A Scrutiny of the Charges of Forgery Against Maim on Ides' Letter of Ressurection

8/3/2019 A Scrutiny of the Charges of Forgery Against Maim on Ides' Letter of Ressurection

1/18

A Scrutiny of the Charges of Forgery against Maimonides' "Letter on Resurrection"Author(s): Isaiah SonneSource: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 21 (1952), pp. 101-117Published by: American Academy for Jewish ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622213 .Accessed: 20/07/2011 14:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajr. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Academy for Jewish Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3622213?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajrhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajrhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3622213?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aajr


2/18

A SCRUTINY OF THE CHARGES OF FORGERYAGAINST MAIMONIDES' "LETTERON RESURRECTION"By ISAIAH SONNE

Shortly before the big controversy about the Dead Sea Scrollsarose, an attempt was made to stigmatize as forgeries certainwritings attributed to Maimonides. The main target of theforgery attack was "The Letter on Resurrection" - IggeretTehiyat ha-Metim. In 1944 Dr. Teicher published a sensationalarticle "Maimonides' Treatise on Resurrection - a 13th CenturyForgery."' Since some of Maimonides' letters refer to thistreatise, those too were drawn into the realm of fabrications.Indeed, a few years later, 1948, another startling article byTeicher appeared proclaiming: "Maimonides' Letter to Josephben Jehudah a literary Forgery."2 Controversy over theDead Sea Scrolls eclipsed for the time being the forgery chal-lenge of the "Treatise."Unlike the Scrolls, however, which have found a host ofscholars ready to defend them against the charge that they arenot authentic, none, to my knowledge, took up the defense ofthe "Treatise." The few scholars who took cognizance of thesensational discovery were rather captivated by its "novelty,"and, without taking the least trouble to examine the evidence,

Teicher, Jacob L., 'nvni ,wo,n,r n"nn -nnND :"'r ntN 'nln,D ll',Melilah, I (1944), p. 81-92. Will be quoted: Melilah.2Teicher, Jacob L., Maimonides' Letter to Joseph ben Jehudah

- a LiteraryForgery, Journal of Jewish Studies, I (1948), pp. 35-54. Will be quotedJJS. Endowed, as it seems, with a special scent for forgeries, Teicher tellsus that "there is no doubt this letter (of Maimonides to Ibn Gabar) is notgenuine" (JJS, p. 49, note 1). He also suspects as spurious the "Yad Ramah,"novellae on Tractate Baba Batra, attributed to Meir Abulafia as well as the"Torath ha-Adam," attributed to Nahmanides, because both cite the"Treatise" (Melilah, p. 92).101


3/18

were inclined to accept, with certain qualifications, the forgerytheory as plausible.3 This lack of interest in defending the"Treatise" is understandable, though hardly justified. After all,we may say, the incriminated treatise and letters are not thatimportant, and Maimonides' achievements would hardly beaffected if we should be compelled to remove the above men-tioned writings from the list of his works. However, the scholarsseem to overlook that not only the "Treatise" is at stake, but,what is more important, the reputation of so many studentswho, according to Teicher, were fooled for more than half amillennium by a clumsy falsification which he "at once" recog-nized as such. This assertion stirred my curiosity to learn thetechnique and the tools by which Teicher was able to unmaskthe forger who for more than five hundred years succeeded sowell in deceiving the best critical minds of Jewish scholarship.I therefore decided to subject to a critical analysis the evidenceadduced by Dr. Teicher to impugn the authenticity of the"Treatise on Resurrection." Here are the findings of this analysis.Formally the evidence runs as follows: 1) A certain argumentdealt with in the "Treatise" could not have been known toMaimonides, because Teicher asserts he knows positively thatthe first to formulate such argument was no other than MeirAbulafia in his anti-Maimonidean campaign. Ergo it must bepost-Maimonides. 2) A statement in the "Treatise" about thecorporeal conception of God as current among Jewish rabbisdoes not, according to Teicher, fit into the Jewish culturalclimate of the time of Maimonides, but rather in that of the endof the 13th century. Ergo it is a product of the second half ofthis century. 3) Finally, the "Treatise" raises a "strange"

3 In his reviewof the Melilahvolume(Hatekufah,ol. 30-31 (1946),p.823-27), Prof. Baronsinglesout Teicher'sarticleas the most interestingand the most "acute"of the whole volume. In justiceto Prof.Baron, tmust be added that he reservedhis final judgmentuntil Teicherwouldproducehis promised,xtensive tudyon the subject.To my knowledge,ehas not yet fulfilledhis promise,and if I rightlyunderstand is words nJJS, p. 42: "I have shown lsewherehat the Treatise s a forgery,"Teicherconsidershis conclusion s definite,and any further nvestigation wasteof time.

102 [2]ONNE


4/18

[3] MAIMONIDES' "LETTER ON RESURRECTION'question the answer to which is, according to Teicher, absurd,and reveals the ignorance of the author. Ergo he could not beMaimonides.Scholars who have followed attentively the discussion aboutthe Scrolls will not fail to realize that we are here in the presenceof a familiar scientific temper, impatient of doubts and un-certainties and precipitating conclusions "without a shade ofdoubt." Indeed, arguments of the same character and weight,presented with the same air of definiteness, are not rare in thegreat debate about the Scrolls, and we meet them often in bothopposing camps.A scrutiny of the logical structure as well as the very premisesof Teicher's theory may disclose the pitfalls of such scientificaudacities, and admonish us to a more cautious and patientprocedure in our research work.

IFirst Proof. The first passage which Teicher singles out asbearing post-Maimonidean traces reads: "We also made itclear there (referring to his Mishneh Torah) that there will beno human bodies in the world to come, since our teachers saidthat there will be no eating no drinking etc. It is therefore un-thinkable that these bodily organs should exist devoid of anypurpose, any function. Far be it from God to act without a pur-pose (in vain)." The treatise continues: "Some one has refutedthis our statement, saying: 'Behold, Moses and Elijah havelived for a long time without food though endowed with humanbodies. The people of the world to come may be of the samenature'." To this argument, Maimonides replies with an ex-clamation: What a comparison!4 The bodily organs of Mosesand Elijah were not devoid of a purpose. Both of them were

human beings participating in the affairs of this world; they ateand drank with these organs before the miracle and afterwards.How can you compare this with a continuous, eternal existence4 The exclamation is rendered by Lam. 1.12: iln;t n-nr iyi: D0'SK Ki.... 1K:1.

103


5/18

104 SONNE [4]as that of the hereafter? How can there be bodily organs ful-filling no function at any time? These people (who maintainthe existence of the body in the hereafter) do not know thegreat blasphemy one commits by attributing a purposeless actto God."s

Referring to an exchange of letters touching upon our subject,between the anti-Maimonidean Meir Abulafia and the Mai-monidean Nasi Sheshet of Saragossa, Teicher contends a) thatMeir Abulafia was the first to have used the Moses and Elijahexample in support of the existence of the body in the here-after; b) that the reply to this argument in the "Treatise"originated with the Nasi Sheshet of Saragossa. Teicher then goeson to say c) that "comparing the text of the "Treatise" withthat of the two epistles, we see at once that there exists a re-lationship of direct dependence, and d) precisely that the"Treatise" is dependent on the epistles and not vice versa."6The first three statements are simply introduced as selfevident. Are they really self evident? We start our investiga-tion with the central statement, namely that of the directdependence of the two texts, our "Treatise" and the Abulafia-Sheshet correspondence, because the whole structure stands or

5 Maimonides' Treatise on Resurrection, ed. Finkel, Proceedings of theAmerican Academy for Jewish Research, vol. IX, p. 6-7, #9, 10: 1] mD1ir:ai... inwn nm'K i 1 1'W irt 'nli 1nW ,n: nlsi nlmD.. 1: 3"mnylor I-rTDy'tN1 tDrin 1iDHi nir 13nyr -mnot'n innD in13 ...n - nL y 9:iKn:n 'nTI --T '-"lyp ~D oz'[ .3'roy'3n I' p1 ,mnus mn1 rnl nr'mK 6:,ITl;l ':3: D WK 'lIm t . 1 I 1 'n1 K D ' 2D?;l D01 'Lm'Ky 1n1tD... 1, nivzn ltw -vtlornnlKxo' nro irW'p' 'i ,ilinni nmsD1n396 ini Din 2' 'InDnI li)m i-ria ly-1' b 1N1 ... 9n t 1 )an 7 1z I' n 1I'K...(itl WiV-r;nDz) niLi n y 3 DW nll''.6 Melilah, p. 81: ... -nrmxnzryn n'lnDlD"ninl 13 r^3t3 n1m3T.. q1DN:nminnw ... mnr-rnn pi%nxn m nmspnFml:,, n-nDn m nrmnmn n (1)ntrn ny:unrnN yn,tr 1I W nin (2) ... inv= 'inK nb ::v a" n 1D, ' 1 :.. . ,KD pWtn nyn nKN -nD tODp:DD nrvw K'), (3) ... n',Dp1i: ... nK K1it ' D nnI 13znv ym r n1 mnn ',nl-'i -r -imDmDn-mn nK mimwz(4)':n -1inD .. ni'lnDnm YtO2nn nKN ta IDnDK pnyli (5) ,Ni: D'-irp niK '3itNK 'K1 ,D 'I n D 1 0 ' 3 DU DKon D'riXn .JDrlI Ki1 ... nplinDn 'vyz^i1 o'-IDDVn) D'3) D1 1i l1 D K ... npi'nonr ntK iT'^tl1 ... nlrvn9w -nltnnn).


6/18

[5] MAIMONIDES' "IETTER ON RESURRECTION"falls with it. This statement clearly implies that the passagesunder consideration in the two texts, are, as far as the contentis concerned, identical, expressing the same ideas. This supposi-tion, however, is entirely gratuitous, and hardly does justice tothe text of the "Treatise." As a matter of fact, on closer con-sideration it becomes clear that the two texts, especially withregard to the reply, have very little in common.We should bear in mind that if we read the "Treatise" withdue attention as a genuine Maimonidean work, and do not lookupon it contemptuously as a spurious one, we cannot fail torealize that the center of gravity of its argumentation lies inthe teleological concept - not of nature as formulated byAristotle, but-of the works of God.7 Again and again the"Treatise" stresses that it would be blasphemous to attributeto God a purposeless act, and therefore it is impossible to con-ceive that God should have created bodily organs of digestion,for instance, for such human beings as those of the hereafterwho would never use them.8 Should we find that this central

7 Moreh Nebukim, III, chap. 25: nlmlys ni3wnn1I Wyn9 VWKw -nDlK. .. in 3i p,n on. Finkel in his "Explanatory Notes," p. 94, note 9, refersto Moreh II, chap. 14 where Maimonides quotes Aristotle saying: ozn ymunrnh= n3'i nvpy' i1. However, Maimonides seems to have purposely avoidedhere any allusion to Aristotle. True, in the Moreh, he links his theologicalconcept of purpose with Aristotle's naturalistic view, but here, writing for thecommon people (Treatise, p. 37: ... 11.n ln,nnn mDK inDwon r), Maimonidespreferred to remain on strictly theological ground.8 Not only in the above quoted passage, but still more in ##24, 25 (pp.16-18), Maimonides went out of his way to expatiate on this point: niK'iix 1i9 9lprw Nnit4nn '- 3 1n)n .. t2l nllyB7 O'9D N1In ODl p7rnw nr-nny-11 l3 m1n1] OK... *nIn n-nn1 llrDn~Mp 'm nnMl,f n 'D Inin,oKN KN2nI i y K I n; D1 -13 KX'2DD' K -1 n' Ki n , ;nni7iyBP ni3pinDn ,lni^lyD9 In t Dnl 1i n;n n -in1 -i Don in nls IBinI-I I ]o ...l ?rg 'I . y...n1 mD 01 W K1 1 ? I -I I l K In -; 13 0 I n l W K.It is significant that Nahmanides who was very well versed in the old con-troversy quotes only this teleological argument from our Treatise (cf. Toratha-Adam, towards the end). Maimonides felt that he is going to indulge inprolixity, and he apologizes in advance: nD :3 y 3gpDll -3~iDDni nr3 l'N1n'ailn n Kl~n;11 Do'a'aP y 99 3' H n3n 1K ntWnn .nb9 InIrZDNW(15 'oy ,ti ypD) a' DoD oa tya nma3 m-n i nsDinl.

105


7/18


8/18

[7] MAIMONIDES' "LETTER ON RESURRECTION"to render as faithfully as possible the confused reasoning of thismediocre Maimonidean in order to enable any one to judge byhimself the soundness of the valuation of Dr. Teicher who ratesthe exposition of Nasi Sheshet much higher than that of the"Treatise" which he terms "general (vague) and obscure.""But whatever we may think of Sheshet's argumentation, noone could detect in it the slightest notion of the teleologicalprinciple which, as we have seen, constitutes the very nerve ofthe discussion in the "Treatise," nor is there any awarenessof this principle in Abulafia's letter. It is therefore safe toassert that there is no direct connection between our "Treatise"and Nasi Sheshet's letter, because they follow different trains ofthought.True, Dr. Teicher let Abulafia introduce Moses and Elijah asproof "that the organs of the body will not be purposeless (invain) even in the hereafter."12 Unfortunately, Teicher's con-tempt of mediaeval Hebrew texts, which is reflected in the levitywith which he condemns them as forgeries, caused him un-wittingly to commit a certain kind of forgery, namely, to twistAbulafia's words completely out of their obvious meaning, andlet him say something which makes no sense. Indeed, how onearth could the fact of Moses living without food for 40 daysprove that the bodily organs would not be purposeless (in vain)in the hereafter? The truth of the matter is that the teleologicalpremise of the "Treatise," the question of purpose, is entirelyabsent in Abulafia's mind and letter, and was introduced therethoughtlessly, because of his gratuitous assumption of theidentity of the two texts.How about Teicher's other self-evident statement, namelythat Abulafia was the first to refer to Moses and Elijah asmodels of bodily life in the hereafter? This too is a hasty, un-warranted assertion. He seems to have overlooked the simplefact that the controversy over the existence of the bodily organsin the hereafter did not originate with the anti-Maimonideanpolemics, but was already hotly debated at the time of Saadia

" Cf. above, note 6.12 Cf. 1pan I.I n1r' oonlw swn ...1 nion -v n' y'iznKnHn.. . 3 v13 1 3'9 K n 9 v 91 ' n1' i.

107


9/18

108 SONNE [8]Gaon, and could probably he traced back to a still earlierperiod.'3 Had Teicher given thought to the pre-Maimonideanphase of the controversy, he would have found the Moses-Elijah theme already treated by Saadia Gaon. Indeed, one ofthe popular arguments against the bodily existence in the here-after is recorded by Saadia Gaon and reads as follows: "Shouldany one say: if the nature and constitution of the people in thehereafter should be the same as that of the people of this worldwho are eating and drinking, how could they live in a placewhere there is no food no water? We reply: "They will livewithout food and without water in the same manner as Moseslived forty days and forty nights, all the time retaining hisusual human nature.'4 Here we have the source of Abulafia'sposition in this question. As a matter of fact, in his letter toAaron ben Meshullam, Abulafia flatly boasts that he was draw-ing upon the "earlier sages" and was only repeating SaadiaGaon's arguments.'5 The Moses-Elijah argument must havebeen very popular at the time of Maimonides, since we find areference to it in the "Objections" (Hassagot) of his older con-temporary opponent, R. Abraham ben David of Posquie"res,'6and was almost certainly well known to Maimonides.

'I Cf. Aaron ben Meshullam'sLetter to Abulafia in KitdbAl-Rasl'il, p. 36:1' 7I 7 13' 2 1 wrlmn ci1 ci ... Dv 'vit r-Inynni 7ir1DT 'mn 'N 73 nvrwm1,3yzi o,nnnr n,nn 1),3 y= nz-7~ K~ WN -t? 'Nn 3'11'4 Cf. Kitab, p. 137: D'11iv1o',1?N1PH 'I 1nIv2 mri3D0DM2LMo P1'D -iuN' Vs'I mu11IVK2i'rlDI 11?'2NH6n 'l'n :nnHfl DrI1 2'Iv3 ?D'un 1 mnY l'4Iv o1ip32 nrl'r I1?' - 'NnIIONr-.ri iVr) '32 r-iVmuiz lyt i'ml ;1?' D21nlt1 Di, D'Y.M1H -'y ,m

916 2n-P 'IrIYV "niy-trm).From Saadia's"Ten Questions,"quoted by Samsonben Abrahamof Sens. About the various versions of these "Ten Questions,"cf. Malter, Life ... of Saadia, p. 365-367.'5 In reply to Aaron ben Meshullam's blame quoted above, note 13,Abulafia says: npfD1 'ozn -1i1?2D1 ... . -i-31 o Dzn 1N 121 nrrm :nnm viui

M.13lynf 2 ... 1-IN Dli ... T y ' 1i l 6V 'n n I-i lt1n ?-I' 1?1?ItN'XirY, 'fl42-I11? flD1 1I 1l'lfl 'r 1 12IIV' 1'flVi~l ti2 =112 ' 12 7DnIA31IVNA6Cf. R. Abrahamb. David's remark in Mishneh Torah, Hil. Teshubah,Chap. 8, #2: 1?'r;i1?HNnD11D'2,DbD1n1i1= niiptn DI'rf'1, D'IV' wrI112vIVmrVsZbtIt seems that the referenceto Elijah as a pattern of the life in the hereafter,was rathera matterof coursein his time.


10/18

[9] MAIMONIDES' "LETTER ON RESURRECTION"We are now in a better position to clarify the relation betweenthe "Treatise" and the Abulafia-Sheshet letters. The point ofdeparture for both of them is Maimonides' statement in hisMishneh Torah where the purely spiritual existence in the worldto come is expressed in the following terms: "It therefore hasbeen proved that there shall be no corporeal body in the worldto come, since there will be no eating nor drinking."17 Thefollowers of the orthodox view believed they heard an echo ofthe familiar argument dealt with by Saadia Gaon, namely, thatit would be impossible for the body to subsist without nourish-

ment. The rejection of this argument by adducing the sampleof Moses and Elijah as proof that the human body can subsistwithout food, was furnished to them by Saadia Gaon, and theydid not hesitate to reecho his words. The Maimonideans onthe other hand endeavored to stress the difference between thecase of Moses and that of the life hereafter pointing out eitherthe temporary character of the former or the exceptional, angel-like nature of Moses.'8 Whether this rejoinder was a new elementintroduced into the old discussion, I am unable to ascertain, butI am rather inclined to consider Sheshet's reply too as a mereecho of the old controversy.Maimonides himself at first was resolved to refrain fromparticipating in the revived dispute about the nature of the lifein the hereafter.19 Later, however, pressed by his admirers inYemen, he decided to clarify his statement in the MishnehTorah. He revealed to them that his argument there was mis-understood, and was by no means identical with that invokedby Saadia Gaon. Indeed, it was not the assumption of the im-possibility of the body to subsist without nourishment that ledhim to the negation of the body in the hereafter, but rather theinadmissibility of conceiving God as creating something in vain,without a purposeful function, - as the creation of organs of

I7 Ibid., Maimonides: Dm'3WKmlnn 1Dn1n:3 ,n 'al 1lz 1, 1' Hnl DIlyn;' 3 ~ =D 1'w ' X 'n n ~1 nn n ... ,nnv 1 i ' Hi' :in ,'mS ~nl'ntWl n 'S DW 1'NW.I8 Cf. above, note 10: D'nSn I~&D:n, , cf. also Nabmanides, Shaarha-Gemul, towards the end.I9 Cf. Treatise, ##15, 16.

109


11/18

digestion would be for human beings who would never usethem -, because such an act would impugn God's wisdom andperfection. It is clear that Saadia's reference to Moses andElijah, repeated by RaBaD and Abulafia, could hardly beapplied to the new turn given by Maimonides to the old argu-ment, and he rightly could exclaim: "Lo Alekem..." What acomparison!The final result of our analysis of the first proof has shown:a) That Abulafia was definitely not the first to introduce theMoses-Elijah theme into the discussion about the bodily ex-istence in the hereafter; b) That Nasi Sheshet's defence againstthe Moses-Elijah argument has little, if any thing, to do withthe reply in the "Treatise on Resurrection;" c) Finally, that the"Treatise" introduces a new angle, that of the teleological con-cept of the divine acts, into the controversy, an angle whichunmistakably bears Maimonides' stamp.

IISecond Proof. We now pass to the second demonstrationwhich deserves special attention, because it is based upon oneof Teicher's "revolutionary" discoveries which we will have todeal with. The proof reads as follows: "As a second proof thatthe "Treatise" is a forgery I refer to a passage from p. 3, #4,ed. Finkel.20 There Maimonides allegedly asserts that he wasprompted to insert in his talmudic works also the articles offaith, among them that God is incorporeal, because some peoplefrom many countries he met asserted that God is a corporealbeing, and they considered as atheist whoever maintained theopposite, calling him heretic and Epicurean." In vain (exclaimsTeicher) will we search in all the other works of Maimonidesfor the slightest hint of what is told here about Jews in Mai-

monides' time who considered as heretics those who denied thecorporeity of God, and that it is against them that he composed20Ibid.: n113 ip',rnl 1pamnv 'D 13D9miplY nxp ,'mDP nnan ,'lnl m0DS.'. Dinn 13-'in -nm12 l1 I'i- 1'rI ... D11np'D1I 1OD ilwip Dpl1in -itN 'D... .onln '-Npp.

110]10 SONNE


12/18

[11] MAIMONIDES' "(LETTER ON RESURRECTIONi 111his works."21 Later on we shall examine the truth of this state-ment. But supposing for a moment that there really is no otherstatement to this effect in Maimonides' works, does this provethat Maimonides could not have asserted it in the "Treatise"?Is this a sufficient ground to suspect forgery, let alone to declareit categorically?But Teicher did not stop here; he advances his Copernicandiscovery, namely a) That in Maimonides' time there was noJewish scholar who believed that God has a human form;b) That such a belief crept into the Jewish world in the thir-teenth century under the influence of the Christian reaction.22We of the old school were sufficiently simple-minded to trustJedaja ha-Penini who in his "Apologetic Pamphlet" assures usthat one of Maimonides' greatest merits consisted in havingsucceeded in eradicating the rude anthropomorphism widelyspread in his time, and that it almost vanished by the end ofthe thirteenth century.23Quite the contrary is true, we are nowtold, the anthropomorphic concept of God is the very productof the thirteenth century. Indeed, what weight could Teichergive to the testimony of the biased Jedaja who, for all Teicherknows, might have been an accomplice of the forgery work per-petrated at that time by the French Maimonideans. However,Teicher owes us an explanation of why he ignored the testimonyof Maimonides' contemporary opponent, R. Abraham ben Davidof Posqui6res (RaBaD, d. 1193) who in his objections (Hassagot)to the Mishneh Torah rebukes Maimonides for the inclusion ofthose who believe in a corporeal God in the category of heretics

21Melilah, p. 84: 6npNnnZDD1gm,OrmMl6tonn,-D 'i n I-Y3My i6K1"Tmvl' J'DO&?tr?'0 tnJ 1"6 p'?r?nnvK D'? 'n'.0 'ni' ~y 7m -V1im0nDI22 Ibid.: (?) im ir1-1in O'?mnvnpnD 21v ; Pv Io~Uri;n'-Inint ; ril,n-

?1fl2 'IT 2' 1 K. inDM3 F151n 0,1-IT'l VII' ri'Dp'zTKJT ay31; 'OK Ort-nrn3 bvn 3 m "llon 'I l-0031 nvin O'011;,nl1t711,la1 NrP~~y~v~n,IX13.. nip,114-. Ht .

23 Cf. the famous Apology, Fl?lm rnKm, sent to SolomonAdret and pub-lished in the latter's Responsa,I, 1.72, col. 2 (I am quoting from ed. Venice,1545): ... n -i bOvrpri i',o ru rntxinln n1ip- ntxoono vurit n)ry.-i tsynDI6 'l Ktx M Ot il ... 1Irninz ~:Z -It-pyo r1y-?1 IlubOKi-lfll IfmY2 'n anin umr...P'DD l,D iT?rlm 121'3?zn, WUn Ti!n Ui'-i l 11ri DIO I 01'.


13/18

112 SONNE [12](Minim), saying: "Why does he call them heretics; men betterand worthierthan he believe this, because they hold to the literalmeaning of Scripture and aggadic saying."24Surely Teicher could not ignore the very beginning of theMoreh Nebukim where Maimonides, referring to Gen. 1.26, says:"There are people who think that 6x in Hebrew means statureand form of a thing, and this led them to a corporeal concept ofGod."25 The "people" referred to are, according to Moses ofSalerno, mostly Jews.26 However, it was easy for Teicher tobrush aside Moses of Salerno's explanation, since it was madein a conversation with a non-Jewish scholar. He is convincedthat "no Jew could have conceived God in a human form,"and that Maimonides' polemic was directed against Christianswith reference to the dogma of incarnation which they derivefrom the above mentioned verse (Gen. 1.26), "as can be seenin Thomas of Aquino" (!).27 For once Teicher is in good com-pany. The famous, versatile Menasseh ben Israel already inthe 17. century substituted "many among the non-Jewishscholars" for "the sons of man" - the people - in the passageunder discussion.28 Yet there are more reliable instances thanMenasseh ben Israel and Thomas of Aquino to determine whowere the people Maimonides referred to.A very pertinent instance is the following passage of IbnDaud's Emunah Ramah: "Know that some ignorant peopleamong our nation are confused and perplexed regarding themeaning of the divine words (Gen. 1.26): 'Let us make man in

24 Mishneh Torah, I, Tesh., 3, #5: ~yzi p)mri tiN -immin o' vrv' -=wniita lzL~n 13m P'3ltll 0 ' ~1 '11 ; 9 z 1 I'D nr~ bH`13TD,1 .0 -I - nt4 -1 n t .-.Innnnirn n 8n7vlZ7Dr Fni7)frrn -in-i ibtfl8 nvn -i1 niwtp-hI?V wDm7 D IVwnn; . Cf.Munk S., Le Guide, I, p. 34, n. 1.25Cf. Moreh, I, chap. 1: nMnI=y -nm,iz-n 6 'D O-Tt 12 1!vfln -iz

26 Melilah,p. 84: ~briv' 3n onr nill ... u'2, 1rDrrrol 1i3.27 Ibid., p. 85: mri n3inrin 7-3 H-rcp i~- n ,Dl= bI3 D "r'nir'"1D-bn T 'v-[... 0o'-m31~V

28 Cf. Menasseh Ben Israel, Nishmat UIayyim, Ams. 1652, 2a: y-inw 1,-sIkilllvn~ 1C7t5 ly nn1 13P1 ... fl'flvfl7 fl?y71y u~x n 1f D'177nin nz nn wzn.. 'o'Dimn n-no. iDO rrnn~nn nr1 2no im nninr~r. However, he adds:nwix, ,von 11D y- rnni zv mnivri7DDni~r=n; nnn4z -ryn "=Pm


14/18

[13] MAIMONIDES' "LETTER ON RESURRECTION" 113our image and likeness.' Now in the opinion of the masses theform means the body... Consequently they assume that thisverse compels us to conceive God as being constituted of thesame matter and the same form as man. And for this reasonthey have fallen into a grave error. Indeed, the nations opposedto our faith accuse us of anthropomorphism."'9 In anotherpassage Ibn Daud does not hesitate to point out that Christianshave a purer, more spiritual, concept of God than the "ignorantsof our nation."30 A candid reader cannot help interpretingMaimonides' bene ddam as a euphonic rendering of Ibn Daud'ssikhle umatenui the ignorants of our nation.Furthermore, there seems to be some intrinsic evidence thatMaimonides refers to just these "ignorants of our nation." Con-tinuing, Maimonides says as follows: "They thought that Hehas the stature and figure of a man, and therefore asserted aflat corporeity of God, because they imagined that should theydivorce themselves from this belief, they would have to denythe Scripture. They would also consider God as non-existent ifHe did not have a body like theirs... with the only distinctionthat He is much bigger and brighter, and that his body does notconsist of flesh and blood."3aDoes this description fit the Chris-tian dogma of incarnation? Maybe Teicher will be able toproduce some evidence to this effect from Thomas of Aquino,or he may explain that Maimonides had in mind those Christianheretics who say that "the Holy Ghost does not dwell in theflesh and bloodof Jesus."32

29Emunah Ramah, ed. Weil, p. 91: I13 DD n D -' IO I K n W 3 1 Wn D 1 l n I a I Do K n Wy 3 'nr Sn1m 03D133t 11imiin z="n,' niln nWrvzn p1 5yl ... =oran k1nTmn plnDnK Tn31.. 1 n - 1x 1 yIn 1 3' y n p I nn o 3 n K .11D)nlyo lyo13zi ... nrolmt DU-wiIty imWD'D' )D n 3 n3t -tz 1' I y I-itr nl la n.30 Ibid., p. 90-91: nSrI 'n n,nY ISn i nDn rn,'3D3 K' - nlDNn NqDnDK .. 1'1NmnIDN . .. ',n DIw'1 Ip'rny' D"n1n 03D1 .O'y'llOl D'PnimnFDo'Lnn'i3t 'n1 1'iK 1Dnt Dun 7 'K 1 3n ni 'WZtK3 D 1D 1in3lnlw oDnlKYD3miKt iD '131 Wn -imn'nlDtt KiKN?ilm l.31 Moreh I, Chap. 1: nruTD17i' D omW1iN ... .1avn n mWn 11~ "nn,11mK 1 n W ' .m.. '1 0'3 : 1l 1'' Di QK'yO ', ' 1D'W' Dall:lnDn lIn'rt' ,31,DKn...aDi; ' iV= 1i'll ...1iW '-iDinm ...'n' nn'lil'l l 1 'ni '.

32 Cf. Didascalia Apostolorum, Engl. London, 1903, p. 111.


15/18

114 SONNE [14]But why trouble the Church and Thomas of Aquino in orderto determine the "people" Maimonides referred to? Do not allsigns point rather to the circles close to the Shiur .Fomdhspecu-lations? As a matter of fact, there you will find God describedas a human figure with human organs of immense dimensions("bigger") whose body is (not of flesh and blood, but) like theberyl irradiating tremendous splendor ("brighter").33 This willappear still more convincing if we bear in mind Maimonides'condemnation of the Shiur Komah and its followers. Indeed,asked what he thought of the Shiur I?omdh and its origin,

Maimonides replied as follows: "I do not think it to be a workof our sages. God forbid that something of this sort should becomposed by them. It is rather a composition of popularpreachers coming from Greece (meaning Christian countries).The elimination of the book and its content is highly com-mendable, as it is written "Make no mention of the name ofother gods (Ex. 23.13);" a substance which has a stature issurely another god."34The same group is, in all probability, alluded to in Ibn Daud'sattack against the "ignorants of our nation" mentioned above.This would account for Ibn Daud's statement that they areresponsible for the accusation of anthropomorphism raised bythe other nations against Judaism. It is a well known fact thatalready in the tenth century Shiur Iojmdh and cognate com-positions offered the Karaites an occasion to launch violentaccusations of crude anthropomorphism against the Rabbanites.Beginning with the twelfth century these accusations wereseized upon by the Christian polemicists, and have ever sinceremained an integral part of Christian-Jewish disputation.35 We

33H31i p',nDln rt'nnrnim, Salmonben Yeruhim, 'n mDnin, ed. Davidson,1934, p. 118. In section 15 there are many lengthy passages from ShiurKZomah.34Maimonides'Responsa,ed. Freiman, 1934, #373, p. 343: 1'iyn.. .mnioa' nnnDit nr11 K' ,,n n, m"ri' o'D,nn 1 1n,' nIn ''r ,nlwn .n1p flyrnr np,nD nn: qD .*p9D ,: (D1N rNb:tv :"3%)Dm1nDnDnn pD:s nln K1np-I,'m1l 'ma1 1'31n i o'-nn O',nI nmIrnD 1, nin x1^DOp mty r nnlDl iD=no'-inn o'nb Kr;n nDIp 19 V' Doy.35Cf. Salmon ben Yeruhim mentioned above, note 27. The connectionbetween the Karaites and the Christianpolemicistshas been stressedby Prof.


16/18

[15] MAIMONIDES' "LETTER ON RESURRECTION" 115

may assume that Ibn Daud intended to allude just to this fact,namely that those who spread the Shifr KJomdhspeculationsfurnish the Christians with weapons against Judaism.One final remark. It seems that Teicher has searched in vain,as he admits, all other works of Maimonides except the onehe should have looked for in the first place. Indeed, in the"Treatise" Maimonides indicates expressly "his talmudic works"where his articles of faith are inserted. This is a clear referenceto his Mishnah Commentary (Sanh. 10.1).36Had Teicher followedthis direction, he would have found more than an allusion tothe statement in the "Treatise." The following passage willsuffice: "Among the things you ought to know is that withregard to the (aggadic) words of the sages, people are dividedinto three factions. The followers of the first faction - theyconstitute the majority of the teachers I met or whose worksI saw- hold to their literal sense... They divulge certainsayings which, taken literally, cause the other nations, toexclaim: 'This little nation is a foolish and ignorant people'."37Here again we have an unmistakable allusion to the accusationsof anthropomorphism levelled against certain aggadic sayingsas well as against the Shiur lomdh speculations by other na-tions, Christians, Moslems and Karaites.Add to all this the fact that the followers of this faction aredesignated by Maimonides as "popular preachers"38to whom,as we have seen, Maimonides attributes the composition of theShiur Ko.mdh, and it becomes quite clear that the "JewishBaer in his essay on Abner of Burgos (Korespondenzblatt,929) and in his"History of the Jews in Spain" (Hebr.). Cf. also Saul Lieberman,Shekiin.Jerusalem, 1939.36 Treatise, p. 4-5: Do'py "D' D'l n n 1 3- In n a na5 31) l-xrV 1m'nDnl,n, also #4: nun on nl'n nnr'nsa i]tln.37Maimonides' Mishnah Comm.,Sanh. 9:1: -n'tm nyl', l"ix nnmw DDn1'n' Kn t nD 31n'i 1 Km n :nlJl rw Di K u3 a Ia ip i"r o=nVITID an: O'mD 1'K11DQW9by nlm D' 'DKD DnlPWY nyw nlom1 I-lnn nncK nWK1' D I t D D 'DDFl121 'LlDR D' I9DD nIKHlniDl ... .D'n D13 "!nD3]ntn 1- pn y nI D1I1 Dy p 'IINIoinD I nI UI I NI.Here we have a clearexplanationof the oDiK3 in the first chap. of the Morehas well as of the nxn ...m. ('nwnvt =) , n v 3 Dwninn in the Treatise.38Ibid.: lpy-' D3m nD yn 11DI l'Y'"DI D'In, D rnm Don'3--n nr 1'Vly^n 1I1.


17/18

scholars," "the ignorants among the people," in the "Treatise"are the same people Maimonides referred to in the first chapterof the Moreh Nebukim as well as in the Mishnah CommentarySanh. 10.1.Summing up the results of the analysis of the second proof,it appears: a) That at the time of Maimonides among Jewishteachers, especially those under Byzantine and Gothic influence,there were widespread circles adhering to a crude anthropo-morphism of the Shiur Komdh; b) That it was this group ofthe "ignorants of our nation," and not the Christian dogma of

incarnation, that prompted Maimonides to insist with specialemphasis on the incorporeity of God; c) That Maimonides madethis clear not only in the "Treatise," but also in the MishnahCommentaryas well as in the Moreh Nebukim.

IIIThird Proof. There is no need of an analytical investigationof this proof which Teicher added only for the fun "of having athreefold cord,"39 and which we may term as demonstratioignorantiae, a favored pastime of certain omniscient scholars;it hardly can be taken seriously. Indeed, it required a gooddeal of Teicher's skill to turn the plain question: "Why isresurrection not mentioned in the Torah," into a "strangeproblem": "Why did the Lord tarry so long to announce themiracle of resurrection to the congregation of Israel ... ,"40 andstill more skill was needed to transform the simple answer tothis plain question into an "absurd" philosophical conceptionof "religious progress."But even in this presentation, no one will be justified in draw-ing the conclusion that the "Treatise" is a forgery. For by thesame token one could prove that the Moreh Nebukim and the

Yad-Ha-I.azakah are forgeries. There are enough passages inboth works which present serious difficulties and apparent ab-39Melilah, p. 86: w5i ln i Inlry mnlnNnK ,rIt -3.40 Cf. Treatise, p. 31: nnir nDn n,nn nDtnb nni5 and Melilah, 1. c.: n7... nmnnnr nhDi om,non,nn vw simDnNwN' y,D y'l,mn '1D i '3n nin,.

[16]16 SONNE


18/18

MAIMONIDES' "LETTER ON RESURRECTION"surdities that have given rise to a vast Maimonidean literaturewhich already started during the lifetime of Maimonides andcontinues to this day. Yet it did not occur to any one of thegreat host of authors that there is an easy way to dispose of allthe difficulties by one radical surgery act, namely by removingthe book from the genuine works of Maimonides, and declaringit as spurious. There would not be very much left.The truth of the matter is that the demonstratioignorantiae isa double-edged sword; it may indicate the ignorance of theauthor, but it may also indicate our own ignorance. Unfor-tunately, Teicher did not take into consideration the possibilitythat, while he was soaring in the philosophical realm of religiousprogress, he might have failed to grasp the meaning of the"Treatise" for its very simplicity, as befits a letter addressed notto philosophers, but to common people, yes to "women andignorants." As a matter of fact, the passage under considerationdoes not seem to have ever caused any trouble to the studentsdealing with the "Treatise." The recent editor, J. Finkel, rendersit in a homely way that makes quite good sense,4I although itmight not meet the requirements of philosophical depth andprecision expected of Maimonides, the great thinker. However,we should bear in mind that Maimonides himself stressed thefact that in the "Treatise" he was speaking to the commonman, and that he strove to adapt himself to the mentality of"women and ignorants" in order that they might understand him.

At the end of our analytical endeavor, may we be allowed tourge the younger, high-spirited scholars to treat old texts withmore respect, and, in case they happen to run into unsolvabledifficulties, they will do well to follow rather the advice of theold teachers: 1l'Y1'in "There is need for further investigation,than the fashionable slogan: nlyn 1'n'i: "It should be elimi-nated," removed."

4I Treatise, Finkel, Engl. Introduction, p. 68.

[17] 117

Documents

A Scrutiny of the Charges of Forgery Against Maim on Ides' Letter of Ressurection