Opposition To The Code

The entire structure, form, and arrangement of the Mishneh Torah was a cultural and historical phenomenon unprecedented in Jewish dogmatic jurisprudence (see Codification of Law) which both awed and shocked the scholarly world for centuries. The architectural beauty of its structure, its logical arrangement, and ready-reference nature were the main targets for criticism, for it was feared that students would turn away from the study of the Talmud and commentaries, the source and wellspring of dynamic Halachik creativity. The severest criticism came from Abraham ben David of PosquiIres, an older contemporary of Maimonides, who probably equaled him in Talmudic scholarship. The most serious of his charges was that Maimonides neglected to cite the sources and authorities from which his decisions were derived:

He [Maimonides] intended to improve but did not improve, for he forsook the way of all authors who preceded him. They always adduced proof for their statements, citing the proper authority, this was very useful, for sometimes the judge would be inclined to forbid or permit something and his proof was based on some other authority. Had he known there was a greater authority who interpreted the law differently, he might have retracted... hence I do not know why I should reverse my tradition or corroborative views because of the compendium of this author. If the one who differs from me is greater than I, fine, and if I am greater than he, why should I annul my opinion...? Moreover, there are matters on which the geonim disagree and the author has selected the opinion of one.... Why should I rely on his choice.... It can only be one that an overbearing spirit is in him (Abraham ben David's Hassagot to introduction of Mishneh Torah).

These charges were not motivated by personal animosity, as claimed by some scholars of the Haskalah period, for on many occasions Abraham ben David traces certain sources of laws in the Code or comments upon it. At other times he is overwhelmed by this compendium. Abraham ben David's objections were shared by lesser-known scholars, who added their own criticism. During the 19th century, opposition to the Mishneh Torah was still a subject of controversy between S. D. Luzzatto, N. Krochmal, and others.

In a series of letters Maimonides replied to his criticism that his intention in writing the Mishneh Torah was not to discourage Talmudic studies, including the Halachot of Alfasi. On the contrary, he had lectured to his pupils on these subjects. He regretted the omission of his sources and hoped to include them in a supplement. Maimonides never realized this hope. However, practically every commentary on the Mishneh Torah attempted to trace its sources. If his aim in compiling the Code was " so that no other work should be needed for ascertaining any of the laws of Israel, " the more than 300 commentaries and novellae which have been written on it—and their number is growing—is an ironic phenomenon that could not have been anticipated by Maimonides. The Mishneh Torah did not become the definitive code its venerated creator had hoped. Actually, it surpassed his hopes, for it became the major source of Halachik creativity and Talmudic research equaled only by the Talmud itself.