¹ “Et quod cogit me ad hoc est dominus nobilis Joannes de Mirandula qui se dedit in speculatione scientiarum altissimarum, homo valde intelligens, philosophus honorabilis, diligens veritatem, cui similem vere non vidi in hac aetate.” del Medigo, Elia, Expositio Averrois de substantia orbis, Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Codex Vat. Lat. 4553, fol. 1v, cited in Mahoney, E. P., “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Elia del Medigo, Nicoletto Vernia and Agostino Nifo,” in Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Convegno internazionale di studi nel cinquecentesimo anniversario della morte (1494–1994), ed. Garfagnini, G. C. (Rome, 1997), 1:132.Google Scholar

² Farmer, S. A., Syncretism in the West: Pico's 900 Theses (1486) (Tempe, Ariz., 1998), 1:16, 9:15 (418 and 785 respectively in the editio princeps) Google Scholar

³ See Geffen, D., “Faith and Reason in Elijah del Medigo's Behinat ha-Da'at” (Ph.D. diss. Columbia University, 1970) and his “Insights into the Life and Thought of Elijah Delmedigo Based on His Published and Unpublished Works,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 41–42 (1975): 79–84. See also Guttman, J., “Elias del Medigos Verhältnis zu Averroes in seinem Bechinat ha-Dat” in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York, 1927), 192–208; Hubsch, A., “Elia Delmedigo's Bechinat ha-Dath und Ibn Roschd's Façl ul-maqal” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 31 (1882): 552–63; 32 (1883): 28–48; Schweid, E., History of Jewish Philosophy from the Late Middle Ages to Modern Times (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1971), 108–9; and Sirat, C., A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1985), 405–7.Google Scholar

⁴ Motzkin, A. L., “Elia del Medigo, Averroes and Averroism,” Italia 6 (1987): 7–20. See also Ivry, A., “Remnants of Jewish Averroism in the Renaissance,” in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century , ed. Cooperman, B. D. (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 243–65, who highlights some of the differences between the two texts. Elia seems to have believed, like scholars in thirteenth-century Paris wrongly accused of holding a double-truth doctrine, that philosophy can examine natural phenomena, but miracles, creation and other metaphysical issues are beyond its scope. This is not a double-truth theory, but an acceptance of the limitations of philosophy. See Dales, R. C., “The Origin of the Doctrine of the Double Truth,” Viator 15 (1984): 169–79.Google Scholar

⁵ See also Tornero, E., “Noticia sobre la publicación de obras inéditas de Ibn Masarra,” Al-Qantara 14 (1993): 47–64, where he suggests that in his works, Ibn Masarra (d. 931), a sufi, tries to show how the Koran and philosophy are concordant.Google Scholar

⁶ Scholars have differed on the level of hostility shown by Elia towards Kabbalah, but not on the main point of Elia's negative criticism. See Graetz, H., History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1967), 4:290–93; Cassutto, U., Ha-Yehudim be-Firenzi be-Tekufat ha-Renaissance (Hebrew translation of Gli Ebrei a Firenze nell'età del Rinascimento) (Jerusalem, 1967), 232–33; Geffen, D., Faith and Reason in Elijah del Medigo's Behinat ha-Da'at; Ruderman, D., The World of a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981), 54–56, and his “The Italian Renaissance and Jewish Thought,” in Renaissance Humanism , ed. Rabil, A. (Philadelphia, 1988), 1:387; Idel, M., “Major Currents in Italian Kabbalah between 1560–1660,” Italia Judaica (Rome, 1986), 243–44 and his Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven, Conn., 1988), 3–4; Tirosh-Rothschild, H., Between Worlds: The Life and Thought of Rabbi David ben Judah Messer Leon (Albany, N.Y., 1991), 41–43; and Ross, J., The Behinat ha-Dat of Rabbi Eliah Delmedigo of Candia (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 1984), 38–43.Google Scholar

⁷ Bland, K. P., “Elijah del Medigo's Averroist Response to the Kabbalahs of Fifteenth-Century Jewry and Pico della Mirandola,” Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1 (1991): 23–26. This line is also taken by Mahoney, E. P., “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Elia del Medigo,” 136–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ See Gottlieb, E., “A Dispute over Metempsychosis in Crete in the Fifteenth Century” (in Hebrew), in Studies in the Kabbala Literature, ed. Hacker, J. (Tel Aviv, 1976), 370–96 and Ravitsky, A., “The Soles of the Kabbalists are on the Heads of the Philosophers': On the Fifteenth-Century Dispute of Crete” (in Hebrew), Tarbitz 58 (1989): 453–82. See also Idel, M., “Abraham Abulafia's Works and Doctrines” (in Hebrew) (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1976), 75–76, who claims that a text dealing with the transmigration of the soul, considered by G. Scholem to have been composed by Abraham Abulafia in the thirteenth century, is, in fact, an early stage of this current dispute in Crete.Google Scholar

⁹ See Saul ben Ashkenazi, Moshe Cohen, “Letter,” in Examen Religionis, R. Elias del Medigo, ed. Reggio, I. S. (Vienna, 1833, repr. Jerusalem, 1970), 80–83 in which he praises Elia del Medigo and refers to himself as his disciple. Both protagonists wrote about the exchange and both accounts are in manuscripts in the Vatican. For bibliographical details, see Ravitsky, , “The Soles of the Kabbalists are on the Heads of the Philosophers,'” 453.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Ruderman, , The World of a Renaissance Jew, 40–43.Google Scholar

¹¹ Much has been written on Flavius Mithridates. For a select bibliography, see Wirszubski, C., ed., Flavius Mithridates, Sermo de Passione Domini (Jerusalem, 1963), 12 n. 2. See also Secret, F., “Nouvelles precisions sur Flavius Mithridates maitre de Pic de la Mirandole et traducteur de commentaires de Kabbale,” in L'Opera e il Pensiero di Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (Florence, 1965) 2:169–87 and Ijsewijn, J., “Flavius Guillelmus Raymundus Mithridates,” Humanistica Lovaniensia 26 (1977): 236–38. For his knowledge of Kabbalah and a discussion of the translations he prepared for Pico, see Wirszubski, C., Pico della Mirandola's Encounter with Jewish Mysticism (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).Google Scholar

¹² See Ruderman, , The World of a Renaissance Jew, 109–18. Without doubt, Elia would probably have disagreed with Farissol over many issues, but probably not when facing a common adversary.Google Scholar

¹³ Cited in Cassutto, , Ha-Yehudim be-Firenzi be-Tekufat ha-Renaissance, 369, and translated in Ruderman, , The World of a Renaissance Jew, 40–41.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In the introduction to the Hebrew translation of his Latin commentary to Averroes' De substantia orbis. See BNF MS hebr. 968, fol. 3v and Geffen, , Faith and Reason, 19–20.Google Scholar

¹⁵ BNF hebr. 968, fol. 177r.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See ibid., fol. 79r, 150r respectively. See also Geffen, , Faith and Reason, 14–15.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Bland, K. P., “Elijah del Medigo, Unicity of Intellect, and Immortality of Soul,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 61 (1995): 16–17. In my opinion, Bland, in the continuation of the aformentioned article, misses the point about what view Elia really holds regarding reason and faith, and which is clearly set out in Behinat ha-Dat Google Scholar

¹⁸ “Quod ego non verifico totum quod est scriptum, sed dico quod illud quod scripsi est conveniens opinionibus philosophorum et fundamentis eorum. Illum autem quod est contra fidem veram nullo modo credo neque affirmo, sed locutus sum secundum viam eorum sicut est consuetudo exponentium, et adeo quero veniam et iuvamen in vita humana et in felicitate …” (Bartòla, A., “Eliyahu del Medigo e Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: La Testimonianza dei Codici Vaticani,” Rinascimento 33 [1993]: 272).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Elia is not the only one to define his Judaism in relationship to Christianity. See Yuval, Y., ”Two Nations in Your Womb”: Perceptions of Jews and Christians (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2000), 16–45, who suggests that Christianity influenced Judaism to a large degree in the Middle Ages, even in the realms of religious symbols and ritual.Google Scholar

²⁰ It is of interest to note that Michael Balbo exhibited many of the humanist characteristics that so annoyed Elia. The former tried, as did people like Pico, to harmonize different types of philosophy, and philosophy and Kabbalah. See Ravitsky, , “The Soles of the Kabbalists are on the Heads of the Philosophers,'” 457–62.Google Scholar

²¹ See Ross, , Behinat ha-Dat, 82–83. Indeed, David Ruderman has suggested that Elia's critique of Kabbalah in Behinat ha-Dat was mainly directed against Pico della Mirandola's appropriation of that lore. See Ruderman, , The World of a Renaissance Jew, 52–56. In another study, Ruderman suggests that although Elia did not hold with the veracity of Kabbalah, he was prepared to explain some of its elements to Pico, because, as with his philosophical teachings, Elia did not have to accept as true the ideas he elucidated. See Ruderman, , “Italian Renaissance and Jewish Thought,” 387.Google Scholar

²² Elia sent two more treatises with the letter: the Question on Being, Essence, and Unity and a translation of parts of Averroes' Commentary on the Prior Analytics. The former, along with Pico's De ente et uno, was written as a result of discussions between them during 1486 in Perugia. Pico's De ente et uno is, unlike Elia's work, inspired also by Pseudo-Dionysius and Kabbalah, both an anathema for Elia. See Schmitt, C. B. and Skinner, Q., eds., The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge, 1988), 69. See also Idel, M., “Jewish Kabbalah and Platonism in the Middle Ages and Renaissance,” in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought , ed. Goodman, L. E. (New York, 1992), 331–32.Google Scholar

²³ BNF MS Lat. 6508, fol. 75r. See Kieszkowski, , “Les rapports entre Elie del Medigo et Pic de la Mirandole,” Rinascimento 55 (1964): 72. See also Bland, , “Elijah del Medigo's Averroist Response to the Kabbalahs of Fifteenth-Century Jewry and Pico della Mirandola,” 37–42.Google Scholar

²⁴ This detail is reminiscent of Ramon Marti in Tunis several hundred years earlier, who was prepared to disprove Islam using philosophical reasoning but was not prepared to prove the doctrines of Christianity using the same criteria. See Hames, H., The Art of Conversion: Christianity and Kabbalah in the Thirteenth Century (Leiden, 2000), 111–12, and Colomer, E., El pensament als països Catalans durant l' Edat Mitjana i el Renaixement (Barcelona, 1997), 31–34, 216–38.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Geffen, , Faith and Reason, 31–33. Although not intimately connected, the translation into Hebrew of Ramon Llull's Ars brevis, carried out in Senegallia in 1474, which was used by Jews in such a positive way and by such figures as Johanan Alemanno, who became Pico's teacher in 1488, also indicates Jewish syncretistic attempts. Pico's connection between Abulafia and Llull truly sounded the death knell for Elia's attempts to promote Averroism. See Hames, H., “Jewish Magic with a Christian Text: A Hebrew Translation of Ramon Llull's Ars brevis,” Traditio 54 (1999): 283–300.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ross, , Behinat ha-Dat 77.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Puig Montada, J., “Elia del Medigo and his Physical Quaestiones” in Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? ed. Aersten, J. A. and Speer, A. (Berlin, 1998), 929–35, who gives an example of Elia's speculation on the first principle based on Aristotle and Averroes. See also his “Continuidad medieval en el Renacimento: El caso de Elia del Medigo,” Ciudad de Dios 206 (1993): 47–64.Google Scholar

²⁸ It is interesting to compare this attitude with that of Ramon Llull (1232–1316), who also suggested that there was no point in having debates between members of the various faiths if there was no common ground and method of argumentation. See my “Approaches to Conversion in the Late 13th-Century Church,” Studia Lulliana 35 (1995): 75–84.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ross, , Behinat ha-Dat, 82.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., 83.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid., 83–84.Google Scholar

³² Ibid., 84. Elia admits that he too is guilty of sometimes going down the same path taken by Maimonides: “And I have allocated space in other treatises to speak against the philosophers and those like them. And sometimes, I have found myself arguing according to their methods, even though I disagree with it entirely.” It is quite probable that Elia is referring here to his disputations with Christians at Pico's house, or possibly to arguments with Jewish colleagues.Google Scholar

³³ In the other places in his oeuvre where Elia discusses Kabbalah, this parity, which precludes the Kabbalah from being ancient and, therefore, perhaps as a way to truth, is reiterated. See BNF MS hebr. 968, fol. 138v (the Hebrew version of Elia's Treatises on Intellect and Conjunction written in 1482), and 41v (in the Hebrew version of Elia's commentary to Averroes' De substantia orbis). When seen in the larger context of Christian appropriation of Kabbalah as prisca theologia, this is understandable. See also text around n. 14 above for Elia's opinion of Plato.Google Scholar

³⁴ For slightly different reasons, David Ruderman suggests that Elia's kabbalistic critique is against the Christian use of Kabbalah. See his The World of a Renaissance Jew, 55–56.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ross, , Behinat ha-Dat, 97. Slightly further on, Elia reiterates this: “And it is important that you know that one of the great principles of our Torah is performance [of the commandments], not just belief and intention.” See ibid., 100.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 99. Compare this with Maimonides, who suggests that the commandments are for educational purposes, in order to remove obstacles on the path to knowledge of God, emendation of the body so that one can turn to emendation of the soul. See Maimonides, , The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Pines, S. (Chicago and London, 1963) vol. 2, III: 26–49. See also Leibowitz, Y., The Faith of Maimonides (Tel Aviv, 1989), 101–7, and Leaman, O., Moses Maimonides (London and New York, 1990), 129–61.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Rakefet-Rotcoff, A., “A Biography of Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik,” in Faith in Changing Times: On the Teachings of Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (in Hebrew), ed. Sagi, A. (Jerusalem, 1996), 17–41. In the same volume, see Turner, Y., “The Religious Act according to Rabbi Soloveitchik: A Divine Command or Human Creation” (in Hebrew), 383–402.Google Scholar

³⁸ Soloveitchik, Rabbi J. B., Halachic Man (Philadelphia, 1983), 44–46.Google Scholar

³⁹ See his introduction to one of his Averroist treatises, in BNF MS hebr. 968 fol. 79r, where he deals with the issues of soul, intellect, and immortality: “Added to these are the troubles due to speaking about and debating these profound, amazing, and difficult problems regarding which philosophers from the time of Plato till our own day have not ceased raising difficulties, the chief of the philosophers never having completed his investigation of them.” Translated in Bland, K. P., “Elijah del Medigo, Unicity of Intellect, and Immortality of Soul,” 2.Google Scholar