History of the Jews, Vol. 3 (of 6)

by Heinrich Graetz

"Thou Guide to doubt, be silent evermore;
Thy sinful folly shall remain unheard,
That makes of Bible-fact but metaphor,
And to a dream degrades the prophet's word."

Whereupon a Maimunist retorted:

"Thou fool profane, be silent! Nevermore
Dare, sandaled, upon holy ground to stand;
What dost thou know of fact or metaphor?
Nor dream, nor prophet canst thou understand."

Another epigram condemns Maimuni himself:

"Forgive us, son of Amram, be not wroth
That we should call this fool by thy great name;
Prophet the Bible calls God's messengers,
The servants of false Baal it calls the same."

The Maimunists, however, were much more energetic than their opponents; they used all their efforts to alienate the French rabbis from Solomon, and to bring the chief congregation of Spain over to their side. A young scholar, Samuel ben Abraham Saporta, addressed a letter to the French rabbis, and tried to convince them that in their eagerness to support Solomon, they had taken a precipitate step in denouncing Maimuni and the followers of his views as heretics. "Before you passed a judgment upon them, you ought to have examined the contents of his writings properly; but it appears that you know nothing about the writings which you have condemned. Your business is the Halacha, to determine what actions are forbidden or permitted by religion. Why do you venture beyond your province to express an opinion on questions about which you know nothing at all? In your worship of the letter, like the heathen, you imagine the Deity in human form. What right have you to call us heretics who cling as firmly as you to the Torah and tradition?" Saporta's letter, in addition to other influences, made so deep an impression upon some of the French rabbis that they renounced Solomon. They soon notified the Provençal congregations of their change of opinion. This change was undoubtedly due in great measure to Moses, of Coucy (born about 1200, died about 1260), one of the youngest Tossafists, who, although a brother-in-law of Samson of Sens, and a pupil of the over-pious Sir Leon, of Paris, nevertheless cherished great reverence for Maimuni, and made his Halachic works the subject of study. Nachmani was extremely vexed at this change of opinion, and, sorely distressed at the widening of the breach, he elaborated a scheme of reconciliation, which seemed to him calculated to restore peace. He wrote a well-meant, but bombastic letter to the French rabbis, wherein he first of all expressed his dissatisfaction with them for having put the readers of Maimuni's compositions under the ban: "If you were of the opinion that it was incumbent on you to denounce as heresy the works of Maimuni, why does a portion of your flock now recede from this decision as if they regretted the step? Is it right in such important matters to act capriciously, to applaud the one to-day, and the other to-morrow?"

Finally, Nachmani explained his plan of compromise. The ban against the philosophical portion of Maimuni's Code was to be revoked; but, on the other hand, the condemnation of the study of the "Guide," and the excommunication of the rejectors of the Talmudical exposition of the Bible was to be strengthened. This sentence of excommunication was not to be passed by the one party only, but the Provençal rabbis, and even Maimuni's son, the pious Abraham, were to be invited to support it with their authority. In this manner the gate would be closed to disaffection and unbelief. Nachmani, however, ignored the fact that the assailed compositions were all of one cast, so that it was not possible to anathematize the one and canonize the other. Nachmani fell into the mistake of thinking that it was possible to check free philosophical inquiry. The two tendencies, each legitimate in its way, could not but conflict with each other, and the struggle had to be protracted, and could not be ended by a compromise. Consequently, the fight continued on both sides, and Nachmani's proposal was utterly disregarded. The longer it lasted, the more the controversy inflamed men's feelings, the more participants were drawn into the arena.

The aged David Kimchi wished to undertake a journey to Toledo, in order to induce that great congregation to join his party against Solomon and his adherents, and through their weight completely to crush their opponents. When he arrived at Avila, he became so ill that he had to abandon the journey, but on his bed of sickness he wrote with trembling hand to the chief representative of the Toledo congregation, Jehuda Ibn-Alfachar. He blamed him for his obstinate silence in an affair which concerned the French and Spanish communities so deeply, and importuned him to persuade his congregation to make common cause with the Maimunists. Unfortunately, however, he had approached the wrong man; for Jehuda Alfachar had made up his mind decisively against the Maimunists. He had thoroughly mastered Maimuni's system, and had concluded that, if carried to its logical conclusion, it was calculated to subvert Judaism. Ibn-Alfachar was a thoughtful man, and of more penetration than Nachmani. The defects of Maimuni's theory were quite palpable to him, but even he was misled by the thought that it was possible to exorcise the spirit of free-thought by anathemas. Alfachar paid such deference to the sentence of excommunication uttered by the French rabbis, that at first he would not reply to Kimchi at all, but when ultimately he decided to do so, he treated him in his answer in so contemptuous a manner, that the Maimunists who expected the support of Toledo were quite disconcerted at the result.

In the meantime, the sympathy of such influential personages as Alfachar, Nachmani, and Meïr Abulafia, proved to be of little value to Solomon's cause. The feeling of the people in his native place and in Spain was against him. The French rabbis, on whose support he had reckoned, gradually withdrew from a controversy, the range of which they began to perceive, and which threatened to expose the participators to peril. Solomon of Montpellier complained that no one besides his two disciples sided with him, but the maladroitness with which he conducted his cause was chiefly responsible for the want of sympathy that he encountered. Thus forsaken of all, and hated most bitterly in his own congregation, he resolved on a step which led to the most deplorable results, not only for his own party, but for the whole Jewish people.