| Nahmanides
(1194 – c. 1270) was a Catalan rabbi, philosopher, physician,
Kabbalist and biblical commentator. "Nahmanides
" is the common name for Moshe ben Nahman Gerondi;
the name is a Greek translation of the Hebrew "Ben
Nahman", meaning "Son of Nahman". He is also
commonly known as Ramban (???"?), being an acronym
of his Hebrew name and title, Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman (???
??? ?? ????), and by his Catalan name Bonastruc ça
Porta.
Biography
Nahmanides was born at Girona (hence his name "Gerondi")
in 1194, and died in the Land of Israel about 1270. He was
the grandson of Isaac ben Reuben of Barcelona and cousin
of Jonah Gerondi; his brother was Benveniste de Porta, the
bailie of Barcelona. Among his teachers in Talmud were Judah
ben Yakkar and Meïr ben Nathan of Trinquetaille, and
he is said to have been instructed in Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism)
by his countryman Azriel.
Nahmanides studied medicine which he practised
as a means of livelihood; he also studied philosophy. During
his teens he began to get a reputation as a learned Jewish
scholar. At age 16 he began his writings on Jewish law.
In his Milhamot Hashem (Wars of the Lord) he defended Alfasi's
decisions against the criticisms of Zerachiah ha-Levi of
Girona. These writings reveal a conservative tendency that
distinguished his later works — an unbounded respect for
the earlier authorities.
In the view of Nahmanides, the wisdom of
the rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud, as well as the Geonim
(rabbis of the early medieval era) was unquestionable. Their
words were to be neither doubted nor criticized. "We
bow," he says, "before them, and even when the
reason for their words is not quite evident to us, we submit
to them" (Aseifat Zekkenim, commentary on Ketubot).
Nahmanides' adherence to the words of the earlier authorities
may be due to piety, or the influence of the northern French
Jewish school of thought. However, it is thought that it
also may be a reaction to the rapid acceptance of Greco-Arabic
philosophy among the Jews of Spain and Provence; this occurred
soon after the appearance of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed.
This work gave rise to a tendency to allegorize Biblical
narratives, and to downplay the role of miracles. Against
this tendency Nahmanides strove, and went to the other extreme,
not even allowing the utterances of the immediate disciples
of the Geonim to be questioned.
Attitude toward Maimonides
Called upon, about 1238, for support by Solomon of Montpellier,
who had been excommunicated by supporters of Maimonides,
Nahmanides addressed a letter to the communities of Aragon,
Navarre, and Castile, in which Solomon's adversaries were
severely rebuked. However, the great respect he professed
for Maimonides (though he did not share the latter's views),
reinforced by innate gentleness of character, kept him from
allying himself with the anti-Maimonist party and led him
to assume the role of a conciliator.
In a letter addressed to the French rabbis,
he draws attention to the virtues of Maimonides and holds
that Maimonides' Mishne Torah – his Code of Jewish Law –
not only shows no leniency in interpreting prohibitions
within Jewish law, but may even be seen as more stringent,
which in Nahmanides' eyes was a positive factor. As to Maimonides'
Guide for the Perplexed, Nahmanides stated that it was intended
not for those of unshaken belief, but for those who had
been led astray by the non-Jewish philosophical works of
Aristotle and Galen. (Note that Nahmanides's analysis of
the Guide is not the consensus view of modern scholars.)
"If," he says, "you were
of the opinion that it was your duty to denounce the Guide
as heretical, why does a portion of your flock recede from
the decision as if it regretted the step? Is it right in
such important matters to act capriciously, to applaud the
one to-day and the other tomorrow?"
To reconcile the two parties Nahmanides
proposed that the ban against the philosophical portion
of Maimonides's Code of Jewish law should be revoked, but
that the ban against the study of the "Guide for the
Perplexed", and against those who rejected allegorical
interpretation of the Bible, should be maintained and even
strengthened. This compromise, which might have ended the
struggle, was rejected by both parties in spite of Nahmanides'
authority.
The Iggeret ha-Kodesh: Letter on Sexual Relations
Nahmanides was popularly attributed with writing a letter
on marriage, holiness, and sexual relations, Iggeret ha-Kodesh.
In it the author criticizes Maimonides for stigmatizing
as a disgrace to man; man's sexual nature. In the view of
the author, the body with all its functions being the work
of God, is holy, and so none of its normal sexual impulses
and actions can be regarded as objectionable.
Views on death, mourning and the resurrection
In Nahmanides's Torat ha-Adam, which deals with mourning
rites, burial customs, etc., Nahmanides sharply criticizes
writers who strove to render man indifferent to both pleasure
and pain. This, he declares, is against the Law, which commands
man to rejoice on the day of joy and weep on the day of
mourning. The last chapter, entitled Shaar ha-Gemul, discusses
reward and punishment, resurrection, and kindred subjects.
It derides the presumption of the philosophers who pretend
to a knowledge of the essence of God and the angels, while
even the composition of their own bodies is a mystery to
them.
For Nahmanides, divine revelation is the
best guide in all these questions, and proceeds to give
his views on Jewish views of the afterlife. He holds that
as God is eminently just, there must be reward and punishment.
This reward and punishment must take place in another world,
for the good and evil of this world are relative and transitory.
Besides the animal soul, which is derived
from the "Supreme powers" and is common to all
creatures, man possesses a special soul. This special soul,
which is a direct emanation from God, existed before the
creation of the world. Through the medium of man it enters
the material life; and at the dissolution of its medium
it either returns to its original source or enters the body
of another man. This belief is, according to Nahmanides,
the basis of the levirate marriage, the child of which inherits
not only the name of the brother of his fleshly father,
but also his soul, and thus continues its existence on the
earth. The resurrection spoken of by the prophets, which
will take place after the coming of the Messiah, is referred
by Nahmanides to the body. The physical body may, through
the influence of the soul, transform itself into so pure
an essence that it will become eternal.
Commentary on the Torah
His commentary on the Torah (five books of Moses) was his
last work, and his most well known. It frequently cites
and critiques Rashi's commentary, and it usually provides
alternative interpretations. He was prompted to write it
by three motives: (1) to satisfy the minds of students of
the Law and stimulate their interest by a critical examination
of the text; (2) to justify the ways of God and discover
the hidden meanings of the words of Scripture, "for
in the Torah are hidden every wonder and every mystery,
and in her treasures is sealed every beauty of wisdom";
(3) to soothe the minds of the students by simple explanations
and pleasant words when they read the appointed sections
of the Pentateuch on Sabbaths and festivals.
His exposition, intermingled with aggadic
and mystical interpretations, is based upon careful philology
and original study of the Bible. As in his preceding works,
he vehemently attacks the Greek philosophers, especially
Aristotle, and frequently criticizes Maimonides' Biblical
interpretations. Thus he cites Maimonides' interpretation
of Gen. 18:8, asserting that it is contrary to the evident
meaning of the Biblical words and that it is sinful even
to hear it. While Maimonides endeavored to reduce the miracles
of the Bible to the level of natural phenomena, Nahmanides
emphasizes them, declaring that "no man can share in
the Torah of our teacher Moses unless he believes that all
our affairs, whether they concern masses or individuals,
are miraculously controlled, and that nothing can be attributed
to nature or the order of the world." See further on
this debate under Divine Providence.
Next to belief in miracles Nahmanides places
three other beliefs, which are, according to him, the Jewish
principles of faith, namely, the belief in creation out
of nothing, in the omniscience of God, and in divine providence.
Attitude toward Abraham ibn Ezra
Nahmanides was an adversary of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, an
influential Jewish Bible commentator. Nahmanides criticises
him with harsh expressions that are not in keeping with
his usual temper. He is especially bitter against ibn Ezra
for deriding Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), which Nahmanides
thought to be a divine tradition. However, we know that
Nahmanides showed ibn Ezra considerable respect. This is
evident from Nahmanides' introduction to his commentary
on the Bible.
The disputation at Barcelona, 1263
Main article: Disputation of Barcelona
Nahmanides, first as rabbi of Girona and later as chief
rabbi of Catalonia, seems to have led a quiet and happy
life. When well advanced in years, however, his life was
interrupted by an event which made him leave his family
and his country and wander in foreign lands. This was the
religious disputation when he was called upon to defend,
in 1263, in the presence of King James I of Aragon, with
the apostate Pablo Christiani, to whom he had been sent
by his general Raymond de Penyafort, requested King James
to order Ramban to take part in a public disputation.
Christiani had been trying to make the Jews
abandon their religion and convert to Christianity. Relying
upon the reserve his adversary would be forced to go through
fear of wounding the feelings of the Christians , Pablo
assured the King that he could prove the truth of Christianity
from the Talmud and other rabbinical writings. Ramban answered
with the order of the King, but said that complete freedom
of speech should be granted, and for four days (July 20-24)
debated with Pablo Christiani in the presence of the King,
the court, and many other people.
The subjects discussed were:
whether the Messiah had appeared;
whether the Messiah announced by the Prophets was to be
considered as divine or as a man born of human parents
whether the Jews or the Christians were in possession of
the true faith.
Christiani argued, based upon several aggadic passages,
that the Pharisee sages believed that the Messiah had lived
during the Talmudic period, and that they ostensibly believed
that the Messiah was therefore Jesus. Nahmanides countered
that Christiani's interpretations were per-se distortions;
the rabbis would not hint that Jesus was Messiah while,
at the same time, explicitly opposing him as such. Nahmanides
proceeded to provide context for the proof-texts cited by
Christiani, showing that they were most clearly understood
differently than as proposed by Christiani. Furthermore,
Nahmanides demonstrated from numerous biblical and talmudic
sources that traditional Jewish belief ran contrary to Christiani's
postulates.
Nahmanides went on to show that the Biblical
prophets regarded the future messiah as a human, a person
of flesh and blood, and not as a divinity, in the way that
Christians view Jesus. He noted that their promises of a
reign of universal peace and justice had not yet been fulfilled.
On the contrary, since the appearance of Jesus, the world
had been filled with violence and injustice, and among all
denominations the Christians were the most warlike.
"[... it seems most strange that...
] the Creator of Heaven and Earth resorted to the womb of
a certain Jewish lady, grew there for nine months and was
born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed
into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death
and executed him, and that afterwards... he came to life
and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, or
any other person, simply cannot tolerate these assertions.
If you have listened all your life to the priests who have
filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this
doctrine, and it has settled into you because of that accustomed
habit. [I would argue that if you were hearing these ideas
for the first time, now, as a grown adult], you would never
have accepted them."
He noted that questions of the Messiah are of less dogmatic
importance to Jews than most Christians imagine. The reason
given by him for this bold statement is that it is more
meritorious for the Jews to observe the precepts under a
Christian ruler, while in exile and suffering humiliation
and abuse, than under the rule of the Messiah, when every
one would perforce act in accordance with the Law.
As the disputation turned in favor of Nahmanides
the Jews of Barcelona, fearing the resentment of the Dominicans,
entreated him to discontinue; but the King, whom Nahmanides
had acquainted with the apprehensions of the Jews, desired
him to proceed. The controversy was therefore resumed, and
concluded in a complete victory for Nahmanides, who was
dismissed by the King with a gift of three hundred gold
pieces as a mark of his respect. The King remarked that
he had never encountered a man who, while yet being wrong,
argued so well for his position.
The Dominicans, nevertheless, claimed the
victory, and Nahmanides felt constrained to publish the
controversy. From this publication Pablo selected certain
passages which he construed as blasphemies against Christianity
and denounced to his general Raymond de Penyafort. A capital
charge was then instituted, and a formal complaint against
the work and its author was lodged with the King. James
was obliged to entertain the charge, but, mistrusting the
Dominican court, called an extraordinary commission, and
ordered that the proceedings be conducted in his presence.
Nahmanides admitted that he had stated many things against
Christianity, but he had written nothing which he had not
used in his disputation in the presence of the King, who
had granted him freedom of speech.
The justice of his defense was recognized
by the King and the commission, but to satisfy the Dominicans
Nahmanides was sentenced to exile for two years and his
pamphlet was condemned to be burned. He was also fined,
but this was remitted as a favor to Benveniste de Porta,
Nahmanides' brother. The Dominicans, however, found this
punishment too mild and, through Pope Clement IV., they
seem to have succeeded in turning the two years' exile into
perpetual banishment.
Nahmanides in the land of Israel
Nahmanides left Aragon and sojourned for three years somewhere
in Castille or in southern France. In 1267 he made aliyah
to the Land of Israel and came to Jerusalem. There he established
a synagogue in the Old City that exists until present day,
known as the Ramban Synagogue. His re-establishment of Jewish
communal life in Jerusalem (which had been interrupted by
Crusader repression) is notable in that it marked the beginning
of almost 700 consecutive Jewish years in Jerusalem until
the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Nahmanides then settled at Acre,
where he was very active in spreading Jewish learning, which
was at that time very much neglected in the Holy Land. He
gathered a circle of pupils around him, and people came
in crowds, even from the district of the Euphrates, to hear
him. Karaites were said to have attended his lectures, among
them being Aaron ben Joseph the Elder, who later became
one of the greatest Karaite authorities.
It was to arouse the interest of the Israeli
Jews in the exposition of the Bible that Nahmanides wrote
the greatest of his works, the above-mentioned commentary
on the Torah. Although surrounded by friends and pupils,
Nahmanides keenly felt the pangs of exile. "I left
my family, I forsook my house. There, with my sons and daughters,
the sweet, dear children I brought up at my knees, I left
also my soul. My heart and my eyes will dwell with them
forever."
During his three years' stay in the Holy
Land Nahmanides maintained a correspondence with his native
land, by means of which he endeavored to bring about a closer
connection between Judea and Spain. Shortly after his arrival
in Jerusalem he addressed a letter to his son Nahman, in
which he described the desolation of the Holy City, where
there were at that time only two Jewish inhabitants — two
brothers, dyers by trade. In a later letter from Acre he
counsels his son to cultivate humility, which he considers
to be the first of virtues. In another, addressed to his
second son, who occupied an official position at the Castilian
court, Nahmanides recommends the recitation of the daily
prayers and warns above all against immorality. Nahmanides
died after having passed the age of seventy-six. There is
a disagreement as to his actual burial place. Some say that
his remains were interred at Haifa, by the grave of Yechiel
of Paris. Others say that they are as he requested, next
to the building housing the grave sites of the Patriarchs
and Matriarchs in Hevron. Supporting this latter theory
was the discovery of a small underground tomb by an expert
in the use of divining rods in the exact place that his
request mentioned, under the seventh step of the small stairs
to the right of the building. This location is visited at
times by people to give respect to great Torah Master, among
them a 26th generation descendant living in Israel.
His works
Nahmanides' wrote glosses on the whole Talmud, made compendiums
of parts of Jewish law, after the model of Isaac Alfasi.
Nahmanides' known halakhic works are: "Mishpetei
ha-Cherem," the laws concerning excommunication, reproduced
in "Kol Bo"; "Hilkhot Bedikkah," on
the examination of the lungs of slaughtered animals, cited
by Shimshon ben Tzemach Duran in his "Yavin Shemu'ah";
"Torat ha-Adam," on the laws of mourning and burial
ceremonies, in thirty chapters, the last of which, entitled
"Sha'ar ha-Gemul," deals with eschatology (Constantinople,
1519, and frequently reprinted).
To the Talmudic and halakhic works belong
also Nahmanides' writings in the defense of Simeon Kayyara
and Alfasi. These are: "Milhamot HaShem," defending
Alfasi against the criticisms of Zerachiah ha-Levi of Girona
(published with the "Alfasi," Venice, 1552; frequently
reprinted; separate edition, Berlin, 1759); "Sefer
ha-Zekhut," in defense of Alfasi against the criticisms
of Abraham ben David (RABaD; printed with Abraham Meldola's
"Shiv'ah 'Enayim," Leghorn, 1745; under the title
"Machaseh u-Magen," Venice, 1808); "Hassagot"
(Constantinople, 1510; frequently reprinted), in defense
of Simeon Kayyara against the criticisms of Maimonides'
"Sefer ha-Mitzwoth" (Book of Precepts).
"Derashah", sermon delivered in
the presence of the King of Castile
"Sefer ha-Ge'ulah", or "Sefer Ketz ha-Ge'ulah",
on the time of the arrival of the Messiah (in Azariah dei
Rossi's "Me'or 'Enayim Imre Binah," ch. xliii.,
and frequently reprinted)
"Iggeret ha-Musar", ethical letter addressed to
his son (in the "Sefer ha-Yir'ah," or "Iggeret
ha-Teshuvah," of Jonah Gerondi)
"Iggeret ha-Chemdah", letter addressed to the
French rabbis in defense of Maimonides (with the "Ta'alumot
Chokmah" of Joseph Delmedigo)
"Wikkuach", religious controversy with Pablo Christiani
(in the "Milchamot Chovah")
"Perush Iyyov", commentary on Job
"Bi'ur" or "Perush 'al ha-Torah", commentary
on the Torah
See also
Judaism
Maimonides
|