MAIMONIDESÕ INTELLECTUALIST MYSTICISM
AND THE SUPERIORITY OF THE PROPHECY OF MOSES[1]
Is
there a difference between manÕs experience of God and prophecy? If not, at
what point does awareness of the divine become prophecy? If experience of the
divine yields some form of knowledge, what then is the difference between the
religious sage and the prophet? These questions and many others related to them
occupied the minds of medieval Jewish philosophers for several centuries and
their answers represent some of the most original, systematic thinking of the
period. It will be the theses of this paper that, for Maimonides: (1) the
phenomena of prophecy fall within that which the modern world can rightly call
Òintellectualist mysticismÓ; (2) that the phenomena of providence, cognition,
and piety also fall within the definition of Òintellectualist mysticismÓ; (3)
that the prophetic experience, unlike the mystical experience, had special
socio-political functions; and (4) that in both the intellectual-mystical and
the socio-political conceptualizations, the prophecy of Moses was superior and
unique.
ÒIntellectualist MysticismÓ
The
concept of Òintellectualist MysticismÓ has been conspicuously missing from the
analysis of Jewish medieval philosophy. The leading authorities in Jewish
mysticism and in Jewish philosophy, with the exception of G. Vajda, have not
discussed this category for reasons which have not yet been fully analyzed.[2]
In Islamic scholarship, however, the concept is not at all uncommon and the term
itself may originate with I. Madkour in 1934.[3]
Briefly, the reasoning behind the concept of Òintellectualist mysticismÓ is as
follows: On the one hand, the experience of the divine is a function of
philosophic, intellectualist preparation and such experience yields
philosophic, intellectualist knowledge. On the other hand, the experience of
the divine is described, by the same thinkers, as a ÒcontactÓ/ÓconjunctionÓ
with the divine mind (Arabic, Õittisāl)
and such metaphors as Òenlightenment,Ó Òillumination,Ó etc. are used.[4]
This type of experience of the divine, however, is to be set off from the sufi
type, the latter being an experience of ÒidentificationÓ with the Divine
(Arabic, Õittihād) and
deriving from a different praxis. Thus al-Junayd is reputed to have said: ÒWe
have not acquired [our] Sufism by talking and being talked to but by hunger, by
the abandonment of the world, by the cessation of habits and desires, by
wandering, by separation from friends, and by the renouncing both that which is
known and that which is not known.Ó[5]
ÒIntellectualist mysticism,Ó then, as a concept, predicates the intellectualism
of the realm of the divine, the intellectual capacity of humanity, and the
possibility of contact and communication between these two similar,
intellectualist, elements. Some of these intellectualist mystics sought to
bolster their position by interpreting the neoplatonic theory of the ascent of
the soul as the acquisition of intellectualist virtues and the experience of
intellectualist illumination.[6]
To
be fully understood, Maimonides must be viewed in the light of this concept of
intellectualist mysticism, and there are several types of evidence which
justify such a view. The first type of evidence comes from the use of such
technical terms as wahy, nabī/nubuwwa, and Õittisal/wusla with related forms. Maimonides uses the term wahy for the entire range of inspirational activity.[7]
He uses it for Abraham, who achieved the highest degree of prophecy.[8]
He uses it for the second degree of prophecy, that is, for those whom one can
call ÒprophetsÓ only generally speaking.[9]
He uses it for the revelation on Mt. Sinai as well as for other ÒdescentsÓ of
God.[10]
He even uses it of himself, claiming that his interpretation of the Book of Job
came to him Òby something resembling wahyÓ while indicating that he lacks such a source for the interpretation
of the first chapter of Ezekiel and for the interpretation of the metaphors of
the resurrection.[11]
In each of these contexts, wahy
also has very clear intellectualist connotations. Thus, Abraham, with his wahy, Òpreached to men by speculation and learningÓ and
Òtaught men and explained to them with speculative proofsÉÓ[12]
The people of the second degree of prophecy Òbecome rational and speakÉÓ[13]
Even the ÒdescentsÓ of God are related to a communication of knowledge: ÒHe
wills, may He be exalted, what He wills—the bringing of knowledge from
Him and the emanation of wahy for
some of us.Ó[14] Even of
himself, Maimonides claims that Òthe divine wahy did not teach meÉÓ[15]
Similarly,
the word nabī/nubuwwa, when not
used in its socio-political sense (see below) but when used in an experiential
sense, is used to describe those who have Òtrue prophetic dreams.Ó These are
dreams which have describable content which is, in turn, confirmed by, and
through, wahy, the experience of
inspiration-prophecy.[16]
Also, the Òprophetic visionÓ (marÕeh ha-nevūÕā), which is the highest type of prophecy, is
described as containing both a mystical ÒcontactÓ and a cognitive
communication: ÒIn the prophetic vision, only metaphors or intellectual
contacts which communicate learned things similar to that which is derived from
speculation are perceived.Ó[17]
The
intellectualist-mystical nature of MaimonidesÕ views is most clearly seen in
his use of the root wsl, for this is the
root that was used, in his milieu, to establish the connectedness of the realms
of man and the divine. Thus, Maimonides, in speaking of wahy, talks of it as Õisāl al-`ilm, Òthe communication of knowledge.Ó[18]
He uses the phrase wusūl al-nubuwwa, Òthe arrival of prophecy.Ó[19]
He speaks of the divine intellect as muttasil, ÒconnectedÓ with the intellect of man.[20]
He even uses the very noun Õittisāl, Òthe connection/contact/conjunctionÓ of the intellects of man and God
to describe the higher levels of prophecy.[21]
Lest there be any doubt that intellectual contact is meant, he clearly labels
such prophecy as Õittisālāt `aqliyya, Òintellectual contacts which communicate learned
things similar to that which is derived from speculation,Ó and Maimonides
applies to this contact the verse ÒIn a vision I make Myself known to him,Ó
using the Hebrew root yd`,
ÒknowingÓ (Nu. 12:8).[22]
Even the Arabic word ittihād, ÒunionÓ/Óidentification,Ó which, as we have seen,
had overtones of Sufi mysticism, was co-opted by Maimonides. Thus, in speaking
of Moses and the Patriarchs, he says: ÒA result of the union of their
intellects by the perception of HimÉÓ and Òthe union with God, I mean the perception
and the love of Him.Ó[23]
This philological evidence
for the intimate connection between the experience of God and the communication
of some intellectual knowledge is supported by MaimonidesÕ presentation of the
themes of prophecy, providence, and cognition, as well as by his description of
that which constitutes true piety.
Considering the themes of
prophecy, we note that, for Maimonides, prophecy is an intellectualist
phenomenon. It requires intellectual (and moral) preparation.[24]
It is an emanation from the divine mind to the intellect (and then to the
imagination) of the prophet.[25]
At the same time, prophecy is an experience which transforms the prophet:
A person who is replete with all these virtues and whole in
body, when he enters the [mystical] Garden [Heb., pardes] and continues [to meditate] on these remote
and great themes; if his mind be prepared to perceive and to
understand; if he sanctify himself
by continually withdrawing from the ways of the masses who walk in the darkness
of the times; if he continually urge himself and teach himself to have no
thought for any useless thing nor for any of the vanities and cunning wisdom of
the times; rather [he keeps] his mind always turned upward, bound under the
Throne, [seeking] to understand the holy and pure forms and contemplating the
wisdom of God—all of it, from the First Form to the naval of the Earth;
and when he has gotten knowledge from them [i.e., the forms and other existent
beings] of GodÕs greatness; then, immediately, the Holy Spirit descends upon
him. And when the Holy Spirit rests upon him, his soul mixes [into] the level
of the angels called Õishīm and he
becomes another person, understanding in his mind that he is no longer as he
was; rather that he has surpassed the level of other men who are sages as it is
said of Saul, ÒYou prophesied with them and became another personÓ [I Sam.
10:6].[26]
Considering
the themes of providence and cognition, we noted that, for Maimonides, these
too are phenomena with intellectual, and with experiential, content. Thus, for
Maimonides, the intensity of the emanation of divine providence (al-`ināya) varies in direct proportion to the intellectual
capacities and development of man.[27]
At the same time, receiving providence is also some kind of experience. Thus,
he writes--and note the use of the root wsl, the intellectualist-mystical connotations of which
have already been pointed out: ÒFor anyway who has had any thing of this
emanation contact him (Õittasala bihi shai) will be reached (yasiluhu)
by providence to the extent to which the intellect reaches him (yasiluhu).Ó[28]
Much
the same balance of intellect and experience can be seen in MaimonidesÕ
epistemology, although that subject is a very complex problem. Without going
into the details of the process of cognition, it seems reasonable to state that
this process is one of the corresponding evidences. The evidence of these
senses is abstracted[29]
and compared with abstract ideas which are already in the mind.[30]
If the correspondence is complete, truth or knowledge or intellect in actu
is established.[31] These
abstract ideas that are already in the mind, however, are not ÒinnateÓ but are
emanated to the human intellect from the divine intellect (that is, the Agent
Intelligence).[32] It follows
from this epistemology that manÕs cognition of the mind of God (Õidrāk
al-`aql al-fa``al)[33]
also varies in direct proportion to his intellectual capacities and
development. At the same time, receiving such an emanation and attaining to
true knowledge is also an experience. This is most clearly seen in MaimonidesÕ
views on the nature of true piety to which we now turn.
What
was the exact nature of the experience of cognition or providence? What was it
like to be the recipient of the divine emanation, to attain to true knowledge?
We do not know exactly; Maimonides, as a civilized and religious man, was
appropriately reticent on these subjects. But, in his description of the nature
of true piety, Maimonides does give us some indications for there he brings
together the themes of providence, cognition, and religiosity. There intellect
and experience join. In the description of true piety, the
intellectualist-mystical theme is most clearly enunciated. The text of the Guide, 3:51, is quite clear:
This chapter that we bring now does not include additional
matter over and above what is comprised in the other chapters of this Treatise.
It is only a kind of a conclusion, at the same time explaining the worship [al-`ibāda] as practiced by one who has apprehended the true
realities peculiar only to Him after he has obtained an apprehension
of what He is; and it also guides him toward achieving this worship, which is
the end of man, and [it] makes known to him how providence watches over him in
this habitation until he is brought over to the bundle of life [the
World-to-Come].[34]
There follows the parable of the palace of
the Sultan with the men of learning being those in the inner courts.
There are those who set their thought to work[35]
after having attained perfection in the
divine science, [who] turn wholly toward God [wa-māla bi-jumlatihi
nahwa Allah], may be cherished and held sublime, [who] renounce what
is other than He, and direct all the acts of their intellect toward an
examination of the beings with a view to drawing from them proof with regard to
Him, so as to know His governance of them in whatever way it is possible; these
people are those who are Present
in the rulerÕs council. This is the rank of the prophets.
The various degrees of prophecy have already been discussed
by us. Let us now return to the subject of this chapter, which is to confirm
men in the intention to set their thought to work on God alone after they have achieved knowledge of Him, as we have
explained. This is the worship peculiar to those who have apprehended the true
realities; the more they think of Him and of being with Him [al-maqām
`indahu], the more their worship increases.[36]
There follows a reference to those who, among
other things, frequently Òmention GodÓ [yukaththiru dhikrahu] as being far from the palace.
This kind of worship ought only to be engaged in after intellectual conception has been achieved. If,
however, you have apprehended God and His acts in accordance with what is
required by the intellect, you should afterwards engage in totally devoting
yourself to Him [taÕkhudh fi al-Õinqitā` Õilayhi], endeavor
to come closer to Him [wa-tas`i nahwa qurbihi], and strengthen the bond [al-wusla] between you and Him—that is, the intellect.
Thus it says: ÒUnto you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord,Ó and so on [Dt. 4:35]; and it says: ÒKnow
this day, and lay it to your heart,Ó and so on [Dt. 4:39]; and it says: ÒKnow that the Lord He is GodÓ [Ps. 100:3]. The Torah has
made it clear that this ultimate worship to which we have drawn attention in
this chapter can only be engaged in after apprehension has been achieved; it says: ÒTo love the Lord your God,
and to worship Him with all your heart and with all your soulÓ [Dt. 11:13]. Now
we have made it clear several times that love is proportionate to apprehension.[37]
After love [Õahāvā/al-mahabba] comes this worship [`avōdā/al-`ibāda] to which attention has also been drawn by [the
Sages], may their memory be blessed, who said: Òthis is the worship in the
heart [`avōdā she-ba-lēv].Ó In my opinion it consists in setting thought to work on the first
intelligible[38] and in
devoting oneself exclusively to this [wal-Õinfirād
li-dhālika] as far as this is within
oneÕs capacity. Therefore you will find that David exhorted Solomon and
fortified him in these two things. I mean [in] his endeavor to apprehend Him and
[in] his endeavor to worship Him after apprehension has been achieved. He said:
ÒAnd you, Solomon my son, know the God
of your father and worship Him,Ó and so on [I Ch. 28:9]. Thus it is clear that
after apprehension, total devotion to Him [al-Õinqitā` Õilayhi]
and the employment of intellectual thought in constant passion for Him [fī
`ishqihi] should be aimed at. Mostly this
is achieved in solitude and isolation [bil-khilwa wal-Õinfirād]. Hence every excellent man stays frequently in
solitude and does not meet anyone unless it is necessary.[39]
Maimonides, then, outlines a daily schedule
for the devotee and concludes:
Thus I have provided you with many and long stretches of time
in which you can think all that needs thinking regarding property, the governance
of the household, and the welfare of the body. On the other hand, while
performing the actions imposed by the Law, you should occupy your thought only
with what you are doing, just as we have explained. When, however, you are
alone with yourself [fī waqt khilāwatika bi-nafsika] and no one else is there and while you lie awake
upon your bed, you should take great care during these precious times not to
set your thought to work on anything other than that intellectual worship
consisting in nearness to God and being in His presence [al-`ibāda
al-`aqliyya wa-hiya al-qurb min Allah wal-muthūl bayna yadayhi] in that true reality that I have made known to you
and not by way of affections of the imagination. In my opinion this end can be
achieved by those of the men of knowledge who have rendered their souls worthy
of it by training of this kind.[40]
Later in the chapter,
Maimonides introduces the term joy [al-ghabta] and even goes so far as to define manÕs passion for God [al-`ishq]:[41]
It is as if [the psalm] said that this individual is
protected because he hath known me and then passionately loved Me [limā
`arafanī wa-`ashiqanī]. You know
the difference between the terms Òone who loves [Õōhēb]Ó and Òone who loves passionately [hōshēq]Ó; for an excess of love [mahabba], such that no thought remains that is directed
toward a thing other than the beloved, is passionate love [`ishq].[42]
Connecting this worship, or piety, with
providence, Maimonides states explicitly:
The providence of God, may He be exalted, is constantly
watching over those who have obtained this emanation, which is permitted to
everyone who makes efforts with a view to obtaining it. If a manÕs thought is
free from distraction, if he apprehends Him, may He be exalted, in the right
way and rejoices [wa-ghabtuhu] in what
he apprehends, that individual can never be afflicted with evil of any kind. For
he is with God and God is with him. When, however, he abandons Him, may He be
exalted, and is thus separated from God and God separated from him, he becomes
in consequence of this a target for every evil that may happen to befall him.
For the thing that necessarily brings about providence and deliverance from the
sea of chance consists in that intellectual emanation.[43]
Several things are quite
clear: (1) The Òworship of GodÓ (al-`ibāda) is not the same as the Òlove of GodÓ (al-mahabba). Rather, the Òworship of GodÓ follows the Òlove of
God.Ó (2) The Òlove of GodÓ is intellectual, being directly proportional to the
Òcomprehension of GodÓ (al-Õidrāk). (3) The Òworship of God,Ó on the other hand, is a turning of oneÕs
thoughts to God, a devoting of oneself to God, and a passion for God which is
best sought after in solitude. (4) A whole series of terms have appeared which
are distinctly religious, or mystical, terms: turning wholly toward God (māla
bi-jumlatihi nahwa Allah), being standing
with God (al-maqām `indahu);
total devotion to God (al-Õinqitā` and al-Õinfirād Õilayhi);
GodÕs closeness (qurbihi), being
in GodÕs Presence (bayna yadayhi),
solitude (al-khalwa), the joy of
experiencing God (al-ghabta), and
the passion for God (al-`ishq).
Note too that the root wsl recurs
in the forms al-wusla/al-silla,
Òthe bondÓ between God and man, here defined as the intellect.[44]
To this list, must be added the term Õittihād, Òunion,Ó used of Moses and the patriarchs (see
below) as well as the metaphor of the Òkiss of death,Ó used of Moses, Aaron,
and Miriam (see below).
Where
do these terms come from? From what milieu might they have been taken? They do
not appear to have been taken from the ÒphilosophersÓ: the Kalam (Saadia
included), Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, or Al-Ghazzali.[45]
Some of them occur in normal Arabic usage, and, hence, Maimonides may be giving
special connotations to ordinary words by using them in this special way. On
the other hand, the distinctly religious sense of these terms indicates that
they may have been drawn, directly or indirectly, from some religious milieu.
And, indeed, these terms do occur in the Sufi traditions.[46]
Whatever the sources of these terms—and the question of Sufi influence in
Maimonides is one which I hope to re-open elsewhere[47]—the
evidence indicates quite conclusively that, for Maimonides, true piety,
providence, and cognition were both intellectual and mystical. Indeed, one
might say that, for Maimonides intellectuality passed into a ÒhigherÓ
intellectuality; thinking passed into a deep passion for God; contemplation
passed into a meditative delivering of the self to God; and reflection passed
into a being, or standing, before God. For Maimonides, as for his milieu, mind
and religious experience were necessary complements of one another.
The Integration of These Phenomena
Taking
providence, cognition, and true piety on the one hand and prophecy on the
other, we can see that there are certain elements common to all these phenomena:
(1) All have as their divine parameter the pure, spiritual emanation from the
divine intellect (al-faid al-Õilāhi min al-`aql al-fa``āl). (2) All have as their human parameter the human
intellect as the receiver of that emanation (al-`aql
al-Õinsānī). (3) All function
proportionately to the development of manÕs native intellectual capacities.
And, (4) all involve a religious or mystical experience. That Maimonides
intended all these phenomena—prophecy, providence, piety, and
cognition—to be taken as having a common base is quite clearly indicated
by him in a series of metaphors and typologies. Thus, in the famous metaphor of
the lightning, the prophets are included, together with others, within the category of Òthe perfect onesÓ (al-kāmilīn).[48]
And, in the metaphor of the palace of the Sultan, the prophets are ranked
together with Òthe learned menÓ (al-`ulāmāÕ), Òthe juristsÓ (al-fuqāhāÕ), and Òthe people of opinions and [false]
speculationÓ (Õahl raÕy wa-nazar).[49]
In another typology, Maimonides, states:
The [emanation of] divine providence is not equal for all the
individuals of the human species; rather providence is differentiated among
them according to the differentiation of their human perfection. Because of
this thought, it follows necessarily that His providence, may He be exalted, is
upon the prophets in very great [measure]—according to their degrees in
prophecy—and it is upon the virtuous (al-fudālāÕ) and the pious (al-salihīn) according to their virtue and their piety. For this
power of the emanation of the divine intellect is that which renders the
prophets articulate [rational], [and it is that] which guides the acts of the
pious, and [it is that] which gives perfection to the knowledge of the
virtuous.[50]
Similarly, the philosopher, the prophet, and
the statesman are mentioned together following an introductory note on
cognition, and both philosophy and prophecy are explicitly said to be functions
of the same divine emanation, the one resulting in the impulse to teach and to
compose books and the other resulting in the impulse to preach and to teach.[51]
Furthermore, the hero and the one who Òspeaks with the holy spiritÓ are listed
within the categories of prophecy[52]
while the universality of prophecy is also admitted by Maimonides.[53]
There
is also a logical reason why the phenomena of prophecy, providence, piety, and
cognition must be taken together: all three derive from the same source, the
Agent Intelligence,[54]
and all three function by means of the same phenomenon, emanation. Furthermore,
this emanation derives from the chain of divine Intelligences, each of which,
when reflecting upon its predecessor, emanates a pure Intelligence.[55]
Thus, the entire chain of emanation is uniformly intellectual, uniformly
spirit. Hence, all resulting phenomena-prophecy, providence, and
cognition—must logically have a uniform intellectualist, spiritual base.
Furthermore, humanityÕs contact with this realm must be on its terms, of the
same nature and quality as that realm, that is, intellectual and spiritual.
The Socio-Political Motif
When,
then, separated prophecy from the other forms of intellectualist mystical
experience? What made the prophet different from the philosopher, the sage, and
the saint? It was not the ability to perform acts which, in the West, are
called Òsupernatural.Ó Maimonides recognized that certain people had
exceptional powers, but he regarded these powers as natural, even though
exceptional and, like Muslim thinkers, attached no prophetic value to such
acts.[56]
There are, rather, three criteria: First, the prophets used their imaginative
faculties whereas the philosophers and teachers did not.[57]
Second, the prophets, especially Moses and the Patriarchs, were able to sustain
their awareness of GodÕs presence more continuously than the philosophers and
teachers; that is, the prophets were able to strengthen their
intellects—the nexus of the human and the divine—to a state of
continuous connectedness.[58]
And third, drawing upon Islamic political theory in which the prophet is
separated from other ideal types by virtue of his being a Òmessenger,Ó that is,
by virtue of his having a divinely ordained socio-political function,[59]
Maimonides set forth two types of prophet: the prophet who is the legislator
and the prophet who argues, preaches, and teaches the truth of the law of the
legislator-prophet. The role of the legislator-prophet is clearly assigned to
Moses, and Maimonides applied to him the Hebrew word mehōqēq, ÒlegislatorÓ [Nu. 21:13].[60]
The role of the preaching-prophets is that of the ÒmessengersÓ sent by God who
exhort the people to observe the law which Moses had given.[61]
Were such a prophet to urge the repeal or the violation of the law of Moses,
even if he were to do many astounding miracles, he would be a false prophet
subject to the death penalty.[62]
A derivative within the category of the preaching-prophet is the pre-Mosaic
preacher-prophet, for example, Abraham, who preached the same truths as Moses, used
his imaginative faculties to the full and could sustain the awareness of the
Presence of God continuously, but who did not legislate and did not claim a
divine mission.[63] This is not
to say that the philosophers, sages, teachers, and saints have no socio-political
function. Even politicians have a socio-political function. Rather these ideal
types have the important socio-political function of teaching the sciences, of
writing books, and governing humanity. However, neither sage nor politician has
a divine ordination for his role. They are not ÒsentÓ and are not ÒmessengersÓ
or Òprophets.Ó[64]
Thus
mixture of piety and politics, of religious awareness and socio-political
mission, may sound strange to modern ears but it is basic to Islam and hence to
medieval Jewish thought. Thus, as early as Ja`far Sādiq (d. 765), the
sixth Imam of Shi`ite Islam, the following experiential categories of prophecy
were established: (1) the nabī who
receives signs and inspiration; (2) the nabī who hears an angel but only in a dream and never
awake; and (3) the nabī who
hears an angel but is awake.[65]
The scheme here is one of increasing intensity of experience. A parallel set of
socio-political categories was also developed by Ja`far Sādiq: (1) the nabī who does not have to transmit that which he
receives; (2) the nabī mursal
who has a mission which is to support and to teach a previous revelation; and
(3) the nabī rasūl
whose mission is to legislate. His prophecy is called nubuwat
al-tashrī`, Òlegislative prophecy.Ó
Significantly, in merging these two schema, Ja`far Sādiq regards the
prophets who receive either signs and inspirations or dream revelations but who
have no mission as ÕawliyāÕ,
Òpious menÓ and calls them the Òfriends of God.Ó They are the initiates into
Shi`ite Islam. The prophets who receive more intense communication (when awake)
and who support, or actually legislate, however, he calls the true prophets.
Moses as Unique in Both Categories[66]
What
is the place of Moses in these two schema: the intellectual-mystical and the
socio-political? To answer this question, one must remember that Maimonides
was, above all, a rabbinic Jew and thus, for him, Moses is the central figure
in Judaism. Moses is the scribe for GodÕs written Torah and the transmitter of
GodÕs Oral Law. He is Òthe father of the Torah, the father of wisdom, and the
father of the prophets.Ó[67]
He is ÒMoses, our Rabbi,Ó the Jew par excellence.[68]
MosesÕ superiority, therefore, is one of the postulates of the system.
Within
the socio-political schema, Maimonides asserts MosesÕ superiority by assigning
only to him the terms mehōqēq,
Òlegislator,Ó and risāla,
Òmission.Ó Thus, Abraham and the other prophets never claim to have been sent.[69]
This assignation is made into a dogma and is included in the Principles of the
Faith where we read clearly:
The Eighth Principle is that the Torah is from heaven: to
wit, it [must] be believed that the whole of this Torah which is in our hands
today is the Torah that was brought down to Moses, our Rabbi; that all of it is
from the Almighty, I mean that it came to him in its entirely by the transmission
which is called metaphorically ÒspeechÓ; that no one knows the quality of that
transmission except him to whom it was transmitted, peace be upon him; and,
that it was dictated to him while he was of the rank of a scribe; and, that he
wrote down all of it—its dates, its narratives, and its laws—and,
for this, he called Òthe legislatorÓ [Nu. 21:12].[70]
In this sense, Moses is Òthe father of the
Torah.Ó[71]
Within
the intellectualist-mystical scheme, Maimonides asserts the intellectual superiority of Moses very clearly;
Maimonides teaches, as we have seen, that the intensity of the divine emanation
varies in direct proportion to oneÕs natural intellectual (and moral and
imaginative) endowment and preparation: the greater the perfection of oneÕs
faculties, the greater the ability of the individual to receive the divine
emanation. He, then, asserts that Moses was the most perfectly endowed and the
most perfectly prepared of all men. Hence, he could receive the greatest
intensity of the divine emanation.[72]
Maimonides also teaches, as we have seen, that prophecy yields intellectual
knowledge, and we would expect MosesÕ knowledge to be superior to that of all
others. And so it is: Moses, at his initiatory revelation at the Burning Bush,
comprehended all the proofs for GodÕs existence.[73]
The actual level attained here is not the point, for others could, and do,
attain the level of knowing all, or almost all, the proofs for GodÕs existence.
The point is that Moses grasps this at his initiatory prophetic experience. Later
in his career, when Moses goes up on Mt. Sinai to plead for the people, he asks
for a more intimate knowledge of God. In reply, God grants him comprehension of
Òall the beings of creationÉtheir natures, their interrelatedness, and [the
principles of] their governance in general and in detailÉwith a true and firm
comprehension.Ó[74] In other
words, Moses, at this later stage of his prophetic career, actually is shown
and comprehends, the basic ordering principle(s) of the cosmos. In this, Moses
is unlike all other men for no one else is accorded such vision. This too
Maimonides formulates as a dogma in the Principles of the Faith:
The Seventh Principle is the prophecy of Moses, our Rabbi; to
wit, it should be known that: Moses was the father of all prophets—of
those who came before him and of those who came after him—all were
beneath him in rank; and, that he was the chosen of God from among the entire
species of humanity; and that he comprehended more of God, may He be exalted,
than any man who ever existed or will exist ever comprehended or will
comprehendÉ[75]
In this sense, Moses is also the Òfather of
wisdom,Ó which is defined as Òthe proving of the truth of the opinion of the
TorahÓ[76]
and which includes the maximum knowledge possible of the workings of the
physical universe.
Within
the intellectualist-mystical scheme, Maimonides also asserts the mystical, or experiential, superiority of Moses: As noted above, the true
ÒworshipÓ of God, that is, true piety, involves not only a knowledge, or love,
of God but also a Òbeing,Ó or Òstanding,Ó with God and a ÒjoyÓ in experiencing
God. For most pious people, this awareness of the divine is a sometime thing,
but, for Moses and the patriarchs, it is continuous. Thus Maimonides writes:
And there may be a human individual who, through his
apprehension of the true realities and his joy [wal-ghabta] in what he has apprehended, achieves a state in
which he talks with people and is occupied with his bodily necessities while
his intellect is wholly turned toward Him [nahwahu], may He be exalted, so that in his heart he is always
in His presence, may He be exalted [bayn yadayhiÉdāÕiman bi-qalbihi], while outwardly he is with people, in the sort of
way described by the poetical parables that have been invented for these
notions: ÒI sleep, but my heart is awake; it is the voice of my beloved that
knocks,Ó [Song, 5:2] and so on. I do not say that this rank is that of all the
prophets; but I do say that this is the rank of Moses, our Rabbi, of whom it is
said: ÒAnd Moses alone shall come near unto the Lord; but they shall not come
nearÓ [Ex. 24:2]; and of whom it is said: ÒAnd he was there with the LordÓ [Ex.
34:28]; and to whom it was said: ÒBut as for you, stand here by MeÓ [Dt. 5:28].
All this according to what we have explained regarding the meaning of these
verses. This was also the rank of the Patriarchs, the result of whose nearness
to Him, may He be exalted, was that His name became known to the world through
them: ÒThe God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of JacobÉthis is My
name for everÓ [Ex. 3:15]. Because of the union of their intellects through
apprehension of Him [Õittihād `uqūlihim fī
Õidrākihi], it came about that He made
a lasting covenant with each of themÉNow this is to my mind a proof that they
performed these actions with their
limbs only, while their intellects were constantly in His
presence, may He be exalted. It also seems to me that these four were in a
permanent state of extreme
perfection in the eyes of God, and that His providence watched over them continually even while they were engaged in increasing their
fortune—I mean, while they tended their cattle, did agricultural work,
and governed their household. [This] was necessarily brought about by the
circumstance that in all these actions their goal was to come near to Him, may
He be exalted; and how near! For the goal of their efforts during their life was
to bring into being a religious community that would know and worship God: ÒFor
I have known him, to the end that he may commandÓ [Gen. 18:19] and so on. Thus
it has become clear to you that the goal of all their efforts was to spread the
doctrine of the unity of the Name in the world and to guide people to love Him,
may He be exalted. Therefore this rank befitted them, for these actions were
pure, absolute worship [`ibāda mahda `azīma].[77]
Furthermore, as noted above, the Òworship of
GodÓ involves also a devotion to, and passion for, God. For most pious people,
this passion may be a bridge to death, but, for Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, it
reached such a great intensity that they are said to have died by the Òkiss of
God.Ó The text reads:
The philosophers have already explained that the bodily
faculties impede in youth the attainment of most of the moral virtues, and all
the more that of pure thought, which is achieved through the perfection of the
intelligibles that lead to passion for Him, may He be exalted. For it is
impossible that it should be achieved while the bodily humors are in
effervescence. Yet in the measure in which the faculties of the body are
weakened and the fire of the desires is quenched, the intellect is
strengthened, its lights achieve a wider extension, its apprehension is
purified, and it rejoices in what it apprehends. The result is that when a
perfect man is stricken with years and approaches death, this apprehension
increases very powerfully, joy [al-ghabta]
over this apprehension and the passion [wal-`ishq] for the object of apprehension become stronger,
until the soul is separated from the body, at that moment, in this state of
pleasure. Because of this the Sages have indicated with reference to the deaths
of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam that the three of them died by a kissÉTheir purpose
was to indicate that the three of them died in the pleasure of this
apprehension due to the intensity of the passion. In this dictum the Sages, may
their memory be blessed, followed the generally accepted poetical way of
expression that calls the apprehension that is achieved in a state of intense
passion for Him, may He be exalted, a kiss, in accordance with the verse: ÒLet
him kiss me with the kisses of his mouthÓ [Song, 1:2] and so on. [The Sages],
may their memory be blessed, mention the occurrence of this kind of death,
which in true reality is salvation from death, only with regard to Moses,
Aaron, and Miriam. The other prophets and excellent men are beneath this
degree; but it holds good for all of them that the apprehension of their
intellects becomes stronger at the separation, just as it is said: ÒAnd your
righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall be behind youÓ
[Is. 58:8].[78]
By
these two criteria—the ability to sustain the awareness of the presence
of God and the intensity of oneÕs passion for God—MosesÕ mystical
superiority is asserted. Yet we note that he must share this mystical, or
experiential, superiority with others: the continuous consciousness of the
divine presence is common to the patriarchs and the death-producing intensity
of the divine presence is common to Aaron and Miriam. What, according to
Maimonides, would separate MosesÕ experience completely, absolutely, from the
experience of other pious people and prophets? In what way is MosesÕ experience
of God categorically different from that of everyone else (given that his
knowledge of God is unique)? There are two ways in which MosesÕ experience of
the divine is absolutely unique
and not just superior. First, Moses did not suffer any of the drawbacks or
disabilities of prophecy. Maimonides points out, for example, that the prophecy
of the other prophets was characterized by a trance, or sleep, during which the
dream or vision was received; by a terror and a trembling of the body;[79]
by the indirect or metaphoric nature of the communication to them;[80]
and by the intermittent nature of their prophetic seizures,[81]
the power of prophecy finally leaving them completely some time before their
death.[82]
Furthermore, these prophets could not summon God at will.[83]
Moses, on the other hand, was conscious and without fear during his prophecies;
the gift never left him, not even before death; and, he could summon God at
will.[84]
Second, and more important, MosesÕ experience of the divine was direct,
unmediated. Thus, on Mt. Sinai, when the people heard only an indistinct sound,
Moses comprehended intelligible words.[85]
And, while for other prophets, the divine emanation had to pass from their
rational to their imaginative faculties, for Moses, the emanation remained in
his rational faculty only. Moses, although possessing a perfected imagination
(unlike the philosophers), did not use it.[86]
Rather, he spoke to God Òfrom between the two cherubs,Ó meaning: intellect to intellect, mind to mind.[87]
This too, Maimonides formulated into a Principle of the Faith:
[Rather] he, peace be upon him, reached a state of
exaltedness beyond humanity such that he perceived the level of sovereignty and
became included in the level of the angels. There remained no veil which he did
not pierce, no material hindrance burdened him, and no defect whether small or
great mingled itself with him. The imaginative and sensible faculties in his
perceptions were stripped from him, his desiderative faculty was still, and he
remained [pure] intellect only. For this reason, they remarked of him that he
discoursed with God without the intermediacy of an angel.[88]
In
this sense, Moses is the Òfather of the prophetsÓ[89]
and is so far above them, experientially as well as socio-politically, that he
is not even included in their ranks.[90]
Conclusion
MaimonidesÕ
views concerning the superiority of the prophecy of Moses must be viewed in the
light of the intellectualist mysticism which was an integral part of
MaimonidesÕ world-view. In this world-view, the intellectualist character of
the divine and human realms, together with the existence of a ÒcontactÓ between
these realms, is posited. It follows from this, that the experience of the
divine requires intellectualist knowledge. And, conversely, that true
intellectualist activity results in an experience, or awareness, of the divine
which can properly be called Òmystical.Ó Within this world-view, Maimonides
expounded his views on cognition, providence, true piety, and also on prophecy,
this last phenomenon distinguishing itself from others primarily by its
socio-political implications of Òmessenger-ship.Ó Within the parameters of
these phenomena, Maimonides asserts the superiority of Moses:
socio-politically, Moses is the only Òmessenger.Ó Intellectually, he is the
best endowed, best informed, and most perfected of men. Experientially, he
attains the highest degrees of piety—those of continuous consciousness of
the divine and the kiss of death. And, he attains an unparalleled degree of
prophecy—that of direct, unmediated, purely intellectual experience of
the divine.
[1] This essay first appeared in Studies in Medieval Culture, 10 (1977) 51-68 and was reprinted in Approaches to the Study of Medieval Judaism, ed. D. Blumenthal (Chico, Scholars Press: 1984) 27-52 and Philosophic Mysticism: Essays in Rational Religion, chapter 3. Ramat Gan: University Press: 2006.
[2] The concept
of intellectualist mysticism does not appear in the writings of Guttmann,
Wolfson, Pines, Atlas; nor in the various works of Scholem. The connection
between philosophy and mysticism in general has been pointed to by A. Altmann
in his Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul: 1969); by A. J. Heschel,
ÒInspiration in the Middle AgesÓ [Hebrew] in Alexander Marx Jubilee
Volume (New York, Jewish Theological
Seminary: 1950), 175-208; and by L. Jacobs in his Hasidic Prayer (New York, Schocken: 1973). On Maimonides and
mysticism, Altmann has written ÒDas VerhŠltnis Maimunis zur jŸdischen Mystik,Ó (Monatschrift
fŸr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judnetums,
80 [1936] 305-30) but he did not deal with the mysticism of Maimonides.
HeschelÕs article, ÒDid Maimonides Believe He Had Merited Prophecy?Ó (Louis
Ginzberg Jubilee Volume [New York, American
Academy of Jewish Research: 1945] 159-88) adumbrates the issue. It has really
fallen to Vajda to articulate the interrelationship of philosophy and mysticism
in general and especially in Maimonides. See his Introduction ‡ la
pensŽe juive du moyen ‰ge (Paris, Vrin:
1946), esp. 140; Recherches sur la philosophie et la kabbale (Paris, Mouton: 1962); ÒLa philosophie juive en
Espagne,Ó (The Sephardi Heritage,
ed. R. D. Barnett [London, Vallentine, Mitchell: 1971]) I:81-111), esp. 94; and, most recently, ÒJewish
Mysticism,Ó Encyclopedia Britannica,
15th edition, 10:183ff.
The
reason for this curious omission may lie in the image of Maimonides projected
by the presuppositions of past scholars. Maimonides, for nineteenth century
German Jewry, was the rationalist par excellence, a kind of pre-Kantian Kant. On the other hand, ÒmysticismÓ was
medieval, the antithesis of the Enlightenment. As a result, the mysticism of
Maimonides was quickly and deftly swept behind his rationalism, and his
rationalism was quickly and deftly projected into a religious,
eighteenth-century type of deism with Nature, Natural law, etc. as paramount.
This paper will show that this projection of Maimonides is not accurate.
[3] I. Madkour, La
place dÕAlfarabi dans lÕŽcole philosophique musulamane (Paris, Adrien-Maisonneuve: 1934) 186, 188, followed
by L. Gardet, La pensŽe religieuse dÕAvicenne (Paris, Vrin: 1951) 160, 184; and, more recently, M.
Fakhry, ÒThree Varieties of Mysticism in Islam,Ó International
Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 2
(1971) 193-207.
[4] For
al-Farabi, see Madkour, at the index. For Ibn Sina, see Gardet, at the index.
For Ibn Bajjah, see Altmann, Studies,
ch. 3. In ShiÕite Islam, intellectualist mysticism is such a thorough-going
concept that prophecy is seen as the externalization, the rendering exoteric,
of that which is, in the first place, an internal, mystical, esoteric
experience. See H. Corbin, ÒDe la philosophie prophŽtique en Islam Sh”`ite,Ó Eranos Jahrbuch, 32 (1962) 49-116.
[5] Madkour, 187.
[6] See Altmann,
Studies, ch. 1 and esp. 104 for the
parallel quotation from PlotinusÕ Enneads.
[7] This is the
springboard of HeschelÕs analysis of Maimonides on prophecy.
[8] Guide. 2:39
(Joel, 268:15) with 2:45; 3:45 (Joel, 421:29); 1: 18 (Joel, 30:3). Citations to
the Guide are to part: chapter,
with parenthetical reference to the Judaeo-Arabic text of I. Joel, Dalalat
al-HaÕirin (Jerusalem, Junovitch: 1929).
[9] Guide, 2:45 (Joel, 284: 6ff).
[10] Guide, 1:10 (Joel, 24: 17-25:4).
[11] Guide, 3:22 (Joel, 353:22); 3:Introduction (Joel, 297:27);
Maqāla fī Tehiyyat ha-Mētīm, ed. J. Finkel (New York, AAJR: 1939), section 32, 22.
[12] Guide, 1:63
(Joel, 106:6-7); 2:39 (Joel, 268:17-18).
[13] Guide, 2:45 (Joel, 282:36).
[14] Arabic, Õisāl
al-`ilm minhu wa-Õifādat wahy. Guide, 1:10 (Joel, 24:17
[15] Arabic, wahy...yu`allimuni. Guide,
3: Introduction (Joel, 197:27).
[16] Arabic, fa-dhālika al-wahy yunbīhi
Õannahā nubuwwa. Guide, 2:45
(Joel, 284:5 ff.).
[17] Arabic, wa-Õammā
fī marÕeh ha-nevūÕāh fa-lā yudrak fīhi Õillā
Õamthālāt au Õittisālāt `aqliyya yuhassil Õumūran
`ilmiyya shabh Õallatī tahsul `an al-nazar. Guide, 2:45 (Joel, 278:4-5).
[18] Guide, 1:10 (Joel, 24:17).
[19] Guide, 2:45 (Joel, 284:11).
[20] Guide,
1:1 (Joel, 15:18-19); 1:73 (136:18 ff.).
[21] Guide, 2:45 (Joel, 286:22).
[22] Ibid.,
(Joel, 287:4).
[23] Arabic, Õittihād `uqūlihim bi-Õidrākihi. Guide, 3:51
(Joel, 459:16-17); Arabic, al-Õittihād bil-lāh Õa`nī Õidrākuhu
wa-mahabbuhu. Ibid. (Joel, 459:19).
[24] Guide, 2:32.
[25] Guide, 2:36.
[26] Mishne
Torah (hereinafter: MT), Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 7:1. See ed. S.
Lieberman (Jerusalem, Mossad Harav Kook: 1964) with notes, ad loc. See also, MT, ÒHilkhot Teshuvah,Ó 3:8.
[27] Guide, 3:17, 18, 51 (end). See S. Munk, Le Guide
des EgarŽs (Paris, A. Franck: 1856-1866), 3:135,
n. 1 for the references to AristotleÕs Nichomachean Ethics
[28] Guide, 3:17 (Joel, 342:25-6).
[29] This is,
probably, done by the imaginative faculty. See Guide, 1:68, end; 1:73, Tenth Proposition, Warning Note
(Joel, 146:10-20); and H. A. Wolfson, ÒMaimonides on the Internal Senses,Ó Jewish
Quarterly Review, n.s., 25 (1935) 441-67,
reprinted in Studies in the History of Religion and Philosophy, ed. I. Twersky and G. Williams (Cambridge, Mass.,
Harvard University Press: 1973). 1:344-70.
[30] This is,
probably, done by the rational faculty of the soul, also known as the hylic
intellect and as the potential intellect. See Guide, 1:68; 2:37.
[31] Guide, 1:50: 1:68. See also Saadia, Emunot ve-De`ot, Introduction.
[32] Guide,
1:21 (Joel, 33:8-10); 1:62 (Joel, 104:21-2); 2:4 (Joel, 117:17-20); 2:37,
beginning (Joel, 264:3-4). See also 1:68 and ÒShemona Peraqim,Ó etc. and H. A.
Wolfson, ÒExtradeical and Intradeical Interpretations of Platonic Ideas,Ó in Religious
Philosophy: A Group of Essays (New
York, Atheneum: 1965), 27-67.
[33]
Guide, 1:62; 2:4.
[34] I have followed the translation of S. Pines with
modifications. This first section is from Joel, 454:18-22; Pines, 618.
[35] Arabic, Õa`mala
fikrahu, as a noun: Õi`mal
al-fikra. The phrase has, I think, no
special meditative or mystical connotations. It means Òto set oneÕs thought to
work on,Ó Òto direct oneÕs intellectual attention to.Ó
[36] Joel, 456:5-9 and 16-19; Pines, 620.
[37] Arabic, Õanna
al-mahabba `ala qadr al-Õidrāk. The
references are to 1:39 and 3:28.
[38] Arabic, al-ma`qūl
al-Õawal (Joel, 457:6). This has puzzled
the translators and commentators. (For its usual use as Òfirst notion,Ó see,
for example, 3:19, at the beginning). FriedlŠnder and Pines pass over it in
silence; Efodi, Munk, and Qafih take it to refer to God Himself. Perhaps it
should be taken together with the equally incomprehensible passage from
ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 7:1, ÒÉHis [the prophetÕs] mind (da`atō) is always turned upwards, bound under
the throne, [seeking] to understand the holy and pure forms and contemplating
the wisdom of God—all of it, from the First Form (mi-sūrāh rīshōnāh) to the navel of the Earth.Ó Furthermore, Guide, 1:37 makes clear that no man can perceive the upper
nine Intelligences but that the Òessence of form and matterÓ (dahāt
al-sūra wal-mādda) can be
perceived. But, what is the ÒFirst Intellected BeingÓ? What is the ÒFirst
FormÓ? What is the ÒthroneÓ exactly? And what is the Òessence of form and
matterÓ? On the ladder from heaven to earth, see Altmann, Studies, esp.
57-59.
[39] Joel, 456:24-457:10, 12-15; Pines, 620-21.
[40] Joel, 458:26-459:5; Pines, 623.
[41] Joel, 462:15-17;
Pines, 627.
[42] In the Mishne Torah, Maimonides is much more restrained. He deals with
the love of God as Õahāvā only,
in several places: ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó ch. 2 (especially, 2:2); ibid., 4:12-13; and ÒHilkhot Teshuva,Ó ch. 10 (especially,
10:3 where Maimonides comes closest to defining `ishq/hēsheq)—trans. from I. Twersky, Maimonides Reader, 84:
What is the love of God that is befitting? It
is to love the Eternal with a great and exceeding love, so strong that oneÕs
soul shall be knit up with the love of God, and one should be continually
enraptured by it., like a love-sick individual, whose mind is at no time free
from his passion for a particular woman, the thought of her filling his heart
at all times, when sitting down or rising up, when he is eating or drinking.
Even intenser should be the love of God in the hearts of those who love Him.
And this love should continually possess them, even as He Commanded us in the
phrase, Òwith all your heart and with all your soulÓ (Deut. 6:5). This, Solomon
expressed allegorically in the sentence, Òfor I am sick with loveÓ (Song of
Songs 2:5). The entire Song of Songs is indeed an allegory descriptive of this
love.
[43] Joel, 461:3-10; Pines, 625-26.
[44] Arabic, al-wusla: Guide,
3:51 (Joel, 456:26); Ibid. (Joel,
457:15 ff.). Arabic, al-silla: Guide, 3:52 (Joel, 463:26).
[45] The indexes
of the major edited works of these thinkers as well as the indexes of the major
works about these thinkers do not yield this vocabulary though, here and there,
a parallel usage can be found, Similarly, the major Arabic dictionaries list
these words but without the special ambiance of the Guide.
[46] The
following terms are listed, for example, in G. C. Anawati and L. Gardet, Mystique
Musulmane (Paris, Vrin: 1968): al-maqām,
Õittihād, al-Õinfirād, khalwa, wisāl. See also L. Massignon, Essai sur les
originesÉ2nd ed. (Paris, Vrin: 1968). Such
terms, however, as `ishq, qurb, `ilm and `aql occur both in sufi
and in ÒphilosophicÓ authors, for example, Ibn Sina.
[47] In my planned
article, ÒTraces of Sufism in Maimonides,Ó I shall assemble the evidence
systematically and also deal with the Sufi interpretation of Maimonides by
others. I do not believe that ÒMaimonides was a sufiÓ for the gnosis, praxis,
and general world-view of sufism are not strongly present in his work.
Nonetheless, there are definite traces which others could, and did, take to be
his esoteric truth.
[48] Guide,
1: Introduction (Joel, 3:24-4:12). This term, too, had Sufi overtones. See I.
Shah, The Sufis (New York,
Doubleday and Co.: 1964/1971), passim.
[49]
Guide, 3:51, beginning.
[50] Guide, 3:18 (Joel, 343:17-23).
[51] Guide, 2:37.
[52] Guide, 2:45.
[53] See Guide,
2:41, 42, 45 on Balaam. This universality of prophecy became a Principle of the
Faith (the Sixth) and it is different from the doctrines of the superiority of
MosesÕ prophecy (the Seventh Principle), the validity of the Written and Oral
revelations (the Eighth Principle) and their inabrogability (the Ninth
Principle). The Sixth Principle reads (translation by me from the Arabic in
Comm., 114):
The Sixth
Principle is [the belief in] prophecy; to wit, it should be known that, within
the species of humanity, there are individuals who have a greatly superior
disposition and a great measure of perfection. And, if their souls are prepared
so that they receive the form of the intellect, then, that human intellect will
unite with the Agent Intelligence which will cause a great emanation to flow to
it. These people are prophets; this [process] is prophecy; and this is its content.
This is also supported by a
precise reading of the Mishne Torah
where Maimonides distinguishes between the general phenomenon of
prophecy-providence and the specifically Jewish form thereof.
It
is one of the Principles of the Faith to know that God grants prophecy to
menÉ[If a man is properly prepared], immediately the holy spirit rests upon
himÉ[ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 7:1]. There are three kinds of Õepikōrōs: he who says there is no prophecy and there is no
knowledge which reaches the heart of men from the CreatorÉ[ÒHilkhot Teshuvah,Ó
8:3].
[54] A very
unfortunate mixture of terms has occurred here due to two factors: (1) the term
`aql can be translated as ÒintelligenceÓ
or as ÒintellectÓ; and (2) the term `aql, used in the alfarabian-avicennian context of emanated beings, is
usually rendered ÒIntelligence,Ó but, in the parallel neoplatonic context, it
is usually rendered ÒIntellect.Ó Because of this, the tenth emanated being is
variously referred to as Òthe Active Intellect,Ó ÒlÕIntelligence actif,Ó
ÒlÕIntelligence agent,Ó Òthe Agent Intellect,Ó etc. Madkour properly remarks
(83, n. 1) that, since the problem of the ÒintellectÓ is very different from
the problem of the ÒIntelligencesÓ (the former being an epistemological term
and the latter a cosmological term) and, since, it is advisable to keep the
terminology of the emanated beings uniform, the term used for the tenth
emanated being should be ÒintelligenceÓ and not Òintellect.Ó To this, I must
add that, since each sphere has an intelligence and an ÒintellectÓ (see Guide, 2:4 and Munk, 379, n. 95), MadjourÕs terminology
would seem much to be preferred. As to ÒactiveÓ vs. Òagent,Ó the agency, or
causal power, of the Tenth Intelligence is what is usually under discussion.
And, so, I shall call this tenth emanated being the ÒAgent Intelligence,Ó or
the ÒTenth Intelligence.Ó
[55] Guide, 2:4,
12. See Madkour, ch. 4, for a very good prose description.
[56] Commentary
to the Mishna [hereinafter: Commentary], ÒIntroductionÓ; MT, ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 7: 7 and ch. 8-10; Guide, 2:37, 38. Compare the problem of the karāmāt
and mu`jizāt in Islam (for example,
Gardet, 183-85; F. Rahman, Prophecy in Islam [London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd.: 1958], 45-51;
etc.).
[57] Guide, 2:37. See Pines, lxxxix; Rahman, o cit., 37-38.
[58] Guide, 3:51. See below for the exact quotation.
[59] Rahman, o cit.,
53-9; Madkour, 182 ff.
[60] See the
Eighth Principle cited below; MT,
ÒHilkhot `Avodah Zarah,Ó ch. 1, at the end; Guide, 2: 63; 2: 39.
[61] For example, MT, ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 7:7.
[62] Ibid., 8:3.
[63] Guide, 1:63; 2:45.
[64] Guide, 2:37.
[65] Corbin, 70-71.
[66] Maimonides deals with the pre-eminence of the
prophecy of Moses in several places: in the Commentary, ÒIntroductionÓ; ibid., ÒIntroduction to ÔAvot,Ó known as ÒShemonah
PeraqimÓ; ibid., ÒIntroduction to
ÔSanhedrin,Õ ch. 10Ó known as ÒPereq HeleqÓ; in the MT, ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 7:6-7; ibid., ÒHilkhot Teshuva,Ó 3:8; and in the Guide, es 2:33-35, 39, 45.
Monographic
studies on the place of Moses in MaimonidesÕ work include: M. Freudenthal, ÒDie
beiden Moses,Ó Monatschrift fŸr Geschichte und Wissenscaft der Juden, 64 (1920) 81-100; A. Reines, ÒMaimonidesÕ Concept of
Mosaic Prophecy,Ó Hebrew Union College Annual, 40-41 (1969-70) 325-61; S. Atlas, ÒMoses in the
Philosophy of Maimonides, Spinoza, and Solomon Maimon,Ó Hebrew Union College
Annual, 25 (1954) 369-400.
[67] Guide, 3:54 (Joel, 467: 14-15) citing Talmud, ÒHagigah,Ó 13a.
[68] On the
centrality of Moses in Rabbinic Judaism and on his transformation into a
Òrabbi,Ó see J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, Studia Post-Biblica, ed. A.
H. DeBoer (Leiden, E. J. Brill: 1969-1970), IV, 283-86, especially 284, n. 3;
V. 147-49: and at the Index. This interpretation is also available in NeusnerÕs
There We Sat Down (New York,
Abingdon Press: 1972), 73-74.
[69] Guide, 1:63 (Joel, 105:27-8); 2:39; MT, ÒHilkhot ÔAvodah Zarah,Ó ch. 1, end.
[70] Translated
in D. Blumenthal, The Commentary of Hoter ben Shelomo to the Thirteen
Principles of Maimonides (Leiden, E. J.
Brill: 1974 – hereinafter: Comm.), 144.
[71] Guide, 3:54 (Joel, 467:14-15).
[72] See the
Seventh Principle, cited below; also, ÒShemonah Peraqim,Ó ch. 7
[73] Guide, 1:63.
[74] Guide, 1:54 (Joel, 84:11-15). Moses asks to be shown GodÕs
ÒwaysÓ and is shown His Ògoodness.Ó He is denied seeing GodÕs Òface,Ó or
ÒgloryÓ-the truth of His existence (Guide, 1:21, 37-8, 54; MT,
ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 1:8, 10).
[75] Cited from Comm., 123. See also Guide, 1:54; 2: 23.
[76] Arabic, tashīh ÕarāÕ al-Torah. Guide, 3:54
(Joel, 467:14-15). Note that Moses is specifically called Òthe Master of those
who knowÓ (Arabic, sayyid al-`ālimīn): Guide,
1: 54 (Joel, 83:21); 3:12 (323:15).
[77] Guide, 3:51
(Joel, 459:5—460:3) following Pines, 623-24.
[78] Ibid., (Joel, 462:17—463:10) following Pines
627-28.
[79] Commentary, ÒPereq Heleq,Ó the Seventh Principle; MT, ÒHilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah,Ó 7:2.
[80] Commentary,
ibid.; MT, ibid., 7:4.
[81] Commentary,
ibid.; MT, ibid., 7:4.
[82] Guide, 2:45.
[83] See note
80.
[84] Commentary,
ibid.; MT, ibid.,
7:6; Guide, 2:45; etc.
[85] Arabic, wa-hum yasma`ūn al-saut
al-`azīm, la tafsīl al-kalāmÉyasma` al-kalām wa-yuhkihi
lahum, Guide, 2:33 (Joel, 256:13,
17):Ébi-tafsīl Õahruf masmū`a (ibid., 257:4).
[86] Guide, 2:37; Òthe Seventh PrincipleÓ; etc.
[87] Guide, 2:45,
end, with Guide, 2:6 (Joel, 184:18).
[88] Cited from The Seventh Principle as translated in Comm., 123.
[89] Guide, 3:54
(Joel, 467:14-15). Note the parallel Arabic term ÒMaster of the prophetsÓ (sayyid
al-nabīyyīn): Guide, 2:19 (Joel, 217:1); 2: 31 (Joel, 252:19); 3: 29
(Joel, 377:8); 3:43 (Joel, 418:3).
[90] Guide, 2:45, end.