was a great Talmudist, a great Bible student, a great philosopher, a great
controversialist, and, perhaps, also a great physician; in one word, great
in every respect, possessed of all the culture of his age. But, as I have
already indicated by the passage quoted by way of introduction, it is not
of Nachmanides in any of these excellent qualities that I wish to write
here. For these aspects of his life and mind I must refer the reader to
the works of Graetz, Weiss, Steinschneider, Perles, and others. I shall
mostly confine myself to those features and peculiarities in his career
and works which will illustrate Nachmanides the tender and compassionate,
the Nachmanides who represented Judaism from the side of emotion and
feeling, as Maimonides did from the side of reason and logic.
R. Moses ben Nachman, or Bonastruc de Portas, as he was called by his
fellow‐countrymen, or Nachmanides, as he is commonly called now, was born
in Gerona about the year 1195. Gerona is a little town in the province of
Catalonia in Spain. But though in Spain, Gerona was not distinguished for
its philosophers or poets like Granada, Barcelona, or Toledo. Situated as
it was in the North of Spain, Gerona was under the influence of Franco‐
Jewish sympathies, and thus its boast lay in the great Talmudists that it
produced. I shall only mention the name of R. Zerahiah Hallevi Gerundi—so‐
called after his native place—whose strictures on the Code of R. Isaac
Alfasi, which he began as a youth of nineteen years, will always remain a
marvel of critical insight and independent research. Nachmanides is
supposed by some authors to have been a descendant of R. Isaac ben Reuben
of Barcelona, whose hymns are still to be found in certain rituals. The
evidence for this is insufficient, but we know that he was a cousin of R.
Jonah Gerundi, not less famous for his Talmudic learning than for his
saintliness and piety. Nachmanides thus belonged to the best Jewish
families of Gerona. Various great men are mentioned as his teachers, but
we have certainty only about two, namely R. Judah ben Yakar, the
commentator of the prayers, and R. Meir ben Nathan of Trinquintaines. The
mystic, R. Ezra (or Azriel), is indeed alleged to have been his instructor
in the Cabbalah, and this is not impossible, as he also was an inhabitant
of Gerona; but it is more probable that Nachmanides was initiated into the
Cabbalah by the R. Judah just mentioned, who also belonged to the mystical
school.
Whoever his masters were, they must have been well satisfied with their
promising pupil, for he undertook, at the age of fifteen, to write
supplements to the Code of R. Isaac Alfasi. Nor was it at a much later
date that he began to compose his work, _The Wars of the Lord_, in which
he defends this great codifier against the strictures of R. Zerahiah, to
which we have referred above. I shall in the course of this essay have
further occasion to speak of this latter work; for the present we will
follow the career of its author.
Concerning the private life of Nachmanides very little has come down to
us. We only know that he had a family of sons and daughters. He was not
spared the greatest grief that can befall a father, for he lost a son; it
was on the day of the New Year.(68) On the other hand, it must have been a
great source of joy to him when he married his son Solomon to the daughter
of R. Jonah, whom he revered as a saint and a man of God. As a token of
the admiration in which he held his friend, the following incident may be
mentioned. It seems that it was the custom in Spain to name the first
child in a family after his paternal grandfather; but Nachmanides ceded
his right in behalf of his friend, and thus his daughter‐in‐law’s first
son was named Jonah. Another son of Nachmanides whom we know of was
Nachman, to whom his father addressed his letters from Palestine, and who
also wrote Novellæ to the Talmud, still extant in MS. But the later
posterity of Nachmanides is better known to fame. R. Levi ben Gershom was
one of his descendants; so was also R. Simeon Duran;(69) whilst R. Jacob
Sasportas, in the eighteenth century,(70) derived his pedigree from
Nachmanides in the eleventh generation.
As to his calling, he was occupied as Rabbi and teacher, first in Gerona
and afterwards in Barcelona. But this meant as much as if we should say of
a man that he is a philanthropist by profession, with the only difference
that the treasures of which Nachmanides disposed were more of a spiritual
kind. For his livelihood he probably depended upon his medical practice.
I need hardly say that the life of Nachmanides, “whose words were held in
Catalonia in almost as high authority as the Scriptures,” was not without
its great public events. At least we know of two.
The one was about the year 1232, on the occasion of the great struggle
about Maimonides’ _Guide of the Perplexed_, and the first book of his
great Compendium of the Law. The Maimonists looked upon these works almost
as a new revelation, whilst the Anti‐Maimonists condemned both as
heretical, or at least conducive to heresy.(71) It would be profitless to
reproduce the details of this sad affair. The motives may have been pure
and good, but the actions were decidedly bad. People denounced each other,
excommunicated each other, and did not (from either side) spare even the
dead from the most bitter calumnies. Nachmanides stood between two fires.
The French Rabbis, from whom most of the Anti‐Maimonists were recruited,
he held in very high esteem and considered himself as their pupil. Some of
the leaders of this party were also his relatives. He, too, had, as we
shall see later on, a theory of his own about God and the world little in
agreement with that of Maimonides. It is worth noting that Nachmanides
objected to calling Maimonides “our teacher Moses” (Rabbenu Mosheh),(72)
thinking it improper to confer upon him the title by which the Rabbis
honoured the Master of the Prophets. The very fact, however, that he had
some theory of the Universe shows that he had a problem to solve, whilst
the real French Rabbis were hardly troubled by difficulties of a
metaphysical character. Indeed, Nachmanides pays them the rather doubtful
compliment that Maimonides’ work was not intended for them, who were
barricaded by their faith and happy in their belief, wanting no protection
against the works of Aristotle and Galen, by whose philosophy others might
be led astray. In other words, their strength lay in an ignorance of Greek
philosophy, to which the cultivated Jews of Spain would not aspire.
Nachmanides was also a great admirer of Maimonides, whose virtues and
great merits in the service of Judaism he describes in his letter to the
French Rabbis. Thus, the only way left open to him was to play the part of
the conciliator. The course of this struggle is fully described in every
Jewish history. It is sufficient to say that, in spite of his great
authority, Nachmanides was not successful in his effort to moderate the
violence of either party, and that the controversy was at last settled
through the harsh interference of outsiders who well‐nigh crushed
Maimonists and Anti‐Maimonists alike.
The second public event in the life of Nachmanides was his Disputation,
held in Barcelona, at the Court and in the presence of King Jayme I., of
Aragon, in the year 1263. It was the usual story. A convert to
Christianity, named Pablo Christiani, who burned with zealous anxiety to
see his former co‐religionists saved, after many vain attempts in this
direction, applied to the King of Aragon to order Nachmanides to take part
in a public disputation. Pablo maintained that he could prove the justice
of the Messianic claims of Jesus from the Talmud and other Rabbinic
writings. If he could only succeed in convincing the great Rabbi of Spain
of the truth of his argument, the bulk of the Jews was sure to follow. By
the way, it was the same Talmud which some twenty years previously was, at
the instance of another Jewish convert, burned in Paris, for containing
passages against Christianity. Nachmanides had to conform with the command
of the king, and, on the 21st of July, 1263, was begun the controversy,
which lasted for four or five days.
I do not think that there is in the whole domain of literature less
profitable reading than that of the controversies between Jews and
Christians. These public disputations occasionally forced the Jews
themselves to review their position towards their own literature, and led
them to draw clearer distinctions between what they regarded as religion
and what as folklore. But beyond this, the polemics between Jews and
Christians were barren of good results. If you have read one you have read
enough for all time. The same casuistry and the same disregard of history
turn up again and again. Nervousness and humility are always on the side
of the Jews, who know that, whatever the result may be, the end will be
persecution; arrogance is always on the side of their antagonists, who are
supported by a band of Knights of the Holy Cross, prepared to prove the
soundness of their cause at the point of their daggers.
Besides, was there enough common ground between Judaism and thirteenth
century Christianity to have justified the hope of a mutual understanding?
The Old Testament was almost forgotten in the Church. The First Person in
the Trinity was leading a sort of shadowy existence in art, which could
only be the more repulsive to a Jew on that account. The largest part of
Church worship was monopolised by devotion to the Virgin Mother, prayers
to the saints, and kneeling before their relics. And a Jew may well be
pardoned if he did not entertain higher views of this form of worship than
Luther and Knox did at a later period. It will thus not be worth our while
to dwell much on the matter of this controversy, in which the essence of
the real dispute is scarcely touched. There are only two points in it
which are worth noticing. The first is that Nachmanides declared the
Agadoth(73) in the Talmud to be only a series of sermons (he uses this
very word), expressing the individual opinions of the preacher, and thus
possessing no authoritative weight. The convert Pablo is quite aghast at
this statement, and accuses Nachmanides of heterodoxy.
Secondly,—and here I take leave to complete the rather obscure passage in
the controversy by a parallel in his book, _The Date of Redemption_,(74)
quoted by Azariah de Rossi—that the question of the Messiah is not of that
dogmatic importance to the Jews that Christians imagine. For even if Jews
supposed their sins to be so great that they forfeited all the promises
made to them in the Scriptures, or that, on some hidden ground, it would
please the Almighty never to restore their national independence, this
would in no way alter the obligations of Jews towards the Torah. Nor is
the coming of the Messiah desired by Jews as an end in itself. For it is
not the goal of their hopes that they shall be able again to eat of the
fruit of Palestine, or enjoy other pleasures there; not even the chance of
the restoration of sacrifices and the worship of the Temple is the
greatest of Jewish expectations (connected with the appearance of the
Messiah). What makes them long for his coming is the hope that they will
then witness, in the company of the prophets and priests, a greater spread
of purity and holiness than is now possible. In other words, the
possibility for them to live a holy life after the will of God will be
greater than now. But, on the other hand, considering that such a godly
life under a Christian government requires greater sacrifices than it
would under a Jewish king; and, considering again that the merits and
rewards of a good act increase with the obstacles that are in the way of
executing it—considering this, a Jew might even prefer to live under the
King of Aragon than under the Messiah, where he would perforce act in
accordance with the precepts of the Torah.
Now there is in this statement much that has only to be looked upon as a
compliment to the government of Spain. I am inclined to think that if the
alternative laid before Nachmanides had been a really practical one, he
would have decided in favour of the clement rule of the Messiah in
preference to that of the most cruel king on earth. But the fact that he
repeats this statement in another place, where there was no occasion to be
over polite to the Government, tends to show, as we have said, that the
belief in the Messiah was not the basis on which Nachmanides’ religion was
built up.
The result of the controversy is contested by the different parties; the
Christian writers claim the victory for Pablo, whilst the Jewish documents
maintain that the issue was with Nachmanides. In any case, “_Der Jude wird
verbrannt_.” For in the next year (1264) all the books of the Jews in
Aragon were confiscated and submitted to the censorship of a commission,
of which the well‐known author of the _Pugio Fidei_, Raymund Martini, was,
perhaps, the most important member. The books were not burned this time,
but had to suffer a severe mutilation; the anti‐Christian passages, or
such as were supposed to be so, were struck out or obliterated.
Nachmanides’ account of the controversy, which he probably published from
a sense of duty towards those whom he represented, was declared to contain
blasphemies against the dominant religion. The pamphlet was condemned to
be burned publicly, whilst the author was, as it seems, punished with
expulsion from his country. It is not reported where Nachmanides found a
home during the next three years; probably he had to accept the
hospitality of his friends, either in Castile or in the south of France;
but we know that in the year 1267 he left Europe and emigrated to
Palestine.
Nachmanides was, at this juncture of his life, already a man of about
seventy. But it would seem as if the seven decades which he had spent in
the Spanish Peninsula were only meant as a preparation for the three years
which he was destined to live in the Holy Land, for it was during this
stage of his life that the greatest part of his _Commentary on the
Pentateuch_ was written. In this work, as is agreed on all sides, his
finest thoughts and noblest sentiments were put down.
Before proceeding to speak of his works, let us first cast a glance at his
letters from Palestine, forming as they do a certain link between his
former life and that which was to occupy him exclusively for the rest of
his days. We have three letters, the first of which I shall translate here
_in extenso_.
The letter was written soon after his arrival at Jerusalem in the year
1267. It was addressed to his son Nachman, and runs as follows:—
“The Lord shall bless thee, my son Nachman, and thou shalt see the
good of Jerusalem. Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children
(Ps. cxxviii.), and thy table shall be like that of our father
Abraham!(75) In Jerusalem, the Holy City, I write this letter.
For, thanks and praise unto the rock of my salvation, I was
thought worthy by God to arrive here safely on the 9th of the
month of Elul, and I remained there till the day after the Day of
Atonement. Now I intend going to Hebron, to the sepulchre of our
ancestors, to prostrate myself, and there to dig my grave. But
what am I to say to you with regard to the country? Great is the
solitude and great the wastes, and, to characterise it in short,
the more sacred the places, the greater their desolation!
Jerusalem is more desolate than the rest of the country: Judæa
more than Galilee. But even in this destruction it is a blessed
land. It has about 2000 inhabitants, about 300 Christians live
there who escaped the sword of the Sultan. There are no Jews. For
since the arrival of the Tartars, some fled, others died by the
sword. There are only two brothers, dyers by trade, who have to
buy their ingredients from the government. There the Ten Men(76)
meet, and on Sabbaths they hold service at their house. But we
encouraged them, and we succeeded in finding a vacant house, built
on pillars of marble with a beautiful arch. That we took for a
synagogue. For the town is without a master, and whoever will take
possession of the ruins can do so. We gave our offerings towards
the repairs of the house. We have sent already to Shechem to fetch
some scrolls of the Law from there which had been brought thither
from Jerusalem at the invasion of the Tartars. Thus they will
organise a synagogue and worship there. For continually people
crowd to Jerusalem, men and women, from Damascus, Zobah
(Aleppo),(77) and from all parts of the country to see the
Sanctuary and to mourn over it. He who thought us worthy to let us
see Jerusalem in her desertion, he shall bless us to behold her
again, built and restored, when the glory of the Lord will return
unto her. But you, my son, and your brothers and the whole of our
family, you all shall live to see the salvation of Jerusalem and
the comfort of Zion. These are the words of your father who is
yearning and forgetting, who is seeing and enjoying, Moses ben
Nachman. Give also my peace to my pupil Moses, the son of Solomon,
the nephew of your mother. I wish to tell him ... that there,
facing the holy temple, I have read his verses, weeping bitterly
over them. May he who caused his name to rest in the Holy Temple
increase your peace together with the peace of the whole
community.”
This letter may be illustrated by a few parallels taken from the appendix
to Nachmanides’ _Commentary to the Pentateuch_, which contains some rather
incoherent notes which the author seems to have jotted down when he
arrived in Jerusalem. After a lengthy account of the material as well as
the spiritual glories of the holy city in the past, he proceeds to say:—
“A mournful sight I have perceived in thee (Jerusalem); only one
Jew is here, a dyer, persecuted, oppressed and despised. At his
house gather great and small when they can get the Ten Men. They
are wretched folk, without occupation and trade, consisting of a
few pilgrims and beggars, though the fruit of the land is still
magnificent and the harvests rich. Indeed, it is still a blessed
country, flowing with milk and honey.... Oh! I am the man who saw
affliction. I am banished from my table, far removed from friend
and kinsman, and too long is the distance to meet again.... I left
my family, I forsook my house. There with my sons and daughters,
and with the sweet and dear children whom I have brought up on my
knees, I left also my soul. My heart and my eyes will dwell with
them for ever.... But the loss of all this and of every other
glory my eyes saw is compensated by having now the joy of being a
day in thy courts (O Jerusalem), visiting the ruins of the Temple
and crying over the ruined Sanctuary; where I am permitted to
caress thy stones, to fondle thy dust, and to weep over thy ruins.
I wept bitterly, but I found joy in my tears. I tore my garments,
but I felt relieved by it.”
Of some later date is his letter from Acra, which may be considered as a
sort of ethical will, and which has been justly characterised as a eulogy
of humility. Here is an extract from it:—
“Accustom yourself to speak gently to all men at all times, and
thus you will avoid anger, which leads to so much sin.... Humility
is the first of virtues; for if you think how lowly is man, how
great is God, you will fear Him and avoid sinfulness. On the
humble man rests the divine glory; the man that is haughty to
others denies God. Look not boldly at one whom you address....
Regard every one as greater than thyself.... Remember always that
you stand before God, both when you pray and when you converse
with others.... Think before you speak.... Act as I have bidden
you, and your words, and deeds, and thoughts, will be honest, and
your prayers pure and acceptable before God.”
The third letter is addressed to his son (R. Solomon?) who was staying (in
the service of the king) in Castile. It is in its chief content a eulogy
of chastity.(78) Probably Nachmanides had some dread of the dangerous
allurements of the court, and he begs his son never to do anything of
which he knows that his father would not approve, and to keep his father’s
image always before his eyes.
As to his works, we may divide them into two classes. The one would
contain those of a strictly legalistic (Halachic), whilst the other those
of a more homiletic‐exegetical and devotional character (Agadic). As
already indicated in the preliminary lines of this paper, I cannot dwell
long on the former class of our author’s writings. It consists either of
Glosses or Novellæ to the Talmud, in the style and manner of the French
Rabbis, or of Compendia of certain parts of the Law after the model set by
R. Isaac Alfasi or Maimonides, or in defences of the “Earlier Authorities”
against the strictures made on them by a later generation. A few words
must be said with regard to these defences; for they reveal that deep
respect for authority which forms a special feature of Nachmanides’
writings. His _Wars of the Lord_, in which he defends Alfasi against R.
Zerahiah of Gerona, was undertaken when he was very young, whilst his
defence of the author of the _Halachoth Gedoloth_(79) against the attacks
of Maimonides, which he began at a much more mature age, shows the same
deference “to the great ones of the past.” Indeed, he says in one place,
“We bow before them (the earlier authorities), and though their words are
not quite evident to us we submit to them”; or, as he expresses himself
elsewhere, “Only he who dips (deeply enough) in the wisdom of the ‘ancient
ones’ will drink the pure (old) wine.” But it would be unjust to the
genius of Nachmanides to represent him as a blind worshipper of authority.
Humble and generous in disposition, he certainly would bow before every
recognised authority, and he would also think it his duty to take up the
cudgels for him as long as there was even the least chance of making an
honourable defence. But when this chance had gone, when Nachmanides was
fully convinced that his hero was in the wrong, he followed no guide but
truth. “Notwithstanding,” he says in his introduction to the defences of
the _Halachoth Gedoloth_, “my desire and delight to be the disciple of the
Earlier Authorities, to maintain their views and to assert them, I do not
consider myself a ‘donkey carrying books.’ I will explain their way and
appreciate their value, but when their views are inconceivable to my
thoughts, I will plead in all modesty, but shall judge according to the
sight of my eyes. And when the meaning is clear I shall flatter none, for
the Lord gives wisdom in all times and ages.” But, on the other hand,
there seems to have been a certain sort of literary agnosticism about
Nachmanides which made it very difficult for him to find the “clear
meaning.” The passage in the _Wars of the Lord_ to the effect “that there
is in the art (of commenting) no such certain demonstration as in
mathematics or astronomy,” is well known and has often been quoted; but
still more characteristic of this literary agnosticism is the first
paragraph of the above‐mentioned defences of the _Halachoth Gedoloth_.
Whilst all his predecessors accepted, on the authority of R. Simlai,(80)
the number (613) of the commandments as an uncontested fact, and based
their compositions on it, Nachmanides questions the whole matter, and
shows that the passages relating to this enumeration of laws are only of a
homiletical nature, and thus of little consequence. Nay, he goes so far as
to say, “Indeed the system how to number the commandments is a matter in
which I suspect all of us (are mistaken) and the truth must be left to him
who will solve all doubts.” We should thus be inclined to think that this
adherence to the words of the earlier Authorities was at least as much due
to this critical scepticism as to his conservative tendencies.