself.Maimonides mentions in one of his discussionsthat the properunderstanding of a certainverse in Zecharia may be achieved by means of changingthe orderof the letterswhich constitutes a certainword:

« More wonderful65than this66 is the intimationaroused throughthe use of a certainterm whose lettersare identical with those of anotherterm; solely the order of the lettersis changed; and betweenthe two termsthere is in no way an etymologicalconnection or a communityof meaning.You will find an example in the parables of Zechariah when, in a vision of prophecy,he takes two staves in orderto orderto shepherdcattle, naming one of themgrace [novam]and the otherravages [hovlim]67.The intentionof this parable was to show thatin its beginningsthe religiouscommunity subsisted in the grace of the Lord...Afte- rwardsthe state of this communitycame to such a pass that obedience to God became repugnantto it and thatit became repugnantto God. AccordinglyHe set up hoblim[ravagers] like Jeroboamand Manasseh as its chiefs.This is to be understoodaccording to the etymo- logical derivationof the word; forhoblim derives from the expressionmehabbelim keramim [thatspoil the vinegards]68.In addition,the prophetinferred therefrom, I mean fromthe term hoblim,their repugnance for the Law and the repugnanceof God for them.However, this meaningcan only be derivedfrom hoblim, through changing the orderof the 'ha', the 'ba' and the 'lam'. Now it says, withinthe contextof this parable, to signifythe notion of repugnanceand disgust:'And My soul became impacientof them,and theirsoul also loathed [bohalah] Me69.» Accordinglyit changed the orderof habol and transformedit into bahol. Throughthis methodvery strange things appear, whichare likewise secrets,as in its dictum withregards to the Chariot:brass and burnishedand footand calf and lightning,and in other passages. If you carefullyexamine each passage in yourmind, they will become clear to you - afteryour attention has been aroused- fromthe gist of whathas been set forthhere. »70

Maimonidesattempts to relatedthe two termsthat occurs in the same contextin Zechariah:Hoblim and bohalah. Accordingto his proposal,by changingthe order

64. Introductionto the Commentaryon the Pentateuch,Ms. Moscow-Ginsburg,133, f. 20a. 65. I have preferredthis translationto « strange», because « wonderful» is closer to ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation,emüloved bv Abulafia. nifla'. 66. The issue of propheticparables. 67. Zechariah, 11:7. 68. Song of Songs, 2:15. 69. Zechariah, 11:8. 70. Guide of the Perplexed,II, ch. 43; Pines, p. 392-393. 510 Moshe Idei of lettersone may learn the intentionof the parable: the Israelitekings who were designatedas hoblim,namely the ravagersare also those who have loathed the Torah and have been loathedby Him. However,what seems to be importantfrom the vantagepoint of our discussionis not only the peculiar example,but also the rhetoricsinvolved in it. By changingthe orderof letterssomeone may indeed find out some strangethings, and I read it as bizarre,or irrelevantconclusions, but also attainsome secrets,even such as relatedto the most sublimerealm of speculation: the divine chariot.It is this last pointthat is importantfor Abulafia: by manipula- tion the orderof letters,someone may reach,at least in some instances,secrets of the Torah. It is quite obvious thatMaimonides does not restrictthis methodto one instancealone, but assertsthat this particularcase should inspiresimilar types of interpretations,apparently regarding « each passage ». The Hebrew translation invitesindeed a muchmore comprehensive understanding of Maimonides:« and in place otherthan this one, when you will search by your mind,in everyplace the thingswill become clear to you, by the dint of this intimation». Interestingly enough,though a negativeattitude toward some of the possible resultsof these permutationsis shortlyexpressed, the more positive attitudeseems to be more evident, and the end of the passage does not reiteratethe negative remark. Moreover,Maimonides offerssome examples which should be decoded by the methodhe has proposed,some words fromthe firstchapter of Ezekiel, which are proneto a similarinterpretation. However, he does not embarkan additionalexpo- sition of how to interpretthese words in detail. I would say that none of these words can be interpretedby the same methodsince it is impossibleto findin the contextof these words otherwords which containthe same lettersin a different order. However, we may assume, followingsome of the commentators,that by changingthe order of the lettersalone, withoutfinding a word that indeed is constitutedby those lettersin the given context.So, for example, some commen- tatorspropose to understandthe termbrass, namelynehoshet, as pointingto has- hahatah,namely corruption, while qalal, burnished,can pointto qal, ease, namely easily corruptible.The calf, egei, may be understoodas pointingto the conceptof roundness,vagol, as indeed Maimonideshimself points out later on in the Guide III:271. Last but not least, the termlightning, Hashmal, has been understoodby the commentators,following a talmudicinterpretation, as compound of two words, Hash and mal, namelysilent and speaking,as two statesof the angelic activity72. This last « etymology» is quoted explicitlyby Maimonidesin his expositionof the Chariot,in part III ch. 773where also another'etymology' is offered74.Thus, we may assume thatthe hermeneuticalprinciple of derivationof meaningby means of speculationsrelated to the linguisticstructure of the word, and its possible

71. Pines, ibid., p. 418. 72. See Hagigah, f. 13ab. 73. Pines, p. 429-430. 74. For moreon thisimportant topic in Jewishesotericism, see Guide, 111:5,Pines, p. 425- 426. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 511 meaningsas derivedfrom the permutationsof its letters,was not a matterof an abstracttheory, but of a practicethat Maimonides indeed accepted,at least in those cases mentionedabove. Moreover,in anotherimportant discussion, which involves a certainhermeneutical vision, Maimonidescompares two differentdiscussions of the Chariotin orderto learn fromthe parallel betweenthe « face of an ox » and the « face of a chérubin», the latterunderstood as a face of a child, thatalso the ox should be understoodas the face of a man that is similar to an ox. In this context,he refersto « derivationsof words, as we have indicated in a flash», apparently,as pointedout by commentatorsand by Pines, referringto II:4375.It is difficultto ascertainwhether those commentatorsare always rightwhen pointing out thedetails of how Maimonideswould interpretsome of the wordshe mentioned there.However, the very fact thatJewish philosophers, who cannot be suspected of mysticalor Kabbalisticleanings had to resortto such a typeof interpretationof Maimonides' text is quite emblematicto the importanceof the linguisticherme- neuticsimplicit in this importantMaimonidean passage. Abulafia has capitalized on this passage in orderto convince his readersthat his own linguisticapproach can be endorsedby Maimonides' own view. I am aware of at least fourdiscussions of this passage of Maimonides in Abulafia's writings.So, for example, in his Hayyei ha-Nefesh,after quoting 11:43, he wroteabout Maimonidesthat

« he has explainedthe issue of theorder of theletters [zakhar(iah)] and it is calledby theKabbalists the combination of letters»76.

In his ,ShevaK Netivot ha-Torah, he simplystates that

« he has testifiedon thesecret of combinationsin partII whendiscussing the issue of prophecy,when dealing with the word BHL and HBL »77.

Abulafia implies that Maimonides was not only hintingat a certainconceptual aspect, namelythe secretsinvolved in Zechariah's verses and in the nouns found in the Chariotaccount, but also to the possibilitythat a secrettechnique of inter- pretation,by meansof combinationsof lettersis alluded by theGuide in thechapter underconsideration. It is importantto point out thatAbulafia explicitlyindicates thatthis technique, which is a secret,is also thatof the Kabbalists.Still this is not to say, according to these quotes and others to the same effect,that Abulafia describedMaimonides as a Kabbalist; he was carefulenough not to take this step: nevertheless,he came veryclose to it indeed.

75. See 111:1,Pines, p. 417. 76. Ms. München408, f. 30a. 77. Philosophieund Kabbala [note 46 above], p. 20. 512 Moshe Idei

VII. FROM IMAGINATION TO LANGUAGE

How does language work in a Kabbalistic systemthat is so dependentupon Maimonides' psychologyas Abulafia's is? For our purpose here it will sufficeto mentionhere the relationshipbetween linguisticcreativity and the imaginativefaculty: language is, accordingto Aristote- lian views as exposed by Maimonides,based upon images and is boundto timeand place. As such a certaintension between language and the intellectual,which is conceivedto be an atemporaltype of cognition,is permeatingMaimonides' thought. This philosopheris preoccupiedwith the relationbetween intellect and imagination, while the tensionbetween language and intellectis less explicitin his thought.In his definitionof prophecy,Maimonides speaks about the transmissionof the intel- lectualforms, emanated from the AgentIntellect, upon the humanintellect and then upon imagination.It is only then that the intellectualis translatedin imaginary terms,which are eithervisual, namelyimages, or linguistic,viz. voices78.In other words,imagination stands between intellect and language. However,in some dis- cussions of Abulafia,language, more preciselyspeech, is conceived as standing betweenthe intellectand imagination.In his discussionof the last of the thirthy- six secrets,« worshipof God out of love » Abulafiawrites that

« You should know thatspeech alone is not the intellect,but it is the truefaculty of the soul. And thereis, in soul, no naturalfaculty that is higherthan it is because the separate intellectemanates upon it its intellect,just as the sun is emanatinglight upon the eye. Speech is a facultyin the soul thatis similarto the eye in relationto the sun, whichgenerates light upon it. And the lightof the eye is the very lightof the sun, and not somethingdifferent fromit. Likewise the intellectof the soul79is the veryemanation of the AgentIntellect, not somethingdifferent from it. And the speech, as conceptualized80in the intellect,and the imaginativefaculty81 and the appetitivefaculty and the sensitiveone, are ruledby it [...] and the intellectcommands to the speech, and the speech commands the appetitive,and the appetititeto imagination,and imaginationto the senses, and the senses are moving,in order to fulfillthe commandof the intellect.»82

Elsewhere,in the continuationof the above discussion,we learnthat « the intellect does not operateupon our soul butby meansof speech »83and again, « theintellect does stirthe appetitivefaculty by the means of speech »84.These descriptionsare quite exceptionalpieces of medievalpsychology. The facultyof speech is seen as

78. Guide, 11:32,Pines, p. 369. 79. Nefeshha-Sekhel. 80. Mezuyyarba-sekhel. On the termziyyur as forminga concept see H.A. Wolfson, « The TermTasawwur and Tasdiq in Arabic Philosophyand Their Greek,Latin and Hebrew Equivalents », The Moslem World,April, 1943, p. 1-15. 81. Ve-koah ha-medammeh. 82. SeferHayyei ha-Nefesh,Ms. München408, f. 9 lab. 83. Ibid., f. 92a. 84. Ibid. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 513 differentfrom both the intellectualone, and the imaginativefaculty. It mediates between the intellectand all the lower faculties,though the mechanismof this mediationis not quite clear. Perhaps Abulafia assumes that speech is necessary since it may translatethe purelyintellectual intention into much more explicate linguisticterms. In any case, thisunique statusof speech is not foundin theGuide thoughit is not unknownin Abulafia's otherwritings85. Moreover, he sometimes interpretsin manyof his writingsthe whole range of componentsof Maimonides' definitionof prophecy:Agent Intellect,the overflow,the humanintellect and the imagination,in linguisticterms. So, for example, we learn in one instancethat:

« ...thetrue essence of prophecy,its cause is the 'word'that reaches the from God by meansof the'perfect language' that includes under it theseventy languages »86.

The « word» plays therole of the overflowin Maimonides' definitionof prophecy, the perfectlanguage being no otherthan Maimonides' Agent Intellect,and this is the case also insofaras the seventylanguages are concerned.It is this ascent of the importanceof language and of linguisticimagery that is unique withAbulafia as an interpreterof Maimonides' Guide. Some Greek formsof ontologyand psy- chology,as reverberatingin the Middle Ages, have been translatedin linguistic terms.The processof transformationof intellectioninto language, which took place accordingto Maimonidesonly at the level of the inter-humanpsychology, when the imaginationtranslates the abstractconcepts into linguisticunits, takes place in Abulafiaat the verysource of the intellectualrealm, at least insofaras the Agent Intellectis concerned.

VIII. FROM MAIMONIDES TO NAHMANIDES

Despite the fact thatthe mysticalsecrets Abulafia discussed are viewed quite oftenlyas those exposed by Maimonides,it is also truethat in some instanceshe is aware of his resortto Kabbalah as an approachdiffering from the Maimonidean typeof exegesis. So, forexample, Abulafia mentions both the Maimonideaninter- pretationsof the Bible by means of equivocal termsand allegories,just as he has done in one of the previousquotes87, as well as combinationsof letters,acronyms,

85. See M. Idel, R. AbrahamAbulafia's Worksand Doctrines,Jerusalem, Ph. D. Hebrew University,1976, p. 98-99 [Hebrew]; Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah [note 36 above], p. 6. 86. Sheva Netivotha-Torah, p. 8; Idel, R. AbrahamAbulafia, ibid.,p. 86-87, 92-93, 96, 98-99, 103. I hope to elaborateelsewhere on the possible importanceof this unique status of language as a formof cognitionhigher than imaginationfor later developmentsof the descriptionof man as havingthe formof speech, as in Dante forexample. See, forthe time being,, « Forma Locutionis» Filosofia '91 a cura di Gianni Vattimo,Laterza, 1992, p. 176-183. 87. See above, beside note 39, the quote fromSitrei Torah,Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 115b. 514 Moshe Idei

ends of words,permutations of lettersand notariqon.The firsthas been exposed, as he openly acknowledged,in Maimonides' Guide. The goal of his commentary on the Guide is, however

« to revealits secretsto the illuminati,including the disclosure of the secretsof the Torah,in accordanceto our Kabbalah. This is whythis commentary is called Sitrei Torah »88.

A similarstatement, found also in his earliercommentary on theGuide, Sefer ha- Ge'ulah, is veryimportant for understandingof Abulafia's attitudeto the Guide; he indicatesthat there is

« thepath of theGuide, and [anotherone] accordingto myown path89, that is thepath of Kabbalah...the paths of Kabbalahwhich are thesecrets90 of SeferYetzirah »91.

The occurence of the firstperson forms: « our Kabbalah » and « my own Kabbalah », points to the sharp awareness that he exposes a spiritualpath that differsfrom that of Maimonides.Abulafia's mentioningSefer Yetzirahas his own way reflectshis very high evalutionof this book, represented,inter alia, in his devotingthree books to its contents92.However, what seems to be quite fascinating is thatMaimonides, who neverquoted or referredto thisancient, and quite famous work,which is one of the foundationstones of Jewishmysticism - this strategy being partof Maimonides' deliberatedpolitics of citationor ignoringsome vemba- rassing' books - has been combinedprecisely with Sefer Yetzirah.Abulafia was, however,aware thatit is his own spiritualmethod that is combinedwith thatof Maimonides'.The two paths,that of Maimonides'and Abulafia's own blend,which introducedthe linguisticcombinatory techniques, have been part of the topics he attemptedto teach in variousparts of southernEurope93. Quite often,Abulafia mentionsalso anothersource of his Kabbalah, mainlyits linguisticapproach, the writingsof Hasidei Ashkenaz,which had providedcrucial topics for Abulafia's linguisticapproach to Kabbalah; these mysticalsources are quite importantfor the essence of some mysticaland hermeneuticalaspects of the ecstaticKabbalah, and even mentionedsometimes in Abulafia's commentarieson the Guide. Here, however,I would like to elaborateupon anotherkind of source, which contributedsomething to Abulafia's expositionof Kabbalah as a matterof linguistictechniques. On the page in Sitrei Torah where he mentions'our Kab- balah' Abulafia has also introduceda well-knownstatement, taken fromNahma-

88. Sitrei Torah, ibid., f. 118b. On the glossed Latin version of this statement,see Wirzubsky,Between the Lines, [note 22 above], p. 146-147. 89. Darkiy 'aniy. 90. Sitrei Sefer Yetzirah. 91. Ms. Leipzig 39, f. 5b. On the Latin,glossed versionof thisstatement, see Wirszubsky, Betweenthe Lines, [note 22 above], p. 143. 92. Sefer Gan Na^ul, Sefer 'Otzar %EdenGanuz and a commentaryprinted by Yisrael Weinstock, Jerusalem,Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1984. 93. See Idel, « Maimonidesand Kabbalah » [note 3 above], p. 61-62. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 515

nides' introductionof his Commentaryon the Pentateuchwhich deals with a tradition,apparently stemming from magical sources94,that the whole Torah can be read as a continuumof divine names95.According to Abulafia,in this issue, as well as othersimilar, but unindentifedtopics

« all thesecrets of theTorah are hidden,which enable someone to penetratethe reality in a rightmanner, and createthe apprehensions of God in theheart of theilluminati »%.

This explicit resortto Nahmanides' passage fromhis introductioncan be found several times in Abulafia's commentarieson the Guide97.It betrays,so I assume, an assumptionthat the secretsof the Torah of Moses, can be decoded by means of authoritative,though quite divergingexegetical techniques found in the writings of the two other great Moses: Maimonides and Nahmanides. Thus, in a deep manner,for Abulafia,both Moses ben Maimón and Moses ben Nahman,are con- ceived of as the two great commentatorsof the ancientMoses' book, the Penta- teuch. However,as we well know, the thoughtof the historicalMaimonides was remotefrom any type of magico-linguistichermeneutics, while Nahmanides' atti- tude to allegory in the vein of Maimonides, and to the free gematriatype of hermeneutics,was morethan reticent98. Abulafia's juxtaposition of the two masters is, therefore,a quite unexpectedendeavor. However, it should be emphasizedthat Abulafia's projectdoes not attemptto harmonizebetween the two authors.Rather, we may assume thatNahmanides' kind of exegesis is conceived to be superiorto the allegoricalone, and lateron in Abulafia's career,he will classifyMaimonides' formof allegoricalexegesis as the fourthout of seven, while techniquessimilar to that of Nahmanides',as one of the three superior,kabbalistic exegetical techni-

94. « The concept of the Torah in Heikhalot Literatureand its Metamorphosesin Kabbalah», JerusalemStudies in JewishThought, vol.1, 1982, p. 52-55 [Hebrew]; on the Ashkenazi version of this view see Elliot Wolfson « The Mystical Significanceof Torah Studyin GermanPietism », JQR, vol. LXXXIV, 1993, p. 43-77. 95. Introductionto the Commentaryon the Pentateuch,Chavel (ed.), Jerusalem,1984, vol. I, p. 6. 96. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 118b-119a:

97. See also Sheva* Netivotha-Torah [note 46 above], p. 20 and Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics,p. 46 and p. 171, note 80. 98. Scholem, Originsof the Kabbalah [note5 above], p. 387-388. On Nahmanides' reti- cence towardgematria and its significancesee M. Idel, « We have no kabbalistictradition on this» in I. Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in his religiousand literaryvirtuosity, Cambridge, Mass., 1983, p. 58-59. 516 Moshe Idei ques". Thus, in his commentarieson Maimonides' secrets,Abulafia adduces cons- picuous non-Maimonideanexegetical devices, which are intended to uncover secretsof the Torah. By his calling one of his commentariesby the titleSitrei Torah, Abulafiaimplies that Maimonides' own interpretationof the biblical secrets is partial,veiled and apparentlyconditioned by the exilic situation.These are the reasons why they should be supplementedby kabbalistic types of exegesis as understoodby him. We may assume thatthis combinationof the allegorical and the linguisticexegeses, arrangedhierarchically, may reveal the self-consciousness of Abulafiathat he offersthe peak of a religiousdevelopment because, interalia, his exegetical systemis the more complex and therefore,so I assume, he would regardit as more perfect. Maimonideshimself has chosen the way of exclusion by deliberatelymargina- lizing some formsof Jewishtradition and some sorts of ancient and medieval philosophieswhich were not consonantwith his philosophicaloutlook; synthesis. The syntheticapproach is one of the major, though not explicit, strategiesin Maimonides' spiritualendeavour, but it workedjust in one direction:by selecting some typesof Jewishviews, and some formsof philosophicalthought, namely the medieval Neoaristotelianism,he was able to offera Jewishtheology, which was quite novel in Judaism.Nahmanides was also exclusive in his approach: quite critical,though only rarelymentioning names, toward the allegoricalexegesis and philosophicalintellectualism, he is much more in concert with those formsof thoughtfound in some of the Jewishphilosophers who precededMaimonides, like Yehudah ha-Levi or Abrahambar Hiyya,for example. He was more open toward magic and had a positiveview of the perceptionof Hebrew as a naturallanguage. Maimonides' stand on this issue consists,however, in weakeningthe importance of the sacred language by attenuatingits special status;in associatinghis noetics with Al-Farabi's sceptical approachversus the view, latteraccepted by Averroes as to the union of the humanwith the divine intellect,and by describingprophecy as part of the glorious past, have been overcome by his Kabbalistic interpreter, who attemptedto attributeviews carefullyobliterated by Maimonides,as the secret standsof the Guide. In his morecomplex synthesis, Abulafia has builtup one of thepossible spiritual worldsat the beginningof the last thirdof the thirteenthcentury: on the one hand, the combinationof Maimonides' Neoaristotelianismversion of Judaismwith the contemporaryJewish interest in Averroism,which became integralto the Jewish philosophyin Provenceand Italy, and on the otherhand the arrivalof Ashkenazi esoterictraditions from southern Germany to Spain, more preciselyto , and to Italy.His inclusiveapproach exploited forms of thoughtand spiritualitythat were in his generationin conflict,but he attemptedto build up a concertout of

99. Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics[note 59 above], p. 85-101. In one of this laterworks, Abulafia is quite aware of thedivergences between Nahmanides and Maimonides, and prefersthe Maimonides' view. See Mafteah ha-Sefirot,Ms. Milano-Ambrosiana53, f. 179b. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 517

these non-harmonioussounds. In otherwords, Abulafia's special typeof Kabbalah representsa unique case where the Maimonidean and Nahmanideanesotericism have been combined;no doubt this is one of the earliest,if not the earliestjuxa- positionbetween the figures,but unlike most of the numerouslater comparisons betweenthe two, the views of these figures,as understoodby Abulafia,have been combined;in thiscombination, however, both forms of esotericismsuffered drastic changes,which obliterated major inhibitionsof these two authors.The uniqueness of thissynthesis is unparalleledby Spanish Kabbalah, or by any formsof Kabbalah later.It is an attemptto exploit the strongelements in the two systemsand offer a thirdone, which would capitalize on the authorityand insightsof all the major thirteenthcentury masters known to Abulafia,including the Hasidei Ashkenaz.To all these componentswhich inspiredAbulafia's synthesis,we have to add the idiosyncraticpersonality of Abulafia: open enoughto learn various kinds of intel- lectual developmentsand innovativeenough in order to combine them,coupled also by a personalinvestment in some of the topics he studied,which transformed those heterogenoustraditions into a practical system.Incongruent as Abulafia's synthesisis, it should be judged by the main criterionhe would like to be judged: if it could inspirean interestin the ecstatic experiencehe attemptedto promote. His commentarieson theGuide have been one of themain tools for such a promotion. The move towarda more synthetic,global or inclusiveapproach to the spiritual modes found in the varietyof approaches presentedin the Jewishtradition is, however,not unique to Abulafia: some of his contemporaryKabbalists in Castille, more eminentlyhis formerstudent R. Joseph Gikatilla,have also opened them- selves to a varietyof intellectualtrends, contributing to what I conceive to be a real renascenceof Kabbalah in the formof an innovativeapproach to the very concept of Kabbalah and a luxuriantKabbalistic literature100.One of the more obvious symptomsof this more creativetype of Kabbalah is the phenomenonof returningto the same literarygenre more thanonce by the same Kabbalist.Just as Abulafiahas writtenthree versions of commentaryon the thirty-sixsecrets of the Guide, and threecommentaries on Sefer Yetzirah,so also did Gikatilla,Moses de Leon and Josephof Hamadan wrotethree versions of theircommentaries of Ten Sefirotm,and the has composed several versionsof the «Idra »102. As in the case of the Castilian Kabbalah, so also in thatof the Abulafianone, whatis importantfrom a scholarlypoint of view is notonly to findout the systemic consistency,but to explore also the varietyof sources which nourishedthe Kab-

100. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives,p. 210-218. On Abulafia's influenceon thismajor Kabbalistsee Abulafiahimself, in an importantautobiographical piece, analized interalia in Idel, « Transmission», [note 53 above] ; forthe earlierliterary career of Gikatilla,including in particularhis contactwith Abulafia see Gottlieb,Mehqarim [note 51 above], p. 102-105 and forthe Gikatilla's thoughtsee my introductionto Gates of Light,Sha^arei 'Orah, tr. A. Weinstein,HarperCollins Publishers, 1994, p. XXVII-XXIX. 101. Kabbalah: New Perspectives, p. 211. 102. , « The Messiah of the Zohar », The Messianic Idea in Israel, Jeru- salem, Israel Academyof Science and Humanities,1990, p. 101 [Hebrew]. 518 Moshe Idei balistic writings,the mannerthey were combined,the problemsinherent of any significantsynthesis between substantially different forms of thought103.The search for ultimatecoherence, so visible in the modernscholarship of Kabbalah, should be only a preliminaryeffort, which should not be imposedon thinkerswhose main interestwas less a well organizedphilosophical system, but an expressionof, and sometimesalso a directivetoward a more experientialmystical path. As we shall see below, however,to thoseinterpretations of theGuide in Abulafia's books, some followersof his have contributedmore radical ones. Let me attemptto summarizeone major developmentin the interpretationof Maimonides' Guide: most of the extantcommentaries on the Guide writtenby Jewishphilosophers follow the main lines as proposedby the author.They, together withR. Shmueland Moshe ibn Tibbon,R. Yavaqov Anatolior R. Hillel of , may be descrivedas the scholastic approach to Maimonides,namely those who acceptedthe frameworkof the Maimonideanthought, even if on some pointsthey dissentedfrom it. However,Maimonides special strategyof esotericismhas gene- rateda complex situation:his emphasisupon the secrecyand upon the factthat he did not disclose his secrets encouraged some comentatorsto project their own secrets,or whatthey have receivedfrom others that were Maimonides' secrets,into the Guide. Abulafiafound in the Guide hints,as we have seen above, at combina- tionsof letters104.However, though implicitly viewing the Guide as book whichis consonantwith Kabbalah, he was not ready eitherto describe Maimonides as a fulfledgeKabbalist, neither to attributeto him otherKabbalistic, spurious writings. Rather,informed by other layers of Jewishesotericism, Sefer Yetzirah,Hasidei Ashkenazand Nahmanides'sremarks, Abulafia attempted to offera comprehensive, and syntheticvision of Jewishesotericism, and read the Guide in the lightof the otherpieces of available esotericism.I propose to designatethis approachas pers- pectivism,since it applies to Maimonidessome perspectiveswhich were not totally imposed onto the interpretedmaterial. Some anonymousauthors, however, attributed to Maimonides even talismanic and astrologicalviews105. Even when those views stand in diametricalopposition to the more philosophicalstands of the Guide someone could claim thatthe attri- buted views are part of the secretstand of the great eagle. Furthermore,the fact thatMaimonides attacked some views, relatedto the linguisticand magical aspects

103. On this issue see M. Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, Albany, Suny Press, 1995, p. 45-145 as well as my introductionto Daniel Abrams (ed.), of The Book Los Angeles, CherubPress, 1994, p. 1-6, [Hebrew]. 104. See § VI above. 105. See the spurious epistle printedunder the name Megillat Setarim in Hemdah Genuzah,Z. Edelmann (ed.), Koenigsburg,1856, vol. I, p. 43: marc no ^d *3 in nani mows rrpmx a"D ont... mVö n"Dn ròna ippn1»nvaisrnn nwDjn *?kD'ox^on mnirno .oín jo mn oik1?n*n*n Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 519

of the alreadyexisting Jewish traditions, provoked reactions which attempted,in some cases, to infusein Maimonides' writingsthemselves the veryviews he criti- cised. This approach,the pseudepigraphicalone, is partof the circle veryclose to the ideas of Abulafia,but should not be identifiedwith him. Unlike Nahmanides and some of his followersrather reserved-while-respectful approach, the pseudepi- graphsattempted to integrateMaimonides into their camps. Those fourapproaches, all partof the thirteenthcentury Kabbalah, should be well-distinguishedfrom the muchmore critical attitude found among those who bitterlyattacked the Guide, or criticisedit more moderately.

IX. ABULAFIA'S LIST OF SECRETS OF THE GUIDE

What are the relationsbetween the subject-mattersof the Guide and the secrets Abulafia ascribes to the Guide ? As we know, the Guide's chaptersdo not have titles,neither numbers, and Abulafiahad to decide what are those subject-matters, accordingto « our thought»106. Immediately afterwards, he indicates that he is writingdown

« all thesecrets found in thisbook, [namely the Guide] just as we havereceived them fromthe mouth of thesages of thegeneration, our masters, may God keepthem alive »107.

This statementis of a certainhistorical importance: Abulafia claims thathe has received the thirty-sixsecrets from some unidentifiedmasters who are, to his knowledge,still alive in 1280 when Sitrei Torah has been composed in Capua. Accordingto anotherpassage, Abulafia has studied in Capua, in his youth the Guide with Rabbi Hillel ben Shemuel of Verone. Hillel was still alive in 1280 when Abulafia wrotehis commentary108.However, even if we assume thatHillel is one plausible candidatefor being one of Abulafia's alleged sources for the list of secrets,still there seems to be a problem:Abulafia uses a pluralform, assuming thatthere was a group,or several unrelatedindividuals who passed to him the list, and for the time being, it seems the historicalevidence available does not allow us to speculate about the identityof those other mastersof Abulafia. However, even if the above statementreflects a real case of transmission,and I am inclined to believe so, this should not be identifiedwith the assumptionthat it stemsfrom a directtradition stemming from Maimonides himself. In any case, Abulafiareite- ratesthe same secretsin all the threecommentaries on the secretsof theGuide, a factthat may confirmhis claim thathe had a fixedtradition regarding the subject- mattersand the specificorder they should be exposed.

106. SitreiTorah, Paris Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 117a. In Hebrewmahshavtenu. 107. Ibid. On the Latin versionof this text,see Wirszubski,Between the Lines [note22 above], p. 146. See also in his Hayyei ha-Nefesh,Ms. München408, f. 47a. 108. Hillel died in the ninetiesof the 13thCentury. 520 Moshe Idei

In any case, an additionalconfession of Abulafia seems to emphasize the need to allow the existenceof such a group.In his commentaryon theGuide he claims thathe is writingdown everything

« fromthe beginning to theend, [just] as I too havereceived it fromthe transmitters, in theform of theheading of thechapters »109.

The phrase used by Abulafia « min ha-moserimrashei peraqim» is quite interes- ting;it may well be interpretedas pointingeither to a certaingroup, or to a certain specificform of transmission,which deals withthe headingsof the chapters,in the spiritof the Talmudic phrase and of Maimonidesclaims110. Interestingly enough, this Rabbinic expressionrecurs numeroustimes in the ecstatic Kabbalah, as we have seen in paragraphIV above, but it would be especiallyinteresting to compare the above confessionof Abulafia of receivingthe secretsof the Guide to thatof anotherecstatic Kabbalist, about his studyingKabbalah:

« a divineman, a Kabbalist,who taught me the path of Kabbalahby 'headsof chapters'. And,notwithstanding thefact that because of thelittle I knewfrom the science of natureit seemedto meto be impossible,my master said to me: 'My son,why do younegate an issue youdid notexperience? Indeed, it wouldbe worthwhileto experienceit' »m.

However, such a view is quite rare in otherforms of contemporaryKabbalah. So, for example, it is marginalin Nahmanides' school and ratherrare among the Castillian Kabbalists.Therefore, it is not a cliche or a topos, foundoutside of his school, thatsomeone testifiesthat he receivedpersonally a secrettradition. Anotherclaim regardinga traditionrelated to the Guide is Abulafia's statement thatthere are 177 chaptersin the Guide112:

« Thereis a traditionin ourhand regarding the number of all thechapters included in everyoneof thethree parts of thebook »n3.

Justas in the case of the numberof the secretshidden in the Guide also the numberof the chaptersis conceived to be a traditionand both referto a certain numericaldecoding of a Biblical verse or term.If this numerical,and exegetical approach of Abulafia reflecta previous stand,then we may assume that he has inheritednot only a philosophicaltradition but also one thathas some numerolo- gical aspects. Or, in otherwords, an interpretationof the Guide includednot only

109. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,ms. 774, f. 163b. See also Abulafia's epistle,Matzref la-Kesef, Ms. Sassoon 56, f. 33b, where a more clear statementabout dis- closing the headingsof the chaptersis found. 110. See Hagigah, f. 13a. 111. SeferSha^arei Tzedeq (ed.), J. E. Porush [Jerusalem,1989], p. 23. 112. On the whole issue see Raphael Jospe,«The Numberand Division of Chaptersin the Guide of the Perplexed», in M. Idel, W.Z. Harvey, E. Schweid (eds.), Shlomo Pines JubileeVolume [Jerusalem,1988], vol. I, p. 833-887 [Hebrew]. 113. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale, ms. 774, f. 115b. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 521

a traditionrefering to thephilosophical aspects of secretsin the book but also more formalaspects, which have numericalimplications. Though Abulafia also mentionstraditions in the contextof numericalissues foundin his commentaries,I have no doubtthat these traditionsare partof a post- Maimonideandevelopment, and it is indeedpart of a misinterpretationof the Guide in the directionof a more linguisticsense. Confrontedwith the logocentricinter- pretationof Judaismas offeredby Maimonides,the Kabbalists,and moreeminently in this particularcase AbrahamAbulafia, has recoursedto a varietyof already existingJewish linguistic traditions, in orderto offeranother vision of thisreligion, emphasizingthe richnessof the realm of language as representedby Hebrew.

X. R. ZERAHIAH'S TESTIMONY AND ITS PARALLELS

In this context,another important issue is to be mentioned:Rabbi Zerahiahben She'altiel Hen, knownalso as Gracian,an Aristotelianphilosopher born on Barce- lona, who leftin the early seventiesof the thirteenthcentury for Rome and other places in Italy114and correspondedwith Rabbi Hillel of Verona, has been acquaintedwith numerical and magical interpretationsof the Guide. In a letterto R. Hillel, aftera brutalattack concerning the latter's « misunderstandings» of the Guide, Zerahiahclaims thatin Maimonides' book

« thereare no secretsor enigmas115from the categoryof the gematriahor of the combi- nation of letters,neither from the categoryof the names, of the talismans116and of the amulets,used by the mastersof the names117,writers of the amulets,nor of the multiplicity of angels or anythingmentioned in Sefer Yetzirahor SeferRazielu* or SeferShiu^ur Qomah. Everythingthe Gaon, our Rabbi, blessed be the memoryof this righteous,has mentioned fromthe wordsof the sages, blessed be theirmemory, small and great,concerning an issue

114. See Ravitzky, Al Da^at ha-Maqom [note 21 above], p. 212. 115. Hidot. 116. Zurot.This seems to be the best understandingof the text,and this meaningof the wordis foundin variousmedieval magical treatises.See e.g. the contemporaneousdiscussion of R. Abraham of Esquira in his Sefer Yesod "Olam,Ms. Moscow-Guensburg607, f. 179a [see on this authornote 129 below], and the astro-magicaltext translatedand discussed in Idel, « An Astral-MagicalPneumatic Anthropoid », Incognita,vol. II, 1991, p. 9-31. 117. Ba'alei ha-Shemot.Abulafia mentionsthis phrase in an explicit negativecontext: see his Sheva' Netivotha-Torah, Philosophie und Kabbala [note46 above], p. 22. See also Maimonides' own negativeattitude to the issue of amuletsin the Guide, 1:61. 118. This book is also mentionedin Italy by AbrahamAbulafia twice see Sheva" Netivot ha-Torah,ibid., p. 21 as partof a list of older magical-mysticaltexts, and again, p. 2 where he quotes a gematriafrom this book as partof a tradition.I did not findthis gematriain the variousextant versions of this book. The second time he refersto divine names he learned fromthis book. It shouldhowever be mentionedthat a book withthis name had been quoted alreadyby R. Abrahamibn Ezra in the 12thCentury and, in the 13thCentury, by R. Jacob 522 Moshe Idei relatedto prophecy,or dealing withthe Merkavahor on the accountof Creation,[which are] writtenin the Torah, all are from the categoryI have mentioned119or related to their intention.And if someone has some secretsor enigmas or allusions or parables,which are not fromthe categoryI have mentionedto you, theyare all vain and worthlessthings »12°.

This passage is partof a confrontationbetween universalistic and particularistic trendsin Judaism;Maimonides, one of the major figuresof the integrationof the naturalisticthought as exposed in some trendsof Greek and Arabic thought,has provokedboth a reactionwhich negatedhis naturalizationof religion121or, as in the case of Abulafiaand his possible sources,an attemptto interprethim in a more particularisticmanner, by resortingto linguistictopics, as we shall see later on. Nature,which is one of the main concernsfor Maimonideshas been suplantedto a great extentby language, conceived by the Kabbalists as superior,either as a morepowerful means foraction, namely magic, or foracceleration the intellectual process,namely ecstasy. R. Zerahiahis no doubta representativeof an intellectual reactionto these two mystico-magicalreactions: he sharplycriticises Nahmanides' attemptto offera non-Aristotelian picture of the world122and the Abulafian-like attemptsto infusemagical and mysticalelements into the secretsof theGuide. The above descriptionof the non-naturalisticinterpretations of the secretsof theGuide include at least two distinctcategories: one dealing withgematriah and combina- tionsof letters,both of themfitting perfectly Abulafia' s approachto theGuide and it may, presumably,refer to an ecstaticreading of the Guide as exposed in Abu- lafia's commentaries.The other category,however, dealing with divine names, talismanicfigures and amulets,seems to referto writingsdifferent from those of Abulafia,who opposed magic, includinglinguistic magic123. In any case, no posi- tive attitudeto magic, neithera recommendationto use talismansand amuletscan foundin Abulafia's writings,even less in his commentarieson the secretsof the Guide. These two categories:the ecstatic-combinatoryon the one hand, and the magical-talismanicon the other,are not only a plausible distinctionbetween dif-

ben Jacob ha-Kohen in Castile. See Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics[note 59 above], p. 152; and, apparentlyalso in this milieu, in a kabbalistic text attributedto R. MeshullamTzarfati, Meshullamthe Frenchman:Oxford, 123, f. 70b-71a; See Idel, The MysticalExperience [note 31 above], p. 105, Verman, The Book of the Contemplation[note 3 above], p. 205. 119. Namely thingsrelated to naturaltopics. 120. Printedby Raphael Kircheim,'Otzar Nehmad,vol. 2, Wien, 1857, p. 133. See Idel, R. AbrahamAbulafia [note 85 above], p. 40 note 28; Ravitzky, Al Da at ha-Maqom,p. 155, « Secrets of the Guide » [note 41 above], p. 175, where a differenttranslation of this text has been offered. 121. See e.g. Nahmanides'remark that Maimonides restricted the numberof miraclesand increasedthe scope of nature,found in his sermon« Torat ha-ShemTemimah », Kitvei ha- Ramban,Ch. D. Chavel (ed.), Jerusalem,Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1963, vol. I, p. 154. 122. See Ravitzky, Al Da^at ha-Maqom,p. 154; « Secretsof the Guide » [note41 above], p. 174. 123. See Idel, R. AbrahamAbulafia [note 85 above], p. 129-133. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 523 ferentapproaches, or models of thoughtand praxis in themselves,but are also corroboratedby the syntaxof Zerahiah's formulationhis critique.The importance of this distinctionis even greatersince a certain literarypiece, attributingan interestin magic and astrologyon one hand, and in divine names on another,to Maimonidesis available. This is the case in the abovementionedspurious epistle attributedto Maimonides,Megillat Setarim, where magical names,talismanic magic and angels are mentionedas if theyare foundin the Guide124.This epistle is not datedand I see in theabove passage of Zerahiaha plausibleevidence for a terminus ante quern for the emergenceof some of the ideas included in it. Though this epistle is quite close to Abulafia's thought,I see no reason to attributeit to Abulafiahimself, and the possibilitythat it has been criticizedby Zerahiah,helps us datingit in the circle of Abulafia's teacher,apparently in Barcelona, or of his followers,later on in Italy125.It should be emphasized that in a mannerquite reminiscentof the way we have analysed R. Zerahiah's text as pointingto two differentgroups, Megillat Setarim mentions three types of Kabbalah,the firstbeing the propheticKabbalah and the thirdthe « practicalKabbalah »126.I see this dis- tinctionas similarto respectivelythe combinatorytechnique and the talismanic praxisin the above critiqueof the misunderstandingof theGuide. From the above quote fromR. Zerahiah's epistle,we may learnthat Abulafia has not been the only person in Italy who embraceda mysticalapproach to the Guide, thoughhe may be the source,or one of the sources for such a readingin Italy. This seems to be the case also in anotherpossible referenceto mysticalreading of theGuide found, as pointedout by Ravitzki,in Zerahiah's own Commentaryon the Guide, where he mentions« many persons,whose mind is poluttedby erroneousopinions » in connectionto discussions related to the interpretationof the termBen, son, as hintingat divine names; the affinitybetween this passage and Abulafia's similar interpretationof theterm Ben is quite evident127.However, we shouldagain empha- size thatR. Zerahiahmentions « manypersons », thus alowing the possibilitythat Abulafia was not alone in his ecentricreading of the Guide. Whetherthe other persons who exposed such a reading are studentsof Abulafia, or ratherearlier authorswho had inspiredhis vision of theGuide, as he himselfclaims in the above quote, is a questionthat cannot be answereddefinitively on the basis of the extant material.However, even if such a definitiveanswer is not in our reach on the basis of the extant material,I am inclined to opt for the latter alternativefor the followingtwo reasons: a) R. Zerahiah's critiquesare relativelyearly, in the life time of Abulafia,and I wonderif we can documentrepercussions of his interpretationsamong students, thoughsuch studentshe had in the verytown he startedto studythe Guide, Capua, near Rome. On the otherhand, he expresslyindicates that the secretshe exposes

124. Printedin Hemdah Genuzah [note 105 above]. 125. See Aviezer Ravitzky'sforthcoming study on Zerahiah and Barcelona. 126. Hemdah Genuzah,p. 45. 127. Al Da^at ha-Maqom,p. 154-155. 524 Moshe Idei have been received fromseveral persons. Thus, thoughwe cannot rule out the disseminationof Abulafianinterpretations among some youngerpersons in Italy, to whomZerahiah would react,it seems moreplausible to allow the impactof the thoughts,and may be even writings,which served as the sources for Abulafia himself. b) The talismanicreading of the Guide implied in the termtzurah that occurs in Zerahiah's quote is met by the spuriousepistle, where the termruhaniyyut, a crucial termfor the taiismanicmagic, occurs128.Moreover, in some ecstatic Kab- balistictexts written after the deathof Abulafia,like in some of the writingsof R. Isaac of Acre, the termruhaniyyut recurs time and again129.In any case, I am not aware in Spain of a mystical-magicalinterpretation of theGuide and the case that such a readingushered of beforeAbulafia seems to me neverthelessquite plausible, forthe reasons I would like to propose in the following. 1) Inroadsof talismanicterminology in Kabbalah is alreadyevident in the sixties of the 13thcentury, in the writingsof R. Yehudah ben Nissim ibn Malka, though his thoughtwas not influencedby Maimonides,and a magical readingof theGuide seems to be implausiblein his case130.This seems to be the case also insofarother Kabbalists are concerned. R. Bahiya ben Asher, apparentlyin Barcelona, has recoursedto talismanicterms in his commentaryon Deut, 18: II131,and this is the case also in R. Abraham of Esquira, a late 13th centuryor early 14th century Spanish authorof a voluminousKabbalistic book namedSefer Yesod yOlam,who uses theterm ruhaniyyut, but again he was, strangelyenough, not aware of Maimo- nides' book132.R. Bahiya and R. Abraham of Esquira have not too much in common insofar as their Kabbalistic systems are involved; though both were ecclecticauthors, their compilations draw upon differentkabbalistic sources. Never- theless,they might have somethingin common:the latterKabbalist was acquainted with R. Shem Tov ben Abrahamibn Gaon, while this Kabbalist was part of the same circle of Kabbalist which was cultivated,at least for a considerableperiod by R. Bahiya, namelythe circle of Kabbalists in Barcelona. So far,such a nexus may be non-consequential;however, it is R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon who mentions, for the firsttime, a Kabbalisticvision of Maimonides,and even mentionsthat he has seen in Spain an epistle of « Maimonides», where he is depicted in terms, stronglyreminiscent of the Heikhalotliterature. In his Migdal KOz,a. commentary

128. See the textsmentioned in the followingnotes. 129. See, e.g. Idel, Hasidism: BetweenEcstasy and Magic, p. 340, note 60. 130. See Georges Vajda, Juda ben Nissim ibn Malka, philosophejuif marocain,Larose, Paris, 1954; Moshe Idel, « The Beginningof Kabbala in North Africa? - A Forgotten Documentby R. Yehuda ben Nissim ibn Malka », Pe^amim,vol. 43, 1990, p. 4-15 [Hebrew]. 131. See Idel, « The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretationsof Kabbalah in the Renaissance», Essential Essays on JewishCulture in Renaissance and baroque Italy,David Ruderman (ed.), New York, New York UniversityPress, 1992, p. 155, note 68. 132. Ms. Moscow-Gunzburg,607, f. 179a, 104a. On this authorand his work see David de Gunzburg, « La Cabale à la veille de l'apparitiondu Zohar » ha-Qedem,vol. I (1907), p. 28-36, 111-121; see especially p. 30. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 525 on Maimonides'Hilekhot Yesodei Torah,ch. I he writesthat he has seen in Sefarad, on a very old parchment,qelaf yashan mevushan,an epistle that startswith the followingsentence:

« I, Moses, the son of Maimón,when I had descendedto the chambersof the Merkavah, have understoodthe issue of the end etc., and his words were similarto the words of the trueKabbalists, which were alluded by our greatRabbi, Ramban,blessed be his memory,at the beginningof the commentaryon the Torah ».

This passage has been writtenaround 1320 in the Galilee, probablyin Safed and it refersto somethingR. Shem Tov has seen alreadyin Sefarad,a termwhich is quite ambiguousfrom the geographicalpoint of view. We may assume, but this is not quite sure,that it may pointto Castile, wherethis authorwas in his youthfor a while, to studyKabbalah with R. Moshe of Burgos. This would mean thatthe fabricationof thedocument, described as writtenupon an old pergament,must have been done not later than the early eighties of the 13th century.If so, I wonder whetherScholem's assumptionregarding the nexus betweenthe second controversy around the Guide, which has presumablyhave inspiredthe compositionof this forgery133.However, the truncatedform of the quote, shortas it is, may neverthe- less help us understandbetter the backgroundof the forgeries.When mentioning the similaritybetween the contentof the epistle and the words of Nahmanidesat the beginningof his commentaryon the Torah, R. Shem Tov apparentlyrefers to Nahmanides'preface to his commentary.There he mentionsonly once words of Kabbalists, namely the statementabout the Torah as the continuumof Divine Names. I suppose,following Scholem's suggestionto thiseffect, that this particular view of Nahmanides' has been compared by Shem Tov to the lost spurious epistle134.Moreover, again as Scholem has suggested,the phrase « I have descended to thechambers of theMerkavah » may reflecta certainreverberation of an expres- sion he foundonly in R. Ezra Commentaryon the Talmudic Aggadot135. Moreover,as the same kabbalistsput it elsewherein his commentaryon Maimo- nides' Code of the Law136,Maimonides has offeredrationales for the command- mentsfrom his own reason,an approachthat astonished the Kabbalist,who claims that somethinglike that should not be done, especially by someone « who has received the secrets,orally froma person to another». This conceptionof trans- missionof secretmay also reflectthe view of Nahmanides,which again, has been projectedonto Maimonides137. The time of the forgeryof the epistle quoted by R. Shem Tov would be not earlierthan the beginningof the seventies,when Nahmanides'commentary on the Bible was alreadycirculating. Thus, it would be saferto conjecturethat the Kab-

133. « Mi-Hoqer li-Mequbbal» [note 5 above], p. 92-93. 134. Ibid., p. 93; Idel, « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », p. 74 note 158. 135. Scholem, ibid., p. 93. 136. See HilkhotTefillin, 111:5. 137. See Idel, « We Have No KabbalisticTradition » [note 98 above], p. 51-73. 526 Moshe Idei balistic interpretationof Maimonideswas undertakenearly in the seventiesof the 13th centuryCatalunya, a presuppositionthat coincides with the time Abraham Abulafia startedhis Kabbalistic career in the same region. Both Abulafia, as we have describedhim above, and the anonymousforger of the epistle,have combined Maimonideswith Nahmanides' type of discussions. It shouldbe emphasizedthat like Abulafia's claim thathe was revealedthe time of the end also the anonymousforger has attributedto Maimonidesa knowledge of the time of the end. The preoccupationwith an eschatologicaltopics fitsper- fectlyone of Abulafia's sentences,where he declared,in a lettersent to Barcelona at the end of the eighties,that God has announcedto him « the timeof the end of the exile and the beginningof the »138. If Scholem's two conjectures thatrelated the epistleto Geronesematerial are correct,as well as my two sugges- tions related to anotherGeronese linkage and one related to Abulafia, then the locale for the fabricationwould be ratherCatalunya than Castile, thoughthe pos- sibilityof a Castilian locale forthe fabricationmay be strengthenedby a series of pseudo-epigraphicalwritings that emerged fromthis region, includingthe most famousKabbalistic book, theZohar. However,also thecircle of writingsdesignated in scholarshipas the « ContemplationCircle », produced pseudepigraphiesattri- buted to late antiquityJewish figures. However, it should be emphasizedthat in our case, the attributionto Maimonidesis not a regularcase of projectingown' s ideas on an ancientfigure, whose views are rathervague and fragmentary,in search forauthorizing own kabbalisticinnovations, but on the contrary,the conversionof a famous and strongopponent to some views into theiradvocate. An additional observationregarding forgery in the Castile regionis however,related to the early 13thcentury Kabbalist R. Yehudah ben Yaqar and also to Nahmanides,as we may learn fromsome statementsof R. Moshe ben Shimeonof Burgos, also he was an acquaintancewith Abulafia139. Interestingly enough, this Moses of Burgos was one of theearliest teachers of R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon in mattersof Kabbalah. However, even if the Castiliancircles of Kabbalistswould be one possible candidatesfor the forgeryof the epistle quoted by Shem Tov, I doubt whetherthis may be the case withthe epistle whichportrays Maimonides as a magician.Again, the time of the forgeryof the epistle quoted by R. Shem Tov would be not earlier than the beginningof the seventies,when Nahmanides' commentaryon the Bible was already circulating.Thus, it would be safer to conjecturethat the Kabbalistic interpretationof Maimonides was undertakenearly in the seventies of the 13th centuryCatalunya, a presuppositionthat coincides withthe timeAbraham Abulafia startedhis Kabbalisticcareer in the same region.Both Abulafiaand the anonymous forgerof the epistle combinedMaimonides with Nahmanides' type of discussions. On theother hand, Abulafia testifies that he startedto studyKabbalah in Barcelona, the veryplace whereR. Shem Tov has also learneda greatpart of his Kabbalistic

138. Ve-Zo't li-Yhudah,[note 60 above], p. 18. 139. Ibid., « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », p. 61. Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 527 knowledge140.Moreover, even if we assume that Abulafia mightnot receive the oral traditionsabout the secretsof the Guide in this city, he nonethelessclaims thathe has taughtthe Guide thereto two persons,R. Yehudah Salmon and a certain R. Qalonimus141.Also R. Isaac of Acre, who uses the talismanicterminology, was for a while in this city. Moreover, he is one of the few Kabbalists who was acquaintedwith the mystico-magicalviews of R. Yehudah ibn Malka, thoughwe do not know whetherthis knowledge was acquired in Barcelona. And, indeed, anotherKabbalist, R. Josephben Shalom Ashkenazi, who states that the Guide should be understoodin accordance to oral tradition,in a mannerreminiscent of Abulafia's claim was, apparentlyan inhabitantof Barcelona. He speaks about « these attributesnecessitate an interpretationreceived from mouth to mouth.»142 Last, but not least, R. Zerahiahben She'altiel Hen come to Italyfrom Barcelona, and this fact could account for some of the descriptionsof the misinterpretations of the Guide foundin this city143.Are these recurencesof Barcelona mere coinci- dences? This is possible and I am not sure thatwe mustpush too far the circums- tantial point we have collected above. However, in absence of any alternative explanationas to the milieu whichcould producethe anonymousMegillat Setarim thatwas printedby Edelman,I would like to suggestthat it was in this city,or its nearvicinity, that a talismanicunderstanding of theGuide, and of ecstaticKabbalah in general has emerged.In any case, this spuriousepistle represents,or at least reflects,a relativelyearlier fabricationof a talismanic approach attributedto Maimonides,of whichAbulafia either was not aware or, if aware,he has rejectedit.

XI. SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

Let me attemptto summarizeAbulafia's attitudeto theGuide as emergingfrom the above discussions:he was not eager, like Gikatillawas, to sharplyand openly criticiseMaimonides' stand on language,even thoughit dramaticallyundermines his own approach.On the otherhand, he also was reticentof transformingMaimo- nides intoa fullfledgedKabbalist, by openlyattributing to him his own Kabbalistic stands,and even less to take the road of the anonymouswriters who transformed Maimonidesinto a repentantphilosopher who become a Kabbalist or finallyeven less intoa Kabbalisticmagician, a view thatwould contradicthis own stands.Thus, fromsome pointsof view,Abulafia may be regardedas a moderatepolitician acting in a rathervery loaded minefieldsof speculativeinterests and bizarretransforma- tions of ideas and figuresachieved by means of personal transitionfrom one

140. On Abulafia's studies there see Jellinek,Bet ha-MidraschIII, p. XLII-XLIII; on Shem Tov's studywith the Rashba see the several referencesspread all over his Kabbalistic extantwritings. 141. Jellinek, ibid., p. XLI. 142. Commentaryof S efer Yetzirah,ed. Jerusalem,1961, f. 55cd. 1 143. See note 125 above. 528 Moshe Idei intellectualand spiritualsystem to another,and by pseudepigraphicalattributions, which were supposed to « alligne» the opponentto adhere to own's tenets.His attemptsto keep open as manyallegiancies, sometimes weak, as possible, as long as he was not attackedand criticised.He preferedto make strongmoves in matters of intellectualsyntheses without, however, using too stronga rhetoric.Apparently, he was muchmore concerned in what seemed to be his major task: to advance the propagationof his ecstaticKabbalah withoutprovoking too much controversy. This strategydid not succeed: afterfew yearsof quiete vagancyon the Northern coast of the Mediterranean,he was arrestedin 1279 in ,Italy, and apparently this arrestwas instigatedby Jews,later on he was arrestedin Rome by the Mino- rites.Some years later,sometime in the late eighties,his propheticand messianic claims,and moreimplicitly also his understandingof the Jewishtexts, encountered a bitteropposition from the side of the Rashba, a Kabbalist himself,a case that demonstrateshow complex the late 13thCentury Jewish religious scene was. So, we may assume thatthe Rashba has intendedalso to any of his threecommentaries on the Guide when he labelled Abulafia's writingsas interpreting« the scriptures and the words of the sages [by means of] »144. His Kabbalistic interpre- tationof the Guide has been assaulted, again by a Kabbalist, at the end of the 15thCentury145. The Spanish Kabbalah, which startedto crystalizein more parti- cularisticand centralisticmoulds already at the end of the 13th century,and culminatedthis process a the end of the 15thCentury, attempted to establishits own domain as a full alternativeto philosophy.Abulafia's synthesis,as presented in his commentarieson the Guide, neverthelesssurvived especially outside Spain, in numerousmanuscripts which may compete,at least fromthe statisticalpoint of view withmost of the philosophicalcommentaries. It is the selective grid of the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies' scholars that has contributedto some of the inhibitionsof the printerssince the Renaissance,that contributed to the neglection of a whole range of mysticalinterpretations offered by Jewishthinkers to the Guide. Inspiredmainly by the searchfor the authentic,though very oftenly, elusive and esotericviews of the Guide, the Maimonideanscholars relegated the studyof the role played by his book in the more mysticalcircles, to the scholarsof mysti- cism. They, at theirturn, would conceive, as I have pointedout above, this part of culturalstudies, as dealing withtoo philosophicalan issue. Caughtbetween the two too puristicapproaches, Abulafia's three commentariesof the Guide have remainedin the shadow of both the studyof Jewishphilosophy and mysticism.

Moshe Idel

144. See Ibn Adret's responsum,vol. I, n. 548. 145. See R. Yehudah Hayyat, Sefer Minhat Yehudah,printed in Sefer MaKarekhetha- 'Elohut,Mantua, 1558, f. 3b. On the backgroundof thiscritique see M. Idel, « The Encoun- ters betweenthe Spanish and Italian Kabbalah afterthe Expulsion fromSpain » [Forthco- ming].