 |
| Was Maimonides A Secret Mystic? |
RAMBAM AS AUTHORITATIVE HALACHIST:
Rabbi Moses Maimonides or Rambam (1135-1204) is known as one
of the great fathers of Jewish law and rationalism. Yet scholars throughout the
ages have always had an interesting relationship with his works. Some
considered him to be a potential messiah, while others burned or scoffed at his
books. For the overwhelming majority, though, his halachik or legal
writings are acknowledged as universally authoritative. It is mainly his
writings on philosophy and theology that created some controversy.
Love him or not, for the most part he is regarded as a
rationalist and is never really considered to have been a mystic.
RAMBAM AS RADICAL RATIONALIST:
In Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam writes perhaps his most radical
and revolutionary thesis that the Torah spoke of sacrifices and incense only as
a concession to a generation that had just come out of an idolatrous and sacrificial
culture. But, he maintains, it was never intended to be a core Jewish practice
for future generations.
He speaks of the
necessity to be weaned off those practices and move on to a more sophisticated
and rational system of theology. Amazingly he says that there is no
spirituality in sacrifices nor inherent holiness in the Temple service and that
G-d has no desire for such practices. [1]
He also writes that; “The Law concerning the fruit of a tree
in its fourth year has some relation to idolatrous customs.”[2]
In another place he says that angels cannot appear in human
form. This puts paid to the numerous references to angels appearing as humans
as are recorded in the Torah (such as Abraham being visited by angels).
Rather,
according to Rambam, these encounters took place in a dreamlike state, and
should not be understood as having transpired in reality. Rambam wrote; “Do not
imagine that an angel is seen or his word heard...”[3]
A similar example of his acute rationalism can be seen in
his relationship with Ibn Ezra (1089-1167). Most Rishonim, as the rabbis of
that era were known, did not actually ever meet each other.[4]
One exception was Ibn Ezra, who at the age of fifty decided to travel (and
became known as the ‘wandering rabbi’). He met the Rambam in Cairo, and they
shared some of their thoughts.
Ibn Ezra wrote; “The rational approach to Torah study is
fundamental. The Torah was meant only for those who know how to think for
themselves. The ‘angels’ are not mediating beings but rather a reference to the
mind, which must mediate between man and G-d.”[5]
So impressed was Rambam with some of the views expressed by Ibn
Ezra, that in a letter to his (Rambam’s) son, he advised he study Torah only
with the commentary of Ibn Ezra.
He further writes that there is nothing intrinsically holy
about a Sefer Torah, teffilin or mezuzah. Their holiness lies
only in their consecration towards a higher educational purpose.
Rambam never once mentioned the concept of sefirot or
spheres which is so central to mystical thinking. He was so overtly rationalist
that the great kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Vital (1542- 1620) was prompted to
write that in his view, Rambam’s soul must have come from the ‘left side’ as
there is nothing mystical to be found any of his teachings. Rabbi Vital said of himself that he was a gilgul or transmigration of the soul of Rabbi Vidal of Toulouse (about two hundred years earlier) who authored Magid Mishneh, a prime commentary on Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. He believed he was now ‘rectifying’ his 'complicity' in Rambam's previous rationalism.
In one of his post Guide letters, Rambam responded to a
question about astrology. He responded that; ‘man should only believe what he
can grasp with his intellectual faculties, or perceive by his senses, or what
he can accept from a trustworthy authority. Beyond that nothing should be
believed.’[7]
He ridicules the idea that the fate of man is dependent upon stars, as this
would make us simple slaves to destiny and rob us of any sense of purpose.
He regards the study of religious philosophy as the ‘highest
degree of Divine worship, surpassing even the study of Law and the practice of
its precepts.’[8]
Rambam upset so many people with his unabashed rationalism
that Rabbi Yaakov Emden (1697-1776)[9]
believes that parts of his writings were forged. He even doubts whether any
portion of it was the work of the same ‘Rambam, who authored the Mishneh Torah
(the esteemed halachik work), who was not capable of writing such
heretic doctrines.’[10]
RAMBAM AS MYSTERIOUS MYSTIC?
In the face of all the Rambam’s radical rationalism, we come
across some astounding assertions attesting to a very mystical side of the
selfsame man.
BRISK:
The Brisker Rav apparently said that every one line in the
Guide is drawn from one hundred lines of Zohar.[11]
CHABAD:
The Lubavitcher Rebbe said that while the writings may
appear to be nigleh (revealed Torah), they are in fact nistar (esoteric)
in nature.[12]
Many Chassidic rebbes seemed quite comfortable with the
writing of Rambam although they were not comfortable quoting him directly,
using the phrase ‘books of earlier scholars’ as a covert reference instead.[13]
ZANS (1791-1876):
The great Chassidic Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Zans is said
to have studied the guide at the holiest time of the year, Kol Nidrei night,
after the evening prayers.
RUZHYN (1797-1850):
Another Chassidic Rabbi, Reb Yisrael of Ruzhyn (1797-1850)
could never understand why people spoke badly of Rambam. He defended Rambam’s
assertion that Aristotle knew more about mundane matters than the prophet
Ezekiel, by explaining that Ezekiel was so absorbed with the ‘king’, while
Aristotle was enamoured by the ‘palace’.
SADEGORA (1819-1883):
According to the Sadegora Rebbe, Reb Avraham Yaakov, Rambam
could have been the messiah was it not for the fact that the world was not yet
ready for him at that time.
KOTZK (1787-1859):
Even the Kotzker Rebbe, who was advised by his teacher not
to read the Rambam’s theology although he could read the rest of his writings –
apparently went against the instruction and did read those very theological
sections. [14]
THE ROGATCHOVER:
The Rogatchover had a special love for Rambam in general and the Moreh Nevuchim in particular. He had a copy of the work in manuscript form, from which he even sourced halachik support for some of his rulings.
THE ROGATCHOVER:
The Rogatchover had a special love for Rambam in general and the Moreh Nevuchim in particular. He had a copy of the work in manuscript form, from which he even sourced halachik support for some of his rulings.
THE MYSTERY BEGINS:
The fact is, though, that the issue of Rambam’s association
with mysticism is a fascinating if not cloudy mystery.
On the one hand, as we have seen, many of the ideas he
espoused were in clear and radical opposition to kabbalah.
On the other hand (although he himself makes no direct
references to kabbalah) he writes that he was exposed to all the writing
of the post Talmudic Geonim who did make numerous references to kabbalah.[15]
In fact some of his wording often even appears to have been taken directly from
the Zohar itself.[16]
This is where things start getting intriguing:
There has always existed a spiritual lobby group, purporting
that in his later years, he ‘retracted’ some of his former radical rationalist
writings and became a mystic.
MEIR IBN GABBAI (1480-1540):
Rabbi Meir Ibn Gabbai was the author of Avodat HaKodesh,
which was an extremely popular work that enjoyed five editions in the late
1500’s alone, and was distributed all across the Jewish world. The book contained
a counter to Rambam’s rationalism and helped spur the kabbalist
movement.[17] He was one of the first writers to
systematically and formally deal with kabbalistic concepts.
Remarkably he maintains that he saw with his own eyes a
report in the name of Rambam where he acknowledges that a certain man came down
to Egypt in order to teach him kabbalah.
Ibn Gabbai then writes that as a result of that encounter;
“...once he (Rambam) found the pearl he cast away the stones.”[18] Thus, in this influential book, is to be
found one of the first allusions to a claim that Rambam recanted his earlier
rationalism in favour of mysticism.[19]
RABBI AVRAHAM ABULAFIA (1240 – 1291):
Abulafia, the great kabbalist who founded the school
of ‘Prophfetic Kabbalah’, spent years studying and teaching the Guide and
compiled a mystical commentary to it entitled Sodot HaMoreh, or Secrets of the
Guide.[20]
The Guide was considered such a mystical work that even the number of its 177
chapters was said to intentionally corresponded to the numerical value of Gan
Eden, or Paradise.[21]
[22]
RABBI YITZCHAK ABRAVANEL (1437-1508):
Abravanel makes a similar claim and writes; “I also have
heard that Rambam said of himself; ‘...in my later years a certain man
influenced me. If I was not so old, and had my works not been so widely
distributed, I would have retracted them.’”[23]
RABBI MOSHE ALASHKAR (1466-1552) AND THE ‘SECRET DOCUMENT’:
In some of Rabbi Alashkar’s responsa literature, an
interesting development takes place. He strenuously defends Rambam against
attacks by the kabbalist Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov, who classified some of
the views put forth in the Guide as heretical[24].
Alashkar, in the process of defending Rambam, also maintains that he did become
a kabalist when he got older. This, Alashkar writes, is recorded in a
secret document allegedly written by Rambam himself.
In that secret
document, Alashkar says Rambam wrote; “For most of my life I was
perplexed...about existing things and wanted to understand their real meaning
by using my intellect. But now I realize that I was wrong and that the kabbalists
are able to explain them very well.”[25]
This alleged secret document is also said to have been in
the possession of the kabbalist Yosef Ergas (1685-1730), author of
Shomer Emunim.
SYNOPSIS:
Did this alleged document actually exist?
Was it authentic and, did it record the truth?
Could it have been a forgery?
Why was it ‘secret’?
What happened to that document?
These are questions we will probably never know the answers
to.
Either way, one amazing fact remains: Within the vast reaches of Torah
theology one man’s ‘heresy’ is another’s ‘ecstasy’.
It’s nice to know that
every Jew can find a space for the mind and heart to call home.
[1] See
Guide vol. 3, ch. 32
[2] See
Guide vol. 3, ch. 39
[3] See
Guide vol. 2, ch. 42
[4] The
Rif, for example, living in North Africa and Spain, never met Rashi, who lived
in France at the same time.
[5] See
Ibn Ezra’s Introduction to the Chumash.
[6] See
Guide, vol. 2, ch. 40
[7] See
Guide, by M. Friedlander 1904, xxv
He goes on to say; ‘He himself had studied astrology,
and was convinced it was no science at all. If some dicta be found in the Talmud
which appear to represent astrology as a true source of knowledge, these may
either be referred to the rejected opinion of a small minority, or may have an
allegorical meaning, but they are by no means forcible enough to set aside
principle based on logical proof.’
[8] Ibid.
Xxxvi
[9] Also
known as Yabetz (Yaakov ben Tzvi). A German Talmudist who fiercely challenged
false messiah, Shabatai Tzvi.
[10] See
Mitpachat Sefarim, Lemberg 1870, p. 56
[11] The
Vina Gaon, in his Introduction to Avot, disparages Rambam and his denial of the
reality of various supernatural phenomena. In his commentary on Shulchan Aruch
he writes; ‘ All those who came after Rambam disagreed with him...but he was
drawn after the accursed philosophy...Philosophy caused him to interpret everything
in the Gemara (on this topic) mockingly and to uproot it from its plain
meaning.’ (The authenticity of this passage was for some time disputed, but has
since been confirmed by a manuscript.) –See The Vilna Gaon, by Rabbi Dovid
Shulmam, p.159.
Then on p. 160 it is recorded that when someone
complained to the Vilna Gaon that another was giving a lesson in Moreh
Nevuchim, he said; ‘Don’t you dare speak against the honor of the Ramabam and
his writings. Would that I might merit to enter his portion of Paradise!’
[12] See
Likkutei Sichot vol. 3 761 “ there
are many topics in Guide for the Perplexed which have a basis in Zohar and
Kabbalah.”
[13] See
Yakov Dienstag who wrote of the connection between chassidic leaders and Rambam.
[14] RABBI NACHMAN OF BRESLOV:
Although many Chassidim endorsed the Guide, one
notable and vehement exception is Rabbi Nachman of Breslov who writes; ‘how can
anyone imagine giving such worthless reasons for the sacrifices and incense?’ (Shivchei
HaRan)
Another quotation; ‘ The Rebbe (Nachman) spoke many
times about philosophical works (particularly the Moreh Nevuchim) and strictly
forbade us to study or even look at them...Such works only confuse the mind and
implant unsound beliefs which are not in accordance with the wisdom of the
Torah. The authors of these works do not believe in the forces of evil, and
this goes contrary to the teaching of the rabbis, especially the Zohar...all of
which were founded on ruach hakodesh and have the power to awaken people and
inspire them...The Rebbe repeated this warning countless times.’ (Tzadik #407)
‘One Rosh Hashana the Rebbe spoke about the
prohibition against studying Torah commentaries taking a philosophical approach
(such as the works of Ibn Ezra...which are known to contain statements contrary
to the Torah to the point that one should rend his garments on hearing a single
word of them.)’ (# ibid. 409)
‘ The Rebbe also said one can tell from a person’s
face if he has studied the Guide for the Perplexed...because they are bound to
lose their image of G-d...Everyone can see that most of the people who
study these works today become total atheists, and we have to suspect them for
transgressing the entire Torah.’ (ibid. #408)
Yet strangely, in lesson #412, we read; ‘As for the
fact that the Rebbe himself studied philosophical works from time to time, this
is the concept of the journey of the children of Israel through the
wilderness...the place of evil forces...to trample down the forces of evil. For
us, however, it is strictly prohibited to look into these works...the very
great Tzadik is obligated to go into such works in order to elevate the souls
which have fallen there.’
[15] See
Introduction to Mishneh Torah. These would include Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Sherira
Gaon.
[16] See
HaRambam VeHaZohar, by Rabbi Reuvain Margolios.
[17]
Ironically, according to Moshe Idel, Rambam’s views served as a ‘negative
catalyser’ for kabbalistic conceptions. See Maimonides and the Shaping of the
Jewish Canon, by James A. Diamond.
[18]
Avodat HaKodesh, vol. 3, ch. 13
[19] See
Attitudes of the Kabbalists and Hasidim towards Maimonides, by Louis Jacobs and
based on a lecture delivered in 1985. I have taken much material from that
source. Although I may disagree with some of his philosophies, I have to admire
him for his tremendous scholarship and research.
[20]
Abulafia seems to draw from the Rambam’s concept of prophecy and angels as
being experiences of the mind, and integrated them into his contemplation and
concentration exercises. Abulafia, interestingly didn’t go along with the
common kabbalistic emphasis on sefirot, describing them as worse than
the Christian concept of the trinity.
[21] See
Guide, by M. Friedlander 1904, xxxiii
[22]
Abulafia’s mystical commentary is significant because it lent more weight to
the idea that Rambam always was a mystic, rather than that he became a
mystic in his latter years.
[23]
Nachalat Avot p. 209
[24] In
another great irony, Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov’s grandson, who also went by the
name Shem Tov, went against his grandfather and defended the rationalism of
Rambam and his writing became one of the main accepted commentaries to the
Guide For The Perplexed.
As an aside, another commentary to the Guide that
appears adjacent to the commentary of Shem Tov, is the Efodi. His story is
interesting; His real name was Yitzchak ben Moshe, but went by the Christian
name of Profiat Duran, which he adopted to escape persecution in 1391. When he
later returned to Judaism and wrote his commentary, he called it Efodi, an
acronym for Amar Profiat Duran.
All in all, I counted almost forty different
commentaries on the Guide or Moreh Nevuchim, which gives some idea as to the
impact (positive and negative) it had made. Rambam said he wrote this book
primarily for his student Yosef ben Yehudah Ibn Aknin and those like him; ‘...whose
studies have brought them into collision with religion.’
[25]
Responsa 117, p. 313
