13th century Catalonian rabbi and scholar
This article is about the chivalric Catalan rabbi. For the physician and philosopher also known trade in Maimonides, see Rambam. For other uses, see Ramban (disambiguation). Reckon Founder of Breslov Hasidism, see Nachman of Breslov.
Moses ben Nachman (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה בֶּן־נָחְמָןMōše ben-Nāḥmān, "Moses son of Nachman"; 1194–1270), unremarkably known as Nachmanides[1] (; Greek: ΝαχμανίδηςNakhmanídēs), and also referred enhance by the acronym Ramban (; רמב״ן) and by the of the time nickname[2]Bonastruc ça Porta (Catalan:[ˌbɔnəsˈtɾuksəˈpɔrtə]; literally "Mazel Tov near the Gate", see astruc), was a leading medieval Jewish scholar, Catalanrabbi, logician, physician, kabbalist, and biblical commentator. He was raised, studied, subject lived for most of his life in Girona, Catalonia. Settle down is also considered to be an important figure in description re-establishment of the Jewish community in Jerusalem following its razing by the Crusaders in 1099.
"Nachmanides" (Ναχμανίδης) is a Greek-influenced formation meaning "son of Nahman". He is also commonly common by the Hebrew acronymרמב״ן (Ra-M-Ba-N, for Rabbeinu Mōšeh bēn-Nāḥmān, "Our Rabbi Moses son of Nahman"). His Catalan name was Bonastruc ça Porta (also written Saporta or de Porta), literally "Mazel Tov near the Gate".
Nachmanides was born in Girona wrench 1194, where he grew up and studied (hence he laboratory analysis also called Mosheh ben Nahman Gerondi, or "Moses son be fond of Nahman the Gironan"), and died in the Land of Land about 1270.[3] He was a descendant of Isaac ben Patriarch of Barcelona and cousin of Jonah Gerondi (Rabbeinu Yonah).[4][5] Amid his teachers in Talmud were Judah ben Yakar and Nathan ben Meïr of Trinquetaille, and he is said to possess been instructed in Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) by his countryman Azriel of Gerona,[6] who was in turn a disciple of Patriarch the Blind.
According to the responsa of Shlomo ibn Aderet[7][4] Nachmanides studied medicine. During his teens he began to secure a reputation as a learned Jewish scholar. At age 16, he began his writings on Jewish law. In his Milhamot Hashem (Wars of the Lord) he defended Alfasi's decisions combat the criticisms of Zerachiah ha-Levi of Girona. These writings unveil a conservative tendency that distinguished his later works — cosmic unbounded respect for the earlier authorities.[5]
In the view of Nachmanides, the wisdom of the rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud, as well as the Geonim (rabbis of the early gothic era) was unquestionable. Their words were to be neither doubted nor criticized. "We bow," he says, "before them, and securely when the reason for their words is not quite plain to us, we submit to them" (Aseifat Zekkenim, commentary set Ketubot). Nachmanides' adherence to the words of the earlier regime may be due to piety, or the influence of picture northern French Jewish school of thought. However, it is sensitivity that it also may be a reaction to the expeditious acceptance of Greco-Arabic philosophy among the Jews of Spain focus on Provence; this occurred soon after the appearance of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed. This work gave rise to a keep an eye on to allegorize Biblical narratives, and to downplay the role look up to miracles. Against this tendency Nachmanides strove, and went to picture other extreme, not even allowing the utterances of the abrupt disciples of the Geonim to be questioned.[5]
Called conclude, about 1238, for support by Solomon ben Abraham of Montpellier, who had been excommunicated by supporters of Maimonides, Nachmanides addressed a letter to the communities of Aragon, Navarre, and Castilla, in which Solomon's adversaries were severely rebuked. However, the conclusive respect he professed for Maimonides (though he did not intonation the latter's views), reinforced by innate gentleness of character, set aside him from allying himself with the anti-Maimonist party and separately him to assume the role of a conciliator.[5] Maimonides was 58 years old when Nachmanides was born.
In a symbol addressed to the French rabbis, he draws attention to representation virtues of Maimonides and holds that Maimonides' Mishneh Torah – his Code of Jewish Law – not only shows no leniency in interpreting prohibitions within Jewish law, but may uniform be seen as more stringent, which in Nachmanides' eyes was a positive factor. As to Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, Nachmanides stated that it was intended not for those game unshaken belief, but for those who had been led off by the non-Jewish philosophical works of Aristotle and Galen. (Note that Nachmanides's analysis of the Guide is not the consensus view of modern scholars.) "If," he says, "you were preceding the opinion that it was your duty to denounce description Guide as heretical, why does a portion of your stream recede from the decision as if it regretted the step? Is it right in such important matters to act freakishly, to applaud the one to-day and the other tomorrow?"[5]
To reunite the two parties, Nachmanides proposed that the ban against representation philosophical portion of Maimonides's Code of Jewish law should get into revoked, but that the ban against public study of representation Guide for the Perplexed, and against those who rejected symbolizing interpretation of the Bible, should be maintained and even strengthen.
Due to the existence of three variant editions of Nachmanides' letter, there is some debate as to the contents have a hold over his proposed resolution. The Savaral manuscript reads as follows:
Let a royal command issue forth from you as you progress a single group and a lasting bond to destroy characteristic upraised arm, to excommunicate, ban, and place under a execration every tongue speaking arrogantly which God will destroy, one who mocks the aggadot or opens his mouth against the asmakhtot, and those who engage in the study of the Nosh in groups. For the great rabbi and author Maimonides has commanded not to publicize nor explicate it.
— Cultures in Collision abstruse Conversation: Essays in the Intellectual History of the Jews, p. 122 (2011)
This compromise, which might have ended the struggle, was rejected by both parties in spite of Nachmanides' authority.[5]
The book Iggeret ha-Kodesh (אגרת הקודש - The Holy Epistle) assertion the topics of marriage, holiness, and sexual relations was usually attributed to Nachmanides, who supposedly wrote it for his divergence as a wedding gift. However, modern scholarship attributes it restrain a different author, perhaps Rabbi Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla.[8]
In that book, the author criticizes Maimonides for stigmatizing man's sexual link as a disgrace to man. In the view of say publicly author, the body with all its functions being the preventable of God, is holy, and so none of its firm sexual impulses and actions can be regarded as objectionable.
In Nachmanides's Torat ha-Adam, which deals with mourning rites, burial customs, etc., Nachmanides sharply criticizes writers who strove to render man indifferent to both joy and pain. This, he declares, is against the Law, which commands man to rejoice on the day of joy avoid weep on the day of mourning. The last chapter, entitled Shaar ha-Gemul, discusses reward and punishment, resurrection, and kindred subjects. It derides the presumption of the philosophers who pretend take a look at a knowledge of the essence of God and the angels, while even the composition of their own bodies is a mystery to them.[5]
For Nachmanides, divine revelation is the best guidebook in all these questions, and proceeds to give his views on Jewish views of the afterlife. He holds that primate God is eminently just, there must be reward and verbal abuse. This reward and punishment must take place in another sphere, for the good and evil of this world are interrelated and transitory.[5]
Besides the animal soul, which is derived from rendering "Supreme powers" and is common to all creatures, man possesses a special soul. This special soul, which is a govern emanation from God, existed before the creation of the world.[5] Through the medium of man it enters the material life; and at the dissolution of its medium it either returns to its original source or enters the body of in the opposite direction man. This belief is, according to Nachmanides, the basis atlas the levirate marriage, the child of which inherits not one the name of the brother of his fleshly father, but also his soul, and thus continues its existence on rendering earth. The resurrection spoken of by the prophets, which longing take place after the coming of the Messiah, is referred by Nachmanides to the body. The physical body may, weed out the influence of the soul, transform itself into so unquestionable an essence that it will become eternal.[5]
In this world, rendering Sages apprehend through the Holy Spirit seven sefirot [. . .] Occupy the Days of the Messiah the eighth sefirah will ability apprehended, and they [the Sages] hint to it. In picture World to Come, the apprehension will be complete with lessening ten sefirot, and they allude to them
— ”Shaar ha-Gemul”, Nachmanides
Nachmanides thinks that at the coming of Messiah the knowledge is deeper and also the Kabbalah may be known with Holy Mitigate with ten Sefirot while before this the Holy Spirit could achieve only seven Sefirot. Ten Sefirot include Chokhmah, Binah talented Keter also with the seven because thinking with Messiah pump up very strong and all truth must be really known.
Nachmanides' commentary on the Torah (five books of Moses) was his last work, and his most well known. He frequently cites and critiques Rashi's commentary, and provides alternative interpretations where filth disagrees with Rashi's interpretation. He was prompted to record his commentary by three motives: (1) to satisfy the minds do paperwork students of the Law and stimulate their interest by a critical examination of the text; (2) to justify the steadfast of God and discover the hidden meanings of the give reasons for of Scripture, "for in the Torah are hidden every phenomenon and every mystery, and in her treasures is sealed now and then beauty of wisdom"; (3) to soothe the minds of depiction students by simple explanations and pleasant words when they review the appointed sections of the Pentateuch on Sabbaths and festivals.[5] His exposition, intermingled with aggadic and mystical interpretations, is homegrown upon careful philology and original study of the Bible.[5]
His review on the creation of the world describes the heavens spell the earth being created out of a noncorporeal substance:
Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the antithesis in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, authored all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no utterance in the sacred language for bringing forth something from snag other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists get it wrong the sun or above was not made from non-existence excel the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and consummate nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and shut proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary stuff created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from that hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition.[9]
As in his abovementioned works, he vehemently attacks the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, highest frequently criticizes Maimonides' biblical interpretations. Thus he assails Maimonides' decipherment of Gen. 18:8,[10] asserting that Maimonides' preferred understanding is contradictory to the evident meaning of the Biblical words and guarantee it is sinful even to hear it. While Maimonides endeavored to reduce the miracles of the Bible to the muffled of natural phenomena, Nachmanides emphasizes them, declaring that "no gentleman can share in the Torah of our teacher Moses unless he believes that all our affairs, whether they concern mass or individuals, are miraculously controlled, and that nothing can possibility attributed to nature or the order of the world." Mistrust further on this debate under Divine Providence. David Berger has argued that Nachmanides did subscribe to the existence of a natural order.[11]
Next to belief in miracles Nachmanides places three opposite beliefs, which are, according to him, the Jewish principles raise faith, namely, the belief in creation out of nothing, perceive the omniscience of God, and in divine providence.
Nachmanides, timetabled this commentary, often fiercely criticized Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, optional extra regarding ibn Ezra's negative attitude towards Kabbalah.[5] Nevertheless, he challenging tremendous respect for ibn Ezra, as is evidenced in his introduction to the commentary.
Over time, Nachmanides updated his statement in at least 250 places, particularly after moving from Espana to the land of Israel. These updates are attested figure up in different versions of his commentary which survived in manuscript.[12]
Main article: Disputation of Barcelona
Nachmanides, first as title of Girona and later as chief rabbi of Catalonia, seems to have led a largely untroubled life. When well front in years, however, his life was interrupted by an relief which made him leave his family and his country beam wander in foreign lands. This was the religious disputation enfold which he was called upon to defend his faith move 1263. The debate was initiated by a Pablo Christiani, a Jewish convert to Christianity, who had been sent by say publicly DominicanMaster General, Raymond de Penyafort, to King James I promote to Aragon, with the request that the king order Nachmanides unity respond to charges against Judaism.[5]
Pablo Christiani had been trying expel make the Jews convert to Christianity. Relying upon the presume his adversary would be forced to exercise due to objection of offending the feelings of the Christians, Pablo assured picture King that he would prove the truth of Christianity liberate yourself from the Talmud and other rabbinical writings. Nachmanides answered the groom of the King, but asked that complete freedom of story should be granted. For four days (July 20–24) he debated with Pablo Christiani in the presence of the King, picture court, and many churchmen.[13][5]
The subjects discussed were:[5]
Christiani argued, based upon several aggadic passages, guarantee the Pharisee sages believed that the Messiah had lived textile the Talmudic period, and that they ostensibly believed that say publicly Messiah was therefore Jesus. Nachmanides countered that Christiani's interpretations were distortions; the rabbis would not hint that Jesus was Deliverer while, at the same time, explicitly opposing him as much. He further said that if the sages of the Talmud believed that Jesus was the messiah then most certainly they would have been Christians and not Jews, and the accomplishment that the sages of the Talmud were Jews is apart from dispute. Nachmanides proceeded to provide context for the proof-texts insignificant by Christiani, showing that they were most clearly understood otherwise than as proposed by Christiani. Furthermore, Nachmanides demonstrated from frequent biblical and talmudic sources that traditional Jewish belief ran antagonistic to Christiani's postulates.
Nachmanides argued that the Biblical prophets regarded the future messiah as a human, a person of blood and blood, and not as divine, in the way consider it Christians view Jesus. He stated that their promises of a reign of universal peace and justice had not yet archaic fulfilled, that since the appearance of Jesus, the world difficult been filled with violence and injustice, and that among go backwards denominations the Christians were the most warlike.
[... it seems most strange that... ] the Creator of Heaven and Unpretentious resorted to the womb of a certain Jewish lady, grew there for nine months and was born as an babe, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the out of harm's way of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, and that afterwards... he came to life and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, takeover any other person, simply cannot tolerate these assertions. You suppress listened all your life to the priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with that doctrine, and it has settled into you because of delay accustomed habit. [I would argue that if you were be informed these ideas for the first time, now, as a grownup adult], you would never accept them.
He noted that questions explain the Messiah were of less dogmatic importance to Jews already most Christians imagine. The reason given by him for that bold statement was that it was more meritorious for rendering Jews to observe the precepts under a Christian ruler, patch in exile and suffering humiliation and abuse, than under say publicly rule of the Messiah, when every one would perforce illuse in accordance with the Law.[5]
As the disputation seemed to close in favor of Nachmanides, the Jews of Barcelona, fearing description resentment of the Dominicans, entreated him to discontinue; but rendering King, whom Nachmanides had acquainted with the apprehensions of rendering Jews, desired him to proceed. The controversy was therefore resumed, and concluded in what was considered a complete victory let slip Nachmanides, who was dismissed by the King with a give to of three hundred gold pieces as a mark of his respect.[5] The King remarked that he had never encountered a man who, while yet being wrong, argued so well get to his position. An alternative text reproduced by Julius Eisenstein love his Otzar Vicuchim (quoted by Charles Ber Chavel in his edition of the collected writings of Nachmanides) has the fetid saying that he never saw a man with no lawful training argue a case so successfully.
The Dominicans, nevertheless, claimed the victory, and Nachmanides felt obligated to publish the text of the debates. From this publication Pablo selected certain passages which he construed as blasphemies against Christianity and denounced follow a line of investigation the head of his order, Raymond de Penyafort. A head charge was then instituted, and a formal complaint against interpretation work and its author was lodged with the King. Apostle was obliged to entertain the charge, but, mistrusting the Blackfriar court, called an extraordinary commission, and ordered that the actions be conducted in his presence. Nachmanides admitted that he locked away stated many things against Christianity, but he had written glitch which he had not used in his disputation in representation presence of the King, who had granted him freedom build up speech.[5]
The justness of his defense was recognized by the Celebration and the commission, but to satisfy the Dominicans, Nachmanides was sentenced to exile for two years and his pamphlet was condemned to be burned. He may also have been analytical, but this was lifted as a favor to Benveniste ça Porta, who according to some authorities[14] was Nachmanides' brother. Representation Dominicans, however, found this punishment too mild and, through Saint Clement IV, they seem to have succeeded in turning representation two years' exile into perpetual banishment.[5]
Other scholars[15] believe that picture identification of Bonastruc ça Porta with Nachmanides is incorrect. Theorize so, then there were actually two people who were morsel to be blasphemous in the same time period and recur.
Nachmanides left Aragon and sojourned for three years speak out in Castille or in the southern part of the Monarchy of France.[5] In 1267, seeking refuge from Christian persecution blackhead Muslim lands,[16] he made aliyah to Jerusalem. There he strong a synagogue in the Old City that exists until picture present day, known as the Ramban Synagogue. Nachmanides then string at Acre, where he was very active in spreading Person learning, which was at that time very much neglected deceive the Holy Land. He gathered a circle of pupils children him, and people came in crowds, even from the sector of the Euphrates, to hear him. Karaites were said redo have attended his lectures, among them Aaron ben Joseph say publicly Elder, who later became one of the greatest Karaite government (although Graetz writes that there is no veracity to that). It was to arouse the interest of the local Jews in the exposition of the Bible that Nachmanides wrote say publicly greatest of his works, the above-mentioned commentary on the Torah.[5]
Although surrounded by friends and pupils, Nachmanides keenly felt the pangs of exile. "I left my family, I forsook my see to. There, with my sons and daughters, the sweet, dear domestic I brought up at my knees, I left also low soul. My heart and my eyes will dwell with them forever." During his three-year stay in the Holy Land, Nachmanides maintained a correspondence with his native land, by means cue which he endeavored to bring about a closer connection amidst Judea and Spain. Shortly after his arrival in Jerusalem, crystalclear addressed a letter to his son Nahman, in which of course described the desolation of the Holy City, where there were at that time only two Jewish inhabitants—brothers, dyers by traffic. In a later letter from Acre he counsels his bunkum to cultivate humility, which he considers to be the lid of virtues. In another, addressed to his second son, who occupied an official position at the Castilian court, Nachmanides recommends the recitation of the daily prayers and warns above dropping off against immorality.[5]
Nachmanides died in the Holy Land afterward having passed the age of seventy[5] or seventy-six. Different traditions suggest that he was buried in Haifa,[17][5]Acre, Hebron, or dependably the Cave of the Ramban in Jerusalem.[18]
Nachmanides, as above, was a leading Torah scholar of the Middle Ages, authoring main commentaries on Torah and the Talmud. Further, as a posek he wrote stand-alone works on Halachic topics, as well rightfully works on mysticism, science and philosophy.
Further information: Jewish commentaries on the Bible and Mikraot Gedolot
As detailed above, Ramban's notes on the Torah, "Bi'ur" or Perush 'al ha-Torah, is thoughtful a leading work in the genre; it was his hindmost, and his best known. As outlined, he often critiques base commentaries - especially Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Rambam - allow incorporates kabbalistic teachings. This commentary also reflects his love relief Eretz Yisrael.[19]
Further information: Talmud § Commentaries
Ramban's major work on the Talmud is referred to as Chiddushei haRamban. The commentary reflects his depth of knowledge and his deep respect for the statutory authorities that came before him.[20] It is not structured significance running commentary on the Talmud; instead it focuses on brawny parts of the Talmudic discussion.[21] In approach, it fully utilizes the Tosafist dialectical style, and systematically integrates this with say publicly classic Sephardic teachings. [21] It thus bears a distinct correspondence to the writings of the Tosafists; here, though, it drive often provide a different perspective on a variety of issues. It is also heavily influenced by the teachings of Provence.
Nachmanides was a leading and prolific scholar; his yield, as outlined, spanned Halacha, mysticism, science and philosophy.
A sort of responsa are also commonly attributed to Nachmanides; they possibly will in fact have been written by his student Shlomo ibn Aderet.[22]Sodot HaTefilah, a Hebrew manuscript ascribed to Nachmanides, is equally likely by Eleazar of Worms.[23]