218) THE MAIMONIDEAN BROTHERHOOD:

Fragment of a letter from Rambam, as found in the Cairo Geniza.

                                                     MAIMONIDEAN CONFLICT - PART III

RAMBAM’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH A BAGHDADI JEW:


INTRODUCTION:

If eyes are the window to the soul, then letters are the window to the persona. Maimonides, known as Rambam (1135-1204) was a prolific writer of books - but it is through his letters that we gain a glimpse of his real personality.

In this essay, we will look at one such letter - originally written in Arabic and which also serves as a responsum - to a certain Baghdadi Jew by the name of Josef Ibn Gabir (Jabir).[1]

JOSEF IBN GABIR:

It’s not easy to put one’s finger on the status of Josef Ibn Gabir because on the one hand he appears to be a simple man, referring to himself as an am ha’aterz - while on the other hand, he appears to be involved in the great ideological controversy between Rambam and the esteemed Gaon of Baghdad, Samuel ben Ali. [See The Maimonidean Controversies.]

Either way, Rambam is most respectful in his letter, as he addresses Mar (Mr) Josef Ibn Gabir in the third person.[2]

Rambam begins by saying that because Josef Ibn Gabir is thirsty for understanding:

“...I must tell you...that you are not justified in regarding yourself as an am ha-aretz.”[3]

The desire to understand a matter in its depth exempts one from the category of a simpleton.

MISHNEH TORAH:

Josef Ibn Gabir cannot read Hebrew. But he can read Arabic and he has read Rambam’s commentary on the Mishna which was written in Arabic.

Now he wants to study Rambam’s magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah - a fourteen-volume summary of the Talmud - which was written in Hebrew.

Josef Ibn Gabir suggests that Rambam translate the Mishneh Torah into Arabic as it would have a wider audience and cater for people like him!

Rambam responds:

“It makes also no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or in Aramaic; it matters only whether it is done with understanding…”

Rambam continues by mentioning that he is, paradoxically, focussing on having all his previous Arabic writings translated into Hebrew. So, instead, Josef Ibn Gabir should try learning the Hebrew of Mishneh Torah, “little by little” because:

 “It is not so difficult, as the book is written in an easy style, and if you master one part you will soon be able to understand the whole work.”

SAMUEL BEN ALI - THE GAON OF BAGHDAD:

Next, Rambam deals with the thorny issue of the anti-Maimonidean rhetoric which emanated from Josef Ibn Gabir’s home city, Baghdad. He referred to the fact “that some scholars in Baghdad reject some of my decisions...” This is a reference to the fierce opposition from the highly respected Samuel ben Ali, Gaon of Baghdad, regarded as one of the most prominent Babylonian scholars of the 12^th century, and who was Rambam’s biggest detractor during his lifetime.

Although the Gaonic period had officially ended by 1038, for the next two hundred years, certain prominent rabbis were respectfully referred to by the title Gaon. Ironically, in the case of Samuel ben Ali, he seemed to perpetuate some of the lavish and pretentious practices of both the Gaonim and Exilarchs of the previous era.

Samuel ben Ali was very powerful and influential in the Jewish world. According to an account by the traveller, Pethahiah of Regensburg:

"In the whole of Assyria, in Damascus, in the towns of Persia and Media and in Babylon, they have no dayyan [judge] except one assigned by Samuel, head of the academy, and he appoints judges and teachers in every town."

Samuel ben Ali was not averse to placing family members in positions of power either. He even provided a teaching position for his daughter, said to have been a Talmudic scholar in her own right. She taught “through a window of the building in which she sat, the pupils outside below unable to see her.”[4]

Furthermore, his two sons-in-law, Zechariah and Azariah[5] were also both appointed to positions of power.

IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT:

Rambam had severely criticised the nepotism and the sometimes forceful means of collection of funding for scholars and academies which was often adopted by the Gaonim and Exilarchs.

FINANCING AND FUNDRAISING:

In fact, Rambam was even against financial support to scholars in general who did not work but were full time students.

Rambam wrote:

 “For as we look into the [earlier] sayings of the honorable sages, we do not find that they ask people for money, nor did they collect money for the honorable and cherished academies.”[6]

TALMUD ONLY:

Additionally, Rambam also disagreed with the approach of the Gaonic Yeshivot which had only one subject in their curriculum - namely, Talmud study.

MISHNEH TORAH:

These criticisms were not minor condemnations but were seen as threatening the very essence of Judaism as was known and practised in those communities. It is, therefore, not hard to understand why there was such opposition to Rambam who was regarded as an ideological threat to the mainstream, and who was disrupting the status quo.

It didn’t help matters either when Rambam wrote his Mishneh Torah which - being a summary of the entire Talmud - was seen as rather subversive in that it undermined the ultimate authority of the rabbinic leadership. This was because ordinary people themselves, could now easily consult the Mishneh Torah, written in simple Hebrew, and have no need to confer with expert authorities. It even came with perhaps the first example of an index to a Torah work.

IN DEFENCE OF RAMBAM:

Rambam was well aware of his opposition in Baghdad by Samuel ben Ali and mentions it very politely:

“I have been informed - although I do not know whether it is true - that there is in your city somebody who speaks evil against me and tries to gain honor by misrepresentation of my teaching.”

Rambam also knows how Josef Ibn Gabir had tried to intervene in the controversy and defend him. This was actually the core reason why Josef Ibn Gabir had originally asked Rambam to translate his Mishneh Torah into Arabic – so that he could read it, arm himself with knowledge, and support him:

“I have heard also that you protested against this and reprimanded the slanderer.

Do not act in this way!

I forgive everybody who is opposed to me because of his lack of intelligence, even when he, by opposing, seeks his personal advantage.”

And then Rambam adopts a ‘live and let live’ approach when he writes:

“He [Samuel ben Ali] does no harm to me…While he is pleased, I do not lose anything…

You trouble yourself with useless quarrels, as I do not need the help of other men…”

THE ISSUE OF REVIVAL OF THE DEAD:

A commonly held view at that time, and still today, is that after the Messiah comes there will ultimately be a state of Techiyat haMetim where the dead will arise within their bodies.

Rambam adopted a  slightly nuanced approach to that concept. [See What was Rambam’s Real View on ‘The Revival of the Dead’?]

Rambam mentions this in his letter:

“The statement you have heard, namely, that I deny in my work the resurrection of the dead, is nothing more than a malicious calumny.

He who asserted this is either a wicked man who misrepresents my words, or an ignorant one who does not understand my views on olam haba [the World to Come].

In order to make impossible any further mistake or doubt, I have composed in the meantime a special treatise on this subject...”[7]

IRRATIONAL BUT HARMLESS PERCEPTIONS:

Rambam turns a blind eye to certain irrational follies which are entertained by the masses:

“It will not harm you religiously to think that there are corporeal beings in the world to come until you can establish rationally the authentic nature of their existence.

Even if you think that they eat, drink, propagate in the upper sphere or in the Gan Eden, it will not hurt your faith.

There are other more widespread doctrinal follies to which some cling and yet their basic religious beliefs were not damaged.”

However, for those seeking a deeper understanding:

“...in refutation of this notion, it is important to project the authentic interpretation of the rabbinic statement "that there is no eating or drinking in the world to come," from which we may deduce that there are no corporeal beings...”

RESPONSUM:

The letter contains a number of other unrelated issues as well and is regarded as a responsum on some Halachic matters.

This letter is important because it clarifies a previous contradiction within Rambam’s earlier writing.

In Rambam’s Mishneh Torah[8], he writes that a person praying without a minyan should not recite the kedushat yotzer (which is between barechu and shema).

In this letter, he writes that it is permissible to recite it as it only records the kedusha which is said by the angels but is not a kedusha in itself (like the kedusha in the amidah).

Interestingly, Rambam’s son was later to refer to a letter (probably this one) where his father had changed his mind from what he had previously written in Mishneh Torah![9]

THE MAIMONIDEAN BROTHERHOOD:

The letter contains some interesting terms of endearment for Josef Ibn Gabir as well as for those who follow the rationalist path in general. In one instance Rambam refers to Josef as ‘our brother’ and in another place he writes:

“You are my beloved pupil, and so are all those who are inclined to pursue zealously the study of Torah and attempt to understand even one biblical verse or a single halakhah.”

Thus Rambam - by alluding to a brotherhood - uses terminology generally associated with mystical schools and refers to all those who ‘attempt to understand’, as being part of a fraternity of intellectual searchers.

Those excluded from this brotherhood would be the masses “who do not possess the capacity to reflect and who do not concentrate on the roots of religion but [only] on its branches.”

SOURCES:

A Maimonides Reader, by I. Twersky.

A Letter by Rambam to a Simple Jew, by Mitchell First.

A Responsum by Maimonides; Maimonides' Rational Approach to Halakhic Problems, by Leon D. Stitskin.

---

[1] See Y. Shailat, Iggerot Ha-Rambam, pp. 402-418.

[2] This is omitted from the English translation, which follows, as it is too cumbersome.

[3] Translation from A Maimonides Reader by I. Twersky

[4] Pethahiah, p. 9f; L. Greenhut (1905), 10.

[5] There is some controversy as to whether these names got mixed up with each other in a copyist’s error. Some believe that Samuel’s daughter was engaged to Azariah who passed away before the marriage and then she subsequently married Zechariah. Another view is that Samuel had two daughters who married scholars by both names.

[6] See Rambam’s commentary on Avot 4:7.

[7] This treatise was known as Maamar Techiyat haMeitim and was written in 1191.

[8] Hilchot Tefillah 7:17.

[9] See Kesef Mishnah to 7:17.

076) WHAT WAS RAMBAM'S REAL VIEW ON 'THE REVIVAL OF THE DEAD'?

A fascinating chapter of great intrigue confronts us when we look at Rambam’s view on Techiyat HaMeitim (Revival of the Dead), with allegations abounding of forgery or possible coerced retraction.

The problem is basically juggling Rambam’s views as recorded in the following three texts:

1) PEREK CHELEK: The Revival of the Dead concept, is declared by Rambam to be one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith that every Jew is required to believe in.[1]

2) MISHNEH TORAH: Rambam then appears to contradict these Principles, by declaring that there will be no bodily form in the World to Come and it will only be a world of spirit and souls.[2]

3) MA’AMAR TECHIYAT HA’METIM: To top it all off, Rambam proceeds to write an essay, in his latter years, where he appears to retract the previous statement and unequivocally declares that in the future, the soul will be reunited with the body.

Strangely enough, in his Guide for the Perplexed, there is no reference at all to this fundamental doctrine! So besides apparent contradictions and possible retractions, we are faced with omissions as well.

What indeed was Rambam’s real position on the issue of Revival of the Dead?

Let’s look at each of these three texts in greater detail:

1) PEREK CHELEK:

In Perek Chelek, Rambam elucidates on the Thirteen basic Principles of Faith that every Jew is required to believe in. The thirteenth and final Principal of Faith is the belief in the Revival of the Dead, where at some point in the future, all those resting in the dust will arise to a new life. This is described as a ‘fundamental truth and foundation of our faith’. So much so that; “one who says that the resurrection of the dead is not taught in the Torah, has no share in the World to Come.”

But then, in an apparent turn around, Rambam seems to add a caveat and limitation which tends to undermine the very fundamentality of this concept.

“Men do not do anything except to achieve profit or to avoid loss. Most men would regard any other action (where there is no reward) as useless and meaningless. Under these circumstances it is hard to say to one who is studying Torah; ‘Do certain things and refrain from doing certain other things but not out of fear of divine punishment and not in order to acquire a reward.’ This is an exceedingly difficult thing to do because most men have not achieved such truth that they are able to be like Abraham our Father (who acted without concern for reward). Therefore, in order that the masses stay faithful and do the commandments, it was permitted to tell them that they might hope for a reward (such as the Revival of the Dead) and to warn them against transgressions out of fear of punishment.

Then he almost makes an apology for this view and says; “Let no one blame me for the freedom with which I have used certain expressions or made certain statements in this book, though they may irritate some scholars.”

After all this, Rambam goes on to enumerate the Thirteen Principles of Faith, which he does in great detail. However when it comes to the Thirteenth Principle, surprisingly, he only writes a single line on this most fundamental issue.

"The Thirteenth Fundamental Principle is the Resurrection of the Dead, as we have already explained."

This very terse, single sentence is disappointing because we don’t know whether his statement; ‘as we have already explained’, refers to his fundamental view (that without belief in the Revival of the Dead one is not a true believer) - or to his alluded view (that people need to think in terms of great reward otherwise they will not be sufficiently motivated).

2) MISHNEH TORAH:

In Mishneh Torah, Rambam declares that; “In the World to Come there will be no bodies, only souls...”[3]

This non-corporeal view of a purely spiritual World to Come was so novel and controversial that Raavad fiercely challenges Rambam and says; “It seems to me that this man (Rambam) is almost saying that there is no concept of Revival of the Dead for bodies, only for souls? - On my life, this is not the views of the sages!”[4]

So clearly, Rambam’s alluded view in the previous text, and his stated view in this one, did not find favor in the eyes of his contemporaries.

To add to the mystery, Rambam writes just five chapters earlier and in the same volume, that; “One who denies the Revival of the Dead concept...has no share in the World to Come.”[5]

So far, both our key texts each seem to contain two very divergent and contradictory statements on the importance of belief in the Revial of the Dead.

3) MA’AMAR TECHIYAT HA’METIM:

We do know that many Jews, who denied a belief in a literal Revival of the Dead concept, claimed to base their belief on some of Rambam’s previous teachings. This created much opposition and controversy. Eventually, Rabbi Shmuel ben Ali, who was the leader, or Gaon, of the school of Talmudic study in Baghdad, publicly accused Rambam of discarding a most fundamental precept within Judaism!

So, in 1191, Rambam wrote his Essay on the Revival of the Dead, to defend himself against this open charge of heresy.

Surprisingly, in the Essay, Rambam writes quite scathingly about his adversary the Gaon of Baghdad; “I received a copy of the writing of the Gaon (attacking Rambam). I found it was a collection of homilies and legends that he had gathered. Everyone known that scholars are not expected to rehearse the homilies and the curious tales, of the sort that women tell one another in their condolence calls.”

Yet, notwithstanding this brazen insult, for the most part, Rambam’s Essay on the Revival of the Dead does read like a retraction of some his earlier views.

In it, he states that the belief in resurrection is critically fundamental to Judaism and even has a biblical source.[6]

He says; “And I will state that the Revival of the Dead - which is widely known and recognized among our people, which is accepted by all groups among us, which is mentioned in numerous prayers and stories composed by our prophets and sages – refers to the return of the soul to the body after it departed.”

“Concerning this, there has never been any heard any disagreement in our nation, nor does it have any (allegorical) interpretation (other than its literal meaning). Nor is it permissible to rely upon any individual who believes otherwise...Now, when it is reported of me that I maintain that the Revival of the Dead is metaphorical, this is a downright lie and a pure invention. My writings are in circulation – let them be perused, and let someone show you where I said this.” 

(This last statement is astounding, given his Mishneh Torah text, quoted above!)

In the final analysis, though, the Essay text (written in his latter years), does appear to be his conclusive, clear and assertive endorsement to the fundamental importance of belief in a literal Revival of the Dead concept. There does not appear to be any room for ambiguity on the subject, and it reads almost like a retraction.

The question of course is: was this a coerced retraction, a genuine change of heart, or as some assert, a simple forgery? [7]

There are many and varied ways to deal with these difficulties:

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

It is plausible that the answer is none of the above. 

This is because of a very interesting distinction Rambam makes between two future eras:

In the Essay, Rambam maintains that the era of Resurrection is different from the more important era known as the World to Come (which he says is overlooked by those who purport that the phenomenon of Revival of the Dead is more important). 

He says that prior to the era of the World to Come, there will be an era of Resurrection – BUT those resurrected will again die and will not live forever!

Even the Messiah will die, according to Rambam: “But the Messiah will die, and his son and his grandson will reign in his stead.”[8]

The era of the Word to Come, however, will be purely spiritual and eternal.

[This way, one would not be considered a heretic by denying the literal and physical Resurrection concept, since belief in a spiritual World to Come is a different tenet of faith which is entirely removed from that of Resurrection!  - Perhaps this distinction could have protected Rambam from charges of heresy (and could be reconciled with the Mishneh Torah text which actually makes reference to the World to Come as purely spiritual without bodies.)]

Some, like Shem Tov ben Yosef Shem Tov[9] , take a very different approach by going so far as to say that this Essay was an outright forgery, and reiterates that Rambam “did not believe in a physical resurrection”.[10]

Others, like Abarbanel, wrote that Rambam believed that only the first five Principles of Faith were fundamental to Jewish belief, and that the last eight (which includes the Revival of the Dead) were meant for the masses who innately felt a need to believe in such things.[11]

It also seems as if no one knew about the Essay on the Revival of the Dead while Rambam was still alive. He passed away twelve years after (allegedly?) writing the Essay, which would have been enough time for people to have become familiar with the work.

Even his son, Avraham ben HaRambam, who wrote extensively on the topic of resurrection, did not mention the Essay in his deliberations.

CONCLUSION:

After considering all the different components making up this debate, and as a result of so many pressures and agendas coming from all sides - it is very difficult to know with any degree of certainty, what Rambam’s real views were in regard to this crucial concept of  Revival of the Dead.

 As he himself says; “The worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do not know.[12]

NOTE:

Regarding the general concept of Revival of the Dead, there is an interesting argument between the kabbalist Abulafia[13] and the nasi, Sheshet ben Yitzchak of Saragossa:

Abulafia (who in general was a supporter of Rambam), was at first very opposed to his view on resurrection. 

He writes; “For what purpose does the body stand watch for its G-d...if the body is not resurrected, where is its hope and where can it find it?”[14]

In other words, why do we have so many restrictive laws regarding the upkeep and holiness of the body if it is not to be rewarded at some later stage?

Rabbi Sheshet took umbrage to Abulafia’s ‘simple and material’ view and writes in defense of Rambam; 

“To bring down our fathers from the highest levels...where they can live forever...to the level of man in an impure body which needs to eat and drink...as opposed to a life of wisdom which is greater than foolishness, as light is greater than darkness...

These words (of Abulafia) seem to me like the writing of one who is confused... If the soul, while still in the body was yearning for its Maker subordinating its passion to its reason, then when it leaves the body it will attain the highest levels for which it yearned while still in the body?”[15]

Interestingly, after the Essay on the Revival of the Dead was published, Abulafia withdrew his criticism.

---

[1] Rambam’s commentary on the Mishna, Sanhedrin ch. 10.

[2] Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah, ch. 8, 2.

[3] Hilchot Teshuvah, ch. 8,2

[4] HaSagot HaRa’avad ibid. There are Talmudic references to the Revival of the Dead, such as (Sanhedrin 72a) where it speaks about the righteous whom G-d will resurrect, and (Ketuvot 111b) where it speaks about the dead being resurrected wearing their clothes.

[5] Hilchot Teshuva, ch. 3,6

[6] Daniel 12:2-13; “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake...”

There are, however, other verses that dispel the Revival concept, such as “ If a man dies, can he live again?” (Iyov 14:14)

[7] If there has to have been a forgery (as opposed to a reconciliation of texts), and if one accepts that Ma’amar Techiyat HaMetim was indeed written by Rambam - could not the Mishneh Torah text, which blatantly contradicts this text, have been the forgery?

[8] See Perek Chelek.

[9] Passed away in 1440.

[10] Yosef Albo (15^th century) also supports the notion of a non-physical ‘revival’. He believes that although the concept is mentioned in the Talmud, it referred to ‘the reward of the souls and its life in the world of souls’ not bodies.

[11] Rambam did differentiate between ‘true beliefs’ and ‘necessary beliefs’ (which were adopted by segments of society that had a need for them). Often it is difficult to know which is which.

[12] From (his?) Ma’amar Techiyat HaMetim.

[13] Rabbi Meir ben Todros HaLevi Abulafia, also known as Ramah. (Not to be confused with Ramoh, Rabbi Isserless.)

[14] From Abulafia’s letter to the rabbis of Lunel.

[15] This was written in the year 1200, just four years before Rambam passed away.