How to interpret the work of the towering Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides was the subject of a great debate between two of the 20th century’s foremost Jewish scholars: the political theorist Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago, and the medievalist (and hasidic rebbe) Isadore Twersky of Harvard. In this fascinating analysis, Warren Zev Harvey outlines the terms of the debate and makes the case for why Twersky was right:
Leo Strauss . . . presumed an irreparable conflict between Maimonides the rabbi and Maimonides the philosopher, and concluded that the true Maimonides was Maimonides the philosopher. [By contrast, the Israeli philosopher] Yeshayahu Leibowitz . . . agreed with Strauss that there is an irreparable conflict between Maimonides the rabbi and Maimonides the philosopher, but concluded, contrary to Strauss, that the true Maimonides was Maimonides the rabbi.
Twersky, Harvey explains, rejected both approaches, as well as the “supposedly uncontroversial position of most of the Maimonidean scholars at the time, who spoke of Maimonides’ having made a ‘synthesis’ of Judaism and philosophy.”
The key word to understanding Twersky’s approach is “integration.” “Integration” and “synthesis” are not synonyms. In a synthesis, the thesis and antithesis are replaced by something new, the synthesis. The synthesis supersedes the thesis and the antithesis, rendering them both anachronistic. The synthesis of black and white is: gray. In an integration, however, all elements remain true to themselves. Black remains black, white remains white.
Maimonides, Twersky insisted, did not compromise halakhah for philosophy or philosophy for halakhah. His goal was not to turn black and white into gray. His Maimonides was committed uncompromisingly to Jewish law, that is, halakhah; but he was simultaneously committed uncompromisingly to Reason, that is, philosophy.
Read more on Tablet: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/one-maimonides-or-two