Talk:Maimonides/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Proper title for the article

The last and next to last paragraphs refer to "Moses" rather than "Maimonides". The opening says that Maimonides was also known as "Rabbi Moses the son of Maimon" so I presume it's still the same person. Would it not be clearer to refer to him by the same name throughout the article? BTW, overall I found this article well written and informative. :-) Wesley

This Moses would have to be Maimonides and that is a relic of the original Catholic Encyclopedia article upon which this article was based. SCCarlson

IDIC and Star Trek

Removed for now "The concept from Maimonides of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" was borrowed by the creators of Star Trek for the Vulcan concept of IDIC.

Could we have a source for this? I cannot find anything on the Internet. JeMa 17:06, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

The kind of idea expressed in IDIC could easily be connected to staple ideas in Aristotelian and medieval philosophy and science. So it is not entirely farfetched to say they got it from Maimonides. (Not that Maimonides would have approved of Star Trek - he wasn't one for popular entertainment!) I guess on technical grounds it should be removed if there isn't a clear source for it, but on the other hand it is so nice to see an article on Maimonides end on a light note! Zabek 21:37, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

Jesus in the Talmud

I am removing the link to an article I have created about Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz says Christians would do best to avoid these texts because there is nothing politically or theologically significant to them in Jewish tradition. This has been the wrong way to go about getting the other side told and setting the record straight. The controversy is an article in the Jewish press (The Forward) telling Jews not to protest the Mel Gibson film because there are Jewish sources that were not Jesus-friendly, to "misquote" Danny. Dbabbitt

Pork taboo

Was Maimonides to try a rational explanation for the pork taboo? (From memory, he supposed it a way to avoid trichinosis.) -- Error 01:12, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Trichinosis was unknown in his days. He does give rational explanations for the dietary laws in his Moreh Nevuchim ("Guide for the Perplexed"). What do you mean by "pork taboo" anyway?
JFW | T@lk 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Nothing too quote? Just asking..
Rambam must have some good quotes. Off to find some. Datepalm17 13:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maimonides and Jewish law

The big hiatus in this article is Maimonides' influence on Jewish law. His philosophical opinions have less ramification of the life of Jews today than his work in Mishneh Torah, which was one of the first (and certainly the most comprehensive) of the codices of Jewish law! This deserves more attention than his (vital) work on philosophy.
JFW | T@lk 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

True beliefs versus necessary belief

In a number of places Maimonidean scholars have pointed out serious discrepancies between Maimonides' preached to the general public, and what he discussed privately, or coyy implied. For instance, his eight principle of faith is that every Jews must believe that the text of the Torah that we have today is precisely the same as that written by Moses, with no changes whatsoever. However, Maimonides' private letters make clear that he viewed nearly all the Torah scrolls he knew as defective, and that he was forced to travel to other countries to compare Torah texts, so he could come up with his own edition. Maimonides was also aware of teachings in the Biblical book of Nehemiah, and later teachings in the midrash, that the Israelites did not always take care of the Torah, and copy it correctly. So if Maimonides could not possibly have believed this "principle of faith,how could he have written it?
Many Maimonidean scholars note that Maimonides explicitly drew a distinction between "true beliefs", which were absolutely true statements, and "necessary beliefs", which were not true, but which should be taught to the masses as if they were true, in order to serve some higher purpose. Professor Marc Shapiro writes:
In the Guide [for the Perplexed]], Maimonides adopts the 'daring method of admitting right off to mis-spoken utterances and to half-truths....His endorsement of these views is necessary for obvious political reasons, reasons which he obviously cannot divulge.' One may point to the same tendency with his principles. However, here we do not simply find Maimonides putting forth 'mis-spoken utterances' but rather stating them as dogma....In the Guide III:28 Maimonides discusses the differences between what he terms 'true beliefs and 'necessary beliefs'. 'True beliefs' are those which teach - in a literal fashion - some truth about God...their purpose is to enable one to attain intellectual perfection. 'Necessary beliefs' - the basis of which is tradition and not philosophy, are expressed in figurative form and fulfill a political function in that, by instilling obedience to the Torah, they regulate the social relations of human beings. In addition, they enable people to acquire noble qualities. For example, Scripture teaches that God is angry with those who disobey Him. Although in truth God does not have the characteristic of anger, Scripture found it advantageous to use this term for the effect that it would have. It is 'necessary' for the masses to believe God is angry if they disobey Him in order for them to keep their behavior in line." [Shapiro, p.205 206]
"Maimonides' Thirteen Principles" Marc. B. Shapiro)

Details count! Variant texts of Maimonide's Principles

1. The eighth principle does not state that the Torah we have today is letter for letter identical with the version written by Moses; rather it states that it was all authored by "the Almighty" (rather than Moses), which is a different concept entirely. Jayjg 03:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, what you mention here is a Conservative point of view. Most Orthodox Jewish rabbis take it much further than you do; they hold that the Torah is letter-for-letter from God. (I will offer some references if you like.) They base this idea on Maimonide's statement "The eighth foundation is that the Torah is from Heaven; to wit, it must be believed that the whole of the Torah which is in our hands today is the Torah which was brought down to Moses, our Teacher." Maimonides also makes such a claim in his Mishneh Torah.
No, actually, I'm just quoting the 8th principle; you've added "in our hands", which is not in the original text. Jayjg 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I did not add that phrase. This is a perfect example of why people must be very familiar with modern day scholarship! There are multiple versions of Maimonides' text of the principles of faith, just as there are multiple versions of his Mishneh Torah. This fact is known to Maimonidean scholars, who discuss the implications of variant text readings. The Artscroll Torah (The Chumash: The Stone Edition) uses the text that I quoted, while Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan uses a different source text, and thus uses the form without those three words. RK

Well, someone added the phrase. "To wit" makes it clear that it is a paraphrase, not a quote. Please quote the version of Maimonides' eighth principle which you think agrees with your claim. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, Jay, no Maimonideam authorities are claiming that someone else "added the phrase". Old texts have always had these two variants. This phenomenon exists for many classical rabbinic texts. RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Please quote the version of Maimonides' eighth principle which you think agrees with your claim. Jayjg 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note that whatever text of Maimonides' 13 principles is used, the Orthodox consensus is nonetheless the same. Read, for instance, "Maimonides' Principles: The Fundamentals of Jewish Faith", by Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, or the essays in Artscroll's The Chumash: The Stone Edition (Yes, I do own both of these works.) Kaplan uses the same text that you use, the text that omits the phrase "in our hands", yet he has the same understanding of it as Professor Shapiro does, i.e. that Jews are said to be obligated to believe that every word of it comes directly from God to Moses to us. Kaplan writes

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)
Kaplan is not saying what you claim he is saying. Rather, he is saying what Maimonides says; that God wrote the Torah, not Moses. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, Jay, you literally misread it. This does not only say that God wrote the Torah, it says that God also wrote all of the Torah. That distinctinction is absolutely crucial to the point I am discussing. RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Kaplan says God wrote all the Torah; none of it was written by Moses, not even one word. Maimonides himself is clear on this point, so it's not surprising that Kaplan echoes this. However, Kaplan was not stating that the version we have in our hands is necessarily letter for letter identical with the version written by Moses (at least not in this statement). And the fact is, his commentary often quotes variant readings from the Septuagint. Jayjg 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

These are mainstream Orthodox Jewish points of view. In fact, according to many Orthodox rabbis, they are the Orthodox point of view.

O.K., that's Artscroll's view of what Maimonides said. And indeed, most Orthodox authorities insist that the Torah is letter for letter identical to the one given to Moses. What's your point, though? I'm talking about Maimonides 8th principle; as usual, you've gone off on some criticism of Orthodox Rabbis and Artscroll. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You have missed a crucial point. This is not just Artscroll's reading of Maimonides; this is a mainstream Orthodox position. And why are you accusing me of attacking Orthodox rabbis? I never wrote any attack on Orthodox rabbis; I merely quoted two authoritative Orthodox sources. If someone happens to find the Orthodox view offensive, and think that merely mentioning the Orthodox POV is a "criticism", then that's their problem. I certainly have no problem having their views represented. RK 14:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
RK, there is a world of difference between the words "criticise" and "attack"; I strongly recommend you study and contrast the meanings of both. As for this being a mainstream Orthodox view, I'm not sure why you are telling me this, when I have said it myself in the comment you were responding to. In any event, as I also said in my previous comment, this is a digression from the real issue at hand, which is Maimonides' 8th principle. Jayjg 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This brings up a different issue, criticisms of Artscroll books. The claims made in the Artscroll Torah overview are far from accurate. A complete reading of Maimonides' (Rambam) writings shows that he believes that the Torah does contain many errors, both of added or missing letters, and added or missing entire words! Artscroll's claim to the contrary is widely accepted as true, but is isn't. Similarly, the Talmud does not say what the Artscroll Torah claims it says. Rather, the Talmud offers this statement as the opinion of one sage, yet also reports the opinions of other sages who hold otherwise! In fact, we read in the Talmud that some entire sentences may have been written by Joshua, and not Moses. Artscroll effectively censors the Talmud itself. That is one of the reason that so many Orthodox Jews are unhappy with many Artscroll books. They present only one narrow view within Judaism, with quotes taken out of context. They deny the very existence of other points of view. If we accepted them seriously, then even the actual Rambam and Talmud would have to be seen as heretical. RK

Um, ok. Maimonides thought many Tanach scrolls in his day were replete with errors, some better than others. However, he liked Ben Asher's version, and considered it to be accurate. This is a far cry from your claim. As for the rest, it's relevant to the Artscroll article, not here. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But you changed the quotes, which totally changes the issue. No one was talking about Tanakh, we were talking specifically about the Torah. And this is exactly the claim. According to Artscroll, Maimonides's statement on this issue would be heretical. And this is not my personal claim. In any case, don't make this personal. The opposition to Artscroll comes from within the Orthodox community, which I am not a part of. RK 14:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're arguing here; that Maimonides thought the Tanach he had was accurate, but that the Torah he had was not? I don't think I need to remind you that the Torah is the first part of the Tanach, and Ben Asher codex (the one which Maimonides thought was accurate) contains the entire Torah (or did until it was burned by Arabs in Syria). Jayjg 01:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course the Torah is a part of the Tanakh. Whoever claimed otherwise? You miss the point: Maimonides wrote that the Torah scrolls he had access to were deficient and flawed. Yet when he wrote his principles of faith, he pretended otherwise, for the reasons that Marc Shapiro describes. So did Maimonides lie? No. He just didn't believe the principles of faith in the same way that the masses believed. (Further, he stated this outright many times about all of his beliefs.) RK 01:33, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sources and references

Who are the "many Maimonidean scholars" who make these claims? As far as I know the chief proponent of this view is Shapiro. Jayjg 03:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where did you hear that this is chiefly proposed by Shapiro? I have never come across such a claim. In any case, here is a brief list. See below for a more detailed list. RK
  • Professor Marc Shapiro
  • Marvin Fox (Interpreting Maimonides)
  • Yaakov Becker, (Mishnato ha-Pilusufit shel ha-Rambam)
  • Aviezer Ravitzky
  • Former Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Joseph Messas (1892-1974), in his Mayim Hayyim, (Jerusalem, 1967), no.159.
  • Menachem Kellner "Must a Jew Believe Anything?" The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999, p.139-141
  • Leo Strauss, The Literary Character of the Guide for the Perplexed, in "Maimonides: A Collection of Critical Essays", Ed. Joseph Buijs, Univ. of Notre Dame Press
Most of their writings are accepted (to varying degrees) within the modern Orthodox, non-Orthodox, and general academic community. To date I have not come across any rebuttals of their views on the specific issue of "True beliefs versus Necessary beliefs". Note that I am not engaged in original research; rather I have read other people's research on Maimonides, and have tried to report their views. I tried to find sources which hold an opposing point of view, but so far I have not been able to find any; thus, it is fair to note this understanding of Maimonides as the commonly held view. RK
Are these sources you have read yourself, or are you quoting them from some other work? Shapiro, specifically? Have you actually read, for example, Becker's work in the original Hebrew? Jayjg 20:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I personally own and have throughly read all of the above works, except the two in Hebrew. I've also read a lot more (see the below list.) I also have spent time communicating with many of the leading scholars in Maimonidean research today. Again, if you disagree with anything I have written, that's fine. Just cite a source and offer a full-paragraph quote so that we can see what you are talling about. RK 17:14, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Why offer sources if you haven't read them? In any event, there is lots that has been written about Maimonides, but you only quote Shapiro. I wonder what the other authors have to say on this topic. Jayjg 03:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have read these sources, over a dozen of them, and I own them myself. See the more complete list below. The only person who hasn't read any of these sources is you. As such, how can any of us take your rebuttals seriously? RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
You clearly admitted offering Hebrew sources which you hadn't read. And most of the sources you provide are tertiary; that is, authors commenting on the words of other authors commenting on Maimonides, but not the primary source (Maimonides) or even the secondary sources themselves. Jayjg 01:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that there may be significant opposition to this point of view within the Haredi community. Such points of view can and should be included, especially if we can find any specific sources. We can always write something like "Within the Haredi community, the above conclusions are not held as correct; instead, it holds that XYZ is true". RK 19:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that there are few, if any Orthodox authorities who accept any of what Shapiro says. Though you prefer to frame these kinds of discussions as "Conservative and Modern Orthodox vs. Haredi", in fact they are generally of the form "Conservatice and Reform vs. Orthodox". Jayjg 20:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do not make this out to be a criticism of Orthodox Judaism. The points of view I mention are held by Maimonides's own disciple, Samuel ibn Tibbon, by nearly all modern day Maimonidean research, by much of Modern Orthodox Judaism, and as well as by Conservative and Reform. If you insist on creating some sort of "versus" debate (which I am not) you would have to classify this as "Haredim versus everybody". And none of the sources I quotes are Reform or Conservative. RK 17:14, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Of course it's not a criticism of the "good" Orthodox Judaism; i.e. the left-wing of Modern Orthodoxy, which is closest to the Conservative Judaism you so prefer. However, as with most articles you edit, it is an attempt to show that the views of Conservative Jews (and those who agree with them) are correct, and centrist and right-wing Modern Orthodox, and Haredi Orthodox views are incorrect at best. And, as I've said before, you've only quoted Shapiro. Have you read Samuel ibn Tibbon? Jayjg 03:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stop your ad homenim attacks against Orthodox Jews. Stop your false claims about how all these Orthodox Jews and professional academic scholars are really just Conservative Jews in disguise. (In much of the Orthodox community, the accusation that someone is really Conservative is an attack, and a charge of heresy.) These ad homenim attacks, which are a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and protocol. RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
RK, I have not attacked any Orthodox Jews, nor claimed they are Conservative Jews in disguise. That left-wing Modern Orthodox Judaism is, of all the "versions" of Orthodox Judaism, closest to Conservative is hardly a controversial claim; in fact, I don't think you'd find anyone who would say otherwise. Nor is it an accusation of "heresy" against left-wing Modern Orthodox Jews, which you seem to sooner or later read into the comments of most people who disagree with you. As for Ad hominem, you have misunderstood its use, and its place in Wikipedia etiquette and protocol; if I were directing an ad hominem attack against you that would be a violation of said protocol. However, if I were directing an ad hominem attack against sources you have quoted (which is what you have accused me of), that would not be a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and protocol. In any event, I strongly urge you to read into my comments only what they say, exactly that and nothing more. Jayjg 01:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How much quoting should we use?

2. Lengthy quotes should not be used in Wikipedia articles; points of view should be paraphased, and links or references provided. Jayjg 03:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One paragraph is not necessarilly a lenthy quote. In any case, the now obvious reason that I included the quote is to support the text. This is a part of Maimonides' teaching that is not well know, and many people will dismiss it outright if they are not presented with quotes and sources. Lose all of the quote, and people will just remove the paragraph. RK 12:51, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Those who insert lengthy quotes always feel they have a good reason for doing so; nevertheless, they should be paraphrased and summarized. Jayjg 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But that is what I had done in other articls, and you kept on demanding that I bring forth quotes. And whenever I bring them you tell me that they are unncessary. RK
The authors views should be paraphrased, with only key phrases or sentences quoted. I've never objected to you doing this, since I've never seen you do it. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. It seems this section is a fossil and requires serious overhaul, fact-checking and possibly elimination. Most discrepancies mentioned are based on misunderstandings and misreadings. Lengthy quotes are a contentious point, especially when they originate from User:RK. The fact that Marc Shapiro has written about Maimonides does not automatically mean his views deserve extensive citation - I would reserve this honour for Maimonides' direct contemporaries and Rishonic critics (e.g. Crescas and Yonah Gerondi before his teshuva). JFW | T@lk 11:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How is modern-day writing a "fossil"? The people I am quoting are some of the most respected Maimonidean scholars, and all of whome are Orthodox Jews who have published in Modern Orthodox journals. As such, I suspect that everything they write will automatically be rejected by many Haredi leaders, but that does not mean all these scholars are misreading Maimonides or wrong!
Recall that Maimonides comes right out and explicitly states the difference between "necessary beliefs" and "true beliefs"! These are not just the views of Professor Marc Shapiro. Rather, also see Marvin Fox (Interpreting Maimonides) and Yaakov Becker, (Mishnato ha-Pilusufit shel ha-Rambam). Even Isadore Twersky, perhaps the most well-known Orthodox Jewish Maimonidean scholar of the 20th century, is in agreement with Marvin Fox's writings! Also see the views of former Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Joseph Messas (1892-1974), in his Mayim Hayyim, (Jerusalem, 1967), no.159. Further, Maimonides's own disciple, Samuel ben Judah ibn Tibbon, wrote in about his master's differences between true beliefs and necessary beliefs; this is discussed in detail Aviezer Ravitzky, an Orthodox Maimonidean scholar, in Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide Of the Perplexed (AJS Review, Vol.6, 1981).
Given all this, are there any academic sources which disagree with anything presented so far on this topic? So far as I know, within Modern Orthodoxy, non-Orthodox Judaism, and in general collegiate Maimonidean scholarship, this is not controversial at all. If there is a school of thought which disagrees, we can note this as well. RK 12:55, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Maimonides does indeed mention the difference between "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs" , but it is Shapiro who consigns the 13 Principles to the latter group, not Maimonides. On the contrary, Maimonides is quite clear that those who do not believe in the 13 Principles have no place in the World to Come. As for your sources, they're mostly from Shapiro. Jayjg 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, Jay, Marc Shapiro does not claim that the 13 principles of belief are "necessary beliefs", as opposed to "true beliefs". According to the many sources I keep referencing, Maimonides does believe that his 13 principles of faith are true, but his definition of these principles is not the same as what the common man believes. This view is the standard view held by nearly all Maimonidean scholars, many of whom are Orthodox Jews. In fact, even in the Orthodox Jewish journal Torah U-Madda Journal, not a single rabbi disagreed with Shapiro's analysis of this topic (true beliefs versus necessary beliefs.) Can you offer us any academic sources which disagree with anything presented so far on this specific topic? I am open to reading your sources. RK 17:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, Maimonides believes his principles are true, but your sections make it appear that in fact he does not, and considers some of them to be "necessary beliefs", which you characterize as "not true". And the issue is not whether any academic sources disagree with your views, but whether or not any actually agree with them. So far you have provided little evidence that they do. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also please note that my sources are not mostly Shapiro; I have photocopies all these articles, and none of them are by Marc Shapiro except for one. RK 16:37, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
You may have photocopies of all sorts of things, but you've only quoted Shapiro. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Huh? You told me not to use these quotes repeatedly, yet not you dishonestly claim that I didn't use other people's quotes? That's because you idn't let me put in even one quote, by one person. You unilaterally censored it. And now you dishonestly claim that I didn't include other people's stuff? How could I? RK 14:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
You didn't attempt to bring quotes from anyone besides Shapiro, either in the article or here in Talk:. As for using quotations, I will simply repeat: The authors views should be paraphrased, with only key phrases or sentences quoted. I've never objected to you doing this, since I've never seen you do it. This applies to one author or five. Jayjg 01:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should we include modern-day scholars as well?

The section is a fossil because you inserted it and nobody took the time to check the necessity of the long quote and other statements. I'm not criticising your style.
Isadore Twersky is not the main Orthodox Maimonidean scholar of the 20th century. He would have immediately deferred to Rabbis Meir Simcha of Dvinsk and Isser Zalman Meltzer, not to mention that Rogachover Gaon (Tzofnath Paneach).
If Ravitzky quotes Ibn Tibbon, why not make direct reference to Ibn Tibbon? Indirect quotes are an absolute pain to double-check. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should not limit academic sources to Orthodox scholars; I just am noting that some of the most in-depth critical historical research on Maimonides is carried out within the Orthodox community. This might seem surprising, as Orthodoxy does not approve of critical-historical study for the Torah, and often for the Tanakh and Talmud; however, this does not carry over into a critical study of the works of rabbis. That is (AFAIK) considered fair ground for delving into in this way. RK 19:29, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Recognizing that Maimonides had exoteric views (for the masses) and esoteric views (for the intellectual elite), and that Maimonides taught that Judaism has always had true beliefs (which were factually true) and necessary beliefs (which are meant to instill correct behaviour) was for a long time understood as obvious. Maimonides in fact comes right and states that. But as Marvin Fox and others point out, the recognition of this somehow disappeared after the 15th century, and didn't become generally recognized again until the late 1800s. Even today many people react with disbelief (according to Marc Shapiro, with dismay) when they learn that the exoteric views are not identical with the esoteric beliefs that Maimonides believed. Samuel Ibn Tibbon and others of his day had no problem with such a view, but many moderns do. That is why it is so critical to discuss modern day Maimonidean scholarship. RK
In any case, many Wikipedia articles on other important scholars and writers make reference to modern scholarship, and so should this article. There is lots of modenr day scholarship on Maimonides, Hasidism, Kabbalah, etc., from within the Orthodox and non-Orthodox communities. Note that critical scholarship is not "criticism" in the negative sense of the term. Many modern day scholars of Maimonides are observant & religious Jews who hold Maimonides to be their role model. (None more so than Marvin Fox, it would seem.) Orthodox Rabbi Norman Lamm has written critical historical studies of Hasidism which really need to be mentioned in our article on Hasidism, and he comes out as a great admirer of Hasidism. RK
Modern scholarship is all fine, but Shapiro's views are his, and are not the same as "modern scholarship". Jayjg 20:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh yes they are! The view in question here is certainly mainstream. Take a look at the other academic references listed here. On what basis do you hold otherwise? I am open to hearing anyone's contributions, but please present academic sources, not your gut feelings. RK
The references are all there, but what they actually said is not. Jayjg 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As a personal note, I have found that these esoteric views of Maimonides are not popular. My personal discussion on some Orthodox and general Jewish discussion forums have gone very much like this (no exagerration.)
Me: "So is it true that Maimonides didn't believe that evil-doers would be punished, but would simply cease to exist upon death? And that people who do good would not be rewarded, but would rather earn eternal intellectual communion with God through their perfected active intellect?"
Everyone else: "Yes of couse, but only mention that in a Kollel or in adult-ed classes, but not in a synagogue, because most people will just think you are a heretic!"
The responses you get on discussion fora seem quite the opposite of how you characterize them: [1]. And your POV is certainly in accord with that of Shapiro, who you continually quote [2] [3], but that doesn't make them widely held in any Orthodox community. Jayjg 20:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have been on about eight different Orthodox Jewish discussion forums. You found merely one of them, yet assumed that every Orthodox other Jew on every other forum must have responded in the same way? That makes no sense, and is in fact incorrect. Why are you implying that I am being disingenuous? Stick to the academic sources. If you want to make a claim, or refute a claim, back it up. RK 17:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up the responses you get on fora, not me; obviously you've opened them up for discussion. If you have any examples of the kind of responses you claim you get, I'd love to see them. From what I've seen, the discussions on fora go more like this:
RK: Maimonides said this and believed this.
Everyone else: Actually, he didn't. Here are examples him saying the exact opposite.
RK: All Maimonides scholars agree with me; here a list of 10 books on Maimonides, and they all agree with me. I'm sorry if my ideas upset you, but it's not "heresy" to believe this.
Everyone else: I'm not talking about heresy and I'm not upset. I've quoted Maimonides saying the exact opposite of you; why don't you quote something from him that agrees with you?
RK: You are rage filled and ignorant of modern scholarship.
Everyone else: Please address the questions and issues raised.
RK: You are obviously afraid of reading books, and don't want anyone else to. I'm not going to spend hours quoting Maimomides for your amusement.
Everyone else: Point proved.
Here's a good example of a number of threads displaying this (ironically, on the message boards of an extremely liberal Jewish magazine): [4] . The final post by someone named "Jay" sums up the discussions:
No-one is upset at Kaiser for his ideas. No-one is chiding him for his "heresy". It is his immature and extremely insulting (and often worse) method of non-discussion which people object to. There were many discussions on this board between people who disagree strongly. It is not the ideas, it is the method. I think you ought to take a little time and read some of the posts below so that you can see why there is a universal reaction disgust at this individual. [5]


And by the way, Shapiro himself has stated that "I do not believe that Rambam denied reward and punishment. What I believe is that he denied *heavenly* reward and punishment for performance of mitzvot." Jayjg 20:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Incorrect. You are cutting his one sentence out of context of the entire paragraph, thereby nearly reversing his meaning. That is precisely why we must quote entire paragraphs, so we can see the context! I have his paper; would you like me to quote the entire paragraph so you can see what he really means? RK 16:56, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Nonsense. You seem to think everyone is reversing everyone's view when they do not agree with your own reading, but the sentence I gave is entirely clear, and does not reverse Shapiro's meaning in any way. Here is Shapiro's entire paragraph, explaining his view, and also pointing out that his statement in the article was confusing. Jayjg 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A few comments on the dicussion. I do not believe that Rambam denied reward and punishment. What I believe is that he denied *heavenly* reward and punishment for performance of mitzvot. I clarify this in the book in a way which perhaps led to some confusion in the article. A mitzvah performed without understanding of the divine intent etc. does not lead to reward. The Mitzvah is not a segulah. The proverbial pious but ignorant woman does not receive heavenly reward for the mitzvah she performs. I don't think that you can read the Mishneh Torah or the perush ha-Mishnah this way, but Maimonides is clear in the Guide that this is so. Maim. was attacked for this view, which he states quite explicitly on numerous occasions in the Guide. So we arrive at the old problem of which text do you favor in a dispute.. In this context, I will also discuss Maim. and his view of immortality and resurrection. [6]
Jay, you totally misunderstand both myself and Shapiro. The quote you offer now is precisely what I have been saying all along. If you read Shapiro's entire section on this topic, you will find that Orthodox Jews generally believe in a heavenly reward or punishment; they believe that Maimonides is telling them that this is true. In contrast, Shapiro holds that the Orthodox view is wrong, and that Maimonides does not want people to believe in a heavenly punishment or reward. Your selective quopting still leaves out the pertinent parts. RK 00:11, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Wait a minute, now I've quoted the entire paragraph in question, and yet I'm still somehow doing "selective quoting" that "still leaves out the pertinent parts"? Whatever. Jayjg 01:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do serious research and quote your sources

I am unhappy with the way that people attributing their own personal beliefs to the topic at hand. On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the view of participle physicists on the Higgs Boson, or the views of 20th century academics (including many Orthodox Jews) on intricate details of Maimonides' teachings. We can't just make claims based on what we have heard from our school teachers or friends! Spefific claim about technical issues always require being familiar with the issue at hand. This means knowing the current day academic consensus, being aware of what controversies exist, and knwoing which parties hold which views. I have been very careful to cite my sources and give detailed quotes, and have striven to represent the consensus as accurately as possible. So far no one has offered any actual objections with quotes and references from Maimonidean scholars. The only objections have been personal rebuttals, and incorrect claims (i.e. the incorrect claim that Professor Shapiro's views are not mainstream, with no references to support this grandiose claim, or the incorrect claim that most sources I cite are Shapiro, when in fact he is only one of many people I have cited.) RK

Personal rebuttals without academic references carry no weight in an encyclopedia. If someone has not yet done reading on the nature of the Higgs Boson, and cannot provide academic references to back up specific claims on controversial issues, then they should not be writing on this specific topic at all. The same is true for all specific claims on all controversial issues, this topic included. So before making claims with no sources, do the reading as I have done. People interested in this topic really should read many or most of the following articles:

  • "Maimonidean Controversy", in "Maimonides", Volume 11 of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, Keter Publishing.
  • "Maimonides: A Collection of Critical Essays" Ed. Joseph A. Buijs, Univ. of Notre Dame Press
Joseph A. Buijs "The Philosophical Character of Maimonides' Guide - A Critique of Strauss' Interpretation", Judaism Vol. 27, pp.448-457, and in the collection ed. by Buijs.
  • Lenn E. Goodman "Rambam: Readings in the Philosophy of Moses Maimonides", Gee Bee Tee, 1985
  • "The Return of Maimonideanism" Warren Zev Harvey. Jewish Social Studies Summer/Fall 1980 Vol.XLII, No.3-4.
  • Arthur Hyman "Interpreting Maimonides", in the collection ed. by Buijs.
  • Alfred Ivry "Providence, Divine Omniscience and Possibility: The Case of Maimonides" found in (1) "Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy" Ed. T. Rudavsky, 1985, D. Reidel Publishing Compnay, and (2) in Buijs's volume (above.)
  • "The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology, Volume I", Aryeh Kaplan 1994, Jointly published by Mesorah Publications and NCSY (National Council of Synagogue Youth.) (This is not an academic source, but a good represenative of what many Orthodox Jews believe.)
  • Hannah Kasher "Biblical Miracles and the Universality of Natural Laws: Maimonides' Three Methods of Harmonization" The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy Vol.8, pp.25-52, 1998
  • Menachem Kellner "Maimonides' Allegiances to Science and Judaism" The Torah U-Madda Journal, Volume 7, 1997, Yeshiva University, pp.88-104
  • Menachem Kellner "Maimonides on the Science of the Mishneh Torah: Provisional or Permanent?" AJS Review (Association for Jewish Studies Review), Vol. 18(2), 1993, pp.169-194
  • Menachem Kellner "Reading Rambam: Approaches to the Interpretation of Maimonides", Jewish History, Vol.5(2) Fall 1991
  • Menachem Kellner "Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought", Oxford University Press, 1986
  • Menachem Kellner "Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People", SUNY Press, 1991
  • Roy Pinchot "The Deeper Conflict Between Maimonides and Ramban over the Sacrifices" Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol.33(3), 1999
  • "The Guide of the Perplexed" 2 volume set, translated by Shlomo Pines, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956 (numerous reprints)
  • "Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed", Aviezer Ravitzky. AJS Review (Association for Jewish Studies Review) Vol.6, 1981, p.87-123]
  • Marc B. Shapiro "Maimonides Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology?" The Torah U-Maddah Journal, Vol.4, 1993, Yeshiva University].
  • "How to Begin to Study the Guide of the Perplexed" Leo Strauss, contained in volume 1 of Shlomo Pine's translation of the Guide
  • "The Literary Character of the Guide for the Perplexed" Leo Strauss. This essay has been printed in a number of volumes, including Buijs's volume (above) and as a chapter in Strauss's own "Persecution in the Art of Writing".


Nice list of sources. However, you only quote Shapiro. In fact, you don't even quote Maimonides. Also, please review Appeal to authority. Jayjg 04:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You are being dishonest. You and JFW told me to stop quoting people, and to merely paraphrase their beliefs, which is precisely what I did. Every time I added a quote, you deleted them. And now you falsely charge me with not adding enough quotes? That is outrageously disingenuous. RK
Ooooh! I'm actually accusing you of selective quoting. I'd be quite tolerant of your lists of quotes if you'd have the patience to research the quotes that are not "historical scholarship", such as - indeed - the Ohr Sameiach and the Even ha-Ezel. I'm too much of an ignoramus, but I do not believe that contradictions between Maimonides' works and his personal correspondence have not received any treatment by any of the great Orthodox scholars. I'd prefer you took some time to inform us of Ibn Tibbon's remark as quoted by Ravitzky (I have no access to most of the writings you quote). This is much more helpful that the above bickering. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JFW, I have brought forth a mainstream academic point of view. You claim that other points of view exist, and so do I! We totally agree! I never said otherwise. I would be most happy for you to offer us other points of view. However, the current problem is twofold. (A) No one has given us any quotes and citations for these other POVs. You mention that the Ohr Sameiach and the Even ha-Ezel may have written something on these specific topics: "true beliefs and necessary beliefs", and the related issue of esoteric versus exoteric beliefs. Great! If you can, please look up their writing and tells us what they say on these specific issues. I unfortunately don't have access to their writings. You are in a much better position to find their views on this subject than I am. By all means, please contribute, and I will appreciate anything you report! (B) Jayjyg is still offering no citations to back his views; we can't report personal views, no matter how justified he feels they may be. Wikipedia does not accept personal original research; we can't quote him (or me!) as an authority. (C) I will certainly get the quotes you are asking for on Samuel Ibn Tibbon. RK 00:04, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, but RK, you mentioned that you frequent the JTS library. They certainly have an Or Sameach, as would any yeshiva in New York and Westchester. For people who are genuinely intersted in Jewish scholarship, they are far more accessible than any journal you can quote. Or are you incapable of conducting "scholarship" that does not support your POV? Danny 00:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danny, stop your personal attacks and bald-faced lies. You and I have spoken on the telephone many times, and you know very well that I do not speak Hebrew. When I want to understand what a Hebrew text means, I go to established authorities known for expertise in translation, and I do not attempt it myself. You know this, because we spoke about this on the phone. I thus have no access to these Hebrew only texts. You, however, do have such access. If you are serious about doing scholarship, instead of hurling lies and ad homenim attacks, then go to the JTS library yourself and find the quotes for us that JFW seems to think lie in these works. You only are 30 minutes from JTS. If you refuse to do this, that will be a clear sign to me that you have no interest in the topic, but are still just harassing me. RK
(JFW, I apologize for Danny's interruption. He has some sort of intense hatred of me, and often peppers Talk pages with personal insults, without actually adding any content to the articles. He has a problem that he needs to deal with. I'm sorry; I still look forward to seeing what opinions on these topics you may find in the books you mention.) RK 00:16, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize for me. I did nothing wrong. I certainly did not make any "grotesque lies." In fact, that is defamation of character. (JFW, I apologize for RK's hysteria.) Danny

Grand claims from you, Danny. You and I were formerly friends, and we more than once spoke about the fact that I speak English and not Hebrew. At the time you had no problems with learning from books written in the English language. In fact, most of the lectures at JTS are in English! How can you now disingenuously demand that I should read Hebrew and do your own research for you? RK

As for the topic at hand, RK, since the vast majority of material on this topic is in Hebrew, as are all the primary sources, you seem incapable of conducting any "serious scholarship."

Danny please stop joking (or, if you are serious, stop lying.) A huge amount of scholarship on this topic is in English, by many of the world's leading scholars. Any claim to the contray is outrageous. I've been in JTS's library, and half of it is in the English language. More Judaica is written in English than in any other language in the world. Also, note that Danny hasn't refuted anything I have stated on this issue. Not one sentence. RK

Reading a couple of journals does not a scholar make. It simply means that you cannot look at the material under discussion, assess it, or comment on it out of knowledge. It simply means you cannot be a critical reader. Talking of "years studying the subject" without once looking at the primary sources is more of a "grotesque lie" than anything appearing in my previous comment. I am sure JFW will accept your apology. Danny 00:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? I never claimed to be a Maimonidean scholar. I merely have tried to quote some scholars. Why is that so unreasonable to you? Wikipedia is not a place for personal research, even yours, Danny. Look, I don't even claim that their positions have to be reported as fact; I merely am saying that their views should be in here in NPOV fashion. How does this justify your non-stop personal attacks? RK