531) Dialogues of Vision: How we view Maimonides and how he might view us (Part I)

R. Yihye Kafich (1850-1931), leader of the rationalist Yemenite group Dardaim.

Introduction

This two-part series series—based extensively on the research by Professor Marc B. Shapiro and Dr Micha Goodman—engages in a dialogue of vision: Part I examines how we view Maimonides and the reception of Maimonidean thought in rabbinic Judaism, particularly over the past two and a half centuries. Although arguably the greatest Jewish thinker, the rabbinic world has always had an ambivalent relationship with Maimonides, beginning with centuries of opposition—known as the Maimonidean Controversies—to a partial acceptance of selected writings of Maimonides only in relatively recent times. Part II turns the focus on its head and examines, theoretically, how Maimonides might view contemporary Judaism as we know it. 

How we view Maimonides

Enlightenment

Shapiro(2023:168) explains that over the last two and a half centuries, rabbinic interest has been resurgent in Maimonides, ironically as a result of the rise of the Enlightenment movement in late eighteenth-century Germany. Faced with increasing engagement with Maimonides’ philosophical writings by the maskilim (secular members of the Enlightenment), the rabbis formulated different responses to a renewed problem that—although always there—had lain dormant for so long. 

Turning to Maimonides for ideological precedents

Shapiro (2023:169) points out the anomaly of rabbis criticising Maimonides because, after all, he was “the most important of rabbinic authorities.” Rabbis had always turned to Maimonides in its moments of crisis and uncertainty, especially when confronted by new ideas and developments it had no Halachic precedents for. So, for example, at the moment in history when Evolution emerged in the public discourse, it turned to Maimonides for ways to deal with the age of the universe. Those rabbis who were prepared to accept a creation time that extended past six days drew on Maimonides. As if Maimonides had been waiting for this moment, he recorded his view that if science were to ever prove that the Biblical story of creation was not literal, he would interpret the first lines of Genesis in a non-literal manner (Guide for the Perplexed II:25). 

Later, when the world was consumed by the idea of space travel and extraterrestrial life, and people asked the rabbis what Judaism's view on the matter was, they again turned to Maimonides and his rejection of an anthropocentric view of the universe (Lamm 1965: 25–30, 35–36). 

Shadal (1800-1865)

Surprisingly, Shmuel David Luzzatto, or Shadal, with one foot in the rabbinic world and the other in the moderate branch of the Enlightenment, disparaged Maimonides. His criticism was not only directed against Maimonides’ philosophy, but also against his doctrinal approach of the Thirteen Principles and his innovative codification of the Law. This drew the ire of both the rabbinate and the Enlightenment. 

R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch (1808-1888)

Perhaps even more surprisingly, R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, who came to represent the moderate Orthodox camp, also attacked Maimonides, focusing on his philosophical works. Maimonides was accused of drawing too much from Aristotelian and rationalist Greek and Arabic sources, thereby undermining authentic Judaism (Shapiro 2015:122). 

R. Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935)

An Orthodox historian Ze’ev Jawitz (1847-1924), followed with similar criticism, and this drew R. Abraham Isaac Kook into the fray. Rav Kook underplayed the Greek influences on Maimonides and painted him as more of a traditional figure, with no great divide between his Halachic and philosophic writings. This was typical of Rav Kook, who, in his mystical worldview, perceived reality as unified and in harmony. 

R. Chaim  Soloveitchick of  Brisk (1853-1918)

R. Chaim  Soloveitchick of  Brisk was responsible for bringing Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah into the Lithuanian study halls. He introduced a new analytic approach to Talmud study, “and central to his system was the study of Maimonides” (Shapiro 2023:169).

It was R. Soloveitchick who effectively turned Maimonides’ Halachic and non-philosophical work, Mishneh Tohah, into a frequently consulted practical reference book and companion to the Talmud: 

“By doing so, he became the first to reveal the profundity of the Mishneh Torah in all of its grandeur” (Shapiro 2023:169). 

Furthermore, R. Soloveitchick changed the dynamics of the long-established practice to support Rabad (R. Abraham ben David, c.1125-1198) over Maimonides in their many Halachic disputes. Now, for the first time, more attention was given to Maimonides’ views and arguments, as R. Soloveitchick attempted to give equal time to both disputants and clarify their divergent positions. To this day, one cannot study a section of Talmud in Lithuanian-style yeshivot, without being aware of how “Maimonides codifies the relevant laws” (Shapiro 2023:169). 

Why were Maimonides’ other works excluded?

Shapiro notes that while Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah eventually made its way into the Orthodox world: 

“[i]t is perhaps a strange phenomenon that for all the stress on Maimonides, other than the Mishneh Torah his works have not been a focus in yeshivas” (Shapiro 2023:169). 

It may be understandable that the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) never became a contender for the beit midrash (study house) because of the rationalist Aristotelian philosophy it espouses. Surprisingly, though, even his more ‘neutral’ and ‘mainstream’ works, like his Commentary on the Mishna and his Responsa, never achieved the same acceptance as his Mishneh Torah after it was introduced by R. Soloveitchick. 

R. Chaim Soloveitchick’s grandson,  R. Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (1903-1993), tried to explain this unusual phenomenon, saying that once the Mishnah Torah had been publicised, introduced and accepted in the study houses by his grandfather, Maimonides was no longer its ‘owner.’ In other words, once the Mishnah Torah had been officially endorsed by R. Chaim Soloveitchick, it was no longer a ‘Maimonidean work,’ but it now belonged to the yeshiva world. Maimonides, the man, however, was not that welcome. 

This removal of the personality of Maimonides from his (carefully selected) work may be reflected in a remarkable example, where R. Chaim Soloveitchick used a Mishneh Torah text that Maimonides himself—in a Responsum—had declared to be mistaken, knowing full well that Maimonides had dismissed that very text as inaccurate and not what he wrote. Clearly, R. Chaim Soloveitchick regarded the: 

“Mishneh Torah as an independent work in which authorial intent was not the most important consideration…[and] it really did not matter if the text was historically correct, for it had appeared in print, had been studied for generations, and had been explained by prior commentators. This meant that even the ‘incorrect’ text had a Torah logic that had to be understood” (Shapiro 2023:170). 

Chabad selectively adopts Maimonides

Another group that has adopted selected Maimonidean works is Chabad. The Lubavitcher Rebbe (1902-1994) had even referred to himself as a Maimonidean, which he may have been, but in the Mishneh Torah (as opposed to the Aristotelian) sense. In 1984, he initiated a program to study Mishneh Torah daily, and for boys and girls to complete a cycle of Mishneh Torah. He: 

“raised the stature and the everyday presence of Maimonides to a height not seen before…[and gave him] a qualitative superiority to all other medieval sages” (Shapiro 2023:170). 

This emphasis continued to get stronger as the Lubavitcher Rebbe progressed through his life. He even broke away from ancient traditional representations of the curved Menorah, to one with distinctly straight diagonal arms, because a Maimonidean sketch, preserved by his son Avraham, depicts it so. Some have argued that the illustration represented a schematic drawing not meant to be interpreted literally. However, Rashi (on Exodus 25:23) also seems to imply that the lines of the Menorah were straight and angular (לְכָאן וּלְכָאן בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן). 

The Rebbe also promoted the notion of geocentrism, with the earth at the centre and the heavens revolving around it. Geocentrism had been the dominant model for over 1,500 years until it was replaced by heliocentrism in the sixteenth century. Shapiro suggests that the Rebbe most likely took the view of Maimonides, who had embraced this ancient notion of geocentism going back to Aristotle. The Rebbe, however, never seemed to cite Maimonides on this matter, but he did claim that after Einstein’s notion of relativity, geocentrism was as legitimate as heliocentrism. It is interesting to note, however, that Maimonides did caution us not to take the science of the Talmud seriously because it was only based on the science of the time and was not meant to reflect the truth or the authentic Jewish tradition. 

“Yet the Rebbe’s position was that everything included in the Mishneh Torah should be regarded as part of Torah truth, rather than as reflecting transitory scientific knowledge” (Shapiro 2023:171). 

After the Rebbe’s passing, many (perhaps most) of his followers continued to believe that he was the Messiah. The particularly messianic group within Chabad, ironically, found support for the Rebbe’s messiahship—even after his death—in the Rebbe’s respected Mishneh Torah, because: 

“[f]ortunately for them, Maimonides had left an opening: he did not actually write ‘if the messiah dies,’ [then he is disqualified from messiahship] but [only] ‘if the messiah is killed’” (Shapiro 2023:171). 

This, they believed, was girded and confirmed by an observation by the Rebbe himself that no rabbinic authorities had ever disagreed with Maimonides’ description of the stages of the messianic redemption. 

The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s views on the Guide for the Perplexed, however, were very simple: “the Guide was an apologetic work that did not reflect Maimonides’s true views” (Sapiro 2023:171). There is no question that Chabad was entirely opposed to Maimonides’ notion in the Guide, that Divine Providence (Hashgacha) is limited to those humans of exceptional intellect and calibre. To make matters worse, the translator of the Guide (from the original Arabic to Hebrew), Shmuel Ibn Tibbon, claimed that Maimonides was pressured by public opinion to officially submit to at least a minimalist acknowledgement of Providence in his Guide, but that he himself never believed that to be true. He claimed that Maimonides had simply written that Providence only existed for intelligent humans, to “delude the masses” and to keep his true personal views—that there was no Providence—to himself [see: Kotzk Blog: 528) Rationalism, Mysticism and Binitarianism].  

Micha Goodman describes Astrology as an egocentric impulse because all the heavenly spheres are perceived as being there for the individual. He says, rather sharply, that if one takes an egocentric impulse and turns it into science, it becomes Astrology. In a similar vein, if one takes an egocentric impulse and turns it into religion, it becomes Providence (Hashgach Peratit). In other words, he suggests that a lower level of religious thinking always turns the focus to the individual and to what they can get out of the system (even if they become more learned, ethical and ennobled by it through extra study and practice in the attempt to turn the scales of Providence toward them). He argues that a higher religious awareness, however, takes the individual out of the picture and promotes the notion, not that G-d is thinking about the individual, but that he individual is thinking about G-d (Goodman 2015:1:11). 

R. Yosef Kafich and the rationalist Yemenites (Dardaim)

R. Yosef Kafich (1917-2000) was an important translator (from the Arabic) of Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, which, surprisingly again, had been ignored for centuries. He also translated the Guide for the Perplexed, some of Maimonides’ letters, and wrote a commentary on the Mishneh Torah. His grandfather, R. Yihye Kafich (1850-1931), had founded an unusual movement of rationalist Yemenite Jews who followed Maimonides. The Yemenites had originally mostly been rationalist followers of Maimonides (d. 1204) until they fell under the influence of the Kabbalists (Zohar was published in 1290). The small group of Maimonidean followers that remained had always regarded Kabbalah as a Jewish superstition. 

R. Yosef Kafich wrote that a Jew should not only study Torah but all wisdom as well, because: 

“[F]or Maimonides, a variety of fields of wisdom are necessary for one to be brought to the knowledge, and thus love, of God. Far from being ‘secular,’ these subjects are to be regarded as ‘holy’” (Shapiro 2023:172). 

R. Kafich makes it clear that much of contemporary Judaism is at odds with basic Maimonidean thought, because it has been overwhelmingly influenced by mystical Judaism. These differences play out in some extreme examples—like Providence—but are also evident in the smaller details of popular Judaism. R. Kafich points out that Maimonides forbade praying or even the recitation of Psalms at a cemetery, as it may inspire superstitious beliefs or imaginations. This is clearly in stark contradistinction to practices at all Jewish funerals today. 

Another example is the commemoration of a yartzeit (anniversary of the passing of a loved one). Today, this is universally observed by the recitation of Kaddish and other practices. But because Maimonides never mentioned this practice in his writings, R. Kafich maintains that on such a yartzeit: 

“nothing should be done…once again placing a Maimonidean intellectual Judaism at odds with what we can call popular Judaism” (Shapiro 2023:172). 

This also confronts the popular notion of commemorating the day and wishing the relative, “der neshoma zol hoben an aliyah,” that the soul should experience a spiritual elevation in the heavenly realms. Maimonides had said that the only part of the person to persist after death is the sechel, or knowledge that they had acquired while on this earth. In the Maimonidean sense, the intellect was the soul. 

Conclusion to Part I

Shapiro has demonstrated that, contrary to popular perceptions, Maimonides’ literature has not always been at the forefront of the rabbinic world. His writings only really began to circulate within rabbinic circles two hundred and fifty years ago, and only as a response to a resurgence in Maimonidean interest initiated by the Enlightenment. Intriguingly, it was not only his rationalist Guide for the Perplexed that was generally ignored, but also his mainstream works, like his Commentary on the Mishna and his Responsa, that never achieved the popularity one might have expected. It was only his Mishneh Torah that began to receive preeminence in the Torah world, mainly due to the efforts of R. Chaim Soloveitchick and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. 

In Part I, we looked at how the traditional rabbinic world viewed Maimonides. In Part II, we will continue the “Dialogues of Vision” and turn the tables, and look at how Maimonides might theoretically view contemporary Judaism through the lens of his radical thought..