44 CHAPTER TWO
Maimonidean Elisha. Also striking is the absence of the Talmudic formu-
lation of the nature of Elisha’s sin: “Aher cut down the saplings (qizez
ba-netiot).”^72 Still more striking than the missing Talmudic characteris-
tics are those elements that have no evident source in the Jewish tradi-
tions regarding Elisha. The arrogant denial of the prophets, which Mai-
monides presents as the most characteristic trait of minim like Elisha, is
an element not to be found in the Talmud or in any other Jewish sources,
and which Maimonides adds of his own accord.
An indication of Maimonides’ source for this added element can be
found in the Quranic formula he employs, as well as in his choice to
translate the Mishnaic term minim as zanadiqa (sing. zindiq). Indeed,
Maimonides casts the Jewish min in the image of the Muslim archetypal
zindiq, the arrogant freethinker who relies on his erudition and intellec-
tual acumen, who denies the prophets and vilifi es them as charlatans.
This image is further strengthened if we add to the paragraph from the
commentary on Hullin other passages where Maimonides refers to El-
isha: the commentary on the specifi c passage of the Mishnah (in Hagigah
2.1) that deals with Elisha’s failed mystical experience,^73 as well as his
image in Guide 1.32. Elisha is portrayed there as a person of great erudi-
tion and learning, the origin of whose sin is his desire to know that which
lies beyond human knowledge. This combination of desire and learning
causes him to speak with “presumptuous assertion with regard to the De-
ity,” not to have regard for His honor, and “to declare the falsity of that
which has not been proven false.” These last two accusations are couched
in the specifi c formulations that Maimonides employs in numerous places
for his discussion of the question of the eternity of the world. Although
he says that the nature of the world as created in time cannot be proven,
neither can its eternity be proven; and therefore, Maimonides argues, the
“regard for the Lord’s Honor” demands that we hold back and refrain
from making hasty assertions.^74 This brazen hastiness (tahafut) is a not
only an error, a fault of character and a wrong approach to science: it is
a sin against “the honor of the Creator.” The term tahafut, made famous
by Ghazali, undoubtedly refl ects the infl uence of the latter’s criticism of
the Aristotelian phi losophers in his Tahafut al- falasifa.^75 By using these
(^72) BTHagigah 14b– 15a. On the sin of Elisha in the Jewish tradition, see Y. Liebes, Elisha’s
Sin: The Four Who Entered Pardes and the Nature of Talmudic Mysticism (Jerusalem,
1990), 29– 51 [Hebrew], and bibliography there.
(^73) Commentary on the Mishnah,Moed, 378
(^74) SeeGuide 2.30 (Dalala, 247– 48; Pines, 353); Guide 2.15 (Dalala, 203; Pines, 292):
Guide 2.22 (Dalala, 223:28– 224:5; Pines, 320); Guide 2.29 (Dalala, 243– 44; Pines, 346).
(^75) The standard translation of the book’s title as “Incoherence of the Phi losophers” is now
commonly accepted; see, for example, M. E. Marmura’s translation of al- Ghazali,The In-
coherence of the Phi losophers (Provo, Utah, 2000). This translation, however, does not