Rabbinic Policy

By: Jonathan Seidel

Anti-maimonideans and the philosopher king

Although the French rabbis are notorious for their philosophical antagonism, their earlier precedent to platonic thought prior to the advent of kabbalah they were modelling their views after the platonic theme. 

Though there is speculation of the Plato’s Republic in Christian Europe and the philosophical knowledge of the French rabbis there is a geonic tradition that prioritised rabbinic hegemony over secular authority. The dual nature of a secular and religious leader diminished in geonic and even more so in ashkenazi Europe. This does not mean that Tosafot or Hai Gaon read Plato but it does insinuate an ideological connection between the two. Plato is not the origin of ideas. It is possible for others to conjure similar positions unbeknownst to anyone else. The probability of congruency is not too crazy given this is regard the limits of political construction. 

The geonim were aware of Plato’s work and neoplatonism was brought over the Christian Europe. There was enough external influence to expropriate this ideology. Though like most external influence, it was Judaised to fit the Judaics tradition. For some examples, Maimonides fit aristotelianism to Judaism and Nahmanides neoplatonism into Judaism. Academics such as Berman and Hezser have demonstrated the effects of the ancient Near East or Rome on Judaism respectively. The lack of evidence with the exception of Maimonides quoting Aristotle is due to this Judaisation. 

Whether or not the geonic-ashkenazi legacy was following Plato or not, it is clear that Maimonides was fighting against it. His political formulation was a direct attack on the platonic themes in the former’s rabbinic construction. His legal supremacy and abolition of post-talmudic national courts derided the geonic innovation supplying them extraordinary legislative power. He empowered the recently ignored exliach to enhance a secular leadership alongside the religious authority. 

The Platonic philosopher king removes the dynastic heredity for the knowledgable. The chosen leader is to be an intellectual and political genius. This ideal state is comprised of a heightened individual who can lead the masses successfully. According to Plato, the philosophical knowledge is necessary for the utopian society. Al-Farabi expanded this individual to the religious prophet. The prophet is not just an ethical critic but a legislator as well. Though never practiced during the islamic empire, the edenic ideal was studied. Maimonides placed Moses alone in this category as the lawgiving-prophet and for it to remain that way. Moses was unique and yet he stops short refusing to call Moses a king. Even the messianic figure is depicted as a problematic philosopher king.

King Solomon would be best attributed as a philosopher king who was also a prophet. Yet for Maimonides and the geonim, the philosopher king achteype was less about kingship and more about legislative power. In Jewish tradition the philosopher king becomes Al-Farabi’s lawgiving prophet. The geonic rabbis assumed authority as the successors of the talmud. They were willing to override talmudic law and only hold by the Mishnah. They produced their own works and innovations at their own accord. They were the authorities in charge of the community of Israel. They had the power and prestige to interpret as they wished. 

This passed on to the ashkenazi thinkers and then to the anti-maimonideans. The ashkenazi leaders canonised the talmudic text and played gymnastics to validate their deviating customs. Their revolutionary mindset concerning biblical and talmudic hermeneutics demonstrated a rabbinic superiority that permitted free reign of interpretation. Similar to the geonim the post-talmudic textualisation dismantles its fixed authoritativeness. They viewed themselves as courts onto themselves. They had the vested authority to reinterpret the text to legislate for the community. 

This mindset spread to the anti-maimonideans with the esoteric teachings inspiring more authority. The anti-maimonideans pursued this against Maimonides’ opposition to rabbinic rule. They retained their distance by associating the esoteric and legal as too much for the masses. The masses would be taught instead of approaching the text themselves. Maimonides talmudic handbook was voided as a crime against Judaism. Yet, bridging the gap sought harmony. Kabbalah further isolated the masses as an inferior bunch. The sephardi rabbis anointed the French rabbis as the absolute rulers. This fidelity promoted their own scholarship and hegemony as their successors. 

The legislative prophet is the anti-maimonidean effort to profess the sage as the superior leader in all regards. It culminated in the first ever daas torah ideology. The current stream of haredi daas torah where the rabbi is the authority on all matters began back in French Jewry. The powerful leadership is akin go tyrannical rule. There is a monolithic tone that forbids any deviation from the rabbinic decision. It is absolute. The geonim began this project and the French rabbis furthered it until the anti-maimonideans hijacked it to book burning and radical protests. 

Some of the anti-maimonideans associated kabbalah with prophecy. Rabbinic authority was enhanced by the divine spirit moving through them. Their decisions were not logical but metaphysical. The esoteric matter reformed the traditional sage into a political authority. It was considered a biblical obligation to follow the sages of the time. The sage decides what the torah says and that his job. The prophet’s divine knowledge is affixed to the sage’s interpretative imagination. While Maimonides kept the prophet and sage separate, his opponents combined them into this superior figure. They gradually began to see themselves as inerrant. This arrogance belied the traditional mode of legislation. 

Prophecy may have transitioned to rabbinic wisdom but the lofty spirit does not. The Platonic-Farabian model was inserted in rabbinic communities from geonic times through the Middle Ages. The current haredi communities express it similarly. The concept of the tzadik stolen from Hasidic communities became a central value to the towering superiority of the sage. The sage is always correct and his opponents are enemies. Just as Maimonides was ridiculed so was the Rav and Rav Kook for their heresies against these paramount authorities. 

Plato never saw his ideal in action. Alexander the Great and Marcus Aurelius are dubbed philosopher kings but these thinkers were readers than enforcers. Though immensely successful warriors, their philosophy was more a hobby than an agenda to ensnare the people. The Jewish model did take place and even though without land, there was a globalist effect. The lack of a single sovereign need not diminish its effect. Plato’s philosopher king transformed into a political sage who controlled his communities and displayed his hegemony.