Maimonides’ articulation of the laws related to the poor demonstrates his ability to empathize. Maimonides stipulates that one should break the Sabbath (“make it a weekday”) rather than depend “on other people and cast oneself upon public charity.”97 Here we can see some parallels to Shinran’s attitude when he is willing to challenge the existing views. Not only does Maimonides implicitly challenge the religion-based approach but he also contests the Jewish government officials who state that “one should die before becoming dependent upon other people.”98 Maimonides writes: “offering the poor a partnership or gainful employment or a loan or a gift that could be used to build economic security” is “the highest form of philanthropy.”99 In order to stipulate the laws so as to take into account his concern for the poor and the foreign, Maimonides splits into two the law which prioritizes the familiar over a more distant (the so-called ladder of charity: “My people come before a Gentile. . . . . The poor of your town come before the poor of another town”). He argues for “a poor relative from ‘another town’ who deserves immediate assistance despite being a foreigner.”100 Maimonides’ views of inheritance also testify to his recognition of the challenges experienced by those who are transplanted from their places of birth as he considers laws of inheritance in terms of morality.
Another good illustration can be gleaned from Maimonides’ approach to captives. In 1180, Maimonides received a legal query related to ransoming a captive in Alexandria.101 Maimonides was also actively involved in obtaining funds for the Jewish prisoners from Bilbays captured by the Crusaders. He sent letters to Jews throughout Egypt asking for contributions to pay out ransom fees demanded by the Crusaders for these prisoners. Maimonides’ commitment to his community was not limited to writing letters and listing his name as a signatory, but he also served as campaign treasurer who oversaw the distribution of the obtained funds.
Maimonides’ commitment to his community is further manifested in his articulation of laws of charity in the Mishneh Torah. While the Talmud Bava Batra tractate considers ransoming captives the most important form of charity of all, Maimonides makes it even more explicit the Mishneh Torah when he writes: “the ransoming of captives has precedence over the feeding and closing of the poor . . . not only the captive included among the hungry, the thirsty, and the naked, but his very life is in jeopardy.”102
Despite his focus on preserving community’s religious and cultural identity, in some cases, Maimonides had to go against the prevailing views even of his own community and to enter into a struggle with the dominant and well-established local power. Case in point is his refusal to collect funds for the support of halakhic scholars.103 Perhaps this explains why, despite Maimonides’ integration into the society and his role of ra’is al-yahud, he held this position only for two years, from 1171 to 1172. He did not regain his position until later in his life, from 1196 to 1204.104 We observe here a certain resonance with Shinran’s stance. Shinran objected to the established approach to religious practice, and Maimonides similarly did not always go along with the rules of the prevailing religious establishment and was not afraid to challenge local Jewish leadership.
Despite Maimonides’ full integration into Egyptian life and society, his commitment to the Andalusian halakhic tradition remained firm implicitly testifying to his diasporic mentality. This commitment was tested again between 1189 and 1191 when Maimonides argued against some of the prevailing views held by the Babylonian Geonim—presidents of the Babylonian Talmudic Academies. A head of the Yeshiva in Baghdad, Samuel ben Eli, tried to do all in his power to discredit Maimonides’ rulings that it was permissible to sail on the Sabbath in the Euphrates and the Tigris. Maimonides’ approach combined an allowance for compromise (to ensure survival) with an argument against complacency. He combined his love for the Jewish people and anxiety for their personal safety with his concern for the Jewish community’s continual existence while also navigating a complex terrain of a possible intrareligious resistance.
A parallel can be seen in Maimonides’ behavior with his commitment to the Andalusian halakhic tradition and to those whom he considered his Andalusian “teachers”105 and Shinran’s loyalty to Hōnen. In both cases, an approach chosen by these two thinkers respectively was not always entirely in line with the position of those in power. Who was it that Maimonides agreed most?
Maimonides’ “Patriarchs”—Influences
In our discussion related to those who influenced Shinran’s thought, we focused on his Seven Patriarchs. In the case of Maimonides, his debt to his predecessors appears to be less straight-forward and depends on whether it addresses Maimonides’ debt in relation to his halakhic works or in relation to his philosophical writings. He acknowledges the influence on his thought of Aristotle, though read through the eyes of Alexander (active in the late second and early third century CE), Themistius (317–390), and Ibn Rushd (1126–1198). In addition to praising Ibn Rushd (al-Farabi), namely his Political Regime, Maimonides speaks highly of Ibn Bâjja and his Governance of the Solitary. He articulates his reverence for these thinkers in his introduction to the Commentary on Tractate Avot (“Eight Chapters”). Without referring to any specific names, he states that
the matters discussed by him are not invented on my own nor explanations I have originated. Indeed, they are matters gathered from the discourse of the sages in the Midrash, the Talmud, and other compositions of theirs, as well as from the discourse of both the ancient and modern philosophers, and from the compositions of many men.106
Explicitly naming Aristotle (or those who explicated his writings) would have been dangerously unprecedented, but even the reference to the “ancient and modern philosophers” and “many men” as a guide for his explanation of the commandments was already revolutionary. Maimonides further challenges authority by adding: “Hear the truth from whoever says it.”107 It is truth that matters not whether it comes from the mouth of a given sage. Similar to Shinran, holding his “teachers” in high esteem does not translate, however, into Maimonides’ complete agreement with their views.
While Shinran’s life never took him outside of his own cultural environment, Maimonides’ life placed him under different Islamic regimes and their different schools of legal thought. This forced immersion in the different culture and religion creatively influenced both, his thought and his writing. Maimonides’ embeddedness in Arabic culture can be seen even in the way he composed the Book of Commandments (Sefer ha-misvot). For instance, in Maimonides’ treatment of the poor, we note that in his discussion of the 197th commandment that addresses lending to the poor, he deploys a metaphor that cannot be found in any rabbinic sources, but uses “Arabic imagery” that “comes from his Arabic surrounding.”108
In other cases, these influences led Maimonides either to embrace the “potentially suspect sources,” such as already mentioned those of Greek and Muslim philosophers, or to strongly argue against the Kalām theologians whom Maimonides viewed as anti-philosophical.109 Despite his arguments against Islamic theologians and specifically Kalām theologians, Maimonides was more concerned that Kalām views could appeal to the Jewish circles, especially to the views of some Gaonim and the Karaites.110 This concern attests to Maimonides’ apprehension about the possibility of the decreased ability to exercise rational thought.111 Maimonides’ aim was to alert that “Jewish mutakallimūn” were the imitators of Muslim Kalām whose goal was to similarly manipulate the ignorant masses and prevent them from using their rational faculties.112 As seen from the above, Maimonides exercised an eclectic approach and his legal methodology reflects his deep immersion in the Almohad society and its law (fiqh).113
Analogous to Shinran’s writings, in which he further democratized and radicalized Hōnen’s teachings, Maimonides’ writings exhibit certain heretical features as well. Like Shinran, Maimonides espoused certain opinions that contradicted established norms and, as previously noted, also fearlessly integrated various influences. Nonetheless, he never strove to undermine
