Interview with Rabbi Moshe Maimon About his Edition of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s Peirush on Chumash

By Eliezer Brodt

Last year I wrote:

The second volume of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s peirush on Chumash Shemot was released (832 pp.). This new edition was edited by Rabbi Moshe Maimon and was published in a beautiful edition by Machon Aleh Zayis. Last year, Rabbi Maimon published the first volume (678 pp.) I hope to publish very shortly, on the Seforim Blog, an interview with the author where he describes in greater depth his work on R. Avraham b. HaRambam, and his new edition of the Peirush.

The following interview with Rabbi Maimon is the fulfillment of the that promise.  I would like to note that from time to time, I hope to include interviews of this nature with authors and publishers of books on the Seforim Blog.

A few weeks ago, the second slightly updated version of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s Peirush on Chumash Bereishis was published. [If you want a PDF of the updates, email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.co]

Eliezer: Rabbi Maimon, can you briefly tell us a bit about yourself?

Rabbi Maimon : I was born in Monsey to a rabbinic family with Turkish-Sephardic roots that claims ancestry to the Rambam. After marriage to my wife Dena (nee Elbaz) of Cleveland OH, I settled in Lakewood where I learned and taught in BMG for many years. I currently reside with my wife and children in Jackson NJ, which may be the fastest growing Jewish community outside of Lakewood. I’m employed as the eleventh grade Rebbi in Yeshiva High School of Monsey, NY.  Being a lifelong bibliophile drew me into professions such as teaching Holocaust and Jewish history classes in different yeshivahs, and consulting auction houses on antique sefarim and manuscripts. I also spend many hours a week editing and publishing various of works of Torah scholarship.

Eliezer: Can you give readers a brief profile of R. Avraham b. HaRambam?

Rabbi Maimon: Rabbenu Avraham was the Rambam’s only son, and the Rambam took great pride in him, extolling his virtues and predicting that one day R. Avraham would take his place among the Torah greats of the nation. R. Avraham was only 19 years old when his father passed away, yet his father’s careful tutelage had already prepared him to assume the Rambam’s mantle of leadership. He was immediately recognized as his father’s able successor in every endeavor – including holding the position of senior physician to the Sultan. By the time of his untimely passing at the age of 51, R. Avraham had left behind a number of original works, as well as various works dedicated to elucidating his father’s legacy.

Eliezer: What makes this peirush unique?

Rabbi Maimon: The Rambam wrote many works, covering all aspects of Torah sheba’al peh. Yet, he never wrote on Torah shebichtav (the work attributed to him on Megillat Esther is more than likely spurious; it is reminiscent of other Judeo-Arabic Midrashic compendiums that were popularly, if falsely, attributed to the Rambam’s school). True, his voluminous writings contain many rich insights from which various commentarial compendiums have been culled. But scholars have long recognized the dearth of a systematic exposition of the Chumash according to the Geonic pshat system informed by the Rambam’s sparkling ethical and philosophical system. Rabbenu Avraham’s peirush, hewn from the almost forgotten Geonic and Andalusian sources and permeated entirely with the spirit of the Rambam’s original thought, fills this void perfectly.

Eliezer:  What was his Relationship with His father, the Rambam?

Rabbi Maimon: The Rambam’s influence on the Peirush is readily apparent from even a cursory acquaintance with it. Besides for the various peirushim that R. Avraham cites in his father’s name, and the many references to his father’s works, numerous individual peirushim are presented in obvious accordance with the Rambam’s shittah (such as the assertion that Yaakov’s encounter with the malach occurred in a dream). Yet, a closer look at the Peirush reveals that the Rambam’s influence on the Peirush is actually all encompassing. It is present in the way R. Avraham references various pesukim in Tanach, in his penchant for citing ma’amarei Chazal, his usage of Hebrew, as well as Judeo-Arabic phrases, and even his distinctive spelling of various words (such as ירושלם). Throughout R. Avraham’s works, the influence of his father is always present.

Eliezer: Any favorite pieces or themes to which you would like to draw readers’ attention?

Rabbi Maimon: One of the very unique features of R. Avraham peirush, which has almost no parallel in the writings of Rishonim, and was only popularized in recent generation through the Alter of Slabodka, is the view that the various individuals in Tanach whom we view as evil in accordance with their depiction in Midrashim, were actually not entirely wicked. According to this opinion, Eisav, Yishmael, Lot, Lavan, and even Korach and his cadre, all possessed higher spiritual capacities and inclinations that at times straddled the boundaries between good and evil. In line with this approach, R. Avraham asserts that the generation that left Egypt, with all their seeming lapses in the midbar, was a generation of tzadikim, whose spiritual level we can hardly conceive of. They alone are referred to as tzivot Hashem by the Torah; no other generation was ever given this appellation, no other compares to them.

In addition, Rabbenu Avraham’s sefarim opened a window for me to a fascinating but little-known world. I found them to be both illuminating and inspirational, full of his original insights and interpretations, and packed with penetrating mussar and exhortations to embrace a rational, yet mystical, form of chassidus.

Rabbenu Avraham’s oeuvre is also a thoroughly Maimonidean work, and through him one can gain a deep and comprehensive appreciation for the Rambam’s weltanschauung.

Eliezer: Are there any Halacha pieces in this work?

Rabbi Maimon: Many insights into R. Avraham’s halachic approach can be gleaned from the peirush, and this is even true of peirushim on the non-legal aspects of Chumash. Parshat Mishpatim in particular is replete with examples of R. Avraham’s pshat-based understanding of the Halacha, whereby he insists that the simple reading of a passuk be understood as binding to the extent that the rabbinic interpretation can accommodate it. As such, R. Avraham understands that the verse, “thou shall stay far away from falsehood,” is not merely an injunction about perjury in court, as it has been codified by the basic commentators, but also contains a basic admonition for anyone not to lie. There are many examples of this unique approach; I have expanded on this topic in the introduction to volume one.

Eliezer: As is evident from your work and notes, you compared him to other Rishonim, so how would you characterize R. Avraham’s peirush in terms of his comparison to other mefarshim?

Rabbi Maimon: In many respects, R. Avraham is certainly from the rodfei hapshat, to use a term the Ramban coined for the likes of the Ibn Ezra who always prefer the pshat of passuk over the allegorical commentaries proffered by midrashim and preferred by Rashi. Yet, R. Avraham also places a strong emphasis on the underlying intent of Torah’s narrative sections that teach moral and ethical imperatives, as well as the underlying intent of the legalistic sections, often couched in the rational basis for these sections (more on this introduction to the current volume). This synthesis can be found to some extent among other mefarshim like the Ralbag, and even the Ramban on some level, though the commentary of Radak to Bereshit is probably the most similar to that of R. Avraham.

Eliezer: Would you call him a mechadesh? What makes him unique?

Rabbi Maimon: Rabbenu Avraham’s close read and extreme common sense leads him to ask many original questions, and to offer many original interpretations. In some cases he anticipated explanations only offered centuries later by the acharonim, such as the Malbim and the Netziv, and in some cases he is the only source for his original explanations. A good sample of his original interpretations can be found in R. Sholom Spitz’ index of original peirushim appended at the end of each volume.

It must also be noted that the peirush is an invaluable repository for interpretations from his predecessors that would otherwise be lost to posterity. These include many peirushim from R. Saadia and R. Shmuel b. Chofni Gaon and a good number of peirushim quoted by R. Avraham in the name of his Grandfather, R. Maimon ha-Dayyan.

Eliezer: In light of your extensive seven plus years “immersed” in the world of RABH, do you have any thoughts or comments on his famous essay on Aggadah, especially in regard to his views about Chazal and science. More specifically, do you think that it’s a forgery as some have claimed, at the height of some controversies a few years back? Or you think the views expressed in this essay on Aggadah are consistent with his work on Torah?

Rabbi Maimon: In my separate work on that Essay on Aggadah, I endeavored to demonstrate conclusively that Rabbenu Avraham’s statements in the Essay are perfectly in line with the views of the Geonic-Andalasuian Beit Medrash. This is the school of thought espoused by R. Saadia Gaon and his followers through the era of the Kadmonim, who thrived in Muslim Spain until the middle of the 12th century when the Rambam and his family were force to flee. Rabbenu Avraham is a prominent example of this school of thought, and we find ample expression in the works of the Rambam and R. Saadia Gaon among others as well. The claim that some of these statements constitute a Maskilic forgery is ill-informed in my opinion. It is based on the notion that the ideas expressed in the essay are controversial and were created by Maskilim. However, once we realize that these ideas were the accepted norm in the Beit Medrash in which R. Avraham was reared, it becomes quite clear that there is nothing particularly controversial in R. Avraham’s presentation.

The decline of the Judeo-Arabic world caused much of the important works of the Geonic-Andalusian school to go lost. Additionally, the spread of Kabbalah and the influence of the Arizal were very influential in giving rise to a perspective contrary to the one expressed by R. Avraham, with the result that many people today are not aware that R. Avraham’s viewpoint ever held sway.

Yet, even if today we follow a different perspective, that should not mean that we must deny that previously it was Rabbenu Avraham’s perspective that ruled the day. I feel, and this is how I was taught by my rebbis, that our awe of the Rishonim and our fealty to them requires that we study their words and endeavor to understand them, even if we do not subscribe to aspects of their particular viewpoints. As my father writes in his beautiful introduction to the volume on Shemot, this was the way of Beit Hillel who would ponder the opposing views of Beis Shammai before declaring their own, and in fact, this is the very reason why we follow Beit Hillel.

The views in the essay are evident in the Peirush as well, even if they are not prominently featured due to the different nature of the work. For example, in Bereishit, R. Avraham speaks of the sciences as a body of accumulated knowledge, amassed over the generations. This fits well with his stated view in the Essay that the scientific knowledge of Chazal was of the sort that was available to savants at that time, and was not a separate branch of wisdom received by oral tradition from on High.

More importantly, throughout the Peirush, it is clear that R. Avraham’s approach to Aggadah is consistent with his statements in the Essay that Aggadic statements of individual members of Chazal were their own stated opinions and were not part of the authoritative oral tradition of Torah shebaal peh.

Eliezer: How long ago did you begin working on this project?

Rabbi Maimon: Already as a teenager, I was drawn to the Peirush of Rabbenu Avraham and began studying it then to the best of my abilities, though many times I found the Peirush too much to handle and I could not make much sense of it. The impetus to undertake the project of re-issuing it in a new edition came during a moment of inspiration one Rosh Hashanah, about seven years ago.

Eliezer: How did you, a Yeshivish-trained scholar get into this field of study in the first place?

Rabbi Maimon: At first, I thought I would just re-issue the Peirush, newly typeset and punctuated with little intrusion into the text and accompanied only by small marginal commentary. Yet, the more I got into the project, the more invested I became, and each subsequent recension saw the Peirush growing exponentially in terms of elucidation of the text in the notes, and also in terms of improving the translation, where I felt that doing so would enhance readability and comprehensibility.

Eliezer: Were you able to use Friedberg genizah in the course of your work?

Rabbi Maimon: The Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society (https://fjms.genizah.org/) has been an indispensable resource for me. I have made frequent use of all its resources, and I feel my work has been immeasurably enhanced as a result. The Genizah portal was key in locating as of yet unpublished fragments of Sefer Hamaspik which were useful in elucidating corresponding passages in the Peirush, and the Judeo-Arabic corpus portal was especially crucial in establishing accurate translations for many of R. Avraham’s unique usages of Judeo-Arabic phrases.

Eliezer: Did you find any new passages of the Peirush?

Rabbi Maimon: To date, no corresponding fragments to the Peirush have been found in the Genizah, which lends credence to my contention in the foreword to Volume One that the Peirush was never disseminated. It appears that a lone manuscript (likely an autograph) made its way to Aleppo with R. David Ha-Naggid II, a fifth-generation descendant of R. Avraham, where it was copied over into what is today the sole surviving manuscript of the Peirush. Yet, in two instances I have located fragments of Hamaspik which contain references to the Peirush (incidentally, this was significant on its own because it helped shed light on the ongoing editing process of Hamaspik, which I detailed in the introduction to Volume One). In one of these instances, the reference pertains to a portion of Parshat Bereshit that is missing from our manuscript. I translated this piece and appended it to my addition. Other genizah fragments that were significant are transcribed in the notes where relevant. I shared my discovery of another one of the relevant Genizah fragment from Sefer Hamaspik with Prof. Friedman who was able to use it for an article of his that was recently published (see here).

Eliezer: What challenges were involved in translating the work from Arabic?

Rabbi Maimon: First, it was mostly troubleshooting. Anytime I felt that the language was cumbersome or obscure, I would attempt to re-translate key phrases to improve the flow and make it more understandable. At the same time, I would mine the publications of key Judeo-Arabic experts such as Professors Blau Friedman and Ilan for their observations regarding R. Avraham’s use of difference phrases. As I developed an appreciation and understanding of R. Avraham’s individual “flavor” in his language and syntax, I began to highlight his consistency in the usage of various terms and phrases in specific contexts, which was sometimes lost in the original translation. In all these cases I carefully noted the correction in the notes, typically with a brief explanation for the change.

Eliezer: Can you describe in short, your goal in your comments to the work?

Rabbi Maimon: My notes focus on all the aforementioned qualities for the Peirush. Basic sources have been incorporated into the text, but where some expansion was needed, I moved the discussion to the footnotes. <The rest of this response is detailed at length in the Overview>

Eliezer: Who did you consult while working on this project?

Rabbi Maimon: In the course of my work, I reached out to talmidei chachamim and experts from across the spectrum, and I have been careful to credit them all wherever appropriate. Professors Mordechai Akiva Freidman and Nahem Ilan, both of whom have spent years of research into the writings of Rabbenu Avraham, were particularly helpful in assisting with specific issues related to various translations I was working on. Rabbis Yaakov Wincelberg of Miami and Yehuda Zevald of Bnei Braq, both talmidei chachamim with ample experience in the Judeo-Arabic writings of the Rambam and Rabbenu Avraham, were helpful in this regard as well.

Rav Sholom Spitz, Rosh Yeshivah of Sha’ar HaTorah of Queens was quite gracious in sharing his personal notes on the Peirush and elucidating them when necessary, and I have incorporated these into my own notes with proper attribution.

In general, I have consulted a wide variety of published scholarship pertaining to research into Rabbenu Avraham’s writings, and I have referenced their contribution to my work, in accordance with the Rambam’s own dictum to accept truth regardless of its source.

Readers may also find Rabbi Maimon’s interview on The Seforim Chatter Podcast (here) interesting, and a nice review of Rabbi Maimon’s edition has recently appeared in the Fall issue of Jewish Review of Books here.

Purchasing information:

Email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for parts of the introduction and some sample pages of this special new work.

Copies are available for purchase at Biegeleisen (Brooklyn), Judaica Plaza (Lakewood), Tuvia’s (Monsey) as well as through many other fine retailers.

On can also purchase it online (or in person) through Mizrahi Book Store at this link.

To purchase a copy in Eretz Yisrael, contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com