524) Editing Jewish texts: Between reverence and revision

 

Shem haGedolim by R. Chaim David Azulai, known as the Chida (1724-1806).

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Dr Oded Cohen[1]—examines the challenges facing editors of religious Jewish texts. It deals with two very different editors and separated by six hundred years, yet who faced similar tasks and scrutiny. 

The first editor is the Maskil of the Enlightenment movement, Isaac Benjacob (1801-1863), who edited the Shem haGedolim of the R. Chaim David Azulai, known as the Chida (1724-1806). 

The second is Maimonides, who—though not an editor of the Babylonian Talmud in the conventional sense—systematically distilled its legal rulings into his Mishneh Torah, the ground-breaking code that stripped away dialectical debate in favour of a clear, authoritative Halachic structure. 

501) Were some early Spanish Kabbalists defending a Maimonidean position?

An image believed to be that of R. Yitzchak the Blind occupied with the Sefirot

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Tzahi Weiss[1] ꟷ examines an interesting and unusual approach to understanding how thirteenth-century Kabbalah suddenly emerged in Provence (southern France) and Catalonia (northeastern Spain). With this emergence, there was now a rapid interest in, and wide reception of, the notion of Sefirot (Divine emanations). Although the term ‘Sefirot’ was used in the earlier mystical work of the Bahir, it suddenly took on a specific meaning in thirteenth-century Spanish Zoharic Kabbalah. 

Weiss, a professor of Jewish mysticism, offers a unique interpretation as to why the Spanish Kabbalists reworked and redefined the older existing notion of Sefirot.  While the Spanish Kabbalists are usually depicted as radical mystics in direct conflict with Maimonidean rationalism ꟷ Weiss fascinatingly sees these Kabbalists as having more in common with some aspects of Maimonides’ Halachic writings (Mishneh Torah) and his philosophical writings (Moreh Nevuchim or Guide for the Perplexed) than usually imagined!

461) Maimonides unplugged

 

Recently discovered text in Maimonides' handwriting

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Menachem Kellner[1] – penetrates directly into the thought of Maimonides. It offers a no-holds-barred approach to pure Maimonidean ideology as interpreted by Kellner, a recognised authority on Maimonidean thought. 

Most Torah lectures, and Halachic decisions reference Maimonides, yet – astoundingly − very few of the presenters of those forums are always aware of how Maimonides (Rambam) actually viewed Judaism. Not surprisingly, then, many will find Kellner’s research into Maimonidean thought to be perplexing if not perilous to the traditional ideas they cherish and hold dear. 

460) Martyrdom in Sefaradi and Ashkenazi traditions

 

Introduction

This article − based extensively on research by Sam Millner[1] and Leon Stitskin[2]− deals with different approaches to Jewish martyrdom as evidenced in Sefaradi and Ashkenazi rabbinic writings. These divergent traditions are essentially rooted in the controversy between Maimonides and Rashi (and his disciples, the Tosafists), respectively.  Maimonides was active in Spain, North Africa and Egypt and came to represent the Sefaradi position on the matter of martyrdom − while the Rashi and the Tosafists characterized the Ashkenazi approach of Northern France and Germany. 

Rashi (1040-1105) and his students, the Tosafists, advocated for martyrdom in light of the forced conversions to Christianity around the time of the First Crusade (1095—1099). On the other hand, Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a more tolerant approach and did not advocate martyrdom for the Jews subjected to Muslim and Christian persecution during the Almohad Berber conquest in 1172 and the various Spanish-Christian campaigns. 

457) “Religion – the greatest cause of wars” (Gersonides)

 

Torat haMelech published in 2009

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Professor Menachem Kellner[1] dating back to 2014 − examines some extremist contemporary approaches to modern Jewish messianism. Kellner argues, instead, for a more rationalist approach to messianism, along the lines of Maimonides’ natural Messiah and his unusual vision of a non-supernatural messianic era and eschatology. 

If Gersonides^[2] is correct in his assertion that religion is the greatest cause of wars, then various forms of messianism and eschatology must surely be a significant component thereof. 

456) The power (and strategy) of maintaining secret religious knowledge

 

Introduction

Over and above the traditional, theological and Halachic considerations of Judaism, one cannot help but notice an apparent increase in the use of the word ‘power’ that gets appendaged to almost every contemporary religious discourse. If a certain day falls close to Shabbat, for example, there is an extra power to that day. Tzedaka is no longer a mitzva or chiyuv or an important social responsibility, but a means of attaining power. This strategy is often employed by fundraisers. Local Challa Bakes and Amen Parties become powerful antidotes capable of negating crises on an international, universal and cosmic scale. Powerful days, events, times and prayers have taken the place of holy, Halachic and auspicious times and practices. 

454) Reconstructing the story of a Maimonidean student:

 

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Dr Reimund Leicht – examines the story of R. Yosef ben Yehuda ibn Shimon, a student of Maimonides (1138-1204).[1] He could not have been an insignificant student because Maimonides chose to dedicate his philosophical work, Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed), to him. Very little is known about Yosef ibn Shimon. However, based on available historical evidence, Leicht reconstructs his life story and shows how he may have played a pivotal role in supporting his teacher during the Maimonidean Controversies that broke out after the passing of Maimonides. We are also presented with a fascinating window into some details about Maimonides the individual, and some of his practical directives about rabbinic independence and not teaching Torah for money. 

449) Maimonides on the authority of the rabbis

A 13th to 14th century manuscript of Moreh Nevuchim from Yemen.

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Professor Menachem Kellner[1] − explores Maimonides (1135-1204) as a democratiser of Jewish law. Maimonides’ theology and worldview have been interpreted in so many ways, many of which are mutually exclusive. The problem is that by just reading his Code of Law, known as Mishneh Torah, he comes across as a dedicated jurist and Halachist. On the other hand, by just reading his Guide of the Perplexed, or Moreh Nevuchim, he emerges as a radical philosopher. Thus, to some, Maimonides is simply a legal Halachist who essentially despised philosophy  (either because they never read Moreh Nevuchim or they claimed it was a forgery). To others, he becomes the Great Philosopher whose deepest thoughts were in grave conflict with normative Judaism. To still others, he becomes a secret mystic who later in his life turns against philosophy and adopts Kabbalah.[2] And there are even those who believe he was a secret Karaite.[3] 

435) An ‘enlightened’ rejection of Maimonides

 

An 1830 edition of  R. Shmuel David Luzzatto's work Ohev Ger, It examins Aramaic translations of the Torah by Onkelos, analysing variant texts found in manuscripts and other sources. 

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Micha Gottlieb,[1] examines the sharp anti-Maimonidean writings by an Orthodox nineteenth-century rabbi, R. Shmuel David Luzzatto (1800–1865). He lived during the Haskala (Enlightenment) Period and his writings reflect severe criticisms of the fact that the Haskala had adopted and appropriated Maimonides (1135-1204) as an example of ‘one religious leader worthy of emulating. 

424) Avraham Ibn Chasdai's references to 'a certain Chacham'

 

The thirteenth-century Moznei Tzedek by R. Avraham bar Chasdai,

Introduction 

I have based parts of this article on the research presented in ‘Judaism Adventures,’ and have additionally included some of the original Hebrew texts as well as other observations. For contextualisation, I have drawn on Peter Cole’s The Dream and the Poem.[1] 

Sefer Moznei Tzedek is a fascinating thirteenth-century work by R. Avraham bar Chasdai, also known as Ibn Chasdai, which gives us a rare window into rabbinical writings from around the time of Maimonides. Like Maimonides, Ibn Chasdai quotes Aristo (Aristotle) and he also is well-acquainted with Islamic teachings. He even cites sections of the Quran. 

Ibn Chasdai, was a staunch follower of Maimonides, and fought against R. Yehuda ibn Alfakhar and R. Meir haLevi Abulafia to withdraw their opposition to the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed). This is interesting because Ibn Chasdai went on adapt or translate a work by the Islamic mystic, al-Ghazali, which we shall soon explore. 

398) Maimonides’ view on the parameters of ‘faith in the sages’

 

Dr Avi Harel

Guest post by Dr Avi Harel

[Translated from the Hebrew by Gavin Michal  אבי הראל: אמונת חכמים והיקפה על פי הרמב"ם - ייצור ידע (xn--7dbl2a.com)]

Dr Avi Harel holds a PhD in Jewish philosophy and history. He served in the IDF, Border Police and Israel Police for three decades in various command positions. In his last position, he was the historian of the Israel Police. He has published four books and dozens of articles.

 

Introduction

In the weekly portion of Shoftim in the Book of Deuteronomy, there is a general biblical overview of the style of governance which is to be established in Canaan when the Israelites eventually enter the land. Firstly, there is a reference to adherence to an appropriate system of law. Then there is an injunction to establish a form of law enforcement, along the lines of an efficient policing body, that is ethical and effective. And finally, the Torah specifies the principles that pertain to the appointment of the ruler of the people - the king. This came with the ethical requirement that his power is to be limited so that his rule is not supreme.

396) Which Ovadiah the Ger?

 

Obadiah the Norman Proselyte who entered the covenant of the God of Israel in the month of Ellul, year 1413 of Documents which is 4862 of Creation

Obadiah the Norman Proselyte and Maimonides - a Case of Non-Intersection

Guest Post by Professor Larry Zamick[1]

Introduction

I meet such interesting people through this blog. One such personality is Professor Larry Zamick, a distinguished professor of physics at Rutgers University in Piscataway, NJ. Born in Winnipeg, Canada in 1935, he attended the University of Manitoba as an undergraduate and received his PhD in nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1962.

In his own words, Professor Zamick describes himself as “definitely not a Hebrew scholar.” However, his research and findings on the famous twelfth-century Ovadiah the Ger (Convert) contribute towards, if not change the way we understand this chapter of Jewish history. It seems that many confuse two very different Ovadiahs who were both gerim (converts). Some of the errants are distinguished scholars. The first Ovadiah was a former Christian monk born in Oppido Lucano (Southern Italy) as Johannes, the son of a Norman aristocrat named Dreux. He lived just before the second Ovadiah, a former Muslim, who is famous for interacting with Maimonides (when he inquired if, in the prayers, he was permitted to refer to Abraham as his 'father').

391) Does morality come from religion or does religion adopt morality?

 

This is the position taken by advocates of the Strong Dependence Theory. This article argues that Judaism adopts the Weak Dependence Theory.

Introduction

This article, drawn extensively on the research by Professors Avi Sagi and Daniel Statman,^[1]  explores the nature and provenance of Jewish morality and ethics. I found this particularly interesting because, like most rabbis, I had always thought (and taught) that morality springs from G-d. This seemed obvious. However, Sagi and Statman show that foundational rabbinic sources point to an autonomous and independent existence of morality very much defined by humans, which is then adopted by G-d as the model for Judaism.

374) Stagnation in the inquiry into reasons for the commandments

 

 R. Shlomo ibn Aderet, El Rab d'España (The Rabbi of Spain) 1235-1310.

Introduction

It is sometimes of great benefit to view theological ideas and concepts within their historical context. This way, one would not mistakenly think that the idea or concept has always been there since antiquity. So, for example, when it comes to the notion of ta’amei hamitzvot, or reasons for the commandments - whatever one’s personal view on the matter is - it does help to realise that it was only as late as around the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that the idea developed that the reasons for the mitzvot are beyond human comprehension. Until that time, it was quite common for rabbis to give rational or logical reasons for the mitzvot. But then the theology changed and the preferred approach became one of ‘transcendence’ whereby the reasons behind the Torah’s commandments were considered beyond human comprehension.

372) R. Yitzchak Arama and the subtle demise of Jewish rationalism

 

Introduction

Many people, including rabbis, are surprised to discover that the concept of a rationalist Maimonidean Judaism exists. Maimonides’ thought is not the Maimonides of the Mishna Torah compiled around 1180 which many are familiar with (and which, by Maimonides’ own description, was just his summary of the Talmud) - but rather the philosophical Maimonides of the Moreh Nevuchim or Guide of the Perplexed, compiled later in 1190. The personal hashkafa or worldview of Rambam can only be seen in the latter work. Although Rambam passed away about eighty years before the Zohar was first published in 1290, he presented a strong rationalist worldview and deeply opposed the mystical thought that was brewing during his lifetime. The mystics repressed his rationalist ideology during the following few centuries when Kabbalah became dominant (and they continue to do so today), and his rationalist thought was essentially eradicated from Judaism.

364) Who should lead – the rabbis or the representatives of the people?

 

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.

363) Trying to define the theology of Abravanel

 

Introduction

The length, breadth and depth of classical rabbinic thought continues to fascinate and intrigue me unabatedly. One such rabbinic figure is that of Abravanel (1437-1508), who, the more one reads about, the more complicated a personality he becomes.

We noted in an earlier article that Abravanel is difficult to define as being either a rationalist or a mystic as he seems to vacillate between the two approaches. This article, based extensively on research by Professor Eric Lawee[1], explores Abravanel’s complexity even further.

355) R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila: The Psalms are just prayers

Introduction

 

In the previous post, The Psalms are not prayers, we saw how Rav Saadia Gaon held the unusual view that psalms may not be used as prayers and that, like the Torah itself they are meant only to be studied but not prayed. Psalms are not liturgy. According to Rav Saadia, the psalms were used as a strictly controlled and regulated ritual during Temple times, but never as liturgy (supplications or prayers). On this view, the psalms were never an ‘early prayer book’ as was claimed by the Karaite Jews. It is believed that Rav Saadia formulated his unusual and limited view on the function of the psalms, in reaction to the Karaites, who had rejected the Rabbanite siddur and used the psalms as their prayer book instead.

In this article, however, based extensively on the work by Professor Uriel Simon[1], we explore another unusual view of the psalms. This is the view held by R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila, who believed that that the psalms are indeed prayers - but nothing more than prayers. And because they are just prayers, they are not profoundly holy nor do they carry any prophetic or spiritually subliminal innuendo.

339) DO SOME KABBALISTIC NOTIONS OF G-D VIOLATE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MONOTHEISM?

 

A 19th century depiction of the Ten Sefirot (unknown origin).

INTRODUCTION:

Kabbalists always had to deal with the challenge of their seemingly multiple perceptions of G-d coming very close to a violation of the monotheistic idea of a single unity of the divine being. In this article, based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Marc Shapiro[1], we delve into some of these perceptions in an attempt to see just how far they have sometimes gone.

306) THE ZOHARIC EMPHASIS ON AVRAHAM AS DISSEMINATOR OF NON-JEWISH MYSTICISM:

 

Sefer haZohar

Moreh Nevuchim

INTRODUCTION:

Almost every single version of the various narratives about Avraham contain the well-known moral lesson that he rejected the idolatrous and occultist practices of his birth culture and pioneered a new monotheistic path.

In this article, however, based extensively on the research of Professor Oded Yisraeli^[1], we will explore a very different narrative of the same story. This narrative is from the Zohar which, according to Yisraeli, puts forward the view that:

[N]ot only did Abraham not separate himself from these practices but he himself was responsible for them[!]

Before we look at what the Zohar says in greater detail, let us first turn to the mainstream view as exemplified in the writings of Maimonides (or Rambam, 1135-1204):