Introduction

MOSES MAIMONIDES (1138–1204) expressed a vision of Judaism as a remarkably naturalist religion of radical responsibility. His Judaism is a religion in which concrete behaviour serves the needs of abstract thought; that abstract thought is the deepest layer of the Torah and, at least in Maimonides’ day, could be most clearly and accurately expressed in the vocabulary of the Neoplatonized Aristotelianism which Maimonides accepted as one of the highest expressions of the human spirit. This Judaism was simultaneously deeply elitist and profoundly universalist. Maimonides crystallized and expressed his vision of Judaism because the Jewish world in his day was, in his view, debased and paganized.

In terms of his contribution to the Jewish tradition, Maimonides may be fairly characterized as one of the most influential Jews who ever lived. Aside from the first Moses and Rabbi Judah the Prince, it is hard to think of any individual whose career had such a dramatic influence on the history of Judaism as a body of laws and traditions. His law code, the Mishneh torah, had a profoundly ‘democratizing’ effect upon Judaism (giving direct and relatively easy access to the entire body of Jewish law to anyone who could read the extremely clear Hebrew in which the book was written), and made possible the composition of subsequent codes, preeminently the Shulḥan arukh of Joseph Karo (1488–1575). As a philosopher, Maimonides’ closest competitor for prominence is Judah Halevi (d. 1141), but Maimonides has been influential in all generations and in all circles, whereas Halevi's influence, while very deep in certain sectors, was barely felt in others, and was certainly intermittent. If we consider Maimonides the halakhist and Maimonides the philosopher as one individual (as we should), then the oft-repeated saying, ‘from Moses to Moses there arose none like Moses’, looks less like popular hagiographa and more like a restrained evaluation of the facts.

However, despite this, not long after his death a composition appeared which, for contrary impact and influence in the realms of thought and practice, can be seen as a worthy competitor to the works of Maimonides. I refer, of course, to the Zohar.