 |
| Rambam (1135-1204) |
 |
| Rashi (1040-1105) |
INTRODUCTION:
A perceptive student
will notice, very early on, just how diverse the different hashkafot or
worldviews within Judaism are. Besides the differences between the various
modern movements and trends, it is particularly interesting when such colliding
views originate from primary rabbinic teachers such as Rashi (1040-1105) and
Rambam (1135-1204).
In this essay, based largely on the writings of Professor
Menachem Kellner[1], we
will try to show just how disparate the views of Rashi and Rambam are on some
of the most fundamental principles of Judaism.
Rashi passed away just thirty years before Rambam was born,
yet theologically and philosophically they were worlds apart.
1) WHY WAS THE UNIVERSE CREATED?
THE VIEW OF RASHI:
According to Rashi’s very first commentary on Genesis (based
on Midrash Tanchuma[2])
the Torah intentionally begins with an account of the Creation - instead of
starting at a later section which deals with actual commandments - to show that
the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. Although the Jews conquered the Land
from the original inhabitants (i.e., the seven Canaanite nations), the Jews
were instructed to do so by the G-d who had created the world and who therefore
was entitled to apportion land to, and take from, whomever He deemed necessary.
Thus, according to Rashi, the Torah starts with the creation
narrative to show, essentially, that the Land of Israel was destined for the
Jews.
Rashi then continues with another Midrashic
interpretation (based on Bereishit Rabbah) that the world was created in
the ‘beginning’; 1) for the sake of the Torah, which is (also) called ‘the
beginning’[3]; –
and 2) for the sake of the Jewish People, who are (also) called ‘ the
beginning.[4]’
Therefore, in Rashi’s view, the universe was created for the
Torah and for the Jewish People who would eventually inherit the Land.
THE VIEW OF RAMBAM:
Rambam adopts a very different approach. He writes that the
Torah specifically opens with an (albeit veiled) account of the story of the creation
of the universe, where one thing was built upon another and entities were
formed following some logical sequence, to indicate that the study of ‘natural
science’ must always precede the study of ‘divine science’ (i.e., religion and theology).
Rambam suggests that knowledge of how the world works (physical
science or al-‘ilm al-tiba’i)
must always be the prelude to, and basis of, religious theology (al-‘ilm al-ilahi), otherwise, religion will exist
suspended in an ungrounded and unnatural void.[5]
Strikingly absent from Rambam’s interpretation of Creation is
any mention of Torah, Jews or Land.
As Menachem Kellner puts it:
“It is obvious that Rashi
reads the Torah particularistically, Maimonides univeralistically.”
Furthermore, Rambam does not claim, as does Rashi, to know
why the universe was created. This he says very clearly when writing about
Creation:
“And we shall seek for it no
cause or other final end whatever...
For when man knows his own
soul...he becomes calm and his thoughts are not troubled by seeking a final end
for that which has not that final end”[6]
2) THE PATRIARCHS KEPT THE ENTIRE TORAH BEFORE IT WAS
GIVEN:
Another area where Rashi and Rambam disagree is on the matter
of whether the patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, kept all the laws of
the Torah before it was given at Mount Sinai. Besides his reference to the
patriarchs keeping all the Torah laws (such as Avraham observing Passover), Rashi -
basing himself on an earlier Talmudic source - writes that even Noah studied
the Torah because he already knew which animals were destined to be declared ‘pure’:
Although there are numerous other Talmudic sources which similarly
convey this idea that the patriarchs observed all the 613 Commandments,[7]
as so far as Kellner can ascertain, Rambam makes no reference to these sources
in any of his writings[8].
In a letter from Rambam to one Chasdai haLevi, he explicitly
denies that the patriarchs observed the commandments. Unfortunately, many
scholars believe this letter to be a forgery,[9]
so its accuracy as a support for this notion is moot.
Rambam does, however, admit[10]
that certain laws were indeed observed before the Torah was given. Adam kept 6
laws; Noah added one to make the Seven Laws of Noah; Avraham added Brit
Millah; Yitzchak added tithing; Yaakov added the prohibition of the
sinew of the thigh; and later Amram (Moshe’s father) added a number of
others - but it was still only with Moshe and the Sinai experience, that the
Torah was completed with all the 613 commandments.
This excludes the possibility, in Rambam’s view, of anyone
observing all the 613 commandments prior to Sinai.
Furthermore, according to the way Rambam understands the
story of the Garden of Eden,[11]
humans were not originally intended to even observe the laws of the Torah,
which happened to be given much later, as Kellner explains, as a “concession to human
weakness, not part of the eternal divine plan, as it were.”
Consistent with Rambam’s view that the Torah was not
observed prior to Sinai, is his interpretation[12]
of the story of Yehudah and Tamar (the woman of ill repute) - since prior to
Sinai such matters were not restricted by Torah law, as, in his view, there was no Torah law at that stage.
3) THE TORAH PRE-EXISTED CREATION:
Rashi maintained that in addition to the patriarchs
observing the entire Torah before it was given, the Torah actually pre-existed
the creation. This is because, as we saw above, the world was created so that
the Torah would be given to the people of Israel. Since the Torah was the
reason for creation, it had to have been in existence (in whatever form) beforehand.
This concept does have some possible biblical antecedence,[13]
where G-d is said to have founded the earth on ‘wisdom’:
The pre-existence of the Torah is also referenced in Midrashim[14]
where G-d is said to have used the Torah as a ‘template’ to create the world.
This notion became very popular in later rabbinic and particularly Kabbalistic
writings where it is said that “G-d looked into the Torah and created the
world.”[15]
Along
similar lines, Ramban (Nachmaindes), considered the father of Jewish mysticism, was later to write that Torah cannot be
separated from the natural world because both are intrinsically connected and,
in fact, were one and the same thing.
However, Rambam (Maimonides), following from Rav Saadiah Gaon entertained
no such notion. For Rambam, it made no sense even in speaking about ‘before’
creation - as ‘time’ itself was a creation.
According to Rambam, to believe that anything,
besides G-d, existed prior to creation is “infidelity beyond any doubt.”[16]
Rambam also calls the rejection of such a notion a fundamental “foundation
of the Torah.”[17]
Kellner writes:
“It is likely that his strong
language reflects his abhorrence of the idea that anything might be co-eternal
with God.”
Rambam had no time for any belief in a G-d requiring
assistance from any ‘holy objects’, ‘energies’, or 'texts' (in whatever form). He writes:
“I have seen a
statement...in...Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer[18],
which is the strangest statement I have seen by one who follows the Law of
Moses our Master[:]...
’Wherefrom were the heavens
created? From the light of His garment. He took some of it, stretched it like a
cloth, and thus they were extending continually...’”
Rambam also rejected the notion that G-d has personal
‘attributes’. This idea of attributes or sefirot and levushim (garments)
was also to become even more popular after the publication of the Zohar
about 50 years after Rambam’s passing.
It should be noted that while many criticize Rambam for his rationalist
views as if they were anti-spiritual, it could be argued that his belief in an unknowable and unfathomable G-d
was a deeper and purer form of monotheism than that of the mystics. One of the areas where we see this is in his unapologetic rejection of G-d co-existing with any co-eternal attributes or entities.
4) THE CHOSEN PEOPLE:
Clearly Rashi, as well as most other rabbinic sources, consider
the Jews to be the Chosen People. Rambam, however, had some interesting
definitions of, and opinions on, this matter.
Kellner describes Rambam’s view of history as following a pattern of 'natural randomness':
“According to Maimonides,
God’s choice of the Jews as the chosen people was actually a consequence of
Abraham’s discovery of God and not a historically necessary event.”
This is borne out by the way Rambam describes[19]
how idolatry started out simply as a way of showing respect to G-d through lauding
His creations, such as the moon and stars which were a testament to their
Creator. This idea, however, became corrupted over time when G-d no longer
featured anymore and the agents took on an independent power of their own. It
was believed that certain cult-like practices, which claimed to harness the spiritual
energy of such entities, would bring prosperity and avoid punishment. Various
temples were constructed and specific rituals were adopted to appease these self-governing
gods.
Eventually, Avraham was born into that idolatrous environment, and he
discovered the One G-d, despite the fact that “[h]e had no teacher, nor was there anyone
to inform him.”
Conspicuously absent from Rambam’s entire narrative of
Avraham’s discovering G-d, is any mention of interference or intervention by G-d
Himself[20].
In Rambam’s account, G-d does not choose Avraham but Avraham, absolutely independently, chooses G-d!
[This is reminiscent, in some strange way, of the famous
anti-Semitic slur by British journalist and possible Russian spy, William
Norman Ewer (d.1977) known also as Trilby, who said: “How odd of God to
choose the Jews.” This prompted many responses[21]
including: “It’s not so odd, the Jews chose God.”]
Thus, according to Rambam, G-d did not seek out Avraham as
part of some cosmic plan. If, hypothetically, the person who discovered G-d
amidst a world of idolatry, had been someone else from any other nation or culture, the
commandments of the Torah would have reflected the norms and 'cultural authority' of that people.
Had that been the case, Kellner continues, then:
“[t]he inner meaning of the Torah...would
all be equivalent to...the Torah as it was indeed revealed to Moses at Sinai,
but its outer garment would be dramatically different...
Maimonides is not shy about adopting the
implications of this position. The specific laws of the Torah reflect
historical circumstances which could have been different.”
This stark view of Rambam will surprise many as it indeed
startled many of Rambam’s contemporaries. R. Yehuda haLevy[22]
(1075-1141), for example, held a typically polar opposite view. Jews, he said,
were specifically chosen by G-d. He believed that it was only because of their
“inyan Eloki” or unique G-dliness which was an inherent feature
of the Jew, that Jews were chosen by G-d. [23]
Later, the Kabbalists declared that a Jew's soul was "a part of G-d", and even later the Chassidim added, "Truly a part of G-d."
Rambam, however, held fast to his position because of the primary role the notion of freedom of choice played in his theology. He called freedom of choice ‘the great ikkar’ or great principle. History, according to Rambam, was not absolutely preordained and therefore G-d did not specifically choose Avraham.
For Rambam, G-d did not choose the Jews because they were so special - rather, they were so special because they chose G-d.
Later, the Kabbalists declared that a Jew's soul was "a part of G-d", and even later the Chassidim added, "Truly a part of G-d."
Rambam, however, held fast to his position because of the primary role the notion of freedom of choice played in his theology. He called freedom of choice ‘the great ikkar’ or great principle. History, according to Rambam, was not absolutely preordained and therefore G-d did not specifically choose Avraham.
For Rambam, G-d did not choose the Jews because they were so special - rather, they were so special because they chose G-d.
The most notorious example of Rambam's view of history as being a process of ‘natural randomness’ is his view of the sacrifices. He taught that sacrifices were not G-d’s first
choice but rather given as a concession to those spiritually primitive Israelites who
were not yet fully weaned from their previous idolatrous practices where
sacrifices featured supreme.
This is clearly a most audacious claim especially considering
how much of Judaism is comprised of laws relating to sacrifices and laws of
ritual purity – including the future hopes of the restoration of the sacrifices
in Messianic times.
However, Rambam did not accept the general rabbinic view of ‘yeridat
haDorot’ where the nation was said to have regressed spiritually since
Sinai, but instead he firmly believed in exactly the opposite – that spiritual
and intellectual evolution and progression only occurs within the fullness of
time.
This is why, according to Rambam in his Guide, it appears that we will not bring
sacrifices in the Third Temple because by then we will have been fully weaned
from the ancient and less profound necessity to do so.
However, because Rambam in his Mishneh Torah does speak of the sacrifices being reinstated, there is much controversy over which was his true position. Considering that the Mishneh Torah was written around 1170/80 and the Guide at around 1190 one could argue that the Guide reflects his stronger view. Nevertheless, the mainstream view is that the sacrifices will indeed be restored in the future.
However, because Rambam in his Mishneh Torah does speak of the sacrifices being reinstated, there is much controversy over which was his true position. Considering that the Mishneh Torah was written around 1170/80 and the Guide at around 1190 one could argue that the Guide reflects his stronger view. Nevertheless, the mainstream view is that the sacrifices will indeed be restored in the future.
SPIRITUAL IMPLICATIONS:
The theological implications between those who follow Rashi
and those who follow Rambam on these matters are immense.
Describing Rashi’s position, Kellner writes:
“If the Torah pre-exists creation, if in
some sense or other it serves as blue-print of the universe, then quite
obviously, the laws of the Torah bear some sort of constitutive relationship to
the cosmos and fulfilling those laws can (or must) have some sort of impact on
that cosmos.
From here, full-blown theurgy [i.e., a
magic-like or quid pro quo spiritual manipulation][24]
is but a short step...
[a]nd Israel’s obedience to the laws of
the Torah can be construed as the key to the continued proper functioning of
that universe.
Getting Jews to fulfil the commandments
becomes a matter of cosmic concern.
For a person holding such views...it is
literally inconceivable that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the pre-ordained
progenitors of Israel from before creation, did not obey all the commandments
of the Torah, both Sinaitic and rabbinic.”
This position has become the de facto position almost
universally followed by most groups of religious Jews to this day.
Enter Rambam and everything changes:
“From Maimonides’ account it appears that
Abraham, the self-taught philosopher par excellence, had no need of Sinai.
Sinai is a concession to the sad fact that the root planted by Abraham was on
the verge of being uprooted.
In order to preserve the philosophical
core of the Torah, it had to be hedged about by laws and ceremonials, which do
not accomplish anything in themselves, but were instituted in order to serve
moral, social, or philosophical ends.
For a person holding these views, it is
literally inconceivable that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob observed laws and
ceremonials later given at Sinai in response to the degeneration of the Jews in
Egypt.”
- These two doctrinal hypotheses of Rashi and Rambam could
not be in any further tension!
ANALYSIS:
Both Rashi and Rambam - while accepting the Revelation at
Sinai - interpreted that event in ways that were ecclesiastically worlds apart.
For Rashi, the Sinai experience was a cosmic continuum
of the pre-creation era, while for Rambam it was a necessary concession
in response to the historical reality of the time, in order to cement the
threatened tradition begun by Avraham.
These vastly disparate positions of Rashi and Rambam are
irreconcilable.
They have far-reaching implications which, of necessity, will inform one’s
theological and spiritual perspective.
It is extraordinary, though, that on such fundamental issues,
whichever view one subscribes to, the other position will continue to remain unacceptable, untenable
even objectionable if not blatantly abhorrent - yet they all curiously fall
within the vast umbrella of rabbinic thought.
FURTHER READING:
[For some insight into the story behind the Rashi texts as
we have them today, see And
What Does Rashi Say?
For more on Rambam’s views, see Two
Mutually Exclusive Views on Prayer, and Two
Mutually Exclusive Notions of Holiness, and Netilat
Yadayim – A Means of Expelling Evil Spirits or a Simple Ablution?, and What
was Rambam’s Real View on ‘The Revival of the Dead’? and R.
Yaakov Emden’s ‘Cognitive Dissonance” with Regard to Maimonides, and ‘A
Leaf Falls From a Tree’ – Accident or Providence?]
[1]
Rashi and Maimonides on the Relationship Between Torah and the Cosmos, by
Menachem Kellner.
[2] This
was a compilation of three aggadic works on the Torah with only two extant. According
to Samuel
Berman "earliest manuscript of this text was compiled in late 8th or 9th
century.”
[3] “The
beginning of His way,” Proverbs 8:22,
[4] “The
beginning of His crops,” Jeremiah 2:3.
[5]
Part of Rambam’s text reads:
“Do you
not see the following fact? God...wished us to be perfected....
Now this
can only come about after the adoption of intellectual beliefs, the
first of which being His apprehension...according to our capacity.
This, in
its turn, cannot come about except through divine science and this divine
science [i.e., religion and theology] cannot become actual except after
a study of natural science [al-‘ilm al-tiba’i].
This is
so since natural science borders on divine science [al-‘ilm al-ilahi], and its
study precedes that of divine science in time as has been made clear to
whoever has engaged in speculation on
these matters.
Hence
God...caused His book to open with the ‘Account of the Beginning,’
which, as we have made clear, is natural science.
And
because of the greatness and importance of the subject and because our
capacity falls short of apprehending the greatest of subjects as it really is,
- which divine wisdom has deemed necessary to convey to us – we are told about
these profound matters in parables and riddles and very obscure words.”
[Introduction
to Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed)]
[6]
Guide III,13.
[7]
Mishna Kiddushin 4:14, Yoma 28b, Nedarim 32a,
[8] I
did notice, however - in Rambam’s Hilchot Avodat Cochavim, ch.3 - a reference
to Jacob’s son, Levi, being appointed to teach in the ‘yeshiva’ and
entrusted with the perpetuation of the ‘mitzvot of Avraham’. Read through modern filters it would seem that
Levi taught the 613 mitzvot in a modern yeshiva in Bnai Brak, but the question,
of course, is whether one can equate the ‘mitzvot of Avraham’ (which
were most likely, primarily of an anti idolatrous nature) with the 613 ‘mitzvot
of G-d’ as we came to know them after Sinai?
[9]
See A Maimonides Reader, by Isadore Twersky (1972), p. 478.
[10]
Hilchot Melachim 9:1.
[11]
Guide I, 2 and II, 30.
[12]
Guide III, 49.
[13]
Proverbs 3:19 and 8:22.
[14]
Bereishit Rabbah 1;1 and 4.
[15]
Zohar, Terumah, II, 161,1.
[16]
See also Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva, III, 7; and Guide II,13.
[17]
Guide I, 68.
[18]
Pirkei de’Rabi Eliezer was an Aggadic- Medrashic work retelling many biblical
stories, and may have been written in Italy around 830CE.
[19]
See the opening chapters of Rambam’s Hilchot Avodat Cochavim.
[20]
Other than, of course, being the object of Avraham’s inquiry and subsequent
discovery.
[21]
Such as “Not odd of God, Goyyim annoy’im,” and “How strange of man,
to change the plan.”
[22] Although
not technically a contemporary or Rambam as he passed away when Rambam was just
six years old.
[23]
Kuzari 1:48.
[24]
Parenthesis mine.
