From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Who knows ? - Citing Rambam[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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" [1]. 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)


  1. ^ bab. berachoth 31b and see more sources in gloss there

Quote from R Yosef Caro[edit]

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?[edit]

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 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 (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)

You've got a huge task before you, fixing all the mistaken language in thousands of articles. You'd better go and edit all the texts from Latin authors like Cicero, Livy and Caesar which speak of Hispania, and which are translated as 'Spain', which you tell us now, did not exist in those days, presumably because the reality died with the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. Better change the William Butler Yeats article which says he was born in Ireland when he was born in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. You'd better fire off some emails to people, publisher and editors (like Joel Kraemer here )who keep writing that he was born in Cordoba, Spain, or who keep translating 'Moshe ben Maimon ha-Sefaradi' as Maimonides the Spaniard, and caution them about the anachronism, that it should be rendered 'al-Andalusi'. Perhaps everything to do with Sephardis should be Andalusian? If so drop a note to Paloma Díaz Más who deceived the University of Chicago Press editors, slipping under their tight editorial radar the anachronism here. All those books which talk about Islamic Spain at the time need notes to the publishers to correct the anachronism. Better correct the idea that Colombus discovered America too, the continent was not so named until after his death,etc. Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Francis, it's a matter of relying on RS here. For accuracy, we can say in the body that he was born when Spain formed part of the caliphate of Cordoba, or something. But most refer to him as a Spanish scholar; the same is true for medieval rabbis in Italy, when at the time that country was not called Italy, but was rather made up of many smaller city states. The same goes for rabbis living in the Ottoman "Viyalet of Damascus" in the 1500s who are referred to as Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The average reader will not understand the distinction. Suggest that in the infobox we use Spain, and in the text body we may explain that Cordoba was in an area then known as Andalusia. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the page to indicate that he was born in a part of the Iberian Peninsula which was at the time ruled by Moslems. That's a pretty important point-the religious tolerance they extended to Jews, etc. All of my changes were undone. If no one else cares about accuracy, why should I? I am ignoring the patronizing and off the point diatribe from Nishidani. Yes, I know the Iberian peninusula has been commonly known as "Spain" since the Romans, but when he was born there was no such nation or political entity called "Spain"-I don't know why Nisidani has got his knickers in a twist. I made the change suggested by Nisidani, a reasonable compromise which honors historical fact instead of geography and it was deleted. I still believe that some reference should be made some how that he was not born in what people typically think of as Spain now, but rather one split into different regions following different religious practices and that he was born into a Muslim Caliphate which was much more tolerant of Jews than the Catholics. This is an important point and would also educate people on the whole issue of a divided Medieval Spain. Sorry for my error. Nicholascarew (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We can incoorportae both: Suggest:
"was a preeminent Spanish Jewish scholar, philosopher and physician of the Middle Ages. He was born in Córdoba when the city formed part of Muslim dominated Al-Andalus...." Chesdovi (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Maimonides Jewish Leaders Fellowship[edit]

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: (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[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone clarify potentially confusing wording in lede?[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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..[edit]

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 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course they're not going to mention it. Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about his intellectual environment. They act as if this guy owed nothing to Islamic civilization when in fact he owes EVERYTHING to it. This guy would never have existed if not for Muslim knowledge at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "they". This article has many issues which even a non-expert can see, but there is a shortage of experts capable and willing to improve it. There is no conspiracy to suppress discussion of Averroes. Just a very short list of people who can talk intelligently about Averroes. Ar2332 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


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)

This is an often cited viewpoint, based on Talmud sources. What is meant is priorities in giving, but presumably the higher priority forms of charity are also ethically superior. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel Shahak as a source[edit]

Someone has been trying to add material to this article that disparages Maimonides and is sourced to Israel Shahak. Please follow the blue link. Shahak was not an historian. He was not a philosopher. He was not a theologian. He was a chemist. He was not in any academic field remotely related to study of the life or writings of Maimonides. His writings do not constitute a significant, scholarly point of view on Maimonides. Mentioning the gloss put on Maimonides' writings by a professor of chemistry who also had some stature as a human rights activist violates WP:UNDUE. It is neither terribly surprising nor terribly significant that a Medieval philosopher (of any religious affiliation) had Medieval views on race and ethnicity. Furthermore a quick perusal of Wikipedia's bio of Shahak shows that he had an obvious grudge against Israel and against Judaism to the point of having no compunction about fabricating a defamatory story about a Jew refusing aid to a Gentile on the Sabbath. As a result, his writings can be found on the websites of the likes of Radio Islam and David Duke. These writings clearly do not pass muster for inclusion here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm now at two reverts in the last hour and I won't revert again right away, but I have confidence this shit won't last. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Shahak's views on Maimonides are not worthy of inclusion in this article. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not just about Shahak's views, but there is also a quote by Maimonides. For reference, this is the edit in question.[1] A GB search brought a number of primary sources where Maimonides wrote something similar and at least one other scholar has commented on it. See [2]. Wiqi(55) 20:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Shahak is not a reliable source on any Jewish topic. As for Hannaford, in the particular citation he does not actually accuse Maimonides of racism. We should be extremely careful about imposing 21st century standards on 13th century thinkers. JFW | T@lk 12:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. It seems more like it was a fabrication that it was a fabrication since the sources defend and is a supporter of Maimonides.

which brought other racists in israel that indeed support and want to kill non jews. including children who "threaten" israel.

This old influencal rabbi is indeed the source of this. he wasnt uninfluenceal. so it seems he is indeed guilty of the occupation and racism against the arabs and non jews of israel. "The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?

Prohibition'Thou Shalt Not Murder'applies only'to a Jew who kills a Jew,'write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur."

"Co-author Elitzur wrote an article in a religious bulletin a month after the book's release saying that "the Jews will win with violence against the Arabs."

In 2003, the head of the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, was charged by then-Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein with incitement to racism for authoring a book calling Arabs a "cancer." " Is it true that comparing arabs to be lower then humans an inspiration for this racism and thus resluting in the death of arabs since it indeed influences the government? -

"But Maimonides was particular in his designation of who was a "philosopher."
Maimonides even had his own criterion of who was a "human" and who was not "human." As for certain Gentile  
peoples, Maimonides taught explicitly that the extreme northern Turks and the extreme southern peoples near
the equator were to him non-humans and they could never find a place in his "Temple"
(Guide for the Perplexed, Book III, chapter 51, paragraph 3)."

- Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.

No criticism section of a racist who's text did indeed influence the politics of israel? LET alone was responsible for anti-non jewish practices that indeed influence people to commit heavy usury

23:21). Maimonides viewed these verses as a regular binding requirement and listed them with the affirmative commandments in Sefer ha-Mitzvot. He held that the Torah contains verses that oblige Jews to lend to non-Jews for interest and to make sure the debt is paid up:

Commandment 142 orders us to dun the gentile and force him to pay up his debt,… as the Almighty said, “dun  
the foreigner,” which Sifre interprets:  “Dunning the foreigner is a positive commandment” (142);  the 198th  
commandment is to demand interest from the gentile, and then we may lend to him, to the point that we do not  
do him good and do not help him, but rather harm him, … as He said, “deduct interest from loans to  
foreigners,” which according to the accepted interpretation is a positive commandment, as Sifre says:  
“charging the gentile interest is a positive command.” [3]

Source for this is Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center Take note of this in particular:

to the point that we do not do him good and do not help him, but rather harm him

So YES, a criticism section about Maimonides hate towards non-semitic and the non-jewish people should DEFINATLY be there(and yes I know arabs and turks and other middle eastern people are considered semitic, in this case its about jews being considered one). No one is above criticism, be it the founding fathers of old or scribes. In short, Israel Shahak is indeed a reliable source about his work and his texts about Maimonides should definatly be added, it seems more like those who accuse Shahak in that story are defenders of racism rather then oposed to it.

Which means if any racism would occur, it means they wont condemn it. so they arent reliable sources. Israel Shahak however, seems indeed from other sources deducted about Maimonides reliable source. (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


What is Maimonides' "famous" commentary on the Mishnah? Not named in the article. Name it. Otherwise it looks as if the phrase is simply copied from some source. (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have a name. Unless you count 'Commentary on the Mishnah' as a name rather than a description. And yes, it is very famous; it's probably the second most famous commentary on the Mishnah of all time, after that of R Ovadiah of Bertinoro. -- (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


There is no mention on talk or article of this man's views regarding circumcision. Here appears to relate some of them. Could we incorporate his views based on these historical quotes? Ranze (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Spanish jew[edit]

Maimonides was not only Sephardic, term that essentially refers to the descendants of Iberian Jews, but also Spanish Jew. Their cultural-ethnic is twofold, Jewish and Spanish, and it should recognize in article. --LTblb (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've wikilinked Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Editor2020 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Year of birth[edit]

He was born in 1138. User Antar is trying by vandalism to keep the wrong date her as well as in the spanish version. Here the facts Stroumsa,Maimonides in his world: portrait of a Mediterranean thinker, Princeton University Press, 2009, p.8 Sherwin B. Nuland, Maimonides, Random House LLC, 26 Aug 2008, p38

Here the page in Nuland

Here in Stroumsa (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC) corrections by (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that you refers this, but you have to understand that if only put this reference in edit summary i'ts easy that revert your edition. After put the correct references in talk page, discused with others editors to put your edition, but we have had two dates, because a lot of references says that was born 1135. I think that I haven't tried to vandalism your edition, I usually put a lock warning in case of vandalism. Regads ca:Usuari:Anskar -- (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know it sounds special, but I did a thorough check and analysis and found that since more than 15? years all scientists agree that 1035 is wrong and accept 1038 . On the german version someone gave a very good explanation of it as did Nuland more briefly. In some languages such as French it has been corrected since a long time. Now finally alsoe here. Regards (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Jewish encyclopedia is more than 100 years old. A good basis, I use a lot, but not up to date as in he case of birthyear of Maimonides (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Arab" Philosopher?[edit]

Okay, I deleted the mention of him being an "Arab" philosopher. Although many of his works were in Arabic he also wore a turban, I understand this but his works in Arabic were in Judeo-Arabic first off which was written in the Hebrew script not Arabic script, second of all in NONE of those have I ever heard him mention himself as "Arab" or a "Arab Jew" though again, it is understood that there are many Arabs or Jews who call themselves Arab Jew but Maimonides was not one of them.

The only encyclopedia to ever call Maimonides an "Arab". Where is the sources that say he was an Arab? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Arab or Muslim[edit]

First, Maimonides was neither Arab nor Musta'arbi. Second, "He may have been forced to convert to Islam" is not certain and therefore not enough to be considered as a Muslim; Definitely has no place in infobox. Infantom (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Who said he was Arab? He was ARABIZED, he wrote almost all his works in ARABIC (save for one Hebrew book, Mishneh Torah) and dressed like an Arab and lived his ENTIRE life in the Arab World. Stop trying to hide and negate this fact. Mustaarabi means "like Arabs" akin to the Spanish Mozarab. Nobody is saying he was an Arab or Muslim.

And speaking of Arabs, an "Arab" is defined by either linguistic, cultural or ethnic means. Since Maimonides spoke and wrote in ARABIC as his native language, not SpANiSh, LADINO or HEBREW and since he followed a culture that was ARAB culture, that should probably tell you something. Not to mention that all of his influences were Arab and Persian polymaths.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Given the Oxford dictionary definition of "Arbaized"[3]- his "Arab character" is debatable and since no reliable source was given to support it either, there's no reason to mention that in the article (his influences by arab and non-arab figures are already mentioned). Maimonides was Sepheradic and not Musta'arbi, which is merely geographical and linguistic definition for Jews living in the middle east. And you did claim he was "briefly Muslim". As for Arab definition- Arab language or his dress are completely irrelevant. His work concentrated on Jewish philosophy, Jewish ethics, Jewish law, Jewish literature and Jewish theology, that indeed tells me something and that ain't Arab culture. Regards Infantom (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually no, his writings weren't on just Jewish philosophy, he also wrote medical works and they were ALL in ARABIC, not HEBREW or LADINO. Tell me, why is he being called "Spanish" then? I would like you name one book by him written in SPANISH? Oh right sorry, none exist and if they do, it doesn't compare to the amount of Arabic writings he wrote.

"As for Arab definition- Arab language or his dress are completely irrelevant."

By that statement, you have proven yourself to indeed be a biased and ignorant hypocrite, hiding the fact that he obviously lived a life influenced by Arab culture - and you, like many people out there, are trying to hide and negate this. So it actually is relevant, and tell me why his name is mentioned in talks about Arabic-language philosophers?

And what validity is it calling him "Spanish" if he didn't even write books in Spanish or Ladino?

Now, if this was an article about Solomon ibn Gabirol, who obviously a Hebrew poet, who wrote in Hebrew, then start talking. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

(Personal attack removed) PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
(Personal attack removed) look at the entire section above this one that I started, clearly proves that I wasn't trying to call Maimonidess an Arab, even clearly I do believe that he qualifies as an Arab Jew but I won't do that (Personal attack removed) PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
I could easily discuss and debunk your statements that have already became irrelevant for the article, but given your obnoxious attitude that violated several rules here (WP:NPA, WP:CIV) you are not worth it. But i'll comment on the minor part in your repulsive text that is related to the article, "Spanish" is mentioned for the geographic region he was born and raised in, and there's a wikilink to the Spanish and Portuguese Jews article indicates the Jewish community he was part of, not the "usage of Spanish language". You couldn't use "Arab Jew" either, as it is highly controversial and criticized term. Infantom (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede Phrasing[edit]


Location of his death is possibly Tiberias, where his son and his tomb are set

is a bit confusing. Maimonides' tomb is set in Tiberias, but I don't think his son can be said to be "set" anywhere. Is this a reference to his son's tomb, perchance? I'm just not clear what's being said here.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (who does not watch this page, but wanted to bring this oddity to the attention of someone who does)

Where did he die?[edit]

The opening section says he died in Egypt and then that he died in Tiberias. if it is not known, fair enough, but it can't say both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampben (talkcontribs) 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Maimonides died in Egypt and was buried in Tiberias, just as it is stated explicitly in Gedaliah ibn Yahya's "Shalshelet Ha-Kabbalah." See: Gedaliah ibn Yahya ben Joseph, Shalshelet Ha-Kabbalah Jerusalem 1962, p. ק; but in PDF p. 109 (Hebrew).I have since corrected the page in the main article and have added citations - Davidbena (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Is This Objective ?[edit]

"It is remarkable that he managed to write extended treatises, including not only medical and other scientific studies but some of the most systematically thought-through and influential treatises on halakha (rabbinic law) and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages.[37]"

Why is it remarkable? Why this kind of fluff? It is what it is. This kind of writing tone is not encyclopedic. It is adulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ha Nesher ha Gadol[edit]

"the great eagle" Now ime not an Hebrew scholar by any stretch but whatever. Duzznt Nesher mean vulture? RWBro Froggo Zijgeb 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maimonides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maimonides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maimonides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


An editor created a section called "Views" with the only subsection "Circumcision". This is the content, moved here for comments:

Moses Maimonides states that the purpose of circumcision is to weaken the male organ, without preventing the functions necessary to reproduction, but reducing pleasure and desire. Sages at the time had recognized that the foreskin heightened sexual pleasure. Maimonides reasoned that the bleeding and loss of protective covering rendered the penis weakened and in so doing had the effect of reducing a man's lustful thoughts and making sex less pleasurable. He also warned that it is "hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him."[1]

As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the fore-skin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment: the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning. Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba, c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision.[2]

Maimonides had many views on many things, and we can't use this article to enumerate every single opinion. His opinion on the reason for circumcision sounds old-fashioned to modern ears, but I actually doubt that he was alone in holding of this view. I've therefore moved it here for now. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously everyone has many views on many things, but their important views should be mentioned in their wikipedia articles; like in this article and this one and this one and this one and this one and many other articles in wikipedia. circumcision is an important topic, especially when it comes from a Jewish philosopher and it's definitely interesting for the readers to know about a Jewish philosopher's views on circumcision. his view on circumcision must be mentioned in this article, maybe it would be better if we change the section name to "Views on circumcision". Armin1718 (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Guide for the Perplexed: Part III: Chapter XLIX". Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  2. ^ Maimonides, Moses (1956). The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by Friedländer, Michael (2nd ed.). Mineola, New york: Courier Corporation. p. 378. ISBN 0486203514. Archived from the original on 2018. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)


@Alexbrn: You've reverted my good faith edit saying it's an "original source" (how is that a problem??) and OR. How is quoting the author portrayed by the article OR?? And you say the citation is false, that Guide for the Perplexed wasn't published by Chicago University Press. What do you mean?? Here it is on CUPs own website! You don't seem to be acting in good faith. — Guarapiranga (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

it's a primary source, to which you have added your own intepretation, which is prohibited by policy. A translation may well have been published by Chicago UP, but the quotation and reference you used point to an archived copy of some apparently self-published web site of unknown provenance. If you want to establish weight for Maimonides's views, find secondary sources. Your continued attempts to personalize matters is noted. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
What "interpretation"?? It is literally what he wrote! And the wording I used is literally transcluded from the Brit milah page!!
You want a secondary source? Here it is:[1]Guarapiranga (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Your addition of stuff like "... explains that the main purpose of circumcision ..." is your original interpretation. We need secondary sources to lend weight, and then relay their views (not those of Wikipedia editors). Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Again I ask: WHAT "interpretation"?? Of the English language? Maimonides literally says in that passage that:

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision.

And again, since you're so adamant about a secondary source on this very explicit quote, I refer you to Glick (2005): Maimonides not only acknowledges the painfulness of the operation but even calls it the "real purpose." Whether or not he was correct about impaired sexual capacity as the principal reason for circumcision, he recognized this as the principal result.[1]Guarapiranga (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Glick, Leonard B. (2005-06-30). Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198039259.
We can relay the view is RS, but unverified views by Wikipedia editors are a no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean bogus?? — Guarapiranga (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Was it the link you didn't like (which is plentifully used on this page)?? Ok, fixed (you could've done that, if you really thought it was a necessary improvement). — Guarapiranga (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)