64 CHAPTER THREE
whole oral Torah, requiring no book between them.”^50 In the introduc-
tion to his Book of Precepts, Maimonides spelled out his methodology in
theMishneh Torah:
I saw fi t to prepare also a composition that includes all the laws and
precepts of the Torah... and to proceed as I am wont to do, namely:
to avoid mentioning disagreements (ikhtilafat) and positions that
were rejected, and to list only fi nite rulings... And I also opt for
omitting the justifi cations and arguments in support of each ruling,
and the names of transmitters.^51Maimonides also declares his intention to go back to the primary sources
of legislation (usul) and to avoid casuistics (furu) as much as possible,
and he gives pre cedence to rulings that rely on earlier sources (de’orayta)
over those presented as relying on later interpretation (de-rabbanan).^52
He uses the term usul also to denote the guiding principles of legislation,^53
and when speaking of the Mishneh Torah, he says: “We also mentioned
in it all the religious and legal principles (usul), intending all those who
are called “Disciples of the Sages,” or “Sages,” or “Gaonim,” or however
you wish to call them, to establish their derivative legal ruling (furu) on
legal principles (usul fi qhiyya).”^54 Maimonides’ scathing criticism of con-
temporary Talmudic scholarship, and his analysis of the state of Jewish
learning, provides the inner Jewish background for his realization of the
need to break new ground in legal scholarship. The explanation for the
particular path he chose, however, must be sought outside of the Jewish
(^50) See also Maimonides’ Book of Commandments;Sefer ha- Mitzvot, 2– 3;Maimonides: The
Commandments, trans. C. Chavel (London, 1967).
(^51) Sefer ha- Mitzvot, 1– 2.
(^52) See, for instance, Sefer ha- Mitzvot, 1– 29. On Maimonides’ “obsessive” preoccupation
with the relative rank of legal sources, see G. J. Blidstein, “Where Do We Stand in the
Study of Maimonidean Halakhah?,” in I. Twersky, ed., Studies in Maimonides (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1990), 13; M. Halbertal, “Sefer Ha- Mizvot of Maimonides— His Archi-
tecture of Halakha and Theory of Interpretation,” Tarbiz 59 (1990), 462– 68 [Hebrew];
J. S. Levinger, Maimonides as Phi losopher and Codifi er (Jerusalem, 1989), 56– 66
[Hebrew].
(^53) SeeSefer ha- Mitzvot, 23– 24, where the fourteen guiding principles of the division of
commandments are called usul.
(^54) Treatise on Resurrection, 4; Epistles, 320– 21, 342– 43; and see I. Twersky, “The Mishneh
Torah of Maimonides,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 5
(1976): 265– 95. On the meaning of fi qh in Maimonides’ writings, see M. Schwarz, “Al-
fi qh, a Term Borrowed from Islam Used by Maimonides for a Jewish Concept in his Sefer
ha-Mitzwoth and in The Guide of the Perplexed,” in Y. Tzvi Langermann and J. Stern, eds.,
Adaptations and Innovations: Studies on the Interaction between Jewish and Islamic
Thought and Literature from the Early Middle Ages to the Late Twentieth Century, Dedi-
cated to Professor Joel L. Kraemer (Paris- Louvain- Dudley, 2007), 349– 53.