Levi Cooper is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah and teaches Jewish Studies at Machon Pardes and other university level programs in Jerusalem.
Generations of scholars and thinkers have struggled with the concepts of personal and social identities. One aspect of this broad subject is the self-chosen identity of converts to Judaism. The journey for the prospective convert to Judaism is one fraught with many obstacles – some mandated by Jewish Law, others an unfortunate by-product of the society in which we live. Nevertheless, one would hope that a resolute convert who has surmounted the challenges of the rigorous conversion process, who has made a considered and informed decision of his or her own volition, would feel secure as an unequivocally welcomed member of the Jewish people. Certain aspects of the identity of a convert, however, may not be so simple. The corporate identity of the convert, that is, the perception of the convert as a bearer of the communal collective memory and as a descendant of our forbearers may still be hazy, as we shall see.
Three recorded cases from the Middle Ages show that while the convert was accepted into the faith, the full implications of this change of status left room for discussion.[i] These Medieval documents address questions such as:
- Are the convert’s ancestors defined in biological terms or perhaps the convert’s newly adopted spiritual ancestors take on the role of forbearers?
- Indeed, the convert is Jewish and is included under the umbrella of Jewish Peoplehood, but is there no quarter given to the convert’s Gentile roots?
The complex corporate identity of the convert gave rise to the possibility of practical liturgical disabilities, to which we will now turn.
The issue of liturgical problems for converts was first addressed in rabbinic texts (c. 2nd century CE) relating to the bikkurim Temple ritual (pre 70 CE). Bikkurim are the first fruits of the Seven Species that were annually brought to the Temple. First, the Mishnah rules that while converts must bring bikkurim, they should not read the biblical passage that accompanies the ceremony due to its mention of “the God of our forefathers”. To be sure, converts must fulfill all precepts – but they cannot truthfully refer to the Almighty as “the God of our forefathers” since their forefathers were Gentiles. The Mishnah continues with a comment about converts’ daily prayers: Instead of saying “the God of our forefathers” in the liturgy, when praying privately converts should say “the God of the forefathers of Israel” and when praying publicly – that is, aloud as leader of the communal prayer – they should say “the God of your forefathers”.[ii]
While the Talmud Bavli appears to endorse the Mishnah’s appraisal of the convert’s status and their consequent liturgical accommodations,[iii] the Talmud Yerushalmi presents a different position.[iv] According to the Yerushalmi, converts may indeed recite the ceremonial bikkurim reading since Abraham may be considered the father of all nations,[v] including the native nation of the convert. Saying that God made a covenant with our forefathers – namely, Abraham – is, therefore, not an imprecise statement for the convert. The Yerushalmi not only asserts this position, but states that in subsequent generations it was declared normative halakhah (law) and was adopted in practice.[vi]
In the centuries following the Mishnah and the Talmudim, there is scant evidence of further discussion on this matter.[vii] But the debate appears to have been revived in the twelfth century with three contemporaneous cases in which the convert’s right to recite the words “God of our fathers” was discussed.[viii]
The first case comes from Northern France:[ix]
It once happened that a convert was leading the invitation to recite the Grace After Meals, and they were objecting to him [leading]: “How could he say [in the text of the Grace] ‘That You bequeathed to our forefathers a pleasant, good and spacious land’?”[x]
Where a disagreement on matters of law exists between the Babylonian Talmud and the Talmud from the Land of Israel, accepted halakhic practice is to prefer the Babylonian position. Thus as could be expected, the famed Rabbenu Tam (c.1100-1171) ruled in line with the Mishnah and the Bavli and did not allow the convert to lead the Grace.
The position of Rabbenu Tam, however, did not go unchallenged and none other than his own nephew, Rabbi Yitzhak of Dampierre, known by the acronym Ri (the Elder), disagreed, preferring the Yerushalmi’s position.[xi]
The position of Ri was echoed in Germany in the writings of his younger contemporary Raavyah (Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi, c.1140-c.1225) who recounted the following scene in the name of his father:[xii]
A spirit came forth from God and rested on the heart of this man, R. Abraham the son of Abraham our forefather.[xiii] And when the spirit rested upon him he drew near to the service of God to seek out the Lord and to study Scripture and the Holy Tongue. And he dwelt with us for a many days and was a pure person and upright, a dweller of tents.[xiv] And one day it happened that I, the undersigned, found him sitting and copying a Pentateuch from an unfit book of Christian priests.[xv]
And I said to him: “What is that in your hand?”
And he responded and said to me: “I know the language of the Christian priests, yet I do not know the Holy Tongue, and it [= the book of the Christian priests – LC] is like a commentary for me. Furthermore, the sages of Speyer lent me books of Christian priests to copy, and they did not protest against me. And if this is wrong in your eyes, I will cease and will not continue.”
And I responded to him: “Know that this action is wrong in my opinion.”
Raavyah continued with a discussion of the permissibility of the convert’s actions, questioning the initial position he presented, before returning to the interchange with the convert:
Furthermore, he told me that in Würzburg they prevented him from praying as the Congregational Leader. And it appears to me that they dived into mighty waters and brought up clay in their hands.
Raavyah then presented a discussion of the bikkurim-related sources, concluding unequivocally in favor of the position of the Yerushalmi that a convert may use the original formulation, “the God of our forefathers”. Before acknowledging the other position, Raavyah noted:
And he [= Abraham the convert – LC] prevailed upon me to state my opinion, and this I did.
Despite this convert Abraham’s circumstantial difficulties in accessing traditional texts in the original Hebrew, his acceptance into the community was not further impeded; he was permitted to lead the prayer services with the same standard, unaltered prayer text that all his Jewish brethren used.
While these discussions were occurring in Europe, the same issue was addressed across the globe in Cairo. Indeed, the fullest and strongest treatment of the subject appears in a letter written by the influential Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon or Rambam, 1138-1204). The responsum was penned to one Ovadiah the Convert whose origins and location are unclear, though he was likely a convert from Islam[xvi] living at the time in the Land of Israel.[xvii]
Ovadiah had posed three questions. The first query, as recapitulated by Maimonides, was as follows:[xviii]
With regard to the blessings and prayers, on your own or if you pray in a congregation: Should you say “our God and God of our forefathers” and “who has sanctified us through His commandments” and “who has separated us”,[xix] and “who has chosen us”, and “who has given to our forefathers”, and “that You have taken us out of the land of Egypt”, and “who has worked miracles for our forefathers”, and all similar matters as these.
Ovadiah was troubled by a whole slew of liturgical expressions that seemed to refer to an historical past that was not his. Maimonides began his response by succinctly setting down the rule:
You should say all this in the prescribed manner and do not change anything. Rather, just as every Jew by birth[xx] prays and pronounces blessings, so too you should pronounce blessings and pray, whether you pray alone or as the leader of the congregation.
Maimonides continued to explain the logic of this ruling:
The principle is, that Abraham our forefather was the one who taught and enlightened all the people, and let them know of the true path and of the oneness of the Holy One blessed be He, and he rebuffed idol worship and he rejected its service, and he brought many under the protective wings of the Holy Presence and taught them and instructed them, and he commanded his children and those of his household to guard the path of God.[xxi]
From this line, Maimonides deduced the rule regarding proselytes:
Therefore, anyone who converts [from then] until the end of all generations, and anyone who proclaims the unity of the Name of the Holy One blessed be He, as is prescribed in the Torah – is counted amongst the disciples of Abraham our forefather and they are members of his household, and he has restored all of them to the correct path. Just as he restored the people of his generation through his [word of] mouth and by his teaching, so too he restored all those who will one day convert with his testament that he left to his children and to his household. Thus, Abraham our forefather is the father of all worthy people that follow in his ways, and he is a father to his students, and they include anyone who converts.
Maimonides then turned back to Ovadiah the convert:
Therefore, you should say “Our God and God of our forefathers” for Abraham is your father. And you should say “Who has given to our forefathers” for the Land was given to Abraham.
According to Maimonides, Abraham’s pervasive inspiration lives on to this day, so that anyone who decides to convert can be said to have been swayed by Abraham. Abraham’s fatherhood metamorphoses from a historical-biological definition in the Yerushalmi to a metaphorical-spiritual definition in Maimonides. According to the Yerushalmi, the convert indeed is a biological descendant of Abraham, by dint of Abraham’s fatherhood of all nations. Calling the Almighty “the God of our forefathers” therefore has a basis in fact. According to Maimonides, the convert is a spiritual descendant from Abraham, by virtue of having followed the path forged by Abraham.[xxii]
Maimonides’ solution, however, does not cover all cases, since some phrases in the liturgy do not refer to Abraham, but to the history of the Jewish People. The letter to Ovadiah continues:
As to the words “that You have taken us out of the land of Egypt” or “who has worked miracles for our forefathers” – if you desire to change and say “that You have taken Israel out of Egypt” and “that you have worked miracles for Israel”, go ahead and say that.[xxiii] And if you did not change them, there is no loss, since you have entered under the protective wing of the Divine Presence and you share company with God therefore there is no difference between us and you, and all miracles worked, can be considered to have been performed for us and for you… There is no difference whatsoever between us and you for any matter.
From here Maimonides turned to phrases the convert may say without question:
And certainly you should pronounce the blessing “who has chosen us”, and “who has given us”, and “who has separated us” – for the Holy One blessed be He has chosen you, and separated you from the nations, and given you the Torah, for the Torah was given to us and to the converts.[xxiv]
The questions raised in the cited texts wrestle with the tension between factual history and collective memory: From a strictly biological perspective, converts cannot claim to have ancestors who were brought out of Egypt and who benefited from the salvational miracles of Jewish history. But from a sociological perspective, the process of conversion includes incorporating into one’s personal identity the collective experiences of Jewish people.
The three medieval texts discussed each gained legal currency in proportion to the status of their author. The position of Maimonides as a revered halakhic authority resulted in his letter to Ovadiah the convert gaining the most attention. Maimonides’ position was therefore widely cited in Sephardi circles.[xxv] In the Ashkenazi milieu the prestige of Rabbenu Tam who opposed the use of inclusive wording by converts, counterweighed that of his nephew and that of Raavyah and his father. Ashkenazi scholars consequently did not speak with one voice on the issue.[xxvi]
By the sixteenth century, however, Maimonides’ more inclusive position had triumphed and was declared as normative law in the Shulhan Arukh.[xxvii] In his gloss, the prominent Ashkenazi authority, Rabbi Moses Isserles (c.1525-1572), did not present an alternative opinion, and thus despite the history of allegiance to Rabbeinu Tam in Ashkenazi communities, the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh following Maimonides should be read as normative for Jews of both the Orient and of the Occident.
There is an element of boldness in the rulings of Ri, Raavyah and Maimonides, who preferred the Yerushalmi over the normally more authoritative statements in the Mishnah and Bavli. The motivation for their rulings is unclear. Perhaps we can detect in Raavyah’s language a hint of compassion for the plight of the convert unable to access texts of the tradition in their original; the language barrier may have entailed a measure of exclusion, making assimilating into Jewish life more challenging. While the motivation of Ri is not mentioned, and that of Raavyah is only hinted at, Maimonides makes his motivation clear in the conclusion of his letter to Ovadiah:[xxviii]
And know, that the majority of our forefathers who left Egypt worshipped idols in Egypt, they mixed with Gentiles and learned from their deeds,[xxix] until the Holy One blessed be He sent Moses our master and the master of all prophets, and separated us from the peoples, and brought us under the protective wing of the Divine Presence – us and all the converts – and gave all of us one Law. And your genealogy should not be a light matter in your eyes, for if we are related to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – you are related to the One who said and the world came into being.
The pedigree of Jews by choice, opined Maimonides, is of even greater standing than that of native Jews.[xxx] With this definitive statement Maimonides closed the case as far as he was concerned on the extent of including the convert in prayer rites, granting them equal status in prayer to native Jews.
Keeping in mind Maimonides mention of the work of Moses in bringing the Jewish people under the protective wing of the Holy Presence, it is appropriate to conclude our discussion by recalling the epitaph on the tomb of Maimonides – Moses ben Maimon – in Tiberius:[xxxi]
From Moses until Moses none rose like Moses.
The biblical Moses followed God’s charge to bring our forbearers out of Egypt and was instrumental in the formation of our corporate identity as Israel. The medieval Moses Maimonides sought to reassure Ovadiah the convert that he and indeed all converts were part of this corporate identity. Just as Moses’ Torah underpins our tradition, so too Moses Maimonides’ responsum has become accepted Jewish law.
[i] I am indebted to Professor Shaye J.D. Cohen who presents a thorough analysis of the entire matter in his work The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Berkeley 1999 (herein: “Cohen, Jewishness”). A discussion of the three cases presented herein can be found on pp. 331-336. My thanks to Jenny R. Labendz for her insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
[ii] M. Bikkurim 1:4. The emphasis in the quotes is mine.
This exclusion of the convert is also indicated in the contemporaneous Sifrei, Deuteronomy 299.
If the convert’s mother was a Jew by birth the convert may recite the standard text, for indeed the Almighty was the God of the convert’s ancestors, at least on one side. For a remarkable parallel from classical Greece to these rules of bikkurim see Cohen, Jewishness, pp. 326-327.
[iii] See B. Makkot 19a. The Bavli quotes the Mishnah with no dissenting opinion, though it does not endorse the position directly.
[iv] Y. Bikkurim 64a (1:4). The Yerushalmi also presents testimony that converts used the phrase “God of our forefathers” in their prayers, though the continuation of that interchange indicates that the passage is not referring to first generation converts.
[v] See Genesis 17:4-5.
[vi] The Bavli (and to a large extent, though not entirely, the Yerushalmi) does not openly deal with the prayer scenarios referred to in the continuation of the Mishnah. The discussion there deals with the bikkurim text. Presumably there is no room for distinction, so that we would expect the Bavli to proscribe the convert referring to God as “of our forefathers” in prayer, while the Yerushalmi would permit such language in prayer.
Significantly, the Yerushalmi’s endorsement makes reference to a decision by Rabbi Abbahu, a sage who lived in the Land of Israel in the mid-third century CE when no Temple stood. It can be assumed that Rabbi Abbahu’s practical ruling related to prayer, not to bikkurim.
[vii] The Mishnah’s position is somewhat innocuously quoted in the ninth century Babylonian work Halakhot Gedolot (section 71, end Hilkhot Menahot, p. 666 in Machon Yerushalayim 1992 edition). See Cohen, Jewishness, note 48 at p. 330 regarding the seventh through eleventh centuries.
[viii] On converts to Judaism in Western Europe during that period, see: Ben Zion Wacholder, “Cases of Proselytizing in the Tosafist Responsa”, Jewish Quarterly Review 51 (1961), pp. 288-315 (herein: “Wacholder, Proselytizing”). See pp. 301-305, where the first two European case cited herein are discussed.
[ix] Responsa and Decisions of the Sages of Germany and France, Jerusalem 1973, ed. Efraim Kupfer, no. 60 pp. 101-105 (herein: “Kupfer, Responsa”). Parallels to this source exist, see Tosafot to Bava Batra 81a s.v. lemiutei, Rosh, Bikkurim 1:4 section 1, Or Zarua 1:107.
Besides inviting other diners to recite the Grace after meals, the leader is charged with reciting Grace aloud in order to discharge the obligation of those present, particularly if they are unable to recite Grace themselves.
[x] Strangely, in none of the three cases dealt with here is there a mention of the injunction against reminding converts of their non-Jewish roots; See, for instance, Tanhuma Vayera 14:
“ילמדנו רבינו אי זו אונאה – כך שנו רבותינו אסור לאדם שיונה את חבירו ולא יאמר לו בכמה חפץ זה והוא אינו רוצה לקנותו, ואם היה בעל תשובה אל יונה אותו ולא יאמר לו זכור מעשיך הראשונים, ואם היה בן גרים לא יאמר לו זכור מעשה אבותיך…”
[xi] Rabbenu Tam rejected the Yerushalmi for a number of reasons. First, he read the Yerushalmi as diverging from the accepted ruling and following the rules of preference between sources, he gave precedence to the other position. Second, even if converts were permitted to say “God of our forefathers” they could still not claim to have the same history as the Jewish people, like being enslaved in Egypt. Third, Rabbenu Tam felt that the text of the Yerushalmi was perforce corrupted (see Kupfer, Responsa, p. 103. Tosafot to Bava Batra 81a s.v. lemiutei only cites the third explanation).
[xii] Sefer Raavyah, Jerusalem 1964, ed. V. Aptowitzer (herein: “Aptowitzer, Raavyah”), no. 549, vol. 2, pp. 253-256. The attribution to his father is based on the words “אבי מורי” appended at the end of the section.
The passage in Raavyah is quoted in later authorities, see: Mordekhai, Megilla section 786; Hagahot Maymoniyot to Rambam, Laws of Prayer, chapter 8, section 20; Beit Yosef OH 53:19.
[xiii] On the identity of Abraham as a former Christian monk, see Aptowitzer, Raavyah, mavo, p. 447; Wacholder, Proselytizing, p. 304-305.
[xiv] This is reference to the biblical verse Breishit 25:27 –וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם ישֵׁב אֹהָלִים . Being a “dweller or tents” is interpreted as sitting in the tent of Torah and studying.
[xv] On such books see, for instance: B. Shabbat 116a; Rambam, Laws of Foundations of Torah 6:8.
[xvi] Louis Jacobs, Jewish Law, New York 1968, p. 184. Rabbi Yitzhak Shilat in his Jerusalem 1995 edition of Maimonidean letters entitled Iggerot Ha-Rambam (herein: “Shilat, Letters”), p. 231 concludes that Ovadiah was a convert from Islam living in the Land of Israel.
In a recent book, Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch posited a different tradition in great detail: “Early in the twelfth century (around 1102), a Catholic priest named Obadiah followed the example of the archbishop of Bari (Italy) and converted to Judaism. Obadiah wrote religious poems and prayers and a book on Torah cantillation. He also kept a diary fragments of which were found in the Cairo Genizah early in the twentieth century. After Obadiah’s conversion, he was still not accepted as a full-fledged Jew, even by his teacher. He therefore wrote a now-famous letter to Moses Maimonides in which he asked whether his teacher was correct in suggesting that in his prayers Obadiah not use the words, ‘Our God and God of our fathers,’ since Obadiah’s father was not Jewish.” (Alfred J. Kolatch, Inside Judaism: The Concepts, Customs, and Celebrations of the Jewish People, 2006, p. 131). Kolatch’s account also departs from Rambam’s letter on other salient points.
[xvii] For analysis of this letter as part of Maimonides’ attitude towards conversion, see: Menachem Kellner, Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People, Albany 1991, pp. 49-57. For a more recent study of this letter as part of Maimonides’ attitude to the Other, see: James A. Diamond, Converts, Heretics, and Lepers: Maimonides and the Outsider, Notre Dame, Indiana 2007 (herein: “Diamond, Outsiders”), pp. 11-31.
[xviii] The quotes herein are taken from Shilat, Letters, letter 12, pp. 233-235 (though the letter appears in earlier compilations of Maimonidean letters, see: Teshuvot Ha-Rambam (ed. Freiman), Tel-Aviv 5764, no. 42; Teshuvot Ha-Rambam (Meqitsei Nirdamim edition), Jerusalem 5720, no. 293, p. 549; translations are my own.
Though Rambam normally penned letters to Jews of the Orient in Judeo-Arabic and this letter was written in Hebrew, perhaps in response to questions penned in Hebrew, or perhaps indicating that Ovadiah did not speak Arabic, or perhaps to place a further hurdle before prying Gentile eyes.
[xix] It is unclear what section of the liturgy this refers to; see Shilat, Letters, note 6 at p. 233.
[xx] I have followed here Twersky in translating “אזרח בישראל” as “Jew by birth” (Isadore Twersky, A Maimonides Reader, New York 1972 (herein: “Twersky, Reader”), p. 475.
[xxi] In his writings, Rambam repeatedly lauds Abraham’s career and achievements: Commentary to the Mishnah, Avoda Zara 4:7; Laws of Ethics 1:7; Laws of Idol Worship, 1:2-3; Guide to the Perplexed 2:13; 3:29; Shilat, Letters, letter 4 at p. 147; letter 33 at p. 483.
Moreover, Rambam repeatedly refers to the true path as the course that was set down by Abraham, see: Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 5:17-18; Laws of Reading Shema 1:4; Laws of Gifts to the Needy 10:1; Guide to the Perplexed 1:16.
For more on the topic of the ideal path according to Maimonides, see two recent articles: Chaim Rapoport, “‘Dat ha-Emet’ in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah”, Meorot 7:1 (Tishrei 5769); Menachem Kellner, “Maimonides’ “True Religion”: For Jews or All Humanity?” loc. cit. with rejoinder by Chaim Rapoport. My thanks to my friend, Rabbi Yehuda Ber Zirkind for bringing these articles and those mentioned in note 30 to my attention.
Perhaps it is worth noting that Rambam named his son Abraham.
[xxii] On spiritual parenthood that stems from teaching, see elsewhere in Rambam’s writings: Laws of Torah Study 1:2; Guide to the Perplexed 1:7.
[xxiii] A fascinating ancillary issue is Ovadiah’s sense and Rambam’s concurrence that no quarter be given to factual inaccuracies in prayer. Indeed this issue underpins the entire discussion. This bears on fundamental current challenges of prayer, though it is a topic that goes beyond the scope of this paper.
[xxiv] We do not know whether Ovadiah was troubled by the aforementioned Mishnah on bikkurim, though towards the end of his letter Maimonides related to this source demonstrating – almost as an afterthought – that normative law does not follow this opinion. Indeed this is the way Maimonides rules elsewhere, see: Commentary to the Mishnah, Bikkurim 1:4; Laws of First Fruits 4:3.
[xxv] See Cohen, Jewishness, note 60 at pp. 335-336 for a list of Sephardi and Provençal scholars who cited Rambam.
[xxvi] See Cohen, Jewishness, note 61 at p. 336 for a summary of the positions of Ashkenazi scholars. To this list we should add Vehizhir which apparently reported that common practice was for converts to follow the position of the Yerushalmi (though in the extant portion of Vehizhir no mention of the issue has reached us; see Cohen, Jewishness, note 48 at p. 330). See above notes 10 and 14 for Ashkenazi authorities who quoted the positions of Rabbenu Tam, Ri or Raavyah and his father.
[xxvii] With regards to serving as a prayer leader, see Shulhan Arukh, OH 53:19 where Rabbi Yosef Karo acknowledged the existence of another opinion but stated unambiguously that it had been rejected; with regards to leading the Grace after meals see ibid, 199: 4 where there is no such equivocation. I do not know how to explain this difference.
[xxviii] Regarding Rambam’s letter, Twersky summarised: “Especially noteworthy is the Letter to Obadiah, the humiliated and confused convert whom Maimonides encourages by expounding a lofty, spiritual conception of Judaism in which biological factors are rather insignificant” (Twersky, Reader, p. 474).
[xxix] The lowly condition of the Jewish People before the Exodus are featured elsewhere in Rambam’s writings: Laws of Illicit Relationships 13:2; Guide to the Perplexed 3:46; Shilat, Letters, letter 1 at p. 34.
[xxx] As Diamond noted: “The full import of Maimonides’ response is that not only can the convert consider himself fully Jewish for halakhic purposes, but the convert is also transformed into an ideal, a metaphor for the truly authentic Jew” (Diamond, Outsiders, p. 12). Diamond concludes his analysis with the words: “The convert has moved from the outside to become the very embodiment of the inside. All of the major currents in Maimonides’ thought converge in this short letter to Ovadyah to construct a model of the convert as the only authentic Jew” (Diamond, Outsiders, p. 31).
By way of comparison, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi (c.1075-1141) presented a diametrically opposite position. In his Kuzari, a work ostensibly presenting the inner tempest of the Gentile Kuzar king seeking Truth and eventually finding it in Judaism, he writes:
(.”כל מי שנלוה עלינו מן האֻמות כיחיד יבואהו מן הטוב אשר ייטיב עמנו הא-לוה, אבל שָוֹה לא יִשְוֶה אלינו” (מאמר א, אות כז, מה’ אבן שמואל
And further in the work:
“(אך גם אחרי אשר קִבל עליו כל אלה לא ישוֶה הגר לבן ישראל מִלֵדה, כי בן ישראל רק הוא ראוי לנבואה, ואִלו הגרים – תכלית אפשרותם בקבלם מבני ישראל את תורתם היא להיות לחסידים ולחכמים, אך לא לנביאים” (מאמר א, אות קטו, מה’ אבן שמואל
For an analysis of this aspect of the philosophy of the Kuzari, see: Lippman Bodoff, “Was Yehuda Halevi Racist?” Judaism 38 (Spring 1989), pp. 174-184; Daniel J. Lasker, “Proselyte Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the Thought of Judah Halevi”, Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1990/91), pp. 75-91. See also the article that appeared in the Haaretz newspaper: חנה כשר, “איך ניצחה התפישה המפלה לרעה גרים לעומת יהודים מלידה”, הארץ, יום שישי י’ בסיון תשס”ח 13 ביוני 2008 (available at www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/990980.html).
[xxxi] On this expression and its significance in light of the polemics surrounding Rambam’s writings in the second half of the thirteenth century, see: יצחק טברסקי, “לדמותו של הרמב”ם”, אסופות י (תשנ”ז), עמ’ ט-לו, במיוחד סעיפים ה-ו. This essay – one of Professor Twersky’s last – has recently been translated into English: Isadore Twersky, “Some Reflections On the Historical Image of Maimonides: An Essay On His Unique Place in Jewish History”, in: Yamin Levy and Shalom Carmy (editors), The Legacy of Maimonides: Religion, Reason and Community, New York 2006, pp. 1-48
The mystery of how Rambam who died in Egypt reached Tiberius is beyond the scope of this paper.