Talk:Maimonides

Who knows ? - Citing Rambam

Shalom. Under 'medieval rabbinic teachings' paragraph in Jewish views on evolution, Maimonides is cited to claim if Science and Torah were misaligned ... I've tried quite hard to locate the origin of the writing / commentary, but succeeded not. The editor of this part didn't mention any reference to this meaningful interpretation, or maybe a real quotation. I'll be happy to be helped here. BentzyCo (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference. Jon513 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thank you very much, indeed. BentzyCo (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rambam's full name is not Maimonides

The suffix 'ides' means son of. His full name ([f you want to stick to the Greek) is Moses Maimonides. He refers to himself as "Moses b. Maimon b. Joseph b. Isaac b. Obadiah of blessed memory" in the very first paragraph of his letter to the Jewish community of Yemen. Phil burnstein (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rating of importance

How come that the significance of Rambam to philosophy is rated low while his influence was huge and extensive on many of top philosophers since the time of his life till now? And how come the article don't have medicine importance rate while in most prestigious scientific journals he is mentioned very often when ever the development of medicine is discussed? Same problems for Nahmanides and Gersonides--Gilisa (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to address your concerns about the WikiProject Philosophy rating directly to that group.

Many projects do not provide priority ratings. They are not required.

As for WPMED, if you'll read the project's explanation, articles about individual people are always low priority. Note that low priority means "articles least likely to be improved by members of the project," not "subjects that are totally worthless". "Priority", in this sense, means "what you do first." WPMED would prefer to invest their resources creating in an excellent article about Tuberculosis instead of an excellent article about any single human. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

maimonides on G-d's emotions

The article mentions maimonides' attitude about G-d's emotions (that G-d does not get angry) and claims that maimonides drew this idea from avicenna. with all due respect, unless maimonides specifically references avicenna, i dont think it is ethical to claim that. in mishna tora, </ref>1st chapter halacha 12,</ref> rambam makes a very clear and logical procession about how since G-d is a perfect unity all concepts of division and change (including emotions) do not apply. this idea is rooted in the words of the talmud when it says about many expressions "the torah talks in the language of man" . That is the source the Rambam himself gives. Moreover, whomever wrote that avicenna was the source did not give a reference. Ezorlo (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in your citation of the Mishnah - however, in the context of "The Guide for the Perplexed" (3:32, Maimonides conveys comething to the effect of "HaShem is merciful to the extent that the order of nature (what HaShem created) exhibits merciful characteristics and angry to the extent that it is harsh toward things that do not take proper care of themselves. This is, in fact, a concept that originates in the writings of Avicenna. In summation, while you are correct that anthropomorphizing HaShem is not consistent with out view of HaShem, the Guide was written for men and sometimes used anthropomorphisms to convey concepts more readily. Hope that helps. Jimharlow99 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote from R Yosef Caro

Jfdwolff has twice deleted this claiming that it's POV. I fail to see how. It's the Mechaber's own words! Please explain in more detail than you have room for in an edit summary, exactly why this is POV, and why it's inappropriate for the article. -- Zsero (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not hearing any explanation for why it should not be there, I'm restoring it. If you think its length gives it undue weight, perhaps you can edit it down, without losing the essence. -- Zsero (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have this talkpage on the watchlist. It is POV when used by (usually Dor Daim-associated) activists who demand that Maimonides has the final word on halakha. There is no real ground for a long quote like this, which could be paraphrased instead to bring out the main points. Given that you have argued for its inclusion I suggest you make it a bit more encyclopedic, because in the current form I am inclined to remove it. JFW | T@lk 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering who wrote it, it can hardly mean that! But it does show the extreme reverence in which he was held centuries after his death, even by those who disagreed with his legal decisions. It's precisely the fact that it was the Mechaber who wrote this, about those who were not following his own decisions, that makes it significant and encyclopaedic. If it's trimmed down to give it less weight, that can't be lost. -- Zsero (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I found the original text in Avkat Rochel, substituted my own translation for the rather florid one that had been given, and cut it down to that which makes the point. I provided a link to the original text in the footnote, so anyone can check my translation. Are you OK with that? -- Zsero (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done, thank you! And an excellent job in tracing it down to Avkat Rochel, which is not commonly learnt! JFW | T@lk 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales picture?

What is the Jimmy Wales picture doing in this article's Judaism template? The template (edit, view) appears to be fine and renders okay in other articles (random example). (ARK (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

It was vandalism, of course. -- Zsero (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How does a template get vandalised while its source remains untouched? (ARK (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

The source wasn't untouched — it was vandalised by the user whose contributions are linked above. -- Zsero (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay -- I've just checked the template's edit history and saw that the vandalism had occurred and had been reverted hours before I came across the vandalised box in the Maimonides article yet found the same box, at the same time, to render correctly in other articles relating to Judaism. This probably means that there are multiple instances of any template distributed across Wikipedia's servers, and that some of them may take a while until they reflect the latest edits. Is this a known issue? ARK (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Spain did not exist at 1135, I think it was called something like Andalusia, so, I don't think it is historically correct to say Moses Maimonides was born in Spain! which was only created in the 17th or 18th century. thanks 203.135.190.6 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Try the 15th century. But that's irrelevant; in English the area is called Spain, and it makes no difference what the locals called it in 1135. -- Zsero (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it does make a difference. Historical place names should be at least mentioned in historical articles. If a person is born in Catalan or Andalusia, it makes a difference, especially if someone wants to investigate the history further. This is an encyclopedia, after all.LeValley 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba was in the caliphate of Cordoba when Maimonides was born, which is an important fact. He was not born in "Spain". I wil correct the article. FrancisDane (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maimonides Jewish Leaders Fellowship

At several universities including my own there is a program called the "Maimonides Jewish Leaders Fellowship". I did not see this mentioned in the article and was curious to if it should be added?

for info regarding: http://www.maimonidesfellowships.com/home.aspx 12.164.197.120 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with him, so why would it be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article about him? If we listed all the things that have been named after him over the past 800 years we'd have a long list. -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrections / Additions

Fes, in the picture titled "Maimonides house in Fes" the is not consistent with the city name used in the rest of the article. It may be an alternate or archaic spelling.

"The Oath of Maimonides" is mentioned and should be inserted, if short enough, or linked to an article with the text. I found several versions, none I was certain were in the public domain. While not qualified to translate from the original, I note a significant gap in the information. YD 72.151.125.140 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "In the Yeshiva world he is known as "Hanesher Hagadol" (the great eagle) in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah, particularly on account of the manner in which his Mishneh Torah is elucidated by Chaim Soloveitchik."

The last clause is frankly just a dumb thing to say. RCS is irrelevant to the stature of the Mishneh Torah in the yeshiva world. Perhaps the editor just wanted to insert a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.31.214 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone clarify potentially confusing wording in lede?

In the opening paragraph, it says:

With the contemporary Muslim philosopher Averroes, he promoted and developed the philosophical tradition of Aristotle, which gave both men prominent and controversial influence in the West

...that's three men among which the reader must pick two to assign "both" to. I'm guessing it's Aristotle and Maimonides, but I shouldn't have to guess.--NapoliRoma (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to make it more clear. I left out "which gave both men prominent and controversial influence in the West", which may be true but confuses. The presence of the Aristotelian influence in the philosophy of Maimonides was actually very controversial at the time, and (if I recall correctly) lead to his books being burned in some Jewish communities. It was a long time before his writing became as widely respected as it is now. I do not see anything about that in the article though. HaKavanah (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

10th Principle of Faith does not mention Foreknowledge

The tenth principle of faith is summarized as "God's foreknowledge of human actions." The tenth doesn't seem to include foreknowledge to me at all. "I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, knows all the deeds of human beings and all their thoughts, as it is written, Who fashioned the hearts of them all, Who comprehends all their actions (Psalms 33:15)." That, to me, says God reads minds, and implies that God knows people well enough to know what they're going to do. I'm not arguing whether or not God knows the future, just that this principle does not say anything that could be construed as asserting such. Comments?--Mrcolj (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

portrait

I removed File:Maimonides-2.jpg. The image is unsourced, and we have no evidence it is even supposed to represent Maimonides. The article can by all means include 19th century artist's impressions of the subject, but such image need to be accurately identified, naming their author and date of publication, or else they are simply not encyclopedic. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Found this, much better. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Tempered potentially WP:Original

User:Tempered recently made extensive edits to the article providing only sporadic sources for the new information. Given the overly flattering tone of the new edits, it would be advisable that sources for new information be sought, lest the information appear as WP:Original.

1. What is the source for this claim? "Although he frequently wrote of his longing for solitude in order to come closer to God and to extend his reflections, he gave over almost all his time to caring for others. [...] Even on the Sabbath he would receive members of the community. It is remarkable that despite all this he managed to fit in the composition of massive treatises, including not only medical and other scientific studies but some of the most systematically thought-through and influential treatises on halachah (Rabbinic law) and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages. His Rabbinic writings are still fundamental and unparalleled resources for religious Jews today."
2. You will need a reliable source to support a claim of this nature: "Maimonides's Mishneh Torah is considered by traditionalist Jews even today as one of the chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics. It is exceptional for its logical construction, concise and clear expression and extraordinary learning, so that it became a standard against which other later codifications were often measured. It is still closely studied in Rabbinic yeshivot (academies)."
3. Here a ref has been provided, but its language still suggests WP:Syn on the editor's part: "But Maimonides was also one of the most influential figures in medieval Jewish philosophy. His brilliant adaptation of Aristotelian thought to Biblical faith deeply impressed later Jewish thinkers, and had an unexpected immediate historical impact. Some more acculturated Jews in the century that followed his death, particularly in Spain, sought to apply Maimonide's Aristotelianism in ways that undercut traditionalist belief and observance, giving rise to a major intellectual controversy in Spanish and southern French Jewish circles. The intensity of debate spurred Catholic Church interventions against "heresy," in Rabbinic studies, and even a general confiscation of Rabbinic texts, and, in reaction, the defeat of the more radical interpretations of Maimonides and at least amongst Ashkenazi Jews, a tendency not so much to repudiate as simply to ignore the specifically philosophical writings and to stress instead the Rabbinic and halachic writings. However, even these writings often included philosophical chapters or discussions in support of halachic observance, and so Maimonidean thought continues to the present day to influence traditionally observant Jews."

A third editor's review would be exceedingly helpful here.—Biosketch (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed this earlier and was also concerned but haven't had the time to respond. Unless we get reliable sources for these in the next few hours, I'm happy to see them deleted. They can always be restored of they can be sourced, but at the moment most looks like original research. It may be possible to attribute some of it to specific reliable sources rather than make general assertions. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the comments are drawn from standard biographies of Maimonides, and as for citations, the additional material provides citations of two substantial overviews of Maimonidean thought of recent date or current authoritative standing, namely, Sirat's A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages, and the relevant chapters in Frank and Leaman, eds., History of Jewish Philosophy. The citations provide full documentation for all statements made in my edit regarding the acknowledged brilliance of Maimonides' philosophical writings (acknowledged even by his opponents at the time, and by all Jewish thinkers since then up to the present day), and for the specifics given in regard to the Maimunist controversy, refuting the claimed "syn" at Biosketch's item 3, above. E.g., Sirat discusses the acculturation of those in Spain who tried to use The Guide to the Perplexed to justify relaxed Jewish observance, etc. In any case, my two cited sources are two more than are found in the entire section on his philosophy in the article, which is in fact very weak. However, I will provide specific references to the queried edits now. I frankly am amazed at the editorial comments here: they show a strange ignorance or perhaps merely a reluctance to accept what is found in all standard studies of Maimonides. If the editors were knowledgeable in this subject, and wanted specific citations to reliable sources for it, they should have been easily able to provide them themselves from their own bookshelves instead of throwing around claims of "synthesis" or "original research"!Tempered (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't expect other editors to be experts. That's why the onus is on you to provide sources. Your edits are phrased in such a way that they could be construed as hagiography in the absence of sources. Try to convince your reader (and your fellow editors) please. JFW | T@lk 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now provided sources for all the passages queried.Tempered (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Tempered has successfully made his point and the passages can stand. They are in accord with the standard RS on the matter, and thus are not OR. Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tempered, I don't deny my profound ignorance on the topic; indeed, I concede and regret it. Regardless, however, you should cultivate the habit of citing sources for any material you add to Wikipedia, and in especial to articles that aspire to maintain a high standard of scholarship – a distinguished class to which I would like to think this Rambam article belongs.—Biosketch (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic influence..

I think it is important to mention in the 'Influence' section the importance of the works of Averroes on Maimonides works.. specifically in the reconciliation between the works of Greek philosophy and that of biblical theology. A similar influence can be traced from Averroes to the works of Thomas Aquinas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.235.195 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Charity

The section dealing with the legal philosophy regarding charity is confusing to me. What is meant by "eight levels of charity"? Are each of the acts of charity mentioned ethically equivalent or are they ranked somehow? It would be helpful if someone could clarify this. FrancisDane (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

`