 |
| Professor Paul B. Fenton from the Sorbonne - an authority on Geniza manuscripts. |
MAIMONIDEAN CONTROVERSIES PART IV:
INTRODUCTION:
It is always fascinating to see how new documents -
concerning earlier rabbinic periods we thought we knew - surface from time to
time, reminding us that rabbinic personalities, themes and ideas are never
stagnant.
This is the story of the discovery of historical documents describing,
first hand, events and counter events relating and contemporaneous to
Maimonides (1135-1204).
I have drawn extensively from the research[1]
of Professor Paul B. Fenton, Co-Director of Hebrew studies at the Université Paris-Sorbonne
and an authority on Medieval Hebrew and Arabic manuscripts. He is a graduate of
Yeshivat Eitz Chaim and has also taught at Yeshiva University.
PART
I:
THE
STORY:
Just
over a century ago, the German Orientalist[2]
Eugen Mittwoch (1876-1942) published a text found in the Cairo Geniza. It was a unique description
of Maimonides by an unknown contemporary who lived in Cairo in around 1200.
Mittwoch had purchased the original text in Cairo during his visit to that city in 1899, just three
years after the discovery of Cairo Geniza.
For
some reason, at that time the text attracted scant attention from the scholarly
world.
Mittwoch was a professor at Berlin University and despite the Nazi rise
to power, he managed to eventually escape to England. During the turmoil, this
text was lost.
Almost
seventy years later - in 2004 – Professor Paul Fenton was analysing texts from
the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem. These texts were
from the little-known Sofer Collection in London, which includes some Geniza
fragments.
One
text caught his eye. Amazingly, Fenton recognized the distinctive 800-year-old
handwriting of R. Chananel ben Shmuel al-Amshati the Judge (circa 1170-1250),
from his previous study of other Geniza fragments.
The
text that Fenton was reading was a contemporary description of, and testimony
about, Maimonides – and Fenton soon realized that he had re-discovered the
original lost Mittwoch manuscript which went missing during the Nazi era. It had somehow made its way into the Sofer Collection - only now the author was no longer unknown but identified as R. Chananel al-Amshati.
THE
MITTWOCH MANUSCRIPT:
The
Mittwoch manuscript is an important one as it was written by R. Chananel who was
in very close contact with Maimonides and it reveals some of his personal details.
It also sheds light on the Egyptian origins of what was to become the great
Maimonidean Controversies – and particularly on the stirrings of the objections
to Maimonides’ interest in Philosophy.
The
Mittwoch manuscript was just a part of a larger emerging collection of texts
describing the polarization of the Egyptian Jewish community into supporters of
Maimonides and fierce opponents. Surprisingly many of the opponents were close
members of Maimonides’ own family. From this and other Geniza documents, we get a picture of protest movements
beginning to take root in both directions - for and against Maimonides.
PART
II:
THE
TEXTS:
THE
PROTEST MOVEMENT AGAINST AVRAHAM BEN HARAMBAM:
A
Geniza document[3] describes the formation of
a protest movement in favour of Maimonides but against Maimonides’ son, Avraham
ben haRambam, and his growing camp which had mystical tendencies and was involved
in a form of Jewish Sufism.
Fenton
writes:
“Maimonides’ descendants were the champions of this
Judaeo-Sufi tendency.”
In
this document, we are introduced to the important figure, R. Chananel al-Amshati,
mentioned earlier. R. Chananel is described as supporting Avraham ben haRambam
and his mystical Sufi circle. Fenton shows how R. Chananel composed his own
mystical writings in stark contrast to the rationalist and philosophical
teachings of Maimonides. There is no question that R. Chananel was a mystic and an ardent anti-rationalist.
The document also reveals a telling piece of information
that both R. Chananel and Avraham ben haRambam together attended the posthumous
sale of the personal library of a fellow member of this Egyptian mystical Sufi circle,
R. Avraham heChasid who passed away in 1223. This sale (or auction?) took place
in the Palestinian Synagogue in Cairo, and was even attended by prospective
Muslim buyers, which bespeaks the Sufi connection.
THE PROTEST MOVEMENT AGAINST MAIMONIDES:
The larger and more formidable protest movements, however, were
against Maimonides and were led by Maimonides’ son, Avraham ben haRambam and R.
Chananel.
WHO WAS R. CHANANEL?
Members of the mystical group of Avraham ben haRambam received
the title ‘heChasid’. R. Chananel also received that appellation as he
is referred to as R. Chananel heChasid haDayan, clearly indicating he was a
prominent member of the mystical group.
R.
Chananel was the Chief Judge of Cairo and possibly the father-in-law of Avraham
ben haRambam. This would have made him an in-law to Maimonides himself.[4]
Maimonides makes reference to a certain ‘pious judge’
(haDayan heChasid) in three instances in his letters, and it is likely
that he was referring to R. Chananel.[5]
R. Chananel was very close to Maimonides. Fenton suggests that around 1200, R.
Chananel was commissioned to copy part of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed
for R. Yosef Ibn Shamun. R. Chananel, also having an Andalusian[6]
handwriting style[7]
would have been well suited to deciphering Maimonides’ distinctive Andalusian
cursive.
R. CHANANEL AL-AMSHATI BECOMES MAIMONIDES’ FIRST
COMMENTATOR:
R. Chananel, becomes the first commentator on Maimonides’, and
the albeit sparse record of his writings are largely concerned with his
commentary on Maimonides’ Mishneh
Torah.
R. CHANANEL BECOMES AN ARDENT OPPONENT OF MAIMONIDES:
But R. Chananel also becomes one of Maimonides’ first
outspoken opponents.
Fenton is quick to point out that although R. Chananel copied
Maimonides’ writings and commentated on his texts, he was far from a devoted adherent
to Maimonides’ thoughts and philosophies. In fact, quite to the contrary, as
evidenced by R. Chananel writing his own version of Sefer haMitzvot
(originally penned by Maimonides). He also parts ways with Maimonides on a
number of issues including the counting of the commandments (i.e., which
commandments are officially included within the 613 mitzvot).
It seems that he chose the same title for the work as Maimonides in order to outdo him.
Fenton explains that whereas Maimonides was often concise,
R. Chananel:
“...provides a fully-fledged
exposition for each mizvah, involving a definition of the precept, its
scriptural source, its rabbinic sources, its sub-categories, and a full
halakhic discussion of the topic.”
Additionally, R. Chananel took issue with Maimonides’
reliance on philosophy and rationalism, as Fenton writes:
“...for fear that its study
may lead the uninitiated into irreligion and heresy.”
Thus R. Chananel’s ideas were clearly at odds with those of
Maimonides on so many levels.
The more we read about R. Chananel, the more we see that he
emerges as an outright opponent of Maimonides.
R. Chananel does not neglect to
remind us that Maimonides’ own father - R. Maymun - was also opposed to the
study of philosophy and rationalism.
According to a text found in the Cairo Geniza:
“[Maimonides’] father, our
master Maymun...had never delved into these [philosophical or rational]
disciplines, not even for a day, despite his [having]...beheld the discourse of
the compositions of our Master [Maimonides][8].”[9]
This indicates that Maimonides’ father refused to even read the
philosophical writings of his own son.
CRITICISM OF MAIMONIDES’ VIEW ON PROVIDENCE:
R. Avraham ben haRambam joins in the opposition and writes
how he opposes philosophy and how he disagrees with, amongst many other issues,
his father’s view on Providence where Maimonides flirts with the idea that G-d
does not always actively control everything.
Between Avraham ben haRambam and R. Chananel we now have the
rumblings of what was to become a strong anti-Maimonidean movement in Egypt.
These were the beginnings of two very distinct movements within Judaism which
would shape much of its future debate and scholarship: the mystics versus the
rationalists.
R. Chananel unambiguously takes the side of the Judaeo-Sufis
and mystics of Egypt. He aligns himself with Avraham ben haRambam who writes:
“God has enabled (the true
adherents of the Law who have grasped its secret meaning), to understand by
means of His Law what the scientists and philosophers do not understand, and He
has established for them, by means of His signs and miracles, proof for what
the latter deny apropos His knowledge...of particulars and His regard for the
conditions of men and His personal providence for every individual
person...just as He provides for every individual species among the species of
nature...”[10]
This is a very significant piece of writing because it shows
how Maimonides made a distinction between Hashgacha Peratit (where G-d is
said to take care of every single individual down to the most minuscule detail)
and Hashgacha Kelalit (where G-d is said to take care only of the
general species in the broadest of terms).
Some question whether Maimonides applied the principle of Hashgacha
Kelalit to humans or only to the non-human species within nature[11].
From Avraham ben haRambam’s writings, it is apparent that he believed his father sometimes applied Hashgacha Kelalit even to humans.
This was obviously a point of great contention because
Avraham ben haRambam wrote on the same issue in another work:
“Aristotle [whose teachings
influenced Maimonides]...considered...the Creator to be ignorant of particulars
and suchlike [in other words Aristotle and by extension Maimonides negated the
principle of Hashgacha Peratit][12],
and therefore...just as he is mistaken in these beliefs, so is he mistaken in
all his statements.”[13]
CRITICISM OF MAIMONIDES’ VIEW OF PROPHECY:
Fenton also discovered another relevant but anonymous text
which harshly criticises Maimonides’ view on prophecy which, again, is
typically downplayed by him (Maimonides).
Maimonides believed that:
"[A]ll prophecy is a function of the prophet's divinely inspired imagination. Every appearance of God and His surrogates in Scripture is to be understood as an imaginative construction, not to be taken literally. The events depicted did not occur other than in the prophet's imagination." [19]
The text, from the Firkovic Collection, criticizes that view and states:
Maimonides believed that:
"[A]ll prophecy is a function of the prophet's divinely inspired imagination. Every appearance of God and His surrogates in Scripture is to be understood as an imaginative construction, not to be taken literally. The events depicted did not occur other than in the prophet's imagination." [19]
The text, from the Firkovic Collection, criticizes that view and states:
“Goodness, how weak is their
[the school of Maimonides] statement but how great its harm to the soul!
Had
they just stated that...God transmits his influence to his saints in a manner
whose essence we mortals do not know, their claim would have had a more
salutary effect upon the soul...
However, they have led men astray...”[14]
ORIGINS OF ANTI-PHILOSOPHY TENDENCIES:
Fenton describes the historical influences behind the rise
in anti-Maimonidean sentiment:
“The anti-philosophical stand
of Maimonides’ close successors must be seen in the light of the change of intellectual climate in the wake of the decline of philosophy in the Muslim
world and, in the immediate case of Egypt, the vigorous spread of Sufism in
that land, and its hostility towards profane science and philosophy.”
MAIMONIDES TURNS TO SOUTHERN FRANCE FOR SUPPORT:
In a profoundly moving letter from Maimonides to R. Yonatan
haCohen of Lunel in southern France - which became a bastion of Maimonidean
support - he writes:
“My colleagues at this
difficult time, you and those that reside in your region are the only ones that
hold aloft the banner of Moses[15].
While you study the Talmud, you cultivate the other sciences, whereas here in
the East [i.e., Egypt][16],
men of wisdom diminish and disappear. Thus salvation will only come to us
through you.”[17]
THE ANTI-MAIMONIDEAN MOVEMENT GROWS:
Just nineteen years after Maimonides’ passing, Daniel Ibn
al-Mashati haBavli joins the large anti-Maimonidean movement and writes that
Maimonides had created an 'alternate Torah'. Daniel Ibn al-Mashati advocated a
return to mysticism which he called ‘Chasidut’ and an abandonment of the
evils of Maimonidean philosophy.
Daniel al-Mashati writes:
“[Maimonides decided to give]
an allegorical interpretation to the words of the Torah so that they would be
in keeping with philosophical speculation. Thus he interpreted the biblical and
rabbinic texts in an unprecedented manner, expressly stating that he had
derived the latter from his own mind and had not learned them from a master. He
paid no attention to the beliefs and explanations current among the nation...
Verily the Torah has become as
two laws indicating a divergency which goes beyond the gap between each’s
beliefs, its negative opinion of the other and its attribution to them of
ignorance and heresy.”[18]
This sharp piece of writing underscores the vitriol which
was to become the hallmark of the growing Maimonidean Controversies.
ANALYSIS:
Were it not for the discovery of such revealing texts from
the Cairo Geniza, we may never have fully understood the genesis of the
Maimonidean Controversies in Egypt.
The theological schism which began within the confines of
Maimonides’ own family, overflowed to, and was reflected in, the rivalry
between the rationalists and Judaeo-Sufis of Egypt.
It then spread to the West
manifesting in a universal controversy between the philosophers and mystics in
general. That great theological controversy continues to this day.
As we see particularly in the last text (by Daniel al-Mashati), Maimonides is accused of bringing a foreign, non-Jewish
element to Judaism, which had no precedent whatsoever within previous rabbinic
thought, and which he did not ‘learn from a (Jewish) master’.
He is accused of ignoring an imagined authoritative mainstream
which was determined solely on the basis of ‘current’ Jewish thought and
not on the basis of historical investigation.
[For an example of possible earlier rabbinic precedents for Maimonidean theology, see Two
Diverse Midrashic Conceptions of G-d.]
And, most importantly, he is accused of irreconcilably creating
‘two laws’ - or two religions - from what was presented as having
been an alleged long continuum of monolithic and homogenous theology but was
instead only extrapolated from the then ‘current’ trends.
A student of contemporary Judaism, who understands how these
undercurrents continue to play out today, will immediately recognize that not
much has changed since them.
For
more on the Maimonidean Controversies, see:
[1]
Paul B. Fenton, A Re-Discovered Description of Maimonides by a Contemporary.
[2] An
Orientalist is defined as someone from the West who studies the language,
culture, history or customs of countries in eastern Asia.
[3]
See Goitein as in previous note.
[4]
However, in one Geniza document, R. Chananel is referenced as being the
father-in-law to Maimonides: S. D, Goitein, New documents from the Cairo
Geniza, p. 717. It has also been suggested the R. Chananel may have been a
student of Maimonides: M. Friedman, The Family of Ibn al-Amshati, p. 271-297.
This is evidenced by details of R. Chananel attending lectures by Maimonides.
[5]
However, D. Baneth identifies the ‘pious judge’ with R. Yitzchak ben Sasson, a
permanent member of Rambam’s Beit Din.
[6]
Andalusia is the historical region of southern Spain.
[7]
Even though R. Chananel’s family had been in Egypt for four generations, it is
common for Maghrebi (North-Western African) Jews, known as Magrebim, to proudly
have held on to their distinctive handwriting style. The Jews of Andalusia
adopted the Maghrebi style of handwriting.
[8]
Parentheses mine.
[9]
London, Collection Soffer, Geniza 29.
[10]
Abraham Maimonides, High Ways to Perfection, ed. Rosenblatt, vol. II, 133.
[11]
Maimonides’ writings in Mishneh Torah often contradict his writings in his
Guide of the Perplexed, so there is some uncertainty in this matter. (See Mishneh Torah, Hilchot
Ta'anit 1:1-3.)
[12]
Parentheses mine.
[13]
Abraham Maimonides, Ma’amar al Darshot Chazal, in R. Margulies Milchamot Hashem
(Jerusalem 1953), 86.
[14]
P. Fenton, Criticism of Maimonides in a Pietist Text from the Genizah, Ginzey
Qedem 1 (2005): 158-160.
[15] This
may be a reference to the biblical Moses but it is more likely a reference to Moses
Maimonides himself.
[16]
Parenthesis mine.
[17]
Iggerot haRambam, ed. Y. Shailat vol. II (Jerusalem 1987) p. 559.
[18]
Taqwim al-adyan. 2nd Firkovic Collection I. 3132, Fols. 76b-77a.
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library.
[19] Alfred L. Ivri, The Weight of Midrash on Rashi and Maimonides, p. 314.
[19] Alfred L. Ivri, The Weight of Midrash on Rashi and Maimonides, p. 314.
No comments:
Post a Comment