It is certainly true that Rambam sought to establish a version of Judaism which emphasised the importance of an intellectual relationship with God. In doing so he saw the physical world and laws of nature as a manifestation of God’s wisdom through which we can reach knowledge, fear and love of God – and therefore minimised the role of miracles within Judaism and the existence of mystical or magical forces which interfered with nature.
Nevertheless, before casually labelling Rambam a “rationalist” or “Aristotelian”, it is valuable to examine exactly how his religious and philosophical teachings were received by others in the rational camp of medieval Jewish thinkers. This allows us to reach a more nuanced understanding of Rambam’s own theology and his stated purpose in writing A Guide for the Perplexed– for those who were struggling to reconcile Jewish and Aristotelian teachings.
One notable medieval Jewish rationalist was Samuel ibn Tibbon, who translated the Guide into Hebrew, thereby allowing it to reach a broader Jewish audience. Ibn Tibbon was critical of Rambam’s work in several places, all of them in connection with his apparent departure from an intellectualist Aristotelian template in order to embrace a warmer Judaism which engaged with the entire nation – not just a “philosophical elite”.
We read in yesterday’s parashah of Moshe’s extensive dedication to the people whom he led, making himself available to assist them “from morning to evening”, and thereby causing his father-in-law to be concerned for his wellbeing. But was Moshe’s selflessness altogether positive? Or is it better regarded as a “necessary evil” through which he sacrificed his own spiritual development for the greater good? It depends who you ask.
In Guide 3:51, Rambam describes how Moshe and the Avot reached the highest level of human perfection, for they were in constant communion with God and also fully involved in the creation and governance of a religious community. Ibn Tibbon, however, does not accept Rambam’s approach, arguing instead in his Ma’amar Yikavu HaMayim that these praiseworthy figures could have reached an even higher state had they engaged in a life of pure contemplation, free from the hindrances of the physical and political world.
Ibn Tibbon’s position forms part of his greater critique of Rambam’s Jewish worldview which he considered to be an unjustifiable departure from Aristotelian philosophy.
The concluding passages of the Guide present a brief discussion of the purpose of human existence. Building upon his celebration of the virtues of philosophical contemplation, Rambam introduces a biblical text (Jeremiah 9:22–23) which he says presents the same ideas of the philosophers, but with one vital addition: “exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth”. Thus knowledge of God, Maimonides implies, should lead to action; the contemplative should serve a practical end.
In the preface to the translation of Maimonides on Avot, Ibn Tibbon discusses these same verses from Jeremiah in detail, explains and criticizes Maimonides’ interpretation of them, then presents his own novel explication. According to Ibn Tibbon, the final human perfection is knowledge and understanding of God, without qualification. Thus the verse should be understood differently, with the final clause relating to God rather than man; man should understand and know God, full stop.
Perhaps the most explicit and instructive critique which Ibn Tibbon makes of Rambam relates to his interpretation (Guide 1:15) of Ya’akov’s dream involving angels ascending and descending a ladder. According to Rambam, these angels symbolise prophets. As I present it in Judaism Reclaimed:
“While Rambam understands prophecy to be the preserve of those who have greatly developed their intellect, Ya'akov's dream teaches that the prophet, having scaled the heights and gained a great intellectual insight, must return down to the masses to lead and be involved with their affairs. With this message, the Torah rejects the stereotype of the prophet as a reclusive 'Man of God', who is removed from and unconcerned with the fate of those around him.”
Once again, Ibn Tibbon’s Aristotelian frame of reference could not accept Rambam’s inclusion of altruism as a key requirement for a fully-functioning prophet, writing instead that the angels are the philosophers, who ascend the ladder of wisdom toward metaphysics, the final subject of the curriculum.
In all three of these examples, Ibn Tibbon emphasizes the contemplative over the practical. He works with the same biblical texts singled out by Rambam, but arrives at a different philosophical position.
It is not only Ibn Tibbon who criticised Rambam for insufficiently adhering to Aristotelian principles. Ralbag (Gersonides), in his exploration of the nature of divine knowledge in Milchamot Hashem (3:3) struggles to comprehend how Rambam considers that God has knowledge of particulars as well as generalities writing:
“It seems that Maimonides’ position on this question of Divine cognition is not implied by any philosophical principles; indeed, reason denies this view, as I will show. It seems rather that theological considerations have forced him to this view.”
It is against this backdrop that we can begin to appreciate quite how radical Rambam’s position on the matter was, remaining faithful to the clear implications of the biblical texts despite the theological challenges that these created when viewed from the prevalent Aristotelian perspective (see more on Rambam’s understanding of divine knowledge here).
Assessing Rambam from our modern-day point of view, he defies easy pigeon-holing and does not fit into any of our over-simplified categories of religious thought. While his embrace of a non-kabbalistic Judaism which respects the laws of nature as manifestations of God’s eternal wisdom understandably causes him to be labelled a “rationalist” in the spectrum of today’s Jewish world, this should not mislead people to believe that he did not possess a powerful religious – even mystical dimension (a matter that I have explored elsewhere).
Is it radical to suggest that our assessment of Rambam’s rationalist credentials should take into the account the reactions he received from card-carrying Aristotelians from his own era?
First posted on Facebook 12 February 2023, here.
