Chapter XVI (1)

THE MAIMUNIST CONTROVERSY AND THE RISE OF THE KABBALA.

The Opposition against Maimuni--Maimunists and
anti-Maimunists--Meïr Abulafia--Samson of Sens--Solomon
of Montpellier--Excommunication of the Maimunists--David
Kimchi's energetic Advocacy of Maimuni--Nachmani--His
Character and Work--His Relations to Maimuni, Ibn-Ezra, and
the Kabbala--Solomon of Montpellier calls in the aid of the
Dominicans--Moses of Coucy--Modern date of the Kabbala
--Azriel and Ezra--Doctrines of the Kabbala--Jacob ben
Sheshet Gerundi--The Bahir--Three Parties in Judaism
--Last flicker of the Neo-Hebraic Poetry--The Satirical
Romance: Al-Charisi and Joseph ben Sabara.

1232-1236 C. E.

As misfortunes never come singly, but draw others after them, so besides the insults and humiliations which the Jews suffered from without, there now arose alarming disunion within their ranks. Remarkably enough, this intestine war was associated with Maimuni, whose aim, during his whole life, had been to effect union and complete finality in Judaism. But in undertaking to explain philosophically the intellectual side of Judaism, he established principles which did not by any means bear a Jewish stamp on them, nor were they in consonance with the Bible, and still less with the Talmud. Those scholars whose learning was entirely confined to the Talmud ignored the philosophical discussion of Judaism, considered it sinful to be occupied with other branches of knowledge, even when applied to the service of Judaism, and took their stand, right or wrong, on the Talmudical saying, "Withhold your children from excessive reflection." Even intelligent men, and such as were philosophically trained, recognized that Maimuni, in his endeavor to reconcile religion with the philosophy of the age, had made the former subservient to the latter, and had made the mistress over the mind a slave. Articles of belief and Scriptural verses, which do not admit of philosophical justification, have no value according to Maimuni's system. Miracles were not inevitable in Maimuni's philosophy; but attempts were made to reduce them as far as possible to natural causes, and to interpret in a rationalistic manner the Biblical verses which contain them. Prophecy and direct communication with the Deity, as it is taught in the Bible, Maimuni refused to accept, but explained them as subjective occurrences, as effects of an over-heated imagination, or as dream-phenomena. His doctrine of immortality was not less in contradiction with the belief of Talmudical Judaism. It denies the existence of a paradise and a hell, and represents the purified soul as becoming fused with the original spirit. His method of explaining many ceremonial laws especially provoked contradiction, because, if accepted, these laws would lose their permanent value, and have only temporary importance. And the manner in which Maimuni expressed himself on the Agada, a constituent part of the Talmud--which he either explained away or rejected--was in the eyes, not only of the strict Talmudists, but also of more educated men, an heretical attack upon Judaism, which they believed it was their duty to energetically repel. Thus, besides enthusiastic worshipers of Maimuni, who religiously adopted his doctrine as a new revelation, there was formed a party, which assailed his writings, and combated particularly the "Guide of the Perplexed" (Moré), and the first part of his Code (Madda). The rabbis and the representatives of the Jewish congregations in Europe and Asia, consequently became divided into Maimunists and opponents to Maimuni (Anti-Maimunists). Such of the latter as were his contemporaries, still full of the powerful impression which Maimuni's individuality and activity had produced, fully acknowledged his genius and piety, and blamed or criticised his views only, and the writings which contained them.

The opposition to his philosophical doctrines had begun during Maimuni's life, but it remained quiet and timid, unable to assert itself against the enthusiasm of his admirers. A young, intellectual, and learned man, Meïr ben Todros Halevi Abulafia, of Toledo (born about 1180, died 1244), had, at an early period, expressed his religious objections to Maimuni's theory in a letter to the "wise men of Lünel," which was intended for publication. Maimuni's doctrine of immortality forms the central point of Abulafia's attack. He made, however, but little impression by this letter, for although Meïr Abulafia was descended from a highly respectable family, and enjoyed considerable authority, still his hostile attitude towards science, and his tendency towards an ossified Judaism, isolated him even in his own circle. Apart from this, he was possessed of overweening arrogance, a quality not calculated to win adherents and organize a party. Instead of finding supporters, Meïr met with a sharp rebuff from the learned Aaron ben Meshullam, of Lünel, who was master of the sciences and the Talmud, and a warm adherent of Maimuni. He charged him with presumption in venturing, though unripe in years and wisdom, to pass an opinion on the greatest man of his time. The Talmudists of northern France, led by Samson of Sens, to whom every letter of the Talmud was an embodiment of the highest truths, and who would not countenance any new interpretations, thoroughly concurred with the inquisitor Meïr Abulafia. Meïr was looked upon in his time as chief of the Obscurantists. The aged Sheshet Benveniste, of Barcelona, ever a warm friend of free research, composed a sarcastic epigram upon him:

"You ask me, friends, why this man's name,
Seeing he walks in darkness, should be Meïr.[4]
I answer, the sages have called the night 'light,'
This, too, is an example of the rule of contraries."

Another poet directed the arrows of his wit against Abulafia, but its points are untranslatable. The Maimunists were generally vastly superior to their adversaries in knowledge and speech, and they could expose the enemies of light to ridicule.

The hostility against Maimuni appeared also in the East, but not so strongly. A learned Talmudist, Daniel ben Saadiah, a disciple of the Samuel ben Ali who had conducted himself so maliciously against the sage of Fostat, had settled in Damascus, and animated by the spirit of his master against the Maimunist tendency, he conceived it his duty to continue to make it the target of his hostility. Daniel, in the first place, impugned Maimuni's Talmudical decisions in order to weaken the position on which his commanding influence rested, for it was through Maimuni's acknowledged rabbinical authority that his philosophical, or according to his opponents, his heretical, doctrines found such dangerous and general acceptance. Daniel, however, thought it advisable to maintain a respectful tone towards him; he even sent his polemic to Abraham Maimuni for examination. Afterwards Daniel, in an exegetical work, allowed himself to make veiled attacks upon Maimuni's orthodoxy, and curiously enough reproached him with not believing in the existence of evil spirits. His main argument, however, was not strictly concerned with the existence or non-existence of demons, but sought to demonstrate that Maimuni was a heretic, because he had refused to acknowledge unconditionally, as correct and true, utterances which occur in the Talmud. Maimuni's admirers, however, were greatly exasperated at these attacks of Daniel, and Joseph Ibn-Aknin, Maimuni's favorite pupil, urged Abraham Maimuni to pass sentence of excommunication on Daniel ben Saadiah. Abraham, however, who had inherited his father's disinterestedness and love of justice, would not hear of it. He expressed himself on the subject with meritorious impartiality, saying that he did not think it right to excommunicate Daniel, whom he considered a religious man of pure belief, who had only made a mistake in one point; moreover, that as he was a party in this controversy, he did not feel himself empowered to excommunicate an antagonist in a matter that was to some extent personal. Maimuni's admirers, and especially Joseph Ibn-Aknin, were not, however, disposed to take the same view. They labored to induce the Exilarch David of Mosul to exclude from the community the blameless and esteemed scholar of Damascus, until he should humbly recant his strictures upon Maimuni. Daniel was excommunicated, and died of grief, and all opposition to Maimuni in the East was silenced for a long time. The Asiatic Jews were still so overpowered by the glamour of his name, that they could not think of him as a heretic. Nor were they learned enough to grasp the range of Maimuni's ideas, and to perceive their incompatibility with the spirit of the Talmud. It may also be that his admirer, Jonathan Cohen, who had emigrated to Palestine, had won the pious to his side, and had defeated the party of Samson of Sens, which was inimical to him.

Very different was the state of affairs in Europe, especially in the south of France and in Spain. Here Maimuni's theories had taken root, and dominated the minds of the learned and of most of the influential leaders of congregations; henceforth they regarded the Bible and the Talmud only in the Maimunist light. The pious Jews of Spain and Provence endeavored to reconcile the contradictions between Talmudical Judaism and Maimuni's system, by a method of interpretation. The less religious used his system as a support for their lukewarmness in the performance of their religious duties; they expressed themselves more freely about the Bible and the Talmud, practically neglected many precepts, and were bent on re-organizing Judaism on a rationalistic basis. Among the Jews of southern Spain, this lukewarmness towards the Law went so far that not a few contracted marriages with Christian and Mahometan women. The excessively pious, whose whole life was absorbed by the Talmud, mistaking cause for effect, considered these distressing occurrences as a poisonous fruit of the philosophical seed, and prophesied the decay of Judaism, if Maimuni's theories should gain the ascendancy. Nevertheless considerable time elapsed before any one ventured to make a decisive stand against them. The rabbis of northern France, who were of the same way of thinking as Samson of Sens, knew little of Maimuni's philosophical writings and their effects, while the rabbis of southern France and of Spain, who were guided absolutely by the Talmud, may have thought it dangerous and useless to try to stem the overwhelming flood of free thought.

It was, therefore, looked upon as a most audacious step, when a rabbi of the school which followed the Talmud with unquestioning faith, openly and recklessly declared war against the Maimunists. This was Solomon ben Abraham, of Montpellier, a pious, honorable man, learned in the Talmud, but of perverted notions, whose whole world was the Talmud, beyond which nothing was worthy of credence. Not only the legal decisions of the Talmud were accepted by him as irrefutable truths, but also the Agadic portions in their naked literalness. He and his friends conceived the Deity as furnished with eyes, ears, and other human organs, sitting in heaven upon a throne, surrounded by darkness and clouds. Paradise and Hell they painted in Agadic colors; the righteous were to enjoy, in the heavenly garden of Eden, the flesh of the Leviathan and old wine, stored up from the beginning of the world in celestial flasks, and the godless, the heretics, and the transgressors of the Law were to be scourged, tortured, and burnt in the hell-fire of Gehenna. The rabbis of this school believed in the existence of evil spirits; it was in a manner an article of faith with them, for the Talmudical Agada recognizes them as existing.

Adopting a theory so gross and anthropomorphic, Solomon of Montpellier could not help finding nearly every word in Maimuni's compositions un-Jewish and heretical. He felt it incumbent on him to make reply; he saw in the toleration of the Maimunist views the dissolution of Judaism, and he entered the lists against their exponents and champions. But with what weapons? The Middle Ages knew of no more effective instrument than excommunication to destroy ideas apparently pernicious. He attempted to compel men, who towered head and shoulders above their contemporaries, and held different opinions on religion from the thoughtless crowd, to seal up their ideas in themselves, or to recant them as vicious errors, by shutting them off from all intercourse with their co-religionists. At about the same time Pope Gregory directed the University of Paris, the upholder of the free philosophical spirit till the rise of the Dominicans and Franciscans, to adhere strictly in its curriculum to the canon of the Lateran Council, and on peril of excommunication, to avoid using those philosophical writings which had been interdicted by it. This precedent, together with his bigoted, passionate nature, may have induced Solomon of Montpellier to introduce a censorship of thought into the Jewish world, and to crush the Maimunist heresy by excommunication. But to appear single-handed against the Maimunists, whose number was large, and who ruled public opinion, could but ruin his cause. Solomon sought for allies, but could not find a single rabbi in southern France who was ready to take part in the denunciation of the Maimunist school. Only two of his pupils came to his aid--Jonah ben Abraham Gerundi (the elder) of Gerona, a blind zealot like his master, and David ben Saul. These three pronounced the ban (beginning of 1232) against all those who read Maimuni's compositions, especially the philosophical parts (Moré and Madda), against those who studied anything except the Bible and the Talmud, against those who distorted the plain literal sense of Holy Writ, or, in general, expounded the Agada differently from Rashi. Solomon and his allies explained the reasons for their sentence of excommunication in a letter to the public, and laid special stress on the point that Maimuni's line of argument undermined Talmudical Judaism. They did not hesitate even to vilify the venerated sage: it might be true, they said, that he had once lived strictly in accordance with the Talmud, yet instances were known in which still greater men had become renegades from the Law in their old age. Solomon at first thought of invoking the secular power of the Christian authorities to aid him in oppressing free thought. For the present, however, he looked for supporters among the rabbis of northern France. These, belonging to the acute but one-sided Tossafist school, and having grown hoary in the Talmud, did not for a moment appreciate the necessity of establishing Judaism on a rational and scientific basis, and nearly all of them adopted Solomon's opinion, and took sides against the Maimunists.

The sentence of excommunication, the proscription of science, and the defamation of Maimuni, excited the violent indignation of his admirers. It seemed to them unheard-of audacity, unparalleled impudence. The three chief congregations of Provence, Lünel, Béziers, and Narbonne, in which the Maimunists were in power, rose against this presumption of the Obscurantists, and on their side excommunicated Solomon and his two disciples, and hastened to urge the other congregations of Provence to unite in rescuing the honor of the great Moses. In Montpellier the congregation was divided into two parties; whilst the ignorant multitude remained by their rabbi, the learned renounced their allegiance, and violent frays between them were not infrequent. The flame of discord blazed up, and spread over the congregations of Provence, Catalonia, Aragon, and Castile. The contest was carried on by both sides with intense passion, and not entirely with honorable weapons. Simple faith and a philosophical apprehension of religion, which had till then maintained friendly relations, now met in a conflict, which threatened to lead to a complete rupture and to schism. The worst of it was, that the parties were both justified, each from its own point of view; both could appeal to old and respected authorities, some of whom maintained that the Bible and the Talmud must be believed in without investigation and strained interpretation, while others held that reason also had a voice in religious matters.

Two men, whose names are celebrated in Jewish literature, took part in this passionate quarrel: David Kimchi and Nachmani. The former, already an old man and at the zenith of his fame as a grammarian and expositor of the Bible, was an enthusiastic admirer of Maimuni, and a friend of free investigation. He was consequently an object of suspicion to the Obscurantists, and the rabbis of northern France appear to have excommunicated him, because he had explained the vision of Ezekiel concerning the throne-chariot of God in a Maimunist sense, _i. e._, philosophically, and because he had maintained that Talmudical controversies would have no significance in the Messianic period, or in other words, that the Talmud has no right to advance pretensions to perpetual authority. Kimchi accordingly took up the cudgels for Maimuni all the more promptly, as he had at the same time to defend his own cause. Old and weak as he was, he nevertheless did not hesitate to undertake a journey to Spain, in order personally to bring the congregations of that country over to the side of the Provençals against Solomon of Montpellier.

Another man of commanding influence in this struggle was Moses ben Nachman, or Nachmani (Ramban) Gerundi, a fellow-citizen and relative of Jonah Gerundi (born about 1195, died about 1270). Nachmani, or as he was called in the language of the country, Bonastruc de Porta, was a man of sharply-defined and strongly-marked individuality, with all the strength and weakness of such a character. Whilst of pure moral temperament and conscientious piety, mild disposition and acute understanding, he was completely governed by the belief in authority. The "wisdom of the sages" appeared to him unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and their clear utterances were neither to be doubted nor criticised. "He who occupies himself with the teachings of the sages, drinks old wine," was Nachmani's firm conviction. The whole wisdom of the later generations, according to his view, consisted entirely in fathoming the meaning of their great ancestors, to acquire a knowledge of it, and derive precedents from it. Not only the Holy Writ in its entire scope, and the Talmud in its entire range, but even the Geonim and their immediate disciples till Alfassi, were for him infallible authorities, and their conduct worthy of emulation. Within this compass he had intelligent notions, correct judgments and a clear mind, but beyond it he could not proceed, nor could he start from an original position. Nachmani was a physician, and had, therefore, studied science a little; he was learned in other branches, and familiar with philosophical literature. But metaphysical speculation, to which he would not or could not apply himself, remained strange to him. The Talmud was for him all in all; in its light he regarded the world, the events of the past and the shaping of the future. In his youth, the study of the Talmud and the vindication of assailed authorities were Nachmani's favorite occupations. In about his fifteenth year (1210), he elaborated several Talmudical treatises, following the style and method of Alfassi.

In these works he shows so astounding an intimacy with the Talmud that no one would recognize them as the productions of a youth. They bear the stamp of complete maturity, show command over the subject, and reveal profound acumen. Not less splendid in its way was the second work of his youth, in which he sought to justify Alfassi's Talmudical decisions on questions of civil and marriage laws against the attack of Serachya Halevi Gerundi.

Nachmani had already commented upon several Talmudical treatises, and he continued this labor indefatigably, till he had furnished the greatest portion of the Talmud with explanations (Chidushim). Important as Nachmani's contributions may be in this province, they are in nowise original. The Talmud had been investigated too thoroughly during the centuries since Rashi and Alfassi, for Nachmani, or indeed any one else, to be able to establish anything absolutely new. Maimuni had seen clearly, with the insight of a comprehensive mind, that it was at length time to close accounts with commentaries on the Talmud, to declare for or against, and bring the whole to a conclusion. Nachmani did not pay attention to this result; Maimuni's gigantic religious code did not exist for him.

If he did not sympathize with Maimuni in his treatment of the Talmud, still less did he agree with him in his philosophical views on religion. Maimuni proceeded from a philosophical basis, and everywhere applied reason as the test of Judaism. Nachmani, on the other hand, like Jehuda Halevi, took as his starting-point the facts of Judaism, including even the narratives of the Talmud. For Maimuni the miracles of the Bible were inconvenient facts, and he endeavored as much as possible to reduce them to natural causes; the Talmudical miracle-tales he refused to consider. For Nachmani, on the other hand, the belief in miracles was the foundation of Judaism, on which its three pillars rested: the creation from nothing, the omniscience of God, and divine providence. But, although Nachmani shunned philosophy, he nevertheless advanced new ideas which, though not demonstrated by logical formulæ, deserve recognition. The ethical philosophy of Maimuni sought to elevate man above the accidents of life, by reminding him of his higher origin and his future bliss, and arming him with equanimity in order to render him insensible to pleasure and to pain. Nachmani, from his Talmudical point of view, strongly combated this philosophical or stoical indifference and apathy, and opposed to it the doctrine of Judaism, that "man should rejoice on the day of joy, and weep on the day of sorrow." Maimuni assumed, with the philosophers, that the sensual instincts are a disgrace to man, who is destined for a spiritual life. Nachmani was a strenuous opponent of this view. Since God, who is perfect, has created the world, it must all be good as it is, and nothing in it should be regarded as intrinsically objectionable and hateful.

Nachmani, who started from quite different principles, had consequently but very few points of agreement with Maimuni. Had they been contemporaries, they might have been attracted to each other by this very dissimilarity. If Judaism was for Maimuni a cult of the intellect, for Nachmani it was a religion of the feelings. According to the former, there was no secret in Judaism which could not be disclosed to thought; according to the latter, the mystical and the unknown were the holiest elements of Judaism, and were not to be profaned by reflection. The difference in their method is well illustrated by their views on the belief in demons. According to Maimuni, it is not only superstition but even heathenism to ascribe power to evil spirits. Nachmani, on the other hand, was firmly attached to this theory, and allowed the demons considerable place in his system of the world. Whilst he occasionally expressed his disapproval of Maimuni's views, paying him at the same time the greatest respect, he had a decided antipathy towards Ibn-Ezra. This exegetist, with his sceptical smile, his biting wit, and his scorn for mystery, was calculated to repel Nachmani. In his attacks upon Ibn-Ezra, Nachmani could not preserve the serenity of his temper, but used violent expressions against him, regarding him as the supporter of unbelief. But though Nachmani waged war against the philosophy of his age, as destructive of revealed Judaism, and denounced Aristotle as the teacher of error, he nevertheless looked with disfavor on blind belief and the exclusion of every rationalistic conception in religious matters. On this point he diverged from the teaching of the rabbis of northern France, whose strictly Talmudical tendency he otherwise followed. He was too much a son of Spain, in a manner enveloped by an atmosphere of philosophy, to be able to dismiss metaphysical research with contempt. His clear mind and his Spanish education would not permit Nachmani to follow the rabbis of northern France through thick and thin, nor to accept the Agadas in their literal sense, with all their anthropomorphic and offensive utterances. But on this point he became involved in self-contradiction. He could not reject the Agadic statements _in toto_, for he was too strongly dominated by belief in authority, and respect for the Talmud. If, when constrained by necessity, he here and there conceded that many Agadic sayings were to be considered only as rhetorical metaphors, as homiletic material, and that it was not a religious obligation to believe in them, he must not be supposed to be in full earnest. But, if the Agada is not to be believed in literally, it must be interpreted. This, however, was to make concessions to the Maimunist school. Accordingly, there was no escape from this dilemma except to admit that the Agada must be explained, but deny that Maimuni's mode of explanation was correct. There came to his aid the Kabbala, a new secret lore which claimed to be a primitive divine tradition, and it relieved his embarrassment in respect of the obnoxious Agadas. By means of this mystical theory, that which, from the point of view of the literalists, appears blasphemous, or meaningless and childish, was invested with deep, mysterious, and transcendental sense. Nachmani did not even shrink from justifying the perverse notion that the whole text of the Torah was simply the material made up of letters, out of which mystical names of God might be composed.

At the time when the sentence of excommunication was uttered against Maimuni's philosophical writings, Nachmani was not yet forty years old, but he even then was of such importance that even the haughty Meïr Abulafia paid him the tribute of his respect. He could, therefore, as rabbi of the congregation of Gerona, support either the one party or the other. He decided in favor of his friend Solomon and his nephew Jonah. As soon as he learnt that the former was excommunicated by the congregations of Provence, he hastened, without waiting to be properly informed of the whole affair, to send a missive to the communities of Aragon, Navarre, and Castile, saying, in substance, that they should not be carried away by the "hypocritical, false" Maimunists; but that they should wait till the opposite party had spoken its mind. Nachmani indeed regretted, in this letter, that the unity of Judaism, which from time immemorial had been maintained in all countries of the dispersion, should, through this controversy, threaten to be destroyed, and he recommended, on that account, prudence and calm deliberation. He himself, however, did not maintain this impartial attitude, but inclined more to the side of the party hostile to science. "If the French masters, at whose feet we sit, obscure the sunlight at mid-day, and cover the moon, they may not be contradicted"; thus he expresses himself at the very commencement.

But the majority of the congregations of Spain refused to be led into darkness. The chief congregation of Aragon, with its leader, the physician in ordinary and favorite of King Jayme, Bachiel Ibn-Alkonstantini, declared itself decisively in favor of Maimuni, and laid Solomon and his two allies under the ban, as long as they continued in their perverseness. Bachiel, his brother Solomon, and ten other influential men and leaders, sent a letter (Ab--August, 1232) to the congregations of Aragon, urging them to join their party, and repudiate those men "who have dared appear against that great power which has rescued us from the floods of ignorance, error and folly." The Maimunists in Saragossa pointed out that the opponents of science had put themselves in opposition to the Talmud. "Our sages teach us that we should philosophically explain to ourselves the unity of God. We ought to be acquainted with profane sciences, in order to know how to reply to the enemies of religion. Astronomy, geometry, and other branches which are so important to religion, cannot be learned out of the Talmud. The great doctor of the Talmud, Samuel, said of himself, 'that he knew the courses of the stars as well as the streets of his native place.' From these remarks it is evident that it was deemed a religious duty to acquire general knowledge. And now there appear three corrupters and misleaders of the people, who stain the reputation of the great Maimuni, wish to lead the communities into darkness, and forbid the reading of his philosophical writings, and the study of science generally." Bachiel Ibn-Alkonstantini, as the most influential man in Aragon, in a letter, summoned the congregations to strenuously oppose those who do not believe in God and his servant Moses (Maimuni). In consequence of this action, the four great congregations of Aragon--Huesca, Monzon, Calatayud, and Lerida--agreed with the Saragossa congregation to pass the sentence of excommunication upon Solomon and his two supporters. The eyes of the Maimunists and their adversaries were, however, turned to the congregation of Toledo, which was the largest, richest, most important and most educated in Spain. Its decision was able to incline the balance in favor of either the one side or the other. Here Jehuda bar Joseph, of the highly influential family of Ibn-Alfachar, who was probably physician in ordinary of King Ferdinand III, possessed the greatest authority. Hitherto he had not expressed his opinion either for or against Maimuni, but had observed a discreet silence. But the zealous rabbi of Toledo, Meïr Abulafia Halevi, the old antagonist of the Maimunist tendency, loudly raised his voice. He replied to the letters of Nachmani and of the Gerona congregation that they might make their minds easy, that neither he nor his friends would follow the "law-defiers of Provence," that there were certainly many in the congregation of Toledo who were infatuated by Maimuni and his philosophical writings, that he could not alter their mind, but if they should declare themselves against Solomon of Montpellier, he would repudiate them altogether, and acknowledge no community with them. For he considered Solomon's action a meritorious one. He himself had long recognized the dangerous character of the doctrines laid down in Maimuni's "Guide of the Perplexed"; they certainly strengthen the ground of religion, but destroy its branches; they repair the breaches of the building, but tear down the enclosures. "The exalting of God's name is on their lips, but also poison and death lurk on their tongues." He had always kept himself remote from this bottomless heresy, and had sent a letter to the Lünel community more than thirty years since, to counteract the enthusiasm for Maimuni, but his effort had been fruitless.

Besides this heavy-armed conflict of the two parties, with mutual denunciations of heresy and thunders of excommunication, there was carried on a light skirmish with sarcastic verses. An opponent of Maimuni's "Guide" and its adherents threw off the following satire:

"Thou Guide to doubt, be silent evermore;
Thy sinful folly shall remain unheard,
That makes of Bible-fact but metaphor,
And to a dream degrades the prophet's word."

Whereupon a Maimunist retorted:

"Thou fool profane, be silent! Nevermore
Dare, sandaled, upon holy ground to stand;
What dost thou know of fact or metaphor?
Nor dream, nor prophet canst thou understand."

Another epigram condemns Maimuni himself:

"Forgive us, son of Amram, be not wroth
That we should call this fool by thy great name;
_Prophet_ the Bible calls God's messengers,
The servants of false Baal it calls the same."

The Maimunists, however, were much more energetic than their opponents; they used all their efforts to alienate the French rabbis from Solomon, and to bring the chief congregation of Spain over to their side. A young scholar, Samuel ben Abraham Saporta, addressed a letter to the French rabbis, and tried to convince them that in their eagerness to support Solomon, they had taken a precipitate step in denouncing Maimuni and the followers of his views as heretics. "Before you passed a judgment upon them, you ought to have examined the contents of his writings properly; but it appears that you know nothing about the writings which you have condemned. Your business is the Halacha, to determine what actions are forbidden or permitted by religion. Why do you venture beyond your province to express an opinion on questions about which you know nothing at all? In your worship of the letter, like the heathen, you imagine the Deity in human form. What right have you to call us heretics who cling as firmly as you to the Torah and tradition?" Saporta's letter, in addition to other influences, made so deep an impression upon some of the French rabbis that they renounced Solomon. They soon notified the Provençal congregations of their change of opinion. This change was undoubtedly due in great measure to Moses, of Coucy (born about 1200, died about 1260), one of the youngest Tossafists, who, although a brother-in-law of Samson of Sens, and a pupil of the over-pious Sir Leon, of Paris, nevertheless cherished great reverence for Maimuni, and made his Halachic works the subject of study. Nachmani was extremely vexed at this change of opinion, and, sorely distressed at the widening of the breach, he elaborated a scheme of reconciliation, which seemed to him calculated to restore peace. He wrote a well-meant, but bombastic letter to the French rabbis, wherein he first of all expressed his dissatisfaction with them for having put the readers of Maimuni's compositions under the ban: "If you were of the opinion that it was incumbent on you to denounce as heresy the works of Maimuni, why does a portion of your flock now recede from this decision as if they regretted the step? Is it right in such important matters to act capriciously, to applaud the one to-day, and the other to-morrow?"

Finally, Nachmani explained his plan of compromise. The ban against the philosophical portion of Maimuni's Code was to be revoked; but, on the other hand, the condemnation of the study of the "Guide," and the excommunication of the rejectors of the Talmudical exposition of the Bible was to be strengthened. This sentence of excommunication was not to be passed by the one party only, but the Provençal rabbis, and even Maimuni's son, the pious Abraham, were to be invited to support it with their authority. In this manner the gate would be closed to disaffection and unbelief. Nachmani, however, ignored the fact that the assailed compositions were all of one cast, so that it was not possible to anathematize the one and canonize the other. Nachmani fell into the mistake of thinking that it was possible to check free philosophical inquiry. The two tendencies, each legitimate in its way, could not but conflict with each other, and the struggle had to be protracted, and could not be ended by a compromise. Consequently, the fight continued on both sides, and Nachmani's proposal was utterly disregarded. The longer it lasted, the more the controversy inflamed men's feelings, the more participants were drawn into the arena.

The aged David Kimchi wished to undertake a journey to Toledo, in order to induce that great congregation to join his party against Solomon and his adherents, and through their weight completely to crush their opponents. When he arrived at Avila, he became so ill that he had to abandon the journey, but on his bed of sickness he wrote with trembling hand to the chief representative of the Toledo congregation, Jehuda Ibn-Alfachar. He blamed him for his obstinate silence in an affair which concerned the French and Spanish communities so deeply, and importuned him to persuade his congregation to make common cause with the Maimunists. Unfortunately, however, he had approached the wrong man; for Jehuda Alfachar had made up his mind decisively against the Maimunists. He had thoroughly mastered Maimuni's system, and had concluded that, if carried to its logical conclusion, it was calculated to subvert Judaism. Ibn-Alfachar was a thoughtful man, and of more penetration than Nachmani. The defects of Maimuni's theory were quite palpable to him, but even he was misled by the thought that it was possible to exorcise the spirit of free-thought by anathemas. Alfachar paid such deference to the sentence of excommunication uttered by the French rabbis, that at first he would not reply to Kimchi at all, but when ultimately he decided to do so, he treated him in his answer in so contemptuous a manner, that the Maimunists who expected the support of Toledo were quite disconcerted at the result.

In the meantime, the sympathy of such influential personages as Alfachar, Nachmani, and Meïr Abulafia, proved to be of little value to Solomon's cause. The feeling of the people in his native place and in Spain was against him. The French rabbis, on whose support he had reckoned, gradually withdrew from a controversy, the range of which they began to perceive, and which threatened to expose the participators to peril. Solomon of Montpellier complained that no one besides his two disciples sided with him, but the maladroitness with which he conducted his cause was chiefly responsible for the want of sympathy that he encountered. Thus forsaken of all, and hated most bitterly in his own congregation, he resolved on a step which led to the most deplorable results, not only for his own party, but for the whole Jewish people.

Pope Gregory IX, who was eager to extirpate the remnant of the Albigensian heretics in Provence, root and branch, about this time established the permanent Inquisition (April, 1233), and appointed the violent Dominican friars as inquisitors, as the bishops, who had till then been entrusted with the persecution of the Albigenses, did not seem to him to treat the heretics with sufficient severity. In all the large towns of southern France where there were Dominican cloisters, in Montpellier among others, there were erected bloody tribunals, which condemned heretics or those suspected of heresy, and often quite innocent people, to life-long imprisonment or to the stake.

With these murderers, Rabbi Solomon, the upholder of the Talmud and of the literal interpretation of the Holy Writ, associated himself. He and his disciple Jonah said to the Dominicans: "You burn your heretics, persecute ours also. The majority of the Jews of Provence are perverted by the heretical writings of Maimuni. If you cause these writings to be publicly and solemnly burnt, your action will have the effect of frightening the Jews away from them." They also read dangerous passages from Maimuni's compositions to the inquisitors, at which the infatuated monks must have felt a shudder of holy horror. The Dominicans and Franciscans did not wait for a second invitation to interfere. The papal Cardinal-Legate, who was of the same fanatical zeal as Gregory IX, promptly took up the matter. The Dominicans may have feared that the fire of the Maimunist heresy might set their own houses ablaze. For the "Guide" had been translated by an unknown scholar into Latin during the first half of the thirteenth century. This translation was probably done in southern France, where Maimuni's philosophical composition had its second home, and where educated Jews were conversant with the Latin language. Maimuni might with justice appear to the guardians of Catholic orthodoxy to have deserved damnation for his religious philosophy. Thinking about religion in those days was looked upon in official Christendom as a capital sin. If the inquisitors had at that time possessed power over the persons of Jews, the Maimunists would have fared ill indeed; as it was, the persecution extended only to parchment. Maimuni's works, at least in Montpellier, were sought out in the Jewish houses, and publicly burnt. In Paris also, Maimuni's antagonists caused a fire to be kindled for the same purpose, and it is said to have been lit by a taper from the altar of one of the principal churches. The enemies of Judaism congratulated themselves that confusion now prevailed among the Jews, who till then had been united and compact, and thought that they were approaching their decay. The anti-Maimunists, however, were not yet satisfied. Confident in the support of those in power, they calumniated their opponents before the authorities, so that many members of the congregation of Montpellier were placed in great danger.

These proceedings naturally excited the horror of all the Jews on both sides of the Pyrenees. Solomon and his partisans were generally condemned. To invoke the aid of the temporal power, and moreover of a clergy which was swollen with hatred of the Jews, was, in the Jewish world, justly considered the most outrageous treachery; and to make the Dominicans judges of what was or was not consistent with Judaism, was to introduce the heathen enemy into the Holy of Holies. Samuel Saporta denounced this conduct in a letter to the French rabbis. Abraham ben Chasdaï of Barcelona, an enthusiastic admirer of Maimuni, who had censured Jehuda Alfachar for his insulting treatment of Kimchi, and for his espousal of the cause of Solomon, dispatched a letter denouncing Solomon's action in unmeasured terms, to the communities of Castile, Aragon, Navarre, and Leon. When Kimchi, who was in Burgos on his homeward journey, heard of this affair, he inquired of Alfachar, whether he still thought of keeping the informer and traitor, Solomon, under his protection. The intelligent followers of the latter, Nachmani and Meïr Abulafia, were deeply abashed, and remained silent. Public opinion condemned Solomon and the cause he represented. A poet of the Maimunist party composed on this occasion a very fine epigram:

"What thought ye to burn, when ye kindled the pyre
For writings more precious than gold?
Lo, truth is a flame--will ye quench it with fire?
In a chariot ablaze like the Tishbite of old,
It rises to Heaven. O, bigots, behold--
God's angel appears in the fire!"

By some secret power the system of informing in Montpellier through false witnesses, to which the adherents of Maimuni were exposed, was put an end to. More than ten of Solomon's partisans, who had been convicted of slander, were punished in the most cruel manner. Their tongues were cut out. But rarely does the gloom clear up in which these incidents are veiled. The fate of Solomon, the cause of all these events, is uncertain. The Maimunists observed with a certain malicious joy the severe punishment of their adversaries in Montpellier. A poet, probably Abraham ben Chasdaï, wrote an epigram upon it, which was soon in everyone's mouth:

"Against the guide of Truth,
A false pack raised their voices.
Punishment overtook them;
Their tongue was directed to heaven,
Now it lies in the dust."

With this tragic issue the struggle was still far from being at an end. The parties were more than ever embittered against each other.

When Abraham Maimuni learnt, with indignation, of the hostility towards his father, and the sad termination of the conflict which had broken out (January, 1235), he wrote a little book on the subject, entitled "War for God" (Milchamoth), in order to repel the attack upon the orthodoxy of his father, and to denounce the conduct of his opponents. This composition, directed, in the form of a letter, to Solomon ben Asher (in Lünel?), justified Maimuni's system on Maimuni's lines, and is valuable only on account of its historical data.

Solomon's effort to silence the free spirit of research in the province of religion was thus overthrown, and had met a lamentable end. Another French rabbi, of mild character and gentle piety, attempted another method of procedure, with greater success. Moses of Coucy, who, although of the Tossafist tendency, had held Maimuni in high esteem, undertook the task of fortifying the drooping spirit of religion among the Provençals and the Spaniards by delivering sermons and spirited exhortations. Moses was undoubtedly inspired in his attempt by the example of the preacher-monks, who aimed at overcoming the disbelief in the Roman Church by preaching in village after village, and who, to some extent, were successful. In the same manner the rabbi of Coucy traveled from one congregation to another in southern France and in Spain (1235), and was accordingly called the "preacher." But there was an important difference between the Jewish expounder of the law and the Catholic order of preachers. The one acted in genuine simplicity of heart, without any ambitious motives, with mildness on his lips and mildness in his heart. The Dominicans, on the other hand, put on their humility and poverty only for show, and behind them there lurked the devil of arrogance. They flattered their patrons in sermons, and humiliated their opponents unsparingly; they gained inheritances surreptitiously, and filled their cloisters with treasures; they nourished a bloody fanaticism, and strove after power and authority.

Moses of Coucy succeeded in bringing many thousands who had neglected several rites (Tephillin), or had never observed them, to repentance and atonement, and in persuading them to remain constant in their practice. In Spain he even succeeded in influencing those who had contracted mixed marriages with Christian or Mahometan women, to divorce themselves from their strange wives (1236). It was, of course, not only his sermons which brought about this sudden conversion, but the superstitious fear of evil dreams and extraordinary celestial phenomena, by which at that time Jews and Christians were seized. Moses of Coucy, in the meantime, preached to his brethren not only to observe the ceremonies, but also to be truthful and upright in their dealings with non-Jews. In his pulpit he laid stress upon the virtue of humility, which was all the more becoming to the children of Israel, seeing that they had God ever present before them, who hates the proud, and loves the meek. Far from kindling fanatical zeal, Moses ever took peace and friendliness as his text. He helped to conciliate many by acknowledging Maimuni's greatness, and putting him on a level with the Geonim.

Evil consequences now began to develop within Judaism from this controversy in regard to the value or worthlessness of free inquiry, the effects of which lasted for centuries, and have not yet died away. Maimuni aimed at unifying Judaism, and produced division; he had sought to give it transparent clearness and general simplicity, and only caused misunderstanding and complication. It was his ambition to establish peace, but he kindled war--so little can even the greatest of mortals calculate the consequences of his actions. His system of philosophy had divided Judaism, separated the simple believers from thinking men, and aroused a commotion, which in its violence far overstepped the borders of moderation. Through the rupture that arose from the conflict for and against Maimuni, there insinuated itself into the general life of the Jews a false doctrine which, although new, styled itself a primitive inspiration; although un-Jewish, called itself a genuine teaching of Israel; and although springing from error, entitled itself the only truth. The rise of this secret lore, which was called _Kabbala_ (tradition), coincides with the time of the Maimunistic controversy, through which it was launched into existence. Discord was the mother of this monstrosity, which has ever been the cause of schism. The Kabbala, in its earliest systematic development, is a child of the first quarter of the thirteenth century. The early adherents of this occult lore, when asked to confess honestly from whom they had first received it, answered in plain terms: "From Rabbi Isaac the Blind, or perhaps from his father, Abraham ben David, of Posquières, the antagonist of Maimuni." They frankly confessed that the Kabbalistic doctrine does not appear either in the Pentateuch or in the Prophets, in the Hagiographa, or in the Talmud, but rests on scarcely perceptible indications. Of the Kabbalistic utterances of the founder of the Kabbala, Isaac the Blind (flourished about 1190-1210), there are only fragments extant, from which but little can be inferred. The darkness of his physical vision was said to have been illuminated by an inner light. He adopted as an article of faith the doctrine of Metempsychosis, which had been condemned and ridiculed by Jewish thinkers. His disciples said that he had the power of discerning whether men possessed a new and fresh soul, coming directly from the world of heavenly spirits, or an old soul which was migrating from body to body, trying to recover its purity. Two of his disciples, Azriel and Ezra, were the first who reduced the Kabbala to a coherent system. They were so like-minded, that they have often been confounded, and certain writings and doctrines have at times been ascribed to the one, and again, to the other. These twins in thought, perhaps brothers in blood, are consequently reckoned in the history of the Kabbala as only one person; they complement one another.

But little is known of the life of this pair, and it is reported of one of them (it is uncertain whether Ezra or Azriel) that he died at the age at least of seventy, a few years after the commencement of the Maimunist schism. Of Azriel, rather more is known. He relates how, from his earliest youth, he traveled about from place to place, in search of a secret art, which could give satisfactory conclusions about God and creation. Certain men, who were in possession of this lore, had taught it to him, and he was firmly convinced of its truth. He had, therefore, himself spread this Kabbalistic doctrine among the congregations which he visited during his wanderings; but was laughed to scorn by the philosophical scholars in Spain (Sevilla?). Thus, one of the earliest mystics confessed that the Kabbala had met with opposition at the very outset of its career, and that the antiquity of its subject-matter was emphatically denied. Azriel and Ezra, however, were not disturbed by this opposition, but labored to make good their position and spread their doctrines. They developed their peculiar theory in their explanations of passages in the Agada, the prayers, and the Song of Solomon, which is a mine for every kind of mysticism. Azriel endeavored to convince also philosophical scholars of the truth of the Kabbala, and clothed its doctrines in the language of logic. But as soon as this secret lore steps out of its obscurity into the light of the sun, it shows its nakedness and deformity. It is certain that the Kabbala was intended as a counterpoise to the growing shallowness of the Maimunists' philosophy. That Judaism should teach nothing more than Aristotelian philosophy was an abomination to those whose deep piety regarded every word of the Bible and the Talmud as a divine truth. There is a way of escape from the philosophical consideration of God and Judaism, _i. e._ to receive everything in naïve faith. This was the method of the Jews of Germany and northern France; it was the rigid Tossafist tendency. But the pious Jews of southern France and of Spain, who, as it were, breathed everywhere an atmosphere of philosophy, could not be satisfied with dull literalness. Judaism appeared to them without meaning, if not permeated with deep thought. The religious injunctions of the Law, the ceremonies, must have a higher, ideal meaning. The anti-Maimunists themselves had admitted, that the precepts of Judaism could on no account be accepted as arbitrary decrees of a despot, but, being divine ordinances, must have an intelligent basis; and as the apparently meaningless laws of the Bible, and the obscure verses of Scripture, so also the Agadic utterances of the Talmud must contain a higher sense, otherwise they would be without rhyme or reason. The Kabbala is a daughter of embarrassment; its system was the way of escape from the dilemma between the simple, anthropomorphic interpretation of the Bible and the shallowness of the Maimunist philosophy.

The secret doctrine, first completely developed by Ezra and Azriel, established not a new, but at any rate a peculiar philosophy of religion, or, more correctly, theosophy, which, advancing from one inconceivable statement to another, finally soared into the misty region where all thinking ceases, and even imagination droops its wings. It started from a basis which at that time was considered unimpeachable, but made bold deductions from it, which clashed with its underlying principle. Unity was transformed, by sleight-of-hand, into a plurality, spirituality into a coarse materialism, and refined belief into extravagant superstition. The original Kabbala established the following principles: the Deity is elevated above everything, even above existence and thought. Consequently, we have no right to say of Him that He speaks or acts, and still less that He thinks, wills and designs. All these qualities, which are human, imply some limitation, and God is unlimited, because perfect. Only one attribute can be assigned to Him--He is unconditioned or infinite. The Kabbala accordingly confers on God the title of Eternal (Hebrew, En-Sof). This was its first innovation. In His unthinkable universality, God, or the En-Sof, is hidden and inconceivable, and consequently, in a manner, non-existent; for that which cannot be recognized and conceived by the thinking mind does not exist for it. The universal existence, the En-Sof, consequently is identical with the non-existent (Ayin). Hence in order to make His existence known, Deity was obliged or wished to make Himself visible and recognizable; He had to become active and creative, so that His existence might be perceived.

But the lower world in its depravity and decrepitude could not have been produced or created by the En-Sof, for the Infinite and Perfect cannot directly bring into existence the finite and imperfect. The Deity, therefore, is not to be regarded as the immediate Creator of the world; the process of creation must be conceived in quite a different manner. The En-Sof, by means of His infinite wealth of light, radiated from Himself a spiritual substance, a force, or whatever it is to be called, which, flowing directly from Himself, partakes of His perfection and infinity. On the other hand, this radiation or emanation cannot be like the En-Sof, its creator, in all points, for it is not absolutely original, but derivative. This power, springing from the En-Sof, is, therefore, not identical with Him, but only similar to Him, _i. e._, it has besides an infinite, also a finite side. The Kabbala calls this first spiritual child of the En-Sof the first Sefira, a name possibly adopted as suggestive at once of number and of sphere. This first spiritual power radiates from itself a second force, and this latter a third, and so on, so that altogether ten spiritual substances, or forces, or intermediate entities, or organs (as they are in turn called), were successively revealed, and became active. These ten powers the Kabbala calls the Ten Sefiroth.