Baron The Historical Outlook of Maimonides

8/8/2019 Baron The Historical Outlook of Maimonides

1/110

The Historical Outlook of MaimonidesAuthor(s): Salo W. BaronSource: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 6 (1934 - 1935), pp.5-113Published by: American Academy for Jewish ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622274

Accessed: 14/12/2010 20:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Academy for Jewish Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3622274?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajrhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajrhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3622274?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajr


2/110

THE HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESSALOW. BARON

I. JEWISH AND ARABIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY.-II. THEEARLY HISTORY OF MANKIND.-III. THE LAW OFMOSES.-IV. FROM JOSHUA TO THE EXILE.-V. FROMEZRA TO THE TALMUD.-VI. UNDER ISLAM.-VII. HIS-TORICAL CHRONOLOGY.-VIII. GENERAL VIEWS ANDMETHOD.-IX. SUMMARY.

We are not concerned here with the question as to how muchhistory Maimonides knew or how accurate was the historicalinformation he was able to obtain. It would be wholly pre-sumptuous to judge the amount of knowledge of any medievalwriter from the point of vantage of modern historical scholarshipbased upon centuries of untiring critical research and the applica-tion of historical methods unknown to the medieval mind.

Neither is it a question as to how much relevant informationfor the history of Maimonides' own time we may be able togather from his writings. Especially his responsa and epistlescontain numerous incidents of historical value which have notbeen fully utilized by modern research. A careful examinationor reexamination of these incidents in connection with othersources available today would throw new light on certain phasesof twelfth century Jewish history. But this task, however allur-ing, has been excluded from the scope of the present investigation.Nor is its objective to inquire into the extent to which historyand dogma appeared as conflicting entities in the mind of Mai-monides. The entire problem of Glaubeund Geschichte,so trouble-some to many modern Protestant theologians, loses much of itsacuteness in Judaism through the absence of the conflict betweenthe historical and the eternal Christ. The comparatively slight5


3/110

BARONantinomy between the historical Torah, given to the Israeliticpeople at a particular historical juncture, and its eternal validity-even if one failed to subscribe to the aggadic doctrine of itspreexistence'-caused no misgivings to the medieval Jew,steeped in the tradition of the sudden revelation on Mt. Sinai.2Our main concern here is to find out from the innumerable,

mostly incidental, utterances of Maimonides what were hisgeneral as well as specific views on the past of mankind and ofthe Jewish people. These utterances naturally render only afraction of what he really thought about human and Jewishhistory. But they happen to cover such a variety of episodesextending over so vast a range of generations that one mayreally regard them as a cross-section of all of Maimonides' his-torical views. At any rate, they appear sufficiently comprehensiveand meaningful to allow for a reconstruction of their author's' It is noteworthy that, although the doctrine of the Torah's preexistence

had found a counterpart in the orthodox Muslim's belief in the primordialnatureof the Koran, Maimunimaintains silence on the subject.Theworksof Maimonideswillbe cited in the followingabbreviations:C.M. =Commentary on the Mishna (in the usual Hebrew translations, unless aspecial Arabic edition is indicated, C.M. Introd.=Introduction to Zera'im);I. S. =mrwnnt:i in nrnm:rmned. Z. H. Edelman, K6nigsberg1856, ff. 6-13;I.T. ='irn nnii ed. D. Holub,Vienna 1875,and KobesII (I had at my disposalalso an English translation from the Arabic originalpreparedby B. Cohen,to whomI am also indebted for the two references herefrom n n. 50 and 162);Kobes=lnrvi', a'nDin minvn ymiped. A. L. Lichtenberg, 3 parts, Leipzig1859; M. N. =D'm1: rn (the English quotations are usually variations ofthe Friedlaender translation); M. T.=m;n n3mI;Resp.= o'mnn nimRvnd.A. H. Freimann, Jerusalem 1934; S. M.=nn=minniD Hebrew transl. ed.Ch. Heller, Petrokow 1914 (unless Arabic original ed. by M. Bloch, Paris1888, is indicated). Among modern works the following will be quoted inabbreviatedform:BB =W. Bacher,Die BibelexegeseMosesMaimunis,Jahres-bericht. .. Budapest 1895-6, Budapest 1896;GL=L. Ginzberg,TheLegendsof the Jews, 6 vols. Philadelphia1909-27 and MbM=-MosesbenMaimon byJ. Guttmannand others, 2 vols., Leipzig 1908-14

2 The reticenceof even the modernJewishtheologiansto discussthe problemof "creed versus history" vividly contrasts with the extended Protestantdiscussions underthe leadershipof R. Seebergand others, and clearly showshow little germane this subject is to Jewish theology. A. Weiser's Glaubeund Geschichtem Allen Testament,Stuttgart 1931, is a typical endeavor totreat the Old Testament underthe aspect of New Testament difficulties.

6


4/110

HISTORICALOUTLOOKOF MAIMONIDEShistorical Weltbild. If we shall discover that the Maimonideanoutlook on history was but typical of that of a twelfth centuryeducated Jew, this will be no reflection upon the profundity ofthe contributions of the jurist and philosopher, but serve as aneven more illuminating example of the basic attitudes of medievalmen.3

I. JEWISH AND ARABIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY.

Maimonides was not an historian. The logical bent of hismind was frequently impatient with the accidental turns ofhistorical events. Even his philosophic master, Aristotle, hadnot developed a philosophy of history and had claimed thatepic poetry "is more philosophical and earnest than history."Nevertheless, Aristotle himself could not refrain from applyingthe historical method to his investigations in the field of politicaltheory. As is well known, he collected constitutions enacted invarious Greek city states over a period of several generationsand examined them critically before proceeding to derive there-from general conclusions. For Maimonides the urge to engagein similar researches existed in an even higher degree. His mostsignificant contribution consisted in the recodification of tradi-tional law. Such law being bound up with tradition and traditionbeing a primary historical factor, the nexus between law andhistory was easily given. Indeed, the Arab chronicler Tabari,for one example, devoted his prolific literary output to the twomajor fields, his interpretation of the Koran in the light of tradi-tion and his famous historical work. That is why Maimuni'sgeneral repudiation of historical literature as found in the follow-ing statement: "It is sheer waste of time; as in the case of booksfound among the Arabs describing historical events, the govern-ment of kings and Arab genealogy, or books of songs and similar

3 This lack of "originality"in Maimuni'shistoricalapproach explains alsothe total absenceof studieson this subject in the vast literatureon the medievalsage. A few general remarks and more or less incidental referenceswill befound, especially, in BB and Bacher, Die Agada in Maimunis Werken inMbM II, 131-97.

7


5/110

BARONworks which neither possess wisdom nor yield profit for the body,but are merely a waste of time,"4 calls for a specific explanation.

We can no longer be satisfied with the reason advanced byGeiger that "Arabian historiography of that time with its anec-dotes and tales appeared to him as worthless." Geiger, writingin 1850, was familiar with only a few, rather inferior Arabianhistorical writings, and shared the general prejudice againstthem voiced by European scholars from the days of Gibbon.It was after 1850 that most of the significant historical contribu-tions of the Arabs before and after Maimonides have becomeavailable to the western public in editions and translations.Maimonides may have looked down with contempt upon theanecdotal type of history which filled many volumes with luridtales of intrigues and love affairs of prominent caliphs and vizirs,such as were included even in Ibn Miskaiwaihi's The Experiencesof Nations. But he must have recognized the profound questfor truth and honest philosophic attitude of an all-embracinghistorian such as Al-Mas'udi. He must also have known ofAl-Biruni's attempt to develop a scientific, almost "mathematicalmethod of historiography." Neither could he have wished todeprecate the works of the great Arabian historians of religion,beginning with Al-Mas'udi's disciple Mutahdar al-Maqdasiwho around 966 wrote his Book of Creationand of History. It isnot unlikely that Maimuni knew of the Spaniard Ibn Hazmand of his own older contemporary Al-Shahrastani.5

4 C.M. to Sanh. X, 1: yny D',mDn'm,DnoI 1~ 11pz inm ]DntmT1nD'a-1 yN ' DnlDl ' DW 1- D'n in 1D 'D ',1 '11 2 2 1S D81'S mih"91] niyin Kmi iDnn In= 1}'" '-immn D |ru t4'i I a3 n "i 9 Di-mi l1tm. This juxtapositionof history, public law, government,genealogyand poetry is truly characteristicof the Arabic letters of the period. ForMaimuni'ssharp antagonism even to Hebrew poetry modelled after Arabicpatterns, cf. especially his Resp. No. 370. He also rebuked the superficialityof a reader who, in his opinion, glanced over the contents of Scriptureas ifhe "were reading an historical work or some poetic composition." M. N.I, 2. Cf. also ibid. III, 8 and 39.s Amongrecent surveyscf. especiallyD. S. Margoliouth,Lectureson ArabicHistorians, Calcutta 1930 and the stimulating methodologicaldiscussion inM. K. Ayad, Geschichts-und Gesellschaftslehrebn Halduns, Stuttgart 1930.Unfortunately our knowledge of Maimunis Arabic readings is extremely

8


6/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESNor were Jewish historians altogether lacking. In Abrahamibn Daud, his distinguished philosophical predecessor, he could

have found a guide also to historical investigations. While byno means measuring up to the standards of the classical Arabianhistorians, the Book of Tradition furnished a careful historicalsurvey of the literary leaders of the people. In Abraham barHiyya and Yehudah Halevi, whose works he undoubtedly knew,Maimuni also had before him significant attempts at reshapingthe Jewish conception of history in accordance with the newdemands. Abraham bar Hiyya especially, confronted in Spainnot only with Arabian but Christian historical reconstructions,developed a theory of Jewish history which adapted Augustinianand Isidorian teachings to Jewish needs. His philosophy ofhistory might have stimulated further historical thinking wereit not perhaps for the transcending influence of the "unhistorical"Maimonidean thought.6limited. His direct citations are even fewer than those from Jewish sourcesThe available investigations, moreover, of the affinities of Maimonideanphilosophy to that of the Kalam, Avicenna, Alfarabi or Averrois, howevermeritorious in themselves, throw little light on the question of Maimuni'sdirect indebtedness to the works of his predecessors. The literary outputof the Arabs had become so enormous that Samau'al ibn Yahya rightlyasserted that it was impossible for a man to master all that was written in asingle branch of science. Cf. M. Schreiner, Samau'al ben Yahja al-Magribiund seine Schrift "Ifham al-Yahud" MGWJ XLII (1898) p. 172. In viewalso of the far-reaching specialization, one may readily assume that Maimuni,like every other educated person in his day, read not only the famous classics,but many less substantial writings (cf. e. g., his statement quoted in note 14),of which only a small part has come down to us. Only a minute expert exami-nation of the few direct and the many indirect references in his works mayyield valuable clues to his intellectual background.

6 Maimonides' familiarity with Abraham bar Hiyya's Megillat ha-Megalle,was deduced from a reference to a messianic computation in I. T. by A.Geiger, Moses ben Maimon I, Breslau 1850 (=Nachgel. Schriften III, 34-96),note 53 and Jacob Guttmann, Uber Abraham bar Chijas "Buch der Enthiil-lung" MGWJ XLVII (1903) p. 453. This reference as well as the similarityof the Maimonidean doctrine concerning the degrees in prophecy with thatof Bar Hiyya may be inconclusive, as pointed out by Jul. Guttmann in hisintroduction to the edition of the Megillat ha-Megalle pp. XXIII ff., but onemay perhaps find more convincing evidence in another passage. In I. T.pp. 18 ff. (Kobes II, 2a), Maimuni sketches the history of three religions


7/110

BARONIt is the peculiarity of Abraham bar Hiyya's methodwhich may offer us a partial explanationfor Maimonides' ret-

icence. Abrahambar Hiyya, followingnumerousArabianhis-torians, combined the study of astrology with that of historyand tried to explain many historicaldevelopmentsthroughthepositive or negative influence of stars.7 Maimonides,a harshopponent of that "lie against reason," sharply condemned allattempts not only to prognosticate he future,but also to projectsuch astrologicalprognostications nto the past.8 He may alsohave felt a certain aversion to the Arabic historical writings,because, no matter how universalist in compass, they weredogmaticallyrestrictedby the teachingsof Islam and containedmany a derogatory utterance on the subject of Judaism. Insomeinstancestheglowingdescriptionsof the livesof Muhammedand the other heroes of Islam and the glorificationof Muslimpolitical and cultural power underminedthe belief of Jewishwhicharose after Judaism,namely Christianity,Manichaeismand Islam, in afashion strikingly similar to that of Bar Hiyya. The singling out of thesethree creeds (although Mani is not mentioned by name in I. T.) as repre-senting three important historical movements; the interpretationof Dan.11.14 as referringto Jesus (Meg. ha-Meg.p. 136); the acceptance of Jesus'execution as a fact and the explanationthat it was merely the result of histransgressions(ibid.: ulyl lsn=r no rin'); the emphasis upon the inefficacyof Mani's preachment (ibid. p. 145: 'o, iitN mhi '' lRu3Din N' i) and thatupon Muhammed'sseizureof power throughlies and the force of arms (ibid.:nvnSl a-innnl nrTmp5pSn=m5nirin p,'rnn rl mraln:iPn)-are all resem-blancestoo close to be merelyaccidental. Cf. also note 8.

7 Cf. especially his justificationof that method ibid. p. 115. Apart fromMuslim historiansand astrologers,such as Yakubi and Abu Maashar (thelikely influenceof the latter on Bar Hiyya is emphasizedby M. Steinschneider,Hebrdische bersetzungen,p. 572), a curiousLatin epistle, apparentlywrittenin Spain by Bar Hiyya's contemporary,John Avendeath, the famous trans-lator (a professingor baptizedJew), offers interesting parallels. Cf. F. Baer,Eine jiidische Messiasprophetieauf das Jahr 1186 und der dritte KreuzzugMGWJLXX (1926) pp. 113-22 and 155-65.8For Maimonides'views on astrology cf. especially A. Marx, The Corre-spondence between the Rabbis of Southern France and Maimonides aboutAstrology HUC Annual III (1926) pp. 311-58. In I. T. pp. 39 ff. (Kobeq I,5b) he specificallyrepudiatedastral influenceson history, as assumed by hisYemenite correspondents. It is not impossible, however, that he also hadBar Hiyya in mind.

10


8/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDES

youth. Samau'alibn Yabya al-Maghribiactually tells us that inhis early youth he had first read many historical novels andthen proceededto study the more reliablehistorical chroniclesof Al-Miskaiwaihi and Tabari which eventually led him toapostasy. We have reason to believe that Maimonides wasfamiliarwith the polemicalwork of this his oldercontemporary.9Other more fundamentalfactors contributed to checking theinfluenceof the Arabian historians on the Jews. True to thebasically political orientation of Islam and the needs of theCaliphatethe Arab historicalliterature was essentially political.Not only those works which dealt with political history as such-and these were the majority-but also the variousbiographicalcollections or those dealing with the history of philosophers,physiciansand sectarianshad a decidedly politicaltinge. Carefulgenealogical investigations were imperative under the systemof state grants extended to the descendantsof Muhammedandhis closest companions. Since Omar I the subsidies varied inaccordance with the degree of relationship. Not until IbnKhaldun's sociological interpretationof history, moreover,didArab historiographyfully emancipate itself from the traditionof the early chroniclersto write history in terms of the deedsof individual monarchs, generals and religious leaders. Non-political Judaism lacked such incentives. It, too, was prone torecorda few acts of outstandingindividuals,but these were sodeeply imbedded in the general flow of tradition that theyhardly lent themselves to extensive biographicaland still lessto comprehensivehistoricaltreatment. Although on the wholestill as insistent upon family purity and noble descent (yihus)as it had been in the Sassanianage, Judaism under Islam hadfew vested interestsin genealogy. Neitherdid it have the stimuligiven by the dynastic-religiousstruggle over the legitimacy ofsuccession to the prophet, which so long dominated all publicaffairsof the Muslimworld.Whatever the reasons, Maimonides undoubtedly was con-sciously "unhistorical." Unconsciously,however, he could nothelp referringto the history of his people when he wished to

9 Cf. Schreiner, op. cit., pp. 127 and 412.

11


9/110

BARON

explain certain contemporary phenomena. Sometimes he con-strued new historical hypotheses, in order to elucidate obscurephases in Jewish law, the oppressed position of his people orperplexing features in the outside world. The following summaryof his historical views and opinions, arranged in a more or lesschronological order, may give us an inkling of his type of his-torical approach.I1

II. THE EARLYHISTORY OF MANKIND.The early days of humanity before Abraham were of interestto Maimonides only from the point of view of the origins ofthe various religions and their influence on the subsequentlegislation in ancient Israel. Although he acknowledged, as iswell known, that by strictly philosophic arguments the creationof the world can neither be proved nor disproved, he believedthat creation ex nihilo at a certain date was an indubitable

historical fact. He even followed the rabbinic chronology thatabout 2500 years elapsed from Adam to Moses.It is characteristic that the personality of the first manattracted his attention only to a slight degree. He pays littleattention to the innumerable legends found in the Talmud andthe Midrashim concerning Adam and Eve. He only mentionsthe court's injunction to witnesses in the case of capital prosecu-tion concerning the purpose of the creation of a single man andthe continuous basic similarity of the shape of all men, whichnevertheless leaves room to endless facial variations. God wantedto demonstrate that he who destroys one person should be placed

IO It is needless to say that only the significant references in Maimuni'sworks to a person or event in the past will be listed here. In checking upthe sources of his information attention will be paid primarily to the Baby-lonian Talmud which had for him great, almost "canonical" authority. Onthe other hand, it has long been recognized that Maimuni had greater famili-arity with and appreciated more deeply the older tannaitic sources and thePalestinian Talmud than the majority of his halakic contemporaries andsuccessors. Cf. now, especially, L. Finkelstein, Maimonides and the TannaiticMidrashim JQR N. S. XXV (1935) pp. 469-517 and J. N. Epstein, Mechiltaand Sifre in the Works of Maimonides Tarbiz VI (1934-5) pp. 99-138.

12


10/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESon a par with one who destroys the entire world and that every-one should be entitled to claim that the world was created forhis sake." Maimuni also gives the following very interestingexplanation for the sanctity of the Temple in Jerusalem. "Itis a tradition accepted by everyone," he states, "that the placewhere David and Solomon built the altar in the threshing floorof Araunah is the place on which Abraham had erected his altarand offered Isaac, and where Noah had built when he left theark. This is the very altar on which Cain and Abel had offeredand on which Adam, too, had brought a sacrifice when he wascreated; and this was precisely the spot from which he wascreated. As the sages said, Adam was created from the placeof his atonement."12

It is evident that Maimonides believed that Adam was amonotheist worshiping the God of Israel. He speaks in anotherconnection of the six commandments which God imposed uponAdam, namely the five prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy,murder, incest, robbery and the obligation to preserve law andorder. Thereafter Noah received the additional commandmentforbidding the consumption of a part cut off from a living animal(,nn 1]D in2). Through this historical hypothesis Maimonides,following the Aggadah,I3 evades the difficulty arising from thefrequently contradictory talmudic computations concerning thesix or seven commandments of the sons of Noah.

" M. T. Sanhedrin 12, 3, closely following the text in M. Sanh. IV, 5.Maimuni, however, not only characteristicallyomits the other purposesenumerated in the Mishnah, but also changes: niDl' m n rnamirn 5i: l='01yn.Nr 3 ',',=m into uDri l 3' which lends it a differentemphasis. It ispossible that he stresses a l ynl n nnK v9 in orderto oppose certain textslimiting it to: 5tnv'w. Cf. o'NmD'pplpi p. 100 n. '. The chronologicalbasisof Maimuni'sdate will be discussedlater on. For variousArab computationsof the period which elapsed between Noah and Abraham,cf. e. g., Maqdasi,Le livre de la creation et de l'histoire, ed. and transl. by Cl. Huart, 6 vols. Paris1899-1919 III, 47.12M. T. Bet ha-Behirah 2, 2. The general source is Pesikta r. 31 andPalestinian Targum to Gen. 22.9. Cf. also Pirke R. Eliezer 12. The lastquotation is from Gen. r. 14, 9 (ed. Theodor-Albeck p. 132) based upon theAggadahin j. Nazir VII, 2, 56b.13Cf. the long list in GL V, 92 n. 55.

13


11/110

BARONIf idolatry was thus outlawed from the very beginning, howcan we explain the rise of the pagan religions? This question

engaged Maimonides' attention throughout his life and he triedto obtain as much information as possible on the early historyof religion. "I have also read," he says, "on the subject of allidolatry; it seems to me that there has not remained a work onthis topic written in Arabic [or]translated from other languages,which I have not read, examined its contents and grasped itsfull meaning."'4 Unfortunately, he does not seem to have readthis literature very critically and most of his assumptions seemto be based upon spurious or otherwise unreliable writings.Among these the Nabatean Agricultureoccupies a most prominentplace. In his systematic fashion he sifted the data supplied bythese sources and organized them into a full theory concerningthe origin of paganism, which he repeated in various formulationsin his Commentaryon the Mishnah, his Codeand most extensivelyin his Guide.'sIn its briefest form, as given in the introduction to the lawspertaining to idolaters, this theory runs as follows: In the daysof Enosh'6 people have committed a grievous error. Enosh and

14 1-1pv it,ivnn nmn-7iw n- ninnl -mn-nIt D'-im-7unwn KvW 'mnln ipTnoD 1K t nlr := 1 t< 61P2n3 y1K r mrnnny nn Dun n3DD Ypt' ID)m D1 D'3D1 nn rnm=n am3 hi ', nmD1l i nrm.=t ,l,yp 5 'nnip Ona .I',' i: nT ,6c' ns,'rnn 33niy=n-i ini t nwnpwTy nl:i6mwHnD inli ip,nynvt =~vy1I62- ri 1"Yn?ly1iny7 liD rTy. Marx, op. cit., p. 351 (with slight variations Kobes II, 25ab).The juxtaposition of astrology with idolatry is characteristic of Maimuni'sviews on the history of religion. If the works quoted in M. N. III, 29 ff.should serve as a sample of these readings, he seems to have been ratheruncritical in the selection of authentic documents revealing the early growthof pagan cults. There is a real need of a fresh reexamination of the influenceof works, such as the Nabatean Agriculture and the Book Tomtom, on Maimuniin the light of our present day knowledge, to supplement the investigations

of D. Chwolson, Die Ssabier and der Ssabismus, 2 vols., St. Petersburg 1856.Cf. also notes 5 and 20.I5 Cf. especially C. M. to 'Abodah Zarah IV, 7; M. T. 'Abodat Kokabim1, 1.2; M. N. III, 29-49.16 This date is obviously derived from the numerous aggadic interpretationsof Gen. 4.26. Maimuni insists, however, that nrni yirn; 3p ixy mlbxtagainstthe prevalent exoneration of Enosh himself. GL V, 151 assumes that Maim-

14


12/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDEShis associates among the sages of that generation reasoned that,since God had created the stars and the spheres to guide theworld and placed them in a high position as servants doing hiswill, they must be worthy of praise and reverence. It undoubtedlyis his will that people pay homage to those whom He had elevated,just as an earthly king regards it as a tribute to himself when hiscounselors are honored. Thereupon they began building templesto the stars, offered to them and exalted them in prayers, all inorder to comply with what they erroneously thought to be thewill of God. "And this was the very core of idolatry." After atime there arose among them false prophets, who demanded inthe name of God that there be erected an image and that theentire people with its women and children worship in front ofit. So they invented images of stars, caused their erection intemples, under trees and on mountain tops, and persuaded thepeople that these idols were capable of helping or harming them.Still later, there began arising other liars who announced thatonides referred to some older sources, although Hekalot 6, 173 and Shab118b: vi~= (rather than Bmt-nt~ cf. D',1iD 'pvTp~)are somewhat dubious.Cf. also ibid. p. 153. It is not unlikely, however, that this emphasis was dueto an intentional rejectionof the theory of the hereditarytransferof the pro-phetic soul. This theory, evolved by the Shiya to legitimize the Alides'dynastic aspirations,contended that Enosh received the light from Seth andbequeathed it to a prophet or imam of each subsequent generation untilMuhammed. Cf. Mas'udi, Les prairies d'or, 2 vols., Paris 1861-3, I, 69-71.Although rejected by most other Muslim schools (Tabari, forexample, empha-sizes in his Chronique, renchtransl. H. ZotenbergI, Paris1867,p. 88,"Knowye that both Enosh and Kenan were kings of the whole earth, but were notprophets."), this doctrine found its way into Jewish philosophy throughBar Hiyya and Halevi (Meg. ha-Meg.'p.'72:nmrnin rinmmIn nrnl'mnyiY1... rp, m13Nlmumanrn; Al-Khazari I, 95, etc. Cf. B. Ziemlich, Abr. b.Chija und Jehuda Halevi MGWJ XXIX, 1880, pp. 366-74; Jac. Guttmann,op. cit., pp. 465f. and Jul. Guttmann, Introduction to Meg. ha-Meg., pp.XXIf.), but had no place in the comprehensive Maimonidean theory ofprophecy. Maimuni also ridicules the "Sabean" assumption that it wasSeth who began worshipingthe moon against the wish of his father, Adam(M. N. III, 29). Cf. also further on note 19. The general interpretation,however, that the images were the second stage evolved out of the wishplastically to represent the stars and the rest of the theory concerning therise of the astral cults appearsto be largely his own.

15


13/110

BARONthat very star, sphere or angel'7 had spoken to them and askedthat it be worshiped in such and such a fashion. In the courseof time different rituals devoted to the worship of many suchidols originated in various parts of the world. Soon the name ofGod himself was forgotten and the populace knew only thoseimages of wood and stone and those temples built of stone inwhose worship it had grown up. Their scholars and priests finallybelieved that there actually was no god but the stars and spheresfor whose sake those images had been made. There remainedbut a few select individuals, such as Enoch,'8 Methuselah, Noah,Shem and Eber, who still recognized the one and only God.These men, although not prophets in the technical sense, becausenever recipients of direct orders from God, served as teachersand guides for their few associates.'9The idolatrous majority, in Maimonides' opinion, was greatlysteeped in magic and astrology. Its entire worship was basedupon magically conjuring the celestial bodies to comply with itswill. Magic rites and astrology were widespread among theSabeans, Chaldeans, Egyptians, Canaanites and the othernations, but found place neither in the works of the Greekphilosophers, "who were unquestionably wise men," nor in thoseof the Persians.20 Sabean worship frequently included orgiastic

I7This identificationof stars with spheres and angels (for the meaning ofthis term cf. especially M. N. II, 6) is here, of course,an anachronism.18 Maimonidesrationalistically insists that Enoch's ascension, like that ofElijah later, meant death (Kobe, II, 34c; cf. n. 29). Whether the brevity ofthe assertion concerning Enoch in contrast with the full discussion aboutElijah was accidentalor else had a polemicalslant against the Sabean glorifi-cation of Enoch-Hermes, s an open question.19M. N. III, 39. Here,as often throughouthis writings,Maimuni anachron-istically ascribesa ]'rT' orrvUrno these and other ancient leadersto reconcilehistory with his legal requirementof collegiate action for certain legislativemeasures. Cf. Bacher in MbM II, 145. This insistence upon the infinite

supremacyof Moses as a prophetis incidentallyalso in line with his rejectionof continuous propheticleadershipin the pre-Mosaicage.20 C. M. to 'Ab. ZarahIV, 7; M. N. III, 37 and KobesII, 25ab. The nameSabeansis frequentlyused by Maimuni in a widersense, i.e., the entire paganworldbeforeAbraham;but, when placed along with names of other nations,it represents a specific ethnic-religious group (Munk III, 217 n. 1 fails todraw this distinction). It is questionable, however, whether Maimuni had

16


14/110

HISTORICALOUTLOOKOF MAIMONIDEScults, sacrifices of children and special prerogatives as well ascostumes for their priests, all of which were found objectionableby the restorers of purified monotheism from Abraham to Moses.It is especially the Sabean cult which prevailed in the environ-ment of both the patriarch and the lawgiver and against whichboth of them took a firm stand.2I In fact, Maimonides thinksthat this opposition of the founders of Judaism to the Sabeanritual explains many obscure points in Jewish law. In his daringattempt to find rational explanations for each and every detailof Mosaic law, Maimonides frequently refers to that intentionalcontrast. For example, shaving the ends of one's head and beardwas prohibited because the idolatrous priests used to do so.Also the biblical taboos of kilaim and sha'atnez arose from thesuppression of both Sabean priestly costumes and orgiasticrites which accompanied the grafting of one plant upon another.The distasteful sensuous cults, such as hinted at in the Biblein connection with the worship of Baal Peor, influenced thelawgiver to insist upon the wearing of trousers by officiatingpriests and certain requirements of abstinence.22 The Sabeansalso had an unholy reverence for blood. On the one hand, theyregarded it as extremely impure and on the other, they consumedat all in mindthe pre-Islamicinhabitants of southernArabia,of whosehistoryand religion the Muslim world (except for a few natives, such as Hamdani)had very faint notions. For him the Sabeans were a distinct religio-philo-sophical trend which, tolerated by the successive Muslimgovernments,com-binedcrudeand primitivewith advancedphilosophical deas. This unhistoricalestimate of the Sabean religion was shared even by such Arab experts asShahrastani. Cf.vol. II part I and the remarksof the translator,Haarbruecker,in his preface to that volume. Cf. also Al-Biruni, The Chronology f AncientNations, Engl. transl. E. Sachau, London 1879, pp. 186ff., where among thequeer etymologies of that name appears the identification of this sect withalleged descendants of Sabi, son of Methuselah. That is why Maimuni'sHebrew translators were justified in retaining the Arabic form '"SN insteadof the biblical tcv.

21 M.N. III, 29 starts with the sweeping assertion onrtr lI DI y D0nnrm1 -rutiK fDo '9 mWvD'N1Y'w.22 M. T. 'Abodat Kokabim12, 7; M. N. III, 37 and 45. Of course,Maimunitakes it for granted that every reader would be familiar with the talmudicinterpretationof Num. 25.3 (Sanh. 64a, etc.).

17


15/110

BARONit, becausethey regarded t as the food of demonswhose friend-ship they wanted to conjure by such conviviality.23In pursuingthis hypothesis,Maimunioccasionallyrealizes hat he cansubmitno evidence from the sources. Thus when he tries to explainthe otherwise irrationalprohibitionof mixing meat with milk,he advances first the medical reason that it causes overfulness,then immediately reverts to his general theory that it wasintended to counteract a Sabeancustom and adds significantly:"This I considerthe best reason for this prohibition, althoughin the books on Sabean rites which I have read there is no men-tion of this custom."24 He justifies such assumptions on thegroundthat the pagan priests of the pre-Abrahamicdays com-posed many writings which were known to the early Jewishlegislatorsbut have since largelybeen lost. "If we knew all theparticularsof this [the Sabean]worshipand were informed ofall the detailsof thosedoctrines,we wouldclearlysee the wisdomof every detail in the sacrificialservice, in the laws concerningimpurityand in other laws the objective of which I am unableto state."2s

23 They stressed the impurityof bloodto the extremeof isolating completelya menstruatingwoman and declaringimpureany personthat spoke to her orwas touched by a wind that passed over her. For their sacrifices of wildanimals and their ritualistic consumption of blood Maimuni quotes as hissourcethe allegedlyIndianbook Tomtom.Cf. M. N. III, 41 and 46 and MunkIII, 240 n. 1. BB p. 137 n. 1 points out that this interpretationof Lev. 3.26is foundalreadyin Ibn Ezra and that Maimuni himselfin his halakicwritingsprefers to follow the hermeneutic application of this verse to a rebelliousson. Cf. S. M. Prohibition 165 and M. T. Mamrim7, 1.24M. N. III, 48. The only substantiation he offers is the propinquity oftwo of the three verses prohibitingthe seething of a kid in its mother's milkwith those enjoiningthe three annualpilgrimages o Jerusalem.

25 M. N. III, 49. Like everybody else at that time Maimuni believed inthe early spread of writing, although he did not mention the legends currentamong the Arabs (e.g., Mas'udi, op. cit., p. 73) concerning the thirty-one,twenty-nine and thirty leaves handed by God to Adam, Seth and Enochrespectively. Tabari (Chronique,p. 86) records a tradition going back toMuhammed that God sent down altogether 114 books: 50 to Adam andSeth, 30 to Noah, 20 to Abrahamand 10 to various other prophets. Amongthese 10 books were the Pentateuch, the Gospels,the Psalms and The Koran.Maimuni may have seen therein a reflectionon the uniquenessof the Torahwhichwasgivenin full to Moses (seefurtheron note 75), althoughsome Arabs

18


16/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESThe change came when Abraham, the "pillar of the world,"arose among the Sabeans. Hardly weaned from the breast, he

began speculating day and night on the motions of the spheresand the necessary existence of a supreme power determiningthose motions. Maimonides finds evidence for the story ofAbraham not only in the biblical records and the Aggadah, butalso in the distorted accounts contained in the Sabean writings.Eventually, at the age of forty the patriarch, inspired by God'sword and distinguished by excellent qualities of mind and char-acter, arose against the superstitious creed of his environmentand destroyed the idols.26 He soon began propagandizing hisfaith with great success.27 After enduring severe persecutionson the part of the king (Nimrod), he went to Palestine wherewere ready to concede that, in contrast to those stray leaves, the Pentateuchwas the first real book. Cf. e.g., Shahrastani-Haarbruecker,op. cit., I, 48.He admits, however, in speaking of Abraham w'nsD = inm. M. T. 'AbodatKokabim 1, 3. He probablyrefers to the book on idolatry which accordingto 'Ab. Zarah 14b was written by Abrahamand consisted of 400 chapters.26 M. T. ibid.; M. N. III, 29. Cf. also Bacher'scomments, MbM II, 148ff.The alleged Sabean tradition that Abrahamwas born in Kutha =Ur is foundalso in B. B. 91a and in non-Sabean Arabic sources. Cf. Munk III, 219 n. 6and GL V, 211 n. 20. Maqdasi, op. cit. III, 53 calls it Kutha Rabba in thecultivated territory of Kufa. Cf. also Huart, ibid., n. 1. The non-commital,nnrt lp,, is evidently due to the contradictory rabbinic legends, listed byGinzberg p. 209 n. 13 which seem to have escaped the attention of RABDad loc. The date of forty years instead of the forty-eight given in Gen. r.30, 8 which greatly troubled the medieval commentators (Maimuni Glossesand Kesef Mishneh;cf. Zacuto, Yuhasin 5a: nrwn KDtinpv) seems to havebeen Maimonides' own correction perhaps on the basis of m;rnsynm 1I(Abot V), as suggested by Bacher, p. 149 n. 1. Maqdasi III, 49 speaks offifteen years as the age at which Abrahamleft the cave and, coming amongmen, began to reflect on religious problems. Tabari (Chronique,pp. 128ff.)assertsthat Abrahamat the age of fifteenmonths was as tall as a boy of fifteen,and that in his day the whole worldwas steeped in astrology.

27Resp. No. 42: Dynl;lmD6,zrnmMyfn: 71nmmHZ'N Dm1tVW1ntn ip',3D-TDi1nm'm3 '93 =nn D' mD-mmmmngy vysm m.pl3; Vninl nz"N n-nanTm.. This historical summary, adduced by Maimonides in justificationof his insistence that a proselyterecite in his prayers, irnli, 'mim, is in essen-tial agreement with both the Aggadah and modern biblical research. Cf.GLV, 215 n. 42-3 and 220 n. 61 and Fr. M. Th. Boehl, Das ZeitalterAbrahams,Leipzig 1930, pp. 41 f.

19


17/110

BARONhe erected an altar on Mount Moriah because it was the highestamong the mountains in the country. In this respect he simplyfollowed a custom prevalent among the pagans of his day.However, to counteract the prevailing worship of the sun inwhich the worshippers usually turned east, he placed his altarin the western direction, thus adumbrating the position of thefuture Holy of Holies in the Temple of Jerusalem.28 In his verydeath he exemplified the doctrine of immortality, inasmuch ashis soul joined the righteous ones among his forefathers, whilehis body was buried with those of his descendants.29 On thewhole, he was an outstanding prophet in his own right, althoughhe did not appear, as did Moses after him, with an expressmessage from God. One can easily perceive the Maimonideanemphasis upon the superiority of Moses over Abraham as againstthe notions current among the Muslims concerning the fullerrevelation in the days of "Ibrahim." Nevertheless, as the firstbeliever in the one and only God, Abraham really deserves that"most people, as we see at present, agree in praising him and inbeing proud of him; so that even those who are not his descendantscall themselves by his name."30

28 M. N. III, 45. Cf. MunkIII, 468 f. The Muslims,too, generallybelievedthat Abraham,after the "sacrifice"of Isaac, built the Temple on that moun-tain. Cf. Koran II, 121; Mas'udi, op. cit. I, 87, etc. Only few preferredtoleave the question open as to whether Ishmael or Isaac were the"sacrifice."Cf. Tabari, Chronique, . 171. Accordingto Abraham Maimuni, his fatherrejectedthe computationof the Aggadah (cf. the passageslisted in Theodor-Albeck, op. cit., pp. 587 f. note), that Isaac was then thirty-seven years old,becausethis would have shifted the burdenof the sacrifice from Abraham tohim. Cf. S. Eppenstein, Beitrage zur PentateuchexegeseMaimunis in MbMI, 414.

29 Kobes II, 34a. For a defense of the authenticity of the ;nnn;in 'pjnwritten in the late years of Maimuni'slife cf. Bacher,The Treatiseof EternalBliss attributed to Moses Maimuni, JQR IX (1896-7) pp. 270-89.30M. N. III, 29. While Maimuniallows here for certain exceptions, Maq-dasi, op. cit., III, 51 recklesslyasserts that "there is now no one of whatevercreed who denies Abraham (may peace rest upon him) and who does notfollow him in his prayers." It is characteristicthat Maimunicalls hereAbra-ham 6i5y inmlDynd In'Kbut not 'n ,,, although the latter appellationis

20


18/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESIn the careers of the other patriarchs Maimonides sees primarily

examples of moral behavior. For instance, when he enjoinshis readers to be reticent in matters of sex and wherever possiblenot to speak of them at all, he quotes the aggadic reference tothe extreme innocence of Jacob.3I In another connection, intrying to prove that a prophet must be of a serene mind andmood, he quotes the example of Jacob who at the time when hefeared the encounter with Esau or when he mourned for Josephwas abandoned by the spirit of prophecy.32 Jacob is also heldup as a shining example of a conscientious laborer who devotesall his energy to the task assigned to him by his employer.33At the same time Esau, generally pictured as an evildoer, wasnevertheless rewarded for honoring his father. That is why henot only became the founder of the kingdom of Edom, but hisdescendants were to hold a high position in the world thereafter.In part, as Amalekites, they were to be destroyed and their nameblotted out, but other sections were to survive in Edom andlater to achieve greatness through Rome and the Catholic Churchmuch more frequent in the Aggadah and even has scriptural backing in IIChr. 20.7. Cf. GL V, 207 n. 4. In the Arabic S. M. Comm. 3, however, perhapsunder the impact of prevalent Muslim usuage, he uses the term animrenderedby the Hebrew translator by otn mnl of the Chronicles, but he quotes Is.41.8. C. M. to Abot V, 3 enumerates the ten "trials" of Abraham. Discardingall the supernatural features of the well-known ancient legends (for their var-iations cf. Schechter's note to his edition of Ab. R.N. 34, 94 f. and GL V, 218n. 52), Maimuni gives a full list of human tribulations, all recorded in Scripture.31M. N. III, 8, quoting a variation of the statement of Yeb. 76a; Gen. r.98, 4 and 99, 3 (Theodor-Albeck, pp. 1253 and 1257); Agadat Bereschit 82,etc. Another example is adduced from Elisha, in accordance with the homilet-ical explanation of mvip n II Kings 4.9 Ber. lOb, etc.

32 C. M. to Abot Introd. (=The Eight Chapters) 7; M. N. II, 36, based uponthe homiletical interpretations of Gen. 45.27 in Targum Jonathan and Rashiad loc.; Pirke R. Eliezer, 38, etc. For the meaning of the passage in M. N.cf. the opposing views of Z. Diesendruck, Maimonides' Lehre von der Prophetiein Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams, Vienna 1927, p. 111 n. 139 andH. A. Wolfson, Maimonides on the Internal Senses JQR N.S. XXV (1935)p. 456 n. 66.

33 M. T. Sekirut 13, 7 based upon Gen. 31.6. The reward for such behavioris intimated Gen. 30.43.

21


19/110

BARONwhich will last until the days of the Messiah.34 For that purposethe Torah enumerates in great detail the chieftains of Seir soas to enable Israelitic readers to distinguish between the Amale-kites and the other Edomites who were to be allowed to liveas Israel's neighbors. It also intends to illustrate by a specificexample the precarious position of a people which chooses to begoverned by kings of alien stock.35In the days of Jacob and his sons the claim of the Jews toPalestine was already well established. Setting an example fora later custom, Jacob and Joseph, at their death in Egypt, com-manded that their bones be buried in the sacred soil of Palestine.36More, Jacob and his sons, while occupying Canaanite territoriescould already demand from the natives, as did their successorsin the days of Joshua, not only complete submission and annual

34I. S. p. 9a. Both Esau's immorality and his filial piety are a common-place of the Aggadah. For a recent discussion of the identificationof Esau-Edom with Rome and the Catholic Church cf. S. Krauss, Die hebraischenBenennungender fremdenV6lker, Jewish Studies in Memoryof G. A. Kohut,N. Y. 1935, pp. 379-412. This identification, although denied by Saadia(Saadia's Polemic against Hivvi al-Balkhi, ed. by I. Davidson, N. Y. 1915,p. 76), waswidelyacceptedin medievalJewryand penetratedeven the Muslimworld. Cf. e.g., Mas'udi, op. cit., I, 89 f., where the 550 years of Romandomination over the Jews (approximately70-620 C. E.) are explainedas theresult of Jacob's fear of Esau. Also the belief that Esau-Rome will be givendominion until the days of the Messiah is widespreadin the Aggadah. Cf.e.g., Pesikta r. ed. Friedmann p. 50a and the editor's remarks and Bacher,Pal. Amorder , 525 n. 7. Cf. also GLV, 272 n. 19, 278 n. 51, 304 n. 246, etc.That this admission comes also from Maimuni, however, despite his con-siderable anti-Christiananimus is quite remarkable.35 M. N. III, 50. This is a variation of the reasongiven by Saadia 'lIan'D.Cf. BB p. 117 n. 1. For the use of ,imn',nn in this connection which meansthe moral lessons hiddenin a biblicalnarrative, cf. ibid. p. 13 n. 4. For theaggadicsourcescf. Munk III, 428 n. 1 and GLV, 323 n. 323 and 372 n. 424.Curiously, Abraham Maimuni offers the same interpretation of Gen. 36,without referring o his father. Cf. S. Eppenstein,AbrahamMaimuni, Berlin1914, p. 52.36M. T. Melakim 5, 11, based on Ket. Ilia. For the numerous legendsconcerningthe burial of Jacob and Joseph cf. GL V, 317 n. 415 ff. and 375 f.n. 437-8. MaimuniM. T. Nablot 6, 13 findsin the story of Jacob'sfavoritismin regardto Josephthe moral lesson that such discriminationamong childrennecessarilyleads to endless quarrels. o'nn nixevidently refers to Shab. 10band Meg. 16ab.

22


20/110


tribute, but also the observance of the seven Noahide command-ments. With the violation of one such commandment, namelythe prohibition of robbery by Shechem, Maimonides motivatesthe punitive measures taken by Simon and Levi, since accordingto the law, as codified by himself, the conquered natives whoviolate one of the commandments are subject to extinction bythe force of arms.37

In the meantime the body of commandments imposed uponthe Jews was steadily growing. To the seven Noahide command-ments was added in the days of Abraham that of circumcision.Abraham was particularly fit to be the initiator of that custom,because he was a man of great moral restraint, and the majoraim of circumcision consisted in counteracting the sexual appe-tite. From that time on this commandment became obligatoryfor all true descendants of Abraham which excluded Ishmaeland Esau, but included the sons of Keturah. As the descendantsof Keturah, Maimonides argues, had since been absorbed bythe other Arabic tribes, the Arabs are likewise bound to observethis rite on the eighth day after birth-evidently a recognitionof contemporary practice with a polemical point in regard to theage.38 Abraham has also added the morning prayer as an obliga-

37 M. T. Melakim 9, 14 in connection with ibid. 6, 1 and 9, 9. Maimuniseems to attempt here a new historical justification, unsupported by theAggadah, incidentally provoking also Nabmanides' opposition on juridicalgrounds. Cf. the latter's Commentaryn Gen. 34.13.38M. N. III, 49, followingthe old interpretationof Gen. 12.11 (Pal. Targum,B. B. 16a, etc.) concerning Abraham'schastity. (In C. M. to Abot V, 19he rendersagainst the generalview the ,r6i w of the Mishnahby ni-nr =sexual self-control and declares it to have been along with moderation andhumility the outstanding virtue of the patriarch,while the opposite was trueof Balaam). The theory concerning the purpose of circumcision,however,seems to be Maimonides'own contribution,since he scarcely had any knowl-edge of Philo's similar assumption, quoted by Munk, III, 417 n. 4. It is ofinterest to note that the theory combated here is found not only in Saadia(see Munk n. 2), but also in the Aggadah. Cf. e.g., Gen. r. 43, 7 (Theodor-Albeck, p. 420) about Melchizedek 5imnorlW inlI ,:an pnx, "ti v I n andGen. r. 46, 1 (p. 458) concerning Abraham himself. With respect to theexclusion of Ishmael and Esau and the inclusion of the childrenof Keturah

23


21/110

BARONtory performance. Isaac followed his example by imposing thesegregation of the tithe and an afternoon prayer. Jacob finallyadded the prohibition of the nervus ischiadicus (gid ha-nasheh)and instituted an evening prayer.39 On his deathbed he spe-cifically enjoined his sons to adhere strictly to the unity of God.40He also appointed one of them, Levi, head of an academy toteach the way of God and the observance of the Abrahamiticlaw.4I

In the following generations the Israelites, then in Egyptianbondage, were nonetheless frequently derelict in the observanceof the laws. The majority abandoned even the practice of cir-cumcision and wholly relapsed into idolatry by adopting theEgyptian mode of life. Only the tribe of Levi maintained theM. T. Melakim 10, 8 follows Sanh. 59b, but in contrast to Rashi, Maimuniinterprets rnnmp 3 nlxi as extending also to their descendants. That thechildren of Keturah lived, at least in part, on the Arabian Peninsula is awidely accepted tradition in the Aggadah. Cf. the numerous,often contra-dictory views expressedin the sources, listed in GL V, 264 f. n. 309 ff. TheArabsthemselves,althoughgenerally claimingdescentfromIshmael,concededa certainrelationshipto the sons of Keturah. Cf. e.g., Mas'udi,op. cit. I, 80.They also contendedthat they ought to follow Ishmael'sexampleand performthe rite of circumcisionat the age of thirteen. It is partly against such claimsthat Maimuni somewhat forcedly interprets Gen. 21.13 in I. T. KobesII, 3d(ed. Holub p. 29 mutilated).39M. T. Melakim 9, 1, primarily based upon Ber. 16b. For the othersources cf. Bacher, MbM II, 150 n. 7. The pleasing symmetry in Maimuni'sarrangementsevoked the oppositionof RABD who, on the basisof Gen. 14.20,ascribed the introduction of tithes to Abraham rather than Isaac. But itwas easy for the commentatorsto point out the differentaggadicsources.40 M. T. Keri'at Shema' 1, 4, on the basis of Pes. 56a. As pointedout byKaro, Maimuni changed l'n; yp mz nli:i py',p into ',n nln-y oDnrm'x.He evidently resented the inclusion of Jacob among the "computers of theend." He had, however, sufficient rabbinic backing for his statement not

only in the context, but also in Sifre Deut. 32, Gen. r. 98, 4, etc. For othersourcescf. GLV, 366 n. 382-3.41M. T. 'Abodat Kokabim 1, 3: In,ol ~i 5,am o1z 1~,r w13,n,t


22/110

HISTORICALOUTLOOKOP MAIMONIDESoriginal purity of the patriarchal creed and Amram became therecipient of additional divine commandments.42 Through theLevitical tribe the patriarchal age was thus linked with the greatwork of Moses.

III. THE LAW OF MOSES.In Moses the history of Israel and of mankind reaches itsclimactic achievement. Moses was not only a great leader-

Maimonides calls him "king"43-and lawgiver from whom theentire system of written and oral law had sprung, but most ofall a great prophet. In the well-known Maimonidean theoryof prophecy there are eleven degrees of prophetic gifts, the lowestof which were occasionally shared by non-Jews, but the highestbeing reserved for the ancient Israelitic prophets. Above allthese, however, stood Moses who has come nearer the divinepresence than any mortal before or after. In four fundamentalaspects the prophetic gifts of Moses so radically differed fromthose of other prophets that we apply the term prophet to himonly as a homonym. Moses was also the only man who performedmiracles and received the revelation "publicly in the presence of

42 I. S. 7a; M. T. 'Abodat Kokabim 1, 3 and Melakim 9, 1; M. N. III, 46.While the relapse of the Israelitic majority is a commonplace in the Aggadahand familiar even to Muslim writers (e.g., Maqdasi, op. cit., III, 85), the sourceof the statement nri'r n,ln, oy niLox o'i,nmi has puzzled the commentators,such as Karo. Bacher, MbM II, 150 n. 7 suggests that Maimuni had in mindSotah 12a where Amram is called nrin bln (in the parallel passages Ex. r.1, 13 and 19 this title is used interchangeably with 1'n'mD WiN cf. also GL V,394 n. 27 and 396 n. 37) which seems to intimate that he was the recipient ofdivine commandments concerning marriage and divorce. Apart from thearbitrariness of this assumption, it is wholly disproved by Maimonides' viewsconcerning the great freedom of sex relationships before the Mosaic legislation.Cf. further on note 64.

43 M. T. Bet ha-Behirah 6, 11: ,n;rniD nn iml. Similarly C. M. to ShebuotII, 2, following the obvious implication of the Talmud (Shebuot 14b), asunderstood by R. Hananel and Rashi. Maimuni points to the source inDeut. 33.5.


23/110


24/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESto leadership not for their personal aggrandizement but to becursed and stoned by their own people. When Moses occasionallylost his patience he was severely rebuked by God. In his inter-esting polemic with the radical condemnation of mass conversionunder compulsion in his Epistle on Conversionhe cites the exampleof Moses who was severely reprimanded by God for doubtingthat the people of Israel would believe in his mission. Thisreprimand is the more remarkable the lower the Israelites hadsunk in Egyptian bondage. In retaliation he was himself to befound guilty of disbelief in God's power to produce water outof a stone. Apart from being thereafter forced to abandon hisleadership before the conquest of Palestine, he was temporarilystricken with leprosy at the time of uttering his doubts.49As a leader he proceeded to reform his coreligionists whilestill in Egypt. In the first place, the masses of the non-LeviticalIsraelites had to undergo circumcision which Moses, assistedby Aaron and Joshua, personally performed. To complete therequirements established by law for the adoption of Judaism byproselytes, the Israelites after entering the desert had also togo through the ritual of baptism and to offer sacrifices.50 Through

49 M. T. Sanhedrin 25, 2 referringto Ex. 6.13 and the aggadic commentthereto in Ex. r. 6, 2 and I. S. p. 7b, on the basis of Ex. 4.1; Nu. 20.12andthehomily Shab. 97a. The emphasis inn'I rwynlmay have been intended tocounteract those aggadic statements which denied Moses' affliction withleprosy. Cf. GL V, 421 n. 132. He may also have considered the Muslimtradition that the Israelites suspected Moses of having been stricken withleprosy,but that Godspeedilyrehabilitatedhim. Cf. Al-Bukhari,Letraditionsislamiques, French transl. II (Paris 1906), p. 482. In another connection(C. M. Eight Chapters 4) Maimuni explains Moses' transgression at thewaters of Meribah with his impatience in scolding the Israelite "rebels"(Num. 20.10). For the midrashicsourcescf. the notes to GL III, 311 ff.s5 M. T. Issure Biah 13, 1-3; I. S. p. 7b on the basis of Sifre Num. 9, 5;Ker. 9a; Ex. r. 19, 5; Shir r. 1, 12 and 3, 7. The entire period of Egyptianbondage lasted, in Maimuni's opinion, 210 years. Some Israelites mistook,however,the originalcalculation of the 400 years and, anxious to leave Egypt,began marchingahead of time. This attempt ended disastrously. I. T. p. 36(KobesII, 5a) with referenceto Sanh. 92b. Cf. Holub's note and GLV, 420n. 126.-C. M. to Abot V, 3 identifies the "ten miracles" which occurredtoIsrael in Egypt with the ten plagues which miraculously spared the Jews.Maimuni arguesthat even in the case of the plagueof lice, wheresuch escapeis not intimated in the biblical narrative, it is self-evident that the Jews were

27


25/110

BARONthe Exodus from Egypt the subsequent work of Moses andthe entire legislation became possible. That is why any infringe-ment upon law and morality (for instance, the use of unjustscales or usury) is an implied denial of the historicity of theExodus. To commemorate it, the Sabbath-otherwise a weeklyreminder of the creation ex nihilo-was given to the Jewishpeople.5' Upon leaving Egypt the Israelites were repeatedlywarned never to settle there again. Maimonides, althoughwriting on Egyptian soil, has no scruples in declaring it a strictlegal prohibition of eternal validity.52not afflicted: wo,nn i-iN 1pi onimD'n-iyr1n Hi DSm 'xmY,]n =IR. This state-ment, evidently repeated from Maimuni, in Meiri on Abot and Shu'aib onVa-Era, seems, notwithstanding Meiri's assertion, not to be found in our textsof the Talmud. Cf. GL V, 429 n. 183. Maimuni's =s,nn; (in Arabic, ed. E.Baneth, Berlin 1905: on,Dni) may like the r'mn; r irmnl of I. T. p. 49 (KobesII, 7b; the two extant Arabic Mss. read likewise: Y'rwnznm) concerning thehomiletical exposition of Gen. 25.15 refer to the sages under Islam rather thanunder Rome and Persia.

sI M. T. Genebah 7, 12; Malveh ve-Loveh on the basis of B. M. 61a. Thefirst passage is in part a quotation from Sifra Kedoshim 8, 10. M. N. II, 31stresses the two functions of the Sabbath, with the exclusion of the socialfunction emphasized in Deut. 5.14. Ibn Ezra ad loc. knows of the two viewsaffirming and denying this function. (Maimuni's familiarity with Ibn Ezra'scommentary has been conclusively proven BB p. 172). Cf. also Nabmanidesad loc. who rejects the interpretations of both Ibn Ezra and Maimuni.-C. M. to Abot V, 4 describes in great detail the "ten miracles" during the cross-ing of the Red Sea, and states that the Egyptians suffered there many moreplagues than in Egypt proper, but that all these plagues belonged to the sameten kinds, as those originally inflicted. For the rabbinic sources cf. GL VI,6 f. Although insisting that our knowledge of these events is based merelyupon tradition, Maimuni tries to furnish from frequently very far-fetchedpassages biblical substantiation for all of them.

52 M. T. Melakim 5, 7-8; S. M. Prohib. 46 referring to j. Sukkah V, 1, 55b.(Cf. the significant reservation in Targum Jonathan lrlnrr',nn,ni ln m'71 :1y Dv w y y -ny). That Alexandria was included in the prohibitionis stated b. Sukkah 51b. Temporary sojourn in Egypt or passing throughit to other lands is permitted, according to j. Sanh. X, 9, 29d. It is character-istic that Maimuni changes the talmudic n x w1= l1 s,pnir nnlnyDrinny n -r into nnnmrw i -nzy (S. M.) or into ninnn mnimtmW=i (M. T.). Themedieval codifiers differed on this subject. Cf. Geiger, op. cit., notes 21-25.Maimuni (as after him Nahmanides on Ex. 14.13: nnrmnmhnnta m;LH'wtw)

28


26/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESIn the desert Moses undertook to organize the unwieldy mass.In the first place, he separated the general group of Israelites

from that of the Levites placing the sanctuary in the vanguardof the marchers.53 In constructing the Tabernacle he laid thefoundations and established a prototype for the subsequenttemples in Jerusalem. Indeed, his ultimate goal was the Templein Zion whose location, previously selected by Abraham, wasknown to him and toward which he enjoined the Israelites toturn in their prayers.54 Fearing to impose upon the Jews a ritualmade no attempt to explain the obvious conflict between theory and practice.Among his successors,Elijah Mizrahi suggested that the biblical prohibitionreferred exclusively to reimmigration from Palestine, but not from othercountries. Cf. Glosseson Maimuni M. T. 1. c. The geographicboundaries arespecifically given as borderingon Ethiopiaand the desert. The size of 160,000square parasangsis naturally not exact.

53 C. M. to Kelim I, 8 referringto Num. 1.50. This idea is amplified inNum. r. 1, 12 end. M. N. III, 50 gives the reason for the detailed biblicaldescriptions of Israel's journeys before they reached the Holy Land. TheTorah thereby anticipated the incredulity of subsequent generations (assuggestedby Munk IV, 431, n. 1, this is perhapsa dig at Hivi al-Balkhiwhoserationalist explanation of the Manna is attacked by Ibn Ezra to Ex. 16.13;unfortunately the extant fragment of Saadia's Polemic does not containquerieson Exodus) and forewarnedthat the legends concerning Jewish aim-less wanderings n the desert werealtogetherbaseless. Cf. BB p. 118. Maimunidoes not hesitate, however, to declare that the "forty years" of the desertmigration Num. 32.13 were in fact only thirty-eight years (Eppenstein,MbM I, 416: there is an apparentcontradictionin the figures:38 and t'). Ifthis text is authentic, one may perceive Maimuni's compunction to countthe first year which preceded the sending of spies and the last year whichfollowedafter Aaron'sdeath. He may well have been familiar with the com-ments of not only Ibn Ezra but also R. Moses ha-Darshanquoted by Rashito Num. 33.1.

54 M. T. Bet ha-Behirah 1, 1 emphasizingthe temporary character of theTabernacle, accordingto Deut. 12, 9 as explainedin Sifre Deut. 66, Magillah10a, etc. Cf. also Rashi ad loc. The idea that Moses introduced the KiblaM. T. Tefillah 1, 3 is derived, according to Karo, from a statement in theBaraita of R. Eliezer son of R. Jose the Galilean (possibly referringto TheMishnah of R. Eliezer, ed. H. G. Enelow, N. Y. 1933, p. 150, interpretingEx. 20.18). However, Karo's reference o S. M. (probablyCommandment21)has no bearing on this subject. Neither is his doubt as to whether the 5:3r',n mporefers to the various locations of the sanctuary or to the place ofthe worshipersjustified in view of the singularform.

29


27/110

BARONwhose exalted purity they could not possibly grasp, he includedanimal sacrifices in the worship at the tabernacle. Only tocounteract the Egyptian reverence for the ram and the Sabean"preference" for sacrificing beasts of prey, he instituted thesacrifice of household cattle and, for the sake of the poor, ofcertain domesticated birds. On account of the bad odors con-nected with the slaughtering of numerous animals he addedthe various forms of incense and the oil of ointment.55 He wasalso the only one to prepare the sacred oil which was afterwardsdeposited in the containers held throughout the period of thefirst Temple. No oil other than that prepared by Moses himselfwas ever used for anointing kings and high priests. Once theoriginal Mosaic oil was gone, the Second Commonwealth had toget along without ointment even for the high priests who hadto substitute special vestments as an outward form of consecra-tion. The first vessels in the tabernacle were prepared for sacreduse through that consecrated oil, but this practice was notrepeated thereafter in the Temple.56 Moses erected an altarwhose dimensions remained exemplary for the subsequent altarserected by Solomon and the returning Babylonian exiles, andwhich will serve as a model also for the fourth altar to be erectedin the days of the Messiah. However, the material was different:"hollow" instead of "beaten work." Among the decorative artsemployed by Moses the use of "cherubim" is especially worthyof notice because thereby "Moses clearly proclaimed the theoryof the existence of a number of angels" which leads us to believein prophecy and in the law and opposes idolatry. Maimonides

55 M. N. III, 45-46. This much debated theory seems to be Maimonides'original contribution to the "rational" explanation of biblical ceremonies.That the argument is essentially historical makes it doubly relevant to ourdiscussion.56M. T. Kle ha-Mikdash 1, 1-12, based primarily on Ker. 5; Hor. lib;Shebuot 15a; Yoma 12b. Cf. also GL VI, 72 n. 371. The explanation of1mpD: m, :3:1,tI nvnn, 1i njmrn:~ sn,m-mnrx imn -manhas evokedan irate comment of RABD. But neither he nor Maimuni (nor for that matterSaadia from whom this identification of -ln with musk is taken) have anyhesitation concerning the availability of this and other Indian articles (towhich Maimuni refers in this connection) in the Palestinian desert. Cf. alsoI. Loew, Die Flora der Juden I, 310.

30


28/110


professes inability, however, to produce any reason for the useof a table and showbread.s7Moses gave his people a political organization headed by acouncil of seventy elders. He, as the head of the council, was notincluded in that number. From that time on such a "sanhedrin"was a permanent feature of Jewish public law and every chairman,called nasi, was a deputy of the lawgiver himself.58 Moses alsolaid down for all future generations the fundamentals of warfarewhich, under God's direction, he had tried to humanize. Forexample, when he laid siege on Midian he was told to leave apath open for refugees that they might escape from the city.59While he was ordered ruthlessly to exterminate the seven Pal-estinian nations and to swear vengeance to Amalek, he coulddeal more mildly with the Ammonites and Moabites. Althoughthe Israelites were not to offer them peace-the legal preliminaryof a declaration of war against other peoples-a spontaneousoffer on their part was to be readily accepted.6o Moses was so

57 C. M. to Middot III, 1; M. T. Bet ha-Bebirah 2, 5 on the basis of theprevalent opinion (of R. Jose) in Zeb. 59b. The explanation of the meaningof the cherubim M. N. III, 45 discounts the numerous anthropomorphicfeatures of the Aggadah. Maimuni also declines to consider seriously thelegend concerningthe magic influenceof the tables placedin north and south.Cf. GL III, 158-60.58 C.M. to Sanh. I, 6 and M. T. Sanh. 1, 3. The eternalityof that institutionis derived from , Num. 11.16 in Sifre Num. 92.59 M. T. Melakim6, 6-7evidently on the basisof SifreNum. 157(apparentlyassuming that R. Nathan interpreted rather than opposed the majorityopinion, cf. Friedmann'snote 2:"and Finkelstein, op. cit., pp. 496 ff.) and ofTargum Jonathanto Num. 31.7.60 S. M. Comm. 189-90 and Prohib.49, 56 and 59 (Ar. original:48, 55, 58)with referenceto Sifre Deut. 296 and Sifra Behukotai Introd. 3 (like Nabma-nides to Deut. 25.17 he cites the latter passage also under the name Sifre,probablyreferring o MidrashTannaimto Deut. ibid. [ed. Hoffmannp. 169];cf. editor's note 's and Heller's note to his edition of S. M. Comm. 189. In

this case we have here another instance of his use of Mekilta on Deut.; cf.Finkelstein, op. cit.) as well as Sifre Deut. 200. In Prohib. 56 he quotes alsoSifre Deut. 251. M. T. Melakim 6, 1-6 these laws are repeated with thesignificant reservation: nom mon li'n'z:l'1b'tis rn sp poyul'n o ny: r:mtwhich seems to imply that if they had surrenderedthey would have beensaved. This evokes a sharprebukeof RABD, which the medievalcommenta-tors are hardly able to mitigate. Heller in his note on S. M. Comm. 190

31


29/110

BARONanxious to see all the laws applicable for the subsequent settle-ment in Palestine realized as soon as possible, that he hastenedto choose personally the three cities of refuge which were to belocated in Transjordan, although he was perfectly aware of theirbeginning to function only after the allocation of additionalthree cities in western Palestine.6'

Moses' greatest work naturally consisted in his giving the lawto Israel. In the first place, there were the six hundred andthirteen commandments of the written law. Of these six hundredand eleven were transmitted to Israel through Moses, whilethe first two of the ten commandments were addressed directlyto the people. Even in the Decalogue, however, although itwas proclaimed in the presence of the entire people, Moses wasapostrophized as the main recipient. That is why the singularform is used. As a matter of fact, Moses alone heard the createdvoice distinctly, whereas to the rest of the people it was anattempts in vain to interpret M. T. as referring merely to an historical fact,that they actually refused to surrender. This theory appears untenable inthe face of the tense of l'n,u and the very inclusion of this statement in theCode. It is moreplausiblethat Maimuniagaingave preference o the Mekiltaon Deut. over the Sifre, as suggested by Finkelstein, op. cit., p. 492. Thiscontraventionof the most authoritative halakic sourcesis apparentlydue toMaimuni'sviews concerningthe reasons for this harsh treatment. In M. T.I. c. and still more in M. N. III, 41 he transformsthe historic hatred of theIsraelites and the natives (includingAmalek) into an ethical-religioussafe-guardto prevent contaminationthrough idolatry. It is evident that this aimcould be fully accomplishedthroughthe surrenderof these nations and theiracceptance of the Noahide commandments,the first of which enjoins absten-tion frompagan beliefs and observances.

6I C.M. to Abot IV, 2 emphasizingthat even a man so greatly endowedwith piousachievement as Moses did not disdainto fulfill half a commandment,whenthe opportunityoffered tself. Maimuniquotesto this effect a statementin Makkot 10a. Cf. also ibid. 9b; Sifre Num. 160; Tos. Makkot II, 1 and j.Makkot II, 7, 31d. M. T. Ro?eabu-ShemiratNefesh 8, 2-4 adds the informa-tion that in the days of the Messiah nine cities of refuge will be allotted inthe territory of the Kenizite, the Kenite and the Kadmoni which had beenpromised to Abraham, but were never incorporatedinto ancient Palestine.This is derived fromj. Makkot II, 6, 32a. Cf. also Rashi to Deut. 19.8.

32


30/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDESinarticulate murmur.62 These six hundred and thirteen com-mandments were then amplified by an extensive divine inter-pretation given to Moses. Moses in turn ordained Joshua andhis associates and instructed them in all these oral command-ments. From that time on an unbroken chain of tradition hasbrought down this oral law to the days of the Mishnah andTalmud.63

Some of these oral instructions are exemplified by occurrencesin Moses' own lifetime. For example, family life, that "basicunit of society," was not thoroughly organized before Moses.In that primitive age "one met a woman in the market; if bothagreed to marry, he took her into his house and informallymade her his wife," or else "if they both agreed, he paid her acertain amount, cohabited with her on the road and went away."With the giving of the Torah marriage has been attached to aceremony of acquisition in the presence of witnesses, while freeintercourse without marriage was outlawed under the sanctionof flagellation.64 The Israelites, present during the Sinaitic

62S. M. Introd. 3 and Comm. 1; M. N. II, 33. The number 613 for thecommandments,although perhapsnot of tannaitic origin,was widely acceptedin the talmudic and geonic period. The entire S. M. referring o the statementin Makkot 23b was devoted to their detailed enumeration. That only two ofthe Ten Commandmentswere heardby the entire people has the backing ofsome aggadic sources, as against others which maintain that all the nationscould hear their annunciation on Sinai. Cf. GLVI, 30 n. 181 and 45 n. 243.In general, however, Maimuni extols the ,',D in IDyn (so used also in theArabic context of M. N. II, 33) as a unique event in history, because of theparticipation in it of an entire nation as witnessed by friend and enemy.Especially in I. T. he waxes enthusiastic in the descriptionof that gloriousevent. He pacifiedhis philosophicconscienceby the assumptionof a "createdvoice" (Kobes II, 23d and M. N. I, 65; cf. Munk I, 290 n. 2). That there wasa qualitative differencebetween Moses and the peopleeven in the perceptionof this voice appearsto Maimuniclearly indicated in the nuance of Onkelos'version, which for him has the indirect authority of a tannaitic source.63 C. M. Introd.; M. T. Introd. and Sanh. 4, 1. For the details of thishistoric development underlying all Pharisaic and Rabbanite Judaism cf.furtheron.64S. M. Prohib. 365; M. T. Ishut 1, 1-4 and M. N. III, 49. Cf. also theextensive discussion in C. M. to Sanh. VII, 4. The primarysource for thepre-Mosaicsituation is the story of Judah and Tamar, from which Maimuni

33


31/110

BARONrevelation, realized the far-reaching effects of this transformationand, aware of the peculiar human weaknesses in all matters ofsex, greeted it with plaints and wails.6s In fact, intercourse witha Gentile woman (with the exception of a single sexual act witha prisoner of war for which not even a priest was to be punished)was altogether prohibited. Although not encouraged, popularlynching rather than regular court procedure was to disposeof such offenders. That this is true Mosaic law, Maimonidesargues, is proved by the incident of Zimri whose assassinationby Phinehas was countenanced by the great leader himself.66Maimonides admits, however, that such confirmatory evidenceof Mosaic traditions is rarely available. In discussing, for exam-ple, the law permitting formal release from oaths and vows headmits that "this matter has no foundation at all in the writtenlaw. But Moses our teacher learned it from tradition."67 Realiz-derives the moral lessons that one should be reticent in divulging sex relation-ships and also keep his financial pledges to his wife in the same degree as anindebtedness for wages to an employee. The expression DmNT, nP nln onpp 1 rwmri ' has a quaint anachronistic sound, especially when appliedto Tamar. Cf. also Eppenstein, MbM I, 415.

65 M. T. Issure Biah 22, 18 with reference to the homiletical interpretationof Num. 11.10 in Sifre Num. 90, Yoma 75a, etc. Cf. also Targum Jonathanand Rashi ad loc. Maimonides gives it the wider range to include both incestand free sexual relationships.66S. M. Prohib. 52; M. T. Issure Biah 12, 1-10, on the basis of Sanh. 81bf.; 'Ab. Zarah 36b, etc. M. T. 12, 4 states concerning the law of lynchingnDrtaDn3I ymVmnn lNwio'n;m nt nm. In accordance with the talmudicinterpretation, however, Maimuni limits this procedure to immediate actionagainst the shameless transgressors who perform their intercourse in thepresence of at least ten Israelites and thus duplicate the sin of Zimri. RABDwishes to add even the requirement of a preceding warning which reflectsthe wavering attitudes of the rabbis in b. and j. Cf. Migdal 'Oz ad loc. Thehistoricity of such a public performance, however, is doubted by neitherscholar in view of its numerous descriptions in the Aggadah. Cf. the notesto GL III, 380 ff. The laws concerning the prisoner of war are discussed S. M.Prohib. 263-4 and M. T. Melakim 8, 2 ff. with reference to Sifre Deut. 214and Kid. 21b f.

67 M. T. Shebuot 6, 2. This is an interesting attempt at reconciling thecontradictory opinions of M. Hag. I, 8 (Maimuni accentuates it evenmore: L5 73 py i 1'p) and the other Tannaim and Amoraim who try to finda biblical foundation (Hag. 10a). Cf. also Targum Jonathan to Num. 30.3.Other historically significant examples of oral traditions going back to Moses

34


32/110

HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF MAIMONIDES 35ing the arbitrariness of such a statement and fearing that itmight vitiate the much controverted claim to authenticity ofthe oral law, Maimonides tries to lay down a rule whereby trueMosaic traditions might be distinguished. He bars from thatcategory all matters subjected to controversy in the talmudicliterature, as well as those derived through logical reasoning orintroduced later by special enactments and the force of custom.True traditions are only those which are so designated expresslyin the authoritative documents of Judaism.68 On the other hand,not all laws given to Moses, even if recorded in Scripture, are tobe regarded as permanent legislation. Some of them wereintended to meet only temporary emergencies. Maimonidescounts more than three hundred laws in addition to the sixare: 1) The offering of the 'Omer which, according to an unwritten Mosaicordinance, is to be a measure of barley. M. T. Temidin u-Musafin 7, 11;S. M. Comm. 44, referring to Mekilta, Jethro, Bahodesh ch. XI; Sifra Lev.section 13, 2.4 and Men. 68b. The quotation of the full verse Lev. 2.14 mayimply the acceptance of R. Eliezer's motivation. Cf. Rashi ad loc. Also thedate of the sixteenth of Nisan is Mosaic: D'w',ln T'Dn iN 11p . .?. 1D nylI 'Doimmn i5n'7nnimm;l, and Maimuni describes at great length the anti-Sadduceanceremony in accordance with M. Men. VI, 3 and b. 65a. 2) The segregation ofthe high priest seven days before the Day of Atonement. M. T. 'Abodat Yomha-Kippurim 1, 3. In C. M. to Yoma I, 1 the scriptural backing is adduced fromLev. 8. 33-4, according to R. Ishmael's interpretation Yoma 3b. Cf. alsoMekilta Sav end; Rashi ad loc. 3) The institution of seven days of mourningfor a deceased relative and seven days of feasting a bridegroom M. T. 'Ebel1, 1: it4W'z mh]pn lm-I-Dm evidently referring to j. Ket. I, 1, 25a. In regardto mourning he merely renewed an older custom (Gen. 50.10) which wasabolished by the Torah. (This is perhaps a harmonization of b. M. K. 21aand j. M.K. III, 5, 82c which appears to favor the obligatory biblical characterof a seven day mourning). In S. M. Comm. 37, Maimuni quotes many indirectsources, including the historical illustration by the case of Joseph ha-Kohen.Cf. Zeb. 100a and M. Higger, Treatise Sema4ot, N. Y. 1931, pp. 30 f., 117 and126. The wedding week, too, had pre-Mosaic antecedents. In regard to Jacobcf. Pirke R. Eliezer 36 and the Pal. Targum to Gen. 29.27. For Samson cf.Jud. 14.17 and Yalkut Shim'oni 70.68 Although not stated in as many words this distinction is clearly impliedin M. T. Mamrim 1, 2-3, referring to the homiletical interpretation of Deut.17.10-11, which offers a characteristic variation of the prevalent rabbinicexpositions, such as given Sanh. 97a. In S. M. Prohib. 312 contravention oftraditional law is briefly outlawed with reference to Sifre Deut. 154 interpretingthe same verse. Cf. also C. M. Introd.


33/110

BARONhundred and thirteen commandments that are found in thePentateuch but have no permanent validity.69

All the laws, moreover, were given by Moses exclusively tothe Jews, as well as to those who thereafter would wish to becomeJews. Non-Jews need observe only the seven Noahide command-ments which would make them "the pious ones of the Gentilenations" and as such eligible for the world to come. Neithercan Gentiles attain the higher degrees of prophecy. Even Balaam,Moses' contemporary, who had succeeded in foretelling both theadvent of the house of David and the final redemption by themessiah, reached only to the second of the eleven degrees ofprophecy.70 Although generally deprecating Balaam as an evil-69S. M. Introd., Root 3 with numerous illustrations but no detailedenumeration.70 C. M. to Sanh. X, 2 and Introd. ?2; M. T. Melakim 11, 1; M. N. II,45. The latter passage stressing rnniY in 'I Ii (Tibbon: =m nmnrnya)obviously refersto Balaam'sdeteriorationfromprophetto sorcereras empha-sized,e.g., Sanh. 106a. The Davidic-messianic nterpretationof Num. 24.17-18is very common in the Aggadah. Cf. GLVI, 125 n. 727 and 133 n. 782. IbnEzra ad loc. accepts the Davidic, but rejects the messianic implications,qualifying this statement wpn0 ;in '7inby z13 -in nnu;r :'tmn, nyn 'n'Omnnr,8n nI,'n nrsonnw. Maimuni agrees with him in the interpretationofthis particular phrase,but finds messianic forebodings n the parallel passage.Cf. also BB p. 139n. 16. Amongthe other adversariesof Israelin the Mosaicage, Sihon and Og engage Maimuni'sspecial attention, because of the diffi-culty of reconciling the biblical narrative with his own philosophic views.That God should have hardenedthe spirit of Sihon (Deut. 2.30) had puzzled

"many commentators" who saw therein a contradiction to the doctrine offree will. But as in the case of Pharaoh and the Israelite transgressors in thedays of Elijah, Maimuni asserts, such affliction connotes only Sihon's deservedpunishment on account of his previous sins and his inability to repent. C. M.Eight Chapters, 8 and M. T. Teshubah 6, 3. For still less deterministic explan-ations cf. e.g., Ibn Ezra and Seforno to Ex. 4.21 and Albo, Ikkarim IV, 25(ed. Husik IV, 230 f.).--In M. N. II, 47 he insists that Deut. 3.11 speaks onlyof Og's bed, while Og himself was but slightly more than six ells tall. Againstthe well-known exaggerations of the Aggadah as well as against the interpreta-tion of both the Pal. Targum and Rashi of rw' ntN3, he accepts Ibn Ezra'sequation with D'mK nD=. Since the ancient Hebrew ell was about 50 cm.(the small ells=45-49.5 cm. the king's ells 52.5-55 cm., cf. Benzinger, Hebrd-ische Archdologie, Leipzig 1927, pp. 191 f.; Onkelos translates here: 1In nn3=)his approximatesize of ten feet wouldbe extraordinarilyarge,but not in itselfdisproportionate. Cf. also BB pp. 94 f. and 140 and C. H. Becker, IslamstudienI, 181f.

36


34/110


doer, Maimuni nevertheless uses his date in support of a "familytradition" that the revival of prophecy ushering in the messianicera was due in the year 1216.71All his life Moses enjoyed the cooperation of Aaron and hissons Eleazar and Ittamar. Like Joshua and the seventy eldersEleazar and Phinehas were specially ordained to help himinstruct the people in the oral interpretations of Scipture. Thenumber of priests was at first very small so that during thedesert migrations also non-priestly Levites had to be draftedto carry the tabernacle. For the subsequent generations, how-ever, the law demanded that only full-fledged priests shouldbear the sanctuary upon their shoulders. To adumbrate thefuture divisions Moses organized the priestly class into eightgroups, selecting four each from the descendants of Eleazarand Ittamar. This number was later increased by King Davidin co6peration with Samuel to twenty-four posts (ma'amadot)which were to be permanently in charge of the services in thesanctuary.72 Since the leadership of Moses and Aaron was the

71I. T. pp. 45 f. (KobesII, 6b f.). The date in the Arabicmanuscriptandthe Hebrew translations varies between 1210, 1212 and 1216. Since Azariahde' Rossi the origin of that family tradition has been traced back to j. Shab.VI, 9, 8d (ed. Cassel pp. 375 f. making much of R. Ianina's cD':n-in'Nwhich is not includedin our text). Cf. also D. Fraenkel's ommentaryKorbanha-'Edahad loc.;Geiger, op. cit., n. 54; BB p. 138 n. 5 and A. H. Silver, Messi-anic Speculation n Israel, N. Y. 1927, p. 75 n. 71. The authenticity of thisMaimonideanutterance, impugned by D. Kauffmann, M. Friedlaender andothers, was convincinglydefendedby W. Bacher,Le passagerelatif au Messiedans la lettre de Maimonide aux Juifs de Yemen, REJ XXXIV (1897) pp.101-5. Cf. also A. Marx in nmsi V (1921) p. 195 and n. 199.

72 In C. M. Introd. Maimuni picturesquelydescribes the successive stagesin the instruction given by Moses to Aaron, Eleazar, Ittamar, the seventyelders and the rest of the people which allowed everyone to hear the lessonfour times; he slightly amplifies the tannaitic story narrated in 'Er. 54b.In M. T. Introd. and Sanh. 4, 1 he speaks briefly of the instructiongiven tothe elders, Eleazar and Phinehas, but stresses the transmission to Joshuaabove all others. S. M. Introd. Root 3 and Commandment34 emphasizesonthe basis of numerousbiblical passages the temporary nature of Num. 7.9,thus evoking the protest of, e.g., Nahmanides. M. T. Kle ha-Mikdash4, 3chooses from among the conflictingtraditions in Ta'anit 27a that containedin the Baraita beginningwith 'mn'. The reason for this rather dubiousselec-tion (cf. the note to H. Malter'scriticaledition of the treatise p. 128)evidently

37


35/110

BARONonly legitimate one in Israel, the revolt of Korah and his asso-ciates is called by Scripture a rebellion against God.73 AmongAaron's outstanding characteristics was his pursuit of peace.Maimonides describes a psychological subterfuge frequentlyused by the first high priest to reform sinners. As soon as Aaronrecognized that a man was naturally evil-minded, he begantreating him like a decent and honorable citizen, thus inducinghim to justify this attitude.74Only toward the end of his life did Moses begin writing downthe Torah for posterity. He used the square Hebrew characters,because of their sacred nature, leaving the "Transjordan" (oldHebrew) alphabet for profane usage, such as inscribing coins.He prepared thirteen different copies on scrolls and gave a copyeach to every tribe including the Levites. Only through theirinclusion in the Law of Moses did even the pre-Mosaic com-mandments (e. g., circumcision) become obligatory for latergenerations.75 Moses died at noon of the seventh day of Adar.76is the wish to fit it into the theory that for every such major change in theconstitution the co6peration of a king, prophet and seventy elders is necessary.Cf. e.g., M. T. Bet ha-Behirah 6, 11 concerning the extension of the city ofJerusalem and the Temple precincts.73 S. M. Comm. 209, Prohib. 45, referring to Sanh. 109bf. and the homilet-ical interpretations of Num. 21.5, etc. in Num. r. 18,20. The story of Korah(Qarun) has found its way also into the Koran and Arabian historical litera-ture. Cf. e. g., Maqdasi III, 88 f.

74 C. M. to Abot 1, 12 referring to the legend in Ab. R. N., ibid. ed. Schechterpp. 48 ff. Maimuni also tries to explain the "golden calf" with the contagiousinfluence of astrology at that time which induced many Israelites to worshiptherein a symbol of the constellation, under which they had been deliveredfrom Egypt. Eppenstein, MbM I, 418.75 C. M. Introd.; M. T. Introd. There is no real contradiction betweenthese two statements with respect to the destination of the thirteenth scrollaccording to Deut. 31.26. Cf. also Num. r. 4, 20. The emphasis that thescrolls contained the Pentateuch to the very end is in agreement with R. Simon,

B. B. 15a, etc.; the story of the thirteen scrolls is evidently taken from Deut.r. 9, 9 (cf. the i

Baron The Historical Outlook of Maimonides

Documents

Transcript of Baron The Historical Outlook of Maimonides