"No, the Rambam was NOT a Racist" or "The Allegory of the Palace"

Aug 08, 2016

Artwork: *Teferi, Temporal Archmage*, by Tyler Jacobson

"No, the Rambam was NOT a Racist" or "The Allegory of the Palace"

The Allegation

There's a certain public figure I follow on social media. Let's call him Malcolm (not his real name, nor his real pseudonym). His Twitter tagline is "Black. Jewish. Orthodox." As such, he describes himself as a "unicorn" within the Orthodox Jewish community. He is a social justice crusader when it comes to issues of racism and other forms of discrimination within the Jewish community. I chose to follow him because he seemed like a decent and educated guy who, like myself, is bothered by the prevalence of bigotry among Orthodox Jews.

Last week Malcolm wrote a lengthy post on his Facebook page urging his fellow Jews to join the Black Lives Matter movement. In this post he made the following statement:

Every week, I show up to any given synagogue and have to encounter/battle at least one person who doesn't think I'm the right color to belong there. I frequently study Mishneh Torah, a superb tome of halachic literature written by Maimonides, the same Maimonides who also wrote in Guide to the Perplexed that black people are "incapable of attaining to supreme religious values" and that their place in nature is "below that of a man and above that of a monkey".

When I read this, I knew it was a terrible distortion of the Rambam's views. Since Malcolm is a public figure, I felt I had a responsibility to say something.

I commented on Malcolm's Facebook post informing him that this was a severe misreading of the Rambam, and that if he read the quotation in context he would see that the Rambam's statement had nothing to do with racism or race. I also mentioned that the Rambam writes in several places in the Mishneh Torah that all human beings - men and women, Jews and non-Jews - can reach the utmost heights of intellectual perfection and closeness to Hashem.

Malcolm responded with his version of "citing the Rambam's statement in context." He merely reiterated the quotation, but with a few more words from the same sentence. He then told me that if I was correct about the Rambam's other statements affirming human equality, then Rambam was contradicting himself.

Again, I urged him to read the Rambam in the full context of the chapter. I spelled out my arguments and said that if anything, the Rambam's statements undermine racism. The author's only response was: "IN CONTEXT, it is STILL a racially problematic statement."

I will now present to you, my readers, the full context of the Rambam's statement, so that you can judge for yourself whether it indicates that the Rambam was racist.

The Allegory of the Palace

The statement in question can be found in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:51. The Rambam begins the chapter with an elaborate allegory, which we will refer to as "The Allegory of the Palace." Here is the translation of the allegory and its explanation, with the passage in question underlined:

A king is in his palace, and all his subjects are partly in the country, and partly abroad. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards the king's palace, and their faces in another direction; and some are desirous and zealous to go to the palace, seeking to inquire in his temple and to minister before him, but have not yet seen even the face of the wall of the house. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and go round about in search of the entrance gate; others have passed through the gate, and walk about in the ante-chamber; and others have succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace, and being in the same room with the king in the royal palace. But even the latter do not immediately on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him; for, after having entered the inner part of the palace, another effort is required before they can stand before the king – at a distance, or close by – hear his words, or speak to him.

I will now explain the allegory which I have made. The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on philosophical speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them. I consider these as irrational beings, and to my mind, they are not on the level of human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey.

Those who are in the country, but have their backs turned towards the king's palace, are those who possess religion, belief, and thought, but happen to hold false doctrines, which they either adopted in consequence of great mistakes made in their own speculations, or received from others who misled them. Because of these doctrines they recede more and more from the royal palace the more they seem to proceed. These are worse than the first class, and under certain circumstances it may become necessary to slay them, and to extirpate their doctrines, in order that others should not be misled.

Those who desire to arrive at the palace, and to enter it, but have never yet seen it, are the mass of religious people: the multitude that observes the divine commandments, but are ignorant.

Those who arrive at the palace, but go round about it, are those who devote themselves exclusively to the study of the practical law: they believe in true principles of emunah on the basis of tradition, and learn the practical worship of God, but are not trained in philosophical treatment of the principles of the Torah, and do not endeavor to establish the truth of their faith by proof.

Those who undertake to investigate the principles of religion, have come into the ante-chamber: and there is no doubt that these can also be divided into different grades. But those who have succeeded in finding a proof for everything that can be proved, who have a true knowledge of God, so far as a true knowledge can be attained, and are near the truth, wherever an approach to the truth is possible, they have reached the goal, and are in the palace in which the king lives.

There you have it, in its full context. Now I will present my defense of the Rambam against Malcolm's charge of racism.

Malcom wished to read the Rambam as categorically proclaiming Kushites (a.k.a. Ethiopians, Africans, Blacks) to be irrational, subhuman creatures. To my mind, the entire allegory flies in the face of such an interpretation. The point of the allegory is to show that each person's position in relation to the king is based on his or her involvement in the pursuit of knowledge. In the allegory, the king's subjects are mobile. True, they may presently be situated in various positions throughout the kingdom, but they can move closer or further away, depending on the choices they make.

When the Rambam speaks about "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them," he is not referring to their race, but to their level of education - specifically, the educational of level of the Turks and Kushites in the 13th century. The Rambam does not hold that a Northern Turk or a Southern Kushite is inherently irrational or intrinsically incapable of sophisticated thought. Rather, he would maintain that if one of these individuals decided to start learning, then he could become as great as any other Jew, or human being.

The correctness of this reading of the Rambam is evident if we try to read the other elements of the allegory according to Malcolm's interpretation. He wants to read the Rambam as saying that "the people who are abroad" (i.e. the Northern Turks and Southern Ethiopians) are innately inferior to other races. Would Malcolm say the same thing about "those who are in the country but have their backs turned to the king's palace" (i.e. people with false doctrines), and claim that the Rambam believes these people to be inherently heretical and incapable of change? And what about "those who have never seen the palace" (i.e. the religious masses)? When the Rambam calls them "ignorant," is he saying that this ignorance is an immutable, genetic trait? And when he describes the people who "go round about in search of the entrance gate" (i.e. those who only study halacha without philosophy), does Malcolm think the Rambam means that these people are constitutionally unable to study philosophy because of who they are or how they were born?

Obviously, the answer to all of these questions is "no!" Just as the Rambam maintains that a person with a false belief can change his mind and turn in the opposite direction, and an ignoramus can start learning and move towards the palace, and a pure halachist can begin studying philosophy and gain entry to the palace, so too, the irrational Northern Turks and Southern Kushites can acquire true ideas and actualize their status as human beings, just like everyone else.

One might object, saying: "Oh yeah? Well why did the Rambam single out Turks and Africans from all the other races? Clearly this indicates racism!"

To this I would respond: "Clearly, it does not!" The Rambam was describing a circumstantial demographic reality of his times. Apparently, during the 13th century, the Turks in the extreme North and the Kushites in the South were primitive tribesmen who didn't have any religious ideology. Presumably, the Rambam quoted these groups because they were paradigmatic examples that the readers of the Guide would be familiar with. It would be no different than nowadays, if we spoke about "the uncivilized tribes of the Amazon and New Guinea." This would not be a racial slur against Amazonians or New Guineans. It just happens to be that at the present time these groups of indigenous people exemplify the category under discussion.

Let's go back to Malcolm's claim again. If the Rambam were racist against Turks in general, then why did he specify, "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north"? Why didn't he simply say "Turkish people," as a whole? The same goes for the Kushites in the South. According to Wikipedia, there were "large communities ... of black Africans" living in Egypt during the time period that the Rambam resided there. If the Rambam intended to include all black people in his allegedly racist statement, why didn't he simply say "the Kushites" instead of limiting it to "the Kushites in the South"?

And another thing: how would Malcolm explain the end of the Rambam's statement: "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them"? According to my reading, the answer is clear: he is referring to those people in his region who were just as uneducated as the Northern Turks and the Southern Kushites. But if the Rambam were making sweeping statements about specific races, then what could he mean by "and those who are like them"? He can't be referring to other Turks and Kushites, since then he would just say, "Turks and Kushites" and omit the last clause altogether. If he were referring to all non-Jews, he would just say so. And if you're going to try to claim that the Rambam was making a generic reference to "minorities," like the KKK and neo-Nazis of today are wont to do, then that's just a gross anachronism of Anglo-American racism.

This isn't the only statement of this nature that the Rambam makes in the Guide. In 3:29 the Rambam talks about the widespread admiration of Avraham Avinu. He writes:

No one is antagonistic to him or ignorant of his greatness except the remnants of this religious community that has perished, remnants that survive in the extremities of the earth, such as the Turks heretics in the extreme North and the Indians in the extreme South. These are the remnants of the religious community of the Sabeans, for this was a religious community that extended over the whole earth.

Perhaps Malcolm would take this as proof that the Rambam was racist against extremely Southern Indians, and doubly racist against Northern Turks (since he mentioned them twice)! I, on the other hand, am inclined to go with the more straightforward and consistent reading. The Rambam is not making a point about race. He is talking about people's beliefs, and citing examples from the well-known demographics of his time.

I mentioned earlier that the Rambam makes other statements which affirm his very modern and progressive view of human equality. I know of no better example than the concluding halachos of Sefer Zeraim in the Mishneh Torah. First he explains the unique position held by the Leviim:

Why didn’t the Tribe of Levi merit in the inheritance of the Land of Israel and its spoils along with their brethren? Because they are set aside to serve Hashem and to minister to Him and to teach His upright ways and righteous laws to the masses, as it is stated, “They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov and Your teachings to Israel” (Devarim 33:10).
Therefore, they are separated from the ways of the world. They do not go to war like the rest of Israel, nor do they receive an inheritance, nor do they acquire for themselves with their bodily power, but rather, they are the legion of Hashem, as it is stated, “Bless, O Hashem, His legion” (ibid. 33:11), and He, Blessed is He, provides for them, as it is stated, “I Am your Portion and your Inheritance” (Bamidbar 18:20).

But then he makes a surprising statement:

Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every member of humanity whose spirit generously moves him and whose understanding of his knowledge [of all existing things causes him] to separate himself to stand before Hashem to minister unto Him and to serve Him in order to know Hashem, and to walk with uprightness as God made him, removing from his neck the yoke of the many calculations which people seek – he becomes sanctified as holy of holies. God will be His portion and heritage forever and ever, and He will provide what is sufficient for him in this world like He provides for the Kohanim and the Levites. And thus David declared, “Hashem is the lot of my portion; You are my cup; You support my lot” (Tehilim 16:5).

The Rambam does not say "every Jew" or "every descendant of Avraham." Rather, he says "each and every member of humanity" can reach the level where "he becomes sanctified as holy of holies." Man, woman, Jew, non-Jew, black, white - it doesn't matter. Everyone can seek knowledge and understanding of Hashem, and reach the heights of human perfection.

In conclusion, I think that Malcolm is forcing his BLM agenda into the words of the Rambam. If he would like to charge the Rambam with being an intellectual elitist, then the Allegory of the Palace would provide a solid basis for that claim. But the Rambam's intellectual elitism is color-blind. To paint the Rambam as a racist on the basis of this misinterpretation of his words is pure motzi shem ra (slander).

Epilogue

After presenting all of these arguments, Malcolm declined to respond any further. However, another commenter chimed in and said in reference to my comments:

Holy crap, reading all the whitejewsplaining on this thread makes [Malcolm's] original point.

Little did this commenter realize that I am not a "white Jew," as they ironically assumed, but a "Jew of color." I must admit that I took great joy in responding to this comment with the following:

I am a Jew of color. If you're going to make racist remarks about my comments, please use "Chink" or "Ching Chong" or something that is more appropriate.

I will end this blog post with a quotation from my fellow Chinaman, Bruce Lee, on the topic of the Rambam's Palace Allegory:

You know what I want to think of myself? As a human being ... under the sky, under the heavens there is but one family. It just so happens that people are different.

The sooner we recognize what it means to be human and accept that there are differences, the greater our chances of working together and to help each other actualize our humanity.

ADDENDUM (8/8/16 at 3:00pm)

Yaakov directed me to an excerpt from the Rambam's medical writings which I was unaware of while writing this post. Apparently, the Rambam held by Galenic notions of environmental determinism, believing that physiological development is affected by factors in the climate and geographical locale, and that this has an impact on the intellectual and psychological dispositions of the people who lived there. Those who dwelt in moderate climates were more predisposed to attain human perfection, while those who lived in the extremities of the earth were less predisposed. His comments about "extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them" should be taken in that light. Needless to say, these theories have since been debunked, but they were the "science of the times" and the Rambam subscribed to them.

I felt compelled by intellectual honesty to include this as an addendum in this post, which is why I updated it as soon as possible. Regardless, I do not believe that this affects my main point here. I still believe that Malcolm is projecting modern notions of racism onto the Rambam's words, and missing the whole thrust of the Palace Allegory. Also, even according to the Rambam's Galenic theories, both "whites" AND "blacks" would be inferior or superior in their predispositions, depending on where they lived. The Rambam would make the same statements about fair-skinned Norwegians as he would about dark-skinned Kushites.

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post