chapter 1 ’s Secrets: ’s Use of “Secrets of Torah” and “Secrets of Faith”

Daniel Davies

Samuel Ibn Tibbon expressed his appreciation for Maimonidean esotericism in words and in action.1 He praised and also imitated his methods of writing in some ways. His own works of philosophical exegesis expound the “secrets of the Torah” in ways inspired by or directly derived from Maimonides.2 In the commentary on Ecclesiastes, the terms for “secrets of the Torah” appear These refer to scientific and 3.סתרי התורה or סודות התורה regularly, either as philosophical teachings that are concealed behind the outer layers of the bibli- cal text. Like Maimonides, Ibn Tibbon accepts that the Scriptures have inner scientific or philosophical meanings and proceeds to explain what is secreted behind them. Later on, in his Ma’amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim (MYM), Ibn Tibbon also mentions these secrets, but this time, along with them, there is reference to “secrets of faith” when he refers to the question of the soul’s perdurance, and to which part of the soul it applies, as “one of the great and noble secrets of the Torah and faith.”4 One might understand from this statement that the two kinds of secrets are synonymous since Ibn Tibbon does not say that they can be considered separately. However, this paper will argue that Ibn Tibbon indicates that the two kinds of secrets are distinct, even though, as far as I am aware, he does not explain the difference between them.5 It aims thereby

1 I am grateful to Reimund Leicht for helpful comments on this chapter. A referee suggested that the same distinction discussed here might be found in ’s Malmad ha- Talmidim. Investigating the relationship between Ibn Tibbon’s esotericism and that of Anatoli would be a fascinating further study. 2 Aviezer Ravitzky explained Ibn Tibbon’s approach to the Guide and the different techniques that Ibn Tibbon identified in Maimonides’s method of esoteric exegesis: “Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed,” AJS Review 6 (1981): 87–123. 3 Samuel Ibn Tibbon, Commentary on Ecclesiastes (The Book of the Soul of Man), ed. James T. Robinson (: World Union of Jewish Studies, 2016). Numerous examples could be cited. Both words for “secret” appear together on page 391. 4 Rivka Kneller-Rowe, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Ma’amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim: A Philosophical and Exegetical Treatise” [Hebrew], 2 vols. (PhD diss., University of Tel Aviv, 2012). 5 In his “Samuel Ibn Tibbon,” Ravitzky included a section on Ibn Tibbon’s methodology when interpreting the secrets of the Torah and of faith, but he did not distinguish them from one another. See especially 105–8.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004412996_003 Ibn Tibbon’s Secrets 37 to contribute a detail to the understanding of Ibn Tibbon’s relationship with Maimonides, and will do so by interpreting the chapters in the Guide that, in Ibn Tibbon’s reading, deal with “secrets of the Torah” and “secrets of faith” respectively. It is possible that Ibn Tibbon developed this distinction as part of his ongoing disagreements with Judah al-Ḥarizi’s translation. If so, his under- standing of Maimonides may have been sharpened by his interaction with al-Ḥarizi. Additionally, in attempting to offer evidence for the nature of the distinction between “secrets of the Torah” and “secrets of faith,” the paper illus- trates one of the ways in which Ibn Tibbon follows in Maimonides’s footsteps by writing esoterically. Maimonides famously uses the image of a golden apple set in silver as a metaphor for a certain kind of parable.6 The golden apple is glimpsed through the gaps in the silver, just as the more valuable inner mean- ing of Scripture is seen by those who examine it closely and know to appreciate it. Ibn Tibbon understands the inner meanings of these parables to be - sophical. He views Solomon’s activities, in the three biblical books attributed to him, as exercises in widening the apertures to bring the teaching into line with the standard of general knowledge of his time.7 Ibn Tibbon sees himself as standing in the tradition of philosophical education that he identifies run- ning through the biblical authors through to Maimonides. Like Maimonides’s relation to the Bible, and Solomon’s to Moses, Ibn Tibbon’s exposition seems in this instance to be aimed at “widening the apertures” rather than clearly stat- ing the inner meaning. This is one way in which Ibn Tibbon’s commentaries display his appreciation of Maimonides’s esoteric writing. In his preface to the Guide, al-Ḥarizi presents a list of the chapters in the first part of the Guide, and states that their purpose is to explain words used in the Bible about God and that are, prima facie, anthropomorphic or anthropopathic.8 Al-Ḥarizi argues that Maimonides included these chapters in order to explain that those surface meanings are not the true intentions when the words are applied to God, and to indicate what they do mean. The aim of all of these chapters is to head off the impression that God is a body, even though the text’s surface meaning appears to indicate that God is physical. On al-Ḥarizi’s reading, then, Maimonides’s purpose throughout the first part of the Guide is to battle against idolatrous interpretations of Scripture. Towards

6 Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1963), 11; Maimonides, Dalālat al-Ḥā’irīn, ed. Salomon Munk and Issachar Joel (Jerusalem: Junovitch, 1930/31), 7. 7 Robinson explains Ibn Tibbon’s view of Solomon and other biblical authors in his introduc- tion to Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 14–16. 8 Al-Ḥarizi’s comments can be found in Sefer Moreh Nevukhim (Tel Aviv: Hamenora, 1984), 3–15. In this edition, the list he draws up is separated into three, reflecting the three parts of the Guide, and each list appears immediately before its respective part.