Selección de Tubería

In relegating Torah law solely to the realm of ritual, Nissim allows for a transfer of politics to the secular sphere. Moreover, as the political system is shed of the religious purpose it holds for Maimonides, it moves beyond uniquely Jewish application. Indeed, Torah law alone is the distinctive system belonging to the Jewish people, in contrast “the institution of kingship in Israel and among all other nations is the same, insofar as they both require political order” (Nissim of Gerona, 1976: 190). Moreover, Ravitzky (1998:62) explains that “the dualism of the religious and political structures corresponds to the dual status of the Jewish people, both particular and universal.” In creating this model, Nissim allows for the preservation of the Jewish understanding of is mission as uniquely mandated by the divine, while enabling the emergence of a politics that can evaluate itself against and assimilate the best components of surrounding models.

Baer (1965: 207) further places the thought of Nissim of Gerona in the context of the work of Alfonsio di Validulid of Burgos. An apostate, Alfonsio’s book “Righteous Teacher”!written circa 1340, is seen as the first attempt to compare Jewish law with surrounding European systems. The conclusions reached condemned the failings of Jewish law as a proof of its illegitimate religious worth. It is noteworthy that Nissim accepts that de facto inferiority of Jewish law in its instrumental purpose. However, it is maintained that this stems from the fall of the Jewish

21

Thus, the political order created by the Kings of the Northern Kingdom, who banished the practise of biblical Judaism would be seen as a violation of the mandate of the king. "

republic and the absence of a Jewish king. Indeed in his Eleventh Homily, Nissim (1976: 192) notes “That is why some of the laws and procedures of other nations may be more effective in enhancing political order than some of the Torah’s laws. This does not however, leave us deficient, since any lack regarding political orders was corrected by the law of the king.” As the power to enact legislation and administer justice in a manner that would ensure the functioning of society was vested in the office of the king, the stagnation of Jewish political law is to be understood. Moreover, despite the roles of the Exilarch and Nasi in the Talmudic and Geonic periods, no opportunity for the practical implementation of a full political order by Jewish leaders had existed following the fall of Judea in 70 CE. As such, the flaws that mark the Jewish political system are to be seen as the product of its purely theoretical character. This admission of practical inferiority in the Jewish political system is unacceptable in the model of Maimonides, which draws a religious purpose to the role of the king. In reality, the

Code of Maimonides stands out as a unique attempt to formalise political laws. Later,

codifications such as the 14th century works of Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (The Rosh), his son

Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (the Tur) and 16th century Shulkhan Arukh of Rabbi Joseph Karo (the

Beit Yosef) and its glosses provided by Rabbi Moshe Isserles (The Rema) focus only upon issues experienced in practise. These are limited to ritual worship and purity, basic monetary disputes and family law (Berkovitz, 2002: 177-190; 2012: 128-151). Thus, medieval Jewish political law had not developed for over a millennium and could not lay claim to practical relevance, as was recognised by Nissim.

Despite their practical limitations, Nissim nevertheless argued for the inherent worth of the Torah’s law as a means of achieving spiritual connection. This is encapsulated in his indistinct notion of achieving the “cleaving of the divine spirit” and “a divine outpouring” to man through their application. Moreover, the intrinsic value of Torah law is seen as a reflection of its “innately just” purpose (Nissim of Gerona, 1976: 189, 191-3, 204). This latter argument was adapted by Methathias ha-Yitzhari, the disciple of Nissim’s primary student Hasdai Crescas. In his commentary on the Ethics of Our Fathers, written in 1400 ha-Yitzhari argues that despite practical superiority of European legal systems, the true value of Torah Law is to be found in its “supernatural effect” on mankind (quoted in Ravitzky, 1998: 63). Here, the societal failings of Torah law are seen to be compensated for by a superior effect in a “mystical, magical” realm. However, ha-Yitzhari does not utilise the political solution of the king’s regime as is articulated by Nissim.

In reality, a more limited role for the political deviation from Torah law in the name of political order was developed at the communal level by Rabbi Shimon ben Aderet (“The Rashba”) in 13th century Spain. However, the chief contribution of Nissim of Gerona was to contextualise this allowance within a larger conceptual framework. Thus it is concluded:

At a time when Israel has both king and Sanhedrim, the Sanhedrin’s role was to judge the people according to just law only and not to order their affairs in any way beyond this, unless the king delegated his powers to them. However, when Israel has no monarchy, the magistrate hold both kinds of power, that of the judge and that of the king (Nissim of Gerona, 1976: 210-11).

Ultimately, the developments of individual communal autonomy that marked the post-Geonic period are seen as a necessity of reality, deriving from the ideal order of judicial dualism. The

value of this model as a legitimate alternative to the ideals of Maimonides has particular worth in the case of contemporary Israel, which claims to seek a distinctively Jewish character, while adhering to democratic principles. The separation of the ritual and political realms of Jewish Law by Nissim may allow for a means of resolving this tension in practise. Moreover, the system created by Nissim may be seen as a necessary foundation for the radical model articulated by Don Isaac Abravanel.

Section 5: Don Isaac Abravanel