An Early Maimonidean Controversy in the East
🎓 The Maimonidean controversies began even during the Rambam's lifetime. Today, we look closely at one of these early cultural conversations that took place between Egypt, Iraq, and Yemen.
Audio (Paid Feature)
Find an audio version of this newsletter here.
In this issue:
The Instigation: Bodily Resurrection, or Lack Thereof, in Rambam’s Writings
Rambam’s Response: Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim (Treatise on Resurrection)
Rambam’s Beloved Student Comes to his Defense: The Silencing Epistle
The Instigation: Bodily Resurrection, or Lack Thereof, in Rambam’s Writings
Tucked into Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna, in the introduction to Perek Chelek, the tenth chapter of tractate Sanhedrin, which deals with eschatological matters, are statements of creed he considered minimally incumbent upon every Jew, which have come to be known as the Thirteen Principles (Ikarim). Principle number thirteen states plainly that physical resurrection of the dead (techiyat ha-meitim) is a required creedal belief. However, there Rambam simply adds, “as we have already explained.” In fact, in the beginning of his introduction to Perek Chelek, where he synthetically treats the messiah, the messianic age, the World-to-Come (Olam ha-Ba), and Gan Eden and Gehinom (as well as popular, though incorrect in his estimation, beliefs about them), Rambam is not as unequivocal as he would later claim to be. In one place, he directly comments on bodily resurrection, but with a major caveat (which he would later develop at length in Mishneh Torah):
ותחיית המתים הוא יסוד מיסודי משה רבינו ע"ה ואין דת ולא דבקות בדת יהודית למי שלא יאמין זה אבל הוא לצדיקים
Bodily resurrection is among the core principles of Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, and there is no rule1 or cleaving to Jewish regulations for one who does not believe this—but it is reserved for the righteous.
Rambam, Commentary on the Mishna, Introduction to Perek Chelek (of Sanhedrin)
This idea, seemingly tacked on at the end of the sentence, that only the righteous (tzadikim) merit to experience bodily resurrection was already elaborated on in the introduction to Perek Chelek; it opened the door to a spiritualized interpretation of resurrection, which would cause Rambam so much trouble in due time. In Chapter 8 of Hilchot Teshuva (Laws of Repentance), a section of the philosophical Sefer ha-Mada (Book of Knowledge) which headlines Mishneh Torah, a work which he composed over close to a decade, from 1168 to 1177, Rambam would write:
הַטוֹבָה הַצְּפוּנָה לַצַּדִּיקִים הִיא חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא וְהִיא הַחַיִּים שֶׁאֵין מָוֶת עִמָּהֶן וְהַטּוֹבָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ רָעָה… שְׂכַר הַצַּדִּיקִים הוּא שֶׁיִּזְכּוּ לְנֹעַם זֶה וְיִהְיוּ בְּטוֹבָה זוֹ. וּפִרְעוֹן הָרְשָׁעִים הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִזְכּוּ לְחַיִּים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא יִכָּרְתוּ וְיָמוּתוּ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה לְחַיִּים אֵלּוּ הוּא הַמֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַי לָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא נִכְרַת בְּרִשְׁעוֹ וְאָבֵד כִּבְהֵמָה… הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵין בּוֹ גּוּף וּגְוִיָּה אֶלָּא נַפְשׁוֹת הַצַּדִּיקִים בִּלְבַד בְּלֹא גּוּף כְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בּוֹ גְּוִיּוֹת אֵין בּוֹ לֹא אֲכִילָה וְלֹא שְׁתִיָּה וְלֹא דָּבָר מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁגּוּפוֹת בְּנֵי אָדָם צְרִיכִין לָהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְלֹא יֶאֱרַע דָּבָר בּוֹ מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּאָרְעִין לַגּוּפוֹת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. כְּגוֹן יְשִׁיבָה וַעֲמִידָה וְשֵׁנָה וּמִיתָה וְעֶצֶב וּשְׂחוֹק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.
The good that is hidden for the righteous is the life of the World-to-Come. This will be life which is not accompanied by death and good which is not accompanied by evil… The reward of the righteous is that they will merit this pleasure and take part in this good. The retribution of the wicked is that they will not merit this life. Rather, they will be cut off and die. Whoever does not merit this life is [truly] dead and will not live forever. Rather, he will be cut off in his wickedness and perish as a beast… In the World-to-Come, there is no body or physical form, only the souls of the righteous alone, without a body, like the ministering angels. Since there is no physical form, there is neither eating, drinking, nor any of the other bodily functions of this world like sitting, standing, sleeping, death, sadness, laughter, and the like.
Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva 8:1-2
This does not seem to accord with the plain sense of a global belief in bodily resurrection, but a form of consequence for especially righteous individuals alone who experience something that we approximate by the phrase techiyat ha-meitim. Perhaps inevitably, this nuanced position would draw the rancor of those suspicious of Rambam’s rationalist project—but also, perhaps more significantly and interestingly, of those from whom he garnered great respect, but for whom complex problems were raised by his approach.
The Geonim of Baghdad Raise Questions
Several interconnected figures from the orbit of the Baghdadi gaonate took up the challenge raised by Rambam’s exposition of techiyat ha-meitim. Their objections, both halachic and hashkafic (pertaining to matters of belief), were likely motivated in part by the struggle of the Geonim of Babylonia to retain their erstwhile position as chief arbiters of law and culture for world Jewry, and especially those Jews who resided in the Islamicate world. Added to this was the tussle for power between the offices of the Geonim and those of the exilarch, the political head of Babylonian Jewry. The opening shot was fired by the regal and self-possessed Gaon R. Shmuel ben Eli, who retained sole authority to appoint dayanim (religious court judges) over a wide swathe of the Jewish world, according to the testimonies of Binyamin of Tudela and Petachia of Regensburg, both of whom met him during their travels and were duly impressed by the regalia of his station. In a wide-ranging public letter that took issue with the intellectualizing sophistry of philosophers in general and Aristotelian ones in particular, R. Shmuel ben Eli denounced exactly the sort of undertaking to which Rambam had dedicated his life. The denouement of R. Shmuel ben Eli’s missive took issue with Rambam’s writings around resurrection. (He also separately composed hasagot, critical glosses, on Mishneh Torah, which elicited Rambam’s attention as well.)
Published in an Israeli academic journal in 2000 by Dr. Y. Tzvi Langermann, an expert on medieval Jewish rationalism, particularly science, R. Shmuel ben Eli’s treatise/letter waited many centuries for dissemination in print. The events surrounding it, however, were well known from Rambam’s first, introductory section of his response to it, the Maamar (or Igeret) Techiyat ha-Meitim.
וְכַאֲשֶׁר הָיָה בְּזֹאת הַשָּׁנָה, וְהִיא שְׁנַת אתק”ב לַשְׁטָרוֹת, הִגִּיעוּ אֵלֵינוּ כְּתָבִים מִקְצָת חָבֵרֵינוּ מִבָּבֶל, זָכְרוּ שֶׁשׁוֹאֵל מֵאַנְשִׁי תִּימָן שָׁאֵל עַל הָעִנְיָנִים הָהֵם בְּעַצְמָם לְזֶה רֹאשׁ יְשִׁיבָה רַבֵּנוּ שְׁמוּאֵל הַלֵוִי ש”צ, הַנִּסְמָךְ בְּבַגְדָאד בִּזְמַנֵּנוּ זֶה, וְשֶׁהוּא חָבֵּר לָהֶם מַאֲמָר בִּתְחִיַּת הַמֶּתִים, וְשָׂם דְּבָרֵינוּ בְּזֶה הָעִנְיָן קְצָתָם טָעוּת וּשְׁגָגָה, וּקְצָתָם שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהִתְנַצֵל עֲלֵיהֶם, וְנִצֵל אוֹתָנוּ, וְעָצַר מְעַט בְּקוּלְמוֹסוֹ. וְאַחַר אֵלּוּ הַמִּכְתָּבִים נִשְׁלַח אֵלֵינוּ הַמַּאֲמֶר אֲשֶׁר חִבְּרוֹ זֶה הַגָּאוֹן ש"צ בלְשׁוֹנוֹ, וְרָאִינוּ כֹּל הַדְרָשׁוֹת וְהַהַגָּדוֹת אֲשֶׁר קְבְּצָם.
And during the present year, year 1502 ]1191/2] of the era used in documents, letters reached us from some of our colleagues in Babylon. They mention that one of the residents of Yemen had addressed an inquiry concerning these same matters to the head of the Rabbinical College, Rabbi Samuel Halevi who was ordained in Bagdad during our time. He wrote a treatise for them on the resurrection of the dead wherein he represented our words in this matter partly erroneously and falsely and partly in a manner that can perhaps be justified. He attempted to defend our views and restricted his pen somewhat. After the aforementioned letters, the treatise itself, which was composed by this learned Rabbi in his language, was forwarded to us, and we there saw all the expositions and legends which he had gathered.
Rambam, Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim, Eng. trans. F. Rosner
In later years, close associates of R. Shmuel ben Eli would continue the polemic against Rambam’s rationalizing views. His leading student, R. Daniel ben Saadia ha-Bavli (also known as Ibn al-Amshata) fired off sharply-worded criticisms to none other than Rambam’s son, R. Avraham Maimuni, who was urged to place R. Daniel under ban. Though he addressed R. Daniel’s objections personally, R. Avraham Maimuni declined to issue a ban of excommunication against him; that task may have been undertaken (there is scholarly disagreement) by the exilarch, R. David ben Shmuel, whose office had an antagonistic relationship with the gaonate at that point—R. Shmuel be Eli had opposed the exilarch’s appointment.
Rambam’s Response: Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim (Treatise on Resurrection)
Rambam initially declined to respond and urged his student (who came to his defense, as we’ll soon see) to desist as well. Formally, he acquiesced not in response to the Gaon but to the request of a colleague in Yemen, who in 1189 wrote to him about a debate over resurrection that was dividing his community. The philosophically-minded members of the Yemenite community were denying the physicality of resurrection, explaining passages from Tanach and Chazal (the rabbis of the Talmud) as being allegorical. To buttress their claims, they used selections from Rambam’s writings. Perceiving this as a misunderstanding of his positions, Rambam had a reason to respond, ostensibly to the Yemenite community, but also to the Gaon.
Rambam’s response was uncharacteristically impatient and frustrated for a public communication (“And when this incident became known to us, we paid no attention thereto, saying that this individual’s [opinion] is of no consequence because no one can be so foolish as to find it so difficult to understand what what we wrote [clearly in our composition]”), even as it took a notably bland stance designed for a popular audience:
וּבֵאַרְנוּ לָהֶם שֶׁתְּחִיַּת הַמֶּתִים הִיא פָּנַת תּוֹרָה, וְהִיא שׁוּב הַנֶּפֶשׁ לַגּוּף, וְלֹא יְפֿרַשׁ זֶה, וְשֶׁחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּאוּ אַחַר תְּחִיַּת הַמִּתִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבְּאַרְנוּ בְּפֶרֶק חֵלֶק. וְחָשַׁבְנוּ שֶׁזֶּה הַשִׁעוּר מַסְפִיק.
We…explained to them that the resurrection of the dead is a cardinal principle of the Torah, to wit, the return of the soul to the body which should not be explained [allegorically but accepted literally]; and that life in the World-to-Come—after the resurrection of the dead—is as we stated it in the chapter Chelek, and we thought that this would be sufficient.
Rambam, Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim, Eng. trans. F. Rosner
A core debate surrounding the reception and interpretation of the Rambam’s works is the question of his public vs. private, or exoteric vs. esoteric, views. In other words, this debate asks, does Rambam mean what he says? Does he speak in different registers, and with different ideas, depending on which audience he is addressing—the broader public or perhaps the average educated Jew as opposed to his elite disciples? In light of his layered treatment of the topic elsewhere, the Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim may tell us more about how Rambam wished to present himself publicly than his personal views on the theological question at hand. At the same time, he displays some magnanimous flexibility in the treatise as well:
וְאִם לֹא יִרְצֶה לְהַאֲמִין זֶה אֶחָד מִן הֶהָמוֹן, וְיִיטַב בְּעֵינָיו לְהַאֲמִין שֶׁהַמַלְאָכִים גוּפוֹת, וְשֶׁהֵם יֹאכְלוּ גַם כֵּן, אַחַר שֶׁבָּא בַּפָסוּק: “וַיֹּאכֵלוּ” וְשֶׁבְּנֵי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא גַם כֵּן גּוּפוֹת אֲנַחְנוּ לֹא נַקְפִיךְ עָלָיו בָּזֶה, וְלֹא נְשִׂימָהוּ לְכוֹפָר, וְלֹא נְגַנֵּהוּל, וְלֹא יוֹסִיף אֶצְלֵנוּ כֹּל מִי שֶׁיֹּאמַר זֶה סְכְלוּת, וּלְוַאי כֹּל סָכָל לֹא יִסְכַּל רַק זֶה הַשִׁעוּר, וְנִהְיֶה בְּטוּחִים שֶׁתִּמָּלֵט אֱמוּנָתָם מֵהַאֲמָנַת הַגַּשְׁמוּת בַּבּוֹרֵא, וְאֵין הֶזֵק אִם יַאֲמִינוּהוּ בַּנְבְרָאִים הַנִּבְדָּלִים.
If someone from the multitude of people refuses to believe this and prefers to believe that angels have bodies, and that they also eat because it says in Scripture: “and they ate,” and that people in the World-to-Come also have bodies, we will not be insulted by him for this [belief] and will not consider him to be an infidel and will not stay at a distance from him. May there not be many who profess this folly; if only every fool would limit his folly to this level, we would be confident that his belief does not encompass belief in the corporeality of the Creator. There is no harm if he believes in [the corporeality of] separate creations.
Rambam, Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim, Eng. trans. F. Rosner
Rambam’s Beloved Student Comes to his Defense: The Silencing Epistle
Probably in the same year as Rambam composed Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim, but before its public dissemination, Rambam’s most beloved student, R. Yosef ben Yehuda Ibn Shimon, dispatched his own public letter/treatise in defense of his master. This R. Yosef has often been confused with R. Yosef ben Yehuda Ibn Aknin, not only because of their similar names and backgrounds—both, like Rambam (probably), spent formative years in Fez under forced Muslim conversion at the hands of the Muwahhidun (Almohades)—but also because both were known to be close associates of Rambam. Since the Moreh ha-Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed), Rambam’s philosophical masterwork, was dedicated to his student “R. Yosef ben Yehuda,” Ibn Aknin has often been misidentified as the favored student of whom Rambam speaks so tenderly in the dedicatory preface. However, subsequent research has shown that Ibn Shimon is the student in question, and, moreover, the author of the Silencing Epistle Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead in defense of his teacher. (Dr. Avraham Harkavy, who discovered the Silencing Epistle in a manuscript of the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg, initially suggested that its author was none other than R. Daniel ha-Bavli, despite R. Daniel being a clear opponent of Rambam and hard to imagine as a defender—though some have argued for a more complex understanding of R. Daniel’s positions and motivation.)
R. Yosef Ibn Shimon wrote the Silencing Epistle in Judeo-Arabic, but in the fourteenth century, it was translated into Hebrew by a well-established translator of philosophical and scientific texts, R. Chaim Ibn Vivas (or Bibas), who in his own preface, recounts the above history of the unfolding debate. (In 1999, shortly before Langermann published the Gaon’s initial letter, Dr. Sarah Stroumsa published an edition of the Judeo-Arabic and the Hebrew translation of the Silencing Epistle.) In the epistle itself, R. Yosef Ibn Shimon hews closely to the outline of the Gaon R. Shmuel ben Eli’s criticisms and himself recounts the background to its composition. It thus sketches out a fuller picture of a cultural debate that took place among two leading members of that generation in the Islamicate world, the gaon of Baghdad and the Rambam himself. It shows us two key things: one, that public letters were an important form (and forum) of actual cultural debate; and two, that the debate surrounding abstract ideas—here, bodily resurrection and the rewards of the afterlife—were then, as today, emotional topics that stirred deep feeling and elicited strong responses. Philosophy, as much as it was rarified province of elite scholars, could also touch people’s real lives and their self-understanding. This would continue throughout the complex of events known as the Maimonidean controversies.
Reads and Resources
Rambam’s Maamar Techiyat ha-Meitim is available, with a meaty excerpt from Daniel Silver’s work on the Maimonidean Controversies, in English translated as Moses Maimonides’ Treatise on Resurrection (Aronson, 1997). The original Judeo-Arabic, along with the medieval Hebrew translation of R. Shmuel Ibn Tibbon, is in Y. Shailat’s excellent edition of Rambam’s letters. It also appears in Hebrew translation in Abraham Lichtenberg’s 1859 edition of the letters. (The letters of the Gaon and of Rambam’s student, unfortunately, are only available in specialized publications.)
The Aramaic loanword dat was marshalled in late modernity to serve as the term “religion,” on the analogy of Christian concepts of religion and religiosity (in contrast to the secular and civic). It is little used in the period of the Rishonim and its use, as here, is notable. I have chosen to translate it according to its premodern valence as “rule,” “dictate",” or “law.” I was unable to check the Judeo-Arabic (in which Rambam originally composed his Mishna Commentary, the Kitab al-Siraj) to see which word was rendered as דת by Ibn Tibbon.