Sunday 30 May 2010

Fluidity vs. Rigidity in Medieval Thought

Originally published 5/30/10, 11:00 am.
Comparing Rishonim: Ashk'naz vs. S'pharad

One of the major factors in understanding the contrasts between Medieval S'pharad and Ashk'naz is how they approached Torah.

S'pharad

A classic example would be to contrast Rambam and ibn Ezra
  • Rambam was all about Halachah and Science. The most notable area of Humanities he mastered was Philosophy
  • ibn Ezra exhibited little or no expertise in Halachah or Science [unless one counts Astrology] OTOH He excelled in Poetry, Linguistics, and Parshanut
Ashk'naz

By contrast some of the greatest Talmidei Hachamim in Ashk'naz were also its greatest Pay'tanim. Examples abound but here are several
  • Rabbeinu Gershom M'or Hagolah
  • Maharam miRothenburg
  • M'shulam ben Klonymos of Lucca

These great Rishonim were highly integrated both technically and poetically. Thus they possessed greater fluidity between Midrash and Halachah It seems that in S'pharad Torah and Academics were much more compartmentalized. While in Medeival Ashk'naz being a "Renaissance Man" was expected. All of Torah Sheb'al Peh was seen as a continuum. Halachah and Aggadah were learned in Tandem.

Exceptions

One of the major "integrated" personalities in S'pharad was the Ramban - Nachmanides who spanned Halachah, parshanut and mysticism. Was it a co-incidence that he studied with the Baalei Tosafot?

Modern Times

A legacy of this kind of Ashk'nazi integration in modern times may be found in the late Rav Shimon Schwab ZT"L who was Rav, Dayan, and composed a Qinah, an elegy for the sho'ah.

Torah and Talmud

Doesn't the Humash flow smoothly between Mitzvah, History and Poetry? See EG Parshat Huqqat. And Doesn't the Talmud itself often display a seamless transition between Halachah and Aggadah?

KT,
RRW

Note I revised the official title. I was trying to convey a difference in approach between the two communities, but the title was a bit too strong because the dichotomy is not quite so black and white

2 comments:

HaDarda"i said...

Mediaeval Ashkenaz was, as you say, replete with aggada/midrash, but devoid of Jewish philosophy. On the other hand, in the Rambam one sees an attempt to synthesize philosophy and halakha. Now, if you consider Jewish philosophy to be less Jewish than aggada, then you dichotomy stands. But I think you can make a case that the Sephardim also displayed a "seamless transition" between halakha and machshava (if not aggada, in a chazalic sense). Were they less renaissance men than the Ashkenazim, whose outlook was so much narrower? In the contemporary period, it was Sephardim like Ben Ish Chai and, later, R. Chayyim David Halevi, who seamlessly slipped between halakha and aggada (with a focus on the kabbalah). Thank you for the thought provoking post.

Rabbi Richard Wolpoe said...

I will stick to this thesis. It was elucidated by a respected PhD in Medieval Jewish History and his lecture triggered my points

I will BE"H change the title because this valid dichotomy should not be simply a cultural one - and making it S Vs. A was an unintended consequence of a bad title.

As i best understand scholars of that era, it was really important to separate Halacha from Aggadah etc. Touger onMishneh Torah insists that Sefer Mada is all Halachah. Of course I do not completely concur. Nevertheless it seems Rambam has little or no use for music or piyyut while ibn Ezra made little or no impact upon Halachah, so the comparmentalization seems very real to me