 |
| Fragment of a letter from Rambam, as found in the Cairo Geniza. |
RAMBAM’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH A BAGHDADI JEW:
INTRODUCTION:
If eyes are the
window to the soul, then letters are the window to the persona. Maimonides,
known as Rambam (1135-1204) was a prolific writer of books - but it is through
his letters that we gain a glimpse of his real personality.
In this essay, we
will look at one such letter - originally written in Arabic and which also
serves as a responsum - to a certain Baghdadi Jew by the name of Josef Ibn
Gabir (Jabir).[1]
JOSEF IBN GABIR:
It’s not easy to
put one’s finger on the status of Josef Ibn Gabir because on the one hand he
appears to be a simple man, referring to himself as an am ha’aterz -
while on the other hand, he appears to be involved in the great ideological controversy
between Rambam and the esteemed Gaon of Baghdad, Samuel ben Ali. [See The Maimonidean Controversies.]
Either way, Rambam
is most respectful in his letter, as he addresses Mar (Mr) Josef Ibn Gabir in
the third person.[2]
Rambam begins by
saying that because Josef Ibn Gabir is thirsty for understanding:
“...I
must tell you...that you are not
justified in regarding yourself as an am ha-aretz.”[3]
The desire to understand a matter in its depth exempts one from the category of a simpleton.
MISHNEH TORAH:
Josef Ibn Gabir cannot
read Hebrew. But he can read Arabic and he has read Rambam’s commentary on the Mishna
which was written in Arabic.
Now he wants to
study Rambam’s magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah - a fourteen-volume
summary of the Talmud - which was written in Hebrew.
Josef Ibn Gabir suggests
that Rambam translate the Mishneh Torah into Arabic as it would have a
wider audience and cater for people like him!
Rambam responds:
“It makes also no
difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or in Aramaic;
it matters only whether it is done with understanding…”
Rambam continues by
mentioning that he is, paradoxically, focussing on having all his previous Arabic
writings translated into Hebrew. So, instead, Josef Ibn Gabir should try
learning the Hebrew of Mishneh Torah, “little by little” because:
“It is not so difficult, as the book is
written in an easy style, and if you master one part you will soon be able to
understand the whole work.”
SAMUEL BEN ALI -
THE GAON OF BAGHDAD:
Next, Rambam deals
with the thorny issue of the anti-Maimonidean rhetoric which emanated from Josef
Ibn Gabir’s home city, Baghdad. He referred to the fact “that some scholars
in Baghdad reject some of my decisions...” This is a reference to the
fierce opposition from the highly respected Samuel ben Ali, Gaon of Baghdad,
regarded as one of the most prominent Babylonian scholars of the 12th
century, and who was Rambam’s biggest detractor during his lifetime.
Although the
Gaonic period had officially ended by 1038, for the next two hundred years,
certain prominent rabbis were respectfully referred to by the title Gaon.
Ironically, in the case of Samuel ben Ali, he seemed to perpetuate some of the
lavish and pretentious practices of both the Gaonim and Exilarchs
of the previous era.
Samuel ben Ali was
very powerful and influential in the Jewish world. According to an account
by the traveller, Pethahiah of Regensburg:
"In the whole of
Assyria, in Damascus, in the towns of Persia and Media and in Babylon, they
have no dayyan [judge] except one assigned by Samuel, head of the
academy, and he appoints judges and teachers in every town."
Samuel ben Ali was not
averse to placing family members in positions of power either. He even provided
a teaching position for his daughter, said to have been a Talmudic scholar in
her own right. She taught “through a window of the building in which she
sat, the pupils outside below unable to see her.”[4]
Furthermore, his two
sons-in-law, Zechariah and Azariah[5]
were also both appointed to positions of power.
IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT:
Rambam had severely
criticised the nepotism and the sometimes forceful means of collection of
funding for scholars and academies which was often adopted by the Gaonim
and Exilarchs.
FINANCING AND
FUNDRAISING:
In fact, Rambam was even
against financial support to scholars in general who did not work but were full
time students.
Rambam wrote:
“For as we look into the [earlier] sayings
of the honorable sages, we do not find that they ask people for money, nor did
they collect money for the honorable and cherished academies.”[6]
TALMUD ONLY:
Additionally, Rambam
also disagreed with the approach of the Gaonic Yeshivot which had only one subject
in their curriculum - namely, Talmud study.
MISHNEH TORAH:
These criticisms were
not minor condemnations but were seen as threatening the very essence of
Judaism as was known and practised in those communities. It is, therefore, not hard
to understand why there was such opposition to Rambam who was regarded as an ideological threat to the mainstream, and who was disrupting the status quo.
It didn’t help matters
either when Rambam wrote his Mishneh Torah which - being a summary of
the entire Talmud - was seen as rather subversive in that it undermined the
ultimate authority of the rabbinic leadership. This was because ordinary people
themselves, could now easily consult the Mishneh Torah, written in
simple Hebrew, and have no need to confer with expert authorities. It even came
with perhaps the first example of an index to a Torah work.
IN DEFENCE OF RAMBAM:
Rambam was well aware
of his opposition in Baghdad by Samuel ben Ali and mentions it very politely:
“I have been
informed - although I do not know whether it is true - that there is in your
city somebody who speaks evil against me and tries to gain honor by
misrepresentation of my teaching.”
Rambam also knows how Josef Ibn Gabir had tried to
intervene in the controversy and defend him. This was actually the core reason
why Josef Ibn Gabir had originally asked Rambam to translate his Mishneh
Torah into Arabic – so that he could read it, arm himself with knowledge,
and support him:
“I have heard also
that you protested against this and reprimanded the slanderer.
Do not act in this
way!
I forgive everybody
who is opposed to me because of his lack of intelligence, even when he, by
opposing, seeks his personal advantage.”
And then Rambam adopts a ‘live and let live’ approach
when he writes:
“He [Samuel ben Ali] does
no harm to me…While he is pleased, I do not lose anything…
You trouble
yourself with useless quarrels, as I do not need the help of other men…”
THE ISSUE OF REVIVAL OF
THE DEAD:
A commonly held view at
that time, and still today, is that after the Messiah comes there will
ultimately be a state of Techiyat haMetim where the dead will arise
within their bodies.
Rambam adopted a slightly nuanced approach to that concept. [See What was Rambam’s Real
View on ‘The Revival of the Dead’?]
Rambam mentions this in
his letter:
“The statement you
have heard, namely, that I deny in my work the resurrection of the dead, is
nothing more than a malicious calumny.
He who asserted
this is either a wicked man who misrepresents my words, or an ignorant one who
does not understand my views on olam haba [the World to Come].
In order to make
impossible any further mistake or doubt, I have composed in the meantime a
special treatise on this subject...”[7]
IRRATIONAL BUT HARMLESS PERCEPTIONS:
Rambam turns a blind eye to certain irrational follies
which are entertained by the masses:
“It
will not harm you religiously to think that there are corporeal beings in the
world to come until you can establish rationally the authentic nature of their
existence.
Even
if you think that they eat, drink, propagate in the upper sphere or in the Gan
Eden, it will not hurt your faith.
There
are other more widespread doctrinal follies to which some cling and yet their
basic religious beliefs were not damaged.”
However, for those seeking a deeper understanding:
“...in
refutation of this notion, it is important to project the authentic
interpretation of the rabbinic statement "that there is no eating or
drinking in the world to come," from which we may deduce that there are no
corporeal beings...”
RESPONSUM:
The letter contains a
number of other unrelated issues as well and is regarded as a responsum on some
Halachic matters.
This letter is
important because it clarifies a previous contradiction within Rambam’s earlier
writing.
In Rambam’s Mishneh
Torah[8],
he writes that a person praying without a minyan should not recite
the kedushat yotzer (which is between barechu and shema).
In this letter, he
writes that it is permissible to recite it as it only records the kedusha which
is said by the angels but is not a kedusha in itself (like the kedusha
in the amidah).
Interestingly, Rambam’s
son was later to refer to a letter (probably this one) where his father had changed his mind from what he had previously written in Mishneh Torah![9]
THE MAIMONIDEAN BROTHERHOOD:
The letter contains some interesting terms of endearment
for Josef Ibn Gabir as well as for those who follow the rationalist path in
general. In one instance Rambam refers to Josef as ‘our brother’ and in
another place he writes:
“You
are my beloved pupil, and so are all those who are inclined to pursue zealously
the study of Torah and attempt to understand even one biblical verse or a
single halakhah.”
Thus Rambam - by alluding to a brotherhood - uses
terminology generally associated with mystical schools and refers to all those
who ‘attempt to understand’, as being part of a fraternity of intellectual searchers.
Those excluded from this brotherhood would be the
masses “who do not possess the capacity to reflect and who do not
concentrate on the roots of religion but [only] on its branches.”
SOURCES:
A Maimonides Reader, by I. Twersky.
A Letter by Rambam to a
Simple Jew, by Mitchell First.
A Responsum by
Maimonides; Maimonides' Rational Approach to Halakhic Problems, by Leon D. Stitskin.
[1]
See Y. Shailat, Iggerot Ha-Rambam, pp. 402-418.
[2]
This is omitted from the English translation, which
follows, as it is too cumbersome.
[3]
Translation from A Maimonides Reader by I. Twersky
[4] Pethahiah, p. 9f; L.
Greenhut (1905), 10.
[5]
There is some controversy as to whether these names got mixed up with each
other in a copyist’s error. Some believe that Samuel’s daughter was engaged to
Azariah who passed away before the marriage and then she subsequently married
Zechariah. Another view is that Samuel had two daughters who married scholars
by both names.
[6]
See Rambam’s commentary on Avot 4:7.
[7]
This treatise was known as Maamar Techiyat haMeitim and was written in
1191.
[8] Hilchot
Tefillah 7:17.
[9]
See Kesef Mishnah to 7:17.
No comments:
Post a Comment