The
2 great Rabbinic scholars of the 12th century were known
as Maimonides (Rambam) and his frequent controversialist, Abraham
ben David (RABaD or Raavad). Whereas Maimonides is well known
throughout the Jewish (and non-Jewish) world, with hundreds of books
about him, hospitals, and schools named after him and is a celebrated
figure of Jewish intellect in areas of philosophy, medicine,
astronomy etc. Rabad is scarcely known outside of rabbinical
scholarship and the experts in halacha (and Kabbala) who study his
original critiques of Maimonides.
Maimonides
is known as a towering intellect, who was esteemed by surrounding
Muslim and Christian cultures; as a philosopher whose magnum opus
The Guide for the Perplexed is still the mainstay of Jewish
philosophy and theology, and whose original 13 principles of faith
have become a declaration of faith for the rabbinical orthodox world.
Rabad was known as a great talmudist, who had the entire Talmud
deeply ensconced in his memory, and he was reputed to be able to
access any part of it on demand. He was the major rabbinic authority
for France and Ashkenaz, whereas Maimonides was the authority for
Spain and Sepharad.
Maimonides
is considered a “Modern” orthodox proponent, because of his
philosophical and rational thinking, his use of science and rejection
of mysticism and superstition. Rabad, on the other hand, is largely
claimed as a model for Ultra-Orthodoxy precisely because of his
espousal of and expertise in Kabbalah, and his alleged disregard of
science. However, neither of these stereotypes are necessarily true.
I will argue quite the opposite.
A
statement I have often heard from the Yeshiva world is that they
follow Maimonides in halacha (legal interpretation) but not in
philosophy. Indeed, the relatively modern Shulchan Aruch is largely
based on Rambam's legal works. This statement, however, is
problematic, because the one authority who is supposedly
authentically Orthodox – Rabad – was also the chief critic of
Maimonides' halacha, and not philosophy. Rabad leveled severe
criticism against the “Mishneh Torah” of Maimonides, both
methodological and substantive. The main methodological criticisms
were that Maimonides was not providing sources for his statements,
and that a text book of halacha is a bad thing, rather it should be
derived through consideration of the various opinions in the Talmud.
Indeed certain of Maimonides' statements seem to be in error (or
fabricated) and Rabad will show that there is in fact much evidence
to support the opposite conclusion.
The
key problem with Maimonides is that he tends to present a strict
position, when in fact the Talmud suggests a lenient or permissive
position on many matters. He also seems to be aloof and unconcerned
by the real world burden he is imposing on people, whereas Rabad is
very concerned by the increasing burden of rabbinically added extras.
In one famous controversy, Rambam is suggesting that a rabbinic
Gezeira (added restriction) cannot be undone by a later generation.
Here, the Rabad presents a case where this was precisely occurred
since the reasons for that restriction were no longer relevant.
So
whilst it may be claimed that Rambam was a Modern orthodox
revolutionary, he was in practice an extreme conservative, who often
presents halachic views which are impractical and unwarranted,
whereas Rabad was the true revolutionary. Revolutionary is a
relative term, since our impression of Rabbinic law is one of
strictness and ascetism. Rambam, the philosopher was the ascetic,
and he imposed an ascetic halacha, whereas Rabad, the Kabbalist was
the most open minded thinker in the past 1000 years. His vision of
Talmud was not one that strangles a person's humanity, happiness of
enjoyment in this world – this was the conclusion that Rambam
reached. Rabad viewed the Talmud as a way of living and allowing
people to fulfil there lives in this world, and not to wait for the
next. Hence, it is my view that Abraham ben David was the true Modern
Orthodox revolutionary.
