In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 Torah and Philosophy in The Book of Knowledge Leo Strauss’s final statement regarding the Mishneh Torah, “Notes on Maimonides ’ Book of Knowledge,” first appeared in 1967 in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem. The twelve-page essay appeared again as chapter 9 in the posthumously published Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (SIPPP). Although Strauss collected the articles that were to be included in SIPPP, he didn’t manage to compose an introductory essay or preface before he died. As Joseph Cropsey writes in his Foreword to SIPPP: “[Strauss] did not live to write the introduction that would . . . have explained his choice of this title for a book that, however suffused with the influence of Plato, devotes many pages to other authors.”1 In the absence of such an introduction, any attempt to give an account of the book’s structure remains highly speculative. I will accordingly restrict myself to treating “Notes” on its own.2 A Fundamentally Different View of the Mishneh Torah? At first glance, Strauss’s view of the Mishneh Torah in “Notes on Maimonides ’ Book of Knowledge” seems to be radically different from the view he expressed in “The Literary Character of the Guide.” According to “Notes,” “In an important respect Maimonides’ fiqh books are more ‘philosophic’ than the Guide. Within the Mishneh Torah philosophy seems to be most powerfully present in the First Book, the Book of Knowledge. . . . The first four chapters of the Yesodei ha Torah . . . introduce philosophy into the Holy of Holies by as it were rediscovering it there.”3 In contrast, Strauss had written the following in “The Literary Character”: 153 154 Progressive Minds, Conservative Politics One may say that the science of the law in general is divided into two parts: a practical part which is treated in the Mishneh Torah, and a theoretical part which is treated in the Guide. This view is confirmed by the fact that the former work deals with beliefs and opinions only insofar as they are implied in prohibitions and commands, whereas the Guide deals with commands and prohibitions only in order to explain their reasons. . . . [In] the Mishneh Torah . . . generally speaking, Maimonides appears as the mouthpiece of the Jewish community or the Jewish tradition.4 The difference seems clear: according to Strauss’s view in “Notes,” the Mishneh Torah is in an important respect more philosophical than the Guide, while in “The Literary Character,” Strauss writes that Maimonides appears in the Mishneh Torah as the mouthpiece of the tradition. However, Strauss’s comments in “The Literary Character” not only contradict what he wrote in “Notes.” They also contradict what he had previously written in 1939 in his review of Moses Hyamson’s translation of the Mishneh Torah.5 According to what Strauss wrote in 1939, “It is obvious to anyone who reads Sefer ha-Madda’ with a reasonable degree of care, that Maimonides uses the method of ‘contradictions’ in that work not less than he does in the Guide. . . . Maimonides, in a number of instances, reveals what he considers to be the truth by the use of ambiguous, as well as unambiguous words of secret meanings, and . . . he does this in the Sefer Ha-Madda’ no less than in the Guide.”6 According to Strauss in his 1939 review, Sefer ha Madda’, the Book of Knowledge is, like the Guide, marked by contradictions and secret meanings . In his review Strauss also distinguishes the first four chapters of Sefer ha Madda’ from the last six chapters of the book, not to mention from the Mishneh Torah proper.7 He fails to do this in “The Literary Character,” while he returns to this idea in “Notes.” In addition, in his review Strauss claims that the Mishneh Torah is, in certain places, addressed to the few. For instance, he speaks of a passage in Hilkhot Teshuba that “is addressed, not to all men, but to one man only. For the secret teaching which is transmitted especially by words of manifold meanings, is addressed to ‘one man’ only.”8 This claim contradicts the entire tenor of “The Literary Character ,” which Strauss concludes as follows: “The Mishneh Torah is primarily addressed to the general run of men, while the Guide is addressed to the small number of people who are able to understand by themselves.”9 How does one account for these changes, or fluctuations, in Strauss’s essays? According to Steve Lenzner, there isn’t really any problem because “The Literary Character” has...

Share