Misguided or Perplexed?

\

By: Jonathan Seidel

Aristotelian Maimonides vs Orthodox Maimonides: the shift in sixteenth century Italy

Maimonides’ philosophy has shed its Aristotelian oeuvre over the years. Originally a prime suspect of hellenised indoctrination, is firmly centred in the religious canon. Maimonides was seen as the scion of the religious-philosophical synthesis. This seems to be the start of the whitewashing of his radical rationalism. The remaining remnants of pure maimonidean thought are spurned with varied ideology.

The purest of maimonideanism was ripe in Andalusia and presented exquisitely to Ibn Tabbon who shared it with his fellow Provencal scholars. The uniform theology amongst the thinkers including Radak, Meiri, Nissim of Marseilles and Gersonides testify to an authentic oral tradition. They mirrored his true intent. Though semantically this may not be so. The lack of confirmed contact by these scholars and yet arrive at the same conclusions demonstrates an expansive oral prowess. Each was also unique: Gersonides a mathematician, Radak a biblical scholar, Nissim a theologian and Meiri a Talmudist. Their conclusions were their own commentary and furtherance of maimonidean thought. Hinging on the rationalism and philosophical corpus.  

For the maimonideans, Judaism was a philosophical religion, one that intellectualised the link between man and God. A tradition dating back to Saadia’s rational exoteric anti-karaite polemic. The demythologised religiosity and “secular”/natural knowledge was central to their thought. Supernal creatures were voided and prophecy was an intellectual paradigm. Science was read back into the text. Symmetry between science and the text was critical and obvious. At the same time, the law was the foundation of Judaism. Law was the floor to engage philosophically to the ceiling.

This all changed with the anti-maimonideans who semantically read the guide, derided any oral program and pushed for anti-rationalism. Though in the beginning it was the mystical layers that attempted to diminish the rationalist trend. Nahamanides and Rabbenu Yonah were not anti-philosophy, just anti-rationalists. Taking pointers from a biased reading of the Kuzari to further their perceptive with some celestial markers. The second round of anti-rationalists were less mystically inclined that of Ran and Hasdai. Hasdai with the exception of Abarbanel wrote the most scathing critique of Maimonides. Those who paint Nahmanides or Halevi as Maimonides foil are completely off. It was Hasdai. He attacked everything Maimonides from his philosophy to his code. Though there were points of agreement in the substance of philosophy and codification, it was Maimonides’ methodology he could not get behind. The often forgotten critic understood Maimonides well and did not like it. Abarbanel allied with a Kuzari misreading to attack Maimonides but again like Hasdai on rational grounds. He did not agree with the perspective but valued the subject.

The Italian Renaissance began to synthesis Jewish philosophy. Maimonides began to look more “traditional” than he had to Hasdai or Nahmanides. Arama, for example, found a way to repudiate Maimonides and yet still hold true to his maimonideanism. It’s not clear whether it was the expulsion, the Italian style of teaching, the printing press or a gradual change in interpreting Maimonides. Given Arama’s ant-rational maimonideanism which praises Maimonides but at the same time derides his hellenism. Arama was followed by Abarbanel who also elevated Maimonides yet critiqued him greatly. Despite Hasdai’s prevalent anti-maimonideanism, he didn’t engage in any censorship nor compromise. Ironically, Hasdai’s views were lost to much of Jewish history. He isn’t included in the Renaissance writings nor is Abrabanel but still, till this day Hasdai is almost lost to history. Maimonides won the day even if his views were appropriated.

Ibn Tibbon was not the only thinker who ascribed an esoteric doctrine to Maimonides. The mystics did the same. For them in their derashic interpretation brought new meaning to Maimonides apparent mysticism. Though his Aristotelian rationalism was attacked during the controversy, kabbalists tied his work to more celestial themes. That was his real intent that he was covering up. Early mystics like Isaac the Blind and Jacob ben Sheshet readily rejected the Guide. Abraham Abulafiah and his contemporaries wrote commentaries on the Guide. Yet this was a clear appropriation reading his own agenda into the semantic phraseology. Different mystical groups responded differently. 

Unlike their kabbalist brethren, hasidim despised the Guide. Rebbe Nachman went as far as to condemn the loss of the edenic fate for learning it. Bnei Yissacher echoed Emden’s maimonidean polemical arguments, blaming Maimonides for conversions and intermarriage. Habad and Ichbitz took an alternative route. Habad mimicked Abulafiah’s appropriation with a Hasidic Maimonides. Tzemech Tzedeck attempted to mystify the Guide. Gershon Leiner believed the Guide to be the imperfect mystical work. Just as the Italian scholars tried to synthesis Maimonides with Halevi, the Ishnitzer tried to synthesise Maimonides with hasidut. 

The maskilim also appropriated Maimonides to fit a radical humanism. This version of Jewish enlightenment saw Maimonides as a beacon of pride and excellence. Their synthesise was bogus to fit their agenda. Maimon and his buddies felt they were fighting against monolithic talmudists. He is more a symbol than a teacher. Kromchal also put forward a renewed version of maimonideanism that had little to do with Maimonides. The same was supported by Mendelssohn. The deep maimonidean appropriation was in an anti-rationalist way that named Maimonides and then perverted his writings. 

The contemporary Haredi model does not jive with Maimonides’ thought. R Wasserman and R Kotler both took pains to appropriate Maimonides’ work to fit heir agendas. Yet it is also clear Kook and Soloveitchik appropriated Maimonides in their own to fit their modern perceptions. Even the likes of Leibowitz, Roth and Hartman do not fit the pure maimonidean bill, riddled with modern motivations over Maimonides’ intentions. 

Maimonides' grave disagreement with Aristotle that is the most striking. Similar to his contemporaries in Andalusia, he quotes the greek philosophers plainly and draws from their thinking. Likewise, he objects to many of the greek philosophers’ claims. Aristotelianism was a model of philosophical exercise that Maimonides used but parted in many ways as did others. The “brainwashing” is ludicrous when their views are matched up. The only critique is in studying philosophy itself which most scholars advocated. 

Maimonides the rationalist was hailed by subsequent generations and he needed to fit the views of varied ideologies. Yet they all had it wrong. It is otherwise not shocking that his students were able to uniformly demonstrate a prominent religiosity while other groups were split on his truth and affinity to him. Maimonides was as rationalist and though wrote esoterically did not hint nor believe in the mystical or humanistic elements that were advocated by such scholars. The anti-rational polemic was not without cause but it targeted Maimonides despite its centuries of acceptance amongst the greatest of Jewish scholars.