Another excellent @ZoharAtkins thread.
Helpful in this context is Haym Soloveitchik’s distinction between “centrifugal” and “centripetal” works. 1
Helpful in this context is Haym Soloveitchik’s distinction between “centrifugal” and “centripetal” works. 1
https://twitter.com/ZoharAtkins/status/1480308594604134401
A centrifugal work births commentarial literature that moves away from it, applying the text to address new cases.
A centripetal work gives rise to commentators who move relentlessly back towards it—singularly focused on decoding its words. 2
A centripetal work gives rise to commentators who move relentlessly back towards it—singularly focused on decoding its words. 2
In the Jewish context:
Shulchan Aruch = centrifugal
Maimonides’ Code = centripetal
3
Shulchan Aruch = centrifugal
Maimonides’ Code = centripetal
3
And it’s definitely no coincidence that Dr. Soloveitchik’s list overlaps with Zohar’s! 4
Finally, see here for Dr. Soloveitchik’s provocative argument (with which I agree) that not only should Maimonides’ Code be placed alongside history’s other great literary works of art, but that Maimonides’ degree of difficulty actually far exceeded Plato’s 🔥🔥🔥 /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
