Abulafia'sSecretsof theGuide:

A LinguisticTurn

I. BETWEEN JEWISH PHILOSOPHY AND KABBALAH

IN MODERN SCHOLARSHIP

The main purpose of this studyis to elucidate some aspects of the relations
between some writingsof a mystic,AbrahamAbulafia, the founderof ecstatic
Kabbalah, and the medieval figurehe admiredmost,Maimonides,the founderof
JewishAristotelianism. This issue is to be understoodas partof a much broader
topic,whichis fundamental fortheunderstanding of theJewishspeculativecorpora
in theMiddle Ages: therelationbetweenphilosophyand mysticism.As seen below,
this issue has been alreadyabordedby several scholars,one of the most eminent
amongthembeing Prof.AlexanderAltmann.Therefore,beforedwellingupon the
details of the particularquestionlet me surveybrieflythe stateof the field.
The relationshipbetweenphilosophyand mysticismin Judaismhas been dis-
cussed severaltimesby manyscholarsand thinkers.Two of them,David Neumark1
and Franz Rosenzweig2have proposeda theory,which may be designatedas the
« pendulumtheory», whose basic assumptionis the existence of oscillations
betweenthe dominanceof the speculativeand the mysticalin Jewishthought.The
emergenceof the centraltrendin medieval Jewishmysticism,Kabbalah, is por-
trayedby them as a reaction to the ascent of Jewishphilosophyin the form
presentedby Maimonides's Guide of the Perplexed.These authorsassume thatthe
fluctuation betweenspeculationand mysticismis to be tracedto ancienttimes,the
medieval period being the most obvious and importantepisode of this ongoing
oscillation.Motivatedby a deep aversiontowardKabbalah, HeinrichGraetz,the
mostimportant19thcenturyJewishhistorian,has alreadyconsideredKabbalah to
be a pernicious medieval innovation,or invention,aiming to counteractthe
influenceof the « enlightening » Aristotelianism
of the « Great eagle »3. Last but
not least, GershomScholem emphasizedthe importanceof the encounterbetween

1. Geschichteder juedischenPhilosophiedes Mittelalters, Berlin,1907, vol. I, d. 179-236.

2. KleinereSchriften, Berlin, 1937, p. 531. See also my remarkson this standof Rosen-
zweig's in « FranzRosenzweigand the Kabbalah » in P. Mendes-Flohr, ed., The Philosophy
of Franz Rosenzweig,UniversityPress of New England. 1987. d. 168-171.
3. GeschichtederJuden,Leipzig, 1908, vol. VII, p. 385-402; For an adaptationof Graetz's
thesis,withmajorchanges,see myKabbalah: New Perspectives,New Haven, London, 1988,
p. 251-253; « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », in I. Twersky (ed.), Studiesin Maimonides,Cam-
bridge,1990, p. 31-33; see too Mark Verman, The Book of Contemplation, Medieval Jewish
MysticalSources, Albany,Suny, 1992, p. 20-24.

Revue de Métaphysiqueet de Morale, N° 4/1998

496 Moshe Idei

an allegedmythicalGnosticism, presumably in Jewishesotericcirclesfor

transmitted
centurieson theone hand,and thephilosophicalNeoplatonismas represented by the
variousmedievalversionson theotherhand,as his mainphenomenological description
of theemergenceof Kabbalah4.ThoughScholemdid not ignorethepotentialimpact
of the controversyconcerning Maimonides'writingson the earlyKabbalists,he was
inclinedto regardit as a secondaryfactor;he indeedobservedthe affinity between
theopponentsto theJewishphilosopherand thosewho weremystically biasecf.
Jewishphilosophyand Kabbalah have, however,more oftenbeen regardedby
some medieval thinkersand modernscholars as considerablydistinctspeculative
trends,a view to which I agree. If not always opposingeach other,or competing
for a impacton the souls and mindsof the intelligentsia, theywere portrayedas
essentiallydiversetypesof spirituality.Roughlyspeaking,this seems to me to be
true, but only if we address the extremeformsof Kabbalah and philosophy.
However,a perusal of JuliusGuttmann'sPhilosophiesof Judaism,and Gershom
Scholem's Major Trendsin JewishMysticismwill put his dichotomyin medieval
Jewishspeculationin a rathersharperrelief.The two summae of long years of
researchby the two greatscholarswho had establishedthe Jerusalemite standard
of researchin their respectivefields, are not inclined to offermore synthetic
surveysof the whole field of Jewishthought,and thenlocate theirown specific
area of research.Jewishmysticismis marginalizedin Guttmann'sPhilosophiesof
Judaismwhile Jewishphilosophyis only rarelytreatedin details in Scholem's
Major Trends.A perusalof theextensivecorpusof H.A. Wolfson,anothercolossus
of the studyof Jewishphilosophy,reveals the same marginalization of Kabbalah,
by a major historianof Jewishthought.
However,this initialstrongdemarcationof areas did not remainso influential
in the subsequentscholarshipof Jewishthought.Otherscholars,belongingto the
next generation,the most importantamong them being the late Professors
Alexander Altmann,Georges Vajda and - later on in their writings- also
Shelomo Pines, JosephB. Sermonetaon the one hand or Isadore Twersky,Colette
Sirat and S. O. Heller Wilenskyon the other,were less predisposedtowardstrong
dichotomies6.Especially importantfrom our point of view is the concept of
« rationalmysticism » whichrecursin scholarshipmoreoftenlyin recentdecades,
underthe impactof some of the aforementioned scholars,moreeminentlyGeorges
Vajda, and therecurring attemptsof scholars,in boththehistoryof Aristotelianism

4. Kabbalah, New York, 1974, p. 45: « Kabbalah, in its historicalsignificance,can be

definedas the productof the interpénétration of JewishGnosticismand neoplatonism».
5. G. Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, tr. A. Arkush,R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (ed.),
PrincetonUniversityPress, Princeton,jps, Philadelphia,1987, p. 404-414. See, however,his
statement in Major Trendsin JewishMysticism, New York, 1967, p. 24: « Kabbalah certainly
did not arise as reactionagainstphilosophical'enlightenment'»; as well as his « Me-Hoqer
li-Mequbbal», Tarbiz, vol. 6, 1935, p. 91-92 [Hebrew]; « Maïmonide dans l'œuvre des
Kabbalistes», Cahiersjuifs, vol. 3, 1935, p. 104-105.
6. GeorgesVajda, « Un chapitrede l'histoiredu conflitentrela Kabbale et la philosophie:
la polémiqueanti-intellectualistede Josephb. Shalom Ashkenazi» in Archivesd'histoire
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 497

and Neoplatonism,to highlightthe more mysticalimplicationsof those formsof

thought7.A medieval example of an effortto bridge the gap between the two
domainsof speculationis theattemptof some circlesof Kabbaliststo drawMaimo-
nides' Guide of thePerplexedon the side of the mystics8.On the otherhand,there
were Kabbalists,few indeed,who claimed thatKabbalah is the innerphilosophy9.
More recently,moremysticalreadingsof Maimonides'Guide of thePerplexedhave
been proposed by some scholars10,while the wide range of the philosophical
of the Kabbalistictypesof thought,received
sourcesand speculativeinterpretations
more and more attentionin scholarship11.A crucial phase in the substantial

doctrinaleet littérairedu MoyenAge, vol. XXXI, 1956, p. 45-127, idem,Recherchessur la

philosophieet la Kabbale dans la pensée juive du MoyenAge, Paris, Mouton, 1962; ibid.,
« Commentle philosophejuif Moïse de Narbonnecomprenait-illes paroles extatiquesdes
soufis?» Actas del primercongresode estudiosarabes islámicos,Madrid, 1964, p. 129-135;
« Recherchessur la synthèsephilosophico-kabbalistique de Samuel ibn Motot», Ahdlma,
vol. XXVII, 1960, p. 29-63.
AlexanderAltmann, « Moses Narboni'sEpistle on Shfur Qomah », in A. Altmann (ed.),
Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Cambridge, Mass. 1967, p. 242-244, ibid.,
« LurianicKabbalah in a PlatonicKey: AbrahamCohen Herrera's Puertadel Cielo », Hebrew
Union College Annual,vol. 53, 1982, p. 321-324, as well as note 15 below.
Dov Schwartz, « ContactsBetweenJewishPhilosophyand Mysticismin the Rise of the
Fifteenth Century», Daat, vol. 29, 1992, p. 41-68 [Hebrew].
7. P. Hadot, Exercicesspirituels,Annuairede la Ve sectionde l'École pratiquedes Hautes
Études LXXXIV, p. 25-70; Phillip Merlan, Monopsychism,Mysticism,Metaconsciouness,
Hague, 1963, RichardT. Wallis, « Nous as Experience», R. Baine Harris, (ed.), The Signi-
ficance of Neoplatonism,Norfolk,1976, p. 122 and 143 note 1 forthe pertinent bibliography;
Michael Morgan, Platonic Piety,Philosophy& Ritual in Fourth-Century Athens,Yale Uni-
versityPress,New Haven, London, 1990.
8. Scholem,« Mi-Hoqer li-Mequbbal».
9. M. Idel, «Major Currentsin Italian Kabbalah between 1560-1660», Italia Judaica
[Roma, 1986], II, p. 243-262; reprintedin D.B. Ruderman,ed., Essential Papers on Jewish
Culturein Renaissance and Baroque Italy [New York UniversityPress, New York, 1992],
pp. 345-368.
10. David Blumenthal, « Maimonides' IntellectualistMysticismand the Superiorityof
the Prophecyof Moses », Studies in Medieval Culture,vol. X, 198l,p. 51-67.
11. Ze'ev Harvey, «Kabbalistic Elements in R. Hasdai Cresças' book Or ha-Shem»,
JerusalemStudies in Jewish Thought,vol. 2, 1983, p. 75-109 [Hebrew]; Moshe Hayyim
Weiler, « Inquiriesin the KabbalisticTerminologyof R. JosephGikatillaand its Relationto
Maimonides», HUCA vol.37, 1966, p. 13-44 [Hebrew]; Elliot R. Wolfson, « Merkavah
Traditionsin PhilosophicalGarb: JudahHalevi Reconsidered», Proceedingsof theAmerican
Academyfor JewishResearch, vol. LVII, 1991, p. 179-242; Charles Mopsik, «Philosophie
et souci philosophique:les deux grandscourantsde la pensee juive », Archiviodi filosofìa
vol. LXI, 1993, p. 247-254; Dov Schwartz, « Divine Immanence in Medieval Jewish
Philosophy», Journalfor JewishThoughtand Philosophy,vol. Ill, no. 2, 1994, p. 249-278;
Idel, « Divine Attributesand Sefirot in JewishTheology», in S. O. Heller Willensky,
M. Idel (eds.), Studiesin JewishThought,Jerusalem,1989, p. 87-112 [Hebrew]; ibid., « The
StudyProgramof Yohanan Alemanno», Tarbiz, vol. 48, 1979, p. 303-330 [Hebrew],« The
Magical and NeoplatonicInterpretations of Kabbalah in the Renaissance» in B. D. Coo-
perman(ed.), JewishThoughtin theSixteenthCentury(Cambridge,Mass. 1983), p. 186-242;
« DifferingConceptionsof Kabbalah in Early 17thCentury», JewishThoughtin the Seven-
teenthCentury,Isadore TwERSKY-Bernard D. Septimus (eds.), [Cambridge,Mass., 1987],
498 Moshe Idei

encounterbetweenphilosophyand mysticismin Judaismis the middleof the 13th

centurySpain. Some figureswho constitutethe innovativeKabbalah, like Joseph
Gikatilla and AbrahamAbulafia and, to a less degree, Isaac ben Abrahamibn
Latif12,Moses de Leon, to a certainextentDavid ben Abrahamha-Lavan,and the
anonymousauthorof theecstatictreatisenamedShavareiTzedeq, have movedfrom
a philosophicalstage, representedby a studyof the Guide of the Perplexed,to
different formsof Kabbalah.13Thoughbeing Kabbalists,some of themnevertheless
regardedthe Guide as an important source whichhas to be understoodin a more
profoundmanner,by means of Kabbalistic conceptsand exegetical devices. The
writingsof all those Kabbalists- withthe important exceptionsof R. Moses de
Leon whose metamorphosis was much more radical than thatof the others,and
R. David ha-Lavan- can serveas an important fieldof researchforthephilosophico-
mysticalzone. The name of theirgame is super-arcanization, namelyofferinga
secretreadingof an alreadyesoterictreatise,Maimonides'Guide of the Perplexed.
The questionof the standof the greateagle himselfin relationto mysticismhas
been treatedalready in the middle thirties:GershomScholem has discussed the
spurious attributionof mystical and quasi-mysticaltraditionsand writingsto
Maimonidesby Kabbalists14. Anotherimportant contribution to thistopic is thatof
the late Prof.AlexanderAltmann,who has carefullyanalysedthe different approa-
ches in crucial mattersof religionas exposed by Maimonides and some Kabba-
lists15.Altmannhas already resorted,in this context,to Abraham Abulafia's
commentaries on secretsof the Guide and the presentstudyis an attemptto offer
a closer look to some of the questionsrelatedto Abulafia's attemptto read the
Guide16.In the following,threemoves whichdistinguishAbulafia's approachfrom
thatof Maimonides',and presentin the former'scommentaries of theGuide, will

1987], p. 137-200; « Kabbalah, Platonismand Prisca Theologia: the Case of Menasseh ben
Israel » in Y. Kaplan, H. Meshoulan, R. Popkin(eds.), Menasseh ben Israel and his World,
Brill, Leiden, 1989, p. 207-219; Havah Tirosh-Rothschild, « Sefirothas the Essence of of
God in the Writingsof David Messer Leon », Associationof JewishStudiesReview,vol. 7-
8, 1982-1983,p. 409-425; Nissim Yosha, Mythand Metaphor,Jerusalem,Ben-Zvi Institute
and The Magnes Press, 1994, [Hebrew].
12. See Sara O. Heller- Wilensky, « Isaac ibn Latif, Philosopheror Kabbalist?» in
A. Altmann (ed.), JewishMedieval and RenaissanceStudies,Cambridge,Mass, 1967,p. 185-
223; « The Guide and the Gate, The Dialectical Influenceof Maimonideson Isaac ibn Latif
and Early Spanish Kabbalah », RuthLink-Salinger et al. (eds.), A StraightPath, Studies in
Medieval Philosophyand Culture,Essays in Honor ofArthurHyman,Washington,D.C., The
CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress, 1988, p. 266-278; and « Messianism,Eschatologyand
Utopia in the Philosophical-Mystical Trendof Kabbalah of the 13thCentury», in Z. Baras
(ed.), Messianismand Eschatology,Jerusalem,1984, p. 221-238 [Hebrew].
13. Isadore Twersky, Studies in Jewish Law and Philosophy, New York, KTAV
PublishingHouse, 1982, p. 208 and Wilensky, « Messianism», ibid., p. 221.
14. Scholem, « Mi-Hoqer» [note 5 above]. On this issue see morebelow.
15. AlexanderAltmann, «Maimonides' AttitudetowardJewishMysticism», Studies in
JewishThought,Detroit,A. Jospe (ed.), 1981, p. 200-219.
16. On this issue see also the importantstudyof Wirszubski,referredbelow note 22.
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 499

be surveyed:Abulafia's emphasison imminentsalvation,his unitive-philosophical

concepts,and the role of language and linguisticissues in his system.Though a
superficialunderstandingof the natureof the threemoves may assume thatthey
representunrelatedtopicstheyare, in Abulafia's writings,intertwinned
matters.By
analizingthe processesof Kabbalisticarcanizationof theGuide I hope to show a
time again, thatthe boundariesbetweenphilosophyand mysticismare not clear-
cut in Judaismas they are also vague in other formsof religion. In order to
exemplifythis statement,an analysisof some of the standsof AbrahamAbulafia,
especiallyas expressedin his commentaries on theGuide will be undertaken.The
main aim of the followingdiscussion is to point out to the mannerin which
AbulafiadeviatedfromMaimonides'views expressedin thebook commentedupon.

II. SECRETS: FROM RESTORATION

TO IMMINENT SALVATION

MaimonidesarguedthatJewishesotericismas describedin his writings,old as

it mighthave been in itself,is a matterof his own reconstruction17. This restoration
is requestedbecause of the loss of those secretscaused by the vicissitudesof the
exile. Maimonidesassumes thathe can restorethe brokenline of transmissionof
the secretsof the Torah,and recreate,thereby,an alreadyexistingideal situation.
Maimonidesdoes not offerany details as to what preciselyhas been the method
of this retrieval,if this is a matterof his readingattentively the biblical texts,or
by being inspiredby the rabbinichintson esoterictopics. In any case, thisproject
can hardlybe describedas an eschatologicalone, at least fromthe historicalpoint
of view. If personaleschatologicalimplicationscan be discernedin his project,it
dependsmoreon the attitudeof the scholars.Maimonides's treatiseis basically a
past-orientedbook, an archeologicalendeavourintended,by the explicitconfession
of its author,to guide the presentperplexedones out of theirspiritualperplexion
caused by the loss of secrets, which amounts to a misunderstanding of the
scriptures.Indeed,someonemay wonderif the restoration of the secrettraditionis
possible in the exile or, alternatively,if the restorationof the secrettraditionis
emblematicof a hiddeneschatologicaldimension,imminentin historicalmoment
Maimonideslived in. By and large,Maimonides' projectin theGuide is an exege-
tical one, which has importantrepercussionsfor his contemporaries'attitudeto
Judaism,who could findan interesting religiousoutlook,especiallyforthe Jewish
wich was exposed to non-Jewishformsof theologyand philosophy18.
intelligentsia
Accordingto othertraditions, however,secretsof the Torah will be revealedby
the Messiah19.For some of those thinkers,this means a postponment of the reve-

17. Guide, I, p. 71.

18. This is the case in some otherimportant
figuresof Jewishphilosophy,like Savadiah
Gaon, Leone Ebreo, M. Mendelssohnand F. Rosenzweig.
500 Moshe Idei

lationof those secretsto an indefinitefuture.AbrahamAbulafia's interpretation of

the secretsof the Torah takes place, accordingto his special awareness,underthe
aegis of the imminentredemption, both personal and nationalone. He himselfis
the Messiah of himselfand the Messiah of the nation; in the introduction to his
Commentary on the Pentateuchhe indicatesthathe reveals secretsbecause of the
imminenceof the redemption20. Indeed, his revelationof the secretsis facilitated
by the feelingthatthe nationaleschatonis close, a matterof some few years21,
while the veryrevelationof the secretswas conceived as helpingthe mysticto
reach a mysticalexperiencewhich has conspicuoussalvificcharacteron the per-
sonal plane. Secrets of the Torah, are intendedto help the readers to attain a
redemptive experience.The firstof Abulafia's commentaries to theGuide is named
Sefer ha-Ge'ulah in its Latin translationLiber Redemptionis22 while in another
commentary, Abulafia assertsthat the thirty-sixsecrets of the Guide are « all the
secrets to which he will pay attentionto understandthem,by a [concentrated]
speculation,and undertandthe intentionintended by them, and 'he will be
redeemed'23 »24.
The verse in Hebrew,Ge'ulah tihiehlo has been understoodby Abulafiain his
particularway: redemptionwill be attainedby means of the thirty-six secrets,
hinted at by the word lo. Here, the nexus between secrets and redemptionis
explicit. A similar stand can be found also in the firstcommentary, Sefer ha-
Ge'ulah wherehe identifiesthe « life of the soul » to the « life of the nextworld»,
both meaninghasagah, « comprehension »25. This view ocurs also in his second
commentary Hayyei ha-Nefesh26 and it should be understoodin a non-eschatolo-
gical framework: the nextworld is not the realm of existenceafterdeath,but the
ecstaticalexperiencein this world, as we learn fromone of his most important
books: The Life of the Next World.We witnesshere an importantinstantof spir-

19. See Giles Quispel, «From Logos to Mythos», Éranos Jahrbuch,vol. 19 [1970],
p. 330; EphraimE. Urbach,The Sages, TheirConceptsand Beliefs,tr.I. Abrahams,[Magnes
Press Jerusalem.19791. nn. 308-312.
20. See SitreiTorah, « These secretswill be revealedduringthe adventof the Messianic
era, by the prophetswho will arise [then]and by the Messiah himself,because throughthem
[the secrets of the Torah] all of Israel and those who are drawn to them, will be
strengthened. ». Paris, Bibliothèquenationale,ms. 774, f. 119a.
21. Abulafia's opinion was thatthe Messiah, apparentlyhe himself,will reveal himself
in 1290.
22. A descriptionof the extantHebrew fragments and the Latin translationis foundin
Chaim Wirszubski,« Liber Redemptionis-the Early Versionof R. AbrahamAbulafia's Kab-
balistic Commentaryon the Guide of the Perplexed in the Latin Translationof Flavius
Mithridates », Divrei ha-Akademiaha-Le'umitha-Israelitle-Mada'im, III, Jerusalem,1970,
p. 139-149,whichwill be quotedbelow fromits reprinted formin Ch. Wirszubsky,Between
theLines, Kabbalah, ChristianKabbalah and Sabbateanism,M. Idel (ed.), Jerusalem,1990,
p. 135-149 [Hebrew].
23. Leviticus.25:31.
24. Sitrei Torah,Paris, Bibliothèquenationale,ms. 774, f. 117a.
25. Ms. Leipzig 39, f. 4b. See also below beside note 38.
26. Ms. Munich408, f. Ib.
Abulafia's Secretsof the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 501

tualisationof traditionaleschatologicalterminology,interpreted in termsof immi-

nentindividualsalvation,a phenomenonwell-knownin the historyof mysticism27.
In this context,anotherobservationof Abulafia's may be quite relevant.As we
shall see below, he indicatesthatthe numberof the chaptersof theGuide are 177,
a numberthatis equivalentto thenumericalvalue of Gan ^Eden,namelyParadise28.
It is less the need to attenuatethe perniciouseffectsof the externalexile, as
Maimonides'reconstruction aspiresto, and muchmorethe attemptto obliteratethe
innerexile that is the main concern of Abulafian soteriology.In fact, the two
approachesare not to be seen as drasticallydifferentbut, at least insofaras Abu-
lafia's views are concerned,as buildingupon the attainment of Maimonides: the
philosopherhas providedthe framework, whichmeans a politicalWeltbild,a phi-
losophyof natureand a neo-Aristotelian metaphysicspunctuatedby some Platonic
stands,and a psychology,which serve as startingpointsfor an intensification of
the religiouslife,whichwill culminatein a mysticalexperience.

III. FROM PHILOSOPHICAL NOETICS

TO MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE

Maimonideswas a moderatethinker, if we recall his view of the humanintellect

as hardlyattaininga certainfirmknowledgeof God, his view of language as a
conventionalentity,and as such a weak instrument of knowingGod or nature.The
more modestcharacterizations of the powers of language and intellectare conso-
nantto Maimonides'generalsearchforthegoldenmean.The goldenmean implies,
however,also the negationof an extremereligious,or philosophicalattainment.
The awarenessof the limitationsof the humanintellect,consonantto the standof
a sober philosopher,can be understood,as the late Prof. S. Pines proposed,as a
pessimistic,almost tragic vision of the thinkingman29.The effortto push God
beyond the range,thoughnot of the scope, of humanunderstanding in order to
safeguardHis outmostpurityand spirituality, demandeda price in the realm of
epistemology:thehumanintellect,connectedas it is withmatter,cannotexperience
the divine nature,thoughHe is purelyintellectual.It is only in the momentof
deaththatthe few elite,Moses and the forefathers, were able to attainthe kiss of
bliss,or an experienceof God30.Transcendencehas its sublimemoments,forwhich
the philosopheroftenlypays in the cash of a verymodestnoeticattainment of the

27. This is quite obvious in the writingsof Al-Ghazzali, for example; See also below,
note 32 the discussionof the kiss of God.
28. Sitrei Torah, Paris, Bibliothèquenationale,ms. 774, f. 115b. More on this issue see
below § IX.
29. Pines, « The Limitationsof Human Knowledgeaccordingto Al-Farabi,Ibn Bajja and
Maimonides», in I. Twersky (ed.), Studies in Medieval Jewish Historyand Literature,
Cambridge,Mass., 1979, p. 89-109.
30. Guide, 111:51.
502 Moshe Idei

absoluteintellectualrealm,the divine. Unitiveexperienceswere not conceived as

possible in his system,and it maywell be thatMaimonideswas deliberatelyreticent
towardtheNeoplatonicviews on thecleavingof the soul to God, or theAverroistic
unitivenoetics31.
On the otherhand Abulafiaassumes thatthe deathby kiss of the forefathers, an
experienceof hoary antiquity,should be seen in a much more exemplaryand
relevantmanner;he assertsthat
« whomever' fromhimat thetimeof pronouncing
s soul willbe separated [thedivine
name]he willdie by a kiss»32.
The prerogativeof the few perfectiin the past, accordingto the view of Maimo-
nides, turnedinto the immediateachievementof the extrememysticsavailable in
the present33.Abulafia also assumes thathumanintellectcan become one entity
withthe divinemind,an experiencethatcould be designatedas mysticalunion.In
myopinionthisdevelopmentin Abulafia's thought,in comparisonto Maimonides'
view,can be explainedbothby theacquaintancewithAverroisticstandsconcerning
thepossibilityof the unionbetweenthe humanand the cosmic intellect,whichhas
been accepted by his teacherin mattersof philosophy,Rabbi Hillel of Verona34;
and the mysticalexperiencesAbulafia apparentlyunderwent,which have been
understoodas pointingto a union withGod. So, forexample,he argues in one of
his commentaries on theGuide thatthe actualizationof the intellectwill transform
it intothe entitythatcaused thisprocess,namelythe AgentIntellect,and the two
will become « one inseparableentityduringthe timeof thatact35» In thisvein the
perfectmysticis describedas follows:

«just as his Master36 who is detachedfromall matter is called the Knowledge, the
KnowerandtheKnown,all at thesametime,sinceall thethreeare one in Him,so shall
he,theexaltedman,themaster oftheexaltedName,be calledintellect, whilehe is actually
knowing;thenhe is also theknownlikehisMaster,andthenthereis no difference between
them,exceptthathis Masterhas His supreme rankby His ownrightandnotderivedfrom
whilehe is elevatedto his rankbytheintermediary
othercreatures, of thecreatures »37.

31. The MysticalExperiencein AbrahamAbulafia,Albany,Suny Press, 1987, p. 125.

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

This hyperevaluation of the intellectis coupled, as we shall see below, by a

simultaneoushyperevaluation of speech. Language is botha domainof contempla-
tion,higherthannature,and a techniqueforattaininga mysticalexperience,which
has noetic features.In other words, the overactivationof the intellectand its
mergingwithGod, is achievedby an overactivation of language,as partof its use
as a componentin a mysticaltechnique.The two extremesmeet, and both are
characteristicof Abulafia's strongpropensityforactualizationof some of Maimo-
nides' spiritualideals of the past. This view is expressedat the verybeginningof
SitreiTorahwhereAbulafiacharacterisestheGuide as « concernedwiththe expla-
nationof homologiesand theinterpretation of the parablesof the prophecy» while
his own commentary is intendedto deal with

« religious namelytheinterpretation
wisdom, of therationale
forthelifeof therational
andtheinterpretation
soul38, of theworship of God outof love.Andevenifthesubjectof
eachof them[thetwobooks]is uniquein itself,everything
goes to thesameplace»39.

In lieu of Maimonides' hermeneuticalproject,which is focused on naturaland

metaphysicalframeworks, Abulafiaproposes a spiritualinterpretationof the Bible
as pointingnot onlyto the truemeaningof the Bible, and the propertheology,but
more eminentlya pressingcall for an intensespirituallife. The intensification of
this spirituallife meant,in the case of Abulafia,involves an ecstaticpath which
was conceived of as inducingpropheticexperienceswhich were understoodas
indicativeof a Messianic status.

IV. FROM LOST SECRETS

TO THEIR PUBLIC TRANSMISSION

Maimonides'Guide is a writtendocument,and thestrategiesto whichtheauthor

has resortedreflectthis choice, as Leo Strauss has pointed out40.Maimonides'
refusalto meetR. Samuel ibn Tibbon,thetranslatorof his maintheologicalwriting,
and in manyways the followerof Maimonides,in orderto discuss withhim the
contentof his book orallyis emblematicof his decision not to pass its secretsbut
in a written,
and thusallusive,form41.The secretshe claimedto have reconstructed
were not supposed to become an oral tradition,as they were accordingto the

38. See also above beside note 25.

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

Rabbinic sources, but remainedburied in a writtentext, perplexingthe future

generationsof intellectualJews.
Kabbalists,however,unlikephilosophers,have neverthelessarguedthatsuch an
oral traditionrelated to the Guide is still available. Again, the concept of oral
transmission, thathas some sources in Jewishesoterics,but has silentlybeen put
aside by Maimonides,was invokedby a Kabbalist in orderto interpret his book.
Abulafiahas taughtthe Guide to some youngJewishintellectuals,and at least one
of his commentaries was written,accordingto Abulafia's claim, at the requestof
his formerstudents.As a teacherof the Guide, Abulafia has conspicuouslybeen
involvedin oral teachingand discussions,whichare reflectedin a writtenfashion
in the commentaries. Thus, oral transmission of secretswas, forAbulafia,a praxis
which,contradicting as it may be Maimonides' own explicitinterdiction and the
Kabbalists' esotericpropensity, was verymuch partof his activity:he taughtthe
Guide in Spain, Greece and Italy42.His formulations on thismatterare muchcloser
to Nahmanides' famous statementin the introduction to his Commentary on the
Pentateuch,concerningthe transmission of Kabbalah43.So, forexample,Abulafia
assertsthat

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

Abulafiawrites,again, in one of his epistles,that

« despite the fact thatKabbalah is transmitted to everyilluminatiin general,not every

listenerand receiveris able to actualize it because whatit is transmitted
fromit [namelythe
Kabbalah] are but headingsof chapters,[intended]to whomeveris wise, and understanding
fromhis own knowledge»46.

UnliketheMaimonideanesoteric,whichseems to be esotericforat least two main

to disclose some secrets,as well as for more
reasons, the Rabbinic interdiction

42. Idel, « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », note 3 above, p. 59-62. For Abulafia's straight-
forwardrejectionof Kabbalisticesotericismsee his declarationin Sefer 'Otzar *EdenGanuz:
« I know thatthereare manyKabbalistswho are not perfect,thinkingas theydo thattheir
perfectionconsistsin notrevealinga secretissue; I shall care neitherabout theirthoughtnot
about theirblamingme because of the disclosure,since my view on this is verydifferent
from,and even opposite,theirs», Oxford,Ms., 1580, f. 55a.
43. See note 91 below.
44. This phraseoccurs in the Guide, 11:26; S. Pines, Chicago, Chicago UniversityPress,
1963, p. 331 translatesit as « mysteryof being». In generalI preferthe term« secret» to
thatof mysteryin some instances.
45. ShomerMitzvah,Paris, Bibliothèquenationale,ms. 853, f. 74ab.
46. Sheva' Netivotha-Torah,printedin A. Jellinek, Philosophie und Kabbala, Leipzig,
1854, p. 12; ChayimHenoch, Nahmanides,Philosopherand Mystic,Jerusalem,1978, p. 32,
note 14 [Hebrew].
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 505

politicalreasons,stemmingfromthe Platonictradition, in ecstaticKabbalah one of

the main reasons is the fact thatthe recipientmustbe a philosophicallyoriented
personin orderto be initiatedinto the secretsof Kabbalah.
The anonymousKabbalist who authoredSefer ha-Tzerufan ecstatic Kabbalist
himself,said that

« whateveris transmitted concerningthis lore, are 'heads of chapters',and this is whyit

needs the intellect,and it is called intellectualKabbalah47because it is not like the other
sciences, namelythe propadeuticones, which are transmitted alone... But this lore, known
as Kabbalah, it is impossibleto transmitit in toto in an oral manner,even not in a written
form,even forthousandsof years.And whatevera kabbalistwill make an effortto interpret,
everything is a hintand a 'head of chapters'»48.

This Kabbalist,even more than Abulafia,understandsKabbalah in a more expe-

rientialand hermeneutical mannerthatrendersthe experienceineffableand inter-
pretation a never endingenterprise. Transmissionof secretshas been prohibitedby
the ancientRabbis for reasons that are not so clear and has been reinforcedby
Maimonidesforpoliticalreasons.Abulafiawas readyto adopt a muchmorelenient
positionon this issue, while the anonymousecstatic kabbalistquoted above has
conceivedit as almostimpossiblein its totality,providedboththeexperiencalcargo
implied in the practiceof this lore and the vagueness of the linguisticmaterial
relatedto transmission. Both the vaguenessof the experienceand the natureof the
text,which cannotbe exhausted,necessitatethe intellectualarticulation,and this
is why the Kabbalah is, in the way it is presentedin oral or writtenmanner,an
intellectuallore. Its linguisticexpressionsenticealreadya certainexplication.The
move fromthe political esotericismto the psychologicaland hermeneuticalpro-
blems involvedin transmissioninvitea much greateremphasison language from
the point of view of the Kabbalists. While Maimonides would assume that the
politicalsecretscan be articulatedand therefore transmitted- would such an act
be advisable- the Kabbalistswould look fora contentthatis muchmorefocused
upon language itself,and not only conceiving language as a necessary,though
inferior,communicativetool.

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

V. LANGUAGE:FROMCONVENTIONAL
TO NATURAL
Maimonides' view on language,includingHebrew,is thatit is a conventional
phenomenon.This view has farreachingrepercussionson his view of revelation
and Scripturesand it has been alreadyanalyzed by scholars49.It is on this issue
that sharp critiquesof Kabbalists were addressedto Maimonides' thought.More
evidentin some writingsof R. JosephGikatilla,a studentof Abulafia,or in a less
conspicuousway by the elevationof the Hebrew to a sublimestatusof a perfect
language, in Abulafia's own books Maimonides is not criticisedon this point,
thoughhis stand was not accepted. Let me startwiththe more extremeformula-
tions,whichare characteristicof the beginningof a retreatfromthe Maimonidean
thoughtin 13thcenturyCastille. In a verystrikingpassage foundin a commentary
on some topics in the Guide, printedas the workof Gikatilla,it is said that
« Regardingall thelanguagesof the world,withtheexceptionof theholylanguage,there
is no purposein asking the reasons for the particularlettersof a word, since theyare the
resultsof humanconvention,and do not reflectnature,namelytheyare resultof a nation's
decisionto call somethingsuch and so. Therefore,
thewordsof theirlanguagesdo notpossess
an innerstructure50.Whereaswiththe holy languagethisis not the case, because it is not a
language thatpeople agreed upon, but rather,is indeed born of Divine wisdom which has
no end, and is entirelyestablishedin accordancewithDivine intent»51.

Gikatillanegatesthe naturalnessof the otherlanguages and, in contrast,sees

Hebrewas the Divine language.Elsewhere,when criticisingMaimonides' concep-
tion of language,he writes:
« But the meaningof [the verse]52'This is its name' is that it is its true name, in
accordancewithDivine wisdom,based on the SupernalBook. For Adam receivedit all by
the way of Kabbalah, and the Holy One Blessed be He informedhim as to the secretorders
of the universe,and the secretsof His Chariotsand the ways of causalityand the hidden
potenciesbehindall orders,and afterHe had informedhim of these he was properlyable to
call each thingby its truename, in accordancewiththe Divine Intent»53.

49. On Maimonidesand language see JeanRobelin, Maïmonideet le langage religieux,

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

This tells us thatman issued namesto phenomenaafterunderstanding theirtrue

nature« the secretordersof the world» « the ways of causality.» Thus, language
is notonlya resultof revelationbutis thetrueexpressionof theessence of various
phenomenaby the virtueof whatI would proposeto call 'linguisticimmanence'54.
Withthis view in mind,we may say thatthe aforementioned quote fromBe' urei
ha-Moreh« ...since theyare the resultsof humanconvention,and do not reflect
nature» meansthattheirlanguagesare conventional,as opposed to Hebrew,which
is conceivedto be a naturallanguage.In anotherpassage, stemmingfromthecircle
of Gikatilla,we learn that
« Andit is necessary
thatwe believethatthelanguageof theTorahis nota resultof
convention
as someillustrious
rabbisof previousgenerations
hadthought.For if one were
to say thatthe languagethatthe Torah employsis a resultof convention,as is the case with
the otherlanguages,we would end up denyingthe [Divine Revelation]of the Torah, which
was in its entiretyimpartedto us fromGod. And you alreadyknow [regardingthe verse]55
'For he desecratedthe word of God' that this refersto one who says that the Torah is
conventional,butthatthe restis fromheaven,our sages have alreadystatedthatanyonewho
says thattheentireTorah,save forone word,is of Divine origin,such a personhas desecrated
the word of God56.And if the language of the Torah is in its originala conventionalone,
like all otherlanguages,regardingwhich the Torah states 'for theredid God confoundthe
languageof all the earth,'it [Hebrew] would be like all otherlanguages.»57.
AnotherKabbalist, Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi, a youngercontemporaryof
Gikatillaand Abulafia,has actuallydenied thatMaimonideswould expose a view
of language as conventional.In a passage thatis significantfrommanypointsof
view, he claims that
« God forbidthatMaimonideshas intendedthis. Who has stood up among the geonim,
who is like him? But his words are [to be understood]accordingto notes [Rashei peraqim]
whichare understoodby someone who has receivedhis secretsorally»58.

Here, the Kabbalistdenies the ratherobvious Maimonideanview of the natureof

Hebrew language as conventional,in favor of the Kabbalistic opinion as to its
divineorigin59.
Thus, an oral secrettraditionis invokedin orderto circumvent,
or
even deny,Maimonides' authenticopinion.

54. See M. Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, Albany, Suny Press, 1995,
p. 215-218.
55. Numbers16:31.
56. BabylonianTalmud,Sanhédrin,f. 99a.
57. Ma' amar Nal Penimiyyutha-Torah,printedby GershomScholem, in Qiryat Sefer,
vol. 6, 1930, p. 111-112. On this textsee also Gottlieb,Mehqarim[note 51 above], p. 128-
131. 61) See Idei, Language,Torah and Hermeneutics[note 59 above], pp. 11-14.
58. Perush SeferYetzirah,Jerusalem,1961, f. 3 Id. On oral traditionas necessaryforthe
understanding of the Guide see also ibid., f. 55c and Idei, « Transmission» [note53 above],
Appendix.
59. On thisissue see Vajda, « Un chapitre» [note6 above],p. 49-56, 130-133;Moshe Idel,
Language,Torahand Hermeneutics in AbrahamAbulafia,Albany,Suny, 1989, p. 1-29.
508 Moshe Idei

Some Kabbalists were, therefore, well aware of the ultimateimplicationsof the

reductionof the sacrosanctlanguage,the portentof manytopics of Jewishmysti-
cism,to a merelyconventionaltongue.They understoodthatthe acceptanceof the
philosopher'sview on this issue may underminetheirspirituality, based upon a
linguo-centric mentality, may endangertheirspecificformof Kabbalah as well as
the very foundationof the Torah. However, this fear appears in the writingsof
kabbalistswho have alreadyshiftedtowarda moretheosophicalmode of thought.
Gikatillawas on this path when writingthe passage quoted above, while Joseph
Ashkenaziwas alreadyan accomplishedtheosophicalKabbalist.Abulafia,however,
thoughmovingfromphilosophyto Kabbalah, never embracedthe sefiroticKab-
balah, but, at least in his latteryears, he offeredsome poignantcritiquesto its
address60.

VI. MAIMONIDES: SECRETS AND LINGUISTIC

HERMENEUTICS

Even Abulafia,the mostardentof Maimonides' admirersamongthe Kabbalists,

tacitlydissentsfromhim on thisissue61.In his case, a veryinteresting
processcan
be discerned:Maimonides' attemptto reducethe importanceof language,in favor
of a muchmore mentalisticapproach,has been ignoredby the ecstaticKabbalist,
who resortedpreciselyto linguisticdevices in orderto achieve the veryaims he
conceived thatMaimonides' preached.The synthesisAbulafia offersis almost an
attemptto reconcile the opposites; the elementsin Jewishtraditionignoredby
Maimonides,like SeferYetzirahforexample,become cornerstones forhis interpre-
tationsof the Guide. Or, to put it in anotherway: forMaimonides,language has
a communicativefunction,but could serve neitheras a domain of contemplation
nor as a catalystfor intellection.These two functionsare preciselythose which
have been emphasizedby Abulafia.Accordingto his view, languageis higherthan
natureand can therefore substitutethe philosophicalcontemplationof nature62.
On
the otherhand,language,morepreciselyHebrew,serves as an integralpartof the
techniqueof bringingsomeoneto a mysticalexperience63. This emphasisupon the
paramountimportantof Hebrew is well taken in one of Abulafia's comparisons
between Kabbalah and philosophy,where he declares that the existence of the
AgentIntellect
« is achievedaccording
tothepathofwisdombymeansofeverylanguagebut,according
toKabbalah, butbymeansoftheholylanguagealone.However,
itsspeechcannotbe attained

60. See Abulafia's Ve-Zot li-Yihudah,printedby Adolph Jellinek, Auswahlkabbalistis-

cher Mystik,ErstesHeft,Leipzig, 1853, p. 18-19.
61. See Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics[note 59 above], p. 11-14.
62. Ibid., p. 1-3.
63. Idel, The MysticalExperience[note 31 above], p. 22-24.
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 509

the existenceof the [agent]intellectcan be understoodin everylanguage,accordingto the

view of everyperfectkabbalist»M.

Conspicuously,this hierarchyof languages shows that Maimonides' approach,

expressed as everyoneknew in Arabic, is part of the path of wisdom, namely
philosophy,whichcan impartknowledge,but not a revelationthatis conditioned
by theresortto Hebrew.Is thisinsistenceupon the superiority of the Hebrewover
the regularphilosophicalparlancea total misinterpretation of Maimonides' stand?
In generalthe answeris yes. However,at least in one case, it seems thatAbulafia
has a case forhis resortto one of his linguisticinterpretive
approachin theGuide
itself.Maimonidesmentionsin one of his discussionsthattheproperunderstanding
of a certainverse in Zecharia may be achieved by means of changingthe orderof
the letterswhichconstitutesa certainword:

« More wonderful65 thanthis66is the intimation arousedthroughthe use of a certainterm

whose lettersare identicalwith those of anotherterm; solely the order of the lettersis
changed; and betweenthe two termsthereis in no way an etymologicalconnectionor a
community of meaning.You will findan example in the parables of Zechariah when, in a
vision of prophecy,he takes two staves in orderto orderto shepherdcattle,namingone of
themgrace [novam]and the otherravages [hovlim]67.The intentionof this parable was to
show thatin its beginningsthereligiouscommunity subsistedin the grace of the Lord...Afte-
rwardsthe state of this communitycame to such a pass that obedience to God became
repugnant to it and thatit became repugnant to God. AccordinglyHe set up hoblim[ravagers]
like Jeroboamand Manasseh as its chiefs.This is to be understoodaccordingto the etymo-
logical derivationof the word; forhoblimderivesfromthe expressionmehabbelimkeramim
[thatspoil the vinegards]68. In addition,the prophetinferredtherefrom, I mean fromthe term
hoblim,theirrepugnancefor the Law and the repugnanceof God for them.However,this
meaningcan only be derivedfromhoblim,throughchangingthe orderof the 'ha', the 'ba'
and the 'lam'. Now it says, withinthe contextof this parable, to signifythe notion of
repugnanceand disgust:'And My soul became impacientof them,and theirsoul also loathed
[bohalah] Me69.» Accordinglyit changed the orderof habol and transformed it into bahol.
Throughthismethodverystrangethingsappear,whichare likewise secrets,as in its dictum
withregardsto theChariot:brass and burnishedand footand calf and lightning, and in other
passages. If you carefullyexamineeach passage in yourmind,theywill become clear to you
- afteryourattentionhas been aroused- fromthe gist of whathas been set forthhere.»70

Maimonidesattemptsto relatedthe two termsthatoccurs in the same contextin

Zechariah:Hoblim and bohalah. Accordingto his proposal,by changingthe order

64. Introductionto the Commentaryon the Pentateuch,Ms. Moscow-Ginsburg,133,

f. 20a.
65. I have preferredthistranslationto « strange», because « wonderful» is closer to ibn
Tibbon's Hebrewtranslation, emülovedbv Abulafia. nifla'.
66. The issue of propheticparables.
67. Zechariah, 11:7.
68. Song of Songs, 2:15.
69. Zechariah, 11:8.
70. Guide of the Perplexed,II, ch. 43; Pines, p. 392-393.
510 Moshe Idei

of lettersone may learnthe intentionof the parable: the Israelitekingswho were

designatedas hoblim,namelythe ravagersare also those who have loathed the
Torah and have been loathedby Him. However,what seems to be important from
the vantagepointof our discussionis not only the peculiarexample,but also the
rhetoricsinvolvedin it. By changingthe orderof letterssomeonemay indeed find
out some strangethings,and I read it as bizarre,or irrelevantconclusions,but also
attainsome secrets,even such as relatedto the mostsublimerealmof speculation:
the divine chariot.It is thislast pointthatis important forAbulafia:by manipula-
tionthe orderof letters,someonemay reach,at least in some instances,secretsof
theTorah. It is quite obvious thatMaimonidesdoes not restrictthismethodto one
instancealone, but assertsthatthis particularcase should inspiresimilartypesof
interpretations, apparentlyregarding« each passage ». The Hebrew translation
invitesindeeda muchmorecomprehensive understanding of Maimonides:« and in
place otherthanthis one, when you will searchby yourmind,in everyplace the
thingswill become clear to you, by the dint of this intimation ». Interestingly
a
enough,though negative attitude toward some of the possible resultsof these
permutations is shortlyexpressed,the more positive attitudeseems to be more
evident, and the end of the passage does not reiteratethe negative remark.
Moreover,Maimonides offerssome examples which should be decoded by the
methodhe has proposed,some wordsfromthe firstchapterof Ezekiel, whichare
proneto a similarinterpretation. However,he does notembarkan additionalexpo-
sition of how to interpret these words in detail. I would say thatnone of these
wordscan be interpreted by the same methodsince it is impossibleto findin the
contextof these words otherwords which containthe same lettersin a different
order.However, we may assume, followingsome of the commentators, that by
changing the order of the letters alone, without finding a word that indeed is
constituted by those lettersin the given context.So, forexample,some commen-
tatorspropose to understandthe termbrass, namelynehoshet,as pointingto has-
hahatah,namelycorruption, while qalal, burnished,can pointto qal, ease, namely
easily corruptible. The calf, egei, may be understoodas pointingto the conceptof
roundness,vagol,as indeed Maimonideshimselfpointsout later on in the Guide
III:271.Last but not least,the termlightning, Hashmal,has been understoodby the
commentators, followinga talmudicinterpretation, as compoundof two words,
Hash and mal, namelysilentand speaking,as two statesof the angelic activity72.
This last « etymology» is quotedexplicitlyby Maimonidesin his expositionof the
Chariot,in partIII ch. 773wherealso another'etymology'is offered74. Thus, we
may assume thatthe hermeneutical principleof derivationof meaningby means
of speculationsrelated to the linguisticstructureof the word, and its possible

71. Pines, ibid., p. 418.

72. See Hagigah, f. 13ab.
73. Pines, p. 429-430.
74. topic in Jewishesotericism,see Guide,111:5,Pines, p. 425-
For moreon thisimportant
426.
Abulafia's Secretsof the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 511

meaningsas derivedfromthe permutations of its letters,was not a matterof an

abstracttheory,butof a practicethatMaimonidesindeedaccepted,at least in those
cases mentionedabove. Moreover,in anotherimportant discussion,whichinvolves
a certainhermeneutical vision,Maimonidescomparestwo different discussionsof
the Chariotin orderto learn fromthe parallel betweenthe « face of an ox » and
the « face of a chérubin», the latterunderstoodas a face of a child, thatalso the
ox should be understoodas the face of a man that is similarto an ox. In this
context,he refersto « derivationsof words, as we have indicatedin a flash»,
apparently, as pointedout by commentators and by Pines, referring to II:4375.It is
difficultto ascertainwhetherthose commentators are always rightwhen pointing
out thedetailsof how Maimonideswould interpret some of thewordshe mentioned
there.However,the veryfact thatJewishphilosophers,who cannotbe suspected
of mysticalor Kabbalisticleaningshad to resortto such a typeof interpretation of
Maimonides' text is quite emblematicto the importanceof the linguisticherme-
neuticsimplicitin this importantMaimonideanpassage. Abulafia has capitalized
on this passage in orderto convince his readersthathis own linguisticapproach
can be endorsedby Maimonides'own view. I am aware of at least fourdiscussions
of this passage of Maimonides in Abulafia's writings.So, for example, in his
Hayyeiha-Nefesh,afterquoting11:43,he wroteabout Maimonidesthat
« he has explainedtheissueof theorderof theletters and it is calledby
[zakhar(iah)]
theKabbaliststhecombination of letters
»76.

In his epistle,ShevaKNetivotha-Torah,he simplystatesthat

« he has testified
on thesecretof combinations
in partII whendiscussing
theissueof
prophecy,whendealingwiththewordBHL andHBL »77.

Abulafia implies that Maimonides was not only hintingat a certainconceptual

aspect, namelythe secretsinvolvedin Zechariah's verses and in the nouns found
in the Chariotaccount,but also to the possibilitythata secrettechniqueof inter-
pretation,by meansof combinationsof lettersis alludedby theGuide in thechapter
underconsideration.It is important to point out thatAbulafia explicitlyindicates
thatthistechnique,whichis a secret,is also thatof the Kabbalists.Still thisis not
to say, accordingto these quotes and othersto the same effect,that Abulafia
describedMaimonidesas a Kabbalist; he was carefulenoughnot to take this step:
nevertheless,he came veryclose to it indeed.

75. See 111:1,Pines, p. 417.

76. Ms. München408, f. 30a.
77. Philosophieund Kabbala [note 46 above], p. 20.
512 Moshe Idei

VII. FROM IMAGINATION TO LANGUAGE

How does language work in a Kabbalistic systemthat is so dependentupon

Maimonides' psychologyas Abulafia's is?
For our purpose here it will sufficeto mentionhere the relationshipbetween
and the imaginativefaculty:languageis, accordingto Aristote-
linguisticcreativity
lian views as exposed by Maimonides,based upon images and is boundto timeand
place. As such a certaintensionbetweenlanguage and the intellectual,which is
conceivedto be an atemporaltypeof cognition,is permeating Maimonides'thought.
This philosopheris preoccupiedwiththerelationbetweenintellectand imagination,
while the tensionbetweenlanguage and intellectis less explicitin his thought.In
his definitionof prophecy,Maimonidesspeaks about the transmission of the intel-
lectualforms,emanatedfromtheAgentIntellect,upon thehumanintellectand then
upon imagination.It is only then that the intellectualis translatedin imaginary
terms,whichare eithervisual, namelyimages,or linguistic,viz. voices78.In other
words,imaginationstandsbetweenintellectand language. However,in some dis-
cussions of Abulafia,language, more preciselyspeech, is conceived as standing
betweenthe intellectand imagination.In his discussionof the last of the thirthy-
six secrets,« worshipof God out of love » Abulafiawritesthat

« You shouldknow thatspeech alone is not the intellect,but it is the truefacultyof the
soul. And thereis, in soul, no naturalfacultythatis higherthan it is because the separate
just as the sun is emanatinglightupon theeye. Speech
intellectemanatesupon it its intellect,
is a facultyin the soul thatis similarto the eye in relationto the sun, whichgenerateslight
upon it. And the lightof the eye is the verylightof the sun, and not somethingdifferent
fromit. Likewise the intellectof the soul79is the veryemanationof the AgentIntellect,not
somethingdifferent fromit. And the speech, as conceptualized80in the intellect,and the
imaginativefaculty81 and the appetitivefacultyand the sensitiveone, are ruledby it [...] and
the intellectcommandsto the speech, and the speech commandsthe appetitive,and the
appetititeto imagination,and imaginationto the senses, and the senses are moving,in order
to fulfillthe commandof the intellect.»82

Elsewhere,in the continuationof the above discussion,we learnthat« the intellect

does notoperateupon our soul butby meansof speech»83and again, « theintellect
does stirthe appetitivefacultyby the means of speech»84.These descriptionsare
quite exceptionalpieces of medievalpsychology.The facultyof speech is seen as

78. Guide, 11:32,Pines, p. 369.

79. Nefeshha-Sekhel.
80. Mezuyyarba-sekhel.On the termziyyuras forminga concept see H.A. Wolfson,
« The TermTasawwurand Tasdiq in Arabic Philosophyand TheirGreek,Latin and Hebrew
Equivalents », The Moslem World,April, 1943, p. 1-15.
81. Ve-koah ha-medammeh.
82. SeferHayyei ha-Nefesh,Ms. München408, f. 9 lab.
83. Ibid., f. 92a.
84. Ibid.
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 513

differentfromboth the intellectualone, and the imaginativefaculty.It mediates

betweenthe intellectand all the lower faculties,thoughthe mechanismof this
mediationis not quite clear. Perhaps Abulafia assumes that speech is necessary
since it may translatethe purelyintellectualintentioninto much more explicate
linguisticterms.In any case, thisunique statusof speech is notfoundin theGuide
thoughit is not unknownin Abulafia's otherwritings85. Moreover,he sometimes
interpretsin manyof his writingsthe whole rangeof componentsof Maimonides'
definitionof prophecy:AgentIntellect,the overflow,the humanintellectand the
imagination,in linguisticterms.So, forexample,we learn in one instancethat:
« ...thetrueessenceof prophecy,
itscause is the'word'thatreachestheprophetfrom
God bymeansof the'perfect language'thatincludesunderit theseventy »86.
languages

The « word» plays therole of theoverflowin Maimonides' definitionof prophecy,

the perfectlanguagebeing no otherthanMaimonides' AgentIntellect,and this is
the case also insofaras the seventylanguages are concerned.It is this ascent of
the importanceof language and of linguisticimagerythatis unique withAbulafia
as an interpreterof Maimonides' Guide. Some Greek formsof ontologyand psy-
chology,as reverberating in the Middle Ages, have been translatedin linguistic
terms.The processof transformation of intellectionintolanguage,whichtookplace
accordingto Maimonidesonly at the level of the inter-human psychology,when
the imaginationtranslatesthe abstractconceptsinto linguisticunits,takes place in
Abulafiaat the verysource of the intellectualrealm,at least insofaras the Agent
Intellectis concerned.

VIII. FROM MAIMONIDES TO NAHMANIDES

Despite the factthatthe mysticalsecretsAbulafia discussed are viewed quite

oftenlyas those exposed by Maimonides,it is also truethatin some instanceshe
fromthe Maimonidean
is aware of his resortto Kabbalah as an approachdiffering
typeof exegesis. So, forexample,Abulafiamentionsboththe Maimonideaninter-
pretationsof the Bible by means of equivocal termsand allegories,just as he has
done in one of the previousquotes87,as well as combinationsof letters,acronyms,

85. See M. Idel, R. AbrahamAbulafia's Worksand Doctrines,Jerusalem,Ph. D. Hebrew

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

ends of words,permutationsof lettersand notariqon.The firsthas been exposed,

as he openly acknowledged,in Maimonides' Guide. The goal of his commentary
on the Guide is, however

« to revealits secretsto theilluminati, thedisclosureof thesecretsof the

including
Torah,inaccordance toourKabbalah.Thisis whythiscommentaryis calledSitreiTorah»88.

A similarstatement,foundalso in his earliercommentary on theGuide, Seferha-

Ge'ulah, is veryimportantfor understanding of Abulafia's attitudeto the Guide;
he indicatesthatthereis

« thepathof theGuide,and [another to myownpath89,

one] according thatis thepath
of Kabbalah...thepathsof Kabbalahwhicharethesecrets90
of SeferYetzirah
»91.

The occurence of the firstperson forms: « our Kabbalah » and « my own

Kabbalah », points to the sharp awareness that he exposes a spiritualpath that
differsfromthatof Maimonides.Abulafia's mentioning Sefer Yetzirahas his own
way reflectshis very high evalutionof this book, represented,interalia, in his
devotingthreebooks to its contents92.However,whatseems to be quite fascinating
is thatMaimonides,who neverquoted or referred to thisancient,and quite famous
work,whichis one of the foundationstonesof Jewishmysticism- this strategy
beingpartof Maimonides' deliberatedpoliticsof citationor ignoringsome vemba-
rassing' books - has been combinedpreciselywithSefer Yetzirah.Abulafiawas,
however,aware thatit is his own spiritualmethodthatis combinedwiththatof
Maimonides'.The two paths,thatof Maimonides'and Abulafia's own blend,which
introducedthe linguisticcombinatorytechniques,have been partof the topics he
attemptedto teach in variouspartsof southernEurope93.
Quite often,Abulafiamentionsalso anothersource of his Kabbalah, mainlyits
linguisticapproach,the writingsof Hasidei Ashkenaz,whichhad providedcrucial
topics for Abulafia's linguisticapproachto Kabbalah; these mysticalsources are
quite important forthe essence of some mysticaland hermeneutical aspects of the
ecstaticKabbalah, and even mentionedsometimesin Abulafia's commentarieson
the Guide. Here, however,I would like to elaborateupon anotherkind of source,
whichcontributed somethingto Abulafia's expositionof Kabbalah as a matterof
linguistictechniques.On the page in Sitrei Torah where he mentions'our Kab-
balah' Abulafia has also introduceda well-knownstatement, takenfromNahma-

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

nides' introductionof his Commentaryon the Pentateuchwhich deals with a

tradition,apparentlystemmingfrommagical sources94,thatthe whole Torah can
be read as a continuumof divine names95.Accordingto Abulafia,in this issue, as
well as othersimilar,but unindentifed
topics
« all thesecretsof theTorahare hidden,whichenablesomeoneto penetratethereality
in a rightmanner, andcreatetheapprehensionsof God in theheartof theilluminati
»%.

This explicitresortto Nahmanides' passage fromhis introduction can be found

several timesin Abulafia's commentarieson the Guide97.It betrays,so I assume,
an assumptionthatthe secretsof the Torah of Moses, can be decoded by means
thoughquite divergingexegeticaltechniquesfoundin the writings
of authoritative,
of the two other great Moses: Maimonides and Nahmanides.Thus, in a deep
manner,forAbulafia,both Moses ben Maimón and Moses ben Nahman,are con-
ceived of as the two greatcommentators of the ancientMoses' book, the Penta-
teuch. However,as we well know,the thoughtof the historicalMaimonideswas
remotefromany typeof magico-linguistic hermeneutics, while Nahmanides' atti-
tude to allegory in the vein of Maimonides, and to the free gematriatype of
hermeneutics, was morethanreticent98. Abulafia'sjuxtapositionof the two masters
a quite unexpectedendeavor.However,it should be emphasizedthat
is, therefore,
Abulafia's projectdoes not attemptto harmonizebetweenthe two authors.Rather,
we may assume thatNahmanides'kind of exegesis is conceived to be superiorto
the allegoricalone, and lateron in Abulafia's career,he will classifyMaimonides'
formof allegoricalexegesis as the fourthout of seven, while techniquessimilarto
thatof Nahmanides',as one of the threesuperior,kabbalisticexegetical techni-

94. « The concept of the Torah in Heikhalot Literatureand its Metamorphosesin

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

97. See also Sheva*Netivotha-Torah [note 46 above], p. 20 and Idel, Language, Torah
and Hermeneutics, p. 46 and p. 171, note 80.
98. Scholem, Originsof the Kabbalah [note5 above], p. 387-388. On Nahmanides'reti-
cence towardgematriaand its significancesee M. Idel, « We have no kabbalistictradition
on this» in I. Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in his
religiousand literaryvirtuosity,Cambridge,Mass., 1983, p. 58-59.
516 Moshe Idei

ques". Thus, in his commentaries on Maimonides' secrets,Abulafiaadduces cons-

picuous non-Maimonideanexegetical devices, which are intended to uncover
secretsof the Torah. By his calling one of his commentariesby the titleSitrei
Torah, AbulafiaimpliesthatMaimonides' own interpretation of thebiblical secrets
is partial,veiled and apparentlyconditionedby the exilic situation.These are the
reasons why they should be supplementedby kabbalistictypes of exegesis as
understoodby him. We may assume thatthis combinationof the allegorical and
the linguisticexegeses, arrangedhierarchically, may reveal the self-consciousness
of Abulafiathathe offersthe peak of a religiousdevelopmentbecause, interalia,
his exegeticalsystemis the more complex and therefore, so I assume, he would
regardit as moreperfect.
Maimonideshimselfhas chosen the way of exclusionby deliberatelymargina-
lizing some formsof Jewishtraditionand some sorts of ancient and medieval
philosophieswhich were not consonantwithhis philosophicaloutlook; synthesis.
The syntheticapproach is one of the major, thoughnot explicit, strategiesin
Maimonides' spiritualendeavour,but it workedjust in one direction:by selecting
some typesof Jewishviews, and some formsof philosophicalthought,namelythe
medieval Neoaristotelianism, he was able to offera Jewishtheology,which was
quite novel in Judaism.Nahmanideswas also exclusive in his approach: quite
critical,thoughonly rarelymentioningnames,towardthe allegoricalexegesis and
philosophicalintellectualism,he is much more in concert with those formsof
thoughtfoundin some of the Jewishphilosopherswho precededMaimonides,like
Yehudah ha-Levi or Abrahambar Hiyya,forexample. He was more open toward
magic and had a positiveview of the perceptionof Hebrew as a naturallanguage.
Maimonides' stand on this issue consists,however,in weakeningthe importance
of the sacred language by attenuating its special status;in associatinghis noetics
withAl-Farabi's sceptical approachversus the view, latteraccepted by Averroes
as to the unionof the humanwiththe divineintellect,and by describingprophecy
as part of the glorious past, have been overcomeby his Kabbalistic interpreter,
who attempted views carefullyobliteratedby Maimonides,as the secret
to attribute
standsof the Guide.
In his morecomplexsynthesis, Abulafiahas builtup one of thepossible spiritual
worldsat the beginningof the last thirdof thethirteenth century:on the one hand,
the combinationof Maimonides' Neoaristotelianism versionof Judaismwith the
contemporary Jewishinterestin Averroism,which became integralto the Jewish
philosophyin Provenceand Italy,and on the otherhand the arrivalof Ashkenazi
esoterictraditionsfromsouthernGermanyto Spain, more preciselyto Barcelona,
and to Italy.His inclusiveapproachexploitedformsof thoughtand spirituality that
were in his generationin conflict,but he attemptedto build up a concertout of

99. Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics[note59 above], p. 85-101. In one of this
laterworks,Abulafiais quite aware of thedivergencesbetweenNahmanidesand Maimonides,
and prefersthe Maimonides' view. See Mafteah ha-Sefirot,Ms. Milano-Ambrosiana 53,
f. 179b.
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 517

thesenon-harmonious sounds. In otherwords,Abulafia's special typeof Kabbalah

representsa unique case where the Maimonideanand Nahmanideanesotericism
have been combined;no doubt this is one of the earliest,if not the earliestjuxa-
positionbetweenthe figures,but unlike most of the numerouslater comparisons
betweenthe two,the views of thesefigures,as understoodby Abulafia,have been
combined;in thiscombination,however,bothformsof esotericismsuffereddrastic
changes,whichobliteratedmajor inhibitionsof these two authors.The uniqueness
of thissynthesisis unparalleledby SpanishKabbalah,or by any formsof Kabbalah
later.It is an attemptto exploitthe strongelementsin the two systemsand offer
a thirdone, whichwould capitalize on the authorityand insightsof all the major
thirteenth centurymastersknownto Abulafia,includingthe Hasidei Ashkenaz.To
all these componentswhich inspiredAbulafia's synthesis,we have to add the
idiosyncratic personalityof Abulafia: open enoughto learn variouskindsof intel-
lectual developmentsand innovativeenough in order to combine them,coupled
also by a personalinvestment in some of the topics he studied,whichtransformed
those heterogenoustraditionsinto a practical system.Incongruentas Abulafia's
synthesisis, it shouldbe judged by the main criterionhe would like to be judged:
if it could inspirean interestin the ecstaticexperiencehe attemptedto promote.
His commentaries on theGuidehave been one of themaintoolsforsucha promotion.
The move towarda moresynthetic, global or inclusiveapproachto the spiritual
modes found in the varietyof approaches presentedin the Jewishtraditionis,
however,not unique to Abulafia:some of his contemporary Kabbalistsin Castille,
more eminentlyhis formerstudentR. JosephGikatilla,have also opened them-
selves to a varietyof intellectualtrends,contributing to what I conceive to be a
real renascenceof Kabbalah in the formof an innovativeapproach to the very
concept of Kabbalah and a luxuriantKabbalistic literature100. One of the more
obvious symptomsof this more creativetype of Kabbalah is the phenomenonof
returning to the same literarygenremorethanonce by the same Kabbalist.Justas
Abulafiahas writtenthreeversionsof commentary on the thirty-six
secretsof the
Guide, and threecommentarieson Sefer Yetzirah,so also did Gikatilla,Moses de
Leon and Josephof Hamadan wrotethreeversionsof theircommentariesof Ten
Sefirotm,and the Zohar has composed several versionsof the «Idra »102.
As in the case of the Castilian Kabbalah, so also in thatof the Abulafianone,
whatis important froma scholarlypointof view is notonlyto findout thesystemic
consistency,but to explore also the varietyof sources which nourishedthe Kab-

100. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives,p. 210-218. On Abulafia's influenceon thismajor

Kabbalistsee Abulafiahimself,in an important autobiographicalpiece, analized interalia in
Idel, « Transmission», [note53 above] ; forthe earlierliterarycareerof Gikatilla,including
in particularhis contactwithAbulafia see Gottlieb,Mehqarim [note 51 above], p. 102-105
and forthe Gikatilla's thoughtsee my introduction to Gates of Light,Sha^arei 'Orah, tr.A.
Weinstein,HarperCollinsPublishers,1994, p. XXVII-XXIX.
101. Kabbalah: New Perspectives, p. 211.
102. Yehuda Liebes, « The Messiah of the Zohar », The Messianic Idea in Israel, Jeru-
salem, Israel Academyof Science and Humanities,1990, p. 101 [Hebrew].
518 Moshe Idei

balistic writings,the mannertheywere combined,the problemsinherentof any

significantsynthesisbetweensubstantially different
formsof thought103. The search
forultimatecoherence,so visible in the modernscholarshipof Kabbalah, should
be only a preliminary effort, whichshouldnotbe imposedon thinkerswhose main
interestwas less a well organizedphilosophicalsystem,but an expressionof, and
sometimesalso a directivetowarda more experientialmysticalpath. As we shall
see below,however,to thoseinterpretations of theGuide in Abulafia's books, some
followersof his have contributed moreradical ones.
Let me attemptto summarizeone major developmentin the interpretation of
Maimonides' Guide: most of the extantcommentarieson the Guide writtenby
Jewishphilosophersfollowthemainlines as proposedby theauthor.They,together
withR. Shmueland Moshe ibn Tibbon,R. Yavaqov Anatolior R. Hillel of Verona,
may be descrivedas the scholasticapproach to Maimonides,namelythose who
acceptedthe framework of the Maimonideanthought,even if on some pointsthey
dissentedfromit. However,Maimonidesspecial strategyof esotericismhas gene-
rateda complexsituation:his emphasisupon the secrecyand upon the factthathe
did not disclose his secrets encouragedsome comentatorsto project theirown
secrets,or whattheyhave receivedfromothersthatwereMaimonides' secrets,into
the Guide. Abulafiafoundin the Guide hints,as we have seen above, at combina-
tionsof letters104.
However,thoughimplicitlyviewingtheGuide as book whichis
consonantwith Kabbalah, he was not ready eitherto describe Maimonides as a
fulfledgeKabbalist,neitherto attribute to himotherKabbalistic,spuriouswritings.
Rather,informedby otherlayers of Jewishesotericism,Sefer Yetzirah,Hasidei
Ashkenazand Nahmanides'sremarks,Abulafiaattempted to offera comprehensive,
and syntheticvision of Jewishesotericism,and read the Guide in the lightof the
otherpieces of available esotericism.I proposeto designatethisapproachas pers-
pectivism,since it applies to Maimonidessome perspectiveswhichwere nottotally
imposedonto the interpreted material.
Some anonymousauthors,however,attributedto Maimonides even talismanic
and astrologicalviews105.Even when those views stand in diametricalopposition
to the morephilosophicalstandsof the Guide someone could claim thatthe attri-
buted views are partof the secretstand of the greateagle. Furthermore, the fact
thatMaimonidesattackedsome views,relatedto the linguisticand magical aspects

103. On this issue see M. Idel, Hasidism: BetweenEcstasy and Magic, Albany, Suny
to Daniel Abrams (ed.), of The Book Bahir
Press, 1995, p. 45-145 as well as myintroduction
Los Angeles,CherubPress, 1994, p. 1-6, [Hebrew].
104. See § VI above.
105. See the spurious epistle printedunder the name Megillat Setarim in Hemdah
Genuzah,Z. Edelmann (ed.), Koenigsburg,1856, vol. I, p. 43:

marc no ^d *3 in nani mows rrpmx a"D ont...

mVö n"Dn ròna ippn1»nvaisrnn nwDjn *?kD'ox^on mnirno
.oín jo mn oik1?n*n*n
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 519

of the alreadyexistingJewishtraditions,provokedreactionswhich attempted,in

some cases, to infusein Maimonides' writingsthemselvesthe veryviews he criti-
cised. This approach,the pseudepigraphicalone, is partof the circle veryclose to
the ideas of Abulafia,but should not be identifiedwithhim. Unlike Nahmanides
and some of his followersratherreserved-while-respectfulapproach,the pseudepi-
graphsattempted to integrateMaimonidesintotheircamps. Those fourapproaches,
all partof the thirteenthcenturyKabbalah, should be well-distinguished fromthe
muchmorecriticalattitudefoundamongthose who bitterlyattackedtheGuide, or
criticisedit more moderately.

IX. ABULAFIA'S LIST OF SECRETS OF THE GUIDE

What are the relationsbetweenthe subject-matters

of theGuide and the secrets
Abulafia ascribes to the Guide ? As we know, the Guide's chaptersdo not have
titles,neithernumbers,and Abulafiahad to decide whatare those subject-matters,
accordingto « our thought»106.Immediatelyafterwards,he indicates that he is
writingdown
« all thesecretsfoundin thisbook,[namely
theGuide]justas we havereceivedthem
fromthemouthof thesagesof thegeneration, ourmasters,
mayGod keepthemalive»107.

This statement is of a certainhistoricalimportance:Abulafiaclaims thathe has

received the thirty-sixsecrets from some unidentifiedmasterswho are, to his
knowledge,still alive in 1280 when Sitrei Torah has been composed in Capua.
Accordingto anotherpassage, Abulafia has studied in Capua, in his youththe
Guide with Rabbi Hillel ben Shemuel of Verone. Hillel was still alive in 1280
when Abulafiawrotehis commentary108. However,even if we assume thatHillel
is one plausible candidateforbeing one of Abulafia's alleged sources forthe list
of secrets,stillthereseems to be a problem:Abulafiauses a pluralform,assuming
thattherewas a group,or severalunrelatedindividualswho passed to him the list,
and for the time being, it seems the historicalevidence available does not allow
us to speculate about the identityof those othermastersof Abulafia. However,
even if the above statementreflectsa real case of transmission,and I am inclined
to believe so, this should not be identifiedwiththe assumptionthatit stemsfrom
a directtraditionstemmingfromMaimonideshimself.In any case, Abulafiareite-
ratesthe same secretsin all the threecommentaries on the secretsof theGuide, a
factthatmay confirmhis claim thathe had a fixedtraditionregardingthe subject-
mattersand the specificordertheyshould be exposed.

106. SitreiTorah,Paris Bibliothèquenationale,ms. 774, f. 117a. In Hebrewmahshavtenu.

107. Ibid. On the Latin versionof this text,see Wirszubski,Betweenthe Lines [note22
above], p. 146. See also in his Hayyei ha-Nefesh,Ms. München408, f. 47a.
108. Hillel died in the ninetiesof the 13thCentury.
520 Moshe Idei

In any case, an additionalconfessionof Abulafia seems to emphasizethe need

to allow the existenceof such a group.In his commentaryon theGuide he claims
thathe is writingdown everything

« fromthebeginning in
to theend,[just]as I toohavereceivedit fromthetransmitters,
theformof theheadingof thechapters
»109.

The phraseused by Abulafia « min ha-moserimrashei peraqim» is quite interes-

ting;it may well be interpreted
as pointingeitherto a certaingroup,or to a certain
specificformof transmission,whichdeals withtheheadingsof the chapters,in the
spiritof the Talmudic phrase and of Maimonidesclaims110.Interestingly enough,
this Rabbinic expressionrecursnumeroustimes in the ecstatic Kabbalah, as we
have seen in paragraphIV above, but it would be especiallyinteresting
to compare
the above confessionof Abulafia of receivingthe secretsof the Guide to thatof
anotherecstaticKabbalist,about his studyingKabbalah:

« a divineman,a Kabbalist,
whotaught methepathofKabbalahby 'headsofchapters'.
And,notwithstandingthefactthatbecauseof thelittleI knewfromthescienceof natureit
seemedto metobe impossible,mymaster saidto me: 'My son,whydo younegatean issue
youdidnotexperience? Indeed,it wouldbe worthwhile to experience
it' »m.

However,such a view is quite rare in otherformsof contemporary Kabbalah.

So, forexample,it is marginalin Nahmanides'school and ratherrare among the
CastillianKabbalists.Therefore,it is not a cliche or a topos, foundoutsideof his
school, thatsomeone testifiesthathe receivedpersonallya secrettradition.
Anotherclaim regardinga traditionrelatedto theGuide is Abulafia's statement
thatthereare 177 chaptersin the Guide112:

« Thereis a tradition thenumber

in ourhandregarding includedin
of all thechapters
everyoneof thethreepartsof thebook »n3.

Justas in the case of the numberof the secretshiddenin the Guide also the
numberof the chaptersis conceived to be a traditionand both referto a certain
numericaldecodingof a Biblical verse or term.If this numerical,and exegetical
approachof Abulafia reflecta previous stand,then we may assume thathe has
inheritednot only a philosophicaltraditionbut also one thathas some numerolo-
of theGuide includednot only
gical aspects. Or, in otherwords,an interpretation

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

a traditionreferingto thephilosophicalaspectsof secretsin thebook but also more

formalaspects,whichhave numericalimplications.
Though Abulafia also mentionstraditionsin the contextof numericalissues
foundin his commentaries, I have no doubtthatthesetraditionsare partof a post-
Maimonideandevelopment, and it is indeedpartof a misinterpretationof theGuide
in the directionof a more linguisticsense. Confrontedwiththe logocentricinter-
pretationof Judaismas offeredby Maimonides,the Kabbalists,and moreeminently
in this particularcase AbrahamAbulafia, has recoursedto a varietyof already
existingJewishlinguistictraditions, in orderto offeranothervision of thisreligion,
emphasizing the richnessof the realm of language as representedby Hebrew.

X. R. ZERAHIAH'S TESTIMONY AND ITS PARALLELS

In thiscontext,anotherimportant issue is to be mentioned:Rabbi Zerahiahben

She'altiel Hen, knownalso as Gracian,an Aristotelianphilosopherbornon Barce-
lona, who leftin the early seventiesof the thirteenthcenturyforRome and other
places in Italy114and correspondedwith Rabbi Hillel of Verona, has been
acquaintedwithnumericaland magical interpretations of the Guide. In a letterto
R. Hillel, aftera brutalattackconcerningthe latter's « misunderstandings » of the
Guide, Zerahiahclaims thatin Maimonides' book

« thereare no secretsor enigmas115

fromthe categoryof the gematriahor of the combi-
nation of letters,neitherfromthe categoryof the names, of the talismans116 and of the
amulets,used by the mastersof the names117,writersof the amulets,nor of the multiplicity
of angels or anythingmentionedin SeferYetzirahor SeferRazielu* or SeferShiu^urQomah.
Everythingthe Gaon, our Rabbi, blessed be the memoryof this righteous,has mentioned
fromthe wordsof the sages, blessed be theirmemory,small and great,concerningan issue

114. See Ravitzky, Al Da^at ha-Maqom [note 21 above], p. 212.

115. Hidot.
116. Zurot.This seems to be the best understanding of the text,and this meaningof the
wordis foundin variousmedievalmagicaltreatises.See e.g. thecontemporaneous discussion
of R. Abraham of Esquira in his Sefer Yesod "Olam,Ms. Moscow-Guensburg607, f. 179a
[see on this authornote 129 below], and the astro-magicaltexttranslatedand discussed in
Idel, « An Astral-MagicalPneumaticAnthropoid », Incognita,vol. II, 1991, p. 9-31.
117. Ba'alei ha-Shemot.Abulafia mentionsthis phrase in an explicit negativecontext:
see his Sheva' Netivotha-Torah,Philosophieund Kabbala [note46 above], p. 22.
See also Maimonides' own negativeattitudeto the issue of amuletsin the Guide, 1:61.
118. This book is also mentionedin Italyby AbrahamAbulafia twice see Sheva" Netivot
ha-Torah,ibid.,p. 21 as partof a list of older magical-mysticaltexts,and again, p. 2 where
he quotes a gematriafromthisbook as partof a tradition.I did not findthisgematriain the
variousextantversionsof this book. The second time he refersto divine names he learned
fromthisbook. It shouldhoweverbe mentionedthata book withthisname had been quoted
alreadyby R. Abrahamibn Ezra in the 12thCenturyand, in the 13thCentury,by R. Jacob
522 Moshe Idei

relatedto prophecy,or dealingwiththe Merkavahor on the accountof Creation,[whichare]

writtenin the Torah, all are from the categoryI have mentioned119 or related to their
intention.And if someone has some secretsor enigmasor allusions or parables,which are
not fromthe categoryI have mentionedto you, theyare all vain and worthlessthings»12°.

This passage is partof a confrontationbetweenuniversalisticand particularistic

trendsin Judaism;Maimonides,one of the major figuresof the integration of the
naturalisticthoughtas exposed in some trendsof Greek and Arabic thought,has
provokedboth a reactionwhich negatedhis naturalizationof religion121 or, as in
thecase of Abulafiaand his possible sources,an attemptto interpret himin a more
particularisticmanner,by resortingto linguistictopics, as we shall see later on.
Nature,whichis one of the main concernsforMaimonideshas been suplantedto
a great extentby language,conceived by the Kabbalists as superior,eitheras a
morepowerfulmeans foraction,namelymagic,or foraccelerationthe intellectual
process,namelyecstasy.R. Zerahiahis no doubta representative of an intellectual
reactionto thesetwo mystico-magical reactions:he sharplycriticisesNahmanides'
attemptto offera non-Aristotelianpictureof the world122 and the Abulafian-like
attemptsto infusemagical and mysticalelementsintothe secretsof theGuide. The
above descriptionof the non-naturalisticinterpretationsof the secretsof theGuide
include at least two distinctcategories:one dealing withgematriahand combina-
tionsof letters,bothof themfitting perfectly Abulafia's approachto theGuide and
it may,presumably,referto an ecstaticreadingof the Guide as exposed in Abu-
lafia's commentaries.The other category,however,dealing with divine names,
talismanicfiguresand amulets,seems to referto writingsdifferent fromthose of
Abulafia,who opposed magic, includinglinguisticmagic123. In any case, no posi-
tive attitudeto magic,neithera recommendation to use talismansand amuletscan
foundin Abulafia's writings,even less in his commentarieson the secretsof the
Guide. These two categories:the ecstatic-combinatory on the one hand, and the
magical-talismanic on the other,are not only a plausible distinctionbetweendif-

ben Jacob ha-Kohen in Castile. See Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics[note59
above], p. 152; and, apparentlyalso in this milieu, in a kabbalistic text attributedto
R. MeshullamTzarfati, Meshullamthe Frenchman:Oxford,123, f. 70b-71a; See Idel, The
MysticalExperience[note 31 above], p. 105, Verman, The Book of the Contemplation[note
3 above], p. 205.
119. Namelythingsrelatedto naturaltopics.
120. Printedby Raphael Kircheim,'Otzar Nehmad,vol. 2, Wien, 1857, p. 133. See Idel,
R. AbrahamAbulafia[note85 above], p. 40 note 28; Ravitzky, Al Da at ha-Maqom,p. 155,
« Secrets of the Guide » [note 41 above], p. 175, where a differenttranslationof this text
has been offered.
121. See e.g. Nahmanides'remarkthatMaimonidesrestricted the numberof miraclesand
increasedthe scope of nature,foundin his sermon« Torat ha-ShemTemimah», Kitveiha-
Ramban,Ch. D. Chavel (ed.), Jerusalem,Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1963, vol. I, p. 154.
122. See Ravitzky,Al Da^at ha-Maqom,p. 154; « Secretsof the Guide » [note41 above],
p. 174.
123. See Idel, R. AbrahamAbulafia [note 85 above], p. 129-133.
Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 523

ferentapproaches,or models of thoughtand praxis in themselves,but are also

corroborated by the syntaxof Zerahiah's formulation his critique.The importance
of this distinctionis even greatersince a certain literarypiece, attributing an
interestin magic and astrologyon one hand, and in divine names on another,to
Maimonidesis available. This is the case in the abovementionedspuriousepistle
attributed to Maimonides,MegillatSetarim,wheremagicalnames,talismanicmagic
and angels are mentionedas if theyare foundin the Guide124.This epistle is not
datedand I see in theabove passage of Zerahiaha plausibleevidencefora terminus
ante quern for the emergenceof some of the ideas included in it. Though this
epistle is quite close to Abulafia's thought,I see no reason to attributeit to
Abulafiahimself,and the possibilitythatit has been criticizedby Zerahiah,helps
us datingit in the circle of Abulafia's teacher,apparentlyin Barcelona, or of his
followers,later on in Italy125.It should be emphasized that in a mannerquite
reminiscentof the way we have analysed R. Zerahiah's text as pointingto two
different groups,MegillatSetarimmentionsthreetypesof Kabbalah,thefirstbeing
the propheticKabbalah and the thirdthe « practicalKabbalah »126.I see this dis-
tinctionas similarto respectivelythe combinatorytechniqueand the talismanic
praxisin the above critiqueof the misunderstanding of theGuide. Fromthe above
quote fromR. Zerahiah'sepistle,we may learnthatAbulafiahas notbeen the only
personin Italy who embraceda mysticalapproachto the Guide, thoughhe may
be the source,or one of the sources for such a readingin Italy. This seems to be
the case also in anotherpossible referenceto mysticalreadingof theGuide found,
as pointedout by Ravitzki,in Zerahiah's own Commentary on the Guide, where
he mentions« manypersons,whose mind is poluttedby erroneousopinions» in
connectionto discussions related to the interpretation of the termBen, son, as
hinting at divine names; the between
affinity this passage and Abulafia's similar
interpretation of thetermBen is quiteevident127.However,we shouldagain empha-
size thatR. Zerahiahmentions« manypersons», thusalowing the possibilitythat
Abulafia was not alone in his ecentricreadingof the Guide. Whetherthe other
persons who exposed such a reading are studentsof Abulafia, or ratherearlier
authorswho had inspiredhis vision of theGuide, as he himselfclaims in the above
quote,is a questionthatcannotbe answereddefinitively on the basis of the extant
material.However,even if such a definitiveansweris not in our reachon thebasis
of the extant material,I am inclined to opt for the latter alternativefor the
followingtwo reasons:
a) R. Zerahiah's critiquesare relativelyearly,in the life time of Abulafia,and
I wonderif we can documentrepercussionsof his interpretations among students,
thoughsuch studentshe had in the verytownhe startedto studytheGuide, Capua,
near Rome. On the otherhand, he expresslyindicatesthatthe secretshe exposes

124. Printedin HemdahGenuzah [note 105 above].

125. See Aviezer Ravitzky'sforthcoming
studyon Zerahiahand Barcelona.
126. Hemdah Genuzah,p. 45.
127. Al Da^at ha-Maqom,p. 154-155.
524 Moshe Idei

have been received fromseveral persons. Thus, thoughwe cannot rule out the
disseminationof Abulafianinterpretations
among some youngerpersonsin Italy,
to whomZerahiahwould react,it seems moreplausible to allow the impactof the
thoughts,and may be even writings,which served as the sources for Abulafia
himself.
b) The talismanicreadingof the Guide implied in the termtzurahthatoccurs
in Zerahiah's quote is met by the spuriousepistle,where the termruhaniyyut, a
crucial termforthe taiismanicmagic, occurs128. Moreover,in some ecstaticKab-
balistictextswrittenafterthe deathof Abulafia,like in some of the writingsof R.
Isaac of Acre, the termruhaniyyut recurstimeand again129. In any case, I am not
aware in Spain of a mystical-magical interpretationof theGuide and the case that
such a readingusheredof beforeAbulafiaseems to me nevertheless quite plausible,
forthe reasons I would like to propose in the following.
1) Inroadsof talismanicterminology in Kabbalah is alreadyevidentin the sixties
of the 13thcentury,in the writingsof R. Yehudah ben Nissim ibn Malka, though
his thoughtwas notinfluencedby Maimonides,and a magicalreadingof theGuide
seems to be implausiblein his case130.This seems to be the case also insofarother
Kabbalists are concerned. R. Bahiya ben Asher, apparentlyin Barcelona, has
recoursedto talismanictermsin his commentary on Deut, 18:II131,and this is the
case also in R. Abrahamof Esquira, a late 13th centuryor early 14th century
Spanish authorof a voluminousKabbalisticbook namedSefer Yesod yOlam,who
uses thetermruhaniyyut, but again he was, strangelyenough,notaware of Maimo-
nides' book132.R. Bahiya and R. Abraham of Esquira have not too much in
common insofar as their Kabbalistic systems are involved; though both were
ecclecticauthors,theircompilationsdrawupon different kabbalisticsources.Never-
theless,theymighthave somethingin common:the latterKabbalistwas acquainted
withR. Shem Tov ben Abrahamibn Gaon, while this Kabbalist was part of the
same circle of Kabbalist which was cultivated,at least for a considerableperiod
by R. Bahiya, namelythe circle of Kabbalistsin Barcelona. So far,such a nexus
may be non-consequential; however,it is R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon who mentions,
forthe firsttime,a Kabbalisticvision of Maimonides,and even mentionsthathe
has seen in Spain an epistle of « Maimonides», where he is depicted in terms,
stronglyreminiscent of the Heikhalotliterature.In his Migdal KOz,a. commentary

128. See the textsmentionedin the followingnotes.

129. See, e.g. Idel, Hasidism: BetweenEcstasy and Magic, p. 340, note 60.
130. See Georges Vajda, Juda ben Nissimibn Malka, philosophejuif marocain,Larose,
Paris, 1954; Moshe Idel, « The Beginningof Kabbala in NorthAfrica? - A Forgotten
Documentby R. Yehuda ben Nissimibn Malka », Pe^amim,vol. 43, 1990, p. 4-15 [Hebrew].
131. See Idel, « The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of Kabbalah in the
Renaissance», Essential Essays on JewishCulturein Renaissance and baroque Italy,David
Ruderman (ed.), New York, New York UniversityPress, 1992, p. 155, note 68.
132. Ms. Moscow-Gunzburg, 607, f. 179a, 104a. On this authorand his worksee David
de Gunzburg, « La Cabale à la veille de l'apparitiondu Zohar » ha-Qedem,vol. I (1907),
p. 28-36, 111-121; see especiallyp. 30.
Abulafia's Secretsof the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 525

on Maimonides'HilekhotYesodei Torah,ch. I he writesthathe has seen in Sefarad,

on a very old parchment,qelaf yashan mevushan,an epistle that startswith the
followingsentence:
« I, Moses, the son of Maimón,whenI had descendedto the chambersof the Merkavah,
have understoodthe issue of the end etc., and his words were similarto the words of the
trueKabbalists,whichwere alluded by our greatRabbi, Ramban,blessed be his memory,at
the beginningof the commentary on the Torah».

This passage has been writtenaround 1320 in the Galilee, probablyin Safed and
it refersto somethingR. Shem Tov has seen alreadyin Sefarad,a termwhich is
quite ambiguousfromthe geographicalpointof view. We may assume,but this is
not quite sure,thatit may pointto Castile, wherethis authorwas in his youthfor
a while, to studyKabbalah withR. Moshe of Burgos. This would mean thatthe
fabricationof thedocument,describedas writtenupon an old pergament, musthave
been done not later than the early eightiesof the 13th century.If so, I wonder
whetherScholem's assumptionregardingthenexusbetweenthe second controversy
around the Guide, which has presumablyhave inspiredthe compositionof this
forgery133.However,the truncatedformof the quote, shortas it is, may neverthe-
less help us understandbetterthe backgroundof the forgeries.When mentioning
the similaritybetweenthe contentof the epistle and the words of Nahmanidesat
the beginningof his commentary on the Torah, R. Shem Tov apparentlyrefersto
Nahmanides'prefaceto his commentary. There he mentionsonly once words of
Kabbalists, namely the statementabout the Torah as the continuumof Divine
Names. I suppose,followingScholem's suggestionto thiseffect,thatthisparticular
view of Nahmanides' has been compared by Shem Tov to the lost spurious
Moreover,again as Scholemhas suggested,thephrase« I have descended
epistle134.
to thechambersof theMerkavah» mayreflecta certainreverberation of an expres-
sion he foundonly in R. Ezra Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadot135.
Moreover,as the same kabbalistsput it elsewherein his commentary on Maimo-
nides' Code of the Law136,Maimonideshas offeredrationalesfor the command-
mentsfromhis own reason,an approachthatastonishedthe Kabbalist,who claims
that somethinglike that should not be done, especially by someone « who has
receivedthe secrets,orally froma personto another». This conceptionof trans-
missionof secretmay also reflectthe view of Nahmanides,whichagain, has been
projectedonto Maimonides137.
The time of the forgeryof the epistle quoted by R. Shem Tov would be not
earlierthanthe beginningof the seventies,when Nahmanides'commentary on the
Bible was alreadycirculating.Thus, it would be saferto conjecturethatthe Kab-

133. « Mi-Hoqer li-Mequbbal» [note 5 above], p. 92-93.

134. Ibid., p. 93; Idel, « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », p. 74 note 158.
135. Scholem, ibid., p. 93.
136. See HilkhotTefillin,111:5.
137. See Idel, « We Have No KabbalisticTradition» [note 98 above], p. 51-73.
526 Moshe Idei

balisticinterpretationof Maimonideswas undertakenearly in the seventiesof the

13th centuryCatalunya,a presuppositionthat coincides with the time Abraham
Abulafia startedhis Kabbalisticcareer in the same region. Both Abulafia,as we
have describedhimabove, and theanonymousforgerof theepistle,have combined
MaimonideswithNahmanides'typeof discussions.
It shouldbe emphasizedthatlike Abulafia's claim thathe was revealedthe time
of the end also the anonymousforgerhas attributed to Maimonidesa knowledge
of the time of the end. The preoccupationwith an eschatologicaltopics fitsper-
fectlyone of Abulafia's sentences,wherehe declared,in a lettersentto Barcelona
at the end of the eighties,thatGod has announcedto him « the timeof the end of
the exile and the beginningof the redemption »138.If Scholem's two conjectures
thatrelatedthe epistleto Geronesematerialare correct,as well as mytwo sugges-
tions relatedto anotherGeronese linkage and one related to Abulafia, then the
locale forthe fabricationwould be ratherCatalunyathanCastile, thoughthe pos-
sibilityof a Castilianlocale forthe fabricationmay be strengthened by a series of
pseudo-epigraphicalwritings that emerged from this region,includingthe most
famousKabbalisticbook,theZohar. However,also thecircleof writingsdesignated
in scholarshipas the « ContemplationCircle », producedpseudepigraphiesattri-
buted to late antiquityJewishfigures.However,it should be emphasizedthatin
our case, the attributionto Maimonidesis not a regularcase of projectingown's
ideas on an ancientfigure,whose views are rathervague and fragmentary, in search
forauthorizingown kabbalisticinnovations,but on the contrary, the conversionof
a famousand strongopponentto some views into theiradvocate. An additional
observationregardingforgeryin the Castile regionis however,relatedto the early
13thcenturyKabbalistR. Yehudah ben Yaqar and also to Nahmanides,as we may
learn fromsome statements of R. Moshe ben Shimeonof Burgos,also he was an
acquaintancewithAbulafia139. enough,thisMoses of Burgos was one
Interestingly
of theearliestteachersof R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon in mattersof Kabbalah. However,
even if the Castiliancirclesof Kabbalistswould be one possible candidatesforthe
forgeryof the epistle quoted by Shem Tov, I doubt whetherthis may be the case
withthe epistle whichportraysMaimonidesas a magician.Again, the timeof the
forgeryof the epistle quoted by R. Shem Tov would be not earlier than the
beginningof the seventies,when Nahmanides' commentaryon the Bible was
already circulating.Thus, it would be safer to conjecturethat the Kabbalistic
interpretation of Maimonides was undertakenearly in the seventiesof the 13th
centuryCatalunya,a presupposition thatcoincideswiththetimeAbrahamAbulafia
startedhis Kabbalisticcareerin the same region.Both Abulafiaand theanonymous
forgerof the epistlecombinedMaimonideswithNahmanides'typeof discussions.
On theotherhand,Abulafiatestifiesthathe startedto studyKabbalah in Barcelona,
the veryplace whereR. Shem Tov has also learneda greatpartof his Kabbalistic

138. Ve-Zo't li-Yhudah,[note 60 above], p. 18.

139. Ibid., « Maimonidesand Kabbalah », p. 61.
Abulafia's Secretsof the Guide : A LinguisticTurn 527

knowledge140. Moreover,even if we assume thatAbulafia mightnot receive the

oral traditionsabout the secretsof the Guide in this city,he nonethelessclaims
thathe has taughttheGuide thereto two persons,R. Yehudah Salmon and a certain
R. Qalonimus141. Also R. Isaac of Acre, who uses the talismanicterminology,was
for a while in this city. Moreover,he is one of the few Kabbalists who was
acquaintedwiththe mystico-magical views of R. Yehudah ibn Malka, thoughwe
do not know whetherthis knowledgewas acquired in Barcelona. And, indeed,
anotherKabbalist,R. Josephben Shalom Ashkenazi,who states that the Guide
should be understoodin accordanceto oral tradition,in a mannerreminiscentof
Abulafia's claim was, apparentlyan inhabitantof Barcelona. He speaks about
« theseattributesnecessitatean interpretationreceivedfrommouthto mouth.»142
Last, butnotleast,R. Zerahiahben She'altiel Hen come to ItalyfromBarcelona,
and this factcould accountfor some of the descriptionsof the misinterpretations
of the Guide foundin thiscity143. Are these recurencesof Barcelona merecoinci-
dences? This is possible and I am not sure thatwe mustpush too farthe circums-
tantialpoint we have collected above. However, in absence of any alternative
explanationas to the milieuwhichcould producethe anonymousMegillat Setarim
thatwas printedby Edelman,I would like to suggestthatit was in thiscity,or its
nearvicinity,thata talismanicunderstanding of theGuide,and of ecstaticKabbalah
in generalhas emerged.In any case, this spuriousepistle represents,or at least
reflects,a relativelyearlier fabricationof a talismanic approach attributedto
Maimonides,of whichAbulafiaeitherwas notaware or, if aware,he has rejectedit.

XI. SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

Let me attemptto summarizeAbulafia's attitudeto theGuide as emergingfrom

the above discussions:he was not eager, like Gikatillawas, to sharplyand openly
criticiseMaimonides' stand on language,even thoughit dramaticallyundermines
his own approach.On the otherhand,he also was reticentof transforming Maimo-
nides intoa fullfledgedKabbalist,by openlyattributing to himhis own Kabbalistic
stands,and even less to take the road of the anonymouswriterswho transformed
Maimonidesinto a repentantphilosopherwho become a Kabbalist or finallyeven
less intoa Kabbalisticmagician,a view thatwould contradicthis own stands.Thus,
fromsome pointsof view,Abulafiamaybe regardedas a moderatepoliticianacting
in a ratherveryloaded minefieldsof speculativeinterestsand bizarretransforma-
tions of ideas and figuresachieved by means of personal transitionfrom one

140. On Abulafia's studies there see Jellinek,Bet ha-MidraschIII, p. XLII-XLIII; on

Shem Tov's studywiththe Rashba see the several referencesspreadall over his Kabbalistic
extantwritings.
141. Jellinek, ibid., p. XLI.
142. Commentary of Sefer Yetzirah,ed. Jerusalem,1961, f. 55cd. 1
143. See note 125 above.
528 Moshe Idei

intellectualand spiritualsystemto another,and by pseudepigraphicalattributions,

which were supposed to « alligne» the opponentto adhere to own's tenets.His
attemptsto keep open as manyallegiancies,sometimesweak, as possible, as long
as he was notattackedand criticised.He preferedto make strongmoves in matters
of intellectualsyntheseswithout,however,using too stronga rhetoric.Apparently,
he was muchmoreconcernedin whatseemed to be his majortask: to advance the
propagationof his ecstaticKabbalah withoutprovokingtoo muchcontroversy.
This strategydid not succeed: afterfew yearsof quiete vagancyon theNorthern
coast of the Mediterranean, he was arrestedin 1279 in Trani,Italy,and apparently
thisarrestwas instigatedby Jews,lateron he was arrestedin Rome by the Mino-
rites.Some years later,sometimein the late eighties,his propheticand messianic
claims,and moreimplicitlyalso his understanding of theJewishtexts,encountered
a bitteroppositionfromthe side of the Rashba, a Kabbalist himself,a case that
demonstrates how complex the late 13thCenturyJewishreligiousscene was. So,
we may assume thattheRashba has intendedalso to any of his threecommentaries
on the Guide when he labelled Abulafia's writingsas interpreting « the scriptures
and the words of the sages [by means of] gematria»144.His Kabbalisticinterpre-
tationof the Guide has been assaulted,again by a Kabbalist, at the end of the
15thCentury145. The Spanish Kabbalah, which startedto crystalizein more parti-
cularisticand centralisticmoulds already at the end of the 13th century,and
culminatedthis process a the end of the 15thCentury,attemptedto establishits
own domainas a full alternativeto philosophy.Abulafia's synthesis,as presented
in his commentaries on the Guide, neverthelesssurvivedespecially outside Spain,
in numerousmanuscripts whichmay compete,at least fromthe statisticalpointof
view withmost of the philosophicalcommentaries.It is the selective grid of the
nineteenthand twentiethcenturies'scholars thathas contributedto some of the
inhibitionsof the printerssince the Renaissance,thatcontributed to the neglection
of a whole range of mysticalinterpretations offeredby Jewishthinkersto the
Guide. Inspiredmainlyby the searchfortheauthentic,thoughveryoftenly,elusive
and esotericviews of the Guide, the Maimonideanscholarsrelegatedthe studyof
the role played by his book in the moremysticalcircles,to the scholarsof mysti-
cism. They, at theirturn,would conceive, as I have pointedout above, this part
of culturalstudies,as dealing withtoo philosophicalan issue. Caughtbetweenthe
two too puristicapproaches,Abulafia's three commentariesof the Guide have
remainedin the shadow of boththe studyof Jewishphilosophyand mysticism.

Moshe Idel

144. See Ibn Adret's responsum,vol. I, n. 548.

145. See R. Yehudah Hayyat, SeferMinhat Yehudah,printedin SeferMaKarekhetha-
'Elohut,Mantua, 1558, f. 3b. On the backgroundof thiscritiquesee M. Idel, « The Encoun-
ters betweenthe Spanish and Italian Kabbalah afterthe Expulsion fromSpain » [Forthco-
ming].