Page 88 - Jewish Book Annual Volume 54

Basic HTML Version

Kanarfogel
80
In this sense, he was different from Maimonides, whose interests,
methodologies and sources appear to be more limited.51It is perhaps
the multilayered complexity of Nahmanides’ oeuvre which slowed
the progress of those who wished to study his works. Thankfully,
we have reached the point where this enterprise can now continue
on firm ground.52
* My friend and colleague Professor Charles Raffel reviewed an
early draft of this paper and made a number of helpful suggestions.
51. On the blending o f rabbinic cultures and methods in medieval Europe
which occurred in the early thirteenth century, see Septimus,
Hispano-Jewisb
Culture in Transition
, pp. 46 -5 1 , 59 -60 , and A. Grossman (above, n. 34), pp.
18 1-82 .
52. Studies on Ramban which appeared after the initial publication o f this
article are David Novak,
The Theology of Nahmanides Systematically Presented
(Atlanta, Georgia, 1992), and Moshe Idel, “R. Moshe ben Nahman—Kabbalah,
Halakhah u-Manhigut Ruhanit,”
Tarbiz
64 (1995): 535-78.