Adversarial Similarities

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wyscholgrod attacks Maimonides' demythologising as un-Jewish and yet his assertion that his Judaism is biblical is actually aligned with Maimonide's biblical Judaism. Accounting for exegesis and semiology, the biblical model presents a fluid oral framework and evolutionary character. 

Maimonides as a philosopher and codifier already placed him in his own camp. Furthering his philosophical work and halakhic code muster much biblical manifestations. His Sefer hamitzvot excludes rabbinic ordinances from the list religious commandments. Rabbinic additions are secondary to the biblical ones. The rabbinic emulations can be abrogated but the biblical ones are eternal. Maimonides cumulative view of oral law opens the possibility of collecting new laws throughout history till the talmudic canonisation. Needless to say, any innovation up to the talmud and accepted was strictly adhered to. Maimonides does not care for the authority but the acceptance across Israel. The talmud’s status is due to its unanimous respect. The text was the hallmark of religious authority. The text empowers the the court to act and decide accordingly.

Moreover his codex structure is Mishnaic which is formulated from the biblical. The arrangement is nearly identical. The order of books and halakhot are aligned. Maimonides intentionally organised his book in this manner following Rebbe’s formation. His reasoning for codifying law matched Rebbe’s. Maimonides Mishnaic parallel is not an accident but it goes further. His code is a kind of bible commentary allegorising the law. His biblical hermeneutic models the mechanic structure of textual copying. Maimonides guide is itself a biblical commentary. The first thirty five chapters are to interpret the anthropomorphic terms. Maimonides basis in biblical textuality is moreover not shocking given in his Mishnaic considerations.

For most other thinkers biblical thinking is primary. With the exception of Wyscholgrod most Jews would assign theology to the bible and the rest of their Judaism to the talmud. Yet, Maimonides differs here. This separation is inherent to understanding the true nature of Judaism. The talmudic structure, hellenism and peshat methodology have skewed the truth of Torah. The Mishnah is the result of compiled teachings. The citation method of the Talmud is alien to the Mishnah but relevant to the Tosefta. The Mishnah was a unique project that built on biblical exegesis. The role of logical tools were growing but were not instrumental in magnifying too much of the law. The old literary method was still around. Yet cracks in the system slowly become apparent. The fascinating dialectical interpretation of Tosafist in manifesting the scholarly supremacy were bursting onto the scene in simpler hierarchical way. Ramban Gamliel’s demonstration of his superiority over R Joshua was the first real thrust of rabbinic hegemony. This autonomous delegation was stirring the power of the sage. The talmudic message was to quote the tradition in a teacher’s name. The Geonim followed with their own innovations that Maimonides detested asa deviation from talmudic law. 

The Tosefta was an earlier Talmud. The Tosefta contrary to many scholars was not a later addition but an earlier precedent to the Mishnah. Its use of analogical reasoning and scriptural citations follows a closer link to talmudic lingo but it is likely that the taanaitic strata of hermeneutical tools presented an alternative matrix furthering the Toseftan model. The Mishnah is closer with biblical hermeneutics or lexicographical exegesis. The Tosefta is closer with Roman law in its elaborative function. It is closely a statuary codex detailing differences while the Mishnah adhered to the common law of old resisting the Hellenistic reform. Mishnah and Maimonides both coordinated works out of time. Maimonides’ improper presentation startled a controversy and codified legacy. Yet, this manner of historical-literary stimulation points to a Mishnaic Maimonidean biblicalism.   

The oral law is biblical. It was passed through the generations and unveiled by the sages. Midrash is that valve of the communal knowledge behind the text. The sages did not exegetically invent new laws but disclosed the age old. There are obvious legal innovations but many like talion law are the original law. The text hides these laws in its semantic formulation. Judaism is oral and the text functions as presentation to evoke a certain image that the people understand. The text is the key to the more elaborate narratives. Contrary to Wyscholgrod, those indebted to the oral tradition are more biblical, understanding the true nature of biblical law and narrative. The literal reading of the text is a medieval pose to the ancient’s interpretation.

The sensus comminus of tradition is the the formulated Mishnaic anthology. Maimonides' biblical connection furthers an oral representation. Exegesis was not an advancement but divulging the true measure of religious identity. The written word was the compilation of oral narratives. The oral precedes the written. The written motions to the lurking semiology in the white letters. Maimonides refused to semantically interpret the text. Instead he saw the lexicographical delineation as a method of properly ensuring the perpetuity of the oral character. It pointed to a narrational sensitivity to cultural progress and evolution. The written word is the only the first stage to the transmitted oral identity.