Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah and its relationship to the Guide: The Young Moses

The Commentary on the Mishnah (not to be confused with the Mishneh Torah) is one of the Rambam’s earliest extant works, and was completed in the year 1168 when he was 33 years old. Unlike the Mishneh Torah, the Commentary on the Mishnah was written in Arabic, and titled Kitab al-Siraj; however, the book appears to have survived into modern times chiefly in Hebrew translations, sometimes of individual Mishnah tractates. In either language, the book appears to have been known by a similar name; sefer haMoar in Hebrew and kitab al-Siraj in Arabic. It is notable that the Commentary, targeted to a Jewish readership, and intended to popularize the Talmud amongst the reading-public of the day, was written in Arabic (in Hebrew characters), unlike Maimonides’ later more well-known religious work, the Mishneh Torah, which was written in Hebrew.

The Commentary on the Mishnah (CM) has never been translated fully into English; pieces of this work have individually made their way into some collections of Maimonides’ writings, but the entire work remains accessible only in Hebrew; it is unclear whether the Arabic text is extant. Here, English-language excerpts are taken from Fred Rosner, Moses Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah: Introduction to Seder Zeraim and Commentary on Tractate Berachot, Feldheim Publishers, New York (1975). There is also a translation by Rabbi Francis Nataf, which is available on Sefaria.

In this essay, I would like to highlight how the CM relates to the GP, in some ways prefiguring the later work and in other ways standing in sharp contrast to it. Thus, the CM may offer us some clues in understanding what we can perhaps call ‘the Young Moses (ben Maimon)’.

Prophecy in the Commentary on the Mishnah (p. 47 to 62)

The CM is the site of Maimonides’ well-known promise to one day write a “book about Prophecy”; it is often believed that the Guide is that book, since Prophecy is one of its chief subjects. In the CM, Maimonides writes:

There are many additional details regarding the subject (of prophecy), and it is impossible to collect them all together (here). Discussions thereon and proof for each one are to be found in verses of the books of the Torah and in the words of the Prophets. This whole subject would require an entire book in itself. Perhaps God will help us in compiling what is appropriate in a book on that subject. (p.50)

However, Maimonides’ approach to prophecy in the CM appears to be somewhat different from his approach in the Guide. In the former work, he is more concerned with establishing criteria for how to determine, objectively, whether a claimant to prophethood is a true prophet. How does one distinguish between a true prophet and a false one? Well, among other things, he appears to place a great deal of emphasis on the predictions that a true Prophet makes.

Should now the prophet be eligible to prophesy, then we tell him to provide us assurance by means of specific predictions, and to tell us things which the Holy One Blessed Be He taught him. He will then relate this to us and reassure as and, should all his predictions become fulfilled, then we will know that his entire prophecy is true. Should he falsify, though, or should one of his statements, even a minor point, be unsustained, then we will know he is a false prophet.

Immediately afterward, he acknowledges that this could cause a problem: the world is full of “enchanters, astrologers and spiritualists” who make prognostications, and “since we often observe them, eye to eye, predicting what the future will bring”, one could ask why they, too, could not be considered legitimate prophets. Although he is sharp in his identification of this problem, his solution is (خاکم بدہن) somewhat lacklustre. He states:

I say that the enchanters, astrologers, and other people in that category do predict common future happenings, but only some (of the predictions) will be right and some will be wrong, of necessity. This we see constantly, and even the performers of such an art will agree to this, and they would not gainsay their own signs. … And the predictions and the proofs of the prophets are not like this, but [rather] everything is realized to the last word, and not one of their words fails – not a small one and not a large one – for all time, in that which he speaks about in the name of God. And therefore, if one of his words [ends up being] empty, we know his untruth; and that is what it stated (II Kings 10:10), “nothing that the Lord has spoken […] shall fall to the ground.” Sefaria

Therefore, astonishingly for a reader of the Guide, Maimonides appears to hinge the whole prophetic enterprise on, well, correct and fully-realized prophecies about the future. Thus, according to the Rambam in the CM, a prophet whose predictions do not turn out correctly is a false prophet.

Next, the Rambam further qualifies this claim by differentiating between ‘good’ predictions and ‘bad’ predictions, i.e., predictions about good events vs. predictions about bad events.

  • If a prophet prophecies calamities on his people, it is possible that “Heaven will have compassion, and all their affairs will remain in peace and contentment. One cannot, in this manner, know the untruth of such a prophet.”
  • If a prophet promises unconditional good tidings to his people, “then for this good not to become fulfilled is impossible and cannot be.”

It should not be surprising that the Commentary on the Mishnah lacks any of the Neoplatonic language of the Guide’s description of prophecy. In that work, Maimonides clearly describes Prophecy in terms of an emanation. However, the Commentary on the Mishnah is meant to be a layman’s book, and has a more religious character, so it makes sense that it would avoid the philosophical terminology found in the Guide.

What is surprising, however, is that the Guide lacks any mention of the clairvoyance of a prophet as having any bearing on the truth of his prophecy. Here are some possible options.

  • Maimonides changed his mind between the writing of the Commentary on the Mishnah and the writing of the Guide. The former was completed by 1168, whereas the latter was completed in 1204. Certainly that’s a long enough time for a serious thinker to change his mind.
  • The two books are written for different audiences; he considers the clairvoyance test to be a sufficient criterion when teaching the lay Jewish audience, but reserves the more sophisticated understanding of prophecy for his beloved student and others like him.
  • The Straussian interpretation here would be that Maimonides himself believed in the Neoplatonized account of prophecy, but he promulgated the CM’s account of prophecy as a form of ‘dissimulation’.

On prophecy and reason

Maimonides does not see the prophets as sources of truth regarding matters of reason. This mirrors Spinoza’s attitude toward the Prophets.

If a prophet should argue an opinion, and similarly if a non-prophet should reason (a differing opinion), and if the prophet should say “The Holy One Blessed be He told me that my conclusion is the correct one”, one should not listen to him. Even if a thousand prophets, all of the satature of Elijah or Elisha would hold one opinion, and one thousand and one Sages would hold the opposite opinion, one must follow the majority, and the final ruling is in accordance with the one thousand and one Sages, and not in accordance with the one thousand honored prophets. (p. 61)

Of course, Maimonides does see the prophets as carrying authority in terms of their ability to communicate the will of God; on this matter, Spinoza and Maimonides do not agree, since Spinoza views the Law as binding only on the People of Israel in the time when they lived together as a nation.

One passage in the Commentary lays Maimonides’ thoughts on this problem bare. In Fred Rosner’s translation, this passage appears on page 62:

The Holy One Blessed be He did not permit us to learn from prophets; rather from the Sages, people of deductive reasoning and knowledgable views. It is not written “And thou shalt come to the prophet that shall be in those days”; thather And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites and unto the Judge that shall be in those days Deuteronomy 17.9.

In the translation available on Sefaria, we have

And we have not been permitted to learn from the prophets, but rather from the sages, the men of reasoning and discernment. It did not say, “and you shall come to the prophet who will be at that time, but rather (Deuteronomy 17:9) “and you shall come to the Levite priests, or the judge.”

It will be interesting to see what words were used for “reasoning” and “discernment” in the original Arabic.

Telos in the Commentary on the Mishnah

In the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides states GP III.13:

Some hold that … the Universe was only created for the sake of man’s existence, that he might serve God. Everything that is done they believe is done for man’s sake; even the spheres move only for his benefit. … On examining this opinion as intelligent persons ought to examine all different opinions, we shall discover the errors it includes.

But in the Commentary on the Mishnah, we find (p. 121)

However, in general, one must note that all things that exist under the lunar sphere exist for man alone. … Now when it is realized that the purpose of all these plants and animals is for the survival of man, then one is led to investigate why man exists, and what was the intent behind his creation.

Then, speaking of the final cause of man, he says:

The other skills (man possesses) serve only the purpose of assuring his survival, to insure (the fulfillment of) that one activity. This (cardinal) activity is the following: to grasp in his mind the secrets of the fundamental truths, and to understand the verities (in life) according to his ability.

What are these “verities”? (Rosner does not give the Arabic word)

The prime verity to grasp is the Unity of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and all that pertains to that Divine matter. Other verities [footnote: sciences] serve only to exercise one toward the attainment of Divine knowledge.

This leads us to a grand telos for the entire universe:

It seems clear from these introductory remarks that the purpose of this world, and all that is contained therein, is (to help make) a wise and good man.

What about all the people in this world who do not apply themselves to the fundamental truths and do not attain wisdom? Well, the other human beings were made for the purpose of the realization of such a perfect human or humans. For Maimonides recognizes that society is a necessary prerequisite of achieiving human perfection; no man is an island. The Platonic elitism practically drips from his words, as he says things like “the masses were created to provide company for the wise, so that the latter not remain desolate. You may consider this to be of small value, but it still is necessary…”

It may be possible to reconcile the two accounts of the Universe’s telos given in the Guide and in the CM, but it does seem that Maimonides’ thoughts on this question evolved between the writing of these two works.

A memorable passage from the Commentary on the Mishnah

I will use Fred Rosner’s translation, p. 128

How well was it stated: “were it not for madness, the world would be desolate”. For there is no folly in the world comparable to the folly of man. For man has a feeble soul and a weak constitution; yet he travels from the beginning of the second region of the serven inhabitable districts until the end of the sixth. He traverses oceans in the winter, and travels through lands of drought in both drought and summer. He endangers himself (by exposure to) beasts of the field and reptiles in order to increase his wealth. [the Hebrew text has dinarim (דינרים) When he has assembled a minute quantity of gold coins for which he sold his three souls* , and, if he wishes to enjoy them, he commences to distribute them to laborers to build for him a foundation in the depths of the earth with lime and stones, in order to construct a wall to last for many years. Yet he knows that there do not remain in his lifetime enough years to even survive a structure made of reeds. Is there a greater folly or lunacy than this? Similarly, all the delights of the world are complete mockery and madness. However, (at the same time) they are a factor for the settlement of the functioning world.

اس میں کچھ شائبۂ خوبیِ تقدیر بھی تھا