The "Rambam Revival" in Early Modern

Jewish Thought: Maskilim, Mitnagdim,

and Hasidim on Maimonides’
Guide of the Perplexed

Allan Nadler

What "Rambam Revival ?

There is an assumption in the title of this
paper that begs the following ques
tion: Was there in fact a signifIcant and sustained "Rambam Revival" in the

modern period? The very notion of a modern Jewish Maimonidean renais

sance implies that there had been an extended historical

period during which

Maimonides was not of widespread interest and his works not studied in the

Jewish world, a deficiency that was subsequently addressed and remedied by

this alleged "Rambam revival."

In evaluating the history of the reception of Maimonides from the

period immediately following his death, through to the early modern period

with which we are presently concerned, a fundamental distinction must first

be drawn between "Rabbenu Moshe Ben Maimon," the revered rabbi and

authoritative halakhist, and Maimonides, the Aristotelian philosopher, scien

tist, and medical authority.

From its in the late 12th century, the Mishneh Torah, the
appearance
masterful Jewish legal
code authored by the Rambam, the "Great Eagle,"

remained the foundational text of Jewish jurisprudence until its normative sta

tus was eclipsed by the Shuihan Arukh in the 16th century. Despite fierce

quarrels with it that erupted early on among some medieval European rab
binic critics most famously by Provencal Rabbi Abraham ben David of

no point in Jewish Mishneh in need of

I
Posquieres’ at history was the Torah

I The fullest treatment of Rabad’s criticism of Maimonides’ code is

Twerksy, Rabad of

Posquieres (Cambridge, 1962), chapter 3, pp. 128197.

36
 not only the most consulted and respected source of
revival. It was frequently

the was the most widely studied and ana

halakhah throughout centuries it

lyzed rabbinic work in the history of Rabbinic [Q2[S

Even after the codification of the Shuihan Arukh, which overrode the

of the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides’ code was consulted

legislative authority
the
and studied in the hard cases to be found throughout
widely, especially

the Mishneh Torah was mined widely for many

responsa literature. Moreover,

of Talmudic the most common practice of which

centuries as a source pilpul,

was the Rambam’s sources and reconciling any apparent discrepancies

finding

decisions and the of the corresponding Tal

between his halakhic implications

mudic or textual unit. "Erleydigen a Shveren Rambam" (resolving a diffi

sugya,

cult passage from Maimonides’ code) is the common Yiddish expression for

of rabbinic the pilpulistic

indus
this highly developed genre study. Ironically,

which became in the Yeshivas

by the Mishneh Torah,
so popular
try generated
author’s intent in
of Eastern actually served to undermine its original
Europe,
code: to simplify access to rabbinic law and eliminate
composing his namely,

the convolutions of Talmudic reasoning.

This Rambam, the rabbinic master of halakhah was certainly never

and one cannot therefore speak of any revival of

let alone forgotten,
ignored,
other authoritative rabbinic works
him or his Mishneh and
Torah his
interest in

in the modern 3[S

the medieval rationalist of
But "Dr. Maimonides," philosopher

and author of the stunning and, in the view of many traditionalists,

Judaism

subversive, even heretical, work Guide of the Perplexed, was indeed largely

the of having been banned several times and

ignored and suppressed (to point

handed rabbis to the Dominicans for public

even over once by the Spanish

most hidden for centuries. The

burning!) and was for the part away many
Maimonides, who intimated that had the Greek philosophers
philosopher,

that the world is eternal, he would have been forced to abandon the
proven
traditional understanding of the Torah’s creation narrative t Maimonides

who that silent intellectual contemplation is a superior form of wor

suggested

which is in turn to the Biblical regimen of sacrificial

ship to prayer, superior

sky,
2 On
Introduction
the history

to
of

the
the reception

Code of Maimonides
of the Mishneh Torah

(New Haven,
and

1980),
its enduring

Epilogue,
influence,

pp. 515-537.
see I Twer

Mishneh Torah reached new

3 Still, i has been argued that the intense systematic study of the

in the so-called "Brisker" school of the Lithuanian Yeshiva movement, inaugurated

heights, or depths,

Soloveitchik. On this method, see Norman Solomon, "Anomaly and Theory in the
by Rabbi Hayyim
Analytic School of Rabbi Hayyim Soloveitchik and his Circle," in Jewish t[Annual 6 (1987):

Mishneh Norman Solomon, The Analytic

126147. See also, the discussions of the uses of the Torah in

,neni in Rabbinic Jurisprudence: Hayyirn Soloveitchik and His Circle (Atlanta, 1993).

4 Guide of the Perplexed, I end of chapter 25.

37
rites t Maimonides whose allegorization of the Torah’s most important his

torical narratives and prophecies and whose rationalist philosophy of Judaism

spawned a series of bitter disputes from the 13th through the 16th centuries

the Maimonides whose philosophy was blamed for the catastrophes that befell

Spanish Jews from 1391 until their expulsion in 1492 the Maimonides whose
influence was accused of softening the resolve and faith of those Spanish Jews

who succumbed to conversion during the century of Christian persecution, that

led up to the 8[h t Maimonides, the frighteningly rationalist "Baal

Ha-Moreh," was indeed the beneficiary of a stunning revival in the early mod
ern period. And it is to the revival of interest after centuries of neglect pri

marily in Maimonides’ great synthesis of reason and religion most famously

articulated in the Guide that we now turn.

There was, in
particular, a noticeable renaissance in the publication,

study, and dissemination of the long neglected and oft-suppressed Guide of

the Perplexed, beginning in the latter decades of the 18th century, a period

that coincided with the inception of the Haskalah, the Jewish

European

Enlightenment.

There are numerous ways to document the renewed interest in Mai

monidean rationalism that coincided with the of the Haskalah.
emergence
The simplest quantitative
measure of this Rambam revival is a bibliographic

of the publication history of the Hebrew translation of the Guide of the

survey

Perplexed. While such a bibliographical overview tells us almost nothing

about the underlying reasons for the "Rambam revival" or its intellectual con-

5 Guide of the Perplexed, I 32.

,[h
6 On the Maimonidean
Maimonidean m[h
controversies,

and
see Joseph
Maimonidean
Sarachek, Faith And Reason llia 1935)
the controversy (Leiden, 1965). On the general
cultural and intellectual background to the Maimonidean controversy, see Bernard D. Septimus, His
panic Jewish Culture in Transition (Cambridge, 1982). See also Septimus’ unpublished doctoral disser

tation, MeirAhulafia and tile Maimonidean Controversy, Harvard University. 1975.

7 This is the central theme of the anti-Maimonidean polemic by the Spanish exile, R. Joseph
Yaavetz, Or Ha-Hav)’irn (Zolkiew, 1912 edition, with the commentary aya ,n,[h by R. Zevi
Elimelekh of Dinov). Many post-expulsion kabbalists, most the exile and kabbalist R.
notably Spanish
Meir

I
ibn Gabbai, held Maimonidean influence responsible for undermining the faith of Spanish and

Portuguese Jewry leading so many to convert under duress as the source of the divine wrath that

resulted in the tribulations of Jewry. See, in particular, lbn Gabbai’s introduction to Tolaat

Yaakov (Constantinople, 1560). In the 19th century this very theme was transposed to the Hasidic criti

cism
commentary to Yaavetz’s Or Ha-Ha yyim by Zevi
the

-Ha
of Haskalah in the remarkable Elimelekh of

l[h
Dinov.

Be-Mizrah

See my
See on

Eyropa
discussion
this work,

ha-Hasidut

of Zevi
-Ey
Elimelekh
Peikarz,

R.

of Dinov
Zevi

below.
li"[h
"Al Meh Avdah Galut Sefard: Kelekah Kelapei
in Daat 28 (1992): 105Ill.

8 See Solomon Alami, Iggeret -Mu (Constantinople, 10) This highly influential work was
re-issued fifteen times between 1510 and the critical edition by Abraham Meir Haberman, Jerusalem,
1950. Just as Zevi Elimelekh of Dinov used Yaavetz’s Or -Ha
Ha-Kohen
as a textual basis for his attack on
the Haskalah, the 20th-century Hasidic rebbe, I-lenokh of Alexander, published a commen
to Alami’s :[h Ha-Musar that transposed of Maimonidean onto

-Mu
tary its the
critique philosophy
Haskalah and Reform Judaism of his day. See the Pietrokov, 1912 edition of t[h

38
 reveals much about the extent of renewed interest in Maimonides’
it
tent,
9

most controversial philosophical magnum opus.

The Guide was in Rome in 1480, and subsequently in

first published
of the expulsion of Portuguese Jewry. The next
Lisbon in 1497, just on the eve

Venice, 1551 and Sabionetta, 1553. The

two editions were published in Italy:

others,
Jews of Renaissance Italy were in this respect, as in so many atypically

In Italian was the first

advanced relative to the rest of the world Jewry. fact,

language into which the

Guide was ever translated, by Yedidiya hen
spoken

Moses Recanati in 1583.10

were before Hebrew

Some one hundred and ninety years to elapse a

edition of the Guide would see the light

of day.
again

edition of 1553 until the Jessnitz edition of 1742,

From the Sabionetta

Guide was re-issued. Moreover, the Jessnitz Guide was a straight re

the never

commentaries, beyond those of

print of the
Venice edition that added no new
and Efodi that were included in the Italian editions. Nor did it
Crescas already

textual emendations or It took almost another

add any other supplements.

half century before a revised version of the Guide was finally published,
new,

volumes Berlin between 1791 and 1796, with

when significant appeared in

to the Guide by two of the East European Mask

new commentaries leading

whose commentary was of the

ilim: Solomon Maimon (17531800), to part I

Guide, and Isaac of Satanow (17321804), whose commentary covered parts

I and 111.11

but a single new Hebrew version of the

There was, in other words,

period of almost 250

after the
Guide of the Perplexed published over a years

publication of the Sabionetta 12[h I the 100 years following the ground-

of the of the printing of the Guide of the Perplexed is

9 The following bibliographical survey history

of Maimonides’

"[h
based on the bibliographies writings:
following
his translation of the
M. Friedlander, "The Moreh Ncbuchim in the preface to

xxvii-xxxviii.

uno ay
1
Guide of the Perplexed (London, 1928), pp.

found the end of the volume, Rabenu Moshe Ben

Zechariah Fishman, at

edited Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ha-Kohen Fishman (Jerusalem.

1ib 1
Sefarav Pe’ulotav ve-Deotav, by

Josef Isaac Gorfinkle, A iogra of Maimonides (New York, 1932).

Eliezer Malachi, She! Ha-Rambam, published serially in Ha-Rofeh

a- [Q19
Raphael
vol. 27, vol. 28.
pp. pp.

10 See Friedlander, ibid. p. xxxi.

Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish

I On Satanow’s publishing work and his commentary to the Guide, see

(Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 322-327.

Enlightenment
individual or limited
12 During this there were a few partial commentaries to chapters
long period,
and Ikkarei
sections of the Guide. Most notable were Yosef Halevi’s Givat Ha-Moreh (Prague, 1611)

Ha-Moreh im Hasagot R. ,n[ Toy n[h He/Icr (Prague, 1614). For a full
description of all of the

until the late 19th see the biblio

commentaries written to the Guide from its first
appearance century,

graphical study by Moritz Steinschneider, I)ie aisch Conimeniare ’[Q "Fuhrer" des ,[H
on[ In Berliner ift[h (Frankfort. 1903). pp. 345-363, and lande op. ,[h passirn. Aside

aforementioned Italian translation the Guide was translated into Latin largely for use by
from the ,

Christian Hebraists. about which see Friedlander. op. cit, pp. -xxx

39
breaking Jessnitz 1791 edition, by contrast, the Guide was published in six

different Hebrew editions with a number of new commentaries written by

Maskilim from both Western and Eastern Europe. this there
During period,

were also German, French, and Hungarian translations of the Guide issued by
l3
central European Jewish scholars.

It is also notable that during this "revival" period, Moses Mendelssohn,

the "father of the
commentary on Maimonides’
Haskalah," issued the first

philosophical lexicon, Milot Ha-Higayyon (Frankfort an Oder, 1784), a work

whose publication history closely mirrors that of the Guide. After its publica
tion in the Northern Italian
city,
Cremona in 1566, Mi/at Ha-Higayyon was

not re-issued until the Berlin edition of 1766 exactly two hundred years
14
later.

This publishing revival of the Guide and the newly written Haskalah

commentaries to it quite clearly testi& to a renewed interest in medieval Jew

ish scholasticism in
general and the philosophy of Maimonides in
particular

towards the end of the 18th While a very circumscribed number of

century.

rabbinical scholars in 16th century Poland most famously R. Moses les

and R. Mordecai Jaffe exhibited an interest in the Guide, they were roundly
censured for this, and the Guide was never widely taught nor was it
commonly
cited in rabbinical literature
throughout the 16th, 17th, and early 18th cen
15
turies.

Maimonides as Ancestor of the lah

The renewed publication of the Guide had the historic effect of exposing

many curious Jews, from Eastern to rationalist

young especially Europe, phi
losophy for the first time, and thus preparing the paths that led them eventu

ally to the Haskalah. We know from their memoirs and

essays that it was the

Guide in particular that ignited the rationalist interest of such leading Mask
ilim as Mendl Lefin, Menasseh of Ilya, Solomon Maimon, Isaac Satanow,
Kalman Shulman, and, most significantly, the "Russian Mendelssohn," Isaac

Ber Levinssohn (17881869), who was the founder of the Eastern European
Haskalah. The leading Israeli historian of the Haskalah, Shmuel Feiner, has

gone so far as to make the bold claim that were it not for the of
re-publication

13 On these non-Hebrew Jewish translations, see

,[h
Friedlander, op. cit., xxxi-xxxii.
PP
14 On the circumstances that led Mendelssohn to write his commentary to Milot see

Shmuel Feiner, pp. 63-64.

15 One volume of R. Mordecai Yaffe’s Ten Let’ushim, entitled Levush Pinat ,[h is a partial and

idiosyncratic commentary to the Guide’s philosophy. On this work, as well as a full analysis of the ran
corous cxchanges between R. Moses lsserles, R. Solomon Luria and other 16th-century Polish rabbis

regarding the legitimacy of medieval Jewish rationalism, see Lawrence doctoral

Kaplan’s dissertation,

Rationalism and Rahbinic Culture in 16th-century Eastern Rabbi Mordecai ’ Levush

Europe.’ Jaffe

Pinat ,[h Harvard University. 1975.

40
the

ever
Guide

have
in

emerged
But what was
the 18th

as the
century,

at
founder

the root
it is doubtful

of the Jewish

of the initial
that

6[S Moses Mendelssohn would

interest that led to this revival?

On the most elementary level, Maimonides was seen by many of the early

Maskilim model for the rational and worldly Jews they wished to cultivate
as a

the masses. This Arabic writing doctor and philoso

among European Jewish
own modernize
pher was admired as a
precursor
for their attempts to Jewry

and broaden Jewish education. Maimonides, the philosopher

who read Aristo

Arabic, medicine at the Sultan’s court in Cairo, and

tle, wrote in practiced

whose rational approach to Judaism was condemned by his obscurantist Rab

of the Maskilim, their forebear in all
binic enemies was, in the imagination

of these The Maskilim, like Maimonides some six centuries earlier,

respects.

themselves to be struggling the narrow-minded

perceived against primitive,

Talmudic rabbis of their day to widen the horizons of Europe’s Jews by intro

languages and the sciences, and, him,

like
ducing to them the study of foreign
denunciations.
they suffered from those rabbis’ bitter

The most and dramatic example of this Maimonidean

significant

the Maskilim is to be found in the life and works of

inspiration among early

Solomon Maimon (c. 17531800), who was so inspired by the personality

and life of Maimonides, that he changed his name from Shiomo ben Yehoshua

Yezhvitser to Solomon Maimon. He writes passionately about the overwhelm

ing impact of the Rambam upon him:

went that him

My reverence for this
great
teacher so far I
regarded

looked if they
ideal of the perfect man. upon his teachings as
my I
as

had been inspired with Divine wisdom itself. This went so far, that

when to grow, and I had sometimes to fear lest

my passions began

seduce me to some action inconsistent with these teach

they might

I used to employ as a proved antidote the abjuration: "I swear

ings,

which owe Rabbi Moses Ben

by the reverence I
my great teacher,

Maimon, not to do this act." And this vow, so far as I can remember,
17
was to restrain me.
aiways surricient

The reader of Maimon’s Geschichte des Eigenen Lebens will be struck

Maimonides
by how much attention the author paid not only in tribute to

and his seminal influence on his life, but as well by Maimon’s detailed, multi-

l[h
1
16 See Feiner, 47.
p.

17 1 have relied here on the translation of this citation from ’s[h autobiography in David

Yellin and Israel Abrahams Maimonides (London, 1903), PP. (from chapter I[ on "The

Maimon’s detailed of the Guide is based

Influence of Maimonides"). My reading of long and analysis

on the Yiddish edition. il[ ,non ’s lukhte[h (Vilna, 1927), vol. I PP. 239-360.

41
 chapter synopsis, comprising almost 150 ,[h on the content of each part of

the Guide of the Perplexed. ’While the rest of Maimon’s autobiography is

clearly
modeled after Rousseau’s Confessions, this extended a long series
digression

of chapters elucidating in detail the content of a work of medieval scholasti

cism is completely out of character for an Enlightenment memoir.

Far more significant than the mere fact that Maimonides was the for

mative and most powerful young Solomon

personal influence in the life of the

Maimon is the actual use of Maimonides by Maimon in his to

commentary
the first
part of the Guide, Givat ,,[h published in 1791. The student

of Givat Ha -Mo reh discovers almost immediately that, while the author
may
have revered the image of Maimonides and admired the Guide for what it

day, he did
tried to accomplish in its not adhere in to any
any meaningful way
part of the actual philosophical teachings of Maimonides or the other Jewish

Averroists who followed in his wake. As Shmue! H. Bergman and Natan

Rotenstreich

commentary:
Guide, and
"
observed

partially an extended
in

Ha-Moreh
the introduction

is
only

disputation
partially
to their critical

with
a genuine

Maimonides,
edition

commentary
of Maimon’s

emerging
to the

from 1
the development of Maimon’s own, post-Maimonidean philosophy."

Indeed, there is not a single theoretical Maimonidean position that is

upheld fully by Maimon. This will come as no surprise to historians of philos

ophy, given the fact that Maimon was essentially a post-Kantian idealist. His

commentary demolishes Maimonides’ physics, astronomy, and cosmology he

disputes the validity of Maimonides’ lengthy refutation of the atomism of the

Islamic theologians of the Ka!ªm school, and entirely dismisses the relevance

of Maimonides’ very lengthy, earnest consideration of the Aristotelian theory

of the eternity of the universe. At the end of the Maimon leaves no
day, part
of Maimonidean doctrine unscathed by his modern critique.

If, in fact, Maimon disagreed almost totally with Maimonidean

physics and metaphysics (and even with the inadequate distinction drawn
very
between these two fields by the Aristotelians), then did he bother
why at all

with Maimonides? The answer to this question offers the key to understand

ing the very essence of the modern "Rambam Revival," and the limited and
often paradoxical nature of the Haska!ah’s enchantment with Maimonides.
As I have suggested, Maimonides is admired more as
biographically

a virtuous symbol of the idea!

Jew/philosopher than philosophically. His life

18 See

and N. Rotenstreich
Solomon Maimon,

(Jerusalem,
Git’at /[Qi,[h
A
new edition

close reading
with notes

of
and indexes by 5 Bergman
1965), P.
5. Maimon’s own introduction, as well as

the appendix to the work that provides his synoptic of philosophy, demonstrates the
history degree to

which Maimon considered Maimonides’ to be archaic. For an

philosophy entirely insightful discussion

,[h
of the and between Solomon Maimon’s
complicated tense relationship philosophy and that of Mai
monides, see Amos Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, 1992), 241-243.
pp.

42
furnishes romantic model for the early Maskilim, even as the actual content
a

of his is found to be archaic and unacceptable. So even if the medi

philosophy

eval doctrines found in the Guide are no longer of much use to l8th[h and

German enlighteners, the hagiographic image of Maimoni

early 19th-century

des in Haskalah literature served as a powerful source of inspiration.

developed

In Givat Ha-Mo reh, what Maimon did with the problematic aspects

of Maimonidean can best be described as allegorical commentary

philosophy

that he applied the Maimonidean to problematic of Scrip

is, approach parts

He the Guide speaking to the level of the men of

ture to the Guide itself. saw

Maimonides’ medieval time, as Maimonides saw the Torah speaking to

just

the level of the ancient, unwashed Israelites in the desert. Just as Maimonides’

S
to Scripture was dibra torah ki/shon
motto justifying his allegorical approach

men of
conventional language of the
its
benei adam, (the Torah in the
spoke

19[h Maimon seems to be saying diber Ha-Rambam lsh benei

adam (Maimonides spoke in the language of the men of his day).

Maskilim both from Galicia among

I will mention only two other

who came under the of

the very many of the following two generations spell

the Haskalah’s romance with Maimonides. Both appropriated evocative Mai

monidean nomenclature in the titles of their major writings, while eschewing

his in those works. Whereas Solomon Maimon actually took

philosophy very

as his surname that of the Rambam, the Galician Maskilim Nachman

and Salomon Rubin (18231910) borrowed the title

Krochmal (17851840)

of his Krochmal called his most important work,

philosophical magnum opus.

which articulated an original modern of Jewish Moreh

philosophy history,

’man. Rubin, called tribute to

-Ha
Nevukhay even more audaciously, his

Moreh Nevukhim Needless to say, neither of these books

Spinoza,

articulate resembling a Maimonidean philosophy of Judaism,

anything

Krochmal was inspired to a degree by Maimonides’ historicism in

although
commandments and historical inher
explaining many of the by the sensitivity

ent in the aforementioned dibra torah kiLchon benei adam.

principle,

19 Guide the 1:26.

of Perplexed.

20 Much has been written about ian[h Krochmal’s Moreh Nevukhay Ha-Z’man. See the treat

l:[h
ment of

(Albany,

243-247,
1
this

and
work

lsrnar
See,
in Jay

also,
Harris,

Schorsch.
the

"
Nachrnan

provocative

Philosophy
discussion

of History
Guiding

by Funkenstein,
the

of Nachrnan
Perplexed

Perceptions

"Judaisrn[
of the Modern

of Jewish
Age
History.

10 1):
pp.

237-245. Simon Rawidowicz edited a critical edition of ’s[h book with a valuable introduction

1).
in Kitvei

21
R.

Rubin’s
Nachrnan

works
Krochinal

on Spinoza
(Hebrew)

are: I)
(Waltham,

noz[ und
1
Maimonides: Em logisch
H
Antitheton of Vienna doctoral dissertation, (2) 18. March Nevukhim ha-Hadash. 2
(University
zze (Lwow, ’s[h criticisms)
a[ 1859
Teshuvah a to (4)
vols.( Vienna, 1856-57) (3) response

Heker Elolia in, Towi (Vienna. 1885 translation of Spinoza’s Ethics with a lengthy

’ akow[Q,
1
introduction)

(6) Dikduk
(5) Hegyonei

Sefat ’Ever
Spinoza

-Krakow,[h
Ha-Elohut,

1Ha-Tevel,

Hebrew
Ve-Nefesh
translation
Ha-Adam
of Spinoza’s Hebrew

43
 Rubin, a lifelong passionate Spinozist, was certainly nor unaware of

of the entire scholastic

22[h S
Spinoza’s devastating critique his
approach, particularly

attack on Maimonides’ allegorical method of biblical

Maimonides remains a heroic figure for Krochmal and Rubin, and the Guide a

title worthy of borrowing, to some extent despite the details of its teachings.

But let us step back for a moment, to the founding fathers of the

Enlightenment: Hartwig Wessley, Moses Mendelssohn, and the [Q23[S

Already with them we see a similar phenomenon: Mendelssohn and his closest

colleague, Harrwig Wessley, clearly admired the Rambam for the person he

was and the life he led, while disagreeing with central features of his
many
philosophical system. The first Haskalah journals, beginning with ha-Meassef

are filled with panegyrics to Maimonides, ranging from worshipful hagiogra

phies of the saintly rationalist philosopher, medical doctor, and enlightened

Rabbi, to fantasies of him cavorting in heaven with Moses Mendelssohn.

Even before his arrival in Berlin and his collaboration with Mendelss

ohn and the MeasfIm, Wessley was involved with a of enlightened Jews
group
in Amsterdam during the late 0s,[ who used to meet together weekly, to
.24
study and discuss Maimonides Guide.

The old adage Mi-Moshe ad Moshe lo kam ke-Moshe, from the Biblical

Moses to Moses Maimonides there arose none like Moses, was transposed in

time and becomes, "from Moses Maimonides to Moses Mendelssohn there

arose none like Moses." Even the Hebrew acronym for Mendelssohn, Rambe
man (Rabbenu Moshe ben Menachem) seemed designed to associate the

memory of the Rambam with that of Mendelssohn.

But in fact, the philosophies of Maimonides and Mendelssohn were

almost entirely incompatible, not only in detail (as we have seen with Solo

mon Maimon) but at their

very
foundations. Maimonides’ goal was, after all,

the synthesis of Judaism with rational philosophy. Mendelssohn, in his

major

J udaic work, lem,[h strove to achieve the very opposite: the strict separation

grammar with introduction)

(Podgurze-Krakow, 1910).
(7) B Spinoza liay[h Ahavat Elohim (Amor Dei Intellectualis)

On Shadal’s critique of Rubin’s Spinozism, see: Rivka Horowitz, "Shadal U-Shpinoza" in Barukh
Shpinoza 300 Shanah Le-Moto: Kovetz Ma’arnarim (Haifa, 1978), pp. 167186 and Aryeh Motzkin,

"Shpinoza, Luzatto, ia[h ye-Dat," in Barukh Shpinoza: z[h Ma ’amarim ’ ro,[h ed.

Menahem Brinker (Tel Aviv, 1978), 135-44. A rich discussion of the debates between Luzzatto and

’
pp.

the Galician maskiliin is to be found in Menahem Dorman, Vikkuhay Shpinoza Mi-David Nieto
David Ben Gurion (Tel Aviv, 1987),

1 ch. 7, pp. 97152. For Klatzkin’s critique, see Barukh Shpinoza:

"
t[E[h Sefarav, Shitato (Leipzig, 59-88.

22 On Spinoza’s rejection of the philosophical allegorization of the Bible, see Samuel J. Preus,

Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority (London, 2002).

23 The following discussion of Mendelssohn’s relationship to Maimonidean philosophy owes much

to the study by James Lehmann, Mendelssohn and the Guide" in Leo Baeck Yearbook 20
(1975): 87108.

24 On this group, sec Feiner, p.

26.

44
of the realms of religion and philosophy from each other. Following far more

in the of Spinoza than those of Maimonides, Mendelssohn’s enter

footsteps

all content from normative Judaism,

prise required removing philosophical

rather than "revealed

and re-constructing Judaism as "revealed legislation"

from Maimonides’ aims. Mendelssohn strove

truth." Nothing could be further

that could be limited to the ritual in the pri

to construct a Judaism practices

of the Jewish home and and would not impingeon the Jews’
vacy synagogue

into To achieve this he was required to reject much of

entry European society.
25
the medieval ish[ scholastic tradition.

of this fundamental asymmetry

Perhaps the strongest indicator

between Maimonides and Mendelssohn is the question of Jewish theological

Maimonides insisted that Judaism not

doctrine, or dogma. As is well-known,

commands beliefs, but mandated the correct version of

only philosophically

those beliefs that is, Judaism encompassed a well-defined creed.

Maimonides who crafted the most extensive and most famous

It was

Jewish catechism: the thirteen principles of faith, the so-called anee maamins

with "I believe.. of Judaism that have been liturgically

beginning ."]

canonized with their inclusion in most editions of the daily Siddur. It was he
under
Jew who does not adhere to a rather well-defined
who insisted that a

violation of halakhah, law.

standing of those Jewish
belief requirements is in

The book of Maimonides’ code, the Mishneh Torah, consists largely in

opening
26
these basic doctrines in normative halakhic terms.
framing theological

Mendelssohn and the Maskilim moved in

precisely the opposite direc

tion, that Judaism is a religion of legal praxis and not at all one of
insisting

that halakhah commands no beliefs and that this

pre is
theological dogma
what it from Christianity. Just as the synthesis and harmo
cisely distinguishes

foundation
philosophy was the
of the Torah with rational for
nization

Maimonidean the separation of these two realms was the founda

philosophy,

modernization of the Jews that the center of the Maskilim’s

tion for the lay at

agenda, beginning
with Mendelssohn’s rus where he coined the famous
,,27

essence revealed
term describing Judaisms as consisting in legislation.

25 For an excellent, concise summary of the main arguments of Mendeslssohn’s m.[h see the

of m[h by Allan Arkush (Waltham,

i
introduction by Alexander Altmann to the English translation
3-29.
1983), PP.

26 See
and Renaissance
27 It is
quite
Twersky,

mar
Studies, ed.
"Some
A.

that
lt Non-Halakhic

more than two

(Cambridge,
Aspects

centuries
1 of

since
the

pp.
Mishneh-Torah."

19.
Mendelssohn’s denial
in Jewish

of the
Medieval

centrality

of to Judaism, the over this issue still For a sense of the current polemics sur
dogma controversy rages.

Judaism commands see J. David Bleich, With

rounding the question of whether theological principles,

Perfect Faith: The Foundations of Jewish Belief (New York. 1983) Menachem lln Must a Jew

1999). Bleich the normative halakhic status of Maimonides’ 13 prin

Believe Anything (Oxford, upholds

of while Keilner that view, insisting that Judaism has no obligatory theological
ciples faith, challenges

creed a basic monotheism and belief in the Torah’s divine revelation. Most recently, the quasi-
beyond

45
 Interestingly, Solomon Maimon’s first communication with
very

Moses Mendelssohn which succeeded in sparking the latter’s interest and

inaugurating their friendship came in the form of a letter detailing his philo

sophical critique of Maimonides’ thirteen principles of faith. Maimon reports

in his autobiography on the manner in which he fIrst turned to Mendelssohn

"about whom he had heard so much" but had not yet dared to approach:

All the thirteen articles of faith laid down by Maimonides I attacked

with philosophical with the exception of one, namely

arguments,
that on reward and punishment, to which I conceded philosophical

relevance as the necessary consequence of freely-willed action. I sent

this dissertation to Mendelssohn, who was quite amazed that a Pol

ish
Jew who had scarcely got so far as seeing Wolff’s Metaphysics was

so soon able their depth

to penetrate into to the point of question

ing their conclusions to the point of a correct ontology. He invited

28
me to call and I
accepted the invitation....

Beyond these basic differences in to the roles of

approach respective

Torah and philosophy, there are numerous specific incongruities between Mai
monides’ approach and that of the Maskilim. Of several Maimonidean postures

that were problematic for Mendelssohn and the later Maskilim, one is
very par
ticularly worthy of mention: Maimonides’ Jewish ethnocentrism and elitism.

The spirit of universalism and individualism, so central to the ideology

of the Enlightenment, both inspired and animated the early Maskilim who
worked hard to Judaism in such to neutralize those
present a way as religious

sources.of social divisiveness and prejudice between Jews and Christians. Mai
monides’ negative assessments of non-Jews, most notoriously his attack on both

Christianity and Islam in his most famous letter, The To Yemen, which
Epistle

betrayed a harsh medieval religious chauvinism, could hardly be endorsed by

Mendelssohn

Even more troubling was the way in which Maimonides in the Mish
neh Torah, defined the "righteous gentiles" when legislating regarding which

non-Jews merit a portion in the world to come. In his discussion of the Seven

Noachide Laws, whose observance by gentiles is the criterion set by the Talmud

canonical status f[ Maimonides’ creed has been challenged in a fashion Marc S.

striking by Shapiro,
The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised, (London, 2004).
28 See Alexander Altrnann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (Philadelphia, 1973), pp.
36 1-362.

29 An excellent annotated English translation of the Epistle l Yemen is included in Crisis and Lead
ership: Epistles of t[Qn translated and annotated by Abraham Halkin with discussions by David
Hartman (Philadelphia, 1985) see David Hartman’s discussion of Maimonides’ assault on Christianity

and Islam, pp. [Q1

46
 Maimonides rules that this reward applies only to
for meriting eternal life,

those who observe the Noahide commandments based on their acceptance of

M
the Torah’s Gentiles who arrive at their obser
legal authority. coincidentally

vance of the Noahide laws as a consequence of’ a rational cognition of correct,

moral behavior are dismissed as "neither wise nor righteous" and therefore

unworthy of eternal 30[h was deeply troubled by this exclusion

positivism one that was entirely at odds with his own conviction
ary legal

that the human for Gentiles was by way of reason, which

highest perfection

shared with all of humankind, and not "revealed legislation," or the rituals
they

of halakhah that remained to the Jews and Judaism. Maimonides’

unique

insistence that the Gentiles must the revelatory-legal basis for the uni
accept

versally binding Seven Noah i Laws ran contrary to the essential spirit
of the

Haskalah’s universalism.

Mendelssohn engaged in a fascinating correspondence about the

of Maimonides’ disturbingly restrictive definition of the "right

implications

eous gentile" with the ultra-conservative and famously anti-Maimonidean

Emden. no way reconcile Maimonides’

Rabbi Jacob Ultimately there was to

the Gentiles with Mendelssohn’s

religiously chauvinistic position regarding

ecumenism and the universalistic direction of the emerging Haskalah

generally
i[ !
iaeo logy.

But despite their radically different approaches to Jewish theology,

for his
Maimonides remained a hero for the Maskilim, again less teachings

than for the drama of his life, which furnished a powerful and largely sym
bolic

seen

rabbinic,
as
inspiration.

previews

and later,
The
of the

even
medieval

bitter

"Hilkhot
more

",[h
Maimonidean

disputations

bitter Hasidic
between

32[h
The standard
controversies

the Maskilim

rabbinical
Mwere,

version
and

of
moreover,

this
their

it has

30 See Mishneh Torah, 8:11. passage,

for Mendelssohn, concludes as follows:

that proved so troubling

who the seven laws and is careful to obey them is one of the righteous of the
"Anyone accepts

nations of the world and has a in the world to come. But this is on condition that he both
portion

accepts and obeys them because they have been commanded by God in the Torah and it has been con
through Moses our teacher that the sons of Noah are obligated to observe them. However, if one
veyed
observes them as a result of rational conviction, he is neither a licit resident the Land of Israeli, nei

ther is he one of the righteous of the nations of the world, nor one of their wise men." Earlier versions

of the same text conclude with the words "but is one of their wise men."

31 The exchange between Mendelssohn and Emden on Maimonides’ definition of the "righteous

is discussed in Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn:A Biographical Study, pp. 294-295. A

gentiles"

which resulted in his esoteric in

related problem was Maimonides’ general philosophical elitism, style

the Guide, as well as his often mptuou disregard for the uneducated masses, which was entirely

Haskalah’s the widest of European in Western

alien to the goal of educating possible population Jewry

and modern sciences, in This is explored fully in James

languages philosophy particular. problem

’s[h article, cited above, note 23.

32 As we shall see below, many Hasidic leaders identified in precisely the same way with Mai

monides, the medieval rabbis’ criticisms of the Guide with the Mitnagdim’s attacks on
comparing
Hasidic theology.

47
been argued by historians of the Haskalah (hat the very methodology of the

Guide, namely its incorporation of the most recent scientific and philosophical

knowledge into a Jewish worldview, both inspired and emboldened the early

modern

W
Maskilim to engage the European world.

Which leads me to one fInal illustration of the lionization oi the

Rambam in Haskalah literature: the satire Siha Be-Eretz Ha-Hayyim

sions in Heaven] by Aaron Wolfsohn of 33[h satire imagines

Maimonides encountering the recently deceased Moses Mendelssohn and a

stereotypical traditional Eastern European rabbi in heaven, cleverly named

lon a play on the Hebrew words for

anonymous (Ploni) and Polish i).
Before Moses Mendelssohn’s arrival in heaven, Maimonides is

depicted as being engaged in a frustrating, protracted debate about the

Haskalah with lon whom he clearly finds to be an annoying and distasteful

character. Maimonides emerges in this

dispute as a radical maskil, often

expressing views far more liberal than anything Mendelssohn ever wrote. ’[
is
portrayed as a typical Polish rabbinic obscurantist and opponent of any

advancement in either Jewish thought or social norms. Hounding

Mendelssohn in heaven, as the traditionalist rabbis did during his earthly

sojourn, P’loni nonetheless insists that he is a true and devout follower of Mai
monides, having composed elaborate rabbinical commentaries, in the pilpulis

tic style, to the Mishneh Torah. The problem is that Maimonides has neither

interest in, nor patience with, this man and his convoluted commentaries,

which he finds contrary to the entire purpose of the Mishneh Torah, which

sought to simplify and clarify

the study of rabbinic law. In fact, he cannot

even understand lon convoluted and archaic use of the Hebrew language.

Only when Maimonides notices Moses Mendelssohn wandering in

the heavenly distance, does he break free of his oppressive rabbinic interlocu

tor in order to enjoy the company and conversation of his

genuine soul-mate,

the father of the Haskalah. Together, Maimonides and Mendelssohn engage in

a withering assault on the backwardness of P’loni’s ideas and the archaic nature

of his rabbinical writings.

This satirical denigration of the traditional rabbinical to the

approach
Mishneh Torah as a source of extended interpretation stands in
sharp contrast

to the regnant Rabbinic view of Maimonides, which distinguished carefully

between the Guide and the Mishneh Torah, and which ignored, to the full

extent

33 This
possible,

satire

of
was
the former work.

originally

of Siha
serialized in the

Be-Eretz Ha-Hayyirn,
lah[h journal,

with
Ha-Meassef, 1 A full,

" lfs
critical edition the text a introduction can
along lengthy analytical

be found in Yehuda Friedlander, Perakim Ba-Satirah Ha-Ivrit (Tel Aviv, 1979), pp. 1.[h For a gen
eral

Writings
evaluation

in Their
of Wolfsohn’s

Historical
satirical

Setting,"
writings,

in Jewish
see Bernard

Quarterly
D.

Review
Weinryb,
58 19 35-50.
Dramatic

48
 The most extreme articulation of this traditional rabbinical stratagem

for dealing with the "two Rambams" can be found in Rabbi Jacob Emden’s

where he suggests that is not possible that the holy

work, Mitpahat Sefarim, it

rabbi who wrote the Mishneh Torah could possibly be the author of the dan
heretical Guide. Emden concludes, therefore, that the Guide is a
gerous,
heretic and had become
pseudepigraphy written by some mischievous falsely

attributed to ides. 34

The Guide Comes to Vilna: Maimonides and the Mitnagdim

Other traditionalists of the same generation, from Eastern Europe, adopted a

view regarding the dichotomy

more nuanced, if often self-contradictory

between the image of Rabenu Moshe ben Maimon and the philosopher, Mai
the Guide while revering the
monides, simply by ignoring, or even suppressing

Mishneh Torah as an authoritative halakhic work. However, as the Guide

became increasingly available in print, it became terribly difficult simply to

it by compartmentalizing Maimonides in this fashion.

ignore

S
One of the earliest Polish Maskilim to come under the Guide’s influ

ence was Naftali Hirtz Schulman, who championed the reform of Jewish edu

cation in White Russia and actively curried the favor of Tsar Alexander I in

order to establish modern Jewish schools in the Russian 35[h

of East
career path as one of the earliest champions of the modernization

Guide of the Perplexed while

began with study of the a
still

.[h
Jewry his
European

youth in his birth town of As a teenager, Schulman went to

Vilna to earn his Hebrew tutor for the children of wealthy families
living as a

and it was there, in the early 0s,[ that he fomented a public controversy by

shiurim, or public tutorials, in the Guide.

offering

According to the traditional biographies of the Gaon of Vilna, the

city’s communal leaders were so upset by the public instruction in this danger

ous work that they went to the Gaon in the hopes that he would banish

Schulman from Vilna. But the Gaon disappointed them, largely as the result

of his reverence for Mairnonides. He is alleged to have replied:

"The Rambam
wrote this book, so how can I
prohibit it? May I
only merit sitting next to

, 36
him in paradise.

I
34

Dienstag

35

36
Jacob

On
See
in

(New
ide
"Ha-Rambam
York.

Schulman.

Dov Eliach,
Mizpahat

1957).

see David

Sefer
im[h
Ve-Hakhmei

n,[h
Ha-Gaon
l
(Altona,

Russia’s

(Jerusalem,
1769).

First

2002),
p.

in
80.

Modern
vol.
See

Simon Federbush,

I
on

Jews (New

p.
this

590.
source

ed.

York.

Eliach
the

Hu-Rambam:
comments

,[h
discusses
pp.

the
64-73.
of Jacob

Torazo

Gaon’s
Ve

attitude to Maimonidean 587-593. his rendering of the

complicated philosophy Ofl
pp. Unfortunately,

texts is not always reliable.

primary

49
 It is instructive that nowhere here does the Gaon of Vilna endorse the

Guide or encourage its

study it is in fact
questionable whether the Gaon ever

the
opened the text himself, since only references to the Guide in his entire

oeuvre are based on citations from later secondary sources. Quite the contrary,

his tone is one of resignation. One can almost hear him sighing to himself:

"What can I do? We are stuck with the fact that this dangerous book (i.e., the

Guide) was written by the great author of the Mishneh Torah, the Nezer Ha
Kadosh (Holy Eagle), the Rambam. Had it been written by a lesser man,

maybe I could ban it. But we are dealing here with the Rambam."

Although some traditional scholars have attempted to portray the

Gaon’s complicated attitude Maimonides and in almost glow

I
to apologetically,

ing terms, it is quite clear that he had no use whatsoever for the Guide of the

37[h it is known that the Gaon of Vilna was a bitter

opponent
of the entire scholastic enterprise (of which the Guide is the most important

work)

opposed.
which he
38
Denunciations
associated
. .
with

or
r
the
.

rational
rationalism

ioso ana
.i i
of the
i Haskalah
i
that

critical
he so

remarks

regarding Aristotle and his disciples are found scattered in about a dozen of

the Gaon’s writings. The most widely cited of these is the Gaon’s critique of

Maimonides’ denial that mystical incantations (lehashim) can ever help heal

the sick. Commenting on an aside remark in the Shuihan Arukh that permits

the use of incantations to heal one who has been bitten by a scorpion, "even

though they do not really help," the Gaon enters into a rather extensive cri

tique of such skepticism regarding the use of magical cures:

This regarding the efficacy of incantations] is based on the

Rambam in his
Commenta7y to the Mishna to Avod.ah

Zara, but all who came after him disagreed, since many incantations

are mentioned in the Gemara. . .

and Zohar. . . .
However, he

was drawn away by philosophy and that is why he

wrote that magical spells and the uses of God’s names, incantations,

demons, and amulets are all phony. But he has already been hit on
the head on this account for behold we have stories in
seen many
the Talmud that testify to the power of magic and Holy names and

37 See the richly informative, but apologetic, by Jacob "Ha-im Hitnagged Ha-Gra

m
essay Dienstag,
le-Mishnato ha-Filosofit shel ha-Rambam?" in lpi 4 (1949): 253-268.

38 The attitude of the Gaon and the Mitnagdim to the Haskalah has long been a of debate

among
linmanuel

a
scholars.

traditional
Etkcs,

perspective
For

Yahid
the

-Do
most

on this
recent

issue,
evaluations

Ha-Gaon
see Dov
Mi-Vilna
of

Eliach,
this

mut[
op.
complex

cit.
ve-Diniui

vol.
issue,

I pp.
see the

(Jerusalem,

594-639.
second

1
A
chapter

broader
pp.
of

44-83. For

discussion

1
of the attitude of the Mitnagim to the Haskalah can be found in Allan Nadler, The Faith the Mith
of

nagdim: Rabbinic Responses 10 Hasidic Rapture (Baltimore, 6 ("The and

1997), chapter Mithnagdim
the Haskalah"), pp.

50
 the like.... So too amulets and spells are mentioned many times

there and in the Zohar.

But the powerful teachings of philosophy led to mis

the Talmud and to uproot the plain truth of its

interpret figuratively

words. Now, God forbid, I do not believe them the philoso

phers] and the rabble who follow them, for all that is written in the

Talmud must be accepted in accordance with the plain meaning.

Of course, in addition, there are interior esoteric] meanings. But

not the so-called deep meanings of Philosophy, that are external

theTorah] but rather those of the ists. ,,39

A debate ensued in subsequent generations between the Vilna Mask

ilim (who claimed the Gaon as a forebear) and the direct mitnagdic disciples

of the 4[S[h The former that these texts were not authentic and did
alleged

not issue from the of the Gaon himself. The traditionalist Mit
really pen
insisted they were indeed the words of the Gaon, and this division is
nagdim
still reflected in the critical modern scholarship on this question. However it

seems clear to me that the traditional Mitnagdim, opponents of the Haskalah,

were to any to rationalize tradition through an alle

deeply opposed attempt

or of her sacred texts from Torah through Midrash

gorical figurative reading

and Talmud. But precisely such a reading was, of course, the hallmark of
very

Maimonidean biblical and midrashic exegesis.

An interesting traditionalist strategy for dealing with the Guide,

employed by many Mitnagdim, was excusing Maimonides for his indulgence

in philosophy based on the fact that he did not have access to the true Kab
balah, which was revealed in later after the "re-appearance" of
only generations

the Zohar, well over a century

after Maimonides’ death. The suggestion is that

had Maimonides been exposed to Kabbalah, he would have had no use what

soever for rational philosophy. In that spirit,

the renowned 19th-century Mit

nagdic rabbinical scholar and Kabbalist, R. Yitzhaq Isaac Haver, credits

1
l ,n
39 Emphasis added. Biur Ha-Gra at Shuihan Arukh. /[Qi[ Deah, This passage is cited by

I
Eliach. ibid., p 588, who renders the final paragraph rather imaginatively by replacing the term

,n[h ("that they are external") with she-zorki,n ozam ("that they are thrown in the

:so
mli
What exactly the Gaon meant by the use of the expression r[Qa[h is a fair subject
garbage").

of debate. The two obvious possibilities is that he is

associating philosophy with the rabbinical

1
classification of sefarim j,[h or more harshly that he is using the term in

the l[Qist sense of hitsonirn, that is, demonic forces. Either way, Eliach takes liberties in his cita

tion of this critical text that are unacceptable.

ism
40 For an overview of debate about the of both the Gaon and R. Israel Baal

m[h
the legacy

Shemtov, the founder of ism,[h s[Q the lah,[h see Allan Nadler,

Rabbis and s[h (New York. 1992)

51
Maimonides for not having been corrupted and distanced from Torah despite

his indulgence in rational philosophy:

Behold how great the virtue and holiness of Maimonides! Despite the

fact that he engaged extensively in philosophy, this did not corrupt

his soul nor did it distance him whatsoever from the holy Torah. On
the contrary, it is even possible that it
helped him in refuting the
1
of heretics that were based on philosophical
arguments speculation.

Many of the students of the Gaon, particularly those who continued

the Lithuanian school of Kabbalistic study, continued in this vein, admiring

Maimonides not only despite his

philosophical Achilles’ heel, but precisely on
account of it: To their minds, the fact that Maimonides could study Aristotle
unscathed by his
system and remain whole in his faith that he was even
proves

greater than many of the Kabbalists who might not have endured such a chal

lenge to their faith!

On the other hand, there were Mitnagdim like R. Phinehas of Polotsk

(17451822) who were hostile to Kabbalah and came under the

generally pos
itive influence of many aspects of Maimonides’ philosophical rationalism,

albeit in an unsystematic and often paradoxical fashion. Phinehas of lot

was one of the few people who had regular contact with the Gaon and was

handpicked by him to tutor his

grandchildren. He fully shared the Gaon’s hos
tility to the Haskalah, and his
major work, Keter Torah, consists of a double-

edged polemic against both Hasidism and the Haskalah that Phinehas viewed
42
as the two main threats to traditional Judaism in his day.

Despite his clear antipathy to the Haskalah, which he considered a

modern-day manifestation of medieval Jewish rationalism, Phinehas cited the

Guide numerous times in his biblical commentaries and incorporated many of

its doctrines into his sermons. A couple of examples will suffice to illustrate

how determined and opponent of

a vocal the
mitnagged rationalist Jews of his

own day was profoundly influenced by Maimonides’ theories and rationalist

biblical allegories, those conducive to his determined anti-Hasidism.

particularly

The influence of several of the Guide’s most important rationalizations

of biblical
theology can be seen throughout Phinehas’ his
writings, particularly

commentary on the biblical book of Job, where he endorses Maimonides’ re

striction of God’s providential involvement in mundane human affairs in the

p.
41

589.
tzh Isaac 1 Sefer Magen a[h (Yohannisburg, 1855), p.5b. See also, Eliach, op. cit.,

’[h
42 On Phinehas

critique
of

of the -l .[Q
isk[h generally,

see
see Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, pp. 710. On

52
 of his discussion of theodicy. Elsewhere, Phinehas adopts Maimonides’
course
that
theory of miracles, which limits them to the biblical era, by maintaining

the miracles pre-ordained on

the eve of the primordial Sabbath of creation

endorses Maimonides’ denial

have been exhausted. Put more simply, Phinehas

own times. These strict rationalist limita

of the possibility of miracles in his

served the
tions to the possibility of supernatural phenomena clearly purpose

the audacious claims to miraculous on the part of the

of undermining powers
beliefs
Hasidic masters, and also countered Hasidism’s panentheistic against

a relentless battle. This

which Phinehas and his fellow mitnagdim were waging
of Maimonides the service of his anti-Hasidic agenda notwith
utilitarian use ifl

the fact remains that Phinehas studied, accepted, and preached pub
standing,

some of the most radical sections of the Guide of the Perplexed .

licly

In Phinehas of Polotsk’s collection of seventy sermons, which remain

,[S44[h I have found even more Maimonidean philosophical influence,

dreams, and soothsaying. Here again, the

largely on such subjects as miracles,

is the outlandish claims to divination being made by Phinehas’

target clearly

of Maimonidean theories these

Hasidic nemeses but the adoption regarding

subjects is often striking.

quite
narrative
It is in his sermon on the very
first parasha of the Torah, the

that
of the "Fall" of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden in particular,

the conflicted attitude to Maimonides and

Phinehas most dramatically betrays

of the Guide of the Perplexed typical of traditionalists

dur
the paradoxical uses

P
modern Phinehas cites verbatim from Maimonides’ explana
ing the period.

tion of the precise nature of "knowledge" acquired by Adam and Eve after

having eaten from the forbidden tree of 45[h then uses the

Maimonidean to launch a relentless attack not only on the Haskalah

paradigm
Phinehas relentless
day, but
in is
of his
upon rationalist philosophy general.

of the entire enterprise of seeking out

and aggressive in his delegitimation

rationales for the commandments of the Torah, to which Maimon ides devoted

the of the third section of the Guide:

greater part

For after the sin of Adam it is impossible for humans to attain

into the Eternal One, not at least until after death. As it is

insight

written, ’for no man can see me and live.’ Not until after he dies

[Q1
:[h
for a fuller discussion of these themes.
43 See Nadler, ibid., pp.
Peulati Derashot, at the
44 1 discovered the manuscript of these sermons, entitled

Institute for Oriental Studies in St. Petersburg. The following discussion is based on my work with the

manuscript.
where Maimonides between rational knowledge of truth and false
45 See Guide. 1:2, distinguishes

allows humans discern between and evil. This distinction is

hood, and moral knowledge that to good

cited verbatim by Phinehas in his sermon.

53
 and escapes from his earthen corporeal vessel, that is
. . . .
That is

what is meant by the verse "Precious in the of God is the death

eyes

of his
righteous believers." For only through death can one attain

cognition of matters eternal.

the Tree of Life

So, refers to the body of Torah about which it is

written, ’it is a tree of life to those who grasp it.’ But, the tree of

Knowledge of good and evil is a tree in which the of holi

powers
ness are intermingled with the external of impurity. And
powers
those who grasp this tree empower the external, unholy forces to

take hold and they bring about unclean influences and desecrate all

that is holy. This is the tree of the philosophers and so-called wise

men of our generation, for they want to understand everything

according to human reason, and whatever is not in accord with their

46
reasoning tney reject .

Phinehas continues in this vein at in what constitutes a

great length

major attack on the very enterprise of philosophy of

-Mi
religion, reserving partic
ular venom for the work of those who in Taamei the
engaged

attempt to discover the rational underpinnings for the biblical command

ments, a major passion of Maimonides.

The renewed publication of Maimonides’ Guide made it widely avail

able to Jews by the early 19th century. once became what
part of
It is
again

known in
contemporary
Israel as the aron ha-sefarim ha-Yehudi, the accepted,

traditional Jewish canon, after centuries of neglect. Since written

it was by the
Rambam, it could neither easily
be dismissed nor ever
again suppressed. And
so a variety of approaches to reconciling its with traditional rabbinic
teachings

faith were engaged.

The Guide of the Perplexed in the Hasidic Imagination

By far the most imaginative, at times

outrageous, uses of the Guide in the

early modern period can be found in Hasidic literature.

For most of its and for the of mas

history, overwhelming majority its

ters, Hasidism eschewed study of the Guide, that its ratio

fearing dangerously
nalist
approach to Judaism would undermine the distinctly anti-rationalist

upon which Hasidic piety founded.

mystical faith is

The most famous Hasidic antagonist of Maimonides and the Guide

was, without
any doubt, R. Nachman of lav[h (17221810), who is said to

46 as[h of Polotsk, Peulati ha-Sherninit:Derashot (undated ms.), Folio, 5a.

54
have condemned the medieval rationalist enterprise as nothing less than total

The of R. Nachman, as recorded by his faithful disciple and

heresy. writings

scribe Nathan of Nemirov, are replete with anti-Maimonidean sentiments, of

which the following is fairly typical:

Whosoever wishes to guard himself evil] must distance himself

as much as possible from the analytical writings that some of the ear

Ha-Higayon and
in the Milot the
lier authorities composed, particular

Moreh Nevuk/iim of the Rambam, for it is a major prohibition to study those

books for they cause blemishes and confuse our holy 47[S

R. Nachman, who went so far as to declare that "anyone who studies

48

image and was

Guide certainly forfeits his Divine loses his holiness,"
the

of the anti-rationalist tendency that characterized a majority of

representative

Hasidic sects, whose leaders championed a total, naive faith in God’s imma
nence and in the of the Tsadik, beliefs entirely incompati
supernatural powers
49
ble with Maimonides rationalist approach.

A dramatic example of the Hasidic perception of the dangers of Mai

the Galician Hasidic master, R.
monidean rationalism is the commentary by
Zevi Elimelekh of Dinov (17831841) to R. Joseph Yaavetz’s anti-Maimoni

dean polemic, Or -Ha Yaavetz’s book,

blamed
written

the
in the aftermath of the

of
expulsion of the Jews from Spain, largely corrupting effects

Maimonidean rationalism for the disasters that befell Iberian Jewry. In his com
to Or Ha-Hayyim, R. Zevi Elimelekh of Dinow transposed Yaavetz’s
mentary

critiques of Maimonides onto the Maskilim of his own day, thereby drawing a

direct analogy between the of Maimonides’ medieval rationalism with

danger

that of the Haskalah.

This anti-Maimonidean posture

endured well into the twentieth cen
The leader of the Hasidic sect in interwar Poland, R. Abraham
tury. largest

Mordecai Alter of Gura lwa the revered Gerer Rebbe (18661948),

warned his followers against so much as looking at the Guide and generally

opposed reading any of the works of medieval Jewish rationalist philosophy.

47 From a[ Moharan, Part I as cited in Zvi Meir Rahinovits. "Yahas

,non
Ha-Kabbalah Veha
Hasidut Leha-Rambam," in Yehuda Leib Fishman, ed., nu[h Moshe Ben (Jerusalem, 1948).

48 Likkuiei Moharan (Ostrow, 1808), Part I 47.

inon
p.

49 Hillel Zeitlin viewed R. Nachinan of lav[h and as representing diametrically

to Jewish faith, in Rabbi Nachman the archetype of Jewish anti-Mai

opposing approaches seeing

monideanism.

,na:[h
R. Nachman
Hayav
See the

U-Mis/maw
discussion

on account
i[Q
of Zeitlin’s

Hillel

of his
Zeitlin

deep
characterizations

(Tel

anti-rationalism.
Aviv, 1999),
in,

For
Shraga

Pp.

a
1 Bar-Sela, Beyn

bibliography
71. The Maskilirn
Saar

of Haskalah
Li

despised

polemics
precisely

1
directed against

chapter 7,
R.

pp.
inan[
-[Q1
of Bratslav. see David Assaf, :sla Bibliographia Muerci (Jerusalem,

55
R. Abraham Mordecai Alter testified to his own fears when he felt compelled

to consult the Guide:

For at those times when I

absolutely must have a look at the Moreh
Nevukhim because it has been cited by someone else
regarding an

issue (and Creator of heaven

important only then!), I
pray to the
50
and earth that I will not falter on account of it.

Most Hasidic masters, when not banning the Guide,

explicitly simply

ignored it, and one can safely generalize that the medieval Jewish rationalist

tradition had almost no impact whatsoever on the lion’s share of Hasidic

thought and literature. But there were two notable the intel
very exceptions:

lectualistic Hasidic schools of Habad in Belorussia and Przysucha-Kotsk-Izbica

in Poland. What emerged finally was a clear split within the Hasidic world

the status of the Guide, between the advocates of simple and

regarding faith

piety, uncorrupted by philosophical speculation and scientific rationalization,

and those who advocated a more intellectual approach to understanding the

roots of Hasidic mysticism, with which they tried to harmonize Maimonidean

philosophy. The former approach was mostly represented in the conservative

Hasidic sects that spread throughout Ukraine, Galicia, Hungary, and Rumania,

while the latter were found mostly in Poland and Belorussia.

the second
Already in
generation of the Hasidic movement, one of it

major leaders identified deeply with Maimonides’ personal legacy in much the

same way as did the early Maskilim, although coming from opposite ends of

the religious-ideological spectrum. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyadi (17451841),

the founder of the Habad Hasidic dynasty, to the sus
responded Mitnagdim’s
tained assault on Hasidism by comparing their criticisms to the attacks that

followed the publication of the Guide in the Middle to console

Ages. Writing
his followers in Vilna following the Mitnagdim’s alleged burning of the first

published Hasidic work, R. Jacob Joseph of lln Toltiot Yaakov 178[Q0)

R. Shneur Zalman declared:

Remember the days of yore: for who has been like unto the Moses of
his
generation, namely the Rambam, of blessed
memory who was

raised up to great fame and a good name in his of Spain and

country
his reputation grew greatly, to such an extent that his own life
during
time they would insert the following in their version of the Kaddish:

your days and

"in in the days of our great teacher and rabbi Moses,
and the lives of the entire household of Israel for saw the extent
they

50 Cited by Mendel Piekarz in Hasidut Polin (Jerusalem, i990), 110.

p.

56
 of his honor, his holiness, and his piety. However, in the distant lands,

where neither heard nor perceived his honor, they considered

they

him heretic and a denier of our holy Torah and they burned his
a

books, the first section of the Yad, in the public square.

including

These men, who were wise in their own estimation, despite having

what the Rambam wrote in the section on the Laws of Repen

seen

to his
tance, did not pause to consider subjugating their opinions

the Rambam] for they could not understand the depths of his

51

meaning.

The Maimonidean with Hasidic

tendency to harmonize philosophy

mysticism can be seen in numerous passages

of R. Shneur Zalman’s 52[S
and has continued in
subsequent Habad intellectual history to this
very day.

and commentaries the Guide, since

One of the most bizarre idiosyncratic to

Abraham Abulafia to interpret the Guide in

the 13th-century attempts by

accordance with his own brand of ecstatic 53[h i the two-part 19th-

century
54[h
(grandson
Hasidic discourse

of R.
w Shneur
by R.

Zalman
on Maimonidean
Menachem
of Lyadi,
Mendel
philosophy
of Lubavitch

and third Lubavitcher

Derekh Emunah:

(17891866)
rebbe who
Sefer

is

revered in Habad circles as the Tsemah Tsedek, after the title of his major rab

binical works). This work represents an intensive, deeply learned, but equally

the doctrines of the Guide with the entire his

convoluted, attempt to connect

A work hitherto unmentioned by any schol

tory of Jewish mystical theology.

and ignored within contemporary Habad circles, it is a fascinating example

ars

which some 19th-century Hasidic authorities went in order

of the lengths to

Guide by placing within the kabbalistic tradition

to "re-habilitate" the it

the of highly if not tortuous, hermeneutics. I would

through use imaginative,

argue
with

Maimonides
that

the 55[h
the fact that

from the clutches

s R. Menachem
as a major incentive

of the
Mendel

Maskilim
was engaged

for his

who
attempts to

revered
in

"rescue"

him
a lifelong

as a
battle

role

and his tortured efforts to harmonize some of the Guide’s most

model, explain

theories with Hasidic mystical

radically rationalist piety.

been
1[ See.

cited
Abraham

widely
Samuel Heilman.

by subsequent scholars.
Belt ah (Brooklyn, 1 Vol. 1 p.
22a. This passage has

52 See, for instance, the discussion in tei[h Amarim: n[Q Part I p.

6a & Part I p. 83a, for

"
harmonize the Guide with his own radically mystical the
of R. Shneur Zalman’s tendency to
examples

1
ology.
about the medieval kabbalists’ interpretations of the Guide as
53 Moshe l[h has written extensively
most Moshe ldel
a work of mysticism concealed in the garb of philosophical language. See, recently.

Guide of the Perplexed and The Kabbalah," wis y[h 18 (2004):

54 i[h Emunah: Sefer Ha-Hak: u[ (Poltava, 1912).

55 See Joseph I Schneerson. /ze Tzemah Tzedek and the alah[ Movement (Brooklyn, 1975).

57
 According to internal Hasidic traditions, not oniy was Maimonides’

Guide not banned from the courts of -Kotsk-Izb the text was

actively studied and even taught to advanced students in classes, or

organized
shiurim. Of course, their approach to the Guide reflected the long-standing
belief that its deeper esoteric meaning reflected the truths of the Kabbalah that

were concealed by Maimonides in Aristotelian language. This approach, inau

gurated in the 13th-century commentaries to the Guide by Abraham Abulafia,

reached its climax in the writings of R. Gershon Henokh Lamer of Radzin

(18141891), the of the lzbicer Rebbe, R. Mordecai

grandson first
Joseph
Lamer (d. 1854).

In a manner strikingly similar to that of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyadi

cited above, R. Gershon Henokh considering himself surrounded by ene

mies, including Hasidim, Mitnagdim, and Maskilim personally empathized
with Maimonides, on account of the attacks he endured on
specifically many
the of the critics of his own radically mystical, almost antinomian theol
part

After an extensive of the Guide, intended

ogy. analysis to prove that the text

represents a partial and esoteric rendering of the Kabbalah, which is disguised

in the language of medieval scholasticism, R. Gershon Henokh waxes personal

regarding his identification with Maimonides:

I have to some length explicating the Guide] for the sake of

gone
the honor oi our master, the Rambam, of blessed
memory. In truth,

I am no closer to him than I am to his critics. Nonetheless, I am his

partner
in
suffering terrible denouncements and persecutions rooted

in baseless hatred. Those who have compassion for the persecuted

will be compassionate with him and care also for me,

and will be merciful in us both. Yet this not the

comforting is
pri

mary reason for

my defense the Rambam]. The truth is that his

critics
simply did not penetrate the deep secrets of his mind and I

have come in this place in order to justify the one

righteous

Maimonides] and to shut the mouths of those who speak ill of him
56
in the name of the true Kabbalah.

R. Gershon Henokh is particularly critical of the conservative

Hasidim who followed in the footsteps of R. Nachman of lav[h in

rejecting
all forms of philosophical inquiry. Clearly, R. Gershon Henokh’s interest in

the Guide far transcended a association with the and

vague personal trials

"
tribulations of Maimonides’ life, since he considered the Guide to be an

56 n[h Henokh mer of Radzin, (ed.) Sefer Beit Yaakot’ (Warsaw, 1890),

1314. mer discussion of the "secrets" of the Guides found on pp. 915 of this text.
pp.

58
important, if partial and imperfect, work of true lah.[h His lengthy intro

Yaakov, a
duction to his father’s commentary to the Torah, Sefer Beyt presents

Hasidic version of the of the Kabbalah, beginning with God’s first rev
history

Abraham and culminating with the Baal Shem Toy. Maimonides is

elation to

he kept the chain

Figures in this as
seen as one of the most important history,

period when
the medieval rationalism
of kabbalistic transmission during
the secrets of the latter in the language of the
eclipsed mysticism, by couching

former. The introduction has been published as a separate book entitled, Sefer

Ha-Hakdama [Q57[S
It is clear that, like R. Shneur Zalman of Lyadi before him, R. Ger

shon Henokh viewed the Guide of the Perplexed as a work of lah,[h one

that to be studied in tandem with the Zohar, the writings of Hayyim

ought

the of the Besht, that one to be synthesized with the

Vital and teachings is,

I . 58
later classics or Jewish mystical lore.

Obviously, taken at face value, the philosophy of Maimonides is com

with about of Hasidism, from the latter’s
pletely incompatible just every aspect

radical notion of Divine immanence and constant miraculous interventions to

the claimed by its leaders, the Hasidic Rebbes.

magical, supernatural powers
Hasidism from theoretical to tales of
Everything about
its
its teachings

miracle Tsadikim flies in the face of the entire Maimonidean sys

working

tem. But did this the Hasidim from reclaiming Maimonides as one of
stop

own? Of course Maimonides’ and

their not. They simply re-wrote biography

Guide from a work synthesizing Aristotelian philosophy with

transformed the

the Torah into a masterpiece of Kabbalistic esotericism in which the doctrines

of the Zohar are hidden under a rationalist garb.

Another disciple of R. Mordecai Joseph of Izbica who devel

important

a interest in Maimonidean rationalism with Hasidic

oped deep synthesizing

the Zadok Ha-Kohen of Lublin (18231900), in

mysticism was enigmatic R.

whose works one finds numerous discussions of the Guide integrated into a

uniquely intellectualist version of Hasidic 59[S

57 Gershon Henokh mer Sefer Ha-Hakdama Veha-Petiha. (New York, 1 My
i[E
references to

"
this work are to the version found in the original Warsaw 1890 edition of Sejer Beit

58 Just a few weeks after I presented the lecture upon which this paper
is based, a full scholarly

mer of
treatment

Magid.
of

Hasidism
the mystical

on the
theology

Marin:
of R. Gershon

Reconciliation, :in
Hcnokh Radzin

and Messianis,n
of
was published,

R.
in

Gerhson
/Radzin
’s[h kab
aul

’[h
to the
Hasidism (Madison, 2003). Magid devotes a long chapter analysis

to entitled the Torah: The Synthesis of the

balistic approach philosophy,

Zohar and the Guide of the le[Qx and the Hasidic Reconstruction of Esotericisin," pp. 40-7 1. In the

also R. Gershon Henokh’s efforts at a kabbalistic reconstruction

introduction to his hook, Magid places
the Haskalah’s of Maimonides
of the Guide in the context of Hasidism’s struggles against appropriation

as a role model.

The
59 On
Mysticism
the uses of

of Rabbi
the Guide

Zadok
in the

of ub
writings of

(Hoboken.
R. Zadok

2002). pp.
Ha-Kohen.

62-74. 1I see Alan Brill. Thinking God:

59
 To justify
their transformation of Maimonides into a mystic and the

work

i
Guide into a that is harmonious with Shivhei ha-Besht and the the
Tanya,

Has relied heavily on a classical myth dating back at least to the 15th
early

century. Numerous Hasidic sources cite this which was endorsed by

legend,

no less a
person than the august Spanish rabbi and exile, Don Isaac Abrabanel

(14371508), and which was later

promulgated by the Renaissance Italian

Kabbalist, R. Joseph Ergas (16851730):

It has been heard that Maimonides wrote an epistle towards the end
of his life that included the confession: "at the end of
following my
days a man visited me and taught me things that, had I not learned

them the end of and were

at
my life, it not for the fact that
my works

had already been spread would have

tfiem.
, throughout the world, I recanted

In Hasidic lore Maimonides, this became the his

regarding "epistle"

torical justification for their reconstruction of the Guide into a kabbalistic text.

So it was that for the Hasidim, Maimonides at least on his deathbed was

no longer a rationalist
philosopher but a committed kabbalist. Still, those

Hasidic masters who actually studied the Guide remained unsatisfied with

on this for it implied that Maimonides’ not

relying legend, magnum opus did

reflect the secret to him, since

fully mystical insights conveyed its composition

pre-dated his kabbalistic So they in

alleged epiphany. engaged a radical, though

highly idiosyncratic, unsystematic and arbitrary, re-reading of the Guide, seek

ing to transform its doctrines into listic teachings. The assumption under
these kabbalistic reconstructions of the Guide that before the
lying is even

overt revelation of mystical secrets to him, Maimonides had intuitive insights

into their truths, however fragmentary and obfuscated they remained because

of the influence on him of Aristotelian philosophy.

The Hasidic masters who chose not to ignore or the Guide tried
reject

in this manner to wrest his legacy from the Maskilim who claimed him as their

own forbear. This required many imaginative leaps, both hermeneutic and

historical. I have collected dozens of remarkable, often of

amusing renderings

passages from the Guide by Hasidic rebbes, with citations from the
beginning

very first published Hasidic text, Toledot Yaakov Yosef(1780) by R. Jacob

Joseph of Polnoe, and ending with the uses of the Guide in

highly imaginative

the late
20th-century

mar Rebbe (18881982),

anti-Zionist

’e[QlM
writings of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the

(Brooklyn, 1960), and IH Sat

60 Isaac Abrabanel, :[h (Brooklyn, 1953), p.

209.

60
IHa-T (Brooklyn, 1968). A proper analysis
of this collage

conclude
of

well the of the present But I will

sources is beyond scope survey.

Hasidic to which
with the following, typically paradoxical tale, according

Rabbi Phinehas of Koretz an associate of the Baal Shem Toy was a great

that he studied the Guide day and

scholar of the Moreh Nevukhim. It is alleged

night and had mastered it completely.

and him that he studied from cover

The Guide was so near dear to it

thousand times. He refused to depart from this

to cover more than a

book and would never lend it to any man, since he believed that

the Moreh Nevukhim in the house was a magical protection

having

that one’s fear of heaven. (In Yiddish: ’[ a segule far yiras

preserved
61

shomayim.)

How book that reconciled the

ironic that The Guide of the Perplexed a

laws of nature with Judaism and rejected all

superstitious
beliefs specifically

condemning the reliance on ,[h or magical amulets, as idolatrous should

devoted Hasidic reader, who claimed to have read it more

be cherished by its

talismanic fashion.
than a thousand times, in such a perversely superstitious,

of Sippurim ,n,[h in A.J. Hcschcl, In The Circle of the al[ Sheni

61 Cited from a manuscript

Toy (Chicago. 1985). P. 4 fn. 17.

1[ would like to thank Brad Sabin Hill, Dean of the IV Library, for his assistance with the biblio

his and
section of this paper, and Professor Marc Shapiro, Scranton University, for insightful
graphical
issues that it raises.
corrective comments pertaining to the philosophical

61