Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”[56] In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”[57]
1200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.
Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning [[47]]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between the ACTIVE INTELLECT (intellectus agens) and the RECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT (intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.
As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—
THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.[58]
Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to the design of the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.
I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between the active intellect and the receptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is the imparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls here the highest order of the human intellect “the fairest of women,” and the active intellect “the graceful lover;” frequently the whole intellectual mind is meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.
It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect [[48]]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”
Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”
It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways; the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is called all silver; the second entirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is called all gold; and the third comprising both the figurative and the literal, which is called apples of gold (under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.
There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed [[49]]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former, e.g., יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.
Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of the RECEPTIVE or MATERIAL INTELLECT with the ACTIVE INTELLECT.”
This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically called אַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל, the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.[59]
The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world [[50]]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which forms the perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.
The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.
These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated [[51]]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.
Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.
I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.
The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.
The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.
And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.
These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.
The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he [[52]]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the word חמדתי. The expression פריו is here used in the sense of words, wisdom, and instruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.
The second section (chap. iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother, [[53]]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called here King Solomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls her bride six times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.
The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead, [[54]]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.
This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.
The third section (v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expression with her (עמח), for man cannot eat of it unless with her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and [[55]]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of uniting a couple a second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.
This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.
[[56]]