 |
| Raphael's fresco, School of Athens, painted around 1509. |
Introduction
This article explores the intellectual legacy of Abu Ya'qub Isḥāq ibn Sulaymān al-Israeli—also known as Yitzchak ben Shlomo haYisraeli (c.855–c.955)—a pioneering yet largely overlooked figure in early Medieval Jewish philosophy. Through a counterintuitive comparison between Yitzchak haYisraeli’s tenth-century philosophical writings and contemporary Chassidic thought rooted in Kabbalah, the study reveals an unexpected conceptual convergence between the two thought systems.
Jewish philosophy in the Middle Ages (Medieval period)
Medieval or Mediaeval is simply the Latin (medium aevum) for “Middle Ages.” It encompasses the one-thousand-year period beginning from the fall of the Western Roman Empire around the fifth century, up to the late fifteenth century.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, when Isaac Husik wrote one of the first books on Medieval Jewish Philosophy for the English-speaking world, there was hardly any literature available on Jewish history and Jewish philosophy. The Jewish Encyclopedia, for example, had no article on Jewish philosophy. Husik, however, argues that:
“the philosophical and rationalistic movement among the Jews in the middle ages is well worth study, influential as it was in forming Judaism as a religion and as a theological and ethical system” (Husik 1916:vii).
In this article, the terms ‘philosophical’ and ‘rational’ are generally used interchangeably, although, as we shall see, the boundaries between mysticism and rationalism were not always as distinct in earlier times as they became after the Zohar was first published in 1290.
While Philo of Alexandria (20BCE-50CE) is considered to have been the first major figure of Jewish (and later Christian and Islamic) philosophy—blending Jewish theology with Greek philosophy—an important question becomes: who was the first Jewish philosopher of the Medieval period?[1]
The Egyptian-born Rav Saadia Gaon (882CE-942CE), known as Said al-Fayyimi, is generally regarded as the first major Jewish philosopher of the Medieval period, and is known for defending rabbinic Judaism from its critics, such as the Karaites. In his Sefer Emunot veDeot (The Book of Beliefs and Opinions),[2] he reconciles Jewish theology with Greek philosophy as understood within the Islamic Mu'tazilite school of the Kalam. Later, Maimonides (1138-1204) famously acknowledged the contribution of this Islamic sect to Jewish philosophy:
"You will find that in the few works composed by the Geonim and the Karaites on the unity of God and on such matters…they followed the lead of the Mohammedan Mutakallimun.... It also happened, that at the time when the Mohammedans adopted this method of the Kalam, there arose among them a certain sect, called Muʿtazila. In certain things our scholars followed the theory and the method of these Muʿtazila" (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, Ch. 71).
This being the case, “the Muʿtazila, is of great interest for the history of Jewish rationalism” (Husik 1916:xxiv). However, while Saadia Gaon was certainly influenced by the Muʿtazila, there was another influence as well, because he was preceded by another less-known Jewish philosopher, Yitzchak haYisraeli—who lived to one hundred years—who was born before Saadia Gaon but died after him:
“[Yitzchak haYisraeli] bears witness to the adoption and adaptation of Greek philosophy in Islamic culture, and evidences an interest in philosophy not seen among Jews since the time of Philo Judaeus in the first century ce” (Altmann and Stern 1958:vii).
Yitzchak haYisraeli – The first Medieval Jewish
philosopher
Two centuries later, Maimonides refers to Yitzchak haYisraeli—though not in flattering terms—dismissing him as a “mere physician” whose philosophical writings amount to little more than “windy imaginings” (Husik 1916:2). This critique is unsurprising, given Maimonides’ firm commitment to Aristotelian rationalism and his lack of interest in Neoplatonic metaphysics (Altmann and Stern 1958:xix). Despite Maimonides’ criticism, Yisraeli would later be recognized as the most significant Jewish philosopher after Maimonides (Stitskin 1965:90). And ironically, in the realm of medicine, the very field Maimonides used to belittle him, Yisraeli appears to have left a more enduring legacy:
“Indeed, Israeli was a more important physician than Maimonides, and his medical works served long afterwards as basic texts in European universities” (Schweid 2007:39).
Yisraeli held that “the pursuit of knowledge, especially through reason, was central to the soul’s purification and its eventual return to the divine source.” Two centuries later, Maimonides echoed a similar view, asserting that the only aspect of the human being that endures after death is the sechel—the intellect—along with the knowledge it had acquired (and assumingly recorded and shared).
While Husik does not advocate judging Yitzchak haYisraeli as harshly as Maimonides did, he nonetheless characterises Yisraeli more as a compiler than an original philosopher, noting his reluctance to commit to a single philosophical system. Yet Husik also acknowledges Yisraeli’s pioneering role, writing:
“[w]hatever may be said of the intrinsic value of the content of his philosophical work, none can take away from him the merit of having been the first Jew, so far as we know, to devote himself to philosophical and scientific discussions, though not with the avowed aim of serving Judaism. The rest was bound to come later as a result of the impulse first given by him” (Husik 1916:2).
The Philosophy of Yitzchak haYisraeli: Bridging Plato and
Aristotle
Two of Yitzchak haYisraeli’s most notable philosophical works—The Book of Elements and The Book of Definitions—are also referenced by Maimonides. As was typical for the period, these texts were originally composed in Arabic, though the original manuscripts have been lost. Fortunately, Hebrew and Latin translations have survived, offering valuable insight into Yisraeli’s thought.
Yisraeli’s philosophy reveals a synthesis of influences from both Plato (c.427-347BCE) and his student Aristotle (384-322BCE). Plato, an idealist, emphasised abstract reasoning and posited the existence of eternal, perfect Forms beyond the physical world. Aristotle, by contrast, was an empiricist who grounded knowledge in observation and experience, focusing on the physical world as the true locus of reality. These contrasting views are famously depicted in Raphael’s painting of the School of Athens, where Plato gestures upward toward the heavens, while Aristotle points outward toward the earth.
A key distinction between Plato and Aristotle lies in their treatment of ‘forms.’ In Platonic thought, ‘Forms’ (capitalised) are transcendent, non-material archetypes—thus, a horse exists because it partakes in the universal Form of Horse. For Aristotle, forms (lowercase) are immanent: they physically exist and cannot be separated from matter (Britannica).[4]
For Plato, the Forms could only be apprehended by the intellect, as they exist beyond space and time. Aristotle, on the other hand, denied the existence of such transcendent realities, insisting that forms are embedded in the observable world. Despite these differences, there is considerable overlap in their approaches, especially in the ancient context, where the boundaries between mysticism and rationalism were far more fluid than they are today.
Five centuries later, the teachings of Plato were reinterpreted and expanded by Plotinus (c.205-270CE), giving rise to Neoplatonism—a school of thought that leaned more heavily toward mysticism and spiritual metaphysics. Central to Neoplatonism is the concept of the ‘One,’ a transcendent source from which all levels of being emanate in a hierarchical cascade—an idea that bears striking resemblance to later Kabbalistic notions of Sefirot or divine emanations.
Interestingly, for many early philosophers, ethical and moral development was not separate from intellectual inquiry but emerged organically from their philosophical systems. Plato, for instance, believed that philosophy served to subdue the lower, irrational impulses—what he referred to as “animal desires”—thereby guiding the soul toward its higher, rational nature (Husik 1961:5). This concept is also reflected in later Kabbalistic thought.
In a surviving fragment of The Book of Spirit and Soul, Yitzchak haYisraeli presents a cosmological account that strikingly anticipates later developments in Jewish mysticism—including the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum and even themes found in modern Chassidism. Drawing on earlier philosophical traditions, Yisraeli describes the divine act of creation beginning with the emergence of a primordial splendour or intelligence. From this initial emanation, a spark of light issues forth, giving rise to the rational soul. This soul, though less luminous than the original intelligence, is still more radiant than the animal soul, which in turn emerges through a similar process of reduction of light emission from the rational soul.
The animal soul, while still imbued with a degree of intelligence, is ontologically inferior to the rational soul and the original intelligence. From it, yet another splendour is emitted, resulting in the vegetative soul. Thus, Yisraeli outlines a descending hierarchy of three souls—rational, animal, and vegetative—each emerging from the one above and deriving from the original intelligence, through a process of diminishing luminosity and ontological refinement.
From the vegetative soul, a further weakened splendour gives rise to the sphere—the celestial heavens. These heavens, initially immaterial, become increasingly dense and visible to the eye. They are characterised by perpetual motion, with their parts pressing against one another, generating fire through friction. This fire gives rise to air, which in turn produces water, and finally, from water, earth emerges. From the earth, the material world unfolds: minerals, plants, and ultimately animals.
This cosmological schema reflects a classic Neoplatonic model of successive emanations, in which each level of reality becomes progressively more material and less perfect as it descends from the divine source. What makes Yitzchak haYisraeli’s account particularly distinctive is his fusion of Platonic and Aristotelian thought. In his system, the process of creation—typically associated with Aristotle’s concept of forms embedded in matter—appears nearly indistinguishable from emanation, the Platonic notion of transcendent Forms cascading into the material world. By presenting creation as a series of luminous outflows, each giving rise to a more concrete and less refined level of being, Yisraeli effectively blends Aristotle’s immanent formal causality with Plato’s transcendent metaphysics. This synthesis allows him to articulate a vision of the cosmos that is both rationally ordered and spiritually hierarchical, laying the groundwork for later Jewish mystical systems that would similarly seek to reconcile reason and revelation.
Neoplatonic Currents in Kabbalah and Chassidic
Mysticism
Yitzchak haYisraeli’s tenth-century Neoplatonism exerted a surprising yet profound influence on the thirteenth-century pre-Zoharic (the Zohar was first published in 1290) Jewish mystics of Spain. Although his writings were primarily philosophical and not overtly mystical, the structural and metaphysical ideas he articulated—especially his emanative cosmology and layered conception of the soul—resonated deeply with emerging Kabbalistic thought.
“Of great importance is Israeli's influence on the circle of Jewish mystics in Gerona, who became acquainted through him with the concept of first matter and first form or wisdom and the scheme of emanations… They follow the same method, and here is no difference between them, except in terminology” (Altmann and Stern 1958:xx, 130-2).
Thus, it seems that these Neoplatonic concepts were absorbed
and reinterpreted through a mystical lens, forming part of the early Kabbalistic
worldview. If this is correct, then the Gerona circle thus serves as a bridge
between Medieval Jewish philosophy and Kabbalistic mysticism.
Splendour, Makom Panuy and Tzimtum
Yitzchak haYisraeli describes a cosmic entity he calls the splendour—a radiant source from which sparks or rays gradually escape, allowing for the emergence of increasingly material forms of divine emanation. These sparks diminish in intensity as they descend, becoming suitable for sustaining lower spiritual realities. This model of cascading light bears a striking resemblance to later Kabbalistic doctrines, particularly the concept of Tzimtzum—divine contraction or concealment.
In Lurianic Kabbalah, as articulated by the
sixteenth-century R. Yitzchak Luria (the Ari), this primordial dynamic is
framed through the notion of Makom Panuy—a ‘Vacated Space’
created by G-d’s withdrawal, making ‘room’ for creation.
In more recent Chabad Chassidism, this idea undergoes a significant reinterpretation. Rather than a literal withdrawal, Tzimtzum is understood as concealment (Hester haOr)—a veiling of divine light rather than its removal. Chabad rejects the notion of a literal vacated space (it speaks rather of a non-literal withdrawal of divine energy, or Tzimtzum shelo kepshuto), emphasising that G-d remains fully present even within creation, though hidden from perception.
Lurianic Kabbalah, by contrast, emphasises cosmic drama and metaphysical rupture. The intense divine energy gives rise to spiritual vessels (kelim) that are unable to contain the divine light, resulting in their shattering (shevirat hakelim). These spiritual shards scatter as sparks throughout creation, awaiting restoration through Tikkun—the process of spiritual rectification and reintegration.
The Animal Soul
As mentioned, Yitzchak haYisraeli identifies three distinct (universal as opposed to individual) soul entities in his cosmological framework: the rational soul, the animal soul, and the vegetative soul. This tripartite structure, rooted in classical Neoplatonic thought, finds echoes in later and contemporary Jewish mystical writings. In particular, Sefer haTanya (first published in 1796), the foundational text of Chabad Chassidism, refers extensively to the (individual) animal soul (nefesh habehamit), which is associated with physical desires, ego, and emotional human impulses. Sefer haTanya also introduces the concept of the divine soul (nefesh Elokit), which may be conceptually aligned with Yisraeli’s notion of the original intelligence or, alternatively, the rational soul. Both frameworks emphasise a hierarchy of spiritual faculties, with the higher soul oriented toward divine truth and the lower soul bound to corporeal instincts.
Although the theological frameworks of Yisraeli’s Neoplatonism and Kabbalah differ significantly, both articulate cosmic models grounded in hierarchical structure and emanative flow. Yisraeli’s concept of ‘souls’ refers primarily to cosmic principles—ontological stages in the descent of divine light—rather than to individual human souls. In contrast, Chassidut, especially as formulated in Sefer haTanya, interprets these dynamics within a mystical-ethical framework, focusing on the inner spiritual life of the individual.
Again, as mentioned, Yisraeli outlines a cosmic tripartite division of souls—rational, animal, and vegetative—each representing a descending level of metaphysical refinement. Sefer haTanya, by contrast, speaks of dual souls: the divine soul (nefesh Elokit) and the animal soul (nefesh habehamit), which together define the psychological and moral tension within the human being. Despite these differences, both systems share a multi-layered vision of reality, emphasising the flow of spiritual energies and the hierarchical structure of existence—from the divine source to the material world.
A Kabbalist once explained to me that the reason candle flames flicker is because the source of fire resides in the heavens—just beneath the moon. For years, I believed this to be a uniquely Zoharic or Kabbalistic idea. But in fact, it echoes a much older Aristotelian notion: that each of the four classical elements longs to return to its natural place, with fire’s proper domain being above the earth.
Analysis
These conceptual parallels—between mystical imagery and ancient philosophy—highlight the deep and often surprising continuity of metaphysical thought across traditions. In this light, it becomes all the more remarkable because Yitzchak haYisraeli, the first medieval Jewish philosopher, may not have even been writing for a Jewish audience at all!
As Husik suggests:
“[Yisraeli] takes no avowed attitude to Jewish dogma or the Bible. He never quotes any Jewish works, and there is nothing in his writings to indicate that he is a Jew and is making an effort to harmonize Judaism with philosophy and science. In words he refers to creation ex nihilo, which is not necessarily Jewish, it might be just as well Mohammedan or Christian… There is no system of Jewish philosophy to be found in his writings. He had no such ambitions…. His merit is chiefly that of a pioneer in directing the attention of Jews to the science and philosophy of the Greeks, albeit in Arab dress” (Husik 1916:14,15).
Some modern scholars who came after Husik, take a more nuanced approach and see a strong emphasis on an indigenous Jewish mystical tradition. Gershom Scholem did see Neoplatonic influences especially in emanation theory, but argues that the language, mythic structure and ritual orientation of Kabbalah diverge dramatically from Neoplatonism.[5] Adam Altmann see it as a complex integration and not a wholesale adoption.[6] Some have criticised Husik’s reluctance to see Yisraeli’s work as authentically Jewish and suggest an early twentieth-century secular bias. Moshe Idel also cautions against overstating Neoplatonic influences.[7] None of these scholars, however, deny the basic notion of some degree of Neoplatonic influence in Kabbalistic thought.
For those interested in exploring the origins, intellectual
foundations and authenticity of Jewish systems of thought, the discernible
influence of Neoplatonism on Jewish mysticism presents a compelling avenue for
further investigation.
Bibliography
Altmann, A., and Stern,
S.M., 1958, Isaac Israeli, A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth
Century, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Husik, I., 1916, A History of Mediaeval Jewish
Philosophy, The Macmillan Company, [1958/9, Meridian Books and Jewish
Publication Society], 1-16.
Stitskin, L.D., 1965, ‘Isaac ben Solomon Israeli:
Philosophy as Self-Knowledge’, Tradition, a Journal of Orthodox Thought.
Schweid, E, 2007, The Classic Jewish Philosophers:
From Saadia Through the Renaissance Series, Brill.
[1]
Leon Stitskin (1965:89) describes Yitzchak haYisraeli as “the first Jewish
dialectic philosopher,” meaning that Yisraeli was the first to apply structured
reasoning in Jewish thought, with a strong emphasis on definitions and logical
distinctions. His method reflects a layered conceptual framework, often built
around paired categories — such as divine and human, form and matter — that
define each concept in relation to its opposite and its place within a broader
metaphysical system. He combines descriptive knowledge (knowing what things
are) with causal knowledge (understanding why things happen and how they integrate
and relate to other elements of reality).
[2]
Sefer Emunot veDeot was originally written in Arabic and titled Kitab
al-Amanat wal-I'tiqadat. It was later translated into Hebrew by Yehudah ibn
Tibbon in the 12th century.
[3]
According to Stitskin (1965:90), “at least five.”
[4]
https://www.britannica.com/story/plato-and-aristotle-how-do-they-differ.
[5]https://ithy.com/article/kabbalah-neoplatonism-analysis-lg27gd8i,
and http://www.against-postmodern.org/section-viii-kabbalah-and-neoplatonism.
[6]https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/news/2023/09/28/list-lecture-jewish-studies-adam-afterman-kabbalistic-neoplatonism-divine-emanation.
[7]
https://jewishstudies.ceu.edu/sites/jewishstudies.ceu.edu/files/attachment/basicpage/71/08idel.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment