Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Allan Nadler
Maimonides was not of widespread interest and his works not studied in the
period immediately following his death, through to the early modern period
be drawn between "Rabbenu Moshe Ben Maimon," the revered rabbi and
From its in the late 12th century, the Mishneh Torah, the
appearance
masterful Jewish legal
code authored by the Rambam, the "Great Eagle,"
remained the foundational text of Jewish jurisprudence until its normative sta
tus was eclipsed by the Shuihan Arukh in the 16th century. Despite fierce
quarrels with it that erupted early on among some medieval European rab
binic critics most famously by Provencal Rabbi Abraham ben David of
I
Posquieres’ at history was the Torah
36
not only the most consulted and respected source of
revival. It was frequently
cult passage from Maimonides’ code) is the common Yiddish expression for
subversive, even heretical, work Guide of the Perplexed, was indeed largely
that the world is eternal, he would have been forced to abandon the
proven
traditional understanding of the Torah’s creation narrative t Maimonides
sky,
2 On
Introduction
the history
to
of
the
the reception
Code of Maimonides
of the Mishneh Torah
(New Haven,
and
1980),
its enduring
Epilogue,
influence,
pp. 515-537.
see I Twer
Soloveitchik. On this method, see Norman Solomon, "Anomaly and Theory in the
by Rabbi Hayyim
Analytic School of Rabbi Hayyim Soloveitchik and his Circle," in Jewish t[Annual 6 (1987):
,neni in Rabbinic Jurisprudence: Hayyirn Soloveitchik and His Circle (Atlanta, 1993).
37
rites t Maimonides whose allegorization of the Torah’s most important his
spawned a series of bitter disputes from the 13th through the 16th centuries
the Maimonides whose philosophy was blamed for the catastrophes that befell
Spanish Jews from 1391 until their expulsion in 1492 the Maimonides whose
influence was accused of softening the resolve and faith of those Spanish Jews
Ha-Moreh," was indeed the beneficiary of a stunning revival in the early mod
ern period. And it is to the revival of interest after centuries of neglect pri
There was, in
particular, a noticeable renaissance in the publication,
the Perplexed, beginning in the latter decades of the 18th century, a period
Enlightenment.
about the underlying reasons for the "Rambam revival" or its intellectual con-
,[h
6 On the Maimonidean
Maimonidean m[h
controversies,
and
see Joseph
Maimonidean
Sarachek, Faith And Reason llia 1935)
the controversy (Leiden, 1965). On the general
cultural and intellectual background to the Maimonidean controversy, see Bernard D. Septimus, His
panic Jewish Culture in Transition (Cambridge, 1982). See also Septimus’ unpublished doctoral disser
I
ibn Gabbai, held Maimonidean influence responsible for undermining the faith of Spanish and
Portuguese Jewry leading so many to convert under duress as the source of the divine wrath that
resulted in the tribulations of Jewry. See, in particular, lbn Gabbai’s introduction to Tolaat
Yaakov (Constantinople, 1560). In the 19th century this very theme was transposed to the Hasidic criti
cism
commentary to Yaavetz’s Or Ha-Ha yyim by Zevi
the
-Ha
of Haskalah in the remarkable Elimelekh of
l[h
Dinov.
Be-Mizrah
See my
See on
Eyropa
discussion
this work,
ha-Hasidut
of Zevi
-Ey
Elimelekh
Peikarz,
R.
of Dinov
Zevi
below.
li"[h
"Al Meh Avdah Galut Sefard: Kelekah Kelapei
in Daat 28 (1992): 105Ill.
8 See Solomon Alami, Iggeret -Mu (Constantinople, 10) This highly influential work was
re-issued fifteen times between 1510 and the critical edition by Abraham Meir Haberman, Jerusalem,
1950. Just as Zevi Elimelekh of Dinov used Yaavetz’s Or -Ha
Ha-Kohen
as a textual basis for his attack on
the Haskalah, the 20th-century Hasidic rebbe, I-lenokh of Alexander, published a commen
to Alami’s :[h Ha-Musar that transposed of Maimonidean onto
-Mu
tary its the
critique philosophy
Haskalah and Reform Judaism of his day. See the Pietrokov, 1912 edition of t[h
38
reveals much about the extent of renewed interest in Maimonides’
it
tent,
9
others,
Jews of Renaissance Italy were in this respect, as in so many atypically
half century before a revised version of the Guide was finally published,
new,
I and 111.11
publication of the Sabionetta 12[h I the 100 years following the ground-
of Maimonides’
"[h
based on the bibliographies writings:
following
his translation of the
M. Friedlander, "The Moreh Ncbuchim in the preface to
xxvii-xxxviii.
uno ay
1
Guide of the Perplexed (London, 1928), pp.
1ib 1
Sefarav Pe’ulotav ve-Deotav, by
a- [Q19
Raphael
vol. 27, vol. 28.
pp. pp.
Ha-Moreh im Hasagot R. ,n[ Toy n[h He/Icr (Prague, 1614). For a full
description of all of the
graphical study by Moritz Steinschneider, I)ie aisch Conimeniare ’[Q "Fuhrer" des ,[H
on[ In Berliner ift[h (Frankfort. 1903). pp. 345-363, and lande op. ,[h passirn. Aside
aforementioned Italian translation the Guide was translated into Latin largely for use by
from the ,
Christian Hebraists. about which see Friedlander. op. cit, pp. -xxx
39
breaking Jessnitz 1791 edition, by contrast, the Guide was published in six
were also German, French, and Hungarian translations of the Guide issued by
l3
central European Jewish scholars.
not re-issued until the Berlin edition of 1766 exactly two hundred years
14
later.
This publishing revival of the Guide and the newly written Haskalah
Guide in particular that ignited the rationalist interest of such leading Mask
ilim as Mendl Lefin, Menasseh of Ilya, Solomon Maimon, Isaac Satanow,
Kalman Shulman, and, most significantly, the "Russian Mendelssohn," Isaac
Ber Levinssohn (17881869), who was the founder of the Eastern European
Haskalah. The leading Israeli historian of the Haskalah, Shmuel Feiner, has
gone so far as to make the bold claim that were it not for the of
re-publication
,[h
Friedlander, op. cit., xxxi-xxxii.
PP
14 On the circumstances that led Mendelssohn to write his commentary to Milot see
15 One volume of R. Mordecai Yaffe’s Ten Let’ushim, entitled Levush Pinat ,[h is a partial and
idiosyncratic commentary to the Guide’s philosophy. On this work, as well as a full analysis of the ran
corous cxchanges between R. Moses lsserles, R. Solomon Luria and other 16th-century Polish rabbis
40
the
ever
Guide
have
in
emerged
But what was
the 18th
as the
century,
at
founder
the root
it is doubtful
of the Jewish
of the initial
that
On the most elementary level, Maimonides was seen by many of the early
Maskilim model for the rational and worldly Jews they wished to cultivate
as a
Talmudic rabbis of their day to widen the horizons of Europe’s Jews by intro
and life of Maimonides, that he changed his name from Shiomo ben Yehoshua
looked if they
ideal of the perfect man. upon his teachings as
my I
as
had been inspired with Divine wisdom itself. This went so far, that
Maimon, not to do this act." And this vow, so far as I can remember,
17
was to restrain me.
aiways surricient
Maimonides
by how much attention the author paid not only in tribute to
and his seminal influence on his life, but as well by Maimon’s detailed, multi-
l[h
1
16 See Feiner, 47.
p.
17 1 have relied here on the translation of this citation from ’s[h autobiography in David
Yellin and Israel Abrahams Maimonides (London, 1903), PP. (from chapter I[ on "The
on the Yiddish edition. il[ ,non ’s lukhte[h (Vilna, 1927), vol. I PP. 239-360.
41
chapter synopsis, comprising almost 150 ,[h on the content of each part of
of Givat Ha -Mo reh discovers almost immediately that, while the author
may
have revered the image of Maimonides and admired the Guide for what it
day, he did
tried to accomplish in its not adhere in to any
any meaningful way
part of the actual philosophical teachings of Maimonides or the other Jewish
commentary:
Guide, and
"
observed
partially an extended
in
Ha-Moreh
the introduction
is
only
disputation
partially
to their critical
with
a genuine
Maimonides,
edition
commentary
of Maimon’s
emerging
to the
from 1
the development of Maimon’s own, post-Maimonidean philosophy."
ophy, given the fact that Maimon was essentially a post-Kantian idealist. His
Islamic theologians of the Ka!ªm school, and entirely dismisses the relevance
physics and metaphysics (and even with the inadequate distinction drawn
very
between these two fields by the Aristotelians), then did he bother
why at all
with Maimonides? The answer to this question offers the key to understand
ing the very essence of the modern "Rambam Revival," and the limited and
often paradoxical nature of the Haska!ah’s enchantment with Maimonides.
As I have suggested, Maimonides is admired more as
biographically
18 See
and N. Rotenstreich
Solomon Maimon,
(Jerusalem,
Git’at /[Qi,[h
A
new edition
close reading
with notes
of
and indexes by 5 Bergman
1965), P.
5. Maimon’s own introduction, as well as
the appendix to the work that provides his synoptic of philosophy, demonstrates the
history degree to
,[h
of the and between Solomon Maimon’s
complicated tense relationship philosophy and that of Mai
monides, see Amos Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, 1992), 241-243.
pp.
42
furnishes romantic model for the early Maskilim, even as the actual content
a
eval doctrines found in the Guide are no longer of much use to l8th[h and
In Givat Ha-Mo reh, what Maimon did with the problematic aspects
the level of the ancient, unwashed Israelites in the desert. Just as Maimonides’
S
to Scripture was dibra torah ki/shon
motto justifying his allegorical approach
men of
conventional language of the
its
benei adam, (the Torah in the
spoke
-Ha
Nevukhay even more audaciously, his
20 Much has been written about ian[h Krochmal’s Moreh Nevukhay Ha-Z’man. See the treat
l:[h
ment of
(Albany,
243-247,
1
this
and
work
lsrnar
See,
in Jay
also,
Harris,
Schorsch.
the
"
Nachrnan
provocative
Philosophy
discussion
of History
Guiding
by Funkenstein,
the
of Nachrnan
Perplexed
Perceptions
"Judaisrn[
of the Modern
of Jewish
Age
History.
10 1):
pp.
237-245. Simon Rawidowicz edited a critical edition of ’s[h book with a valuable introduction
1).
in Kitvei
21
R.
Rubin’s
Nachrnan
works
Krochinal
on Spinoza
(Hebrew)
are: I)
(Waltham,
noz[ und
1
Maimonides: Em logisch
H
Antitheton of Vienna doctoral dissertation, (2) 18. March Nevukhim ha-Hadash. 2
(University
zze (Lwow, ’s[h criticisms)
a[ 1859
Teshuvah a to (4)
vols.( Vienna, 1856-57) (3) response
Heker Elolia in, Towi (Vienna. 1885 translation of Spinoza’s Ethics with a lengthy
’ akow[Q,
1
introduction)
(6) Dikduk
(5) Hegyonei
Sefat ’Ever
Spinoza
-Krakow,[h
Ha-Elohut,
1Ha-Tevel,
Hebrew
Ve-Nefesh
translation
Ha-Adam
of Spinoza’s Hebrew
43
Rubin, a lifelong passionate Spinozist, was certainly nor unaware of
22[h S
Spinoza’s devastating critique his
approach, particularly
Maimonides remains a heroic figure for Krochmal and Rubin, and the Guide a
title worthy of borrowing, to some extent despite the details of its teachings.
But let us step back for a moment, to the founding fathers of the
colleague, Harrwig Wessley, clearly admired the Rambam for the person he
was and the life he led, while disagreeing with central features of his
many
philosophical system. The first Haskalah journals, beginning with ha-Meassef
Even before his arrival in Berlin and his collaboration with Mendelss
ohn and the MeasfIm, Wessley was involved with a of enlightened Jews
group
in Amsterdam during the late 0s,[ who used to meet together weekly, to
.24
study and discuss Maimonides Guide.
The old adage Mi-Moshe ad Moshe lo kam ke-Moshe, from the Biblical
Moses to Moses Maimonides there arose none like Moses, was transposed in
arose none like Moses." Even the Hebrew acronym for Mendelssohn, Rambe
man (Rabbenu Moshe ben Menachem) seemed designed to associate the
almost entirely incompatible, not only in detail (as we have seen with Solo
J udaic work, lem,[h strove to achieve the very opposite: the strict separation
On Shadal’s critique of Rubin’s Spinozism, see: Rivka Horowitz, "Shadal U-Shpinoza" in Barukh
Shpinoza 300 Shanah Le-Moto: Kovetz Ma’arnarim (Haifa, 1978), pp. 167186 and Aryeh Motzkin,
"Shpinoza, Luzatto, ia[h ye-Dat," in Barukh Shpinoza: z[h Ma ’amarim ’ ro,[h ed.
Menahem Brinker (Tel Aviv, 1978), 135-44. A rich discussion of the debates between Luzzatto and
’
pp.
the Galician maskiliin is to be found in Menahem Dorman, Vikkuhay Shpinoza Mi-David Nieto
David Ben Gurion (Tel Aviv, 1987),
"
t[E[h Sefarav, Shitato (Leipzig, 59-88.
22 On Spinoza’s rejection of the philosophical allegorization of the Bible, see Samuel J. Preus,
44
of the realms of religion and philosophy from each other. Following far more
of the Jewish home and and would not impingeon the Jews’
vacy synagogue
Jewish catechism: the thirteen principles of faith, the so-called anee maamins
canonized with their inclusion in most editions of the daily Siddur. It was he
under
Jew who does not adhere to a rather well-defined
who insisted that a
tion, that Judaism is a religion of legal praxis and not at all one of
insisting
foundation
philosophy was the
of the Torah with rational for
nization
agenda, beginning
with Mendelssohn’s rus where he coined the famous
,,27
essence revealed
term describing Judaisms as consisting in legislation.
25 For an excellent, concise summary of the main arguments of Mendeslssohn’s m.[h see the
i
introduction by Alexander Altmann to the English translation
3-29.
1983), PP.
26 See
and Renaissance
27 It is
quite
Twersky,
mar
Studies, ed.
"Some
A.
that
lt Non-Halakhic
centuries
1 of
since
the
pp.
Mishneh-Torah."
19.
Mendelssohn’s denial
in Jewish
of the
Medieval
centrality
of to Judaism, the over this issue still For a sense of the current polemics sur
dogma controversy rages.
Perfect Faith: The Foundations of Jewish Belief (New York. 1983) Menachem lln Must a Jew
of while Keilner that view, insisting that Judaism has no obligatory theological
ciples faith, challenges
creed a basic monotheism and belief in the Torah’s divine revelation. Most recently, the quasi-
beyond
45
Interestingly, Solomon Maimon’s first communication with
very
inaugurating their friendship came in the form of a letter detailing his philo
Torah and philosophy, there are numerous specific incongruities between Mai
monides’ approach and that of the Maskilim. Of several Maimonidean postures
that were problematic for Mendelssohn and the later Maskilim, one is
very par
ticularly worthy of mention: Maimonides’ Jewish ethnocentrism and elitism.
of the Enlightenment, both inspired and animated the early Maskilim who
worked hard to Judaism in such to neutralize those
present a way as religious
sources.of social divisiveness and prejudice between Jews and Christians. Mai
monides’ negative assessments of non-Jews, most notoriously his attack on both
Christianity and Islam in his most famous letter, The To Yemen, which
Epistle
Even more troubling was the way in which Maimonides in the Mish
neh Torah, defined the "righteous gentiles" when legislating regarding which
non-Jews merit a portion in the world to come. In his discussion of the Seven
Noachide Laws, whose observance by gentiles is the criterion set by the Talmud
29 An excellent annotated English translation of the Epistle l Yemen is included in Crisis and Lead
ership: Epistles of t[Qn translated and annotated by Abraham Halkin with discussions by David
Hartman (Philadelphia, 1985) see David Hartman’s discussion of Maimonides’ assault on Christianity
46
Maimonides rules that this reward applies only to
for meriting eternal life,
M
the Torah’s Gentiles who arrive at their obser
legal authority. coincidentally
moral behavior are dismissed as "neither wise nor righteous" and therefore
positivism one that was entirely at odds with his own conviction
ary legal
shared with all of humankind, and not "revealed legislation," or the rituals
they
insistence that the Gentiles must the revelatory-legal basis for the uni
accept
versally binding Seven Noah i Laws ran contrary to the essential spirit
of the
Haskalah’s universalism.
for his
Maimonides remained a hero for the Maskilim, again less teachings
than for the drama of his life, which furnished a powerful and largely sym
bolic
seen
rabbinic,
as
inspiration.
previews
and later,
The
of the
even
medieval
bitter
"Hilkhot
more
",[h
Maimonidean
disputations
bitter Hasidic
between
32[h
The standard
controversies
the Maskilim
rabbinical
Mwere,
version
and
of
moreover,
this
their
it has
who the seven laws and is careful to obey them is one of the righteous of the
"Anyone accepts
nations of the world and has a in the world to come. But this is on condition that he both
portion
accepts and obeys them because they have been commanded by God in the Torah and it has been con
through Moses our teacher that the sons of Noah are obligated to observe them. However, if one
veyed
observes them as a result of rational conviction, he is neither a licit resident the Land of Israeli, nei
ther is he one of the righteous of the nations of the world, nor one of their wise men." Earlier versions
of the same text conclude with the words "but is one of their wise men."
31 The exchange between Mendelssohn and Emden on Maimonides’ definition of the "righteous
the Guide, as well as his often mptuou disregard for the uneducated masses, which was entirely
32 As we shall see below, many Hasidic leaders identified in precisely the same way with Mai
monides, the medieval rabbis’ criticisms of the Guide with the Mitnagdim’s attacks on
comparing
Hasidic theology.
47
been argued by historians of the Haskalah (hat the very methodology of the
Guide, namely its incorporation of the most recent scientific and philosophical
knowledge into a Jewish worldview, both inspired and emboldened the early
modern
W
Maskilim to engage the European world.
expressing views far more liberal than anything Mendelssohn ever wrote. ’[
is
portrayed as a typical Polish rabbinic obscurantist and opponent of any
sojourn, P’loni nonetheless insists that he is a true and devout follower of Mai
monides, having composed elaborate rabbinical commentaries, in the pilpulis
tic style, to the Mishneh Torah. The problem is that Maimonides has neither
interest in, nor patience with, this man and his convoluted commentaries,
which he finds contrary to the entire purpose of the Mishneh Torah, which
even understand lon convoluted and archaic use of the Hebrew language.
the heavenly distance, does he break free of his oppressive rabbinic interlocu
a withering assault on the backwardness of P’loni’s ideas and the archaic nature
between the Guide and the Mishneh Torah, and which ignored, to the full
extent
33 This
possible,
satire
of
was
the former work.
originally
of Siha
serialized in the
Be-Eretz Ha-Hayyirn,
lah[h journal,
with
Ha-Meassef, 1 A full,
" lfs
critical edition the text a introduction can
along lengthy analytical
be found in Yehuda Friedlander, Perakim Ba-Satirah Ha-Ivrit (Tel Aviv, 1979), pp. 1.[h For a gen
eral
Writings
evaluation
in Their
of Wolfsohn’s
Historical
satirical
Setting,"
writings,
in Jewish
see Bernard
Quarterly
D.
Review
Weinryb,
58 19 35-50.
Dramatic
48
The most extreme articulation of this traditional rabbinical stratagem
for dealing with the "two Rambams" can be found in Rabbi Jacob Emden’s
rabbi who wrote the Mishneh Torah could possibly be the author of the dan
heretical Guide. Emden concludes, therefore, that the Guide is a
gerous,
heretic and had become
pseudepigraphy written by some mischievous falsely
attributed to ides. 34
between the image of Rabenu Moshe ben Maimon and the philosopher, Mai
the Guide while revering the
monides, simply by ignoring, or even suppressing
S
One of the earliest Polish Maskilim to come under the Guide’s influ
ence was Naftali Hirtz Schulman, who championed the reform of Jewish edu
cation in White Russia and actively curried the favor of Tsar Alexander I in
.[h
Jewry his
European
Vilna to earn his Hebrew tutor for the children of wealthy families
living as a
and it was there, in the early 0s,[ that he fomented a public controversy by
city’s communal leaders were so upset by the public instruction in this danger
ous work that they went to the Gaon in the hopes that he would banish
Schulman from Vilna. But the Gaon disappointed them, largely as the result
, 36
him in paradise.
I
34
Dienstag
35
36
Jacob
On
See
in
(New
ide
"Ha-Rambam
York.
Schulman.
Dov Eliach,
Mizpahat
1957).
see David
Sefer
im[h
Ve-Hakhmei
n,[h
Ha-Gaon
l
(Altona,
Russia’s
(Jerusalem,
1769).
First
2002),
p.
in
80.
Modern
vol.
See
Simon Federbush,
I
on
Jews (New
p.
this
590.
source
ed.
York.
Eliach
the
Hu-Rambam:
comments
,[h
discusses
pp.
the
64-73.
of Jacob
Torazo
Gaon’s
Ve
49
It is instructive that nowhere here does the Gaon of Vilna endorse the
the
opened the text himself, since only references to the Guide in his entire
oeuvre are based on citations from later secondary sources. Quite the contrary,
his tone is one of resignation. One can almost hear him sighing to himself:
"What can I do? We are stuck with the fact that this dangerous book (i.e., the
Guide) was written by the great author of the Mishneh Torah, the Nezer Ha
Kadosh (Holy Eagle), the Rambam. Had it been written by a lesser man,
maybe I could ban it. But we are dealing here with the Rambam."
I
to apologetically,
ing terms, it is quite clear that he had no use whatsoever for the Guide of the
work)
opposed.
which he
38
Denunciations
associated
. .
with
or
r
the
.
rational
rationalism
ioso ana
.i i
of the
i Haskalah
i
that
critical
he so
remarks
regarding Aristotle and his disciples are found scattered in about a dozen of
the Gaon’s writings. The most widely cited of these is the Gaon’s critique of
Maimonides’ denial that mystical incantations (lehashim) can ever help heal
the sick. Commenting on an aside remark in the Shuihan Arukh that permits
the use of incantations to heal one who has been bitten by a scorpion, "even
though they do not really help," the Gaon enters into a rather extensive cri
Rambam in his
Commenta7y to the Mishna to Avod.ah
Zara, but all who came after him disagreed, since many incantations
wrote that magical spells and the uses of God’s names, incantations,
demons, and amulets are all phony. But he has already been hit on
the head on this account for behold we have stories in
seen many
the Talmud that testify to the power of magic and Holy names and
37 See the richly informative, but apologetic, by Jacob "Ha-im Hitnagged Ha-Gra
m
essay Dienstag,
le-Mishnato ha-Filosofit shel ha-Rambam?" in lpi 4 (1949): 253-268.
38 The attitude of the Gaon and the Mitnagdim to the Haskalah has long been a of debate
among
linmanuel
a
scholars.
traditional
Etkcs,
perspective
For
Yahid
the
-Do
most
on this
recent
issue,
evaluations
Ha-Gaon
see Dov
Mi-Vilna
of
Eliach,
this
mut[
op.
complex
cit.
ve-Diniui
vol.
issue,
I pp.
see the
(Jerusalem,
594-639.
second
1
A
chapter
broader
pp.
of
44-83. For
discussion
1
of the attitude of the Mitnagim to the Haskalah can be found in Allan Nadler, The Faith the Mith
of
50
the like.... So too amulets and spells are mentioned many times
phers] and the rabble who follow them, for all that is written in the
of the 4[S[h The former that these texts were not authentic and did
alleged
not issue from the of the Gaon himself. The traditionalist Mit
really pen
insisted they were indeed the words of the Gaon, and this division is
nagdim
still reflected in the critical modern scholarship on this question. However it
and Talmud. But precisely such a reading was, of course, the hallmark of
very
in philosophy based on the fact that he did not have access to the true Kab
balah, which was revealed in later after the "re-appearance" of
only generations
had Maimonides been exposed to Kabbalah, he would have had no use what
1
l ,n
39 Emphasis added. Biur Ha-Gra at Shuihan Arukh. /[Qi[ Deah, This passage is cited by
I
Eliach. ibid., p 588, who renders the final paragraph rather imaginatively by replacing the term
,n[h ("that they are external") with she-zorki,n ozam ("that they are thrown in the
:so
mli
What exactly the Gaon meant by the use of the expression r[Qa[h is a fair subject
garbage").
1
classification of sefarim j,[h or more harshly that he is using the term in
the l[Qist sense of hitsonirn, that is, demonic forces. Either way, Eliach takes liberties in his cita
ism
40 For an overview of debate about the of both the Gaon and R. Israel Baal
m[h
the legacy
Shemtov, the founder of ism,[h s[Q the lah,[h see Allan Nadler,
51
Maimonides for not having been corrupted and distanced from Torah despite
Behold how great the virtue and holiness of Maimonides! Despite the
his soul nor did it distance him whatsoever from the holy Torah. On
the contrary, it is even possible that it
helped him in refuting the
1
of heretics that were based on philosophical
arguments speculation.
greater than many of the Kabbalists who might not have endured such a chal
edged polemic against both Hasidism and the Haskalah that Phinehas viewed
42
as the two main threats to traditional Judaism in his day.
its doctrines into his sermons. A couple of examples will suffice to illustrate
of biblical
theology can be seen throughout Phinehas’ his
writings, particularly
p.
41
589.
tzh Isaac 1 Sefer Magen a[h (Yohannisburg, 1855), p.5b. See also, Eliach, op. cit.,
’[h
42 On Phinehas
critique
of
of the -l .[Q
isk[h generally,
see
see Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, pp. 710. On
52
of his discussion of theodicy. Elsewhere, Phinehas adopts Maimonides’
course
that
theory of miracles, which limits them to the biblical era, by maintaining
served the
tions to the possibility of supernatural phenomena clearly purpose
the fact remains that Phinehas studied, accepted, and preached pub
standing,
that
of the "Fall" of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden in particular,
P
modern Phinehas cites verbatim from Maimonides’ explana
ing the period.
tion of the precise nature of "knowledge" acquired by Adam and Eve after
having eaten from the forbidden tree of 45[h then uses the
rationales for the commandments of the Torah, to which Maimon ides devoted
written, ’for no man can see me and live.’ Not until after he dies
[Q1
:[h
for a fuller discussion of these themes.
43 See Nadler, ibid., pp.
Peulati Derashot, at the
44 1 discovered the manuscript of these sermons, entitled
Institute for Oriental Studies in St. Petersburg. The following discussion is based on my work with the
manuscript.
where Maimonides between rational knowledge of truth and false
45 See Guide. 1:2, distinguishes
53
and escapes from his earthen corporeal vessel, that is
. . . .
That is
of his
righteous believers." For only through death can one attain
written, ’it is a tree of life to those who grasp it.’ But, the tree of
take hold and they bring about unclean influences and desecrate all
that is holy. This is the tree of the philosophers and so-called wise
-Mi
religion, reserving partic
ular venom for the work of those who in Taamei the
engaged
known in
contemporary
Israel as the aron ha-sefarim ha-Yehudi, the accepted,
was, without
any doubt, R. Nachman of lav[h (17221810), who is said to
54
have condemned the medieval rationalist enterprise as nothing less than total
as much as possible from the analytical writings that some of the ear
Ha-Higayon and
in the Milot the
lier authorities composed, particular
books for they cause blemishes and confuse our holy 47[S
Hasidic sects, whose leaders championed a total, naive faith in God’s imma
nence and in the of the Tsadik, beliefs entirely incompati
supernatural powers
49
ble with Maimonides rationalist approach.
blamed
written
the
in the aftermath of the
of
expulsion of the Jews from Spain, largely corrupting effects
Maimonidean rationalism for the disasters that befell Iberian Jewry. In his com
to Or Ha-Hayyim, R. Zevi Elimelekh of Dinow transposed Yaavetz’s
mentary
critiques of Maimonides onto the Maskilim of his own day, thereby drawing a
warned his followers against so much as looking at the Guide and generally
,non
Ha-Kabbalah Veha
Hasidut Leha-Rambam," in Yehuda Leib Fishman, ed., nu[h Moshe Ben (Jerusalem, 1948).
inon
p.
monideanism.
,na:[h
R. Nachman
Hayav
See the
U-Mis/maw
discussion
on account
i[Q
of Zeitlin’s
Hillel
of his
Zeitlin
deep
characterizations
(Tel
anti-rationalism.
Aviv, 1999),
in,
For
Shraga
Pp.
a
1 Bar-Sela, Beyn
bibliography
71. The Maskilirn
Saar
of Haskalah
Li
despised
polemics
precisely
1
directed against
chapter 7,
R.
pp.
inan[
-[Q1
of Bratslav. see David Assaf, :sla Bibliographia Muerci (Jerusalem,
55
R. Abraham Mordecai Alter testified to his own fears when he felt compelled
ignored it, and one can safely generalize that the medieval Jewish rationalist
thought and literature. But there were two notable the intel
very exceptions:
Hasidic sects that spread throughout Ukraine, Galicia, Hungary, and Rumania,
the second
Already in
generation of the Hasidic movement, one of it
major leaders identified deeply with Maimonides’ personal legacy in much the
same way as did the early Maskilim, although coming from opposite ends of
Remember the days of yore: for who has been like unto the Moses of
his
generation, namely the Rambam, of blessed
memory who was
56
of his honor, his holiness, and his piety. However, in the distant lands,
him heretic and a denier of our holy Torah and they burned his
a
These men, who were wise in their own estimation, despite having
to his
tance, did not pause to consider subjugating their opinions
the Rambam] for they could not understand the depths of his
51
meaning.
accordance with his own brand of ecstatic 53[h i the two-part 19th-
century
54[h
(grandson
Hasidic discourse
of R.
w Shneur
by R.
Zalman
on Maimonidean
Menachem
of Lyadi,
Mendel
philosophy
of Lubavitch
(17891866)
rebbe who
Sefer
is
revered in Habad circles as the Tsemah Tsedek, after the title of his major rab
binical works). This work represents an intensive, deeply learned, but equally
argue
with
Maimonides
that
the 55[h
the fact that
of the
Mendel
Maskilim
was engaged
for his
who
attempts to
revered
in
"rescue"
him
a lifelong
as a
battle
role
been
1[ See.
cited
Abraham
widely
Samuel Heilman.
by subsequent scholars.
Belt ah (Brooklyn, 1 Vol. 1 p.
22a. This passage has
"
harmonize the Guide with his own radically mystical the
of R. Shneur Zalman’s tendency to
examples
1
ology.
about the medieval kabbalists’ interpretations of the Guide as
53 Moshe l[h has written extensively
most Moshe ldel
a work of mysticism concealed in the garb of philosophical language. See, recently.
55 See Joseph I Schneerson. /ze Tzemah Tzedek and the alah[ Movement (Brooklyn, 1975).
57
According to internal Hasidic traditions, not oniy was Maimonides’
Guide not banned from the courts of -Kotsk-Izb the text was
partner
in
suffering terrible denouncements and persecutions rooted
critics
simply did not penetrate the deep secrets of his mind and I
Maimonides] and to shut the mouths of those who speak ill of him
56
in the name of the true Kabbalah.
"
tribulations of Maimonides’ life, since he considered the Guide to be an
56 n[h Henokh mer of Radzin, (ed.) Sefer Beit Yaakot’ (Warsaw, 1890),
1314. mer discussion of the "secrets" of the Guides found on pp. 915 of this text.
pp.
58
important, if partial and imperfect, work of true lah.[h His lengthy intro
Yaakov, a
duction to his father’s commentary to the Torah, Sefer Beyt presents
Hasidic version of the of the Kabbalah, beginning with God’s first rev
history
period when
the medieval rationalism
of kabbalistic transmission during
the secrets of the latter in the language of the
eclipsed mysticism, by couching
former. The introduction has been published as a separate book entitled, Sefer
Ha-Hakdama [Q57[S
It is clear that, like R. Shneur Zalman of Lyadi before him, R. Ger
shon Henokh viewed the Guide of the Perplexed as a work of lah,[h one
I . 58
later classics or Jewish mystical lore.
tem. But did this the Hasidim from reclaiming Maimonides as one of
stop
whose works one finds numerous discussions of the Guide integrated into a
"
this work are to the version found in the original Warsaw 1890 edition of Sejer Beit
58 Just a few weeks after I presented the lecture upon which this paper
is based, a full scholarly
mer of
treatment
Magid.
of
Hasidism
the mystical
on the
theology
Marin:
of R. Gershon
Reconciliation, :in
Hcnokh Radzin
and Messianis,n
of
was published,
R.
in
Gerhson
/Radzin
’s[h kab
aul
’[h
to the
Hasidism (Madison, 2003). Magid devotes a long chapter analysis
Zohar and the Guide of the le[Qx and the Hasidic Reconstruction of Esotericisin," pp. 40-7 1. In the
as a role model.
The
59 On
Mysticism
the uses of
of Rabbi
the Guide
Zadok
in the
of ub
writings of
(Hoboken.
R. Zadok
2002). pp.
Ha-Kohen.
59
To justify
their transformation of Maimonides into a mystic and the
work
i
Guide into a that is harmonious with Shivhei ha-Besht and the the
Tanya,
Has relied heavily on a classical myth dating back at least to the 15th
early
no less a
person than the august Spanish rabbi and exile, Don Isaac Abrabanel
It has been heard that Maimonides wrote an epistle towards the end
of his life that included the confession: "at the end of
following my
days a man visited me and taught me things that, had I not learned
tfiem.
, throughout the world, I recanted
torical justification for their reconstruction of the Guide into a kabbalistic text.
So it was that for the Hasidim, Maimonides at least on his deathbed was
no longer a rationalist
philosopher but a committed kabbalist. Still, those
Hasidic masters who actually studied the Guide remained unsatisfied with
ing to transform its doctrines into listic teachings. The assumption under
these kabbalistic reconstructions of the Guide that before the
lying is even
into their truths, however fragmentary and obfuscated they remained because
The Hasidic masters who chose not to ignore or the Guide tried
reject
in this manner to wrest his legacy from the Maskilim who claimed him as their
own forbear. This required many imaginative leaps, both hermeneutic and
passages from the Guide by Hasidic rebbes, with citations from the
beginning
the late
20th-century
’e[QlM
writings of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the
60
IHa-T (Brooklyn, 1968). A proper analysis
of this collage
conclude
of
Hasidic to which
with the following, typically paradoxical tale, according
Rabbi Phinehas of Koretz an associate of the Baal Shem Toy was a great
book and would never lend it to any man, since he believed that
shomayim.)
talismanic fashion.
than a thousand times, in such a perversely superstitious,
1[ would like to thank Brad Sabin Hill, Dean of the IV Library, for his assistance with the biblio
his and
section of this paper, and Professor Marc Shapiro, Scranton University, for insightful
graphical
issues that it raises.
corrective comments pertaining to the philosophical
61