AN ALMOHAD “FUNDAMENTALIST”? 65
tradition.^55 This is indicated by Maimonides himself: although he evokes
the pre cedent of Rabbi Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah, he
is, as mentioned above, proudly conscious of his own innovation. The
example of Judah the Prince serves to legitimize the daring move to in-
novate, but it does not provide the model for the specifi c character of the
innovation.
Maimonides’ claim for innovation is accepted by modern scholarship,
which also discusses possible models of inspiration for his move. Lenn
Goodman has observed that “there is something artifi cial (that is to say,
not authentically Jewish) in Maimonides’ way of action” and in par ticu-
lar, in his legal syllogism, which Goodman sees in Aristotelian terms.^56
Isadore Twersky, in his masterful study of the Mishneh Torah, explained
Maimonides’ decision to compose such a book mainly as motivated by
his awareness that there was a lacuna to be fi lled. Twersky, however, of-
fered no suggestion as to Maimonides’ source of inspiration.^57 Twersky
noted the possibility of an Islamic infl uence, since “books of law were
used in the Islamic world,” but he dismissed this possibility as marginal,
arguing that “the main motive... derives from in dependent legal- literary
requirements.”^58 A similar reluctance to seriously examine Islamic infl u-
ence can be detected in the analysis offered by Gerald Blidstein. Blidstein
takes for granted the impact of Muslim society on Maimonides’ thought,
but treats it as “a delicate issue,” fi rst and foremost due to what he re-
gards as our limited knowledge of the extent of Maimonides’ involvement
in the wider Muslim culture. Blidstein therefore insists (no doubt cor-
rectly) on the fact that Maimonides continued the Gaonic legal tradition,
and more precisely the North African Andalusian Gaonic tradition.^59
Quite contrary to this cautious scholarly stand, however, we do know
the extent of Maimonides’ involvement in the wider Islamic culture. We
know that, as far as science and learning are concerned, he was deeply
immersed in this culture, and did his best to remain abreast of the devel-
opments that occurred in it. The reluctance to adcknowledge his famil-
iarity with Muslim law is therefore puzzling, particularly since there is no
evidence for such reluctance on Maimonides’ part.
Indeed, other leading contemporary scholars accept the assumption
that Muslim law, as part of Islamic culture, was also part of Maimonides’
(^55) Although earlier Gaonic legal compendia may have helped Maimonides to justify his
move, they do not provide a model for his ambitious comprehensive composition. Cf. Da-
vidson,Moses Maimonides, 201– 2.
(^56) Goodman, “Maimonides’ Philosophy of Law,” 91.
(^57) Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides, 3; idem, “The Mishneh Torah of
Maimonides,” 265– 95.
(^58) Twersky, “The Mishneh Torah of Maimonides,” 289.
(^59) Blidstein, “Where Do We Stand in the Study of Maimonidean Halakhah?” 28.