The "Rambam Revival"
Maskilim,
Jewish Thought:
Modern
in Early
Mitnagdim,
and Hasidim on Maimonides’
Guide of the Perplexed
Nadler
Allan
What "Rambam
There
an assumption
is
Was
tion:
modern
sance
?
Revival
there
in
that
implies
Maimonides
fact
The
period?
the
in
a
that
"Rambam
alleged
In
period
with
immediately
which we
authoritative
From
Jewish
remained
the
quarrels
binic
critics
Posquieres’
I
The
Posquieres
fullest
reception
his
death,
through
concerned,
"Rabbenu
which
the
in
and remedied
of Maimonides
to the
Moshe Ben Maimon,"
in
code
foundational
it
the
renais
works not studied
fundamental
a
and Maimonides,
appearance
legal
by the
eclipsed
with
in
by
the
early
from the
modern
must
distinction
the
revered
Aristotelian
period
rabbi
philosopher,
first
and
scien
authority.
its
masterful
tus was
of the
following
halakhist,
and medical
tist,
Revival"
period during
addressed
subsequently
history
are presently
be drawn between
his
ques
following
revival."
the
evaluating
was
the
"Rambam
historical
and
interest
begs
Jewish Maimonidean
had been an extended
Jewish world, a deficiency
this
of a modern
notion
not of widespread
was
paper that
this
and sustained
signifIcant
very
there
of
title
that
text
no point
1962),
chapter
early
in
the
"Great
criticism
pp.
16th century.
its
Torah,
the
Eagle,"
normative
Despite
sta
fierce
on among some medieval European rab
by Provencal
3,
the
Mishneh
of Jewish jurisprudence until
in Jewish
treatment of Rabad’s
(Cambridge,
the
Rambam,
by the
Shuihan Arukh
erupted
12th century,
late
authored
most famously
at
the
history
Rabbi Abraham
was
of Maimonides’
128197.
36
the
code
Mishneh
is
ben David of
I
Torah
Twerksy,
in need
Rabad
of
of
revival.
halakhah
work
Even
studied
centuries
was
widely,
mudic
developed
highly
of Eastern
in
alone
let
ignored and
traditional
to prayer,
the
that
Analytic
to
School
See
,neni
4 Guide
in
the
Yeshivas
intent
in
never
certainly
of any
speak
of
revival
works
rabbinic
authoritative
is
the
Rabbinic
the
of
reception
argued
that
the
On
Hayyim
Jurisprudence:
I
end
the
to the
Haven,
systematic
of
school
method,
Hayyirn
the
and
his
the
Circle,"
Soloveitchik
25.
37
to
t
in
and
superior
regimen
influence,
His
pp.
Yeshiva
in
the
Maimonides
form
of
of
see
515-537.
I
reached
movement,
Twer
new
inaugurated
the
t[
Norman
Circle
wor
sacrificial
and Theory in
"Anomaly
Annual 6 (1987):
Jewish
Torah
The
abandon
Mishneh Torah
Solomon,
Mishneh
a
Epilogue,
the
Lithuanian
Norman
see
uses of
of chapter
is
enduring
1980),
study of
for public
centuries.
forced
Biblical
its
times and
several
narrative
and
largely
Greek philosophers
the
contemplation
(New
Soloveitchik
discussions of
many
have been
Mishneh Torah
intense
had
creation
superior
the
this
was indeed
Dominicans
for
away
of
traditionalists,
many
banned
been
to the
that
he would
"Brisker"
so-called
Perplexed,
hidden
intellectual
turn
philosopher
view of
the
in
rabbis
of the Torah’s
in
rationalist
of having
intimated
Code of Maimonides
the
of Rabbi
also,
of
other
his
and,
part
eternal,
is
Soloveitchik.
Hayyim
126147.
the
in the
or depths,
Rabbi
of
has been
i
therefore
medieval
point
who
silent
which
history
Introduction
Still,
in
original
was
Guide of the Perplexed,
most
for the
understanding
ship
by
the
by the Spanish
world
the
suggested
heights,
and
Torah
the
Maimonides,
who
3
and one cannot
(to
once
and was
that
proven
indus
pilpulistic
law and eliminate
to rabbinic
access
for
expression
popular
master of halakhah
rabbinic
work
heretical,
over
philosopher,
the
author’s
its
a diffi
reasoning.
Maimonides,"
suppressed
handed
burning!)
sky,
undermine
so
Tal
3[S
even
subversive,
On
to
discrepancies
(resolving
Yiddish
Ironically,
became
which
and author of the stunning
Judaism
2
the
study.
of which
corresponding
Rambam"
common
the
is
to simplify
namely,
forgotten,
But "Dr.
even
served
or his Mishneh
him
modern
the
code)
of rabbinic
actually
Rambam,
This
in
a Shveren
of Talmudic
convolutions
interest
unit. "Erleydigen
of the
many
for
practice
any apparent
implications
genre
code:
his
reconciling
the
by the Mishneh Torah,
Europe,
composing
ignored,
and
from Maimonides’
try generated
the
textual
or
sugya,
and
the
throughout
common
most
the
pilpul,
sources
decisions
halakhic
his
cult passage
this
Rambam’s
the
finding
between
of Talmudic
a source
as
the
consulted
was
mined widely
Torah was
Mishneh
the
Moreover,
code
to be found
hard cases
the
in
especially
which overrode
Arukh,
of the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides’
literature.
responsa
of the Shuihan
codification
the
after
and ana
studied
[Q2[S
of Rabbinic
history
source of
respected
most widely
the
was
it
and
consulted
frequently
centuries
the
in
authority
legislative
and
the
throughout
rabbinic
lyzed
most
not only the
was
It
Solomon,
(Atlanta,
1993).
The Analytic
t
rites
Maimonides whose
and prophecies
narratives
torical
spawned
a
of
series
Maimonides
the
who succumbed
led
was
ern period.
And
articulated
we now
and dissemination of
study,
the Perplexed,
coincided
with
the
in
beginning
the
the
Spanish Jews
that
"Baal
rationalist
revival
the
in
mod
early
of neglect
centuries
and
of reason
befell
persecution,
frighteningly
after
pri
most famously
religion
turn.
renaissance
and
long neglected
decades
latter
of the
inception
of those
faith
stunning
noticeable
a
particular,
a
interest
synthesis
great
in
of
that
Maimonides whose
the
century of Christian
the
of Judaism
catastrophes
1492
his
16th centuries
the
through
and
Maimonides,
of
most important
philosophy
for the
in
resolve
the
during
revival
Guide that
was,
the
beneficiary
the
to
is
it
the
in
There
that
indeed the
Maimonides’
in
13th
expulsion
of softening
conversion
to
Ha-Moreh,"
marily
until their
8[h t
the
to
up
rationalist
from the
disputes
1391
accused
was
whose
and
whose philosophy was blamed
Spanish Jews from
influence
bitter
of the Torah’s
allegorization
publication,
Guide of
oft-suppressed
of the
18th century,
the
Haskalah,
the
in
a period
Jewish
European
Enlightenment.
There
monidean
The
rationalism
simplest
While such
Perplexed.
about
the
5
Guide
6
On
,[h
tation,
7 This
is
ibn
Yaakov
the
Dinov.
See
Be-Mizrah
my
See
1950.
tary
on
this
Just
as
to
Alami’s
Haskalah
and
the
Elimelekh
the
19th
con-
intellectual
its
and
that
his
notably
for
this
very
Spanish
the
as
the
R.
Zevi
of
R.
the
faith
theme was transposed
to
(Constantinople,
edition
Yaavetz’s
Or
I-lenokh
transposed
day.
See
Daat 28
Zevi
kabbalist
of Spanish
divine
the
R.
and
exile
wrath
that
Tolaat
to
the
R.
and
Hasidic
criti
-Ha
Elimelekh
of
105Ill.
(1992):
below.
critical
rebbe,
disser
Joseph
by
introduction
in
His
doctoral
exile,
the
source
li"[h
1935)
general
D. Septimus,
,n,[h
Spanish
lbn Gabbai’s
the
1975.
aya
undermining
duress
in particular,
century
used
Hasidic
most
under
the
On
unpublished
University.
by
llia
1965).
see Bernard
commentary
responsible
of Dinov
of Dinov
of
Guide of the
commentary to Yaavetz’s Or Ha-Ha yyim by Zevi
"Al Meh Avdah Galut Sefard:
Kelekah
Kelapei
-Mu
1510
Ha-Musar
Reform Judaism
or
Septimus’
Harvard
the
kabbalists,
convert
also
polemic
with
Jewry. See,
Peikarz,
Iggeret
bibliographic
of the
(Leiden,
controversy,
See
1982).
edition,
-Ey
20th-century
:[h
to
Elimelekh
times between
Zevi
Haskalah,
l[h
a
is
And Reason
Faith
controversy
Controversy,
influence
remarkable
ha-Hasidut
of Zevi
Solomon Alami,
fifteen
1912
many
In
Haskalah.
us almost nothing
tells
revival"
Sarachek,
Joseph
anti-Maimonidean
the
I
1560).
the
in
work,
Eyropa
discussion
re-issued
the
Haskalah
revival
translation
overview
Maimonidean
post-expulsion
of
tribulations
(Constantinople,
of
of
leading so
Jewry
in the
Hebrew
Maimonidean
the
to the
Maimonidean
held
see
and
(Cambridge,
(Zolkiew,
Many
Rambam
Mai
in
32.
Maimonidean
tile
theme
central
Gabbai,
resulted
8
and
of Dinov).
Portuguese
cism
in Transition
Or Ha-Hav)’irn
Elimelekh
Meir
the
I
background
Culture
MeirAhulafia
Yaavetz,
See
intellectual
Jewish
this
interest
of the
emergence
"Rambam
for the
controversies,
m[h
Maimonidean
the
a bibliographical
Perplexed,
Maimonidean
and
cultural
panic
the
of
of
renewed
the
with
of the
history
reasons
underlying
the
measure
publication
document
to
coincided
that
quantitative
of the
survey
numerous ways
are
the
its
10) This
Abraham
-Ha
Ha-Kohen
critique
Pietrokov,
38
by
of
as
highly
Meir
a
textual
of Alexander,
Maimonidean
1912
edition
of
work was
influential
Haberman, Jerusalem,
basis
for his
published
attack
commen
onto
-Mu
philosophy
t[h
a
the
on
much
reveals
it
tent,
the
about
of renewed
extent
Maimonides’
in
interest
9
controversial
most
The
Lisbon
to the
relative
Moses Recanati
of the
edition
Guide was
the
other
when
edition
Guide,
and
Maimon
in
was,
of the
publication
The following
the
on
the
Pe’ulotav
10 See
Isaac
of
the
Christian
ibid.
this
long
to part
Guide.
Hasagot
it
of the
I
parts
written
study by
to
the
Moritz
Berliner
aforementioned
Hebraists.
work
about
which
years
of
28.
the
Guide of
the
after
ground-
the
Perplexed
is
writings:
in the
preface
Rabenu
volume,
the
Leib
his
to
(New
Ha-Rambam,
York,
the
uno ay
Ben
Moshe
of
translation
1
Fishman (Jerusalem.
Ha-Kohen
Maimonides
of
She!
his
and
1932).
published
Ha-Rofeh
in
serially
pp.
were
from
few
a
the
Guide,
He/Icr
its
first
I)ie
commentaries
partial
Halevi’s
Yosef
n[h
see
1614).
appearance
until
aisch
1903).
translation
the
pp.
For
the
a
Shmuel
The Jewish
Feiner,
and
translated
op.
39
cit,
pp.
(Prague,
full
19th
of
lande
into
-xxx
Latin
op.
all
see
century,
,[h
largely
Ikkarei
and
1611)
description
limited
or
chapters
’[Q "Fuhrer"
,
Friedlander.
individual
late
Conimeniare
345-363,
Guide was
to
Ha-Moreh
Givat
(Prague,
(Frankfort.
see
to
commentary
322-327.
Steinschneider,
Italian
the
of
printing
"[h
Yehuda
Rabbi
iogra
pp.
there
Guide
ift[h
the
of the
version
xxxi.
,n[ Toy
R.
end
the
vol.
2004),
period,
of
1ib 1
by
A
Hebrew
xxvii-xxxviii.
pp.
at
Most notable were
the
In
pp.
p.
publishing
im
commentaries
27,
(Philadelphia,
12 During
from
did
Mask
European
100 years following
the
history
Malachi,
Raphael
Satanow’s
Enlightenment
Ha-Moreh
edited
the
Ncbuchim
1928),
found
Gorfinkle,
vol.
of
of Maimonides’
Moreh
Fishman,
Friedlander,
I On
"The
ve-Deotav,
a- [Q19
on[
Nor
and 1796, with
period of almost 250
a
12[h I
survey
(London,
Perplexed
Eliezer
graphical
of
those
published,
finally
East
leading
re
straight
almost another
1791
but a single new
other words,
bibliographies
Friedlander,
Josef
sections
between
a
whose commentary covered
(17321804),
bibliographical
Zechariah
Sefarav
of 1742,
beyond
whose commentary was
(17531800),
Sabionetta
following
M.
of
took
It
Guide was
of the
Berlin
in
published over
Guide of the Perplexed
Guide
Hebrew
a
editions.
Italian
the
in
supplements.
version
was
commentaries,
new
Guide by two of the
Satanow
before
to elapse
111.11
There
based
first
by Yedidiya hen
Jessnitz Guide
the
no
or
appeared
to the
Isaac of
and
was
of day.
included
already
revised
new,
volumes
new commentaries
Solomon
The
atypically
the
of 1553 until the Jessnitz edition
added
emendations
a
were
light
Moreover,
that
were
that
textual
significant
fact,
next
1553.
others,
Italian
translated,
ever
years
the
see
edition
re-issued.
never
half century before
9
Guide was
again
Sabionetta
and Efodi
add any
In
The
Jewry.
Sabionetta,
many
so
in
1583.10
in
Venice
print of the
Crescas
in
as
respect,
of the world Jewry.
rest
Guide would
From
I
this
one hundred and ninety
Some
ilim:
in
and
1551
Venice,
Italy:
language into which the
spoken
the
in
were
Italy
1480, and subsequently
in
of the expulsion of Portuguese
eve
published
Jews of Renaissance
advanced
the
opus.
Rome
in
published
first
on
just
were
editions
two
Guide was
in 1497,
magnum
philosophical
the
des
of
,[H
passirn.
for
the
biblio
Aside
use by
breaking
Jessnitz
1791
different
Hebrew
editions
Maskilim
from
central
of the
publication
not re-issued
issued
the
Berlin
of the
by
there
period,
Guide issued
by
commentary on Maimonides’
an Oder,
of the
that
Guide.
1566, Mi/at
in
of 1766
edition
Moses Mendelssohn,
period,
(Frankfort
Cremona
city,
six
written
this
During
translations
first
mirrors
closely
Italian
until the
commentaries
"revival"
this
during
Milot Ha-Higayyon
Northern
the
in
that
history
new
of
in
published
l3
scholars.
Haskalah,"
lexicon,
philosophical
whose
number
a
Guide was
and Eastern Europe.
Western
also notable
is
"father
tion
with
European Jewish
It
the
the
by contrast,
German, French, and Hungarian
also
were
both
edition,
1784),
After
publica
its
was
Ha-Higayyon
two
hundred
newly
written
exactly
work
a
years
14
later.
This
commentaries
to
it
scholasticism
ish
towards
and
censured
cited
18th
While
and
Guide was
the
literature
most famously
the
in
in
circumscribed
a very
an interest
R.
Guide,
throughout
16th,
number
of
Moses
les
were
roundly
they
and
17th,
Jew
particular
never widely taught nor was
the
Haskalah
interest in medieval
of Maimonides
philosophy
century.
exhibited
Jaffe
for this,
the
the
to a renewed
16th century Poland
in
rabbinical
in
the
scholars
Mordecai
R.
and
and
Guide
clearly testi&
general
end of
the
rabbinical
quite
in
of the
revival
publishing
commonly
it
18th
early
cen
15
turies.
Maimonides
as Ancestor
of the
lah
The
publication
of the
Guide had the
renewed
curious
many
losophy
Guide
first
in particular
ilim as
Mendl
Kalman
gone
so
far
13
On
these
14
On
the
Shmuel
15
make
non-Hebrew
R.
the
Rationalism
,[h
between
legitimacy
and
the
was
historian
Maimon,
"Russian
the
significantly,
Jewish
translations,
Mendelssohn
Mordecai
commentary
cxchanges
Solomon
Ilya,
that
led
led
rationalist interest of such
the
founder
of the
see
it
Friedlander,
write
to
his
of the
Shmuel
cit.,
Rahbinic
Harvard
to
the
R.
Yaffe’s
Moses
of medieval
Culture
University.
Ten
Let’ushim,
Guide’s philosophy.
in
lsserles,
Jewish
R.
On
Solomon
rationalism,
16th-century
Eastern
1975.
40
Levush
entitled
this
work,
Luria
see
and
as
European
of
re-publication
Milot
to
Pinat
well
as
a
Kaplan’s
Rabbi
Isaac
Feiner, has
,[h
,[h
full
a
is
Polish
doctoral
Mordecai
partial
analysis
other 16th-century
Lawrence
Europe.’
Mask
xxxi-xxxii.
PP
commentary
the
Satanow,
Eastern
not for the
op.
was
it
leading
Isaac
phi
them eventu
Mendelssohn,"
Haskalah,
bold claim that were
the
that
paths
63-64.
pp.
One volume of
regarding
Pinat
to
to rationalist
Europe,
preparing the
who
Israeli
leading
circumstances
Feiner,
idiosyncratic
corous
as
most
and,
Eastern
of exposing
effect
from their memoirs and
essays that
ignited
(17881869),
The
Haskalah.
thus
Menasseh of
Lefin,
Ber Levinssohn
and
We know
that
Shulman,
especially
time,
Haskalah.
the
to
ally
Jews,
young
for the
from
historic
Jaffe
of
see
and
the
ran
rabbis
dissertation,
’ Levush
Guide
the
have
ever
18th
the
in
emerged
the
as
But what was
On
Maskilim
model
a
as
the
among
whose
Arabic,
in
a
The
respects.
perceived
themselves
Talmudic
rabbis
them
to
ducing
The most
significant
among
Maimon
inspiration
and
Yezhvitser
Solomon
to
of the
impact
My
as
Rambam
had been
inspired
when
passions
I
ings,
by the
used
to
he changed
great
with
so
all
earlier,
by intro
Jews
and,
like
him,
writes
Maimonidean
personality
ben Yehoshua
from Shiomo
overwhelm
the
about
passionately
of
and works
life
by the
inspired
name
his
man.
me
to
some
employ
as
which
I
this
act."
I
his
upon
I
this
far
as
lest
teach
these
swear
"I
Moses Ben
Rabbi
so
vow,
to fear
with
they
that
far,
abjuration:
teacher,
great
if
as
teachings
This went so
the
him
regarded
had sometimes
antidote
And
that
inconsistent
action
my
far
itself.
and
proved
owe
so
looked
I
wisdom
Divine
a
went
teacher
to grow,
not to do
Maimon,
was
began
reverence
in
upon him:
seduce
might
they
is
who
of the perfect
ideal
my
the
for this
reverence
my
in
He
Rab
narrow-minded
primitive,
to be found
Maskilim
Maimon.
centuries
six
this
17531800),
and
Cairo,
their forebear
of
(c.
Aristo
read
obscurantist
his
by
and dramatic example
early
that
the
in
court
Jewry
denunciations.
bitter
the
of Maimonides,
life
ing
rabbis’
Sultan’s
languages and the sciences,
study of foreign
the
early
to cultivate
who
philosopher
horizons of Europe’s
the
revival?
doctor and philoso
Maskilim,
against
widen
to
wished
they
Maimonides some
like
of the
many
by
condemned
of the
imagination
of their day
the
at
was
be struggling
they suffered from those
Solomon
medicine
Maskilim,
to
the
Maimonides,
to this
led
modernize
attempts to
own
for their
to Judaism
the
seen
This Arabic writing
masses.
practiced
that
interest
and worldly Jews
rational
precursor
in
initial
Maimonides was
level,
rational approach
of these
of the
education.
enemies was,
binic
the
for the
as
and broaden Jewish
wrote
of the Jewish
root
6[S
Moses Mendelssohn would
that
doubtful
is
founder
European Jewish
admired
pher was
tle,
at
most elementary
the
it
century,
can
I
remember,
17
was
The
reader
by how much
and
his
16 See
17
Yellin
1
and
Influence
on
the
l[h
relied
attention
the
Israel
on
his
edition.
life,
not only
but
as
well
p.
on
the
My
of
translation
Abrahams Maimonides
of Maimonides").
Yiddish
author paid
47.
Feiner,
here
des Eigenen Lebens
of Maimon’s Geschichte
seminal influence
have
to restrain me.
aiways surricient
reading of
il[ ,non
this
(London,
’s
citation
1903),
Maimon’s
long and
lukhte[h
41
to
be struck
Maimonides
by Maimon’s detailed,
1
from
PP.
tribute
in
will
’s[h
detailed
(Vilna,
I[
chapter
analysis
1927),
in
autobiography
(from
vol.
of
I
the
PP.
multi-
David
on
"The
Guide
239-360.
is
based
chapter
Guide of the Perplexed.
the
modeled
of chapters
cism
more
and
Maimon
have
revered
tried to
actual
Ha -Mo
commentary:
and
Guide,
the
followed
"
in
there
is
by Maimon.
the
that
fact
Islamic
of Maimonides’
very
of Maimonidean
with
these
essence
virtuous
I
of
the
Maimon
of the
the
to
see
work
considered
Amos
that
modern
almost
with
the
to this
"Rambam
Haska!ah’s
/[Qi,[h
5.
A
P.
relationship
why
his
new
between
Perceptions
42
the
relevance
theory
no
leaves
part
Maimonidean
drawn
distinction
did he bother
the
at
all
key to understand
and
be
more
the
and
limited
with notes
of
and
Maimon’s
entirely
archaic.
Maimon’s
History
indexes
own
by
demonstrates
For an
1992),
His
5
the
insightful
and
pp.
that
life
Bergman
introduction,
philosophy
(Berkeley,
as
biographically
than philosophically.
of philosophy,
Solomon
of Jewish
then
admired
is
edition
to
he
enchantment with Maimonides.
history
philosophy
His
idealist.
and cosmology
dismisses
Revival,"
close reading
synoptic
is
of the atomism of the
with
offers
Jew/philosopher
1965),
that
of philos
to historians
inadequate
very
1
critique.
totally
question
Maimonides
Maimonides’
tense
his
by
emerging
position
Maimon
day,
the
philosophy."
of the Aristotelian
the
by the Aristotelians),
provides
,[h
and
end of
the
disagreed
idea!
entirely
to
commentary
astronomy,
consideration
unscathed
Git’at
(Jerusalem,
and
to any
way
of Maimon’s
edition
a post-Kantian
lengthy refutation
earnest
of the
nature
symbol
complicated
monides,
physics,
it
and Natan
Maimonides,
surprise
may
other Jewish
the
Maimonidean
no
as
school,
of the modern
Solomon Maimon,
See
appendix
which
fields
or
post-Maimonidean
essentially
Maimonides’
(and even
meaningful
genuine
with
theoretical
was
At
a
partially
come
will
any
their critical
to
disputation
Maimon
have suggested,
and N. Rotenstreich
the
This
Maimon
two
paradoxical
As
only
single
Maimonides? The answer
often
18
doctrine
in fact,
ing the very
a
a
universe.
and metaphysics
between
not
lengthy,
of the eternity of the
physics
is
1791. The student
Guide for what
the
of Maimonides
introduction
of the Ka!ªm
theologians
If,
the
in
in
to
commentary
while the author
that,
and admired
his
for
the
was
young Solomon
As Shmue! H. Bergman
wake.
his
in
published
not adhere
validity of Maimonides’
the
Maimon
by
clearly
series
memoir.
of the
life
is
scholasti
Maimonides
the
in
,,[h
of Maimon’s own,
commentary demolishes
disputes
in
Ha-Moreh
development
ophy, given
mere
that
fact
influence
teachings
partially an extended
fully
the
of
part
a long
digression
of a work of medieval
almost immediately
philosophical
Indeed,
upheld
extended
for an Enlightenment
day, he did
its
observed
Rotenstreich
from
in
of each
content
this
image of Maimonides
the
who
Givat
the
of Maimon’s autobiography
content
personal
Guide,
accomplish
Averroists
use
on
rest
of Maimonides
reh discovers
of the actual
part
than
significant
of the
part
of Givat
the
detail
most powerful
the
is
first
Confessions,
in
elucidating
Far
the
the
completely out of character
is
mative
’While
Rousseau’s
after
,[h
almost 150
comprising
synopsis,
as
well
degree
as
to
discussion
of
241-243.
Mai
furnishes
of
his
eval
romantic model for the early Maskilim,
a
found
doctrines
des
Ha-Mo
Givat
In
of Maimonidean
is,
ture
to the
Guide
Maimonides’
the
motto
medieval
of the
level
S
19[h
unwashed
(the Torah
Maimon
the
very
the
Haskalah’s
of the
many
only two
romance with
monidean nomenclature
his
as
Krochmal
of
his
magnum
philosophical
which
articulate
anything
although
Krochmal was
19
Guide
of
20
Much
has been
1
work
this
(Albany,
and
243-247,
Simon
in Kitvei
R.
21
vols.(
Elolia
introduction)
(6)
See,
the
also,
Rawidowicz
works
1856-57)
in,
Towi
(5)
Dikduk
"
edited
Spinoza
a[
Hegyonei
Sefat
work,
of these
to
books
of Judaism,
historicism
historical
kiLchon
critical
sensitivity
benei
in
inher
adam.
are:
I)
Spinoza
’
noz[ und
Ha-Elohut,
-Krakow,[h
of
1
1859
a
book
1
Em
18.
with
the
a
of Jewish
valuable
treat
Age
History.
10
pp.
1):
introduction
logisch
March
to
Nevukhim
Ha-Adam
translation
ha-Hadash.
’s[h criticisms)
of Spinoza’s Ethics
Ve-Nefesh
Hebrew
See
Modern
"Judaisrn[
response
translation
Ha-Tevel,
43
(2)
the
Perceptions
of Nachrnan
Maimonides:
H
dissertation,
1885
Ha-Z’man.
Perplexed
1).
zze (Lwow,
(Vienna.
Nevukhay
’s[h
of
edition
(Waltham,
doctoral
the
by Funkenstein,
of History
Philosophy
a
Moreh
Guiding
discussion
(Hebrew)
Teshuvah
’Ever
neither
philosophy
torah
Krochmal’s
l:[h
provocative
of Vienna
(3)
dibra
tribute
his
title
Moreh
history,
called
to say,
by the
the
most important
to a degree by Maimonides’
ian[h
Nachrnan
Krochinal
on
Nachman
1:26.
Harris,
Schorsch.
(University
Vienna,
1
Jay
Maimonidean
principle,
about
written
Nachrnan
Rubin’s
Heker
in
Needless
commandments and
Perplexed.
lsrnar
237-245.
Antitheton
the
a
inspired
aforementioned
the
ment of
resembling
of the
many
explaining
in
-Ha
took
actually
borrowed
his
audaciously,
Mai
evocative
Maimon
of Jewish
philosophy
more
even
called
of
spell
while eschewing
Maskilim
Galician
benei
among
the
under
Rubin (18231910)
modern
’man. Rubin,
Moreh Nevukhim
Spinoza,
the
lsh
its
day).
Both appropriated
Krochmal
opus.
an original
articulated
Nevukhay
ent
Rambam,
of
from Galicia
who came
Whereas Solomon
and Salomon
(17851840)
his
of their major writings,
titles
works.
very
of the
that
surname
his
those
in
philosophy
of
both
generations
Maimonides.
the
in
Maskilim
other
two
following
men
ki/shon
men
Ha-Rambam
diber
language of the
the
in
spoke
mention
will
seems to be saying
Maimonides’
torah
language of the
conventional
the
in
spoke
to
speaking
dibra
of
men
of the
Just as
was
of Scrip
parts
level
desert.
aspects
commentary
the Torah
to Scripture
approach
Maimoni
problematic
to the
and
of inspiration.
source
allegorical
saw
in the
Israelites
l8th[h
to
to problematic
approach
Maimonides
as
just
the
as
Guide speaking
the
saw
allegorical
adam (Maimonides
I
can
time,
ancient,
justifying his
adam,
benei
He
itself.
did with
best be described
Maimonidean
the
a powerful
medi
the
if
hagiographic image of
as
what Maimon
reh,
philosophy
he applied
that
served
literature
use
content
actual
So even
much
of
the
as
unacceptable.
the
enlighteners,
in Haskalah
developed
and
Guide are no longer
the
in
German
19th-century
early
to be archaic
found
is
philosophy
even
with
a
2
(4)
lengthy
akow[Q,
of Spinoza’s
Hebrew
Rubin,
Spinoza’s
devastating
Maimonides
the
philosophical
are
Rabbi,
Even
ohn
in
and
before
the
his
MeasfIm,
study and discuss
The
Moses
to
Rambam
of the
But
in
the
fact,
mon Maimon)
with that
their
at
lem,[h
work,
grammar with introduction)
(Podgurze-Krakow,
On
Shadal’s
300
Shpinoza
Menahem
the
On
22
23
to
the
the
of enlightened Jews
together
to
weekly,
none
like
to
ke-Moshe, from the
Moses,
was
in
there
Rambe
for Mendelssohn,
acronym
Biblical
transposed
Moses Mendelssohn
seemed designed
in
detail
to associate
the
the
seen
Maimonides’
very
liay[h
Spinoza
and Mendelssohn were
we have
(as
goal
Ahavat
Elohim
in
the
strict
(Amor
Dei
opposite:
Solo
with
after
was,
Mendelssohn,
philosophy.
to achieve
to
ye-Dat,"
be
Aviv,
found
1987),
(Leipzig,
rejection
Irrelevance
pp.
of
of
in
Ma’arnarim
in
7,
his
all,
major
separation
Intellectualis)
pp.
97152.
"Shadal
1978),
z[h
discussion
pp.
Ma
of
the
Vikkuhay
’amarim
debates
Shpinoza
For Klatzkin’s
critique,
in
U-Shpinoza"
167186
and
Aryeh
’ ro,[h
between
Barukh
Motzkin,
ed.
Luzzatto
Mi-David Nieto
see Barukh
and
’
Shpinoza:
59-88.
philosophical
Biblical
rich
Menahem Dorman,
"
the
A
Horowitz,
(Haifa,
Barukh Shpinoza:
135-44.
1
ch.
Rivka
see:
Spinozism,
Kovetz
1978),
Authority
allegorization
(London,
of
the
Bible,
see
Samuel
J.
Preus,
2002).
The following discussion of Mendelssohn’s
to Maimonidean
relationship
philosophy owes much
James Lehmann,
Mendelssohn and the Guide"
in Leo Baeck
Yearbook
20
study by
(1975):
24
is
(Tel
Spinoza’s
and
Aviv,
Shitato
Sefarav,
Spinoza
Le-Moto:
ia[h
(Tel
maskiliin
David Ben Gurion
t[E[h
rational
B
of Rubin’s
critique
Shanah
Brinker
Galician
Mendelss
with
1910).
Luzatto,
"Shpinoza,
(7)
hagiogra
Moses Mendelssohn.
to meet
kam
foundations.
very
strove
ha-Meassef
and enlightened
doctor,
of Maimonides
not only
with
with
of Mendelssohn.
philosophies
of Judaism
synthesis
J udaic
but
closest
his
features of his
collaboration
lo
Hebrew
the
almost entirely incompatible,
the
there arose
Moshe ben Menachem)
man (Rabbenu
memory
Even
of the
Guide.
Moses Maimonides
"from
Moses."
like
used
teachings.
worshipful
with a
group
adage Mi-Moshe ad Moshe
old
Moses Maimonides
none
0s,[ who
.24
late
Maimonides
time and becomes,
arose
the
Guide a
person he
for the
beginning
with
his
[Q23[S
the
central
many
his
its
Mendelssohn and
medical
involved
was
and
ranging from
and
and the
fathers
founding
journals,
Berlin
in
Wessley
Amsterdam during
with
in heaven
cavorting
particularly
of
details
Rambam
the
philosopher,
arrival
the
to
phenomenon:
to Maimonides,
him
the
Moses Mendelssohn,
Haskalah
first
rationalist
to fantasies of
moment,
clearly admired
The
22[h S
approach,
biblical
despite
of
nor unaware
certainly
Krochmal and Rubin,
while disagreeing
panegyrics
of the saintly
phies
of
extent
a similar
see
led,
system.
with
filled
he
life
for a
Wessley,
Harrwig
some
Wessley,
Hartwig
them we
Already with
method
figure for
to
back
us step
let
Enlightenment:
and
heroic
a
was
Spinozist,
of the entire scholastic
allegorical
of borrowing,
But
colleague,
passionate
critique
remains
worthy
was
lifelong
on Maimonides’
attack
title
a
87108.
On
this
group,
sec
Feiner,
26.
p.
44
in
the
and
of Spinoza
footsteps
Nothing could
truth."
home and
of the Jewish
vacy
into
entry
European
be limited
could
that
To
he was
this
achieve
the
pri
Jews’
much
to reject
required
strove
the
in
practices
and would not impingeon
synagogue
society.
ritual
Judaism,
Mendelssohn
aims.
to the
enter
"revealed
than
rather
legislation"
from Maimonides’
be further
a Judaism
to construct
"revealed
as
normative
more
far
Following
Mendelssohn’s
from
content
philosophical
Judaism
re-constructing
other.
of Maimonides,
than those
all
removing
required
prise
from each
of religion and philosophy
of the realms
of
25
ish[ scholastic
medieval
the
tradition.
Perhaps the strongest
Maimonides and Mendelssohn
between
dogma. As
or
doctrine,
commands
only
those
It
the
"I
insisted
that
these
basic
that
insisting
cisely
that
it
distinguishes
Maimonidean
modernization
the
for
with
agenda, beginning
of these
of the Jews that
the
the
lay at
largely in
26
opposite direc
this
that
foundation
where
is
pre
and harmo
synthesis
for
founda
the
of the
center
one of
all
at
two realms was
rus
Mendelssohn’s
and
beliefs
law.
Jewish
the
and not
philosophy was the
separation
under
consists
precisely
Just as
was he
It
halakhic terms.
praxis
legal
from Christianity.
the
in
commands no
rational
philosophy,
of
a religion
is
halakhah
of the Torah with
nization
tion
Judaism
moved
liturgically
well-defined
Torah,
normative
in
been
of halakhah,
Mishneh
the
code,
Maskilim
the
to a rather
violation
in
is
anee maamins
daily Siddur.
of the
of
version
and most famous
so-called
have
that
editions
doctrines
theological
dogma
what
most
in
the
not
Judaism
creed.
extensive
faith,
of Judaism
belief requirements
Mendelssohn and
theological
of
book of Maimonides’
opening
tion,
principles
most
theological
that
correct
a well-defined
the
."]
insisted
philosophically
Jew who does not adhere
a
standing of those
the
crafted
believe..
with their inclusion
canonized
framing
thirteen
with
beginning
is
asymmetry
question of Jewish
the
encompassed
who
Maimonides
was
Jewish catechism:
The
but mandated
Judaism
is,
fundamental
this
Maimonides
well-known,
is
beliefs,
that
beliefs
who
of
indicator
he coined
Maskilim’s
famous
the
,,27
term describing
25
For an
1983),
i
of
It
dogma
quite
to
the
rounding
Perfect
is
Judaism,
Faith:
creed
of
that
(Oxford,
while
a
basic
Non-Halakhic
of Jewish
1999).
Keilner
Bleich
challenges
monotheism
and
this
over
Judaism
1
centuries
issue
still
commands
Belief
upholds
that
belief
of
Aspects
(Cambridge,
more than two
controversy
The Foundations
faith,
beyond
A.
question of whether
Believe Anything
ciples
the
lt
"Some
ed.
mar
Studies,
in the
insisting
that
sense of
the
see
Judaism
status
of
the
David
centrality
Most
sur
polemics
With
Bleich,
obligatory
recently,
the
Medieval
a
of Maimonides’
has no
revelation.
J.
Jewish
current
see
(Waltham,
lln Must
Menachem
halakhic
Torah’s divine
45
a
principles,
1983)
York.
normative
denial
Mendelssohn’s
For
Arkush
in
19.
theological
the
m.[h
by Allan
Mishneh-Torah."
pp.
rages.
(New
view,
m[h
the
since
legislation.
of Mendeslssohn’s
summary of the main arguments
of
Altmann to the English translation
Twersky,
and Renaissance
revealed
in
consisting
3-29.
PP.
26 See
27
as
concise
excellent,
by Alexander
introduction
essence
Judaisms
Jew
13
prin
theological
the
quasi-
Solomon
Interestingly,
Moses Mendelssohn
in
his
which succeeded
their friendship
inaugurating
sophical
on
autobiography
whom
with
thirteen
relevance
the
as
able
me
to
these
Beyond
that
very
The
of the
spirit
both
Enlightenment,
worked
hard to
present
sources.of
monides’
and
Islam
in his
medieval
harsh
a
and
sent
I
that
Pol
a
was
Metaphysics
point of question
to the
He
ontology.
to the
Of
invited
the
Maskilim,
way
a
as
the
famous
letter,
chauvinism,
Jews and
could
those
hardly
par
ideology
who
religious
Mai
Christians.
on both
attack
Yemen, which
To
Epistle
is
elitism.
to the
his
notoriously
The
postures
one
early Maskilim
to neutralize
between
most
central
so
Mai
between
Maimonidean
later
of
roles
respective
incongruities
several
and animated
such
religious
amazed
Jewish ethnocentrism and
prejudice
most
namely
philosophical
Wolff’s
seeing
and
of non-Jews,
assessments
negative
Christianity
betrayed
divisiveness
social
of one,
quite
and individualism,
in
Judaism
was
specific
Mendelssohn
inspired
attacked
I
of freely-willed action.
as
Maskilim.
of universalism
Mendelssohn
to
conceded
I
approach
of mention: Maimonides’
worthy
ticularly
for
problematic
in
numerous
and that of the
reports
invitation....
differences
there are
philo
28
the
accepted
basic
philosophy,
approach
were
I
Maimon
turned
of a correct
point
his
detailing
faith.
exception
their depth
into
to the
far
and
interest
by Maimonides
which
who
so
got
to penetrate
and
call
the
to
with
not yet dared to approach:
consequence
scarcely
ing their conclusions
monides’
with
arguments,
of
fIrst
down
laid
to Mendelssohn,
Jew who had
so soon
and
but had
latter’s
a letter
principles
which he
in
faith
necessary
dissertation
this
form of
the
on reward and punishment,
that
Torah
of
articles
philosophical
sparking the
thirteen
manner
the
communication
first
very
in
in
he had heard so much"
All the
ish
came
of Maimonides’
critique
"about
Maimon’s
endorsed
be
by
Mendelssohn
Even
neh Torah,
non-Jews
more
defined the "righteous
merit a portion
in
the
was
troubling
the
world
f[ Maimonides’
status
The Limits of Orthodox
28
36
See
Altrnann,
has been
Maimonides’
Moses
come.
gentiles
in a
challenged
Thirteen
is
legislating
In
the
fashion
by
Reappraised,
Study
which
of the Seven
discussion
set
Mish
the
regarding
criterion
striking
Principles
A Biographical
Mendelssohn:
his
in
by the Talmud
Marc
S.
(London,
(Philadelphia,
Shapiro,
2004).
1973),
pp.
1-362.
29
ership:
An
excellent
Epistles
Hartman
and
Alexander
creed
Theology:
to
which Maimonides
when
gentiles"
Noachide Laws, whose observance by
canonical
in
way
Islam,
of
annotated
(Philadelphia,
pp.
English
t[Qn
1985)
translation
translated
see
David
and
of
the
annotated
Hartman’s
Epistle
by
l Yemen
Abraham
is
included
Halkin
discussion of Maimonides’
[Q1
46
in
Crisis
with discussions
assault
on
and Lead
by David
Christianity
meriting eternal
for
who
those
of the Noahide
vance
one that
positivism
that
the
they
shared
human
highest
with
insistence
that
accept
i Laws
Noah
Seven
binding
versally
must
Gentiles
of correct,
and
therefore
own
his
exclusion
this
by
conviction
which
by way of reason,
"revealed
the
ran
with
was
Maimonides’
to the
uni
basis for the
revelatory-legal
contrary
rituals
the
or
legislation,"
and Judaism.
the Jews
of
obser
their
cognition
troubled
odds
at
and not
to
rational
deeply
for Gentiles
unique
arrive at
wise nor righteous"
was
only to
based on their acceptance
a
of’
entirely
perfection
remained
the
was
of humankind,
all
that
of halakhah
a consequence
as
30[h
of eternal
ary legal
M
laws
reward applies
this
coincidentally
are dismissed as "neither
moral behavior
unworthy
who
Gentiles
authority.
legal
that
rules
Noahide commandments
observe the
the Torah’s
Maimonides
life,
essential
of the
spirit
universalism.
Haskalah’s
Mendelssohn engaged
of Maimonides’
implications
with
eous gentile"
the
Emden.
Rabbi Jacob
and
the
a fascinating
the
definition
of the
"right
no way
anti-Maimonidean
Maimonides’
reconcile
to
with
Gentiles
the
regarding
universalistic
generally
about
and famously
Ultimately there was
position
correspondence
restrictive
disturbingly
ultra-conservative
religiously chauvinistic
ecumenism
in
of the
direction
Mendelssohn’s
Haskalah
emerging
!
i[
iaeo logy.
their radically different
But despite
a hero
Maimonides remained
drama of
than for the
bolic
and
30
so
proved
who
"Anyone
of
nations
them
observes
ther
of
is
related
a
result
the
problem
to
as
languages
article,
As we
Hasidic
as
his
shall
comparing
that
rational
of
with
the
see
the
nations
words
the
Alexander
"but
Altmann,
Noah
he
of
the
is
philosophy
above,
note
many
medieval
widest
in
one
is
on
by
God
a
licit
of
on
in the
the
their
has
it
this
elitism,
for
the
passage,
and
This
the
both
has been
it
However,
Land
of
con
if
Israeli,
Earlier
Hasidic
leaders
criticisms
identified
of
theology.
47
the
nei
versions
definition
which
resulted
uneducated
problem
of
in his
masses,
explored
"righteous
fully
style
was
Jewry
in
in precisely
Guide with
the
the
same way
Mitnagdim’s
A
294-295.
pp.
esoteric
which
of European
is
the
Study,
Biographical
in
Western
James
with
attacks
in
entirely
23.
rabbis’
one
men."
population
possible
he
that
them.
the
resident
of
righteous
Torah
observe
to
Maimonides’
Mendelssohn:A
particular.
of
condition
nor one of their wise men."
of their wise
general philosophical
the
is
this
obligated
neither
Emden
Moses
and
version
rabbinical
them
But
are
world,
one
is
and
obey
commanded
mptuou disregard
often
below,
been
to
come.
to
M
moreover,
were,
32[h
sym
largely
follows:
as
careful
sons of
Mendelssohn
sciences,
the
is
world
conviction,
goal of educating
cited
and
in the
and
teachings
Maskilim
the
The standard
8:11.
concludes
they have
Maimonides’
modern
and
’s[h
monides,
in
Haskalah’s
the
portion
between
was
well
of
between
Hasidic
bitter
laws
seven
a
righteous
conclude
discussed
is
Guide,
32
of
text
the
has
our teacher
The exchange
gentiles"
alien
as
he one
same
the
31
the
Moses
controversies
Mendelssohn,
them because
obeys
through
veyed
accepts
world and
the
and
accepts
troubling
Maimonidean
",[h
"Hilkhot
for
a powerful
theology,
for his
less
again
furnished
disputations
more
even
later,
Mishneh Torah,
See
bitter
Maskilim,
which
life,
medieval
of the
previews
as
rabbinic,
that
The
inspiration.
seen
his
the
for
to Jewish
approaches
Mai
on
been
Guide,
namely
Maskilim
its
into
knowledge
sions
me
leads
encountering
stereotypical
traditional
on
a play
Haskalah
Maimonides
views
expressing
is
whom
as
portrayed
a
in
either Jewish
Mendelssohn
in
heaven,
tic
nonetheless
P’loni
monides,
Mishneh
to the
style,
which he
nor patience
finds
to the
Only when Maimonides
the
order
tor in
the
to
rabbinical
his
This
the
between
extent
be
eral
satire
edition
found
in
in
of
was
the
Yehuda
evaluation
Writings
a
the
possible,
33 This
critical
as
Guide
the
and
convoluted
law.
of
his
Torah,
pilpulis
neither
which
he cannot
In fact,
Hebrew
oppressive
and conversation of
Maimonides
backwardness
has
commentaries,
of the
use
the
in
of
Mai
of
follower
Mishneh
of the
earthly
language.
Moses Mendelssohn wandering
free
Together,
his
Maimonides
that
archaic
notices
in
rabbinic
interlocu
genuine
soul-mate,
his
and Mendelssohn engage
ideas
P’loni’s
and
the
traditional
rabbinical
archaic
in
nature
interpretation
stands
which
of Maimonides,
in
of Siha
serialized
in the
lah[h
Be-Eretz Ha-Hayyirn,
Perakim
satirical
Setting,"
Ba-Satirah
writings,
in
Jewish
see
journal,
Ha-Ivrit
Bernard
Quarterly
48
with
along
(Tel
D.
Review
Ha-Meassef,
a
sharp contrast
distinguished
former work.
Aviv,
1
1979),
analytical
pp.
35-50.
full
A
full,
can
introduction
1.[h
Weinryb,
58
carefully
to the
" lfs
19
lengthy
to the
approach
and the Mishneh Torah, and which ignored,
Friedlander,
Historical
of extended
view
originally
text
of the
denigration
source
of Wolfsohn’s
Their
his
’[
Hounding
did during
study of rabbinic
company
the
Rabbinic
regnant
man and
often
writings.
satirical
Mishneh Torah
to
on
problem
distasteful
ever wrote.
commentaries,
is
he break
Haskalah.
assault
a withering
of
enjoy the
of the
father
does
distance,
heavenly
rabbinical
convoluted
and
maskil,
and devout
a true
is
entire purpose
the
clarify
lon
understand
even
The
this
with,
and
to simplify
sought
elaborate
Torah.
contrary
he
that
the
and opponent of any
norms.
social
i).
is
debate about
Mendelssohn
a
named
Maimonides
a radical
as
traditionalist rabbis
insists
imagines
Polish
to be an annoying
obscurantist
or
satire
and
(Ploni)
protracted
than anything
thought
Ha-Hayyim
heaven,
in
dispute
rabbinic
the
composed
having
interest in,
as
this
in
liberal
Polish
typical
arrival
early
oi the
lionization
heaven, cleverly
in
anonymous
he clearly finds
advancement
sojourn,
for
frustrating,
emerges
more
far
rabbi
European
the
Moses Mendelssohn and
deceased
recently
a
W
33[h
of
and emboldened
Siha Be-Eretz
satire
and philosophical
scientific
of the
illustration
the
words
in
engaged
lon
with
character.
fInal
Eastern
Hebrew
the
being
as
world.
of the
very methodology
recent
European
Moses Mendelssohn’s
Before
depicted
the
most
the
inspired
literature:
Maimonides
lon
one
to
(hat
both
by Aaron Wolfsohn
Heaven]
in
modern
the
Haskalah
in
of the
Jewish worldview,
a
Which
Haskalah
incorporation
to engage
Rambam
of the
by historians
argued
For
a
gen
Dramatic
The
with
for dealing
work,
Mitpahat
who
rabbi
ides.
to
The Guide Comes
more nuanced,
monides,
Torah
became
One
of the
ence was
Naftali
Hirtz
cation
White
Russia
in
order
path
in
youth
Vilna to earn
and
was
it
his
shiurim,
offering
to the
communal
ous work that
Schulman
of
his
book,
this
so
,
paradise.
I
ide
Jacob
in
Dienstag
(New
35
On
36
See
complicated
primary
texts
is
not
so
Gaon
can
Ve-Hakhmei
see
to
I
He
the
in
Schulman
children
a
went
a
still
to
families
to have
in
danger
this
banish
he would
largely as the
sitting
result
Rambam
"The
replied:
only merit
I
the
of Vilna,
instruction
that
hopes
May
it?
while
controversy by
Gaon
of the
public
alleged
prohibit
in
I
of East
of wealthy
public
disappointed them,
is
edu
Guide.
by the
upset
modernization
teenager,
biographies
Gaon
to the
a
for the
the
in
35[h
Russian
the
S
influ
Guide’s
the
of Tsar Alexander
he fomented
that
traditional
1957).
Eliach,
attitude
tutorials,
im[h
Mizpahat
Schulman.
Dov
0s,[
simply to
Guide of the Perplexed
As
tutor
Guide
the
as
reform of Jewish
the
favor
the
in
the
next
to
36
"Ha-Rambam
York.
Hebrew
But the
how
the
Mai
Guide while revering
under
come
champions of
for Mairnonides.
in
34
went
from Vilna.
reverence
wrote
him
they
curried
a
adopted
fashion.
this
who championed
.[h
were
leaders
become
philosopher,
terribly difficult
in
to
study of the
his
early
or public
According
city’s
the
in
there,
Maskilim
actively
a
living as
a
dichotomy
the
However,
became
it
Maimonides
earliest
town of
birth
his
work.
Jewish schools
began with
Jewry
European
and
one of the
as
dan
is
falsely
Europe,
the
and
the
suppressing
print,
Schulman,
modern
to establish
career
in
Polish
earliest
Eastern
view regarding
halakhic
by compartmentalizing
it
ignore
or even
available
increasingly
holy
Mitnagdim
from
generation,
an authoritative
as
the
Moshe ben Maimon
simply by ignoring,
Mishneh
and had
heretic
and
self-contradictory
image of Rabenu
the
between
Guide
the
that
therefore,
Maimonides
same
of the
often
if
the
be the author of the
possibly
concludes,
that
not possible
is
it
stratagem
Emden’s
Rabbi Jacob
in
34
to Vilna:
traditionalists
that
by some mischievous
written
pseudepigraphy
Other
Emden
Guide.
can be found
could
rabbinical
traditional
this
he suggests
Torah
the Mishneh
wrote
attributed
where
Sefarim,
heretical
gerous,
Rambams"
"two
the
of
articulation
most extreme
David
Sefer
1769).
Russia’s
First
Ofl
pp.
reliable.
49
See
on
this
source
Simon Federbush,
Modern
2002),
(Jerusalem,
philosophy
80.
p.
in
n,[h
Ha-Gaon
Maimonidean
always
l
(Altona,
vol.
ed.
Jews (New
I
587-593.
p.
590.
York.
Eliach
Unfortunately,
of Jacob
comments
the
Torazo
Hu-Rambam:
,[h
discusses
his
pp.
64-73.
the
rendering
Gaon’s
of
the
Ve
It
Guide
instructive
is
or encourage
the
opened
are based
oeuvre
his tone
is
one of
I
Guide)
was
written
Kadosh
(Holy
do?
One
by the
ban
some
Gaon’s complicated
ing
is
37[h
clear
quite
it
of the
entire scholastic
work)
which he
38
and
regarding Aristotle
the
sick.
the
use
his
denial
that
of incantations
do not
they
of such skepticism
This
in
but
Zara,
his
Commenta7y
are mentioned
that
Gemara.
in the
magical
spells
demons, and amulets
37
See
the
head
the
Talmud
the
le-Mishnato
38
among
The
a
the
nagdim:
the
For
Etkcs,
traditional
of
of
attitude
the
the
Yahid
perspective
attitude
of
the
Rabbinic
Haskalah"),
that
shel
on
this
1
Mitnagim
10
the
see
Hasidic
to
of
Dov
Rapture
cri
is
based
on
the
Avod.ah
since
.
we have
.
incantations
many
he
However,
.
that
is
seen
he
why
incantations,
been
already
many
on
hit
stories
can
be
op.
cit.
found
(Baltimore,
50
has long been
issue,
ve-Diniui
vol.
in
"Ha-im Hitnagged
253-268.
Haskalah
complex
mut[
Eliach,
Dienstag,
4 (1949):
the
this
Mi-Vilna
Haskalah
"even
extensive
to
Zohar.
by Jacob
essay
Mitnagdim
Ha-Gaon
permits
in
power of magic and Holy names and
lpi
in
evaluations
issue,
to
rather
a
But he has
behold
for
that
by a scorpion,
of God’s names,
uses
phony.
all
apologetic,
the
recent
-Do
Responses
pp.
but
and
and
.
of
cures:
disagreed,
the
to the
testify
ha-Rambam?"
Gaon
most
are
and
account
this
informative,
richly
ha-Filosofit
scholars.
linmanuel
on
.
remarks
critical
can ever help heal
drawn away by philosophy and
was
wrote
him
after
Mishna
he so
that
Gaon’s critique of
of incantations]
the
to
into
of magical
efficacy
important
Shuihan Arukh
the
enters
use
most
opponent
about a dozen
the
is
been bitten
has
bitter
i
in
(lehashim)
in
Gaon
the
the
who came
all
who
regarding
regarding
Rambam
remark
the
help,"
really
of these
cited
glow
Guide of the
Haskalah
scattered
incantations
one
i
i
are found
disciples
is
almost
in
a
the
the
portray
for the
ioso ana
rational
an aside
Guide
of the
.i
i
to heal
the
Ha
man,
lesser
to
of Vilna was
rationalism
.
mystical
Commenting on
though
tique
or
which
The most widely
Gaon’s writings.
Maimonides’
the
r
Denunciations
opposed.
the
with
.
a
the
(i.e.,
Nezer
the
and
whatsoever
Gaon
the
(of
enterprise
associated
.
that
book
Rambam."
the
apologetically,
he had no use
that
by
have attempted
scholars
entire
his
to himself:
dangerous
written
with
here
Maimonides
to
this
been
it
are dealing
known
is
that
fact
ever
Quite the contrary,
sources.
author of the Mishneh Torah,
traditional
attitude
I
it
we
in
can almost hear him sighing
the
Gaon
the
Guide
to the
secondary
Rambam. Had
But
of Vilna endorse the
questionable whether
fact
later
with
great
the
it.
Although
terms,
are stuck
Gaon
the
only references
resignation.
Eagle),
could
I
the
from
We
can
since
here does
in
is
it
study
citations
on
"What
maybe
its
himself,
text
nowhere
that
I
Allan
1997),
see
the
a
1
(Jerusalem,
pp.
A
594-639.
Nadler,
chapter
m
second
The
6 ("The
of debate
chapter
pp.
broader
Faith
Ha-Gra
of
the
of
44-83. For
discussion
Mith
Mithnagdim
and
the
So too
like....
and
there
But the
powerful
God
Now,
words.
and
phers]
Talmud
the
not the
(who claimed
4[S[h
of the
not
The former
insisted
nagdim
reflected
still
were
deeply
or
gorical
the
me
that
figurative
and Talmud.
But precisely
Maimonidean
An
such
and
biblical
himself.
which
balah,
the
39
Eliach.
rational
for
rabbinical
nagdic
a
in
only
The
traditionalist
this
("that
for dealing
l[Qist
of
mli
the
this critical
text
hitsonirn,
that
40 For an overview
Shemtov,
Rabbis
the
and
Gaon
obvious
sense of
founder
s[h
of
of
(New
are
the
Maimonides’
that
very
with
the
possibilities
that
is,
is
hallmark of
Arukh.
ozam
use of
that
demonic
("that
is
j,[h
Deah,
imaginatively
the
he
had
no
they
more harshly
Either
forces.
This passage
are
Eliach
way,
thrown
that
takes
with
he
is
is
,n
cited
term
the
:so
philosophy
associating
or
Mit
credits
by replacing
r[Qa[h
expression
that
what
use
19th-century
1
l
/[Qi[
rather
of
is
suggestion
have
renowned
Kab
true
"re-appearance"
The
death.
indulgence
to the
the
after
Guide,
by
in the
a
is
the
fair subject
rabbinical
using
liberties
the
term
in his
in
cita
unacceptable.
debate
ism,[h
York.
the
Midrash
for his
Yitzhaq Isaac Haver,
R.
paragraph
by
the
spirit,
she-zorki,n
meant
an alle
through
the
it
Haskalah,
through
access
he would
Kabbalah,
Shuihan
at
final
is
However
of the
tradition
generations
Kabbalist,
with
external")
of sefarim
classification
the
division
this
question.
opponents
he did not have
I
1
renders
exactly
The two
debate.
Ha-Gra
Biur
are
they
What
garbage").
In
and
scholar
who
p 588,
ibid.,
to
Mit
exegesis.
later
after
century
philosophy.
added.
Emphasis
,n[h
tion
over
that
fact
Maimonides been exposed
soever
the
revealed
was
well
Zohar,
had
of
based on the
philosophy
and did
were
not authentic
of course,
a reading was,
disciples
mitnagdic
employed by many Mitnagdim, was excusing Maimonides
in
But
Mask
Vilna
the
from Torah
texts
traditionalist strategy
interesting
direct
on
to rationalize
midrashic
meaning.
are external
of the Gaon, and
Mitnagdim,
of her sacred
reading
the
scholarship
attempt
the
in
meanings.
between
texts
words
the
traditional
to any
opposed
Gaon
of the
philoso
written
plain
that
its
ists.
and
these
that
modern
the
the
is
esoteric]
generations
forebear)
indeed
critical
with
the
that
all
of
truth
plain
,,39
those of the
a
as
pen
the
meanings of Philosophy,
alleged
they were
in
seems clear to
the
for
them,
mis
to
them
believe
are interior
in subsequent
Gaon
the
times
led
to uproot
accordance
in
but rather
issue from
really
follow
there
deep
debate ensued
do not
I
who
rabble
in addition,
theTorah]
ilim
forbid,
so-called
and
figuratively
must be accepted
Of course,
A
of philosophy
teachings
Talmud
the
interpret
mentioned many
are
spells
Zohar.
the
in
and
amulets
s[Q
the
about
the
lah,[h
1992)
51
legacy
see
Allan
of
both
Nadler,
the
Gaon
and
m[h
ism
R.
Israel
Baal
Maimonides
his
how
Behold
nor did
soul
the
Lithuanian
Maimonides
of
unscathed
greater
their
by
his
system and
albeit
one of
the
edged
of
whole
who
speculation.
who
those
in
this
Achilles’
in
his
faith
continued
vein, admiring
but precisely
heel,
on
study Aristotle
that
proves
not have
might
the
refuting
Maimonides could
that
fact
remain
endured
he was
even
such a chal
his
doctrines
a
own
day
times
determined
biblical
was
biblical
tzh
A
of
those
several
Phinehas
critique
of
of
in
Magen
generally,
lot
was
hos
Gaon’s
the
that
Phinehas
viewed
rationalism,
Job,
involvement
will
most
where
in
Nadler,
52
the
suffice
cited
rationalist
theories
and
important
Jews of
anti-Hasidism.
rationalizations
writings,
particularly
mundane human
1855),
Faith
of
p.5b.
the
See
his
rationalist
he endorses Maimonides’
The
the
to illustrate
to his determined
(Yohannisburg,
see
Phinehas
a
and incorporated many of
Phinehas’
throughout
Allan
which he considered
opponent of
conducive
a[h
day.
Haskalah,
of the Guide’s
see
his
by Maimonides’
-l .[Q
isk[h
the
pos
consists of a double-
Torah,
of examples
vocal
book of
biblical
Sefer
the
couple
and
providential
1
Isaac
589.
of
Gaon and
shared
Haskalah
the
the
rationalism,
the
fully
commentaries
biblical
theology can be seen
striction of God’s
On
his
particularly
the
Keter
Judaism
to
influenced
profoundly
commentary on
’[h
in
sermons.
influence
He
of medieval Jewish
mitnagged
allegories,
The
traditional
to
clear antipathy
his
and
Hasidism
with
contact
grandchildren.
major work,
came under
Phinehas
fashion.
of Polotsk
42
manifestation
into
regular
and
philosophical
paradoxical
had
his
his
both
threats
numerous
how
and
against
main
two
who
Phinehas
R.
like
Kabbalah
of Maimonides’
aspects
tutor
to
Mitnagdim
hostile to
generally
people
Haskalah,
modern-day
Guide
there were
hand,
many
by him
Despite
42
minds,
were
few
polemic
the
other
who
the
to the
tility
41
the
in
philosophical
particularly
philosophical
an unsystematic and often
in
handpicked
p.
his
On
1
on
continued
study,
of the Kabbalists
many
influence
itive
of
Gaon,
of Kabbalistic
school
not only despite
(17451822)
its
of the
not corrupt
holy Torah.
the
helped him
it
of heretics that were based
from
the
Despite
did
this
philosophy,
that
even possible
is
To
On
as
despite
to their faith!
lenge
was
in
him whatsoever
distance
it
it:
than
from Torah
of Maimonides!
holiness
extensively
of the students
Many
account
it
contrary,
arguments
the
virtue and
great the
he engaged
that
fact
and distanced
rational philosophy:
in
indulgence
his
been corrupted
for not having
affairs
also,
Mithnagdim,
pp.
re
the
in
Eliach,
his
op.
710.
cit.,
On
of
course
which
theory of miracles,
of the possibility of miracles
and
Hasidic masters,
which Phinehas and
utilitarian
the
fact
some of
the
standing,
licly
,[S44[h
found
subjects
as
but the
Hasidic nemeses
often
is
It
of the
"Fall"
Phinehas
the
is
of
Adam
Maimonidean
of
and
aggressive
the
greater
For
See
44
1
Institute
Nadler,
discovered
his
to launch
into
’for
the
of
sin
the
of the
One, not
Eternal
[Q1
pp.
of
manuscript
in St.
for
a
these
fuller
Petersburg.
at
least
and
dur
explana
and Eve
then
Phinehas
is
after
the
uses
relentless
of seeking out
which Maimon
for
Not
of
these
Peulati
entitled
The following
humans
ides
devoted
to attain
death.
until after
live.’
discussion
sermons,
Maimonides
to
Guide:
me and
see
to
impossible
is
it
that
not only on the Haskalah
general.
of the Torah,
narrative
the
particular,
P
by
attack
in
in
of the entire enterprise
Adam
no man can
Studies
for Oriental
these
regarding
Adam
45[h
philosophy
third section
the
ibid.,
the
again,
typical of traditionalists
acquired
relentless
a
commandments
of the
written,
influence,
by Phinehas’
from Maimonides’
verbatim
of
tree
delegitimation
insight
43
forbidden
in
after
theories
attitude
conflicted
cites
rationalist
part
Here
made
of Eden
Guide of the Perplexed
upon
for the
rationales
the
nature of "knowledge"
paradigm
day, but
his
pub
.
philosophical
parasha of the Torah,
from the Garden
Phinehas
from the
eaten
having
first
very
betrays
of the
period.
of the precise
tion
the
and Eve
most dramatically
modern
ing the
sermon on
in
uses
of Maimonidean
adoption
notwith
which remain
sermons,
being
This
striking.
quite
his
paradoxical
to divination
claims
against
battle.
agenda
dreams, and soothsaying.
miracles,
of the
part
and preached
accepted,
of seventy
purpose
beliefs
anti-Hasidic
his
the
relentless
a
more Maimonidean
even
denial
limita
the
Guide of the Perplexed
of the
sections
outlandish
the
clearly
subjects
radical
have
I
on such
is
target
most
of
service
on
powers
panentheistic
Phinehas studied,
that
remains
the
ifl
Phinehas of Polotsk’s collection
In
largely
Hasidism’s
served
clearly
mitnagdim were waging
his fellow
of creation
rationalist
strict
to miraculous
also countered
of Maimonides
use
phenomena
claims
audacious
the
of undermining
These
times.
that
by maintaining
era,
endorses Maimonides’
Phinehas
own
his
Maimonides’
adopts
primordial Sabbath
of the
possibility of supernatural
the
to
in
biblical
to the
Put more simply,
have been exhausted.
tions
them
the eve
pre-ordained on
miracles
the
limits
Phinehas
Elsewhere,
of theodicy.
discussion
his
until after
:[h
As
it
is
he dies
themes.
discussion
is
based
Derashot,
on
my work
at
the
with
the
manuscript.
45
hood,
cited
See
and
Guide.
moral
verbatim
1:2,
where
knowledge
by Phinehas
Maimonides
that
in
his
allows
distinguishes
humans
to
between
discern
sermon.
53
between
rational
good
knowledge
and
evil.
of
This
truth
and
distinction
false
is
and
what
of
from
escapes
meant by
is
his
the
of matters
written,
ness
who
this
grasp
take
hold and they
that
is
men
This
holy.
evil
according
a tree
is
the
.
.
God
of
eyes
death
the
is
is
death can one attain
bring about
human
for
reason,
and
not
is
And
forces
to
all
wise
so-called
understand
and whatever
of holi
and desecrate
influences
to
is
of
tree
powers
unholy
philosophers
want
it
of impurity.
external,
unclean
they
the
powers
the
the tree of the
is
which
in
the
But,
it.’
grasp
external
empower
tree
of our generation,
to
who
to those
with
are intermingled
those
the
in
.
body of Torah about which
to the
life
of good and
Knowledge
"Precious
That
is
.
For only through
refers
of
a tree
that
vessel,
corporeal
eternal.
the Tree of Life
’it is
verse
believers."
righteous
cognition
So,
earthen
his
everything
accord with
in
their
46
reasoning
tney
Phinehas
major
ular
on
attack
venom
a
ments,
in
traditional
Rambam,
so
a
faith
very
the
renewed
were
By
early
the
nalist
Israel
after
of approaches
most
46
for the
constitutes
-Mi
reserving
religion,
Taamei
in
engaged
of Maimonides’
the
as
once
It
a
partic
the
command
biblical
Guide made
became
again
aron ha-sefarim
centuries
easily
of neglect.
ha-Yehudi,
Since
was
it
its
with
teachings
widely avail
it
what
part of
be dismissed nor ever
again
to reconciling
imaginative,
Hasidism
at
history,
upon which
any
of
famous
doubt, R.
Polotsk,
Hasidic
times
the
is
accepted,
written
by the
And
suppressed.
traditional
rabbinic
and
Peulati
Imagination
outrageous,
in
study of the
to Judaism
faith
as[h
its
eschewed
approach
without
in the
period can be found
The most
was,
of
what
engaged.
modern
mystical
of philosophy
19th century.
neither
For most of
ters,
in
great length
underpinnings
publication
The Guide of the Perplexed
far
at
of Maimonides.
Jewish canon,
variety
vein
who
those
rational
contemporary
could
this
enterprise
by the early
it
.
in
work of
major passion
to Jews
known
the
for the
The
able
continues
to discover
attempt
reject
Hasidic
for
the
of
54
the
that
majority
its
the
of
its
dangerously
mas
ratio
distinctly anti-rationalist
of Maimonides
lav[h
ha-Sherninit:Derashot
in
founded.
Hasidic antagonist
Nachman
Guide
literature.
fearing
would undermine
is
of the
overwhelming
Guide,
Hasidic piety
uses
(undated
and the
(17221810),
ms.),
Folio,
5a.
who
Guide
is
said to
have condemned
The
heresy.
which
the
is
Whosoever
much
as
fairly
books
for
of
for
it
himself
some of
the
who went
to declare
far as
so
to
prohibition
that
ear
Ha-Higayon and
the Milot
a major
is
that
writings
distance
the
those
study
47[S
blemishes and confuse our holy
cause
they
and
disciple
sentiments,
must
evil]
particular
Rambam,
of the
Nachman,
R.
himself
in
composed,
Moreh Nevuk/iim
faithful
anti-Maimonidean
from the analytical
possible
authorities
lier
his
by
total
typical:
wishes to guard
as
recorded
as
than
less
nothing
as
enterprise
are replete with
of Nemirov,
following
rationalist
Nachman,
of R.
writings
Nathan
scribe
medieval
the
who
"anyone
studies
48
Guide certainly
the
forfeits
image and
Divine
his
representative
of the anti-rationalist tendency
Hasidic
whose
sects,
and
nence
the
in
championed
leaders
that
faith
a majority of
imma
God’s
in
beliefs
Tsadik,
was
holiness,"
characterized
naive
a total,
of the
powers
supernatural
his
loses
incompati
entirely
49
Maimonides
ble with
A
rationalism
Elimelekh of Dinov
Zevi
dean
to
mentary
critiques of
Or Ha-Hayyim,
Maimonides onto
between
that
disasters
Maskilim
the
the
of
of
Dinow
own
his
of Maimonides’
danger
Iberian
of
effects
In
Jewry.
transposed
day,
of the
aftermath
corrupting
befell
Elimelekh
the
in
com
his
Yaavetz’s
thereby drawing
with
rationalism
medieval
a
of the Haskalah.
This
tury.
The
warned
47
followers
a[
48
Likkuiei
49
Hillel
opposing
Moharan
See
Hayav
Nachman
chapter
the
R.
7,
pp.
of
i[Q
account
inan[
1808),
faith,
discussion
U-Mis/maw
as
Leib
Nachinan
R.
Jewish
on
so
I
Part
(Ostrow,
to
precisely
against
lwa
Yehuda
viewed
Zeitlin
approaches
monideanism.
,na:[h
in
Hasidic
much
of
of
cited
Bratslav.
I
Part
of
Zeitlin’s
his
in
Zvi
see
and
inon
characterizations
in,
Aviv,
(Tel
1999),
anti-rationalism.
David
Assaf,
-[Q1
55
the
(18661948),
as
,non
For
a
:sla
Veha
(Jerusalem,
representing
1
Shraga
philosophy.
Ha-Kabbalah
"Yahas
archetype
Pp.
R.
rationalist
Ben
Moshe
Nachman
Rabbi
Zeitlin
deep
Rahinovits.
nu[h
47.
p.
lav[h
in
Meir
ed.,
Jewish
Abraham
Guide and generally
the
at
looking
Poland,
cen
twentieth
the
into
Rebbe
Gerer
of medieval
Fishman,
seeing
Hillel
revered
as
well
interwar
in
sect
the
of the works
Moharan,
Leha-Rambam,"
endured
posture
largest
against
any
reading
From
Hasidut
1
of the
of Gura
Alter
his
opposed
anti-Maimonidean
leader
Mordecai
directed
the
blamed
anti-Maimoni
Yaavetz’s
written
R.
Hasidic master,
Galician
Joseph
book,
largely
Zevi
R.
R.
to
Yaavetz’s
the
for
rationalism
direct analogy
R.
(17831841)
of the Jews from Spain,
Maimonidean
the
commentary by
-Ha
Or
polemic,
expulsion
that
the
is
Mai
dangers of
of the Hasidic perception of the
dramatic example
monidean
approach.
rationalist
diametrically
of Jewish
anti-Mai
Bar-Sela, Beyn
71.
Saar
The Maskilirn
bibliography
Bibliographia
1948).
of Haskalah
Muerci
Li
despised
polemics
(Jerusalem,
Abraham
R.
to consult
Mordecai
the
For
Alter
those
because
important
issue (and
earth
that
Most Hasidic
not
regarding
But
literature.
the
when
who
by philosophical
more
Hasidic
while the
major
were
Already
in
leaders
as
found
the
was
throughout
spread
latter
same way
second
deeply with
identified
did the early Maskilim,
religious-ideological spectrum.
the
founder
the
his followers
published Hasidic work,
Shneur Zalman
up
namely
and
50
Cited
by
fame
to great
reputation
grew
time they would
"in
lives
the
and
greatly,
insert
your days and
the
Jacob Joseph
in
the
Maimonidean
the
conservative
and
Rumania,
Belorussia.
Hasidic movement, one of
personal
Zalman
Middle
lln
Mitnagdim’s
to the
Toltiot
it
the
of
(17451841),
attacks
that
of the
Yaakov
sus
to console
Writing
burning
alleged
ends
opposite
to the
Ages.
much
in
legacy
of Lyadi
their criticisms
of
and
rationalization,
Hungary,
responded
the
faith
to understanding
coming from
Mitnagdim’s
days of yore: for
the
generation,
raised
his
R.
the
in
intel
Hasidic world
scientific
Galicia,
Shneur
the
first
178[Q0)
declared:
Remember
his
Guide
Vilna following
in
Rabbi
of Hasidic
to harmonize
Maimonides’
by comparing
of the
publication
and
and
although
simply
rationalist
of simple
mostly represented
Hasidic dynasty,
on Hasidism
assault
followed
Habad
of the
the
advocates
generation of the
Jewish
and Przysucha-Kotsk-Izbica
tried
Ukraine,
Guide,
exceptions:
approach
mostly in Poland
the
R.
intellectual
former approach
that
sects
notable
speculation
the
share
lion’s
Belorussia
the
an
regarding
50
clear split within
a
Moreh
the
at
it.
banning
the
very
between
Guide,
a
on
else
medieval
the
that
in
was
finally
of
explicitly
two
were
of Habad
advocated
The
philosophy.
tained
not
of Hasidic mysticism, with which they
roots
compelled
felt
Creator of heaven
pray to the
whatsoever
there
of the
status
uncorrupted
those
he
look
a
by someone
I
on account
falter
safely generalize
What emerged
in Poland.
and
only then!),
masters,
Hasidic schools
lectualistic
been cited
has
it
will
I
and one can
and
thought
when
fears
must have
absolutely
I
had almost no impact
tradition
piety,
when
times
Nevukhim
it,
own
his
to
Guide:
at
and
ignored
testified
in
the
the
who
Rambam,
a
in
Hasidut
been
to such
in
in
country
that
days of our great teacher
Polin
(Jerusalem,
56
i990),
p.
for
110.
his
of the
and
they
was
of Spain and
during
their version
of Israel
Moses of
the
unto
memory who
his
an extent
following
like
of blessed
good name
of the entire household
Mendel Piekarz
has
rabbi
saw
own
life
Kaddish:
Moses,
the
extent
of
his
where
him
heretic
a
books,
the
including
what
wrote
the
in
on
section
burned
public
estimation,
his
square.
having
despite
Laws of Repen
the
the
not understand
lands,
considered
they
in the
distant
to his
subjugating their opinions
for they could
Rambam]
the
and
Yad,
own
their
in
to consider
did not pause
tance,
wise
the
in
honor, they
his
of the
section
first
Rambam
the
However,
piety.
of our holy Torah
a denier
men, who were
These
seen
and
his
heard nor perceived
neither
they
and
holiness,
his
honor,
of
depths
his
51
meaning.
The
mysticism can be seen
and
continued
has
One
most
of the
the
and
Abraham
attempts by
with
own
his
w
brand
54[h
of R.
(grandson
circles
Tsemah
the
as
of the
work
to "re-habilitate"
Habad
the
through
that
argue
with
use
the
of highly
imaginative,
that
Menachem
fact
and
explain
Abraham
cited
been
52
widely
See,
"
examples
for
of
R.
as
Zalman’s
Shneur
Maskilim
efforts
with
ah
a
Moshe
l[h
has
written
in
tendency
extensively
work of mysticism concealed
Guide
of
54
i[h Emunah:
55
See
Joseph
the
in
the
Perplexed
Sefer
tei[h
to
Amarim:
harmonize
revered
Vol.
n[Q
Part
Guide with
the
/ze
about
1
I
p.
him
the
would
I
battle
as
role
a
most
Guide’s
has
This passage
22a.
6a
p.
his
and
The Kabbalah,"
&
own
Part
language.
interpretations
See,
wis y[h
most
18
I
83a,
1
recently.
(2004):
p.
mystical
radically
of
the
for
the
Guide
Moshe
ldel
1912).
(Poltava,
Tzemah
kabbalists’
medieval
the
garb of philosophical
Ha-Hak: u[
I Schneerson.
order
"rescue"
attempts to
ology.
53
example
in
piety.
1
(Brooklyn,
schol
by any
a lifelong
some of
harmonize
to
entire his
the
tradition
in
engaged
who
but equally
hermeneutics.
for his
Hasidic mystical
Belt
discussion
the
was
major rab
went
kabbalistic
is
scholars.
by subsequent
instance,
Mendel
his
fascinating
Hasidic authorities
not tortuous,
if
a
is
it
within the
it
of the
Samuel Heilman.
circles,
major incentive
a
tortured
his
theories
radically rationalist
See.
R.
from the clutches
Maimonides
1[
s
55[h
the
model,
Guide by placing
the
unmentioned
who
rebbe
Guide with
of the
Sefer
(17891866)
learned,
deeply
hitherto
which some 19th-century
to
lengths
Emunah:
of
title
in
19th-
two-part
Derekh
the
after
Tsedek,
and ignored within contemporary
the
since
Guide
the
and third Lubavitcher
doctrines
A
theology.
mystical
i
day.
very
Guide,
of Lubavitch
an intensive,
the
to
philosophy
Mendel
of Lyadi,
to connect
attempt
tory of Jewish
Zalman
This work represents
binical works).
convoluted,
Menachem
the
to interpret
53[h
ecstatic
on Maimonidean
by R.
Shneur
Habad
in
of
Abulafia
52[S
this
history to
commentaries
Hasidic
Zalman’s
Shneur
intellectual
idiosyncratic
with
philosophy
of R.
passages
Habad
subsequent
Hasidic discourse
century
revered
numerous
in
bizarre
13th-century
accordance
ars
in
Maimonidean
to harmonize
tendency
Tzedek
57
and
the
alah[
Movement
(Brooklyn,
1975).
as
According
not banned
Guide
Of
shiurim.
belief that
gurated
reached
the
its
climax
(d.
cited
of the
After
ogy.
R.
of
critics
have
honor
Kabbalah
that
inau
This approach,
Abulafia,
Lamer of Radzin
lzbicer
Mordecai
R.
Rebbe,
in
with
some
to
Joseph
will
be merciful
for
in
Maimonides]
in
the
forms of philosophical
far
tribulations
n[h
mer
transcended
of Maimonides’
Henokh
mer of
discussion
of
the
is
the
in
the
of blessed
am
critics.
in
to his
Nonetheless,
and
us both.
Rambam].
the
deep
particularly
(ed.)
of
Beit
Guides
58
truth
his
who
is
pri
that
his
mind and
I
one
speak
ill
of him
of the conservative
of
lav[h
with
association
he considered
Sefer
the
also for me,
Gershon Henokh’s
personal
Radzin,
those
rooted
not the
righteous
Nachman
of R.
a
since
of
is
his
56
critical
Clearly, R.
vague
the
to justify
Kabbalah.
true
The
secrets
am
I
persecuted
care
this
of
sake
persecutions
for the
Yet
the
inquiry.
"secrets"
personal
In truth,
memory.
and
mouths of
footsteps
life,
text
disguised
the
for
Guide]
Rambam,
order
to shut the
of the
the
is
on
theol
Gershon Henokh waxes
R.
comforting
and
name
which
Kabbalah,
denouncements
place
Hasidim who followed
Guide
I
this
Gershon Henokh
R.
the
defense
my
he endured
prove that
to
with him
in
empathized
almost antinomian
explicating
simply did not penetrate
come
attacks
many
ene
by
personally
Those who have compassion
and
of Lyadi
Maimonides:
terrible
hatred.
Zalman
Shneur
intended
Guide,
length
suffering
reason
of the
scholasticism,
be compassionate
critics
of R.
rendering of the
esoteric
will
have
of the
oi our master,
baseless
mary
56
long-standing
of the
Gershon Henokh
radically mystical,
no closer to him than
am
in
1314.
or
classes,
considering himself surrounded
own
his
analysis
and
gone
partner
the
was
text
Guide by Abraham
to the
on account
specifically
identification
his
the
I
the
truths
Mitnagdim, and Maskilim
language of medieval
I
first
the
organized
language.
strikingly similar to that
Hasidim,
a partial
regarding
all
of the
in
reflected
the
Aristotelian
of R.
writings
grandson
an extensive
represents
in the
in
Gershon Henokh
Maimonides,
part
the
in
manner
a
including
with
Guide
commentaries
13th-century
the
above,
mies,
to the
students
Maimonides’
1854).
In
the
by Maimonides
in
(18141891),
Lamer
to advanced
deeper esoteric meaning reflected
its
not oniy was
-Kotsk-Izb
of
their approach
course,
concealed
were
from the courts
and even taught
studied
actively
Hasidic traditions,
internal
to
Yaakot’
found
the
(Warsaw,
on
pp.
915
1890),
of
rejecting
interest
the
Guide
in
trials
and
"
this
to
in
be an
text.
pp.
if
important,
duction
to his
of the
Abraham
elation
to
seen
one of the
of kabbalistic
eclipsed
that
clear
is
of the
or Jewish
notion
magical,
their
own?
this
Of course
Torah
the
whose works one
57
this
work
58
are
Just
Hasidism
balistic
the
as
a
approach
and
The
to
his
in
the
Maimonides
the
of
I
hook,
R.
of
the
a
le[Qx and
also
the
places
of Hasidism’s
upon
R.
(New
which
this
mer of
to
the
struggles
the
doctrines
who
with
devel
Hasidic
in
(18231900),
against
the
Beit
into
a
based,
of
a
in
at
Haskalah’s
a
to
scholarly
aul
/Radzin
’s[h kab
The Synthesis of
Esotericisin,"
efforts
references
full
Gerhson
R.
Torah:
the
of
My
i[E
was published,
and Messianis,n
analysis
Henokh’s
is
paper
Radzin
Hasidic Reconstruction
Gershon
with
1
York,
of Sejer
edition
:in
entitled
philosophy
rationalism
"
1890
long chapter
philosophy,
and
of the Guide integrated
Hcnokh
Reconciliation,
sys
biography
of Izbica
Joseph
of Lublin
Veha-Petiha.
lecture
Gershon
of
one of
as
which
in
to
59[S
Warsaw
original
presented
Magid devotes
Magid
context
Ha-Hakdama
latter’s
garb.
discussions
of Hasidic
in the
Marin:
the
esotericism
Ha-Kohen
Zadok
tales
its
of the entire Maimonidean
face
Maimonidean
’[h
to
to
teachings
synthesizing
theology
2003).
Guide
the
Guide
role
59
on
the
com
is
Hasidic Rebbes.
the
leaders,
theoretical
its
rationalist
a
version
after
mystical
(Madison,
introduction
of
the
its
of R. Mordecai
found
version
weeks
Hasidism
Magid.
Zohar
to
few
a
of
treatment
the
the
miraculous interventions
disciple
mer Sefer
Henokh
Gershon
under
numerous
intellectualist
uniquely
by
of Kabbalistic
enigmatic R.
finds
Hayyim
with
from the
of Hasidism,
aspect
Aristotelian
in
one
of Maimonides
philosophy
Guide from a work synthesizing
interest
mysticism was
to
Maimonides’
important
of
be synthesized
Hasidim from reclaiming
into a masterpiece
deep
one
Ger
lah,[h
writings
simply re-wrote
Another
a
the
and constant
in
They
not.
of the Zohar are hidden
oped
the
claimed
flies
the
stop
work of
a
as
Zohar,
is,
every
from
Hasidism
transformed the
the
about
powers
Tsadikim
working
But did
face value,
just
supernatural
tem.
Sefer
lore.
immanence
of Divine
Everything about
miracle
entitled,
58
at
with
the
that
Besht,
mystical
taken
pletely incompatible
the
of the
him, R.
of Lyadi before
Zalman
with
.
Obviously,
radical
chain
the
language
book
a separate
as
is
rationalism
the
in
latter
rev
first
Maimonides
he kept
as
a
presents
God’s
Toy.
period when
of the
published
tandem
in
teachings
classics
Shem
history,
Guide of the Perplexed
the
I
later
this
secrets
with
beginning
medieval
Shneur
R.
like
that,
viewed
the
Vital and
been
has
to be studied
ought
the
by couching
Yaakov,
Sefer Beyt
Baal
the
His lengthy intro
[Q57[S
Henokh
shon
with
the
during
introduction
Ha-Hakdama
It
Kabbalah,
Figures in
most important
transmission
The
of the
history
lah.[h
true
to the Torah,
and culminating
mysticism,
former.
work of
imperfect,
commentary
father’s
Hasidic version
as
and
partial
kabbalistic
appropriation
40-7
pp.
1.
In
the
the
reconstruction
of
Maimonides
model.
On
the
Mysticism
uses of
the
of Rabbi
Guide
Zadok
in the
of
writings of
ub
(Hoboken.
Zadok
R.
2002).
59
Ha-Kohen.
pp.
62-74.
1I
see
Alan
Brill.
Thinking
God:
To
i
Guide
Has
into
no
relied
that
a
R.
of
man
days a
them
had already
no
that
was
it
Hasidic
a
longer
for
on
relying
reflect
this
his
pre-dated
highly
ing to
lying
revelation
manner
historical.
first
Joseph
I
doctrines
to wrest
on
arbitrary,
listic
of the
to him,
to him,
Aristotelian
his
who
from the
many
imaginative
Toledot
anti-Zionist
the
writings
(Brooklyn,
with
did
opus
its
a
was
those
Still,
they
not
composition
radical,
of the
though
seek
Guide,
under
before
even
leaps,
1953),
60
or
the
intuitive insights
remained
both
often
beginning
the
reject
who
Maskilim
claimed
because
Guide tried
him
hermeneutic
amusing
with
Yaakov Yosef(1780)
highly
’e[QlM
:[h
in
Maimonides had
text.
deathbed
since
that
is
his
the
The assumption
teachings.
of remarkable,
and ending with
works
recanted
unsatisfied
re-reading
not to ignore
legacy
text,
my
philosophy.
chose
dozens
my
kabbalistic
a
his
engaged
Guide
end of
not learned
I
magnum
fragmentary and obfuscated
published Hasidic
Abrabanel,
epiphany.
secrets
Guide into
So they
end
became
"epistle"
least
at
the
would have
I
Maimonides’
Guide by Hasidic rebbes,
20th-century
this
conveyed
insights
into
masters
mar Rebbe (18881982),
Isaac
implied that
reconstructions
however
the
Italian
that
fact
Guide remained
the
unsystematic and
on him of
of Polnoe,
late
it
mystical
have collected
from
passages
for
the
world,
of the
had
that,
for
not
the
"at
but a committed kabbalist.
studied
actually
This required
forbear.
60
the
Maimonides
kabbalistic
The Hasidic
in this
Isaac Abrabanel
towards
epistle
things
it
Maimonides,
regarding
of mystical
their truths,
15th
early
Renaissance
by the
me
throughout
philosopher
kabbalistic
of the influence
the
life,
Hasidim,
secret
its
the
Tanya,
the
to
Don
exile,
confession:
following
my
the
idiosyncratic,
overt
very
the
taught
lore
alleged
these
own
included
and were
legend,
transform
and
Maimonides wrote an
end of
who
the
fully
least
at
the
which was endorsed by
legend,
promulgated
me and
rationalist
Hasidic masters
into
this
justification for their reconstruction
torical
So
later
been spread
,
tfiem.
cite
back
dating
visited
the
at
myth
a mystic and
into
ha-Besht and the
Shivhei
Ergas (16851730):
that
life
with
august Spanish rabbi
been heard that
his
In
the
Joseph
has
It
a classical
and which was
(14371508),
Kabbalist,
on
Hasidic sources
than
person
harmonious
is
heavily
Numerous
century.
less
work
a
of Maimonides
transformation
their
justify
imaginative
and
p.
209.
1960),
of
renderings
citations from
the
by R. Jacob
uses
of the
Guide
and
in
IH
of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the
(Brooklyn,
their
as
Sat
IHa-T
sources
with
is
the
well
had mastered
and
night
The
it
Guide was
the
having
that
so
and would
book
is
near
and
dear
thousand
a
never lend
it
Moreh Nevukhim
one’s
preserved
which
to
Shem Toy
he studied
that
alleged
conclude
was
a
great
and
Guide day
the
completely.
more than
to cover
It
will
I
of
collage
according
tale,
of the Baal
an associate
of Koretz
this
But
survey.
Hasidic
paradoxical
of the Moreh Nevukhim.
scholar
of
proper analysis
of the present
scope
typically
following,
Phinehas
Rabbi
the
beyond
A
1968).
(Brooklyn,
him
to
to any
from
it
to depart
since
he believed
was
a
magical
’[
(In Yiddish:
cover
from
refused
man,
house
the
in
of heaven.
fear
He
times.
he studied
that
this
that
protection
a segule far yiras
61
shomayim.)
How
condemning
the
be cherished
by
than
61
Toy
a
thousand
Cited
(Chicago.
1[
would
graphical
corrective
from
a
1985).
like
section
to
of
comments
its
devoted
times,
manuscript
P.
4
thank
fn.
Brad
this paper,
pertaining
Hasidic
such
in
of the Perplexed
all
rejected
,[h
on
reliance
Guide
and
with Judaism
of nature
laws
The
ironic that
or
a perversely
of Sippurim
amulets,
who
,n,[h
as
claimed
to
superstitious,
in A.J.
Hcschcl,
In
reconciled
that
beliefs
superstitious
magical
reader,
book
a
specifically
should
idolatrous
read
have
talismanic
The
Circle
the
of
the
it
more
fashion.
al[
Sheni
17.
Sabin
Hill,
Dean
of
and Professor Marc
to
the
philosophical
the
IV
Shapiro,
issues
61
that
for his
Library,
Scranton
it
assistance
University,
raises.
for
his
with
the
insightful
biblio
and