Hidden Poetry

By: Jonathan Seidel

Halevi’s kuzari as principled Jewish thinking?

Judah Halevi’s Kuzari is an interesting brush with history. A fascinating account by a poet. Halevi’s been hailed as a defender of tradition. An anti-philosophcial stance that seems to denigrate the study as a whole. Yet this is only one side of the story. There are exoteric passages but others resort to a more esoteric standing with a rational mandate.

Halevi’s attitude to religiosity is expressed poetically in a dialogue between a rabbi and a curious king. The king is intrigued by the Jewish religion and it is the rabbis job to convince him that Judaism is the rightful religion. In this vein, Halevi resorts to historical arguments to assert the Jewish dominance over other religions. He ignores much of the philosophical rationalism of his contemporaries for an empiricist divinity drive.     

Halevi’s attitude toward philosophy is misconceived as antagonism. The role of philosophy is limited in its ability to understand the lord. He departs from the rest of Andalusian thought in his reserved philosophy. Yet, the lack of philosophy may have to do less with his own feelings and more the situation he presents. The minute role of philosophy in the Kuzari is circumstantial. The king’s spiritual needs are assessed by empirical standards instead of rational ones. In contrast to Maimonides who speaks from the individual’s perspective, the Kuzari is speaking from the king’s perspective. The Kuzari is an answer for the Jew who is confronted with a different sort of problem. What happens when the Andalusian is presented with a more spiritual than rational problem? An individual who does not respond to philosophical argumentation. The Kuzari is less about Halevi’s own feelings and more about his response to a novel situation. 

`

The Kuzari presents a confrontation where one party is previously biased. The king has no love for philosophers. His intuition rejects the dichotomy between ignorance of God and of nature. His role is to be antagonistic to the philosopher who ruled the intellect in the Middle Ages. When logic is dethroned and perceived as shallow, how does the religious respond? What is the alternative route to take? The philosopher is depicted as an anti-religious spectacle and the king is searching for such spiritual truth. The king pins the philosopher as a caricature and feeds off that (Halevi’s depiction of the philosopher does fit the modern trend but not in his Islamic Europe that proffered mighty scholars combining philosophy and religion).

The rabbis response is explicit in his treatment of philosophy. He follows the narrative of the king’s anti-philosophical polemic with an empirical response. His feelings about the philosopher bring out the same emotions as the king. The rabbis equates philosophy with greeks and their biblical ancestry from Japheth. In the second book he offers a historical explanation of Solomon’s wisdom corrupted. Halevi presents the incapacity of reason with divinity, there is a limit in line with the king’s scepticism. Yet the dialectical element presented here, motions a competing thesis: whether philosophy is an ancient art or a result of a mistake. 

In light of Strauss’ esotericism of Halevi, it is akin to his view on Maimonides though both novelly. The Kuzari is a front for his real pro-philosophical outlook. Halevi couches his true intentions in his empiricist philosophy, that of the historical resonance that he so persistently promotes. His advocation of reason and science is familiar with his Andalusian heritage. Torah cannot contradict reason. His rationalism is expropriated in the early books denoting a personal preference than the early versus later stage. Despite his historical primacy, he remained a rationalist throughout his life. Though not an Aristotelean naturalist, he like Maimonides and peers deviated ever so slightly. 

His early thought coincides with Aristotelian thought. His approach to creation is reminiscent of Ibn Ezra’s. He was not committed entirely to the ex nihilo doctrine nor does he ever enumerate it as a focal tenant. His position on the matter though does change in other portions of the text, hinting to Strauss’ esotericism as his philosophical dialogue developed. Like Maimonides, he didn’t pull directly from Aristotle but found a nuanced deviation. His intellectualism was primary in understanding religiosity. Scientific knowledge is prophetic. He even assigns a maimonidean like approach in associating philosophy with the proliferation of knowledge. He demythologised divinity in line with his Andalusian heritage. 

Contra Silman, the contradictions in the Kuzari are not a product of Halevi’s change of heart throughout his life but a maimonidean esotericism. His position on creation, prophecy among other notions are dialectically presented. His Andalusian heritage of naturalised religiosity and his passion for philosophy are embedded in his writing. There are seemingly two competing tendencies. Though this does not follow the maimonidean model, it seems that each of the Spanish thinkers had a unique way of presenting their esotericism. Halevi does in a polemical sense. His stance is contradictory in nature intentionally to align with his community and the king who in his intro he links to a questioner in Rome. 

Halevi’s model similar to Ibn Ezra and Maimonides resorts to a stylistic liturgy. Their esoteric composition is reserved for the educated. Ironically, none provides a set listing of necessary qualifications, only that they are knowledgeable in the author’s art. Though Ibn Ezra ventured into astrology, the philosophical knowledge and interest provided an eye into their opinions. The familiarity divulged their true intent. Halevi’s skilful argumentation and logical analysis is poised mirroring Maimonides’ work. It is the dialectical esotericism that permeated the Andalusian world. The semantic phrasing was considered by the ashkenazi counterparts and misinterpreted. The average Andalusian knew the sensus comminus but were moulded to certain polemical senses. 

The knowledge is intuitive but cannot be comprehended completely. The old method was via symbolism. Parables were the way before logical analysis. The advent of philosophy bolstered a resilience to maintain the thinking of old. The semiology persisted orally via semantic textuality. The Andalusian engulfment in science and philosophy prompted a new method of concealment. Yet, concealment is not a defence mechanism for the masses but a measure of oral persistence. It was the learned who could properly discern the known truth instead of mere intuition that was bolstered by education. The secret seems preposterous and difficult to accept but it is true. The oral community believes. 

Halevi’s Kuzari is aligned with the remainder of Andalusian thought. The “maimonidean” stream is an Andalusian tradition. A semiotic model that carries the full heritage of Spanish Jewry and beliefs. Halevi captured the scientific realm of Andalusia and persisted in his commitment but wrote esoterically for his compatriots. He wrote poetically as a masterful linguist who carefully denoted a esotericism. A view unappealing in the ashkenazi world as they literally read the text. Halevi is an oral saint who maintained his commitment to the esoteric style.