Song of Songs: A Secret for Maimonides, An Open Book for Gersonides

If ever a biblical text “cried out” to be interpreted allegorically, it is Song of Songs. Indeed, the Talmud states that treating the Song like a regular song is an insult to God and Torah:

^{בבלי סנהדרין קא. [פירנצא 8–9]} הקורא פסוק בשיר השירים ועושה בו כמין זמר והקורא במשתאות בלא זמנו מביא [רעה]^[1] לעול[ם] מפני שהתורה חוגרת שק ועומדת לפני הקב"ה. אמ[ר]ה לפניו: "רבונו של עולם, עשאוני בניך ככינור המנגנים בו גוים."^[2]

^{b. Sanhedrin 101a [Florence 8–9]} One who reads a verse from the Song of Songs and makes it into a tune, or one who reads [it] at parties, when it is not its appointed time, brings evil into the world, since the Torah girds itself in sack cloth and stands before the Blessed Holy One. It says before him: “Master of the Universe, your children have turned me into a harp that gentiles play.”

Rabbi Akiva is said to have offered an enigmatic defense of the importance of the Song in exaggerated terms:

^{משנה ידים ג:ה} ...אין כל העולם כלו כדאי כיום שניתן בו שיר השירים לישראל שכל כתובים קדש ושיר השירים קודש קדשים...

^{m. Yadayim 3:5} ...[T]he whole world is not worthy as the day when the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is Holy of Holies...^[3]

Song of Songs is traditionally read on Passover in Ashkenazi communities;^[4] this perhaps reflects the fact that the Exodus is seen as an expression of God’s love for the People of Israel, and Song of Songs was read for generations as another expression of that love. While peshat commentators did try to explicate the simple meaning of the text,^[5] medieval Jewish philosophers could not take Song of Songs literally, though they certainly took it seriously.^[6]

Maimonides: Love of Humans for God

Moses Maimonides (Rambam, 1138–1204), in his “Laws of the Foundations of the Torah,” discusses ambiguous terms that sometimes refer to God, for example,אֲדוֹנָי Adonai, which could refer to God, “my Lord” or to a group of noblemen, “my lords.”^[7] Then he moves onto “Solomon” in the Song of Songs, where six out of seven times Maimonides understands it as a divine epithet:

^{משנה תורה, ספר מדע, הלכות יסודי התורה ג:ט} כָּל שְׁלֹמֹה הָאָמוּר בְּשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים קֹדֶשׁ וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַכִּנּוּיִין חוּץ מִזֶּה (שיר השירים ח:יב) "הָאֶלֶף לְךָ שְׁלֹמֹה."

^{Mishneh Torah, Mada, Foundations of the Torah 3:9} The name “Solomon” wherever it occurs in the Song of Songs, is holy and is like other divine epithets. The one exception is “You, O Solomon, shall have the thousand” (Song 8:12).^[8]

Maimonides does not tell us who the other lover is; he likely saw the object of God’s love according to the outward meaning of the text to be the People of Israel. In the “Laws of Repentance,” in the context of the requirement to love God, Maimonides makes his reading more explicit:

^{משנה תורה ספר מדע הלכות תשובה י:ג} וְכֵיצַד הִיא הָאַהֲבָה הָרְאוּיָה? הוּא שֶׁיֹּאהַב אֶת ה' אַהֲבָה גְּדוֹלָה יְתֵרָה עַזָּה מְאֹד עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא נַפְשׁוֹ קְשׁוּרָה בְּאַהֲבַת ה' וְנִמְצָא שׁוֹגֶה בָּהּ תָּמִיד כְּאִלּוּ חוֹלֶה חֳלִי הָאַהֲבָה שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ פְּנוּיָה מֵאַהֲבַת אוֹתָהּ אִשָּׁה וְהוּא שׁוֹגֶה בָּהּ תָּמִיד בֵּין בְּשִׁבְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּקוּמוֹ בֵּין בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה. יֶתֶר מִזֶּה תִּהְיֶה אַהֲבַת ה' בְּלֵב אוֹהֲבָיו שׁוֹגִים בָּהּ תָּמִיד כְּמוֹ שֶׁצִּוָּנוּ (דברים ו:ה) "בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ".

^{Mishneh Torah, Sefer Mada, Repentance 10:3} What is the appropriate love [of God]? It is that a person should love God with a great and very excessive love, until his soul is bound up in love of God and he focuses on it constantly as if he were lovesick and could not take his mind off a woman, whether sitting, standing, even when he eats and drinks. Beyond this, love of God should be in their hearts constantly, as we were commanded (Deut 6:5) “with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Maimonides then explains that this devoted and constant love for God is the theme of the Song of Songs:

וְהוּא שֶׁשְּׁלֹמֹה אָמַר דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל (שיר השירים ב:ה) "כִּי חוֹלַת אַהֲבָה אָנִי." וְכָל שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים מָשָׁל הוּא לְעִנְיָן זֶה:

Thus [King] Solomon said, as a metaphor (Song 2:5), “for I am lovesick,” for all of Song of Songs is a metaphor for this matter.

Song of Songs is thus not a metaphor for God’s love for Israel but for an individual’s love of God.^[9] While the Torah and liturgy are full of expressions of God’s love for Israel, Maimonides ignores them all. The love relationship is one-way, humans to God, not the other way around.^[10]

How to Fall in Love with God

What leads to love of God? The study of God’s creation, i.e., the study of what we today call the physical sciences and what Maimonides called al-ilm al-tiba’i, the medieval Arabic translation of the Greek physica:

^{משנה תורה ספר מדע הלכות יסודי התורה ב:ב} והיאך היא הדרך לאהבתו ויראתו, בשעה שיתבונן האדם במעשיו וברואיו הנפלאים הגדולים ויראה מהן חכמתו שאין לה ערך ולא קץ מיד הוא אוהב ומשבח ומפאר ומתאוה תאוה גדולה לידע השם הגדול, כמו שאמר דוד (תהלים מב:ג) "צמאה נפשי לאלהים לאל חי"...

^{Mishneh Torah, Mada, “Foundations of the Torah” 2:2} And what is the way that will lead to the love of Him and the fear of Him? When a person contemplates His great and wondrous works and creatures and from them obtains a glimpse of His wisdom which is incomparable and infinite, he will straightway love Him, praise Him, glorify Him, and long with an exceeding longing to know His great Name; even as David said (Ps 42:3), “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.”

In this passage, Maimonides presents King David as a medieval Aristotelian philosopher, and in his exposition of Song of Songs, we see David’s son Solomon presented in the same fashion. Maimonides concludes this discussion by stating that the way to recognize God is by observing the universe, i.e., learning physics:

^{משנה תורה ספר מדע הלכות יסודי התורה ב:ג} ולפי הדברים האלו אני מבאר כללים גדולים ממעשה רבון העולמים כדי שיהיו פתח למבין לאהוב את השם, כמו שאמרו חכמים בענין אהבה שמתוך כך אתה מכיר את מי שאמר והיה העולם.

^{Mishneh Torah Sefer Mada “Foundations of the Torah” 2:3} In harmony with these sentiments, I shall explain some large, general aspects of the Works of the Sovereign of the Universe, that they may serve the intelligent individual as a door to the love of God, even as our sages have remarked in connection with the theme of the love of God, “for in this way (=observing the universe) you will realize Him who spoke, and the world was."

Remarkably, Maimonides is recasting a passage in Sifrei Deuteronomy that actually states that the way to love God is by learning the Torah’s commandments!

^{ספרי דברים ואתחנן לג} "והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך" (דברים ו:ד)—רבי אומר: "למה נאמר? לפי שנאמר (דברים ו:ג) 'ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך', איני יודע כיצד אוהבים את המקום, תלמוד לומר 'והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך', תן הדברים האלה על לבך, שמתוך כך אתה מכיר את מי שאמר והיה העולם ומדבק בדרכיו".

^{Sifrei Deut Vaetchanan §33} “And these things that I command you this day shall be upon your heart”—Rabbi [Judah HaNasi] says: “Why does it say this? Because it says (Deut 6:3) ‘And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart.’ I do not know how I come to love the Blessed Holy One; it is, therefore written “And these things that I command you this day shall be upon your heart.” Put these things (=the commandments) upon your heart, for in this way you will realize Him who spoke and the world was and to cleave to His ways.”[11]

No evidence points to Maimonides having had an alternative text of Sifrei but he was likely convinced that his reading of the text was its actual meaning.^[12]

Science Is the Way to God-Intoxication

The late Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948–2020) said:

Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean.^[13]

Maimonides would not agree; for him, “religion” and science at the deepest level are the same thing.^[14] And the Song of Songs reflects on the experience of a person who has mastered this subject and, as such, experiences great love of God. Thus, in The Guide to the Perplexed, Maimonides interprets the pining of the maiden for her lover as referring to a prophet who yearns for greater connection with the divine:

^{Guide 3:51} So rapt one may become in higher things and so joyous in their contemplation that he can converse with people and see to his every need of body and mind without quitting his ecstasy. His heart remains before Him while outwardly he is with others. The Torah puts it poetically (Song 5:2): “I sleep, but my heart waketh – Hark, my beloved knocking!” Not every prophet reached this degree, I say… (p. 520).^[15]

Maimonides then interprets the opening verse of the Song as another such example:

^{Guide 3:51} The Sages used a well-known trope here, calling the intense experience of knowing God in passionate love a kiss, as in (Song 1:2), “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth...” (p. 524)^[16]

In the last, climactic chapter of the Guide,^[17] Maimonides warns his readers not to subject themselves to the body instead of the soul, and explains that this is what the young woman is saying in the Song of Songs:

^{Guide 3:54} This is what you should cherish, yours forever, not tiring yourself and toiling for others. Listen! You neglect yourself and blacken the white of your soul in thrall to your bodily powers – as the poetry symbolizing these themes says at the start (Song 1:6): “[Don’t stare at me since I am dark, that the sun has burned me.] My mother’s sons were mad at me. They made me watch the vineyards. But my own vineyard I did not watch” – and, in the same vein (Prov 5:9): “lest you give others your glory, your years to those who care not.” (531).

The biblical book of Proverbs is wisdom literature, offering advice, and here it warns a person not to fritter away their life in service of others. For Maimonides, however, the Song is also wisdom literature, if one can see behind the veil of the allegory. In this case, Maimonides sees the young woman’s depiction of how she has been sunburned, as teaching those who wish to attain the ultimate form of human perfection, knowledge to the greatest extent possible of God, that attending to anything else means that one abandons one’s own vineyard, i.e., perfection of the soul, for forms of vanity.

The Meaning of the Song Is Hidden

In sum, according to Maimonides, the Song of Songs is all about intellectual love of God, amor dei intellectualis, as Spinoza was later to put it.^[18] Nevertheless, a reader must be adept at understanding its allegories in order to glean its philosophical lessons. Yet, Maimonides is no great help in this regard, giving us only small hints here and there about what the Song means.

Why doesn’t Maimonides lay out his philosophical allegory clearly and with more specifics? This is a core problem Maimonides addresses in his introduction to the Guide, where he notes that many biblical passages need an interpretive key in order to access their hidden philosophical meanings:

^{Guide, Introduction} A second aim of the work is to clarify the thickly veiled imagery of Scripture. Since it is not identified as imagery, dull or naive readers see only the surface sense and no deeper meaning. Even a true scholar who ponders such expressions but takes them at face value will be much perplexed by them. (p. 7)^[19]

But Maimonides finds himself in a quandary, since, in his understanding, it is not beneficial or even permissible (according to m. Hagigah 2:1) to spell out in detail the secrets of the Torah.^[20] His solution is to write esoterically:

^{Guide, Introduction} So do not ask me to go beyond those topic headings here. Even these basics are not set out thematically in this work but informally, intertwined with other issues that I hope to clarify. My aim is to reveal but also conceal the truths I disclose, so as not to resist God’s irresistible intent: to keep from the vulgar truths critical to knowing Him^[21] – as it says (Psalms 25:14): “The Lord confides in those who fear Him.”^[22] (p. 7)

Those who truly fear God are thus the philosophers. Maimonides makes this same point in his Mishneh Torah,^[23] and quotes a verse in the Song of Songs as a support for it:

^{משנה תורה ספר מדע הלכות יסודי התורה ב:ו} וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר (משלי ה:יז): "יִהְיוּ לְךָ לְבַדֶּךָ וְאֵין לְזָרִים אִתָּךְ". וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר (שיר השירים ד:יא): "דְּבַשׁ וְחָלָב תַּחַת לְשוֹנֵךְ", כָּךְ פֵּרְשׁוּ חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כִּדְבַשׁ וְחָלָב יִהְיוּ תַּחַת לְשׁוֹנְךָ:

^{Mishneh Torah, Mada, “Foundations of the Torah” 2:6} So too, Solomon said concerning these topics (Prov 5:17): “Let them be for you alone and not for strangers with you.” And he further said concerning these subjects (Song 4:11): “Honey and milk are under thy tongue." This text the ancient sages have thus explained, “The things that are like milk and honey shall be under thy tongue.”

Thus Maimonides felt limited in what he could share and in how much detail he could spell out the “true” philosophical meaning of the Song.

As far as I know, Maimonides is the first Jewish thinker to read Song of Songs as a philosophical allegory about love of God, as opposed to the more typical midrashic reading, and very few thinkers followed him.^[24] One of the most prominent to have done so is Gersonides (R. Levi ben Gershom, Ralbag, 1288–1344).^[25]

Gersonides on Song of Songs

Gersonides opens his commentary by affirming that he has found the true meaning of the text, and that all previous commentaries were actually midrashim (homiletical interpretations) on the text, not explanations of it:

^{רלב"ג שיר השירים הקדמה} אמר לוי בן גרשום: ראינו לבאר המגלה הזאת, והיא מגלת שיר השירים, לפי מה שנראה לנו בה, כי לא ראינו בה ביאור יתכן בו שיהיה ביאור דברי זאת המגלה. אבל ראינו כל הביאורים, אשר ביארו בה הקודמים, ממי שהגיעו אלינו דבריהם, הולכים מהלך הדרש, ובכלל מהלך מה שנאמר בו בדברים חלוף מה שכוון בהם.

^{Gersonides, Song, Intro} Said Levi b. Gershom: we have seen fit to comment on this scroll, the Scroll of Song of Songs, as we understand it, for we have not found any other commentary on it which could be construed as a correct explanation of the words of this scroll. Rather, we have seen that all the commentaries which our predecessors have made upon it, and which have reached us adopt the midrashic approach, including interpretations which are the opposite of what was intended [by the author of Song of Songs].

ואילו הדברים, ואם הם טובים בעצמם, אין ראוי שיושמו ביאורים לדברים אשר נאמרו עליהם על צד הדרש. ולזה אין ראוי למי שירצה לבאר העניינים האילו ודומיהם, שימשכם אל הדרשים אשר נאמרו עליהם; אבל ישתדל לבד לבארם כפי כוונתם.

These midrashic explanations, even though they are good in and of themselves, ought not to be applied as explanations of the things upon which they are said midrashically. For this reason, one who wishes to explain these and similar things ought not to apply to them the derashim (homiletical interpretations) regarding them; rather, he should endeavor to explain them himself according to their intention.^[26]

In this commentary, Gersonides explains that Song of Songs is an attempt both to describe the stages of human cognition of the divine and to guide the individual seeking ultimate felicity to its achievement, since:

שההצלחה התכליתיית לאדם היא כשישכיל וידע השם יתעלה כפי מה שאפשר לו.

The ultimate felicity of a human being is cognizing and knowing God to the extent that that is possible for him.^[27]

According to Gersonides, once we understand the allegory, the Song of Songs teaches us about:

1. Overcoming impediments to cognition (and thus to felicity) related to immoral behavior;
2. Overcoming impediments caused by failure to distinguish between truth and falsity;
3. The need to engage in speculation according to the appropriate order;
4. The division of the sciences (mathematics, physics, metaphysics) and how nature reflects that division;
5. Characteristics of these types of sciences.

Specific Allegorical Terms Translated

Gersonides understands the images found in Song in Songs as symbols referring to the human quest for intellectual perfection.

Jerusalem stands for humankind: just as humans, among all the entities composed of matter and form, are set apart for the worship of God, so is Jerusalem set apart from other cities. Furthermore, the name Jerusalem is derived from the Hebrew word for perfection (shalem); humans are the most perfect of all the sublunar entities and thus called Jerusalem.

Daughters of Jerusalem refer to the faculties of the soul.

Solomon refers to the intellect; this differs from Maimonides, who as noted above understands this name in the Song as a reference to God.

Zion is the worthiest part of Jerusalem, as the intellect is the worthiest part of a human being.

Daughters of Zion refer to those faculties of the soul closest to the activity of the intellect.

Repeatedly throughout the commentary, Gersonides is striving to arrive at the correct allegorical interpretation of the verse, something he would do only if he thought that the allegory was in truth read out of the verse, not read into it secondarily or artificially.^[28] For example, commenting on the phrase מָשְׁכֵנִי אַחֲרֶיךָ נָּרוּצָה, “Draw me, we will run after you” (Song 1:4), Gersonides writes:

^{רלב"ג, שיר השירים א:ד} אמר אל השם ית' וית' מורה על חשק התשוקה, עם רוב המונעים, שיישירוהו אליו וימשכוהו עד שירוצו אחריו הוא ושאר הכחות הנפשיות.

^{Gersonides, Song 1:4} This verse is addressed to God, in order to indicate the passionate desire and many motivating factors which direct [the intellect] to him and which draw it so much that it runs after him, it and the other faculties of the soul.

וזה יהיה כשיכנעו שאר כחות הנפשיות לעבודת השכל. או ירצה הבז באמרו 'נרוצה', הוא והדומים לו, רוצה לומר, שאר בעלי השכל, להיות זה החשק בכל האנשים בטבע, והוא נראה יותר.

This will occur when the other faculties of the soul are subordinated to the service of the intellect. Or, by we will run after, he and others like him—that is other rational beings—may be meant, in that this desire is naturally found in all men, this interpretation makes more sense.^[29]

Song of Songs is about achieving human felicity through the study of the sciences (including, of course), metaphysics. Taking this (Maimonidean) approach seriously, Gersonides devotes much attention to the division of the sciences and to the need to study them in the correct order, since this order mirrors nature.^[30]

Perfection is Attainable and Desirable

The first verse of the Song following the title, יִשָּׁקֵנִי מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת פִּיהוּ “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” is crucial. Lest it be thought that human perfection^[31] is unattainable, Gersonides explains that the Song begins by showing that it is.

He notes that the task of achieving perfection is arduous, beset by many obstacles, among them: the difficulty in achieving mastery in the sciences, the need to overcome one’s natural inclinations towards satisfying our urges, the power of imagination, the lack of methodological sophistication, and the need to achieve a high level of philosophical sophistication.^[32] And this is why, Solomon explains, God put such a strong desire for this perfection in our natures, to make sure that we strive for it, since it is, indeed, attainable:

^{רלב"ג שיר השירים א:ב} ובאר תחלה שהש״י שם בטבע בנו עדת האנשים תשוקה לדעת ענייני הנמצאות יותר חזקה מתשוקתינו אל ההנאות הגופייות. וזאת הקדמה אמתית אין ספק באמתתה כבר באר אותה הפלוסוף בראשון ממה שאחר הטבע מההעתקה החדשה.

^{Gersonides Song 1:2} First, it explained that God placed in our natures, we the community of human beings, a stronger desire to know the states of existent beings than our desire for physical pleasures. That this proposition is incontrovertibly true has been made clear by Aristotle in Metaphysics 1.1 in the new translation.

והנה שלמה נתן בזה סבה חזקה והיא הראות חכמת הש״י וגדולתו בנבראות לכל אדם בתחלת הענין מצד השלמות הנמצא בבריאתם. ומזה הצד יהיה חשק כל אדם נפלא לדעת טוב הסדור והיושר אשר בנמצאות אשר יורה הוראה נפלאה על שלמות הפועל כמו שקדם.

Solomon presented a wonderful explanation for this; it is that every man, ab initio, can see God’s wisdom and greatness in created things by virtue of the perfection found in the way in which they were created. From this perspective every man has a wonderful desire to know the goodness of the order and the equilibrium found among created things, all of which wonderfully indicate the perfection of the agent, as stated above (p. 20).

The Uniqueness of Gersonides’ Commentary

Gersonides’ commentary on Song of Songs is unlike his other biblical commentaries, in which he cites biblical and rabbinical sources extensively, and philosophical and scientific writings relatively rarely. In the commentary on Song of Songs, in contrast, Gersonides cites the Bible only twenty-nine times; of these citations, twelve are of verses used to explain terms in the text, three are simply worked into the text for their stylistic contribution. Only fourteen are explicitly cited to make or support a point in the commentary.

He explicitly cites rabbinical texts seven times and Maimonides only twice. Aristotle, in contrast, appears forty-nine times. Ptolemy’s Almagest is cited in three places. The ancient and medieval philosophers Epicurus, Ghazali, and Averroes are each mentioned once.

Moreover, nowhere in his commentary does Gersonides suggest that obedience to the commandments of the Torah or halakhic sophistication are pre-requisites for achieving human perfection. This does not reflect any lack of interest in halakhah on Gersonides’ part; his commentary on the Torah, and his planned commentary on the Talmud, belie that possibility. Rather, he saw Song of Songs as a philosophic text and wrote a philosophic commentary on it.^[33]

From Maimonides to Gersonides: What Changed?

Maimonides and Gersonides agreed that the inner meaning of Song of Songs is philosophical love of God but disagreed on the value of its outer meaning: Gersonides thought it had no intrinsic value.^[34] Moreover, Maimonides thought that the Torah encouraged the study of science; Gersonides thought that the Torah taught science.

Their different interpretations also reflect different attitudes towards the public teaching of the hidden meaning of the Torah: Maimonides opposed it, Gersonides practiced it.^[35]

It is possible that Maimonides, as the communal leader of his generation, felt more of an obligation to protect the Jewish masses from the “dangerous” true message of the Torah as he understood it. As far as we know, Gersonides played no communal role and seems to have believed that by teaching science openly, he was imitating God.^[36]

Samuel ibn Tibbon: A Transitional Figure

Their different attitudes reflect changed historical circumstances, best exemplified by the career of Samuel ibn Tibbon (ca. 1150–ca. 1230).^[37] In addition to translating the Guide into Hebrew and composing a glossary of philosophical terms found in the Guide, ibn Tibbon wrote a philosophic commentary on Ecclesiastes (like Song of Songs, traditionally attributed to King Solomon) and composed an independent work of philosophic biblical exegesis on Genesis 1:9, Ma’amar Yikkavu ha-Mayim.

In the final pages of that book, Samuel explains why he allowed himself to reveal things which the Sages (in Mishnah Hagigah 2.1) had commanded to keep hidden: these matters were known to the contemporary Gentile nations, and, following Maimonides, Jewish thinkers had also begun dealing with them more or less openly.

A clear indication of this social change, according to which the philosophical secrets of the Torah became accessible to more than just the elite few, is the fact that the year of Maimonides’ death, 1204, saw the appearance of two Hebrew translations of the Guide in Provence, that of ibn Tibbon and that of al-Harizi.^[38]

The Ban against Philosophy and Its Failure

A further indication of the prevalence of philosophic teaching among the Jews of Provence (southern France) is when the Spanish R. Solomon ibn Adret (Rashba, ca. 1235–ca. 1310) issued a ban in 1305 against the study and teaching of philosophy to people under the age of 30, after a major controversy about allegorizing verses developed in Provence.^[39]

The ban was clearly ignored by Gersonides and was opposed by the more philosophical minded in Provence, such as R. Menachem ben Solomon HaMeiri (1249–1315) and Yedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi HaPenini (ca. 1270 – ca. 1340). In the end, the “secrets” of the Torah were let out of the bag, ban or no ban. Considering the changed circumstance, we can understand Gersonides’ rejection of esotericism: it was no longer necessary to hide the truth.