I am here going to summarize a review essay in Tradition, volume 57, winter 2025. The essay is by Marc Herman, an assistant professor at York University in Toronto. He reviews two books:

1) Rabbi Aaron Adler, Al Kanfei Nesharim: “Mehkarim beSifrut haHilchatit shel HaRambam” (Herzog College, 2023), 2) Mordechai Akiva Friedman, “HaRambam uGenizat Kahir” (The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2023).

(The two titles translated into English are: 1) “Studies in the Halachic Literature of the Rambam,” and 2) “Rambam and the Cairo Geniza.”) Both books are in Hebrew. The review essay is so interesting that I feel that I must share it, even though I do not have these two books!

Let us briefly review Rambam’s life and major writings. Rambam was born in Cordoba, Spain, in 1138 (not 1135, as was stated in older works). At age 30, he completed his “Commentary on the Mishna,” (written in Judeo-Arabic). He tells us that he completed it in Egypt and had started it when he was 23. After his early life in Spain and Fez, he arrived in Eretz Yisrael around 1166. He lived the rest of his life in Egypt where he wrote his other major works: “Mishneh Torah (in Hebrew)” and “Guide to the Perplexed (in Judeo-Arabic).” He died in 1204.

As further background, we have a handwritten copy of the “Commentary on the Mishna” for five out of the six orders. Herman writes that this handwritten copy “contains countless emendations and corrections on matters large and small.” The widespread belief today is that this is, indeed, the copy and changes written by Rambam himself.

Rabbi Adler presents 14 thematic studies of Rambam’s writings. (“Fourteen” because that is the number of books in the Mishneh Torah.) The first five studies focus on differences between the “Commentary on the Mishna” and Rambam’s later works. The remaining chapters provide shorter analyses of Maimonidean ideas. (The book is an updated version of Rabbi Adler’s 1987 doctoral dissertation at Bar-Ilan University.) Herman writes that “a significant contribution of this volume is its efforts to integrate traditional interpretations of Maimonides with academic research, a choice that too few writers make.”

Rabbi Adler’s review of Rambam’s writings led him to identify 749 places (!) where the “Commentary on the Mishna” diverges from Rambam’s later writings. Of course, sometimes, the changes merely reflect Rambam’s updating his language from the Judeo-Arabic of the Islamic West to that used in Egypt. Other times, it is due to Rambam’s shifting view of Karaites. But Rabbi Adler is trying to identify broader factors that motivated changes in Rambam’s thinking.

In his official works, Rambam never explains why he changed his mind. The only time he might explain it would be in correspondence. (We do have some such explanations in correspondence.)

Herman writes: “Adler finds five factors that—he proposes—explain many of these modifications: increased reliance on the Jerusalem Talmud; decreased dependence on geonic authority; greater freedom from anonymous voices (the setam layer) in in the Babylonian Talmud; decreased reliance on rules of halachic decision making (kelalei pesak); and changing evaluation of extra-talmudic customs.”

For example, Adler demonstrates that in many cases Rambam updated his copy of the “Commentary on the Mishna” itself with rulings based on the Jerusalem Talmud. Also, in at least three responsas, Rambam emphasized the role of the Jerusalem Talmud when explaining his later rulings. (These are the responsa: edition Blau, no. 130, no. 293 and no. 313.) (Rabbi Aaron Adler has been living in Israel since about 1979. He is the brother of Rabbi Yosef Adler of Teaneck.)

————

Now, let us discuss the Friedman book. It consists of two sections, the first by Friedman himself and the second by his brother, Shamma Friedman. Herman writes: “The longer, first study by the erudite professor at Tel Aviv University shows how knowledge of Maimonides’ life, activities, works and reputation can all be enhanced through Cairo Genizah documents … Fortunately for those interested in Maimonides, the period most reflected in the genizah overlaps with the height of the Great Eagle’s activity.”

Herman writes that Friedman modestly presents his book as an “interim” evaluation of the state of the field. “But, in truth, this sweeping study is impressively comprehensive … It touches on some of the best-known aspects of Maimonides’ life and uncovers unknown episodes as well. This book will be an indispensable tool for all future research.” (It is 442 pages.)

For example:

• I certainly knew of documents composed by Rambam himself that have been found in the genizah. But Friedman discusses notes of students of Rambam that have been identified in the genizah. These notes record what Rambam said in a class to these students. These notes help shed light on difficult passages in Rambam.
• Friedman found a previously unknown story about Rambam that comes—not from a student of Rambam—but from a student of Rambam’s son, Avraham.
• Friedman found something that perhaps calls into question the widespread consensus that the handwritten mishna text mentioned above was written by Rambam himself.

In the second part of the Friedman volume, his brother, Shamma Friedman, writes about the surviving pages from the first draft of the “Mishneh Torah.” These are pages in Rambam’s own handwriting. I have known about these for decades. There are about 20 such pages. These pages show Rambam crossing out words, and adding in material—all revealing his inner thoughts as he is writing and editing his first draft.

What do I mean by “first draft?” There is a page which has the heading sefer Mishpatim. Here, it is called “book 11.” Yet in our Mishneh Torah, “sefer Mishpatim” is “book 13.” There are other significant organizational differences as well in this section. Shamma Friedman deduces that most likely, the “Mishneh Torah” was originally conceived as a 12 book work. (Isadore Twersky—in his “Introduction to the Code of Maimonides,” 1980—had written that Rambam had always intended a 14 book work. But Friedman thinks Twersky did not properly evaluate these Mishneh Torah draft pages from the genizah. They were already known in 1980.)

Shamma Friedman also discusses another important issue: Did Rambam know of Rashi? Rambam never cites him.

Here is some further background on this issue:

• Rashi lived in France and died in 1105.
• We do know that Rabbi Joseph ibn Migash—who taught Rambam’s father—knew of Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud.
• Although Rambam knew of Rabbi Hananel ben Hushiel, he only cites him a few times. Thus, lack of citation does not mean lack of knowledge.

Now for the relevance of these draft pages. Friedman observes that Rambam changed his mind from the draft page of hilchot sechirut to what he ended up writing in hilchot sechirut 12:5. The factor that may have led Rambam to change his mind was the position of Rashi on Bava Metzia 89a. (The issue relates to allowing farm workers to consume the produce they are working with before it becomes obligated in tithing or in the separation of challah.)

————

Shamma Friedman has discussed the issue of Rambam’s knowledge of Rashi at great length in his Hebrew article, “Maimonides’ Use of Rashi’s Commentaries: A Reevaluation,” in Rashi—The Man and his Works, eds., Avraham Grossman and Sara Japhet (2008), pages 403-464. I suspect that he finds other situations where Rambam changed his mind and an explanation can be that Rambam saw Rashi.

On the subject of Rambam, one source that I have learned much from over the years and that incorporates a lot of the material from the genizah is Joel L. Kraemer, Maimonides: “The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds,” (2008).

Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. When I said above that Rambam was born in 1138, the last third of 1137 is also a possibility. (See Kraemer, page 23. You all should be able to intuit why this is the case.)