38 CHAPTER TWO
need to accommodate its specifi c needs. This awareness accounts for
much of the theological content of his work. In par ticular, one should
note the kind of writings he engaged in. His most philosophical book,
theGuide, is very different from typical philosophical compositions of
his time. It is, by its author’s own claim, centered on exegesis of the He-
brew Bible. The Guide may not be unique in its genre (Ibn Rushd’s Kashf
al-adilla, although written for a different audience, is in many ways simi-
lar, and was probably a source of inspiration for Maimonides).^48 But
whereas Ibn Rushd dedicated most of his literary energy to typically philo-
sophical writings, and the Kashf is marginal to his main philosophical
activity, Maimonides developed this model to make it his magnum opus.
TheGuide is thus by nature theological in the sense that it is dedicated to
the effort to harmonize philosophy with Scripture. The fact that Maimo-
nides chose to expand in this genre should not obliterate his more philo-
sophical concerns, nor lead us to identify his theological concern as kalam.
Maimonides was not a mutakallim, not because he did not engage in
theological speculation, but because he vehemently opposed the content
of the par ticular theological system called kalam. He was a phi losopher,
but not because of a lack of theological concern in his thought (like other
medieval phi losophers, this was not the case). He was a phi losopher be-
cause he saw himself as such.
Heresies, Jewish and MuslimThe assumption that Maimonides was versed in Muslim theological
literature can assist us in understanding curious or vague statements in
his works. As is quite often the case, the most striking example ap-
pears when it is least expected.^49 It is thus in Maimonides’ attempts to
defi ne the boundaries of the Jewish community that we fi nd resounding
proofs of the extent to which he interiorized the concerns of Muslim
theologians.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (known as Kitab al- Siraj) Maimo-
nides comments on the Mishnah in Hullin 1.2, which discusses the per-
sons authorized to perform ritual slaughter. Summarizing the Talmudic
discussion, Maimonides lists those people whose slaughter is not valid,
and says:
(^48) See S. Stroumsa, “The Literary Corpus of Maimonides and Averroes,” Maimonidean
Studies 5 (2008): 193– 210.
(^49) Another example is Judah Halevi’s use of Shiite terminology and concepts as building
blocks for his theory of Jewish chosenness and particularism (safwa, translated to Hebrew
assegula); see Pines, “Shiite Terms and Conceptions in Judah Halevi’s Kuzari.”