Intellectual Extrapolations

By: Jonathan Seidel

Commentary and criticism: Jewish biblical theology: Ramban v Rambam and Soloveitchik v Sacks

Jewish philosophy has long oscillated between two styles commentary and criticism, interpretive and systemic works. These two types are archetypes but finesse into a spectrum. Some elements may be stronger but the style is the foundation for thought.

The two greatest Moshe’s of the medievals. The phrase from Moshe to Moshe there was no like Moshe either could be Maimonides or Nahmanides. It is no wonder that two greatest Sages of the medievals were both named Moses (maybe it was a name thing). One wrote a commentary on the Torah and one wrote a criticism on the Torah. Nahmanides analysed the text in the French grammarian philosophy. Many times defending Rashi against his Spanish predecessor Ibn Ezra (also defended Rif from Baal HaMaor). The commentary interpreted verses and in certain areas persisted beyond the transition of the text The primary cause was the meaning and then the tangential flow inspired mystical iterations. His textual primacy was among the high class of French thinking but the mystical ideas hailing from the Rhineland and Provence fuelled his biblical thinking. To explain and then expound. 

Maimonides on the other hand prioritised explanation. Interpretation was a part of the philosophical oeuvre. Maimonides began with philosophy and then analysed the text. Logic not text was the primary source of analysis. Maimonides focused on concepts instead of grammar. Like later briskers, the focus on the intellectual apparatus imposed its prior conceptualisation prior to engaging the text. Maimonides did not explain point by point, instead chose topics and ideas to explain. Antrhopomphisms were a chapter in Maimonides while for Nahmanides they were discussed when they came up in the text. Maimonides categorised and then collected the sources that fit the topic. A research project of sorts. Nahmanides instead focused on each section on its own turf. Maimonides and Nahmanides discussed creation at different points with different outlooks. Yet their style impacted their discussion. Maimonides argued from outside the text. How can creation fit with logic and science. For Nahmanides it was how creation fits within the scope of text. 

Both provide different layouts. There are few philosophical commentaries but many mystical ones and vice versa with criticisms. Tanya, Etz Chaim, R Kook are of the few while the Zohar, Bahir and chassidic works are written as biblical commentaries. On the other hand Ibn Kaspi, Ralbag, Maharal, while most of the Spanish and modern rationalists wrote systemic works. Yet some Spanish thinkers played with pure logic while others played in more commentarial fold. Maharal is an interesting hybrid who wrote commentaries and criticisms. Even the criticisms begin from the commentary with raging tangents. Maharal at times did expand his range of concepts based on the study type. It is more a footing. What is preferred. Rationalists may have written systemic works either because logic and not text was primary or science and philosophy were the starting point and wished to keep it away from Torah. Rationalists did distinguish between their biblical interpretation and halakha. Just as they didn’t wish to mix peshat and halakha so too they didn’t wish to mix peshat and philosophy. Thouhgh Maimonides did so by anthropomorphising the Torah.

To some extent Maimonides may have overstepped and this was Rashba and Gra’s polemic. Yet this was not unlike Maimonides classification approach. Aligning the Torah with science and logic was the model of intellectual naturalism. This is the realistic prose. For the commentators, the only thing that was true was the text. What does the text mean and where does it take me. The mystical insights brew from tangential textuality. The biblical mythos is secreted with spirituality thus the text is the object of concern with it oozing out the mysticism entrenched. Philosophy cares little for the text. Philosophy looks at the world. Maimonides and Halevi looked at the world and applied Judaism to that scientific persona. Not what does this mean but how does this work. Logic was committed to the experience in the everyday. The understanding beyond the written word. The systemic work begins with portrays and seeks to illuminate the tradition. The commentator instead lives through the text. The text heightens his experience of the world. The commentator is inspired by the text not by logic. 

It is wilfully irregular that both R Kook and R Shagar in the spirit of the Tayna and Nefesh HaChaim opted for criticisms over commentary. There is a clear stylistic difference between Ein Aya and Orot HaKodesh. One is limited while the other limitless. One is categorised by topic and one is open for elaboration. R Shagar in his philosophical expertise tried to link philosophy with mysticism. Writing a criticism to inspire mystical ideals. R Shagar and even R Kook look to earlier or contemporary works. Quoting previous mystics or philosophers instead of focusing on a text to derive. The goal is to make a point and then bring voices to verify. A commentary rarely does that with more drawing connections from other sources to link the texts instead of drawing a deeper idea. The mystical criticism output works similarly to Maimonides’ guide by prioritising an idea or a mystical position then demonstrating through verification. It its own logic turned into textual compromise. 

A good modern formulation of the classic debate is R Sacks and R Soloveitchik. Since both are philosophers it is clear the difference between the two. R Sacks is a systemic thinker. Even in his biblical commentary he focuses on ideas instead of the text. The Rav’s Lonely Man of Faith while is a coneptualised predilection the backbone of the text to surmise a specific approach is Nahmanidean. It is a way of explaining the syntactical aspect and then drawing a deeper philosophical lesson from it. R Sacks’ article "Alienation and Exile" on the Rav’s work is an example of younger R Sacks dealing with text instead of his later systemic works treated during his tenure as Chief Rabbi. Yet even here R Sacks is pushing an idea rather than the syntax of the text. The Rav did not care to quote Rashi or Cassuto but rather focused on his own Tosafist spirit to concern with textual prose as Nahmanides did before him. The Rav wrote Halakhic Man and Uvikashtem Misham. The latter acts as a quasi-commentary on Shir HaShirim but using the words as a backbone to extrapolate like the Maharal is beyond the use by Nahmanides. Absent grammar and phonetics is not a commentary but a criticism. The Rav may have played it closer on the spectrum but did still write criticisms even if not to the degree of Maimonides or R Sacks. 

The role of criticism is pushing an idea verified by others. The thinker has but his ideas and those of others. The idea must encapsulate the digest. A commentator has only his own work. He looks at the text and extrapolates. It isn’t an idea he is searching for but a text that he needs to clarify. Different aspirations and different goals. When an intellectual meets the text either he renounces his philosophy for commentary (Ralbag) or he philosophises the commentary (Rambam). Gersonides is a fascinating thinker who despite being a major logician was a grammarian. In his commentary, he put the text first to deduce the meaning of the section presented. A thinker can write both a commentary and criticism. He can have the best of both worlds by keeping them separate. Gersonides had his naturalistic tendencies in his quite hardcore rationalism but in his commentary he found nice company amongst Radak and Bechor Shor. R Hirsch is another such figure who wrote a criticism and a commentary. Each lived and breathed on its own. Even more so grammatically focused than some of the French scholars. 

Commentary-criticism hybrids exist in one way or another. Nahmanides was the godfather who added nuance post-syntax but left much to desire. It was a commentary with frequent tangential bursts. Maharal expanded it to only tangential bursts except for his Gur Aryeh and Gevurot Hashem. Reaching R Sacks and the pinnacle of derashot divrei Torah. Beginning with an idea and encircling that idea through textual derivation. The text or more so the narrative lends the idea that is then expounded upon. In the other direction, underlying a philosophical essay or work with talmudic or mystical sources rather than strict philosophy. Levinas may have Jewish ideals in mind through his Totality and Infinity while his Difficult Freedom is dedicated to Judaism. Rosenzweig as well as Cohen but their works are less grounded in traditional sources and more in the philosophical jargon. Maimonides’ book on logic and the Guide are written similarly but one is more religiously approached. The model of the Maimonidean theme has been tempered and the Nahmanidean approach expanded.

The expanded Nahmanidean approach in the works of R Sacks’s biblical books, R Lichtenstein, R Hunter all demonstrate a philosophical prowess but muddled by biblical textuality. There is little focus on the text and more on the sources to produce. The use of biblical commentators to buttress a point is to use the textualists to affirm a position to then transform into an idea. Nahmanides has shape shifted into Maharal who has looked to earlier scholars just as a philosopher looks to earlier scholars for insight. This is the derashot model. While these thinkers were more logical and intellectual in their source material and analysis it follows the sermonic voice of the mystics and pulpit rabbis. Nothing wrong with it but a common trope of the modern day. Commentaries have lost their flare. Derashot is the purpose. Powerful inspiration is the key. There are fringe systemic works whether more secularly inclined or traditionally so. The difference evidently is the foundation of the premise and situational context. 

While commentaries have lost much of their presence not entirely though. The maggid series and literary analysis of the biblical text keeps the commentarial aspect alive but it pales in comparison. It often looks to rationalise in spite of earlier opinions. Though R Medan and R Bin Nun are no slouches in this field. Yet it is overwhelmed with conceptualised assault of academic methods that deviate from the synchronic messaging of textuality. Focusing more on concepts of Tanakh than what the text bears. It really is a minority even if splendid. The centrality of derashot has been administered in all sorts of ways. Both Moshe’s provided the prototypes for modern Jewish thinking. R Sacks and R Lamm have both written derashot on the Torah while writing their own systemic works. The commentary masterpiece has been brisker-ed. No genre is safe from conceptualisation. Despite the ridicule of philosophy the tempered and expansion has compromised as machshava. The genre of machshava has more ethical or theological motifs. Compromised in the elastic genre skirts away from syntax and jargon to meet a simple middle. One grounded in classical ideas with classical thinkers and quotes. 

The development commentary and criticism has evolved through different stages and currently is at a unique stage. The extremes have found common ground. Machshava is the less grammatical and less philosophical yet attempts to comment and criticise. From Rambam and Ramban to the moderns of today, Jewish thought continues to progress in its own avenue.