The Jewish Quarterly Review (Fall 2020) Copyright © 2020 Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies. All rights reserved. T H E J E W I S H Q U A R T E R LY R E V I E W, Vol. 110, No. 4 (Fall 2020) 679–701 In Denial: A Fresh Approach to Naḥmanides and Aggadah at Barcelona YAAKOV TAUBES IN J ULY 1263, in front of King James I of Aragon and his court, the Dominican friar and Jewish apostate Paul Christian publicly debated R. Moses ben Naḥman, known as Naḥmanides, about whether or not Jewish texts supported core Christian beliefs such as the messiah having already arrived in the person of Jesus. In an impor tant volume of essays dedicated to Naḥmanides published in 1983, Isadore Twersky noted how the disputation had commanded more scholarly attention than any other aspect of Naḥmanides’ thought and legacy.1 Since that time, scholars have examined a number of other aspects of Naḥmanides’ work, but the disputation still receives the lion’s share of research.2 Most studies focus on the two written accounts of the disputation: the Christian Latin one3 and Naḥmanides’ own Hebrew one, known as the I wish to thank David Berger, Shaul Seidler- Feller, and the anonymous readers at JQR for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay. 1. “Introduction,” in Rabbi Moses Naḥmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. I. Twersky (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 8, n. 20. 2. It is worth noting that many of Twersky’s suggested subjects for further study (Explorations, 6) unfortunately remain as unexamined today as they were in 1983. See Ephraim Kanarfogel, “On the Assessment of R. Moses ben Naḥman (Naḥmanides) and His Literary Oeuvre,” Jewish Book Annual 51 (1993–94): 158–72, for a more extensive, although now dated, account of what areas have received attention. 3. The Latin text can be found in Yitzhak Baer, “Le- bikoret ha- vikuḥim shel R. Yehiel mi- Paris ve- R. Moshe ben Naḥman,” Tarbiz 2 (1930–31): 185–87, based on the text first prepared by James Villanueva. See Robert Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and Its Aftermath (Berkeley, Calif., 1992), 212, n. 1, for the manuscript details. 680 JQR 110.4 (2020) Vikuaḥ (Disputation).4 The Hebrew account has been reprinted several times with translations into vari ous languages. Of the dif fer ent historical and literary aspects of the debate, Naḥmanides’ attitude toward aggadah has attracted perhaps the most attention . At a number of junctures throughout the debate, Naḥmanides allegedly rejected the authority of passages from the aggadah, even going so far as to claim that he did not believe in them.5 In a lengthy statement, he seems to relegate aggadah to a relatively low level of importance and authority, even comparing it to “nothing more than matters that one person tells another.”6 What Naḥmanides really meant by this continues to be a central focus for scholars. Much has been written to clarify his stance on aggadah, especially in the context of the disputation.7 While some do not accept the proposition that Naḥmanides would ever blatantly deny aggadah ’s authority and therefore excuse his comments on grounds of the coercive context in which they were made, others find his comments consistent with his general thought.8 In the first part of this essay, I will discuss Naḥmanides’ view on this topic, pinpoint what I believe to be basic methodological prob lems in current scholarly approaches, and offer an alternative framework. Although much has been written on the disputation in general and particularly the passages addressing aggadah, a careful study of Naḥmanides’ use of aggadah remains the scholarly desideratum that it was when David Berger labeled it as such in 1995.9 I hope this essay will lay the groundwork for 4. See Robert Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond, 204, n. 4, for a bibliography of the substantial scholarship on the disputation. To this list should be added Chazan’s book itself, which remains the most detailed study of the events...
Read full abstract