|
The most rigorous medieval critique of Maimonides is Hasdai Crescas' Or
Hashem. Crescas bucked the eclectic trend by demolishing the certainty of
the Aristotelian world view not only in religious matters, but even in the
most basic areas of medieval science (such as physics and geometry). Crescas'
critique provoked a number of 15th century scholars to write defenses of
Maimonides. A translation of Crescas was written by Harry Austryn Wolfson of
Harvard University in 1929.
The 13 principles of faith
In his commentary on the Mishna (tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 10), Maimonides
formulates his 13 principles of faith. They described his views on:
The existence of God
God's unity
God's spirituality and incorporeality
God's eternity
God alone should be the object of worship
Revelation through God's prophets
The preeminence of Moses among the prophets
God's law given on Mount Sinai
The immutability of the Torah as God's Law
God's foreknowledge of human actions
Retribution of evil
The coming of the Jewish Messiah
The resurrection of the dead
These principles were controversial when
first proposed, evoking criticism by Hasdai Crescas and Joseph Albo, and
were effectively ignored by much of the Jewish community for the next few
centuries. ("Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought", Menachem Kellner). However,
two poetic restatements of these principles (Ani Ma'amim and Yigdal)
eventually became canonized in the siddur (Jewish prayer book), and these
principles became widely held. Today most of Orthodox Judaism holds these
beliefs to be obligatory.
Halakhic works
See also
Mishneh Torah on his influence in halakha
With Mishneh Torah, Maimonides composed a code of Jewish law with the widest
possible scope and depth. The work gathers all the binding laws from the
Talmud and incorporates the positions of the Geonim (post-Talmudic early
Medieval scholars, mainly from Mesopotamia). It is a highly systematised
work and employs a very clear Hebrew reminiscent of the style of the Mishna.
While Mishneh Torah is now considered the forerunner of the Arbaah Turim and
the Shulkhan Arukh, two later codes, it met initially with a lot of
opposition. There were two main reasons for this opposition. Firstly,
Maimonides had refrained from adding references to his work for brevity.
Secondly, in the introduction, he gave the impression of wanting to "cut
out" study of the Talmud to arrive at a conclusion in Jewish law. His most
forceful opponents were the rabbis of the Provence (Southern France), and a
running critique by Rabbi Abraham ibn Daud (Raavad III) is printed in
virtually all editions of Misheh Torah.
Philosophy
Through the Guide for the Perplexed and the
philosophical introductions to sections of his commentaries on the Mishna,
Maimonides exerted an important influence on the Scholastic philosophers,
especially on Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus. He was
himself a Jewish Scholastic. Educated more by reading the works of Arab
Muslim philosophers than by personal contact with Arabian teachers, he
acquired an intimate acquaintance not only with Arab Muslim philosophy, but
with the doctrines of Aristotle. Maimonides strove to reconcile Aristotelian
philosophy and science with the teachings of the Bible.
Negative theology
The principle which inspired his
philosophical activity was identical with the fundamental tenet of
Scholasticism: there can be no contradiction between the truths which God
has revealed and the findings of the human mind in science and philosophy.
By science and philosophy, he understood the science and philosophy of
Aristotle. In some important points, however, he departed from the teaching
of Aristotle; for instance, he rejected the Aristotelian doctrine that God's
provident care extends only to humanity, and not to the individual.
Maimonides was led by his admiration for the neo-Platonic commentators to
maintain many doctrines which the Scholastics could not accept. For
instance, Maimonides was an adherent of negative theology (also known as
Apophatic theology.) In this theology, one attempts to describe God through
negative attributes. For instance, one should not say that God exists in the
usual sense of the term; all we can safely say is that God is not
nonexistent. We should not say that God is wise, but we can say that God is
not ignorant, i.e. in some way God has some properties of knowledge. We
should not say that God is One, but we can state that there is no
multiplicity in God's being. In brief, the attempt is to gain and express
knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing
what God is.
The Scholastics agreed with him that no predicate is adequate to express the
nature of God, but they did not go so far as to say that no term can be
applied to God in the affirmative sense. They admitted that while "eternal",
"omnipotent", etc., as we apply them to God, are inadequate, at the same
time we may say "God is eternal" etc., and need not stop, as Moses did, with
the negative "God is not not-eternal", etc.
Prophecy
He agrees with "the philosophers" in
teaching that, man's intelligence being one in the series of intelligences
emanating from God, the prophet must, by study and meditation, lift himself
up to the degree of perfection required in the prophetic state. But here he
invokes the authority of "the Law", which teaches that, after that
perfection is reached, there is required the free act of God before the man
actually becomes the prophet.
The problem of evil
Maimonides wrote on theodicy, the attempt
to reconcile the existence of evil with the premise that an omnipotent and
good God exists. He follows the neo-Platonists in laying stress on matter as
the source of all evil and imperfection.
Astrology
Maimonides answered an inquiry concerning
astrology, addressed to him from Marseilles. He responded that man should
believe only what can be supported either by rational proof, by the evidence
of the senses, or by trustworthy authority. He affirms that he has studied
astrology and that it does not deserve to be described as a science. The
supposition that the fate of a man could be dependent upon the
constellations is ridiculed by him; he argues that such a theory would rob
life of purpose and would make man a slave of destiny.
True beliefs versus necessary belief
In Guide for the Perplexed Book III,
Chapter 28, Maimonides explicitly draws a distinction between "true
beliefs", which were beliefs about God which produced intellectual
perfection, and "necessary beliefs", which were conducive to improving
social order. Maimonides places anthropomorphic statements about God in the
latter class. He uses as an example the notion that God becomes angry with
people who do wrong. In the view of Maimonides, God does not actually become
angry with people, but it is important for them to believe God does, so that
they desist from sinning.
Resurrection, acquired immortality, and the afterlife
Maimonides distinguishes two kinds of
intelligence in man, the one material in the sense of being dependent on,
and influenced by, the body, and the other immaterial, that is, independent
of the bodily organism. The latter is a direct emanation from the universal
active intellect; this is his interpretation of the noûs poietikós of
Aristotelian philosophy. It is acquired as the result of the efforts of the
soul to attain a correct knowledge of the absolute, pure intelligence of
God.
The knowledge of God is a form of knowledge which develops in us the
immaterial intelligence, and thus confers on man an immaterial, spiritual
nature. This confers on the soul that perfection in which human happiness
consists, and endows the soul with immortality. One who has attained a
correct knowledge of God has reached a condition of existence which renders
him immune from all the accidents of fortune, from all the allurements of
sin, and even from death itself. Man, therefore is in a position not only to
work out his own salvation and immortality.
The resemblance between this doctrine and Spinoza's doctrine of immortality
is so striking as to warrant the hypothesis that there is a causal
dependence of the later on the earlier doctrine. The differences between the
two Jewish thinkers are, however, as remarkable as the resemblance. While
Spinoza teaches that the way to attain the knowledge which confers
immortality is the progress from sense-knowledge through scientific
knowledge to philosophical intuition of all things sub specie æternitatis,
Maimonides holds that the road to perfection and immortality is the path of
duty as described in the Torah and the rabbinic understanding of the oral
law.
Religious Jews not only believed in immortality in some spiritual sense, but
most believed that there would at some point in the future be a messianic
era, and a resurrection of the dead. This is the subject of Jewish
eschatology. Maimonides wrote much on this topic, but in most cases he wrote
about the immortality of the soul for people of perfected intellect; his
writings were usually not about the resurrection of dead bodies. This
prompted hostile criticism from the rabbis of his day, and sparked a
controversy over his true views.
Rabbinic works usually refer to this afterlife as "Olam Haba" (the World to
Come). Some rabbinic works use this phrase to refer to a messianic era, an
era of history right here on Earth; in other rabbinic works this phrase
refers to a purely spiritual realm. It was during Maimonides's lifetime that
this lack of agreement flared into a full blown controversy, with Maimonides
charged as a heretic by some Jewish leaders.
Some Jews at this time taught that Judaism did not require a belief in the
physical resurrection of the dead, as the afterlife would be a purely
spiritual realm. They used Maimonides' works on this subject to back up
their position. In return, their opponents claimed that this was outright
heresy; for them the afterlife was right here on Earth, where God would
raise dead bodies from the grave so that the resurrected could live
eternally. Maimonides was brought into this dispute by both sides, as the
first group stated that his writings agreed with them, and the second group
portrayed him as a heretic for writing that the afterlife is for the
immaterial spirit alone. Eventually, Maimonides felt pressured to write a
treatise on the subject, the "Ma'amar Tehiyyat Hametim" "The Treatise on
Resurrection."
Chapter two of the treatise on resurrection refers to those who believe that
the world to come involves physically resurrected bodies. Maimonides refers
to one with such beliefs as being an "utter fool" whose belief is "folly".
If one of the multitude refuses to believe [that angels are incorporeal] and
prefers to believe that angels have bodies and even that they eat, since it
is written (Genesis 18:8) 'they ate', or that those who exist in the World
to Come will also have bodies—we won't hold it against him or consider him a
heretic, and we will not distance ourselves from him. May there not be many
who profess this folly, and let us hope that he will go farther than this in
his folly and believe that the Creator is corporeal.
However, Maimonides also writes that those who claimed that he altogether
believed the verses of the Hebrew Bible referring to the resurrection were
only allegorical were spreading falsehoods and "revolting" statements.
Maimonides asserts that belief in resurrection is a fundamental truth of
Judaism about which there is no disagreement, and that it is not permissible
for a Jew to support anyone who believes differently. He cites Daniel 12:2
and 12:13 as definitive proofs of physical resurrection of the dead when
they state "many of them that sleep in the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence" and "But
you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your
inheritance at the end of the days."
While these two positions may be seen as in contradiction (non-corporeal
eternal life, versus a bodily resurrection), Maimonides resolves them with a
then unique solution: Maimonides believed that the resurrection was not
permanent or general. In his view, God never violates the laws of nature.
Rather, divine interaction is by way of angels, which Maimonides holds to be
metaphors for the laws of nature, the principles by which the physical
universe operates, or Platonic eternal forms. Thus, if a unique event
actually occurs, even it is perceived as a miracle, it is not a violation of
the world's order (Commentary on the Mishna, Avot 5:6.)
In this view, any dead who are resurrected must eventually die again. In his
discussion of the 13 principles of faith, the first five deal with knowledge
of God, the next four deal with prophecy and the Torah, while the last four
deal with reward, punishment and the ultimate redemption. In this discussion
Maimonides says nothing of a universal resurrection. All he says it is that
whatever resurrection does take place, it will occur at an indeterminate
time before the world to come, which he repeatedly states will be purely
spiritual.
He writes "It appears to us on the basis of these verses (Daniel 12:2,13)
that those people who will return to those bodies will eat, drink, copulate,
beget, and die after a very long life, like the lives of those who will live
in the Days of the Messiah." Maimonides thus disassociated the resurrection
of the dead from both the World to Come and the Messianic era.
In his time, many Jews believed that the physical resurrection was identical
to the world to come; thus denial of a permanent and universal resurrection
was considered tantamount to denying the words of the Talmudic sages.
However, instead of denying the resurrection, or maintaining the current
dogma, Maimonides posited a third way: That resurrection had nothing to do
with the messianic era (here in this world) nor to do with Olam Haba (the
purely spiritual afterlife). Rather, he considered resurrection to be a
miracle that the book of Daniel predicted; thus at some point in time we
could expect some instances of resurrection to occur temporarily, which
would have no place in the final eternal life of the righteous.
Quotes from Maimonides
Teach your tongue to say "I do not know"
and you will progress.
The risk of a wrong decision is preferable to the terror of indecision.
You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.
Anticipate charity by preventing poverty; assist the reduced fellow man,
either by a considerable gift or a sum of money or by teaching him a trade
or by putting him in the way of business so that he may earn an honest
livelihood and not be forced to the dreadful alternative of holding out his
hand for charity. This is the highest step and summit of charity's golden
ladder. (See Rambam's Ladder in Tzedakah.)
We are obligated to be more scrupulous in fulfilling the commandment of
charity than any other positive commandment because charity is the sign of a
righteous man.
No disease that can be treated by diet should be treated with any other
means. |
