THE MAIMUNIST CONTROVERSY AND THE RISE OF THE KABBALA.
The Opposition against Maimuni--Maimunists and
anti-Maimunists--Meïr Abulafia--Samson of Sens--Solomon
of Montpellier--Excommunication of the Maimunists--David
Kimchi's energetic Advocacy of Maimuni--Nachmani--His
Character and Work--His Relations to Maimuni, Ibn-Ezra, and
the Kabbala--Solomon of Montpellier calls in the aid of the
Dominicans--Moses of Coucy--Modern date of the Kabbala
--Azriel and Ezra--Doctrines of the Kabbala--Jacob ben
Sheshet Gerundi--The Bahir--Three Parties in Judaism
--Last flicker of the Neo-Hebraic Poetry--The Satirical
Romance: Al-Charisi and Joseph ben Sabara.
1232-1236 C. E.
As misfortunes never come singly, but draw others after them, so
besides the insults and humiliations which the Jews suffered from
without, there now arose alarming disunion within their ranks.
Remarkably enough, this intestine war was associated with Maimuni,
whose aim, during his whole life, had been to effect union and complete
finality in Judaism. But in undertaking to explain philosophically the
intellectual side of Judaism, he established principles which did not
by any means bear a Jewish stamp on them, nor were they in consonance
with the Bible, and still less with the Talmud. Those scholars whose
learning was entirely confined to the Talmud ignored the philosophical
discussion of Judaism, considered it sinful to be occupied with other
branches of knowledge, even when applied to the service of Judaism, and
took their stand, right or wrong, on the Talmudical saying, "Withhold
your children from excessive reflection." Even intelligent men, and
such as were philosophically trained, recognized that Maimuni, in his
endeavor to reconcile religion with the philosophy of the age, had made
the former subservient to the latter, and had made the mistress over
the mind a slave. Articles of belief and Scriptural verses, which do
not admit of philosophical justification, have no value according to
Maimuni's system. Miracles were not inevitable in Maimuni's philosophy;
but attempts were made to reduce them as far as possible to natural
causes, and to interpret in a rationalistic manner the Biblical
verses which contain them. Prophecy and direct communication with the
Deity, as it is taught in the Bible, Maimuni refused to accept, but
explained them as subjective occurrences, as effects of an over-heated
imagination, or as dream-phenomena. His doctrine of immortality was
not less in contradiction with the belief of Talmudical Judaism. It
denies the existence of a paradise and a hell, and represents the
purified soul as becoming fused with the original spirit. His method
of explaining many ceremonial laws especially provoked contradiction,
because, if accepted, these laws would lose their permanent value,
and have only temporary importance. And the manner in which Maimuni
expressed himself on the Agada, a constituent part of the Talmud--which
he either explained away or rejected--was in the eyes, not only of
the strict Talmudists, but also of more educated men, an heretical
attack upon Judaism, which they believed it was their duty to
energetically repel. Thus, besides enthusiastic worshipers of Maimuni,
who religiously adopted his doctrine as a new revelation, there was
formed a party, which assailed his writings, and combated particularly
the "Guide of the Perplexed" (Moré), and the first part of his Code
(Madda). The rabbis and the representatives of the Jewish congregations
in Europe and Asia, consequently became divided into Maimunists and
opponents to Maimuni (Anti-Maimunists). Such of the latter as were his
contemporaries, still full of the powerful impression which Maimuni's
individuality and activity had produced, fully acknowledged his genius
and piety, and blamed or criticised his views only, and the writings
which contained them.
The opposition to his philosophical doctrines had begun during
Maimuni's life, but it remained quiet and timid, unable to assert
itself against the enthusiasm of his admirers. A young, intellectual,
and learned man, Meïr ben Todros Halevi Abulafia, of Toledo (born about
1180, died 1244), had, at an early period, expressed his religious
objections to Maimuni's theory in a letter to the "wise men of Lünel,"
which was intended for publication. Maimuni's doctrine of immortality
forms the central point of Abulafia's attack. He made, however, but
little impression by this letter, for although Meïr Abulafia was
descended from a highly respectable family, and enjoyed considerable
authority, still his hostile attitude towards science, and his
tendency towards an ossified Judaism, isolated him even in his own
circle. Apart from this, he was possessed of overweening arrogance,
a quality not calculated to win adherents and organize a party.
Instead of finding supporters, Meïr met with a sharp rebuff from the
learned Aaron ben Meshullam, of Lünel, who was master of the sciences
and the Talmud, and a warm adherent of Maimuni. He charged him with
presumption in venturing, though unripe in years and wisdom, to pass
an opinion on the greatest man of his time. The Talmudists of northern
France, led by Samson of Sens, to whom every letter of the Talmud was
an embodiment of the highest truths, and who would not countenance
any new interpretations, thoroughly concurred with the inquisitor
Meïr Abulafia. Meïr was looked upon in his time as chief of the
Obscurantists. The aged Sheshet Benveniste, of Barcelona, ever a warm
friend of free research, composed a sarcastic epigram upon him:
"You ask me, friends, why this man's name,
Seeing he walks in darkness, should be Meïr.[4]
I answer, the sages have called the night 'light,'
This, too, is an example of the rule of contraries."
Another poet directed the arrows of his wit against Abulafia, but
its points are untranslatable. The Maimunists were generally vastly
superior to their adversaries in knowledge and speech, and they could
expose the enemies of light to ridicule.
The hostility against Maimuni appeared also in the East, but not so
strongly. A learned Talmudist, Daniel ben Saadiah, a disciple of the
Samuel ben Ali who had conducted himself so maliciously against the
sage of Fostat, had settled in Damascus, and animated by the spirit of
his master against the Maimunist tendency, he conceived it his duty to
continue to make it the target of his hostility. Daniel, in the first
place, impugned Maimuni's Talmudical decisions in order to weaken the
position on which his commanding influence rested, for it was through
Maimuni's acknowledged rabbinical authority that his philosophical,
or according to his opponents, his heretical, doctrines found such
dangerous and general acceptance. Daniel, however, thought it advisable
to maintain a respectful tone towards him; he even sent his polemic to
Abraham Maimuni for examination. Afterwards Daniel, in an exegetical
work, allowed himself to make veiled attacks upon Maimuni's orthodoxy,
and curiously enough reproached him with not believing in the existence
of evil spirits. His main argument, however, was not strictly
concerned with the existence or non-existence of demons, but sought
to demonstrate that Maimuni was a heretic, because he had refused
to acknowledge unconditionally, as correct and true, utterances
which occur in the Talmud. Maimuni's admirers, however, were greatly
exasperated at these attacks of Daniel, and Joseph Ibn-Aknin,
Maimuni's favorite pupil, urged Abraham Maimuni to pass sentence of
excommunication on Daniel ben Saadiah. Abraham, however, who had
inherited his father's disinterestedness and love of justice, would
not hear of it. He expressed himself on the subject with meritorious
impartiality, saying that he did not think it right to excommunicate
Daniel, whom he considered a religious man of pure belief, who had
only made a mistake in one point; moreover, that as he was a party in
this controversy, he did not feel himself empowered to excommunicate
an antagonist in a matter that was to some extent personal. Maimuni's
admirers, and especially Joseph Ibn-Aknin, were not, however, disposed
to take the same view. They labored to induce the Exilarch David of
Mosul to exclude from the community the blameless and esteemed scholar
of Damascus, until he should humbly recant his strictures upon Maimuni.
Daniel was excommunicated, and died of grief, and all opposition to
Maimuni in the East was silenced for a long time. The Asiatic Jews were
still so overpowered by the glamour of his name, that they could not
think of him as a heretic. Nor were they learned enough to grasp the
range of Maimuni's ideas, and to perceive their incompatibility with
the spirit of the Talmud. It may also be that his admirer, Jonathan
Cohen, who had emigrated to Palestine, had won the pious to his side,
and had defeated the party of Samson of Sens, which was inimical to him.
Very different was the state of affairs in Europe, especially in the
south of France and in Spain. Here Maimuni's theories had taken root,
and dominated the minds of the learned and of most of the influential
leaders of congregations; henceforth they regarded the Bible and the
Talmud only in the Maimunist light. The pious Jews of Spain and
Provence endeavored to reconcile the contradictions between Talmudical
Judaism and Maimuni's system, by a method of interpretation. The less
religious used his system as a support for their lukewarmness in the
performance of their religious duties; they expressed themselves more
freely about the Bible and the Talmud, practically neglected many
precepts, and were bent on re-organizing Judaism on a rationalistic
basis. Among the Jews of southern Spain, this lukewarmness towards the
Law went so far that not a few contracted marriages with Christian
and Mahometan women. The excessively pious, whose whole life was
absorbed by the Talmud, mistaking cause for effect, considered these
distressing occurrences as a poisonous fruit of the philosophical seed,
and prophesied the decay of Judaism, if Maimuni's theories should gain
the ascendancy. Nevertheless considerable time elapsed before any one
ventured to make a decisive stand against them. The rabbis of northern
France, who were of the same way of thinking as Samson of Sens, knew
little of Maimuni's philosophical writings and their effects, while the
rabbis of southern France and of Spain, who were guided absolutely by
the Talmud, may have thought it dangerous and useless to try to stem
the overwhelming flood of free thought.
It was, therefore, looked upon as a most audacious step, when a rabbi
of the school which followed the Talmud with unquestioning faith,
openly and recklessly declared war against the Maimunists. This was
Solomon ben Abraham, of Montpellier, a pious, honorable man, learned
in the Talmud, but of perverted notions, whose whole world was the
Talmud, beyond which nothing was worthy of credence. Not only the
legal decisions of the Talmud were accepted by him as irrefutable
truths, but also the Agadic portions in their naked literalness. He
and his friends conceived the Deity as furnished with eyes, ears, and
other human organs, sitting in heaven upon a throne, surrounded by
darkness and clouds. Paradise and Hell they painted in Agadic colors;
the righteous were to enjoy, in the heavenly garden of Eden, the flesh
of the Leviathan and old wine, stored up from the beginning of the
world in celestial flasks, and the godless, the heretics, and the
transgressors of the Law were to be scourged, tortured, and burnt in
the hell-fire of Gehenna. The rabbis of this school believed in the
existence of evil spirits; it was in a manner an article of faith with
them, for the Talmudical Agada recognizes them as existing.
Adopting a theory so gross and anthropomorphic, Solomon of Montpellier
could not help finding nearly every word in Maimuni's compositions
un-Jewish and heretical. He felt it incumbent on him to make reply;
he saw in the toleration of the Maimunist views the dissolution
of Judaism, and he entered the lists against their exponents and
champions. But with what weapons? The Middle Ages knew of no more
effective instrument than excommunication to destroy ideas apparently
pernicious. He attempted to compel men, who towered head and
shoulders above their contemporaries, and held different opinions
on religion from the thoughtless crowd, to seal up their ideas in
themselves, or to recant them as vicious errors, by shutting them
off from all intercourse with their co-religionists. At about the
same time Pope Gregory directed the University of Paris, the upholder
of the free philosophical spirit till the rise of the Dominicans
and Franciscans, to adhere strictly in its curriculum to the canon
of the Lateran Council, and on peril of excommunication, to avoid
using those philosophical writings which had been interdicted by it.
This precedent, together with his bigoted, passionate nature, may
have induced Solomon of Montpellier to introduce a censorship of
thought into the Jewish world, and to crush the Maimunist heresy by
excommunication. But to appear single-handed against the Maimunists,
whose number was large, and who ruled public opinion, could but ruin
his cause. Solomon sought for allies, but could not find a single rabbi
in southern France who was ready to take part in the denunciation of
the Maimunist school. Only two of his pupils came to his aid--Jonah
ben Abraham Gerundi (the elder) of Gerona, a blind zealot like his
master, and David ben Saul. These three pronounced the ban (beginning
of 1232) against all those who read Maimuni's compositions, especially
the philosophical parts (Moré and Madda), against those who studied
anything except the Bible and the Talmud, against those who distorted
the plain literal sense of Holy Writ, or, in general, expounded the
Agada differently from Rashi. Solomon and his allies explained the
reasons for their sentence of excommunication in a letter to the
public, and laid special stress on the point that Maimuni's line of
argument undermined Talmudical Judaism. They did not hesitate even to
vilify the venerated sage: it might be true, they said, that he had
once lived strictly in accordance with the Talmud, yet instances were
known in which still greater men had become renegades from the Law in
their old age. Solomon at first thought of invoking the secular power
of the Christian authorities to aid him in oppressing free thought.
For the present, however, he looked for supporters among the rabbis of
northern France. These, belonging to the acute but one-sided Tossafist
school, and having grown hoary in the Talmud, did not for a moment
appreciate the necessity of establishing Judaism on a rational and
scientific basis, and nearly all of them adopted Solomon's opinion, and
took sides against the Maimunists.
The sentence of excommunication, the proscription of science, and the
defamation of Maimuni, excited the violent indignation of his admirers.
It seemed to them unheard-of audacity, unparalleled impudence. The
three chief congregations of Provence, Lünel, Béziers, and Narbonne,
in which the Maimunists were in power, rose against this presumption
of the Obscurantists, and on their side excommunicated Solomon and
his two disciples, and hastened to urge the other congregations
of Provence to unite in rescuing the honor of the great Moses. In
Montpellier the congregation was divided into two parties; whilst the
ignorant multitude remained by their rabbi, the learned renounced
their allegiance, and violent frays between them were not infrequent.
The flame of discord blazed up, and spread over the congregations of
Provence, Catalonia, Aragon, and Castile. The contest was carried on
by both sides with intense passion, and not entirely with honorable
weapons. Simple faith and a philosophical apprehension of religion,
which had till then maintained friendly relations, now met in a
conflict, which threatened to lead to a complete rupture and to schism.
The worst of it was, that the parties were both justified, each
from its own point of view; both could appeal to old and respected
authorities, some of whom maintained that the Bible and the Talmud must
be believed in without investigation and strained interpretation, while
others held that reason also had a voice in religious matters.
Two men, whose names are celebrated in Jewish literature, took part
in this passionate quarrel: David Kimchi and Nachmani. The former,
already an old man and at the zenith of his fame as a grammarian and
expositor of the Bible, was an enthusiastic admirer of Maimuni, and
a friend of free investigation. He was consequently an object of
suspicion to the Obscurantists, and the rabbis of northern France
appear to have excommunicated him, because he had explained the vision
of Ezekiel concerning the throne-chariot of God in a Maimunist sense,
_i. e._, philosophically, and because he had maintained that Talmudical
controversies would have no significance in the Messianic period, or
in other words, that the Talmud has no right to advance pretensions
to perpetual authority. Kimchi accordingly took up the cudgels for
Maimuni all the more promptly, as he had at the same time to defend his
own cause. Old and weak as he was, he nevertheless did not hesitate
to undertake a journey to Spain, in order personally to bring the
congregations of that country over to the side of the Provençals
against Solomon of Montpellier.
Another man of commanding influence in this struggle was Moses ben
Nachman, or Nachmani (Ramban) Gerundi, a fellow-citizen and relative
of Jonah Gerundi (born about 1195, died about 1270). Nachmani, or as
he was called in the language of the country, Bonastruc de Porta,
was a man of sharply-defined and strongly-marked individuality, with
all the strength and weakness of such a character. Whilst of pure
moral temperament and conscientious piety, mild disposition and
acute understanding, he was completely governed by the belief in
authority. The "wisdom of the sages" appeared to him unsurpassed and
unsurpassable, and their clear utterances were neither to be doubted
nor criticised. "He who occupies himself with the teachings of the
sages, drinks old wine," was Nachmani's firm conviction. The whole
wisdom of the later generations, according to his view, consisted
entirely in fathoming the meaning of their great ancestors, to acquire
a knowledge of it, and derive precedents from it. Not only the Holy
Writ in its entire scope, and the Talmud in its entire range, but
even the Geonim and their immediate disciples till Alfassi, were for
him infallible authorities, and their conduct worthy of emulation.
Within this compass he had intelligent notions, correct judgments
and a clear mind, but beyond it he could not proceed, nor could
he start from an original position. Nachmani was a physician, and
had, therefore, studied science a little; he was learned in other
branches, and familiar with philosophical literature. But metaphysical
speculation, to which he would not or could not apply himself, remained
strange to him. The Talmud was for him all in all; in its light he
regarded the world, the events of the past and the shaping of the
future. In his youth, the study of the Talmud and the vindication of
assailed authorities were Nachmani's favorite occupations. In about
his fifteenth year (1210), he elaborated several Talmudical treatises,
following the style and method of Alfassi.
In these works he shows so astounding an intimacy with the Talmud that
no one would recognize them as the productions of a youth. They bear
the stamp of complete maturity, show command over the subject, and
reveal profound acumen. Not less splendid in its way was the second
work of his youth, in which he sought to justify Alfassi's Talmudical
decisions on questions of civil and marriage laws against the attack of
Serachya Halevi Gerundi.
Nachmani had already commented upon several Talmudical treatises,
and he continued this labor indefatigably, till he had furnished the
greatest portion of the Talmud with explanations (Chidushim). Important
as Nachmani's contributions may be in this province, they are in nowise
original. The Talmud had been investigated too thoroughly during the
centuries since Rashi and Alfassi, for Nachmani, or indeed any one
else, to be able to establish anything absolutely new. Maimuni had
seen clearly, with the insight of a comprehensive mind, that it was
at length time to close accounts with commentaries on the Talmud, to
declare for or against, and bring the whole to a conclusion. Nachmani
did not pay attention to this result; Maimuni's gigantic religious code
did not exist for him.
If he did not sympathize with Maimuni in his treatment of the Talmud,
still less did he agree with him in his philosophical views on
religion. Maimuni proceeded from a philosophical basis, and everywhere
applied reason as the test of Judaism. Nachmani, on the other hand,
like Jehuda Halevi, took as his starting-point the facts of Judaism,
including even the narratives of the Talmud. For Maimuni the miracles
of the Bible were inconvenient facts, and he endeavored as much as
possible to reduce them to natural causes; the Talmudical miracle-tales
he refused to consider. For Nachmani, on the other hand, the belief
in miracles was the foundation of Judaism, on which its three pillars
rested: the creation from nothing, the omniscience of God, and divine
providence. But, although Nachmani shunned philosophy, he nevertheless
advanced new ideas which, though not demonstrated by logical formulæ,
deserve recognition. The ethical philosophy of Maimuni sought to
elevate man above the accidents of life, by reminding him of his
higher origin and his future bliss, and arming him with equanimity in
order to render him insensible to pleasure and to pain. Nachmani, from
his Talmudical point of view, strongly combated this philosophical
or stoical indifference and apathy, and opposed to it the doctrine
of Judaism, that "man should rejoice on the day of joy, and weep on
the day of sorrow." Maimuni assumed, with the philosophers, that
the sensual instincts are a disgrace to man, who is destined for
a spiritual life. Nachmani was a strenuous opponent of this view.
Since God, who is perfect, has created the world, it must all be good
as it is, and nothing in it should be regarded as intrinsically
objectionable and hateful.
Nachmani, who started from quite different principles, had consequently
but very few points of agreement with Maimuni. Had they been
contemporaries, they might have been attracted to each other by this
very dissimilarity. If Judaism was for Maimuni a cult of the intellect,
for Nachmani it was a religion of the feelings. According to the
former, there was no secret in Judaism which could not be disclosed to
thought; according to the latter, the mystical and the unknown were the
holiest elements of Judaism, and were not to be profaned by reflection.
The difference in their method is well illustrated by their views on
the belief in demons. According to Maimuni, it is not only superstition
but even heathenism to ascribe power to evil spirits. Nachmani, on the
other hand, was firmly attached to this theory, and allowed the demons
considerable place in his system of the world. Whilst he occasionally
expressed his disapproval of Maimuni's views, paying him at the same
time the greatest respect, he had a decided antipathy towards Ibn-Ezra.
This exegetist, with his sceptical smile, his biting wit, and his scorn
for mystery, was calculated to repel Nachmani. In his attacks upon
Ibn-Ezra, Nachmani could not preserve the serenity of his temper, but
used violent expressions against him, regarding him as the supporter
of unbelief. But though Nachmani waged war against the philosophy of
his age, as destructive of revealed Judaism, and denounced Aristotle
as the teacher of error, he nevertheless looked with disfavor on blind
belief and the exclusion of every rationalistic conception in religious
matters. On this point he diverged from the teaching of the rabbis
of northern France, whose strictly Talmudical tendency he otherwise
followed. He was too much a son of Spain, in a manner enveloped by an
atmosphere of philosophy, to be able to dismiss metaphysical research
with contempt. His clear mind and his Spanish education would not
permit Nachmani to follow the rabbis of northern France through thick
and thin, nor to accept the Agadas in their literal sense, with all
their anthropomorphic and offensive utterances. But on this point he
became involved in self-contradiction. He could not reject the Agadic
statements _in toto_, for he was too strongly dominated by belief
in authority, and respect for the Talmud. If, when constrained by
necessity, he here and there conceded that many Agadic sayings were
to be considered only as rhetorical metaphors, as homiletic material,
and that it was not a religious obligation to believe in them, he must
not be supposed to be in full earnest. But, if the Agada is not to
be believed in literally, it must be interpreted. This, however, was
to make concessions to the Maimunist school. Accordingly, there was
no escape from this dilemma except to admit that the Agada must be
explained, but deny that Maimuni's mode of explanation was correct.
There came to his aid the Kabbala, a new secret lore which claimed to
be a primitive divine tradition, and it relieved his embarrassment in
respect of the obnoxious Agadas. By means of this mystical theory, that
which, from the point of view of the literalists, appears blasphemous,
or meaningless and childish, was invested with deep, mysterious, and
transcendental sense. Nachmani did not even shrink from justifying
the perverse notion that the whole text of the Torah was simply the
material made up of letters, out of which mystical names of God might
be composed.
At the time when the sentence of excommunication was uttered against
Maimuni's philosophical writings, Nachmani was not yet forty years old,
but he even then was of such importance that even the haughty Meïr
Abulafia paid him the tribute of his respect. He could, therefore, as
rabbi of the congregation of Gerona, support either the one party or
the other. He decided in favor of his friend Solomon and his nephew
Jonah. As soon as he learnt that the former was excommunicated by the
congregations of Provence, he hastened, without waiting to be properly
informed of the whole affair, to send a missive to the communities of
Aragon, Navarre, and Castile, saying, in substance, that they should
not be carried away by the "hypocritical, false" Maimunists; but that
they should wait till the opposite party had spoken its mind. Nachmani
indeed regretted, in this letter, that the unity of Judaism, which
from time immemorial had been maintained in all countries of the
dispersion, should, through this controversy, threaten to be destroyed,
and he recommended, on that account, prudence and calm deliberation.
He himself, however, did not maintain this impartial attitude, but
inclined more to the side of the party hostile to science. "If the
French masters, at whose feet we sit, obscure the sunlight at mid-day,
and cover the moon, they may not be contradicted"; thus he expresses
himself at the very commencement.
But the majority of the congregations of Spain refused to be led
into darkness. The chief congregation of Aragon, with its leader,
the physician in ordinary and favorite of King Jayme, Bachiel
Ibn-Alkonstantini, declared itself decisively in favor of Maimuni,
and laid Solomon and his two allies under the ban, as long as they
continued in their perverseness. Bachiel, his brother Solomon, and ten
other influential men and leaders, sent a letter (Ab--August, 1232)
to the congregations of Aragon, urging them to join their party, and
repudiate those men "who have dared appear against that great power
which has rescued us from the floods of ignorance, error and folly."
The Maimunists in Saragossa pointed out that the opponents of science
had put themselves in opposition to the Talmud. "Our sages teach us
that we should philosophically explain to ourselves the unity of God.
We ought to be acquainted with profane sciences, in order to know how
to reply to the enemies of religion. Astronomy, geometry, and other
branches which are so important to religion, cannot be learned out of
the Talmud. The great doctor of the Talmud, Samuel, said of himself,
'that he knew the courses of the stars as well as the streets of his
native place.' From these remarks it is evident that it was deemed a
religious duty to acquire general knowledge. And now there appear three
corrupters and misleaders of the people, who stain the reputation of
the great Maimuni, wish to lead the communities into darkness, and
forbid the reading of his philosophical writings, and the study of
science generally." Bachiel Ibn-Alkonstantini, as the most influential
man in Aragon, in a letter, summoned the congregations to strenuously
oppose those who do not believe in God and his servant Moses
(Maimuni). In consequence of this action, the four great congregations
of Aragon--Huesca, Monzon, Calatayud, and Lerida--agreed with the
Saragossa congregation to pass the sentence of excommunication upon
Solomon and his two supporters. The eyes of the Maimunists and their
adversaries were, however, turned to the congregation of Toledo, which
was the largest, richest, most important and most educated in Spain.
Its decision was able to incline the balance in favor of either the one
side or the other. Here Jehuda bar Joseph, of the highly influential
family of Ibn-Alfachar, who was probably physician in ordinary of King
Ferdinand III, possessed the greatest authority. Hitherto he had not
expressed his opinion either for or against Maimuni, but had observed
a discreet silence. But the zealous rabbi of Toledo, Meïr Abulafia
Halevi, the old antagonist of the Maimunist tendency, loudly raised
his voice. He replied to the letters of Nachmani and of the Gerona
congregation that they might make their minds easy, that neither he
nor his friends would follow the "law-defiers of Provence," that there
were certainly many in the congregation of Toledo who were infatuated
by Maimuni and his philosophical writings, that he could not alter
their mind, but if they should declare themselves against Solomon of
Montpellier, he would repudiate them altogether, and acknowledge no
community with them. For he considered Solomon's action a meritorious
one. He himself had long recognized the dangerous character of the
doctrines laid down in Maimuni's "Guide of the Perplexed"; they
certainly strengthen the ground of religion, but destroy its branches;
they repair the breaches of the building, but tear down the enclosures.
"The exalting of God's name is on their lips, but also poison and death
lurk on their tongues." He had always kept himself remote from this
bottomless heresy, and had sent a letter to the Lünel community more
than thirty years since, to counteract the enthusiasm for Maimuni, but
his effort had been fruitless.
Besides this heavy-armed conflict of the two parties, with mutual
denunciations of heresy and thunders of excommunication, there was
carried on a light skirmish with sarcastic verses. An opponent of
Maimuni's "Guide" and its adherents threw off the following satire:
"Thou Guide to doubt, be silent evermore;
Thy sinful folly shall remain unheard,
That makes of Bible-fact but metaphor,
And to a dream degrades the prophet's word."
Whereupon a Maimunist retorted:
"Thou fool profane, be silent! Nevermore
Dare, sandaled, upon holy ground to stand;
What dost thou know of fact or metaphor?
Nor dream, nor prophet canst thou understand."
Another epigram condemns Maimuni himself:
"Forgive us, son of Amram, be not wroth
That we should call this fool by thy great name;
_Prophet_ the Bible calls God's messengers,
The servants of false Baal it calls the same."
The Maimunists, however, were much more energetic than their opponents;
they used all their efforts to alienate the French rabbis from Solomon,
and to bring the chief congregation of Spain over to their side. A
young scholar, Samuel ben Abraham Saporta, addressed a letter to the
French rabbis, and tried to convince them that in their eagerness
to support Solomon, they had taken a precipitate step in denouncing
Maimuni and the followers of his views as heretics. "Before you passed
a judgment upon them, you ought to have examined the contents of his
writings properly; but it appears that you know nothing about the
writings which you have condemned. Your business is the Halacha, to
determine what actions are forbidden or permitted by religion. Why do
you venture beyond your province to express an opinion on questions
about which you know nothing at all? In your worship of the letter,
like the heathen, you imagine the Deity in human form. What right have
you to call us heretics who cling as firmly as you to the Torah and
tradition?" Saporta's letter, in addition to other influences, made so
deep an impression upon some of the French rabbis that they renounced
Solomon. They soon notified the Provençal congregations of their change
of opinion. This change was undoubtedly due in great measure to Moses,
of Coucy (born about 1200, died about 1260), one of the youngest
Tossafists, who, although a brother-in-law of Samson of Sens, and a
pupil of the over-pious Sir Leon, of Paris, nevertheless cherished
great reverence for Maimuni, and made his Halachic works the subject
of study. Nachmani was extremely vexed at this change of opinion, and,
sorely distressed at the widening of the breach, he elaborated a scheme
of reconciliation, which seemed to him calculated to restore peace. He
wrote a well-meant, but bombastic letter to the French rabbis, wherein
he first of all expressed his dissatisfaction with them for having
put the readers of Maimuni's compositions under the ban: "If you were
of the opinion that it was incumbent on you to denounce as heresy the
works of Maimuni, why does a portion of your flock now recede from this
decision as if they regretted the step? Is it right in such important
matters to act capriciously, to applaud the one to-day, and the other
to-morrow?"
Finally, Nachmani explained his plan of compromise. The ban against
the philosophical portion of Maimuni's Code was to be revoked; but,
on the other hand, the condemnation of the study of the "Guide," and
the excommunication of the rejectors of the Talmudical exposition of
the Bible was to be strengthened. This sentence of excommunication was
not to be passed by the one party only, but the Provençal rabbis, and
even Maimuni's son, the pious Abraham, were to be invited to support
it with their authority. In this manner the gate would be closed to
disaffection and unbelief. Nachmani, however, ignored the fact that the
assailed compositions were all of one cast, so that it was not possible
to anathematize the one and canonize the other. Nachmani fell into the
mistake of thinking that it was possible to check free philosophical
inquiry. The two tendencies, each legitimate in its way, could not but
conflict with each other, and the struggle had to be protracted, and
could not be ended by a compromise. Consequently, the fight continued
on both sides, and Nachmani's proposal was utterly disregarded. The
longer it lasted, the more the controversy inflamed men's feelings, the
more participants were drawn into the arena.
The aged David Kimchi wished to undertake a journey to Toledo, in
order to induce that great congregation to join his party against
Solomon and his adherents, and through their weight completely to crush
their opponents. When he arrived at Avila, he became so ill that he
had to abandon the journey, but on his bed of sickness he wrote with
trembling hand to the chief representative of the Toledo congregation,
Jehuda Ibn-Alfachar. He blamed him for his obstinate silence in an
affair which concerned the French and Spanish communities so deeply,
and importuned him to persuade his congregation to make common cause
with the Maimunists. Unfortunately, however, he had approached the
wrong man; for Jehuda Alfachar had made up his mind decisively against
the Maimunists. He had thoroughly mastered Maimuni's system, and had
concluded that, if carried to its logical conclusion, it was calculated
to subvert Judaism. Ibn-Alfachar was a thoughtful man, and of more
penetration than Nachmani. The defects of Maimuni's theory were quite
palpable to him, but even he was misled by the thought that it was
possible to exorcise the spirit of free-thought by anathemas. Alfachar
paid such deference to the sentence of excommunication uttered by the
French rabbis, that at first he would not reply to Kimchi at all, but
when ultimately he decided to do so, he treated him in his answer in so
contemptuous a manner, that the Maimunists who expected the support of
Toledo were quite disconcerted at the result.
In the meantime, the sympathy of such influential personages as
Alfachar, Nachmani, and Meïr Abulafia, proved to be of little value
to Solomon's cause. The feeling of the people in his native place
and in Spain was against him. The French rabbis, on whose support
he had reckoned, gradually withdrew from a controversy, the range
of which they began to perceive, and which threatened to expose the
participators to peril. Solomon of Montpellier complained that no one
besides his two disciples sided with him, but the maladroitness with
which he conducted his cause was chiefly responsible for the want of
sympathy that he encountered. Thus forsaken of all, and hated most
bitterly in his own congregation, he resolved on a step which led to
the most deplorable results, not only for his own party, but for the
whole Jewish people.
Pope Gregory IX, who was eager to extirpate the remnant of the
Albigensian heretics in Provence, root and branch, about this time
established the permanent Inquisition (April, 1233), and appointed the
violent Dominican friars as inquisitors, as the bishops, who had till
then been entrusted with the persecution of the Albigenses, did not
seem to him to treat the heretics with sufficient severity. In all the
large towns of southern France where there were Dominican cloisters,
in Montpellier among others, there were erected bloody tribunals,
which condemned heretics or those suspected of heresy, and often quite
innocent people, to life-long imprisonment or to the stake.
With these murderers, Rabbi Solomon, the upholder of the Talmud and
of the literal interpretation of the Holy Writ, associated himself.
He and his disciple Jonah said to the Dominicans: "You burn your
heretics, persecute ours also. The majority of the Jews of Provence
are perverted by the heretical writings of Maimuni. If you cause these
writings to be publicly and solemnly burnt, your action will have
the effect of frightening the Jews away from them." They also read
dangerous passages from Maimuni's compositions to the inquisitors, at
which the infatuated monks must have felt a shudder of holy horror.
The Dominicans and Franciscans did not wait for a second invitation to
interfere. The papal Cardinal-Legate, who was of the same fanatical
zeal as Gregory IX, promptly took up the matter. The Dominicans may
have feared that the fire of the Maimunist heresy might set their
own houses ablaze. For the "Guide" had been translated by an unknown
scholar into Latin during the first half of the thirteenth century.
This translation was probably done in southern France, where Maimuni's
philosophical composition had its second home, and where educated
Jews were conversant with the Latin language. Maimuni might with
justice appear to the guardians of Catholic orthodoxy to have deserved
damnation for his religious philosophy. Thinking about religion in
those days was looked upon in official Christendom as a capital sin.
If the inquisitors had at that time possessed power over the persons
of Jews, the Maimunists would have fared ill indeed; as it was, the
persecution extended only to parchment. Maimuni's works, at least in
Montpellier, were sought out in the Jewish houses, and publicly burnt.
In Paris also, Maimuni's antagonists caused a fire to be kindled for
the same purpose, and it is said to have been lit by a taper from
the altar of one of the principal churches. The enemies of Judaism
congratulated themselves that confusion now prevailed among the Jews,
who till then had been united and compact, and thought that they were
approaching their decay. The anti-Maimunists, however, were not yet
satisfied. Confident in the support of those in power, they calumniated
their opponents before the authorities, so that many members of the
congregation of Montpellier were placed in great danger.
These proceedings naturally excited the horror of all the Jews on
both sides of the Pyrenees. Solomon and his partisans were generally
condemned. To invoke the aid of the temporal power, and moreover of a
clergy which was swollen with hatred of the Jews, was, in the Jewish
world, justly considered the most outrageous treachery; and to make
the Dominicans judges of what was or was not consistent with Judaism,
was to introduce the heathen enemy into the Holy of Holies. Samuel
Saporta denounced this conduct in a letter to the French rabbis.
Abraham ben Chasdaï of Barcelona, an enthusiastic admirer of Maimuni,
who had censured Jehuda Alfachar for his insulting treatment of Kimchi,
and for his espousal of the cause of Solomon, dispatched a letter
denouncing Solomon's action in unmeasured terms, to the communities of
Castile, Aragon, Navarre, and Leon. When Kimchi, who was in Burgos on
his homeward journey, heard of this affair, he inquired of Alfachar,
whether he still thought of keeping the informer and traitor, Solomon,
under his protection. The intelligent followers of the latter, Nachmani
and Meïr Abulafia, were deeply abashed, and remained silent. Public
opinion condemned Solomon and the cause he represented. A poet of the
Maimunist party composed on this occasion a very fine epigram:
"What thought ye to burn, when ye kindled the pyre
For writings more precious than gold?
Lo, truth is a flame--will ye quench it with fire?
In a chariot ablaze like the Tishbite of old,
It rises to Heaven. O, bigots, behold--
God's angel appears in the fire!"
By some secret power the system of informing in Montpellier through
false witnesses, to which the adherents of Maimuni were exposed, was
put an end to. More than ten of Solomon's partisans, who had been
convicted of slander, were punished in the most cruel manner. Their
tongues were cut out. But rarely does the gloom clear up in which these
incidents are veiled. The fate of Solomon, the cause of all these
events, is uncertain. The Maimunists observed with a certain malicious
joy the severe punishment of their adversaries in Montpellier. A poet,
probably Abraham ben Chasdaï, wrote an epigram upon it, which was soon
in everyone's mouth:
"Against the guide of Truth,
A false pack raised their voices.
Punishment overtook them;
Their tongue was directed to heaven,
Now it lies in the dust."
With this tragic issue the struggle was still far from being at an end.
The parties were more than ever embittered against each other.
When Abraham Maimuni learnt, with indignation, of the hostility towards
his father, and the sad termination of the conflict which had broken
out (January, 1235), he wrote a little book on the subject, entitled
"War for God" (Milchamoth), in order to repel the attack upon the
orthodoxy of his father, and to denounce the conduct of his opponents.
This composition, directed, in the form of a letter, to Solomon ben
Asher (in Lünel?), justified Maimuni's system on Maimuni's lines, and
is valuable only on account of its historical data.
Solomon's effort to silence the free spirit of research in the province
of religion was thus overthrown, and had met a lamentable end. Another
French rabbi, of mild character and gentle piety, attempted another
method of procedure, with greater success. Moses of Coucy, who,
although of the Tossafist tendency, had held Maimuni in high esteem,
undertook the task of fortifying the drooping spirit of religion among
the Provençals and the Spaniards by delivering sermons and spirited
exhortations. Moses was undoubtedly inspired in his attempt by the
example of the preacher-monks, who aimed at overcoming the disbelief
in the Roman Church by preaching in village after village, and who, to
some extent, were successful. In the same manner the rabbi of Coucy
traveled from one congregation to another in southern France and in
Spain (1235), and was accordingly called the "preacher." But there was
an important difference between the Jewish expounder of the law and
the Catholic order of preachers. The one acted in genuine simplicity
of heart, without any ambitious motives, with mildness on his lips
and mildness in his heart. The Dominicans, on the other hand, put
on their humility and poverty only for show, and behind them there
lurked the devil of arrogance. They flattered their patrons in sermons,
and humiliated their opponents unsparingly; they gained inheritances
surreptitiously, and filled their cloisters with treasures; they
nourished a bloody fanaticism, and strove after power and authority.
Moses of Coucy succeeded in bringing many thousands who had neglected
several rites (Tephillin), or had never observed them, to repentance
and atonement, and in persuading them to remain constant in their
practice. In Spain he even succeeded in influencing those who had
contracted mixed marriages with Christian or Mahometan women, to
divorce themselves from their strange wives (1236). It was, of course,
not only his sermons which brought about this sudden conversion, but
the superstitious fear of evil dreams and extraordinary celestial
phenomena, by which at that time Jews and Christians were seized.
Moses of Coucy, in the meantime, preached to his brethren not only to
observe the ceremonies, but also to be truthful and upright in their
dealings with non-Jews. In his pulpit he laid stress upon the virtue of
humility, which was all the more becoming to the children of Israel,
seeing that they had God ever present before them, who hates the proud,
and loves the meek. Far from kindling fanatical zeal, Moses ever took
peace and friendliness as his text. He helped to conciliate many by
acknowledging Maimuni's greatness, and putting him on a level with the
Geonim.
Evil consequences now began to develop within Judaism from this
controversy in regard to the value or worthlessness of free inquiry,
the effects of which lasted for centuries, and have not yet died away.
Maimuni aimed at unifying Judaism, and produced division; he had
sought to give it transparent clearness and general simplicity, and
only caused misunderstanding and complication. It was his ambition to
establish peace, but he kindled war--so little can even the greatest
of mortals calculate the consequences of his actions. His system of
philosophy had divided Judaism, separated the simple believers from
thinking men, and aroused a commotion, which in its violence far
overstepped the borders of moderation. Through the rupture that arose
from the conflict for and against Maimuni, there insinuated itself
into the general life of the Jews a false doctrine which, although
new, styled itself a primitive inspiration; although un-Jewish, called
itself a genuine teaching of Israel; and although springing from
error, entitled itself the only truth. The rise of this secret lore,
which was called _Kabbala_ (tradition), coincides with the time of the
Maimunistic controversy, through which it was launched into existence.
Discord was the mother of this monstrosity, which has ever been the
cause of schism. The Kabbala, in its earliest systematic development,
is a child of the first quarter of the thirteenth century. The early
adherents of this occult lore, when asked to confess honestly from
whom they had first received it, answered in plain terms: "From Rabbi
Isaac the Blind, or perhaps from his father, Abraham ben David, of
Posquières, the antagonist of Maimuni." They frankly confessed that
the Kabbalistic doctrine does not appear either in the Pentateuch or
in the Prophets, in the Hagiographa, or in the Talmud, but rests on
scarcely perceptible indications. Of the Kabbalistic utterances of the
founder of the Kabbala, Isaac the Blind (flourished about 1190-1210),
there are only fragments extant, from which but little can be inferred.
The darkness of his physical vision was said to have been illuminated
by an inner light. He adopted as an article of faith the doctrine of
Metempsychosis, which had been condemned and ridiculed by Jewish
thinkers. His disciples said that he had the power of discerning
whether men possessed a new and fresh soul, coming directly from the
world of heavenly spirits, or an old soul which was migrating from body
to body, trying to recover its purity. Two of his disciples, Azriel and
Ezra, were the first who reduced the Kabbala to a coherent system. They
were so like-minded, that they have often been confounded, and certain
writings and doctrines have at times been ascribed to the one, and
again, to the other. These twins in thought, perhaps brothers in blood,
are consequently reckoned in the history of the Kabbala as only one
person; they complement one another.
But little is known of the life of this pair, and it is reported of
one of them (it is uncertain whether Ezra or Azriel) that he died at
the age at least of seventy, a few years after the commencement of
the Maimunist schism. Of Azriel, rather more is known. He relates
how, from his earliest youth, he traveled about from place to place,
in search of a secret art, which could give satisfactory conclusions
about God and creation. Certain men, who were in possession of this
lore, had taught it to him, and he was firmly convinced of its truth.
He had, therefore, himself spread this Kabbalistic doctrine among the
congregations which he visited during his wanderings; but was laughed
to scorn by the philosophical scholars in Spain (Sevilla?). Thus,
one of the earliest mystics confessed that the Kabbala had met with
opposition at the very outset of its career, and that the antiquity of
its subject-matter was emphatically denied. Azriel and Ezra, however,
were not disturbed by this opposition, but labored to make good their
position and spread their doctrines. They developed their peculiar
theory in their explanations of passages in the Agada, the prayers,
and the Song of Solomon, which is a mine for every kind of mysticism.
Azriel endeavored to convince also philosophical scholars of the truth
of the Kabbala, and clothed its doctrines in the language of logic. But
as soon as this secret lore steps out of its obscurity into the light
of the sun, it shows its nakedness and deformity. It is certain that
the Kabbala was intended as a counterpoise to the growing shallowness
of the Maimunists' philosophy. That Judaism should teach nothing more
than Aristotelian philosophy was an abomination to those whose deep
piety regarded every word of the Bible and the Talmud as a divine
truth. There is a way of escape from the philosophical consideration of
God and Judaism, _i. e._ to receive everything in naïve faith. This was
the method of the Jews of Germany and northern France; it was the rigid
Tossafist tendency. But the pious Jews of southern France and of Spain,
who, as it were, breathed everywhere an atmosphere of philosophy,
could not be satisfied with dull literalness. Judaism appeared to them
without meaning, if not permeated with deep thought. The religious
injunctions of the Law, the ceremonies, must have a higher, ideal
meaning. The anti-Maimunists themselves had admitted, that the precepts
of Judaism could on no account be accepted as arbitrary decrees of a
despot, but, being divine ordinances, must have an intelligent basis;
and as the apparently meaningless laws of the Bible, and the obscure
verses of Scripture, so also the Agadic utterances of the Talmud must
contain a higher sense, otherwise they would be without rhyme or
reason. The Kabbala is a daughter of embarrassment; its system was the
way of escape from the dilemma between the simple, anthropomorphic
interpretation of the Bible and the shallowness of the Maimunist
philosophy.
The secret doctrine, first completely developed by Ezra and Azriel,
established not a new, but at any rate a peculiar philosophy of
religion, or, more correctly, theosophy, which, advancing from one
inconceivable statement to another, finally soared into the misty
region where all thinking ceases, and even imagination droops its
wings. It started from a basis which at that time was considered
unimpeachable, but made bold deductions from it, which clashed with
its underlying principle. Unity was transformed, by sleight-of-hand,
into a plurality, spirituality into a coarse materialism, and refined
belief into extravagant superstition. The original Kabbala established
the following principles: the Deity is elevated above everything,
even above existence and thought. Consequently, we have no right to
say of Him that He speaks or acts, and still less that He thinks,
wills and designs. All these qualities, which are human, imply some
limitation, and God is unlimited, because perfect. Only one attribute
can be assigned to Him--He is unconditioned or infinite. The Kabbala
accordingly confers on God the title of Eternal (Hebrew, En-Sof). This
was its first innovation. In His unthinkable universality, God, or the
En-Sof, is hidden and inconceivable, and consequently, in a manner,
non-existent; for that which cannot be recognized and conceived by
the thinking mind does not exist for it. The universal existence, the
En-Sof, consequently is identical with the non-existent (Ayin). Hence
in order to make His existence known, Deity was obliged or wished to
make Himself visible and recognizable; He had to become active and
creative, so that His existence might be perceived.
But the lower world in its depravity and decrepitude could not have
been produced or created by the En-Sof, for the Infinite and Perfect
cannot directly bring into existence the finite and imperfect. The
Deity, therefore, is not to be regarded as the immediate Creator of the
world; the process of creation must be conceived in quite a different
manner. The En-Sof, by means of His infinite wealth of light, radiated
from Himself a spiritual substance, a force, or whatever it is to
be called, which, flowing directly from Himself, partakes of His
perfection and infinity. On the other hand, this radiation or emanation
cannot be like the En-Sof, its creator, in all points, for it is not
absolutely original, but derivative. This power, springing from the
En-Sof, is, therefore, not identical with Him, but only similar to Him,
_i. e._, it has besides an infinite, also a finite side. The Kabbala
calls this first spiritual child of the En-Sof the first Sefira, a name
possibly adopted as suggestive at once of number and of sphere. This
first spiritual power radiates from itself a second force, and this
latter a third, and so on, so that altogether ten spiritual substances,
or forces, or intermediate entities, or organs (as they are in turn
called), were successively revealed, and became active. These ten
powers the Kabbala calls the Ten Sefiroth.
The ten substances are parts of one another and of the En-sof, and
only represent different sides (or phases) of the same being, as fire
produces both flame and sparks, which, although appearing different to
the eye, nevertheless indicate the same thing. The Ten Sefiroth, which
are distinguished from one another like different colors of the same
light, being emanations of the Deity, are dependent on one another, and
consequently are conditioned. Only in the degree in which the En-Sof
endows them with force, can they continue to act. Their action is shown
in the creation of the material and spiritual world in their own image,
in their eternal support of the world with which they are in union, and
in their ever communicating to it the gracious gift of divine life.
The Kabbala divides the ten Sefiroth into three groups of three each,
and these nine Sefiroth would have been sufficient to exhaust all
the powers needed by the system, but the Kabbala could not forego
the number ten, it was too important. The Ten Commandments, the Ten
Declarations, by means of which the Agada explains the creation of
the universe, the Ten Spheres, what a world of meaning is therein
hidden! The Kabbala was bent on keeping the tenth power, but could
not consistently introduce it into its scheme, however it might
eschew strict logic; hence it floundered about amidst a variety of
conceptions. Close thinking is no concern of the Kabbala; it is
satisfied with fantastic pictures and symbols, however unsubstantial.
With this number ten the Kabbala sported in a most capricious manner.
By means of the Sefiroth, God can make Himself visible, and even invest
Himself with a body. When it is said in Holy Writ: God spoke, descended
to the earth, or ascended, it is not to be understood, as the strict
literalists or the Agadists take it, as referring to the Deity Himself,
or to the sublime En-Sof, but to the Sefiroth. The incense which
mounted from the altar, and became sweet savor, was not inhaled or
absorbed by the Deity Himself, but by the intermediate beings. In this
manner the Kabbala thought that it had overcome the difficulties which
the notion of the absolute spirituality of God and the Biblical method
of representation of God offer. The Deity is incorporeal and infinite,
has no corporeal functions, and is not affected by anything corporeal.
But the Sefiroth, which in addition to their infinite side, have also
a finite, and as it were, a corporeal side, can also perform corporeal
functions, and enter into relation with corporeal things.
The Kabbalistic theory of the creation is equally fantastic. God, or
the En-Sof, did not create the visible world immediately, but entirely
by means of the Sefiroth. All things in the lower world, both classes
and individuals, have their original form (types) in the higher
worlds, so that there is nothing without a purpose, but everything
has a higher significance. The universe resembles a giant tree with
a wealth of branches and leaves, whose roots are the Sefiroth; or, it
is a closely wrought chain, the last link of which hangs on to the
higher world; or, a great sea, which is constantly filled from an
eternally flowing source. The human soul in particular is a privileged
citizen of the higher world, is in immediate connection with all the
Sefiroth, and consequently it can exert some influence on them, and
even on the Deity. By virtue of its moral and religious conduct the
soul can increase or diminish the flow of grace from the Deity, through
the channel of the intermediary beings, its good actions causing an
uninterrupted flow, and its evil conduct occasioning its discontinuance.
The people of Israel were specially chosen to promote the fulness of
grace, and therefore the preservation of the world. For that purpose,
they received the Revelation and the Law, with its 613 religious
ordinances, in order to act on the Sefiroth through every religious
act, and, so to speak, compel the dispensing of their bounty. The
ceremonies consequently have a deeply mystical meaning and imperishable
importance: they constitute the magic means whereby the whole universe
is supported, and blessed. "The righteous man is the foundation of
the world." The Temple, and the sacrificial service especially, had
a particularly deep significance in keeping alive the connection of
the lower world with the higher. The earthly Temple corresponded with
the heavenly Temple (the Sefiroth). The priestly blessing, which was
pronounced with the ten fingers raised, prompted the Ten Sefiroth
to pour out their gracious gifts upon the lower world. After the
destruction of the Temple, prayer took the place of sacrifice, and
accordingly prayer has a peculiar, mystical importance. The prescribed
ritual has an unfailing effect, if the worshiper knows how to address
himself, on any particular occasion, to the proper Sefira, for prayer
must be addressed only to it, and not directly to the Deity. The
mystery of prayer assumes an important place in the Kabbala. Every
word, even every syllable in the prayers, every movement made during
worship, every ceremonial symbol is interpreted by the Kabbala with
reference to the higher world. The Kabbalists took a special interest
in the mystical explanation of the religious laws of Judaism. This was
the center of gravity of their system; by its means they could oppose
the Maimunists. Whilst the latter, from their philosophical point of
view, declared certain precepts to be meaningless and obsolete, the
mystics treated these ordinances as of the highest moment. They were
therefore considered the preservers of Judaism.
The vital importance to Judaism of the doctrine of retribution and
the inquiry into the condition of the soul after death had been too
strenuously asserted by Maimuni for the Kabbala to omit to drag them
also into the province of its theory. The Kabbala claimed great
antiquity for its views on these questions; but their youth and
derivation from another system of thought are obvious. Starting from
the doctrine that all souls had been created in the beginning, the
Kabbala taught that these souls were destined to enter upon an earthly
career, to pass into bodies, and to remain connected with them for a
certain period of time. The soul during its earthly life was subjected
to the test whether, in spite of its connection with the body, it can
keep itself pure from earthly grossness. If it can do this, it ascends
purified after death to the domain of spirits, and becomes a part of
the world of the Sefiroth. If, on the other hand, it becomes tainted
with earthliness, it is compelled to return to the bodily life (but
not more than three times) till, after repeated tests, it can soar
aloft in a pure state. On the doctrine of the transmigration of the
soul, an important point of the Kabbala, was based its doctrine of
reward and punishment. The sufferings to which the pious, apparently
without cause, are subjected on earth, serve the purpose of purifying
their souls. God's justice, therefore, ought not to be questioned,
if the righteous are unfortunate, and the godless are prosperous. As
most souls during their earthly existence become lost in sensuality,
forgetting their heavenly origin, and therefore are obliged to wander
through new bodies, it happens that the larger number of souls are
such as are born again, while new souls rarely come on earth. Through
the sinfulness of man, whereby the same souls repeatedly enter bodies,
the great redemption is postponed, for the new souls cannot come into
existence, the world being almost entirely filled by old ones. The
great time of grace, the spiritual completion of the world, cannot
come until all created souls have been born on earth. Even the soul of
the Messiah, which like others abides in the spiritual world of the
Sefiroth in its pre-mundane existence, cannot appear until every soul
has dwelt in a body. The soul of the Messiah will be the last of the
souls, and the Messiah therefore will come only at the end of days.
Then at length the great jubilee will arrive, when all souls, purified
and refined, will have returned from earth to heaven. The furthering
and hastening of this time of grace depends, therefore, on the wisdom
and religious conduct of the righteous. The adepts in Kabbala thus
acquired extraordinary importance; they were sureties, not only for
Israel, but for the whole order of the world, for through their conduct
they might hasten the birth of the soul of the Messiah, the last in the
storehouse of souls.
The Kabbala boasted that it had disclosed the secret of Judaism much
better than Maimuni, and had shown its relation to the higher world,
and to the shaping of the future. The Kabbala had unlimited play for
its fantastic interpretations. In distortion of the Scriptures, the
Kabbalists out-ran the Alexandrine allegorists, the Agadists, the
Church Fathers, and the Jewish and Christian religious philosophers.
Azriel, indeed, coquetted with philosophy, and endeavored to make the
Kabbala acceptable to thinkers. But another Kabbalist of this time,
Jacob ben Sheshet Gerundi, of Gerona (who wrote in about 1243 or
1246), deliberately opposed his secret lore to the explanations of the
philosophers. He repudiated any truce with them, and could not find
scorn enough for philosophical "heretics and despisers of the Law."
Gerona, the native place of Ezra and Azriel, of Jacob ben Sheshet,
and Nachmani, was the first warm nest for the fledgeling Kabbala.
This occult science, which made its appearance with a flourish, rests
on deception, at best, on the self-deception of its founders. Its
theory is not old, as it pretended, but very modern; at any rate it
is not found in Jewish antiquity, but dates from the twilight of
Greek philosophy. The Kabbala is a grotesque distortion of Jewish and
philosophical ideas. In order to make it appear ancient and authentic,
the compilers had recourse to fraud. They circulated a Kabbalistic
manuscript which purported to have been composed by an honored
Talmudical doctor, Nechunya ben ha-Kana, and others. In vain the
highly respected Meïr ben Simon and Rabbi Meshullam of Béziers called
attention to this forgery, which bore the title Bahir (Luminous), and
condemned it to be burnt, as it contained blasphemies against the
greatness of God; the book Bahir maintained its ground, and was in
later times used as evidence of the great age of the Kabbala.
The labors of Azriel and Ezra in behalf of the secret science might
have had but poor results, if Nachmani had not ranged himself under
their banner. At first blush, it is indeed hard to conceive how this
clear, keen-witted, subtle thinker, who, in the province of the Talmud,
had the ability to shed light upon every obscurity, could be induced
to join the votaries of the Kabbala, and permit himself to be blinded
by the false light of the Bahir. But on deeper examination of his way
of thinking, this phenomenon ceases to be a paradox. Nachmani belonged
to that numerous class of men who can form a correct judgment on
single objects, but are unable to comprehend a great whole. Maimuni's
philosophical line of argument repelled him on account of its prosaic
nature; the Kabbala, on the other hand, attracted him because his
belief in miracles and respect for authority found nourishment therein.
When he, a pious rabbi and deep Talmudist, had acknowledged the truth
of the Kabbala, its authority became established; where Nachmani
believed unconditionally, those less gifted dared not doubt. A poet,
Meshullam En-Vidas Dafiera, an opponent of the Maimunists, accordingly
ranges him with Ezra and Azriel, as a defender of the truth of the
secret lore.
"The son of Nachman is our stronghold sure,
Ezra and Azriel know the hidden things.
They are my priests; my altar they illume;
They are my stars that never cease to shine;
They can compute the meanings of God's words,
Only from fear of scoffers are they silent."
Thus Nachmani became a chief pillar of the Kabbala, the more so because
he spoke of it only casually, and concealed more of it than he revealed.
Thus, within barely four decades after the death of Maimuni, Judaism
was divided into three parties; and this was the beginning of a
retrograde movement which led to degradation. A marked division was
established between the philosophical school, the strict Talmudists and
the Kabbalists. The first named, who regarded Maimuni as their chief,
strove to interpret the doctrines of Judaism in a rational manner;
they either adhered to the arguments of their leader, or deduced, from
his premises, bold conclusions which had escaped his notice, or which
he had not desired to infer, and they almost entirely broke away from
the Talmud. The strict Talmudists occupied themselves exclusively with
Halachic controversies, and had no desire to become acquainted with
philosophical notions; they were averse to science and to inquiry in
the domain of religion, and they interpreted the Agadas in a purely
literal sense, but they also turned aside from the Kabbala. Lastly,
the Kabbalists were prejudiced against both the literal Talmudists
and the rationalistic Maimunists. At first, they maintained friendly
terms with the Talmudists because their numbers were few, and the
conclusions, at variance with Judaism, which could be drawn from their
system, were not yet recognized, for both had to combat a common enemy.
Hence the Kabbalists at first directed their attacks solely against the
Maimunists, but before the end of the century the Kabbalists and the
Talmudists had become enemies, attacking each other as vigorously as
they had formerly assailed their common opponents, the philosophers.
The consequences, on the one hand, of the degradation of the Jews,
through the papacy, and on the other, of the internal discord, soon
made themselves felt, and produced an unhappy condition of affairs.
The happy contentment, the joyousness, the delight in original,
intellectual work, which, combined with spiritual activity, had borne
such beautiful fruit, had all long since passed away. Sad earnestness
filled the hearts of the Spanish and Provençal Jews, and weighed
down, as with lead, every lofty aspiration of their souls. The joyous
singers became silent, as if the icy breath of the gloomy present had
suddenly caused their warm blood to freeze. How could a Jew pour forth
merry strains of song with the badge of dishonor on his breast? The
neo-Hebraic poetry, which, for three centuries, had produced such noble
works of genius, perished altogether, or bore only faded leaves. The
satires and epigrams which the Maimunists and anti-Maimunists hurled
against each other were the last products of the neo-Hebraic muse
of Spain. But these verses no longer bubbled over with laughter and
merriment; they were full of earnest logic and argument. They were
no longer like the epigrams of the flourishing era of poetry, which
resembled prattling maidens, but were like quarrelsome scolds who had
lost the charm of youth. Poets themselves felt that the source of the
neo-Hebraic poetry had been exhausted, and they fed on the memories of
its Golden Age.
The last representatives of the neo-Hebraic poetry were Jehuda
Alcharisi, the untiring translator and warm partisan of Maimuni, then
Joseph ben Sabara, and lastly Jehuda ben Sabbatai. These three men, as
if acting in collusion with one another, created the satirical romance.
This consisted in the introduction of fictitious characters, and the
use of exuberant rhetoric; but there is more of strained attempt at
wit than of graceful skill in their poems. Alcharisi, in his romance,
"Tachkemoni," under the disguise of Heber the Kenite, and in dialogues
with the poet, introduces a variety of subjects, both humorous and
serious, intermingling rhymed prose with verse, and interweaving
little episodes. This method was pursued also by the poet, Joseph ben
Sabara, probably a physician in Barcelona, in his romance, "Diversions"
(Shaashuim). The third poet of this class, Jehuda ben Isaac ben
Sabbatai, also of Barcelona, was considered by Alcharisi to be one of
the best masters of the art; his performances, however, do not in any
way justify this opinion. His dialogue, "Between Wisdom and Wealth," is
very poor in poetical ideas. His satirical romance, "The Woman-hater,"
is not much better; he lacked entirely the broad conceptions of his
contemporaries.
The decay of the neo-Hebraic poetry was very rapid. After the death
of Sabbatai it fell into a yet more forlorn condition, and a century
passed before a worthy successor made his appearance. Original power of
poetic production had died out, and those who were acquainted with the
manipulation of language, and could construct tolerably good rhymes,
merely imitated the work of their predecessors. Abraham ben Chasdaï, a
Maimunist, of Barcelona, re-wrote, from an Arabic translation, a moral
dialogue between a worldly-minded and a penitent man. This he put into
a Hebrew form under the title of "The Prince and the Nazarite."
A poor copyist, Berachya ben Natronaï Nakdan, called in the dialect of
the country Crispia (flourished about 1230-1270), turned his attention
to fables, which had been popular among the ancient Hebrews. He was,
however, unable to invent, but chiefly elaborated in the neo-Hebraic
form the productions of earlier fabulists. Among his one hundred and
seven Fox Fables (Mishlé Shualim) there are very few original ones.
Berachya desired to hold a mirror up to his contemporaries, "who
spurned the truth, and held out the golden scepter to falsehood";
plants and animals were employed to describe the perversity and
depravity of mankind.
The only merit possessed by the fables both of Berachya and of
Ibn-Sahula, a minor poet of northern Spain (1245), who also moralized
in perfervid words in the "Fables of Ancient Times" (Mashal
ha-Kadmoni), as also by the moral tale, "The Prince and the Dervish" of
Abraham ben Chasdaï, consists in the happy imitation of the Biblical
style, and in the ingenious application of the verses of Scripture
to an entirely different line of thought. This it is which, in the
eyes of scholars, imparts to their language an air of uncommon wit,
attractiveness and piquancy. It is doubtful whether Joseph Ezobi
should be included among the poets of the time. It is showing too much
honor to his writings to term them poetry; and they would be silently
ignored when neo-Hebraic poetry is referred to, were it not that,
through frequent transcripts and the multiplication of copies in Latin
and French translations, the attention of the historian of literature
has been drawn to them, and they have acquired a certain fame. Joseph
Ezobi (or Esobi) ben Chanan, of Orange (near Avignon, about 1230-1250),
dedicated to his son Samuel an epithalamium, called "The Silver Dish"
(Kaarat Kesef), in which he laid down admonitions and rules of life.
Among other things, he commanded him "to hold aloof from the wisdom
of the Greeks, which resembled the vine of Sodom, and implanted the
seeds of disease in the mind of man." He suggested to him to study
Hebrew grammar and the Bible; but to devote his attention chiefly to
the Talmud. This is sufficient to characterize the man and the bent of
his mind. Joseph Ezobi's verses show a fair command of language, but
they are deficient both in power of expression and in gracefulness; he
is one of those versatile poetasters who arose at this time in large
numbers, especially in Provence.
The various branches of learning degenerated in the post-Maimunic
time even more than the art of poetry. How could a sound exegesis
flourish when both philosophers and Kabbalists vied with each other
in subtilizing and misinterpreting the meaning of Holy Writ, so as
to obtain Biblical support for their theories? Hebrew grammar at the
same time also fell into decay, under the subtle quibblings of the
philosophers and the Kabbalists; the excellent productions of earlier
days sank into oblivion. David Kimchi was the last exegete and
grammarian for a long space of time. Nachmani, it is true, occupied
himself with the exposition of the Scriptures, and very often called
in the aid of grammar, and displayed traces of correct philological
theory; he did not, however, cultivate these branches for their own
sake, but in the service of a prejudiced opinion, and especially in
controverting the views of an opponent. Thus, the magnificent garlands
of Jewish learning that had been woven by the Jewish Spanish thinkers
and inquirers after truth gradually faded.