The sentence of excommunication, the proscription of science, and the defamation of Maimuni, excited the violent indignation of his admirers. It seemed to them unheard-of audacity, unparalleled impudence. The three chief congregations of Provence, Lünel, Béziers, and Narbonne, in which the Maimunists were in power, rose against this presumption of the Obscurantists, and on their side excommunicated Solomon and his two disciples, and hastened to urge the other congregations of Provence to unite in rescuing the honor of the great Moses. In Montpellier the congregation was divided into two parties; whilst the ignorant multitude remained by their rabbi, the learned renounced their allegiance, and violent frays between them were not infrequent. The flame of discord blazed up, and spread over the congregations of Provence, Catalonia, Aragon, and Castile. The contest was carried on by both sides with intense passion, and not entirely with honorable weapons. Simple faith and a philosophical apprehension of religion, which had till then maintained friendly relations, now met in a conflict, which threatened to lead to a complete rupture and to schism. The worst of it was, that the parties were both justified, each from its own point of view; both could appeal to old and respected authorities, some of whom maintained that the Bible and the Talmud must be believed in without investigation and strained interpretation, while others held that reason also had a voice in religious matters.
Two men, whose names are celebrated in Jewish literature, took part in this passionate quarrel: David Kimchi and Nachmani. The former, already an old man and at the zenith of his fame as a grammarian and expositor of the Bible, was an enthusiastic admirer of Maimuni, and a friend of free investigation. He was consequently an object of suspicion to the Obscurantists, and the rabbis of northern France appear to have excommunicated him, because he had explained the vision of Ezekiel concerning the throne-chariot of God in a Maimunist sense, i. e., philosophically, and because he had maintained that Talmudical controversies would have no significance in the Messianic period, or in other words, that the Talmud has no right to advance pretensions to perpetual authority. Kimchi accordingly took up the cudgels for Maimuni all the more promptly, as he had at the same time to defend his own cause. Old and weak as he was, he nevertheless did not hesitate to undertake a journey to Spain, in order personally to bring the congregations of that country over to the side of the Provençals against Solomon of Montpellier.
Another man of commanding influence in this struggle was Moses ben Nachman, or Nachmani (Ramban) Gerundi, a fellow-citizen and relative of Jonah Gerundi (born about 1195, died about 1270). Nachmani, or as he was called in the language of the country, Bonastruc de Porta, was a man of sharply-defined and strongly-marked individuality, with all the strength and weakness of such a character. Whilst of pure moral temperament and conscientious piety, mild disposition and acute understanding, he was completely governed by the belief in authority. The "wisdom of the sages" appeared to him unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and their clear utterances were neither to be doubted nor criticised. "He who occupies himself with the teachings of the sages, drinks old wine," was Nachmani's firm conviction. The whole wisdom of the later generations, according to his view, consisted entirely in fathoming the meaning of their great ancestors, to acquire a knowledge of it, and derive precedents from it. Not only the Holy Writ in its entire scope, and the Talmud in its entire range, but even the Geonim and their immediate disciples till Alfassi, were for him infallible authorities, and their conduct worthy of emulation. Within this compass he had intelligent notions, correct judgments and a clear mind, but beyond it he could not proceed, nor could he start from an original position. Nachmani was a physician, and had, therefore, studied science a little; he was learned in other branches, and familiar with philosophical literature. But metaphysical speculation, to which he would not or could not apply himself, remained strange to him. The Talmud was for him all in all; in its light he regarded the world, the events of the past and the shaping of the future. In his youth, the study of the Talmud and the vindication of assailed authorities were Nachmani's favorite occupations. In about his fifteenth year (1210), he elaborated several Talmudical treatises, following the style and method of Alfassi.
In these works he shows so astounding an intimacy with the Talmud that no one would recognize them as the productions of a youth. They bear the stamp of complete maturity, show command over the subject, and reveal profound acumen. Not less splendid in its way was the second work of his youth, in which he sought to justify Alfassi's Talmudical decisions on questions of civil and marriage laws against the attack of Serachya Halevi Gerundi.
Nachmani had already commented upon several Talmudical treatises, and he continued this labor indefatigably, till he had furnished the greatest portion of the Talmud with explanations (Chidushim). Important as Nachmani's contributions may be in this province, they are in nowise original. The Talmud had been investigated too thoroughly during the centuries since Rashi and Alfassi, for Nachmani, or indeed any one else, to be able to establish anything absolutely new. Maimuni had seen clearly, with the insight of a comprehensive mind, that it was at length time to close accounts with commentaries on the Talmud, to declare for or against, and bring the whole to a conclusion. Nachmani did not pay attention to this result; Maimuni's gigantic religious code did not exist for him.
If he did not sympathize with Maimuni in his treatment of the Talmud, still less did he agree with him in his philosophical views on religion. Maimuni proceeded from a philosophical basis, and everywhere applied reason as the test of Judaism. Nachmani, on the other hand, like Jehuda Halevi, took as his starting-point the facts of Judaism, including even the narratives of the Talmud. For Maimuni the miracles of the Bible were inconvenient facts, and he endeavored as much as possible to reduce them to natural causes; the Talmudical miracle-tales he refused to consider. For Nachmani, on the other hand, the belief in miracles was the foundation of Judaism, on which its three pillars rested: the creation from nothing, the omniscience of God, and divine providence. But, although Nachmani shunned philosophy, he nevertheless advanced new ideas which, though not demonstrated by logical formulæ, deserve recognition. The ethical philosophy of Maimuni sought to elevate man above the accidents of life, by reminding him of his higher origin and his future bliss, and arming him with equanimity in order to render him insensible to pleasure and to pain. Nachmani, from his Talmudical point of view, strongly combated this philosophical or stoical indifference and apathy, and opposed to it the doctrine of Judaism, that "man should rejoice on the day of joy, and weep on the day of sorrow." Maimuni assumed, with the philosophers, that the sensual instincts are a disgrace to man, who is destined for a spiritual life. Nachmani was a strenuous opponent of this view. Since God, who is perfect, has created the world, it must all be good as it is, and nothing in it should be regarded as intrinsically objectionable and hateful.
Nachmani, who started from quite different principles, had consequently but very few points of agreement with Maimuni. Had they been contemporaries, they might have been attracted to each other by this very dissimilarity. If Judaism was for Maimuni a cult of the intellect, for Nachmani it was a religion of the feelings. According to the former, there was no secret in Judaism which could not be disclosed to thought; according to the latter, the mystical and the unknown were the holiest elements of Judaism, and were not to be profaned by reflection. The difference in their method is well illustrated by their views on the belief in demons. According to Maimuni, it is not only superstition but even heathenism to ascribe power to evil spirits. Nachmani, on the other hand, was firmly attached to this theory, and allowed the demons considerable place in his system of the world. Whilst he occasionally expressed his disapproval of Maimuni's views, paying him at the same time the greatest respect, he had a decided antipathy towards Ibn-Ezra. This exegetist, with his sceptical smile, his biting wit, and his scorn for mystery, was calculated to repel Nachmani. In his attacks upon Ibn-Ezra, Nachmani could not preserve the serenity of his temper, but used violent expressions against him, regarding him as the supporter of unbelief. But though Nachmani waged war against the philosophy of his age, as destructive of revealed Judaism, and denounced Aristotle as the teacher of error, he nevertheless looked with disfavor on blind belief and the exclusion of every rationalistic conception in religious matters. On this point he diverged from the teaching of the rabbis of northern France, whose strictly Talmudical tendency he otherwise followed. He was too much a son of Spain, in a manner enveloped by an atmosphere of philosophy, to be able to dismiss metaphysical research with contempt. His clear mind and his Spanish education would not permit Nachmani to follow the rabbis of northern France through thick and thin, nor to accept the Agadas in their literal sense, with all their anthropomorphic and offensive utterances. But on this point he became involved in self-contradiction. He could not reject the Agadic statements in toto, for he was too strongly dominated by belief in authority, and respect for the Talmud. If, when constrained by necessity, he here and there conceded that many Agadic sayings were to be considered only as rhetorical metaphors, as homiletic material, and that it was not a religious obligation to believe in them, he must not be supposed to be in full earnest. But, if the Agada is not to be believed in literally, it must be interpreted. This, however, was to make concessions to the Maimunist school. Accordingly, there was no escape from this dilemma except to admit that the Agada must be explained, but deny that Maimuni's mode of explanation was correct. There came to his aid the Kabbala, a new secret lore which claimed to be a primitive divine tradition, and it relieved his embarrassment in respect of the obnoxious Agadas. By means of this mystical theory, that which, from the point of view of the literalists, appears blasphemous, or meaningless and childish, was invested with deep, mysterious, and transcendental sense. Nachmani did not even shrink from justifying the perverse notion that the whole text of the Torah was simply the material made up of letters, out of which mystical names of God might be composed.
At the time when the sentence of excommunication was uttered against Maimuni's philosophical writings, Nachmani was not yet forty years old, but he even then was of such importance that even the haughty Meïr Abulafia paid him the tribute of his respect. He could, therefore, as rabbi of the congregation of Gerona, support either the one party or the other. He decided in favor of his friend Solomon and his nephew Jonah. As soon as he learnt that the former was excommunicated by the congregations of Provence, he hastened, without waiting to be properly informed of the whole affair, to send a missive to the communities of Aragon, Navarre, and Castile, saying, in substance, that they should not be carried away by the "hypocritical, false" Maimunists; but that they should wait till the opposite party had spoken its mind. Nachmani indeed regretted, in this letter, that the unity of Judaism, which from time immemorial had been maintained in all countries of the dispersion, should, through this controversy, threaten to be destroyed, and he recommended, on that account, prudence and calm deliberation. He himself, however, did not maintain this impartial attitude, but inclined more to the side of the party hostile to science. "If the French masters, at whose feet we sit, obscure the sunlight at mid-day, and cover the moon, they may not be contradicted"; thus he expresses himself at the very commencement.
But the majority of the congregations of Spain refused to be led into darkness. The chief congregation of Aragon, with its leader, the physician in ordinary and favorite of King Jayme, Bachiel Ibn-Alkonstantini, declared itself decisively in favor of Maimuni, and laid Solomon and his two allies under the ban, as long as they continued in their perverseness. Bachiel, his brother Solomon, and ten other influential men and leaders, sent a letter (Ab – August, 1232) to the congregations of Aragon, urging them to join their party, and repudiate those men "who have dared appear against that great power which has rescued us from the floods of ignorance, error and folly." The Maimunists in Saragossa pointed out that the opponents of science had put themselves in opposition to the Talmud. "Our sages teach us that we should philosophically explain to ourselves the unity of God. We ought to be acquainted with profane sciences, in order to know how to reply to the enemies of religion. Astronomy, geometry, and other branches which are so important to religion, cannot be learned out of the Talmud. The great doctor of the Talmud, Samuel, said of himself, 'that he knew the courses of the stars as well as the streets of his native place.' From these remarks it is evident that it was deemed a religious duty to acquire general knowledge. And now there appear three corrupters and misleaders of the people, who stain the reputation of the great Maimuni, wish to lead the communities into darkness, and forbid the reading of his philosophical writings, and the study of science generally." Bachiel Ibn-Alkonstantini, as the most influential man in Aragon, in a letter, summoned the congregations to strenuously oppose those who do not believe in God and his servant Moses (Maimuni). In consequence of this action, the four great congregations of Aragon – Huesca, Monzon, Calatayud, and Lerida – agreed with the Saragossa congregation to pass the sentence of excommunication upon Solomon and his two supporters. The eyes of the Maimunists and their adversaries were, however, turned to the congregation of Toledo, which was the largest, richest, most important and most educated in Spain. Its decision was able to incline the balance in favor of either the one side or the other. Here Jehuda bar Joseph, of the highly influential family of Ibn-Alfachar, who was probably physician in ordinary of King Ferdinand III, possessed the greatest authority. Hitherto he had not expressed his opinion either for or against Maimuni, but had observed a discreet silence. But the zealous rabbi of Toledo, Meïr Abulafia Halevi, the old antagonist of the Maimunist tendency, loudly raised his voice. He replied to the letters of Nachmani and of the Gerona congregation that they might make their minds easy, that neither he nor his friends would follow the "law-defiers of Provence," that there were certainly many in the congregation of Toledo who were infatuated by Maimuni and his philosophical writings, that he could not alter their mind, but if they should declare themselves against Solomon of Montpellier, he would repudiate them altogether, and acknowledge no community with them. For he considered Solomon's action a meritorious one. He himself had long recognized the dangerous character of the doctrines laid down in Maimuni's "Guide of the Perplexed"; they certainly strengthen the ground of religion, but destroy its branches; they repair the breaches of the building, but tear down the enclosures. "The exalting of God's name is on their lips, but also poison and death lurk on their tongues." He had always kept himself remote from this bottomless heresy, and had sent a letter to the Lünel community more than thirty years since, to counteract the enthusiasm for Maimuni, but his effort had been fruitless.
Besides this heavy-armed conflict of the two parties, with mutual denunciations of heresy and thunders of excommunication, there was carried on a light skirmish with sarcastic verses. An opponent of Maimuni's "Guide" and its adherents threw off the following satire:
"Thou Guide to doubt, be silent evermore;
Thy sinful folly shall remain unheard,
That makes of Bible-fact but metaphor,
And to a dream degrades the prophet's word."
Whereupon a Maimunist retorted:
"Thou fool profane, be silent! Nevermore
Dare, sandaled, upon holy ground to stand;
What dost thou know of fact or metaphor?
Nor dream, nor prophet canst thou understand."
Another epigram condemns Maimuni himself:
"Forgive us, son of Amram, be not wroth
That we should call this fool by thy great name;
Prophet the Bible calls God's messengers,
The servants of false Baal it calls the same."
The Maimunists, however, were much more energetic than their opponents; they used all their efforts to alienate the French rabbis from Solomon, and to bring the chief congregation of Spain over to their side. A young scholar, Samuel ben Abraham Saporta, addressed a letter to the French rabbis, and tried to convince them that in their eagerness to support Solomon, they had taken a precipitate step in denouncing Maimuni and the followers of his views as heretics. "Before you passed a judgment upon them, you ought to have examined the contents of his writings properly; but it appears that you know nothing about the writings which you have condemned. Your business is the Halacha, to determine what actions are forbidden or permitted by religion. Why do you venture beyond your province to express an opinion on questions about which you know nothing at all? In your worship of the letter, like the heathen, you imagine the Deity in human form. What right have you to call us heretics who cling as firmly as you to the Torah and tradition?" Saporta's letter, in addition to other influences, made so deep an impression upon some of the French rabbis that they renounced Solomon. They soon notified the Provençal congregations of their change of opinion. This change was undoubtedly due in great measure to Moses, of Coucy (born about 1200, died about 1260), one of the youngest Tossafists, who, although a brother-in-law of Samson of Sens, and a pupil of the over-pious Sir Leon, of Paris, nevertheless cherished great reverence for Maimuni, and made his Halachic works the subject of study. Nachmani was extremely vexed at this change of opinion, and, sorely distressed at the widening of the breach, he elaborated a scheme of reconciliation, which seemed to him calculated to restore peace. He wrote a well-meant, but bombastic letter to the French rabbis, wherein he first of all expressed his dissatisfaction with them for having put the readers of Maimuni's compositions under the ban: "If you were of the opinion that it was incumbent on you to denounce as heresy the works of Maimuni, why does a portion of your flock now recede from this decision as if they regretted the step? Is it right in such important matters to act capriciously, to applaud the one to-day, and the other to-morrow?"
Finally, Nachmani explained his plan of compromise. The ban against the philosophical portion of Maimuni's Code was to be revoked; but, on the other hand, the condemnation of the study of the "Guide," and the excommunication of the rejectors of the Talmudical exposition of the Bible was to be strengthened. This sentence of excommunication was not to be passed by the one party only, but the Provençal rabbis, and even Maimuni's son, the pious Abraham, were to be invited to support it with their authority. In this manner the gate would be closed to disaffection and unbelief. Nachmani, however, ignored the fact that the assailed compositions were all of one cast, so that it was not possible to anathematize the one and canonize the other. Nachmani fell into the mistake of thinking that it was possible to check free philosophical inquiry. The two tendencies, each legitimate in its way, could not but conflict with each other, and the struggle had to be protracted, and could not be ended by a compromise. Consequently, the fight continued on both sides, and Nachmani's proposal was utterly disregarded. The longer it lasted, the more the controversy inflamed men's feelings, the more participants were drawn into the arena.
The aged David Kimchi wished to undertake a journey to Toledo, in order to induce that great congregation to join his party against Solomon and his adherents, and through their weight completely to crush their opponents. When he arrived at Avila, he became so ill that he had to abandon the journey, but on his bed of sickness he wrote with trembling hand to the chief representative of the Toledo congregation, Jehuda Ibn-Alfachar. He blamed him for his obstinate silence in an affair which concerned the French and Spanish communities so deeply, and importuned him to persuade his congregation to make common cause with the Maimunists. Unfortunately, however, he had approached the wrong man; for Jehuda Alfachar had made up his mind decisively against the Maimunists. He had thoroughly mastered Maimuni's system, and had concluded that, if carried to its logical conclusion, it was calculated to subvert Judaism. Ibn-Alfachar was a thoughtful man, and of more penetration than Nachmani. The defects of Maimuni's theory were quite palpable to him, but even he was misled by the thought that it was possible to exorcise the spirit of free-thought by anathemas. Alfachar paid such deference to the sentence of excommunication uttered by the French rabbis, that at first he would not reply to Kimchi at all, but when ultimately he decided to do so, he treated him in his answer in so contemptuous a manner, that the Maimunists who expected the support of Toledo were quite disconcerted at the result.
In the meantime, the sympathy of such influential personages as Alfachar, Nachmani, and Meïr Abulafia, proved to be of little value to Solomon's cause. The feeling of the people in his native place and in Spain was against him. The French rabbis, on whose support he had reckoned, gradually withdrew from a controversy, the range of which they began to perceive, and which threatened to expose the participators to peril. Solomon of Montpellier complained that no one besides his two disciples sided with him, but the maladroitness with which he conducted his cause was chiefly responsible for the want of sympathy that he encountered. Thus forsaken of all, and hated most bitterly in his own congregation, he resolved on a step which led to the most deplorable results, not only for his own party, but for the whole Jewish people.
Pope Gregory IX, who was eager to extirpate the remnant of the Albigensian heretics in Provence, root and branch, about this time established the permanent Inquisition (April, 1233), and appointed the violent Dominican friars as inquisitors, as the bishops, who had till then been entrusted with the persecution of the Albigenses, did not seem to him to treat the heretics with sufficient severity. In all the large towns of southern France where there were Dominican cloisters, in Montpellier among others, there were erected bloody tribunals, which condemned heretics or those suspected of heresy, and often quite innocent people, to life-long imprisonment or to the stake.
With these murderers, Rabbi Solomon, the upholder of the Talmud and of the literal interpretation of the Holy Writ, associated himself. He and his disciple Jonah said to the Dominicans: "You burn your heretics, persecute ours also. The majority of the Jews of Provence are perverted by the heretical writings of Maimuni. If you cause these writings to be publicly and solemnly burnt, your action will have the effect of frightening the Jews away from them." They also read dangerous passages from Maimuni's compositions to the inquisitors, at which the infatuated monks must have felt a shudder of holy horror. The Dominicans and Franciscans did not wait for a second invitation to interfere. The papal Cardinal-Legate, who was of the same fanatical zeal as Gregory IX, promptly took up the matter. The Dominicans may have feared that the fire of the Maimunist heresy might set their own houses ablaze. For the "Guide" had been translated by an unknown scholar into Latin during the first half of the thirteenth century. This translation was probably done in southern France, where Maimuni's philosophical composition had its second home, and where educated Jews were conversant with the Latin language. Maimuni might with justice appear to the guardians of Catholic orthodoxy to have deserved damnation for his religious philosophy. Thinking about religion in those days was looked upon in official Christendom as a capital sin. If the inquisitors had at that time possessed power over the persons of Jews, the Maimunists would have fared ill indeed; as it was, the persecution extended only to parchment. Maimuni's works, at least in Montpellier, were sought out in the Jewish houses, and publicly burnt. In Paris also, Maimuni's antagonists caused a fire to be kindled for the same purpose, and it is said to have been lit by a taper from the altar of one of the principal churches. The enemies of Judaism congratulated themselves that confusion now prevailed among the Jews, who till then had been united and compact, and thought that they were approaching their decay. The anti-Maimunists, however, were not yet satisfied. Confident in the support of those in power, they calumniated their opponents before the authorities, so that many members of the congregation of Montpellier were placed in great danger.
These proceedings naturally excited the horror of all the Jews on both sides of the Pyrenees. Solomon and his partisans were generally condemned. To invoke the aid of the temporal power, and moreover of a clergy which was swollen with hatred of the Jews, was, in the Jewish world, justly considered the most outrageous treachery; and to make the Dominicans judges of what was or was not consistent with Judaism, was to introduce the heathen enemy into the Holy of Holies. Samuel Saporta denounced this conduct in a letter to the French rabbis. Abraham ben Chasdaï of Barcelona, an enthusiastic admirer of Maimuni, who had censured Jehuda Alfachar for his insulting treatment of Kimchi, and for his espousal of the cause of Solomon, dispatched a letter denouncing Solomon's action in unmeasured terms, to the communities of Castile, Aragon, Navarre, and Leon. When Kimchi, who was in Burgos on his homeward journey, heard of this affair, he inquired of Alfachar, whether he still thought of keeping the informer and traitor, Solomon, under his protection. The intelligent followers of the latter, Nachmani and Meïr Abulafia, were deeply abashed, and remained silent. Public opinion condemned Solomon and the cause he represented. A poet of the Maimunist party composed on this occasion a very fine epigram:
"What thought ye to burn, when ye kindled the pyre
For writings more precious than gold?
Lo, truth is a flame – will ye quench it with fire?
In a chariot ablaze like the Tishbite of old,
It rises to Heaven. O, bigots, behold —
God's angel appears in the fire!"
By some secret power the system of informing in Montpellier through false witnesses, to which the adherents of Maimuni were exposed, was put an end to. More than ten of Solomon's partisans, who had been convicted of slander, were punished in the most cruel manner. Their tongues were cut out. But rarely does the gloom clear up in which these incidents are veiled. The fate of Solomon, the cause of all these events, is uncertain. The Maimunists observed with a certain malicious joy the severe punishment of their adversaries in Montpellier. A poet, probably Abraham ben Chasdaï, wrote an epigram upon it, which was soon in everyone's mouth:
"Against the guide of Truth,
A false pack raised their voices.
Punishment overtook them;
Their tongue was directed to heaven,
Now it lies in the dust."
With this tragic issue the struggle was still far from being at an end. The parties were more than ever embittered against each other.
When Abraham Maimuni learnt, with indignation, of the hostility towards his father, and the sad termination of the conflict which had broken out (January, 1235), he wrote a little book on the subject, entitled "War for God" (Milchamoth), in order to repel the attack upon the orthodoxy of his father, and to denounce the conduct of his opponents. This composition, directed, in the form of a letter, to Solomon ben Asher (in Lünel?), justified Maimuni's system on Maimuni's lines, and is valuable only on account of its historical data.
Solomon's effort to silence the free spirit of research in the province of religion was thus overthrown, and had met a lamentable end. Another French rabbi, of mild character and gentle piety, attempted another method of procedure, with greater success. Moses of Coucy, who, although of the Tossafist tendency, had held Maimuni in high esteem, undertook the task of fortifying the drooping spirit of religion among the Provençals and the Spaniards by delivering sermons and spirited exhortations. Moses was undoubtedly inspired in his attempt by the example of the preacher-monks, who aimed at overcoming the disbelief in the Roman Church by preaching in village after village, and who, to some extent, were successful. In the same manner the rabbi of Coucy traveled from one congregation to another in southern France and in Spain (1235), and was accordingly called the "preacher." But there was an important difference between the Jewish expounder of the law and the Catholic order of preachers. The one acted in genuine simplicity of heart, without any ambitious motives, with mildness on his lips and mildness in his heart. The Dominicans, on the other hand, put on their humility and poverty only for show, and behind them there lurked the devil of arrogance. They flattered their patrons in sermons, and humiliated their opponents unsparingly; they gained inheritances surreptitiously, and filled their cloisters with treasures; they nourished a bloody fanaticism, and strove after power and authority.