Talk:Maimonides/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proper title for the article

The last and next to last paragraphs refer to "Moses" rather than "Maimonides". The opening says that Maimonides was also known as "Rabbi Moses the son of Maimon" so I presume it's still the same person. Would it not be clearer to refer to him by the same name throughout the article? BTW, overall I found this article well written and informative. :-) Wesley

This Moses would have to be Maimonides and that is a relic of the original Catholic Encyclopedia article upon which this article was based. SCCarlson

IDIC and Star Trek

Removed for now "The concept from Maimonides of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" was borrowed by the creators of Star Trek for the Vulcan concept of IDIC.

Could we have a source for this? I cannot find anything on the Internet. JeMa 17:06, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

The kind of idea expressed in IDIC could easily be connected to staple ideas in Aristotelian and medieval philosophy and science. So it is not entirely farfetched to say they got it from Maimonides. (Not that Maimonides would have approved of Star Trek - he wasn't one for popular entertainment!) I guess on technical grounds it should be removed if there isn't a clear source for it, but on the other hand it is so nice to see an article on Maimonides end on a light note! Zabek 21:37, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

Jesus in the Talmud

I am removing the link to an article I have created about Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz says Christians would do best to avoid these texts because there is nothing politically or theologically significant to them in Jewish tradition. This has been the wrong way to go about getting the other side told and setting the record straight. The controversy is an article in the Jewish press (The Forward) telling Jews not to protest the Mel Gibson film because there are Jewish sources that were not Jesus-friendly, to "misquote" Danny. Dbabbitt

Pork taboo

Was Maimonides to try a rational explanation for the pork taboo? (From memory, he supposed it a way to avoid trichinosis.) -- Error 01:12, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Trichinosis was unknown in his days. He does give rational explanations for the dietary laws in his Moreh Nevuchim ("Guide for the Perplexed"). What do you mean by "pork taboo" anyway?
JFW | T@lk 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Nothing too quote? Just asking..
Rambam must have some good quotes. Off to find some. Datepalm17 13:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maimonides and Jewish law

The big hiatus in this article is Maimonides' influence on Jewish law. His philosophical opinions have less ramification of the life of Jews today than his work in Mishneh Torah, which was one of the first (and certainly the most comprehensive) of the codices of Jewish law! This deserves more attention than his (vital) work on philosophy.
JFW | T@lk 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

True beliefs versus necessary belief

In a number of places Maimonidean scholars have pointed out serious discrepancies between Maimonides' preached to the general public, and what he discussed privately, or coyy implied. For instance, his eight principle of faith is that every Jews must believe that the text of the Torah that we have today is precisely the same as that written by Moses, with no changes whatsoever. However, Maimonides' private letters make clear that he viewed nearly all the Torah scrolls he knew as defective, and that he was forced to travel to other countries to compare Torah texts, so he could come up with his own edition. Maimonides was also aware of teachings in the Biblical book of Nehemiah, and later teachings in the midrash, that the Israelites did not always take care of the Torah, and copy it correctly. So if Maimonides could not possibly have believed this "principle of faith,how could he have written it?

Many Maimonidean scholars note that Maimonides explicitly drew a distinction between "true beliefs", which were absolutely true statements, and "necessary beliefs", which were not true, but which should be taught to the masses as if they were true, in order to serve some higher purpose. Professor Marc Shapiro writes:

In the Guide [for the Perplexed]], Maimonides adopts the 'daring method of admitting right off to mis-spoken utterances and to half-truths....His endorsement of these views is necessary for obvious political reasons, reasons which he obviously cannot divulge.' One may point to the same tendency with his principles. However, here we do not simply find Maimonides putting forth 'mis-spoken utterances' but rather stating them as dogma....In the Guide III:28 Maimonides discusses the differences between what he terms 'true beliefs and 'necessary beliefs'. 'True beliefs' are those which teach - in a literal fashion - some truth about God...their purpose is to enable one to attain intellectual perfection. 'Necessary beliefs' - the basis of which is tradition and not philosophy, are expressed in figurative form and fulfill a political function in that, by instilling obedience to the Torah, they regulate the social relations of human beings. In addition, they enable people to acquire noble qualities. For example, Scripture teaches that God is angry with those who disobey Him. Although in truth God does not have the characteristic of anger, Scripture found it advantageous to use this term for the effect that it would have. It is 'necessary' for the masses to believe God is angry if they disobey Him in order for them to keep their behavior in line." [Shapiro, p.205 206]

"Maimonides' Thirteen Principles" Marc. B. Shapiro)

Details count! Variant texts of Maimonide's Principles

1. The eighth principle does not state that the Torah we have today is letter for letter identical with the version written by Moses; rather it states that it was all authored by "the Almighty" (rather than Moses), which is a different concept entirely. Jayjg 03:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, what you mention here is a Conservative point of view. Most Orthodox Jewish rabbis take it much further than you do; they hold that the Torah is letter-for-letter from God. (I will offer some references if you like.) They base this idea on Maimonide's statement "The eighth foundation is that the Torah is from Heaven; to wit, it must be believed that the whole of the Torah which is in our hands today is the Torah which was brought down to Moses, our Teacher." Maimonides also makes such a claim in his Mishneh Torah.

No, actually, I'm just quoting the 8th principle; you've added "in our hands", which is not in the original text. Jayjg 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I did not add that phrase. This is a perfect example of why people must be very familiar with modern day scholarship! There are multiple versions of Maimonides' text of the principles of faith, just as there are multiple versions of his Mishneh Torah. This fact is known to Maimonidean scholars, who discuss the implications of variant text readings. The Artscroll Torah (The Chumash: The Stone Edition) uses the text that I quoted, while Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan uses a different source text, and thus uses the form without those three words. RK

Well, someone added the phrase. "To wit" makes it clear that it is a paraphrase, not a quote. Please quote the version of Maimonides' eighth principle which you think agrees with your claim. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, Jay, no Maimonideam authorities are claiming that someone else "added the phrase". Old texts have always had these two variants. This phenomenon exists for many classical rabbinic texts. RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please quote the version of Maimonides' eighth principle which you think agrees with your claim. Jayjg 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note that whatever text of Maimonides' 13 principles is used, the Orthodox consensus is nonetheless the same. Read, for instance, "Maimonides' Principles: The Fundamentals of Jewish Faith", by Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, or the essays in Artscroll's The Chumash: The Stone Edition (Yes, I do own both of these works.) Kaplan uses the same text that you use, the text that omits the phrase "in our hands", yet he has the same understanding of it as Professor Shapiro does, i.e. that Jews are said to be obligated to believe that every word of it comes directly from God to Moses to us. Kaplan writes

The person who says that some passages were written by Moses of his own accord is considered by our prophets and sages to be the worst sort of nonbeliever, and a perverter of the Torah...Such a person is in the category of those who say "the Torah is not from Heaven" Our sages teach that this category includes even one who says that the entire Torah was given by God with the exception of a single word, which was composed by Moses and not spoken by God. (Kaplan, p.69)

Kaplan is not saying what you claim he is saying. Rather, he is saying what Maimonides says; that God wrote the Torah, not Moses. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, Jay, you literally misread it. This does not only say that God wrote the Torah, it says that God also wrote all of the Torah. That distinctinction is absolutely crucial to the point I am discussing. RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Kaplan says God wrote all the Torah; none of it was written by Moses, not even one word. Maimonides himself is clear on this point, so it's not surprising that Kaplan echoes this. However, Kaplan was not stating that the version we have in our hands is necessarily letter for letter identical with the version written by Moses (at least not in this statement). And the fact is, his commentary often quotes variant readings from the Septuagint. Jayjg 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then read Artscroll's The Chumash: The Stone Edition. In the overview, they state:

In several of his writings, Rambam sets forth at much greater length the unanimously held view that every letter and word ofthe Torah was given to Moses by God; that it has not been and cannot be changed; and that nothing was ever or can ever be added to it. Indeed, the Talmud states emphatically that if one questions the Divine origin of even a single letter or traditionally accepted interpretation of the Torah, it is tantamount to denial of the entire Torah. (p.XX)

These are mainstream Orthodox Jewish points of view. In fact, according to many Orthodox rabbis, they are the Orthodox point of view.

O.K., that's Artscroll's view of what Maimonides said. And indeed, most Orthodox authorities insist that the Torah is letter for letter identical to the one given to Moses. What's your point, though? I'm talking about Maimonides 8th principle; as usual, you've gone off on some criticism of Orthodox Rabbis and Artscroll. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have missed a crucial point. This is not just Artscroll's reading of Maimonides; this is a mainstream Orthodox position. And why are you accusing me of attacking Orthodox rabbis? I never wrote any attack on Orthodox rabbis; I merely quoted two authoritative Orthodox sources. If someone happens to find the Orthodox view offensive, and think that merely mentioning the Orthodox POV is a "criticism", then that's their problem. I certainly have no problem having their views represented. RK 14:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

RK, there is a world of difference between the words "criticise" and "attack"; I strongly recommend you study and contrast the meanings of both. As for this being a mainstream Orthodox view, I'm not sure why you are telling me this, when I have said it myself in the comment you were responding to. In any event, as I also said in my previous comment, this is a digression from the real issue at hand, which is Maimonides' 8th principle. Jayjg 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This brings up a different issue, criticisms of Artscroll books. The claims made in the Artscroll Torah overview are far from accurate. A complete reading of Maimonides' (Rambam) writings shows that he believes that the Torah does contain many errors, both of added or missing letters, and added or missing entire words! Artscroll's claim to the contrary is widely accepted as true, but is isn't. Similarly, the Talmud does not say what the Artscroll Torah claims it says. Rather, the Talmud offers this statement as the opinion of one sage, yet also reports the opinions of other sages who hold otherwise! In fact, we read in the Talmud that some entire sentences may have been written by Joshua, and not Moses. Artscroll effectively censors the Talmud itself. That is one of the reason that so many Orthodox Jews are unhappy with many Artscroll books. They present only one narrow view within Judaism, with quotes taken out of context. They deny the very existence of other points of view. If we accepted them seriously, then even the actual Rambam and Talmud would have to be seen as heretical. RK

Um, ok. Maimonides thought many Tanach scrolls in his day were replete with errors, some better than others. However, he liked Ben Asher's version, and considered it to be accurate. This is a far cry from your claim. As for the rest, it's relevant to the Artscroll article, not here. Jayjg 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But you changed the quotes, which totally changes the issue. No one was talking about Tanakh, we were talking specifically about the Torah. And this is exactly the claim. According to Artscroll, Maimonides's statement on this issue would be heretical. And this is not my personal claim. In any case, don't make this personal. The opposition to Artscroll comes from within the Orthodox community, which I am not a part of. RK 14:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here; that Maimonides thought the Tanach he had was accurate, but that the Torah he had was not? I don't think I need to remind you that the Torah is the first part of the Tanach, and Ben Asher codex (the one which Maimonides thought was accurate) contains the entire Torah (or did until it was burned by Arabs in Syria). Jayjg 01:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course the Torah is a part of the Tanakh. Whoever claimed otherwise? You miss the point: Maimonides wrote that the Torah scrolls he had access to were deficient and flawed. Yet when he wrote his principles of faith, he pretended otherwise, for the reasons that Marc Shapiro describes. So did Maimonides lie? No. He just didn't believe the principles of faith in the same way that the masses believed. (Further, he stated this outright many times about all of his beliefs.) RK 01:33, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sources and references

Who are the "many Maimonidean scholars" who make these claims? As far as I know the chief proponent of this view is Shapiro. Jayjg 03:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where did you hear that this is chiefly proposed by Shapiro? I have never come across such a claim. In any case, here is a brief list. See below for a more detailed list. RK

• Professor Marc Shapiro

• Marvin Fox (Interpreting Maimonides)

• Yaakov Becker, (Mishnato ha-Pilusufit shel ha-Rambam)

• Samuel ben Judah ibn Tibbon, Maimonides' disciple

• Aviezer Ravitzky

• Former Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Joseph Messas (1892-1974), in his Mayim Hayyim, (Jerusalem, 1967), no.159.

• Menachem Kellner "Must a Jew Believe Anything?" The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999, p.139-141

• Leo Strauss, The Literary Character of the Guide for the Perplexed, in "Maimonides: A Collection of Critical Essays", Ed. Joseph Buijs, Univ. of Notre Dame Press

Most of their writings are accepted (to varying degrees) within the modern Orthodox, non-Orthodox, and general academic community. To date I have not come across any rebuttals of their views on the specific issue of "True beliefs versus Necessary beliefs". Note that I am not engaged in original research; rather I have read other people's research on Maimonides, and have tried to report their views. I tried to find sources which hold an opposing point of view, but so far I have not been able to find any; thus, it is fair to note this understanding of Maimonides as the commonly held view. RK

Are these sources you have read yourself, or are you quoting them from some other work? Shapiro, specifically? Have you actually read, for example, Becker's work in the original Hebrew? Jayjg 20:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I personally own and have throughly read all of the above works, except the two in Hebrew. I've also read a lot more (see the below list.) I also have spent time communicating with many of the leading scholars in Maimonidean research today. Again, if you disagree with anything I have written, that's fine. Just cite a source and offer a full-paragraph quote so that we can see what you are talling about. RK 17:14, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why offer sources if you haven't read them? In any event, there is lots that has been written about Maimonides, but you only quote Shapiro. I wonder what the other authors have to say on this topic. Jayjg 03:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have read these sources, over a dozen of them, and I own them myself. See the more complete list below. The only person who hasn't read any of these sources is you. As such, how can any of us take your rebuttals seriously? RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

You clearly admitted offering Hebrew sources which you hadn't read. And most of the sources you provide are tertiary; that is, authors commenting on the words of other authors commenting on Maimonides, but not the primary source (Maimonides) or even the secondary sources themselves. Jayjg 01:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that there may be significant opposition to this point of view within the Haredi community. Such points of view can and should be included, especially if we can find any specific sources. We can always write something like "Within the Haredi community, the above conclusions are not held as correct; instead, it holds that XYZ is true". RK 19:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that there are few, if any Orthodox authorities who accept any of what Shapiro says. Though you prefer to frame these kinds of discussions as "Conservative and Modern Orthodox vs. Haredi", in fact they are generally of the form "Conservatice and Reform vs. Orthodox". Jayjg 20:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do not make this out to be a criticism of Orthodox Judaism. The points of view I mention are held by Maimonides's own disciple, Samuel ibn Tibbon, by nearly all modern day Maimonidean research, by much of Modern Orthodox Judaism, and as well as by Conservative and Reform. If you insist on creating some sort of "versus" debate (which I am not) you would have to classify this as "Haredim versus everybody". And none of the sources I quotes are Reform or Conservative. RK 17:14, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's not a criticism of the "good" Orthodox Judaism; i.e. the left-wing of Modern Orthodoxy, which is closest to the Conservative Judaism you so prefer. However, as with most articles you edit, it is an attempt to show that the views of Conservative Jews (and those who agree with them) are correct, and centrist and right-wing Modern Orthodox, and Haredi Orthodox views are incorrect at best. And, as I've said before, you've only quoted Shapiro. Have you read Samuel ibn Tibbon? Jayjg 03:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stop your ad homenim attacks against Orthodox Jews. Stop your false claims about how all these Orthodox Jews and professional academic scholars are really just Conservative Jews in disguise. (In much of the Orthodox community, the accusation that someone is really Conservative is an attack, and a charge of heresy.) These ad homenim attacks, which are a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and protocol. RK 15:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

RK, I have not attacked any Orthodox Jews, nor claimed they are Conservative Jews in disguise. That left-wing Modern Orthodox Judaism is, of all the "versions" of Orthodox Judaism, closest to Conservative is hardly a controversial claim; in fact, I don't think you'd find anyone who would say otherwise. Nor is it an accusation of "heresy" against left-wing Modern Orthodox Jews, which you seem to sooner or later read into the comments of most people who disagree with you. As for Ad hominem, you have misunderstood its use, and its place in Wikipedia etiquette and protocol; if I were directing an ad hominem attack against you that would be a violation of said protocol. However, if I were directing an ad hominem attack against sources you have quoted (which is what you have accused me of), that would not be a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and protocol. In any event, I strongly urge you to read into my comments only what they say, exactly that and nothing more. Jayjg 01:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How much quoting should we use?

2. Lengthy quotes should not be used in Wikipedia articles; points of view should be paraphased, and links or references provided. Jayjg 03:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One paragraph is not necessarilly a lenthy quote. In any case, the now obvious reason that I included the quote is to support the text. This is a part of Maimonides' teaching that is not well know, and many people will dismiss it outright if they are not presented with quotes and sources. Lose all of the quote, and people will just remove the paragraph. RK 12:51, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Those who insert lengthy quotes always feel they have a good reason for doing so; nevertheless, they should be paraphrased and summarized. Jayjg 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But that is what I had done in other articls, and you kept on demanding that I bring forth quotes. And whenever I bring them you tell me that they are unncessary. RK

The authors views should be paraphrased, with only key phrases or sentences quoted. I've never objected to you doing this, since I've never seen you do it. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. It seems this section is a fossil and requires serious overhaul, fact-checking and possibly elimination. Most discrepancies mentioned are based on misunderstandings and misreadings. Lengthy quotes are a contentious point, especially when they originate from User:RK. The fact that Marc Shapiro has written about Maimonides does not automatically mean his views deserve extensive citation - I would reserve this honour for Maimonides' direct contemporaries and Rishonic critics (e.g. Crescas and Yonah Gerondi before his teshuva). JFW | T@lk 11:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How is modern-day writing a "fossil"? The people I am quoting are some of the most respected Maimonidean scholars, and all of whome are Orthodox Jews who have published in Modern Orthodox journals. As such, I suspect that everything they write will automatically be rejected by many Haredi leaders, but that does not mean all these scholars are misreading Maimonides or wrong!

Recall that Maimonides comes right out and explicitly states the difference between "necessary beliefs" and "true beliefs"! These are not just the views of Professor Marc Shapiro. Rather, also see Marvin Fox (Interpreting Maimonides) and Yaakov Becker, (Mishnato ha-Pilusufit shel ha-Rambam). Even Isadore Twersky, perhaps the most well-known Orthodox Jewish Maimonidean scholar of the 20th century, is in agreement with Marvin Fox's writings! Also see the views of former Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Joseph Messas (1892-1974), in his Mayim Hayyim, (Jerusalem, 1967), no.159. Further, Maimonides's own disciple, Samuel ben Judah ibn Tibbon, wrote in about his master's differences between true beliefs and necessary beliefs; this is discussed in detail Aviezer Ravitzky, an Orthodox Maimonidean scholar, in Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide Of the Perplexed (AJS Review, Vol.6, 1981).

Given all this, are there any academic sources which disagree with anything presented so far on this topic? So far as I know, within Modern Orthodoxy, non-Orthodox Judaism, and in general collegiate Maimonidean scholarship, this is not controversial at all. If there is a school of thought which disagrees, we can note this as well. RK 12:55, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Maimonides does indeed mention the difference between "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs" , but it is Shapiro who consigns the 13 Principles to the latter group, not Maimonides. On the contrary, Maimonides is quite clear that those who do not believe in the 13 Principles have no place in the World to Come. As for your sources, they're mostly from Shapiro. Jayjg 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, Jay, Marc Shapiro does not claim that the 13 principles of belief are "necessary beliefs", as opposed to "true beliefs". According to the many sources I keep referencing, Maimonides does believe that his 13 principles of faith are true, but his definition of these principles is not the same as what the common man believes. This view is the standard view held by nearly all Maimonidean scholars, many of whom are Orthodox Jews. In fact, even in the Orthodox Jewish journal Torah U-Madda Journal, not a single rabbi disagreed with Shapiro's analysis of this topic (true beliefs versus necessary beliefs.) Can you offer us any academic sources which disagree with anything presented so far on this specific topic? I am open to reading your sources. RK 17:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, Maimonides believes his principles are true, but your sections make it appear that in fact he does not, and considers some of them to be "necessary beliefs", which you characterize as "not true". And the issue is not whether any academic sources disagree with your views, but whether or not any actually agree with them. So far you have provided little evidence that they do. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also please note that my sources are not mostly Shapiro; I have photocopies all these articles, and none of them are by Marc Shapiro except for one. RK 16:37, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

You may have photocopies of all sorts of things, but you've only quoted Shapiro. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? You told me not to use these quotes repeatedly, yet not you dishonestly claim that I didn't use other people's quotes? That's because you idn't let me put in even one quote, by one person. You unilaterally censored it. And now you dishonestly claim that I didn't include other people's stuff? How could I? RK 14:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

You didn't attempt to bring quotes from anyone besides Shapiro, either in the article or here in Talk:. As for using quotations, I will simply repeat: The authors views should be paraphrased, with only key phrases or sentences quoted. I've never objected to you doing this, since I've never seen you do it. This applies to one author or five. Jayjg 01:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should we include modern-day scholars as well?

The section is a fossil because you inserted it and nobody took the time to check the necessity of the long quote and other statements. I'm not criticising your style.
Isadore Twersky is not the main Orthodox Maimonidean scholar of the 20th century. He would have immediately deferred to Rabbis Meir Simcha of Dvinsk and Isser Zalman Meltzer, not to mention that Rogachover Gaon (Tzofnath Paneach).
If Ravitzky quotes Ibn Tibbon, why not make direct reference to Ibn Tibbon? Indirect quotes are an absolute pain to double-check. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should not limit academic sources to Orthodox scholars; I just am noting that some of the most in-depth critical historical research on Maimonides is carried out within the Orthodox community. This might seem surprising, as Orthodoxy does not approve of critical-historical study for the Torah, and often for the Tanakh and Talmud; however, this does not carry over into a critical study of the works of rabbis. That is (AFAIK) considered fair ground for delving into in this way. RK 19:29, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Recognizing that Maimonides had exoteric views (for the masses) and esoteric views (for the intellectual elite), and that Maimonides taught that Judaism has always had true beliefs (which were factually true) and necessary beliefs (which are meant to instill correct behaviour) was for a long time understood as obvious. Maimonides in fact comes right and states that. But as Marvin Fox and others point out, the recognition of this somehow disappeared after the 15th century, and didn't become generally recognized again until the late 1800s. Even today many people react with disbelief (according to Marc Shapiro, with dismay) when they learn that the exoteric views are not identical with the esoteric beliefs that Maimonides believed. Samuel Ibn Tibbon and others of his day had no problem with such a view, but many moderns do. That is why it is so critical to discuss modern day Maimonidean scholarship. RK

In any case, many Wikipedia articles on other important scholars and writers make reference to modern scholarship, and so should this article. There is lots of modenr day scholarship on Maimonides, Hasidism, Kabbalah, etc., from within the Orthodox and non-Orthodox communities. Note that critical scholarship is not "criticism" in the negative sense of the term. Many modern day scholars of Maimonides are observant & religious Jews who hold Maimonides to be their role model. (None more so than Marvin Fox, it would seem.) Orthodox Rabbi Norman Lamm has written critical historical studies of Hasidism which really need to be mentioned in our article on Hasidism, and he comes out as a great admirer of Hasidism. RK

Modern scholarship is all fine, but Shapiro's views are his, and are not the same as "modern scholarship". Jayjg 20:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes they are! The view in question here is certainly mainstream. Take a look at the other academic references listed here. On what basis do you hold otherwise? I am open to hearing anyone's contributions, but please present academic sources, not your gut feelings. RK

The references are all there, but what they actually said is not. Jayjg 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a personal note, I have found that these esoteric views of Maimonides are not popular. My personal discussion on some Orthodox and general Jewish discussion forums have gone very much like this (no exagerration.)

Me: "So is it true that Maimonides didn't believe that evil-doers would be punished, but would simply cease to exist upon death? And that people who do good would not be rewarded, but would rather earn eternal intellectual communion with God through their perfected active intellect?"

Everyone else: "Yes of couse, but only mention that in a Kollel or in adult-ed classes, but not in a synagogue, because most people will just think you are a heretic!"

The responses you get on discussion fora seem quite the opposite of how you characterize them: [1]. And your POV is certainly in accord with that of Shapiro, who you continually quote [2] [3], but that doesn't make them widely held in any Orthodox community. Jayjg 20:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been on about eight different Orthodox Jewish discussion forums. You found merely one of them, yet assumed that every Orthodox other Jew on every other forum must have responded in the same way? That makes no sense, and is in fact incorrect. Why are you implying that I am being disingenuous? Stick to the academic sources. If you want to make a claim, or refute a claim, back it up. RK 17:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up the responses you get on fora, not me; obviously you've opened them up for discussion. If you have any examples of the kind of responses you claim you get, I'd love to see them. From what I've seen, the discussions on fora go more like this:

RK: Maimonides said this and believed this.

Everyone else: Actually, he didn't. Here are examples him saying the exact opposite.

RK: All Maimonides scholars agree with me; here a list of 10 books on Maimonides, and they all agree with me. I'm sorry if my ideas upset you, but it's not "heresy" to believe this.

Everyone else: I'm not talking about heresy and I'm not upset. I've quoted Maimonides saying the exact opposite of you; why don't you quote something from him that agrees with you?

RK: You are rage filled and ignorant of modern scholarship.

Everyone else: Please address the questions and issues raised.

RK: You are obviously afraid of reading books, and don't want anyone else to. I'm not going to spend hours quoting Maimomides for your amusement.

Everyone else: Point proved.

Here's a good example of a number of threads displaying this (ironically, on the message boards of an extremely liberal Jewish magazine): [4] . The final post by someone named "Jay" sums up the discussions:

No-one is upset at Kaiser for his ideas. No-one is chiding him for his "heresy". It is his immature and extremely insulting (and often worse) method of non-discussion which people object to. There were many discussions on this board between people who disagree strongly. It is not the ideas, it is the method. I think you ought to take a little time and read some of the posts below so that you can see why there is a universal reaction disgust at this individual. [5]

And by the way, Shapiro himself has stated that "I do not believe that Rambam denied reward and punishment. What I believe is that he denied *heavenly* reward and punishment for performance of mitzvot." Jayjg 20:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. You are cutting his one sentence out of context of the entire paragraph, thereby nearly reversing his meaning. That is precisely why we must quote entire paragraphs, so we can see the context! I have his paper; would you like me to quote the entire paragraph so you can see what he really means? RK 16:56, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. You seem to think everyone is reversing everyone's view when they do not agree with your own reading, but the sentence I gave is entirely clear, and does not reverse Shapiro's meaning in any way. Here is Shapiro's entire paragraph, explaining his view, and also pointing out that his statement in the article was confusing. Jayjg 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A few comments on the dicussion. I do not believe that Rambam denied reward and punishment. What I believe is that he denied *heavenly* reward and punishment for performance of mitzvot. I clarify this in the book in a way which perhaps led to some confusion in the article. A mitzvah performed without understanding of the divine intent etc. does not lead to reward. The Mitzvah is not a segulah. The proverbial pious but ignorant woman does not receive heavenly reward for the mitzvah she performs. I don't think that you can read the Mishneh Torah or the perush ha-Mishnah this way, but Maimonides is clear in the Guide that this is so. Maim. was attacked for this view, which he states quite explicitly on numerous occasions in the Guide. So we arrive at the old problem of which text do you favor in a dispute.. In this context, I will also discuss Maim. and his view of immortality and resurrection. [6]

Jay, you totally misunderstand both myself and Shapiro. The quote you offer now is precisely what I have been saying all along. If you read Shapiro's entire section on this topic, you will find that Orthodox Jews generally believe in a heavenly reward or punishment; they believe that Maimonides is telling them that this is true. In contrast, Shapiro holds that the Orthodox view is wrong, and that Maimonides does not want people to believe in a heavenly punishment or reward. Your selective quopting still leaves out the pertinent parts. RK 00:11, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute, now I've quoted the entire paragraph in question, and yet I'm still somehow doing "selective quoting" that "still leaves out the pertinent parts"? Whatever. Jayjg 01:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do serious research and quote your sources

I am unhappy with the way that people attributing their own personal beliefs to the topic at hand. On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the view of participle physicists on the Higgs Boson, or the views of 20th century academics (including many Orthodox Jews) on intricate details of Maimonides' teachings. We can't just make claims based on what we have heard from our school teachers or friends! Spefific claim about technical issues always require being familiar with the issue at hand. This means knowing the current day academic consensus, being aware of what controversies exist, and knwoing which parties hold which views. I have been very careful to cite my sources and give detailed quotes, and have striven to represent the consensus as accurately as possible. So far no one has offered any actual objections with quotes and references from Maimonidean scholars. The only objections have been personal rebuttals, and incorrect claims (i.e. the incorrect claim that Professor Shapiro's views are not mainstream, with no references to support this grandiose claim, or the incorrect claim that most sources I cite are Shapiro, when in fact he is only one of many people I have cited.) RK

Personal rebuttals without academic references carry no weight in an encyclopedia. If someone has not yet done reading on the nature of the Higgs Boson, and cannot provide academic references to back up specific claims on controversial issues, then they should not be writing on this specific topic at all. The same is true for all specific claims on all controversial issues, this topic included. So before making claims with no sources, do the reading as I have done. People interested in this topic really should read many or most of the following articles:

• "Maimonidean Controversy", in "Maimonides", Volume 11 of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, Keter Publishing.

• "Maimonides: A Collection of Critical Essays" Ed. Joseph A. Buijs, Univ. of Notre Dame Press

Joseph A. Buijs "The Philosophical Character of Maimonides' Guide - A Critique of Strauss' Interpretation", Judaism Vol. 27, pp.448-457, and in the collection ed. by Buijs.

• Lenn E. Goodman "Rambam: Readings in the Philosophy of Moses Maimonides", Gee Bee Tee, 1985

• "The Return of Maimonideanism" Warren Zev Harvey. Jewish Social Studies Summer/Fall 1980 Vol.XLII, No.3-4.

• Arthur Hyman "Interpreting Maimonides", in the collection ed. by Buijs.

• Alfred Ivry "Providence, Divine Omniscience and Possibility: The Case of Maimonides" found in (1) "Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy" Ed. T. Rudavsky, 1985, D. Reidel Publishing Compnay, and (2) in Buijs's volume (above.)

• "The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology, Volume I", Aryeh Kaplan 1994, Jointly published by Mesorah Publications and NCSY (National Council of Synagogue Youth.) (This is not an academic source, but a good represenative of what many Orthodox Jews believe.)

• Hannah Kasher "Biblical Miracles and the Universality of Natural Laws: Maimonides' Three Methods of Harmonization" The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy Vol.8, pp.25-52, 1998

• Menachem Kellner "Maimonides' Allegiances to Science and Judaism" The Torah U-Madda Journal, Volume 7, 1997, Yeshiva University, pp.88-104

• Menachem Kellner "Maimonides on the Science of the Mishneh Torah: Provisional or Permanent?" AJS Review (Association for Jewish Studies Review), Vol. 18(2), 1993, pp.169-194

• Menachem Kellner "Reading Rambam: Approaches to the Interpretation of Maimonides", Jewish History, Vol.5(2) Fall 1991

• Menachem Kellner "Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought", Oxford University Press, 1986

• Menachem Kellner "Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People", SUNY Press, 1991

• Roy Pinchot "The Deeper Conflict Between Maimonides and Ramban over the Sacrifices" Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol.33(3), 1999

• "The Guide of the Perplexed" 2 volume set, translated by Shlomo Pines, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956 (numerous reprints)

• "Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed", Aviezer Ravitzky. AJS Review (Association for Jewish Studies Review) Vol.6, 1981, p.87-123]

• Marc B. Shapiro "Maimonides Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology?" The Torah U-Maddah Journal, Vol.4, 1993, Yeshiva University].

• "How to Begin to Study the Guide of the Perplexed" Leo Strauss, contained in volume 1 of Shlomo Pine's translation of the Guide

• "The Literary Character of the Guide for the Perplexed" Leo Strauss. This essay has been printed in a number of volumes, including Buijs's volume (above) and as a chapter in Strauss's own "Persecution in the Art of Writing".

Nice list of sources. However, you only quote Shapiro. In fact, you don't even quote Maimonides. Also, please review Appeal to authority. Jayjg 04:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are being dishonest. You and JFW told me to stop quoting people, and to merely paraphrase their beliefs, which is precisely what I did. Every time I added a quote, you deleted them. And now you falsely charge me with not adding enough quotes? That is outrageously disingenuous. RK

Ooooh! I'm actually accusing you of selective quoting. I'd be quite tolerant of your lists of quotes if you'd have the patience to research the quotes that are not "historical scholarship", such as - indeed - the Ohr Sameiach and the Even ha-Ezel. I'm too much of an ignoramus, but I do not believe that contradictions between Maimonides' works and his personal correspondence have not received any treatment by any of the great Orthodox scholars. I'd prefer you took some time to inform us of Ibn Tibbon's remark as quoted by Ravitzky (I have no access to most of the writings you quote). This is much more helpful that the above bickering. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JFW, I have brought forth a mainstream academic point of view. You claim that other points of view exist, and so do I! We totally agree! I never said otherwise. I would be most happy for you to offer us other points of view. However, the current problem is twofold. (A) No one has given us any quotes and citations for these other POVs. You mention that the Ohr Sameiach and the Even ha-Ezel may have written something on these specific topics: "true beliefs and necessary beliefs", and the related issue of esoteric versus exoteric beliefs. Great! If you can, please look up their writing and tells us what they say on these specific issues. I unfortunately don't have access to their writings. You are in a much better position to find their views on this subject than I am. By all means, please contribute, and I will appreciate anything you report! (B) Jayjyg is still offering no citations to back his views; we can't report personal views, no matter how justified he feels they may be. Wikipedia does not accept personal original research; we can't quote him (or me!) as an authority. (C) I will certainly get the quotes you are asking for on Samuel Ibn Tibbon. RK 00:04, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, but RK, you mentioned that you frequent the JTS library. They certainly have an Or Sameach, as would any yeshiva in New York and Westchester. For people who are genuinely intersted in Jewish scholarship, they are far more accessible than any journal you can quote. Or are you incapable of conducting "scholarship" that does not support your POV? Danny 00:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danny, stop your personal attacks and bald-faced lies. You and I have spoken on the telephone many times, and you know very well that I do not speak Hebrew. When I want to understand what a Hebrew text means, I go to established authorities known for expertise in translation, and I do not attempt it myself. You know this, because we spoke about this on the phone. I thus have no access to these Hebrew only texts. You, however, do have such access. If you are serious about doing scholarship, instead of hurling lies and ad homenim attacks, then go to the JTS library yourself and find the quotes for us that JFW seems to think lie in these works. You only are 30 minutes from JTS. If you refuse to do this, that will be a clear sign to me that you have no interest in the topic, but are still just harassing me. RK

(JFW, I apologize for Danny's interruption. He has some sort of intense hatred of me, and often peppers Talk pages with personal insults, without actually adding any content to the articles. He has a problem that he needs to deal with. I'm sorry; I still look forward to seeing what opinions on these topics you may find in the books you mention.) RK 00:16, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize for me. I did nothing wrong. I certainly did not make any "grotesque lies." In fact, that is defamation of character. (JFW, I apologize for RK's hysteria.) Danny

Grand claims from you, Danny. You and I were formerly friends, and we more than once spoke about the fact that I speak English and not Hebrew. At the time you had no problems with learning from books written in the English language. In fact, most of the lectures at JTS are in English! How can you now disingenuously demand that I should read Hebrew and do your own research for you? RK

As for the topic at hand, RK, since the vast majority of material on this topic is in Hebrew, as are all the primary sources, you seem incapable of conducting any "serious scholarship."

Danny please stop joking (or, if you are serious, stop lying.) A huge amount of scholarship on this topic is in English, by many of the world's leading scholars. Any claim to the contray is outrageous. I've been in JTS's library, and half of it is in the English language. More Judaica is written in English than in any other language in the world. Also, note that Danny hasn't refuted anything I have stated on this issue. Not one sentence. RK

Reading a couple of journals does not a scholar make. It simply means that you cannot look at the material under discussion, assess it, or comment on it out of knowledge. It simply means you cannot be a critical reader. Talking of "years studying the subject" without once looking at the primary sources is more of a "grotesque lie" than anything appearing in my previous comment. I am sure JFW will accept your apology. Danny 00:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? I never claimed to be a Maimonidean scholar. I merely have tried to quote some scholars. Why is that so unreasonable to you? Wikipedia is not a place for personal research, even yours, Danny. Look, I don't even claim that their positions have to be reported as fact; I merely am saying that their views should be in here in NPOV fashion. How does this justify your non-stop personal attacks? RK

Esoteric (hidden) views and exoteric (public) views

I don't have time to type everything in, but here is some material on the what many people think about esoteric (hidden) views and exoteric (public) views in the writings of Maimonides (aka Rambam).

Aviezer Ravitzky writes:

Those who upheld a radical interpretation of the secrets of the Guide, from Joseph Caspi and Moses Narboni in the 14th century to Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines in the 20th, proposed and developed tools and methods for the decoding of the concealed intentions of the Guide. Can we already find the roots of this approach in the writings of 'Samuel Ibn Tibbon, a few years after the writing of the Guide?

Ibn Tibbon taught that "wise men assert something novel which is not in harmony with the belief of the many when their reflections warrant it, and when the belief of the many is beneficial and greatly needed for the stability of the world and for the political order, they will assert their novel teaching in a way which the vulgar will not grasp, but will try as much as they can to conceal it by using riddles, parables and hints, so that only the wise may understand."

Ibn Tibbon's comments reveal his general approach toward the nature of the contradictions in the Guide: The interpreter need not be troubled by contradiction when one assertion is consistent with the "philosophic view" where as the other is completely satisfactory to "men of religion". Such contradictions are to be expected, and the worthy reader will know the reason for them and the direction they tend to, and he will be able to distinguish between those "said truly" and "said for the purposes of concealment."

The correct reading of the Guide's chapters should be carried out in two complimentary directions: on the one hand, one should distinguish each chapter from the rest, and on the other one should combine different chapters and construct out of them a single topic. Again, one the one hand, one should get to the bottom of the specific subject matter of each chapter, it specific "innovation", an innovation not necessarily limited to the explicit subject matter if the chapter. On the other hand, one should combine scattered chapters which allude to one single topic so as to reconstruct the full scope of the topic.

Source - Aviezer Ravitzky, "Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed", Association for Jewish Studies (AJS) Review, Vol.6, 1981, p.87-123

We should also consider the view of Professor Marvin Fox, former Professor of Jewish Philosophy at Brandeis University, and Professor of philosophy and religion at Boston University (both in Massachusetts.) Fox was on the board of Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, the official rabbinical publication of the Rabbinical Council of America.

In his introduction to the Guide Maimonides speaks repeatedly of the "secret" doctrine that must be set forth in a way appropriate to its secret character. Rabbinic law, to which Maimonides as a loyal Jew is committed, prohibits any direct, public teaching of the secrets of the Torah. One is permitted to teach these only in private to selected students of proven competence; even to such students it is only permissible to teach the "chapter headings" (Mishnah Hagigah 2.1) Thus, anyone who proposes to write a book dealing with natural philosophy and metaphysics of the Torah faces a problem. Basic a book, by nature, is available to an unrestricted readership, there is no way to guarantee that it will fall only into the hands of those whom we may expose to this subject matter. Furthermore, if the author sets forth his teachings openly so as to make them readily available to his readers, he violates the rule against teaching more than "chapter headings."

It would seem that there is no way to write such a book without violating rabbinic law. For a faithful Jew this is not acceptable. Yet at times it is urgent to teach a body of sound doctrine to those who requite it. Indeed, in a generation in which worthy and qualified students are spread throughout the Diaspora, and there are few fully qualified teachers, it would seem that there is no choice but to write a book that conveys the true teaching... The problem is to find a method for writing such book in a way that does not violate Jewish law while conveying its message successfully to those who are properly qualified.

Maimonides decided that to abide by the rabbinic ruling, he would have to write his book in such a way that it would offer no more than the "chapter headings". The presentation would have to be so artful that none but the most highly qualified students would be able to follow his explanations and come to know his teachings. For this reason, as he tells us, even the chapter headings "are not set down in order or arranged in coherent fashion in this Treatise, but rather are scattered and entangled with other subjects that are to be clarified. For my purpose is that the truths be glimpsed and then again be concealed, so as not to oppose that divine purpose which one cannot possibly oppose and which has concealed from the vulgar among the people those truths especially requisite for His apprehension."

Such an exposition must be carefully constructed so as to protect people without a sound scientific and philosophical education from doctrines that they cannot understand and that would only harm them, while making the truths available to students with the proper personal and intellectual preparation.

Maimonides writes "In speaking about very obscure matters it is necessary to conceal some parts and to disclose others. Sometimes in the case of certain dicta this necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of a certain premise, where in another place necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of another premise contradicting the first one. In such cases the vulgar must in no way be aware of the contradictions; the author accordingly uses some device to conceal it by all means." (I, introduction)

Despite the inherent hazards in producing such a book, Maimonides felt that it was his absolute duty to find an acceptable way of preserving his insights and understanding of the highest truths in a form accessible to others. He says that "if I had omitted setting down something of that which has appeared to me as clear, so that the knowledge would perish when I perish, as is inevitable, I should have considered that conduct as extremely cowardly with regard to you and everyone who is perplexed." (III: introduction)

It is one of the mysteries of our intellectual history that these explicit statements of Maimonides, together with his other extensive instructions on how to read his book, have been so widely ignored. No author could have been more open in informing his readers that they were confronting no ordinary book.

Source - Marvin Fox "Interpreting Maimonides", Univ. of Chicago Press. 1990

Modern Haredi scholarship on Maimonides

I don't think Danny's behaviour requires an apology. He is quite right in asserting that without these views, the section as it is written now is highly POV because it fails to mention the views of people who have understood Maimonides a lot better than Shapiro, Ravitzky and others. Modern Haredi scholarship on Maimonides has flourished in early 20th century Lithuania (and Israel subsequently), and this work is often of scrupulous detail and honesty, even if the questions are confrontational.
I'm eagerly awaiting the Ibn Tibbon statement - it may be all the section needs. The Orthodox POV, of course, will be that there is no difference between the Rambam's views held privately and publicly. His view, as expressed in the 13 Ikkarim ("principles") is that the content of the Torah has remained unchanged. This means: no mitzvot have been added or removed, and neither has their interpretation. It does not expect anyone to believe that every letter in our present scrolls is identical to the ones in Moses' version. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JFW, in this case you are incorrect. Please present some sources for your statement. Most Orthodox sources state that Maimonides's principles mean that not a single word of the Torah has been changed. Consider Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan:

The person who says that some passages were written by Moses of his own accord is considered by our prophets and sages to be the worst sort of nonbeliever, and a perverter of the Torah...Such a person is in the category of those who say "the Torah is not from Heaven" Our sages teach that this category includes even one who says that the entire Torah was given by God with the exception of a single word, which was composed by Moses and not spoken by God. (Kaplan, p.69)

Then read Artscroll's The Chumash: The Stone Edition. In the overview, they state:

In several of his writings, Rambam sets forth at much greater length the unanimously held view that every letter and word ofthe Torah was given to Moses by God; that it has not been and cannot be changed; and that nothing was ever or can ever be added to it. Indeed, the Talmud states emphatically that if one questions the Divine origin of even a single letter or traditionally accepted interpretation of the Torah, it is tantamount to denial of the entire Torah. (p.XX)

In contrast, you are offering a rather liberal interpretation of his principle - that "no mitzvot have been added or removed, and neither has their interpretation". Your view is more common in Conservative Judaism, and the liberal wing of Modern Orthodoxy. Please take note that I am not disagreeing with your beliefs, JFW. In fact, I agree with you analysis; that is probably what Maimonides believed. However, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, the rabbis at Artscroll, and many Rosh Yeshivah's disagree with us. For them, believeing that the mitzvot are the same is not enough; they hold that we must believe that the entire text is precisely the same, or else we are guilty of heresy. RK 01:38, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Also, Danny's statements about me do require an apology. See below. RK

I am still waiting for an apology for publicly saying i spoke "grotesque lies." RK, you might want to check out Maimonides's Hilchot Teshuva this Elul. Danny 00:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RK, these quotes about The Guide of the Perplexed are interesting, but they have nothing to do with Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith, which, as I'm sure you know, were elucidated in his Mishna Commentary, not in his Guide. The Guide itself was written for a specific audience (Jews attracted to Greek and Arab philosophy), and in a specific code, as Maimonides himself states in the introduction. The controversial insertions in question were not about the Guide; rather, they implied that Maimonides himself did not believe some of his Principles (such as the 8th Principle) were true, but was promulgating them as "necessary beliefs" to promote social order. You have now denied that this was your intent, so your insertion about Torah scrolls (implying that Maimonides did not believe the 8th principle) is no longer required. Furthermore, the article currently contains a section explaining the difference between true and necessary beliefs, therefore the controversy is over. Do you agree? Jayjg 04:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your position; they are directly about one of his 13 principles of faith! That Moses wrote the Torah we have in our hands today is one of his principles. Please see below. RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Maimonides did believe his 13 principles of faith, but...

The article currently states "These scholars note that Maimonides explicitly drew a distinction between true beliefs, which were beliefs about God which produced intellectual perfection, and necessary beliefs, which were condusive to improving social order. This distinction is not made by any recent Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) commentators, suggesting that in their view all principles are equally vital."

This is a rebuttal of a claim that no one is making, and thus needs to be rewritten. As far as I know, scholars are not claiming that Maimonides' believed that many or most of his 13 principles were really not true. If they were making such a claim, then the article should give the above rebuttal. However, this is not the claim that my sources have made. Rather, they have made the claim that Maimonides' understanding of these principles is not the same as the understanding held by the average Jew. In other words, Maimonides really did believe that all 13 principles of faith were true, but his detailed explanations of them are not at all the same as what the average person believes. RK 01:19, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it rebutting any particular claim. What do you think the text should say? Jayjg 05:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I finally edited the text, in a way that I hope is less controversial. However, I understand that it is not the final text, and I am not locked into this wording. In regards to "True beliefs versus necessary beliefs", I am trying to clarify this section. From what I understand, Haredi rabbis dispute precisely what Maimonides followers (and later, modern day non-Haredi writers) understood to be his "true beliefs", but they don't outright deny that he had them. In regards to the following example, do any Haredi rabbis deny that Maimonides held these two points of view, and that his public letter to the Jews of Yemen differs from his less-circulated private writings? If not, then it maybe that everyone agrees that this is a good example of a true belief versus a necessary belief. If any substantial group of rabbis do deny this, it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. We can opposing points of view as well! RK 23:04, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

For example, Maimonides's letter to the Jews of Yemen states that every letter in the Torah has been unchanged since the time of Moses. Yet a comparison to his private writings shows this to be a "necessary belief"; elsewhere Maimonides notes that a number of changes do exist, and that he needed to travel to other cities to compare the text of their Torah to his, in order to edit a reliable text. In this case, the "true belief" was that the Torah really was given by God to Moses and passed down to his generation with high(but not perfect) fidelity.

I have not seen anyone dispute the above in the past four months, or bring a counter-example or counter-source. So I take it that it is now Ok for the article to mention this point. RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Try again here please, before you insert or change the text. Maimonides believed all the 13 principles were true beliefs, not necessary beliefs. The Letter to Yemen was not the 13 principles. Please give specific references to the concepts in the Guide of the Perplexed. Jayjg 02:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, you have brought no sources to back up your position, while I already have brought forth sources which state the opposite. My sources explicitly point out examples where Maimonides's 13 principles were believed by him to be "necessary beliefs", as opposed to being "true beliefs." Now, if you are saying that the average Jewish layperson, of any denomination, believes otherwise, then I would agree with you. Thus given the facts we have available, the article should state something like "In both the past and the present, most Jewish laypeople have held that Maimonides's 13 principles were true beliefs. However, most Maimonidean scholars hold that his principles in fact describe necessary beliefs, and not true beliefs. In this view in order to find Maimonides's beliefs on these issues one would need to read his clarification of these points in his further writings, such as the Guide for the Perplexed and the Mishneh Torah." RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I am open to reading whatever other sources you bring forth. If you can find any sources which hold that his 13 principles represent true beliefs, then that would be great. I just don't know of any which say this. RK 15:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

RK, you are making a claim that Maimonides thought his 13 Principles were "necessary beliefs", but not "true beliefs". Please do not try to reverse the burden of proof, please do not engage in original research, and please cite your sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, JayJG, you are confused on this point, and you have forgotten about the specific sources and quotes I already brought forth. It is not I who am making this claim. Rather, this claim is made by Maimondean scholars, and I have already showed you references and detailed quotes. I am not engaging in original research, and I am confused by your response. Keep me out of this! Frankly, every R and C rabbi I have discussed this issue with admits that Maimonides' principles are necessary beliefs, but not all are necessarilly true beliefs. It is a rather common POV. I also brought forth Orthodox Jewish academic sources, Menachem Kellner and Marc Shapiro, and they publish in Orthodox journals. (These journals do not allow non-Orthodox Jews to publish their theologies.) If you want the article to say anything differently, than it is you who must back your claims up. Do you have any sources? The burden of proof is on you.

Nonetheless, I would be willing to accept on faith that the average Jewish layperson believes the exact opposite, and I do not have a problem if the article says this. But do not imagine that I am engaging in original research; I am reporting a very mainstream view. RK 22:53, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Resurrection of the dead and miracles

I am restoring some older text from the article, and integrating it with text and edits made by JayJG and others. I'd like to explain precisely why I am restoring some of this text. We all know that Maimonides's writings on recurrection were considered heretical; it is a historical fact that many of his contemporaries read all of his works, and came away convinced that he simply did not believe in the Jewish view of the resurrection of the dead. This article needs to explain why. All Maimonidean scholars, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, agree that Maimonides's views on this subject were different from his peers, and this can be illustrated by the use of his terminology. Like his peers, Maimonides believed in the existence of some kind of "miracles" and "resurrection", but he had very different definitions of these words than that of his peers. We cannot understand his writings on this subject unless we describe his definition of these words. Maimonides, of course, was not alone. Many philosophical rationalists had similar unqiue definitions of these terms, such as Gersonides, Saadya Gaon, and Joseph Ibn Tibbon. Nonetheless his views were not identical with those of this peers (hence the repeated charges of heresy for several hundred years) and we need to be explicit in describing his beliefs as accurately and fully as possible. RK 15:25, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

True beliefs versus necessary beliefs

Let's start again, RK, this dispute has been dead for 4 months now. Why don't you create a new section in the Talk: page, and propose your specific edits there, and we'll discuss. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I am not engaging in original research; I am merely reporting on the views of mainstream Maimonidean scholars. Let us start again. Every Reform and Conservative rabbi with whom I have discussed this issue with holds that Maimonides' principles are held by him to be necessary beliefs, but not all are necessarilly true beliefs. It is a rather common POV among many (I won't claim all) in the Reform and Conservative rabbinate. Do you disagree with this specific claim? RK

I brought forth Orthodox Jewish academic sources, Menachem Kellner and Marc Shapiro, and they publish some of their work in Orthodox journals. These journals do not allow non-Orthodox Jews to publish their theologies. They explicitly discuss Maimonides on necessary beliefs versus true beliefs, and use beliefs from his 13 principles of faith as examples of necessary beliefs. Do you disagree with this specific claim? RK

Even without sources, I would agree that the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Most lay Jews think that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true. I don't think we need a survey or source for this claim. Thoughts?

As for Orthodox rabbis, to the best of my knowledge most have not studied philosophy and the specific issue of "true beliefs" versus "necessary beliefs". In past discussions no one was able to bring forth any examples of Orthodox rabbis commenting on this point. As such, it is hard to say what they might think. However, I would be willing to agree that the average Orthodox rabbi holds that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true. I don't think we need a survey or source for this claim, as it seems implicit in many Orthodox writings, even if it is not explicit. Thoughts?

Once each issue is clarified, we then need only describe the views of these groups in NPOV fashion. RK 23:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try again. This dispute has been dead for 4 months now. Why don't you create a new section in the Talk: page, and propose your specific edits there, and we'll discuss. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed text, first draft

In his Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides states that there are significant differences between what he wants the general public to understand from his works, and his true beliefs. He refers to one set of teachings as "true beliefs", which he describes as beliefs about God which produced intellectual perfection. He refers to another set of teachings as "necessary beliefs", which were beliefs conducive to improving social order, yet are not literally true. This issue is discussed by his translator and commentator, Samuel ibn Tibbon, and a number of later classical rabbinic scholars.

• The implication here is terrible: Are you really saying that Maimonides held to a "double standard" (or more) of "beliefs"? How shocking that this should appear on a key Judaism-related article! This just seems to be another application or Psychological projection of modern-day Relativism onto Maimonides's centuries-old principles which are in fact the closest things Judaism has to enunciated religious "dogmas". IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Izak, Maimonides openly admitted that he was doing this. No one denies this. This is not a "terrible" insult, and Maimonides is not attacking himself. Have you actually read his own words on this topic? I have neve found even a single source which denies this point. Maimonides explicitly writes that some of his claims are "necessary beliefs" and some are "true beliefs". Please stop attacking his own statements in the Guide. RK

Some of the most controversial work on Maimonides is about elucidating precisely which beliefs he held to be "true", as opposed to "necessary". His 13 principles of faith are a case in point. Maimonidean scholars such as Marc Shapiro and Menachem Kellner hold that Maimonides' beliefs on some of these principles differs greatly from what is listed in the beliefs. For example, Maimonides's letter to the Jews of Yemen states that every letter in the Torah has been unchanged since the time of Moses. Yet Marc Shapiro writes that a comparison to his private writings shows this to be a "necessary belief". Elsewhere Maimonides notes that a number of changes to the Torah do exist, and that he needed to travel to other cities to compare the text of their Torah to his, in order to edit a reliable text. In this case, the "true belief" was that the Torah really was given by God to Moses and passed down to his generation with high (but not perfect) fidelity. The claims of textual perfection, while not true, is thus a "necessary belief" for the masses.

• Who cares what "Marc Shapiro" says? Let's find out what the Vilna Gaon or Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson said and taught about Maimonides' Principles, as they are after-all the universally-accepted reliable rabbis here. Who the heck is "Marc Shapiro"? IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop the ad homenim attacks on a well-known Orthodox Maimonidean scholar. Wikipedia articles demand that we do care what mainstream scholars say about the writings of philosophers and religous leaders! If you personally don't care, then don't read them. But all of our articles on philosophers and the like have similar sections. RK 16:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why Maimonides believed it important to insert these 'necessary beliefs' into the eighth principle is clear. During his time, Muslims were strongly challenging the Jews, claiming that they had changed the text of the Torah. This accusation began with Muhammed who, as quoted in the Koran, had charged the rabbis of falsifying and tampering with the original Torah.....This charge was carried forward by later Islamic scholars....With such an assault, it is obvious why Maimonides felt it was important for the masses to believe that their text was the exact equivalent of Moses' text. The masses could not be expected to understand the problems relating to the biblical text. Exposing them to some of this knowledge could have undermined their unquestioned faith, especially in the face of Islamic polemics." [Shapiro, p.206, 207]

The idea that Maimonides' true beliefs differed from statements of fact in the 13 principles of faith is accepted as factual by many modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars, such as Shapiro and Menachem Kellner. These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate.

• Your attempts to create a "united front" between Modern Orthodox Judaism, which believes in the Divine Origin of the Torah, and the Conservatives and Reform who deny it, runs counter to all logic and reason. IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Izak, you are very confused. Your topic here, the divine origin of the Torah, has nothing to do with the topic that Profesor Shapiro writes about. Here the topic is only about the textual transmission of the Torah over time, and textual errors. In fact Prof. Shapiro strongly rejects Reform and Conservative Judaism. Please stop reading things into these statements that just are not there! RK

In contrast, the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Many Jews hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true. Most Orthodox rabbis hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are intended as true beliefs. This view is implicit in many Orthodox writings, even if the point is not made explicitly.

"true beliefs" & "necessary beliefs" is jargon meant to confuse

To arbitrarily create an article using new-fangled parameters of so-called and dubious "true beliefs" vs. "necessary beliefs" is a travesty of intellectual honesty. Why should anyone on earth accept the jargon and Mumbo Jumbo of obscure and irrelvant pseudo-scholars not part of any mainstream classical Talmudic school of thought and not sanctioned by any Halakha? What is the point of creating a "new 'Judaic' religion", when we already have Judaism which has been around for over three thousand years? IZAK 07:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Izak, that is a personal attack on Maimonides himself. In fact, what you have written is provably false. You are denying Maimonides's own explicit discussion of this issue in his Guide for the Perplexed. I would assume that this is not due to dishonestly, but rather to a lack of knowledge on this specific subject. This is like arguing with someone who claims that Moby Dick does not included a whale! RK

Also, it is an ad homenim attack to claim that quoting respected Orthodox scholars somehow make me guilty of "creating a "new 'Judaic' religion". Your angry attacks at beliefs I do not have is not appropriate. RK

Jayjg's take on the new section

RK, I've created a new section for you proposed text, with my comments interspersed. In general, the section suffers from the same issues it had several months ago. You have clearly used Shapiro as a source, and quote him extensively; yet there do not appear to be any other sources for this claim. Broad claims are made about the beliefs of Kellner and "many Orthodox Maimonidean scholars" as well as "the Reform and Conservative rabbinate", without the slightest shred of evidence. You need to cite and quote these other sources as well, and not just continually citing Shapiro and handwaving the rest. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I already gave you many other sources. Did you read any of them yet? I note that in contrast, you still cannot find any sources for your position. The weakness lies only in your preconceived notions, which have no scholarly sources to back them up. As for your claims about Reform and Conservatuve rabbis, I am at a loss for words. If you are that unfamiliar with R. and C. theology., then you need to do some reading. Also, I take offense at your attacks that all these sources and quotes are "handwaving". Jay, you are acting like TruthAboutChabad, trying to edit out all information that differs from your own beliefs. That is just not right. RK 16:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed text

In his Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides states that there are significant differences between what he wants the general public to understand from his works, and his true beliefs. He refers to one set of teachings as "true beliefs", which he describes as beliefs about God which produced intellectual perfection. He refers to another set of teachings as "necessary beliefs", which were beliefs conducive to improving social order, yet are not literally true. This issue is discussed by his translator and commentator, Samuel ibn Tibbon, and a number of later classical rabbinic scholars. Where does ibn Tibbon discuss it, and which later classical rabbinic scholars discuss it?

I already told you. It is already right here in this very archive! Why do you keep asking me the same questions, yet refuse to read the answers? This is not funny. I gave you exact, specific references, and you respond yet again by pretending otherwise. In all other articles you are rational and agreeable, but here you are not. I don't know how to deal with this. If you simply refuse to read the sources, then just come out and say so. RK 16:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please quote the source specifically here, so it can be included in the proposed section. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some of the most controversial work on Maimonides is about elucidating precisely which beliefs he held to be "true", as opposed to "necessary". According to whom is it "Some of the most controversial work on Maimonides"?

I thought that you were one such person. You and everyone else here are angry. But are you seriosuly asking me to prove that this is not controversial? I can't imagine why...but I will gladly remove that sentence. RK

Please stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is "angry". Direct your discussion at the article content, not the individual. If you cannot cite a source for this claim, and wish to retract it, then that is fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay, you' are one of the people who finds these claims controversial (and that is Ok.) Izak also doesn't believe them (though he doesn't seem to understand me.) I also got the impression that JFW doesn't agree with these views either. Why do you find it hard to believe that someome would disagree with what I am saying? Up until now, I thought that you did disagree. I am sure that many others would as well. One always finds vociferous disagreement whenever it comes to the philosophy of Maimonides! RK

His 13 principles of faith are a case in point. Maimonidean scholars such as Such as? Who else says this? Marc Shapiro and Menachem Kellner hold Where does Kellner hold this? Please quote him.

that Maimonides' beliefs on some of these principles differs greatly from what is listed in the beliefs. For example, Maimonides's letter to the Jews of Yemen states that every letter in the Torah has been unchanged since the time of Moses. Yet Marc Shapiro writes Please cite where Shapiro writes this that a comparison to his private writings shows this to be a "necessary belief". Elsewhere Maimonides notes that a number of changes to the Torah do exist, and that he needed to travel to other cities to compare the text of their Torah to his, in order to edit a reliable text. In this case, according to Shapiro, the "true belief" was that the Torah really was given by God to Moses and passed down to his generation with high (but not perfect) fidelity. The claims of textual perfection, while not true, is thus a "necessary belief" for the masses.

Jay, you ask me to quote Prof. Shapiro, so I do. Then you deny that a quote on this page exists, and make the same demand again. Then when I give you another quote, you again deny that a quote on this page exists, and make the same demand again! RK

Please give the quote here, so it can be included in the proposed section. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why Maimonides believed it important to insert these 'necessary beliefs' into the eighth principle is clear. During his time, Muslims were strongly challenging the Jews, claiming that they had changed the text of the Torah. This accusation began with Muhammed who, as quoted in the Koran, had charged the rabbis of falsifying and tampering with the original Torah.....This charge was carried forward by later Islamic scholars....With such an assault, it is obvious why Maimonides felt it was important for the masses to believe that their text was the exact equivalent of Moses' text. The masses could not be expected to understand the problems relating to the biblical text. Exposing them to some of this knowledge could have undermined their unquestioned faith, especially in the face of Islamic polemics." [Marc Shapiro, p.206, 207]

The idea that Maimonides' true beliefs differed from statements of fact in the 13 principles of faith is accepted as factual by many Many? Who have you explicitly cited besides Shapiro? modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars, such as Shapiro and Menachem Kellner. You've already said this. These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate.They are? Please cite some sources.

In contrast, the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Many Jews hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true.Is there any source for this? And does anyone but Shapiro believe differently?

Huh? Jay, you are confused - you are now attacking your own position. It is you who has been claiming this all along. Are you really going to change your mind and hold that most religious do not hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are what Maimonides literally believed to be true? I cannot follow you when you totally reverse course like this. RK

Please respond directly to the questions and issues raised. Do not discuss me or my alleged positions. Provide evidence for your claims here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay, relax. How can we discuss this issue if you won't write is on your mind? Earlier on you seemed to believe that most Jews believe that Maimonides's principles of faith are "true beliefs". Therefore I extended an olove branch and said that I agreed with you. If you want me to admit that most Jews have this belief, then I am fine with that. Now you seem angry, and demand that I present sources? I am trying to agree with you. RK 02:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jay, you are confused. You are now contradicting your own previous position. I cannot respond to your constant change of belief. Which position are you claiming is true?! And what are your sources? I am offering mine, please offer something in return. RK 17:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please respond directly to the questions and issues raised. Do not discuss me, your theories about my mental state, your notions about my beliefs, or about my alleged positions or alleged previous positions. I am not claiming any position is true, nor am I making any claims which must be cited. What I am actually doing is asking you to cite sources for your claims. Please Provide evidence for your claims here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I am not attacking your mental state. I honestly am having a problem following your position, and you need to clear up the confusion. What precisely is it that you believe is true about this issue? I had written "Most Orthodox rabbis hold that Maimonides's principles of faith are intended as true beliefs. This view is implicit in many Orthodox writings, even if the point is not made explicitly." Is this something that you agree with, or disagree with? I'm willing to state it whatever way you like. RK 02:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

My position is that you need to cite sources for you claims; what is confusing about that? You claim The idea that Maimonides' true beliefs differed from statements of fact in the 13 principles of faith is accepted as factual by many modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars Many? Please provide a source for this claim. So far you have Shapiro. You also claims These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate. Please cite a source for this claim. We'll start there. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Views of Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines

Leo Strauss "How to begin to study The Guide of the Perplexed", in "The Guide of the Perplexed" Volume One, Translated by Shlomo Pines, The University of Chicago Press, 1963

What is true of the Biblical similies is true also of the metaphorical Biblical terms. According to the Talmudic sages, the outer of the similies is nothing while the inner is a pearl....Hence it is not without danger to the vulgar that one explains the similies or indicates the metaphoric character of expressions (I 33). For such biblical teachings as the assertions that God in angry, compassionate, or in other ways changeable, while not true, yet serve a political purpose or are necessary beliefs (III 28). (p.xxxvi)

Shlomo Pines "The Philosopic Sources of the Guide of the Perplexed", in "The Guide of the Perplexed" Volume One, Translated by Shlomo Pines, The University of Chicago Press, 1963

"according to al-Farabi the ideal city, and according to Maimonides the Jewish community founded on the Torah, assume the task of perfecting the intellects of their members and of guiding them towards philosophical truth. Those born to be philosophers are given the possibility to know the real nature of things, while the others are not taught the naked truths, but the parables andmetaphors by means of which the prophets render this truth accessible to the less gifted. As already stated, this is the mimesis of which al-Farabi speaks. Maimonides sometimes applies to beliefs of this kind...the term true opinions (III 27 and 28).

(p.xcii)

Yes, yes, true beliefs vs. necessary beliefs. That's not the issue here. Metaphors and parables about God being angry etc. The issue here is your attempt to tie this to the 13 Principles. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Views of Menachem Kellner

Professor Menachem Kellner, in Must a Jew Believe Anything?, also writes about this issue:

Why, though, does Maimonides not present his position clearly and unambiguously? Why does he force us to tease it out of texts like the introduction to 'Perek helek'...and why does he seem to contradict it....An answer to this question may be found in Guide of the Perplexed, iii.28. There we are told that in addition to teaching truths in a summary fashion, The Torah "also makes a call to adopt certain beliefs, belief in which is not necessary for the sake of politicla welfare. That is, the Torah teaches things which are themselves not strictly and literally true, but are beliefs which the masses must accept so as not to undermine the stability of society. The example cited by Maimonides clearly confirms this interpretation: 'Such, for example, is our belief that He, may He be exalted, is violently angry with those who disobey Him and it is therefore necessary to fear Him and dread Him and to take care not to disobey.' Now, Maimonides makes it abundantly clear in many contexts that God does not really get angry. But it is certainly useful for religiously immature people to believe that God gets angry so that they 'take care not to disobey.' At the end of the chapter Maimonides sums up his position very clearly:

[quote from the guide; I didn't have time to type it all in yet.]

It is hard to state the point more clearly than this: it is important that people believe that God gets violently angry with sinners and that it is important for them to believe that God immediately answers the prayers of the wronged. The Torah therefore teaches that these beliefs are true; that does not mean that they are actually true in and of themselves. They are necessary beliefs, not true beliefs.

Good, but we've been through this before. Please show where Kellner says Maimonides considers the 13 Principles to be "necessary" beliefs, not "true" beliefs. Please quote Kellner stating this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought that he was pretty clear: The Torah therefore teaches that these beliefs are true; that does not mean that they are actually true in and of themselves. They are necessary beliefs, not true beliefs. Yet Kellner discusses this in regards to Maimondies eleventh principle of faith. That seems clear to me! However, I do understand how you and others can read it differently. Perhaps this doesn't violate a possible reading of his commentary on the Mishnah in the tenth chapter of tractate Sanhedrin. (It does contradict the Ani Ma'amim, which is found in all siddurim and is what most people believe Maimonides meant.) Below are Maimonides's words on this topic, from his commentary (and not the poetic re-statement, Ani Ma'amim.)

What do you mean "Kellner discusses this in regards to Maimondies eleventh principle of faith"? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Eleventh Foundation is that God, blessed be He, gives reward to one who obeys the commandments of the Torah and punishes one who violates its prohibitions. The greatest reward is the World to Come, and the greatest punishment is kareis (spiritual excision, "cutting off"). We have already said enough on this topic [earlier in the Commentary].

I suppose a person well-read in Maimonides can say that this does not constitute a case of "necessary belief" versus "true belief". Here Maimonides promises rewards, but is sort of vague about what it constitutes. Overall, I still agree with Marc Shapiro that the average Jew reads this in a way totally contradictory to what Maimonides teaches. So does Kellner, but I don't have time to type in everything he wrote. Thus, I grant you that this could be read in two ways. For those who read it as literally promising reward and punishment, they have fallen for a "necessary belief", while those who read it along with Maimonides's explanation of these points in his Guide will read in a different way, and thus find the "true belief." RK

Proposal: Instead of discussing the idea of "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs" in regards to the 13 principles, why don't we work out a text on his views of "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs" in general? RK 02:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

That might be be better, as I don't think we have much disagreement regarding the concept in general. The issue we continually run up against is you want to apply it to the 13 principles, and suggest that this is a broadly held view, when from what I can see (and from the evidence you've brought) this view is only held by Shapiro. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hevraya (colleagues) - this debate may be dead (I cannot entirely follow it) but I am wondering if anyone has thought to ask Menachem Kellner directly? He teaches, if I am not mistaken, at the University of Haifa and posts with some regularity on the H-Judaic list-serv (http://www.h-net.org/~judaic/). YKahn 18:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note from Bar Kochba regarding the above... maimonides promises reward and punishment *true belief. Belief in hellfire and brimstone or the bad guy breaking his toe because hes bad... that is what common people believe and therefore we do not molest their common and immature beliefs in reward and punishment,therefor ethe beliefs of the ignorant while untrue are *necessary beliefs. See maimonides commentary on perek Cheilek (Helek) to understand Maimonides position on the future reward and punishment, and the incorrect beliefs of the masses that were in vogue in his times. this is part of what made him controversial in the first place. There is no place in any of Maimonides writings anywhere, i repeat no place in Maimonides writings, that we find him denying that he believes that the entire Torah was written by Moses by God's irect dictation. saying that Maimonides believes those things is a lie, and has no support from his writings. Cryptic allusions to hidden meanings are used by many as an excuse to advance their own beliefs which in fact run contrary to Maimonides' own beliefs and writings.

Year of birth

Some sources mention 1138 as the year of his birth. Which one is correct? JFW | T@lk 09:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

definitively 1138!

What are you basing your answer on? JFW | T@lk 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1138 is the date Maimonides gives in his postscript to his Commentary to the Mishnah (he says he is 30 and the year is 1479 Seleucid). See Hebrew Encyclopedia and J. Kafih in his introduction to his translation of the Commentary.

According to the introduction to his book The Guide for the Perplexed, he was born in 1135 and died in his 70th year. He died in 1204 and could not have been born in 1138 and become 69 years old at his death in 1204. Also, he was 13 years old in 1148 when Muslim rulership changed and everyone was required to declare that they were muslim. Jerbro (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Jerbro

Egypt

Maybe someone here can help me: It says several times in the Torah that Jews shall never return to Egypt, yet Maimonides lived in Egypt. Am I misreading the Torah? Is it that Jews should never set up a permanent civilization in Egypt, but its ok for individuals to live there?Loomis51 11:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have held this against himself. Perhaps the Torah text refers to groups and not individuals. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

no, if you were familiar with the rambams writings you would know that he signed his personal letters with: "Moses ben Maimon the sefardi, who everyday transgresses the command to not live in egypt."

Anon

The above ^ is an urban legend. This alleged comment never appears in any printed or manuscript text. Furthermore, we have many extant signatures of Maimonides and that line never appears.

MFM

01 August 2006

I remember it being that he signed "who transgress three sins every day" and one of them is living in egypt and another two (not living in Israel maybe). I see if I can find a source. Jon513 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, here we are. This answers the orginal poster's question. Jon513 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

@MFM urban legend? never appears in a printed or manuscript text? manuscript text of what? his personal correspondances? i didnt realise there were printed texts and manuscripts of Maimonides personal letters. Do you have them? I dont think so. You are denying that point and calling it an urban legend because you have never seen it, i didnt realise you were such a scholar lol.

There are indeed printed volumes that collect Maimonides' letters (responsa), many of them from Geniza texts in his very own handwriting. The full edition is that of Yehoshua Blau (4 vols.). To the best of my recollection Maimonides never signed with the "Egypt" line, and it is indeed a legend, but I will check that again. (I do have the volumes at home.) Dovi 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the master's letter in manuscript when he wrote them from Egypt and he did sign them off with "Moshe ben Maimon who transgresses 3 commandments everyday." 203.217.76.205 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is not the usual translation to English that the Jews should not ever "settle" in Egypt? If so, the matter is of little importance. I am sure he was still registered to vote in Spain.

POV

The second paragraph of "Maimonides and the Modern" section strikes me as extremely point of view. It makes an important point, but the language should be made more neutral.--ben-ze'ev 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Date of death

According to jewish calenders it was 20th of December, not 13th. JNF 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

according to the Hebrew wikipedia the date was 20 of tevet, according to my calculation the Georgian date is December 20. see online calender (uses PHP built in conversion). That is also what the hebrew wikipedia reports. However the jump in 1582 from October 4 to October 15 is not taken into account in the program [7], so I doubt it is correct. Jon513 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

20 Tevet 4965 (per Ency. Heb.) is 20 Dec 1204 Gregorian and 13 Dec 1204 Julian, so 13 is correct as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.134.67 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Islamic rule in Spain is the end of the golden age of Jewish culture?

What do you mean Islamic rule in Spain is the end of the golden age of Jewish culture? The Muslim rulers before Almohades in Muslim Spain. The facts are all shown in the detailed history relating to Muslim Spain. --203.15.122.35 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a misunderstanding. The same phrase links to this article, which says that The Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula is also known as the Golden Age of Arab or Moorish Rule in Iberia. Apparently there's a consensus about the Golden Age starting at the same time as the Muslim rule or within its first two centuries (either 711–718 after the Muslim conquest of Iberia or 912 -the rule of Abd-ar-Rahman III), and there are different opinions concerning its end. Some say that the Golden Age ends with the invasion of the Almohades -i.e. Maimonides' time. I'll try to fix this. --Filius Rosadis 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the Almohades, they were initially what we'd modernly call fundamentalists and they even engaged in religious persecutions, which drove Maimonides' family out of Córdoba. But, as their Wikipedia entry says, in the end they became less fanatical than the Almoravids, and Ya'qub al Mansur was a highly accomplished man, who wrote a good Arabic style and who protected the philosopher Averroes. This matches the fact that Rambam travelled to Fes, Morocco, ten years after the Almohad invasion (although many years before al Mansur came to power). --Filius Rosadis 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To talk of Arab or Moorish rule in Spain as a coherent period is grossly superficial, on a temporal, on a geographic and on a political plane: it might be better to talk distinctively about the Arabic invasion 710-756, the Andalus Caliphate 756-c1031, the Berber interregnum 1010-1086, the Almoravid kingdom 1086-1147, the Almohad period 1147-1238, then finally the Nasrid dynasty 1238-1492. However, this equally ignores the ebb and flow of the border with Christian Spain, and the policy of Mudéjar ("those permitted to stay") which continued throughout this period: one should also take into account in this context the Catalan influence over Acquitaine and the Narbonnais, lasting well into the thirteenth century. At the risk of irritating the Orthodox, one should consider the Leon Kaballists' Zohar as a continuation (however questionable) of Maimonides' thinking as part of this period, and there is even evidence in the story of Nicolas Flamel, the French alchemist, that there was yet further interest in Leon into publishing the Book of Abraham he acquired from a member of the Paris synagogue in the fifteenth century, which was in itself a major spur to proto-scientific thinking in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. If we must put an absolute end limit on things, the clearest break in the Golden Age cames in 1492 with Isabel the Catholic's exiling of all faiths not subject to Rome.Jel 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why so many chabad links

This seems like spam. Would people who want to spam every wikipedia article with chabad links get a life.

Mishneh Torah

Kapach introduction to the Mishneh Torah contradict what is said here. According to him the Ravaad was opposing rather showing a different POV. etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.76.205 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Negative theology

This section ends with 'In essence what Maimonides wanted to express is that when people give God anthropomorphic qualities they do not do justice to His greatness'

Such wasn't his intent at all, rather that God possessing attribute indicates multiplicity.

I think this could replace the above statement: Maimonides intent was to avoid attributing any properties to God that would indicate anything peripheral to God's 'Essence'

Chabad acting like its own religion

Why is there an "About Maimonides" section and then a "Chabad About Maimonides" section? Chabad isn't making a Book of Moses out of Maimonides. It doesn't need its own section. 203.214.128.115 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

no just links getting out of control. They have to be pruned. if you want to do it you are more than welcome to read WP:EL and remove want needs to be removed. Jon513 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cordoba synagogue isn't closed

As at 10.4.2007, the owners of the synagogue were openly expressing themselves as more than willing to close to the general public to allow Jewish services. True, it isn't formally consecrated, but none the less it can be done. Their phone number is 957 202928.Jel 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rambam vs. Ramban

I had added the following sentence to the article and a similar sentence to the Ramban article: "Maimonides (RaMBaM) should not be confused with Nahmanides (RaMBaN) (1194-1270), another rabbi, philosopher and physician who also lived in Spain." User:Jfdwolff removed this sentence apprently believing it was unnessary. I added this after confusing the two myself. In a conversation with a friend, I had mistakedly heard Ramban instead of Rambam as the person who had formulated the 13 principles of faith. After visiting wikipedia, I discovered that it was actually Rambam and Ranban is a different person. I think this confusion maybe not so uncommon, and may merrit such a mention. Maybe I didn't word the sentence above very well, but I think we should consider adding it back in. Please discuss. Iampayam

People confuse things. I appreciate their names and roles are similar, but even a cursory reading of the article will immediately show the differences. Maimonides was a rationalist, Nachmanides a Kabbalist etc etc. JFW | T@lk 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no reason reason to assume that the reader of the article may confuse the two, or even that the reader has heard of the ramban. Jon513 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess having it in the article would not be proper. In a printed encyclopedia, the two entries would be next to each other so there is less of a chance for confusion. What would be really nice is if the wiki put a link at the top saying "Did you mean Rambam?" or something like that when you search for Ramban. I guess that is more of a software issue with wikimedia and not a content issue. Iampayam 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Request/ Ext link addition

Can we please add a link to [www.torahforme.com A Site with Free MP3 Classes in the Rambams 13 Principles and Oral Reading of the Mishne Torah (not yet completed)]?Samson Ben-Manoach 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No big deals. I only have one concern. I am not an expert so if it is not directly related to Maimonides than please don't insert it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

too many chabad links

Way too many chabad links. Please remove some. Many are not needed like the askmoses ones. 124.168.28.217 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just go ahead and do it. That's the Wiki spirit! —Dfass 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Sefringle (talk · contribs) has now twice slapped some box on this article insisting that every word be cited with cite.php. There are references at the bottom, to which the majority of the content can be sourced. That it what all other encyclopedias do. Of course inline cites are better, but not the point that we have to stare at some light blue box all the time. I really don't think adding boxes in this way makes any difference to the article whatsoever. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Though the references are not clear, and it is very easy to sneak origional research into this article if there aren't any footnotes without anyone really noticing. I don't mean every word needs a citation; just every paragraph at a minimum, or everything that is to a different source. I saw that, which is why I added the citations or footnotes missing tag instead of the unreferenced tag. Most articles on wikipedia follow the footnotes style of referencing. I think until there are inline citations, the article needs to have some tag explaining to readers that citations and/or footnotes are missing.--Sefringle 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"his" synagogue in córdoba

I just made a slight factual correction yesterday, but which has been deleted, so i´ll explain. the text says: "He is widely respected in Spain and a statue of him was erected in Córdoba alongside his synagogue, which is no longer functioning as a Jewish house of worship but is open to the public."

My point is that the synagogue is not "his", since it was built two hundred years after his death and, unsurprisingly, has no dedication to the great scholar (http://www.uco.es/dptos/c-antiguedad/griego/publicaciones/docum1015.htm).

It just happens, sadly, to be the only synagogue in Córdoba not destroyed, and presumably for that reason a few years ago a statue of Maimonides was placed in the vicinity. That does not make it "his" synagogue.

Please, the deleter of my correction, reinstate the correction I provided.Sebatianalfar 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to mysticism

Nothing mentioned that the Rambam opposed mysticism in general. In regards to accepting a book like the Bahir to be authentic he uses very harsh words.

To quote: "When bad and foolish men were reading such passages, they considered them to be a support of their false pretensions and of their assertion that they could, by means of an arbitrary combination of letters, form a shem ("a name") which would act and operate miraculously when written or spoken in a certain particular way. Such fictions, originally invented by foolish men, were in the course of time committed to writing, and came into the hands of good but weak-minded and ignorant persons who were unable to discriminate between truth and falsehood, and made a secret of these shemot (names). When after the death of such persons those writings were discovered among their papers, it was believed that they contained truths; for, "The simple believeth every word" (Prov. xiv. 15)." 203.206.234.139 08:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(the quote is from Guide for the Perplexed: Part I: Chapter LXII). Jon513 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maimonodies was a very strong supporter of mysticism and was criticized and ostracized for writing as much Mysticism in his work as he did. Look specifically at Hilchot Yesodei Torah (2:10) and his discussion of what g-d is. This also got him criticized by many Kabbalists over the centuries.(Stoggefan (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Who knows ? - Citing Rambam

Shalom. Under 'medieval rabbinic teachings' paragraph in Jewish views on evolution, Maimonides is cited to claim if Science and Torah were misaligned ... I've tried quite hard to locate the origin of the writing / commentary, but succeeded not. The editor of this part didn't mention any reference to this meaningful interpretation, or maybe a real quotation. I'll be happy to be helped here. BentzyCo (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference. Jon513 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thank you very much, indeed. BentzyCo (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rambam's full name is not Maimonides

The suffix 'ides' means son of. His full name ([f you want to stick to the Greek) is Moses Maimonides. He refers to himself as "Moses b. Maimon b. Joseph b. Isaac b. Obadiah of blessed memory" in the very first paragraph of his letter to the Jewish community of Yemen. Phil burnstein (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rating of importance

How come that the significance of Rambam to philosophy is rated low while his influence was huge and extensive on many of top philosophers since the time of his life till now? And how come the article don't have medicine importance rate while in most prestigious scientific journals he is mentioned very often when ever the development of medicine is discussed? Same problems for Nahmanides and Gersonides--Gilisa (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to address your concerns about the WikiProject Philosophy rating directly to that group.

Many projects do not provide priority ratings. They are not required.

As for WPMED, if you'll read the project's explanation, articles about individual people are always low priority. Note that low priority means "articles least likely to be improved by members of the project," not "subjects that are totally worthless". "Priority", in this sense, means "what you do first." WPMED would prefer to invest their resources creating in an excellent article about Tuberculosis instead of an excellent article about any single human. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

maimonides on G-d's emotions

The article mentions maimonides' attitude about G-d's emotions (that G-d does not get angry) and claims that maimonides drew this idea from avicenna. with all due respect, unless maimonides specifically references avicenna, i dont think it is ethical to claim that. in mishna tora, </ref>1st chapter halacha 12,</ref> rambam makes a very clear and logical procession about how since G-d is a perfect unity all concepts of division and change (including emotions) do not apply. this idea is rooted in the words of the talmud when it says about many expressions "the torah talks in the language of man". That is the source the Rambam himself gives. Moreover, whomever wrote that avicenna was the source did not give a reference. Ezorlo (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in your citation of the Mishnah - however, in the context of "The Guide for the Perplexed" (3:32, Maimonides conveys comething to the effect of "HaShem is merciful to the extent that the order of nature (what HaShem created) exhibits merciful characteristics and angry to the extent that it is harsh toward things that do not take proper care of themselves. This is, in fact, a concept that originates in the writings of Avicenna. In summation, while you are correct that anthropomorphizing HaShem is not consistent with out view of HaShem, the Guide was written for men and sometimes used anthropomorphisms to convey concepts more readily. Hope that helps. Jimharlow99 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Quote from R Yosef Caro

Jfdwolff has twice deleted this claiming that it's POV. I fail to see how. It's the Mechaber's own words! Please explain in more detail than you have room for in an edit summary, exactly why this is POV, and why it's inappropriate for the article. -- Zsero (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not hearing any explanation for why it should not be there, I'm restoring it. If you think its length gives it undue weight, perhaps you can edit it down, without losing the essence. -- Zsero (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have this talkpage on the watchlist. It is POV when used by (usually Dor Daim-associated) activists who demand that Maimonides has the final word on halakha. There is no real ground for a long quote like this, which could be paraphrased instead to bring out the main points. Given that you have argued for its inclusion I suggest you make it a bit more encyclopedic, because in the current form I am inclined to remove it. JFW | T@lk 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering who wrote it, it can hardly mean that! But it does show the extreme reverence in which he was held centuries after his death, even by those who disagreed with his legal decisions. It's precisely the fact that it was the Mechaber who wrote this, about those who were not following his own decisions, that makes it significant and encyclopaedic. If it's trimmed down to give it less weight, that can't be lost. -- Zsero (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I found the original text in Avkat Rochel, substituted my own translation for the rather florid one that had been given, and cut it down to that which makes the point. I provided a link to the original text in the footnote, so anyone can check my translation. Are you OK with that? -- Zsero (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done, thank you! And an excellent job in tracing it down to Avkat Rochel, which is not commonly learnt! JFW | T@lk 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales picture?

What is the Jimmy Wales picture doing in this article's Judaism template? The template (edit, view) appears to be fine and renders okay in other articles (random example). (ARK (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

It was vandalism, of course. -- Zsero (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How does a template get vandalised while its source remains untouched? (ARK (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

The source wasn't untouched — it was vandalised by the user whose contributions are linked above. -- Zsero (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay -- I've just checked the template's edit history and saw that the vandalism had occurred and had been reverted hours before I came across the vandalised box in the Maimonides article yet found the same box, at the same time, to render correctly in other articles relating to Judaism. This probably means that there are multiple instances of any template distributed across Wikipedia's servers, and that some of them may take a while until they reflect the latest edits. Is this a known issue? ARK (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maimonides Jewish Leaders Fellowship

At several universities including my own there is a program called the "Maimonides Jewish Leaders Fellowship". I did not see this mentioned in the article and was curious to if it should be added?

for info regarding: http://www.maimonidesfellowships.com/home.aspx 12.164.197.120 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with him, so why would it be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article about him? If we listed all the things that have been named after him over the past 800 years we'd have a long list. -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrections / Additions

Fes, in the picture titled "Maimonides house in Fes" the is not consistent with the city name used in the rest of the article. It may be an alternate or archaic spelling.

"The Oath of Maimonides" is mentioned and should be inserted, if short enough, or linked to an article with the text. I found several versions, none I was certain were in the public domain. While not qualified to translate from the original, I note a significant gap in the information. YD 72.151.125.140 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "In the Yeshiva world he is known as "Hanesher Hagadol" (the great eagle) in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah, particularly on account of the manner in which his Mishneh Torah is elucidated by Chaim Soloveitchik."

The last clause is frankly just a dumb thing to say. RCS is irrelevant to the stature of the Mishneh Torah in the yeshiva world. Perhaps the editor just wanted to insert a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.31.214 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone clarify potentially confusing wording in lede?

In the opening paragraph, it says:

With the contemporary Muslim philosopher Averroes, he promoted and developed the philosophical tradition of Aristotle, which gave both men prominent and controversial influence in the West

...that's three men among which the reader must pick two to assign "both" to. I'm guessing it's Aristotle and Maimonides, but I shouldn't have to guess.--NapoliRoma (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to make it more clear. I left out "which gave both men prominent and controversial influence in the West", which may be true but confuses. The presence of the Aristotelian influence in the philosophy of Maimonides was actually very controversial at the time, and (if I recall correctly) lead to his books being burned in some Jewish communities. It was a long time before his writing became as widely respected as it is now. I do not see anything about that in the article though. HaKavanah (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

portrait

I removed File:Maimonides-2.jpg. The image is unsourced, and we have no evidence it is even supposed to represent Maimonides. The article can by all means include 19th century artist's impressions of the subject, but such image need to be accurately identified, naming their author and date of publication, or else they are simply not encyclopedic. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Found this, much better. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Tempered potentially WP:Original

User:Tempered recently made extensive edits to the article providing only sporadic sources for the new information. Given the overly flattering tone of the new edits, it would be advisable that sources for new information be sought, lest the information appear as WP:Original.

1. What is the source for this claim? "Although he frequently wrote of his longing for solitude in order to come closer to God and to extend his reflections, he gave over almost all his time to caring for others. [...] Even on the Sabbath he would receive members of the community. It is remarkable that despite all this he managed to fit in the composition of massive treatises, including not only medical and other scientific studies but some of the most systematically thought-through and influential treatises on halachah (Rabbinic law) and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages. His Rabbinic writings are still fundamental and unparalleled resources for religious Jews today."
2. You will need a reliable source to support a claim of this nature: "Maimonides's Mishneh Torah is considered by traditionalist Jews even today as one of the chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics. It is exceptional for its logical construction, concise and clear expression and extraordinary learning, so that it became a standard against which other later codifications were often measured. It is still closely studied in Rabbinic yeshivot (academies)."
3. Here a ref has been provided, but its language still suggests WP:Syn on the editor's part: "But Maimonides was also one of the most influential figures in medieval Jewish philosophy. His brilliant adaptation of Aristotelian thought to Biblical faith deeply impressed later Jewish thinkers, and had an unexpected immediate historical impact. Some more acculturated Jews in the century that followed his death, particularly in Spain, sought to apply Maimonide's Aristotelianism in ways that undercut traditionalist belief and observance, giving rise to a major intellectual controversy in Spanish and southern French Jewish circles. The intensity of debate spurred Catholic Church interventions against "heresy," in Rabbinic studies, and even a general confiscation of Rabbinic texts, and, in reaction, the defeat of the more radical interpretations of Maimonides and at least amongst Ashkenazi Jews, a tendency not so much to repudiate as simply to ignore the specifically philosophical writings and to stress instead the Rabbinic and halachic writings. However, even these writings often included philosophical chapters or discussions in support of halachic observance, and so Maimonidean thought continues to the present day to influence traditionally observant Jews."

A third editor's review would be exceedingly helpful here.—Biosketch (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed this earlier and was also concerned but haven't had the time to respond. Unless we get reliable sources for these in the next few hours, I'm happy to see them deleted. They can always be restored of they can be sourced, but at the moment most looks like original research. It may be possible to attribute some of it to specific reliable sources rather than make general assertions. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the comments are drawn from standard biographies of Maimonides, and as for citations, the additional material provides citations of two substantial overviews of Maimonidean thought of recent date or current authoritative standing, namely, Sirat's A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages, and the relevant chapters in Frank and Leaman, eds., History of Jewish Philosophy. The citations provide full documentation for all statements made in my edit regarding the acknowledged brilliance of Maimonides' philosophical writings (acknowledged even by his opponents at the time, and by all Jewish thinkers since then up to the present day), and for the specifics given in regard to the Maimunist controversy, refuting the claimed "syn" at Biosketch's item 3, above. E.g., Sirat discusses the acculturation of those in Spain who tried to use The Guide to the Perplexed to justify relaxed Jewish observance, etc. In any case, my two cited sources are two more than are found in the entire section on his philosophy in the article, which is in fact very weak. However, I will provide specific references to the queried edits now. I frankly am amazed at the editorial comments here: they show a strange ignorance or perhaps merely a reluctance to accept what is found in all standard studies of Maimonides. If the editors were knowledgeable in this subject, and wanted specific citations to reliable sources for it, they should have been easily able to provide them themselves from their own bookshelves instead of throwing around claims of "synthesis" or "original research"!Tempered (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't expect other editors to be experts. That's why the onus is on you to provide sources. Your edits are phrased in such a way that they could be construed as hagiography in the absence of sources. Try to convince your reader (and your fellow editors) please. JFW | T@lk 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now provided sources for all the passages queried.Tempered (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Tempered has successfully made his point and the passages can stand. They are in accord with the standard RS on the matter, and thus are not OR. Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tempered, I don't deny my profound ignorance on the topic; indeed, I concede and regret it. Regardless, however, you should cultivate the habit of citing sources for any material you add to Wikipedia, and in especial to articles that aspire to maintain a high standard of scholarship – a distinguished class to which I would like to think this Rambam article belongs.—Biosketch (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Charity

The section dealing with the legal philosophy regarding charity is confusing to me. What is meant by "eight levels of charity"? Are each of the acts of charity mentioned ethically equivalent or are they ranked somehow? It would be helpful if someone could clarify this. FrancisDane (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an often cited viewpoint, based on Talmud sources. What is meant is priorities in giving, but presumably the higher priority forms of charity are also ethically superior. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Spain

Spain did not exist at 1135, I think it was called something like Andalusia, so, I don't think it is historically correct to say Moses Maimonides was born in Spain! which was only created in the 17th or 18th century. thanks 203.135.190.6 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Try the 15th century. But that's irrelevant; in English the area is called Spain, and it makes no difference what the locals called it in 1135. -- Zsero (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it does make a difference. Historical place names should be at least mentioned in historical articles. If a person is born in Catalan or Andalusia, it makes a difference, especially if someone wants to investigate the history further. This is an encyclopedia, after all.LeValley 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba was in the caliphate of Cordoba when Maimonides was born, which is an important fact. He was not born in "Spain". I wil correct the article. FrancisDane (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You've got a huge task before you, fixing all the mistaken language in thousands of articles. You'd better go and edit all the texts from Latin authors like Cicero, Livy and Caesar which speak of Hispania, and which are translated as 'Spain', which you tell us now, did not exist in those days, presumably because the reality died with the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. Better change the William Butler Yeats article which says he was born in Ireland when he was born in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. You'd better fire off some emails to people, publisher and editors (like Joel Kraemer here )who keep writing that he was born in Cordoba, Spain, or who keep translating 'Moshe ben Maimon ha-Sefaradi' as Maimonides the Spaniard, and caution them about the anachronism, that it should be rendered 'al-Andalusi'. Perhaps everything to do with Sephardis should be Andalusian? If so drop a note to Paloma Díaz Más who deceived the University of Chicago Press editors, slipping under their tight editorial radar the anachronism here. All those books which talk about Islamic Spain at the time need notes to the publishers to correct the anachronism. Better correct the idea that Colombus discovered America too, the continent was not so named until after his death,etc. Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Francis, it's a matter of relying on RS here. For accuracy, we can say in the body that he was born when Spain formed part of the caliphate of Cordoba, or something. But most refer to him as a Spanish scholar; the same is true for medieval rabbis in Italy, when at the time that country was not called Italy, but was rather made up of many smaller city states. The same goes for rabbis living in the Ottoman "Viyalet of Damascus" in the 1500s who are referred to as Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The average reader will not understand the distinction. Suggest that in the infobox we use Spain, and in the text body we may explain that Cordoba was in an area then known as Andalusia. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the page to indicate that he was born in a part of the Iberian Peninsula which was at the time ruled by Moslems. That's a pretty important point-the religious tolerance they extended to Jews, etc. All of my changes were undone. If no one else cares about accuracy, why should I? I am ignoring the patronizing and off the point diatribe from Nishidani. Yes, I know the Iberian peninusula has been commonly known as "Spain" since the Romans, but when he was born there was no such nation or political entity called "Spain"-I don't know why Nisidani has got his knickers in a twist. I made the change suggested by Nisidani, a reasonable compromise which honors historical fact instead of geography and it was deleted. I still believe that some reference should be made some how that he was not born in what people typically think of as Spain now, but rather one split into different regions following different religious practices and that he was born into a Muslim Caliphate which was much more tolerant of Jews than the Catholics. This is an important point and would also educate people on the whole issue of a divided Medieval Spain. Sorry for my error. Nicholascarew (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We can incoorportae both: Suggest:

"was a preeminent Spanish Jewish scholar, philosopher and physician of the Middle Ages. He was born in Córdoba when the city formed part of Muslim dominated Al-Andalus...." Chesdovi (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel Shahak as a source

Someone has been trying to add material to this article that disparages Maimonides and is sourced to Israel Shahak. Please follow the blue link. Shahak was not an historian. He was not a philosopher. He was not a theologian. He was a chemist. He was not in any academic field remotely related to study of the life or writings of Maimonides. His writings do not constitute a significant, scholarly point of view on Maimonides. Mentioning the gloss put on Maimonides' writings by a professor of chemistry who also had some stature as a human rights activist violates WP:UNDUE. It is neither terribly surprising nor terribly significant that a Medieval philosopher (of any religious affiliation) had Medieval views on race and ethnicity. Furthermore a quick perusal of Wikipedia's bio of Shahak shows that he had an obvious grudge against Israel and against Judaism to the point of having no compunction about fabricating a defamatory story about a Jew refusing aid to a Gentile on the Sabbath. As a result, his writings can be found on the websites of the likes of Radio Islam and David Duke. These writings clearly do not pass muster for inclusion here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm now at two reverts in the last hour and I won't revert again right away, but I have confidence this shit won't last. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Shahak's views on Maimonides are not worthy of inclusion in this article. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not just about Shahak's views, but there is also a quote by Maimonides. For reference, this is the edit in question.[8] A GB search brought a number of primary sources where Maimonides wrote something similar and at least one other scholar has commented on it. See [9]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Shahak is not a reliable source on any Jewish topic. As for Hannaford, in the particular citation he does not actually accuse Maimonides of racism. We should be extremely careful about imposing 21st century standards on 13th century thinkers. JFW | T@lk 12:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

1. It seems more like it was a fabrication that it was a fabrication since the sources defend and is a supporter of Maimonides.

which brought other racists in israel that indeed support and want to kill non jews. including children who "threaten" israel.

This old influencal rabbi is indeed the source of this. he wasnt uninfluenceal. so it seems he is indeed guilty of the occupation and racism against the arabs and non jews of israel. "The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?

Prohibition'Thou Shalt Not Murder'applies only'to a Jew who kills a Jew,'write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur."

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/2.209/the-king-s-torah-a-rabbinic-text-or-a-call-to-terror-1.261930

"Co-author Elitzur wrote an article in a religious bulletin a month after the book's release saying that "the Jews will win with violence against the Arabs."

In 2003, the head of the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, was charged by then-Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein with incitement to racism for authoring a book calling Arabs a "cancer." " Is it true that comparing arabs to be lower then humans an inspiration for this racism and thus resluting in the death of arabs since it indeed influences the government? - http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/how-to-kill-goyim-and-influence-people-leading-israeli-rabbis-defend-manual-for-for-killing-non-jews/

"But Maimonides was particular in his designation of who was a "philosopher."
Maimonides even had his own criterion of who was a "human" and who was not "human." As for certain Gentile  
peoples, Maimonides taught explicitly that the extreme northern Turks and the extreme southern peoples near
the equator were to him non-humans and they could never find a place in his "Temple"
(Guide for the Perplexed, Book III, chapter 51, paragraph 3)."

- Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D. http://askelm.com/temple/t010301.htm

No criticism section of a racist who's text did indeed influence the politics of israel? LET alone was responsible for anti-non jewish practices that indeed influence people to commit heavy usury

23:21). Maimonides viewed these verses as a regular binding requirement and listed them with the affirmative commandments in Sefer ha-Mitzvot. He held that the Torah contains verses that oblige Jews to lend to non-Jews for interest and to make sure the debt is paid up:

Commandment 142 orders us to dun the gentile and force him to pay up his debt,… as the Almighty said, “dun  
the foreigner,” which Sifre interprets:  “Dunning the foreigner is a positive commandment” (142);  the 198th  
commandment is to demand interest from the gentile, and then we may lend to him, to the point that we do not  
do him good and do not help him, but rather harm him, … as He said, “deduct interest from loans to  
foreigners,” which according to the accepted interpretation is a positive commandment, as Sifre says:  
“charging the gentile interest is a positive command.” [3]

Source for this is Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center Take note of this in particular:

to the point that we do not do him good and do not help him, but rather harm him

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/reeh/yaha.html

So YES, a criticism section about Maimonides hate towards non-semitic and the non-jewish people should DEFINATLY be there(and yes I know arabs and turks and other middle eastern people are considered semitic, in this case its about jews being considered one). No one is above criticism, be it the founding fathers of old or scribes. In short, Israel Shahak is indeed a reliable source about his work and his texts about Maimonides should definatly be added, it seems more like those who accuse Shahak in that story are defenders of racism rather then oposed to it.

Which means if any racism would occur, it means they wont condemn it. so they arent reliable sources. Israel Shahak however, seems indeed from other sources deducted about Maimonides reliable source.109.225.103.67 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision

There is no mention on talk or article of this man's views regarding circumcision. Here appears to relate some of them. Could we incorporate his views based on these historical quotes? Ranze (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Spanish jew

Maimonides was not only Sephardic, term that essentially refers to the descendants of Iberian Jews, but also Spanish Jew. Their cultural-ethnic is twofold, Jewish and Spanish, and it should recognize in article. --LTblb (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've wikilinked Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Editor2020 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Year of birth

He was born in 1138. User Antar is trying by vandalism to keep the wrong date her as well as in the spanish version. Here the facts Stroumsa,Maimonides in his world: portrait of a Mediterranean thinker, Princeton University Press, 2009, p.8 Sherwin B. Nuland, Maimonides, Random House LLC, 26 Aug 2008, p38

Here the page in Nuland

http://books.google.be/books?id=PgK3qF5mXl4C&pg=PA28&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2x6r5PRlqFXilahMfhs5E-Mj0b-Q&w=685

Here in Stroumsa

http://books.google.be/books?id=DhaunpbZYSYC&pg=PA8&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3Gxk88Rp7yE1CHf79xVhQh-gjwqQ&w=685 94.111.122.47 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC) corrections by 94.111.122.47 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that you refers this, but you have to understand that if only put this reference in edit summary i'ts easy that revert your edition. After put the correct references in talk page, discused with others editors to put your edition, but we have had two dates, because a lot of references says that was born 1135. I think that I haven't tried to vandalism your edition, I usually put a lock warning in case of vandalism. Regads ca:Usuari:Anskar --83.39.108.113 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know it sounds special, but I did a thorough check and analysis and found that since more than 15? years all scientists agree that 1035 is wrong and accept 1038 . On the german version someone gave a very good explanation of it as did Nuland more briefly. In some languages such as French it has been corrected since a long time. Now finally alsoe here. Regards 94.111.112.127 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Jewish encyclopedia is more than 100 years old. A good basis, I use a lot, but not up to date as in he case of birthyear of Maimonides 94.111.112.127 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Arab" Philosopher?

Okay, I deleted the mention of him being an "Arab" philosopher. Although many of his works were in Arabic he also wore a turban, I understand this but his works in Arabic were in Judeo-Arabic first off which was written in the Hebrew script not Arabic script, second of all in NONE of those have I ever heard him mention himself as "Arab" or a "Arab Jew" though again, it is understood that there are many Arabs or Jews who call themselves Arab Jew but Maimonides was not one of them.

The only encyclopedia to ever call Maimonides an "Arab". Where is the sources that say he was an Arab? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Arab or Muslim

First, Maimonides was neither Arab nor Musta'arbi. Second, "He may have been forced to convert to Islam" is not certain and therefore not enough to be considered as a Muslim; Definitely has no place in infobox. Infantom (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Who said he was Arab? He was ARABIZED, he wrote almost all his works in ARABIC (save for one Hebrew book, Mishneh Torah) and dressed like an Arab and lived his ENTIRE life in the Arab World. Stop trying to hide and negate this fact. Mustaarabi means "like Arabs" akin to the Spanish Mozarab. Nobody is saying he was an Arab or Muslim.

And speaking of Arabs, an "Arab" is defined by either linguistic, cultural or ethnic means. Since Maimonides spoke and wrote in ARABIC as his native language, not SpANiSh, LADINO or HEBREW and since he followed a culture that was ARAB culture, that should probably tell you something. Not to mention that all of his influences were Arab and Persian polymaths.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Given the Oxford dictionary definition of "Arbaized"[10]- his "Arab character" is debatable and since no reliable source was given to support it either, there's no reason to mention that in the article (his influences by arab and non-arab figures are already mentioned). Maimonides was Sepheradic and not Musta'arbi, which is merely geographical and linguistic definition for Jews living in the middle east. And you did claim he was "briefly Muslim". As for Arab definition- Arab language or his dress are completely irrelevant. His work concentrated on Jewish philosophy, Jewish ethics, Jewish law, Jewish literature and Jewish theology, that indeed tells me something and that ain't Arab culture. Regards Infantom (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, his writings weren't on just Jewish philosophy, he also wrote medical works and they were ALL in ARABIC, not HEBREW or LADINO. Tell me, why is he being called "Spanish" then? I would like you name one book by him written in SPANISH? Oh right sorry, none exist and if they do, it doesn't compare to the amount of Arabic writings he wrote.

"As for Arab definition- Arab language or his dress are completely irrelevant."

By that statement, you have proven yourself to indeed be a biased and ignorant hypocrite, hiding the fact that he obviously lived a life influenced by Arab culture - and you, like many people out there, are trying to hide and negate this. So it actually is relevant, and tell me why his name is mentioned in talks about Arabic-language philosophers?

And what validity is it calling him "Spanish" if he didn't even write books in Spanish or Ladino?

Now, if this was an article about Solomon ibn Gabirol, who obviously a Hebrew poet, who wrote in Hebrew, then start talking. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

(Personal attack removed) PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

(Personal attack removed) look at the entire section above this one that I started, clearly proves that I wasn't trying to call Maimonidess an Arab, even clearly I do believe that he qualifies as an Arab Jew but I won't do that (Personal attack removed) PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I could easily discuss and debunk your statements that have already became irrelevant for the article, but given your obnoxious attitude that violated several rules here (WP:NPA, WP:CIV) you are not worth it. But i'll comment on the minor part in your repulsive text that is related to the article, "Spanish" is mentioned for the geographic region he was born and raised in, and there's a wikilink to the Spanish and Portuguese Jews article indicates the Jewish community he was part of, not the "usage of Spanish language". You couldn't use "Arab Jew" either, as it is highly controversial and criticized term. Infantom (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede Phrasing

This

Location of his death is possibly Tiberias, where his son and his tomb are set

is a bit confusing. Maimonides' tomb is set in Tiberias, but I don't think his son can be said to be "set" anywhere. Is this a reference to his son's tomb, perchance? I'm just not clear what's being said here.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (who does not watch this page, but wanted to bring this oddity to the attention of someone who does)