Two Sides of the Same Coin

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Semiological Rambam and metaphysical Maimonides: bridging Athens and Jerusalem 

The Rav and Rav Lichtenstein both separated Maimonides into two different men: the codifier and the philosopher. Both preferred the codifier over the philosopher. While such preference is warranted it is rather important that the codifier is more than such. The codifier is but a referential linguist.  

Maimonides of the Guide must be not rejected for his other half. Neither should the Rav be rejected for his Halakhic Man or Lonely Man of Faith. Ironically, the Rav’s preference of Rambam rather than Maimonides is the same fear he had from his students. They chose The Rav rather than Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik. They wanted to hear his shuirim rather than read his books. While it is not certain that Maimonides prioritised his Guide at least over the code, the Rav did place much reverence to his philosophical works that were painfully overlooked by his students. Even more so in the Haredi community where it is his talmudic commentary that has more sway than his philosophical works. A scholar can never be divided from his writings. A scholar may have an agenda at hand whether it be Saadia or Maimonides. To some extent it cannot be certain whether Maimonides truly believed what he wrote but presumably yes. Just as the Rav wrote what he believed for a struggling Jewry so did Maimonides. Arguing for Rambam instead of Maimonides is a cute English distinction but in Hebrew it will still say Rambam for both. To say Rambam is to speak of the author of the code and the author of the Guide. Both are the same man, distinguishing with a crude academic distinction is a folly. 

The linguistic distinction is not all too foreign given the differences between the code and the Guide. According to some of the principles in the Guide, the code would be unacceptable. This creates a chasm in Maimonides’ work. Is Maimonides or at least his students heretics by his code? Did he simply change his mind and forgo updating his code? Firstly, those differences must be decoded. Some point to the principles not matching up. Maimonides principles in the code and his theology in the Guide aren’t a match. So the argument goes either he changed his mind or he didn’t believe what he was writing. Yet this comes from a misreading not of the Guide but of the code. The code is read like a Christian not a Babylonian. To read the text semantically is to undermine its entire focus. Maimonides entire code is a semiotic construction. It is poetically literate with tenuous depth. The incoherence and inconsistency doesn’t stem from time since if it did he would refer to it. Rather the reading of the code must be ill translated. Since the idea of a translation corrupts the code. Maimonides goal wasn’t to replace anything but provide a new symbolic framework for the struggling community. The Guide is merely a flushed out framework of the code. 

The code is a referential system that alludes to the ideas not in images nor symbols but in phrases. Discrepancies also emerge in his responsa. This is due to the fact that his code is not the practical source of law that many claim it to be. It is a source guide just as the Mishnah was. If one reads the Mishnah it seems outmatched by the talmudic exposition. Are the Sages adding things? Are they imagining extensions? No. Unlike the contemporary scene where the code resembles the author, the Mishnah is the code that resembles the people. There is a practice and the Sages configure how Rebbe meticulously oriented the Mishnaic prose. Rebbe ingeniously set up the anthological compendium as a sign system. Phrases jumbled together into incoherence symbolised the details omitted. Thus when the Sages unpack the seemingly vague illiterate Mishnah, they assign the prevailing practice to the Mishnaic terminology. Tanakh is used in a similar way as different verses spell the sign for the law’s existence. This law exists since the text says such. Using both Mikra and Mishnah to substantiate practice. An exegetical model of reverse engineering rather than process engineering. Working backwards rather than amending forwards. Maimonides model is assigned to the same program. A system of anthological symbols oriented in an orderly system. 

The code unlike the Guide is not systematic. The Guide is a breath of Maimonides’ theology. Whether he hid some of his true beliefs is rather uncertain. Maimonides posited his approach in his Guide. The Guide is the elucidation of the embedded signals in the code. The code is the reference point of symbolic representation. Whether or not Maimonides truly conveyed his personal feelings is of little interest, only that it was the genuine expansion of the code. The code merely glorified the extension. It authenticated its detail in the phraseological limits of the code verses. The reference guide is the structure of signs surrounding the details. Before illustrating the depth of the idea it needs to be grounded in a foundation. The virtuous spell of detail desires a bedrock to connect to. The code is that core to resort to for legitimacy. Maimonides is not a two-faced liar. He did not change his mind but rather coordinated his code to inflect his Guide. The code realises the possibility of the Guide by mentioning the Guide’s inevitable tangential detour. The code includes premature concepts to realise the eventual detail of the Guide. The code is the source text that verifies and privileges the Guide. 

Maimonides’ formulation is expertly technical. It is written with such precision to allude to the necessary detail. Despite the rise of book culture and shifting hermeneutics, Maimonides remained committed to his ancestry. The heritage of rabbinic exegesis as penned in Tanakh and Mishnah. The linguistic linkage to overlay and reveal the string connecting each puzzle piece. An interconnected spiderweb of phrases hinting to other details. Maimonides was the last rung in the system. The last heir to Andalusia and Old Sepharad. A linguist who prioritised to the letter rather than concept. It was through the oral communication that knowledge could be learned and through the sign system that knowledge could be deciphered. He shied away from the citation process for symbolic orientation. A daring fear but a unifying metric. The code is the key centre of Maimonidean philosophy. It is the central piece to his legal decisions and his philosophical oeuvre. A magnum opus that links the spiderweb into unison. The words are linguistically symmetrical. A signalling to the overall picture in the source text. Referring to the entire framework for a better understanding. The code is a guide in of itself to the thought and practice of Andalusian identity according to Maimonides. It is profoundly realised in the linguistic surrealism. 

There is only Rambam. Maimonides is a nice English translation but it has become a way of dividing the halakhic giant and philosophic thinker. In contrast to Moses and Moshe, Maimonides refers to a medieval theologian not a codifier. A highly unfortunate scenario. Really it is just Rambam. He wasn’t brainwashed by Aristotle and he wasn’t upending Judaism. He was the great-grand-student of Rif. His learning was in the strict education of Old Sepharad. The linguistics of R Ibn Jannah, the poetry of R Ibn Gabirol and legality of R Ibn Migash. A survivor of the Andalusian heritage and its greatest advocate. His love for philosophy and halakha was the synthesis of Andalusian Jewry.