Blessed Authority

By: Jonathan Seidel

Maimonides vs Nahmanides: text vs sage an ancient chetza-gavra dialectic 

Nahmanides resorted to placing authority in the sage and Maimonides in the text. The difference is clear, the sage’s authority enables him to manipulate the text, while the text forces the sage to submit. This dialectic presents in authority. The centre of authority manifests as the legislator. The cheftza-gavra debate signifies a special relationship with that individual. This debate considers the origin of law. If the text is the signifier than it compels submission and innovation is only through a textual hermeneutic can law change. His modelling after the biblical exegesis possessed textual affinity than circus gymnastics of the sage himself. The text needed to align itself with its predecessors instead of the sage manipulating the text to fit his agenda. 

The text acted as a guardian of the tradition. It was the written word that carried weight. A document fulfilling its role persuasively. The talmud was a constitutional model that was the supreme law of the land. Nobody cares that James Madison signed the constitution. It is the fact it is accepted by the American people. It is the people of Israel who accepted the Torah that makes it so special. The law is embedded in a textual rendition to hallmark the legal finality. The law is singularly imposed on Jews. The text narrates the covenant and its special place in the heart of Israel. Text provides layers of powers and responsibilities. It is the blueprint of religious expression. The sage is merely the guide to the law. He is the intermediary. Moses transferred the law from God to the people. He was God’s mouthpiece. He was God’s substitute teacher. The sage is a middleman, a translator to the people’s servitude. God is the author of the text but once given is the people’s. The text is the ultimate form of divine expression. Its perfected formulation and expression of divine love. The text is eternal and poetically manifested. 

The sage is the interpreter for the people. His job is more than just a middleman. He is responsible for driving the people in the right direction. God provided a divine will that applies in each generation. God has gifted his will to the people, it is his job to explain it succinctly. He understands the situation of Jew in each generation. He reckons that God has provided immense flexibility to reinvent the text. It is his duty to protect and inspire the people. The constitution is a text that requires jurists to interpret and apply it to every age. What was inexcusable in the past is effective today. The text is finite but deductive analysis can reveal a wide variety of possibilities. Only the scholarly trained has the capability of comprehension. He alone can trek that mountain for the Jew and supply him the easy burden of crossing the safely constructed pathway. The text is the bedrock but it is the sage who is aware of the circumstances and defender of the people. He takes God’s gift and fills it with his love and devotion. The sage is not a deceptive liar but a caring leader. He loves God and the law but zealously interprets the eternal text to aid his fellow Jew. 

Both methods are carefully examined. Who has the authority is stymied by an immense wealth of targeted influence. The text controls the masses by its worded commands. The sage authors his superiority by his knowledge. The horizontal society measures democratic equality. Every person can read and understand the text. The text is accessible to the masses and though observed by an appointed judge, it is instituted by the people. The judge is a posteriori figure following the legal obligation. The vertical society is a regal or classist system. There is a hierarchy that separates people categorically. Only the elite are able to understand and interpret. It is accessible to the self-appointed leader and interpreted by him. The judge is a priori figure embedded in the textual facilitation. 

The biblical model provides both possibilities. The bible is ambiguous on Moses’ precise role. Is he an interpreter or a middleman? Throughout the text he seems to be a middleman. In the cases in Numbers that he unsure of, he asks God for a solution. He is a teacher, only relaying God’s syllabus to the people. There is a lack of autonomy to decide for himself. Yet, in Deuteronomy, it seems Moses institutes new statues on his own. The fact that its Moses’ recollection even with God’s stamp to it does not negate his innovations. Still, his hermeneutic is textually apparent which is less formulating new laws and more extending on the old. Yet, it can be argued that his innovation is proof of his transition to a hegemony of sorts. The prophetic world also innovated with new laws but in a gradual course textually modifying subverting the powerful sage. The prophets are not depicted as supreme authorities but intermediaries. The biblical model places God as the ultimate arbitrator of the text and his will evolving the text. God can be perceived in the vertical order but his prophecies do not supplant but supplement Mosaic law. The prophet is the messenger to the people. The people can attain an understanding. People are handpicked but they are not legislators but preachers. 

The rabbinic model shifts the burden to the sage running the show. The horizontal colour straightened with the rise of the sage. The sage appointed his own laws and acted on behalf of the community adjusting new norms. Beginning with the provisions of Ezra and Nehemiah to the exclusivity of Shammai and Hillel’s exegetical tools down to the students of Yavneh. The exegetical writings were commentaries in producing extraordinary interpretations. Hillel’s response to Bnei Batera with logical proofs though unconvincing to them did pave for later versions. The Akivian model deepened the level to esoteric degrees. Each letter had transcendent experience. Akiva was a nobody who became the most important sage. They innovated and produced new layers but it was the behest of tradition. Their rulings were newly reworked into the old model instantaneously exegetically configuring the old landscape. The ability to innovate was open to anyone who reached a certain aptitude. Despite this openness, only those could legislate. The opportunity was limited in scope to the educated. The rabbinic sage is the arbiter of the law and the text. People become legislators and preachers to the people.     

The Andalusian school memorialised textuality. Maimonides placed the authority of the great court as the only arbiter of the text. No post-talmudic authority had any any supreme power. At most they could use the preexisting text to modify their decision. The view upheld the talmudic text as the constitutional backdrop that forbade opposition. Private courts could legislate in line with the talmudic opinion. Rabbis were obedient to the constrains of the law. Yet were not beholden to the predecessors. Maimonides disposition with his forbearers. There was a timeless axis to the talmudic rabbis but a temporary line to the current educators. His rejection of the decline fo the generations animated his approach. The scholarly adept in talmudic law issues the greatest performance for proper definition. 

The French school highlighted charismatic leadership. Nahmanides following in their footsteps applied the great court’s power to the contemporary scholarship. Each generation was more spiritually inept than its predecessors. Each generation looked to its predecessor as the correct model. Yet, innovation was skilfully appointed by dialectical deduction. The talmudic sages’ authority was passed down to the medieval sages. Their wisdom was transferred and applied by these scholars. Talmudic authority and post-talmudic authority were identical in nature of scholarly superiority but not in legislative capacity. The eternal power of the sage opened up flexible interpretations to denote novelties and charismatic association. The elite wisdom proffered simplicity by taking care of the interpretation by religious value.