DESCRIPTION: Maimonides’
philological, literary and historical interpretations of Scripture in light of
his rabbinic and philosophical sources, as well as the medieval Babylonian-Therian
peshat school.
Exegetical goals of the Guide; selections
from other Maimonidean writings. Biblical texts and topics: Genesis 1-5 (Account
of Creation), anthropomorphic depictions of God, prophecy, derivation of halakhah,
Job, Song of Songs.
REQUIREMENTS.
Lectures are based on sources and readings (see bibliography, pp. 3 if.)
indicated on the syllabus below and must be prepared prior to class meetings. A research paper is due at the end of the
semester. Please consult me to choose a topic (my e-mail: cohenm@yu.edu).
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
See p. 3 below. You should acquire Maimonides.
The Guide of the Perplexed; [Hebrew] trans. Michael Schwarz (Tel Aviv,
2002), a superb new annotated edition with a comprehensive, up-to-date
bibliography of Maimonidean scholarship.
Sources:
Guide, introduction, pp. 9-11 (Schwarz ed.)
Readings: Twersky 1993; Klein-Braslavy 2000
Sources:
Page
9-11 in Schwartz's into to The Guide. Determine the two goals
in writing the guide, and what the Rambam means by "Pshtei D'Kra."
Locate the Rambam's reference to "Ein Mikra Yotzei Midei Peshuto."
How does he use it? What is the dispute between the Rambam and Ramban?
.
Read and classify types of Mitzvot.
Elbaum 2000:75-94, 107-131 (includes sources in Ibn Ezra and Maimonides)
Sources: Guide, introduction (pp. 11-19
in Schwarz ed.), II:29
(and 30), II:47
Readings:
Segal 1977 : 989-996
Sources:
(the
entire intro to the Tafsir) |
(the
entire letter with Shilat's intro) |
| Compare to Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 11:1 |
(See Elbaum
2000:86-92 |
Reading: Brody 2000
Readings:
Harvey
1988; Hyman
1991; Strauss
1963:xi-xxxii
Sources:
Guide, introduction, 1:15
Readings:
Klein-Braslavy
1988; Cohen
2003:1-16, 98-100, 118-136, 179-188
Reading:
Rosenberg 1990 (includes sources in Maimonides)
Sources:
Nahmanides on Gen 18:1; compare Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra ad
loc.
Reading:
Cohen 2003:196-200
Sources:
Guide 11:25, 30
Readings:
Klein-Braslavy 1987:9-46,
63-69; Cohen 2003:216-223
UNIT 11: Job — Philosophical Reading
Sources:
Guide 111:22-23
Readings:
Levinger 1988; Greenberg 1992; Cohen 2003:188-196
UNIT 12: Job — Literary Reading
Reading: Cohen, forthcoming
UNIT 13: Zahir an-Nasy (PeshaP) and
Historical-Cultural Analysis of Torah Law
Sources:
Guide 111:29, 41
Readings:
Twersky 1980:387-391, 430-447; Levinger 1989:56-66; Kamin 1991:12*~26*
UNIT 14: Overview
of Maimonides’ Biblical Exegesis
Bacher 1896;
Rosenberg 1981 +
Bacher, Wilhelm. 1896. Die
Bibelexegese Moses Maimüni’s. Budapest. Hebrew translation:
Brody, Robert.
2000. “The Geonim of Babylonia as Biblical Exegetes.” Chapter 25.3 of Magne
~ Menahem Haran and Chris Brekelmans (eds.), Hebrew
Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. GOttingen.
1/2:74-88.
Cohen, Mordechai
Z. 2003. Three Approaches to Biblical
Metaphor: From Abraham Ibn Ezra and Maimonides to David Kimhi. Leiden.
. Forthcoming. “The Peshat Exegesis
of a Philosopher: Maimonides’ Literary Approach to the Book of Job and Its
Place in Jewish Biblical Interpretation” [Hebrew]. Shnaton 15: An Annual for Bib iical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, ed.
S. Japhet. Jerusalem.
Elbaum, Jacob.
2000. Medieval Perspectives on Aggadah and
Midrash [Hebrew]. Jerusalem.
Harvey, Ze’ev.
1988. “How to Begin to Study the Guide
of the Perplexed 1,1” [Hebrew]. Da’at
21:5-24.
Hyman, Arthur.
1991 “Maimonides on Religious Language.” Perspectives
onMaimonides, ed. J. Kraemer. New York, pp. 175-91.
Kamin, Sarah.
1991. Jews and Christians Interpret the
Bible. Jerusalem.
Klein-Braslavy,
Sara. 1987. Maimonides’ Interpretation
of the Story of Creation [Hebrew], 2d ed. Jerusalem. Orig. publ. Jerusalem
1978.
_____. 1988. “Maimonides’ Commentary on
Jacob’s Dream of the Ladder” [Hebrew]. Bar-Ilan
Annual 22-23:329-349.
_____
. 2000. “The Philosophical Exegesis.”
Chapter 31.3 of Magne Seabo, Menahem Haran and Chris Brekelmans (eds.), Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, Gottingen.
I/2:302-320
Greenberg, Moshe.
1992.
.
Sha’arei Talmon:
Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and
the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed.
M.
Levinger, Jacob S. 1988. “Maimonides’ Exegesis of the Book of Job.” Creative
Biblical Exegesis, ed.
B. Uffenheimer and H. GrafReventlow. Sheffield, pp. 8 1-88.
_____
. 1989. Maimonides
as Philosopher and Codifier [Hebrew]. Jerusalem.
Rosenberg,
Shalom. 1981
w.
Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought
1:85-157.
_____1990. “Philosophical Hermeneutics on the
Song of Songs, Introductory Remarks” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 59:133-141.
Twesrky,
Isadore.
1980. Infroduction to the Code
ofMaimonides. New Haven.
_____
. 1993. “Did R. Abraham Thn Ezra Influence Maimonides?”
[Hebrew]. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies
in the Writings of a Twelfth Century Jewish Polymath, ed. I. Twersky and J.
Harris. Cambridge, MA, pp. 21-48
[Hebrew Section].
Segal, M.Z. 1977.
Jerusalem.
Strauss, Leo.
1963. “How to Begin to Study the Guide
of the Perplexed” Introduction to Moses
Maimonides: The Guide of the Perplexed; trans. Shlomo Pines. Chicago.
Weiss-Halivni,
David. 1991. Peshat and Derash: Plain and
Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis. New York.
Scholarship's approaching to exegesis is though the analysis of the literary, linguistic , and philological.
Rambam: 1135-1204. Born in Cordova.
Intends to write Biblical commentary titles "Sefer Nevi'im" (Which would have incorporates all 3 books of Tanach including Ketuvim, his approach to the lower level of Ruach Hakodesh found in Ketuvim notwithstanding) but instead incorporated his commentary into The Guide. The goal (one goal?) of the Guide is to explain difficult passages in light of (then) modern philosophy and science. Segel feels the Rambam's commentary is "Midrash Philisophy." Note "Midrash," as apposed to "P'shat." That is to say that in Segel's opinion, the Rambam was not delivering the P'shat of the verses, but explaining them in support of his philosophical positions. The same would be said of his citations of scriptures in Mishna Torah, although the exegesis would be seen through the prism of the Talmudist. In this sense, Chazal are driving the exegesis, which is very similar to Rashi's approach to commentary. (As we will see, M.C. takes exception with this point of view, as does modern scholarship.)
The Rambam's commentary does not cite other exegetes, some of which he must be certainly aware. First questions: did he know the Ibn Ezra. The Ibn Ezra was born in 1089, and while we are not certain of his exact date of death, as the Rambam wrote his first work (Mishna Commentary) from age 23-29, the Ibn Ezra was certainly alive and writing, as he began to write in the 1150s(?), first in Rome, then in Northern France, and then in England. Note however, that his geographical setting (12th century Christendom), as apposed to the Rambam's settlement in Muslim lands may have been a barrier across which the Ibn Ezra's book may not have been able to cross. The Rambam's last will and Testament points to the Ibn Ezra (I don't remember how), but it is largely viewed as psuedopigraphal. Are link may also be established by noting that the Rambam's Sefer Hamtzvot bears striking parallels to Ibn Ezra's Yesod Morah. Even if the Rambam did not borrow from the Yesod Moreh, the similarities point to a similar tradition, that of the Spanish Exegetes, where both were born. Any student of exegesis born in Spain was raised on a diet of Ibn G'anach, even though his works are limited to a dictionary and grammar. Another exegete of the Spanish tradition would be Moshe HaKohen G'ikatilla, and Yehuda Ibn Bal'Am.
The Rambam does cite G'ikatilla and Bal'Am in his "Ma'amar Techiyat HaMeitim," written to fend off accusations of heresy derived from his approach in Mishnah Torah to eschatological verses in Yishayahu. He point to the former two scholars who preceded him in his "rationalist" (?) view of these verses. These exegetes' works (also that of Chayu'g) were lost to us for a long time (as they were written in Arabic) but were found in Leningrad . This shared Spharadic tradition ties the Rambam to the Ibn Ezra, and to earlier Spanish exegetes. Nonetheless, the Rambam quotes only Chazal.
Rosenberg shows that the Rambam did have a methodology to his exegesis. (See also Klein-Braslavy who creates a work of the Rambam's commentary on Tehillim, Yechezk'el, Iyyov, etc. culled from his Guide and other works.) The Rambam is now viewed as a biblical exegete. In 2000, Klein-Braslavy writes a book on Rambam's approach to King Solomon fusing his commentaries on Medrashei Chazal and his philosophical works. Changes in viewpoint from 2000 to 2004 indicate that Klein-Braslavy's approach needs revision. (This seems to be good assignment for the final paper: rewrite the Klein-Braslavy 200 article based on the latest scholarship.) The new approach suggests that the Rambam is a pure p'shat parshan, rather than being driven by his philosophical and talmudist background. He includes (where??) phililogical definitions which are straight out of Ibn G'anach. The Guide quotes Ibn G'anach directly (once) on the meaning of the word "Kenaph" which in the Book of Ruth are ascribed to God (יְשַׁלֵּם יְהוָה, פָּעֳלֵךְ; וּתְהִי מַשְׂכֻּרְתֵּךְ שְׁלֵמָה, מֵעִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר-בָּאת, לַחֲסוֹת תַּחַת-כְּנָפָיו.). He shows that Kenaph is from the Arabic the cover or Hide ("liHastir") and indicates a garment corner. It does not here mean wings, and thus does not ascribe a polymorphism to God. The Rambam, however, does go beyond the traditional p'shat exegesis of G'ikatilla and Bal'am to merge in philosphy and Chazal to create his exegeses. For example, he is willing to go against tradition, and declare Iyyov a Mashal. (The Rambam can also be shown to have used Arabic literary philosophy. I'm not sure what the point was here.)
Now that the Rambam is defined as a P'shat exegete, we have to define the meaning of P'shat, especially as the Rambam never uses this term. See readings for unit 2.
(Read Klein-Braslavy in 31.3 in Magne Seabo, also Chapter 1 of Moshe Ibn Ezra's article by Cohen. Moshe Ibn Ezra analyzes Tanach in comparison to Arabic poetry; cites from Rasg's Tafsir and Janah's dictionary.)
theory does not propose that Rambam always stuck to peshat, since he is certainly influenced by being a Talmudist. However, that he he is sometimes (?) a Peshat Parshan must be identified.
The Guide professes two goals: to explain
Sheimot - Names, i.e. philology.
Meshalim - Exegesis of a literary unit.
The term "Sheimot" comes from Al-Farabi, an Arabic Aristotelian philosopher. Other definitions:
Sheim Mushal: Metaphoric
Sheim Meshutaf: Same word having two or more meanings that may or may not me identicle.
The term Meshalim comes from Chazal as well as Al-Farabi and Ibn-Sina Also includes a Jewish literary tradition.
Rambam's intent is that by explaining the meaning of words, understanding that words have duplicate meanings, it is necessary to determine the correct meaning. This will serve to cancel the "simple," and incorrect meaning. In the Hebrew version of the guide, the word "simple" is rendered "Peshat." In the original Arabic, however, the word is "Thahir," which is better understood as "immediately apparent," or "revealed," but also means "superficial," which carries a connotation of incorrect.
The Guide focuses on distinguishing between "Peshat" (Eric: I think he means "Thahir") and philosophical commentary. When dealing with the Mitzvot, the tension is between Pshat and Drash. Nachmanides says that one cannot undo Peshat, Derash is also intended by the Torah. This is the idea of Mashal and Melitza (which we would render today is Nimshal (=Mashal) and Mashal (=Melitza). This describes the two layers of the biblical text. The Rambam rejects this two layered approach. Ibn Ezra says (commentary on Eicha and Elbaum p. 93) that the Midrashim are an embellishment.
(Interesting book by Shlomo Selah on Ibn Ezra and his approach to science.) Elbaum highlights two strategies used by Ibn Ezra to reconcile Peshat vs. Derash:
The Drasha is an Asmachta, and does not intend to render the correct translation.
Anything that contradicts one of three things--common sense, logic, Mesorah--requires that we "LiTaken" (in arabaic "Ta'awil")--i.e. reinterpret. We assume that the Torah is expressing a Mashal that requires interpretation, and the real meaning, which we are unable to see in the text itself--is the opinion of Chazal.
Regarding the Asmachta, the Eben Ezra does not say whether the law that is supported by the Rabbinicaly established Asmachta is itself rabbinic or is in fact a Torah law, but with no proof-text. In the case of "Sheir" indicating a wife among the 7 people that a priest can defile himself to bury (and that a mourner must mourn for), while the word actually means "close blood relative" and the meaning "wife" is an Asmachta, the allowance for the wife is still a Torah law.
In
Halachik Torah units, the Ibn Ezra will not always rely on Asmachta or
Mashal to resolve a difficult verse. He may say, in fact, that the Rabbis understanding
of the Peshat of the verse is correct. 
This, even though the Peshat does not seem to support the Rabbinic understanding, and in fact we will find other Pashtanim who stick to the Pshat. So by Exodus 13:9, which the Rashbam says is not referring to Tefillin
while the Ibn Ezra maintains that it is.
Ibn Ezra introduced a linguistic/literary methodology, but
his methods evolved from Karaite methodology, including Yeffet (although the
founder of the movement was a “drash” guy).
Ibn Ezra fused the Karaite methodology (jettisoning their philosophical
and religious views) with Rabbinic interpretation. On Narrative passages he felt free to diverge, but on
halachik matters he would not. The
Ibn Ezra is specifically careful in regarding the text as Mashal since this
would open up the Pandora’s Box of Metaphoric interpretation used by
Christians. (Note the “Third”
way in his introduction.)
Regarding the Torah passages of Yibbum,
Avelut/Preistly-Purity,
and Kiddush on
Shabbat Ibn Ezra declares that the connection between the verses and the
laws are Asmachtot: mnemonics used by the Rabbis to remember (or give authority)
Torah or Rabbinic laws. In the case
of Avelut/Preistly-Purity
he looks first at the philology, and then bows to the Rabbinic understanding.
In the case of the prohibition
of allowing oneself to be charged interest, Ibn Ezra is able find
grammatical support to the Rabbinic understanding of the verse, and therefore
does not need to rely on an “Asmachta” to manage the contrast between the
simple meaning of the text and the normative law.
The Rashbam has a bi-level understanding of biblical text,
stating that the “Ikkar” is the Rabbinic understanding.
The Pshat is a second level of understanding which, not being “Ikkar,”
need not agree with the Rabbinic interpretation even on legal issues.
(Sara Yeffet questions whether the Rashbam could really have believed
that the text could maintain dialectic ideas, and therefore felt that the Rahbam
felt that the Pshat was correct, but that “Ikkar” meant that is was
important to bow to Rabbinic interpretation.
However, one needs only to look at the emergent Christian Schools of
biblical interpretation of the 11th to 12th centuries to
see that they also maintained a bi-level approach, both “pshat” and the
metaphoric level used to support their Christological beliefs.)
In all of the four cases above, the Rashbam mentions only the Pshat, at
times diametrically apposed to the Rabbinic interpretation.
The Ramban maintains that every verse maintains that when a
Rabbinic interpretation of a verse does not coincide with the Pshat, the
Rabbinic interpretation is as correct as the verse Pshat, the verse being able
to “carry” both meanings. See
for example the case of and Kiddush
on Shabbat where is begins with the apparent meaning of the verse, and then
moves on to the Rabbinic.
See the Rambam on Hilchot Gezaila and Aveida 11:18 where he
cites Leviticus 21:4 as a source for a Cohen not entering a cemetery.
This is the verse which is used by the Rabbis to indicate that a Priest
cannot defile himself for an inappropriate wife.
Find out where he gets this from!!!
Readings:
The Guide II:29 explains that the prophets (in this case Isaiah) make sure that we understand that the supernatural events are understood as simile. The way this is done is by matching the supernatural descriptions with natural events, like the fall of Babylon or Assyria. Once this "stylistic pattern" is identified, it can be applied to to less-then-clear literary units, such as the Lion/Lamb prophecy. The Rambam chose specifically prophecies which foretold (supernatural) events that were in the pas, such as the fall of Babylon or Assyria. Since everyone can see that these events did not take place as described but were similes, the same rules can be applied to messianic prophecies, as well.
One this can of worms is opened, however, the Rambam must explain that not everything is a simile, and in chapter II 49 (??) he gives an example of two types of literary units-- those that are simile and those that are intended to be understood in the plain sense--and tells us to be able to use these examples for understanding and differentiation any literary unit under the following four categories: Mashal, Hashala, Hagzama, and Diyuk. (The first three being what Saadia described as Ma'jaz--non-literal--and which the Rambam is now analyzing and forming a methodology for appropriate exegesis. These categories loosely match the ones described in the Guide's into (although Hagzama--hyperbole-- is absent, and apparently these sections were written at different times and stages in Maimonides' thinking on this matter.
Of particular interest is the issue of Hasha'ala, which is a subcategory of equivocal terms (terms that can support more than one meaning). Of the equivocal terms, three can affect understanding our deity (see Hyman article):
