Boaz Russ

MYSTICISM VERSUS PHILOSOPHY IN KABBALISTIC LITERATURE

Philosophy and Mysticism are often perceived of as two opposmg and antagonistic forces in Jewish Medieval culture. Yet, although a negative attitude towards one another was prevalent amongst philosophers and mystics, the two trends were closely interrelated and interdependent. Kabbalists adopted philosophical concepts and terminology and integrated them in their mystical systems. In turn, several Jewish philosophers were influenced by kabbalistic perceptions I. Furthermore, the negative image of one another - indeed, the very notion that they represent «the other» was not always dominant. In certain periods, Jewish mystics and philosophers regarded each other more favorably and sometimes expressed a positive evaluation of the other's body of knowledge.

In this paper I will discuss a specific issue in the complex relationship between Jewish Mysticism and Philosophy, namely the image of Philosophy amongst the major Jewish mystical school- the Kabbalah I will concentrate on the different representations of the relation between Mysticism and Philosophy and suggest that three major models of this relation appear in Kabbalistic literature. According to the first model, Kabbalah and Philosophy represent essentially the same body of knowledge. The difference between them is semantic; different terms refer to the same entities and concepts. These semantic differences are, according to some Kabbalists, a consequence of the different sources of this information and their transmission.

The second model offers a hierarchical view of the relation between Kabbalah and Philosophy. According to this model, Philosophy is, in

l. See Idel's short survey of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah in modern scholarship in M. Idel, «Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide. A Linguistic Turn», in Perspectives on leunsh. Thought and Mysticism, ed. A. L !vry, E. R. Wolfson and A. Arkush, Amsterdam 1998, 289-92.

J30AZ HUSS

MYSTICISM VERSUS PHILOSOPHY IN KAJ3BALISTIC LITERATURE

companson to Kabbalah, an inferior, yet valid body of knowledge. Usually, Kabbalists holding this model, regard Philosophy as valid knowledge of the sub-divine realms, and Kabbalah as the knowledge of the divine realm. Some kabbalists maintained that there is also a difference in the human faculties through which Philosophical and mystical truths are perceived.

The third model presents a dualistic view of the relation between Kabbalah and Philosophy. According to this model, Philosophy is regarded as the binary opposition of Kabbalah. While Kabbalah is regarded as true, internal, Jewish and divine knowledge, Philosophy is perceived as false, external, non-Jewish, and demonic knowledge.

Before turning to a description of these three major perceptions of Philosophy, and to an examination of their cultural and historical contexts, I would like to emphasize that Jewish Kabbalists expressed different attitudes towards different schools of Philosophy and philosophers. Thus, Kabbalist expressed different attitudes towards Aristotle and Plato, made a distinction between Jewish and gentile philosophers, and usually distinguished between Maimonides and the rest of the Jewish Philosophers. Thus, the different images of Philosophy in Jewish Kabbalah are related to different schools of Philosophy encountered by Kabbalists and to the different scholars who were perceived as representing Philosophy.

I would like to start with the first model of representing the relationship between Mysticism and Philosophy - that of regarding them as essentially the same body of Knowledge. Such a model is comparatively rare in Kabbalistic literature, and plays a central notion only amongst Jewish Italian Kabbalists of the Renaissance and Baroque periods.

The only Kabbalist belonging to one of the major, Sephardic schools of Kabbalah that asserted the identity of Kabbalah and Philosophy was R. Azriel of Gerona, an important Kabbalist of the first half of the thirteenth century. In his commentary to the Legends of the Talmud, R. Azriel asserts that:

properly between the different parts [of reality) and to name every thing appropriately according to its potential and its action 1.

The context of this statement is a discussion of Neoplatonic doctrines attributed to Plato and Aristotle 2, which R. Azriel claims to be essentially identical to the Kabbalistic doctrine of the divine powers, the Sefirot. It is possible that other Kabbalists of R. Azriel's circle shared his harmonizing notion of Philosophy and Kabbalah. Yet this perception was not expressed in any of the three major Kabbalistic schools of the second half of the thirteenth century: the school of Nahmanides and his disciples, the circle of the Zohar, and the prophetic Kabbalah ofR. Abraham Abulafia.

The notion of the essential identity of Kabbalah and Philosophy emerges again in later periods, in the writings of several scholars who did not belong to the main stream trends of Kabbalah. In the early fifteenth century, a Sephardic Kabbalist who resided in Provence, R. Moses Botarel, asserted in his commentary to Sefer Yezirah that «The wisdom of Philosophy is connected to the wisdom of Kabbalah as the flame to the coal. .. indeed our holy Torah is called the pure Philosophy» 3. At approximately the same period two scholars from Prague, R. Avigdor Kara and R. Yom Tov Lipmann Muelhausen assert the essential identity between Kabbalah and Philosophy. According to R. Avigdor Kara, the words of the Jewish philosophers, R. Sadia Gaon, R. Yehuda ha-Levi and Maimonides come from the same source as those of the Kabbalists 4 R. Yom Tov Lipmann Muelhausen claimed

The words of the wisdom of the Torah, and the words of the Philosophers (Ba "alei ha-Mehkar) follow the same route, and there is no difference between them, but a difference in terminology. That is because the Philosophers did not give the appropriate names to the various parts [of reality). On the other hand, the Sages of truth (i.e., the Kabbalists), who received [their knowledge] from the prophets, who in turn, received from the mouth of God, know to distinguish

L I. Tishby, Commentary on Talmudic AK~adoth I>), Rabbi Azriel o[ Ge!"Ona, Jerusalem 1982, 145.

2. Ibid, 144-46. For a discussion of this passage and its source see G. Scholem, Catalogus Codicum Cabbalisticoml1I Hcbraicorum, Jerusalem 1930, 4-5 [Hebrew); Idem, "Traces of Gabirol in Kabbalah» in G. Scholem, Suuiies in Kabbalah (I), Tel Aviv 1998, 56-58 [Hebrew].

3· Botarel commentary to Sefer Yezirah, Seier Yezirah, Jerusalem. 1962, fo!' 45a [Hebrew); See also ibid., 19a. In the introduction to his commentary, Botarel asserts that: "The divine wisdom of Philosophy is locked by the key of Kabbalah, as well as the wisdom of Astronomy». Ibid, fo!' I2d. See M. Idel, «Divine Attributes and Sefirot in Jewish Theology», in Studies in Jewish Thought, ed. S. O. Heller Willensky and M. Idel, Jerusalem 1989, 103, n. 62 [Hebrew]. R. Moses Isserles attributes to Botarel the assertion that «The wisdom of Kabbalah is [identical] with the wisdom of Philosophy, they only speak in different tongues», Torat ha-Olah, Tel Aviv 1991, part 3, chapter 4, ob [Hebrew].

4. E. Kupfer, "Concerning the Cultural Image of German Jewry and its Rabbis in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries», Tarbiz, 42 (1973), 119 [Hebrew].

126

127

IlOAZ HUSS

that the kabbalistic doctrine of the Sefirot is identical to Maimonides theory of the attributes of action I. The same idea was expressed in a later period by another Ashekenazy scholar, R. Moses Isserles (Rema), who was probably influenced by Muelhausen, as well as by Botarel. Isserles, a predominant Ashekenazy legal authority of the roth century, stated m his Tarat Ha-Olah, that the «Sefirot are attributes of action and there is no dispute in this matter between the sages of Kabbalah and the sages of Philosophy. The only [dispute] is concerning terminology, as these termed them Sefirot and [divine] Names, and the others referred to them as attributes and actions» 2.

The only Kabbalistic trend in which the notion of the identity of Kabbalah and PhIlosophy appeared in a consistent way was the Jewish Italian Kabbalistic School of the Renaissance and Baroque periods. Indeed, the assumption that Kabbalah can be understood in a philosophical way, IS one of the central features ofItalian Kabbalah since the late fifteenth century 3. According to Italian kabbalists it is Platonic and Neo-platonic Philosophy that are similar to the Jewish mystical tradition. Thus, R. David Messer Leon wrote in the early sixteenth century that: «Plato is called the divine philosopher, for one who studies his books closely will find there great and tremendous secrets and all their opinions are those of the masters of true Kabbalah» 4. Adopting the Renaissance notion of Prisca Theologia, R. Y ohanan Alemano who was active in Italy in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centunes, declared the essential proximity between the «ancient Philosophy» and Kabbalah 5. According to Alemano, Plato believed in a theory which was very similar to the kabbalistic doctrine of the Sefirot in contradistinction to Aristotle and his Jewish followers, who did not

. L E. Kupfer, «Sefer ha-Brit and other writings of R. Yom Tov Muelhausen»

Sinai, 56 (1965), 336 [Hebrew]. Id., «Concerning the Cultural Image», 118. '

2. Torat ha-Olah, part 3, chaper 4, ob; Idel, «Divine attributes», 103.

3· M. Idel, «Major Currents In Italian Kabbalah Between 1560-1660», in Essential Papers on JewISh Culture In Renaissance and Baroque Italy, ed. D. B. Ruderman New

York-London 1992, 345. '

(4. See Z. Schechter, «Notes sur David Messer Leon», Revue des etudes juives, 24 (1892), 122, M. Idel, «The Magical and N eoplatomc Interpretation of the Kabbalah In the Renaissance», In Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, ed. D. B. Ruderman, New York-London 1992, 139 (I have followed the translation ofIdel).

S '. M. Idel, «Vasi e Sefirot: sostanzialira e infinira ipersostanziale nelle teorie cabbalistiche del Rmasclll1ento», Ita lia , 3 (1982),99-100.

MYSTICISM VERSUS PHILOSOPHY IN KAllllALlSTIC LITERATURE

believe in the doctrine of the spiritual numbers, the Sefirot I. R. Isaac Abarvanel, and his son, Judah, the famous Leon Hebreo, regarded Kabbalah as an ancient Jewish lore which was studied by Plato in Egypt, and thus reached the gentile world 2. Similarly, R. Joseph del Medigo declares that:

[Plato's] views are almost those of the sages of Israel, and in some issues it seems as if he has spoken using the mouth of the Kabbalists, and their language, without any blemish on his lips. And why shall we not hold these views, since they are ours and they were inherited by the Greeks from our ancestors>'

The centrality of the perception of the identity of Kabbalah and Platonic Philosophy in Italian Jewish culture in the sixteenth century comes to the fore in the fact that even the mythic Lurianic Kabbalah, that reached Italy in the late sixteenth century, was presented and interpreted in Italy in a philosophical key ". Thus R. Israel Sarug, a disciple ofR. Isaac Luria, is reported to have said, during his stay in Italy, that there is no difference between Kabbalah and Philosophy 5. As Robert Bonfil observed, it is implausible that Sarug encountered such a theory in Palestine, and he likely adjusted himself to the current Italian ambience, in order to attract followers for his teachings 6. The notion of the identity of Platonic Philosophy and Kabbalah plays an important role in the theology of Sa rug's student, R. Abraham Herera, who offered a Nco-Platonic interpretation of the Lurianic Kabbalah 7 Such a perception is prevalent also in the writings of Menashe ben Israel, who adopted the Italian Kabbalistic perception of Philosophy and Kabbalah and declared: «Behold that Plato's words are the very words of the kabbalists» 8.

The notion that Philosophy is identical to Kabbalah, does not play a prominent role in the history of Kabbalah, and does not appear in the

1. See Idel, «The Magical», 143-44.

2. M. Idel, «Kabbalah, Platonism and 'Prisca Theologia'. The Case of R.

Menasseh ben Israel», in Menassch Ben Israel and his World, ed. Y. Kaplan, H. Mechoulan and R. Popkin, Leiden-New York-Kobenhaven-Koln 1989, 208.

3. R. Joseph del Medigo, Mazrefle-Hokhma, Warsaw 1892, 107. I have followed

Idel's translation in «Kabbalah», 217.

4. Idel, Major Currents in Italian Kabbalah, 354-55.

5· Reported by Judah Aryeh Modena, Ari Nohem, Jerusalem 1929, 53.

6. R. Bonfil, The Rabbinate in Renaissance Italy, Jerusalem 1979, 189 [Hebrew].

7. See N. Yosha's monograph on Herrera's thought, Myth and Metaphor, Abraham Cohen Herrera's Philosophic Interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah, Jerusalem 1994 [Hebrew].

8. Idel, «Kabbalah», 2.10.

130AZ HUSS

major schools of Sephardic Kabbalah. The appearance of this notion amongst Ashekenazy scholars in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries should be understood as reflecting Ashekenazy culture of the period, in which neither systems of thought were central. The absence of significant groups of scholars active in philosophical or kabbalistic learning in central Europe enabled the few intellectuals interested in these fields to engage in philosophical and kabbalistic studies, without the need to define them in opposition to each other. The high esteem enjoyed by Maimonides, the greatest of Jewish Medieval philosophers, and the Zohar, the classic text of jewish Mysticism, encouraged the Ashekenazy sages to try and harmonize Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah. The dominance of the «identity» model of Kabbalah and Philosophy amongst Italian Kabbalists, on the other hand, can be explained by the Renaissance culture to which they belonged. The notions of Philosophia Perenis and Prisca Theologia were adopted by Jewish Italian scholars and applied to their Kabbalistic traditions.

I would like to turn now to the second, hierarchical model of the relation between Kabbalah and Philosophy. According to this model, Philosophy is regarded as an inferior, yet, valid body of knowledge. Usually, kabbalists holding this view regarded Philosophy as containing truths concerning the lower spheres in the chain of being, in comparison to Kabbalah that transmitted information concerning the higher, divine realms. This image of philosophy was dominant among the scholars of the major Kabbalistic schools in the thirteenth and fourteenth century. A well-known formulation of this view is the saying that «The heads of the philosophers are the place of the feet of the kabbalists», which was repeated by many Kabbalists I. This saying, attributed to the thirteenth century Castilian Kabbalist R. Moshe of Burgos, criticizes the limits of the philosophical point of view without negating its validity. Implicitly, this assertion claims that the philosophers enable the kabbalists to look even higher. As Gershom Scholem observed: «Actually this means two things, on the one hand it means that the kabbalists are largely concerned with the investigation of a sphere of religious reality which lies quite out of the orbit of medieval Jewish Philosophy ... On the other hand ... they stand on the shoulder

1. G. Scholem, Major Trends in jewish Mysticism, New York 1988, 24; A.

Ravitzky, «A Kabbalist Confutation of Philosophy. The Fifteenth-century debate in Candia», Tarbiz, 53 (1989), 46l.[Hebrew]

13°

MYSTICISM VERSUS PHILOSOPHY IN KA1313AUSTIC LITERATURE

of the philosophers and it is easier for them to see a little farther than their rivals» I .

The hierarchical attitude to Philosophy comes to the fore in the

various multiform hermeneutic systems developed by Kabbalist of different schools in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. Philosophical hermeneutics is included in all most all of these exegetical schemes. According to the sevenfold method of inrerpretation of R. Abraham Abulafia, studied by Moshe Idel ", the fourth way of interpretation is philosophical allegorizations 3. R. Bahya ben Asher, a famous biblical commentator of the late thirteenth century, offers a fourfold hermeneutic scheme that includes philosophical exegesis, referred to as «the way of intellect». Philosophical exegesis, referred to by the word Remez, is included in the famous fourfold exegetical system known as PaRDeS, an acronym for Peshat - plain, or literal, Rernez allegorical, Drasha - homiletic, and Sod - esotcric ". The philosophical way of interpretation appears also in the less known fourfold hermeneutic system of the fourteenth century kabbalist

Rabbi Isaac of Acre 5 .

According to all of these interpretative systems, mystical hermeneutics surpass philosophical exegesis. Yet philosophical exegesis is recognized as valid and important. According to both R. Abraham Abulafia and R. Isaac of Acre, the perfect sage must master all the interpretative ways. Acquiring philosophical knowledge is recognized as an impor-

I. Scholem, Major Trends, 24·

2. M. Ide!, Kabbalah. New Perspectives, New Haven 1988,235-37; Id., Language,

Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafta, Albany 1989, 82-124.

3. See Ide!, Language, 90.

4. On the PaRDeS system of exegesis see W: Bacher, «DasMerkwort PRDS in der Judischen Bibelexcgete». ZeitschriJt fi~r die Alttestamcntliche Wissenscnait.i ; (1893),294-305; G. Scholem, 011 the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, New York 1974,. 53-62. P. Sandler, «On the Question of Par des and the Fourfold Method», 111 Seje:

Eliyalw Auerbach, Jerusalem 1955, 222-35 [Hebrew]; A. Van Del' Heide, «Parries. Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the four senses»,joumal of JewISh Studies, 34 (1983), 147-59; F. Talarnage, «Apples of Gold. The Inner Meaning of Sacred Texts in Medieval Judaisl11», injewish Spirituality, cd. A. Green, New York 1986, 318-21; E. R. Wolfson, «Beautiful Maiden Without Eyes, Peshat and Sod m Zoharic Hermeneutics», in The Midrashu: Imagination, jewish Exeoesis, Thought, and HIStory, cd. M. Fishbane, Albany 1993, 155-56; M. Idel, «PaRDeS. Some ReflectIOns on kabbalistic Hermeneutics», in Death, Ecstasy, and other Worldly journeys, ed. J. J. Collins and M. Fishbane, Albany 1995,249-68.

5. See B. Huss «NiSAN, the Wife of the Infinite. The Mystical Hermeneutics of R.

Isaac of Acre» Kabbalah, 5 (2000), 155-81.

131

130AZ HUSS

tant stage in the way to human perfection I. According to R. Isaac of Acre, the various ways of interpretation are recognized as referring to the ascending realms of the chain of being. Philosophy is recognized as containing valid information concerning the sub-divine spheres of existence 2.

According to other kabbalists, the truths transmitted by philosophers not only refer to lower spheres of reality than those transmitted by Kabbalists, but they are also achieved by the use oflower episternic faculties. According to several kabbalists philosophical truths are achieved through the use of the acquired intellect, while kabbalistic truths are achieved through the prophetic intellect 3 .

Many kabbalists of the r jth and r ath centuries showed a negative stance towards Philosophy. The Rashba (R. Shlomo ben Aderet), as well as other kabbalists, regarded Philosophy as an alien knowledge, and described philosophical sciences as «rival wives» and «sons of a foreign god» ". Several Kabbalists, including R. Moses de Leon, who played a central role in the composition of the great Kabbalistic classic, the Zohar, criticized Jewish philosophers for negligence in prayer and observance of the commandments. Making a pun onJob 1,6 de Leon says: «One day the sons of the Greek books presented themselves before god, and Satan came along with them. They left the spring of life, studied in these books and followed their opinions. They left the words of the Torah and the commandments and threw them behind their backs 5». R. Isaac of Acre, a contemporary of Rashba and R. Moshe de Leon, criticized:

1. See Idel, Language, 109-10; E. R. Wolfson, «The Doctrine ofSefirot in the Prophetic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia»,jewish Studies Quarterly, 2 (1995),354; Huss, «NiSAN», 165.

2. lbid., 157

3. M. Idel, Kabbalah, 236; B. Huss, «On the Status of Kabbalah in Spain after the decrees of 1391. The book 'Poke'h Ivrim'», Pe'amim, 56 (199'3), 24-25 [Hebrew].

4· H. Z. Divitrovsky, Tshuvot ha-Rashba, Jerualem 1990, vol. 2, 563, 854-85 [Hebrew]. See G. Freudental's study published in this volume.

5. E. R. Wolfson, The Book of the Pomegranate. Moses De Leon's Sefer Ha-Rimmon, Atlanta-Georgia 1988, 391. This passage was cited by Scholern, Major Trends, 397-98, n. 154. A similar complaint was voiced by R. Jacob Ben Sheshet in «Sha'ar ha-Shamim», Ozar Nechmad, 3 (1864), 164-65, cited also by R. Isaac of Acre (A. Goldreich, Sefer Me'irat Einavim by R. Isaac of Acre, A Critical Edition, PhD. Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1981, 59,409-10 [Hebrew]). See also the words ofR. David Ha-Cohen (in the name of Nahmanides), cited by R. Isaac of Acre in MoscowGuenzberg Ms. [062, fols. z za-b. See Goldreich, Sefer Me'irat Einavim, 414.

MYSTICISM VERSUS PHILOSOPHY IN KAB13ALISTIC LITERATURE

The fools amongst the philosophers who philosophize and depend upon knowledge acquired through their own speculation. They are wise in their own eyes, yet they do not possess knowledge of the ten Sefirot Belimah, which are the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. Their belief is evil and deficient, because they consider as nothing the prayer and blessings and they act negligently in regard to all the commandments [ .

Albeit the strong condemnation of Jewish philosophers, Spanish Kabbalists of the r jth and rath centuries do not reject Philosophy completely. Rather, they considered it as an inferior body of knowledge, or as a valid knowledge mixed with false and dangerous theories2. The hesitance of Kabbalists in this period to reject philosophy completely stems most probably from the influence of philosophical writings on the Kabbalists of this period, and from the high prestige of Maimonides 3. Indeed, several kabbalists, including Abraham Abulafia and Moshe de Leon, moved from a philosophical stage in their intellectual biography to different forms of Mysticism 4. Instead of defining Kabbalah in complete opposition to Philosophy, kabbalists of the period preferred to present Kabbalah as a different and higher body of knowledge than Philosophy. Thus, the kabbalists used the high prestige of Philosophy in order to claim an even higher status for their teachings.

The dualistic model of the relation between Mysticism and Philosophy, which presented Philosophy as the demonic opposition of the divine Kabbalah, became prominent in a later period in the history of Kabbalah. The first explicit formulation of this perception appeared in late fifteenth century Spain, in an anonymous text called Sefer hc-Meshiv, the book of the answering angel 5. According to Seier ha-Meshiv the source of Philosophy and natural sciences is in the teaching of Samael (Satan): «The secret of the [impure] power? descends from above, from

I. Ms. Moscow Guenzberg [062, fol. 49a. See Goldreich, Sefer Mei'rat Einavvim, 414·

2. That was the view of the Rashba, as well as other traditionalist scholars who took part in the controversy concerning the study of Philosophy in the early r ath century. See G. Freudental's study published in this volume.

3. Ibid.

4. See Idel, «Abulafia's Secrets», 291.

5. M. Idel, «Inquiries into the Doctrine ofSefer ha-Meshiv», Seiunot, 2 n. s., (1983), 232. [Hebrew]. Idel (ibid., n. 234) observes that the notion that the origin of philosophy is in demonic revelations appears in early Christianity. As we have seen supra, R. Moshe de Leon has made a connection between Satan and Greek philosophy.

6. Idel reads «spirit» (Ruach) bnt according to the context the word should be read as «power» (Koach). The letter Resh and Kaf are almost indistinguishable in the manuscript.

133

BOAZ HUSS

the Secret of Sa mae 1 and his companions, and with this secret the Greek sages learned all their wisdom. And this wisdom is forbidden to you, because it is impure ... and it is the wisdom of the gentiles» I .

The demonic perception of Philosophy becomes a prevalent notion amongst Kabbalists after the exile from Spain 2. The author of Sefer KaJ ha-Ktoret (written probably in the Ottoman Empire in the early roth century) identifies Philosophy as a form of idolatry and criticizes Jewish Philosophers for approaching Aristotle instead of God:

Some of the scholars of our nations (i.e., the Jewish Philosophers) have not cried out to the Lord so that he will show them a piece of wood 3 Rather they have cried out to the evil Aristotle who have taught them a piece of wood according to his widsorn that came forth from his god, the wicked Samael (Satan). Thus, they gave strength to Samael, who ascended on their account to an even higher grade than he had previously. Because of this sin they prolonged the exile ... and when (the soul of] a dead person is brought in front of (God), and they (i.e., the angels) say «here comes a soul of a great sage». They bring him in front of the Holy One blessed be He in the heavenly academy and they ask him: «what have you Studied?» 4 If he speaks about divine philosophical wisdom, the Holy One blessed be He, who is head of the academy shouts: «Perverse thoughts will be far from me» (Psalms 101, 4). And they take him (i.e., the soul of the philosopher) down to the great abyss (i.e., hell)» 5.

A similar perception of Philosophy appears in the writings of Sephardic kabbalist who were active in the sixteenth century such as R. Meir Ibn Gabai, R. Abraham Adrutiel, R. Shlomo Alkabetz, R. Moshe Alsheikh 6 and R. Shimo'n Ibn Lavi 7. These scholars, as well as other sixteenth century Kabbalists, commonly refer to Philosophy as «external wisdom» 8. This expression does not only juxtapose Philosophy to Kabbalah, which is regarded as internal Jewish knowledge, but

1. MusaiufMs. 24, fol. 37a; Idel, «Inquiries», 232-33.

2. Scholem, Maior Trends, 249. 3· According to Exodus ro, 25·

4· Compare to Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs), chapter 10 (Vilna 1893, 66-67].

5. Ms. Paris 845, fo!' J07a; Idel, «Inquiries», 235-36.

6. Ibid., 238-39. Idel mentions also the negative attitude to Philosophy found in the anonymous Sefer Ohel Moed. On R. Shlomo Alkabetz's perception of Philo sophy see B. Zak, "R. Solomon Alkabetz' Attitude Towards Philosophic Studies», Eshe! Becr-Sheva, I (1976),288-306 [Hebrew]. On Alsheikh's negative perception of Philosophy see S. Shalem, R. Moshe Alsheikh, Jerusalem 1966, 158-60 [Hebrew].

7· B. Huss, Sockets of fine Gold. The Kabbalah of R. Shimo'n Ibn Lavi, (forthcoming), 36-37 Jerusalem 2000 [Hebrew].

8. Ibid. This term was used in reference to Philosophical sciences also previously.

See for instance Tshuvot ha- Rashba, vo!. 2, 441. Yet it became widespread especially in the rorh century. Another common pejorative term for Philosophy since the late

134

MYSTICISM VERSUS PHILOSOPHY IN KABBALISTIC LITERATURE

also carries a connotation to the evil powers who are commonly referred to as «external powers». Other sixteenth century kabbalists, who did not explicitly define Philosophy as demonic knowledge, perceived Philosophy as the inversion of Kabbalah, and refer to it in strongly negative terms. A sixteenth century Ashekenazy sage, who resided in Italy and Palestine, R. Joseph Ashekenazy (known as the «Tanna of Safed»), vehemently opposed the study of Philosophy, and described Philosophy and Kabbalah as two opposites I .

The shift from the hierarchical model of the relation between Mysticism and Philosophy that was prevalent in pre-exilic Kabbalah, to the dualistic perception that became prevalent in post-exilic Kabbalah comes to the fore in R. Joseph Ashekenazy criticism of the hierarchical model. R. Joseph says concerning the above mentioned fourfold hermeneutic system of R. Bahya ben Asher:

It would have been better for our Rabbi Bahya to leave aside the way of intellect, which is the way of falsehood, and to write only the way of Kabbalah , which he himself defined as the way of truth ... From where did he receive permission to interpret the Torah in an external method, which was unknown to our forefathers? 2

The demonic image of philosophy reflects the dualistic and mythical nature oflater Sephardic Kabbalah. The complete rejection of philosophy was influenced by the critique of Aristotelian philosophy voiced by Jewish theologians of the fifteenth century. The negative stance towards philosophy was escalated by the growing criticism of philosophy amongst the exiles from Spain, and the charge that Philosophy was responsible for the conversion of many Jews to Christianity 3. Possibly, the dualistic model could be seen also as a response to the claim of the Italian kabbalist of the period, that Kabbalah is essentially identical to ancient philosophy. The dominance of the dualistic model of the relation between Mysticism and Philosophy in post exilic Kabbalah reflects the decline of the status of Philosophy and the reception of Kabbalah as a central cultural factor in the early modern era.

fifteenth century is «leprosy». See G. Nigal, «The opinions ofR.Joseph Yawetz on Philosophy and Philosophers, Torah and Commandments», Ehe! Beer-Sheva, I (1976),259 (Hebrew].

1. G. Scholem, «New Contributions to the Biography of Rabbi Joseph Ashekenazy of Sa fed», Tarbiz, 28 (1959),77 [Hebrew].

2. Ibid.

3. Nigal, «The Opinions»; Idel, «Inquiries», 234·

135