Q&A: Did Maimonides Believe What He Wrote?
Did Maimonides Believe What He Wrote?
Question
There is a book by Israel Netanel Rubin about “The Heresies of Maimonides.” He argues that according to the radical heretical interpreters of the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides did not really believe what he wrote, and everything he wrote in the Guide was only a smokescreen hiding his real views. What does the Rabbi think?
Answer
I haven’t read the book, but the thesis is quite old. This is a very extreme formulation of it. In the introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides explicitly writes that he uses esoteric writing, and I have often explained why in my opinion this is a destructive approach, because his words are emptied of content. Now you cannot know what he really thinks, and everything he writes becomes suspect as a lie. Statements like these are the realization of my concern.
Discussion on Answer
Rubin also admitted in an interview that the real purpose of the book is to present the radical heretical interpreters.
Rabbi Yosef Kapach writes about Narboni that he was known to have approaches tending toward heresy (according to Maimonides), and Rabbi Kapach adds that if he wanted to say these as his own views that would be one thing, but for him to insert them as though Maimonides said them is unacceptable.
What does the Rabbi think about that?
I explained that this is not about lying. In any case, my view is that none of this is interesting or important. Why should I care what Maimonides’ real opinion was? I read his arguments and those of others and form a position on the merits of the issue, not based on the person.
In the discussion of Rubin’s book, it is highly recommended to read the response book to his work — The True Beliefs of Maimonides. It appears on Wikipedia in the entry “The Heresies of Maimonides” under “External links.”
Because the reader will form a position on the merits of the issue, his words are not emptied of content. Someone who is perplexed and has trust in Maimonides will look in his words for the hints and perhaps find Maimonides’ solution, and perhaps the solution will persuade him or help him think of an alternative solution. And someone who is not perplexed, or not diligent enough, or is from the executive committee for guarding holiness, will be able to think that Maimonides is saying interesting but not radical things (those are the silver filigree settings that wrap the golden apples). And in my opinion, this technique really did work for Maimonides in an exceptional way.
In my opinion,
any position, whatever it may be, when taken to an extreme — loses its flavor.
The book enables whoever wants to make the effort and study the parallels to arrive at Maimonides’ view,
and there is a very small part where it truly cannot be decided. That is what I tried to do in my commentary on the book.
In my opinion, it is important to know Maimonides’ view and to understand its interpretation, not because it is binding (it is not),
but because it contains thought from which one can learn and draw inspiration; it is comprehensive, and it mediates between Jewish law and philosophy, between individual and collective, between body and soul, and more. It is an exciting and thoughtful option that is worth studying.
Yohai Makbili, Mishneh Torah Project
So then we really have no way of knowing what Maimonides’ view was?
Or is Maimonides’ view clear because Maimonides wrote that he revised the Mishneh Torah after writing it in his youth?
But is it really reasonable to say that Maimonides lied?
Maybe he had a different approach, but from here to…