 |
| Ateret Zekeinim (Crown of the Elders): Abravanel's first main work defending the negative image of the biblical elders. |
Part 1
Introduction
There is a
fundamental difference of opinion between Maimonides (Rambam, 1135-1204) and
Abravanel (1437-1508) as to who is entitled to lead the Jewish people.
According to Rambam, it is Moshe (or the relative equivalent in subsequent
generations, which we shall refer to as the “rabbis”); and according to
Abravanel, it is the representatives of the people (which we shall refer to as
the “elders”).
This article is based extensively on the research by Cedric Cohen-Skalli[1] although the adaptation of this debate to modern times is my own.
Abravanel
challenges Rambam
In the 1460s,
while Abravanel was still in his twenties, he completed his first work entitled
Ateret Zekeinim, or Crown of the Elders. Although a young man,
Abravanel was already well established within the political and business world
of his milieu.
Ateret Zekeinim was an audacious attempt at redeeming the image of the biblical “elders of Israel” whom Rambam (and other commentators from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) had described in very negative terms. The whole argument centred around the interpretation of an unusual text from Exodus 24:9-11:
וַיַּ֥עַל מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְאַהֲרֹ֑ן נָדָב֙ וַאֲבִיה֔וּא וְשִׁבְעִ֖ים מִזִּקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
וַיִּרְא֕וּ אֵ֖ת אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְתַ֣חַת רַגְלָ֗יו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה֙ לִבְנַ֣ת הַסַּפִּ֔יר וּכְעֶ֥צֶם הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם לָטֹֽהַר׃
וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א שָׁלַ֖ח יָד֑וֹ וַֽיֶּחֱזוּ֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים וַיֹּאכְל֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתּֽוּ׃
“Then Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up; and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God and did eat and drink.”
Rambam’s
interpretation of the elders who “saw the G-d of Israel”:
There
are a number of questions one could ask about these verses. Were the “seventy
elders of Israel” the same as the “nobles of Israel”? And what did
the nobles do that seems to imply that only by the grace of G-d did He not lay His
hands upon them?
Rambam
explains that the nobles erred in their general attituded towards spirituality
as well as their comprehension of G-d who they viewed as a corporeal or almost
physical being. This was based on their very physical impression of the “paved
sapphire stone” which was under “His feet”, which, in Rambam’s view,
was somewhat immature and amateurish in ascribing such imagery to G-d.
In
his Guide of the Perplexed, Rambam explains how one cannot rush into matters of
the spirit. He quotes Aristotle, who he calls the “chief of the philosophers”
who demanded a slow and mature approach, particularly when it came to obscure
matters. Rambam writes:
“In the same way we say that man should not hasten too much to
accede to this great and sublime matter at the first try, without having made
his soul undergo training in the sciences and the different kinds of knowledge,
having truly improved his character, and having extinguished the desires and
cravings engendered in him by his imagination…..
When doing this he should not make categoric affirmations in favor
of the first opinion that occurs to him and should not, from the outset, strain
and impel his thoughts toward the apprehension of the deity; he rather should
feel awe and refrain and hold back until he gradually elevates himself.”[2]
Rambam
then applies this principle of adopting a slow and thorough approach to Moshe so
as to contrast his approach with that of the elders:
“It is in this sense that it is said, And Moses hid his face,
for he was afraid to look upon God; this being an additional meaning of the
verse over and above its external meaning that indicates that he hid his face
because of his being afraid to look upon the light manifesting itself—and not
that the deity, who is greatly exalted above every deficiency, can be
apprehended by the eyes.”[3]
Moshe
did not rush to “look upon” G-d, instead he “hid his face”. Technically,
he hid his face not from G-d, but rather from the manifestation of G-d.
Cohen-Skalli (2021:57) explains this “manifestation” as representing a state
where temporarily Moshe’s “actualized intellect conjoined with the
transcendent intellect of God.” There was no “vision” as such. It was an “intellectual
progress” that was “limited and must be taken gradually”.
But
this was not the case when it came to the elders. Rambam paints a very negative
image of the elders who were not prepared to take this gradual path. They
wanted to “see” a “vision” of G-d. Rambam continues:
“The nobles of the children of Israel, on the other hand, were
overhasty, strained their thoughts, and achieved apprehension, but only an
imperfect one. Hence it is said of them: And they saw the God of Israel, and
there was under His feet, and so on and not merely: And they saw the God of
Israel. For these words are solely intended to present a criticism of their act
of seeing, not to describe the manner of their seeing. Thus, they were solely
blamed for the form that their apprehension took inasmuch as corporeality
entered into it to some extent—this being necessitated by their overhasty
rushing forward before they had reached perfection. They deserved to perish.”[4]
The
reason why Rambam is so severe in his statement that “they deserved to
perish” is because, in his view, the elders transgressed the cardinal
principle of corporeality believing that G-d could be “seen”. Yet, although
they erred, in this case, G-d is said to have “laid not His hand” on the elders.
Abravanel’s
rejection of Rambam’s depiction of the elders
Abravanel
was not happy with the negative manner in which Rambam described the elders. He
believed Rambam’s interpretation was too elitist. By demanding a long slow
process to mature the mind of the believer means that most people are going to
be excluded. The process Rambam describes is monarchical in character because
it only allows for:
“one prophet, Moses, and a small number of worthy philosophers
[who] stand at its pinnacle” (Cohen-Skalli 2012:58).
Abravanel’s
Ateret Zekeinim begins with a strong rejection of Rambam’s
philosophically exclusive view of Moshe as the representative of the average
people:
“I have heard the slander of the many, those skilled in
knowledge and learned in sciences, the old [authorities] and the new, they who
slander the good and righteous people, the elders of the people and its
enforcers—those people who prophesized in the camp, who saw the face of the
King, and saw beneath his feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone. They
[the exegetes] have issued evil slander (vayotzi’u dibatam ra‘ah), saying that
they cursed God in their hearts, and did secretly those things that were
neither right nor proper, and they erred in their sight and exchanged their
glory, the glory of God with a silent idol of stone, diamonds, sapphire, and
gemstones.”[5]
Abravanel
claims that rabbis like Rambam, “skilled in knowledge” slandered the
biblical elders and he seems upset that Rambam rejected their corporeal
perception of G-d. Abravanel then begins to build up a counter interpretation
in favour of the elders and nobles of Israel:
“I, Isaac, son of the prince Don Judah Abravanel, a pure
Sephardic Jew, have been very zealous for the honor of the nobles of the
children of Israel and I could not stand the oppression wherewith many of the
older and newer . . . sages oppress them. And I said the time has come to make
my own offering, to offer some balm for their mortal wounds, and some honey for
their clusters of bitterness, to write upon a scroll the explanation of their
apprehension [of God], that no blemishes were upon them and their knowledge was
lofty…”[6]
Cohen-Skalli
(2021:60) suggests that Abravanel the statesman and treasurer to king Alfonso V
of Portugal reminds his readers of his own titles “prince” and “don”,
and intentionally “blurs the lines” between his own lineage and the biblical
nobles. This way Abravanel sets himself, and other communal and economic court leaders
like him, on a relative and comparative par with the biblical nobles he intends
to defend:
“Abravanel linked restoring the status of the Israelite nobles
to his own exegetical accomplishments as well as to the construction of his
intellectual identity.”
In
other words, Abravanel is trying to change the socio-economic and religious
leadership status quo as established by philosophical leaders like Rambam. Now,
not only can the philosophically elite undertake positions of Jewish communal
leadership as they did in the past, but political and economic leaders too can
step up to the plate.
Abravanel
knows full well that his approach is daring and provocative. He is a “merchant”
and a politician and he is challenging the well-respected Rambam:
“I was afraid because I am naked, without the clothes of wisdom.
. . . I have already been cast out from study [contemplation] and become a
fugitive and wanderer on the earth, now in the streets, now in the market, I go
about with the merchants. . . . And the men who persecuted the nobles and
leaders of the people are the heroes of old, especially . . . Maimonides.
Therefore, all those who hear me will laugh at me, they shall curl their lips and
shake their heads. They shall say ‘who is this who dares to defy renowned
warriors of God, who is this who seeks to slay Moses [Maimonides][7]!?’”[8]
Abravanel
thus introduces his new vision of future Jewish leadership and it clashes with
the traditional Maimonidean model. It becomes a battle between “the Torah
scholar and philosopher and that of the learned merchant and court Jew”
Cohen-Skalli (2021:61).
One must remember, though that the Rambam was also very much at home in the palace
of the Sultan and also pursued worldly ambitions but he still identified with
Moses as the model of Jewish leadership. Abravanel identifies instead with
secondary biblical figures like the elders and nobles who belonged to the same
social structure as he did.
For
Rambam, the nation was founded upon the exemplary leadership of “a single
prophet standing aloof from the people”, while for Abravanel “the nation
is not the product of an intellectual elite’s prophecy” (Cohen-SKalli
2021:72).
Abravanel
seems to have been attracted to Yehuda Halevi’s (1075-1141) teaching in the Kuzari,
that in Judaism the prophet is not the starting point of the people to whom the
nation is beholden – instead, the prophet is the product of, and predicated
upon, the entire entity of the Jewish people.
Abravanel
would have used this principle to try and demolish the Maimonidean model of
leadership which was “top-down”, and replace it with a new model “bottom-up”
where the appointed or elected officials are seen to be the worthiest of
leadership positions.
Part 2
Echoes of the debate today?
In a
recent article appearing in the Jerusalem Post,
entitled “Breaking Israel's haredi autonomy…” a similar debate (although
obviously, the circumstances are different) seems to be playing out. Rabbinic
Chareidi leaders from Chassidic, Lithuanian and Sephardi communities, such as
the Vizhnitzer Rebbe, the Rosh Yeshiva of Mir, the Shas Torah Sages Council and
the Rosh Yeshiva of Porat Yosef, all sat together in a meeting with
Communications Minister Yoaz Hendel.
What
was unique about this gathering was that usually such meetings take place in the
courts of the esteemed rabbis where the ministers are very much invited guests.
Here it was the other way around and the tables were turned:
Instead, Hendel was at the head of the table, and the rabbis were
his guests at the Communications Ministry. In addition, Hendel is an observant
Jew, who keeps Shabbat and kosher but chooses not to wear a kippah on weekdays,
and in his meeting with the rabbis, he was bareheaded as usual.
And rather than ask the rabbis for their advice or their blessing,
Hendel addressed them like equals.
Hendel
told the Chareidi leaders that:
“’I feel comfortable sitting with you and respect you very much,
but I feel comfortable telling you that I care about my children just like you
care about your children.’”
He
later said:
“’…They talked about how the education of their kids is important
for them – as if for us it’s not that important.’”
He wanted them to know that:
“’I also have a
philosophical view; I also have ideas…
I say Israel is the place of Jews from all over the world and I
cannot accept the idea that there is a monopoly of Judaism that only belongs to
the haredi community…
My wagon is full of the Talmud, Jewish heritage, Jewish sources,
and in the same wagon I also have [poets] Bialik and Rachel and Leonard Cohen
and other Jewish creators... When I served in the Israeli Navy SEALS, I was no
less determined than a yeshiva [student] learning from morning until night…
What I’m trying to say, in the subtext, is that you cannot think
about yourselves as the only determined people in Israel. And yes, I am willing
to have this discussion, but in an equal way…
We have to agree that there are no autonomies in Israel.’”
Of
course, there was a huge outcry against Hendel with some like United Torah
Judaism MK Moshe Gafni comparing him to a “paritz” (an Eastern European
landowner of old) and saying:
“’A minister in the government spoke with such arrogance and
audacity to rabbis who have thousands and thousands of families standing behind
them, who accept their authority.’”
Analysis
This
recent debate was essentially over who has the right and authority to speak for
the Jews in Israel. Is it the rabbinic leader (if it is, the question becomes
which one?) or is it the elected official?
Allowing for some poetic license, one
wonders whether Abravanel and his stance against Rambam, where the designated
or elected elder is held to be the acceptable model of government instead of a
system dominated by a single “prophet” - democracy over theocracy - still has
some resonance today?
[1] Cohen-Skalli, C., 2021, Don Isaac Abravanel: An Intellectual Biography, Translated by Avi Kallenbach, Brandeis University Press.
[2] Guide of the
Perplexed (Pines) 1:29.
[3] Guide 1:29.
[4] Guide 1:30.
[5] Ateret Zekeinim, Preface 27, translation by Cohen-Skalli.
[7] Parenthesis
mine.
[8] Ateret
Zekeinim, Preface,
28-29.
No comments:
Post a Comment