What Is Maimonides Really Saying About Creation in His Guide to the Perplexed?
Below is the final paper by Phyllis Zimbler Miller for the fall 2023 Spertus Institute course “History of Jewish Biblical Interpretation” taught by *Rabbanit Dr. Devorah Schoenfeld.
Although it is widely believed that Maimonides (1138 – 1204) in his 1190 The Guide to the Perplexed favored creatio ex nihio[1] –the verdict of the smaller group who believes that Maimonides favored ex nihilo nihil fit[2] advanced by Aristotle (384 BCE – 322 BCE) and other Greek philosophers may be the more likely. This interpretation is based on the concepts of exoteric and esoteric – one truth for the public and one truth for a small number of people with specialized knowledge, respectively – and for the reasons that Maimonides may have had for concealing his true views except to those in the esoteric circle.
Before looking at the Guide, it is relevant to consider that Maimonides did not cite his sources in his earlier work Mishneh Torah (complied 1170 to 1180). Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff in his essay “Medieval and Modern Halakhah” states that “… as the codifiers generally did not cite their sources or the reasoning that led them to their conclusion [this] detached Jewish law from its sources and from its process of ongoing development, freezing it in the form that the codifier created.”[3] Thus the codifiers expected their readers to take the codifiers’ opinions on faith without questioning whether there might be other interpretations.
While Rabbi Dorff is a 20-21st Century Jewish scholar, a contemporary of Maimonides – Abraham ben David of Posquieres (Rabad or Ravad; 1125 – 1198) – was very critical of Maimonides’ methods. The article on Rabad in the Encyclopedia Judaica states: “Abraham claimed that Maimonides ‘intended to improve but did not improve, for he forsook the way of all authors and his cut and dried codification, without explanations and without references, approximated ex cathedra[4] legislation too closely.’”[5] Rabad clearly felt that the Rambam was taking on too much personal authority in the Rambam’s interpretations.
Louis Ginzberg in his Jewish Encyclopedia article “Abraham ben David of Posquieres” explains: “Abraham’s criticism … was not due to personal feeling, but to radical differences of view in matters of faith between the two greatest Talmudists of the twelfth century. Maimonides’ aim was to bring order into the vast labyrinth of the Halakah by presenting final results in a definite, systematic, and methodical manner. But in the opinion of RABaD this very aim was the principal defect of the work. A legal code which did not state the sources and authorities from which its decisions were derived, and offered no proofs of the correctness of its statements, was, in the opinion of Abraham ben David, entirely unreliable, even in the practical religious life, for which purpose Maimonides designed it. Such a code, he considered, could be justified only if written by a man claiming infallibility—by one who could demand that his assertions be accepted without question.”[6] Again, this is the reference by Rabad to ex cathedra interpretations – to taking upon oneself a mantle of infallibility. And here Ginzberg makes mention of the “practical religious life” that Maimonides could be undermining for the masses.
Did Maimonides himself realize that perhaps he had gone too far in his Mishneh Torah? And did he write the Guide on two different levels, providing his proofs for the esoteric circle of people who he believed could be trusted with his source insights without losing their faith in the foundations of Judaism? And did these insights include how much Maimonides aligned himself with Aristotle’s beliefs on Creation?
Micah Goodman says in his book Maimonides and the Book That Changed Judaism: “In the introduction to the Guide, the Rambam lists seven contradictions that one may find in writings the world over. The seventh is the contradiction intended to conceal certain ideas. Maimonides did not want all of his readers to understand the most complex and mysterious of his teachings. He acknowledged that he sometimes made contradictory points in order to keep his true opinion from the general public. Most Rambam scholars agree that when there is a contradiction between a conventional and a radical view, the latter is the Rambam’s true opinion. This type of intentional contradiction for the sake of the concealment of esoteric ideas is known by Maimonidean scholars as a ‘contradiction of the seventh kind.’”[7]
In the essay “Why Maimonides’ ‘Parable of the King’s Court’ Is Still Relevant After 800 Years,” Howard Lupovitch unequivocally states: “Maimonides wrote his Guide for an exclusive audience of educated Jews who had mastered both Talmud-Torah and philosophy/science.” Lupovitch says that Maimonides’ “claim that philosophy (which included what we now call natural science and critical thinking) is an integral and indispensable part of a complete Jewish education elicited harsh criticism. … A telling example of Maimonides’ outlook in this regard is his “Parable of the King’s Court”[8] that he included in his philosophical treatise the Guide for the Perplexed.”[9]
Goodman says in connection with the palace parable: “According to Maimonides, even the greatest halakhic authorities, who are considered to be among the giants of their generation, are not worthy to enter the king’s chamber if they do not know philosophy. To reach the summit of religious life and to attain intimacy with God, one must study metaphysics. Halakhah regulates the norms of religious life, but philosophy determines spiritual development.”[10]
This is a clear statement to those reading the Guide that they must meet Maimonides’ criteria for individual understanding of what Maimonides is saying. If a reader does not qualify for Maimonides requirements, then the reader must accept what Maimonides is saying on the surface of the Guide rather than delving deeper into what Maimonides might actually be saying about topics such as eternity and Creation.
Lupovitch goes on to say that while the Mishneh Torah was written in Hebrew, the Guide was written in Arabic, “a language accessible only to an elite group of educated Jews.” And what’s more, Lupovitch says that Maimonides left instructions that the Guide never be translated into Hebrew, which one of Maimonides’ students later ignored.[11]
Maimonides’ palace parable serves as a caution for those who would read his Guide. Depending on how advanced you are in your knowledge and understanding will determine how much you may understand of what Maimonides writes. And thus by writing in Arabic, Maimonides cannot be accused of purposely turning aside the general population from following the laws of Judaism.
While Goodman’s statement that most Rambam scholars agree that Maimonides is concealing esoteric ideas, it is not a statement that supports the view that Maimonides actually agreed with Aristotle on the Creation of the world.
In Goodman’s Chapter 11 “The Creation of the World,” he concludes: “The Rambam explicitly articulated an impasse regarding the question of the world’s creation. We can now see that he was also implicitly skeptical about proofs for the existence of God. It is not that the Rambam thought that God did not exist; on the contrary, he believed that God’s existence is the most reasonable explanation for the universe. But it seems that he was suggesting that we are not dealing here with absolute proofs. The reader who has navigated all of Maimonides’ hidden and revealed assumptions and reached these conclusions may confront an intellectual crisis. After a long, complex, and sometimes dry discussion that extends over many of [the] chapters of the Guide, the reader who has successfully followed the arguments recognizes that he does not know how the world came into existence and cannot even have certainly about the existence of God.”[12]
Maimonides’ apparent inability or refusal to come down clearly on one side or the other of Creation leaves open the possibility or probability that Maimonides sided more with Aristotle than Maimonides was willing to admit to all except the esoteric.
Further support for this esoteric reading of the Guide is provided by Maimonides himself in Chapter 71 of Part 1: “Care having been taken, for the sake of obviating injurious influences, that the Oral Law should not be recorded in a form accessible to all, it was but natural that no portion of ‘the secrets of the Law’ (i.e., metaphysical problems) would be permitted to be written down or divulged for the use of all men. These secrets, as has been explained, were orally communicated by a few able men to others who were equally distinguished. Hence the principle applied by our teachers, ‘The secrets of the Law can only be entrusted to him who is a councillor, a cunning artificer, etc.’ The natural effect of this practice was that our nation lost the knowledge of those important disciplines. Nothing but a few remarks and allusions are to be found in the Talmud and the Midrashim, like a few kernels enveloped in such a quantity of husk, that the reader is generally occupied with the husk, and forgets that it encloses a kernel.”[13]
Howard Kreisel in Chapter 3 “Maimonides on the Eternity of the World” of his book Judaism as Philosophy says: “One should add that for the masses, belief in creation better supports the belief in one God than does belief in eternity. The belief that the spheres existed from eternity easily leads to the belief that they are deities, the belief that according to Maimonides characterizes the ancient religion of the Sabians (Guide3.29).”[14]
Kreisel is pointing out that, if the spheres already existed before this creation, this belief could be used to support polytheism rather than monotheism. Yet Maimonides emphasizes in the Guide that he believes in the foundations of Judaism, which require a belief in creatio ex nihio. To do otherwise on the part of Maimonides could rip apart rabbinic Judaism, possibly into splinter groups that might never come together again.
How is Maimonides to reconcile science with Torah?
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes these distinctions between
Aristotle’s ex nihilo nihil fit vs. Maimonides’ creatio ex nihio:
“Aristotle made God passively responsible for change in the world in the sense that all things seek divine perfection. God imbues all things with order and purpose, both of which can be discovered and point to his (or its) divine existence. From those contingent things we come to know universals, whereas God knows universals prior to their existence in things. God, the highest being (though not a loving being), engages in perfect contemplation of the most worthy object, which is himself. He is thus unaware of the world and cares nothing for it, being an unmoved mover. God as pure form is wholly immaterial, and as perfect he is unchanging since he cannot become more perfect. This perfect and immutable God is therefore the apex of being and knowledge. God must be eternal. That is because time is eternal, and since there can be no time without change, change must be eternal. And for change to be eternal the cause of change – the unmoved mover –must also be eternal. To be eternal God must also be immaterial since only immaterial things are immune from change.”[15]
Thus in Aristotle’s view that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed into a different form, God existed at the beginning and therefore the story of Creation as told in the Torah cannot be true because the world always existed and God does not take an active role in it – neither rewarding or punishing individuals.
In the same article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — “Working from Judaism, Maimonides (1135-1204) accepted creation rather than an eternal universe. He drew from philosophic traditions to formulate three proofs based on the nature of God. Following Aristotle, Maimonides demonstrated the existence of a Prime Mover, and … the existence of a necessary being. He also showed God to be a primary cause.”[16]
Joel L. Kraemer in his book Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds states: “It was scientific reason that became Maimonides’ ultimate touchstone of truth. He would write later that if Aristotle’s belief in the eternity of the universe were proven, he would interpret Scripture to confirm with Aristotle.”[17]
Kraemer indicates that his above statement relies on Chapter 25 of Part II of the Guide in which Maimonides states: “If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Natures does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions. If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one; we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove; and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view.”[18]
It appears that Maimonides in the above statement is providing for the acceptance of Aristotle’s theory as opposed to what Maimonides states as what is necessary for the foundation of Judaism. And in Chapter 23 of Part 2 that he references in this statement may be found the view that Maimonides is expressing to the esoteric circle what they must do in order to fairly compare two theories:
“First you must know your mental capacities and your natural talents; you will find this out when you study all mathematical sciences, and are well acquainted with Logic. Secondly, you must have a thorough knowledge of Natural Science, that you may be able to understand the nature of the objections. Thirdly, you must be morally good. For if a person is voluptuous or passionate, and, loosening the reins, allows his anger to pass the just limits, it makes no difference whether he is so from nature or from habit, he will blunder and stumble in his way, he will seek the theory which is in accordance with his inclinations. I mention this lest you be deceived; for a person might some day, by some objection which he raises, shake your belief in the theory of the Creation, and then easily mislead you: you would then adopt the theory [of the Eternity of the Universe) which is contrary to the fundamental principles of our religion, and leads to ‘speaking words that turn away from God.’ You must rather have suspicion against your own reason, and accept the theory taught by two prophets who have laid the foundation for the existing order in the religious and social relations of mankind. Only demonstrative proof should be able to make you abandon the theory of the Creation: but such a proof does not exist in Nature.”[19]
If a reader of the Guide meets all these requirements, then Maimonides can vouchsafe the esoteric perspective on the Creation of the world because, presumably, that reader’s faith in the foundations of Judaism will not be shaken. Thus by writing on two levels in Arabic in the Guide, Maimonides can maintain faith in the foundations of Judaism for the masses and at the same time tip his hat in the direction of science by way of Aristotle’s theory of the Creation of the world.
[1] Latin for “creation out of nothing.”
[2] Latin for “nothing comes from nothing.”
[3] David L. Lieber, ed., Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), 1474.
[4] Latin meaning not “from the cathedral” but “from the chair.”
[5] Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1971), column 140 of Volume 2.
[6] Jewish Encyclopedia (Gladwyne, PA: The Kopelman Foundation, 2002-2021), https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/420-abraham-ben-david-of-posquieres
[7] Micah Goodman, Maimonides and the Book That Changed Judaism: Secrets of The Guide for the Perplexed (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2015), 23.
[8] The parable appears in Chapter 51 of Part 3 of The Guide for the Perplexed.
[9] Howard Lupovitch, “Why Maimonides’ ‘Parable of the King’s Court’ Is Still Relevant After 800 Years,” Nu? Detroit, April 5, 2021, https://www.nu-detroit.com/rambam.
[10] Goodman, Maimonides, 97.
[11] Lupovitch, “Maimonides.”
[12] Goodman, Maimonides, 185.
[13] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), 108:
[14] Howard Kreisel, Judaism as Philosophy: Studies in Maimonides and the Medieval Jewish Philosophers of Provence (Brookline, Massachusetts: Academic Studies Press, 2015), 43.
[15] “Western Concepts of God,” in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/god-west/#SH2c.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Joel L. Kraemer, Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 66.
[18] Maimonides, Guide, 199.
[19] Maimonides, Guide, 195.
*Rabbanit Dr. Devorah Schoenfeld, associate professor of theology at Loyola University Chicago who recently taught the remote course “History of Jewish Biblical Interpretation” for the Spertus Institute, provides an online tutorial for utilizing the free sites Sefaria and Rambi — https://www.sefaria.org/ and– https://www.nli.org.il/en/research-an… — the index of articles on Jewish studies from the National Library of Israel.