Jackson Gardner
The Kuzari by R. Yehuda Ha-Levy remains one of the most well-known products of Al-Andalus, a Spanish community with direct ties to the prestigious Babylonian Ge’onate.[1] However, Ha-Levy is often not viewed in the same way as figures such as Avraham ibn Ezra[2] and Maimonides. It has become popular to view figures such as Maimonides and ibn Ezra as rational thinkers[3], contrasting them with Ha-Levy, who becomes labeled as more a precursor for anti-rationalist thought.[4] However, strict adherence to this dichotomy has led to problematic conclusions, such as some rejecting that Maimonides could ever have believed in a literal resurrection.[5] This thesis has created an additional problem regarding Maimonides’ son, Avraham, whose mystical tendencies seem at odds with his father’s attributed rationalism.[6] Meanwhile, viewing Ha-Levy as more of an antirationalist ignores the fact that he was staunchly against amulets and superstitious practices,[7] and viewed works such as Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer and Sefer Yetzirah as scientific treatises.[8]
While disagreements can be found between Maimonides and Ha-Levy, placing them in opposing schools does harm to their respective views.[9] To truly understand either, one must appreciate the greater Andalusian milieu which both inherited.[10] This milieu prized rational inquiry and study, and encouraged a non-literal examination of Hazal’s statements.[11] Yet, all of these figures also carried a deep-seated desire to mystically connect to God as part of their rational inquiry.[12] This Andalusian system of mysticism, which manifests as a reflective, inner meditative love of God,[13] built on rational and intellectual foundations, is unlike today’s most popular systems of mysticism,[14] perhaps contributing to why many have rejected mystical tendencies in figures such as Maimonides.[15] However, this Andalusian system must be used in examining its figures in order to accurately read their writings, avoiding mistakes and pitfalls in how they are to be understood.
To illustrate the necessity of breaking false dichotomies, and instead reading these figures alongside one another, I will examine one point in which Maimonides and Ha-Levy are often, in my view, mistakenly contrasted: the human race.[16] One of the more uncomfortable teachings in The Kuzari is that the Jew contains something which sets him apart from the other nations: ha-inyan ha-Eloki (the divine “concept”).[17] While other humans have a rational soul, only the Jew has this additional “soul,”[18] which allows for prophecy and direct connection to God, thus elevating the Jew above the rest of humanity.[19] The Kuzari notes that this soul was first obtained in Adam but only passed on through the line of Seth until Noaḥ, then only via his son Shem until the patriarch Avraham, leaving other humans below them in spirit.[20] This additional soul is so inherent to the Jewish nation who hail from Avraham, that a non-Jew, even upon converting, will never achieve prophecy.[21] At face value, this is a direct challenge to Maimonides’ universalist conception of humanity, as best demonstrated by his letter to the convert Ovadiah,[22] whom he reassures is identical to any other natural-born Jew, as well as his legal conclusion that a convert may recite the bikkurim (first-fruits) text in which the patriarchs are mentioned as their ancestors.[23] Indeed, this clash is how many have understood the positions of Ha-Levy and Maimonides.[24]
However, Ha-Levy’s intent with this concept of ha-inyan ha-Eloki has been misunderstood, due to not examining it within the shared Andalusian traditions of all of these figures; doing so will demonstrate Ha-Levy’s similarity to Maimonides, while negating a more disturbing alternative.
The key lies in understanding several midrashim that Maimonides brings in The Guide to the Perplexed.[25] The first regards the definition of what it means to be human: “Such were Adam’s progeny before Seth…‘in his 130 years under reproof (before Seth), Adam begot spirits’[26] – meaning demons.”[27] Maimonides, in discussing this midrash, points out that Seth, unlike Adam’s prior children, was imbued by Adam with proper values such as intellectual thinking and morality. This is what brands Seth as an adam. These qualities are of the utmost importance to Maimonides, who repeatedly emphasizes that prophecy cannot be achieved until a person has perfected their intellect and character.[28] This exact same point is stressed by Ha-Levy, who argues for rationality and proper character as important prerequisites for receiving ha-inyan ha-Eloki.[29] The Kuzari’s point about Adam only passing on this quality to Seth echoes the midrash cited by Maimonides, that far from being a physical quality, it is a moral and intellectual one that must be acquired; this is also demonstrated by The Kuzari mentioning that Abel was killed before he could receive it.[30]
Now, however, we must ask why only the Israelites have today received ha-inyan ha-Eloki. A second midrash brought by Maimonides provides us with our answer. The midrash states, “When the serpent came to Eve, he infested her with poison. When Israel stood before Mount Sinai, the poison was purged. But the nations, who did not stand before Mount Sinai, remain uncleansed.”[31]
Earlier in the Guide, Maimonides attributed the sin in the Garden to the dominance of imagination over intellect.[32] When this teaching is added to the above midrash, it emerges that this poison represents imagination’s hold on humanity. This world of mythical thinking is filled with imaginary demons, unchecked human desires, and limitless fictions, yet it is ironically constrained by its reliance on the human mind and what it can generate. Avodah zarah emerges, as Maimonides writes, due to humanity’s imaginations leading to them worshipping the world of their senses, eventually forgetting that God exists outside the perception of the human mind.[33]
Ha-Levy’s critique of Greek philosophy in The Kuzari is that in its supreme valuing of the human mind,[34] it too is subject to the world of mythical thinking.[35] The Kuzari analogizes the post-Sinai Jewish nation to the heart, while the other nations are the limbs.[36] This bodily analogy reflects the midrash that the Jewish people serve as a group who broke with mythical thinking, removing the poison of the imagination from their hearts, as they have now prophetically connected with a God that transcends all human conception. This quality is not a physical one; it is an educational and spiritual quality which all nations will eventually achieve, perhaps starting even now – just as the heart’s blood will quickly circulate to the limbs and organs. The beginning of The Kuzari hints at this broader human potential with the inciting incident of the Khazar king – it is his special divine communication which makes him seek out various religious systems, and which influences his eventual choice of Judaism.
Only one question remains: why does The Kuzari say that the convert cannot achieve prophecy? The answer lies in a theme found throughout the Guide: humanity cannot break old habits. Even after standing at Sinai, the Jewish people crafted a golden calf; Maimonides argues that the Israelite failure to remove old habits of avodah zarah required sacrificial institutions, among other things.[37] People need symbols and physicality because most are incapable of truly connecting to the incorporeal. So too, a convert who has now broken away from mythical thinking is just as the Israelites once were; they are starting out on a difficult journey of the mind – thus, Ha-Levy felt it was simply unrealistic to expect that they could progress to such a high mental level of connection. However, their offspring[38] will be born into a Jewish mental environment, thus making it easier to initially develop what is needed for divine communication. Thus, Ha-Levy’s point, like Maimonides’, is deeply rooted in the same core teachings of Al-Andalus, despite being presented in different fashions.[39]
If one were to mistakenly label Maimonides a pure rationalist, and Ha-Levy a pure mystic, they would risk losing the meaning of this entire teaching when reading either work – just as they will fail to appreciate and notice the many other important but nuanced teachings which both record. Instead, one must learn to recognize the fusion between rationality and mysticism which both figures utilized. Only then can either work be properly studied by the reader. These pillars of Al-Andalus would not have recognized the extreme rationality of Enlightenment Europe, nor the transformation of mysticism into antirationalist superstitions. Instead, they promoted a healthy synthesis of the two, which should serve as a model for future Jewish thought, rather than remain a relic of the past.
[1] During the ge’onic era, Rav Natruna’e Ga’on settled in Spain after his time as Ga’on, while later communal leaders such as R. Moshe ben Hanokh and R. Hananel also held close ties to ge’onic academies. See Robert Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture. (Yale University Press, 2013) 132.
[2] Ibn Ezra and Yehuda Ha-Levy maintained a very close relationship, possibly traveling together and becoming related through marriage. The Kuzari’s famous discussion of the personal nature of God’s revelation, describing his bringing out the Israelites from Egypt, is based on Ha-Levy’s questions to ibn Ezra. See ibn Ezra on Shemot 20:2.
[3] Such a picture has been painted by notable authors such as Menachem Kellner. See his work Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006). This view has also been adopted by Moshe Halbertal. See, in particular, Maimonides: Life and Thought (Princeton University Press, 2014), 347. For a subtler approach to this same contrast, see Harry Wolfson, “Maimonides and Halevi: A Study in Typical Jewish Attitudes Towards Greek Philosophy in the Middle Ages,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 2, no.. 3 (Jan. 1912): 297-337.
[4] See, for example, Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1995) 24.
[5] This theory was held by figures such as R. Shem Tov Gaguine (Keter Shem Tov, 651-652), and R. Joseph H. Hertz (Hertz, Prayer Book, 255). Such ideas, however, have been rejected by figures such as R. Yosef Qafih, who upholds the authenticity of Maimonides’ Essay on the Resurrection. See R. Qafih’s introduction to this essay in Iggerot HaRambam (Mossad HaRav Kook) third ed., 66.
[6] To resolve this “contradiction,” Rabbi Gavin Michal unconvincingly claimed that Avraham ben Rambam must have never absorbed his father’s rational views due to only being with him until the age of 19. Instead, Avraham must have been influenced by the nearby Sufi communities. See his post, Kotzk Blog:152) RAMBAM’S ONLY SON – ANOTHER SUFI CONNECTION?. In contrast, Diana Lobel presents a far more nuanced distinction between father and son, which highlights their strong connection, despite using different mediums and techniques. See Diana Lobel, Moses and Abraham Maimonides: Encountering the Divine (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2021).
[7] Kuzari 3:53.
[8] Ibid. 4:42 and 4:45. Ha-Levy’s explanation of Sefer Yetzirah is very closely connected with the interpretations provided by Rabbeinu Se’adyah Ga’on in his commentary on the work.
[9] Scholarship in recent decades has attempted to restore a more nuanced approach to The Kuzari, balancing rational and mystical content. However, despite incorporating some ge’onic sources, these works often attribute any rational ideas to the surrounding Arabic culture rather than to a specifically Jewish milieu, and do not provide links from The Kuzari to more “comfortably rational” figures such as Maimonides. See, for example, Elliot Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines (Princeton University Press, 1994), 160-187.
[10] For an example of the Andalusian milieu via halakhah: Yehuda Ha-Levy defines the prohibition of bal tosif as referring to an individual, whereas a beit din may always legislate additional laws as they see fit (Kuzari 3:39-41). This agrees with the explanation of ibn Ezra (ibn Ezra’s commentary to Devarim 4:2). However, this does not fully accord with the view of Maimonides. See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:9. All of them are following the ge’onic masoret of labeling the beit din’s legislative authority as a biblical commandment. See Sefer Ha-Mitzvot Principle 1; Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Mamrim 1:1-2; see also Siddur Rav Se’adyah Ga’on (Davidson, Assaf, and Yissakhar, ed. 1963), 180, 199.
[11] See The Kuzari’s classical ge’onic/Andalusian method of reading midrashim figuratively, and of acknowledging Hazal’s mastery of the sciences. See Kuzari 3:73. This parallels Maimonides’ and his son Avraham’s discussions on the subject. See Maimonides’ introduction to Perek Heilek, and his son Avraham’s work “Ma’amar al Ha-Derashot ve-al Ha-Aggadot.”
[12] See poems such as I Look for You by Shelomo ibn Gavirol for examples of Andalusian literature on the mystical connection to God. Such “lovesick” feelings towards God are strongly echoed by Maimonides: “It is a well-known, clear concept that the love of God is not connected within a person’s heart until he becomes obsessed with it at all times, as is befitting, and forsakes all else in the world besides it” (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvot 10:6).
[13] For an excellent presentation of this system, see Yamin Levy, The Mysticism of Andalusia: Exploring HaRambam’s Mystical Tradition (Maimonides Heritage Center Press, 2023).
[14] “The differences between the esoteric views of Maimonides and the Kabbalah…are not, however, merely a matter of content…they pertain to different stages of human development, expressing different spiritual and intellectual syntaxes and morphologies. For Maimonides the esoterics of the Torah…concerns [the] postrational human, involving a progressive process of deanthropomorphization. Kabbalah is essentially ethnographic and anthropocentric,” José Faur, Homo Mysticus (Syracuse University Press, 1999), 3.
[15] Notably, many kabbalistic-oriented movements, such as Habad, have correctly identified that there are mystical tendencies within Maimonides’ writings, although they have erroneously labeled them as being reflective of their own kabbalistic system, rather than an Andalusian one.
[16] See Halbertal, Maimonides (Princeton University Press, 2014), 214.
[17] This reflects the translation choice of Yehudah ibn Tibbon, who translated the Arabic “alamr Elalahi” as ha-inyan ha-Eloki.
[18] This idea of an additional soul eventually morphed in kabbalistic thought to an idea that non-Jews possess only an evil, animal soul, and are incapable of anything else. SeeTanya Likkutei Amarim 1:1-2. While some thinkers have retroactively read this concept back into The Kuzari, this produces a dishonest reading of his point, as will be explained. It also ignores the medieval philosophical context of the term “soul,” which often just represented an ability, such as movement or plant-growth, rather than a “spiritual makeup.” It is only in a kabbalistic environment which divorces itself from philosophical understandings that the different souls can become something inherently spiritual.
[19] Kuzari 1:103.
[20] Kuzari 1:95.
[21] Kuzari 1:115.
[22] “[S]ince you have come under the wings of the Divine Presence…no difference exists between you and us…” (Maimonides’ letter to Ovadia the convert, translation Dr. Laurie Fisher, Rambam’s Letter to Ovadiah the Convert).
[23] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bikkurim u-She’ar Matenot Kehunah she-Bigvulin 4:3.
[24] For examples of these thinkers, see Strickman, “Misinterpreting Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi,” Hakira 20 (Winter 2015). While this article nicely defends Ha-Levy against these thinkers’ assumptions, it does not do so via an Andalusian framework, and does not examine Ha-Levy in light of his peers.
[25] All English translations of The Guide to the Perplexed are taken from Goodman and Lieberman, The Guide to the Perplexed: A New Translation (Stanford University Press, 2024).
[26] Mekhilta to Shemot 12.
[27] Guide 1:7. Ha-Levy, in the footsteps of his fellow Andalusians, explains demons as a metaphor for the inner psyche rather than a genuine spiritual presence. See Kuzari 2:62.
[28] Guide 2:32.
[29] Kuzari 3:5. See also R. Qafih’s commentary on this section in Sefer Ha-Kuzari, translated into Hebrew by R. Yosef Qafih, (Kiryat Ono: Makhon Mishnat HaRambam, 2012), fifth edition, 93 n. 18.
[30] Ibid 2:14. See also Kuzari 1:96, which notes that Terah did not receive it although his son, Avraham, did.
[31] Shabbat 146a;Yevamot 103b, as cited in Guide 2:30. Maimonides notes how wise this midrash is.
[32] Guide 1:2. Similarly, ibn Ezra notes in both of his commentaries to Bereishit that the story of Gan Eden represents the different parts of the human mind, with the sin involving an improper domination of only parts of the mind. Ibn Ezra notes that he was inspired to construct these views based on the similar proposals of fellow Andalusian, Shelomo ibn Gavirol. See ibn Ezra’s longer commentary to Bereishit 3:21.
[33] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 1. The insistence that God cannot be described at all by the human mind (negative theology) was a hallmark of the Andalusian system also found in the works of Bahya ibn Pekuda (Hovot Ha-Levavot, Sha’ar Ha-Yiḥud 10:13) and Yehuda Ha-Levy (Kuzari 2:2).
[34] The Kuzari’s skepticism regarding the objectivity of Greek philosophy, which ignores the subconscious traditions that influenced it, is echoed by Maimonides during his own deconstruction of Aristotelian metaphysics in the second part of the Guide. See, for example, Guide 2:14.
[35] See Kuzari 5:15. Note that while Ha-Levy critiques Greek philosophy and metaphysics, he does not view their scholars as without merit, nor does he reject the more tangible sciences and mathematics of his time (Kuzari 5:14).
[36] Kuzari 2:36. In medieval works, the actions of the brain were ascribed to the heart, thus Israel becomes the “brain” or “intellectual center” for the rest of the world.
[37] Guide 3:32.
[38] There is no indication that a convert’s child would be considered a convert in these matters.
[39] The tendency for different Andalusian thinkers to echo one another via different formats evokes the wise teaching, “[L]ike golden apples in silver filigree, is a word fitly spoken” (Mishlei 25:11).
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.