RICHARD RHEINS
"Maimonides ' halakhic-historical formulations underscored a basic socio-political fact: Gaonic teachings lacked intrinsic authoritativeness and could not possibly aspire to universal recognition. In other words, while the Gaonim constructed their platform upon a three-pronged supremacy--of the Oral Law, of the Babylonian Talmud , and of the Babylonian Gaonim in all matters of interpretation and application--Maimonides knocked out the third prong. Simultaneously, fully conscious of the fact that his forthright criticism would be uncongenial to most scholars, he repudiated the hierarchic-dynastic structure of the Gaonate and denounced their managerial methods, i.e., the maintenance of a retinue of scholars at public expense by relentless importuning for contributions. Oblivious of predecessors or contemporaries, he
challenged the conventional proofs and values on which the system rested. The existence of an institutionalized and professionalized class of scholars supported by public and often high-pressured philanthropy was antithetical to Maimonides ’ existential posture as
well as ideological position."”
Twersky's theory helps us understand that Rambam 's battle to help create the ideal Jewish community forced him to take on the hierarchical status quo of the Gaonate and the image of the “professional rabbinate” which they promoted.
As Maimonides himself stated, the vast majority of the halakhic authorities had already decided in favor of rabbinic support from communal funds. Still, Rambam 's opinion carried so much weight that 250 years later Rabbi Simeon ben Zemah Duran , in his defense of the professional rabbinate, was forced to say: