Pocket Law

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Strauss’ theological-political Maimonides and daas torah

Strauss’ maimonideanism is theological-political in its judaic platonic formulation. The political centrality of Strauss’ position and its subsequent interest by his successors highlights his disapproval of the religious political trajectory occurring in geonic academies and ashkenazi communities.

Maimonides had more than a few choice words for the geonic innovations. He believed the talmud was the last word on widespread authority. The geonic expansion of authority was deeply problematic. Yet, this did not stop with the geonim. The tosafist also perceived themselves as the global authorities of Jewry. Talmudic law was the supreme law and deviation was uncalled for. Only a legitimate court could overturn talmudic law, not an individual sage. The geonim vested power in their own prestige as individual scholars. This ideology passed on to the French rabbis as the empowered mutable changes. 

The construction of the Mishneh Torah was socially indebted. Similar to Rebbe, he did compile the law for the layman to understand the law. The decline of religiosity required the individual to comprehend the law for himself, so he would know what to do. Yet, the code additionally  listed non-applicable laws such as monarchy and temple laws. Maimonides intentionally incorporated these laws as legislated in the talmud to undercut geonic innovation. These laws along with the other talmudic laws were immutable to individual sages. Local courts remained but not a national one.  

Maimonides believed in halakhic change but via exegesis not dismantling the law or creating new ones. His lexicographical exegesis mirrors the Mishnaic formulation in its legal evolution. The geonim and the ashkenazim did not hold the rulings of the talmud immutable. His exegesis was traditional following his Andalusian predecessors. The changes fit exegetically into the text. If they can be affixed into the interpretive process they are anchored, if not they are ignored. Social realities require advancement and re-interpretation but there are boundaries. There is a logical methodology and Maimonides was willing to adapt as long the equation was concise.     

Maimonides harmonious goal of joining law and society was lexicographically subtle. The exegetical method proved to maintain a certain conservatism that maintained the talmudic document as the supreme order. His codification was not necessarily to resist change for society’s sake but for authority’s sake. Codification was a means of stifling rabbinic hegemony as the interpretative authority. His pro-text mantle culminated in his own codex to function as the layman’s talmud. Generally, the people were not privy to talmudic knowledge nor learning, his code was a breach of that custom. The geonic-ashkenazi model ordered the people instead of self-learning. Maimonides instead supplied a take-home-talmud.  

Maimonides code integrated theology, ethics and law into a single codex. Without a prophet or a court there was no divine authority to combat societal erosion. His description of the prophet in the guide is an enforcer not a legislator. He is the perfected political authority. His rational faculty complimented the sage’s superior imagination. He could not legislate but he understood the divine law and its pragmatic effect on the social fabric. The sage’s job is to interpret and legislate. Yet, without a sufficient check the sage’s power was limitless. The geonic academies diminished the power of the exilarch to bolster their own. Maimonides added a little prophetic measure to halt such excessive power. Maimonides codification would cement the theological and ethical framework as the constitutional effort that could not be deviated from. To this day, his principles are upheld as the dogma of Judaism. 

Without an divinely appointed individual, the text would be a check on authority. The code was a way of holding leaders accountable. It was prophetic in its own right. With their take-home-talmud the masses could match their leaders’ decisions with the divine will. This democratic move by Maimonides was ensuring the perpetuity of Jewry and its adherence to tradition. It was for the sake of tradition that radical hermeneutics did not enter the frame. The text was the eternal critic on leaders who wished to defy tradition. The now accessible tradition would be comprehended by the masses and weaponised against tyrannical deviation.      

The political backdrop of maimonidean philosophy was the Mishneh Torah itself. His code was a polemic against the geonic and subsequent ashkenazi ideology. Though his code was part of the controversy and remained a major issue to later thinkers as well, the lack of context maligns the rationale behind his goal. There is undoubtably a consequence to codification but there is also a misunderstanding of its structure and style that promoted semantic strict readings that were seemingly not Maimonides intent nor vision.