Talk:Maimonides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Socrates This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.

Previous discussions may be found in the archives:

Contents

[edit] Esoteric (hidden) views and exoteric (public) views

I don't have time to type everything in, but here is some material on the what many people think about esoteric (hidden) views and exoteric (public) views in the writings of Maimonides (aka Rambam).

Aviezer Ravitzky writes:

Those who upheld a radical interpretation of the secrets of the Guide, from Joseph Caspi and Moses Narboni in the 14th century to Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines in the 20th, proposed and developed tools and methods for the decoding of the concealed intentions of the Guide. Can we already find the roots of this approach in the writings of 'Samuel Ibn Tibbon, a few years after the writing of the Guide?
Ibn Tibbon taught that "wise men assert something novel which is not in harmony with the belief of the many when their reflections warrant it, and when the belief of the many is beneficial and greatly needed for the stability of the world and for the political order, they will assert their novel teaching in a way which the vulgar will not grasp, but will try as much as they can to conceal it by using riddles, parables and hints, so that only the wise may understand."
Ibn Tibbon's comments reveal his general approach toward the nature of the contradictions in the Guide: The interpreter need not be troubled by contradiction when one assertion is consistent with the "philosophic view" where as the other is completely satisfactory to "men of religion". Such contradictions are to be expected, and the worthy reader will know the reason for them and the direction they tend to, and he will be able to distinguish between those "said truly" and "said for the purposes of concealment."
The correct reading of the Guide's chapters should be carried out in two complimentary directions: on the one hand, one should distinguish each chapter from the rest, and on the other one should combine different chapters and construct out of them a single topic. Again, one the one hand, one should get to the bottom of the specific subject matter of each chapter, it specific "innovation", an innovation not necessarily limited to the explicit subject matter if the chapter. On the other hand, one should combine scattered chapters which allude to one single topic so as to reconstruct the full scope of the topic.
Source - Aviezer Ravitzky, "Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed", Association for Jewish Studies (AJS) Review, Vol.6, 1981, p.87-123

We should also consider the view of Professor Marvin Fox, former Professor of Jewish Philosophy at Brandeis University, and Professor of philosophy and religion at Boston University (both in Massachusetts.) Fox was on the board of Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, the official rabbinical publication of the Rabbinical Council of America.

In his introduction to the Guide Maimonides speaks repeatedly of the "secret" doctrine that must be set forth in a way appropriate to its secret character. Rabbinic law, to which Maimonides as a loyal Jew is committed, prohibits any direct, public teaching of the secrets of the Torah. One is permitted to teach these only in private to selected students of proven competence; even to such students it is only permissible to teach the "chapter headings" (Mishnah Hagigah 2.1) Thus, anyone who proposes to write a book dealing with natural philosophy and metaphysics of the Torah faces a problem. Basic a book, by nature, is available to an unrestricted readership, there is no way to guarantee that it will fall only into the hands of those whom we may expose to this subject matter. Furthermore, if the author sets forth his teachings openly so as to make them readily available to his readers, he violates the rule against teaching more than "chapter headings."
It would seem that there is no way to write such a book without violating rabbinic law. For a faithful Jew this is not acceptable. Yet at times it is urgent to teach a body of sound doctrine to those who requite it. Indeed, in a generation in which worthy and qualified students are spread throughout the Diaspora, and there are few fully qualified teachers, it would seem that there is no choice but to write a book that conveys the true teaching... The problem is to find a method for writing such book in a way that does not violate Jewish law while conveying its message successfully to those who are properly qualified.
Maimonides decided that to abide by the rabbinic ruling, he would have to write his book in such a way that it would offer no more than the "chapter headings". The presentation would have to be so artful that none but the most highly qualified students would be able to follow his explanations and come to know his teachings. For this reason, as he tells us, even the chapter headings "are not set down in order or arranged in coherent fashion in this Treatise, but rather are scattered and entangled with other subjects that are to be clarified. For my purpose is that the truths be glimpsed and then again be concealed, so as not to oppose that divine purpose which one cannot possibly oppose and which has concealed from the vulgar among the people those truths especially requisite for His apprehension."
Such an exposition must be carefully constructed so as to protect people without a sound scientific and philosophical education from doctrines that they cannot understand and that would only harm them, while making the truths available to students with the proper personal and intellectual preparation.
Maimonides writes "In speaking about very obscure matters it is necessary to conceal some parts and to disclose others. Sometimes in the case of certain dicta this necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of a certain premise, where in another place necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of another premise contradicting the first one. In such cases the vulgar must in no way be aware of the contradictions; the author accordingly uses some device to conceal it by all means." (I, introduction)
Despite the inherent hazards in producing such a book, Maimonides felt that it was his absolute duty to find an acceptable way of preserving his insights and understanding of the highest truths in a form accessible to others. He says that "if I had omitted setting down something of that which has appeared to me as clear, so that the knowledge would perish when I perish, as is inevitable, I should have considered that conduct as extremely cowardly with regard to you and everyone who is perplexed." (III: introduction)
It is one of the mysteries of our intellectual history that these explicit statements of Maimonides, together with his other extensive instructions on how to read his book, have been so widely ignored. No author could have been more open in informing his readers that they were confronting no ordinary book.
Source - Marvin Fox "Interpreting Maimonides", Univ. of Chicago Press. 1990

[edit] Modern Haredi scholarship on Maimonides

I don't think Danny's behaviour requires an apology. He is quite right in asserting that without these views, the section as it is written now is highly POV because it fails to mention the views of people who have understood Maimonides a lot better than Shapiro, Ravitzky and others. Modern Haredi scholarship on Maimonides has flourished in early 20th century Lithuania (and Israel subsequently), and this work is often of scrupulous detail and honesty, even if the questions are confrontational.
I'm eagerly awaiting the Ibn Tibbon statement - it may be all the section needs. The Orthodox POV, of course, will be that there is no difference between the Rambam's views held privately and publicly. His view, as expressed in the 13 Ikkarim ("principles") is that the content of the Torah has remained unchanged. This means: no mitzvot have been added or removed, and neither has their interpretation. It does not expect anyone to believe that every letter in our present scrolls is identical to the ones in Moses' version. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JFW, in this case you are incorrect. Please present some sources for your statement. Most Orthodox sources state that Maimonides's principles mean that not a single word of the Torah has been changed. Consider Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan:
The person who says that some passages were written by Moses of his own accord is considered by our prophets and sages to be the worst sort of nonbeliever, and a perverter of the Torah...Such a person is in the category of those who say "the Torah is not from Heaven" Our sages teach that this category includes even one who says that the entire Torah was given by God with the exception of a single word, which was composed by Moses and not spoken by God. (Kaplan, p.69)
Then read Artscroll's The Chumash: The Stone Edition. In the overview, they state:
In several of his writings, Rambam sets forth at much greater length the unanimously held view that every letter and word ofthe Torah was given to Moses by God; that it has not been and cannot be changed; and that nothing was ever or can ever be added to it. Indeed, the Talmud states emphatically that if one questions the Divine origin of even a single letter or traditionally accepted interpretation of the Torah, it is tantamount to denial of the entire Torah. (p.XX)
In contrast, you are offering a rather liberal interpretation of his principle - that "no mitzvot have been added or removed, and neither has their interpretation". Your view is more common in Conservative Judaism, and the liberal wing of Modern Orthodoxy. Please take note that I am not disagreeing with your beliefs, JFW. In fact, I agree with you analysis; that is probably what Maimonides believed. However, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, the rabbis at Artscroll, and many Rosh Yeshivah's disagree with us. For them, believeing that the mitzvot are the same is not enough; they hold that we must believe that the entire text is precisely the same, or else we are guilty of heresy. RK 01:38, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
Also, Danny's statements about me do require an apology. See below. RK

I am still waiting for an apology for publicly saying i spoke "grotesque lies." RK, you might want to check out Maimonides's Hilchot Teshuva this Elul. Danny 00:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


RK, these quotes about The Guide of the Perplexed are interesting, but they have nothing to do with Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith, which, as I'm sure you know, were elucidated in his Mishna Commentary, not in his Guide. The Guide itself was written for a specific audience (Jews attracted to Greek and Arab philosophy), and in a specific code, as Maimonides himself states in the introduction. The controversial insertions in question were not about the Guide; rather, they implied that Maimonides himself did not believe some of his Principles (such as the 8th Principle) were true, but was promulgating them as "necessary beliefs" to promote social order. You have now denied that this was your intent, so your insertion about Torah scrolls (implying that Maimonides did not believe the 8th principle) is no longer required. Furthermore, the article currently contains a section explaining the difference between true and necessary beliefs, therefore the controversy is over. Do you agree? Jayjg 04:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your position; they are directly about one of his 13 principles of faith! That Moses wrote the Torah we have in our hands today is one of his principles. Please see below. RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maimonides did believe his 13 principles of faith, but...

The article currently states "These scholars note that Maimonides explicitly drew a distinction between true beliefs, which were beliefs about God which produced intellectual perfection, and necessary beliefs, which were condusive to improving social order. This distinction is not made by any recent Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) commentators, suggesting that in their view all principles are equally vital."

This is a rebuttal of a claim that no one is making, and thus needs to be rewritten. As far as I know, scholars are not claiming that Maimonides' believed that many or most of his 13 principles were really not true. If they were making such a claim, then the article should give the above rebuttal. However, this is not the claim that my sources have made. Rather, they have made the claim that Maimonides' understanding of these principles is not the same as the understanding held by the average Jew. In other words, Maimonides really did believe that all 13 principles of faith were true, but his detailed explanations of them are not at all the same as what the average person believes. RK 01:19, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it rebutting any particular claim. What do you think the text should say? Jayjg 05:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I finally edited the text, in a way that I hope is less controversial. However, I understand that it is not the final text, and I am not locked into this wording. In regards to "True beliefs versus necessary beliefs", I am trying to clarify this section. From what I understand, Haredi rabbis dispute precisely what Maimonides followers (and later, modern day non-Haredi writers) understood to be his "true beliefs", but they don't outright deny that he had them. In regards to the following example, do any Haredi rabbis deny that Maimonides held these two points of view, and that his public letter to the Jews of Yemen differs from his less-circulated private writings? If not, then it maybe that everyone agrees that this is a good example of a true belief versus a necessary belief. If any substantial group of rabbis do deny this, it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. We can opposing points of view as well! RK 23:04, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
For example, Maimonides's letter to the Jews of Yemen states that every letter in the Torah has been unchanged since the time of Moses. Yet a comparison to his private writings shows this to be a "necessary belief"; elsewhere Maimonides notes that a number of changes do exist, and that he needed to travel to other cities to compare the text of their Torah to his, in order to edit a reliable text. In this case, the "true belief" was that the Torah really was given by God to Moses and passed down to his generation with high(but not perfect) fidelity.
I have not seen anyone dispute the above in the past four months, or bring a counter-example or counter-source. So I take it that it is now Ok for the article to mention this point. RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Try again here please, before you insert or change the text. Maimonides believed all the 13 principles were true beliefs, not necessary beliefs. The Letter to Yemen was not the 13 principles. Please give specific references to the concepts in the Guide of the Perplexed. Jayjg 02:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, you have brought no sources to back up your position, while I already have brought forth sources which state the opposite. My sources explicitly point out examples where Maimonides's 13 principles were believed by him to be "necessary beliefs", as opposed to being "true beliefs." Now, if you are saying that the average Jewish layperson, of any denomination, believes otherwise, then I would agree with you. Thus given the facts we have available, the article should state something like "In both the past and the present, most Jewish laypeople have held that Maimonides's 13 principles were true beliefs. However, most Maimonidean scholars hold that his principles in fact describe necessary beliefs, and not true beliefs. In this view in order to find Maimonides's beliefs on these issues one would need to read his clarification of these points in his further writings, such as the Guide for the Perplexed and the Mishneh Torah." RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Jay, I am open to reading whatever other sources you bring forth. If you can find any sources which hold that his 13 principles represent true beliefs, then that would be great. I just don't know of any which say this. RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
RK, you are making a claim that Maimonides thought his 13 Principles were "necessary beliefs", but not "true beliefs". Please do not try to reverse the burden of proof, please do not engage in original research, and please cite your sources. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, JayJG, you are confused on this point, and you have forgotten about the specific sources and quotes I already brought forth. It is not I who am making this claim. Rather, this claim is made by Maimondean scholars, and I have already showed you references and detailed quotes. I am not engaging in original research, and I am confused by your response. Keep me out of this! Frankly, every R and C rabbi I have discussed this issue with admits that Maimonides' principles are necessary beliefs, but not all are necessarilly true beliefs. It is a rather common POV. I also brought forth Orthodox Jewish academic sources, Menachem Kellner and Marc Shapiro, and they publish in Orthodox journals. (These journals do not allow non-Orthodox Jews to publish their theologies.) If you want the article to say anything differently, than it is you who must back your claims up. Do you have any sources? The burden of proof is on you.
Nonetheless, I would be willing to accept on faith that the average Jewish layperson believes the exact opposite, and I do not have a problem if the article says this. But do not imagine that I am engaging in original research; I am reporting a very mainstream view. RK 22:53, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Resurrection of the dead and miracles

I am restoring some older text from the article, and integrating it with text and edits made by JayJG and others. I'd like to explain precisely why I am restoring some of this text. We all know that Maimonides's writings on recurrection were considered heretical; it is a historical fact that many of his contemporaries read all of his works, and came away convinced that he simply did not believe in the Jewish view of the resurrection of the dead. This article needs to explain why. All Maimonidean scholars, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, agree that Maimonides's views on this subject were different from his peers, and this can be illustrated by the use of his terminology. Like his peers, Maimonides believed in the existence of some kind of "miracles" and "resurrection", but he had very different definitions of these words than that of his peers. We cannot understand his writings on this subject unless we describe his definition of these words. Maimonides, of course, was not alone. Many philosophical rationalists had similar unqiue definitions of these terms, such as Gersonides, Saadya Gaon, and Joseph Ibn Tibbon. Nonetheless his views were not identical with those of this peers (hence the repeated charges of heresy for several hundred years) and we need to be explicit in describing his beliefs as accurately and fully as possible. RK 15:25, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] True beliefs versus necessary beliefs

Let's start again, RK, this dispute has been dead for 4 months now. Why don't you create a new section in the Talk: page, and propose your specific edits there, and we'll discuss. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I am not engaging in original research; I am merely reporting on the views of mainstream Maimonidean scholars. Let us start again. Every Reform and Conservative rabbi with whom I have discussed this issue with holds that Maimonides' principles are held by him to be necessary beliefs, but not all are necessarilly true beliefs. It is a rather common POV among many (I won't claim all) in the Reform and Conservative rabbinate. Do you disagree with this specific claim? RK

I brought forth Orthodox Jewish academic sources, Menachem Kellner and Marc Shapiro, and they publish some of their work in Orthodox journals. These journals do not allow non-Orthodox Jews to publish their theologies. They explicitly discuss Maimonides on necessary beliefs versus true beliefs, and use beliefs from his 13 principles of faith as examples of necessary beliefs. Do you disagree with this specific claim? RK

Even without sources, I would agree that the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Most lay Jews think that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true. I don't think we need a survey or source for this claim. Thoughts?

As for Orthodox rabbis, to the best of my knowledge most have not studied philosophy and the specific issue of "true beliefs" versus "necessary beliefs". In past discussions no one was able to bring forth any examples of Orthodox rabbis commenting on this point. As such, it is hard to say what they might think. However, I would be willing to agree that the average Orthodox rabbi holds that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true. I don't think we need a survey or source for this claim, as it seems implicit in many Orthodox writings, even if it is not explicit. Thoughts?

Once each issue is clarified, we then need only describe the views of these groups in NPOV fashion. RK 23:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try again. This dispute has been dead for 4 months now. Why don't you create a new section in the Talk: page, and propose your specific edits there, and we'll discuss. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed text, first draft

In his Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides states that there are significant differences between what he wants the general public to understand from his works, and his true beliefs. He refers to one set of teachings as "true beliefs", which he describes as beliefs about God which produced intellectual perfection. He refers to another set of teachings as "necessary beliefs", which were beliefs conducive to improving social order, yet are not literally true. This issue is discussed by his translator and commentator, Samuel ibn Tibbon, and a number of later classical rabbinic scholars.

  • The implication here is terrible: Are you really saying that Maimonides held to a "double standard" (or more) of "beliefs"? How shocking that this should appear on a key Judaism-related article! This just seems to be another application or Psychological projection of modern-day Relativism onto Maimonides's centuries-old principles which are in fact the closest things Judaism has to enunciated religious "dogmas". IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Izak, Maimonides openly admitted that he was doing this. No one denies this. This is not a "terrible" insult, and Maimonides is not attacking himself. Have you actually read his own words on this topic? I have neve found even a single source which denies this point. Maimonides explicitly writes that some of his claims are "necessary beliefs" and some are "true beliefs". Please stop attacking his own statements in the Guide. RK

Some of the most controversial work on Maimonides is about elucidating precisely which beliefs he held to be "true", as opposed to "necessary". His 13 principles of faith are a case in point. Maimonidean scholars such as Marc Shapiro and Menachem Kellner hold that Maimonides' beliefs on some of these principles differs greatly from what is listed in the beliefs. For example, Maimonides's letter to the Jews of Yemen states that every letter in the Torah has been unchanged since the time of Moses. Yet Marc Shapiro writes that a comparison to his private writings shows this to be a "necessary belief". Elsewhere Maimonides notes that a number of changes to the Torah do exist, and that he needed to travel to other cities to compare the text of their Torah to his, in order to edit a reliable text. In this case, the "true belief" was that the Torah really was given by God to Moses and passed down to his generation with high (but not perfect) fidelity. The claims of textual perfection, while not true, is thus a "necessary belief" for the masses.

  • Who cares what "Marc Shapiro" says? Let's find out what the Vilna Gaon or Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson said and taught about Maimonides' Principles, as they are after-all the universally-accepted reliable rabbis here. Who the heck is "Marc Shapiro"? IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stop the ad homenim attacks on a well-known Orthodox Maimonidean scholar. Wikipedia articles demand that we do care what mainstream scholars say about the writings of philosophers and religous leaders! If you personally don't care, then don't read them. But all of our articles on philosophers and the like have similar sections. RK 16:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Why Maimonides believed it important to insert these 'necessary beliefs' into the eighth principle is clear. During his time, Muslims were strongly challenging the Jews, claiming that they had changed the text of the Torah. This accusation began with Muhammed who, as quoted in the Koran, had charged the rabbis of falsifying and tampering with the original Torah.....This charge was carried forward by later Islamic scholars....With such an assault, it is obvious why Maimonides felt it was important for the masses to believe that their text was the exact equivalent of Moses' text. The masses could not be expected to understand the problems relating to the biblical text. Exposing them to some of this knowledge could have undermined their unquestioned faith, especially in the face of Islamic polemics." [Shapiro, p.206, 207]

The idea that Maimonides' true beliefs differed from statements of fact in the 13 principles of faith is accepted as factual by many modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars, such as Shapiro and Menachem Kellner. These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate.

  • Your attempts to create a "united front" between Modern Orthodox Judaism, which believes in the Divine Origin of the Torah, and the Conservatives and Reform who deny it, runs counter to all logic and reason. IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Izak, you are very confused. Your topic here, the divine origin of the Torah, has nothing to do with the topic that Profesor Shapiro writes about. Here the topic is only about the textual transmission of the Torah over time, and textual errors. In fact Prof. Shapiro strongly rejects Reform and Conservative Judaism. Please stop reading things into these statements that just are not there! RK

In contrast, the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Many Jews hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true. Most Orthodox rabbis hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are intended as true beliefs. This view is implicit in many Orthodox writings, even if the point is not made explicitly.

[edit] "true beliefs" & "necessary beliefs" is jargon meant to confuse

To arbitrarily create an article using new-fangled parameters of so-called and dubious "true beliefs" vs. "necessary beliefs" is a travesty of intellectual honesty. Why should anyone on earth accept the jargon and Mumbo Jumbo of obscure and irrelvant pseudo-scholars not part of any mainstream classical Talmudic school of thought and not sanctioned by any Halakha? What is the point of creating a "new 'Judaic' religion", when we already have Judaism which has been around for over three thousand years? IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Izak, that is a personal attack on Maimonides himself. In fact, what you have written is provably false. You are denying Maimonides's own explicit discussion of this issue in his Guide for the Perplexed. I would assume that this is not due to dishonestly, but rather to a lack of knowledge on this specific subject. This is like arguing with someone who claims that Moby Dick does not included a whale! RK
Also, it is an ad homenim attack to claim that quoting respected Orthodox scholars somehow make me guilty of "creating a "new 'Judaic' religion". Your angry attacks at beliefs I do not have is not appropriate. RK


[edit] Jayjg's take on the new section

RK, I've created a new section for you proposed text, with my comments interspersed. In general, the section suffers from the same issues it had several months ago. You have clearly used Shapiro as a source, and quote him extensively; yet there do not appear to be any other sources for this claim. Broad claims are made about the beliefs of Kellner and "many Orthodox Maimonidean scholars" as well as "the Reform and Conservative rabbinate", without the slightest shred of evidence. You need to cite and quote these other sources as well, and not just continually citing Shapiro and handwaving the rest. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I already gave you many other sources. Did you read any of them yet? I note that in contrast, you still cannot find any sources for your position. The weakness lies only in your preconceived notions, which have no scholarly sources to back them up. As for your claims about Reform and Conservatuve rabbis, I am at a loss for words. If you are that unfamiliar with R. and C. theology., then you need to do some reading. Also, I take offense at your attacks that all these sources and quotes are "handwaving". Jay, you are acting like TruthAboutChabad, trying to edit out all information that differs from your own beliefs. That is just not right. RK 16:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed text

In his Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides states that there are significant differences between what he wants the general public to understand from his works, and his true beliefs. He refers to one set of teachings as "true beliefs", which he describes as beliefs about God which produced intellectual perfection. He refers to another set of teachings as "necessary beliefs", which were beliefs conducive to improving social order, yet are not literally true. This issue is discussed by his translator and commentator, Samuel ibn Tibbon, and a number of later classical rabbinic scholars. Where does ibn Tibbon discuss it, and which later classical rabbinic scholars discuss it?

I already told you. It is already right here in this very archive! Why do you keep asking me the same questions, yet refuse to read the answers? This is not funny. I gave you exact, specific references, and you respond yet again by pretending otherwise. In all other articles you are rational and agreeable, but here you are not. I don't know how to deal with this. If you simply refuse to read the sources, then just come out and say so. RK 16:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please quote the source specifically here, so it can be included in the proposed section. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some of the most controversial work on Maimonides is about elucidating precisely which beliefs he held to be "true", as opposed to "necessary". According to whom is it "Some of the most controversial work on Maimonides"?

I thought that you were one such person. You and everyone else here are angry. But are you seriosuly asking me to prove that this is not controversial? I can't imagine why...but I will gladly remove that sentence. RK
Please stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is "angry". Direct your discussion at the article content, not the individual. If you cannot cite a source for this claim, and wish to retract it, then that is fine. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jay, you' are one of the people who finds these claims controversial (and that is Ok.) Izak also doesn't believe them (though he doesn't seem to understand me.) I also got the impression that JFW doesn't agree with these views either. Why do you find it hard to believe that someome would disagree with what I am saying? Up until now, I thought that you did disagree. I am sure that many others would as well. One always finds vociferous disagreement whenever it comes to the philosophy of Maimonides! RK

His 13 principles of faith are a case in point. Maimonidean scholars such as Such as? Who else says this? Marc Shapiro and Menachem Kellner hold Where does Kellner hold this? Please quote him.


that Maimonides' beliefs on some of these principles differs greatly from what is listed in the beliefs. For example, Maimonides's letter to the Jews of Yemen states that every letter in the Torah has been unchanged since the time of Moses. Yet Marc Shapiro writes Please cite where Shapiro writes this that a comparison to his private writings shows this to be a "necessary belief". Elsewhere Maimonides notes that a number of changes to the Torah do exist, and that he needed to travel to other cities to compare the text of their Torah to his, in order to edit a reliable text. In this case, according to Shapiro, the "true belief" was that the Torah really was given by God to Moses and passed down to his generation with high (but not perfect) fidelity. The claims of textual perfection, while not true, is thus a "necessary belief" for the masses.

Jay, you ask me to quote Prof. Shapiro, so I do. Then you deny that a quote on this page exists, and make the same demand again. Then when I give you another quote, you again deny that a quote on this page exists, and make the same demand again! RK
Please give the quote here, so it can be included in the proposed section. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Why Maimonides believed it important to insert these 'necessary beliefs' into the eighth principle is clear. During his time, Muslims were strongly challenging the Jews, claiming that they had changed the text of the Torah. This accusation began with Muhammed who, as quoted in the Koran, had charged the rabbis of falsifying and tampering with the original Torah.....This charge was carried forward by later Islamic scholars....With such an assault, it is obvious why Maimonides felt it was important for the masses to believe that their text was the exact equivalent of Moses' text. The masses could not be expected to understand the problems relating to the biblical text. Exposing them to some of this knowledge could have undermined their unquestioned faith, especially in the face of Islamic polemics." [Marc Shapiro, p.206, 207]

The idea that Maimonides' true beliefs differed from statements of fact in the 13 principles of faith is accepted as factual by many Many? Who have you explicitly cited besides Shapiro? modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars, such as Shapiro and Menachem Kellner. You've already said this. These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate.They are? Please cite some sources.

In contrast, the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Many Jews hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true.Is there any source for this? And does anyone but Shapiro believe differently?

Huh? Jay, you are confused - you are now attacking your own position. It is you who has been claiming this all along. Are you really going to change your mind and hold that most religious do not hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true? I cannot follow you when you totally reverse course like this. RK
Please respond directly to the questions and issues raised. Do not discuss me or my alleged positions. Provide evidence for your claims here. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jay, relax. How can we discuss this issue if you won't write is on your mind? Earlier on you seemed to believe that most Jews believe that Maimonides's principles of faith are "true beliefs". Therefore I extended an olove branch and said that I agreed with you. If you want me to admit that most Jews have this belief, then I am fine with that. Now you seem angry, and demand that I present sources? I am trying to agree with you. RK 02:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Jay, you are confused. You are now contradicting your own previous position. I cannot respond to your constant change of belief. Which position are you claiming is true?! And what are your sources? I am offering mine, please offer something in return. RK 17:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please respond directly to the questions and issues raised. Do not discuss me, your theories about my mental state, your notions about my beliefs, or about my alleged positions or alleged previous positions. I am not claiming any position is true, nor am I making any claims which must be cited. What I am actually doing is asking you to cite sources for your claims. Please Provide evidence for your claims here. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jay, I am not attacking your mental state. I honestly am having a problem following your position, and you need to clear up the confusion. What precisely is it that you believe is true about this issue? I had written "Most Orthodox rabbis hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are intended as true beliefs. This view is implicit in many Orthodox writings, even if the point is not made explicitly." Is this something that you agree with, or disagree with? I'm willing to state it whatever way you like. RK 02:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
My position is that you need to cite sources for you claims; what is confusing about that? You claim The idea that Maimonides' true beliefs differed from statements of fact in the 13 principles of faith is accepted as factual by many modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars Many? Please provide a source for this claim. So far you have Shapiro. You also claims These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate. Please cite a source for this claim. We'll start there. Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines

Leo Strauss "How to begin to study The Guide of the Perplexed", in "The Guide of the Perplexed" Volume One, Translated by Shlomo Pines, The University of Chicago Press, 1963

What is true of the Biblical similies is true also of the metaphorical Biblical terms. According to the Talmudic sages, the outer of the similies is nothing while the inner is a pearl....Hence it is not without danger to the vulgar that one explains the similies or indicates the metaphoric character of expressions (I 33). For such biblical teachings as the assertions that God in angry, compassionate, or in other ways changeable, while not true, yet serve a political purpose or are necessary beliefs (III 28). (p.xxxvi)


Shlomo Pines "The Philosopic Sources of the Guide of the Perplexed", in "The Guide of the Perplexed" Volume One, Translated by Shlomo Pines, The University of Chicago Press, 1963

"according to al-Farabi the ideal city, and according to Maimonides the Jewish community founded on the Torah, assume the task of perfecting the intellects of their members and of guiding them towards philosophical truth. Those born to be philosophers are given the possibility to know the real nature of things, while the others are not taught the naked truths, but the parables andmetaphors by means of which the prophets render this truth accessible to the less gifted. As already stated, this is the mimesis of which al-Farabi speaks. Maimonides sometimes applies to beliefs of this kind...the term true opinions (III 27 and 28).

(p.xcii)

Yes, yes, true beliefs vs. necessary beliefs. That's not the issue here. Metaphors and parables about God being angry etc. The issue here is your attempt to tie this to the 13 Principles. Jayjg (talk) 06:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Menachem Kellner

Professor Menachem Kellner, in Must a Jew Believe Anything?, also writes about this issue:

Why, though, does Maimonides not present his position clearly and unambiguously? Why does he force us to tease it out of texts like the introduction to 'Perek helek'...and why does he seem to contradict it....An answer to this question may be found in Guide of the Perplexed, iii.28. There we are told that in addition to teaching truths in a summary fashion, The Torah "also makes a call to adopt certain beliefs, belief in which is not necessary for the sake of politicla welfare. That is, the Torah teaches things which are themselves not strictly and literally true, but are beliefs which the masses must accept so as not to undermine the stability of society. The example cited by Maimonides clearly confirms this interpretation: 'Such, for example, is our belief that He, may He be exalted, is violently angry with those who disobey Him and it is therefore necessary to fear Him and dread Him and to take care not to disobey.' Now, Maimonides makes it abundantly clear in many contexts that God does not really get angry. But it is certainly useful for religiously immature people to believe that God gets angry so that they 'take care not to disobey.' At the end of the chapter Maimonides sums up his position very clearly:
[quote from the guide; I didn't have time to type it all in yet.]
It is hard to state the point more clearly than this: it is important that people believe that God gets violently angry with sinners and that it is important for them to believe that God immediately answers the prayers of the wronged. The Torah therefore teaches that these beliefs are true; that does not mean that they are actually true in and of themselves. They are necessary beliefs, not true beliefs.

Good, but we've been through this before. Please show where Kellner says Maimonides considers the 13 Principles to be "necessary" beliefs, not "true" beliefs. Please quote Kellner stating this. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought that he was pretty clear: The Torah therefore teaches that these beliefs are true; that does not mean that they are actually true in and of themselves. They are necessary beliefs, not true beliefs. Yet Kellner discusses this in regards to Maimondies eleventh principle of faith. That seems clear to me! However, I do understand how you and others can read it differently. Perhaps this doesn't violate a possible reading of his commentary on the Mishnah in the tenth chapter of tractate Sanhedrin. (It does contradict the Ani Ma'amim, which is found in all siddurim and is what most people believe Maimonides meant.) Below are Maimonides's words on this topic, from his commentary (and not the poetic re-statement, Ani Ma'amim.)
What do you mean "Kellner discusses this in regards to Maimondies eleventh principle of faith"? Jayjg (talk) 06:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Eleventh Foundation is that God, blessed be He, gives reward to one who obeys the commandments of the Torah and punishes one who violates its prohibitions. The greatest reward is the World to Come, and the greatest punishment is kareis (spiritual excision, "cutting off"). We have already said enough on this topic [earlier in the Commentary].

I suppose a person well-read in Maimonides can say that this does not constitute a case of "necessary belief" versus "true belief". Here Maimonides promises rewards, but is sort of vague about what it constitutes. Overall, I still agree with Marc Shapiro that the average Jew reads this in a way totally contradictory to what Maimonides teaches. So does Kellner, but I don't have time to type in everything he wrote. Thus, I grant you that this could be read in two ways. For those who read it as literally promising reward and punishment, they have fallen for a "necessary belief", while those who read it along with Maimonides's explanation of these points in his Guide will read in a different way, and thus find the "true belief." RK

Proposal: Instead of discussing the idea of "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs" in regards to the 13 principles, why don't we work out a text on his views of "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs" in general? RK 02:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

That might be be better, as I don't think we have much disagreement regarding the concept in general. The issue we continually run up against is you want to apply it to the 13 principles, and suggest that this is a broadly held view, when from what I can see (and from the evidence you've brought) this view is only held by Shapiro. Jayjg (talk) 06:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hevraya (colleagues) - this debate may be dead (I cannot entirely follow it) but I am wondering if anyone has thought to ask Menachem Kellner directly? He teaches, if I am not mistaken, at the University of Haifa and posts with some regularity on the H-Judaic list-serv (http://www.h-net.org/~judaic/). YKahn 18:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth

Some sources mention 1138 as the year of his birth. Which one is correct? JFW | T@lk 09:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

definitively 1138!

What are you basing your answer on? JFW | T@lk 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1138 is the date Maimonides gives in his postscript to his Commentary to the Mishnah (he says he is 30 and the year is 1479 Seleucid). See Hebrew Encyclopedia and J. Kafih in his introduction to his translation of the Commentary.

[edit] Egypt

Maybe someone here can help me: It says several times in the Torah that Jews shall never return to Egypt, yet Maimonides lived in Egypt. Am I misreading the Torah? Is it that Jews should never set up a permanent civilization in Egypt, but its ok for individuals to live there?Loomis51 11:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have held this against himself. Perhaps the Torah text refers to groups and not individuals. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

no, if you were familiar with the rambams writings you would know that he signed his personal letters with: "Moses ben Maimon the sefardi, who everyday transgresses the command to not live in egypt."

Anon

The above ^ is an urban legend. This alleged comment never appears in any printed or manuscript text. Furthermore, we have many extant signatures of Maimonides and that line never appears.

MFM

01 August 2006

I remember it being that he signed "who transgress three sins every day" and one of them is living in egypt and another two (not living in Israel maybe). I see if I can find a source. Jon513 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, here we are. This answers the orginal poster's question. Jon513 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The second paragraph of "Maimonides and the Modern" section strikes me as extremely point of view. It makes an important point, but the language should be made more neutral.--ben-ze'ev 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of death

According to jewish calenders it was 20th of December, not 13th. JNF 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

according to the Hebrew wikipedia the date was 20 of tevet, according to my calculation the Georgian date is December 20. see online calender (uses PHP built in conversion). That is also what the hebrew wikipedia reports. However the jump in 1582 from October 4 to October 15 is not taken into account in the program [1], so I doubt it is correct. Jon513 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic rule in Spain is the end of the golden age of Jewish culture?

What do you mean Islamic rule in Spain is the end of the golden age of Jewish culture? The Muslim rulers before Almohades in Muslim Spain. The facts are all shown in the detailed history relating to Muslim Spain. --203.15.122.35 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a misunderstanding. The same phrase links to this article, which says that The Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula is also known as the Golden Age of Arab or Moorish Rule in Iberia. Apparently there's a consensus about the Golden Age starting at the same time as the Muslim rule or within its first two centuries (either 711–718 after the Muslim conquest of Iberia or 912 -the rule of Abd-ar-Rahman III), and there are different opinions concerning its end. Some say that the Golden Age ends with the invasion of the Almohades -i.e. Maimonides' time. I'll try to fix this. --Filius Rosadis 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the Almohades, they were initially what we'd modernly call fundamentalists and they even engaged in religious persecutions, which drove Maimonides' family out of Córdoba. But, as their Wikipedia entry says, in the end they became less fanatical than the Almoravids, and Ya'qub al Mansur was a highly accomplished man, who wrote a good Arabic style and who protected the philosopher Averroes. This matches the fact that Rambam travelled to Fes, Morocco, ten years after the Almohad invasion (although many years before al Mansur came to power). --Filius Rosadis 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMaimonides_abc7.html"