BOOK REVIEWS
Studies in the Mishne Torah: Book of Knowl­
edge (Hebrew), by Hakham Professor Jose
Faur, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1978,
315 pp., $10.00.
HAKHAM FAUR'S STUDY of Maimonides' Mish-
ne Torah is unlike other scientific studies of
Jewish religious tents because he passionately
identifies with the subject of his inquiry intel­
lectually, religiously, and on occasion, polem­
ically. Still, the critical use of philological,
historical and literary tools justify this study
as a major contribution to the secondary lit­
erature on Maimonides.
Faur finds in Maimonides the synthe­
sizer of Rabbinic Judaism: just as the Code
[Mishne Torah] offers a systematic presenta­
tion of Jewish law, the Guide [Moreh
Nebuchim] provides a description of authen­
tic Jewish theology. While following the out­
line of the first book of the Mishne Torah,
Faur reconstructs the underlying Maimoni-
dean posture on the issues raised by examin­
ing (a) the intellectual history of the Jews
under the orbit of Islam, (b) the terminology
upon which that posture is grounded, and (c)
the underlying unity between talmudic Juda­
ism and the Judaism of Maimonides.
Faur traces the terminology of
Maimonides' work from the literature of the
talmudic period to the Academy of Rav Yosef
Ibn Megas. For this school, tradition is the
sole source of truth; reason serves only to
apply the rules of tradition. The most serious
challenge to the Maimonidean version of Ju­
daism is the doctrine of Natural Law because
the natural lawyer believes that human rea­
son suffices to grasp the ethical ideal since
God implants the same value structures in
nature and in man. Such a doctrine imposes
necessity upon God, i.e., that God must be­
have ethically as determined by man, and
that man, with his Divinely appointed reason,
can pass judgment on the worth and reliabil­
ity of tradition. For Maimonides, tradition
provides the content for the revealed biblical
text; reason serves only as a rhetorical guide.
The claims that natural law makes for reason
in the Karaite, Muta?illite and Christian
formulations are incongruent with the claims
of a Judaism grounded in tradition.
The Law of Judaism, itself grounded in a
covenant between God and Israel, is trans­
mitted through the institution of the rabbi­
nate. Faur's most significant contribution to
halakhic scholarship is his analysis of the polit­
ical implications that Maimonides Introduc­
tion to the Mishne Torah has for post-
talmudic Judaism. Essentially, Maimonides
distinguishes between the Written Law or
Scripture, and the Oral Law, the normative
application of the details of the Sinaitic cove­
nant preserved and transmitted through the
institution of the rabbinate. In essentials
(shorashim) there can be no error or dispute;
in matters which are derived through reason
or where tradition is inconclusive (se'ifim)
error might occur. Both of the above
categories apply to the oral law alone, be­
cause the Written Law has no practical
significance other than that assigned to it by
the institution of the rabbinate. Biblical law is
not found in the text of the Scriptures; it is
defined and promulgated by the rabbis. On
occasion a biblical text may be a source for law
(gufei torah) and, if the rabbinate so deems, it
can supply the content of biblical laws.
Faur's skillful examination of terminology
yields the following categories: (1). The six-
hundred thirteen mitsvot (commands) that
were promulgated at Sinai; (2) Those mitsvot
which derive from the Sinaitic covenant but
were not explicitly promulgated; (3) Rabbinic
enactments that make no claim to be revela-
tional law. The first two categories are con­
sidered to be Toraitic, or de'oraita. The sec-
 BookReviewa
ond and the third c-ategories are both linked
to the institution of the rabbinate be<:ause
their promulgation requires the use of middot
shehaTorah nidreshet bahen, the rhetoric-al
devices which accompany Rabbinic legisla­
tion. The first two categories are both biblical
even though the second category requires
rabbinic promulgation; the second two are
both dicrei soferim, results of rabbinic prom­
ulgation, in spite of the fact that the second
category has the status of de'oraita, or Torah
Law. With this analysis Faur has skillfully
solved the problem of biblical law in the legal
philosophy of Maimonides.
The middot, or rhetorical rules, are sec­
ondary to the authority vested in the institu­
tion of the Rabbinic supreme court, and by
convention, the talmudic court of Habina and
Rav Ashi. When used to derive, or more pre­
cisely, accompany the promulgation of de­
,oraita rules, also called by Maimonides
dinim mufla'im, they are not the source ofthe
rules. The ultimate source ofthose rules rests
in the authority of the rabbinic institution,
not in any logic that might be contained in
any specific promulgation. Thus, reason, or
the skillful use of rhetoric, is part of the rab­
binic function but it is not the source of rab­
binic authority. Once the talmudic court
ceased to exist as a body whose authority was
recognized by all Israel, the institution of the
rabbinate fell into disuse insofar as the middot
could be used in a juridic sense. Only a rab­
binic synod akin to the talmudic court has the
authority to interpret de'oraita legislation.
The Geonate, however, (a) claimed to possess
the talmudic traditions and (b) since they in­
herited the schools of the talmudic court, also
claimed to have the political authority en­
joyed by the talmudic sages. While
Maimonides agrees that the Geonic traditions
are authentic, he argues that the Geonate
lacks the political acceptance and, therefore,
juridic authority to function as their talmudic
predecessors.1 The Mishne Torah represents
1 See Jose Faur, Studies in the Mishne Torah
(Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1978), p. 41.
81
�faimonides' effort to systematize the deci ­
sion� of the talmudic <.'OUrt so that no one
group or, for that matter, person can create or
manipulate the Law in their image. Since
there is no post-talmudic court accepted by
all Israel, i.e., bet din shel rabbim, no indi­
vidual court (bet din she/ ye/.iidim) has the
authority to legislate for all Israel. The study
of the .\lishne Torah was designed not so
much to limit Talmud study as an intellectual
and religious exercise, but to inform Jewry
what, in point of fact, their religious obliga­
tions happened to be. Those scholars who
argued that Maimonides wanted to replace
the Talmud simply misunderstood the place
of Talmud study in an authentic, or Sephar­
dic, Jewish curriculum. 2
ACCORDING TO MAIMONIDES' positivistic
reading oftalmudic law, human reason cannot
extend beyond the acquisition of competence
in the internal rules of the legal system.
Without passing judgment on the worth of
talmudic law which, as a positivist, he cannot
do, Maimonides uses reason to master the
rules of talmudic law which he accepts a
priori. His Mishne Torah thus limits the
authority of local rabbinates to direct Jewish
practice in an autocratic manner by providing
a text for the masses to learn what Judaism
requires of them. Since the reasons for indi­
vidual laws are of no juridic importance, they
are judiciously excluded from the work. The
reasons for laws belong to the level of Torah
study called talmud, or rhetorical analysis.
While only the intellectual elite study tal­
mud, every Jew must master the Code with-
2 Ibid., p. 52. See also Maimonides, Hilkhot
Talmud Torah 1:11-12 and R. Joseph Karo,
Shulhan Aroch, Yoreh Deah 246:4. Scripture and
law must be studied by all, but esoteric methodol­
ogy, or talmud, is reserved for the advanced stu­
dent. It is significant that Rav Moses lsserles com­
ments that "Talmud, insofar as it contains Scripture
as well as oral tradition, suffices (for study) in ful­
filment of one's obligation." ad. loc. By misreading
talmud as methodology, as Talmud text, Rav ls­
series has nullified the intent of the rule requiring
that one divide one's study into thirds.
82

out being deflected by inappropriate aca­ principle that man can discover with his intel­
demic distractions. Further, the exclusions of lectual faculties.6
reasons from the Code emphasize that no This revelation is received through an in­
post-talmudic court, or bet din shel yehidim, tuition that God reserves for Israel and, un­
possesses universal acceptance and political like reason, is an adequate source of knowl­
authority to legislate Jewish law out of the edge of the Divine Will. While Faur demon­
talmudic textual context. strates most adequately that this intuition
Just as human reason has no role in the motif appears in the writings of Judah ha-
evaluation of a Divinely ordained law, those Levi, he reads Maimonides' comments con­
religious expressions which suggest that cerning the revelation at Sinai as though the
human reason is a source of religious knowl­ revelation was perceived intuitively. Admit­
edge stand in opposition to Jewish doctrine. ting that this is an argument from silence,
The longest chapter in Faur's study examines Faur concedes that Maimonides "never wrote
the place of Natural Law in Christianity and explicitly that Israel knows of the existence of
Judaism. Citing Cicero's comment that Natu­ God through intuition, but his real view is
ral Law is identifiable with the divine intel­ that Moses' prophecy to Israel was intuitive
lect and by examining selected passages in and we (Israel) were witnesses to that revela­
Acquinas' Summa Theologica, Faur concludes tion.'"7
that "the foundation [yesod] of natural reli­ Just as Faur's Maimonides does not view
gion is that there exists a natural connection reason to be a source of correct opinion con­
between man and God.3 Thus man is capable cerning the Divine Will, human reason can­
of discovering for himself the essence of true not determine proper behavior. Prefacing his
religion."4 According to Jewish doctrine discussion of Maimonidean ethics, Faur re­
8
\yesodei ha-torah], there can be no humanly marks that "morality is 'natural' to man." He
contrived necessity which can bind God. then demonstrates that Maimonides believes
Similarly reason cannot be a source of man s that truth and falsity are discernible by man,
obligations before God; the only source that but correct behavior is not. Ethics, like aes­
can obligate man before God is the Mosaic thetics, are human conventions lacking in­
revelation at Sinai.5 Consequently, Faur herent metaphysical worth. This treatment of
views those rabbanites who espouse Natural ethics denies the premise of religious natural
Law doctrines to be deviating from authentic law theories which argue that human reason
tradition. He then identifies this view with can in fact determine what God expects of
Maimonides, by quoting passages from man. It is in this context that Faur evaluates
Maimonides' writing that indicate that the the Maimonidean treatment of the apparent
Noahide rules are binding because they were rationality of the mitsvot, the covenantal
so revealed by God to Israel and not because commands of God to Israel. The mitsvot have
they contain any inherent universal moral their source in God. Their reason for being is
the Divine Will; their function or utility,
3 Faur's reading of natural law is clearly polemi­ however, can be discovered in part and im-
cal. The God of Cicero is assuredly not the God of
Acquinas. And even for Acquinas, there are divine
laws which transcend reason and cannot be known 6 In a long footnote on pp. 150-51 (note 42) Faur
through conventional or natural law. Further, the cites ample instances of this problematic doctrine
Hobbesian natural law doctrine makes no in Maimonides which, to this reviewer, he has
metaphysical claim whatsoever. Still, Faur is cor­ solved most adequately. See David Novak, The
rect insofar as all natural law theories posit that Origin of the Noahide Laws," Perspectives on Jews
human reason can determine proper behavior, and and Judaism (New York: Rabbinical Assembly,
it is to this proposition that Faur takes issue. 1978).
4 Faur, p. 53. 7 Faur, p. 158.
5 Ibid., p. 150. 8 Ibid., p. 162.
 83
Book Reviews
sages which contradict the foundations of the
perfectly through reason. For Maimomdes, faith are not to be taken literally; an-
the mitsvot enable man to live efficiently in thropomorphic descriptions of the Deity rep­
this world and, as a consequence of obeying resent the classical example of Maimomdes
the Almighty, to receive ftirther recompense deflection from literal readings of Scripture.
in the next world. Thus, the distinction be­ Similarly, the doctrine ct creatu> ex nMo,
tween the rational (sihliot) laws and tradi­ inasmuch as it is not contradicted by logi •
tional (shimiyot) laws is not congruent with
remains a faith principle.
authentic Judaism. What are conceived to be
rational commands have obvious utility; the THE CHAPTER ON IDOLATRY deals as much
traditional commands are not obviously fiinc- With modern Jewish scholarships idolatry
tional, but they nonetheless possess some of Biblic criticism as it does with Maimomdes
functional value that has gone undiscovered. views on the subject. Faur summarizes
In his discussion of the place of reason in Yehezhel Kaufmann's view that the Hebre
Maimonides' thought, Faur argues that ra­ Scriptures knew of fetishism but did not un­
tionality enables man to discover in part the derstand the subtleties of paganism. Alter
function of law as promulgated, but not Di­ surveying the texts and critical scholarship on
vine intention. The subsequent chapters on Greco-Roman and Near Eastern paganism
Talmud Torah (study of religion) and Idolatry Faur demonstrates that both ancient Israel
illustrate the fimction as well as the limits of and Rabbinic Judaism understood and op­
human reason in the study of a religion whose posed paganism because it was useless and
origin is attributed to God.9 because the Covenant forbade improper wor­
Since the law is rooted in a tradition whose ship of God. According to pagan thought, the
ground is revelation, creative or philosophical god identifies with the idol so that disrespect
exegesis is inappropriate, but in nonlegal pas­ to the idol is equivalent to blasphemy. The
sages such interpretations may be legitimate sin of the Golden Calf involves the making
Since difficult passages have exoteric as well and consecrating of an idol so that die Diety
as esoteric meaning, creative exegesis may be would manifest Himself visibly. Ibis same
employed to harmonize passages whose lit­ view appears in talmudic Judaism for an ani­
eral content conflicts with accepted doctnne. mal slaughtered for a mountain is ntually
For Maimonides, the indiscriminate applica­ unfit for consumption but worthy of benefit
tion of esotoric exegesis could be used to nu - while the slaughtering of an animal for the
lify the tradition simply by the argument that spirit of "God" which allegedly resides upon
a given text need not be taken literally. the mountain renders the carcass unworthy of
Maimonides distinguishes between pu ic any benefit at all because the slaughtering act
readings of Scripture (tafsir) and esoteric
is idolatrous.10
formulations (tawil) which are used when the The idolatry of modern biblical scholarship,
literal meaning is unacceptable. The use o according to Faur, is that it justifies
tawil is limited to passages which defy logic, metaphysical positions on the basis of reason.
but not possibility. Hence, the doctrine con­ Underlying Faur's polemic against the con­
cerning the resurrection of the dead, being a sideration of natural law as authentic Jewish
logical possibility for an omnipotent God, doctrine is his rejection of human or finite
goes without reinterpretation. But those pas- reason as a determinant of ultimate truths.
Because Faur accepts the text of revelation
9 Isaac Husik, in his edition of Albo s ' ,
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1929),
notes that Maimonides avoids natural law ter­
atology in his system (p. xix), diereby corroborat­ 10 See HuUin 40a. Cited in Faur, p. 224.
ing Faur's reading of Maimonides.
84
and the oral traditions of Judaism as a given,
only the philological employment of compara­
tive Semitics for purposes of defining ter­
minology can be accepted as a methodological
tool. Like the Karaites and the Thomist
scholastics, Kaufmann makes assumptions
concerning Israel's revelation which are not
his, as an empirical scientist, to make. Simi­
larly, ethics or middot are grounded in tradi­
tion rather than reason. Just as Faur is not
suggesting that reason has no place in schol­
arship, but only as an arbiter of ultimate
truths which can be known by revelation, he
restricts the ethical dimension to behavior
legislated by God so that man can live the
good life on earth and attain his reward in the
world to come. There are Jewish values, but
they can neither be defended nor derived
through reason. Natural law theories, like
Kaufmann's findings, represent an attempt of
man to deify himself; Faur's juxtaposition of
his chapters indicates, in the rhetorical fash­
ion that Maimonides ordered the chapters of
the Guide, that such a deification of man is
idolatrous.
While Studies in the Mishne Torah claims
to explicate Maimonidean halakhah and the­
ology, the presentation offers a theological
reconstruction of Rabbinic Judaism based
upon the writings of Maimonides and the tra­
dition to which he belonged. Faur admits that
Maimonides never explicitly rejects the doc­
trine of natural law and the intuitive aware­
ness of God is an argument from silence
rather than demonstration. But by integrating
the terminology of Maimonides' writings with
the school of Rav Ibn Mega and reading that
tradition as a coherent whole, Faur uses
Maimonides as a major component of the
unitary tradition out of which Sephardic Juda­
ism grew. Just as Maimonides reformulated
talmudic Judaism so as to counter Christianity
and Karaism, doctrines that offered theologi­
cal alternatives which were couched in a very
aggressive rhetoric, Faur ostensibly expli­
cates Maimonides but in reality is offering an
apologia for a tradition which is challenged to
those who believe that human reason can
stand in judgment of God's will.
FAUR'S READING OF MAIMONIDES differs from
that of modern secular scholarship on the one
hand and Ashkenazic Orthodox Judaism on
the other. Like the traditional Sefardic com­
mentaries on the Mishne Torah, Faur refers
to Maimonides as rabbeinu, our teacher. He
thus defends what he believes authentic Juda­
ism to be against the secularizing biases of
contemporary scholarship as well as the self-
righteous posture of Ashkenazic Orthodoxy.
Indeed, one Ashkenazic Orthodox academ­
ician views Maimonides deflection from au-
thenic" Judaism to be acceptable only be­
cause of his fidelity to halakhah.11 The schol­
arly community generally considers
Maimonides to be in possession of two dis­
tinct theories of Judaism: an elitist theology
that appears in the Guide and the Judaism of
the masses that is reflected in the Mishne
Torah.12 In point of fact, Faur believes that
both of these positions are self-serving. The
scholar elevates his reason to the point where
he will pass judgment cavalierishly upon a
tradition that rejects reason as a source of
metaphysical knowledge. The Ashkenazic Or­
thodox rabbinate will also find Faur s reading
of Maimonides objectionable because it un­
dermines the authority they claim for them­
selves. It is a fundamental principle of Ash­
kenazic Jewish legal theory that the poseq, or
legal authority, possesses the authority to
reinterpret Jewish law. Indeed, the Asheri
writes that "he who errs in the decisions of
the Geonim of blessed memeory, by not ac­
cepting their views . . . errs in a fundamental
point of law . . . and this includes the sages of
every generation.'13 Maimonides opposed
the political claim of the Geonate because the
11 Ya'aqov Levinger, Darkei ha Mahashavah
ha'HUkatit shel ha'Rambam (Jerusalem: 1965).
12 See Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of
Writing (Glencoe, Free Press, 1952).
13 Pisqei ha-Rosh, Sanhedrin 4:6, cited in Faur,
p. 46.
 85
Book Ftavtew*
rather than borei peri ha gafen because m
stature of the Geonate had fallen, but he rec­
matters of prayers and berakhot we follow
ognized that they did inherit the authentic
tradition and not grammar. 16 The late Rabbi
traditions of the talmudic academies. Realiz­
Ben Zion Uzziel" also corroborates Faur s
ing the revolutionary claim that the Geonim
reading of Maimonides by suggesting at
made in their plea that they continue to exer­
reasons for laws were omitted in the Mishne
cise the authority of the talmudic court, the
Torah, so that the Karaites, in their rea­
Asheri endorses their position and, without
soned" opposition to tradition, would be
the traditions of the talmudic court, argues
stymied. He further limits the definition of
that he, too, possesses the authority to rein­
tradition to talmudic law; post-talmudic prac­
terpret Jewish practice, especially when local
tices can be evaluated by reason because tra­
practices are in conflict with talmudic law. It
dition is silent on such matters.
is therefore noteworthy that the Asheri for­ Thus, Hakham Faur has offered a systema­
bids the deciding of law on the basis of the
tic presentation of the theology that Sefardic
Mishne Torah,14 for the democratization of
Judaism maintains is authentic talmudic Juda­
Jewish law intended by Maimonides was in­
ism. His philological acumen as well as his
imical to a charismatic poseq such as the
expertise in historical, philosophical and
Asheri. halakhic disciplines enable him, unlike other
The views of the Asheri recur in somewhat
Sefardic contemporary scholars, to recon­
less elegant fashion in the words of Rabbi
struct this version of Judaism by isolating and
Moses Feinstein, the leading spokesman on
eliminating syncretistic elements. If indeed
Jewish practice for Ashkenazic Orthodox
there exists an authentic and uncorrupted
Jewry: Jewish tradition, it has been isolated by
The Torah leadership of every generation, Hakham Faur. Whether this statement of
then, always possesses the ability to per­
Jewish tradition will be accepted by a skepti­
ceive the needs of the time and to initiate
individual acts or even sweeping ordi­ cal post-emancipation Jewry remains be seen;
nances to meet these needs. And. these or­ in any case, one does find a fascinating and
dinances bear the full weight of an actual engaging argument that is internally consist­
halacha. . . • One might well say that ig­ ent and at the same time thoroughly Jewish.
noring the advice of a talmid chacham u
far worse than transgressing a lav (Nega­ ALBANY, NEW YORK ALAN YUTER
tive command) clearly expressed in the I o-
rah. . . • When one does not heed the ad­ 16 Passover Haggadah (New York: Young Shaare
vice of a talmid chacham, he denies the Zion, 1977), pp. 10-11, ,, RavKook
superior wisdom of the Torah personal­ 17 Pisqei Uzziel (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook,
1977), pp. 470ff.
ity-15

In contrast, Maimonides, as Faur correctly

demonstrates, is concerned with tradition as
Janusz Korczak - Ghetto Diary, by Janusz
the medium for the transmission of Judaism,
Korczak, New York: Schocken Books
not the "superior wisdom" of any "Torah
Holocaust Library, 1978, 192 pp., $8.95.
leadership" that claims to be privy to a tradi­
tion not found in the literature of Judaism.
IN PRE-WAR POLAND, his name was a byword.
For example, the current Rishon Le-Tsion,
Outstanding in his roles of pediatrician,
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, posits that the blessing
writer, and educator, Janusz Korczak was one
over wine be pronounced borei peri ha'gefen
of Warsaw's leading intellectual lights. In our
14 Responsa of Asheri 31:9, fed in Faur p. 59^ country, we are only beginning to rediscover
15 Jewish Observer (December 1977), Vol. XII, this great personality. The publishing of his
no. 9, pp. 21-22.
CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM
Volume XXXIII, Number 2

ARTICLES
Women in the System of Mishnah Jacob Neusner 3
Acceptance Speech Upon Receiving
The Jerusalem Prize Sir Isaiah Berlin 14
The Concept of Power in the Jewish Tradition Louis Jacobs 18
The Historian, The Mythographer and
the Lower East Side Sanford Pinsker 29
Decoding the Jewish Elements of
I and Thou S. Daniel Breslauer 34
Arthur A. Chiel 46
The Origins of Shlemiel
Speaking About God in the
David R. Blumenthal 49 ^
Modern World

LETTER F R O M J E R U S A L E M
Politics and Religion in Israel Theodore Friedman 60

OPEN FORUM
Surveys, Statistics and Sectarian Salvation Harold M. Schulweis 65
A Critique of Seymour Siegel's
"The Meaning of Jewish Law" Michael Ziegler 70
Reply to Michael Ziegler's Critique Seymour Siegel 75

BOOK REVIEWS
Studies in the Mishne Torah
by Jose Faur Alan Yuter 80
Janusz Korczak - Ghetto Diary
by Janusz Korczak Samuel Chiel 85
Don't Cry for Arnie
ed. by Jack and Susan Riemer Robert P. Jacobs 87
Tormented Master, A Life of Rabbi
Nahman of Bratzlav
by Arthur Green Aryeh Wineman 89
Encounters With the Jewish People
by Chaim Raphael David R. Blumenthal 90
With Eyes Toward Zion
ed. by Moshe Davis Maxine Schwartz Seller 91
The Book of Job
by Robert Gordis Stanley Kazan 92
The Code of Maimonides
trans, by Isaac Klein David Novak 93

COMMUNICATIONS 95