The RambaN, was
a younger near contemporary of the more famous RambaM.
Also from Spain,
Moses Nachmanides was a great Rabbinic leader, who was knowledgeable of
Medicine, Sciences, Philosophy, and also Kabbalah.
His most
significant life event was a forced Disputation in Barcelona with a Christian
(ex Jewish apostate). According to his
records, he won the debate, but was
banned from publishing his version of the debate, and was exiled from Spain as
a result of this. He moved to Israel,
where he cam to close contact with the Karaites in Jerusalem, and this is where
he wrote his classical commentary on the Torah.
Although a
rabbi, his views sometimes clash with rabbinic orthodoxy, including the claims
of Rashi and Rambam. On the law of “Do
not Add” (Deut: 4:2;) he opposes Rashi’s
absurd claim that this only refers to adding an extra detail, eg a fifth
species for Sukkkot. RambaN writes that it means any new law is forbidden by the Torah. He
cites an example – actually mentioned in the Talmuds – that the prophets
opposed the institution of Purim as a new festival. The same would apply to Hannukah. Thus he uses a Karaite logic, although he
practiced a rabbinical lifestyle, and some Karaites would still
go along with new festivals such as Purim, and the fasts.
He also takes
issue with Maimonides’s fanciful fabrication that the Torah command us to
follow whatever the rabbis enact. See
for example:
Although his
commentary is mostly in compliance with Rabbinical interpretation, he does on
many occasions dispute the absurd comments of rabbis such as Rashi (who In turn
bases his comments on various midrashim). And this makes Ramban’s
commentary one of the best amongst the
rabbinical commentaries.
This is a very surprising bias you have here. This was a man who believed in the science of necromancy, had pantheistic views (i.e. he says the Shechina literally spoke through Moses' throat), he introduces the concept of Rabbinic infallibility which indicates clear influence from Pope Sixtus-era church law (unlike Maimonides who openly criticizes rulings of Tannaitic/Amoraitic-era Rabbis and the fact that humans err, even himself). He promotes the so-called 'secret' kabbalah from the school of the Raavad, the concept of Sephirot, etc. That movement eventually evolved into the current system: compartmentalization of the Godhead into 10 parts and various combinations. I get some of your beefs with RambaM, but most Karaites today would see the adherents to his worldview as (somewhat) sympathizers/allies to your cause than those who follow the RambaN. Read how RambaM explains the Oneness of God and tell me again that RambaN is the preferred source for arguably the most important issue in the Torah. I don't see how RambaN is true to p'shat whatsoever, often superimposing these 'secret mystical' ideas on the pesukim. I'd personally take Onkelos, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Ralbag, RambaM, and Rashbam over him. This is where you lost me Ed.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments,could you use a screen name so I know with whom I am having a conversation.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that RambaN was a Kabbalist, and introduces some secrets , but quite a few times I have seen him dispute Rashi and the rabbis. For example, look at the case of the son of an Israelite woman, where ramban virtually admits to Patrilineal descent, in contrast to the rabbinic matrilineal.
Maimonides was a great Medic and Philosopher, but his interpretation of the Bible was terrible.
Everyone interprets RambaM differently. Some even say he was an agnostic. I personally think he wrote for different audiences and the evidence is obvious as some of his so-called dogmatic teachings were strictly for the masses not to stray (as many points dealt with issues Jews faced with the spread and popularity of Christianity) and he pretty much contradicts himself in other places e.g. 'the Torah never changed'. Of course he didn't believe that because the Talmud even mentions that there were 3 different versions found in the temple and voted on, the original paleo-Hebrew version was lost and replaced by Ezra's Asshurite edition (and completely forgotten by everyone in his era), and the RambaM would personally go to different communities and correct their scrolls (according to the Karaite version), etc. There are countless other examples I can give but I'm too lazy now. I think he single-handedly saved the Jews from straying further from the truth by giving Jews a handbook and showing them that they have access to knowledge, they don't need local Rabbis to give them inconsistent rules to follow. On the contrary, look at the damage Kabbalah has done (the list is too long to mention here). A Jewish world without RambaM would have been ruled by superstitious Kabbalists taking advantage of the weak. Rambam removed all those superstitions and therefore saved the weak of society i.e. the central theme of the Isiah's speech about what God wants more than ritual observance. I liken this to Islam. Imagine if the Islam of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina became a force; the golden age of arab contribution to humanity would still be thriving. In the big picture that is how one should view RambaM (not nitpicking here and there - but the overall picture). The Judaism of the Rambam (and as seen by most followers of his today) allows for 'Rambamites' and Karaites today to engage in a conversation leading to common ground via rational thinking and mutual respect. Try getting an audience with Chabadniks or Rabbi Berg's followers...yeah, exactly. Also, you might want to thank the RambaM and some of your Rabbanite ancestors for giving you the ritual tools for survival in exile, something the Sadducees could have used but were too short-sighted (and I am in no way saying the Rabbanites had clean hands. No way. But anyone with half a brain knows that the current written Torah is not what Moses had anyways, so at least look at which Rabbis preserved true Torah philosophy, which far outweighs mundane rituals which are arguably never to be recovered according to their original practice).
ReplyDeleteAlso, who cares if he disputes Rashi. Most Rabbis from the Geonic schools or even Rambam, had they seen Rashi, would have likely burned his books. He was a corporealist who didn't even know the tradition of not taking midrashim literally. As far as I'm concerned, Franco-German or Ashkenazi Rabbis are not even in the conversation. It only lead to Kabbalah: superstition, veiled idolatry, and false messiahs. Whoopdee-doo that RambaN was able to figure some shit out with his own intellect like Patrilineal descent. In the grand scheme, I think Avodah Zarah is a far worse crime, yet some might call him the godfather of Kabbalah. You have great posts, but stuff like this confuses your audience. You sound like someone who was brainwashed to become an orthodox Jew and left them later on while holding onto some misplaced biases. I recommend reading up on who Maimonides really was. I don't see goyish hospitals today being named after RambaN or Ben Asher (both of whom laid the groundwork for reincarnation in our religion). The Karaites are likely closest to the truth, but history proves that they don't have a good system in place for the long haul. Modern skepticism has opened the doors to biblical criticism, which has lead to less superstition and a revival of Maimonidean/Karaite thought. You are a bit confusing with your alliances.
ReplyDeleteMaimonides was great in some areas. I his theology I am more aligned with him. If you have read some of my posts on where I take issue with Maimonides on his misrepresentation of the TORAH, eg Temple rituals, you will see why I have some problems with him. Nachmanides is no better in many of these issues. The difference, IMHO, is that Nachmanides takes issue with rabbinic lore more frequently than does Maimonides. Maimonides only makes a token statement about astrology and superstition - although this is very important as you say.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you on Idolatry. Ironically, I am interested to know how karaite scholars viewed anthropomorphism in the the Torah.
Anyway Mr Anon, do you have a name?
ReplyDeleteBesides, the argument you make that Maimonides is closer to the karaites than nachmanides is unconvincing. Maimonides basically lies about the oral law by making it part of the written. So not only is Maimonides wrong, he is also dishonest. You can be critical of Nachmanides on his kabbalah views, but he does not appear to me to be dishonest.
ReplyDelete"You have great posts, but stuff like this confuses your audience. You sound like someone who was brainwashed to become an orthodox Jew and left them later on while holding onto some misplaced biases. I recommend reading up on who Maimonides really was."
ReplyDeleteI know who Rambam was. A great philosopher. Any of the great rabbis on this blog are still not karaites. If I write about Nachmanides, it does not mean I agree with every word he wrote. Rambam claims that anything the rabbis invented is comanded to us int he Torah. that is a central flaw in Maimonidean halacha. the joke is that most orthodox do not follow Maimonides in halacha, because he is too "Islamic" in his approach.