Talking about poetry, which of the two translations of a snippet from The Odyssey do you prefer?
I’m in the Wilson camp because “a complicated man” is bolder, clearer and more exciting than the clunky “man of twists and turns.” I like that Wilson isn’t trying to fake an ancient Greek mood and makes it clear she’s doing a modern translation.
As a translator, I like making the text my own, going as far out there as possible. Translation is not for the meek or those lacking in perspective.
Traduttore, traditore.
LikeLike
Either one of these translations is preferable to me over the horrid “feminist” translation of Beowulf by Maria Headley, which features gratuitous use of the word “bro” and the phrase “hashtag: blessed.” The translator also decided to make the dragon female when it was male in the original. It’s one thing to translate a work into modern English, it’s another to throw in a bunch of ideology and slang that’s already becoming dated just a few years later.
Emily Wilson is a hardcore feminist and that’s the perspective she approached the translation from, but I get the impression she actually cared about translating The Odyssey accurately. I personally prefer the Fagles lines here but I’d probably enjoy reading either. I’m sure neither measures up to reading it in the original Greek.
Demotrash
Seeing that it was usually “read” by a bard, and sometimes competing bards, singing the words from memory, there is little chance that many today could measure up. Think maybe “two chord” Gord Lightfoot or perhaps ;-D
LikeLike
Either one of these translations is preferable to me over the horrid “feminist” translation of Beowulf by Maria Headley, which features gratuitous use of the word “bro” and the phrase “hashtag: blessed.” The translator also decided to make the dragon female when it was male in the original. It’s one thing to translate a work into modern English, it’s another to throw in a bunch of ideology and slang that’s already becoming dated just a few years later.
Emily Wilson is a hardcore feminist and that’s the perspective she approached the translation from, but I get the impression she actually cared about translating The Odyssey accurately. I personally prefer the Fagles lines here but I’d probably enjoy reading either. I’m sure neither measures up to reading it in the original Greek.
LikeLike
Slightly prefer the Wilson version. Tell me how he/wandered and was lost is great, and the start is far punchier. I love ‘man of twists and turns’ but it’s embedded in a lot of meter salad. Wilson switching to iambic pentameter (which English falls naturally into) makes her need a far smaller amount of verse fillers than Fagles.
LikeLike
Hi Clarissa its Day 4 of Hanukkah. Here’s a history of this mitzva from the Torah!
Hanukkah as played upon theatre stages of World History. Hanukkah & Civil War. Avoda zarah & the complexity of the Oral Torah.
What connects Hanukkah to Jewish Civil Wars? Enough of the childish dreidel! Can anyone explain how Chag Hanukkah confronts Jewish Civil Wars based upon the complexities of the Oral Torah?
What separates the Torah Menorah from the Hanukkah Menorah? שלום כנגד מלחמת אחים
The Torah Menorah dedicates the 7 faces of the oath brit chosen Cohen peoples’ soul. The Hanukkah remembers the Jewish Civil Wars fought as a direct consequence to Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim. Both transgression define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment: not to worship other Gods. When Israel worships avoda zarah: the Torah curse rains down upon our people like as did the plagues in the days of Moshe and Par’o. HaShem condemned the kingdom of David to endure Civil Wars when David profaned the anointing of Moshiach to rule the land with righteous judicial common law Sanhedrin courtroom justice – following the death of the baal of Bat Sheva.
The Torah menorah in the Mishkan has 7 branches which affix to the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat. Hence the bnai brit soul has 7 names affixed to these 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat. Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama, Chyyah, Yechida, Nefesh Klalli, and Nefesh Shalom. These 6 + 1 souls dedicated holy to HaShem on those Chaggagim & Shabbat have Divine Names. Yah, Ha’El, El, Elohim, El Shaddai, Eish Ha’Elohim, Shalom. The Talmud teaches that the name Shalom – a Divine Name. These Divine Names remember the Yom Tov + Shabbat throughout the year; something like the rear and front sights of a rifle permit a person to shoot accurately down range.
These 7 Divine Names affix as the k’vanna within the heart to the davening said on each specific day of the week. The mitzva of shabbat requires making the most essential הבדלה. Hence the blessing said over wine at the beginning and termination of the day of shabbat. Why does making הבדלה absolutely essential to observe shabbat? K’vanna (shabbat and yom tov exist as tohor time oriented commandment which require מלכות defined prophetic mussar k’vanna – learned by comparing precedent case studies one against another), separates the understanding which discerns like from like.
For example, what separates the Oral Torah revelation of tohor middot spirits from words: ה’ אל רחום חנון וכו? If a person cannot discern one tohor middah from another then likewise that person fails to discern tohor middot from tumah middot. The heart contains two opposing Yatzirot. Hence the kre’a shma writes לבב, which Rabbi Yechuda the author of the Mishna calls Yatzir Ha’Tov vs the Yatzir Ha’Rah.
The Yatzir Ha’Tov through tohor time oriented Av Commandments breaths the Spirit of the 1st Sinai commandment Name, the greatest commandment in the Torah – doing mitzvot לשמה. The sin of the Golden Calf lacks understanding and confuses the Divine Spirit Name רוח הקודש with word translations! Hence the Xtian bible and Muslim koran both worship other Gods of avoda zarah. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. The 10 plagues which afflicted Par’o and Egypt judged the Gods of Egypt. The brit cut at Gilgal calls upon HaShem to likewise judge the Gods of Canaan. The Rashi tefillen based upon the oath sworn at Gilgal; the Rabbeinu Tam tefillen based upon the oath sworn at Sh’Cem.
The examples brought all require making the essential הבדלה. To keep shabbat requires making the essential הבדלה which separates and distinguishes מלאכה from עבודה: skilled labor from unskilled labor. Mesechta Shabbat addresses the verb of מלאכה; whereas mesechta Baba Kama delves into the verb of עבודה. The morning davening concludes with יום ראשון בשבת יום שני בשבת וכו. A person who observes Shabbat observes all the commandments! The Mishkan has the מקום קדוש וגם מקום קדוש קדושים. So too likewise observance of the Mitzva of Shabbat.
On the day of Shabbat, which has the Divine Name Shalom dedicated within your Yatzir Ha’Tov heart, a person sanctifies not doing acts of מלאכה. This dedication not to do מלאכה on the day of shabbat likewise equally sanctifies not doing איסור עבודה on the 6 days of Chol “shabbat”. The mitzva of shabbat observance sanctifies not just the day but the entire week.
Mesechta Baba Kama makes the דיוק on the opening Av Mishna. It makes the required הבדלה which separates and distinguishes Tam from Muad. Four avot tam damagers and Four avot muad damagers.
The דיוק defines the latter as חמס גזל ערוה ושוחד במשפט. A person who sanctifies not to do these Avot muad damages during the week, sanctifies not doing the 39 forbidden labors on the day of Shabbat and therein keeps all the Torah commandments!
Hence the Gemara of Shabbat learns precedents from the Gemara of Baba Kama. The study of Talmud – a common law legal system and not a post sealing of the Gemarah codification of statute law halachot codifications. The Rambam’s Yad Chazakah failed to make this critical הבדלה and the court of Rabbeinu Yonah together, (it seems to me) with the majority of the Baali Tosafot which learned the Talmud as common law and not assimilated Roman statute law which relies upon Aristotle’s logic of organizing laws into egg-crate like orders, placed the Rambam into נידוי. T’NaCH/Talmud common law – as different from Greek\Roman statute law – as Shabbat differs from both Xtian and Muslim interpretations!
First Light of Hanukkah: Time oriented mitzva from the Torah IF a person affixes prophetic mussar as the מלכות of the oath sworn ברכה לשמה.
Now that’s how the B’HaG, also known as Baal HaMaor,,, (based upon his commentary to the Rif’s famous halachic code) [[This, the student of the Rif, and Rabbeinu Gershom]],,, learned.
This unique poskin of Halacha, that tohor time oriented commandments could make an aliyah of positive and negative toldot commandments unto time oriented Av commandments to create from nothing the chosen Cohen people in all generations יש מאין. Furthermore, he argued an even larger chiddush, even halachic rabbinic mitzvot – if elevated to time oriented Av commandments by means of interpreting the k’vanna of prophetic mussar tohor middot – as the מלכות of the sworn ברכה, these rabbinic commandments too became Mitzvot from the Torah!
However the מלחמת השם directly challenged the priority to interpret the k’vanna of mitzvot, over the need to establish religious halachic codifications as the Rif code clearly accomplished. The commentary written by the RambaN on the Rif halachic code, the dispute between the B’HaG and the RambaN (which also included the Raavad III – this מחלקת ראשונים) … disputed matters of priority.
Whether to learn the T’NaCH\Talmud in order to interpret the k’vanna of tohor Oral Torah middot, as learned from T’NaCH/Talmudic Primary sources vs. the establishment of religious halachic codifications, to cement the religion of Judaism, during the dark ages of Medieval Europe.
Herein defines the essence of the dispute which ripped Jewish communities apart from Spain, to France, to England and Germany. This terrible Jewish Civil War erupted into an all out brawl after the Rambam published his Yad Ha’Zakah. That the RambaN named his commentary to the Rif code מלחמת השם testifies to the bitter fierceness of this brutal Jewish Civil War.
War brings chaos and anarchy. Civil War brings foreign intervention. Picture a dead carcass where lions, hyenas, wild dogs, and vultures all fight to consume the carcass of some trief animal … this depicts a Civil War. How many countries in Syria today? Iraq invaded Iran immediately after the Khomeini revolution in 1979. 1980 Iraq invaded. G’lut Jewish Civil War did not have vast Armies as did the American Civil War where England Russia and France threatened to intervene. But it most definitely experienced foreign interventions!
Henry Seward the Yankee Secretary of State, the European equivalent of Foreign Minister, prevented PM Gladstone from recognizing the Confederate states. Russia threatened to send its navy to Yankee ports and also to widen the American Civil War into a general war across Europe, if England initiated to break the Union blockade of Confederate Ports. Secretary of State Seward pulled a clever stratagem. He knew that PM Gladstone and FM Lord Russell detested one another. Therefore he sent two diplomatic notes conveying opposite messages to Gladstone and Russell.
The Industrial revolution began in England. Hence England, the first European country to outlaw slavery! The Yankee States also Industrialized as did France, especially after Napoleon’s defeat at the battle of Waterloo in 1815. Both the Southern Confederacy and Russia maintained a feudal agricultural based slavery/serf economy. In 1864 both Lincoln and the Czar of Russia outlawed slavery. Both the consequences of military victory/defeats. Lincoln following the battle of Gettsburg & Russia after the 1856 Crimean War. Where Russia faced off against industrialized England and France, and lost that war just as the Confederate South lost the Civil War to those Damned Yankees!!!!!
Southern bitterness has not diminished to this day. Jewish bitterness because lions, tigers, bears and wolves have mauled our trief bodies over and again since the Rambam Civil War have caused the Jewish people to forget the extreme bitterness of that specific horrible Jewish Civil War which plunged Jews into chaos and anarchy following publication of the Rambam’s Yad Chazakah halachic code of “Statute Law”.
Secretary of State Seward sent a diplomatic note to PM Gladstone saying America would tolerate, if England traded Confederate long strand cotton (Only in 1864 did a similar long strand cotton start growing in Egypt. British mills required long strand cotton.), by acquiring it through the Mexico-Texas border; to prevent the British navy from breaking the Union blockade of Southern ports! Secretary of State Seward sent a different diplomatic note to Foreign Minister Lord Russell. In that note Seward bluntly stated that if England attempted to bi-pass the Union blockade of Confederate ports, by trading through Mexico, that such a hostile act – Washington would consider as a pre-text for War between England & the United States.
Secretary of State Seward gambled that the two men, Gladstone & Russell, would not communicate and share their received diplomatic Notes from Seward. Gladstone, deceived by Seward’s diplomatic note, immediately dispatched British troops to acquire Southern Cotton in Mexico. Secretary of State Seward issued an Ultimatum of War, and Foreign Secretary Russell waved his diplomatic note in front of the whole of Parliament, and called the PM a warmonger! This diplomatic crisis almost brought down the Gladstone majority in Parliament! British politics entered into a state of chaos and anarchy!
In this near collapse of the British government, during the ensuing chaos and anarchy – of the fox in the hen house – Bismarck of Prussia initiated his 3 little wars which turned Prussia (dismembered Poland) into the 2nd Germanic empire. That damned Yankee Seward set up a domino effect ירידות הדורות, which triggered the 1st & 2nd World Wars and the Shoah! The resurrection from the dead of the Jewish state, 2000+ years after Rome expelled almost all Jews living in Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”, also a direct result of Secretary of State Seward stratagem to prevent PM Gladstone recognizing the Confederate right to self-determination.
The Rambam, in his work Yad Ha’Zakah (Mishneh Torah), sought to create a comprehensive, systematic codification of Jewish law. His intention was to clarify and simplify the application of halacha by organizing it into 14 books, which cover everything from foundational beliefs to laws of ritual observance. His approach was deeply logical, structured, and aimed at providing a clear, static/rigid “statute law”- halachic code for everyday Jewish life, making it accessible to all, including those who might not have access to deep talmudic study.
While the Rambam’s goal was to create a unified, easy-to-follow codex, this was controversial. Because it did not include sources or direct references to the Talmud, and it seemed to close off the possibility of evolving halachic discourse. Some critics, most notably RambaN, felt that the Rambam’s approach was overly rigid and reduced the dynamic, interpretive nature of Jewish law.
In stark contrast the B’hag and Rabbeinu Tam, who lived before the Rambam, in effect they still condemn the statute law perversion committed by the Rambam’s static codification which abandoned פרדס kabbalah which defines Talmudic, and T’NaCH common law.
The RambaN agreed with the Rambam goal to create a unified, easy-to-follow codex. The chief superficial controversy, the Yad did not include sources or direct references to the Talmud; it seemed to close off the possibility of evolving halachic interpretative discourse. However the substance of the Jewish Civil War more compares to the Confederate argument with Washington DC/Lincoln over States rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce independent of Big Brother; the Rambam code negated T”NaCH and Talmudic common law.
Critics, such as the B’HaG and Rabbeinu Tam would have utterly rejected the Rambam static code. Rabbeinu Yonah’s court placed the Rambam into נידוי. They felt that the Rambam’s assimilation of Greek philosophy & logic, endemic of assimilated ‘golden age’ Spanish Jewry, negated the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system. Furthermore, his overly rigid code of law reduced the Talmudic dynamic equilibrium factor. Absolutely required for a living interpretive body of Jewish law. For example: the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot failed all together to address Av Torah commandments: time oriented mitzvot! He clearly misunderstood the opening Av Mishna of Chullen. He failed to address the critical requirement of “fear of heaven” in the kosher slaughter of animals. The apikoros might possess the knowledge how to slaughter correctly but lacks the essential fear of heaven, just as do likewise Goyim.
The B’HaG (Baal HaMaor) and Rabbeinu Tam represent a different approach to dynamic halachic interpretation, one closely aligned with common law fundamentals, the use of precedents and comparative analysis of primary sources.
The B’HaG, a key figure in early halachic history, focused on halachic analysis through a common law פרדס logic approach. Rather than simply codifying laws into rigid egg crate categories which define Greek & Roman law. The B’HaG emphasized, halacha must evolve from an analysis of historical precedents and the comparison of similar Case/Din legal judicial rulings learned from sealed Primary sources. This sh’itta involves understanding halacha not as a static set of rules, but as a dynamic, case-based system flexible & adaptive, to changing dynamic circumstances required for thoughtful legal interpretive reasoning.
The B’HaG’s sh’itta shares many characteristics with the English common law system, where laws developed through judicial decisions based upon prior judicial rulings. Rather than based only upon rigid written codes of static halachic rulings. He focused on evaluating specific legal situations and their outcomes, which could then be applied to new cases.
Rabbeinu Tam, an influential Tosafist and a key figure of French Rishonim common law. He likewise focused on analyzing Jewish law through the lens of case law and precedent. And emphasized the interpretation of Talmudic texts and often used comparative analysis of multiple Talmudic sources to derive halachic rulings. This approach very much reflects the common law T’NaCH/Talmud\Midrashim tradition, which values the analysis of specific legal precedents (and to a far less prioritized aggadic prophetic mussar) to establish a flexible, evolving legal system.
Rabbeinu Tam’s methods, deeply rooted in Talmudic discourse and encouraged a dialogue between past legal rulings and contemporary situations. His sh’itta sought to balance theoretical knowledge with practical application, and his halachic decisions, grounded in precedents, making them deeply relevant to everyday Jewish life.
Both these great common law scholars failed to delve into Midrashic scholarship of Aggadic prophetic mussar common law. Perhaps had Reshonim scholarship done more than give lip service and superficially comment upon Midrashic Gaonim scholarship’s Midrashim, a powerful tool to learn the Aggadic mussar of the T’NaCH & Talmud, the Rambam revolution would not have treated the T’NaCH and Talmud common law legal system, much like as did the Gang of Four during the Cultural Revolution despised classic Confucianism.
Furthermore, Rabbeinu Tam’s approach frequently involved resolving apparent contradictions in the Talmud by using comparative analysis. This allowed for much more of a dynamic halachic system. Law could more easily apply a depth analysis, based on a פרדס logic of previous similar בנין אב cases. However, the chief flaw of the Rabbeinu Tam’s Talmudic scholarship, it seems to me, while he delved into the specifics of a Gemara sugya through comparative precedents. Alas afterwards he failed to re-interpret the language of the Home Mishna using the precedents employed to interpret a Gemara sugya on that home Mishna! Something like a blue-print front, top, and side views permits a man to see a 3-D idea from a 2-D blueprint.
The Rambam sought clarity and uniformity by codifying Jewish law. The RambaN, while impressed by both the B’hag and Rabbeinu Tam, inclined toward the Rambam rigid legal system. The B’HaG and Rabbeinu Tam, emphasize a case-law approach based on precedents and comparative analysis, making halacha more flexible, dynamic, and context-driven.
The debate between codification and common law – not merely an academic criticism which rebuked the Rambam’s failure to bring sources for his halachic posok. Based upon the Tur and Shulkan Aruch, this criticism—merely superficial. The Rambam’s statute law rigic codification of halacha, established a uniform structured Jewish law. It represents a significant shift in Jewish religious authority—one that centralized authority in the hands of the codifier and placed greater emphasis on a universally applicable system of halacha.
This tremendous error in judgment matched the Rambam’s assimilation to Xtian and Muslim theology and Creeds which demanded from their believers to believe in a Universal Monotheistic God. Mesechta Avoda Zarah teaches that the earliest generations, prior to Noach, rejected the Torah oath brit faith. Hence Goyim by definition worship other Gods. Monotheism a creed of avoda zarah.
The B’HaG, Rabbeinu Tam, and others emphasized the importance of Talmudic study and personal interpretation. Their approach consequently led to a more decentralized form of Jewish legal authority and a living tradition that could respond flexibly to the diverse needs of Jewish communities. Alas Feudal Europe required a fixed rigid law at that time.
The assimilated halachic codifiers decreed, which Talmudic authorities the halacha must always followed. There aim, a very valid argument, faced with the feudal constraints which prevented travel, they argued that establishment of rigid static halachic codifications would prevent Jewish communities from scattering into diverse religious Orders. Something that defines Orthodox from secular, from Historical to Liberal Reform Jews today.
After Napoleon freed Jews from the Catholic ghetto war-crimes, Reform Jewish leadership, seeing the huge gap in education following three Centuries of ghetto imprisonment & destitute Jewish poverty, declared the “classic” halachic statute codifications – as archaic and not relevant to the modern world!
This tension between centralized rigid codifications and decentralized dynamic interpretive analysis led to significant divisions within the Jewish communities across Western Europe, contributing to the “Jewish Civil War”.
Following the Pope’s decree condemning Western European Jewry to ghetto imprisonment, a mass population transfer ensued. Jews fled to Poland and the Ukraine. Alas Jewish anarchy and internal chaos left our people no place to hide. At the conclusion of the 30 year War, in 1648 the Cossacks slaughtered up to 1.5 million Jews in a 12 year period.
The debate between static codification (as represented by the Rambam) and a more dynamic, common law sh’itta (as represented by the B’HaG and Rabbeinu Tam commentaries to the Talmud) reflects a fundamental tension in Jewish legal philosophy.
The Rambam’s static codification aimed to establish a unified and systematic religious structure, Jews he viewed as something like a bridge. While the B’HaG and Rabbeinu Tam preferred a more dynamic, interpretive approach. Their sh’itta views the Jews as the waters flowing underneath the bridge. This ongoing debate influences how Jewish law studied and applied across the Yeshiva world. The g’lut victory of the Rambam Civil War, set off a chain reaction, a ירידות הדורות which plagues the Jewish people to this very day. This conflict between static vs. dynamic legalism, it highlights conflicts which separate and divides Jews till now.
The distinction between Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס (Pardes) logic system and Aristotle’s syllogistic logic is crucial. Rabbi Akiva’s approach, rooted in the mystical and interpretive layers of Jewish tradition, indeed contrasts sharply with the more rigid and categorically structured syllogisms of Aristotle, which are based on deductive reasoning.
Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes system—comprising four levels of Torah interpretation (Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod)—involves a multi-dimensional approach to understanding texts, which allows for a depth of insight that evolves dynamically, adapting to spiritual and philosophical insights. Aristotle’s syllogisms, on the other hand, work by following a more rigid, three-part deductive structure (major premise, minor premise, conclusion), aiming for logical certainty. The difference between these two systems is not just a matter of intellectual style but also a fundamental difference in how knowledge and divine wisdom are perceived and processed.
The central idea found in the Birkat HaMazon (Grace After Meals) regarding the Greek oppression, “כשעמדה מלכות יון הרשעה על עמך ישראל להשכיחם תורתך ולהעבירם מחקי רצונך”. This phrase is crucial because it directly connects the Greek period of assimilation to the spiritual and cultural struggles of the Jewish people. The attempt to “forget” the Torah and erase the distinct identity of the Jewish people aligns with the context of the Hanukkah story and the deeper spiritual struggle between maintaining Jewish identity versus the pressure of assimilation. This point touches on the fundamental challenge the Jewish people faced during that time—an ideological civil war, if you will—between remaining faithful to Torah principles and being influenced by the Hellenistic culture that sought to diminish or even eliminate the Jewish tradition.
Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס (Pardes) logic system differs significantly from Aristotle’s syllogism. Rabbi Akiva approaches Torah interpretation through four levels—Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod—which guide us from simple meaning to deeper mystical insights. This method allows for a dynamic exploration of texts, fostering an evolving understanding that connects the individual to divine wisdom. Aristotle’s syllogisms, however, focus on deductive reasoning. They follow a strict three-part structure: major premise, minor premise, and conclusion. This contrast highlights the difference between Jewish thought, which embraces spiritual depth and multiple interpretive layers, and Greek logic, which values clarity and deductive certainty.
The passage from Birkat HaMazon—”כשעמדה מלכות יון הרשעה על עמך ישראל להשכיחם תורתך ולהעבירם מחקי רצונך”—describes the oppression the Jewish people faced under Greek rule. The Greeks attempted to erase Torah knowledge and disrupt Jewish identity. This aligns with the Hanukkah story, where Greek Hellenistic culture sought to assimilate the Jews and diminish their unique spiritual practices. The Jewish people stood at a crossroads, facing the struggle of either remaining faithful to the Torah or yielding to external pressure to abandon their distinct religious path. The tension between these two forces mirrors a broader cultural and philosophical battle, one that still resonates with us today.
The Greeks didn’t just challenge the Written Torah, but their deeper threat lay in their attempt to erase or distort the very essence of the Oral Torah and its mystical underpinnings, which are far more subtle and dynamic than the Written Torah alone.
The Greeks, especially during the reign of Antiochus IV, sought to suppress the Oral Torah—the tradition of interpretation passed down orally through the generations. This includes both the Talmudic and Midrashic traditions, which provide depth and meaning beyond the plain text of the Written Torah. The Greeks wanted to promote a worldview based on logic, philosophy, and uniformity, which stood in stark contrast to the Jewish approach of interpreting Torah through layers of mystical, legal, and ethical frameworks.
The Written Torah itself might have been preserved in some form, but the Oral Torah—which transmits Jewish law, ethics, spiritual guidance, and the more esoteric aspects of Jewish belief—represented a unique system of knowledge that transcended static texts and relied heavily on a dynamic, interpretive process. The Greeks attempted to erase this system of interpretation and the freedom of Jewish thought that flowed from it, intending to subjugate the Jewish spirit to Hellenistic philosophical structures. They targeted the Oral Torah specifically because it was the living tradition that connected each generation to the divine wisdom behind the Torah’s commandments.
This makes the Hanukkah story not just about resisting the imposition of foreign rituals or the desecration of the Temple, but about the battle for the soul of Jewish spiritual life. The victory over the Greeks symbolized the preservation of Jewish autonomy in interpreting the Torah—both written and oral—and safeguarding the Oral Torah as the foundation of Jewish identity, wisdom; the oath brit faith which prioritizes the righteous pursuit of judicial imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B – justice.
The broader implications of the Rambam’s codification of law, especially in relation to the Oral Torah (פרדס) and the Kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva compared to the examples of Seward’s diplomatic strategy during the American Civil War and the 1968 Gang of Four Cultural Revolution in China—to further highlight the dynamics at play between Common Law vs Statute Law.
The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah represented a systematic codification of Jewish law, offering clarity, uniformity, and simplicity to Jewish practice. his codification ultimately reduced the dynamic, interpretive nature of Jewish law that is characteristic of the Oral Torah and the deeper Kabbalistic teachings passed down through traditions like Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes. By consolidating Jewish law into a fixed, written code, the Rambam inadvertently disconnected Jewish spirituality from the living process of interpretation that had existed for centuries through the Oral Torah.
This shift to statute law is comparable to the actions taken by both Secretary Seward during the American Civil War and the Gang of Four in China during the Cultural Revolution, both of which involved efforts to undermine or uproot longstanding systems of thought and tradition in order to impose rigid, centralized control.
Seward and the Preservation of the Union
In the case of Seward, his diplomatic maneuvers during the Civil War—specifically, preventing PM Gladstone from recognizing the Confederate States of America—reflect an effort to preserve the existing order and prevent foreign powers from gaining influence over the future of the United States. Seward’s strategic use of diplomatic notes undermined Gladstone’s plans by preventing England from bypassing the Union blockade and thus preventing a balkanization of the Union. This is akin to the Rambam’s codification of Jewish law: while the Rambam sought to unite and strengthen Jewish practice through a singular, standardized legal code, this effort simultaneously closed off the dynamic process of legal interpretation and the ability to evolve with changing times, much as Seward worked to preserve the unity of the American Union. Just as Seward blocked foreign interventions, the Rambam’s codification blocked the free flow of Jewish legal discourse that had previously thrived in the Oral Torah and Talmudic scholarship.
This analogy between Seward’s diplomacy and the Rambam’s statute law codification helps explain how both efforts—Seward’s diplomatic interference and the Rambam’s halachic system—essentially “freezed” the trajectory of their respective cultures. By creating a legal monolith, both efforts sought order and stability but at the cost of dynamic evolution, flexibility, and the deep wisdom that comes from organic, fluid processes of intellectual and spiritual development. The Civil War in this case, like the Jewish Civil War can be seen as a battle between traditional systems of power and those that wanted to centralize and impose new forms of control, thus preventing the ongoing development of the legal and philosophical traditions.
The Cultural Revolution and the Attack on Tradition
The 1968 Gang of Four in China presents a similarly revolutionary example. Under Mao’s influence, the Gang of Four sought to uproot and destroy Confucian traditions that had guided Chinese society for centuries. Their Cultural Revolution specifically targeted the ancient Confucian system of civil servant examinations, which had for millennia helped to select individuals for public office based on knowledge, wisdom, and ethical behavior. The Gang of Four wanted to replace this tradition with Maoist ideology and a more centralized, rigid political structure.
In this way, the Cultural Revolution mirrors the effect of the Rambam’s codification of Jewish law: both movements sought to disrupt and uproot longstanding systems of knowledge and interpretation. The Gang of Four tried to replace the living, dynamic tradition of Confucian civil service exams with the centralized, rigid ideology of the state under Mao’s directives. Similarly, the Rambam’s statute law approach to Jewish law effectively disrupted the dynamic, interpretive nature of the Oral Torah and replaced it with a centralized, fixed system that removed the living interpretive process of Talmudic discourse.
Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes system, which provides a pathway for interpreting Torah through multiple layers—from simple textual understanding to deep mystical knowledge—was rooted in Oral Torah. By codifying Jewish law into a uniform system, the Rambam reduced the rich, multi-dimensional method of Torah study that Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes embodies. The Gang of Four’s attack on Confucianism and Seward’s blocking of foreign influence both represent forces seeking to centralize control and replace deep, evolving traditions with more rigid, top-down systems of rule.
By codifying Jewish law into a statute system, the Rambam effectively cut off access to the kabbalistic teachings that flowed from the Oral Torah and the deeper levels of Jewish wisdom. Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes logic system, which includes mystical and allegorical readings of Torah, serves as the spiritual backbone of Jewish thought. This system is inherently dynamic, relying on interpretation, personal insight, and spiritual growth to understand the word of God. But when the Rambam’s statute law took precedence, it disrupted the flow of this dynamic process, leading subsequent generations to forget or abandon the deeper kabbalistic teachings that form the soul of Jewish spirituality.
The uprooting of the Pardes system, akin to the Gang of Four’s destruction of Confucianism, marks a significant shift in Jewish history. Like the cultural purges in Maoist China, where ancient traditions were replaced by state-driven ideology, the Rambam’s statute law imposed a fixed structure that no longer allowed for the organic growth of Jewish thought. By limiting Jewish practice to a codified statute law, the Rambam, despite his profound contributions to Jewish legal thought, inadvertently alienated future generations from the mystical and interpretive aspects of the Oral Torah that had kept Jewish spirituality vibrant.
Both Seward’s diplomatic tactics and the Cultural Revolution represent efforts to centralize control and impose order, much like the Rambam’s codification of Jewish law. All three efforts—while seeking unity, clarity, and stability—suppress the living, evolving traditions that allow for deeper spiritual and intellectual engagement. The Oral Torah, with its focus on dynamic interpretation, was the key that unlocked the deeper mystical truths of the Torah, as taught by Rabbi Akiva and his followers. The Rambam’s legal system served to replace this dynamic process with a static code, which eventually led to the forgetting of the Pardes and a long period of spiritual dormancy in Jewish thought.
This loss, in part, set the stage for later Jewish Civil Wars. As different factions vied for control over Jewish law and practice, seeking to either restore the Oral Torah or accept the Rambam’s system as definitive, or in the case of false messiah movements which preceded the rise of post Ghetto Reform Judaism, these tensions continue to reverberate through Jewish thought today, as we grapple with the tension between statute law and oral tradition, and the dynamic, evolving nature of Jewish spirituality.
The false messiah movements of Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank function as the foundation of post Ghetto Reform Judaism which condemns the statute law codifications as archaic and not relevant to the Modern Era. Reform Judaism represents a form of spiritual crisis that deeply impacted how Jews viewed their religious tradition in the post-Ghetto era.
Both Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank were charismatic figures whose movements challenged traditional Jewish spirituality and law. They represent radical deviations from Jewish normativity, particularly with regard to the Pardes system, the Oral Torah, and the deeply mystical aspects of Jewish Kabbalah. Their influence can be seen as both a reaction to the statute law victory as expressed through the Tur and Shulkan Aruch halachic codifications.
The codification of Jewish law into a fixed system by the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch, and the broader intellectual currents of the Enlightenment that were sweeping Europe at the time. Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676) proclaimed himself as the Messiah of the Jewish people, sparking a movement that challenged traditional Jewish authorities and their legal frameworks. His followers, known as Sabbateans, believed that the coming of the Messiah would involve transgression of Torah law and the rejection of many of the rigid structures that had governed Jewish religious life. Sabbatai Zevi’s movement represented a kind of spiritual rebellion against the established order, including the very system of Jewish law codified by the Rambam. His radical reinterpretation of Jewish messianism questioned the authority of halacha and the traditional system of Oral Torah that governed Jewish life, leading to a spiritual crisis that deeply unsettled Jewish communities.
Jacob Frank (1726-1791), a later figure influenced by Sabbatai Zevi, took the Sabbatean heresy even further by blending it with Christianity and Islamic mysticism, creating a movement that explicitly rejected the authority of Jewish law. Frank’s followers, the Frankists, went so far as to openly renounce the Mosaic law and advocate for a new religious order, one that transcended traditional Jewish identity and law. Frank’s teachings were deeply tied to the idea that traditional Jewish law, as codified by figures like the Rambam, was obsolete in the face of new spiritual revelations. He claimed that the Jews needed to break free from the constraints of their past and embrace a new spiritual path that was no longer bound by the rigid legal systems of the past.
The Sabbatean and Frankist movements were not mere religious aberrations; they became profound symbols of the deeper currents that eventually led to the rejection of traditional halacha and the emergence of Reform Judaism in the 19th century. After centuries of ghettoized Jewish existence, where traditional Jewish law (and the codifications of figures like the Rambam) governed virtually every aspect of daily life, the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews in Western Europe triggered a radical shift in Jewish thought.
The rise of modernity brought with it a crisis of authority in many traditional religious systems, including Judaism. The rigid legalism of the Yad Chazkah, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute halachic codifications perverse framing of the Talmud as just another example of a Tzeddukim: Greek polis city state based upon ancient Greek rules of logic, seemed increasingly out of place in a new, secular world where reason, science, and personal freedom became dominant values. Sabbatai Zevi’s messianic pretensions and Jacob Frank’s heretical teachings can be understood as early expressions of the broader desire among some Jews to break away from the constraints of codified law and embrace a new, less structured form of spirituality.
For many Jews living in the post-Ghetto era, the codified laws that had once kept their communities together began to feel antiquated. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and the secularization, consequent to the American and French revolutions, led to the development of Reform Judaism, which sought to modernize Jewish practice by rejecting some of the more rigid aspects of statute law—like those embodied in the Rambam’s codifications—and adapting Jewish tradition to the modern world.
By the early 19th century, Reform Judaism began to emerge as a reaction against the perceived irrelevance of traditional Jewish legal frameworks, particularly those that had been codified in works like the Mishneh Torah. Reformers, like Abraham Geiger and Moses Mendelssohn, saw the statute law approach of the Rambam and other medieval Jewish codifiers as an obstacle to the adaptation of Jewish religion to the modern world. The Reform movement advocated for:
The reinterpretation of Jewish law to align with modern values, such as individual autonomy, rationalism, and universal human rights. The disengagement from practices and rituals that were seen as too rigid, outdated, or non-essential in the modern era. A return to the spirit of the ethical monotheism heretical interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment, rather than adherence to a fixed, legalistic system that they saw as more concerned with external ritual and structure than inner spiritual growth.
Statute halachic codes prioritized a theological belief in a Xtian Islam like Universal God over the pursuit of righteous judicial justice which strives to faithfully restore restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. This religification of statute halachic codes over the Torah faith of judicial pursuit of justice served as the foundation for Reform Judaism’s declaration of Berlin as their ‘New Jerusalem’!
This reformist rejection of traditional halacha was not just an intellectual exercise; it had profound consequences for the way Jews saw themselves and their relationship with the Torah. Many Jews began to view the codified Jewish law—especially that of the Rambam—as a relic of an earlier, pre-modern era, one that had no relevance in the post-enlightenment world.
In this context, the Sabbatean and Frankist movements can be seen as precursors to the Reformist spirit that rejected traditional Jewish legalism. Sabbatai Zevi’s antinomian approach, which suggested that Jews could transcend Mosaic law and even embrace the realm of transgression in order to hasten the redemption, mirrors the later Reform Jewish rejection of statute law. Similarly, Jacob Frank’s rejection of traditional Jewish legal systems and embrace of syncretic spirituality laid the groundwork for a more flexible, less law-bound approach to Jewish identity.
For those Jews influenced by the Frankists, the law of the Torah—particularly as codified by figures like the Rambam—was not divine and eternal, but rather a set of cultural norms that could be transcended or transformed in response to new spiritual revelations. In many ways, this mindset permeated the Reform Judaism movement, where Jewish law was not viewed as an eternal, binding system, but as something that could be adapted, modified, or even discarded altogether in favor of a more personalized, flexible spirituality.
The Sabbatean and Frankist movements represent the spiritual breaking point where Jewish law—embodied most systematically in the Yad Chazaka, Tur, and Shulkah Aruch path of statute halachic law—became increasingly irrelevant to a growing number of Jews. Modern Jewish religious movements initiated a philosophical and spiritual shift away from the notion of justice and the dedication of tohor middot, towards a more fluid and adaptable forms of religious/secular and assimilated lifestyles
Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank acted as the precursors to a broader movement that rejected T’NaCH & Talmudic common law by standing on the post Rambam Civil War establishment of statute law religious Judaism. Reform Judaism, in its turn, eventually rejected the authority of Jewish legal codifications of the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch, and adopt a more progressive, individualized approach to Jewish law and identity, just as did the assimilated Jews of the Spanish ‘golden age’ reject the kabbala of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס understanding of the revelation of the Oral Torah to Moshe at Horev 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf.
LikeLike
Haven’t got strong feelings about the Odyssey, one way or another… but we are in the middle of a wonderfully florid translation of J.Henri Fabre, and enjoying it immensely. The thing is, I have no idea what Fabre sounds like in his native French. Still… there’s so much *love* in it.
LikeLike
What translation is it?
LikeLike
It’s this one: https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/1887
Translated by: Alexander Teixeira de Mattos
Poking around a little, the translator himself was an interesting person:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Teixeira_de_Mattos
And considered his translation of Fabre, to be his greatest achievement.
LikeLike
I cannot judge the Wilson translations without having read them. But stuff like this does not make me optimistic.
“which of the two translations of a snippet from The Odyssey do you prefer?”
Just got back from Malta and am catching breath and reacclimating to local conditions (from 16 to 2 degrees in one day…. yikes).
Anyhoo, like any real translator I’m not completely satsified with either (is any real translator ever satisfied?). Fagles is a bit old-fashioned and exoticizes/remotes the past too much while Wilson seems to be imposing modern subjectivity on characters from a completely different mental universe.
I’m not optimistic after reading Wilson saying something about ‘toxic masculinity’…. from our point of view yeah, I get it, but from the inside out… no.
No way am I learning Ancient Greek to do my own…
LikeLike
“which of the two translations of a snippet from The Odyssey do you prefer?”
For what it’s worth I like this better than the Fagles or Wilson… Of course translating a few lines is not the same as translating the entire work…..
Still, the repetitions of ‘many’ are straight from the original and it does a better job of rendering the double meaning of one word in the original that suggests both inner complication and external wandering….
https://x.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1873529021746585792
LikeLike
As far as modern translations go, I find this one much more compelling than Wilson. Won’t comment on accuracy, just how it sounds in English.
https://x.com/mualphaxi/status/1695481381940273192
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment