השפעת הרמב"ם על הפוליטיקה הישראלית

The opposition of the vast majority of the Jewish religious public in Israel to any reconciliation with the Arabs based on the formula of 'land for peace" — including the current peace process — is well known. In contrast, a large number of religiously observant scholars of Jewish philosophy (and specifically those dealing with the medieval period) are willing to compromise in terms of both land and sovereignty for the sake of peace. The most prominent Jewish thinker who advocated peace and compromise with the Arabs, Yishayahu Leibowitz, viewed himself as part of the tradition of Jewish philosophy. The most eloquent religious spokesman in the academic world calling for a territorial compromise is Aviezer Ravitsky. We might note other observant teachers of Jewish philosophy who support making concessions for peace: scholars like David Hartman, Michael Zvi Nehorai, Zev Harvey, and Menachem Kellner. The general religious public's opposition to compromise on the one hand, and the support of those scholars mentioned above on the other, invite speculation as to the cause of this ideological discrepancy. Our understanding of the controversy inside the religious community can perhaps be aided by an examination of the intellectual forces which have influenced the religious public in general and scholars of Jewish philosophy in particular. Interestingly, we find that both groups have been significantly affected by Maimonides' views, and that this influence extends to the realm of their political ideas as well. Yishayahu Leibowitz, for example, relied upon Maimonides as a source for his opposition to the religious right's notion of the State of Israel as "the beginning of redemption," the belief which has served as the ideological basis for settling the West Bank and Gaza and opposing territorial compromise. David Hartman, in his book Conflicting Values, says explicitly that it is precisely Maimonides' approach which allows for compromise with the Palestinians. Whether or not we agree with the particulars of Leibowitz's and Hartman's approaches to Maimonides, and whether or not we accept that their left-wing political views are derived from him, it seems clear that the moderate views of each have been influenced at least to some degree by Maimonides' teaching. Another aspect of Maimonides' thought that could lead to a politically moderate position is the fact that he did not include the settlement of the Land of Israel as one of the commandments of the Torah. While many throughout the ages have either criticized Maimonides for failing to acknowledge this as a commandment, or have attempted to demonstrate that he actually did view it as a commandment, nonetheless, it seems relatively clear that he did not. Does faithfulness, then, to Maimonides' views on messianism, theology, cosmology, and the Land of Israel inevitably lead to left-wing political ideology? Evidently, it does not. There are numerous opponents to the peace process and to territorial compromise among the students of Maimonides. Although Maimonides did not name settlement of the land as a commandment, the fact is that almost every religious right-wing portrayal of the issue of territorial compromise and the integrity of the Land of Israel relies in one way or another upon the legal writings of Maimonides, which include quite a number of decisions against handing territory of the Land of Israel over to idolators. It should be noted as well that Maimonides' teachings, both in his legal and philosophical writings, are often consistent with illiberal thinking and an anti-democratic approach. Not only can the political right find justification for its refusal to transfer territory to other nations on the basis of Maimonides' views, it can also argue that there are instances, according to Maimonides, in which members of these other nations can justifiably be killed. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the religious right, in both its moderate and extreme forms (e.g., the late Meir Kahane), views Maimonides as its spiritual teacher and argues that he would adopt their political position were he alive today. Does faithfulness to the teachings of Maimonides, therefore, require one to adopt right-wing ideologies? Once again, it is clear that it does not, as can be seen from the reference to those on the left who ground their positions in the writings of Maimonides. What differentiates, then, between these two very divergent groups of observant Jews, both of whom justify views on territorial compromise by quoting Maimonides? Why are so many scholars of medieval Jewish philosophy in favor of compromise with the Palestinians, while so many other religious figures oppose such compromise? The answer lies, perhaps, in the fact that those Maimonideans who favor compromise are primarily students of Maimonides' philosophical writings, while those on the political right are more likely to be those whose study of Maimonides centers mainly on his legal work. Already in Maimonides' days, his followers tended to divide into Iwo groups — those who concentrated on his Aristotelian philosophical teachings, and those who were primarily absorbed in his halakhic scholarship. Disagreements between these two groups, as to which of them represented the true continuation of Maimonides' thought, often resulted in one accusing the other of falsifying his teachings. It seems that today those who support territorial compromise tend to identify with Maimonides' philosophy, while those, who do not, see themselves as part of his halakhic tradition. Why do the students of Rambam's philosophy tend to support territorial compromise more often than the students of his halakhah? As Menachem Kellner has pointed out, Maimonides did not see Jews and Gentiles as substantially different. Prophecy is open to all, since Jews do not possess any unique characteristic lacking in non-Jews. True converts are equal in every way to those born Jewish, and no special information is available only to Jews. Maimonides did not hold that immortality of the soul is a solely Jewish phenomenon. The essential human equality of all individuals is, therefore, an important aspect of Maimonides' approach. Despite the various intolerant aspects of Maimonides' world view, it would seem that Maimonides' teachings prohibit Jews from viewing themselves as "more equal" than other people. A follower of Maimonides' philosophy must view the "other" as a human being with the same aspirations, the same passions, as those of a Jew. To the extent that my analysis is correct, therefore, it is no surprise that scholars of medieval Jewish philosophy tend to emphasize this aspect of Maimonides' world view and support compromise with the Palestinians, leaving the less palatable aspects of his teachings aside, perhaps to be applied after the coming of the Messiah. The response of the students of Maimonides' halakhic rulings would, of course, be that if Maimonides were such a humanist, and if he did not intend his rulings to be followed, he would not have laid them down — a legal ruling is a legal ruling, and we may not be selective in our application of Maimonidean principles. We have seen that each school — the philosophical and the halakhic — chooses what suits it from the teachings of Maimonides. It seems, however, that the left has more of a problem than the right. The right can rely upon the halakhic teachings of Maimonides and avoid his philosophical views. In any event, over the past few hundred years, Maimonides' philosophical teachings have undergone a process of rendering them compatible with the halakhic tradition and acceptable in this manner to the traditional Jewish public. The controversy surrounding Maimonides' writings came to an end only when the halakhists found a way to interpret them in such a manner that his philosophy no longer threatened their traditional views. Maimonides' philosophy is far more open to interpretation than is his halakhah, so that those who follow his philosophical teachings must explain the particularist notions that they encounter in his halakhah. In light of the existence of two such opposing applications and understandings of Maimonides' teachings, we may tend to ask: if Maimonides were alive today, which side would he support? Would the "Great Eagle" be a hawk or a dove? Who is the real Maimonides? And yet, in all likelihood there is no "real Maimonides." Maimonides himself was aware of the tension between the Judaism of the masses and the Judaism of individuals; every Jew must follow the commandments, but only a few will understand the true messages which underlie them. The masses may well content themselves with halakhah, but individuals will aspire to go beyond the dry legalism. Maimonides would probably not be surprised to see the majority of the national-religious community tending towards his uncompromising halakhic rulings in matters of territory. Today, as always, it is not easy to be a follower of Maimonides' philosophy, especially when questions of life or death are at issue. And yet, just as Maimonides never ceased trying to spread his universalist outlook, I believe that the proponents of his tradition will continue to search for peace, both within the Jewish people and with our neighbors.