PART III
INTRODUCTION
We have stated several times that it is our primary object in this
treatise to expound, as far as possible, the Biblical account of the
Creation (Maʻaseh bereshit) and the description of the Divine Chariot
(Maʻaseh mercabah) in a manner adapted to the training of those for
whom this work is written.
We have also stated that these subjects belong to the mysteries of the
Law. You are well aware how our Sages blame those who reveal these
mysteries, and praise the merits of those who keep them secret,
although they are perfectly clear to the philosopher. In this sense
they explain the passage, “Her merchandise shall be for them that dwell
before the Lord, to eat sufficiently” (Isa. xxiii. 18), which concludes
in the original with the words ve-li-me-kasseh ʻatik, i.e., that these
blessings are promised to him who hides things which the Eternal has
revealed [to him], viz., the mysteries of the Law (Babyl. Talmud,
Pesaḥim 119a). If you have understanding you will comprehend that which
our Sages pointed out. They have clearly stated that the Divine Chariot
includes matters too deep and too profound for the ordinary intellect.
It has been shown that a person favoured by Providence with reason to
understand these mysteries is forbidden by the Law to teach them except
vivâ voce, and on condition that the pupil possess certain
qualifications, and even then only the heads of the sections may be
communicated. This has been the cause why the knowledge of this mystery
has entirely disappeared from our nation, and nothing has remained of
it. This was unavoidable, for the explanation of these mysteries was
always communicated vivâ voce, it was never committed to writing. Such
being the case, how can I venture to call your attention to such
portions of it as may be known, intelligible, and perfectly clear to
me? But if, on the other hand, I were to abstain from writing on this
subject, according to my knowledge of it, when I die, as I shall
inevitably do, that knowledge would die with me, and I would thus
inflict great injury on you and all those who are perplexed [by these
theological problems], I would then be guilty of withholding the truth
from those to whom it ought to be communicated, and of jealously
depriving the heir of his inheritance. I should in either case be
guilty of gross misconduct.
To give a full explanation of the mystic passages of the Bible is
contrary to the Law and to reason; besides, my knowledge of them is
based on reasoning, not on divine inspiration [and is therefore not
infallible]. I have not received my belief in this respect from any
teacher, but it has been formed by what I learnt from Scripture and the
utterances of our Sages, and by the philosophical principles which I
have adopted. It is therefore possible that my view is wrong, and that
I misunderstood the passages referred to. Correct thought and divine
help have suggested to me the proper method, viz., to explain the words
of the prophet Ezekiel in such a manner that those who will read my
interpretation will believe that I have not added anything to the
contents of the text, but only, as it were, translated from one
language into another, or given a short exposition of plain things.
Those, however, for whom this treatise has been composed, will, on
reflecting on it and thoroughly examining each chapter, obtain a
perfect and clear insight into all that has been clear and intelligible
to me. This is the utmost that can be done in treating this subject so
as to be useful to all without fully explaining it.
After this introductory remark I ask you to study attentively the
chapters which follow on this sublime, important, and grand subject,
which is the pin upon which everything hangs, and the pillar upon which
everything rests.
CHAPTER I
It is well known that there are men whose face is like that of other
animals; thus the face of some person is like that of a lion, that of
another person like that of an ox, and so on; and man’s face is
described according as the form of his face resembles the form of the
face of other animals. By the expressions, “the face of an ox,” “the
face of a lion,” “the face of an eagle” (Ezek, i. 10), the prophet
describes a human face inclining towards the forms of these various
species. This interpretation can be supported by two proofs. First, the
prophet says of the Ḥayyot in general that “their appearance is this,
they have the form of man” (ver. 5), and then in describing each of the
Ḥayyot he attributes to them the face of a man, that of an ox, that of
a lion, and that of an eagle. Secondly, in the second description of
the Chariot, which is intended as a supplement to the first, the
prophet says, Each hath four faces; the one is the face of a cherub,
the second a man’s face, the third a lion’s face, and the fourth that
of an eagle (ibid. x. 14). He thus clearly indicates that the terms
“the face of an ox” and “the face of a cherub” are identical. But
cherub designates “a youth.” By analogy we explain the two other
terms—“the face of a lion” and “the face of an eagle” in the same
manner. “The face of the ox” has been singled out on account of the
etymology of the Hebrew term shor (ox), as has been indicated by me. It
is impossible to assume that this second description refers to the
perception of another prophetic vision, because it concludes thus:
“This is the Ḥayyah which I saw at the river Chebar” (ibid. ver. 15).
What we intended to explain is now clear.
CHAPTER II
The prophet says that he saw four Ḥayyot; each of them had four faces,
four wings, and two hands, but on the whole their form was human. Comp.
“They had the likeness of a man” (Ezek. i. 5). The hands are also
described as human hands, because these have undoubtedly, as is well
known, such a form as enables them to perform all manner of cunning
work. Their feet are straight; that is to say, they are without joints.
This is the meaning of the phrase “a straight foot,” taken literally.
Similarly our Sages say, the words, “And their feet were straight feet”
(ibid. i. 7), show that the beings above do not sit. Note this
likewise. The soles of the feet of the Ḥayyot, the organs of walking,
are described as different from the feet of man, but the hands are like
human hands. The feet are round, for the prophet says, “like the sole
of a round foot.” The four Ḥayyot are closely joined together, there is
no space or vacuum left between them. Comp. “They were joined one to
another” (ibid. i. 9). “But although they were thus joined together,
their faces and their wings were separated above” (ibid. ver. 11).
Consider the expression “above” employed here, although the bodies were
closely joined, their faces and their wings were separated, but only
above. The prophet then states that they are transparent; they are
“like burnished brass” (ibid. ver. 7). He also adds that they are
luminous. Comp. “Their appearance was like burning coals of fire”
(ibid. ver. 13). This is all that has been said as regards the form,
shape, face, figure, wings, hands, and feet of the Ḥayyot. The prophet
then begins to describe the motions of these Ḥayyot, namely, that they
have a uniform motion, without any curvature, deviation, or deflexion:
“They turned not when they went” (ver. 17). Each of the Ḥayyot moves in
the direction of its face. Comp. “They went every one in the direction
of his face” (ver. 9). Now, it is here clearly stated that each Ḥayyah
went in the direction of its face, but since each Ḥayyah has several
faces, I ask, in the direction of which face? In short, the four Ḥayyot
do not move in the same direction; for, if this were the case, a
special motion would not have been ascribed to each of them; it would
not have been said, “They went each one towards the side of his face.”
The motion of these Ḥayyot is further described as a running, so also
their returning is described as a running. Comp. “And the Ḥayyot ran,
and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning” (ver. 14),
raẓoh being the infinitive of ruẓ, “to run,” and shob the infinitive
instead of shub, “to return.” The ordinary words, haloch and bo, “to
go” and “to come,” are not used, but such words as indicate running to
and fro; and these are further explained by the phrase, “As the
appearance of a flash of lightning” (bazak, used by the prophet, is
identical with barak), for the lightning appears to move very quickly;
it seems to hasten and to run from a certain place, and then to turn
back and to come again to the place from which it had started. This is
repeated several times with the same velocity. Jonathan, the son of
Uzziel, renders the phrase raẓo vashob thus: They move round the world
and return at once, and are as swift as the appearance of lightning.
This quick movement and return the Ḥayyah does not perform of its own
accord, but through something outside of it, viz., the Divine Will; for
“to whichever side it is the Divine Will that the Ḥayyah should move,
thither the Ḥayyah moves,” in that quick manner which is expressed by
“running and returning.” This is implied in the words, “Whithersoever
the spirit was to go they went” (ver. 20); “They turned not when they
went” (ver. 17). By “the spirit” (ruaḥ), the prophet does not mean “the
wind,” but “the intention,” as we have explained when discussing the
homonym ruaḥ (spirit). The meaning of the phrase is, that whithersoever
it is the Divine Will that the Ḥayyah shall go, thither it runs.
Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, gives a similar explanation: Towards the
place whither it is the will to go, they go; they do not turn when they
go. The employment of the future tense of the verbs yihyeh and yeleku
in this passage seems to imply that sometimes it will be the will of
God that the Ḥayyah should move in one direction, in which it will in
fact move, and at other times it will be His will that the Ḥayyah
should move in the opposite direction, in which it will then move. An
explanation is, however, added, which is contrary to this conclusion,
and shows that the future form (yihyeh) of the verb has here the
meaning of the preterite, as is frequently the case in Hebrew. The
direction in which God desires the Ḥayyah to move has already been
determined and fixed, and the Ḥayyah moves in that direction which His
will has determined long ago, without having ever changed. The prophet,
therefore, in explaining, and at the same time concluding [this
description of the Ḥayyot], says, “Whithersoever the spirit was to go
they go, thither was the spirit to go” (ver. 20). Note this wonderful
interpretation. This passage forms likewise part of the account of the
motion of the four Ḥayyot which follows the description of their form.
Next comes the description of another part; for the prophet relates
that he saw a body beneath the Ḥayyot, but closely joining them. This
body, which is connected with the earth, consists likewise of four
bodies, and has also four faces. But no distinct form is ascribed to
it; neither that of man nor that of any other living being. The [four
bodies] are described as great, tremendous, and terrible; no form is
given to them, except that they are covered with eyes. These are the
bodies called Ofannim (lit. wheels). The prophet therefore says: “Now,
as I beheld the Ḥayyot, behold one wheel upon the earth beside the
living creatures, with his four faces” (ver. 15). He thus distinctly
states that the Ofannim form a body, of which the one part touches the
Ḥayyot, and the other part the earth; and that the Ofan has four faces.
But he continues—“The appearance of the Ofannim (wheels) and their work
was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness”
(ver. 16). By speaking of four Ofannim, after having mentioned only one
Ofan, the prophet indicates that the “four faces” and the “four
Ofannim” are identical. These four Ofannim have the same form; comp.,
“And they four had one likeness.” The Ofannim are then described as
partly inter-joined; for “their appearance and their work was as it
were a wheel in the middle of a wheel” (ver. 16). In the description of
the Ḥayyot such a phrase, with the term “in the middle of” (tok) is not
employed. The Ḥayyot are partly joined, according to the words, “they
were joined one to another” (ver. 11); whilst in reference to the
Ofannim it is stated that they are partly intermixed, “as it were a
wheel in the middle of a wheel.” The body of the Ofannim is described
as being covered with eyes; it is possible that a body covered with
real eyes is here meant, or a body with different colours [ʻayin
denoting “eye,” also “colour”], as in the phrase “the colour thereof
[ʻeno] as the colour (keʻen) of bdellium” (Num. xi. 7); or a body
filled with likenesses of things. In this latter sense the term ʻayin
is used by our Sages in phrases like the following:—Like that [keʻen]
which he has stolen, like that [keʻen] which he has robbed; or
different properties and qualities are meant, according to the meaning
of the word ʻayin in the passage, “It may be that the Lord will look
(beʻenai) on my condition” (2 Sam. xvi. 12). So much for the form of
the Ofannim. Their motion is described as being without curvature and
deviation; as being straight, without any change. This is expressed in
the words, “When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they
turned not when they went” (E.; ver. 17). The four Ofannim do not move
of their own accord, as the Ḥayyot, and have no motion whatever of
their own; they are set in motion by other beings, as is emphatically
stated twice. The Ḥayyot are the moving agents of the Ofannim. The
relation between the Ofan and the Ḥayyah may be compared to the
relation between a lifeless body tied to the hand or the leg of a
living animal; whithersoever the latter moves, thither moves also the
piece of wood, or the stone, which is tied to the named limb of the
animal. This is expressed in the following words:—“And when the Ḥayyot
went, the Ofannim went by them; and when the living creatures were
lifted up from the earth, the Ofannim were lifted up” (ver. 19); “and
the Ofannim were lifted up over against them” (ver. 20). And the cause
of this is explained thus:—“The spirit of the Ḥayyah was in the
Ofannim” (ibid.). For the sake of emphasis and further explanation the
prophet adds, “When those went, these went; and when those stood, these
stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the Ofannim were
lifted up over against them; for the spirit of the Ḥayyah was in the
Ofannim” (ver. 21). The order of these movements is therefore as
follows:—Whithersoever it is the will of God that the Ḥayyot should
move, thither they move of their own accord. When the Ḥayyot move the
Ofannim necessarily follow them, because they are tied to them, and not
because they move of their own accord in the direction in which the
Ḥayyot move. This order is expressed in the words, “Whithersoever the
spirit was to go, they went, thither was the spirit to go; and the
Ofannim were lifted up over against them; for the spirit of the Ḥayyah
was in the Ofannim” (ver. 20). I have told you that Jonathan, the son
of Uzziel, translates the verse thus, “to the place whither it was the
will that the Ḥayyot should go,” etc.
After having completed the account of the Ḥayyot, with their form and
motion, and of the Ofannim, which are beneath the Ḥayyot, connected
with them and forced to move when the Ḥayyot move, the prophet begins
to describe a third object which he perceived prophetically, and gives
the account of a new thing, viz., of that which is above the Ḥayyot. He
says that the firmament is above the four Ḥayyot, above the firmament
is the likeness of a throne, and over the throne the likeness of the
appearance of man. This is the whole account of what the prophet
perceived at first at the river Chebar.
CHAPTER III
When Ezekiel recalled to memory the form of the Chariot, which he
described in the beginning of the book, the same vision presented
itself to him a second time; in this vision he was borne to Jerusalem.
He explains in describing it things which have not been made clear at
first, e.g., he substitutes the term “cherubim” for Ḥayyot, whereby he
expresses that the Ḥayyot of the first vision are likewise angels like
the cherubim. He says, therefore: “Where the cherubims went, the
Ofannim went by them: and when the cherubims lifted up their wings to
mount up from the earth, the same Ofannim also turned not from beside
them” (x. 16). By these words he shows how closely connected the two
motions are [viz., that of the Ḥayyot and that of the Ofannim]. The
prophet adds, “This is the Ḥayyah that I saw under the God of Israel by
the river of Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubims” (ver. 20). He
thus describes the same forms and the same motions, and states that the
Ḥayyot and the cherubim are identical. A second point is then made
clear in this second description, namely, that the Ofannim are
spherical; for the prophet says, “As for the Ofannim, it was cried unto
them in my hearing, O sphere” (ver. 13). A third point concerning the
Ofannim is illustrated here in the following words: “To the place
whither the head looked they followed it: they turned not as they went”
(ver. 11). The motion of the Ofannim is thus described as involuntary,
and directed “to the place whither the head looketh”; and of this it is
stated that it moves “whither the spirit is to go” (i. 20). A fourth
point is added concerning the Ofannim, namely, “And the Ofannim were
full of eyes round about, even the Ofannim that they four had” (x. 12).
This has not been mentioned before. In this second description there
are further mentioned “their flesh, and their backs, and their hands,
and their wings” (ibid.), whilst in the first account none of these is
mentioned; and it is only stated that they are bodies. Though they are
endowed in the second account with flesh, hands, and wings, no form is
given to them. In the second account each ofan is attributed to a
cherub, “one ofan by one cherub, and another ofan by another cherub.”
The four Ḥayyot are then described as one Ḥayyah on account of their
interjoining: “This is the Ḥayyah that I saw under the God of Israel by
the river of Chebar” (ver. 20). Also the Ofannim, though being four in
number, as has been mentioned, are called “one ofan upon the earth”
(ver. 15), because they interjoin, and “they four have one likeness”
(ver. 16). This is the additional explanation which the second vision
gives of the form of the Ḥayyot and the Ofannim.
CHAPTER IV
It is necessary to call your attention to an idea expressed by
Jonathan, the son of Uzziel. When he saw that the prophet says in
reference to the Ofannim, “It was cried unto them in my hearing, O
gilgal” (“sphere”) (x. 13), he assumed that by Ofannim the heavens are
meant, and rendered ofan by gilgal, “sphere,” and ofannim by gilgelaya,
“spheres.” I have no doubt that he found a confirmation of his opinion
in the words of the prophet that the Ofannim were like unto the colour
of tarshish (ver. 16), a colour ascribed to the heavens, as is well
known. When he, therefore, noticed the passage, “Now as I beheld the
Ḥayyot, behold one Ofan upon the earth” (i. 15), which clearly shows
that the Ofannim were upon the earth, he had a difficulty in explaining
it in accordance with his opinion. Following, however, his
interpretation, he explains the terms ereẓ, employed here as denoting
the inner surface of the heavenly sphere, which may be considered as
ereẓ (“earth” or “below”), in relation to all that is above that
surface. He therefore translates the words ofan eḥad ba-areẓ as
follows: “One ofan was below the height of the heavens.” Consider what
his explanation of the passage must be. I think that he gave this
explanation because he thought that gilgal denotes in its original
meaning “heaven.” My opinion is that gilgal means originally “anything
rolling”; comp. “And I will roll thee (ve-gilgaltika) down from the
rocks” (Jer. li. 25); “and rolled (va-yagel) the stone” (Gen. xxix.
10); the same meaning the word has in the phrase: “Like a rolling thing
(gilgal) before the whirlwind” (Isa. xvii. 13). The poll of the head,
being round, is therefore called gulgolet; and because everything round
rolls easily, every spherical thing is called gilgal; also the heavens
are called gilgallim on account of their spherical form. Thus our Sages
use the phrase, “It is a wheel (gilgal) that moves round the world”;
and a wooden ball, whether small or large, is called gilgal. If so, the
prophet merely intended by the words, “As for the Ofannim, it is cried
to them in my hearing, O sphere” (gilgal), to indicate the shape of the
Ofannim, as nothing has been mentioned before respecting their form and
shape; but he did not mean to say that the Ofannim are the same as the
heavens. The term “like tarshish” is explained in the second account,
in which it is said of the Ofannim: “And the appearance of the ofannim
was like the colour of tarshish.” This latter passage is translated by
Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, “like the colour of a precious stone,”
exactly in the same manner as Onkelos translates the phrase ke-maʻase
libnat ha-sappir, “like the work of the whiteness of sapphire” (Exod.
xxix. 10). Note this. You will not find it strange that I mention the
explanation of Jonathan, son of Uzziel, whilst I gave a different
explanation myself; for you will find many of the wise men and the
commentators differ sometimes from him in the interpretation of words
and in many things respecting the prophets. Why should it be otherwise
in these profound matters? Besides, I do not decide in favour of my
interpretation. It is for you to learn both—the whole of his
explanation, from what I have pointed out to you, and also my own
opinion. God knoweth which of the two explanations is in accordance
with that which the prophet intended to say.
CHAPTER V
It is necessary to notice that the plural marot elohim, “visions of
God,” is here used, and not the singular mareh, “vision,” for there
were several things, of different kinds, that were perceived by the
prophet. The following three things were perceived by him: the Ofannim,
the Ḥayyot, and the man above the Ḥayyot. The description of each of
these visions is introduced by the word va-ereh, “and I beheld.” For
the account of the Ḥayyot, begins, “And I looked (va-ereh), and behold
a whirlwind,” etc. (Ezek. i. 4). The account of the Ofannim begins:
“Now as I beheld (va-ereh) the Ḥayyot, behold one Ofan upon the earth”
(ver. 15). The vision of that which is above the Ḥayyot in order and
rank begins: “And I saw (va-ereh) as the colour of the amber, etc.,
from the appearance of his loins even upward” (ver. 27). The word
va-ereh, “and I beheld,” only occurs these three times in the
description of the Mercabah. The doctors of the Mishnah have already
explained this fact, and my attention was called to it by their
remarks. For they said that only the two first visions, namely, that of
the Ḥayyot and the Ofannim, might be interpreted to others; but of the
third vision, viz., that of the ḥashmal and all that is connected with
it, only the heads of the sections may be taught. Rabbi [Jehudah], the
Holy, is of opinion that all the three visions are called maʻaseh
mercabah, and nothing but the heads of the sections could be
communicated to others. The exact words of the discussion are as
follows:—Where does maʻaseh mercabhah end? Rabbi says, with the last
va-ereh; Rabbi Yiẓḥak says it ends at the word ḥashmal (ver. 27). The
portion from va-ereh to ḥashmal may be fully taught; of that which
follows, only the heads of the sections; according to some it is the
passage from va-ereh to ḥashmal, of which the heads of the sections may
be taught, but that which follows may only be studied by those who
possess the capacity, whilst those that cannot study it by themselves
must leave it.—It is clear from the words of our Sages that different
visions are described, as may also be inferred from the repetition of
the word va-ereh, and that these visions are different from each other
in degree; the last and highest of them is the vision commencing, “And
I saw as the colour of ḥashmal”; that is to say, the divided figure of
the man, described as “the appearance of fire, etc., from the
appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his
loins even downward,” etc. There is a difference of opinion among our
Sages whether it is permitted to give by way of hints an exposition of
any part of this third vision, or whether it is prohibited even to
teach of it the heads of the sections, so that only the wise can arrive
at understanding it by their own studies. You will also notice a
difference of opinion among our Sages in reference to the two first
visions, viz., that of the Ḥayyot and that of the Ofannim whether these
may be taught explicitly or only by way of hints, dark sayings, and
heads of sections. You must also notice the order of these three
visions. First comes the vision of the Ḥayyot, because they are first
in rank and in the causal relation, as it is said, “For the spirit of
the Ḥayyah was in the Ofannim” and also for other reasons. The vision
of the Ofannim [comes next, and] is followed by one which is higher
than the Ḥayyot, as has been shown. The cause of this arrangement is,
that in study the first two must necessarily precede the third, and in
fact they lead to it.
CHAPTER VI
The sublime and great subject which Ezekiel by prophetic impulse began
to teach us in the description of the Mercabah, is exactly the same
which Isaiah taught us in general outlines, because he did not require
all the detail. Isaiah says, “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne,
high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood
seraphims,” etc. (Isa. vi. 1 seq.). Our Sages have already stated all
this clearly, and called our attention to it. For they say that the
vision of Ezekiel is the same as that of Isaiah, and illustrate their
view by the following simile:—Two men saw the king riding, the one a
townsman, the other a countryman. The former, seeing that his
neighbours know well how the king rides, simply tells them that he saw
the king; but the villager, wishing to tell his friends things which
they do not know, relates in detail how the king was riding, describes
his followers, and the officers who execute his order and command. This
remark is a most useful hint; it is contained in the following passage
(Ḥagigah, 13 b): “Isaiah saw all that has been seen by Ezekiel; Isaiah
is like a townsman that sees the king, Ezekiel like a countryman that
sees the king.” These words can be explained in the manner which I have
just mentioned, viz., the generation of Isaiah did not require the
detailed description; his account, “I saw the Lord,” etc., sufficed.
The generation of the Babylonian exile wanted to learn all the details.
It is, however, possible that the author of this saying held Isaiah as
more perfect than Ezekiel, so that the vision might have overawed
Ezekiel and appeared fearful to him; but Isaiah was so familiar with it
that he did not consider it necessary to communicate it to others as a
new thing, especially as it was well known to the intelligent.
CHAPTER VII
One of the points that require investigation is the connexion between
the vision of the mercabah and the year, month, and day, and also the
place of the vision. A reason must be found for this connexion, and we
must not think that it is an indifferent element in the vision. We must
consider the words, “the heavens were opened” (Ezek. i. 1); they give
the key to the understanding of the whole. The figure of opening, also
that of opening the gates, occurs frequently in the books of the
prophets; e.g., “Open ye the gates that the righteous nation may enter
in” (Isa. xxvi. 2); “He opened the doors of heaven” (Ps. lxxviii. 23);
“Lift them up, ye everlasting doors” (ibid. xxiv. 9); “Open to me the
gates of righteousness, I will go into them, and I will praise the
Lord” (ibid. cxviii. 19). There are many other instances of this kind.
You must further notice that the whole description refers undoubtedly
to a prophetic vision, as it is said, “And the hand of the Lord was
there upon him” (Ezek. i. 3); and yet there is a very great difference
between the various parts of the description, for in the account of the
Ḥayyot the prophet does not say four Ḥayyot, but “the likeness of the
four Ḥayyot” (ibid. ver. 5); similarly he says, “And the likeness of a
firmament was over the heads of the Ḥayyot” (ver. 22); “as the
appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne,” and “the
likeness of the appearance of man above it” (ver. 26). In all these
instances the word “likeness” is used, whilst in the account of the
Ofannim the phrases, “the likeness of Ofannim,” the “likeness of an
Ofan,” are not employed, but they are described in a positive manner as
beings in actual existence, with their real properties. The sentence
“they four had one likeness” must not mislead you, for here the word
“likeness” is not used in the same connexion or in the same sense as
indicated above. In the description of the last vision the prophet
confirms and explains this view. When he commences to describe the
firmament in detail, he says, “the firmament,” without adding the words
“the likeness of,” for he says, “And I looked, and behold, in the
firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over
them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of
a throne” (x. 1). Here the prophet speaks of “the firmament” and not of
“the likeness of the firmament,” as he does when he connects the
firmament with the heads of the likeness of the Ḥayyot (i. 22). But, as
regards the throne, he says, “the likeness of a throne appeared over
them,” in order to indicate that the firmament was first perceived and
then the likeness of the throne was seen over it. Consider this well.
You must further notice that in the description of the first vision the
Ḥayyot have wings and at the same time human hands, whilst in the
second vision, in which the term cherubim is substituted for Ḥayyot, at
first only wings were perceived, and later on human hands were seen.
Comp. “And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man’s hand
under their wings” (x. 8). Here “form” (tabnit) is used instead of
“likeness” (demut); and the hands are placed under the wings. Note
this.
Consider that in reference to the ofannim, the prophet says,
le-ʻummatam, “over against them,” although he does not ascribe to them
any form.
He further says, “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in
the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory,” etc. (i. 28).
The substance and true essence of the bow described here is well known.
The simile and comparison is in this case very extraordinary, and is
undoubtedly part of the prophecy; and note it well.
It is also noteworthy that the likeness of man above the throne is
divided, the upper part being like the colour of ḥashmal, the lower
part like the appearance of fire. As regards the word ḥashmal, it has
been explained to be a compound of two words ḥash and mal, including
two different notions, viz., ḥash signifying “swiftness,” and mal
denoting “pause.” The two different notions are here joined in one word
in order to indicate figuratively the two different parts,—the upper
part and the lower. We have already given a second explanation, namely,
that ḥashmal includes the two notions of speech and silence; in
accordance with the saying of our Sages, “At times they are silent, at
times they speak,” thus deriving hash of the same root as heḥeshethi,
“I have been silent” (Isa. xlii. 14); the word ḥashmal thus includes
two notions, and indicates “speech without sound.” There is no doubt
that the words, “at times they are silent, at times they speak,” refer
to a created object. Now consider how they clearly stated that the
divided likeness of man over the throne does not represent God, who is
above the whole chariot, but represents a part of the creation. The
prophet likewise says “that is the likeness of the glory of the Lord”;
but “the glory of the Lord” is different from “the Lord” Himself, as
has been shown by us several times. All the figures in this vision
refer to the glory of the Lord, to the chariot, and not to Him who
rides upon the chariot; for God cannot be compared to anything. Note
this. I have thus given you also in this chapter as much of the heads
of the sections as will be useful to you for the comprehension of this
subject, if you fill out [the sections of] these heads. If you consider
all that has been said in this part up to this chapter, the greater
part of this subject or the whole of it will be clear to you, except a
few points and some repetitions the meaning of which is unknown.
Perhaps further study will help to reveal even these things so that
nothing will remain unintelligible.
Do not expect or hope to hear from me after this chapter a word on this
subject, either explicitly or implicitly, for all that could be said on
it has been said, though with great difficulty and struggle. I will now
begin to treat of some of the other subjects which I hope to elucidate
in this treatise.
CHAPTER VIII
Transient bodies are only subject to destruction through their
substance and not through their form, nor can the essence of their form
be destroyed; in this respect they are permanent. The generic forms, as
you know, are all permanent and stable. Form can only be destroyed
accidentally, i.e., on account of its connexion with substance, the
true nature of which consists in the property of never being without a
disposition to receive form. This is the reason why no form remains
permanently in a substance; a constant change takes place, one form is
taken off and another is put on. How wonderfully wise is the simile of
King Solomon, in which he compares matter to a faithless wife; for
matter is never found without form, and is therefore always like such a
wife who is never without a husband, never single; and yet, though
being wedded, constantly seeks another man in the place of her husband;
she entices and attracts him in every possible manner till he obtains
from her what her husband has obtained. The same is the case with
matter. Whatever form it has, it is disposed to receive another form;
it never leaves off moving and casting off the form which it has in
order to receive another. The same takes place when this second form is
received. It is therefore clear that all corruption, destruction, or
defect comes from matter. Take, e.g., man; his deformities and
unnatural shape of limbs; all weakness, interruption, or disorder of
his actions, whether innate or not, originate in the transient
substance, not in the form. All other living beings likewise die or
become ill through the substance of the body and not through its form.
Man’s shortcomings and sins are all due to the substance of the body
and not to its form; while all his merits are exclusively due to his
form. Thus the knowledge of God, the formation of ideas, the mastery of
desire and passion, the distinction between that which is to be chosen
and that which is to be rejected, all these man owes to his form; but
eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, excessive lust, passion, and all
vices, have their origin in the substance of his body. Now it was clear
that this was the case,—it was impossible, according to the wisdom of
God, that substance should exist without form, or any of the forms of
the bodies without substance, and it was necessary that the very noble
form of man, which is the image and likeness of God, as has been shown
by us, should be joined to the substance of dust and darkness, the
source of all defect and loss. For these reasons the Creator gave to
the form of man power, rule, and dominion over the substance;—the form
can subdue the substance, refuse the fulfilment of its desires, and
reduce them, as far as possible, to a just and proper measure. The
station of man varies according to the exercise of this power. Some
persons constantly strive to choose that which is noble, and to seek
perpetuation in accordance with the direction of their nobler
part,—their form; their thoughts are engaged in the formation of ideas,
the acquisition of true knowledge about everything, and the union with
the divine intellect which flows down upon them, and which is the
source of man’s form. Whenever they are led by the wants of the body to
that which is low and avowedly disgraceful, they are grieved at their
position, they feel ashamed and confounded at their situation. They try
with all their might to diminish this disgrace, and to guard against it
in every possible way. They feel like a person whom the king in his
anger ordered to remove refuse from one place to another in order to
put him to shame; that person tries as much as possible to hide himself
during the time of his disgrace; he perhaps removes a small quantity a
short distance in such a manner that his hands and garments remain
clean, and he himself be unnoticed by his fellow-men. Such would be the
conduct of a free man, whilst a slave would find pleasure in such
work;—he would not consider it a great burden, but throw himself into
the refuse, smear his face and his hands, carry the refuse openly,
laughing and singing. This is exactly the difference in the conduct of
different men. Some consider, as we just said, all wants of the body as
shame, disgrace, and defect to which they are compelled to attend; this
is chiefly the case with the sense of touch, which is a disgrace to us
according to Aristotle, and which is the cause of our desire for
eating, drinking, and sensuality. Intelligent persons must, as much as
possible, reduce these wants, guard against them, feel grieved when
satisfying them, abstain from speaking of them, discussing them, and
attending to them in company with others. Man must have control over
all these desires, reduce them as much as possible, and only retain of
them as much as is indispensable. His aim must be the aim of man as
man, viz., the formation of ideas, and nothing else. The best and
sublimest among them is the idea which man forms of God, angels, and
the rest of the creation according to his capacity. Such men are always
with God, and of them it is said, “Ye are princes, and all of you are
children of the Most High” (Ps. lxxxii. 6). This is man’s task and
purpose. Others, however, that are separated from God form the
multitude of fools, and do just the opposite. They neglect all thought
and all reflection on ideas, and consider as their task the cultivation
of the sense of touch,—that sense which is the greatest disgrace; they
only think and reason about eating and love. Thus it is said of the
wicked who are drowned in eating, drinking, and love, “They also have
erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way,” etc.
(Isa. xxviii. 7), “for all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so
that there is no place clean” (ver. 8); again, “And women rule over
them” (ibid. iii. 2),—the opposite of that which man was told in the
beginning of the creation, “And for thy husband shall thy desire be,
and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. iii. 16). The intensity of their
lust is then described thus, “Every one neighed after his neighbour’s
wife,” etc. (Jer. v. 8); “they are all adulterers, an assembly of
treacherous men” (ibid. ix. 2). The whole book of the Proverbs of
Solomon treats of this subject, and exhorts to abstain from lust and
intemperance. These two vices ruin those that hate God and keep far
from Him; to them the following passages may be applied, “They are not
the Lord’s” (ibid. v. 10); “Cast them out of my sight, and let them go
forth” (ibid. xv. 1). As regards the portion beginning, “Who can find a
virtuous woman?” it is clear what is meant by the figurative
expression, “a virtuous woman.” When man possesses a good sound body
that does not overpower him nor disturb the equilibrium in him, he
possesses a divine gift. In short, a good constitution facilitates the
rule of the soul over the body, but it is not impossible to conquer a
bad constitution by training. For this reason King Solomon and others
wrote the moral lessons; also all the commandments and exhortations in
the Pentateuch aim at conquering the desires of the body. Those who
desire to be men in truth, and not brutes, having only the appearance
and shape of men, must constantly endeavour to reduce the wants of the
body, such as eating, love, drinking, anger, and all vices originating
in lust and passion; they must feel ashamed of them and set limits to
them for themselves. As for eating and drinking in so far as it is
indispensable, they will eat and drink only as much as is useful and
necessary as food, and not for the purpose of pleasure. They will also
speak little of these things, and rarely congregate for such purposes.
Thus our Sages, as is well known, kept aloof from a banquet that was
not part of a religious act, and pious men followed the example of R.
Phineḥas, son of Jair, who never dined with other persons, and even
refused to accept an invitation of R. Jehudah, the Holy. Wine may be
treated as food, if taken as such, but to form parties for the purpose
of drinking wine together must be considered more disgraceful than the
unrestrained conduct of persons who in daylight meet in the same house
undressed and naked. For the natural action of the digestive organ is
indispensable to man, he cannot do without it; whilst drunkenness
depends on the free will of an evil man. To appear naked in the
presence of other people is misconduct only according to public
opinion, not according to the dictates of reason, whilst drunkenness,
which ruins the mind and the body of man, reason stamps as a vice. You,
therefore, who desire to act as human beings must keep away from it,
and even from speaking of it. On sexual intercourse, I need not add
anything after I have pointed out in the commentary on Abot (i. 17) how
it is treated by our Law, which is the teaching of pure wisdom—no
excuse whatever should induce us to mention it or to speak of it. Thus
our Sages said, that Elisha the prophet is called holy, because he did
not think of it, and consequently never found himself polluted with
semen. In a similar manner they say that Jacob had the first issue of
semen for the conception of Reuben. All these traditional stories have
the object of teaching the nation humane conduct. There is a well-known
saying of our Sages, “The thoughts about the sin are more dangerous
than the sin itself.” I can offer a good explanation of this saying:
When a person is disobedient, this is due to certain accidents
connected with the corporeal element in his constitution; for man sins
only by his animal nature, whereas thinking is a faculty of man
connected with his form,—a person who thinks sinfully sins therefore by
means of the nobler portion of his self; and he who wrongly causes a
foolish slave to work does not sin as much as he who wrongly causes a
noble and free man to do the work of a slave. For this specifically
human element, with all its properties and powers, should only be
employed in suitable work, in attempts to join higher beings, and not
in attempts to go down and reach the lower creatures. You know how we
condemn lowness of speech, and justly so, for speech is likewise
peculiar to man and a boon which God granted to him that he may be
distinguished from the rest of living creatures. Thus God says, “Who
gave a mouth to man?” (Exod. iv. 11); and the prophet declares, “The
Lord God hath given me a learned tongue” (Isa. l. 4). This gift,
therefore, which God gave us in order to enable us to perfect
ourselves, to learn and to teach, must not be employed in doing that
which is for us most degrading and perfectly disgraceful; we must not
imitate the songs and tales of ignorant and lascivious people. It may
be suitable to them, but is not fit for those who are told, “And ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. xix.
6). Those who employ the faculty of thinking and speaking in the
service of that sense which is no honour to us, who think more than
necessary of drink and love, or even sing of these things; they employ
and use the divine gift in acts of rebellion against the Giver, and in
the transgression of His commandments. To them the following words may
be applied: “And I multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared
for Baal” (Hos. ii. 10). I have also a reason and cause for calling our
language the holy language—do not think it is exaggeration or error on
my part, it is perfectly correct—the Hebrew language has no special
name for the organ of generation in females or in males, nor for the
act of generation itself, nor for semen, nor for secretion. The Hebrew
has no original expressions for these things, and only describes them
in figurative language and by way of hints, as if to indicate thereby
that these things should not be mentioned, and should therefore have no
names; we ought to be silent about them, and when we are compelled to
mention them, we must manage to employ for that purpose some suitable
expressions, although these are generally used in a different sense.
Thus the organ of generation in males is called in Hebrew gid, which is
a figurative term, reminding of the words, “And thy neck is an iron
sinew” (gid) (Isa. xlviii. 4). It is also called shupka, “pouring out”
(Deut. xxiii. 2), on account of its function. The female organ is
called kobah (Num. xxv. 8), from kebah (Deut. xviii. 3), which denotes
“stomach”; reḥem, “womb,” is the inner organ in which the fœtus
develops; ẓoah (Isa. xxviii. 8), “refuse,” is derived from the verb
yaẓa, “he went out”; for “urine” the phrase meme raglayim, “the water
of the feet” (2 Kings. xviii. 17), is used; semen is expressed by
shikbat zeraʻ, “a layer of seed.” For the act of generation there is no
expression whatever in Hebrew; it is described by the following words
only: baʻal, “he was master”; shakab, “he lay”; laḳaḥ, “he took”;
gillah ʻervah, “he uncovered the nakedness.” Be not misled by the word
yishgalennah (Deut. xxviii. 30), to take it as denoting that act; this
is not the case, for shegal denotes a female ready for cohabitation.
Comp. “Upon thy right hand did stand the maiden” (shegal) “in gold of
Ophir” (Ps. xlv. 10). Yishgalennah, according to the Kethib, denotes
therefore “he will take the female for the purpose of cohabitation.”
We have made in the greater part of this chapter a digression from the
theme of this treatise, and introduced some moral and religious matter,
although they do not entirely belong to the subject of this treatise,
but the course of the discussion has led to it.
CHAPTER IX
The corporeal element in man is a large screen and partition that
prevents him from perfectly perceiving abstract ideals; this would be
the case even if the corporeal element were as pure and superior as the
substance of the spheres; how much more must this be the case with our
dark and opaque body. However great the exertion of our mind may be to
comprehend the Divine Being or any of the ideals, we find a screen and
partition between Him and ourselves. Thus the prophets frequently hint
at the existence of a partition between God and us. They say He is
concealed from us in vapours, in darkness, in mist, or in a thick
cloud; or use similar figures to express that on account of our bodies
we are unable to comprehend His essence. This is the meaning of the
words, “Clouds and darkness are round about Him” (Ps. xcvii. 2). The
prophets tell us that the difficulty consists in the grossness of our
substance; they do not imply, as might be gathered from the literal
meaning of their words, that God is corporeal, and is invisible because
He is surrounded by thick clouds, vapours, darkness, or mist. This
figure is also expressed in the passage, “He made darkness His secret
place” (Ps. xviii. 12). The object of God revealing Himself in thick
clouds, darkness, vapours, and mist was to teach this lesson; for every
prophetic vision contains some lesson by means of allegory; that mighty
vision, therefore, though the greatest of all visions, and above all
comparison, viz., His revelation in a thick cloud, did not take place
without any purpose, it was intended to indicate that we cannot
comprehend Him on account of the dark body that surrounds us. It does
not surround God, because He is incorporeal. A tradition is current
among our people that the day of the revelation on Mount Sinai was
misty, cloudy, and a little rainy. Comp. “Lord, when thou wentest forth
from Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth
trembled, and the heavens dropped water” (Judges v. 4). The same idea
is expressed by the words “darkness, clouds, and thick darkness” (Deut.
iv. 11). The phrase does not denote that darkness surrounds God, for
with Him there is no darkness, but the great, strong, and permanent
light, which, emanating from Him, illuminates all darkness, as is
expressed by the prophetic simile, “And the earth shined with His
glory” (Ezek. xliii. 2).
CHAPTER X
The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term
non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of
properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered
by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death
and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without
any qualification, non-existence does not require any agent, an agent
is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view
this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require
an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes
blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they
consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now
state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical
research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to
some extent the cause of the motion, e.g., if one removes the pillar
which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated
by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.); in this sense we say of
him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that
property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as
we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced
darkness, so we say of him who destroyed the sight of any being that he
produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative
properties, and require no agent. In accordance with this view we
explain the following passage of Isaiah: “I form the light and create
(bore) darkness: I make peace, and create (bore) evil” (Isa. xlv. 7),
for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the
prophet does not say, I make (ʻoseh) darkness, I make (ʻoseh) evil,
because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which
the verb “to make” would apply; the verb bara “he created” is used,
because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g.,
“In the beginning God created” (bara), etc.; here the creation took
place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be
produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must
explain the following passage: “Who hath made man’s mouth? or who
maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing,” etc. (Exod. iv. 11). The
passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to
speak? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create
a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who
produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be
called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains
from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so,
that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these
different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected
with a thing that does not exist; only indirectly is non-existence
described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct
manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence;
accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing
thing.
After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been
proved, the [so-called] evils are evils only in relation to a certain
thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing,
either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of
some of its good conditions. The proposition has therefore been laid
down in the most general terms, “All evils are negations.” Thus for man
death is evil; death is his non-existence. Illness, poverty, and
ignorance are evils for man; all these are privations of properties. If
you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies,
you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is
wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction
between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or
do not know the nature of things,—who, e.g., do not know that health in
general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The
absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the
absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other
things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.
After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot
be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct
intention to produce evil; this is impossible. His works are all
perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good;
whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon.
Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He
creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such
as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on
that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings
that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to
destruction or evil; consequently the true work of God is all good,
since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the
world says therefore, “And God saw everything that He had made, and,
behold, it was very good” (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this
corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of
death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the
Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing
departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words
“and behold it was very good” (tob me’od); that even death was good in
accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I
said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the
prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the
direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the same idea is
expressed thus: “No evil comes down from above.”
CHAPTER XI
All the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain
intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise
due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is
absence of wisdom. A blind man, for example, who has no guide, stumbles
constantly, because he cannot see, and causes injury and harm to
himself and others. In the same manner various classes of men, each man
in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and
upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom,
which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to
the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others;
for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents
mutual injuries. This state of society is promised to us by the prophet
in the words: “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,” etc.; “and the
cow and the bear shall feed together,” etc.; and “the sucking child
shall play on the hole of the asp,” etc. (Isa. xi. 6 seq.). The prophet
also points out what will be the cause of this change; for he says that
hatred, quarrel, and fighting will come to an end, because men will
then have a true knowledge of God. “They shall not hurt nor destroy in
all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of
the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (ibid. ver. 9). Note it.
CHAPTER XII
Men frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than
the good things; many savings and songs of the nations dwell on this
idea. They say that a good thing is found only exceptionally, whilst
evil things are numerous and lasting. Not only common people make this
mistake, but even many who believe that they are wise. Al-Razi wrote a
well-known book On Metaphysics [or Theology]. Among other mad and
foolish things, it contains also the idea, discovered by him, that
there exists more evil than good. For if the happiness of man and his
pleasure in the times of prosperity be compared with the mishaps that
befall him,—such as grief, acute pain, defects, paralysis of the limbs,
fears, anxieties, and troubles,—it would seem as if the existence of
man is a punishment and a great evil for him. This author commenced to
verify his opinion by counting all the evils one by one; by this means
he opposed those who hold the correct view of the benefits bestowed by
God and His evident kindness, viz., that God is perfect goodness, and
that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. The origin of the
error is to be found in the circumstance that this ignorant man, and
his party among the common people, judge the whole universe by
examining one single person. For an ignorant man believes that the
whole universe only exists for him; as if nothing else required any
consideration. If, therefore, anything happens to him contrary to his
expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is evil. If,
however, he would take into consideration the whole universe, form an
idea of it, and comprehend what a small portion he is of the Universe,
he will find the truth. For it is clear that persons who have fallen
into this widespread error as regards the multitude of evils in the
world, do not find the evils among the angels, the spheres and stars,
the elements, and that which is formed of them, viz., minerals and
plants, or in the various species of living beings, but only in some
individual instances of mankind. They wonder that a person, who became
leprous in consequence of bad food, should be afflicted with so great
an illness and suffer such a misfortune; or that he who indulges so
much in sensuality as to weaken his sight, should be struck with
blindness! and the like. What we have, in truth, to consider is
this:—The whole mankind at present in existence, and a fortiori, every
other species of animals, form an infinitesimal portion of the
permanent universe. Comp. “Man is like to vanity” (Ps. cxliv. 4); “How
much less man, that is a worm; and the son of man, which is a worm”
(Job xxv. 6); “How much less in them who dwell in houses of clay”
(ibid. iv. 19); “Behold, the nations are as a drop of the bucket” (Isa.
xl. 15). There are many other passages in the books of the prophets
expressing the same idea. It is of great advantage that man should know
his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists
only for him. We hold that the universe exists because the Creator
wills it so; that mankind is low in rank as compared with the uppermost
portion of the universe, viz., with the spheres and the stars; but, as
regards the angels, there cannot be any real comparison between man and
angels, although man is the highest of all beings on earth; i.e., of
all beings formed of the four elements. Man’s existence is nevertheless
a great boon to him, and his distinction and perfection is a divine
gift. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are
due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We complain and
seek relief from our own faults; we suffer from the evils which we, by
our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is
far from being connected with them! Comp. “Is destruction his [work]?
No. Ye [who call yourselves] wrongly his sons, you who are a perverse
and crooked generation” (Deut. xxxii. 5). This is explained by Solomon,
who says, “The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart
fretteth against the Lord” (Prov. xix. 3).
I explain this theory in the following manner. The evils that befall
man are of three kinds:—
(1) The first kind of evil is that which is caused to man by the
circumstance that he is subject to genesis and destruction, or that he
possesses a body. It is on account of the body that some persons happen
to have great deformities or paralysis of some of the organs. This evil
may be part of the natural constitution of these persons, or may have
developed subsequently in consequence of changes in the elements, e.g.,
through bad air, or thunderstorms, or landslips. We have already shown
that, in accordance with the divine wisdom, genesis can only take place
through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual
members of the species the species themselves would not exist
permanently. Thus the true kindness, and beneficence, and goodness of
God is clear. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without
being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of
matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at
the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never
subject to change there could be no generation; there would be one
single being, but no individuals forming a species. Galen, in the third
section of his book, The Use of the Limbs, says correctly that it would
be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of the blood of
menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never
feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. This
dictum of Galen is part of the following more general
proposition:—Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect
form possible in that species of matter; in each individual case the
defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter.
The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the
semen is the species of man, for as far as man’s nature is known, he is
living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man
should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find
that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and
rare; for you find countries that have not been flooded or burned for
thousands of years; there are thousands of men in perfect health,
deformed individuals are a strange and exceptional occurrence, or say
few in number if you object to the term exceptional,—they are not
one-hundredth, not even one-thousandth part of those that are perfectly
normal.
(2) The second class of evils comprises such evils as people cause to
each other, when, e.g., some of them use their strength against others.
These evils are more numerous than those of the first kind; their
causes are numerous and known; they likewise originate in ourselves,
though the sufferer himself cannot avert them. This kind of evil is
nevertheless not widespread in any country of the whole world. It is of
rare occurrence that a man plans to kill his neighbour or to rob him of
his property by night. Many persons are, however, afflicted with this
kind of evil in great wars; but these are not frequent, if the whole
inhabited part of the earth is taken into consideration.
(3) The third class of evils comprises those which every one causes to
himself by his own action. This is the largest class, and is far more
numerous than the second class. It is especially of these evils that
all men complain,—only few men are found that do not sin against
themselves by this kind of evil. Those that are afflicted with it are
therefore justly blamed in the words of the prophet, “This hath been by
your means” (Mal. i. 9); the same is expressed in the following
passage, “He that doeth it destroyeth his own soul” (Prov. vi. 32). In
reference to this kind of evil, Solomon says, “The foolishness of man
perverteth his way” (ibid. xix. 3). In the following passage he
explains also that this kind of evil is man’s own work, “Lo, this only
have I found, that God hath made man upright, but they have thought out
many inventions” (Eccles. vii. 29), and these inventions bring the
evils upon him. The same subject is referred to in Job (v. 6), “For
affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring
out of the ground.” These words are immediately followed by the
explanation that man himself is the author of this class of evils, “But
man is born unto trouble.” This class of evils originates in man’s
vices, such as excessive desire for eating, drinking, and love;
indulgence in these things in undue measure, or in improper manner, or
partaking of bad food. This course brings diseases and afflictions upon
body and soul alike. The sufferings of the body in consequence of these
evils are well known; those of the soul are twofold:—First, such evils
of the soul as are the necessary consequence of changes in the body, in
so far as the soul is a force residing in the body; it has therefore
been said that the properties of the soul depend on the condition of
the body. Secondly, the soul, when accustomed to superfluous things,
acquires a strong habit of desiring things which are neither necessary
for the preservation of the individual nor for that of the species.
This desire is without a limit, whilst things which are necessary are
few in number and restricted within certain limits; but what is
superfluous is without end—e.g., you desire to have your vessels of
silver, but golden vessels are still better: others have even vessels
of sapphire, or perhaps they can be made of emerald or rubies, or any
other substance that could be suggested. Those who are ignorant and
perverse in their thought are constantly in trouble and pain, because
they cannot get as much of superfluous things as a certain other person
possesses. They as a rule expose themselves to great dangers, e.g., by
sea-voyage, or service of kings, and all this for the purpose of
obtaining that which is superfluous and not necessary. When they thus
meet with the consequences of the course which they adopt, they
complain of the decrees and judgments of God; they begin to blame the
time, and wonder at the want of justice in its changes; that it has not
enabled them to acquire great riches, with which they could buy large
quantities of wine for the purpose of making themselves drunk, and
numerous concubines adorned with various kind of ornaments of gold,
embroidery, and jewels, for the purpose of driving themselves to
voluptuousness beyond their capacities, as if the whole Universe
existed exclusively for the purpose of giving pleasure to these low
people. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God’s
power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the
properties which they imagine cause these great evils, and which do not
help all evil-disposed persons to obtain the evil which they seek, and
to bring their evil souls to the aim of their desires, though these, as
we have shown, are really without limit. The virtuous and wise,
however, see and comprehend the wisdom of God displayed in the
Universe. Thus David says, “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and
truth unto such as keep His covenant and His testimonies” (Ps. xxv.
10). For those who observe the nature of the Universe and the
commandments of the Law, and know their purpose, see clearly God’s
mercy and truth in everything; they seek, therefore, that which the
Creator intended to be the aim of man, viz., comprehension. Forced by
the claims of the body, they seek also that which is necessary for the
preservation of the body, “bread to eat and garment to clothe,” and
this is very little; but they seek nothing superfluous; with very
slight exertion man can obtain it, so long as he is contented with that
which is indispensable. All the difficulties and troubles we meet in
this respect are due to the desire for superfluous things; when we seek
unnecessary things, we have difficulty even in finding that which is
indispensable. For the more we desire to have that which is
superfluous, the more we meet with difficulties; our strength and
possessions are spent in unnecessary things, and are wanting when
required for that which is necessary. Observe how Nature proves the
correctness of this assertion. The more necessary a thing is for living
beings, the more easily it is found and the cheaper it is; the less
necessary it is, the rarer and dearer it is. E.g., air, water, and food
are indispensable to man: air is most necessary, for if man is without
air a short time he dies; whilst he can be without water a day or two.
Air is also undoubtedly found more easily and cheaper [than water].
Water is more necessary than food; for some people can be four or five
days without food, provided they have water; water also exists in every
country in larger quantities than food, and is also cheaper. The same
proportion can be noticed in the different kinds of food; that which is
more necessary in a certain place exists there in larger quantities and
is cheaper than that which is less necessary. No intelligent person, I
think, considers musk, amber, rubies, and emerald as very necessary for
man except as medicines; and they, as well as other like substances,
can be replaced for this purpose by herbs and minerals. This shows the
kindness of God to His creatures, even to us weak beings. His
righteousness and justice as regards all animals are well known; for in
the transient world there is among the various kinds of animals no
individual being distinguished from the rest of the same species by a
peculiar property or an additional limb. On the contrary, all physical,
psychical, and vital forces and organs that are possessed by one
individual are found also in the other individuals. If any one is
somehow different it is by accident, in consequence of some exception,
and not by a natural property; it is also a rare occurrence. There is
no difference between individuals of a species in the due course of
Nature; the difference originates in the various dispositions of their
substances. This is the necessary consequence of the nature of the
substance of that species; the nature of the species is not more
favourable to one individual than to the other. It is no wrong or
injustice that one has many bags of finest myrrh and garments
embroidered with gold, while another has not those things, which are
not necessary for our maintenance; he who has them has not thereby
obtained control over anything that could be an essential addition to
his nature, but has only obtained something illusory or deceptive. The
other, who does not possess that which is not wanted for his
maintenance, does not miss anything indispensable: “He that gathered
much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack: they
gathered every man according to his eating” (Exod. xvi. 18). This is
the rule at all times and in all places; no notice should be taken of
exceptional cases, as we have explained.
In these two ways you will see the mercy of God toward His creatures,
how He has provided that which is required, in proper proportions, and
treated all individual beings of the same species with perfect
equality. In accordance with this correct reflection the chief of the
wise men says, “All his ways are judgment” (Deut. xxxii. 4); David
likewise says: “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth” (Ps.
xxv. 10); he also says expressly, “The Lord is good to all; and his
tender mercies are over all his works” (ibid. cxlv. 9); for it is an
act of great and perfect goodness that He gave us existence; and the
creation of the controlling faculty in animals is a proof of His mercy
towards them, as has been shown by us.
CHAPTER XIII
Intelligent persons are much perplexed when they inquire into the
purpose of the Creation. I will now show how absurd this question is,
according to each one of the different theories [above-mentioned]. An
agent that acts with intention must have a certain ulterior object in
that which he performs. This is evident, and no philosophical proof is
required. It is likewise evident that that which is produced with
intention has passed over from non-existence to existence. It is
further evident, and generally agreed upon, that the being which has
absolute existence, which has never been and will never be without
existence, is not in need of an agent. We have explained this before.
The question, “What is the purpose thereof?” cannot be asked about
anything which is not the product of an agent; therefore we cannot ask
what is the purpose of the existence of God. He has not been created.
According to these propositions it is clear that the purpose is sought
for everything produced intentionally by an intelligent cause; that is
to say, a final cause must exist for everything that owes its existence
to an intelligent being: but for that which is without a beginning, a
final cause need not be sought, as has been stated by us. After this
explanation you will understand that there is no occasion to seek the
final cause of the whole Universe, neither according to our theory of
the Creation, nor according to the theory of Aristotle, who assumes the
Eternity of the Universe. For according to Aristotle, who holds that
the Universe has not had a beginning, an ultimate final cause cannot be
sought even for the various parts of the Universe. Thus it cannot be
asked, according to his opinion, What is the final cause of the
existence of the heavens? Why are they limited by this measure or by
that number? Why is matter of this description? What is the purpose of
the existence of this species of animals or plants? Aristotle considers
all this as the result of a permanent order of things. Natural
Philosophy investigates into the object of everything in Nature, but it
does not treat of the ultimate final cause, of which we speak in this
chapter. It is a recognized fact in Natural Philosophy that everything
in Nature has its object, or its final cause, which is the most
important of the four causes, though it is not easily recognized in
most species. Aristotle repeatedly says that Nature produces nothing in
vain, for every natural action has a certain object. Thus, Aristotle
says that plants exist for animals; and similarly he shows of other
parts of the Universe for what purpose they exist. This is still more
obvious in the case of the organs of animals. The existence of such a
final cause in the various parts of Nature has compelled philosophers
to assume the existence of a primal cause apart from Nature; it is
called by Aristotle the intellectual or divine cause, and this cause
creates one thing for the purpose of another. Those who acknowledge the
truth will accept as the best proof for the Creation the fact that
everything in Nature serves a certain purpose, so that one thing exists
for the benefit of another; this fact is supported by numerous
instances, and shows that there is design in Nature; but the existence
of design in Nature cannot be imagined unless it be assumed that Nature
has been produced.
I will now return to the subject of this chapter, viz., the final
cause. Aristotle has already explained that in Nature the efficient
cause of a thing, its form, and its final cause are identical; that is
to say, they are one thing in relation to the whole species. E.g., the
form of Zeid produces the form of his son Amr; its action consists in
imparting the form of the whole species [of man] to the substance of
Amr, and the final cause is Amr’s possession of human form. The same
argument is applied by Aristotle to every individual member of a class
of natural objects which is brought to existence by another individual
member. The three causes coincide in all such cases. All this refers
only to the immediate purpose of a thing; but the existence of an
ultimate purpose in every species, which is considered as absolutely
necessary by every one who investigates into the nature of things, is
very difficult to discover: and still more difficult is it to find the
purpose of the whole Universe. I infer from the words of Aristotle that
according to his opinion the ultimate purpose of the genera is the
preservation of the course of genesis and destruction; and this course
is absolutely necessary [in the first instance] for the successive
formation of material objects, because individual beings formed of
matter are not permanent; [secondly], for the production of the best
and the most perfect beings that can be formed of matter, because the
ultimate purpose [in these productions] is to arrive at perfection. Now
it is clear that man is the most perfect being formed of matter; he is
the last and most perfect of earthly beings, and in this respect it can
truly be said that all earthly things exist for man, i.e., that the
changes which things undergo serve to produce the most perfect being
that can be produced. Aristotle, who assumes the Eternity of the
Universe, need therefore not ask to what purpose does man exist, for
the immediate purpose of each individual being is, according to his
opinion, the perfection of its specific form. Every individual thing
arrives at its perfection fully and completely when the actions that
produce its form are complete. The ultimate purpose of the species is
the perpetuation of this form by the repeated succession of genesis and
destruction, so that there might always be a being capable of the
greatest possible perfection. It seems therefore clear that, according
to Aristotle, who assumes the Eternity of the Universe, there is no
occasion for the question what is the object of the existence of the
Universe. But of those who accept our theory that the whole Universe
has been created from nothing, some hold that the inquiry after the
purpose of the Creation is necessary, and assume that the Universe was
only created for the sake of man’s existence, that he might serve God.
Everything that is done they believe is done for man’s sake; even the
spheres move only for his benefit, in order that his wants might be
supplied. The literal meaning of some passages in the books of the
prophets greatly support this idea. Comp. “He formed it (viz., the
earth) to be inhabited” (Isa. xlv. 18); “If my covenant of day and
night were not,” etc. (Jer. xxxiii. 25); “And spreadeth them out as a
tent to dwell in” (Isa. xl. 22). If the sphere existed for the sake of
man, how much more must this be the case with all other living beings
and the plants. On examining this opinion as intelligent persons ought
to examine all different opinions, we shall discover the errors it
includes. Those who hold this view, namely, that the existence of man
is the object of the whole creation, may be asked whether God could
have created man without those previous creations, or whether man could
only have come into existence after the creation of all other things.
If they answer in the affirmative, that man could have been created
even if, e.g., the heavens did not exist, they will be asked what is
the object of all these things, since they do not exist for their own
sake but for the sake of something that could exist without them? Even
if the Universe existed for man’s sake and man existed for the purpose
of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains, What is
the end of serving God? He does not become more perfect if all His
creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He
lose anything if nothing existed beside Him. It might perhaps be
replied that the service of God is not intended for God’s perfection;
it is intended for our own perfection,—it is good for us, it makes us
perfect. But then the question might be repeated, What is the object of
our being perfect? We must in continuing the inquiry as to the purpose
of the creation at last arrive at the answer, It was the Will of God,
or His Wisdom decreed it; and this is the correct answer. The wise men
in Israel have, therefore, introduced in our prayers (for Neʻilah of
the Day of Atonement) the following passage:—“Thou hast distinguished
man from the beginning, and chosen him to stand before Thee; who can
say unto Thee, What dost Thou? And if he be righteous, what does he
give Thee?” They have thus clearly stated that it was not a final cause
that determined the existence of all things, but only His will. This
being the case, we who believe in the Creation must admit that God
could have created the Universe in a different manner as regards the
causes and effects contained in it, and this would lead to the absurd
conclusion that everything except man existed without any purpose, as
the principal object, man, could have been brought into existence
without the rest of the creation. I consider therefore the following
opinion as most correct according to the teaching of the Bible, and
best in accordance with the results of philosophy; namely, that the
Universe does not exist for man’s sake, but that each being exists for
its own sake, and not because of some other thing. Thus we believe in
the Creation, and yet need not inquire what purpose is served by each
species of the existing things, because we assume that God created all
parts of the Universe by His will; some for their own sake, and some
for the sake of other beings, that include their own purpose in
themselves. In the same manner as it was the will of God that man
should exist, so it was His will that the heavens with their stars
should exist, that there should be angels, and each of these beings is
itself the purpose of its own existence. When anything can only exist
provided some other thing has previously existed, God has caused the
latter to precede it; as, e.g., sensation precedes comprehension. We
meet also with this view in Scripture: “The Lord hath made everything
(la-maʻanehu) for its purpose” (Prov. xvi. 4). It is possible that the
pronoun in la-maanehu refers to the object; but it can also be
considered as agreeing with the subject; in which case the meaning of
the word is, for the sake of Himself, or His will which is identical
with His self [or essence], as has been shown in this treatise. We have
also pointed out that His essence is also called His glory. The words,
“The Lord hath made everything for Himself,” express therefore the same
idea as the following verse, “Everything that is called by my name: I
have created it for my glory, I have formed it; yea, I have made it”
(Isa. xliii. 7); that is to say, everything that is described as My
work has been made by Me for the sake of My will and for no other
purpose. The words, “I have formed it,” “I have made it,” express
exactly what I pointed out to you, that there are things whose
existence is only possible after certain other things have come into
existence. To these reference is made in the text, as if to say, I have
formed the first thing which must have preceded the other things, e.g.,
matter has been formed before the production of material beings; I have
then made out of that previous creation, or after it, what I intended
to produce, and there was nothing but My will. Study the book which
leads all who want to be led to the truth, and is therefore called
Torah (Law or Instruction), from the beginning of the account of the
Creation to its end, and you will comprehend the opinion which we
attempt to expound. For no part of the creation is described as being
in existence for the sake of another part, but each part is declared to
be the product of God’s will, and to satisfy by its existence the
intention [of the Creator]. This is expressed by the phrase, “And God
saw that it was good” (Gen. i. 4, etc.). You know our interpretation of
the saying of our Sages, “Scripture speaks the same language as is
spoken by man.” But we call “good” that which is in accordance with the
object we seek. When therefore Scripture relates in reference to the
whole creation (Gen. i. 31), “And God saw all that He had made, and
behold it was exceedingly good,” it declares thereby that everything
created was well fitted for its object, and would never cease to act,
and never be annihilated. This is especially pointed out by the word
“exceedingly”; for sometimes a thing is temporarily good; it serves its
purpose, and then it fails and ceases to act. But as regards the
Creation it is said that everything was fit for its purpose, and able
continually to act accordingly. You must not be misled by what is
stated of the stars [that God put them in the firmament of the heavens]
to give light upon the earth, and to rule by day and by night. You
might perhaps think that here the purpose of their creation is
described. This is not the case; we are only informed of the nature of
the stars, which God desired to create with such properties that they
should be able to give light and to rule. In a similar manner we must
understand the passage, “And have dominion over the fish of the sea”
(ibid. i. 28). Here it is not meant to say that man was created for
this purpose, but only that this was the nature which God gave man. But
as to the statement in Scripture that God gave the plants to man and
other living beings, it agrees with the opinion of Aristotle and other
philosophers. It is also reasonable to assume that the plants exist
only for the benefit of the animals, since the latter cannot live
without food. It is different with the stars, they do not exist only
for our sake, that we should enjoy their good influence; for the
expressions “to give light” and “to rule” merely describe, as we have
stated above, the benefit which the creatures on earth derive from
them. I have already explained to you the character of that influence
that causes continually the good to descend from one being to another.
To those who receive the good flowing down upon them, it may appear as
if the being existed for them alone that sends forth its goodness and
kindness unto them. Thus some citizen may imagine that it was for the
purpose of protecting his house by night from thieves that the king was
chosen. To some extent this is correct; for when his house is
protected, and he has derived this benefit through the king whom the
country had chosen, it appears as if it were the object of the king to
protect the house of that man. In this manner we must explain every
verse, the literal meaning of which would imply that something superior
was created for the sake of something inferior, viz., that it is part
of the nature of the superior thing [to influence the inferior in a
certain manner]. We remain firm in our belief that the whole Universe
was created in accordance with the will of God, and we do not inquire
for any other cause or object. Just as we do not ask what is the
purpose of God’s existence, so we do not ask what was the object of His
will, which is the cause of the existence of all things with their
present properties, both those that have been created and those that
will be created.
You must not be mistaken and think that the spheres and the angels were
created for our sake. Our position has already been pointed out to us,
“Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket” (Isa. xl. 15). Now
compare your own essence with that of the spheres, the stars, and the
Intelligences, and you will comprehend the truth, and understand that
man is superior to everything formed of earthly matter, but not to
other beings; he is found exceedingly inferior when his existence is
compared with that of the spheres, and a fortiori when compared with
that of the Intelligences. Comp. “Behold, he putteth no trust in his
servants: and his messengers he charged with folly: how much less in
them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust,
which are crushed before the moth?” (Job iv. 18, 19). The expression
“his servants,” occurring in this passage, does not denote human
beings; this may be inferred from the words, “How much less in them
that dwell in houses of clay?” The “servants” referred to in this place
are the angels; whilst by the term “his messengers” the spheres are
undoubtedly meant. Eliphas himself, who uttered the above words,
explains this [in the second speech] when he refers to it in one of his
replies in other words, saying, “Behold, he putteth no trust in his
holy ones; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight, how much more
abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water” (ibid.
xv. 15, 16). He thus shows that “his servants” and “his holy ones” are
identical, and that they are not human beings; also that “his
messengers,” mentioned in the first passage, are the same as “the
heavens.” The term “folly” is explained by the phrase “they are not
clean in his sight,” i.e., they are material; although their substance
is the purest and the most luminous, compared with the Intelligences it
appears dark, turbid, and impure. The phrase, “Behold, he putteth no
trust in his servants,” is employed in reference to the angels,
indicating that these do not possess perpetual existence, since, as we
believe, they have had a beginning; and even according to those who
assume the Eternity of the Universe, the existence of the angels is at
all events dependent on and therefore inferior to, the absolute
existence of God. The words, “How much more abominable and filthy is
man,” in the one passage, correspond to the phrase “How much less in
those who dwell in houses of clay” in the other passage. Their meaning
is this: How much less in man who is abominable and filthy, in whose
person crookedness or corporeality is mixed up and spread through all
his parts. “Iniquity” (ʻavlah) is identical with “crookedness,” as may
be inferred from the passage, “In the land of uprightness he will act
with iniquity” (Isa. xxvi. 10), and ish, “man,” is here used in the
same sense as adam, “human being”; for “man” in a general sense is
sometimes expressed in Scripture by ish. Comp. “He who smiteth a man
(ish) and he die” (Exod. xxi. 12).
This must be our belief when we have a correct knowledge of our own
self, and comprehend the true nature of everything; we must be content,
and not trouble our mind with seeking a certain final cause for things
that have none, or have no other final cause but their own existence,
which depends on the Will of God, or, if you prefer, on the Divine
Wisdom.
CHAPTER XIV
In order to obtain a correct estimate of ourselves, we must reflect on
the results of the investigations which have been made into the
dimensions and the distances of the spheres and the stars. The
distances are clearly stated in radii of the earth, and are well known,
since the circumference and the radius of the earth are known. It has
been proved that the distance between the centre of the earth and the
outer surface of the sphere of Saturn is a journey of nearly eight
thousand seven hundred solar years. Suppose a day’s journey to be forty
legal miles of two thousand ordinary cubits, and consider the great and
enormous distance! or in the words of Scripture, “Is not God in the
height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they
are!” (Job xxii. 12); that is to say, learn from the height of the
heavens how far we are from comprehending God, for there is an enormous
distance between ourselves and these corporeal objects, and the latter
are greatly distinguished from us by their position, and hidden from us
as regards their essence and most of their actions. How much more
incomprehensible therefore is their Maker, who is incorporeal! The
great distance which has been proved is, in fact, the least that can be
assumed. The distance between the centre of the earth and the surface
of the sphere of the fixed stars can by no means be less, but it may
possibly be many times as great; for the measure of the thickness of
the body of the spheres has not been proved, and the least possible has
been assumed, as appears from the treatises On the Distances. The same
is the case with the substances which are between every two spheres.
According to logical inference, as has been mentioned by Thabit, the
thickness of these substances cannot be accurately stated, since they
do not contain any star, which might serve as a means of obtaining it.
As to the thickness of the sphere of the fixed stars, it is at least
four years’ journey, as may be inferred from the measure of the stars
contained in the sphere. The body of each of these stars is more than
ninety times as big as the globe of the earth, and it is possible that
the thickness of the sphere is still greater. Of the ninth sphere, that
causes the daily revolution of the whole system of spheres, we do not
know the dimensions; it contains no stars, and therefore we have no
means of finding out its magnitude. Now consider the enormous
dimensions and the large number of these material beings. If the whole
earth is infinitely small in comparison with the sphere of the stars,
what is man compared with all these created beings! How, then, could
any one of us imagine that these things exist for his sake and benefit,
and that they are his tools! This is the result of an examination of
the corporeal beings: how much more so will this be the result of an
examination into the nature of the Intelligences!
The following question may be asked against the opinion of philosophers
on this subject: There is no doubt that from a philosophical point of
view it would be a mistake to assume that the spheres exist for the
purpose of regulating the fate of one individual person or community;
but it is not absurd to think that they serve to regulate the affairs
of mankind, since these mighty individual beings would serve to give
existence to the individual members of the species, the number of
which, according to the philosophers, will never come to an end. We can
best illustrate this by the following simile: An artisan makes iron
tools of a hundred-weight for the purpose of making a small needle of
the weight of a grain. If only one needle had to be produced, we admit
that it would certainly be bad management, though it would not be
entirely a failure; but if with those enormous tools needle after
needle is produced, even many hundred-weights of needles, the
preparation of those tools would be a wise act and excellent
management. In a similar manner the object of the spheres may be the
continuance of successive genesis and destruction; and the succession
of genesis and destruction serves, as has already been said, to give
existence to mankind. This idea is supported by Biblical texts and
sayings [of our Sages]. The philosopher replies thus: If the difference
between the heavenly bodies and the transient individual members of the
species consisted in their different sizes, this opinion could be
maintained; but as the difference consists in their essence, it remains
improbable that the superior beings should be the means of giving
existence to the lower ones. In short, this question supports our
belief in the Creation; and this is the principal object of this
chapter. [It serves] besides [a second purpose]. I frequently hear from
those who know something about astronomy, that our Sages exaggerated
the distances [of the heavenly bodies] when they said that the
thickness of each sphere is five hundred years’ journey; the distance
of the seven spheres from each other five hundred years’ journey, so
that the distance of the outer surface of the seventh sphere from the
centre of the earth is seven thousand years’ journey. Those who hear
such statements consider them [at first thought] as exaggeration, and
believe that the distance is not so great. But you may ascertain from
the data proved in scientific treatises on the distances, that the
centre of the earth is distant from the inner surface of the seventh
sphere, that of Saturn, nearly seven thousand and twenty-four years’
journey. The number eight thousand and seven hundred given by us,
refers to the distance of the centre of the earth from the inner
surface of the eighth sphere. The distance of the spheres from each
other, mentioned by astronomers, is identical with the thickness of the
substance that intervenes between one sphere and the other, and does
not imply that there is a vacuum. You must, however, not expect that
everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree
with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those
days; and their statements were not based on the authority of the
Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed
or derived from contemporary men of science. But I will not on that
account denounce what they say correctly in accordance with real fact,
as untrue or accidentally true. On the contrary, whenever the words of
a person can be interpreted in such a manner that they agree with fully
established facts, it is the duty of every educated and honest man to
do so.
CHAPTER XV
That which is impossible has a permanent and constant property, which
is not the result of some agent, and cannot in any way change, and
consequently we do not ascribe to God the power of doing what is
impossible. No thinking man denies the truth of this maxim; none ignore
it, but such as have no idea of Logic. There is, however, a difference
of opinion among philosophers with reference to the existence of any
particular thing. Some of them consider its existence to be impossible,
and hold that God cannot produce the thing in question, whilst others
think that it is possible, and that God can create it if He pleases to
do so. E.g., all philosophers consider that it is impossible for one
substratum to have at the same moment two opposite properties, or for
the elementary components of a thing, substance and accident, to
interchange, so that the substance becomes accident, and the accident
becomes substance, or for a material substance to be without accident.
Likewise it is impossible that God should produce a being like Himself,
or annihilate, corporify, or change Himself. The power of God is not
assumed to extend to any of these impossibilities. But the existence of
accidents independent of substance is possible according to one class
of philosophers, the Mutazilah, whilst according to others it is
impossible; it must, however, be added that those who admit the
existence of an accident independent of substance, have not arrived at
this conclusion by philosophical research alone; but it was mainly by
the desire to defend certain religious principles, which speculation
had greatly shaken, that they had recourse to this theory. In a similar
manner the creation of corporeal things, otherwise than from a
substance, is possible according to our view, whilst the philosophers
say that it is impossible. Again, whilst philosophers say that it is
impossible to produce a square with a diagonal equal to one of the
sides, or a solid angle that includes four right angles, or similar
things, it is thought possible by some persons who are ignorant of
mathematics, and who only know the words of these propositions, but
have no idea of that which is expressed by them. I wonder whether this
gate of research is open, so that all may freely enter, and whilst one
imagines a thing and considers it possible, another is at liberty to
assert that such a thing is impossible by its very nature; or whether
the gate is closed and guarded by certain rules, so that we are able to
decide with certainty whether a thing is physically impossible. I
should also like to know, in the latter case, whether imagination or
reason has to examine and test objects as to their being possible or
not; likewise how things imagined, and things conceived intellectually,
are to be distinguished from each other. For it occurs that we consider
a thing as physically possible, and then some one objects, or we
ourselves fear that our opinion is only the result of imagination, and
not that of reason. In such a case it would be desirable to ascertain
whether there exists some faculty to distinguish between imagination
and intellect, [and if so,] whether this faculty is different from
both, or whether it is part of the intellect itself to distinguish
between intellectual and imaginary objects. All this requires
investigation, but it does not belong to the theme of this chapter.
We have thus shown that according to each one of the different theories
there are things which are impossible, whose existence cannot be
admitted, and whose creation is excluded from the power of God, and the
assumption that God does not change their nature does not imply
weakness in God, or a limit to His power. Consequently things
impossible remain impossible, and do not depend on the action of an
agent. It is now clear that a difference of opinion exists only as to
the question to which of the two classes a thing belongs; whether to
the class of the impossible, or to that of the possible. Note it.
CHAPTER XVI
The philosophers have uttered very perverse ideas as regards God’s
Omniscience of everything beside Himself; they have stumbled in such a
manner that they cannot rise again, nor can those who adopt their
views. I will further on tell you the doubts that led them to these
perverse utterances on this question; and I will also tell you the
opinion which is taught by our religion, and which differs from the
evil and wrong principles of the philosophers as regards God’s
Omniscience.
The principal reason that first induced the philosophers to adopt their
theory is this: at first thought we notice an absence of system in
human affairs. Some pious men live a miserable and painful life, whilst
some wicked people enjoy a happy and pleasant life. On this account the
philosophers assumed as possible the cases which you will now hear.
They said that only one of two things is possible, either God is
ignorant of the individual or particular things on earth, and does not
perceive them, or He perceives and knows them. These are all the cases
possible. They then continued thus: If He perceives and knows all
individual things, one of the following three cases must take place:
(1) God arranges and manages human affairs well, perfectly and
faultlessly; (2) He is overcome by obstacles, and is too weak and
powerless to manage human affairs; (3) He knows [all things] and can
arrange and manage them, but leaves and abandons them, as too base,
low, and vile, or from jealousy; as we may also notice among ourselves
some who are able to make another person happy, well knowing what he
wants for his happiness, and still in consequence of their evil
disposition, their wickedness and jealousy against him, they do not
help him to his happiness.—This is likewise a complete enumeration of
all possible cases. For those who have a knowledge of a certain thing
necessarily either (1) take care of the thing which they know, and
manage it, or (2) neglect it (as we, e.g., neglect and forget the cats
in our house, or things of less importance); or (3) while taking care
of it, have not sufficient power and strength for its management,
although they have the will to do so. Having enumerated these different
cases, the philosophers emphatically decided that of the three cases
possible [as regards the management of a thing by one who knows that
thing], two are inadmissible in reference to God—viz., want of power,
or absence of will; because they imply either evil disposition or
weakness, neither of which can by any means be attributed to Him.
Consequently there remains only the alternative that God is altogether
ignorant of human affairs, or that He knows them and manages them well.
Since we, however, notice that events do not follow a certain order,
that they cannot be determined by analogy, and are not in accordance
with what is wanted, we conclude that God has no knowledge of them in
any way or for any reason. This is the argument which led the
philosophers to speak such blasphemous words. In the treatise On
Providence, by Alexander Aphrodisiensis, you will find the same as I
have said about the different views of the philosophers, and as I have
stated as to the source of their error.
You must notice with surprise that the evil into which these
philosophers have fallen is greater than that from which they sought to
escape, and that they ignore the very thing which they constantly
pointed out and explained to us. They have fallen into a greater evil
than that from which they sought to escape, because they refuse to say
that God neglects or forgets a thing, and yet they maintain that His
knowledge is imperfect, that He is ignorant of what is going on here on
earth, that He does not perceive it. They also ignore, what they
constantly point out to us, in as much as they judge the whole universe
by that which befalls individual men, although, according to their own
view, frequently stated and explained, the evils of man originate in
himself, or form part of his material nature. We have already discussed
this sufficiently. After having laid this foundation, which is the ruin
of all good principles, and destroys the majesty of all true knowledge,
they sought to remove the opprobrium by declaring that for many reasons
it is impossible that God should have a knowledge of earthly things,
for the individual members of a species can only be perceived by the
senses, and not by reason; but God does not perceive by means of any of
the senses. Again, the individuals are infinite, but knowledge
comprehends and circumscribes the object of its action, and the
infinite cannot be comprehended or circumscribed; furthermore,
knowledge of individual beings, that are subject to change,
necessitates some change in him who possesses it, because this
knowledge itself changes constantly. They have also raised the
following two objections against those who hold, in accordance with the
teaching of Scripture, that God knows things before they come into
existence. First, this theory implies that there can be knowledge of a
thing that does not exist at all; secondly, it leads to the conclusion
that the knowledge of an object in potentia is identical with the
knowledge of that same object in reality. They have indeed come to very
evil conclusions, and some of them assumed that God only knows the
species, not the individual beings, whilst others went as far as to
contend that God knows nothing beside Himself, because they believe
that God cannot have more than one knowledge.
Some of the great philosophers who lived before Aristotle agree with
us, that God knows everything, and that nothing is hidden from Him.
Alexander also refers to them in the above-mentioned treatise; he
differs from them, and says that the principal objection against this
theory is based on the fact that we clearly see evils befalling good
men, and wicked men enjoying happiness.
In short, you see that if these philosophers would find human affairs
managed according to rules laid down by the common people, they would
not venture or presume to speak on this subject. They are only led to
this speculation because they examine the affairs of the good and the
wicked, and consider them as being contrary to all rule, and say in the
words of the foolish in our nation, “The way of the Lord is not right”
(Ezek. xxxiii. 17).
After having shown that knowledge and Providence are connected with
each other, I will now proceed to expound the opinions of thinkers on
Providence, and then I shall attempt to remove their doubts as to God’s
knowledge of individual beings.
CHAPTER XVII
There are four different theories concerning Divine Providence; they
are all ancient, known since the time of the Prophets, when the true
Law was revealed to enlighten these dark regions.
First Theory.—There is no Providence at all for anything in the
Universe; all parts of the Universe, the heavens and what they contain,
owe their origin to accident and chance; there exists no being that
rules and governs them or provides for them. This is the theory of
Epicurus, who assumes also that the Universe consists of atoms, that
these have combined by chance, and have received their various forms by
mere accident. There have been atheists among the Israelites who have
expressed the same view; it is reported of them: “They have denied the
Lord, and said he is not” (Jer. v. 12). Aristotle has proved the
absurdity of the theory, that the whole Universe could have originated
by chance; he has shown that, on the contrary, there is a being that
rules and governs the Universe. We have already touched upon this
subject in the present treatise.
Second Theory.—Whilst one part of the Universe owes its existence to
Providence, and is under the control of a ruler and governor, another
part is abandoned and left to chance. This is the view of Aristotle
about Providence, and I will now explain to you his theory. He holds
that God controls the spheres and what they contain: therefore the
individual beings in the spheres remain permanently in the same form.
Alexander has also expressed it in his writings that Divine Providence
extends down to, and ends with, the sphere of the moon. This view
results from his theory of the Eternity of the Universe; he believes
that Providence is in accordance with the nature of the Universe:
consequently in the case of the spheres with their contents, where each
individual being has a permanent existence, Providence gives permanency
and constancy. From the existence of the spheres other beings derive
existence, which are constant in their species but not in their
individuals: in the same manner it is said that Providence sends forth
[from the spheres to the earth] sufficient influence to secure the
immortality and constancy of the species, without securing at the same
time permanence for the individual beings of the species. But the
individual beings in each species have not been entirely abandoned,
that portion of the materia prima which has been purified and refined,
and has received the faculty of growth, is endowed with properties that
enable it to exist a certain time, to attract what is useful and to
repel what is useless. That portion of the materia prima which has been
subject to a further development, and has received the faculty of
sensation, is endowed with other properties for its protection and
preservation; it has a new faculty of moving freely toward that which
is conducive to, and away from that which is contrary to its
well-being. Each individual being received besides such properties as
are required for the preservation of the species to which it belongs.
The portion of the materia prima which is still more refined, and is
endowed with the intellectual faculty, possesses a special property by
which each individual, according to the degree of his perfection, is
enabled to manage, to calculate, and to discover what is conducive both
to the temporary existence of the individual and to the preservation of
the species. All other movements, however, which are made by the
individual members of each species are due to accident; they are not,
according to Aristotle, the result of rule and management; e.g., when a
storm or gale blows, it causes undoubtedly some leaves of a tree to
drop, breaks off some branches of another tree, tears away a stone from
a heap of stones, raises dust over herbs and spoils them, and stirs up
the sea so that a ship goes down with the whole or part of her
contents. Aristotle sees no difference between the falling of a leaf or
a stone and the death of the good and noble people in the ship; nor
does he distinguish between the destruction of a multitude of ants
caused by an ox depositing on them his excrement and the death of
worshippers killed by the fall of the house when its foundations give
way; nor does he discriminate between the case of a cat killing a mouse
that happens to come in her way, or that of a spider catching a fly,
and that of a hungry lion meeting a prophet and tearing him. In short,
the opinion of Aristotle is this: Everything is the result of
management which is constant, which does not come to an end and does
not change any of its properties, as e.g., the heavenly beings, and
everything which continues according to a certain rule, and deviates
from it only rarely and exceptionally, as is the case in objects of
Nature. All these are the result of management, i.e., in a close
relation to Divine Providence. But that which is not constant, and does
not follow a certain rule, as e.g., incidents in the existence of the
individual beings in each species of plants or animals, whether
rational or irrational, is due to chance and not to management; it is
in no relation to Divine Providence. Aristotle holds that it is even
impossible to ascribe to Providence the management of these things.
This view is closely connected with his theory of the Eternity of the
Universe, and with his opinion that everything different from the
existing order of things in Nature is impossible. It is the belief of
those who turned away from our Law, and said: “God hath forsaken the
earth” (Ezek. ix. 9).
Third Theory.—This theory is the reverse of the second. According to
this theory, there is nothing in the whole Universe, neither a class
nor an individual being, that is due to chance; everything is the
result of will, intention, and rule. It is a matter of course that he
who rules must know [that which is under his control]. The Mohammedan
Ashariyah adhere to this theory, notwithstanding evident absurdities
implied in it; for they admit that Aristotle is correct in assuming one
and the same cause [viz., the wind] for the fall of leaves [from the
tree] and for the death of a man [drowned in the sea]. But they hold at
the same time that the wind did not blow by chance; it is God that
caused it to move; it is not therefore the wind that caused the leaves
to fall; each leaf falls according to the Divine decree; it is God who
caused it to fall at a certain time and in a certain place; it could
not have fallen before or after that time or in another place, as this
has previously been decreed. The Ashariyah were therefore compelled to
assume that motion and rest of living beings are predestined, and that
it is not in the power of man to do a certain thing or to leave it
undone. The theory further implies a denial of possibility in these
things; they can only be either necessary or impossible. The followers
of this theory accepted also the last-mentioned proposition, and say,
that we call certain things possible, as e.g., the facts that Zeid
stands, and that Amr is coming; but they are only possible for us,
whilst in their relation to God they cannot be called possible; they
are either necessary or impossible. It follows also from this theory,
that precepts are perfectly useless, since the people to whom any law
is given are unable to do anything: they can neither do what they are
commanded nor abstain from what they are forbidden. The supporters of
this theory hold that it was the will of God to send prophets, to
command, to forbid, to promise, and to threaten, although we have no
power [over our actions]. A duty would thus be imposed upon us which is
impossible for us to carry out, and it is even possible that we may
suffer punishment when obeying the command and receive reward when
disobeying it. According to this theory, it must also be assumed that
the actions of God have no final cause. All these absurdities are
admitted by the Ashariyah for the purpose of saving this theory. When
we see a person born blind or leprous, who could not have merited a
punishment for previous sins, they say, It is the will of God; when a
pious worshipper is tortured and slain, it is likewise the will of God;
and no injustice can be asserted to Him for that, for according to
their opinion it is proper that God should afflict the innocent and do
good to the sinner. Their views on these matters are well known.
Fourth Theory.—Man has free will; it is therefore intelligible that the
Law contains commands and prohibitions, with announcements of reward
and punishment. All acts of God are due to wisdom; no injustice is
found in Him, and He does not afflict the good. The Mu’tazila profess
this theory, although they do not believe in man’s absolute free will.
They hold also that God takes notice of the falling of the leaf and the
destruction of the ant, and that His Providence extends over all
things. This theory likewise implies contradictions and absurdities.
The absurdities are these: The fact that some persons are born with
defects, although they have not sinned previously, is ascribed to the
wisdom of God, it being better for those persons to be in such a
condition than to be in a normal state, though we do not see why it is
better; and they do not suffer thereby any punishment at all, but, on
the contrary, enjoy God’s goodness. In a similar manner the slaughter
of the pious is explained as being for them the source of an increase
of reward in future life. They go even further in their absurdities. We
ask them why is God only just to man and not to other beings, and how
has the irrational animal sinned, that it is condemned to be
slaughtered? and they reply it is good for the animal, for it will
receive reward for it in the world to come; also the flea and the louse
will there receive compensation for their untimely death: the same
reasoning they apply to the mouse torn by a cat or vulture; the wisdom
of God decreed this for the mouse, in order to reward it after death
for the mishap. I do not consider it proper to blame the followers of
any of the [last named] three theories on Providence, for they have
been driven to accept them by weighty considerations. Aristotle was
guided by that which appears to be the nature of things. The Ashariyah
refused to ascribe to God ignorance about anything, and to say that God
whilst knowing one individual being or one portion of the Universe is
ignorant of another portion; they preferred to admit the
above-mentioned absurdities. The Mu’tazilites refused to assume that
God does what is wrong and unjust; on the other hand, they would not
contradict common sense and say that it was not wrong to inflict pain
on the guiltless, or that the mission of the Prophets and the giving of
the Law had no intelligible reason. They likewise preferred to admit
the above-named absurdities. But they even contradicted themselves,
because they believe on the one hand that God knows everything, and on
the other that man has free will. By a little consideration we discover
the contradiction.
Fifth Theory.—This is our theory, or that of our Law. I will show you
[first] the view expressed on this subject in our prophetical books,
and generally accepted by our Sages. I will then give the opinion of
some later authors among us, and lastly, I will explain my own belief.
The theory of man’s perfectly free will is one of the fundamental
principles of the Law of our Teacher Moses, and of those who follow the
Law. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do,
by his nature, his choice, and his will; and his action is not due to
any faculty created for the purpose. All species of irrational animals
likewise move by their own free will. This is the Will of God; that is
to say, it is due to the eternal divine will that all living beings
should move freely, and that man should have power to act according to
his will or choice within the limits of his capacity. Against this
principle we hear, thank God, no opposition on the part of our nation.
Another fundamental principle taught by the Law of Moses is this: Wrong
cannot be ascribed to God in any way whatever; all evils and
afflictions as well as all kinds of happiness of man, whether they
concern one individual person or a community, are distributed according
to justice; they are the result of strict judgment that admits no wrong
whatever. Even when a person suffers pain in consequence of a thorn
having entered into his hand, although it is at once drawn out, it is a
punishment that has been inflicted on him [for sin], and the least
pleasure he enjoys is a reward [for some good action]; all this is
meted out by strict justice; as is said in Scripture, “all his ways are
judgment” (Deut. xxxii. 4); we are only ignorant of the working of that
judgment.
The different theories are now fully explained to you; everything in
the varying human affairs is due to chance, according to Aristotle, to
the Divine Will alone according to the Ashariyah, to Divine Wisdom
according to the Mu’tazilites, to the merits of man according to our
opinion. It is therefore possible, according to the Ashariyah, that God
inflicts pain on a good and pious man in this world, and keeps him for
ever in fire, which is assumed to rage in the world to come; they
simply say it is the Will of God. The Mu’tazilites would consider this
as injustice, and therefore assume that every being, even an ant, that
is stricken with pain [in this world], has compensation for it, as has
been mentioned above; and it is due to God’s Wisdom that a being is
struck and afflicted in order to receive compensation. We, however,
believe that all these human affairs are managed with justice; far be
it from God to do wrong, to punish any one unless the punishment is
necessary and merited. It is distinctly stated in the Law, that all is
done in accordance with justice; and the words of our Sages generally
express the same idea. They clearly say: “There is no death without
sin, no sufferings without transgression.” (B. T. Shabbath, 55a.)
Again, “The deserts of man are meted out to him in the same measure
which he himself employs.” (Mish. Sotah, i. 7.) These are the words of
the Mishnah. Our Sages declare it wherever opportunity is given, that
the idea of God necessarily implies justice; that He will reward the
most pious for all their pure and upright actions, although no direct
commandment was given them through a prophet; and that He will punish
all the evil deeds of men, although they have not been prohibited by a
prophet, if common sense warns against them, as e.g., injustice and
violence. Thus our Sages say: “God does not deprive any being of the
full reward [of its good deed]” (B. T. Pes. 118a) again, “He who says
that God remits part of a punishment, will be punished severely; He is
long-suffering, but is sure to exact payment.” (B. T. Baba K. 50a.)
Another saying is this: “He who has received a commandment and acts
accordingly is not like him who acts in the same manner without being
commanded to do so” (B. T. Kidd. 31a); and it is distinctly added that
he who does a good thing without being commanded, receives nevertheless
his reward. The same principle is expressed in all sayings of our
Sages. But they contain an additional doctrine which is not found in
the Law; viz., the doctrine of “afflictions of love,” as taught by some
of our Sages. According to this doctrine it is possible that a person
be afflicted without having previously committed any sin, in order that
his future reward may be increased; a view which is held by the
Mu’tazilites, but is not supported by any Scriptural text. Be not
misled by the accounts of trials, such as “God tried Abraham” (Gen.
xxii. 1); “He afflicted thee and made thee hungry,” etc. (Deut. viii.
3); for you will hear more on this subject later on (chap. xxiv.). Our
Law is only concerned with the relations of men; but the idea that
irrational living beings should receive a reward, has never before been
heard of in our nation; the wise men mentioned in the Talmud do not
notice it; only some of the later Geonim were pleased with it when they
heard it from the sect of the Mu’tazilites, and accepted it.
My opinion on this principle of Divine Providence I will now explain to
you. In the principle which I now proceed to expound I do not rely on
demonstrative proof, but on my conception of the spirit of the Divine
Law, and the writings of the Prophets. The principle which I accept is
far less open to objections, and is more reasonable than the opinions
mentioned before. It is this: In the lower or sublunary portion of the
Universe Divine Providence does not extend to the individual members of
species except in the case of mankind. It is only in this species that
the incidents in the existence of the individual beings, their good and
evil fortunes, are the result of justice, in accordance with the words,
“For all His ways are judgment.” But I agree with Aristotle as regards
all other living beings, and à fortiori as regards plants and all the
rest of earthly creatures. For I do not believe that it is through the
interference of Divine Providence that a certain leaf drops [from a
tree], nor do I hold that when a certain spider catches a certain fly,
that this is the direct result of a special decree and will of God in
that moment; it is not by a particular Divine decree that the spittle
of a certain person moved, fell on a certain gnat in a certain place,
and killed it; nor is it by the direct will of God that a certain fish
catches and swallows a certain worm on the surface of the water. In all
these cases the action is, according to my opinion, entirely due to
chance, as taught by Aristotle. Divine Providence is connected with
Divine intellectual influence, and the same beings which are benefited
by the latter so as to become intellectual, and to comprehend things
comprehensible to rational beings, are also under the control of Divine
Providence, which examines all their deeds in order to reward or punish
them. It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her
contents, as in the above-mentioned instance, or the roof of a house
falls upon those within; but it is not due to chance, according to our
view, that in the one instance the men went into the ship, or remained
in the house in the other instance; it is due to the will of God, and
is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which
our mind is incapable of understanding. I have been induced to accept
this theory by the circumstance that I have not met in any of the
prophetical books with a description of God’s Providence otherwise than
in relation to human beings. The prophets even express their surprise
that God should take notice of man, who is too little and too
unimportant to be worthy of the attention of the Creator; how, then,
should other living creatures be considered as proper objects for
Divine Providence! Comp. “What is man, that thou takest knowledge of
him?” (Ps. cxliv. 3); “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?”
(ibid. viii. 8). It is clearly expressed in many Scriptural passages
that God provides for all men, and controls all their deeds—e.g., “He
fashioneth their hearts alike, he considereth all their works” (ibid.
xxxiii. 15); “For thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of
men, to give every one according to his ways” (Jer. xxxii. 19). Again:
“For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings”
(Job xxxii. 21). In the Law there occur instances of the fact that men
are governed by God, and that their actions are examined by him. Comp.
“In the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them” (Exod.
xxxii. 34); “I will even appoint over you terror” (Lev. xxvi. 16);
“Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book”
(Exod. xxxii. 33); “The same soul will I destroy” (Lev. xxiii. 30); “I
will even set my face against that soul” (ibid. xx. 6). There are many
instances of this kind. All that is mentioned of the history of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a perfect proof that Divine Providence
extends to every man individually. But the condition of the individual
beings of other living creatures is undoubtedly the same as has been
stated by Aristotle. On that account it is allowed, even commanded, to
kill animals; we are permitted to use them according to our pleasure.
The view that other living beings are only governed by Divine
Providence in the way described by Aristotle, is supported by the words
of the Prophet Habakkuk. When he perceived the victories of
Nebuchadnezzar, and saw the multitude of those slain by him, he said,
“O God, it is as if men were abandoned, neglected, and unprotected like
fish and like worms of the earth.” He thus shows that these classes are
abandoned. This is expressed in the following passage: “And makest men
as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler
over them. They take up all of them with the angle,” etc. (Hab. i. 14,
15). The prophet then declares that such is not the case; for the
events referred to are not the result of abandonment, forsaking, and
absence of Providence, but are intended as a punishment for the people,
who well deserved all that befell them. He therefore says: “O Lord,
Thou hast ordained them for judgment, and O mighty God, Thou hast
established them for correction” (ibid. ver. 12). Our opinion is not
contradicted by Scriptural passages like the following: “He giveth to
the beast his food” (Ps. cxlvii. 9); “The young lions roar after their
prey, and seek their meat from God” (ibid. civ. 21); “Thou openest
thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing” (ibid.
cxlv. 16); or by the saying of our Sages: “He sitteth and feedeth all,
from the horns of the unicorns even unto the eggs of insects.” There
are many similar sayings extant in the writings of our Sages, but they
imply nothing that is contrary to my view. All these passages refer to
Providence in relation to species, and not to Providence in relation to
individual animals. The acts of God are as it were enumerated; how He
provides for every species the necessary food and the means of
subsistence. This is clear and plain. Aristotle likewise holds that
this kind of Providence is necessary, and is in actual existence.
Alexander also notices this fact in the name of Aristotle, viz., that
every species has its nourishment prepared for its individual members;
otherwise the species would undoubtedly have perished. It does not
require much consideration to understand this. There is a rule laid
down by our Sages that it is directly prohibited in the Law to cause
pain to an animal, and is based on the words: “Wherefore hast thou
smitten thine ass?” etc. (Num. xxii. 32). But the object of this rule
is to make us perfect; that we should not assume cruel habits; and that
we should not uselessly cause pain to others; that, on the contrary, we
should be prepared to show pity and mercy to all living creatures,
except when necessity demands the contrary: “When thy soul longeth to
eat flesh,” etc. (Deut. xii. 20). We should not kill animals for the
purpose of practising cruelty, or for the purpose of play. It cannot be
objected to this theory, Why should God select mankind as the object of
His special Providence, and not other living beings? For he who asks
this question must also inquire, Why has man alone, of all species of
animals, been endowed with intellect? The answer to this second
question must be, according to the three afore-mentioned theories: It
was the Will of God, it is the decree of His Wisdom, or it is in
accordance with the laws of Nature. The same answers apply to the first
question. Understand thoroughly my theory, that I do not ascribe to God
ignorance of anything or any kind of weakness; I hold that Divine
Providence is related and closely connected with the intellect, because
Providence can only proceed from an intelligent being, from a being
that is itself the most perfect Intellect. Those creatures, therefore,
which receive part of that intellectual influence, will become subject
to the action of Providence in the same proportion as they are acted
upon by the Intellect. This theory is in accordance with reason and
with the teaching of Scripture, whilst the other theories previously
mentioned either exaggerate Divine Providence or detract from it. In
the former case they lead to confusion and entire nonsense, and cause
us to deny reason and to contradict that which is perceived with the
senses. The latter case, viz., the theory that Divine Providence does
not extend to man, and that there is no difference between man and
other animals, implies very bad notions about God; it disturbs all
social order, removes and destroys all the moral and intellectual
virtues of man.
CHAPTER XVIII
Having shown in the preceding chapter that of all living beings mankind
alone is directly under the control of Divine Providence, I will now
add the following remarks: It is an established fact that species have
no existence except in our own minds. Species and other classes are
merely ideas formed in our minds, whilst everything in real existence
is an individual object, or an aggregate of individual objects. This
being granted, it must further be admitted that the result of the
existing Divine influence, that reaches mankind through the human
intellect, is identical with individual intellects really in existence,
with which, e.g., Zeid, Amr, Kaled and Bekr, are endowed. Hence it
follows, in accordance with what I have mentioned in the preceding
chapter, that the greater the share is which a person has obtained of
this Divine influence, on account of both his physical predisposition
and his training, the greater must also be the effect of Divine
Providence upon him, for the action of Divine Providence is
proportional to the endowment of intellect, as has been mentioned
above. The relation of Divine Providence is therefore not the same to
all men; the greater the human perfection a person has attained, the
greater the benefit he derives from Divine Providence. This benefit is
very great in the case of prophets, and varies according to the degree
of their prophetic faculty; as it varies in the case of pious and good
men according to their piety and uprightness. For it is the intensity
of the Divine intellectual influence that has inspired the prophets,
guided the good in their actions, and perfected the wisdom of the
pious. In the same proportion as ignorant and disobedient persons are
deficient in that Divine influence, their condition is inferior, and
their rank equal to that of irrational beings; and they are “like unto
the beasts” (Ps. xlix. 21). For this reason it was not only considered
a light thing to slay them, but it was even directly commanded for the
benefit of mankind. This belief that God provides for every individual
human being in accordance with his merits is one of the fundamental
principles on which the Law is founded.
Consider how the action of Divine Providence is described in reference
to every incident in the lives of the patriarchs, to their occupations,
and even to their passions, and how God promised to direct His
attention to them. Thus God said to Abraham, “I am thy shield” (Gen.
xv. 1); to Isaac, “I will be with thee, and I will bless thee” (ibid.
xxvi. 3); to Jacob, “I am with thee, and will keep thee” (ibid. xxviii.
15); to [Moses] the chief of the Prophets, “Certainly I will be with
thee, and this shall be a token unto thee” (Exod. iii. 12); to Joshua,
“As I was with Moses, so I shall be with thee” (Josh. i. 5). It is
clear that in all these cases the action of Providence has been
proportional to man’s perfection. The following verse describes how
Providence protects good and pious men, and abandons fools; “He will
keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in
darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail” (1 Sam. ii. 9). When we
see that some men escape plagues and mishaps, whilst others perish by
them, we must not attribute this to a difference in the properties of
their bodies, or in their physical constitution, “for by strength shall
no man prevail”; but it must be attributed to their different degrees
of perfection, some approaching God, whilst others moving away from
Him. Those who approach Him are best protected, and “He will keep the
feet of his saints”; but those who keep far away from Him are left
exposed to what may befall them; there is nothing that could protect
them from what might happen; they are like those who walk in darkness,
and are certain to stumble. The protection of the pious by Providence
is also expressed in the following passages:—“He keepeth all his
bones,” etc. (Ps. xxxiv. 21); “The eyes of the Lord are upon the
righteous” (ibid. ver. 16); “He shall call upon me and I shall answer
him” (ibid. xci. 15). There are in Scripture many more passages
expressing the principle that men enjoy Divine protection in proportion
to their perfection and piety. The philosophers have likewise discussed
this subject. Abu-nasr, in the Introduction to his Commentary on
Aristotle’s Nikomachean Ethics, says as follows:—Those who possess the
faculty of raising their souls from virtue to virtue obtain, according
to Plato, Divine protection to a higher degree.
Now consider how by this method of reasoning we have arrived at the
truth taught by the Prophets, that every person has his individual
share of Divine Providence in proportion to his perfection. For
philosophical research leads to this conclusion, if we assume, as has
been mentioned above, that Divine Providence is in each case
proportional to the person’s intellectual development. It is wrong to
say that Divine Providence extends only to the species, and not to
individual beings, as some of the philosophers teach. For only
individual beings have real existence, and individual beings are
endowed with Divine Intellect; Divine Providence acts, therefore, upon
these individual beings.
Study this chapter as it ought to be studied; you will find in it all
the fundamental principles of the Law; you will see that these are in
conformity with philosophical speculation, and all difficulties will be
removed; you will have a clear idea of Divine Providence.
After having described the various philosophical opinions on
Providence, and on the manner how God governs the Universe, I will
briefly state the opinion of our co-religionists on the Omniscience of
God, and what I have to remark on this subject.
CHAPTER XIX
It is undoubtedly an innate idea that God must be perfect in every
respect and cannot be deficient in anything. It is almost an innate
idea that ignorance in anything is a deficiency, and that God can
therefore not be ignorant of anything. But some thinkers assume, as I
said before, haughtily and exultingly, that God knows certain things
and is ignorant of certain other things. They did so because they
imagined that they discovered a certain absence of order in man’s
affairs, most of which are not only the result of physical properties,
but also of those faculties which he possesses as a being endowed with
free will and reason. The Prophets have already stated the proof which
ignorant persons offer for their belief that God does not know our
actions; viz., the fact that wicked people are seen in happiness, ease,
and peace. This fact leads also righteous and pious persons to think
that it is of no use for them to aim at that which is good and to
suffer for it through the opposition of other people. But the Prophets
at the same time relate how their own thoughts were engaged on this
question, and how they were at last convinced that in the instances to
which these arguments refer, only the end and not the beginning ought
to be taken into account. The following is a description of these
reflections (Ps. lxxiii. 11, seq.): “And they say, How does God know?
and is there knowledge in the Most High? Behold, these are the ungodly
who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. Verily I have
cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.” He then
continues, “When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me,
until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.
Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down
into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment!
They are utterly consumed with terrors.” The very same ideas have also
been expressed by the prophet Malachi, for he says thus (Mal. iii.
13–18): “Your words have been stout against me, saith the Lord. As you
have said, It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have
kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord
of hosts? And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work
wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.
Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another, etc. Then
shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked,
between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.” David
likewise shows how general this view was in his time, and how it led
and caused people to sin and to oppress one another. At first he argues
against this theory, and then he declares that God is omniscient. He
says as follows:—“They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the
fatherless. Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God
of Jacob regard it. Understand, ye brutish among the people, and ye
fools, when will you be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not
hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth
nations, shall not he correct? or he that teacheth man knowledge?” I
will now show you the meaning of these arguments, but first I will
point out how the opponents to the words of the Prophets misunderstood
this passage. Many years ago some intelligent co-religionists—they were
physicians—told me that they were surprised at the words of David; for
it would follow from his arguments that the Creator of the mouth must
eat and the Creator of the lungs must cry; the same applies to all
other organs of our body. You who study this treatise of mine, consider
how grossly they misunderstood David’s arguments. Hear now what its
true meaning is: He who produces a vessel must have had in his mind an
idea of the use of that instrument, otherwise he could not have
produced it. If, e.g., the smith had not formed an idea of sewing and
possessed a knowledge of it, the needle would not have had the form so
indispensable for sewing. The same is the case with all instruments.
When some philosopher thought that God, whose perception is purely
intellectual, has no knowledge of individual things, which are
perceivable only by the senses, David takes his argument from the
existence of the senses, and argues thus:—If the sense of sight had
been utterly unknown to God, how could He have produced that organ of
the sense of sight? Do you think that it was by chance that a
transparent humour was formed, and then another humour with certain
similar properties, and besides a membrane which by accident had a hole
covered with a hardened transparent substance? in short, considering
the humour of the eye, in membranes and nerves, with their well-known
functions, and their adaptation to the purpose of sight, can any
intelligent person imagine that all this is due to chance? Certainly
not; we see here necessarily design in nature, as has been shown by all
physicians and philosophers; but as nature is not an intellectual
being, and is not capable of governing [the universe], as has been
accepted by all philosophers, the government [of the universe], which
shows signs of design, originates, according to the philosophers, in an
intellectual cause, but is according to our view the result of the
action of an intellectual being, that endows everything with its
natural properties. If this intellect were incapable of perceiving or
knowing any of the actions of earthly beings, how could He have
created, or, according to the other theory, caused to emanate from
Himself, properties that bring about those actions of which He is
supposed to have no knowledge? David correctly calls those who believe
in this theory brutes and fools. He then proceeds to explain that the
error is due to our defective understanding; that God endowed us with
the intellect which is the means of our comprehension, and which on
account of its insufficiency to form a true idea of God has become the
source of great doubts; that He therefore knows what our defects are,
and how worthless the doubts are which originate in our faulty
reasoning. The Psalmist therefore says: “He who teaches man knowledge,
the Lord, knoweth the thoughts of man that they are vanity” (ibid.
xciv. 10–11).
My object in this chapter was to show how the belief of the ignorant,
that God does not notice the affairs of man because they are uncertain
and unsystematic, is very ancient. Comp. “And the Israelites uttered
things that were not right against the Lord” (2 Kings xvii. 9). In
reference to this passage the Midrash says: “What have they uttered?
This Pillar [i.e., God] does not see, nor hear, nor speak”; i.e., they
imagine that God takes no notice of earthly affairs, that the Prophets
received of God neither affirmative nor negative precepts; they imagine
so, simply because human affairs are not arranged as every person would
think it desirable. Seeing that these are not in accordance with their
wish, they say, “The Lord does not see us” (Ezek. viii. 12). Zephaniah
(i. 12) also describes those ignorant persons “who say in their heart
the Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil.” I will tell you my
own opinion as regards the theory that God knows all things on earth,
but I will before state some propositions which are generally adopted,
and the correctness of which no intelligent person can dispute.
CHAPTER XX
It is generally agreed upon that God cannot at a certain time acquire
knowledge which He did not possess previously; it is further impossible
that His knowledge should include any plurality, even according to
those who admit the Divine attributes. As these things have been fully
proved, we, who assert the teaching of the Law, believe that God’s
knowledge of many things does not imply any plurality; His knowledge
does not change like ours when the objects of His knowledge change.
Similarly we say that the various events are known to Him before they
take place; He constantly knows them, and therefore no fresh knowledge
is acquired by Him. E.g., He knows that a certain person is
non-existent at present, will come to existence at a certain time, will
continue to exist for some time, and will then cease to exist. When
this person, in accordance with God’s foreknowledge concerning him,
comes into existence, God’s knowledge is not increased; it contains
nothing that it did not contain before, but something has taken place
that was known previously exactly as it has taken place. This theory
implies that God’s knowledge extends to things not in existence, and
includes also the infinite. We nevertheless accept it, and contend that
we may attribute to God the knowledge of a thing which does not yet
exist, but the existence of which God foresees and is able to effect.
But that which never exists cannot be an object of His knowledge; just
as our knowledge does not comprise things which we consider as
non-existing. A doubt has been raised, however, whether His knowledge
includes the infinite. Some thinkers assume that knowledge has the
species for its object, and therefore extends at the same time to all
individual members of the species. This view is taken by every man who
adheres to a revealed religion and follows the dictates of reason.
Philosophers, however, have decided that the object of knowledge cannot
be a non-existing thing, and that it cannot comprise that which is
infinite. Since, therefore, God’s knowledge does not admit of any
increase, it is impossible that He should know any transient thing. He
only knows that which is constant and unchangeable. Other philosophers
raised the following objection: God does not know even things that
remain constant; for His knowledge would then include a plurality
according to the number of objects known; the knowledge of every thing
being distinguished by a certain peculiarity of the thing. God
therefore only knows His own essence.
My opinion is this: the cause of the error of all these schools is
their belief that God’s knowledge is like ours; each school points to
something withheld from our knowledge, and either assumes that the same
must be the case in God’s knowledge, or at least finds some difficulty
how to explain it. We must blame the philosophers in this respect more
than any other persons, because they demonstrated that there is no
plurality in God, and that He has no attribute that is not identical
with His essence; His knowledge and His essence are one and the same
thing; they likewise demonstrated, as we have shown, that our intellect
and our knowledge are insufficient to comprehend the true idea of His
essence. How then can they imagine that they comprehend His knowledge,
which is identical with His essence; seeing that our incapacity to
comprehend His essence prevents us from understanding the way how He
knows objects? for His knowledge is not of the same kind as ours, but
totally different from it and admitting of no analogy. And as there is
an Essence of independent existence, which is, as the philosophers call
it, the Cause of the existence of all things, or, as we say, the
Creator of everything that exists beside Him, so we also assume that
this Essence knows everything, that nothing whatever of all that exists
is hidden from it, and that the knowledge attributed to this essence
has nothing in common with our knowledge, just as that essence is in no
way like our essence. The homonymity of the term “knowledge” misled
people; [they forgot that] only the words are the same, but the things
designated by them are different; and therefore they came to the absurd
conclusion that that which is required for our knowledge is also
required for God’s knowledge.
Besides, I find it expressed in various passages of Scripture that the
fact that God knows things while in a state of possibility, when their
existence belongs to the future, does not change the nature of the
possible in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge
of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet effect
that realization. This is likewise one of the fundamental principles of
the Law of Moses, concerning which there is no doubt nor any dispute.
Otherwise it would not have been said, “And thou shalt make a
battlement for thy roof,” etc. (Deut. xxii. 8), or “Lest he die in the
battle, and another man take her” (ibid. xx. 7). The fact that laws
were given to man, both affirmative and negative, supports the
principle, that God’s knowledge of future [and possible] events does
not change their character. The great doubt that presents itself to our
mind is the result of the insufficiency of our intellect. Consider in
how many ways His knowledge is distinguished from ours according to all
the teaching of every revealed religion. First, His knowledge is one,
and yet embraces many different kinds of objects. Secondly, it is
applied to things not in existence. Thirdly, it comprehends the
infinite. Fourthly, it remains unchanged, though it comprises the
knowledge of changeable things; whilst it seems [in reference to
ourselves] that the knowledge of a thing that is to come into existence
is different from the knowledge of the thing when it has come into
existence; because there is the additional knowledge of its transition
from a state of potentiality into that of reality. Fifthly, according
to the teaching of our Law, God’s knowledge of one of two eventualities
does not determine it, however certain that knowledge may be concerning
the future occurrence of the one eventuality.—Now I wonder what our
knowledge has in common with God’s knowledge, according to those who
treat God’s knowledge as an attribute. Is there anything else common to
both besides the mere name? According to our theory that God’s
knowledge is not different from His essence, there is an essential
distinction between His knowledge and ours, like the distinction
between the substance of the heavens and that of the earth. The
Prophets have clearly expressed this. Comp. “For my thoughts are not
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as
the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways” (Isa. lv. 8–9). In short, as we cannot accurately comprehend His
essence, and yet we know that His existence is most perfect, free from
all admixture of deficiency, change, or passiveness, so we have no
correct notion of His knowledge, because it is nothing but His essence,
and yet we are convinced that He does not at one time obtain knowledge
which He had not before; i.e., He obtains no new knowledge, He does not
increase it, and it is not finite; nothing of all existing things
escapes His knowledge, but their nature is not changed thereby; that
which is possible remains possible. Every argument that seems to
contradict any of these statements is founded on the nature of our
knowledge, that has only the name in common with God’s knowledge. The
same applies to the term intention; it is homonymously employed to
designate our intention towards a certain thing, and the intention of
God. The term “management” (Providence) is likewise homonymously used
of our management of a certain thing, and of God’s management. In fact
management, knowledge, and intention are not the same when ascribed to
us and when ascribed to God. When these three terms are taken in both
cases in the same sense, great difficulties must arise; but when it is
noticed that there is a great difference whether a thing it predicated
of God or of us, the truth will become clear. The difference between
that which is ascribed to God and that which is ascribed to man is
expressed in the words above mentioned, “And your ways are not my
ways.”
CHAPTER XXI
There is a great difference between the knowledge which the producer of
a thing possesses concerning it, and the knowledge which other persons
possess concerning the same thing. Suppose a thing is produced in
accordance with the knowledge of the producer, the producer was then
guided by his knowledge in the act of producing the thing. Other
people, however, who examine this work and acquire a knowledge of the
whole of it, depend for that knowledge on the work itself. E.g., An
artisan makes a box in which weights move with the running of the
water, and thus indicate how many hours have passed of the day and of
the night. The whole quantity of the water that is to run out, the
different ways in which it runs, every thread that is drawn, and every
little ball that descends—all this is fully perceived by him who makes
the clock; and his knowledge is not the result of observing the
movements as they are actually going on; but, on the contrary, the
movements are produced in accordance with his knowledge. But another
person who looks at that instrument will receive fresh knowledge at
every movement he perceives; the longer he looks on, the more knowledge
does he acquire; he will gradually increase his knowledge till he fully
understands the machinery. If an infinite number of movements were
assumed for this instrument, he would never be able to complete his
knowledge. Besides, he cannot know any of the movements before they
take place, since he only knows them from their actual occurrence. The
same is the case with every object, and its relation to our knowledge
and God’s knowledge of it. Whatever we know of the things is derived
from observation; on that account it is impossible for us to know that
which will take place in future, or that which is infinite.
Our knowledge is acquired and increased in proportion to the things
known by us. This is not the case with God. His knowledge of things is
not derived from the things themselves; if this were the case, there
would be change and plurality in His knowledge; on the contrary, the
things are in accordance with His eternal knowledge, which has
established their actual properties, and made part of them purely
spiritual, another part material and constant as regards its individual
members, a third part material and changeable as regards the individual
beings according to eternal and constant laws. Plurality, acquisition,
and change in His knowledge is therefore impossible. He fully knows His
unchangeable essence, and has thus a knowledge of all that results from
any of His acts. If we were to try to understand in what manner this is
done, it would be the same as if we tried to be the same as God, and to
make our knowledge identical with His knowledge. Those who seek the
truth, and admit what is true, must believe that nothing is hidden from
God; that everything is revealed to His knowledge, which is identical
with His essence; that this kind of knowledge cannot be comprehended by
us; for if we knew its method, we would possess that intellect by which
such knowledge could be acquired. Such intellect does not exist except
in God, and is at the same time His essence. Note this well, for I
think that this is an excellent idea, and leads to correct views; no
error will be found in it; no dialectical argument; it does not lead to
any absurd conclusion, nor to ascribing any defect to God. These
sublime and profound themes admit of no proof whatever, neither
according to our opinion who believe in the teaching of Scripture, nor
according to the philosophers who disagree and are much divided on this
question. In all questions that cannot be demonstrated, we must adopt
the method which we have adopted in this question about God’s
Omniscience. Note it.
CHAPTER XXII
The strange and wonderful Book of Job treats of the same subject as we
are discussing; its basis is a fiction, conceived for the purpose of
explaining the different opinions which people hold on Divine
Providence. You know that some of our Sages clearly stated Job has
never existed, and has never been created, and that he is a poetic
fiction. Those who assume that he has existed, and that the book is
historical, are unable to determine when and where Job lived. Some of
our Sages say that he lived in the days of the Patriarchs; others hold
that he was a contemporary of Moses; others place him in the days of
David, and again others believe that he was one of those who returned
from the Babylonian exile. This difference of opinion supports the
assumption that he has never existed in reality. But whether he has
existed or not, that which is related of him is an experience of
frequent occurrence, is a source of perplexity to all thinkers, and has
suggested the above-mentioned opinions on God’s Omniscience and
Providence. This perplexity is caused by the account that a simple and
perfect person, who is upright in his actions, and very anxious to
abstain from sin, is afflicted by successive misfortunes, namely, by
loss of property, by the death of his children, and by bodily disease,
though he has not committed any sin. According to both theories, viz.,
the theory that Job did exist, and the theory that he did not exist,
the introduction to the book is certainly a fiction; I mean the portion
which relates to the words of the adversary, the words of God to the
former, and the handing over of Job to him. This fiction, however, is
in so far different from other fictions that it includes profound ideas
and great mysteries, removes great doubts, and reveals the most
important truths. I will discuss it as fully as possible; and I will
also tell you the words of our Sages that suggested to me the
explanation of this great poem.
First, consider the words: “There was a man in the land Uẓ.” The term
Uẓ has different meanings; it is used as a proper noun. Comp. “Uẓ, his
first-born” (Gen. xxii. 21); it is also imperative of the verb Uẓ, “to
take advice.” Comp. uẓu, “take counsel” (Isa. viii. 10). The name Uẓ
therefore expresses the exhortation to consider well this lesson, study
it, grasp its ideas, and comprehend them, in order to see which is the
right view. “The sons of God then came to present themselves before the
Lord, and the adversary came also among them and in their number”
(chap. i. 6, ii. 1). It is not said: “And the sons of God and the
adversary came to present themselves before the Lord”; this sentence
would have implied that the existence of all that came was of the same
kind and rank. The words used are these: “And the sons of God came to
present themselves before the Lord, and the adversary came also among
them.” Such a phrase is only used in reference to one that comes
without being expected or invited; he only comes among others whose
coming has been sought. The adversary is then described as going to and
fro on the earth, and walking up and down thereon. He is in no relation
to the beings above, and has no place among them. For this reason it is
said, “from going to and fro on the earth, and walking up and down on
it,” for his “going” and “walking” can only take place on the earth.
[Job], the simple and righteous man, is given and handed over to the
adversary; whatever evils and misfortunes befell Job as regards his
property, children, and health, were all caused by this adversary. When
this idea is sufficiently indicated, the author begins to reflect on
it; one opinion Job is represented to hold, whilst other opinions are
defended by his friends. I will further on expound these opinions which
formed the substance of the discussion on the misfortunes of Job,
caused by the adversary alone. Job, as well as his friends, were of
opinion that God Himself was the direct agent of what happened, and
that the adversary was not the intermediate cause. It is remarkable in
this account that wisdom is not ascribed to Job. The text does not say
he was an intelligent, wise, or clever man; but virtues and
uprightness, especially in actions, are ascribed to him. If he were
wise he would not have any doubt about the cause of his suffering, as
will be shown later on. Besides, his misfortunes are enumerated in the
same order as they rank in man’s estimation. There are some who are not
perplexed or discouraged by loss of property, thinking little of it;
but are terrified when they are threatened with the death of their
children and are killed by their anxiety. There are others who bear
without shock or fainting even the loss of their children, but no one
endowed with sensation is able to bear bodily pain. We generally extol
God in words, and praise Him as righteous and benevolent, when we
prosper and are happy, or when the grief we have to bear is moderate.
But [it is otherwise] when such troubles as are described in Job come
over us. Some of us deny God, and believe that there is no rule in the
Universe, even if only their property is lost. Others retain their
faith in the existence of justice and order, even when suffering from
loss of property, whereas loss of children is too much affliction for
them. Others remain firm in their faith, even with the loss of their
children; but there is no one who can patiently bear the pain that
reaches his own person; he then murmurs and complains of injustice
either in his heart or with his tongue.
Now consider that the phrase, “to present themselves before the Lord,”
is used in reference to the sons of God, both the first and the second
times, but in reference to the adversary, who appeared on either
occasion among them and in their number, this phrase is not used the
first time, whilst in his second appearance “the adversary also came
among them to present himself before the Lord.” Consider this, and see
how very extraordinary it is!—These ideas presented themselves like an
inspiration to me.—The phrase, “to present themselves before the Lord,”
implies that they are beings who are forced by God’s command to do what
He desires. This may be inferred from the words of the prophet
Zechariah concerning the four chariots that came forth. He says: “And
the angel answered and said to me, These four winds of the heavens come
forth from presenting themselves before the Lord of the whole earth”
(Zech. vi. 5). It is clear that the relation of the sons of God to the
Universe is not the same as that of the adversary. The relation of the
sons of God is more constant and more permanent. The adversary has also
some relation to the Universe, but it is inferior to that of the sons
of God. It is also remarkable in this account that in the description
of the adversary’s wandering about on the earth, and his performing
certain actions, it is distinctly stated that he has no power over the
soul; whilst power has been given to him over all earthly affairs,
there is a partition between him and the soul; he has not received
power over the soul. This is expressed in the words, “But keep away
from his soul” (Job. ii. 6). I have already shown you the homonymous
use of the term “soul” (nefesh) in Hebrew (Part I., chap. xli.). It
designates that element in man that survives him; it is this portion
over which the adversary has no power.—After these remarks of mine
listen to the following useful instruction given by our Sages, who in
truth deserve the title of “wise men”; it makes clear that which
appears doubtful, and reveals that which has been hidden, and discloses
most of the mysteries of the Law. They said in the Talmud as follows:
R. Simeon, son of Lakish, says: “The adversary (satan), evil
inclination (yeẓer ha-ra’), and the angel of death, are one and the
same being.” Here we find all that has been mentioned by us in such a
clear manner that no intelligent person will be in doubt about it. It
has thus been shown to you that one and the same thing is designated by
these three different terms, and that actions ascribed to these three
are in reality the actions of one and the same agent. Again, the
ancient doctors of the Talmud said: “The adversary goes about and
misleads, then he goes up and accuses, obtains permission, and takes
the soul.” You have already been told that when David at the time of
the plague was shown the angel “with the sword drawn in his hand
stretched out over Jerusalem” (2 Sam. xxiv. 17), it was done for the
purpose of conveying a certain idea to him. The same idea was also
expressed in the vision concerning the sins of the sons of Joshua, the
high priest, by the words, “And the adversary stood on his right hand
to accuse him” (Zech. iii. 1). The vision then reveals that [the
adversary] is far from God, and continues thus: “The Lord will rebuke
thee, O adversary, the Lord who hath chosen Jerusalem will rebuke thee”
(ibid. ver. 2). Balaam saw prophetically the same vision in his
journey, addressing him with the words, “Behold I have come forth to be
a hindrance to thee” (Num. xxii. 32). The Hebrew, satan, is derived
from the same root as séteh, “turn away” (Prov. iv. 15); it implies the
notion of turning and moving away from a thing; he undoubtedly turns us
away from the way of truth, and leads us astray in the way of error.
The same idea is contained in the passage, “And the imagination of the
heart of man is evil from his youth” (Gen. viii. 21). The theory of the
good and the evil inclinations (yeẓer ha-tob, ve-yeẓer ha-ra’) is
frequently referred to in our religion. Our Sages also say, “Serve God
with your good and your evil inclinations.” (B. T. Ber. 57a.) They also
say that the evil inclination we receive at our birth; for “at the door
sin croucheth” (Gen. iv. 7), as is distinctly said in the Law, “And the
imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth” (ibid. viii.
21). The good inclination, however, comes when the mind is developed.
In explaining the allegory representing the body of man and his
different faculties, our Sages (B. T. Ned. 32b) said: “The evil
inclination is called a great king, whilst the good inclination is a
child, poor, though wise” (Eccles. ix. 14). All these sayings of our
Sages are contained in their writings, and are well known. According to
our Sages the evil inclination, the adversary (satan), and the angel
[of death], are undoubtedly identical; and the adversary being called
“angel,” because he is among the sons of God, and the good inclination
being in reality an angel, it is to the good and the evil inclinations
that they refer in their well-known words, “Every person is accompanied
by two angels, one being on his right side, one on his left.” In the
Babylonian Gemara (Shabbath 119b), they say distinctly of the two
angels that one is good and one bad. See what extraordinary ideas this
passage discloses, and how many false ideas it removes.
I believe that I have fully explained the idea contained in the account
of Job; but I will now show the character of the opinion attributed to
Job, and of the opinions attributed to his friends, and support my
statement by proofs gathered from the words of each of them. We need
not take notice of the remaining passages which are only required for
the context, as has been explained to you in the beginning of this
treatise.
CHAPTER XXIII
Assuming the first part of the history of Job as having actually taken
place, the five, viz., Job and his friends, agreed that the misfortune
of Job was known to God, and that it was God that caused Job’s
suffering. They further agree that God does no wrong, and that no
injustice can be ascribed to Him. You will find these ideas frequently
repeated in the words of Job. When you consider the words of the five
who take part in the discussion, you will easily notice that things
said by one of them are also uttered by the rest. The arguments are
repeated, mixed up, and interrupted by Job’s description of his acute
pain and troubles, which had come upon him in spite of his strict
righteousness, and by an account of his charity, humane disposition,
and good acts. The replies of the friends to Job are likewise
interrupted by exhortations to patience, by words of comfort, and other
speeches tending to make him forget his grief. He is told by them to be
silent; that he ought not to let loose the bridle of his tongue, as if
he were in dispute with another man; that he ought silently to submit
to the judgments of God. Job replies that the intensity of his pains
did not permit him to bear patiently, to collect his thoughts and to
say what he ought to say. The friends, on the other hand, contend that
those who act well receive reward, and those who act wickedly are
punished. When a wicked and rebellious person is seen in prosperity, it
may be assumed for certain that a change will take place; he will die,
or troubles will afflict him and his house. When we find a worshipper
of God in misfortune, we may be certain that God will heal the stroke
of his wound. This idea is frequently repeated in the words of the
three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zofar, who agree in this opinion.
It is, however, not the object of this chapter to describe in what they
agree, but to define the distinguishing characteristic of each of them,
and to elucidate the opinion of each as regards the question why the
most simple and upright man is afflicted with the greatest and acutest
pain. Job found in this fact a proof that the righteous and the wicked
are equal before God, who holds all mankind in contempt. Job therefore
says (ix. 22, 23): “This is one thing, therefore I said it, He
destroyeth the perfect and the wicked. If the scourge slay suddenly, he
will laugh at the trial of the innocent.” He thus declares that when a
scourge comes suddenly, killing and destroying all it meets, God laughs
at the trial of the innocent. He further confirms this view in the
following passage: “One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at
ease and quiet. His vessels are full of milk, etc. And another dieth in
the bitterness of his soul, and never eateth with pleasure. They shall
lie down alike in the dust, and the worms shall cover them” (ibid. xxi.
23–26). In a similar manner he shows the good condition and prosperity
of wicked people; and is even very explicit on this point. He speaks
thus: “Even when I remember I am afraid, and trembling taketh hold on
my flesh. Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in
power? Their seed is established in their sight with them,” etc. (ibid.
6–8). Having thus described their prosperity, he addresses his
opponents, and says to them: “Granted that as you think, the children
of this prosperous atheist will perish after his death, and their
memory will be blotted out, what harm will the fate of his family cause
him after his death? For what pleasure hath he in his house after him,
when the number of his months is cut off in the midst?” (ibid. 21). Job
then explains that there is no hope after death, so that the cause [of
the misfortune of the righteous man] is nothing else but entire neglect
on the part of God. He is therefore surprised that God has not
abandoned the creation of man altogether; and that after having created
him, He does not take any notice of him. He says in his surprise: “Hast
thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese?” etc.
(ibid. x. 10, seq.). This is one of the different views held by some
thinkers on Providence. Our Sages (B. T. Baba B. 16a) condemned this
view of Job as mischievous, and expressed their feeling in words like
the following: “dust should have filled the mouth of Job”; “Job wished
to upset the dish”; “Job denied the resurrection of the dead”; “He
commenced to blaspheme.” When, however, God said to Eliphaz and his
colleagues, “You have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my
servant Job hath” (xlii. 7), our Sages assume as the cause of this
rebuke, the maxim “Man is not punished for that which he utters in his
pain”; and that God ignored the sin of Job [in his utterances], because
of the acuteness of his suffering. But this explanation does not agree
with the object of the whole allegory. The words of God are justified,
as I will show, by the fact that Job abandoned his first very erroneous
opinion, and himself proved that it was an error. It is the opinion
which suggests itself as plausible at first thought, especially in the
minds of those who meet with mishaps, well knowing that they have not
merited them through sins. This is admitted by all, and therefore this
opinion was assigned to Job. But he is represented to hold this view
only so long as he was without wisdom, and knew God only by tradition,
in the same manner as religious people generally know Him. As soon as
he had acquired a true knowledge of God, he confessed that there is
undoubtedly true felicity in the knowledge of God; it is attained by
all who acquire that knowledge, and no earthly trouble can disturb it.
So long as Job’s knowledge of God was based on tradition and
communication, and not on research, he believed that such imaginary
good as is possessed in health, riches, and children, was the utmost
that men can attain; this was the reason why he was in perplexity, and
why he uttered the above-mentioned opinions, and this is also the
meaning of his words: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear;
but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent
because of dust and ashes” (xlii. 5, 6); that is to say, he abhorred
all that he had desired before, and that he was sorry that he had been
in dust and ashes; comp. “and he sat down among the ashes” (ii. 8). On
account of this last utterance, which implies true perception, it is
said afterwards in reference to him, “for you have not spoken of me the
thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”
The opinion set forth by Eliphaz in reference to Job’s suffering is
likewise one of the current views on Providence. He holds that the fate
of Job was in accordance with strict justice. Job was guilty of sins
for which he deserved his fate. Eliphaz therefore says to Job: “Is not
thy wickedness great, and thine iniquities infinite?” (xxii. 5). He
then points out to him that his upright actions and his good ways, on
which he relies, need not be so perfect in the eyes of God that no
punishment should be inflicted on him. “Behold, he putteth no trust in
his servants; and his angels he chargeth with folly: how much less in
them that dwell in houses of clay,” etc. (iv. 17–18). Eliphaz never
abandoned his belief that the fate of man is the result of justice,
that we do not know all our shortcomings for which we are punished, nor
the way how we incur the punishment through them.
Bildad the Shuhite defends in this question the theory of reward and
compensation. He therefore tells Job that if he is innocent and without
sin, his terrible misfortunes will be the source of great reward, will
be followed by the best compensation, and will prove a boon to him as
the cause of great bliss in the future world. This idea is expressed in
the words: “If thou be pure and upright, surely now he will awake for
thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous. Though
thy beginning was small, yet thy latter end will greatly increase”
(viii. 6–8). This opinion concerning Providence is widespread, and we
have already explained it.
Zofar the Naamathite holds that the Divine Will is the source of
everything that happens; no further cause can be sought for His
actions, and it cannot be asked why He has done this and why He has not
done that. That which God does can therefore not be explained by the
way of justice or the result of wisdom. His true Essence demands that
He does what He wills; we are unable to fathom the depth of His wisdom,
and it is the law and rule of this wisdom that whatever He does is done
because it is His will and for no other cause. Zofar therefore says to
Job: “But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee; and
that he would show thee the secrets of wisdom, for wisdom hath two
portions! Know, therefore, that God exacteth of thee less than thine
iniquity deserveth. Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou
find out the Almighty unto perfection?” (xi. 6–7).
In this manner consider well how the Book of Job discusses the problem,
which has perplexed many people, and led them to adopt in reference to
Divine Providence some one of the theories which I have explained
above; all possible different theories are mentioned therein. The
problem is described either by way of fiction or in accordance with
real fact, as having manifested itself in a man famous for his
excellency and wisdom. The view ascribed to Job is the theory of
Aristotle. Eliphaz holds the opinion taught in Scripture, Bildad’s
opinion is identical with that of the Muʻtazilah, whilst Zofar defends
the theory of the Asha’riyah. These were the ancient views on
Providence; later on a new theory was set forth, namely, that ascribed
to Elihu. For this reason he is placed above the others, and described
as younger in years but greater in wisdom. He censures Job for his
foolishly exalting himself, expressing surprise at such great troubles
befalling a good man, and dwelling on the praises of his own deeds. He
also tells the three friends that their minds have been weakened by
great age. A profound and wonderful discourse then follows. Reflecting
on his words we may at first thought be surprised to find that he does
not add anything to the words of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zofar; and that
he only repeats their ideas in other terms and more explicitly. For he
likewise censures and rebukes Job, attributes justice to God, relates
His wonders in nature, and holds that God is not affected by the
service of the worshipper, nor by the disobedience of the rebellious.
All this has already been said by His colleagues. But after due
consideration we see clearly the new idea introduced by Elihu, which is
the principal object of his speech, an idea which has not been uttered
by those who spoke before him. In addition to this he mentions also
other things set forth by the previous speakers, in the same manner as
each of the rest, viz., Job and his three friends, repeat what the
others have said. The purpose of this repetition is to conceal the
opinion peculiar to each speaker, and to make all appear in the eyes of
the ordinary reader to utter one and the same view, although in reality
this is not the case. The new idea, which is peculiar to Elihu and has
not been mentioned by the others, is contained in his metaphor of the
angel’s intercession. It is a frequent occurrence, he says, that a man
becomes ill, approaches the gates of death, and is already given up by
his neighbours. If then an angel, of any kind whatever, intercedes on
his behalf and prays for him, the intercession and prayers are
accepted; the patient rises from his illness, is saved, and returns to
good health. This result is not always obtained; intercession and
deliverance do not always follow each other; it happens only twice, or
three times. Elihu therefore says: “If there be an angel with him, an
interpreter, one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness,”
etc. (xxxiii. 29). He then describes man’s condition when convalescent
and the rejoicing at his recovery, and continues thus: “Lo, all these
things worketh God twice, three times with man” (ibid. 29). This idea
occurs only in the words of Elihu. His description of the method of
prophecy in preceding verses is likewise new. He says: “Surely God
speaketh in one way, yea in two ways, yet man perceiveth it not. In a
dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon man, in
slumberings upon the bed” (ibid. 14, 15). He afterwards supports and
illustrates his theory by a description of many natural phenomena, such
as thunder, lightning, rain, and winds; with these are mixed up
accounts of various incidents of life, e.g., an account of pestilence
contained in the following passage: “In a moment they die, and at
midnight; the people become tumultuous and pass away” (xxxiv. 20).
Great wars are described in the following verse: “He breaketh in pieces
mighty men without number, and setteth others in their stead” (ibid.
24). There are many more passages of this kind. In a similar manner the
Revelation that reached Job (chap. xxxviii., chap. xli.), and explained
to him the error of his whole belief, constantly describes natural
objects, and nothing else; it describes the elements, meteorological
phenomena, and peculiarities of various kinds of living beings. The
sky, the heavens, Orion and Pleiades are only mentioned in reference to
their influence upon our atmosphere, so that Job’s attention is in this
prophecy only called to things below the lunar sphere. Elihu likewise
derives instruction from the nature of various kinds of animals. Thus
he says: “He teacheth us through the beasts of the earth, and maketh us
wise through the fowls of heaven” (xxxv. 11). He dwells longest on the
nature of the Leviathan, which possesses a combination of bodily
peculiarities found separate in different animals, in those that walk,
those that swim, and those that fly. The description of all these
things serves to impress on our minds that we are unable to comprehend
how these transient creatures come into existence, or to imagine how
their natural properties commenced to exist, and that these are not
like the things which we are able to produce. Much less can we compare
the manner in which God rules and manages His creatures with the manner
in which we rule and manage certain beings. We must content ourselves
with this, and believe that nothing is hidden from God, as Elihu says:
“For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings.
There is no darkness nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity
may hide themselves” (xxxiv. 21, 22). But the term management, when
applied to God, has not the same meaning which it has when applied to
us; and when we say that He rules His creatures we do not mean that He
does the same as we do when we rule over other beings. The term “rule”
has not the same definition in both cases; it signifies two different
notions, which have nothing in common but the name. In the same manner,
as there is a difference between works of nature and productions of
human handicraft, so there is a difference between God’s rule,
providence, and intention in reference to all natural forces, and our
rule, providence, and intention in reference to things which are the
objects of our rule, providence, and intention. This lesson is the
principal object of the whole Book of Job; it lays down this principle
of faith, and recommends us to derive a proof from nature, that we
should not fall into the error of imagining His knowledge to be similar
to ours, or His intention, providence, and rule similar to ours. When
we know this we shall find everything that may befall us easy to bear;
mishap will create no doubts in our hearts concerning God, whether He
knows our affairs or not, whether He provides for us or abandons us. On
the contrary, our fate will increase our love of God; as is said in the
end of this prophecy: “Therefore I abhor myself and repent concerning
the dust and ashes” (xlii. 6); and as our Sages say: “The pious do
everything out of love, and rejoice in their own afflictions.” (B. T.
Shabb. 88b.) If you pay to my words the attention which this treatise
demands, and examine all that is said in the Book of Job, all will be
clear to you, and you will find that I have grasped and taken hold of
the whole subject; nothing has been left unnoticed, except such
portions as are only introduced because of the context and the whole
plan of the allegory. I have explained this method several times in the
course of this treatise.
CHAPTER XXIV
The doctrine of trials is open to great objections; it is in fact more
exposed to objections than any other thing taught in Scripture. It is
mentioned in Scripture six times, as I will show in this chapter.
People have generally the notion that trials consist in afflictions and
mishaps sent by God to man, not as punishments for past sins, but as
giving opportunity for great reward. This principle is not mentioned in
Scripture in plain language, and it is only in one of the six places
referred to that the literal meaning conveys this notion. I will
explain the meaning of that passage later on. The principle taught in
Scripture is exactly the reverse; for it is said: “He is a God of
faithfulness, and there is no iniquity in him” (Deut. xxxii. 4).
The teaching of our Sages, although some of them approve this general
belief [concerning trials], is on the whole against it. For they say,
“There is no death without sin, and no affliction without
transgression.” (See p. 285.) Every intelligent religious person should
have this faith, and should not ascribe any wrong to God, who is far
from it; he must not assume that a person is innocent and perfect and
does not deserve what has befallen him. The trials mentioned in
Scripture in the [six] passages, seem to have been tests and
experiments by which God desired to learn the intensity of the faith
and the devotion of a man or a nation. [If this were the case] it would
be very difficult to comprehend the object of the trials, and yet the
sacrifice of Isaac seems to be a case of this kind, as none witnessed
it, but God and the two concerned [Abraham and Isaac]. Thus God says to
Abraham, “For now I know that thou fearest God,” etc. (Gen. xxii. 12).
In another passage it is said: “For the Lord your God proveth you to
know whether ye love,” etc. (Deut. xiii. 4). Again, “And to prove thee
to know what was in thine heart,” etc. (ibid. viii. 2). I will now
remove all the difficulties.
The sole object of all the trials mentioned in Scripture is to teach
man what he ought to do or believe; so that the event which forms the
actual trial is not the end desired; it is but an example for our
instruction and guidance. Hence the words “to know (la-daʻat) whether
ye love,” etc., do not mean that God desires to know whether they loved
God; for He already knows it; but la-daʻat, “to know,” has here the
same meaning as in the phrase “to know (la-daʻat) that I am the Lord
that sanctifieth you” (Exod. xxxi. 13), i.e., that all nations shall
know that I am the Lord who sanctifieth you. In a similar manner
Scripture says:—If a man should rise, pretend to be a prophet, and show
you his signs by which he desired to convince you that his words are
true, know that God intends thereby to prove to the nations how firmly
you believe in the truth of God’s word, and how well you have
comprehended the true Essence of God; that you cannot be misled by any
tempter to corrupt your faith in God. Your religion will then afford a
guidance to all who seek the truth, and of all religions man will
choose that which is so firmly established that it is not shaken by the
performance of a miracle. For a miracle cannot prove that which is
impossible; it is useful only as a confirmation of that which is
possible, as we have explained in our Mishneh-torah. (Yesode ha-torah
vii. f. viii. 3.)
Having shown that the term “to know” means “that all people may know,”
we apply this interpretation to the following words said in reference
to the manna: “To humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in
thine heart, whether thou wouldst keep his commandments, or not” (Deut.
viii. 2). All nations shall know, it shall be published throughout the
world, that those who devote themselves to the service of God are
supported beyond their expectation. In the same sense it was said when
the manna commenced to come down, “that I may prove them whether they
will walk in my law or no” (Exod. xvi. 4); i.e., let every one who
desires try and see whether it is useful and sufficient to devote
himself to the service of God. It is, however, said a third time in
reference to the manna: “Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna,
which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he
might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end” (Deut. viii. 16).
This might induce us to think that God sometimes afflicts man for the
purpose of increasing his reward. But in truth this is not the case. We
may rather assume one of the two following explanations; either this
passage expresses the same idea as is expressed in the first and second
passages, viz., to show [to all people] whether faith in God is
sufficient to secure man’s maintenance and his relief from care and
trouble, or not. Or the Hebrew term le-nassoteka means “to accustom
thee”; the word is used in this sense in the following passage: “She
has not accustomed (nisseta) the sole of her foot to set it upon the
ground” (ibid. xxviii. 56). The meaning of the above passage would then
be: “God has first trained you in the hardships of the wilderness, in
order to increase your welfare when you enter the land of Canaan.” It
is indeed a fact that the transition from trouble to ease gives more
pleasure than continual ease. It is also known that the Israelites
would not have been able to conquer the land and fight with its
inhabitants, if they had not previously undergone the trouble and
hardship of the wilderness. Scripture says in reference to this: “For
God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and
they return to Egypt. But God led the people about, through the way of
the wilderness of the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up
harnessed out of the land of Egypt” (Exod. xiii. 17, 18). Ease destroys
bravery, whilst trouble and care for food create strength; and this was
[also for the Israelites] the good that ultimately came out of their
wanderings in the wilderness. The passage, “For God is come to prove
you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not”
(ibid. xx. 20), expresses the same idea as is expressed in Deuteronomy
(xiii. 4) in reference to a person who prophesies in the name of idols,
namely in the words: “For the Lord your God proveth you to know whether
ye love the Lord.” We have already explained the meaning of the latter
passage. In the same sense Moses said to the Israelites when they stood
round Mount Sinai: “Do not fear; the object of this great sight which
you perceived is that you should see the truth with your own eyes. When
the Lord your God, in order to show your faithfulness to Him, will
prove you by a false prophet, who will tell you the reverse of what you
have heard, you will remain firm and your steps will not slide. If I
had come as a messenger as you desired, and had told you that which had
been said unto me and which you had not heard, you would perhaps
consider as true what another might tell you in opposition to that
which you heard from me. But it is different now, as you have heard it
in the midst of the great sight.”
The account of Abraham our father binding his son, includes two great
ideas or principles of our faith. First, it shows us the extent and
limit of the fear of God. Abraham is commanded to perform a certain
act, which is not equalled by any surrender of property or by any
sacrifice of life, for it surpasses everything that can be done, and
belongs to the class of actions which are believed to be contrary to
human feelings. He had been without child, and had been longing for a
child; he had great riches, and was expecting that a nation should
spring from his seed. After all hope of a son had already been given
up, a son was born unto him. How great must have been his delight in
the child! how intensely must he have loved him! And yet because he
feared God, and loved to do what God commanded, he thought little of
that beloved child, and set aside all his hopes concerning him, and
consented to kill him after a journey of three days. If the act by
which he showed his readiness to kill his son had taken place
immediately when he received the commandment, it might have been the
result of confusion and not of consideration. But the fact that he
performed it three days after he had received the commandment, proves
the presence of thought, proper consideration, and careful examination
of what is due to the Divine command and what is in accordance with the
love and fear of God. There is no necessity to look for the presence of
any other idea or of anything that might have affected his emotions.
For Abraham did not hasten to kill Isaac out of fear that God might
slay him or make him poor, but solely because it is man’s duty to love
and to fear God, even without hope of reward or fear of punishment. We
have repeatedly explained this. The angel, therefore, says to him, “For
now I know,” etc. (ibid. ver. 12), that is, from this action, for which
you deserve to be truly called a God-fearing man, all people shall
learn how far we must go in the fear of God. This idea is confirmed in
Scripture; it is distinctly stated that one sole thing, fear of God, is
the object of the whole Law with its affirmative and negative precepts,
its promises and its historical examples, for it is said, “If thou wilt
not observe to do all the words of this Law that are written in this
book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord
thy God,” etc. (Deut. xxviii. 58). This is one of the two purposes of
the ʻakedah (sacrifice or binding of Isaac).
The second purpose is to show how the prophets believed in the truth of
that which came to them from God by way of inspiration. We shall not
think that what the prophets heard or saw in allegorical figures may at
times have included incorrect or doubtful elements, since the Divine
communication was made to them, as we have shown, in a dream or a
vision and through the imaginative faculty. Scripture thus tells us
that whatever the Prophet perceives in a prophetic vision, he considers
as true and correct and not open to any doubt; it is in his eyes like
all other things perceived by the senses or by the intellect. This is
proved by the consent of Abraham to slay “his only son whom he loved,”
as he was commanded, although the commandment was received in a dream
or a vision. If the Prophets had any doubt or suspicion as regards the
truth of what they saw in a prophetic dream or perceived in a prophetic
vision, they would not have consented to do what is unnatural, and
Abraham would not have found in his soul strength enough to perform
that act, if he had any doubt [as regards the truth of the
commandment]. It was just the right thing that this lesson derived from
the ʻakedah (“sacrifice”) should be taught through Abraham and a man
like Isaac. For Abraham was the first to teach the Unity of God, to
establish the faith [in Him], to cause it to remain among coming
generations, and to win his fellow-men for his doctrine; as Scripture
says of him: “I know him, that he will command,” etc. (Gen. viii. 19).
In the same manner as he was followed by others in his true and
valuable opinions when they were heard from him, so also the principles
should be accepted that may be learnt from his actions; especially from
the act by which he confirmed the principle of the truth of prophecy,
and showed how far we must go in the fear and the love of God.
This is the way how we have to understand the accounts of trials; we
must not think that God desires to examine us and to try us in order to
know what He did not know before. Far is this from Him; He is far above
that which ignorant and foolish people imagine concerning Him, in the
evil of their thoughts. Note this.
CHAPTER XXV
[Man’s] actions are divided as regards their object into four classes;
they are either purposeless, unimportant, in vain, or good. An action
is in vain if the object which is sought by it is not obtained on
account of some obstacles. Thus people frequently use the phrase “thou
hast worked in vain” in reference to a person who looks out for some
one and cannot find him; or who undertakes the troubles of a journey
for his business without profit. Our endeavours and exertions are in
vain as regards a patient that is not cured. This applies to all
actions which are intended for certain purposes that are not realized.
Purposeless are such actions, which serve no purpose at all. Some
persons, e.g., do something with their hands whilst thinking of
something else. The actions of the insane and confused are of this
kind. Unimportant are such actions by which a trivial object is sought,
an object that is not necessary and is not of great use. This is the
case when a person dances without seeking to benefit his digestion by
that exercise, or performs certain actions for the purpose of causing
laughter. Such actions are certainly mere pastimes. Whether an action
belongs to this class or not depends on the intention of those who
perform it, and on the degree of their perfection. For many things are
necessary or very useful in the opinion of one person and superfluous
in the opinion of another. E.g., bodily exercise, in its different
kinds, is necessary for the proper preservation of health in the
opinion of him who understands the science of medicine; writing is
considered as very useful by scholars. When people take exercise by
playing with the ball, wrestling, stretching out the hands or keeping
back the breathing, or do certain things as preparation for writing,
shape the pen and get the paper ready, such actions are mere pastimes
in the eyes of the ignorant, but the wise do not consider them as
unimportant. Useful are such actions as serve a proper purpose; being
either necessary or useful for the purpose which is to be attained.
This division [of man’s actions] is, as I believe, not open to any
objection. For every action is either intended for a certain purpose or
is not intended; and if intended for a certain purpose, that purpose
may be important or unimportant, is sometimes attained and sometimes
missed. This division is therefore complete.
After having explained this division, I contend that no intelligent
person can assume that any of the actions of God can be in vain,
purposeless, or unimportant. According to our view and the view of all
that follow the Law of Moses, all actions of God are “exceedingly
good.” Thus Scripture says, “And God saw everything that he had made,
and behold, it was very good” (Gen. i. 31). And that which God made for
a certain thing is necessary or [at least] very useful for the
existence of that thing. Thus food is necessary for the existence of
living beings; the possession of eyes is very useful to man during his
life, although food only serves to sustain living beings a certain
time, and the senses are only intended to procure to animals the
advantages of sensation. The philosophers likewise assume that in
Nature there is nothing in vain, so that everything that is not the
product of human industry serves a certain purpose, which may be known
or unknown to us. There are thinkers that assume that God does not
create one thing for the sake of another, that existing things are not
to each other in the relation of cause and effect; that they are all
the direct result of the Will of God, and do not serve any purpose.
According to this opinion we cannot ask why has He made this and not
that; for He does what pleases Him, without following a fixed system.
Those who defend this theory must consider the actions of God as
purposeless, and even as inferior to purposeless actions; for when we
perform purposeless actions, our attention is engaged by other things
and we do not know what we are doing; but God, according to these
theorists, knows what He is doing, and knowingly does it for no purpose
or use whatever. The absurdity of assuming that some of God’s actions
are trivial, is apparent even at first sight, and no notice need be
taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our
pastime. Such opinions originate only in man’s ignorance of the nature
of transient beings, and in his overlooking the principle that it was
intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose
existence is possible; a different form was not decreed by the Divine
Wisdom, and the existence [of objects of a different form] is therefore
impossible, because the existence of all things depends on the decree
of God’s wisdom. Those who hold that God’s works serve no purpose
whatever believe that an examination of the totality of existing things
compels them to adopt this theory. They ask what is the purpose of the
whole Universe? they necessarily answer, like all those who believe in
the Creation, that it was created because God willed it so, and for no
other purpose. The same answer they apply to all parts of the Universe,
and do not admit that the hole in the uvea and the transparency of the
cornea are intended for the purpose of allowing the spiritus visus to
pass and to perceive certain objects; they do not assume that these
circumstances are causes for the sight; the hole in the uvea and the
transparent matter over it are not there because of the sight, but
because of the Will of God, although the sense of sight could have been
created in a different form. There are passages in the Bible which at
first sight we might understand to imply this theory. E.g., “The Lord
hath done whatever he pleased” (Ps. cxxxv. 6); “His soul desired it and
he made it” (Job xxiii. 13); “Who will say unto thee, What doest thou?”
(Eccles. viii. 4). The meaning of these and similar verses is this:
whatever God desires to do is necessarily done; there is nothing that
could prevent the realization of His will. The object of His will is
only that which is possible, and of the things possible only such as
His wisdom decrees upon. When God desires to produce the best work, no
obstacle or hindrance intervenes between Him and that work. This is the
opinion held by all religious people, also by the philosophers; it is
also our opinion. For although we believe that God created the Universe
from nothing, most of our wise and learned men believe that the
Creation was not the exclusive result of His will; but His wisdom,
which we are unable to comprehend, made the actual existence of the
Universe necessary. The same unchangeable wisdom found it as necessary
that non-existence should precede the existence of the Universe. Our
Sages frequently express this idea in the explanation of the words, “He
hath made everything beautiful in his time” (Eccles. iii. 11), only in
order to avoid that which is objectionable, viz., the opinion that God
does things without any purpose whatever. This is the belief of most of
our Theologians; and in a similar manner have the Prophets expressed
the idea that all parts of natural products are well arranged, in good
order, connected with each other, and stand to each other in the
relation of cause and effect; nothing of them is purposeless, trivial,
or in vain; they are all the result of great wisdom. Comp. “O Lord, how
manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is
full of thy riches” (Ps. civ. 24); “And all his works are done in
truth” (ibid. xxxiii. 4); “The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth”
(Prov. iii. 19). This idea occurs frequently; there is no necessity to
believe otherwise; philosophic speculation leads to the same result;
viz., that in the whole of Nature there is nothing purposeless,
trivial, or unnecessary, especially in the Nature of the spheres, which
are in the best condition and order, in accordance with their superior
substance.
Know that the difficulties which lead to confusion in the question what
is the purpose of the Universe or of any of its parts, arise from two
causes: first, man has an erroneous idea of himself, and believes that
the whole world exists only for his sake; secondly, he is ignorant both
about the nature of the sublunary world, and about the Creator’s
intention to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible,
because existence is undoubtedly good. The consequences of that error
and of the ignorance about the two things named, are doubts and
confusion, which lead many to imagine that some of God’s works are
trivial, others purposeless, and others in vain. Those who adopt this
absurd idea that God’s actions are utterly purposeless, and refuse to
consider them as the result of His wisdom, are afraid they might
otherwise be compelled to admit the theory of the Eternity of the
Universe, and guard themselves against it by the above theory. I have
already told you the view which is set forth in Scripture on this
question, and which it is proper to accept. It is this: it is not
unreasonable to assume that the works of God, their existence and
preceding non-existence, are the result of His wisdom, but we are
unable to understand many of the ways of His wisdom in His works. On
this principle the whole Law of Moses is based; it begins with this
principle: “And God saw all that He had made, and, behold, it was very
good” (Gen. i. 31); and it ends with this principle: “The Rock, perfect
is His work” (Deut. xxxii. 4). Note it. When you examine this view and
that of the philosophers, taking into consideration all preceding
chapters which are connected with this subject, you will find that
there is no other difference of opinion as regards any portions of the
Universe, except that the philosophers believe in the Eternity of the
Universe and we believe in the Creation. Note this.
CHAPTER XXVI
As Theologians are divided on the question whether the actions of God
are the result of His wisdom, or only of His will without being
intended for any purpose whatever, so they are also divided as regards
the object of the commandments which God gave us. Some of them hold
that the commandments have no object at all; and are only dictated by
the will of God. Others are of opinion that all commandments and
prohibitions are dictated by His wisdom and serve a certain aim;
consequently there is a reason for each one of the precepts; they are
enjoined because they are useful. All of us, the common people as well
as the scholars, believe that there is a reason for every precept,
although there are commandments the reason of which is unknown to us,
and in which the ways of God’s wisdom are incomprehensible. This view
is distinctly expressed in Scripture; comp. “righteous statutes and
judgments” (Deut. iv. 8); “the judgments of the Lord are true, and
righteous altogether” (Ps. xix. 10). There are commandments which are
called ḥuḳḳim, “ordinances,” like the prohibition of wearing garments
of wool and linen (shaʻatnez), boiling meat and milk together, and the
sending of the goat [into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement]. Our
Sages use in reference to them phrases like the following: “These are
things which I have fully ordained for thee; and you dare not criticize
them”; “Your evil inclination is turned against them”; and “non-Jews
find them strange.” But our Sages generally do not think that such
precepts have no cause whatever, and serve no purpose; for this would
lead us to assume that God’s actions are purposeless. On the contrary,
they hold that even these ordinances have a cause, and are certainly
intended for some use, although it is not known to us; owing either to
the deficiency of our knowledge or the weakness of our intellect.
Consequently there is a cause for every commandment; every positive or
negative precept serves a useful object; in some cases the usefulness
is evident, e.g., the prohibition of murder and theft; in others the
usefulness is not so evident, e.g., the prohibition of enjoying the
fruit of a tree in the first three years (Lev. xix. 23), or of a
vineyard in which other seeds have been growing (Deut. xxii. 9). Those
commandments, whose object is generally evident, are called “judgments”
(mishpatim); those whose object is not generally clear are called
“ordinances” (ḥuḳḳim). Thus they say [in reference to the words of
Moses]: Ki lo dabar rek hu mi-kem (lit. “for it is not a vain thing for
you,” Deut. xxxii. 74); “It is not in vain, and if it is in vain, it is
only so through you.” That is to say, the giving of these commandments
is not a vain thing and without any useful object; and if it appears so
to you in any commandment, it is owing to the deficiency in your
comprehension. You certainly know the famous saying that Solomon knew
the reason for all commandments except that of the “red heifer.” Our
Sages also said that God concealed the causes of commandments, lest
people should despise them, as Solomon did in respect to three
commandments, the reason for which is clearly stated. In this sense
they always speak; and Scriptural texts support the idea. I have,
however, found one utterance made by them in Bereshit-rabba (sect.
xliv.), which might at first sight appear to imply that some
commandments have no other reason but the fact that they are commanded,
that no other object is intended by them, and that they do not serve
any useful object. I mean the following passage: What difference does
it make to God whether a beast is killed by cutting the neck in front
or in the back? Surely the commandments are only intended as a means of
trying man; in accordance with the verse, “The word of God is a test”
(lit. tried) (Ps. xviii. 31). Although this passage is very strange,
and has no parallel in the writings of our Sages, I explain it, as you
shall soon hear, in such a manner that I remain in accord with the
meaning of their words and do not depart from the principle which we
agreed upon, that the commandments serve a useful object; “for it is
not a vain thing for you”; “I have not said to the seed of Jacob, seek
me in vain. I the Lord speak righteousness, declare that which is
right” (Isa. xlv. 19). I will now tell you what intelligent persons
ought to believe in this respect; namely, that each commandment has
necessarily a cause, as far as its general character is concerned, and
serves a certain object; but as regards its details we hold that it has
no ulterior object. Thus killing animals for the purpose of obtaining
good food is certainly useful, as we intend to show (below, ch.
xlviii.); that, however, the killing should not be performed by neḥirah
(poleaxing the animal), but by sheḥitah (cutting the neck), and by
dividing the œsophagus and the windpipe in a certain place; these
regulations and the like are nothing but tests for man’s obedience. In
this sense you will understand the example quoted by our Sages [that
there is no difference] between killing the animal by cutting its neck
in front and cutting it in the back. I give this instance only because
it has been mentioned by our Sages; but in reality [there is some
reason for these regulations]. For as it has become necessary to eat
the flesh of animals, it was intended by the above regulations to
ensure an easy death and to effect it by suitable means; whilst
decapitation requires a sword or a similar instrument, the sheḥitah can
be performed with any instrument; and in order to ensure an easy death
our Sages insisted that the knife should be well sharpened.
A more suitable instance can be cited from the detailed commandments
concerning sacrifices. The law that sacrifices should be brought is
evidently of great use, as will be shown by us (infra, chap. xlvi.);
but we cannot say why one offering should be a lamb, whilst another is
a ram; and why a fixed number of them should be brought. Those who
trouble themselves to find a cause for any of these detailed rules, are
in my eyes void of sense; they do not remove any difficulties, but
rather increase them. Those who believe that these detailed rules
originate in a certain cause, are as far from the truth as those who
assume that the whole law is useless. You must know that Divine Wisdom
demanded it—or, if you prefer, say that circumstances made it
necessary—that there should be parts [of His work] which have no
certain object; and as regards the Law, it appears to be impossible
that it should not include some matter of this kind. That it cannot be
avoided may be seen from the following instance. You ask why must a
lamb be sacrificed and not a ram? but the same question would be asked,
why a ram had been commanded instead of a lamb, so long as one
particular kind is required. The same is to be said as to the question
why were seven lambs sacrificed and not eight; the same question might
have been asked if there were eight, ten, or twenty lambs, so long as
some definite number of lambs were sacrificed. It is almost similar to
the nature of a thing which can receive different forms, but actually
receives one of them. We must not ask why it has this form and not
another which is likewise possible, because we should have to ask the
same question if instead of its actual form the thing had any of the
other possible forms. Note this, and understand it. The repeated
assertion of our Sages that there are reasons for all commandments, and
the tradition that Solomon knew them, refer to the general purpose of
the commandments, and not to the object of every detail. This being the
case, I find it convenient to divide the six hundred and thirteen
precepts into classes; each class will include many precepts of the
same kind, or related to each other by their character. I will [first]
explain the reason of each class, and show its undoubted and undisputed
object, and then I shall discuss each commandment in the class, and
expound its reason. Only very few will be left unexplained, the reason
for which I have been unable to trace unto this day. I have also been
able to comprehend in some cases even the object of many of the
conditions and details as far as these can be discovered. You will hear
all this later on. But in order to fully explain these reasons I must
premise several chapters; in these I will discuss principles which form
the basis of my theory. I will now begin these chapters.
CHAPTER XXVII
The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul,
and the well-being of the body. The well-being of the soul is promoted
by correct opinions communicated to the people according to their
capacity. Some of these opinions are therefore imparted in a plain
form, others allegorically; because certain opinions are in their plain
form too strong for the capacity of the common people. The well-being
of the body is established by a proper management of the relations in
which we live one to another. This we can attain in two ways: first by
removing all violence from our midst; that is to say, that we do not do
every one as he pleases, desires, and is able to do; but every one of
us does that which contributes towards the common welfare. Secondly, by
teaching every one of us such good morals as must produce a good social
state. Of these two objects, the one, the well-being of the soul, or
the communication of correct opinions, comes undoubtedly first in rank,
but the other, the well-being of the body, the government of the state,
and the establishment of the best possible relations among men, is
anterior in nature and time. The latter object is required first; it is
also treated [in the Law] most carefully and most minutely, because the
well-being of the soul can only be obtained after that of the body has
been secured. For it has already been found that man has a double
perfection: the first perfection is that of the body, and the second
perfection is that of the soul. The first consists in the most healthy
condition of his material relations, and this is only possible when man
has all his wants supplied, as they arise; if he has his food, and
other things needful for his body, e.g., shelter, bath, and the like.
But one man alone cannot procure all this; it is impossible for a
single man to obtain this comfort; it is only possible in society,
since man, as is well known, is by nature social.
The second perfection of man consists in his becoming an actually
intelligent being; i.e., he knows about the things in existence all
that a person perfectly developed is capable of knowing. This second
perfection certainly does not include any action or good conduct, but
only knowledge, which is arrived at by speculation, or established by
research.
It is clear that the second and superior kind of perfection can only be
attained when the first perfection has been acquired; for a person that
is suffering from great hunger, thirst, heat, or cold, cannot grasp an
idea even if communicated by others, much less can he arrive at it by
his own reasoning. But when a person is in possession of the first
perfection, then he may possibly acquire the second perfection, which
is undoubtedly of a superior kind, and is alone the source of eternal
life. The true Law, which as we said is one, and beside which there is
no other Law, viz., the Law of our teacher Moses, has for its purpose
to give us the twofold perfection. It aims first at the establishment
of good mutual relations among men by removing injustice and creating
the noblest feelings. In this way the people in every land are enabled
to stay and continue in one condition, and every one can acquire his
first perfection. Secondly, it seeks to train us in faith, and to
impart correct and true opinions when the intellect is sufficiently
developed. Scripture clearly mentions the twofold perfection, and tells
us that its acquisition is the object of all the divine commandments.
Comp. “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the
Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive as
it is this day” (Deut. vi. 24). Here the second perfection is first
mentioned because it is of greater importance, being, as we have shown,
the ultimate aim of man’s existence. This perfection is expressed in
the phrase, “for our good always.” You know the interpretation of our
Sages, “‘that it may be well with thee’ (ibid. xxii. 7), namely, in the
world that is all good, ‘and that thou mayest prolong thy days’
(ibid.), i.e., in the world that is all eternal.” In the same sense I
explain the words, “for our good always,” to mean that we may come into
the world that is all good and eternal, where we may live permanently;
and the words, “that he might preserve us alive as it is this day,” I
explain as referring to our first and temporal existence, to that of
our body, which cannot be in a perfect and good condition except by the
co-operation of society, as has been shown by us.
CHAPTER XXVIII
It is necessary to bear in mind that Scripture only teaches the chief
points of those true principles which lead to the true perfection of
man, and only demands in general terms faith in them. Thus Scripture
teaches the Existence, the Unity, the Omniscience, the Omnipotence, the
Will, and the Eternity of God. All this is given in the form of final
results, but they cannot be understood fully and accurately except
after the acquisition of many kinds of knowledge. Scripture further
demands belief in certain truths, the belief in which is indispensable
in regulating our social relations; such is the belief that God is
angry with those who disobey Him, for it leads us to the fear and dread
of disobedience [to the will of God]. There are other truths in
reference to the whole of the Universe which form the substance of the
various and many kinds of speculative sciences, and afford the means of
verifying the above-mentioned principles as their final result. But
Scripture does not so distinctly prescribe the belief in them as it
does in the first case; it is implied in the commandment, “to love the
Lord” (Deut. xi. 13). It may be inferred from the words, “And thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy might” (ibid. vi. 5), what stress is laid on this
commandment to love God. We have already shown in the Mishneh-torah
(Yes. ha-torah ii. 2) that this love is only possible when we
comprehend the real nature of things, and understand the divine wisdom
displayed therein. We have likewise mentioned there what our Sages
remark on this subject.
The result of all these preliminary remarks is this: The reason of a
commandment, whether positive or negative, is clear, and its usefulness
evident, if it directly tends to remove injustice, or to teach good
conduct that furthers the well-being of society, or to impart a truth
which ought to be believed either on its own merit or as being
indispensable for facilitating the removal of injustice or the teaching
of good morals. There is no occasion to ask for the object of such
commandments; for no one can, e.g., be in doubt as to the reason why we
have been commanded to believe that God is one; why we are forbidden to
murder, to steal, and to take vengeance, or to retaliate, or why we are
commanded to love one another. But there are precepts concerning which
people are in doubt, and of divided opinions, some believing that they
are mere commands, and serve no purpose whatever, whilst others believe
that they serve a certain purpose, which, however, is unknown to man.
Such are those precepts which in their literal meaning do not seem to
further any of the three above-named results: to impart some truth, to
teach some moral, or to remove injustice. They do not seem to have any
influence upon the well-being of the soul by imparting any truth, or
upon the well-being of the body by suggesting such ways and rules as
are useful in the government of a state, or in the management of a
household. Such are the prohibitions of wearing garments containing
wool and linen; of sowing divers seeds, or of boiling meat and milk
together; the commandment of covering the blood [of slaughtered beasts
and birds], the ceremony of breaking the neck of a calf [in case of a
person being found slain, and the murderer being unknown]; the law
concerning the first-born of an ass, and the like. I am prepared to
tell you my explanation of all these commandments, and to assign for
them a true reason supported by proof, with the exception of some minor
rules, and of a few commandments, as I have mentioned above. I will
show that all these and similar laws must have some bearing upon one of
the following three things, viz., the regulation of our opinions, or
the improvement of our social relations, which implies two things, the
removal of injustice, and the teaching of good morals. Consider what we
said of the opinions [implied in the laws]; in some cases the law
contains a truth which is itself the only object of that law, as e.g.,
the truth of the Unity, Eternity, and Incorporeality of God; in other
cases, that truth is only the means of securing the removal of
injustice, or the acquisition of good morals; such is the belief that
God is angry with those who oppress their fellow-men, as it is said,
“Mine anger will be kindled, and I will slay,” etc. (Exod. xxii. 23);
or the belief that God hears the crying of the oppressed and vexed, to
deliver them out of the hands of the oppressor and tyrant, as it is
written, “And it shall come to pass, when he will cry unto me, that I
will hear, for I am gracious” (Exod. xxii. 25).
CHAPTER XXIX
It is well known that the Patriarch Abraham was brought up in the
religion and the opinion of the Sabeans, that there is no divine being
except the stars. I will tell you in this chapter their works which are
at present extant in Arabic translations, and also in their ancient
chronicles; and I will show you their opinion and their practice
according to these books. You will then see clearly that they consider
the stars as deities, and the sun as the chief deity. They believe that
all the seven stars are gods, but the two luminaries are greater than
all the rest. They say distinctly that the sun governs the world, both
that which is above and that which is below; these are exactly their
expressions. In these books, and in their chronicles, the history of
Abraham our father is given in the following manner. Abraham was
brought up in Kutha; when he differed from the people and declared that
there is a Maker besides the sun, they raised certain objections, and
mentioned in their arguments the evident and manifest action of the sun
in the Universe. “You are right,” said Abraham; “[the sun acts in the
same manner] as ‘the axe in the hand of him that hews with it.’” Then
some of his arguments against his opponents are mentioned. In short,
the king put him in prison; but he continued many days, while in
prison, to argue against them. At last the king was afraid that Abraham
might corrupt the kingdom, and turn the people away from their
religion; he therefore expelled Abraham into Syria, after having
deprived him of all his property.
This is their account which you find clearly stated in the book called
The Nabatean Agriculture. Nothing is said there of the account given in
our trustworthy books, nor do they mention what he learnt by way of
prophecy; for they refused to believe him, because he attacked their
evil doctrine. I do not doubt that when he attacked the doctrine of all
his fellow-men, he was cursed, despised, and scorned by these people
who adhered to their erroneous opinions. When he submitted to this
treatment for the sake of God, as ought to be done for the sake of His
glory, God said to him, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and
curse them that curse thee” (Gen. xii. 3). The result of the course
which Abraham took, is the fact that most people, as we see at present,
agree in praising him, and being proud of him; so that even those who
are not his descendants call themselves by his name. No one opposes
him, and no one ignores his merits, except some ignoble remnants of the
nations left in the remote corners of the earth, like the savage Turks
in the extreme North, and the Indians in the extreme South. These are
remnants of the Sabeans, who once filled the earth. Those who were able
to think, and were philosophers in those days, could only raise
themselves to the idea that God is the spirit of the spheres; the
spheres with their stars being the body, and God the spirit. Abu-becr
al-Zaig mentions this in his Commentary on the book of Physics.
All the Sabeans thus believed in the eternity of the Universe, the
heavens being in their opinion God. Adam was in their belief a human
being born from male and female, like the rest of mankind; he was only
distinguished from his fellow-men by being a prophet sent by the moon;
he accordingly called men to the worship of the moon, and he wrote
several works on agriculture. The Sabeans further relate that Noah was
an agriculturist, and that he was not pleased with the worship of
idols; they blame him for that, and say that he did not worship any
image. In their writings we meet even with the statement that Noah was
rebuked and imprisoned because he worshipped God, and with many other
accounts about him. The Sabeans contend that Seth differed from his
father Adam, as regards the worship of the moon. They manufactured
ridiculous stories, which prove that their authors were very deficient
in knowledge, that they were by no means philosophers, but on the
contrary were extremely ignorant persons. Adam, they say, left the
torrid zone near India and entered the region of Babylon, bringing with
him wonderful things, such as a golden tree, that was growing, and had
leaves and branches; a stone tree of the same kind, and a fresh leaf of
a tree proof against fire. He related that there was a tree which could
shelter ten thousand men, although it had only the height of a man; two
leaves he brought with him, each of which was sufficient to cover two
men. Of these stories the Sabeans have a wonderful abundance. I am
surprised that persons who think that the Universe is eternal, can yet
believe in these things which nature cannot produce, as is known to
every student of Natural Science. They only mention Adam, and relate
the above stories about him, in order to support their theory of the
Eternity of the Universe; from this theory they then derive the
doctrine that the stars and the spheres are deities. When [Abraham] the
“Pillar of the World” appeared, he became convinced that there is a
spiritual Divine Being, which is not a body, nor a force residing in a
body, but is the author of the spheres and the stars; and he saw the
absurdity of the tales in which he had been brought up. He therefore
began to attack the belief of the Sabeans, to expose the falsehood of
their opinions, and to proclaim publicly in opposition to them, “the
name of the Lord, the God of the Universe” (Gen. xxi. 33), which
proclamation included at the same time the Existence of God, and the
Creation of the Universe by God.
In accordance with the Sabean theories images were erected to the
stars, golden images to the sun, images of silver to the moon, and they
attributed the metals and the climates to the influence of the planets,
saying that a certain planet is the god of a certain zone. They built
temples, placed in them images, and assumed that the stars sent forth
their influence upon these images, which are thereby enabled (to speak)
to understand, to comprehend, to inspire human beings, and to tell them
what is useful to them. They apply the same to trees which fall to the
lot of these stars. When, namely, a certain tree, which is peculiar to
a certain star, is dedicated to the name of this star, and certain
things are done for the tree and to the tree, the spiritual force of
that star which influences that tree, inspires men, and speaks to them
when they are asleep. All this is written in their works, to which I
will call your attention. It applies to the “prophets of Baal,” and the
“prophets of Asherah,” mentioned in Scripture, in whose hearts the
Sabean theories had taken root, who forsook God, and called, “Baal,
hear us” (1 Kings xviii. 26); because these theories were then general,
ignorance had spread, and the madness with which people adhered to this
kind of imaginations had increased in the world. When such opinions
were adopted among the Israelites, they had observers of clouds,
enchanters, witches, charmers, consulters with familiar spirits,
wizards, and necromancers.
We have shown in our large work, Mishneh-torah (Hilkot, ʻAbodah-zarah
i. 3), that Abraham was the first that opposed these theories by
argument and by soft and persuasive speech. He induced these people, by
showing kindness to them, to serve God. Afterwards came the chief of
the prophets and completed the work by the commandment to slay those
unbelievers, to blot out their name, and to uproot them from the land
of the living. Comp. “Ye shall destroy their altars,” etc. (Exod.
xxxiv. 13). He forbade us to follow their ways; he said, “Ye shall not
walk in the manners of the heathen,” etc. (Lev. xx. 23). You know from
the repeated declarations in the Law that the principal purpose of the
whole Law was the removal and utter destruction of idolatry, and all
that is connected therewith, even its name, and everything that might
lead to any such practices, e.g., acting as a consulter with familiar
spirits, or as a wizard, passing children through the fire, divining,
observing the clouds, enchanting, charming, or inquiring of the dead.
The law prohibits us to imitate the heathen in any of these deeds, and
a fortiori to adopt them entirely. It is distinctly said in the Law
that everything which idolaters consider as service to their gods, and
a means of approaching them, is rejected and despised by God; comp.
“for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done
unto their gods” (Deut. xii. 31). In the books which I shall name to
you later on, it is stated that on certain occasions they offered to
the sun, their greatest god, seven beetles, and seven mice, and seven
bats. This alone suffices to show how disgusting their practice must be
to human nature. Thus all precepts cautioning against idolatry, or
against that which is connected therewith, leads to it, or is related
to it, are evidently useful. They all tend to save us from the evil
doctrines that deprive us of everything useful for the acquisition of
the twofold perfection of man, by leading to those absurd practices in
which our fathers and ancestors have been brought up. Comp. “And Joshua
said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, your
fathers dwelt on the other side of the river in old time, even Terah,
the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor, and they served other
gods” (Josh. xxiv. 2). It is in reference to these [idolatrous ideas]
that the true prophets exclaim, “They walked after [vain] things, which
do not profit.” How great is the usefulness of every precept that
delivers us from this great error, and leads us back to the true faith:
that God, the Creator of all things, rules the Universe; that He must
be served, loved, and feared, and not those imaginary deities.
According to this faith we approach the true God, and obtain His favour
without having recourse to burdensome means; for nothing else is
required but to love and fear Him; this is the aim in serving God, as
will be shown. Comp. “And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God
require of thee but to fear the Lord”? etc. (Deut. x. 12). I shall
complete this subject later on; now let us return to the theme [of this
chapter].
I say that my knowledge of the belief, practice, and worship of the
Sabeans has given me an insight into many of the divine precepts, and
has led me to know their reason. You will confirm it when I shall give
the reason of commandments which are seemingly purposeless. I will
mention to you the works from which you may learn all that I know of
the religion and the opinions of the Sabeans; you will thereby obtain a
true knowledge of my theory as regards the purpose of the divine
precepts.
The great book on this subject is the book On the Nabatean Agriculture,
translated by Ibn Wahshiya. In a succeeding chapter I shall explain why
the Sabeans had their religious doctrines written in a work on
agriculture. The book is full of the absurdities of idolatrous people,
and with those things to which the minds of the multitude easily turn
and adhere [perseveringly]; it speaks of talismans, the means of
directing the influence [of the stars]; witchcraft, spirits, and demons
that dwell in the wilderness. There occur also in this book great
absurdities, which are ridiculous in the eyes of intelligent people.
They were intended as a criticism and an attack on the evident miracles
by which all people learnt that there exists a God who is judge over
all people. Comp. “That thou mayest know how that the earth is the
Lord’s” (Exod. ix. 29), “That I am the Lord in the midst of the earth”
(ibid. viii. 18).
The book describes things as having been mentioned by Adam in his book;
a tree which is found in India, and has the peculiarity that any branch
taken from it and thrown to the ground creeps along and moves like
serpents; it also mentions a tree which in its root resembles a human
being, utters a loud sound, and speaks a word or words; a plant is
mentioned which has this peculiarity, that a leaf of it put on the neck
of a person conceals that person from the sight of men, and enables him
to enter or leave a place without being seen, and if any part of it is
burnt in open air a noise and terrible sounds are heard whilst the
smoke ascends. Numerous fables of this kind are introduced in the
description of the wonders of plants and the properties of agriculture.
This leads the author to argue against the [true] miracles, and to say
that they were the result of artifice.
Among other fables we read there that the plant althea, one of the
Asherot, which they made, as I told you, stood in Nineveh twelve
thousand years. This tree had once a quarrel with the mandragora, which
wanted to take the place of the former. The person who had been
inspired by this tree ceased to receive inspiration; when after some
time the prophetical power had returned to him, he was told by the
althea that the latter had been engaged in a dispute with the
mandragora. He was then commanded to write to the magicians that they
should decide whether the althea or the mandragora was better and more
effective in witchcraft. It is a long story, and you may learn from it,
when you read it, the opinions and the wisdom of the men of that time.
Such were in those days of darkness the wise men of Babel, to whom
reference is made in Scripture, and such were the beliefs in which they
were trained. And were it not that the theory of the Existence of God
is at present generally accepted, our days would now have been darker
than those days, though in other respects. I return now to my subject.
In that book the following story is also related: One of the idolatrous
prophets, named Tammuz, called upon the king to worship the seven
planets and the twelve constellations of the Zodiac; whereupon the king
killed him in a dreadful manner. The night of his death the images from
all parts of the land came together in the temple of Babylon which was
devoted to the image of the Sun, the great golden image. This image,
which was suspended between heaven and earth, came down into the midst
of the temple, and surrounded by all other images commenced to mourn
for Tammuz, and to relate what had befallen him. All other images cried
and mourned the whole night; at dawn they flew away and returned to
their temples in every corner of the earth. Hence the regular custom
arose for the women to weep, lament, mourn, and cry for Tammuz on the
first day of the month of Tammuz.
Consider what opinions people had in these days. The legend of Tammuz
is very old among the Sabeans. This book will disclose to you most of
the perverse ideas and practices of the Sabeans, including their
feasts. But you must be careful and must not be misled to think that we
have real incidents in the life of Adam, or of any other person, or any
real fact in the stories which they relate about Adam, the serpent, the
tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the allusion to the garment of
Adam which he had not been accustomed to wear. A little consideration
will lay open the falsehood of all these accounts; it will show that
they have been invented in imitation of the Pentateuch when it became
known among the nations. The account of the Creation was heard, and it
was taken entirely in its literal sense. They have done this in order
that the ignorant may hear it, and be persuaded to assume the Eternity
of the Universe, and to believe that the Scriptural account contained
facts which happened in the manner as has been assumed by the Sabeans.
It is by no means necessary to point this out to men like you. You have
acquired sufficient knowledge to keep your mind free from the
absurdities of the Kasdim, Chaldeans, and Sabeans, who are bare of
every true science. But I wish to exhort you that you should caution
others, for ordinary people are very much inclined to believe these
fables.
To the same class of books we count the book Istimachis, attributed to
Aristotle, who can by no means have been its author; also the books on
Talismans, such as the book of Tomtom; the book al-Sarb; the book on
the degrees of the sphere and the constellations rising with each
degree; a book on Talismans attributed to Aristotle, a book ascribed to
Hermes, a book of the Sabean Isḥak in defence of the Sabean religion,
and his large work on Sabean customs, details of their religion,
ceremonies, festivals, offerings, prayers and other things relating to
their faith.
All these books which I have mentioned are works on idolatry translated
into Arabic; there is no doubt that they form a very small portion in
comparison to that which has not been translated, and that which is no
longer extant, but has been lost in the course of time. But those works
which are at present extant, include most of the opinions of the
Sabeans and their practices, which are to some degree still in vogue in
the world.
They describe how temples are built and images of metal and stone
placed in them, altars erected and sacrifices and various kinds of food
are offered thereon, festivals celebrated, meetings held in the temples
for prayer and other kinds of service; how they select certain very
distinguished places and call them temples of Intellectual Images (or
Forms); how they make images “on the high mountains” (Deut. xii. 2),
rear asherot, erect pillars, and do many other things which you can
learn from the books mentioned by us. The knowledge of these theories
and practices is of great importance in explaining the reasons of the
precepts. For it is the principal object of the Law and the axis round
which it turns, to blot out these opinions from man’s heart and make
the existence of idolatry impossible. As regards the former Scripture
says: “Lest your heart be persuaded,” etc. (Deut. xi. 16), “whose heart
turneth away to-day,” etc. (ibid. xxix. 17). The actual abolition of
idolatry is expressed in the following passage: “Ye shall destroy their
altars, and burn their groves in fire” (Deut. vii. 5), “and ye shall
destroy their name,” etc. (xii. 3). These two things are frequently
repeated; they form the principal and first object of the whole Law, as
our Sages distinctly told us in their traditional explanation of the
words “all that God commanded you by the hand of Moses” (Num. xv. 23);
for they say, “Hence we learn that those who follow idolatry deny as it
were their adhesion to the whole Law, and those who reject idolatry
follow as it were the whole Law.” (B. T. Kidd, 40a.) Note it.
CHAPTER XXX
On examining these old and foolish doctrines we find that it was most
generally believed by the people that by the worship of stars the earth
will become inhabited, and the ground fertilized. The wise, pious, and
sin-fearing men among them reproved the people and taught them that
agriculture, on which the preservation of mankind depended, would
become perfect and satisfy man’s wishes, when he worshipped the sun and
the stars. If man provoked these beings by his rebelliousness, the
towns would become empty and waste. In the above-named books it is
stated that Mars was angry with [lands, that form now] deserts and
wastes, and in consequence of that anger they were deprived of water
and trees, and have become the habitation of demons. Tillers of the
ground and husbandmen are praised in those books, because they are
engaged with the cultivation of the land in accordance with the will
and desire of the stars. The idolaters also held cattle in esteem on
account of their use in agriculture, and went even so far as to say,
that it is not allowed to slay them, because they combine in themselves
strength and willingness to do the work of man in tilling the ground.
The oxen, notwithstanding their great strength, do this, and submit to
man, because it is the will of God that they should be employed in
agriculture. When these views became generally known, idolatry was
connected with agriculture, because the latter is indispensable for the
maintenance of man, and of most animals. The idolatrous priests then
preached to the people who met in the temples, and taught them that by
certain religious acts, rain would come down, the trees of the field
would yield their fruit, and the land would be fertile and inhabited.
See what is said in the Nabatean Agriculture in the chapter on
vineyards. The following words of the Sabeans are quoted there: “All
ancient wise men advised, and prophets likewise commanded and enjoined
to play before the images on certain instruments during the festivals.
They also said—and what they said is true—that the deities are pleased
with it, and reward those who do it. They promise, indeed, very great
reward for these things; e.g., length of life, protection from illness,
exemption from great bodily deformities, plenty of the produce of the
earth, and of the fruits of the trees.” These are the words of the
Sabeans. When these ideas spread, and were considered as true, God, in
His great mercy for us, intended to remove this error from our minds,
and to protect our bodies from trouble; and therefore desired us to
discontinue the practice of these useless actions. He gave us His Law
through Moses, our teacher, who told us in the name of God, that the
worship of stars and other corporeal beings would effect that rain
would cease, the land be waste, and would not produce anything, and the
fruit of the trees would wither; calamities would befall the people,
their bodies would be deformed, and life would be shortened. These are
the contents of “the words of the covenant which God made” (Deut.
xxviii. 6–9). It is frequently expressed in all parts of Scripture,
that the worship of the stars would be followed by absence of rain,
devastation of the land, bad times, diseases, and shortness of life.
But abandonment of that worship, and the return to the service of God,
would be the cause of the presence of rain, fertility of the ground,
good times, health and length of life. Thus Scripture teaches, in order
that man should abandon idolatry, the reverse of that which idolatrous
priests preached to the people, for, as has been shown by us, the
principal object of the Law is to remove this doctrine, and to destroy
its traces.
CHAPTER XXXI
There are persons who find it difficult to give a reason for any of the
commandments, and consider it right to assume that the commandments and
prohibitions have no rational basis whatever. They are led to adopt
this theory by a certain disease in their soul, the existence of which
they perceive, but which they are unable to discuss or to describe. For
they imagine that these precepts, if they were useful in any respect,
and were commanded because of their usefulness, would seem to originate
in the thought and reason of some intelligent being. But as things
which are not objects of reason and serve no purpose, they would
undoubtedly be attributed to God, because no thought of man could have
produced them. According to the theory of those weak-minded persons,
man is more perfect than his Creator. For what man says or does has a
certain object, whilst the actions of God are different; He commands us
to do what is of no use to us, and forbids us to do what is harmless.
Far be this! On the contrary, the sole object of the Law is to benefit
us. Thus we explained the Scriptural passage, “for our good always,
that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day” (Deut. vi. 24).
Again, “which shall hear all those statutes (ḥuḳḳim), and say, surely
this great nation is a wise and understanding people” (ibid. iv. 6). He
thus says that even every one of these “statutes” convinces all nations
of the wisdom and understanding it includes. But if no reason could be
found for these statutes, if they produced no advantage and removed no
evil, why then should he who believes in them and follows them be wise,
reasonable, and so excellent as to raise the admiration of all nations?
But the truth is undoubtedly as we have said, that every one of the six
hundred and thirteen precepts serves to inculcate some truth, to remove
some erroneous opinion, to establish proper relations in society, to
diminish evil, to train in good manners, or to warn against bad habits.
All this depends on three things: opinions, morals, and social conduct.
We do not count words, because precepts, whether positive or negative,
if they relate to speech, belong to those precepts which regulate our
social conduct, or to those which spread truth, or to those which teach
morals. Thus these three principles suffice for assigning a reason for
every one of the Divine commandments.
CHAPTER XXXII
On considering the Divine acts, or the processes of Nature, we get an
insight into the prudence and wisdom of God as displayed in the
creation of animals, with the gradual development of the movements of
their limbs and the relative positions of the latter, and we perceive
also His wisdom and plan in the successive and gradual development of
the whole condition of each individual. The gradual development of the
animals’ movements and the relative position of the limbs may be
illustrated by the brain. The front part is very soft, the back part is
a little hard, the spinal marrow is still harder, and the farther it
extends the harder it becomes. The nerves are the organs of sensation
and motion. Some nerves are only required for sensation, or for slight
movements, as, e.g., the movement of the eyelids or of the jaws; these
nerves originate in the brain. The nerves which are required for the
movements of the limbs come from the spinal marrow. But nerves, even
those that come directly from the spinal cord, are too soft to set the
joints in motion; therefore God made the following arrangement: the
nerves branch out into fibres which are covered with flesh, and become
muscles; the nerves that come forth at the extremities of the muscles
and have already commenced to harden, and to combine with hard pieces
of ligaments, are the sinews which are joined and attached to the
limbs. By this gradual development the nerves are enabled to set the
limbs in motion. I quote this one instance because it is the most
evident of the wonders described in the book On the use of the limbs;
but the use of the limbs is clearly perceived by all who examine them
with a sharp eye. In a similar manner did God provide for each
individual animal of the class of mammalia. When such an animal is born
it is extremely tender, and cannot be fed with dry food. Therefore
breasts were provided which yield milk, and the young can be fed with
moist food which corresponds to the condition of the limbs of the
animal, until the latter have gradually become dry and hard.
Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by
the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from
one extreme to the other; it is therefore according to the nature of
man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he
has been accustomed. Now God sent Moses to make [the Israelites] a
kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. xix. 6) by means of the
knowledge of God. Comp. “Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest
know that the Lord is God” (Deut. iv. 35); “Know therefore this day,
and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord is God” (ibid. v. 39).
The Israelites were commanded to devote themselves to His service;
comp. “and to serve him with all your heart” (ibid. xi. 13); “and you
shall serve the Lord your God” (Exod. xxiii. 25); “and ye shall serve
him” (Deut. xiii. 5). But the custom which was in those days general
among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites
were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples
which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to
burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those
days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples
erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance
with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation,
that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these
manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been
contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which
he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a
prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and
told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek
His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and
not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service
to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly
served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and
unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to
build unto Him a temple; comp. “And they shall make unto me a
sanctuary” (Exod. xxv. 8); to have the altar erected to His name; comp.
“An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me” (ibid. xx. 21); to offer
the sacrifices to Him; comp. “If any man of you bring an offering unto
the Lord” (Lev. i. 2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense before
Him. He has forbidden to do any of these things to any other being;
comp. “He who sacrificeth unto any God, save the Lord only, he shall be
utterly destroyed” (Exod. xxii. 19); “For thou shalt bow down to no
other God” (ibid. xxxiv. 14). He selected priests for the service in
the temple; comp. “And they shall minister unto me in the priest’s
office” (ibid. xxviii. 41). He made it obligatory that certain gifts,
called the gifts of the Levites and the priests, should be assigned to
them for their maintenance while they are engaged in the service of the
temple and its sacrifices. By this Divine plan it was effected that the
traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of
our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this
result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of
the people by the abolition of the service to which they were
accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. I know that you will
at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you will put the
following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine
commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully
explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have
been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other
thing; as if they were only the means which He employed for His primary
object? What prevented Him from making His primary object a direct
commandment to us, and to give us the capacity of obeying it? Those
precepts which in your opinion are only the means and not the object
would then have been unnecessary. Hear my answer, which will cure your
heart of this disease and will show you the truth of that which I have
pointed out to you. There occurs in the Law a passage which contains
exactly the same idea; it is the following: “God led them not through
the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God
said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they
return to Egypt; but God led the people about, through the way of the
wilderness of the Red Sea,” etc. (Exod. xiii. 17). Here God led the
people about, away from the direct road which He originally intended,
because He feared they might meet on that way with hardships too great
for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to
obtain thereby His original object. In the same manner God refrained
from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be
incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a
means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him
[among the people], and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is
contrary to man’s nature that he should suddenly abandon all the
different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he
has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were
considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person
trained to work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things,
should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real
giants. It was the result of God’s wisdom that the Israelites were led
about in the wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a
well-known fact that travelling in the wilderness, and privation of
bodily enjoyments, such as bathing, produce courage, whilst the reverse
is the source of faint-heartedness; besides, another generation rose
during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and
slavery. All the travelling in the wilderness was regulated by Divine
commands through Moses; comp. “At the commandment of the Lord they
rested, and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed; they kept
the charge of the Lord and the commandment of the Lord by the hand of
Moses” (Num. ix. 23). In the same way the portion of the Law under
discussion is the result of divine wisdom, according to which people
are allowed to continue the kind of worship to which they have been
accustomed, in order that they might acquire the true faith, which is
the chief object [of God’s commandments]. You ask, What could have
prevented God from commanding us directly, that which is the chief
object, and from giving us the capacity of obeying it? This would lead
to a second question, What prevented God from leading the Israelites
through the way of the land of the Philistines, and endowing them with
strength for fighting? The leading about by a pillar of cloud by day
and a pillar of fire by night would then not have been necessary. A
third question would then be asked in reference to the good promised as
reward for the keeping of the commandments, and the evil foretold as a
punishment for sins. It is the following question: As it is the chief
object and purpose of God that we should believe in the Law, and act
according to that which is written therein, why has He not given us the
capacity of continually believing in it, and following its guidance,
instead of holding out to us reward for obedience, and punishment for
disobedience, or of actually giving all the predicted reward and
punishment? For [the promises and the threats] are but the means of
leading to this chief object. What prevented Him from giving us, as
part of our nature, the will to do that which He desires us to do, and
to abandon the kind of worship which He rejects? There is one general
answer to these three questions, and to all questions of the same
character; it is this: Although in every one of the signs [related in
Scripture] the natural property of some individual being is changed,
the nature of man is never changed by God by way of miracle. It is in
accordance with this important principle that God said, “O that there
were such an heart in them, that they would fear me,” etc. (Deut. v.
26). It is also for this reason that He distinctly stated the
commandments and the prohibitions, the reward and the punishment. This
principle as regards miracles has been frequently explained by us in
our works; I do not say this because I believe that it is difficult for
God to change the nature of every individual person; on the contrary,
it is possible, and it is in His power, according to the principles
taught in Scripture; but it has never been His will to do it, and it
never will be. If it were part of His will to change [at His desire]
the nature of any person, the mission of prophets and the giving of the
Law would have been altogether superfluous.
I now return to my theme. As the sacrificial service is not the primary
object [of the commandments about sacrifice], whilst supplications,
prayers, and similar kinds of worship are nearer to the primary object,
and indispensable for obtaining it, a great difference was made in the
Law between these two kinds of service. The one kind, which consists in
offering sacrifices, although the sacrifices are offered to the name of
God, has not been made obligatory for us to the same extent as it had
been before. We were not commanded to sacrifice in every place, and in
every time, or to build a temple in every place, or to permit any one
who desires to become priest and to sacrifice. On the contrary, all
this is prohibited unto us. Only one temple has been appointed, “in the
place which the Lord shall choose” (Deut. xii. 26); in no other place
is it allowed to sacrifice; comp. “Take heed to thyself, that thou
offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest” (ibid. v.
13); and only the members of a particular family were allowed to
officiate as priests. All these restrictions served to limit this kind
of worship, and keep it within those bounds within which God did not
think it necessary to abolish sacrificial service altogether. But
prayer and supplication can be offered everywhere and by every person.
The same is the case with the commandment of ẓiẓit (Num. xv. 38);
mezuzah (Deut. vi. 9; xi. 20); tefillin (Exod. xiii. 9, 16); and
similar kinds of divine service.
Because of this principle which I explained to you, the Prophets in
their books are frequently found to rebuke their fellow-men for being
over-zealous and exerting themselves too much in bringing sacrifices;
the prophets thus distinctly declared that the object of the sacrifices
is not very essential, and that God does not require them. Samuel
therefore said, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and
sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord” (1 Sam. xv. 22)? Isaiah
exclaimed, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto
me? saith the Lord” (Isa. i. 11); Jeremiah declared: “For I spake not
unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices. But
this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your
God, and ye shall be my people” (Jer. vii. 22, 23). This passage has
been found difficult in the opinion of all those whose words I read or
heard; they ask, How can Jeremiah say that God did not command us about
burnt-offering and sacrifice, seeing so many precepts refer to
sacrifice? The sense of the passage agrees with what I explained to
you. Jeremiah says [in the name of God] the primary object of the
precepts is this, Know me, and serve no other being; “I will be your
God, and ye shall be my people” (Lev. xxvi. 12). But the commandment
that sacrifices shall be brought and that the temple shall be visited
has for its object the success of that principle among you; and for its
sake I have transferred these modes of worship to my name; idolatry
shall thereby be utterly destroyed, and Jewish faith firmly
established. You, however, have ignored this object, and taken hold of
that which is only the means of obtaining it; you have doubted my
existence, “ye have denied the Lord, and said he is not” (Jer. v. 12);
ye served idols; “burnt incense unto Baal, and walked after other gods
whom ye know not. And come and stand before me in this house” (ibid.
vii. 9–10); i.e., you do not go beyond attending the temple of the
Lord, and offering sacrifices; but this is not the chief object.—I have
another way of explaining this passage with exactly the same result.
For it is distinctly stated in Scripture, and handed down by tradition,
that the first commandments communicated to us did not include any law
at all about burnt-offering and sacrifice. You must not see any
difficulty in the Passover which was commanded in Egypt; there was a
particular and evident reason for that, as will be explained by me
(chap. xlvi.). Besides it was revealed in the land of Egypt; whilst the
laws to which Jeremiah alludes in the above passage are those which
were revealed after the departure from Egypt. For this reason it is
distinctly added, “in the day that I brought them out from the land of
Egypt.” The first commandment after the departure from Egypt was given
at Marah, in the following words, “If thou wilt diligently hearken to
the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His
sight, and wilt give ear to His commandments” (Exod. xv. 26). “There he
made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them”
(ibid. ver. 25). According to the true traditional explanation, Sabbath
and civil laws were revealed at Marah; “statute” alludes to Sabbath,
and “ordinance” to civil laws, which are the means of removing
injustice. The chief object of the Law, as has been shown by us, is the
teaching of truths; to which the truth of the creatio ex nihilo
belongs. It is known that the object of the law of Sabbath is to
confirm and to establish this principle, as we have shown in this
treatise (Part II. chap. xxxi.). In addition to the teaching of truths
the Law aims at the removal of injustice from mankind. We have thus
proved that the first laws do not refer to burnt-offering and
sacrifice, which are of secondary importance. The same idea which is
contained in the above passage from Jeremiah is also expressed in the
Psalms, where the people are rebuked that they ignore the chief object,
and make no distinction between chief and subsidiary lessons. The
Psalmist says: “Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I
will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove
thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings, they have been
continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor
he-goats out of thy folds” (Ps. l. 29).—Wherever this subject is
mentioned, this is its meaning. Consider it well, and reflect on it.
CHAPTER XXXIII
It is also the object of the perfect Law to make man reject, despise,
and reduce his desires as much as is in his power. He should only give
way to them when absolutely necessary. It is well known that it is
intemperance in eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse that people
mostly rave and indulge in; and these very things counteract the
ulterior perfection of man, impede at the same time the development of
his first perfection, and generally disturb the social order of the
country and the economy of the family. For by following entirely the
guidance of lust, in the manner of fools, man loses his intellectual
energy, injures his body, and perishes before his natural time; sighs
and cares multiply; there is an increase of envy, hatred, and warfare
for the purpose of taking what another possesses. The cause of all this
is the circumstance that the ignorant considers physical enjoyment as
an object to be sought for its own sake. God in His wisdom has
therefore given us such commandments as would counteract that object,
and prevent us altogether from directing our attention to it, and has
debarred us from everything that leads only to excessive desire and
lust. This is an important thing included in the objects of our Law.
See how the Law commanded to slay a person from whose conduct it is
evident that he will go too far in seeking the enjoyment of eating and
drinking. I mean “the rebellious and stubborn son”; he is described as
“a glutton and a drunkard” (Deut. xxi. 20). The Law commands to stone
him and to remove him from society lest he grow up in this character,
and kill many, and injure the condition of good men by his great lust.
Politeness is another virtue promoted by the Law. Man shall listen to
the words of his neighbour; he shall not be obstinate, but shall yield
to the wish of his fellow-men, respond to their appeal, act according
to their desire, and do what they like. Thus the Law commands,
“Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more
stiff-necked” (Deut. x. 16); “Take heed and hearken” (ibid. xxvii. 9).
“If you be willing and obedient” (Isa. i. 19). Those who listen [to the
words of others] and accept as much as is right are represented as
saying, “We will hear and do” (Deut. v. 24), or in a figurative style,
“Draw me, we will run after thee” (Song i. 4).
The Law is also intended to give its followers purity and holiness; by
teaching them to suppress sensuality, to guard against it and to reduce
it to a minimum, as will be explained by us. For when God commanded
[Moses] to sanctify the people for the receiving of the Law, and said,
“Sanctify them to-day and to-morrow” (Exod. xix. 10), Moses [in
obedience to this command] said to the people, “Come not at your wives”
(ibid. ver. 15). Here it is clearly stated that sanctification consists
in absence of sensuality. But abstinence from drinking wine is also
called holiness; in reference to the Nazarite it is therefore said, “He
shall be holy” (Num. vi. 5). According to Siphra the words, “sanctify
yourselves and be ye holy” (Lev. xx. 7), refer to the sanctification
effected by performing the divine commands. As the obedience to such
precepts as have been mentioned above is called by the Law
sanctification and purification, so is defilement applied to the
transgression of these precepts and the performance of disgraceful
acts, as will be shown. Cleanliness in dress and body by washing and
removing sweat and dirt is included among the various objects of the
Law, but only if connected with purity of action, and with a heart free
from low principles and bad habits. It would be extremely bad for man
to content himself with a purity obtained by washing and cleanliness in
dress, and to be at the same time voluptuous and unrestrained in food
and lust. These are described by Isaiah as follows: “They that sanctify
themselves and purify themselves in the gardens, but continue their
sinful life, when they are in the innermost [of their houses], eating
swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse” (Isa. lxvi. 17):
that is to say, they purify and sanctify themselves outwardly as much
as is exposed to the sight of the people, and when they are alone in
their chambers and the inner parts of their houses, they continue their
rebelliousness and disobedience, and indulge in partaking of forbidden
food, such as [the flesh of] swine, worms, and mice. The prophet
alludes perhaps in the phrase “behind one tree in the midst” to
indulgence in forbidden lust. The sense of the passage is therefore
this: They appear outwardly clean, but their heart is bent upon their
desires and bodily enjoyments, and this is contrary to the spirit of
the Law. For the chief object of the Law is to [teach man to] diminish
his desires, and to cleanse his outer appearance after he has purified
his heart. Those who wash their body and cleanse their garments whilst
they remain dirty by bad actions and principles, are described by
Solomon as “a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet are
not washed from their filthiness; a generation, oh how lofty are their
eyes!” etc. (Prov. xxx. 12–13). Consider well the principles which we
mentioned in this chapter as the final causes of the Law; for there are
many precepts, for which you will be unable to give a reason unless you
possess a knowledge of these principles, as will be explained further
on.
CHAPTER XXXIV
It is also important to note that the Law does not take into account
exceptional circumstances; it is not based on conditions which rarely
occur. Whatever the Law teaches, whether it be of an intellectual, a
moral, or a practical character, is founded on that which is the rule
and not on that which is the exception; it ignores the injury that
might be caused to a single person through a certain maxim or a certain
divine precept. For the Law is a divine institution, and [in order to
understand its operation] we must consider how in Nature the various
forces produce benefits which are general, but in some solitary cases
they cause also injury. This is clear from what has been said by
ourselves as well as by others. We must consequently not be surprised
when we find that the object of the Law does not fully appear in every
individual; there must naturally be people who are not perfected by the
instruction of the Law, just as there are beings which do not receive
from the specific forms in Nature all that they require. For all this
comes from one God, is the result of one act; “they are all given from
one shepherd” (Eccles. xii. 11). It is impossible to be otherwise; and
we have already explained (chap. xv.) that that which is impossible
always remains impossible and never changes. From this consideration it
also follows that the laws cannot like medicine vary according to the
different conditions of persons and times; whilst the cure of a person
depends on his particular constitution at the particular time, the
divine guidance contained in the Law must be certain and general,
although it may be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.
If the Law depended on the varying conditions of man, it would be
imperfect in its totality, each precept being left indefinite. For this
reason it would not be right to make the fundamental principles of the
Law dependent on a certain time or a certain place; on the contrary,
the statutes and the judgments must be definite, unconditional, and
general, in accordance with the divine words: “As for the congregation,
one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger” (Num. xv. 15);
they are intended, as has been stated before, for all persons and for
all times.
After having premised these introductory remarks I will now proceed to
the exposition of that which I intended to explain.
CHAPTER XXXV
In accordance with this intention I find it convenient to divide all
precepts into fourteen classes.
The first class comprises those precepts which form fundamental
principles, such as we have enumerated in Hilkot yesode ha-torah.
Repentance and fasts belong also to this class, as will be shown.
The second class comprises the precepts which are connected with the
prohibition of idolatry, and which have been described by us in Hilkot
aʻbodah-zarah. The laws concerning garments of linen and wool,
concerning the fruit of trees in the first three years after they have
been planted, and concerning divers seeds in a vineyard, are likewise
contained in this class. The object of these precepts is to establish
certain true principles and to perpetuate them among the people.
The third class is formed by commandments which are connected with the
improvement of the moral condition [of mankind]; these are mentioned in
Hilkot deʻot. It is known that by a good moral state those social
relations, which are indispensable for the well-being of mankind, are
brought to perfection.
The fourth class includes precepts relating to charity, loans, gifts,
and the like, e.g., the rules respecting “valuations,” (scil., of
things devoted to sacred purposes, Lev. xxvii. 1–27); “things devoted”
(ibid. ver. 28); laws concerning loans and servants, and all the laws
enumerated in the section Zeraʻim, except the rules of “mixtures” and
“the fruit of trees in the first three years.” The object of these
precepts is clear; their benefit concerns all people by turns; for he
who is rich to-day may one day be poor—either he himself or his
descendants; and he who is now poor, he himself or his son may be rich
to-morrow.
The fifth class contains those precepts which relate to the prevention
of wrong and violence; they are included in our book in the section
Neziḳin. Their beneficial character is evident.
The sixth class is formed of precepts respecting fines, e.g., the laws
on theft and robbery, on false witnesses, and most of the laws
contained in the section Shofetim belong to this class. Their benefit
is apparent; for if sinners and robbers were not punished, injury would
not be prevented at all: and persons scheming evil would not become
rarer. They are wrong who suppose that it would be an act of mercy to
abandon the laws of compensation for injuries; on the contrary, it
would be perfect cruelty and injury to the social state of the country.
It is an act of mercy that God commanded “judges and officers thou
shalt appoint to thee in all thy gates” (Deut. xvi. 18).
The seventh class comprises those laws which regulate the business
transactions of men with each other; e.g., laws about loans, hire,
trust, buying, selling, and the like; the rules about inheritance
belong to this class. We have described these precepts in the sections
Ḳinyan and Mishpatim. The object of these precepts is evident, for
monetary transactions are necessary for the peoples of all countries,
and it is impossible to have these transactions without a proper
standard of equity and without useful regulations.
The eighth class includes those precepts which relate to certain days,
as Sabbaths and holydays; they are enumerated in the section Zemannim.
The Law states clearly the reason and object of each of these precepts;
they are to serve as a means for establishing a certain principle among
us, or securing bodily recreation, or effecting both things at the same
time, as will be shown by me.
The ninth class comprises the general laws concerning religious rites
and ceremonies, e.g., laws concerning prayers, the reading of Shema’,
and the other rules given in the section Ahabah, with the exception of
the law concerning circumcision. The object of these laws is apparent;
they all prescribe actions which firmly establish the love of God in
our minds, as also the right belief concerning Him and His attributes.
The tenth class is formed of precepts which relate to the Sanctuary,
its vessels, and its ministers; they are contained in the section
ʻAbodah. The object of these precepts has already been mentioned by us
(supra, chap. xxxii.).
The eleventh class includes those precepts which relate to Sacrifices.
Most of these laws we have mentioned in the sections ʻAbodah and
Ḳorbanot. We have already shown the general use of the sacrificial
laws, and their necessity in ancient time.
The twelfth class comprises the laws concerning things unclean and
clean. The general object of these laws is, as will be explained by me,
to discourage people from [frequently] entering the Sanctuary; in order
that their minds be impressed with the greatness of the Sanctuary, and
approach it with respect and reverence.
The thirteenth class includes the precepts concerning forbidden food
and the like; we have given them in Hilkot maakalot asurot; the laws
about vows and temperance belong also to this class. The object of all
these laws is to restrain the growth of desire, the indulgence in
seeking that which is pleasant, and the disposition to consider the
appetite for eating and drinking as the end [of man’s existence]. We
have explained this in our Commentary on the Mishnah, in the
Introduction (chap, iv.) to The Sayings of the Fathers.
The fourteenth class comprises the precepts concerning forbidden sexual
intercourse; they are given in the section Nashim and Hilkot
issure-biah. The laws concerning the intermixture of cattle belong to
this class. The object of these precepts is likewise to diminish sexual
intercourse, to restrain as much as possible indulgence in lust, and
[to teach] that this enjoyment is not, as foolish people think, the
final cause of man’s existence. We have explained this in our
Commentary on The Sayings of the Fathers (Introd. chap. viii.). The
laws about circumcision belong to this class.
As is well known, the precepts are also divided into two classes, viz.,
precepts concerning the relation between man and God, and precepts
concerning the relation between man and man. Of the classes into which
we divide the precepts and which we have enumerated, the fifth, sixth,
and seventh, and part of the third, include laws concerning the
relation of man to man. The other classes contain the laws about the
relation of man to God, i.e., positive or negative precepts, which tend
to improve the moral or intellectual condition of mankind, or to
regulate such of each man’s actions which [directly] only concern him
and lead him to perfection. For these are called laws concerning man’s
relation to God, although in reality they lead to results which concern
also his fellow-men; because these results become only apparent after a
long series of intermediate links, and from a general point of view;
whilst directly these laws are not intended to prevent man from
injuring his fellow-man. Note this.
Having described the laws of these classes, I will now again consider
the precepts of each class, and explain the reason and use of those
which are believed to be useless or unreasonable, with the exception of
a few, the object of which I have not yet comprehended.
CHAPTER XXXVI
The reason of all precepts of the first class, viz., of the principles
enumerated by us in the Hilkot yesode ha-torah, is obvious. Consider
them one by one, and you will find that the lesson which every one of
them contains is correct and demonstrable. It is also evident that the
precepts which exhort and command us to learn and to teach are useful;
for without wisdom there cannot be any good act or any true knowledge.
The law which prescribes to honour the teachers of the Law is likewise
useful; for if they were not considered by the people as great and
honourable men, they would not be followed as guides in their
principles and actions. The Law demands also that we be humble and
modest [in their presence]. “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head”
(Lev. xix. 32). This class includes also the commandment to swear by
the name of God and the prohibition of swearing falsely or in vain. The
reason for all these precepts is evident; they aim at the glorification
of God; they prescribe acts which lead to the belief in God’s
greatness. Likewise the commandment to cry to God in time of trouble,
“to blow an alarm with the trumpets” (Num. x. 9), belongs to this
class. We are told to offer up prayers to God, in order to establish
firmly the true principle that God takes notice of our ways, that He
can make them successful if we worship Him, or disastrous if we disobey
Him, that [success and failure] are not the result of chance or
accident. In this sense we must understand the passage, “If ye walk
with me by chance” (beḳeri. xxvi. 21); i.e., if I bring troubles upon
you for punishment, and you consider them as mere accidents, I will
again send you some of these accidents as you call them, but of a more
serious and troublesome character. This is expressed in the words: “If
ye walk with me by chance: then I will walk with you also in the fury
of chance” (ibid. vers. 27, 28). For the belief of the people that
their troubles are mere accidents causes them to continue in their evil
principles and their wrong actions, and prevents them from abandoning
their evil ways. Comp. “Thou hast stricken them, but they have not
grieved” (Jer. v. 3). For this reason God commanded us to pray to Him,
to entreat Him, and to cry before Him in time of trouble. It is clear
that repentance is likewise included in this class; that is to say, it
is one of those principles which are an indispensable element in the
creed of the followers of the Law. For it is impossible for man to be
entirely free from error and sin; he either does not know the opinion
which he has to choose, or he adopts a principle, not for its own
merits, but in order to gratify his desire or passion. If we were
convinced that we could never make our crooked ways straight, we should
for ever continue in our errors, and perhaps add other sins to them
since we did not see that any remedy was left to us. But the belief in
the effect of repentance causes us to improve, to return to the best of
the ways, and to become more perfect than we were before we sinned. For
this reason many things are prescribed for the promotion of this very
useful principle; e.g., confessions and sacrifices for sins committed
unknowingly, and in some cases even for sins committed intentionally,
and fasts, and that which is common to all cases of repentance from
sin, the resolve to discontinue sinning. For that is the aim of this
principle. Of all these precepts the use is obvious.
CHAPTER XXXVII
The precepts of the second class are those which we have enumerated in
the section “On idolatry.” It is doubtless that they all tend to save
man from the error of idolatry and the evil practices connected with
it; e.g., observing the times, enchantment, witchcraft, incantation,
consulting with familiar spirits, and the like. When you read the books
which I mentioned to you, you will find that witchcraft, which will be
described to you, is part of the customs of the Sabeans, Kasdim,
Chaldeans, and to a higher degree of the Egyptians and Canaanites. They
caused others to believe, or they themselves believed, that by means of
these arts they would perform wonderful things in reference to an
individual person, or to the inhabitants of a whole country, although
no analogy and no reasoning can discover any relation between these
performances of the witches and the promised result. Thus they are
careful to collect certain plants at a particular time, and to take a
definite number of certain objects. There are many things comprised by
witchcraft; they may be divided into three classes: first, witchcraft
connected with objects in Nature, viz., plants, animals, or minerals.
Secondly, witchcraft dependent for its performance on a certain time;
and thirdly, witchcraft dependent on the performance of certain acts of
man, such as dancing, clapping, laughing, jumping with one leg, lying
on the ground with the face upward, burning a thing, fumigating with a
certain material, or speaking intelligible or unintelligible words.
These are the various kinds of witchcraft. In some cases all these
various performances are required. Thus the witches sometimes order:
take a leaf of a certain plant, when the moon is seen in a certain
degree [of the Zodiac] in the east point or in one of the other
cardinal points [of the horizon], also a certain quantity of the horn,
the sweat, the hair and the blood of a certain animal when the sun is,
e.g., in the middle of the sky, or in some other definite place; and a
portion of a certain mineral or minerals, melted at a certain
conjunction of sun and moon, and at a definite position of the stars;
speak then, and say certain words, and fumigate with those leaves or
similar ones to that molten image, and such and such a thing will
happen. In other instances of witchcraft it is assumed that one of the
above performances suffices. In most cases the condition is added that
women must perform these actions. Thus it is stated in reference to the
means of obtaining rain, that ten virgins dressed with diadems and red
garments should dance, push each other, moving backwards and forwards,
and make signs to the sun: the result of this long process was believed
[by the idolaters] to be a downpour of rain.
It is further stated that if four women lay on their back, with their
feet spread and lifted up, said certain words and did certain things
whilst in this disgraceful position, hail would discontinue coming down
in that place. The number of these stupid and mad things is great; in
all of them without exception women are required to be the agent.
Witchcraft is intimately connected with astrology; those that practise
it assign each plant, animal, or mineral to a certain star, and believe
that the above processes of witchcraft are different forms of worship
offered to that star, which is pleased with that act, word, or offering
of incense, and fulfils their wishes.
After this remark, which you will understand when you have read such of
their works as are at present extant, and have been mentioned by me,
hear what I will tell you. It is the object and centre of the whole Law
to abolish idolatry and utterly uproot it, and to overthrow the opinion
that any of the stars could interfere for good or evil in human
matters, because it leads to the worship of stars. It was therefore
necessary to slay all witches as being undoubtedly idolaters, because
every witch is an idolater; they only have their own strange ways of
worship, which are different from the common mode of worship offered to
those deities. But in all performances of witchcraft it is laid down as
a rule that women should be employed in the chief operation; and
therefore the Law says, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exod.
xxii. 17). Another reason is the natural reluctance of people to slay
women. This is also the cause why in the law of idolatry it is said
“man or woman” (Deut. xvii. 2), and again repeated a second time, “the
man or the woman” (ibid. ver. 5)—a phrase which does not occur in the
law about the breaking of Sabbath, or in any other law; for great
sympathy is naturally shown to women. Now the witches believed that
they produced a certain result by their witchcraft; that they were able
through the above-mentioned actions to drive such dangerous animals as
lions, serpents, and the like out of the cities, and to remove various
kinds of damage from the products of the earth. Thus they imagine that
they are able by certain acts to prevent hail from coming down, and by
certain other acts to kill the worms in the vineyards, whereby the
latter are protected from injury; in fact, the killing of the worms in
vineyards, and other superstitions mentioned in the Nabatean
Agriculture, are fully described by the Sabeans. They likewise imagine
that they know certain acts by which they can prevent the dropping of
leaves from the trees and the untimely falling of their fruit. On
account of these ideas, which were general in those days, the Law
declares in “the words of the covenant” as follows: The same idolatry
and superstitious performances which, in your belief, keep certain
misfortunes far from you, will cause those very misfortunes to befall
you. “I will also send wild beasts among you” (Lev. xxvi. 22); “I will
also send the teeth of wild beasts upon them, with the poison of those
that creep in dust” (Deut. xxxii. 24). “The fruit of thy land, and all
thy labours, shall a nation, which thou knowest not, eat up” (ibid.
xxviii. 33). “Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but shalt
neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, etc. Thou shalt have
olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint
thyself with the oil” (Deut. xxviii. 39, 40). In short, in spite of the
schemes of idolaters to support and firmly establish their doctrine,
and to make people believe that by idolatry certain misfortunes could
be averted and certain benefits gained, worship of idols will, on the
contrary, as is stated in “the words of the covenant,” prevent the
advantages and bring the troubles. The reader will now understand why,
of all kinds of curses and blessings, those mentioned in “the words of
the covenant” have been selected by the Law, and particularly pointed
out. Note also the greatness of the benefit [of these laws].
In order that we may keep far from all kinds of witchcraft, we are
warned not to adopt any of the practices of the idolaters, even such as
are connected with agriculture, the keeping of cattle, and similar
work. [The Law prohibits] everything that the idolaters, according to
their doctrine, and contrary to reason, consider as being useful and
acting in the manner of certain mysterious forces. Comp. “Neither shall
ye walk in their ordinances” (Lev. xviii. 3). “And ye shall not walk in
the manners of the nation which I cast out before you” (ibid. xx. 23).
Our Sages call such acts “the ways of the Amorite”; they are kinds of
witchcraft, because they are not arrived at by reason, but are similar
to the performances of witchcraft, which is necessarily connected with
the influences of the stars; thus [“the manners of the nations”] lead
people to extol, worship, and praise the stars. Our Sages say
distinctly, “whatever is used as medicine” does not come under the law
of “the ways of the Amorite”; for they hold that only such cures as are
recommended by reason are permitted, and other cures are prohibited.
When, therefore, the dictum was quoted: a tree that casts off its fruit
may be laden with stone or dyed with red colour, the following
objection was raised: The loading of the tree with stones may be
justified on the plea that it serves to weaken the strength of the
tree, but why should it be permitted to dye the tree with red colour?
This question shows that the dyeing of the tree with red colour, and
all similar things which are not explained by analogy from nature, are
prohibited as “ways of the Amorite.” For the same reason our Sages
said, “The uterus of animals which have been selected for the Sanctuary
must be buried; it must not be suspended from a tree, and not buried in
the cross-road, because this is one of ‘the ways of the Amorite.’”
Hence you may learn how to treat similar cases.
It is not inconsistent that a nail of the gallows and the tooth of a
fox have been permitted to be used as cures; for these things have been
considered in those days as facts established by experiment. They
served as cures, in the same manner as the hanging of the peony over a
person subject to epileptic fits, or the application of a dog’s refuse
to the swellings of the throat, and of the vapours of vinegar and
marcasite to the swelling of hard tumours. For the Law permits as
medicine everything that has been verified by experiment, although it
cannot be explained by analogy. The above-named cures are permitted in
the same way as the application of purgatives. Learn, reader, these
noteworthy lessons from this my work, and keep them; “for they are a
diadem of grace for thy head” (Prov. iv.).
We have explained in our large work that it is prohibited to round the
corners of the head, and to mar the corners of the beard, because it
was the custom of idolatrous priests. For the same reason, the wearing
of garments made of linen and wool is prohibited; the heathen priests
adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal
material, whilst they held in their hand a seal made of a mineral. This
you find written in their books. The same is also the reason of the
precept, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man”
(Deut. xxii. 5). You find it in the book Tomtom, that a male person
should wear coloured woman’s dress when he stands before Venus, and a
female, when standing before Mars, should wear a buckler and other
armour. I think that this precept has also another reason; namely, that
the interchange of dress creates lust and leads to immorality.
It is easily understood why it is prohibited to derive any benefit
whatever from an idol. For sometimes a person buys it with the
intention to break it, but keeps it, and it becomes a snare to him.
Even if he broke it, recast it, and sold it to a heathen, he must not
use the money which he received in exchange for the idol; because
people frequently mistake accidental circumstances for essential
causes; thus most people say of a certain person that he has become
rich and wealthy after having dwelt in a certain house, or bought a
certain animal or vessel; and that these things were a blessing to him.
In the same way a person may be successful and make a good profit on
the business in which he employed the money received for the idol; he
might then think that the idol was the cause of his success, and that
the blessing of the money received for it brought him the profit; he
would then believe in the idol; a belief which is just the reverse of
the chief object of the Law, as is clearly seen in every word of it.
For this same reason, we are forbidden to turn to our use the covering
of the idol, its offerings and vessels. We are thus guarded against the
idea [of ascribing our success to idols]. In those days the belief in
the stars was very strong; it was generally assumed that life and
death, good and evil, depended on the stars. The Law employed therefore
strong means, as covenant, witnesses, great oaths, and the
above-mentioned [blessings and] curses, in order to overthrow that
belief. We are thus commanded to abstain from taking any portion of the
idol, and deriving any benefit from it; and God tells us that if money
received for idols be mixed with any person’s property, it will bring
loss and ruin to that property. This warning is contained in the words:
“Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be
a cursed thing like it” (Deut. vii. 26). How much more wrong must it be
to believe that there is a blessing in idols. When you examine all the
precepts that relate to idolatry, you will find that their reason is
obvious, and that they serve to make us abandon this evil belief, and
keep at the greatest possible distance from it.
We must also point out that originators of false, baseless, and useless
principles scheme and plan for the firm establishment of their faith;
and tell their fellow-men that a certain plague will befall those who
will not perform the act by which that faith is supported and confirmed
for ever; this plague may one day accidentally befall a person, who
will then direct his attention to the performance of that act, and
adopt idolatry. It being well known that people are naturally most in
fear and dread of the loss of their property and their children, the
worshippers of fire spread the tale, that if any one did not pass his
son and daughter through the fire, he will lose his children by death.
There is no doubt that on account of this absurd menace every one at
once obeyed, out of pity and sympathy for the child; especially as it
was a trifling and a light thing that was demanded, in passing the
child over the fire. We must further take into account that the care of
young children is intrusted to women, who are generally weak-minded,
and ready to believe everything, as is well known. The Law makes,
therefore, an earnest stand against this practice, and uses in
reference to it stronger terms than in any other kind of idolatry;
namely, “he defileth my sanctuary, and profaneth my holy name” (Lev.
xx. 3). The true prophet then declares in the name of God that the very
act which is performed for the purpose of keeping the child alive, will
bring death upon him who performs it, and destruction upon his seed.
Comp. “And I will set my face against that man and against his family,”
etc. (ibid. xx. 5). Know that traces of this practice have survived
even to the present day, because it was widespread in the world. You
can see how midwives take a young child wrapped in its
swaddling-clothes, and after having placed incense of a disagreeable
smell on the fire, swing the child in the smoke over that fire. This is
certainly a kind of passing children through the fire, and we must not
do it. Reflect on the evil cunning of the author of this doctrine; how
people continued to adhere to this doctrine, and how, in spite of the
opposition of the Law during thousands of years, its name is not
blotted out, and its traces are still in existence.
Idolaters have acted similarly in reference to property. They made it a
law that a certain tree, the asherah, should be worshipped, and that of
its fruit one part should be offered, and the rest consumed in the
temple of the idol; this is stated in the regulations concerning the
asherah. In the same manner, they made it a rule, that the first-fruit
of every fruit-tree should be partly offered as a sacrifice and partly
consumed in the idol’s temple. It was also a widespread belief that if
the first-fruit of any tree was not treated in this manner, the tree
would dry up, its fruit would be cast off, its increase would be
diminished, or some disease would come over it; just as they spread the
belief that every child, that was not passed through the fire, must
die. People in their anxiety for their property obeyed also this
precept unhesitatingly. The Law, in opposition to this doctrine,
commanded us to burn the produce of fruit-trees the first three years;
for some trees bear fruit after one year, whilst some begin to yield
fruit after two, and others after three years. The law is based upon
the nature of trees grown in an ordinary way, namely, in one of the
three well-known methods: planting, propagation, and inoculation
(netiʻah, habrakah, and harcabah). The Law does not take notice of the
case that a kernel or stone is sown; for the ordinances of the Law are
based on the usual condition of things, and as a rule a young tree in
Palestine bears fruit for the first time not later than the third year
after it has been planted. According to the divine promise, the waste
and destruction of this first-fruit of the tree will be followed by
years of plenty of fruit; for it is said, “that it may increase unto
you the fruit thereof” (Lev. xix. 25). The fruit of the fourth year we
are commanded to eat before God, instead of [the heathen custom of]
eating ʻorlah, “the fruit of the preceding years,” in the temples of
the idols, as has been described by us.
It is further mentioned in the Nabatean Agriculture that the ancient
idolaters caused certain things named in that work to rot, waited till
the sun stood in a certain degree [of the ecliptic], and then they
performed many acts of witchcraft. They believed that that substance
should be kept ready by every one, and when a fruit-tree is planted, a
portion of that rotten substance should be scattered round the tree or
under it; the tree would then grow quicker and produce more fruit than
is generally the case. They say that this process is very
extraordinary; it acts like a talisman, and is more efficient than any
kind of witchcraft in accelerating the productiveness of fruit-trees. I
have already shown and explained to you how the Law opposes all kinds
of witchcraft. The Law, therefore, prohibits us to use the fruit
yielded by a tree in the first three years after it has been planted,
so that there should be no opportunity for accelerating, according to
their imagination, the productiveness of any tree. After three years
most fruit-trees in Palestine yield fruit by the ordinary course of
nature, without the application of those magical performances which
were very general in those days. Note this remarkable fact.
Another belief which was very common in those days, and survived the
Sabeans, is this: When a tree is grafted into another in the time of a
certain conjunction of sun and moon, and is fumigated with certain
substances whilst a formula is uttered, that tree will produce a thing
that will be found exceedingly useful. More general than anything
mentioned by the heathen writers was the ceremony of grafting an olive
branch upon a citron tree, as described in the beginning of the
Nabatean Agriculture. I am of opinion that the book of medicines which
Hezekiah put away (B. T. Pes. 56a) was undoubtedly of this kind. They
also said that when one species is grafted upon another, the branch
which is to be grafted must be in the hand of a beautiful damsel,
whilst a male person has disgraceful and unnatural sexual intercourse
with her; during that intercourse the woman grafts the branch into the
tree. There is no doubt that this ceremony was general, and that nobody
refused to perform it, especially as the pleasure of love was added to
the (supposed) future results of the grafting. The Law, therefore,
prohibits us to mix different species together, i.e., to graft one tree
into another, because we must keep away from the opinions of idolaters
and the abominations of their unnatural sexual intercourse. In order to
guard against the grafting of trees, we are forbidden to sow any two
kinds of seed together or near each other. When you study the
traditional explanation of this precept, you will find that the
prohibition of grafting, the principal element in this commandment,
holds good for all countries, and is punishable by forty stripes; but
the sowing of seeds one near the other is only prohibited in Palestine.
In the Nabatean Agriculture it is further distinctly stated that it was
the custom of the people in those days to sow barley and stones of
grapes together, in the belief that the vineyard could only prosper in
this way. Therefore the Law prohibits us to use seed that has grown in
a vineyard, and commands us to burn both the barley and the produce of
the vineyard. For the practices of the heathen, which they considered
as of a magic and talismanic character, even if not containing any
idolatrous element, are prohibited, as we have stated above (p. 334) in
reference to the dictum of our Sages, “We must not hang upon a tree the
fœtus of an animal belonging to the Sanctuary.” The Law prohibits all
heathen customs, called by our Sages “the ways of the Amorite,” because
they are connected with idolatry. On considering the customs of the
heathen in their worship, you will find that in certain kinds of
worship they turn toward stars, in others to the two great luminaries;
frequently they choose the rise of signs in the Zodiac for sowing and
fumigating; and as to the circuits made by those who plant or sow, some
complete five circles, corresponding to the five planets, with the
exclusion of the two luminaries; others go seven times round, according
to the number of the planets, when including sun and moon. They believe
that all these practices are magic charms of great efficiency in
agriculture. Thus those practices lead to the worship of stars; and
therefore all practices of those nations have been prohibited, in the
words, “Ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out
before you” (Lev. xx. 23). Those practices which were more general and
common, or were distinctly connected with idolatry, are particularly
pointed out as prohibited; e.g., eating the fruit of a tree during the
first three years, intermixing of species and the mixed species sown in
a vineyard. I am surprised at the dictum of Rabbi Joshiyah, which has
been adopted as legally binding, in reference to the mixed seed in a
vineyard, viz., that the law is only transgressed when wheat, barley,
and the stone of a grape are sown simultaneously. He must undoubtedly
have seen the source of that kind of the ways of the Amorite. It must
now be clear to you, and no room can be left for any doubt, that the
prohibition of wearing garments of wool and linen, of using the fruit
of a tree in the first three years, and of mixing divers species, are
directed against idolatry, and that the prohibition against adopting
heathen manners serves to remove anything which leads to idolatry, as
has been shown by us.
CHAPTER XXXVIII
The precepts of the third class are identical with those which we have
enumerated in Hilkot deʻot. Their use is evident; they are rules
concerning moral conduct by which the social relations of men are
regulated. This is sufficiently clear, and I need not dwell long on it.
Know that some precepts prescribe certain acts which are considered as
arbitrary decrees without any purpose, but are nevertheless the means
of acquiring some moral principle. We shall explain every one of them
in its proper place. But of all those precepts which are mentioned in
Hilkot deʻot, it is distinctly stated that their object is to inculcate
good moral principles.
CHAPTER XXXIX
The precepts in the fourth class include the laws which in our work are
contained in the section Zeraʻim, excepting the laws on the mixture of
species; the rules about things to be “valued” and things “devoted”
(Hilkot ʻerekin va-ḥaramim), and those concerning lender and borrower
(Hilkot malveh ve-loveh) and slaves (Hilkot ʻabadim). When you examine
these precepts you will clearly see the use of every one of them: they
teach us to have sympathy with the poor and infirm, to assist the needy
in various ways; not to hurt the feelings of those who are in want, and
not to vex those who are in a helpless condition [viz., the widow, the
orphan, and the like]. The purpose of the laws concerning the portions
which are to be given to the poor is likewise obvious; the reason of
the laws concerning the heave-offerings and the tithe is distinctly
stated: “for he hath no portion and inheritance with thee” (Deut. xiv.
29). You certainly know that the Levites had no portion, because their
whole tribe was to be exclusively engaged in the service of God and the
study of the Law. They shall not plow or cut the corn, but shall only
minister to God. “They shall teach Jacob thy judgments and Israel thy
law: they shall put incense before thee” (Deut. xxxiii. 10). In the Law
we meet frequently with the phrase, “the Levite, the stranger, and the
orphan and the widow”; for the Levite is reckoned among the poor
because he had no property. The second tithe was commanded to be spent
on food in Jerusalem; in this way the owner was compelled to give part
of it away as charity. As he was not able to use it otherwise than by
way of eating and drinking, he must have easily been induced to give it
gradually away. This rule brought multitudes together in one place, and
strengthened the bond of love and brotherhood among the children of
men. The law concerning the fruit of a tree in its fourth year has some
relation to idolatrous customs, as has been stated by us (chap.
xxxvii.), and is connected with the law concerning the fruit of a tree
in its first three years. But it has in addition the same object as the
law concerning the heave-offering (Deut. xviii. 4), the dough-offering
(ḥallah) (Num. xv. 20), the first-fruit (Exod. xxiii. 19), and the
first of the shearing (Deut. xviii. 4). For the first of everything is
to be devoted to the Lord; and by doing so man accustoms himself to be
liberal, and to limit his appetite for eating and his desire for
property. The same is the reason why the priest took the shoulder, the
two cheeks, and the maw (Deut. xviii. 3); the cheek being the first
part of the body of animals, the right shoulder the first of the
extremities of the body, and the maw the first of all inwards.
The reciting of a certain portion of the Law when the first-fruits are
brought to the temple, tends also to create humility. For he who brings
the first-fruits takes the basket upon his shoulders and proclaims the
kindness and goodness of God. This ceremony teaches man that it is
essential in the service of God to remember the times of trouble and
the history of past distress, in days of comfort. The Law lays stress
on this duty in several places; comp. “And thou shalt remember that
thou hast been a slave,” etc. (Deut. v. 15). For it is to be feared
that those who become great in riches and comfort might, as is
generally the case, fall into the vices of insolence and haughtiness,
and abandon all good principles. Comp. “Lest thou eat and be full,
etc., and thine heart be lifted up and thou forget the Lord” (ibid.
viii. 12–14); “And Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked” (ibid. xxx. 15). On
account of this fear the Law commanded us to read each year a certain
portion before the Lord and His glory, when we offer the first-fruit.
You know how much the Law insists that we shall always remember the
plagues that have befallen the Egyptians; comp. “That thou mayest
remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all
the days of thy life” (ibid. xvi. 3); “That thou mayest tell in the
ears of thy son what things I have wrought in Egypt” (Exod. x. 2). Such
a law was necessary in order to perpetuate the memory of the departure
from Egypt; because such events verify prophecy and the doctrine of
reward and punishment. The benefit of every commandment that serves to
keep certain miracles in remembrance, or to perpetuate true faith, is
therefore obvious.
In reference to the law concerning the first-born of man and cattle it
is distinctly said, “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let
us go, that the Lord slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt,
etc., therefore I sacrifice to the Lord,” etc. (Exod. xiii. 15). But it
can easily be explained why only cattle, sheep, and asses are mentioned
in this law; these are kept as domestic animals, and are found in most
places, especially in Palestine, where the Israelites were shepherds,
they, their fathers, and forefathers; comp. “Thy servants are
shepherds, both we and also our fathers” (Gen. xlvii. 3). Horses and
camels, however, are not wanted by shepherds, and are not found in all
places; thus in the booty of Midian (Num. xxxi.) no other animals are
mentioned but oxen, sheep, and asses. But asses alone are indispensable
to all people, especially to those who are engaged in the field or in
the forest. Thus Jacob says, “I have oxen and asses” (Gen. xxxii. 5).
Camels and horses are not possessed by many people, but only by a few,
and are only found in a few places. The law that the first-born of an
ass was to have its neck broken [in case it is not redeemed], will only
ensure the redemption of the ass. It has, therefore, been said that the
act of redeeming the ass is to be preferred to that of breaking its
neck.
As to the precepts enumerated in the laws concerning the year of
release and the jubilee (Hilkot shemittah ve-yobel) some of them imply
sympathy with our fellow-men, and promote the well-being of mankind;
for in reference to these precepts it is stated in the Law, “That the
poor of thy people may eat” (Exod. xxiii. 11); and besides, the land
will also increase its produce and improve when it remains fallow for
some time. Other precepts of this class prescribe kindness to servants
and to the poor, by renouncing all claims to debts [in the year of
release], and relieving the slaves of their bondage [in the seventh
year]. There are some precepts in this class that serve to secure for
the people a permanent source of maintenance and support by providing
that the land should remain the permanent property of its owners, and
that it could not be sold. “And the land shall not be sold for ever”
(Lev. xxv. 23). In this way the property of a person remains intact for
him and his heirs, and he can only enjoy the produce thereof. I have
thus explained the reason of all precepts contained in our work in the
Section Zeraiʻim, with the exception of the laws concerning the
intermixture of different species of beasts the reason of which will be
given (chap. xlix.).
In the same manner we find that all the precepts comprised in “the laws
on valuations,” and on “things devoted” are based on the principle of
charity; some of them prescribe what should be given to the priests;
others tell us what must be devoted to the repairs of the temple. The
practice of all these things accustoms man to act liberally and to
spend money unhesitatingly to the glory of God. For it is in the nature
of man to strive to gain money and to increase it; and his great desire
to add to his wealth and honour is the chief source of misery for man.
Also the precepts contained in “the laws concerning the relation
between lender and borrower” (Hilkot malveh veloveh) will be found, on
being carefully examined, to be nothing but commands to be lenient,
merciful and kind to the needy, not to deprive them of the use of
anything indispensable in the preparation of food. “No man shall take
the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life
to pledge” (Deut. xxiv. 6).
The precepts contained in “the laws concerning slaves” (Hilkot
ʻabadim), likewise prescribe only acts of pity, mercy and kindness to
the poor. It is an act of mercy to give liberty to a Canaanite servant
for the loss of one of his limbs (Exod. xxi. 26, 27), in order that he
should not suffer from slavery and illness at the same time. The law
applies even to the case that a tooth of a slave has been knocked out,
much more to the mutilation of other limbs. He could only be corrected
with a rod or reed or the like, as we have stated in Mishneh-torah.
Besides, if the master strikes the slave too hard and kills him, he is
punished with death as for ordinary murder. Mercy is also the object of
the law, “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is
escaped from his master” (Deut. xxiii. 15); but it teaches besides a
very useful lesson, namely, that we must always practise this virtue,
help and protect those who seek our help, and not deliver them unto
those from whom they flee; and it is not sufficient to give assistance
to those who are in need of our help; we must look after their
interests, be kind to them, and not hurt their feeling by words. Thus
the Law says: “He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place
which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best:
thou shalt not vex him” (ibid. ver. 16). This we owe to the lowest
among men, to the slave; how much more must we do our duty to the
freeborn, when they seek our assistance? But, on the other hand, when
sinners and evildoers seek our help, it must not be granted; no mercy
must be shown to them, and the course of justice must not be interfered
with, even if they claim the protection of that which is noblest and
highest; for “Thou shalt take him from mine altar that he may die”
(Exod. xxi. 14). Here a person comes to seek the help of God, and
claims the protection of that which is devoted to his name; God,
however, does not help him, and commands that he be delivered up to the
prosecutor, from whom he fled. Much less need any one of us help or
pity his fellow-men [under such circumstances]; because mercy on
sinners is cruelty to all creatures. These are undoubtedly the right
ways designated “righteous statutes and judgments” (Deut. iv. 8), and
different from the ways of the fools, who consider a person
praiseworthy when he helps and protects his fellow-men, without
discriminating between the oppressor and the oppressed. This is well
known from their words and songs.
The reason and usefulness of every precept of this class has thus been
clearly demonstrated.
CHAPTER XL
The precepts of the fifth class, enumerated in the Section “On Damages”
(Sepher neziḳin), aim at the removal of wrong and the prevention of
injury. As we are strongly recommended to prevent damage, we are
responsible for every damage caused by our property or through our work
in so far as it is in our power to take care and to guard it from
becoming injurious. We are, therefore, responsible for all damage
caused by our cattle; we must guard them. The same is the case with
fire and pits; they are made by man, and he can be careful that they do
not cause damage. I will point out the equity of the various laws in
this respect. No compensation is enforced for damage caused by the
mouth or the foot of an animal in a public thoroughfare; because this
cannot be guarded against, and the damage caused there is not very
large. Those who place their things in a public place are themselves
guilty of neglect, and expose their property to injury. But
compensation is given for damage caused to the property of a person in
his own field by the tooth or the foot of an animal. It is different in
the case of damage caused by the horn of animals or the like. The
animal can be guarded everywhere [and prevented from causing injury],
whilst those who pass public thoroughfares cannot sufficiently take
care against accidents of this kind. In this case the law is the same
for all places; but there is a difference whether the owner of the
animal has been warned concerning it or not (muʻad or tam). If the
animal has not been in the habit of causing damage, the owner need only
pay half the damage; but damage caused by an animal which has been in
the habit of doing so, and has been known as savage, must be paid in
full. The compensation for a slave is uniformly estimated at half the
value fixed for a free man. For in the law concerning the valuation of
man you find the highest valuation at sixty shekels, whilst the money
to be paid for a slave is fixed at thirty shekels silver. The killing
of an animal that has killed a human being (Exod. xxi. 28, 29) is not a
punishment to the animal, as the dissenters insinuate against us, but
it is a fine imposed on the owner of that animal. For the same reason
the use of its flesh is prohibited. The owner of an animal will,
therefore, take the greatest possible care in guarding it; he will know
that if any person is killed by the animal, whether that person be
grown up or young, free or in bondage, he forfeits at least the animal;
and in case he has already received a warning concerning it, he will
have to pay a ransom in addition to the loss of the animal. This is
also the reason why a beast is killed that has been used by a human
being for an immoral purpose (Lev. xx. 15, 16); its owner will be more
careful as regards his beast, will guard it, and never lose sight of
it, just as he watches his household: for people fear the loss of their
property as much as that of their own life; some even more, but most
people hold both in the same estimation. Comp. “and to take us for
bondmen, and our asses” (Gen. xliii. 18).
This class includes also the duty of killing him who pursues another
person; that is to say, if a person is about to commit a crime we may
prevent it by killing him. Only in two cases is this permitted; viz.,
when a person runs after another in order to murder him, or in order to
commit fornication; because in these two cases the crime, once
committed; cannot be remedied. In the case of other sins, punished with
death by the court of law, such as idolatry and profanation of the
Sabbath, by which the sinner does no harm to another person, and which
concern only his own principles, no person may be killed for the mere
intention, if he has not carried it out.
It is known that desire is denounced because it leads to coveting, and
the latter is prohibited because it leads to robbery, as has been said
by our Sages.
The object of the law of restoring lost property to its owner (Deut.
xxii. 1–3) is obvious. In the first instance, it is in itself a good
feature in man’s character. Secondly, its benefit is mutual; for if a
person does not return the lost property of his fellow-man, nobody will
restore to him what he may lose, just as those who do not honour their
parents cannot expect to be honoured by their children.
A person who killed another person unknowingly must go into exile
(Exod. xxi. 13; Num. xxxv. 11–28); because the anger of “the avenger of
the blood” (Num. xxxv. 19) cools down while the cause of the mischief
is out of sight. The chance of returning from the exile depends on the
death of [the high-priest], the most honoured of men, and the friend of
all Israel. By his death the relative of the slain person becomes
reconciled (ibid. ver. 25); for it is a natural phenomenon that we find
consolation in our misfortune when the same misfortune or a greater one
has befallen another person. Amongst us no death causes more grief than
that of the high-priest.
The beneficial character of the law concerning “the breaking of the
neck of a heifer” (Deut. xxi. 1–8) is evident. For it is the city that
is nearest to the slain person that brings the heifer, and in most
cases the murderer comes from that place. The elders of the place call
upon God as their witness, according to the interpretation of our
Sages, that they have always kept the roads in good condition, have
protected them, and have directed every one that asked his way; that
the person has not been killed because they were careless in these
general provisions, and they do not know who has slain him. As a rule
the investigation, the procession of the elders, the measuring, and the
taking of the heifer, make people talk about it, and by making the
event public, the murderer may be found out, and he who knows of him,
or has heard of him, or has discovered him by any due, will now name
the person that is the murderer, and as soon as a man, or even a woman
or handmaid, rises up and names a certain person as having committed
the murder, the heifer is not killed. It is well known that it is
considered great wickedness and guilt on the part of a person who knows
the murderer, and is silent about him whilst the elders call upon God
as witness that they know nothing about the murderer. Even a woman
will, therefore, communicate whatever knowledge she has of him. When
the murderer is discovered, the benefit of the law is apparent. If the
court of justice cannot sentence him to death, the king may find him
guilty, who has the power to sentence to death on circumstantial
evidence; and if the king does not put him to death, the avenger of
blood may scheme and plan his death, and at last kill him. We have thus
shown the use of the law concerning the breaking of the neck of the
heifer in discovering the murderer. Force is added to the law by the
rule that the place in which the neck of the heifer is broken should
never be cultivated or sown. The owner of the land will therefore use
all means in his power to search and to find the murderer, in order
that the heifer be not killed and his land be not made useless to him.
CHAPTER XLI
The precepts of the sixth class comprise the different ways of
punishing the sinner. Their general usefulness is known and has also
been mentioned by us. I will here describe them one by one and point
out their nature in detail.
The punishment of him who sins against his neighbour consists in the
general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done:
if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if he
damaged the property of his neighbour, he shall be punished by loss of
property. But the person whose property has been damaged should be
ready to resign his claim totally or partly. Only to the murderer we
must not be lenient because of the greatness of his crime; and no
ransom must be accepted of him. “And the land cannot be cleansed of the
blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it” (Num.
xxxi. 33). Hence even if the murdered person continued to live after
the attack for an hour or for days, was able to speak and possessed
complete consciousness, and if he himself said, “Pardon my murderer, I
have pardoned and forgiven him,” he must not be obeyed. We must take
life for life, and estimate equally the life of a child and that of a
grown-up person, of a slave and of a freeman, of a wise man and of a
fool. For there is no greater sin than this. And he who mutilated a
limb of his neighbour, must himself lose a limb. “As he hath caused a
blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” (Lev. xxiv. 20).
You must not raise an objection from our practice of imposing a fine in
such cases. For we have proposed to ourselves to give here the reason
for the precepts mentioned in the Law, and not for that which is stated
in the Talmud. I have, however, an explanation for the interpretation
given in the Talmud, but it will be communicated vivâ voce. Injuries
that cannot be reproduced exactly in another person, are compensated
for by payment; “only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall
cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exod. xxi. 19). If any one damaged
the property of another, he must lose exactly as much of his own
property: “whom the judges shall condemn he shall pay double unto his
neighbour” (Exod. xxii. 8); namely, he restores that which he has
taken, and adds just as much [to it] of his own property. It is right
that the more frequent transgressions and sins are, and the greater the
probability of their being committed, the more severe must their
punishment be, in order to deter people from committing them; but sins
which are of rare occurrence require a less severe punishment. For this
reason one who stole a sheep had to pay twice as much as for other
goods, i.e., four times the value of the stolen object; but this is
only the case when he has disposed of it by sale or slaughter (Exod.
xxi. 37). As a rule, the sheep remained always in the fields, and could
therefore not be watched so carefully as things kept in town. The thief
of a sheep used therefore to sell it quickly before the theft became
known, or to slaughter it and thereby change its appearance. As such
theft happened frequently, the punishment was severe. The compensation
for a stolen ox is still greater by one-fourth, because the theft is
easily carried out. The sheep keep together when they feed, and can be
watched by the shepherd, so that theft when it is committed can only
take place by night. But oxen when feeding are very widely scattered,
as is also mentioned in the Nabatean Agriculture, and a shepherd cannot
watch them properly; theft of oxen is therefore a more frequent
occurrence.
The law concerning false witnesses (Deut. xix. 19) prescribes that they
shall suffer exactly the same loss which they intended to inflict upon
another. If they intended to bring a sentence of death against a
person, they are killed; if they aimed at the punishment of stripes,
they receive stripes; and if they desire to make a person pay money,
they are sentenced to pay exactly the same sum. The object of all these
laws is to make the punishment equal to the crime; and it is also on
this account that the judgments are “righteous” (Deut. iv. 8). A robber
with violence is not ordered to pay anything as fine (Lev. v. 24); the
additional fifth part [of the value of the robbed goods] is only an
atonement-offering for his perjury. The reason of this rule is to be
found in the rare occurrence of robbery; theft is committed more
frequently than robbery, for theft can be committed everywhere; robbery
is not possible in towns, except with difficulty; besides, the thief
takes things exposed as well as things hidden away; robbery applies
only to things exposed; against robbery we can guard and defend
ourselves; we cannot do so against theft; again, the robber is known,
can be sought, and forced to return that which he has robbed, whilst
the thief is not known. On account of all these circumstances the law
fines the thief and not the robber.
Preliminary Remark.—Whether the punishment is great or small, the pain
inflicted intense or less intense, depends on the following four
conditions.
The greatness of the sin. Actions that cause great harm are punished
severely, whilst actions that cause little harm are punished less
severely.The frequency of the crime. A crime that is frequently committed
must be put down by severe punishment; crimes of rare occurrence may be
suppressed by a lenient punishment considering that they are rarely
committed.The amount of temptation. Only fear of a severe punishment remains
us from actions for which there exists a great temptation, either
because we have a great desire for these actions, or are accustomed to
them, or feel unhappy without them.The facility of doing the thing secretly, and unseen and unnoticed.
From such acts we are deterred only by the fear of a great and terrible
punishment.
After this preliminary remark, I say that the precepts of the Law may
be divided into the following four classes with respect to the
punishment for their transgression:—(1) Precepts whose transgression is
followed by sentence of death pronounced by a court of law. (2)
Precepts whose transgression is punished with excision, such
transgression being held to be a very great sin. (3) In some cases the
transgression is punished by stripes administered with a strap (such
transgression not being considered a grievous sin, as it concerns only
a simple prohibition); or by “death by Heaven.” (4) Precepts the
transgression of which is not punished [even] by stripes. Prohibitions
of this kind are all those that involve no act. But there are the
following exceptions: [First], Swearing falsely, because it is gross
neglect of man’s duty, who ought to bear constantly in mind the
greatness of God. [Secondly], Changing an animal devoted to the
sanctuary for another (Lev. xxvii. 10), because this change leads to
contemning sacrifices devoted to the name of God. [Thirdly], Cursing a
person by the name of God (ibid. xix. 14); because many dread the
effect of a curse more than bodily harm. The transgression of other
negative commandments that involve no act causes little harm, and
cannot always be avoided, as it consists in mere words; moreover, man’s
back would be inflicted with stripes all the year round if he were to
be punished with stripes for each transgression of this kind. Besides,
previous warning is impossible in this case. There is also wisdom in
the number of stripes; for although the number of their maximum is
given, there is no fixed number how many are to be applied to each
person; each man receives only as many stripes as he can bear, but not
more than forty (Deut. xxv. 3), even if he be strong enough for a
hundred.
The “death by the court of law” is not inflicted for the transgression
of any of the dietary laws; because in such a case no great harm is
done, and the temptation of man to transgress these laws is not so
great as the temptation to the enjoyment of sexual intercourse. In some
of the dietary laws the punishment is excision. This is the case with
the prohibition of eating blood (Lev. xvii. 26). For in ancient days
people were very eager and anxious to eat blood as a kind of idolatrous
ceremony, as is explained in the book Tomtom, and therefore the
prohibition of eating blood is made very stringent. Excision is also
the punishment for eating fat; because people enjoy it, and because it
was distinguished and sanctified by its use in the offerings. The
eating of leavened bread on Passover (Exod. xii. 15), and breaking the
fast on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xxiii. 29), are likewise punished
with excision: [first] on account of the great discomfort which the
obedience to the law causes in these cases; [secondly] on account of
the principles of faith which the laws of Passover and of the Day of
Atonement inculcate: they confirm fundamental principles of the Law,
viz., the belief in the wonderful departure [of Israel] from Egypt, and
in the effect of repentance, according to the words, “For on this day
will he forgive you” (Lev. xvi. 31). Just as in the case of eating fat,
so is excision also announced as a punishment when a person eats that
which is left [of a sacrifice beyond its limited time], or partakes of
a sacrifice which has been made abominable; or when an unclean person
eats of holy things (ibid. vii. 16–21). The object of this severity is
to increase the estimation of the offering in the eyes of the people,
as has been shown.
Death by the court of law is decreed in important cases: when faith is
undermined, or a great crime is committed, viz., idolatry, incest,
murder, or actions that lead to these crimes. It is further decreed for
breaking the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 15); because the keeping of Sabbath
is a confirmation of our belief in the Creation; a false prophet and a
rebellious elder are put to death on account of the mischief which they
cause; he who strikes his father or his mother is killed on account of
his great audacity, and because he undermines the constitution of the
family, which is the foundation of the state. A rebellious and
disobedient son is put to death (Deut. xxi. 18 seq.) on account of what
he might become, because he will likely be a murderer; he who steals a
human being is killed, because he is also prepared to kill him whom he
steals (Exod. xxi. 16). Likewise he who is found breaking into a house
is prepared for murder (ibid. xxii. 1), as our Sages stated. These
three, the rebellious and disobedient son, he who steals and sells a
human being, and he who breaks into a house, become murderers in the
course of time, as is well known. Capital punishment is only decreed
for these serious crimes, and in no other case. Not all forbidden
sexual intercourse is visited with the penalty of death, but only in
those cases in which the criminal act can easily be done, is of
frequent occurrence, is base and disgraceful, and of a tempting
character; otherwise excision is the punishment. Likewise not all kinds
of idolatry are capital crimes, but only the principal acts of
idolatry, such as praying to an idol, prophesying in its name, passing
a child through the fire, consulting with familiar spirits, and acting
as a wizard or witch.
As punishments and judgments are evidently indispensable, it was
necessary to appoint judges throughout the country in every town;
witnesses must be heard; and a king is required whom all fear and
respect, who is able to restrain the people by various means, and who
can strengthen and support the authority of the judges. Although I have
shown the reason of all the laws contained in “the Section of Judges”
(Sefer Shofetim), I find it necessary, in accordance with the object of
this treatise, to explain a few of these laws, e.g., the laws
concerning a rebellious elder.
God knew that the judgments of the Law will always require an extension
in some cases and curtailment in others, according to the variety of
places, events, and circumstances. He therefore cautioned against such
increase and diminution, and commanded, “Thou shalt not add thereto nor
diminish from it” (Deut. xiii. 1); for constant changes would tend to
disturb the whole system of the Law, and would lead people to believe
that the Law is not of Divine origin. But permission is at the same
time given to the wise men, i.e., the great court (Synhedrion) of every
generation to make fences round the judgments of the Law for their
protection, and to introduce bye-laws (fences) in order to ensure the
keeping of the Law. Such fences once erected remain in force for ever.
The Mishnah therefore teaches: “And make a fence round the Law” (Abot
i. 1). In the same manner they have the power temporarily to dispense
with some religious act prescribed in the Law, or to allow that which
is forbidden, if exceptional circumstances and events require it; but
none of the laws can be abrogated permanently, as has been explained by
us in the Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah in treating of
temporary legislation. By this method the Law will remain perpetually
the same, and will yet admit at all times and under all circumstances
such temporary modifications as are indispensable. If every scholar had
the power to make such modifications, the multitude of disputes and
differences of opinion would have produced an injurious effect.
Therefore it was commanded that of the Sages only the great Synhedrion,
and none else, should have this power; and whoever would oppose their
decision should be killed. For if any critic were allowed to dispute
the decision of the Synhedrion, the object of this law would not be
attained; it would be useless.
Transgressions may be divided into four classes, viz.—(1) involuntary
transgressions, (2) sins committed in ignorance, (3) sins done
knowingly, and (4) sins done spitefully. He who sins involuntarily is,
according to the distinct declaration of the Law, exempt from
punishment, and free from all blame; comp. “Unto the damsel thou shalt
do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death” (Deut. xxii.
26). If a person sins in ignorance, he is blamable; for if he had been
more considerate and careful, he would not have erred. Although he is
not punished, his sin must be atoned for, and for this reason he brings
a sin-offering. The Law distinguishes in this respect between a private
person and a king, a high-priest or Teacher of Halakah. Hence we
conclude that a person who acts wrongly, or who teaches wrongly, guided
by his own reasoning—except in the case of the great Synhedrion or the
high-priest—is treated as mezid (as one who sins knowingly), and does
not belong to the category of shogegim (of those who sin by error). A
rebellious elder is therefore put to death, although he acted and
taught according to his view. But the great Synhedrion must teach
according to its opinion, and if the opinion is wrong, the sin is
considered as due to error. In reference to such a case the Law says,
“And if the whole congregation of Israel err,” etc. (Lev. iv. 13). It
is on this principle that our Sages say, “The error in learning amounts
to intentional sin” (Abot iv. 13); he who has studied insufficiently,
and teaches and acts according to his defective knowledge, is to be
considered as if he sinned knowingly. For if a person eats of the fat
of the kidneys in the belief that it is the fat of the rump, his error
is not so grave as the error of him who, eating of the fat of the
kidneys, knows that it is that fat, but is ignorant of the fact that it
is prohibited. The latter brings a sin-offering although he is almost
an intentional transgressor. But this is only the case as far as he
acts according to his knowledge; but if he decides a religious question
[wrongly], he is undoubtedly an intentional sinner. The Law admits the
plea of error in a religious decision only in the case of the great
Synhedrion.
He who has sinned knowingly must pay the penalty prescribed in the Law;
he is put to death or receives stripes, or—for transgression of
prohibitions not punishable by stripes—other corporal punishment, or
pays a fine. There are some sins for which the punishment is the same,
whether they have been committed knowingly or unknowingly; because they
are frequent, and are easily done, consisting only in the utterance of
words, and involving no action besides; e.g., false swearing by
witnesses, or by trustees. Intercourse with a betrothed handmaid is
likewise easy and frequent; she is exposed unprotected, being in
reality neither handmaid nor a free person, nor a married woman,
according to the traditional interpretation of this precept.
If a person sins presumptuously, so that in sinning he shows impudence
and seeks publicity, if he does not sin only to satisfy his appetite,
if he does what is prohibited by the Law, not only because of his evil
inclinations, but in order to oppose and resist the Law, he
“reproacheth the Lord” (Num. xv. 30), and must undoubtedly be put to
death. None will act in such a manner but such as have conceived the
idea to act contrary to the Law. According to the traditional
interpretation, therefore, the above passage speaks of an idolater who
opposes the fundamental principles of the Law; for no one worships a
star unless he believes [—contrary to the teachings of Scripture—] that
the star is eternal, as we have frequently stated in our work. I think
that the same punishment [viz., sentence of death] applies to every sin
which involves the rejection of the Law, or opposition to it. Even if
an Israelite eats meat [boiled] in milk, or wears garments of wool and
linen, or rounds the corners of his head, out of spite against the Law,
in order to show clearly that he does not believe in its truth, I apply
to him the words, “he reproacheth the Lord,” and [I am of opinion] that
he must suffer death as an unbeliever, though not for a punishment, but
in the same manner as the inhabitants of a “city misled to idolatry”
are slain for their unbelief, and not by way of punishment for crime;
wherefore their property is destroyed by fire, and is not given to
their heirs, as is the case with the property of other criminals
condemned to death. According to my opinion, all the members of an
Israelitish community which has insolently and presumptuously
transgressed any of the divine precepts, must be put to death. This is
proved by the history of “the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad”
(Josh. xxii.), against whom the whole congregation of Israel decided to
make war. When warning was given to the supposed offenders, it was
explained to them that they had relinquished their faith, because by
agreeing to transgress one particular law they rejected the truth of
the whole Law. For they were addressed as follows: “What trespass is
this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away
this day from following the Lord?” (Josh. xxii. 16); and they replied:
“The Lord knoweth, etc., if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression
against the Lord,” etc. (ibid. 22). Take well notice of these
principles in respect to punishments.
The Section on Judges includes also the commandment to blot out the
memory of Amalek (Deut. xxv. 17–19). In the same way as one individual
person is punished, so must also a whole family or a whole nation be
punished, in order that other families shall hear it and be afraid, and
not accustom themselves to practise mischief. For they will say, we may
suffer in the same way as those people have suffered; and if there be
found among them a wicked, mischievous man, who cares neither for the
evil he brings upon himself nor for that which he causes to others, he
will not find in his family any one ready to help him in his evil
designs. As Amalek was the first to attack Israel with the sword (Exod.
xvii. 8–16), it was commanded to blot out his name by means of the
sword; whilst Ammon and Moab, who have not been friendly simply from
meanness, and have caused them injury by cunning, were only punished by
exclusion from intermarriage with the Israelites, and from their
friendship. All these things which God has commanded as a punishment
are not excessive nor inadequate, but, as is distinctly stated,
“according to the fault” (Deut. xxv. 2).
This section contains also the law concerning preparing “a place
without the camp,” and “having a paddle upon the weapon” (Deut. xxiii.
12, 13). As I have told you, it is one of the objects of the Law to
train Israel to cleanliness; that they should keep free from dirt and
filth, and that men should not be degraded to the condition of cattle.
Another object of this law is to confirm by these preparations the
belief of the warriors that God dwells in their midst. The reason of
the law is therefore stated thus: “For the Lord thy God walketh in the
midst of the camp” (ibid. ver. 14). The mention of this reason gave
occasion to add another lesson: “That he see no unclean thing in thee
and turn away from thee” (ibid.). These words warn and caution us
against the usual inclination of soldiers to fornication, when they are
away from their homes a long time. God therefore commanded us to do
certain things which remind us that He is in our midst; we will thereby
be saved from those evil practices; as it is said, “and thy camp shall
be holy, that he see no unclean thing in thee” (ibid.). Even those who
are unclean by pollution were compelled to stop outside the camp till
the evening, and “then he shall come into the camp again.” It will thus
be confirmed in the heart of every one of the Israelites that their
camp must be like a sanctuary of the Lord, and it must not be like the
camps of the heathen, whose sole object is corruption and sin; who only
seek to cause injury to others and to take their property; whilst our
object is to lead mankind to the service of God, and to a good social
order. I have told you already that I only propose to give here such
reasons as are apparent from the text of the Law.
To the same class belongs also the law concerning “the marriage of a
captive woman” (Deut. xxi. 10 seq.). There is a well-known saying of
our Sages: “This law is only a concession to human weakness.” This law
contains, nevertheless, even for the nobler class of people, some moral
lessons to which I will call your attention. For although the soldier
may be overcome by his desire which he is unable to suppress or to
restrain, he must take the object of his lust to a private place, “into
the inner of his house” (Deut. xxi. 12), and he is not permitted to
force her in the camp. Similarly our Sages say, that he may not cohabit
with her a second time before she leaves off her mourning, and is at
ease about her troubles. She must not be prevented from mourning and
crying, and she must be permitted to abstain from bathing, in
accordance with the words, “and she shall weep for her father and for
her mother” (ibid.); for mourners find comfort in crying and in
excitement till the body has not sufficient strength to bear the inner
emotions; in the same manner as happy persons find rest in various
kinds of play. Thus the Lord is merciful to her and gives her
permission to continue her mourning and weeping till she is worn out.
You know certainly that he married her as a heathen, and that during
the thirty days she openly keeps her religion and even continues her
idolatrous practices; no interference with her faith was allowed during
that time; and after all that she could not be sold, nor treated as a
handmaid, if she could not be induced to accept the statutes of the
Law. Thus the Law does not ignore the cohabitation of the Israelite
with the captive woman, although it involved disobedience to God to
some extent, having taken place when she was still a heathen. The Law
prescribes: “Thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast
humbled her” (ibid. 14). We have thus shown the moral lessons contained
in these laws, and we have explained the reason of every precept of
this section.
CHAPTER XLII
The precepts of the seventh class are the civil laws enumerated in the
Section on Judgments, and part of the Section on Property. The object
of these precepts is obvious. They define the ways of equity in the
various transactions which must take place between man and man. Those
that are engaged in such transactions must mutually promote each
other’s interests; neither of the parties must strive to increase only
his own profit, and that he alone should enjoy the whole benefit of the
transaction. In the first place, no overcharge is permitted; only the
ordinary and known rate of profit may be taken. The law fixes the
limits of profits within which the transaction is valid. Even
imposition in mere words [where no material harm is inflicted] is
forbidden, as is well known. Next comes the law of the four kind of
bailees; the fairness of the law is evident. If one keeps the property
of his neighbour for nothing, without deriving therefrom any benefit
for himself, and is only obliging his neighbour, he is free from all
responsibility, and if any injury is done to the property, the owner
alone must bear the loss. He who borrows a thing keeps it only for his
own advantage, whilst the owner lends it to him to oblige him; he is
therefore responsible for everything; any loss in the property must be
borne by the borrower. If one takes wages for keeping the property or
pays for using it, he as well as the owner profit thereby; the losses
must therefore be divided between them. It is done in this manner; the
bailee pays for any loss caused through want of care, namely, when the
property is stolen or lost; for this happens only when the bailee does
not take sufficient precaution. The owner, on the other hand, bears
such losses as cannot be prevented; namely, if by accident the animal
falls and breaks its limbs, or is carried away by armed men as booty,
or if it dies. The Law further ordains merciful conduct towards hired
workmen because of their poverty. Their wages should be paid without
delay, and they must not be wronged in any of their rights; they must
receive their pay according to their work. Another instance of kindness
to workmen is this: according to the regulations of this law, workmen,
and even animals, must be permitted to partake of the food in the
preparation of which they have been engaged. The laws which relate to
property include laws concerning inheritance. They are based on the
sound principle that man must not “withhold good from those to whom it
is due” (Prov. iii. 27), and when he is about to die, he must not
conceive ill-will against his heirs, by squandering his property, but
leave it to the one who has the greatest claim on it, that is, to him
who is his nearest relation, “unto his kinsman that is next to him of
his family” (Num. xxvii. 11). It is clearly stated that the son has the
first claim, then comes the daughter, then the brother, and then the
father’s brothers, as is well known. The father must leave the right of
the first-born to his eldest son, because his love for this son came
first; he must not be guided by his inclination. He may not make the
son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated (Deut. xxi.
16). Thus our highly equitable Law preserves and strengthens the virtue
of respecting all kinsmen, and doing well unto them, as the prophet
says: “He that is cruel troubleth his own flesh” (Prov. xi. 17). The
Law correctly says, “Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother,
unto thy poor” (Deut. xv. 11). Our Sages bestow much praise upon him
who is kind to his relatives, and him who marries the daughter of his
sister. The Law has taught us how far we have to extend this principle
of favouring those who are near to us, and of treating kindly every one
with whom we have some relationship, even if he offended or wronged us;
even if he is very bad, we must have some consideration for him. Thus
the Law says: “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother”
(ibid. xxiii. 7). Again, if we find a person in trouble, whose
assistance we have once enjoyed, or of whom we have received some
benefit, even if that person has subsequently done evil to us, we must
bear in mind his previous [good] conduct. Thus the Law tells us: “Thou
shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land”
(ibid.), although the Egyptians have subsequently oppressed us very
much, as is well-known. See how many moral lessons we have derived from
these precepts. The last two precepts do not belong to the seventh
class; but the discussion of the preference due to relatives as regards
inheritance led us to speak of the Egyptians and the Edomites.
CHAPTER XLIII
The precepts of the eighth class are enumerated in “the Section on
Seasons” (Sefer zemannim). With a few exceptions, the reasons for all
of them are stated in the Law. The object of Sabbath is obvious, and
requires no explanation. The rest it affords to man is known;
one-seventh of the life of every man, whether small or great, passes
thus in comfort, and in rest from trouble and exertion. This the
Sabbath effects in addition to the perpetuation and confirmation of the
grand doctrine of the Creation. The object of the Fast of Atonement is
evident. The Fast creates the sense of repentance; it is the same day
on which the chief of all prophets came down [from Mount Sinai] with
the second tables, and announced to the people the divine pardon of
their great sin; the day was therefore appointed for ever as a day
devoted to repentance and true worship of God. For this reason all
material enjoyment, all trouble and care for the body, are interdicted,
no work may be done; the day must be spent in confession; every one
shall confess his sins and abandon them.
Other holy days are appointed for rejoicing and for such pleasant
gathering as people generally need. They also promote the good feeling
that men should have to each other in their social and political
relations. The appointment of the special days for such purposes has
its cause. The reason for the Passover is well known. It is kept seven
days, because the period of seven days is the unit of time intermediate
between a day and a month. It is also known how great is the importance
of this period in Nature, and in many religious duties. For the Law
always follows Nature, and in some respects brings it to perfection;
for Nature is not capable of designing and thinking, whilst the Law is
the result of the wisdom and guidance of God, who is the author of the
intellect of all rational beings. This, however, is not the theme of
the present chapter; let us return to our subject.
The Feast of Weeks is the anniversary of the Revelation on Mount Sinai.
In order to raise the importance of this day, we count the days that
pass since the preceding festival, just as one who expects his most
intimate friend on a certain day counts the days and even the hours.
This is the reason why we count the days that pass since the offering
of the Omer, between the anniversary of our departure from Egypt and
the anniversary of the Lawgiving. The latter was the aim and object of
the exodus from Egypt, and thus God said, “I brought you unto myself”
(Exod. xix. 4). As that great revelation took place only on one day, so
we keep its anniversary only one day; but if the eating of unleavened
bread on Passover were only commanded for one day, we should not have
noticed it, and its object would not have been manifest. For it
frequently happens that we take the same kind of food for two or three
days. But by our continuing for a whole period [of seven days] to eat
unleavened bread, its object becomes clear and evident.
New-Year is likewise kept for one day; for it is a day of repentance on
which we are stirred up from our forgetfulness. For this reason the
shofar is blown on this day, as we have shown in Mishneh-torah. The day
is, as it were, a preparation for and an introduction to the day of the
Fast, as is obvious from the national tradition about the days between
New-Year and the Day of Atonement.
The Feast of Tabernacles, which is a feast of rejoicing and gladness,
is kept seven days, in order that the idea of the festival may be more
noticeable. The reason why it is kept in the autumn is stated in the
Law, “When thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field” (Exod.
xxiii. 16); that is to say, when you rest and are free from pressing
labours. Aristotle, in the ninth book of his Ethics, mentions this as a
general custom among the nations. He says: “In ancient times the
sacrifices and assemblies of the people took place after the
ingathering of the corn and the fruit, as if the sacrifices were
offered on account of the harvest.” Another reason is this—in this
season it is possible to dwell in tabernacles, as there is neither
great heat nor troublesome rain.
The two festivals, Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, imply also
the teaching of certain truths and certain moral lessons. Passover
teaches us to remember the miracles which God wrought in Egypt, and to
perpetuate their memory; the Feast of Tabernacles reminds us of the
miracles wrought in the wilderness. The moral lessons derived from
these feasts is this: man ought to remember his evil days in his days
of prosperity. He will thereby be induced to thank God repeatedly, to
lead a modest and humble life. We eat, therefore, unleavened bread and
bitter herbs on Passover in memory of what has happened unto us, and
leave [on Succoth] our houses in order to dwell in tabernacles, as
inhabitants of deserts do that are in want of comfort. We shall thereby
remember that this has once been our condition; [comp.] “I made the
children of Israel to dwell in booths” (Lev. xxiii. 43); although we
dwell now in elegant houses, in the best and most fertile land, by the
kindness of God, and because of His promises to our forefathers,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were perfect in their opinions and in
their conduct. This idea is likewise an important element in our
religion; that whatever good we have received and ever will receive of
God, is owing to the merits of the Patriarchs, who “kept the way of the
Lord to do justice and judgment” (Gen. xviii. 19). We join to the Feast
of Tabernacles the Feast of the Eighth Day, in order to complete our
rejoicings, which cannot be perfect in booths, but in comfortable and
well-built houses. As regards the four species [the branches of the
palm tree, the citron, the myrtle, and the willows of the brook] our
Sages gave a reason for their use by way of Agadic interpretation, the
method of which is well known to those who are acquainted with the
style of our Sages. They use the text of the Bible only as a kind of
poetical language [for their own ideas], and do not intend thereby to
give an interpretation of the text. As to the value of these Midrashic
interpretations, we meet with two different opinions. For some think
that the Midrash contains the real explanation of the text, whilst
others, finding that it cannot be reconciled with the words quoted,
reject and ridicule it. The former struggle and fight to prove and to
confirm such interpretations according to their opinion, and to keep
them as the real meaning of the text; they consider them in the same
light as traditional laws. Neither of the two classes understood it,
that our Sages employ biblical texts merely as poetical expressions,
the meaning of which is dear to every reasonable reader. This style was
general in ancient days; all adopted it in the same way as poets [adopt
a certain style]. Our Sages say, in reference to the words, “and a
paddle (yated) thou shalt have upon thy weapon” [azeneka, Deut. xxiii.
14]: Do not read azeneka, “thy weapon,” but ozneka, “thy ear.” You are
thus told, that if you hear a person uttering something disgraceful,
put your fingers into your ears. Now, I wonder whether those ignorant
persons [who take the Midrashic interpretations literally] believe that
the author of this saying gave it as the true interpretation of the
text quoted, and as the meaning of this precept; that in truth yated,
“the paddle,” is used for “the finger,” and azeneka denotes “thy ear.”
I cannot think that any person whose intellect is sound can admit this.
The author employed the text as a beautiful poetical phrase, in
teaching an excellent moral lesson, namely this: It is as bad to listen
to bad language as it is to use it. This lesson is poetically connected
with the above text. In the same sense you must understand the phrase,
“Do not read so, but so,” wherever it occurs in the Midrash. I have
departed from my subject, but it was for the purpose of making a remark
useful to every intellectual member of the Rabbanites. I now return to
our theme. I believe that the four species are a symbolical expression
of our rejoicing that the Israelites changed the wilderness, “no place
of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, or of water to
drink” (Num. xx. 5), with a country full of fruit-trees and rivers. In
order to remember this we take the fruit which is the most pleasant of
the fruit of the land, branches which smell best, most beautiful
leaves, and also the best of herbs, i.e., the willows of the brook.
These four kinds have also those three purposes: First, they were
plentiful in those days in Palestine, so that every one could easily
get them. Secondly, they have a good appearance, they are green; some
of them, viz., the citron and the myrtle, are also excellent as regards
their smell, the branches of the palm-tree and the willow having
neither good nor bad smell. Thirdly, they keep fresh and green for
seven days, which is not the case with peaches, pomegranates,
asparagus, nuts, and the like.
CHAPTER XLIV
The precepts of the ninth class are those enumerated in the Section on
Love. Their reason is obvious. The actions prescribed by them serve to
remind us continually of God, and of our duty to fear and to love Him,
to keep all His commandments, and to believe concerning God that which
every religious person must believe. This class includes the laws of
Prayer, Reading of Shema, Grace, and duties connected with these,
Blessing of the priests, Tefillin, Mezuzah, Ẓiẓit, acquiring a scroll
of the Law, and reading in it at certain times. The performance of all
these precepts inculcates into our heart useful lessons. All this is
clear, and a further explanation is superfluous, as being a mere
repetition and nothing else.
CHAPTER XLV
The precepts of the tenth class are those enumerated in the laws on the
Temple (Hilkot bet ha-beḥirah), the laws on the vessels of the temple
and on the ministers in the temple [Hilkot kele ha-miḳdash veha-ʻobedim
bo]. The use of these precepts we have stated in general terms. It is
known that idolaters selected the highest possible places on high
mountains where to build their temples and to place their images.
Therefore Abraham, our father, chose Mount Moriah, being the highest
mount in that country, and proclaimed there the Unity of God. He
selected the west of the mount as the place toward which he turned
during his prayers, because [he thought that] the most holy place was
in the West; this is the meaning of the saying of our Sages, “The
Shekinah (the Glory of God) is in the West” (B. T. Baba B 25a); and it
is distinctly stated in the Talmud Yoma that our father Abraham chose
the west side, the place where the Most Holy was built. I believe that
he did so because it was then a general rite to worship the sun as a
deity. Undoubtedly all people turned then to the East [worshipping the
Sun]. Abraham turned therefore on Mount Moriah to the West, that is,
the site of the Sanctuary, and turned his back toward the sun; and the
Israelites, when they abandoned their God and returned to the early bad
principles, stood “with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and
their faces toward the East, and they worshipped the sun toward the
East” (Ezek. viii. 16). Note this strange fact. I do not doubt that the
spot which Abraham chose in his prophetical spirit, was known to Moses
our Teacher, and to others; for Abraham commanded his children that on
this place a house of worship should be built. Thus the Targum says
distinctly, “And Abraham worshipped and prayed there in that place, and
said before God, ‘Here shall coming generations worship the Lord’”
(Gen. xxii. 14). For three practical reasons the name of the place is
not distinctly stated in the Law, but indicated in the phrase “To the
place which the Lord will choose” (Deut. xii. 11, etc.). First, if the
nations had learnt that this place was to be the centre of the highest
religious truths, they would occupy it, or fight about it most
perseveringly. Secondly, those who were then in possession of it might
destroy and ruin the place with all their might. Thirdly, and chiefly,
every one of the twelve tribes would desire to have this place in its
borders and under its control; this would lead to divisions and
discord, such as were caused by the desire for the priesthood.
Therefore it was commanded that the Temple should not be built before
the election of a king who would order its erection, and thus remove
the cause of discord. We have explained this in the Section on Judges
(ch. xli.).
It is known that the heathen in those days built temples to stars, and
set up in those temples the image which they agreed upon to worship;
because it was in some relation to a certain star or to a portion of
one of the spheres. We were, therefore, commanded to build a temple to
the name of God, and to place therein the ark with two tables of stone,
on which there were written the commandments “I am the Lord,” etc., and
“Thou shalt have no other God before me,” etc. Naturally the
fundamental belief in prophecy precedes the belief in the Law, for
without the belief in prophecy there can be no belief in the Law. But a
prophet only receives divine inspiration through the agency of an
angel. Comp. “The angel of the Lord called” (Gen. xxii. 15); “The angel
of the Lord said unto her” (ibid. xvi. 11); and other innumerable
instances. Even Moses our Teacher received his first prophecy through
an angel. “And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the flame of
fire” (Exod. iii.). It is therefore clear that the belief in the
existence of angels precedes the belief in prophecy, and the latter
precedes the belief in the Law. The Sabeans, in their ignorance of the
existence of God, believed that the spheres with their stars were
beings without beginning and without end, that the images and certain
trees, the Asherot, derived certain powers from the spheres, that they
inspired the prophets, spoke to them in visions, and told them what was
good and what bad. I have explained their theory when speaking of the
prophets of the Ashera. But when the wise men discovered and proved
that there was a Being, neither itself corporeal nor residing as a
force in a corporeal body, viz., the true, one God, and that there
existed besides other purely incorporeal beings which God endowed with
His goodness and His light, namely, the angels, and that these beings
are not included in the sphere and its stars, it became evident that it
was these angels and not the images or Asherot that charged the
prophets. From the preceding remarks it is clear that the belief in the
existence of angels is connected with the belief in the Existence of
God; and the belief in God and angels leads to the belief in Prophecy
and in the truth of the Law. In order to firmly establish this creed,
God commanded [the Israelites] to make over the ark the form of two
angels. The belief in the existence of angels is thus inculcated into
the minds of the people, and this belief is in importance next to the
belief in God’s Existence; it leads us to believe in Prophecy and in
the Law, and opposes idolatry. If there had only been one figure of a
cherub, the people would have been misled and would have mistaken it
for God’s image which was to be worshipped, in the fashion of the
heathen; or they might have assumed that the angel [represented by the
figure] was also a deity, and would thus have adopted a Dualism. By
making two cherubim and distinctly declaring “the Lord is our God, the
Lord is One,” Moses clearly proclaimed the theory of the existence of a
number of angels; he left no room for the error of considering those
figures as deities, since [he declared that] God is one, and that He is
the Creator of the angels, who are more than one.
A candlestick was then put in front of the curtain, as a sign of honour
and distinction for the Temple. For a chamber in which a continual
light burns, hidden behind a curtain, makes a great impression on man,
and the Law lays great stress on our holding the Sanctuary in great
estimation and regard, and that at the sight of it we should be filled
with humility, mercy, and soft-heartedness. This is expressed in the
words, “And ye shall reverence my sanctuary” (Lev. xix. 30), and in
order to give these words more weight, they are closely joined to the
command to keep the Sabbath.
The use of the altar for incense and the altar for burnt-offering and
their vessels is obvious; but I do not know the object of the table
with the bread upon it continually, and up to this day I have not been
able to assign any reason to this commandment.
The commandment that the stones of the altar shall not be hewn and that
no iron tool shall be lifted up upon them (Deut. xxvii. 5), has been
explained by our Sages as follows: It is not right that the tool that
shortens man’s life should be lifted up upon that which gives length of
life. As an Agadic explanation this is good; but the real reason is
this: the heathen used to build their altars with hewn stones; we ought
not to imitate them. For this reason we have to make an altar of earth:
“Thou shalt make unto me an altar of earth” (Exod. xx. 24); if it
should be impossible to dispense altogether with stones, they must not
be hewn, but employed in their natural state. Thus the Law also
prohibits from worshipping over painted stones (Lev. xxvi. 1), or from
planting any tree near the altar of the Lord (Deut. xvi. 21). The
object of all these commandments is the same, namely, that we shall not
employ in the worship of God anything which the heathen employed in the
worship of their idols. In general terms this is repeated in the
following passage: “Take heed, that thou inquire not after their gods,
saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do
likewise” (Deut. xii. 30); the Israelites shall not do this, because—as
is expressly added—“every abomination unto the Lord, which he hateth,
have they done unto their gods.”
The mode of worshipping Peor, then very general among the heathen,
consisted in uncovering the nakedness. The priests were therefore
commanded to make breeches for themselves to cover their nakedness
during the service, and, besides, no steps were to lead up to the
altar, “that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon” (Exod. xx. 23).
The Sanctuary was constantly guarded and surrounded [by Levites] as a
mark of respect and honour; and at the same time the layman, the
unclean, and mourners, were prevented from entering the Sanctuary, as
will be explained. Among other things that tend to display the
greatness and the glory of the Temple and to inspire us with awe, is
the rule that none shall approach it in a state of drunkenness or
uncleanness, or in a disorderly state, i.e., the hair undressed and the
garments rent; and that every one who officiated as priest should first
wash his hands and his feet.
In order to raise the estimation of the Temple, those who ministered
therein received great honour; and the priests and Levites were
therefore distinguished from the rest. It was commanded that the
priests should be clothed properly with beautiful and good garments,
“holy garments for glory and for beauty” (Exod. xxviii. 2). A priest
that had a blemish was not allowed to officiate; and not only those
that had a blemish were excluded from the service, but also—according
to the Talmudic interpretation of this precept—those that had an
abnormal appearance; for the multitude does not estimate man by his
true form but by the perfection of his bodily limbs and the beauty of
his garments, and the Temple was to be held in great reverence by all.
The Levites did not sacrifice; they were not considered as being agents
in the atonement of sins, for it was only the priest who was commanded
“to make atonement for him” (Lev. iv. 26) and “to make atonement for
her” (Lev. xii. 8). The duty of the Levites was the performance of
vocal music; and a Levite became therefore disabled for service when he
lost his voice. The object of the singing is to produce certain
emotions; this object can only be attained by pleasing sounds and
melodies accompanied by music, as was always the case in the Temple.
Again, the priests, even when fit for service, and actually officiating
in the Temple, were not allowed to sit down, or enter it whenever they
liked; the Most Holy was only entered by the high-priest four times on
the Day of Atonement, and on no other occasion. The object of all these
rules was to raise the estimation of the Sanctuary in the eyes of the
people.
Since many beasts were daily slaughtered in the holy place, the flesh
cut in pieces and the entrails and the legs burnt and washed, the smell
of the place would undoubtedly have been like the smell of
slaughter-houses, if nothing had been done to counteract it. They were
therefore commanded to burn incense there twice every day, in the
morning and in the evening (Exod. xxx. 7, 8), in order to give the
place and the garments of those who officiated there a pleasant odour.
There is a well-known saying of our Sages, “In Jericho they could smell
the incense” [burnt in the Temple]. This provision likewise tended to
support the dignity of the Temple. If there had not been a good smell,
let alone if there had been a stench, it would have produced in the
minds of the people the reverse of respect; for our heart generally
feels elevated in the presence of good odour, and is attracted by it,
but it abhors and avoids bad smell.
The anointing oil (Exod. xxx. 22–33) served a double purpose: to give
the anointed object a good odour, and to produce the impression that it
was something great, holy, and distinguished, and better than other
objects of the same species; it made no difference whether that object
was a human being, a garment, or a vessel. All this aimed at producing
due respect towards the Sanctuary, and indirectly fear of God. When a
person enters the Temple, certain emotions are produced in him; and
obstinate hearts are softened and humbled. These plans and indirect
means were devised by the Law, to soften and humble man’s heart at
entering the holy place, in order that he might entrust himself to the
sure guidance of God’s commandments. This is distinctly said in the
Law: “And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he
shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy
wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy
flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always” (Deut.
xiv. 23). The object of all these ceremonies is now clear. The reason
why we are not allowed to prepare [for common use] the anointing oil
and the incense (ibid. ver. 32, 38) is obvious; for when the odour [of
the oil and incense] is perceived only in the Sanctuary, the desired
effect is great; besides [if it were allowed for every one to prepare
the anointing oil], people might anoint themselves therewith and
imagine themselves distinguished; much disorder and dissension would
then follow.
It is clear that when the ark was carried on the shoulder, and was not
put on a waggon, it was done out of respect towards it, and also to
prevent its being damaged in its form and shape; even the staves were
not moved out of the rings, for this reason. In order that the form of
the ephod and the breastplate should not be spoiled, they were never
separated. The garments were also entirely woven and not cut, in order
not to spoil the work of the weaving.
Those that ministered in the Temple were strictly prohibited to
interfere with each other’s work; for if in public duties and offices,
each one would not have assigned to him his particular task, general
carelessness and neglect would soon be noticed.
It is evident that the object of giving different degrees of sanctity
to the different places, to the Temple mount, the place between the two
walls, to the Hall of women, to the Hall, and so on up to the Most
Holy, was to raise the respect and reverence of the Temple in the heart
of every one that approached it.
We have thus described the reason of all precepts of this class.
CHAPTER XLVI
The precepts of the eleventh class are enumerated in the Section on
Divine Service (Sefer ʻabodah) and the Section on Sacrifices (Sefer
ha-ḳorbanot). We have described their use in general terms (chap.
xxxii.). I will now proceed to give the reason of each precept
separately.
Scripture tells us, according to the Version of Onkelos, that the
Egyptians worshipped Aries, and therefore abstained from killing sheep,
and held shepherds in contempt. Comp. “Behold we shall sacrifice the
abomination of the Egyptians,” etc. (Exod. viii. 26); “For every
shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians” (Gen. xlvi. 34). Some
sects among the Sabeans worshipped demons, and imagined that these
assumed the form of goats, and called them therefore “goats” [seʻirim].
This worship was widespread. Comp. “And they shall no more offer their
sacrifices unto demons, after whom they have gone a whoring” (Lev.
xvii. 7). For this reason those sects abstained from eating goats’
flesh. Most idolaters objected to killing cattle, holding this species
of animals in great estimation. Therefore the people of Hodu [Indians]
up to this day do not slaughter cattle even in those countries where
other animals are slaughtered. In order to eradicate these false
principles, the Law commands us to offer sacrifices only of these three
kinds: “Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle [viz.], of the herd
and of the flock” (Lev. i. 2). Thus the very act which is considered by
the heathen as the greatest crime, is the means of approaching God, and
obtaining His pardon for our sins. In this manner, evil principles, the
diseases of the human soul, are cured by other principles which are
diametrically opposite.
This is also the reason why we were commanded to kill a lamb on
Passover, and to sprinkle the blood thereof outside on the gates. We
had to free ourselves of evil doctrines and to proclaim the opposite,
viz., that the very act which was then considered as being the cause of
death would be the cause of deliverance from death. Comp. “And the Lord
will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come unto
your houses to smite you” (Exod. xii. 23). Thus they were rewarded for
performing openly a service every part of which was objected to by the
idolaters.
To the above reason for the exclusive selection of the three kinds of
animals for sacrifices, we may add the following, namely, that these
species are animals which can be got very easily, contrary to the
practice of idolaters that sacrifice lions, bears, and wild beasts, as
is stated in the book Tomtom. As, however, many could not afford to
offer a beast, the Law commanded that birds also should be sacrificed,
but only of those species which are found abundantly in Palestine, are
suitable, and can easily be obtained, namely, turtle-doves and pigeons.
Those who are too poor to offer a bird, may bring bread of any of the
kinds then in use: baked in the oven, baked in a pan, or in a
frying-pan. If the baking of the bread is too much trouble for a
person, he may bring flour. All this concerns only those who desire to
sacrifice; for we are distinctly told that the omission of the
sacrificial service on our part will not be reckoned to us a sin: “If
thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee” (Deut. xxiii.
22). The idolaters did not offer any other bread but leavened, and
chose sweet things for their sacrifices, which they seasoned with
honey, as is fully described in the books which I named before; but
salt is not mentioned in any of their sacrifices. Our Law therefore
forbade us to offer leaven or honey, and commanded us to have salt in
every sacrifice: “With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt” (Lev.
ii. 13). It is further ordained that the offerings must all be perfect
and in the best condition, in order that no one should slight the
offering or treat with contempt that which is offered to God’s name:
“Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee?” (Mal.
i. 8). This is the reason why no animal could be brought that was not
yet seven days old (Lev. xxii. 26); it is imperfect and contemptible,
like an untimely birth. Because of their degraded character it was
prohibited to bring “the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog”
(Deut. xxiii. 18) into the Sanctuary. In order to bring the offering in
the best condition, we choose the old of the turtle-doves and the young
of the pigeons, the old pigeons being less agreeable. The oblation must
likewise be mingled with oil, and must be of fine flour (Lev. ii. 1),
for in this condition it is good and pleasant. Frankincense is
prescribed (ibid.) because its fumes are good in places filled with the
odour of burnt flesh. The burnt-offering was flayed (Lev. i. 16), and
its inwards and legs, although they were entirely burnt, had to be
previously washed (ibid. ver. 9), in order that due respect should be
shown to the sacrifice, and it should not appear despicable and
contemptible. This object is constantly kept in view, and is often
taught, “Ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit
thereof, even his meat, is contemptible” (Mal. i. 12). For the same
reason no body uncircumcised, or unclean (Lev. xxii. 4), was allowed to
partake of any offering; nor could any offering be eaten that had
become unclean (Lev. vii. 19), or was left till after a certain time
(ibid. vii. 15–17), or concerning which an illegal intention had been
conceived; and it had also to be consumed in a particular place. Of the
burnt-offering, which is entirely devoted to God, nothing at all was
eaten. Those sacrifices which are brought for a sin, viz., sin-offering
and guilt-offering, must be eaten within the court of the Sanctuary
(ʻazarah), and only on the day of their slaughtering and the night
following, whilst peace-offerings, which are next in sanctity, being
sacrifices of the second degree, may be eaten in the whole of
Jerusalem, on the day they have been offered and on the following day,
but not later. After that time the sacrifices would become spoiled, and
be unfit for food.
In order that we may respect the sacrifices and all that is devoted to
the name of God, we are told that whosoever takes part of a holy thing
for common use has committed a trespass, must bring a sin-offering, and
restore what he has taken with an addition of the fifth part of its
value, although he may have committed the trespass in ignorance. For
the same reason animals reserved for holy purposes must not be employed
in work; nor is the shearing of such animals permitted (Deut. xv. 19).
The law concerning the change of a sacrifice must be considered as a
preventive; for if it were permitted to substitute a good animal for a
bad one, people would substitute a bad animal for a good one, and say
that it was better than the original; it was therefore the rule that,
if any such change had taken place, both the “original sacrifice and
the exchange thereof should be holy” (Lev. xxvii. 9). When a person
redeems a thing devoted by him to the Sanctuary, he must likewise add
one-fifth (Lev. xxvii. 13, 15); the reason for this is plain. Man is
usually selfish, and is naturally inclined to keep and save his
property. He would therefore not take the necessary trouble in the
interest of the Sanctuary; he would not expose his property
sufficiently to the sight of the valuer, and its true value would not
be fixed. Therefore the owner had to add one-fifth, whilst a stranger
paid only the exact value. These rules were laid down in order that
people should not despise that with which the name of God is connected,
and which serves as a means of approaching God. The oblation of the
priest was entirely burnt (Lev. vi. 16), because the priest offered up
his oblation by himself, and if he were to offer it, and at the same
time to eat it, it would appear as if he had not performed any service.
For nothing was offered upon the altar of the ordinary oblations of any
person except the frankincense and a handful of the flour or cake; and
if, in addition to the fact that the offering was small, he who offered
it were himself to eat it, nothing of a sacrificial service would be
noticed. It is therefore entirely burnt (Lev. vi. 16).
The reason of the particular laws concerning the Passover lamb is
clear. It was eaten roasted by fire (Exod. xii. 8–9) in one house, and
without breaking the bones thereof (ibid. ver. 46). In the same way as
the Israelites were commanded to eat unleavened bread, because they
could prepare it hastily, so they were commanded, for the sake of
haste, to roast the lamb, because there was not sufficient time to boil
it, or to prepare other food; even the delay caused by breaking the
bones and to extract their marrow was prohibited; the one principle is
laid down for all these rules, “Ye shall eat it in haste” (Exod. xii.
11). But when haste is necessary the bones cannot be broken, nor parts
of it sent from house to house; for the company could not wait with
their meal till he returned. Such things would lead to laxity and
delay, whilst the object of these rules was to make a show of the hurry
and haste, in order that none should be too late to leave Egypt with
the main body of the people, and be thus exposed to the attacks and the
evil [designs of the enemy]. These temporary commandments were then
made permanent, in order that we may remember what was done in those
days. “And thou shalt keep this ordinance in his season from year to
year” (Exod. xiii. 10). Each Passover lamb was only eaten by those who
had previously agreed to consume it together, in order that people
should be anxious to procure it, and should not rely on friends,
relations, or on chance, without themselves taking any trouble about it
before Passover. The reason of the prohibition that the uncircumcised
should not eat of it (Exod. xii. 48) is explained by our Sages as
follows:—The Israelites neglected circumcision during their long stay
in Egypt, in order to make themselves appear like the Egyptians. When
God gave them the commandment of the Passover, and ordered that no one
should kill the Passover lamb unless he, his sons, and all the male
persons in his household were circumcised, that only “then he could
come near and keep it” (ibid. xii. 48), all performed this commandment,
and the number of the circumcised being large the blood of the Passover
and that of the circumcision flowed together. The Prophet Ezekiel (xvi.
6), referring to this event, says, “When I saw thee sprinkled with
thine own blood I said unto thee, Live because of thy [two kinds of]
blood,” i.e., because of the blood of the Passover and that of the
circumcision.
Although blood was very unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans, they
nevertheless partook of it, because they thought it was the food of the
spirits; by eating it man has something in common with the spirits,
which join him and tell him future events, according to the notion
which people generally have of spirits. There were, however, people who
objected to eating blood, as a thing naturally disliked by man; they
killed a beast, received the blood in a vessel or in a pot, and ate of
the flesh of that beast, whilst sitting round the blood. They imagined
that in this manner the spirits would come to partake of the blood
which was their food, whilst the idolaters were eating the flesh; that
love, brotherhood, and friendship with the spirits were established,
because they dined with the latter at one place and at the same time;
that the spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them of coming
events, and be favourable to them. Such ideas people liked and accepted
in those days; they were general, and their correctness was not doubted
by any one of the common people. The Law, which is perfect in the eyes
of those who know it, and seeks to cure mankind of these lasting
diseases, forbade the eating of blood, and emphasized the prohibition
exactly in the same terms as it emphasizes idolatry: “I will set my
face against that soul that eateth blood” (Lev. xvii. 10). The same
language is employed in reference to him “who giveth of his seed unto
Molech”; “then I will set my face against that man” (ibid. xx. 5).
There is, besides idolatry and eating blood, no other sin in reference
to which these words are used. For the eating of blood leads to a kind
of idolatry, to the worship of spirits. Our Law declared the blood as
pure, and made it the means of purifying other objects by its touch.
“And thou shalt take of the blood ... and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and
upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons
with him. And he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons,”
etc. (Exod. xxix. 21). Furthermore, the blood was sprinkled upon the
altar, and in the whole service it was insisted upon pouring it out,
and not upon collecting it. Comp. “And he shall pour out all the blood
at the bottom of the altar” (Lev. iv. 18); “And the blood of thy
sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God”
(Deut. xii. 27). Also the blood of those beasts that were killed for
common use, and not for sacrifices, must be poured out, “Thou shalt
pour it upon the earth as water” (ibid. ver. 24). We are not allowed to
gather and have a meal round the blood, “You shall not eat round the
blood” (Lev. xix. 26). As the Israelites were inclined to continue
their rebellious conduct, to follow the doctrines in which they had
been brought up, and which were then general, and to assemble round the
blood in order to eat there and to meet the spirits, God forbade the
Israelites to eat ordinary meat during their stay in the wilderness;
they could only partake of the meat of peace-offerings. The reason of
this precept is distinctly stated, viz., that the blood shall be poured
out upon the altar, and the people do not assemble round about. Comp.
“To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices,
which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto
the Lord.... And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar,
... and they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the spirits”
(Lev. xvii. 5–7). Now there remained to provide for the slaughtering of
the beasts of the field and birds, because those beasts were never
sacrificed, and birds did never serve as peace-offerings (Lev. iii.).
The commandment was therefore given that whenever a beast or a bird
that may be eaten is killed, the blood thereof must be covered with
earth (Lev. xvii. 13), in order that the people should not assemble
round the blood for the purpose of eating there. The object was thus
fully gained to break the connexion between these fools and their
spirits. This belief flourished about the time of our Teacher Moses.
People were attracted and misled by it. We find it in the Song of Moses
(Deut. xxxii.): “They sacrificed unto spirits, not to God” (ibid. 17).
According to the explanation of our Sages, the words lo eloha imply the
following idea: They have not only not left off worshipping things in
existence; they even worship imaginary things. This is expressed in
Sifri as follows: “It is not enough for them to worship the sun, the
moon, the stars; they even worship their babuah.” The word babuah
signifies “shadow.” Let us now return to our subject. The prohibition
of slaughtering cattle for common use applied only to the wilderness,
because as regards the “spirits” it was then the general belief that
they dwelt in deserts, that there they spoke and were visible, whilst
in towns and in cultivated land they did not appear. In accordance with
this belief those inhabitants of a town who wanted to perform any of
those stupid practices, left the town and went to woods and waste
places. The use of cattle for common food was therefore allowed when
the Israelites entered Palestine. Besides, there were great hopes that
the disease would become weakened, and the followers of the doctrines
would decrease. Furthermore, it was almost impossible that every one
who wanted to eat meat should come to Jerusalem. For these reasons the
above restriction was limited to the stay of the Israelites in the
wilderness.
The greater the sin which a person had committed, the lower was the
species from which the sin-offering was brought. The offering for
worshipping idols in ignorance was only a she-goat, whilst for other
sins an ordinary person brought either a ewe-lamb or a she-goat (Lev.
iv. 27–35), the females bring, as a rule, in every species, inferior to
the males. There is no greater sin than idolatry, and also no inferior
species than a she-goat. The offering of a king for sins committed
ignorantly was a he-goat (ibid. vers. 22–26), as a mark of distinction.
The high priest and the Synhedrion, who only gave a wrong decision in
ignorance, but have not actually committed a sin, brought a bull for
their sin-offering (ibid. ver. 3–21), or a he-goat, when the decision
referred to idolatry (Num. xv. 22–26). The sins for which
guilt-offerings were brought were not as bad as transgressions that
required a sin-offering. The guilt-offering was therefore a ram, or a
lamb, so that the species as well as the sex were superior in this
latter case, for the guilt-offering was a male sheep. For the same
reason we see the burnt-offering, which was entirely burnt upon the
altar, was selected from the superior sex; for only male animals were
admitted as burnt-offerings. It is in accordance with the same
principle that luxury and incense were absent from the oblations of a
sinner (Lev. v. 11), and of a sotah, i.e., a woman suspected of
adultery (Num. v. 15). In these cases the oil and the frankincense were
not added; this luxury was absent, because the persons that brought the
oblation were not good and proper in their deeds, and they are, as it
were, to be reminded by their offerings that they ought to repent; as
if they were told, “Your offering is without any ornamental addition on
account of the wickedness of your deeds.” As the sotah acted more
disgracefully than any person who sins in ignorance, her offering
consisted of the lowest kind, viz., of barley flour (ibid.). Thus the
reasons of all these particular laws are well connected, and show that
the precepts are wonderful in their significance.
Our Sages say that the offering for the eighth day of dedication was “a
calf, a young bullock, for a sin-offering” (Lev. xi. 2), in order to
atone for the sin of the Israelites in making a golden calf. The
sin-offering, which was brought on the Day of Atonement (ibid. xvi. 3),
was likewise explained as being an atonement for that sin. From this
argument of our Sages I deduce that he-goats were always brought as
sin-offerings, by individual persons and also by the whole
congregation, viz., on the Festivals, New-moon, Day of Atonement, and
for idolatry, because most of the transgressions and sins of the
Israelites were sacrifices to spirits (seʻirim, lit., goats), as is
clearly stated, “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto
spirits” (Lev. xvii. 7). Our Sages, however, explained the fact that
goats were always the sin-offerings of the congregation, as an allusion
to the sin of the whole congregation of Israel; for in the account of
the selling of the pious Joseph we read, “And they killed a kid of the
goats” (Gen. xxxvii. 31). Do not consider this as a weak argument; for
it is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of
every sinner and transgressor the necessity of continually remembering
and mentioning his sins. Thus the Psalmist says, “And my sin is ever
before me” (Ps. li. 3). The above-mentioned sin-offerings further show
us that when we commit a sin, we, our children, and the children of our
children, require atonement for that sin by some kind of service
analogous to the sin committed. If a person has sinned in respect to
property he must liberally spend his property in the service of God; if
he indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments he must weary his body and
trouble it by a service of privation and fasting, and rising early
before daybreak. If he went astray in respect to his moral conduct he
must oppose his failings by keeping to the opposite extreme, as we have
pointed out in Mishneh-torah Hilkot Deʻot (chap. ii.) et passim. If his
intellectual faculties have been concerned in the sin, if he has
believed something false on account of the insufficiency of his
intellect, and his neglect of research and proper study, he must remedy
his fault by turning his thoughts entirely away from worldly affairs,
and directing them exclusively to intellectual exercise, and by
carefully reflecting on that which ought to form the subject of his
belief. Comp. “And my heart hath been secretly enticed, but my hand
touched my mouth” (Job xxxi. 27). These words express figuratively the
lesson that we should pause and stop at that which appears doubtful, as
has been pointed out by us in the beginning of this treatise. The same
we notice in the case of Aaron. He had his share in the sin of the
golden calf, and therefore a bullock and a calf were brought by him and
his successors as an offering. Similarly, the sin connected with a kid
of goats was atoned for by a kid of goats. When this theory has been
well established in the minds of the people, they must certainly be led
by it to consider disobedience to God as a disgraceful thing. Every one
will then be careful that he should not sin, and require a protracted
and burdensome atonement; he will be afraid he might not be able to
complete it, and will therefore altogether abstain from sinning, and
avoid it. This object [of the laws under discussion] is very clear, and
note it likewise.
I will here call your attention to a very remarkable thing, although it
does not seem at first thought to belong to our subject. It is only the
goat brought on New-moon as a sin-offering that the law calls “a
sin-offering unto the Lord” (Num. xxviii. 15). The sin-offerings
brought on the three festivals (ibid. vers. 22, 30; xxix. 5, 11, etc.)
are not called so, nor are any other sin-offerings. The reason thereof
is, according to my opinion, undoubtedly this: The additional offerings
brought by the congregation at certain periods were all
burnt-offerings; only “one kid of goats to make an atonement” was
offered on every one of these exceptional days. The latter was eaten
[by the priests], whilst the burnt-offerings were entirely consumed by
fire, and are called “an offering made by fire unto the Lord.” The
phrases “a sin-offering unto the Lord” and “a peace-offering unto the
Lord” do not occur in the law, because these were eaten by man; but
even those sin-offerings that were entirely burnt (Lev. iv. 12, 21)
cannot be called “an offering made by fire unto the Lord,” as will be
explained in the course of this chapter. It is therefore impossible
that the goats which are eaten [by the priests], and are not entirely
burnt, should be called “sin-offerings unto the Lord.” But as it was
found that the kid offered on New-moon might be mistaken as an offering
brought to the moon, in the manner of the Egyptians, who sacrificed to
the moon on the days of New-moon, it was distinctly stated that this
goat is offered in obedience to God’s command, and not in honour of the
moon. This fear did not apply to the sin-offerings on the Festivals,
nor to any other sin-offering, because they were not offered on the
days of New-moon, or on any other day marked out by Nature, but on such
days as were selected by the Divine Will. Not so the days of New-moon;
they are not fixed by the Law [but by Nature]. On the New-moon the
idolaters sacrificed to the moon, in the same manner as they sacrificed
to the sun when it rose and set in certain particular degrees. This is
described in the works [mentioned above]. On this account the
extraordinary phrase “A sin-offering unto the Lord” is exceptionally
introduced in reference to the goat brought on New-moon, in order to
remove the idolatrous ideas that were still lingering in the sorely
diseased hearts. Note this exception likewise. A sin-offering which is
brought in the hope to atone for one or more great sins, as, e.g., the
sin-offering [of the Synhedrion or the high-priest] for a sin committed
in ignorance, and the like, are not burnt upon the altar, but without
the camp; upon the altar only the burnt-offering, and the like, are
burnt, wherefore it was called the altar of the burnt-offering. The
burning of the holocaust, and of every “memorial,” is called “a sweet
savour unto the Lord”; and so it undoubtedly is, since it serves to
remove idolatrous doctrines from our hearts, as we have shown. But the
burning of these sin-offerings is a symbol that the sin [for which the
offering it brought] is utterly removed and destroyed, like the body
that is being burnt; of the sinful seed no trace shall remain, as no
trace is left of the sin-offering, which is entirely destroyed by fire;
the smoke thereof is not “a sweet savour unto the Lord,” but, on the
contrary, a smoke despised and abhorred. For this reason the burning
took place without the camp. Similarly we notice that the oblations of
a sotah is called “an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to
remembrance” (Num. v. 15); it is not a pleasing thing [to the Lord].
The goat [of the Day of Atonement] that was sent [into the wilderness]
(Lev. xvi. 20, seq.) served as an atonement for all serious
transgressions more than any other sin-offering of the congregation. As
it thus seemed to carry off all sins, it was not accepted as an
ordinary sacrifice to be slaughtered, burnt, or even brought near the
Sanctuary; it was removed as far as possible, and sent forth into a
waste, uncultivated, uninhabited land. There is no doubt that sins
cannot be carried like a burden, and taken off the shoulder of one
being to be laid on that of another being. But these ceremonies are of
a symbolic character, and serve to impress men with a certain idea, and
to induce them to repent; as if to say, we have freed ourselves of our
previous deeds, have cast them behind our backs, and removed them from
us as far as possible.
As regards the offering of wine (Num. xv. 5, seq.), I am at a loss to
find a reason why God commanded it, since idolaters brought wine as an
offering. But though I am unable to give a reason, another person
suggested the following one: Meat is the best nourishment for the
appetitive faculty, the source of which is the liver; wine supports
best the vital faculty, whose centre is the heart; music is most
agreeable to the psychic faculty, the source of which is in the brain.
Each one of our faculties approaches God with that which it likes best.
Thus the sacrifice consists of meat, wine, and music.
The use of keeping festivals is plain. Man derives benefit from such
assemblies: the emotions produced renew the attachment to religion;
they lead to friendly and social intercourse among the people. This is
especially the object of the commandment to gather the people together
on the Feast of Tabernacles, as is plainly stated: “that they may hear,
and that they may learn and fear the Lord” (Deut. xxxi. 12). The same
is the object of the rule that the money for the second tithe must be
spent by all in one place (ibid. xiv. 22–26), as we have explained
(chap. xxxix. p. 184). The fruit of trees in their fourth year, and the
tithe of the cattle, had to be brought to Jerusalem. There would
therefore be in Jerusalem the meat of the tithes, the wine of the fruit
of the fourth year, and the money of the second tithe. Plenty of food
would always be found there. Nothing of the above things could be sold;
nothing could be set aside for another year; the Law orders that they
should be brought “year by year” (Deut. xiv. 22); the owner was thus
compelled to spend part of them in charity. As regards the Festivals it
is especially enjoined: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and
thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant,
and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow” (ibid.
xvi. 14). We have thus explained the reason of every law belonging to
this class, and even many details of the laws.
CHAPTER XLVII
The precepts of the twelfth class are those which we have enumerated in
the section on “Purity” (Sefer tohorah). Although we have mentioned
their use in general, we will here offer an additional explanation, and
[first] fully discuss the object of the whole class, and then show the
reason of each single commandment, as far as we have been able to
discover it. I maintain that the Law which was revealed to Moses, our
Teacher, and which is called by his name, aims at facilitating the
service and lessening the burden, and if a person complains that
certain precepts cause him pain and great trouble, he cannot have
thought of the habits and doctrines that were general in those days.
Let him consider the difference between a man burning his own son in
serving his god, and our burning a pigeon to the service of our God.
Scripture relates, “for even their sons and their daughters they burn
in the fire to their gods” (Deut. xii. 31). This was the way in which
the heathen worshipped their gods, and instead of such a sacrifice we
have the burning of a pigeon or a handful of flour in our worship. In
accordance with this fact, the Israelites, when disobedient, were
rebuked by God as follows: “O My people, what have I done unto thee?
and wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me” (Mic. vi. 3).
Again, “Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? a land of darkness?
Wherefore say my people, We are miserable; we will come no more unto
thee” (Jer. ii. 31); that is to say, Through which of the commandments
has the Law become burdensome to the Israelites, that they renounce it?
In the same manner God asks the people, “What iniquity have your
fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?” etc. (ibid. ii.
5). All these passages express one and the same idea.
This is the great principle which you must never lose sight of. After
having stated this principle, I repeat that the object of the Sanctuary
was to create in the hearts of those who enter it certain feelings of
awe and reverence, in accordance with the command, “You shall reverence
my sanctuary” (Lev. xix. 30). But when we continually see an object,
however sublime it may be, our regard for that object will be lessened,
and the impression we have received of it will be weakened. Our Sages,
considering this fact, said that we should not enter the Temple
whenever we liked, and pointed to the words: “Make thy foot rare in the
house of thy friend” (Prov. xxv. 17). For this reason the unclean were
not allowed to enter the Sanctuary, although there are so many kinds of
uncleanliness, that [at a time] only a few people are clean. For even
if a person does not touch a beast that died of its own accord (Lev.
xi. 27), he can scarcely avoid touching one of the eight kinds of
creeping animals (ibid. 29, seq.), the dead bodies of which we find at
all times in houses, in food and drink, and upon which we frequently
tread wherever we walk; and, if he avoids touching these, he may touch
a woman in her separation (ibid. xv. 18), or a male or female that have
a running issue (ibid. ver. 1, seq. and 25, seq.), or a leper (ibid.
xiii. 46), or their bed (ibid. xv. 5). Escaping these, he may become
unclean by cohabitation with his wife, or by pollution (ibid. 15), and
even when he has cleansed himself from any of these kinds of
uncleanliness, he cannot enter the Sanctuary till after sunset; but not
being enabled to enter the Sanctuary at night time, although he is
clean after sunset, as may be inferred from Middot and Tamid, he is
again, during the night, subject to becoming unclean either by
cohabiting with his wife or by some other source of uncleanliness, and
may rise in the morning in the same condition as the day before. All
this serves to keep people away from the Sanctuary and to prevent them
from entering it whenever they liked. Our Sages, as is well known,
said, “Even a clean person may not enter the Sanctuary for the purpose
of performing divine service, unless he takes previously a bath.” By
such acts the reverence [for the Sanctuary] will continue, the right
impression will be produced which leads man, as is intended, to
humility.
The easier the diffusion of uncleanliness is, the more difficult and
the more retarded is its purification. Most easily is uncleanliness
communicated by the dead body to those who are under the same roof,
especially to relatives. The purification can only be completed by
means of the ashes of the red heifer, however scarce it may be, and
only in seven days (Num. xix. 11). The uncleanness caused by a woman
having running issue or during her separation is more frequent than
that caused by contact with unclean objects; seven days are therefore
required for their purification (Lev. xv. 19, 28), whilst those that
touch them are only unclean one day (ibid. vii. 18). Males or females
that are unclean through running issue, and a woman after childbirth,
must in addition bring a sacrifice, because their uncleanness occurs
less frequently than that of women in their separation. All these cases
of uncleanliness, viz., running issue of males or females,
menstruations, leprosy, dead bodies of human beings, carcases of beasts
and creeping things, and issue of semen, are sources of dirt and filth.
We have thus shown that the above precepts are very useful in many
respects. First, they keep us at a distance from dirty and filthy
objects; secondly, they guard the Sanctuary; thirdly, they pay regard
to an established custom (for the Sabeans submitted to very troublesome
restrictions when unclean, as you will soon hear); fourthly, they
lightened that burden for us; for we are not impeded through these laws
in our ordinary occupations by the distinction the Law makes between
that which is unclean and that which is clean. For this distinction
applies only in reference to the Sanctuary and the holy objects
connected with it; it does not apply to other cases. “She shall touch
no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary” (Lev. xii. 4). Other
persons [that do not intend to enter the Sanctuary or touch any holy
thing], are not guilty of any sin if they remain unclean as long as
they like, and eat, according to their pleasure, ordinary food that has
been in contact with unclean things. But the practice of the Sabeans,
even at present general in the East, among the few still left of the
Magi, was to keep a menstruous woman in a house by herself, to burn
that upon which she treads, and to consider as unclean every one that
speaks with her; even if a wind passed over her and a clean person, the
latter was unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans. See the difference
between this practice and our rule, that “whatever services a wife
generally does to her husband, she may do to him in her separation”;
only cohabitation is prohibited during the days of her uncleanness.
Another custom among the Sabeans, which is still widespread, is this:
whatever is separated from the body, as hair, nail, or blood, is
unclean; every barber is therefore unclean in their estimation, because
he touches blood and hair; whenever a person passes a razor over his
skin he must take a bath in running water. Such burdensome practices
were numerous among the Sabeans, whilst we apply the laws that
distinguish between the unclean and the clean only with regard to
hallowed things and to the Sanctuary. The divine words, “And ye shall
sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy” (Lev. xi. 44), do not refer
to these laws at all. According to Sifra, they refer to sanctity by
obedience to God’s commandments. The same interpretation is given in
Sifra of the words, “Ye shall be holy,” i.e. obedient to His
commandments (xix. 2). Hence the transgression of commandments is also
called uncleanliness or defilement. This term is especially used of the
chief and principal crimes, which are idolatry, adultery, and murder.
In reference to idolatry it is said, “He hath given of his seed unto
Molech to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name” (ibid. xx.
3). In reference to adultery we read, “Defile not ye yourselves in any
of these things” (ibid. xviii. 24), and “Defile not the land” (Num.
xxxv. 34) in reference to murder. It it therefore clear that the term
“defilement” [or uncleanliness] is used homonymously of three things:
- Of man’s violation and transgression of that which he is commanded
as regards his actions and his opinions. 2. Of dirt and filth; comp.
“Her filthiness in her skirts” (Lam. i. 9). 3. Of the above-named
imaginary defilement such as touching and carrying certain objects, or
being with them under the same roof. In reference to the third kind,
our Sages said, The words of the Law are not subject to becoming
unclean (B. T. Ber. 22a). In the same manner the term “holiness” is
used homonymously of three things corresponding to the three kinds of
uncleanness. As uncleanness caused by a dead body could only be removed
after seven days, by means of the ashes of the red heifer, and the
priests had constantly occasion to enter the Sanctuary, the Law
exceptionally forbids them to defile themselves by a dead body (Lev.
xxi. 1), except in cases where defilement is necessary, and the
contrary would be unnatural. For it would be unnatural to abstain from
approaching the dead body of a parent, child, or brother. As it was
very necessary that the high-priest should always be in the Sanctuary,
in accordance with the Divine command, “And it shall always be on his
forehead” (Exod. xxviii. 38), he was not permitted to defile himself by
any dead body whatever, even of the above-named relatives (Lev. xxi.
10–12). Women were not engaged in sacrificial service; the above law
consequently does not apply to women; it is addressed to “the sons of
Aaron,” and not to “the daughters of Aaron.” It was, however,
impossible to assume that none of the Israelites made a mistake, by
entering the Sanctuary, or eating hallowed things in a state of
uncleanliness. It was even possible that there were persons who did
this knowingly, since there are wicked people who commit knowingly even
the greatest crimes; for this reason certain sacrifices were commanded
as an atonement for the defilement of the Sanctuary and its hallowed
things. They were of different kinds; some of them atoned for
defilement caused ignorantly, others for defilement caused knowingly.
For this purpose were brought the goats on the Festivals and the
New-moon days (Num. xxviii. 15, 22, etc.), and the goat sent away on
the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 16), as is explained in its place
(Mishnah Shebnot, i. 4). These sacrifices serve to prevent those who
defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord knowingly from thinking that they had
not done a great wrong; they should know that they obtained atonement
by the sacrifice of the goat, as the Law says, “That they die not in
their uncleanness” (Lev. xv. 31); “That Aaron may bear the iniquity of
the holy things” (Exod. xxviii. 38). This idea is frequently repeated.
The uncleanness through leprosy we have already explained. Our Sages
have also clearly stated the meaning thereof. All agree that leprosy is
a punishment for slander. The disease begins in the walls of the houses
(Lev. xiv. 33, seq.). If the sinner repents, the object is attained; if
he remains in his disobedience, the disease affects his bed and house
furniture; if he still continues to sin, the leprosy attacks his own
garments, and then his body. This is a miracle received in our nation
by tradition, in the same manner as the effect of the trial of a
faithless wife (Num. v. 11, seq.). The good effect of this belief is
evident. Leprosy is besides a contagious disease, and people almost
naturally abhor it, and keep away from it. The purification was
effected by cedar-wood, hyssop, scarlet thread, and two birds (Lev.
xiv. 4); their reason is stated in various Midrashic sayings, but the
explanation does not agree with our theory. I do not know at present
the reason of any of these things; nor why cedar-wood, hyssop, and
scarlet were used in the sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. xix. 6); nor
why a bundle of hyssop was commanded for the sprinkling of the blood of
the Passover-lamb (Exod. xii. 22). I cannot find any principle upon
which to found an explanation why these particular things have been
chosen.
The red heifer is called a sin-offering, because it effects the
purification of persons that have become unclean through the dead body
of a human being, and enables them to enter the Sanctuary [and to eat
of hallowed things]. The idea taught by this law is this: Those who
have defiled themselves would never be allowed to enter the Sanctuary,
or to partake of holy things, were it not for the sacrifice of the red
heifer, by which this sin is removed; in the same manner as the plate
[which the high-priest wears on his forehead] atones for uncleanness,
and as a similar object is attained by the goats that are burnt. For
this reason those were unclean who were engaged in the sacrifice of the
heifer or the goats which were burnt, and even their garments were
unclean. The same was the law in the case of the goat that was sent
away [on the Day of Atonement]; for it was believed that it made
unclean those who touched it, because it carried off so many sins.
We have now mentioned the reasons for those commandments of this class,
for which we were able to give a satisfactory reason according to our
view.
CHAPTER XLVIII
The precepts of the thirteenth class are those which we have enumerated
in the “Laws concerning forbidden food” (Hilkot maakalot asurot), “Laws
concerning killing animals for food” (Hilkot sheḥitah), and “Laws
concerning vows and Nazaritism” (Hilkot nedarim u-nezirot). We have
fully and very explicitly discussed the object of this class in this
treatise, and in our Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers. We will
here add a few remarks in reviewing the single commandments which are
mentioned there.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome.
There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious
character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii.
23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork
contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of
superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine’s
flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food
are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how
emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome
objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable
is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine’s flesh,
the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be
seen at present in the country of the Franks. A saying of our Sages
declares: “The mouth of a swine is as dirty as dung itself” (B. T. Ber.
25a)
The fat of the intestines makes us full, interrupts our digestion, and
produces cold and thick blood; it is more fit for fuel [than for human
food].
Blood (Lev. xvii. 12), and nebelah, i.e., the flesh of an animal that
died of itself (Deut. xiv. 21), are indigestible, and injurious as
food; Trefah, an animal in a diseased state (Exod. xxii. 30), is on the
way of becoming a nebelah.
The characteristics given in the Law (Lev. xi., and Deut. xiv.) of the
permitted animals, viz., chewing the cud and divided hoofs for cattle,
and fins and scales for fish, are in themselves neither the cause of
the permission when they are present, nor of the prohibition when they
are absent; but merely signs by which the recommended species of
animals can be discerned from those that are forbidden.
The reason why the sinew that shrank is prohibited is stated in the Law
(Gen. xxxii. 33).
It is prohibited to cut off a limb of a living animal and eat it,
because such act would produce cruelty, and develop it; besides, the
heathen kings used to do it; it was also a kind of idolatrous worship
to cut off a certain limb of a living animal and to eat it.
Meat boiled in milk is undoubtedly gross food, and makes overfull; but
I think that most probably it is also prohibited because it is somehow
connected with idolatry, forming perhaps part of the service, or being
used on some festival of the heathen. I find a support for this view in
the circumstance that the Law mentions the prohibition twice after the
commandment given concerning the festivals “Three times in the year all
thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Exod. xxiii. 17, and
xxxiv. 23), as if to say, “When you come before me on your festivals,
do not seethe your food in the manner as the heathen used to do.” This
I consider as the best reason for the prohibition; but as far as I have
seen the books on Sabean rites, nothing is mentioned of this custom.
The commandment concerning the killing of animals is necessary, because
the natural food of man consists of vegetables and of the flesh of
animals; the best meat is that of animals permitted to be used as food.
No doctor has any doubts about this. Since, therefore, the desire of
procuring good food necessitates the slaying of animals, the Law
enjoins that the death of the animal should be the easiest. It is not
allowed to torment the animal by cutting the throat in a clumsy manner,
by poleaxing, or by cutting off a limb whilst the animal is alive.
It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day
(Lev. xxii. 28), in order that people should be restrained and
prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young
is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under
such circumstances it very great. There is no difference in this case
between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the
love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by
reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man
but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb,
because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted
to us, and in these cases the mother recognises her young.
The same reason applies to the law which enjoins that we should let the
mother fly away when we take the young. The eggs over which the bird
sits, and the young that are in need of their mother, are generally
unfit for food, and when the mother is sent away she does not see the
taking of her young ones, and does not feel any pain. In most cases,
however, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest
untouched, because [the young or the eggs], which he is allowed to
take, are, as a rule, unfit for food. If the Law provides that such
grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful
must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellow-men. When in
the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the
phrase, “Thy mercy extendeth to young birds,” it is the expression of
the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts
of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the
other opinion.
The reason why we cover the blood when we kill animals, and why we do
it only when we kill clean beasts and clean birds, has already been
explained by us (supra, chap. xlvi., p. 362).
In addition to the things prohibited by the Law, we are also commanded
to observe the prohibitions enjoined by our own vows (Num. xxx.). If we
say, This bread or this meat is forbidden for us, we are not allowed to
partake of that food. The object of that precept is to train us in
temperance, that we should be able to control our appetites for eating
and drinking. Our Sages say accordingly, “Vows are a fence for
abstinence.” As women are easily provoked to anger, owing to their
greater excitability and the weakness of their mind, their oaths, if
entirely under their own control, would cause great grief, quarrel, and
disorder in the family; one kind of food would be allowed for the
husband, and forbidden for the wife; another kind forbidden for the
daughter, and allowed for the mother. Therefore the Law gives the
father of the family control over the vows of those dependent on him. A
woman that is independent, and not under the authority of a chief of
the family, is, as regards vows, subject to the same laws as men; I
mean a woman that has no husband, or that has no father, or that is of
age, i.e., twelve years and six months.
The object of Nazaritism (Num. vi.) is obvious. It keeps away from wine
that has ruined people in ancient and modern times. “Many strong men
have been slain by it” (Prov. xxvii. 26). “But they also have erred
through wine, ... the priest and the prophet” (Isa. xxviii. 7). In the
law about the Nazarite we notice even the prohibition, “he shall eat
nothing that is made of the vine tree” (Num. vi. 4), as an additional
precaution, implying the lesson that man must take of wine, only as
much as is absolutely necessary. For he who abstains from drinking it
is called “holy”; his sanctity is made equal to that of the
high-priest, in not being allowed to defile himself even to his father,
to his mother, and the like. This honour is given him because he
abstains from wine.
CHAPTER XLIX
The precepts of the fourteenth class are those which we enumerated in
the Section on Women, the Laws concerning forbidden sexual intercourse,
and cross-breeding of cattle (Sefer nashim, Hilkot issure biah ve-kalee
behemah). The law concerning circumcision belongs also to this class.
The general purpose of these precepts has already been described by us.
We will now proceed to explain them singly.
It is well known that man requires friends all his lifetime. Aristotle
explains this in the ninth book of his Nikomachean Ethics. When man is
in good health and prosperous, he enjoys the company of his friends; in
time of trouble he is in need of them; in old age, when his body is
weak, he is assisted by them. This love is more frequent and more
intense between parents and children, and among [other] relations.
Perfect love, brotherhood, and mutual assistance is only found among
those near to each other by relationship. The members of a family
united by common descent from the same grandfather, or even from some
more distant ancestor, have towards each other a certain feeling of
love, help each other, and sympathize with each other. To effect this
is one of the chief purposes of the Law. Professional harlots were
therefore not tolerated in Israel (Deut. xxiii. 18), because their
existence would disturb the above relationship between man and man.
Their children are strangers to everybody; no one knows to what family
they belong; nor does any person recognize them as relatives. And this
is the greatest misfortune that can befall any child or father. Another
important object in prohibiting prostitution is to restrain excessive
and continual lust; for lust increases with the variety of its objects.
The sight of that to which a person has been accustomed for a long time
does not produce such an ardent desire for its enjoyment as is produced
by objects new in form and character. Another effect of this
prohibition is the removal of a cause for strife; for if the
prohibition did not exist, several persons might by chance come to one
woman, and would naturally quarrel with each other; they would in many
cases kill one another, or they would kill the woman. This is known to
have occurred in days of old, “And they assembled themselves by troops
in a harlot’s house” (Jer. v. 7). In order to prevent these great
evils, and to effect the great boon that all men should know their
relationship to each other, prostitutes (Deut. xxiii. 17) were not
tolerated, and sexual intercourse was only permitted when man has
chosen a certain female, and married her openly; for if it sufficed
merely to choose her, many a person would bring a prostitute into his
house at a certain time agreed upon between them, and say that she was
his wife. Therefore it is commanded to perform the act of engagement by
which he declares that he has chosen her to take her for his wife, and
then to go through the public ceremony of marriage. Comp. “And Boaz
took ten men,” etc. (Ruth iv. 2). It may happen that husband and wife
do not agree, live without love and peace, and do not enjoy the benefit
of a home; in that case he is permitted to send her away. If he had
been allowed to divorce her by a mere word, or by turning her out of
his house, the wife would wait for some negligence [on the part of the
husband], and then come out and say that she was divorced; or having
committed adultery, she and the adulterer would contend that she had
then been divorced. Therefore the law is that divorce can only take
place by means of a document which can serve as evidence, “He shall
write her a bill of divorcement” (Deut. xxiv. 1). There are frequently
occasions for suspicion of adultery and doubts concerning the conduct
of the wife. Laws concerning a wife suspected of adultery (sotah) are
therefore prescribed (Num. v.); the effect of which is that the wife,
out of fear of the “bitter waters,” is most careful to prevent any
ill-feeling on the part of her husband against her. Even of those that
felt quite innocent and safe most were rather willing to lose all their
property than to submit to the prescribed treatment; even death was
preferred to the public disgrace of uncovering the head, undoing the
hair, rending the garments and exposing the heart, and being led round
through the Sanctuary in the presence of all, of women and men, and
also in the presence of the members of the Synhedrion. The fear of this
trial keeps away great diseases that ruin the home comfort.
As every maiden expects to be married, her seducer therefore is only
ordered to marry her; for he is undoubtedly the fittest husband for
her. He will better heal her wound and redeem her character than any
other husband. If, however, he is rejected by her or her father, he
must give the dowry (Exod. xxii. 15). If he uses violence he has to
submit to the additional punishment, “he may not put her away all his
days” (Deut. xxii. 29).
The reason of the law concerning marrying the deceased brother’s wife
is stated in the Bible (Deut. xxv. 5). It was a custom in force before
the Law was given, and the Law perpetuated it. The ceremony of ḥaliẓah
(ibid. 6, seq.), “taking off the shoe,” has been introduced, because in
those days it was considered disgraceful to go through that ceremony,
and in order to avoid the disgrace, a person might perhaps be induced
to marry his deceased brother’s wife. This is evident from the words of
the Law: “So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his
brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of
him that hath his shoe loosed” (Deut. xxv. 9). In the action of Judah
we may perhaps notice an example of a noble conduct, and uprightness in
judgment. He said: “Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed; behold,
I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her” (Gen. xxxviii. 23). For
before the Lawgiving, the intercourse with a harlot was as lawful as
cohabitation of husband and wife since the Lawgiving; it was perfectly
permitted, nobody considered it wrong. The hire which was in those days
paid to the harlot in accordance with a previous agreement, corresponds
to the ketubah which in our days the husband pays to his wife when he
divorces her. It is a just claim on the part of the wife, and the
husband is bound to pay it. The words of Judah, “Let her take it to
her, lest we be shamed,” etc., show that conversation about sexual
intercourse, even of that which is permitted, brings shame upon us; it
is proper to be silent about it, to keep it secret, even if the silence
would lead to loss of money. In this sense Judah said: It is better for
us to lose property, and to let her keep what she has, than to make our
affair public by inquiring after her, and bring still more shame upon
us. This is the lesson, as regards conduct, to be derived from this
incident. As to the uprightness to be learned therefrom, it is
contained in the words of Judah when he wanted to show that he had not
robbed her, that he has not in the least departed from his agreement
with her. For he said, “Behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not
found her.” The kid was probably very good, therefore he points to it,
saying, “this kid.” This is the uprightness which he had inherited from
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: that man must not depart from his given
word, nor deviate from what he agreed upon; but he must give to others
all that is due to them. It makes no difference whether he holds a
portion of his neighbour’s property as a loan or a trust, or whether he
is in any other way his neighbour’s debtor, owing him wages or the
like.
The sum which the husband settles upon his wife (ketubah) is to be
treated in the same way as the wages of a hired servant. There is no
difference whether a master withholds the wages of a hired servant, or
deprives his wife of that which is due to her; whether a master wrongs
a hired servant, and brings charges against him with the intention to
send him away without payment, or a husband treats his wife in a manner
that would enable him to send her away without the payment of the
promised sum.
The equity of the statutes and judgments of the Law in this regard may
be noticed in the treatment of a person accused of spreading an evil
report about his wife (Deut. xxii. 13, seq.). There is no doubt that
the man that did this is bad, does not love his wife, and is not
pleased with her. If he desired to divorce her in a regular manner,
there is nothing to prevent him, but he would be bound to give her what
is due unto her; but instead of this, “he gives occasion of speech
against her” (ibid. xxii. 14), in order to get rid of his wife without
paying anything; he slanders her, and utters falsehood in order to keep
in his possession the fifty shekels of silver, the dowry fixed in the
Law for maidens, which he is obliged to pay unto her. He is therefore
sentenced to pay one hundred shekels of silver, in accordance with the
principle, “Whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his
neighbour” (Exod. xxii. 9). The Law is also analogous to that about
false witnesses, which we have explained above (chap. xli. p. 195). For
he intended to cheat her of her fifty shekels of silver, he must
therefore [add fifty, and] pay her a hundred shekels. This is his
punishment for withholding from her her due, and endeavouring to keep
it. But in so far as he degraded her, and spread the rumour that she
was guilty of misconduct, he was also degraded, and received stripes,
as is implied in the words, “and they shall chastise him” (Deut. xxii.
18). But he sinned besides in clinging to lust, and seeking only that
which gave pleasure to him; he was therefore punished by being
compelled to keep his wife always, “he may not put her away all his
days” (ibid. 19); for he has been brought to all this only because he
may have found her ugly. Thus are these bad habits cured when they are
treated according to the divine Law; the ways of equity are never lost
sight of; they are obvious and discernible in every precept of the Law
by those who consider it well. See how, according to the Law, the
slanderer of his wife, who only intended to withhold from her what he
is bound to give her, is treated in the same manner as a thief who has
stolen the property of his neighbour; and the false witness (Deut. xix.
16, seq.) who schemes to injure, although the injury was in reality not
inflicted, is punished like those who have actually caused injury and
wrong, viz., like the thief and the slanderer. The three kinds of
sinners are tried and judged by one and the same law. See how wonderful
are the divine laws, and admire His wonderful deeds. Scripture says:
“The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment” (Deut.
xxxii. 4), i.e., as His works are most perfect, so are His laws most
equitable; but our mind is too limited to comprehend the perfection of
all His works, or the equity of all His laws; and as we are able to
comprehend some of His wonderful works in the organs of living beings
and the motions of the spheres, so we understand also the equity of
some of His laws; that which is unknown to us of both of them is far
more than that which is known to us. I will now return to the theme of
the present chapter.
The law about forbidden sexual intercourse seeks in all its parts to
inculcate the lesson that we ought to limit sexual intercourse
altogether, hold it in contempt, and only desire it very rarely. The
prohibition of pederasty (Lev. xviii. 22) and carnal intercourse with
beasts (ibid. 23) is very clear. If in the natural way the act is too
base to be performed except when needed, how much more base is it if
performed in an unnatural manner, and only for the sake of pleasure.
The female relatives whom a man may not marry are alike in this
respect—that as a rule they are constantly together with him in his
house; they would easily listen to him, and do what he desires; they
are near at hand, and he would have no difficulty in procuring them. No
judge could blame him if found in their company. If to these relatives
the same law applied as to all other unmarried women, if we were
allowed to marry any of them, and were only precluded from sexual
intercourse with them without marriage, most people would constantly
have become guilty of misconduct with them. But as they are entirely
forbidden to us, and sexual intercourse with them is most emphatically
denounced unto us as a capital crime, or a sin punishable with
extinction (karet), and as there is no means of ever legalizing such
intercourse, there is reason to expect that people will not seek it,
and will not think of it. That the persons included in that prohibition
are, as we have stated, at hand and easily accessible, is evident. For
as a rule, the mother of the wife, the grandmother, the daughter, the
granddaughter, and the sister-in-law, are mostly with her; the husband
meets them always when he goes out, when he comes in, and when he is at
his work. The wife stays also frequently in the house of her husband’s
brother, father, or son. It is also well known that we are often in the
company of our sisters, our aunts, and the wife of our uncle, and are
frequently brought up together with them. These are all the relatives
which we must not marry. This is one of the reasons why intermarriage
with a near relative is forbidden. But according to my opinion the
prohibition serves another object, namely, to inculcate chastity into
our hearts. Licence between the root and the branch, between a man and
his mother, or his daughter, is outrageous. The intercourse between
root and branch is forbidden, and it makes no difference whether the
male element is the root or the branch, or both root and branch combine
in the intercourse with a third person, so that the same individual
cohabits with the root and with the branch. On this account it is
prohibited to marry a woman and her mother, the wife of the father or
of the son; for in all these cases there is the intercourse between one
and the same person on the one side and root and branch on the other.
The law concerning brothers is like the law concerning root and branch.
The sister is forbidden, and so is also the sister of the wife and the
wife of the brother; because in the latter cases two persons who are
considered like root and branch, cohabit with the same person. But in
these prohibitions brothers and sisters are partly considered as root
and branch and partly as one body; the sister of the mother is
therefore like the mother, and the sister of the father like the
father, and both are prohibited; and since the daughter of the parent’s
brother or sister is not included in the number of prohibited
relatives, so may we also marry the daughter of the brother or the
sister. The apparent anomaly, that the brother of the father may marry
a woman that has been the wife of his brother’s son, whilst the nephew
must not marry a woman that has been the wife of his father’s brother,
can be explained according to the above-mentioned first reason. For the
nephew is frequently in the house of his uncle, and his conduct towards
the wife of his uncle is the same as that towards his brother’s wife.
The uncle, however, is not so frequent in the house of his nephew, and
he is consequently less intimate with the wife of his nephew; whilst in
the case of father and son, the familiarity of the father with his
daughter-in-law is the same at that of the son with the wife of his
father, and therefore the law and punishment is the same for both
[father and son]. The reason why it is prohibited to cohabit with a
menstruous woman (Lev. xviii. 19) or with another man’s wife (ibid.
20), is obvious, and requires no further explanation.
It is well known that we must not indulge in any sensual enjoyment
whatever with the persons included in the above prohibitions; we must
not even look at them if we intend to derive pleasure therefrom. We
have explained this in “the laws about forbidden sexual intercourse”
(Hilkot issure bïah, xxi. 1–2), and shown that according to the Law we
must not even engage our thoughts with the act of cohabitation (ibid.
19) or irritate the organ of generation; and when we find ourselves
unintentionally in a state of irritation, we must turn our mind to
other thoughts, and reflect on some other thing till we are relieved.
Our Sages (B.T. Kidd 30b), in their moral lessons, which give
perfection to the virtuous, say as follows: “My son, if that monster
meets you, drag it to the house of study. It will melt if it is of
iron; it will break in pieces if it is of stone: as is said in
Scripture, ‘Is not my word like a fire? saith the Lord, and like a
hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?’” (Jer. xxiii. 29). The author
of this saying thus exhorts his son to go to the house of study when he
finds his organ of generation in an irritated state. By reading,
disputing, asking, and listening to questions, the irritation will
certainly cease. See how properly the term monster is employed, for
that irritation is indeed like a monster. Not only religion teaches
this lesson, the philosophers teach the same. I have already quoted
verbatim the words of Aristotle. He says: “The sense of touch which is
a disgrace to us, leads us to indulge in eating and sensuality,” etc.
He calls people degraded who seek carnal pleasures and devote
themselves to gastronomy; he denounces in extenso their low and
objectionable conduct, and ridicules them. This passage occurs in his
Ethics and in his Rhetoric.
In accordance with this excellent principle, which we ought strictly to
follow, our Sages teach us that we ought not to look at beasts or birds
in the moment of their copulation. According to my opinion, this is the
reason why the cross-breeding of cattle is prohibited (Lev. xix. 19).
It is a fact that animals of different species do not copulate
together, unless by force. It is well known that the low class of
breeders of mules are regularly engaged in this work. Our Law objected
to it that any Israelite should degrade himself by doing these things,
which require so much vulgarity and indecency, and doing that which
religion forbids us even to mention, how much more to witness or to
practise, except when necessary. Cross-breeding, however, is not
necessary. I think that the prohibition to bring together two species
in any kind of work, as included in the words, “Thou shalt not plow
with an ox and an ass together” (Deut. xxii. 10), is only a preventive
against the intercourse of two species. For if it were allowed to join
such together in any work, we might sometimes also cause their
intercourse. That this is the reason of the commandment is proved by
the fact that it applies to other animals besides ox and ass; it is
prohibited to plow not only with ox and ass together, but with any two
kinds. But Scripture mentions as an instance that which is of regular
occurrence.
As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit
sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as
possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that
circumcision is to remove a defect in man’s formation; but every one
can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to
require external completion, especially as the use of the fore-skin to
that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a
complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for
perfecting man’s moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that
organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital
function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision
simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that
circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes
lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when
it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning. Our
Sages (Beresh. Rabba, c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman,
with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from
him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment
concerning circumcision. And who was the first to perform this
commandment? Abraham, our father! of whom it is well known how he
feared sin; it is described by our Sages in reference to the words,
“Behold, now I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon” (Gen. xii.
11).
There is, however, another important object in this commandment. It
gives to all members of the same faith, i.e., to all believers in the
Unity of God, a common bodily sign, so that it is impossible for any
one that is a stranger, to say that he belongs to them. For sometimes
people say so for the purpose of obtaining some advantage, or in order
to make some attack upon the Jews. No one, however, should circumcise
himself or his son for any other reason but pure faith; for
circumcision is not like an incision on the leg, or a burning in the
arm, but a very difficult operation. It is also a fact that there is
much mutual love and assistance among people that are united by the
same sign when they consider it as [the symbol of] a covenant.
Circumcision is likewise the [symbol of the] covenant which Abraham
made in connexion with the belief in God’s Unity. So also every one
that is circumcised enters the covenant of Abraham to believe in the
unity of God, in accordance with the words of the Law, “To be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. xvii. 7). This purpose of
the circumcision is as important as the first, and perhaps more
important.
This law can only be kept and perpetuated in its perfection, if
circumcision is performed when the child is very young, and this for
three good reasons. First, if the operation were postponed till the boy
had grown up, he would perhaps not submit to it. Secondly, the young
child has not much pain, because the skin is tender, and the
imagination weak; for grown-up persons are in dread and fear of things
which they imagine as coming, some time before these actually occur.
Thirdly, when a child is very young, the parents do not think much of
him; because the image of the child, that leads the parents to love
him, has not yet taken a firm root in their minds. That image becomes
stronger by the continual sight; it grows with the development of the
child, and later on the image begins again to decrease and to vanish.
The parents’ love for a new-born child is not so great as it is when
the child is one year old; and when one year old, it is less loved by
them than when six years old. The feeling and love of the father for
the child would have led him to neglect the law if he were allowed to
wait two or three years, whilst shortly after birth the image is very
weak in the mind of the parent, especially of the father who is
responsible for the execution of this commandment. The circumcision
must take place on the eighth day (Lev. xii. 3), because all living
beings are after birth, within the first seven days, very weak and
exceedingly tender, as if they were still in the womb of their mother;
not until the eighth day can they be counted among those that enjoy the
light of the world. That this is also the case with beasts may be
inferred from the words of Scripture: “Seven days shall it be under the
dam” (Lev. xxii. 27), as if it had no vitality before the end of that
period. In the same manner man is circumcised after the completion of
seven days. The period has been fixed, and has not been left to
everybody’s judgment.
The precepts of this class include also the lesson that we must not
injure in any way the organs of generation in living beings (ibid.
xxii. 24). The lesson is based on the principle of “righteous statutes
and judgment” (Deut. iv. 8); we must keep in everything the golden
mean; we must not be excessive in love, but must not suppress it
entirely; for the Law commands, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen. i.
22). The organ is weakened by circumcision, but not destroyed by the
operation. The natural faculty is left in full force, but is guarded
against excess. It it prohibited for an Israelite “that is wounded in
the stones, or hath his privy member cut off” (Deut. xxiii. 2), to
marry an Israelitish woman; because the sexual intercourse is of no use
and of no purpose; and that marriage would be a source of ruin to her,
and to him who would claim her. This is very clear.
In order to create a horror of illicit marriages, a bastard was not
allowed to marry an Israelitish woman (ibid. xxiii. 3); the adulterer
and the adulteress were thus taught that by their act they bring upon
their seed irreparable injury. In every language and in every nation
the issue of licentious conduct has a bad name; the Law therefore
raises the name of the Israelites by keeping them free from the
admixture of bastards. The priests, who have a higher sanctity, are not
allowed to marry a harlot, or a woman that is divorced from her
husband, or that is profane (Lev. xii. 7); the high-priest, the noblest
of the priests, must not marry even a widow, or a woman that has had
sexual intercourse of any kind (ibid. xii. 14). Of all these laws the
reason is obvious. If bastards were prohibited to marry any member of
the congregation of the Lord, how much more rigidly had slaves and
handmaids to be excluded. The reason of the prohibition of
intermarriage with other nations is stated in the Law: “And thou take
of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring
after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods”
(Exod. xxxiv. 16).
Most of the “statutes” (ḥukkim), the reason of which is unknown to us,
serve as a fence against idolatry. That I cannot explain some details
of the above laws or show their use is owing to the fact that what we
hear from others is not so clear as that which we see with our own
eyes. Thus my knowledge of the Sabean doctrines, which I derived from
books, is not as complete as the knowledge of those who have witnessed
the public practice of those idolatrous customs, especially as they
have been out of practice and entirely extinct since two thousand
years. If we knew all the particulars of the Sabean worship, and were
informed of all the details of those doctrines, we would clearly see
the reason and wisdom of every detail in the sacrificial service, in
the laws concerning things that are unclean, and in other laws, the
object of which I am unable to state. I have no doubt that all these
laws served to blot out wrong principles from man’s heart, and to
exterminate the practices which are useless, and merely a waste of time
in vain and purposeless things. Those principles have turned the mind
of the people away from intellectual research and useful actions. Our
prophets therefore describe the ways of the idolaters as follows:
“(They go) after vain things which cannot profit nor deliver; for they
are vain” (1 Sam. xii. 21); “Surely our fathers have inherited lies,
vanity and things wherein there is no profit” (Jer. xvi. 19). Consider
how great the evil consequences of idolatry are, and say whether we
ought with all our power to oppose it or not! Most of the precepts
serve, as has been stated by us, as a mere fence against those
doctrines [of idolatry], and relieve man from the great and heavy
burdens, from the pains and inflictions which formed part of the
worship of idols. Every positive or negative precept, the reason of
which is unknown to thee, take as a remedy against some of those
diseases with which we are unacquainted at present, thank God. This
should be the belief of educated men who know the true meaning of the
following divine dictum: “I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek me in
vain” (Isa. xlv. 19).
I have now mentioned all the commandments of these fourteen classes one
by one, and pointed out the reason of each of them, with the exception
of a few for which I was unable to give the reason, and of some details
of less importance; but implicitly we have given the reason even of
these, and every intelligent reader will easily find it.
The reasons of the Precepts are now complete.
CHAPTER L
There are in the Law portions which include deep wisdom, but have been
misunderstood by many persons; they require, therefore, an explanation.
I mean the narratives contained in the Law which many consider as being
of no use whatever; e.g., the list of the various families descended
from Noah, with their names and their territories (Gen. x.); the sons
of Seir the Horite (ibid. xxxvi. 20–30); the kings that reigned in Edom
(ibid. 31, seq.); and the like. There is a saying of our Sages (B.T.
Sanh. 99b) that the wicked king Manasse frequently held disgraceful
meetings for the sole purpose of criticising such passages of the Law.
“He held meetings and made blasphemous observations on Scripture,
saying, Had Moses nothing else to write than, And the sister of Lotan
was Timna” (Gen. xxxvi. 22)? With reference to such passages, I will
first give a general principle, and then discuss them seriatim, as I
have done in the exposition of the reasons of the precepts.
Every narrative in the Law serves a certain purpose in connexion with
religious teaching. It either helps to establish a principle of faith,
or to regulate our actions, and to prevent wrong and injustice among
men; and I will show this in each case.
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe
has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual
being, Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses
was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would
have doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had
been added, seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the
earth in different families and with different languages, very unlike
the one to the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the
genealogy of the nations (Gen. v. and x.), and the manner how they
branched off from a common root. It names those of them who were well
known, and tells who their fathers were, how long and where they lived.
It describes also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all
parts of the earth, and to the formation of their different languages,
after they had lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one
language (ibid. xi.), as would be natural for descendants of one
person. The accounts of the flood (ibid. vi.-viii.) and of the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ibid. xix.), serve as an
illustration of the doctrine that “Verily there is a reward for the
righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth” (Ps. lviii.
12).
The narration of the war among the nine kings (ibid. xiv.) shows how,
by means of a miracle, Abraham, with a few undisciplined men, defeated
four mighty kings. It illustrates at the same time how Abraham
sympathized with his relative, who had been brought up in the same
faith, and how he exposed himself to the dangers of warfare in order to
save him. We further learn from this narrative how contented and
satisfied Abraham was, thinking little of property, and very much of
good deeds; he said, “I will not take from a thread even to a
shoe-latchet” (Gen. xiv. 23).
The list of the families of Seir and their genealogy is given in the
Law (ibid. xxxvi. 20–30), because of one particular commandment. For
God distinctly commanded the Israelites concerning Amalek to blot out
his name (Deut. xxv. 17–19). Amalek was the son of Eliphas and Timna,
the sister of Lotan (ibid. xxxvi. 12). The other sons of Esau were not
included in this commandment. But Esau was by marriage connected with
the Seirites, as is distinctly stated in Scripture; and Seirites were
therefore his children; he reigned over them; his seed was mixed with
the seed of Seir, and ultimately all the countries and families of Seir
were called after the sons of Esau who were the predominant family, and
they assumed more particularly the name Amalekites, because these were
the strongest in that family. If the genealogy of these families of
Seir had not been described in full they would all have been killed,
contrary to the plain words of the commandment. For this reason the
Seirite families are fully described, as if to say, the people that
live in Seir and in the kingdom of Amalek are not all Amalekites; they
are the descendants of some other man, and are called Amalekites
because the mother of Amalek was of their tribe. The justice of God
thus prevented the destruction of an [innocent] people that lived in
the midst of another people [doomed to extirpation]; for the decree was
only pronounced against the seed of Amalek. The reason of this decree
has already been stated by us (p. 205).
The kings that have reigned in the land of Edom are enumerated (Gen
xxxvi. 31, seq.) on account of the law, “Thou mayst not set a stranger
over thee, which is not thy brother” (Deut. xvii. 15). For of these
kings none was an Edomite; wherefore each king is described by his
native land; one king from this place, another king from that place.
Now I think that it was then well known how these kings that reigned in
Edom conducted themselves, what they did, and how they humiliated and
oppressed the sons of Esau. Thus God reminded the Israelites of the
fate of the Edomites, as if saying unto them, Look unto your brothers,
the sons of Esau, whose kings were so and so, and whose deeds are well
known. [Learn therefrom] that no nation ever chose a foreigner as king
without inflicting thereby some great or small injury upon the country.
In short, what I remarked in reference to our ignorance of the Sabean
worship, applies also to the history of those days. If the religious
rules of the Sabeans and the events of those days were known to us, we
should be able to see plainly the reason for most of the things
mentioned in the Pentateuch.
It is also necessary to note the following observations. The view we
take of things described by others is different from the view we take
of things seen by us as eye-witnesses. For that which we see contains
many details which are essential, and must be fully described. The
reader of the description believes that it contains superfluous matter,
or useless repetition, but if he had witnessed the event of which he
reads, he would see the necessity of every part of the description.
When we therefore notice narratives in the Torah, which are in no
connexion with any of the commandments, we are inclined to think that
they are entirely superfluous, or too lengthy, or contain repetitions;
but this is only because we do not see the particular incidents which
make those narratives noteworthy. Of this kind is the enumeration of
the stations [of the Israelites in the wilderness] (Num. xxxiii.). At
first sight it appears to be entirely useless; but in order to obviate
such a notion Scripture says, “And Moses wrote their goings out
according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord” (ibid. ver.
2). It was indeed most necessary that these should be written. For
miracles are only convincing to those who witnessed them; whilst coming
generations, who know them only from the account given by others, may
consider them as untrue. But miracles cannot continue and last for all
generations; it is even inconceivable [that they should be permanent].
Now the greatest of the miracles described in the Law is the stay of
the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years, with a daily supply
of manna. This wilderness, as described in Scripture, consisted of
places “wherein were fiery serpents and scorpions, and drought, where
there was no water” (Deut. viii. 15); places very remote from
cultivated land, and naturally not adapted for the habitation of man,
“It is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates,
neither is there any water to drink” (Num. xx. 5); “A land that no man
passed through, and where no man dwelt” (Jer. ii. 6). [In reference to
the stay of the Israelites in the wilderness], Scripture relates, “Ye
have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink”
(Deut. xix. 5). All these miracles were wonderful, public, and
witnessed by the people. But God knew that in future people might doubt
the correctness of the account of these miracles, in the same manner as
they doubt the accuracy of other narratives; they might think that the
Israelites stayed in the wilderness in a place not far from inhabited
land, where it was possible for man to live [in the ordinary way]; that
it was like those deserts in which Arabs live at present; or that they
dwelt in such places in which they could plow, sow, and reap, or live
on some vegetable that was growing there; or that manna came always
down in those places as an ordinary natural product; or that there were
wells of water in those places. In order to remove all these doubts and
to firmly establish the accuracy of the account of these miracles,
Scripture enumerates all the stations, so that coming generations may
see them, and learn the greatness of the miracle which enabled human
beings to live in those places forty years.
For this very reason Joshua cursed him who would ever build up Jericho
(Josh. vi. 26); the effect of the miracle was to remain for ever, so
that any one who would see the wall sunk in the ground would understand
that it was not in the condition of a building pulled down by human
hands, but sunk through a miracle. In a similar manner the words, “At
the commandment of the Lord the children of Israel journeyed, and at
the commandment of the Lord they pitched” (Num. ix. 18), would suffice
as a simple statement of facts; and the reader might at first sight
consider as unnecessary additions all the details which follow, viz.,
“And when the cloud tarried long.... And so it was when the cloud was a
few days.... Or whether it were two days,” etc. (ibid. ix. 19–22). But
I will show you the reason why all these details are added. For they
serve to confirm the account, and to contradict the opinion of the
nations, both of ancient and modern times, that the Israelites lost
their way, and did not know where to go; that “they were entangled in
the land” (Exod. xiv. 3); wherefore the Arabs unto this day call that
desert Al-tih, “the desert of going astray,” imagining that the
Israelites erred about, and did not know the way. Scripture, therefore,
clearly states and emphatically declares that it was by God’s command
that the journeyings were irregular, that the Israelites returned to
the same places several times, and that the duration of the stay was
different in each station; whilst the stay in one place continued for
eighteen years, in another place it lasted one day, and in another one
night. There was no going astray, but the journey was regulated by “the
rising of the pillar of cloud” (Num. ix. 17). Therefore all these
details are given. Scripture clearly states that the way was near,
known, and in good condition; I mean the way from Horeb, whither they
came intentionally, according to the command of God, “Ye shall serve
God upon this mountain” (Exod. ii. 12), to Kadesh-barnea, the beginning
of inhabited land, as Scripture says, “Behold, we are now in Kadesh, a
city in the uttermost of thy border” (Num. xx. 16). That way was a
journey of eleven days; comp. “Eleven days’ journey from Horeb, by the
way of mount Seir, unto Kadesh-barnea” (Deut. i. 3). In such a journey
it is impossible to err about for forty years; but Scripture states the
cause of the delay.
In like manner there is a good reason for every passage the object of
which we cannot see. We must always apply the words of our Sages: “It
is not a vain thing for you” (Deut. xxxii. 47), and if it seems vain,
it seems your fault.
CHAPTER LI
The present chapter does not contain any additional matter that has not
been treated in the [previous] chapters of this treatise. It is a kind
of conclusion, and at the same time it will explain in what manner
those worship God who have obtained a true knowledge concerning God; it
will direct them how to come to that worship, which is the highest aim
man can attain, and show how God protects them in this world till they
are removed to eternal life.
I will begin the subject of this chapter with a simile. 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 simile
which I have made. The people who are abroad are all those that have no
religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by
tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north,
the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our country who are
like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as 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
observe 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
traditionally in true principles of faith, and learn the practical
worship of God, but are not trained in philosophical treatment of the
principles of the Law, and do not endeavour 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.
My son, so long as you are engaged in studying the Mathematical
Sciences and Logic, you belong to those who go round about the palace
in search of the gate. Thus our Sages figuratively use the phrase:
“Ben-zoma is still outside.” When you understand Physics, you have
entered the hall; and when, after completing the study of Natural
Philosophy, you master Metaphysics, you have entered the innermost
court, and are with the king in the same palace. You have attained the
degree of the wise men, who include men of different grades of
perfection. There are some who direct all their mind toward the
attainment of perfection in Metaphysics, devote themselves entirely to
God, exclude from their thought every other thing, and employ all their
intellectual faculties in the study of the Universe, in order to derive
therefrom a proof for the existence of God, and to learn in every
possible way how God rules all things; they form the class of those who
have entered the palace, namely, the class of prophets. One of these
has attained so much knowledge, and has concentrated his thoughts to
such an extent in the idea of God, that it could be said of him, “And
he was with the Lord forty days,” etc. (Exod. xxxiv. 28); during that
holy communion he could ask Him, answer Him, speak to Him, and be
addressed by Him, enjoying beatitude in that which he had obtained to
such a degree that “he did neither eat bread nor drink water” (ibid.);
his intellectual energy was so predominant that all coarser functions
of the body, especially those connected with the sense of touch, were
in abeyance. Some prophets are only able to see, and of these some
approach near and see, whilst others see from a distance: comp. “The
Lord hath appeared from far unto me” (Jer. xxxi. 3). We have already
spoken of the various degrees of prophets; we will therefore return to
the subject of this chapter, and exhort those who have attained a
knowledge of God, to concentrate all their thoughts in God. This is the
worship peculiar to those who have acquired a knowledge of the highest
truths; and the more they reflect on Him, and think of Him, the more
are they engaged in His worship. Those, however, who think of God, and
frequently mention His name, without any correct notion of Him, but
merely following some imagination, or some theory received from another
person, are, in my opinion, like those who remain outside the palace
and distant from it. They do not mention the name of God in truth, nor
do they reflect on it. That which they imagine and mention does not
correspond to any being in existence; it is a thing invented by their
imagination, as has been shown by us in our discussion on the Divine
Attributes (Part I. chap. 1.). The true worship of God is only possible
when correct notions of Him have previously been conceived. When you
have arrived by way of intellectual research at a knowledge of God and
His works, then commence to devote yourselves to Him, try to approach
Him and strengthen the intellect, which is the link that joins you to
Him. Thus Scripture says, “Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest
know that the Lord He is God” (Deut. iv. 35); “Know therefore this day,
and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord He is God” (ibid. 36);
“Know ye that the Lord is God” (Ps. c. 3). Thus the Law distinctly
states that the highest kind of worship to which we refer in this
chapter, is only possible after the acquisition of the knowledge of
God. For it is said, “To love the Lord your God, and to serve Him with
all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. xi. 13), and, as we have
shown several times, man’s love of God is identical with His knowledge
of Him. The Divine service enjoined in these words must, accordingly,
be preceded by the love of God. Our Sages have pointed out to us that
it is a service in the heart, which explanation I understand to mean
this: man concentrates all his thoughts on the First Intellect, and is
absorbed in these thoughts as much as possible. David therefore
commands his son Solomon these two things, and exhorts him earnestly to
do them: to acquire a true knowledge of God, and to be earnest in His
service after that knowledge has been acquired. For he says, “And thou,
Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a
perfect heart ... if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if
thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever” (1 Chron. xxviii. 9).
The exhortation refers to the intellectual conceptions, not to the
imaginations; for the latter are not called “knowledge,” but “that
which cometh into your mind” (Ezek. xx. 32). It has thus been shown
that it must be man’s aim, after having acquired the knowledge of God,
to deliver himself up to Him, and to have his heart constantly filled
with longing after Him. He accomplishes this generally by seclusion and
retirement. Every pious man should therefore seek retirement and
seclusion, and should only in case of necessity associate with others.
Note.—I have shown you that the intellect which emanates from God unto
us is the link that joins us to God. You have it in your power to
strengthen that bond, if you choose to do so, or to weaken it gradually
till it breaks, if you prefer this. It will only become strong when you
employ it in the love of God, and seek that love; it will be weakened
when you direct your thoughts to other things. You must know that even
if you were the wisest man in respect to the true knowledge of God, you
break the bond between you and God whenever you turn entirely your
thoughts to the necessary food or any necessary business; you are then
not with God, and He is not with you; for that relation between you and
Him is actually interrupted in those moments. The pious were therefore
particular to restrict the time in which they could not meditate upon
the name of God, and cautioned others about it, saying, “Let not your
minds be vacant from reflections upon God.” In the same sense did David
say, “I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right
hand, I shall not be moved” (Ps. xvi. 8); i.e., I do not turn my
thoughts away from God; He is like my right hand, which I do not forget
even for a moment on account of the ease of its motions, and therefore
I shall not be moved, I shall not fall.
We must bear in mind that all such religious acts as reading the Law,
praying, and the performance of other precepts, serve exclusively as
the means of causing us to occupy and fill our mind with the precepts
of God, and free it from worldly business; for we are thus, as it were,
in communication with God, and undisturbed by any other thing. If we,
however, pray with the motion of our lips, and our face toward the
wall, but at the same time think of our business; if we read the Law
with our tongue, whilst our heart is occupied with the building of our
house, and we do not think of what we are reading; if we perform the
commandments only with our limbs, we are like those who are engaged in
digging in the ground, or hewing wood in the forest, without reflecting
on the nature of those acts, or by whom they are commanded, or what is
their object. We must not imagine that [in this way] we attain the
highest perfection; on the contrary, we are then like those in
reference to whom Scripture says, “Thou art near in their mouth, and
far from their reins” (Jer. xii. 2).
I will now commence to show you the way how to educate and train
yourselves in order to attain that great perfection.
The first thing you must do is this: Turn your thoughts away from
everything while you read Shemaʻ or during the Tefillah, and do not
content yourself with being devout when you read the first verse of
Shema, or the first paragraph of the prayer. When you have successfully
practised this for many years, try in reading the Law or listening to
it, to have all your heart and all your thought occupied with
understanding what you read or hear. After some time when you have
mastered this, accustom yourself to have your mind free from all other
thoughts when you read any portion of the other books of the prophets,
or when you say any blessing; and to have your attention directed
exclusively to the perception and the understanding of what you utter.
When you have succeeded in properly performing these acts of divine
service, and you have your thought, during their performance, entirely
abstracted from worldly affairs, take then care that your thought be
not disturbed by thinking of your wants or of superfluous things. In
short, think of worldly matters when you eat, drink, bathe, talk with
your wife and little children, or when you converse with other people.
These times, which are frequent and long, I think, must suffice to you
for reflecting on everything that is necessary as regards business,
household, and health. But when you are engaged in the performance of
religious duties, have your mind exclusively directed to what you are
doing.
When you are alone by yourself, when you are awake on your couch, be
careful to meditate in such precious moments on nothing but the
intellectual worship of God, viz., to approach Him and to minister
before Him in the true manner which I have described to you—not in
hollow emotions. This I consider as the highest perfection wise men can
attain by the above training.
When we have acquired a true knowledge of God, and rejoice in that
knowledge in such a manner, that whilst speaking with others, or
attending to our bodily wants, our mind is all that time with God; when
we are with our heart constantly near God, even whilst our body is in
the society of men; when we are in that state which the Song on the
relation between God and man poetically describes in the following
words: “I sleep, but my heart waketh; it is the voice of my beloved
knocketh” (Song v. 2):—then we have attained not only the height of
ordinary prophets, but of Moses, our Teacher, of whom Scripture
relates: “And Moses alone shall come near before the Lord” (ibid.
xxxiv. 28); “But as for thee, stand thou here by me” (Deut. v. 28). The
meaning of these verses has been explained by us.
The Patriarchs likewise attained this degree of perfection; they
approached God in such a manner that with them the name of God became
known in the world. Thus we read in Scripture: “The God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.... This is My name for ever” (Exod.
iii. 15). Their mind was so identified with the knowledge of God, that
He made a lasting covenant with each of them: “Then will I remember my
covenant with Jacob,” etc. (Lev. xxvi. 42). For it is known from
statements made in Scripture that these four, viz., the Patriarchs and
Moses, had their minds exclusively filled with the name of God, that
is, with His knowledge and love; and that in the same measure was
Divine Providence attached to them and their descendants. When we
therefore find them also, engaged in ruling others, in increasing their
property, and endeavouring to obtain possession of wealth and honour,
we see in this fact a proof that when they were occupied in these
things, only their bodily limbs were at work, whilst their heart and
mind never moved away from the name of God. I think these four reached
that high degree of perfection in their relation to God, and enjoyed
the continual presence of Divine Providence, even in their endeavours
to increase their property, feeding the flock, toiling in the field, or
managing the house, only because in all these things their end and aim
was to approach God as much as possible. It was the chief aim of their
whole life to create a people that should know and worship God. Comp.
“For I know him, that he will command his children and his household
after him” (Gen. xviii. 19). The object of all their labours was to
publish the Unity of God in the world, and to induce people to love
Him; and it was on this account that they succeeded in reaching that
high degree; for even those [worldly] affairs were for them a perfect
worship of God. But a person like myself must not imagine that he is
able to lead men up to this degree of perfection. It is only the next
degree to it that can be attained by means of the above-mentioned
training. And let us pray to God and beseech Him that He clear and
remove from our way everything that forms an obstruction and a
partition between us and Him, although most of these obstacles are our
own creation, as has several times been shown in this treatise. Comp.
“Your iniquities have separated between you and your God” (Isa. lix.
2).
An excellent idea presents itself here to me, which may serve to remove
many doubts, and may help to solve many difficult problems in
metaphysics. We have already stated in the chapters which treat of
Divine Providence, that Providence watches over every rational being
according to the amount of intellect which that being possesses. Those
who are perfect in their perception of God, whose mind is never
separated from Him, enjoy always the influence of Providence. But those
who, perfect in their knowledge of God, turn their mind sometimes away
from God, enjoy the presence of Divine Providence only when they
meditate on God; when their thoughts are engaged in other matters,
divine Providence departs from them. The absence of Providence in this
case is not like its absence in the case of those who do not reflect on
God at all; it is in this case less intense, because when a person
perfect in his knowledge [of God] is busy with worldly matters, he has
not knowledge in actuality, but only knowledge in potentiality [though
ready to become actual]. This person is then like a trained scribe when
he is not writing. Those who have no knowledge of God are like those
who are in constant darkness and have never seen light. We have
explained in this sense the words: “The wicked shall be silent in
darkness” (1 Sam. ii. 9) whilst those who possess the knowledge of God,
and have their thoughts entirely directed to that knowledge, are, as it
were, always in bright sunshine; and those who have the knowledge, but
are at times engaged in other themes, have then as it were a cloudy
day: the sun does not shine for them on account of the cloud that
intervenes between them and God.
Hence it appears to me that it is only in times of such neglect that
some of the ordinary evils befall a prophet or a perfect and pious man;
and the intensity of the evil is proportional to the duration of those
moments, or to the character of the things that thus occupy their mind.
Such being the case, the great difficulty is removed that led
philosophers to assert that Providence does not extend to every
individual, and that man is like any other living being in this
respect, viz., the argument based on the fact that good and pious men
are afflicted with great evils. We have thus explained this difficult
question even in accordance with the philosophers’ own principles.
Divine Providence is constantly watching over those who have obtained
that blessing which is prepared for those who endeavour to obtain it.
If man frees his thoughts from worldly matters, obtains a knowledge of
God in the right way, and rejoices in that knowledge, it is impossible
that any kind of evil should befall him while he is with God, and God
with him. When he does not meditate on God, when he is separated from
God, then God is also separated from him; then he is exposed to any
evil that might befall him; for it is only that intellectual link with
God that secures the presence of Providence and protection from evil
accidents. Hence it may occur that the perfect man is at times not
happy, whilst no evil befalls those who are imperfect; in these cases
what happens to them is due to chance. This principle I find also
expressed in the Law. Comp. “And I will hide my face from them, and
they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them;
so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us,
because our God is not among us?” (Deut. xxxi. 17). It is clear that we
ourselves are the cause of this hiding of the face, and that the screen
that separates us from God is of our own creation. This is the meaning
of the words: “And I will surely hide my face in that day, for all the
evils which they shall have wrought” (ibid. ver. 18). There is
undoubtedly no difference in this regard between one single person and
a whole community. It is now clearly established that the cause of our
being exposed to chance, and abandoned to destruction like cattle, is
to be found in our separation from God. Those who have their God
dwelling in their hearts, are not touched by any evil whatever. For God
says: “Fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy
God” (Isa. xli. 10). “When thou passest through the waters, I will be
with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee” (ibid.
xliii. 2). For if we prepare ourselves, and attain the influence of the
Divine Intellect, Providence is joined to us, and we are guarded
against all evils. Comp. “The Lord is on my side; I will not fear; what
can man do unto me?” (Ps. cxviii. 6). “Acquaint now thyself with him,
and be at peace” (Job xxii. 21); i.e., turn unto Him, and you will be
safe from all evil.
Consider the Psalm on mishaps, and see how the author describes that
great Providence, the protection and defence from all mishaps that
concern the body, both from those that are common to all people, and
those that concern only one certain individual; from those that are due
to the laws of Nature, and those that are caused by our fellow-men. The
Psalmist says: “Surely he will deliver thee from the snare of the
fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his
feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: His truth shall be thy
shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night;
nor for the arrow that flieth by day” (Ps. xci. 3–5). The author then
relates how God protects us from the troubles caused by men, saying, If
you happen to meet on your way with an army fighting with drawn swords,
killing thousands at your left hand and myriads at your right hand, you
will not suffer any harm; you will behold and see how God judges and
punishes the wicked that are being slain, whilst you remain unhurt. “A
thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand;
but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold
and see the reward of the wicked” (ibid. vers. 7, 8). The author then
continues his description of the divine defence and shelter, and shows
the cause of this great protection, saying that such a man is well
guarded “Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver
him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name” (ibid. ver.
14). We have shown in previous chapters that by the “knowledge of God’s
name,” the knowledge of God is meant. The above passage may therefore
be paraphrased as follows: “This man is well guarded, because he hath
known me, and then (bi chashak) loved me.” You know the difference
between the two Hebrew terms that signify “to love,” ahab and ḥashak.
When a man’s love is so intense that his thought is exclusively engaged
with the object of his love, it is expressed in Hebrew by the term
ḥashak.
The philosophers have already explained how the bodily forces of man in
his youth prevent the development of moral principles. In a greater
measure this is the case as regards the purity of thought which man
attains through the perfection of those ideas that lead him to an
intense love of God. Man can by no means attain this so long as his
bodily humours are hot. The more the forces of his body are weakened,
and the fire of passion quenched, in the same measure does man’s
intellect increase in strength and light; his knowledge becomes purer,
and he is happy with his knowledge. When this perfect man is stricken
in age and is near death, his knowledge mightily increases, his joy in
that knowledge grows greater, and his love for the object of his
knowledge more intense, and it is in this great delight that the soul
separates from the body. To this state our Sages referred, when in
reference to the death of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, they said that
death was in these three cases nothing but a kiss. They say thus: We
learn from the words, “And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in
the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. xxxiv. 5), that his
death was a kiss. The same expression is used of Aaron: “And Aaron the
priest went up into Mount Hor ... by the mouth of the Lord, and died
there” (Num. xxxiii. 38). Our Sages said that the same was the case
with Miriam; but the phrase “by the mouth of the Lord” is not employed,
because it was not considered appropriate to use these words in the
description of her death as she was a female. The meaning of this
saying is that these three died in the midst of the pleasure derived
from the knowledge of God and their great love for Him. When our Sages
figuratively call the knowledge of God united with intense love for Him
a kiss, they follow the well-known poetical diction “Let him kiss me
with the kisses of his mouth” (Song i. 2). This kind of death, which in
truth is deliverance from death, has been ascribed by our Sages to none
but to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The other prophets and pious men are
beneath that degree; but their knowledge of God is strengthened when
death approaches. Of them Scripture says, “Thy righteousness shall go
before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward” (Isa. lviii.
8). The intellect of these men remains then constantly in the same
condition, since the obstacle is removed that at times has intervened
between the intellect and the object of its action; it continues for
ever in that great delight, which is not like bodily pleasure. We have
explained this in our work, and others have explained it before us.
Try to understand this chapter, endeavour with all your might to spend
more and more time in communion with God, or in the attempt to approach
Him; and to reduce the hours which you spend in other occupations, and
during which you are not striving to come nearer unto Him. This
instruction suffices for the object of this treatise.
CHAPTER LII
We do not sit, move, and occupy ourselves when we are alone and at home
in the same manner as we do in the presence of a great king; we speak
and open our mouth as we please when we are with the people of our own
household and with our relatives, but not so when we are in a royal
assembly. If we therefore desire to attain human perfection, and to be
truly men of God, we must awake from our sleep, and bear in mind that
the great king that is over us, and is always joined to us, is greater
than any earthly king, greater than David and Solomon. The king that
cleaves to us and embraces us is the Intellect that influences us, and
forms the link between us and God. We perceive God by means of that
light that He sends down unto us, wherefore the Psalmist says, “In Thy
light shall we see light” (Ps. xxxvi. 9): so God looks down upon us
through that same light, and is always with us beholding and watching
us on account of this light. “Can any hide himself in secret places
that I shall not see him?” (Jer. xxiii. 24). Note this particularly.
When the perfect bear this in mind, they will be filled with fear of
God, humility, and piety, with true, not apparent, reverence and
respect of God, in such a manner that their conduct, even when alone
with their wives or in the bath, will be as modest as they are in
public intercourse with other people. Thus it is related of our
renowned Sages that even in their sexual intercourse with their wives
they behaved with great modesty. They also said, “Who is modest? He
whose conduct in the dark night is the same as in the day.” You know
also how much they warned us not to walk proudly, since “the fulness of
the whole earth is His glory” (Isa. vi. 3). They thought that by these
rules the above-mentioned idea will be firmly established in the hearts
of men, viz., that we are always before God, and it is in the presence
of His glory that we go to and fro. The great men among our Sages would
not uncover their heads because they believed that God’s glory was
round them and over them; for the same reason they spoke little. In our
Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers (chap. i. 17) we have fully
explained how we have to restrict our speech. Comp. “For God is in
heaven and thou upon earth, therefore let thy words be few” (Eccles. v.
1).
What I have here pointed out to you is the object of all our religious
acts. For by [carrying out] all the details of the prescribed
practices, and repeating them continually, some few pious men may
attain human perfection. They will be filled with respect and reverence
towards God; and bearing in mind who is with them, they will perform
their duty. God declares in plain words that it is the object of all
religious acts to produce in man fear of God and obedience to His
word—the state of mind which we have demonstrated in this chapter for
those who desire to know the truth, as being our duty to seek. Comp.
“If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are
written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful
name, the Lord thy God” (Deut. xxviii. 58). Consider how clearly it is
stated here that the only object and aim of “all the words of this law”
is to [make man] fear “the glorious and fearful name.” That this end is
attained by certain acts we learn likewise from the phrase employed in
this verse: “If thou wilt not observe to do ... that thou mayest fear.”
For this phrase clearly shows that fear of God is inculcated [into our
hearts] when we act in accordance with the positive and the negative
precepts. But the truths which the Law teaches us—the knowledge of
God’s Existence and Unity—create in us love of God, as we have shown
repeatedly. You know how frequently the Law exhorts us to love God.
Comp. “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. vi. 5). The two
objects, love and fear of God, are acquired by two different means. The
love is the result of the truths taught in the Law, including the true
knowledge of the Existence of God; whilst fear of God is produced by
the practices prescribed in the Law. Note this explanation.
CHAPTER LIII
This chapter treats of the meaning of three terms which we find
necessary to explain, viz., ḥesed (“loving-kindness”), mishpat
(“judgment”), and ẓedakah (“righteousness”).
In our Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers (chap. v. 7) we have
explained the expression ḥesed as denoting an excess [in some moral
quality]. It is especially used of extraordinary kindness.
Loving-kindness is practised in two ways: first, we show kindness to
those who have no claim whatever upon us; secondly, we are kind to
those to whom it is due, in a greater measure than is due to them. In
the inspired writings the term ḥesed occurs mostly in the sense of
showing kindness to those who have no claim to it whatever. For this
reason the term ḥesed is employed to express the good bestowed upon us
by God: “I will mention the loving-kindness of the Lord” (Isa. lxiii.
7). On this account, the very act of the creation is an act of God’s
loving-kindness. “I have said, The Universe is built up in
loving-kindness” (Ps. lxxxix. 3); i.e., the building up of the Universe
is an act of loving-kindness. Also, in the enumeration of God’s
attributes, Scripture says: “And abundant in loving-kindness” (Exod.
xxxiv. 6).
The term ẓedakah is derived from ẓedek, “righteousness”; it denotes the
act of giving every one his due, and of showing kindness to every being
according as it deserves. In Scripture, however, the expression ẓedakah
is not used in the first sense, and does not apply to the payment of
what we owe to others. When we therefore give the hired labourer his
wages, or pay a debt, we do not perform an act of ẓedakah. But we do
perform an act of ẓedakah when we fulfil those duties towards our
fellow-men which our moral conscience imposes upon us; e.g., when we
heal the wound of the sufferer. Thus Scripture says, in reference to
the returning of the pledge [to the poor debtor]: “And it shall be
ẓedakah (righteousness) unto thee” (Deut. xxiv. 11). When we walk in
the way of virtue we act righteously towards our intellectual faculty,
and pay what is due unto it; and because every virtue is thus ẓedakah,
Scripture applies the term to the virtue of faith in God. Comp. “And he
believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him as righteousness”
(Gen. xv. 6); “And it shall be our righteousness” (Deut. vi. 25).
The noun mishpat, “judgment,” denotes the act of deciding upon a
certain action in accordance with justice which may demand either mercy
or punishment.
We have thus shown that ḥesed denotes pure charity; ẓedakah kindness,
prompted by a certain moral conscience in man, and being a means of
attaining perfection for his soul, whilst mishpat may in some cases
find expression in revenge, in other cases in mercy.
In discussing the impropriety of admitting attributes of God (Part I.,
chap. liii., seq.), we stated that the divine attributes which occur in
Scripture are attributes of His actions; thus He is called ḥasid,
“kind,” because He created the Universe; ẓaddik, “righteous,” on
account of His mercy with the weak, in providing for every living being
according to its powers; and shofet, “judge,” on account of the
relative good and the great relative evils that are decreed by God’s
justice as directed by His wisdom. These three names occur in the
Pentateuch: “Shall not the Judge (shofet) of all the earth,” etc. (Gen.
xviii. 25); “Righteous (ẓaddik) and upright is he” (Deut. xxxii. 4);
“Abundant in loving-kindness” (ḥesed, Exod. xxxiv. 6).
We intended in explaining these three terms to prepare the reader for
the next chapter.
CHAPTER LIV
The term ḥokmah (“wisdom”) in Hebrew is used of four different things:
(1) It denotes the knowledge of those truths which lead to the
knowledge of God. Comp. “But where shall wisdom be found?” (Job xxviii.
12); “If thou seekest her like silver” (Prov. ii. 4). The word occurs
frequently in this sense. (2) The expression ḥokmah denotes also
knowledge of any workmanship. Comp. “And every wise-hearted among you
shall come and make all that the Lord hath commanded” (Exod. xxxv. 10);
“And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin” (ibid. ver. 25).
(3) It is also used of the acquisition of moral principles. Comp. “And
teach his senators wisdom” (Ps. cv. 22); “With the ancient is wisdom”
(Job xii. 12): for it is chiefly the disposition for acquiring moral
principles that is developed by old age alone. (4) It implies, lastly,
the notion of cunning and subtlety; comp. “Come on, let us deal wisely
with them” (Exod. i. 10). In the same sense the term is used in the
following passages: “And fetched thence a wise woman” (2 Sam. xiv. 2);
“They are wise to do evil” (Jer. iv. 22). It is possible that the
Hebrew ḥokmah (“wisdom”) expresses the idea of cunning and planning,
which may serve in one case as a means of acquiring intellectual
perfection, or good moral principles; but may in another case produce
skill in workmanship, or even be employed in establishing bad opinions
and principles. The attribute ḥakam (“wise”) is therefore given to a
person that possesses great intellectual faculties, or good moral
principles, or skill in art; but also to persons cunning in evil deeds
and principles.
According to this explanation, a person that has a true knowledge of
the whole Law is called wise in a double sense; he is wise because the
Law instructs him in the highest truths, and secondly, because it
teaches him good morals. But as the truths contained in the Law are
taught by way of tradition, not by a philosophical method, the
knowledge of the Law, and the acquisition of true wisdom, are treated
in the books of the Prophets and in the words of our Sages as two
different things; real wisdom demonstrates by proof those truths which
Scripture teaches us by way of tradition. It is to this kind of wisdom,
which proves the truth of the Law, that Scripture refers when it extols
wisdom, and speaks of the high value of this perfection, and of the
consequent paucity of men capable of acquiring it, in sayings like
these: “Not many are wise” (Job xxxii. 9); “But where shall wisdom be
found” (ibid. xxviii. 12)? In the writings of our Sages we notice
likewise many passages in which distinction is made between knowledge
of the Law and wisdom. They say of Moses, our Teacher, that he was
Father in the knowledge of the Law, in wisdom and in prophecy. When
Scripture says of Solomon, “And he was wiser than all men” (1 Kings v.
11), our Sages add, “but not greater than Moses”; and the phrase, “than
all men,” is explained to mean, “than all men of his generation”; for
this reason [only] “Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol,” the
renowned wise men of that time, are named. Our Sages further say, that
man has first to render account concerning his knowledge of the Law,
then concerning the acquisition of wisdom, and at last concerning the
lessons derived by logical conclusions from the Law, i.e., the lessons
concerning his actions. This is also the right order: we must first
learn the truths by tradition, after this we must be taught how to
prove them, and then investigate the actions that help to improve man’s
ways. The idea that man will have to render account concerning these
three things in the order described, is expressed by our Sages in the
following passage: “When man comes to the trial, he is first asked,
‘Hast thou fixed certain seasons for the study of the Law? Hast thou
been engaged in the acquisition of wisdom? Hast thou derived from one
thing another thing?’” This proves that our Sages distinguished between
the knowledge of the Law on the one hand, and wisdom on the other, as
the means of proving the lessons taught in the Law by correct
reasoning.
Hear now what I have to say after having given the above explanation.
The ancient and the modern philosophers have shown that man can acquire
four kinds of perfection. The first kind, the lowest, in the
acquisition of which people spend their days, is perfection as regards
property; the possession of money, garments, furniture, servants, land,
and the like; the possession of the title of a great king belongs to
this class. There is no close connexion between this possession and its
possessor; it is a perfectly imaginary relation when on account of the
great advantage a person derives from these possessions, he says, This
is my house, this is my servant, this is my money, and these are my
hosts and armies. For when he examines himself he will find that all
these things are external, and their qualities are entirely independent
of the possessor. When, therefore, that relation ceases, he that has
been a great king may one morning find that there is no difference
between him and the lowest person, and yet no change has taken place in
the things which were ascribed to him. The philosophers have shown that
he whose sole aim in all his exertions and endeavours is the possession
of this kind of perfection, only seeks perfectly imaginary and
transient things; and even if these remain his property all his
lifetime, they do not give him any perfection.
The second kind is more closely related to man’s body than the first.
It includes the perfection of the shape, constitution, and form of
man’s body; the utmost evenness of temperaments, and the proper order
and strength of his limbs. This kind of perfection must likewise be
excluded from forming our chief aim; because it is a perfection of the
body, and man does not possess it as man, but as a living being; he has
this property besides in common with the lowest animal; and even if a
person possesses the greatest possible strength, he could not be as
strong as a mule, much less can he be as strong as a lion or an
elephant; he, therefore, can at the utmost have strength that might
enable him to carry a heavy burden, or break a thick substance, or do
similar things, in which there is no great profit for the body. The
soul derives no profit whatever from this kind of perfection.
The third kind of perfection is more closely connected with man himself
than the second perfection. It includes moral perfection, the highest
degree of excellency in man’s character. Most of the precepts aim at
producing this perfection; but even this kind is only a preparation for
another perfection, and is not sought for its own sake. For all moral
principles concern the relation of man to his neighbour; the perfection
of man’s moral principles is, as it were, given to man for the benefit
of mankind. Imagine a person being alone, and having no connexion
whatever with any other person, all his good moral principles are at
rest, they are not required, and give man no perfection whatever. These
principles are only necessary and useful when man comes in contact with
others.
The fourth kind of perfection is the true perfection of man; the
possession of the highest intellectual faculties; the possession of
such notions which lead to true metaphysical opinions as regards God.
With this perfection man has obtained his final object; it gives him
true human perfection; it remains to him alone; it gives him
immortality, and on its account he is called man. Examine the first
three lands of perfection, you will find that, if you possess them,
they are not your property, but the property of others; according to
the ordinary view, however, they belong to you and to others. But the
last kind of perfection is exclusively yours; no one else owns any part
of it, “They shall be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee”
(Prov. v. 17). Your aim must therefore be to attain this [fourth]
perfection that is exclusively yours, and you ought not to continue to
work and weary yourself for that which belongs to others, whilst
neglecting your soul till it has lost entirely its original purity
through the dominion of the bodily powers over it. The same idea is
expressed in the beginning of those poems, which allegorically
represent the state of our soul. “My mother’s children were angry with
me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard
have I not kept” (Song i. 6). Also the following passage refers to the
same subject, “Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years
unto the cruel” (Prov. v. 9).
The prophets have likewise explained unto us these things, and have
expressed the same opinion on them as the philosophers. They say
distinctly that perfection in property, in health, or in character, is
not a perfection worthy to be sought as a cause of pride and glory for
us; that the knowledge of God, i.e., true wisdom, is the only
perfection which we should seek, and in which we should glorify
ourselves. Jeremiah, referring to these four kinds of perfection, says:
“Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither
let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in
his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he
understandeth and knoweth me” (Jer. ix. 22, 23). See how the prophet
arranged them according to their estimation in the eyes of the
multitude. The rich man occupies the first rank; next is the mighty
man; and then the wise man; that is, the man of good moral principles:
for in the eyes of the multitude, who are addressed in these words, he
is likewise a great man. This is the reason why the three classes are
enumerated in this order.
Our Sages have likewise derived from this passage the above-mentioned
lessons, and stated the same theory that has been explained in this
chapter, viz., that the simple term ḥokmah, as a rule, denotes the
highest aim of man, the knowledge of God; that those properties which
man acquires, makes his peculiar treasure, and considers as his
perfection, in reality do not include any perfection; and that the
religious acts prescribed in the Law, viz., the various kinds of
worship and the moral principles which benefit all people in their
social intercourse with each other, do not constitute the ultimate aim
of man, nor can they be compared to it, for they are but preparations
leading to it. Hear the opinion of our Sages on this subject in their
own words. The passage occurs in Bereshit Rabba, and runs thus, “In one
place Scripture says, ‘And all things that are desirable (ḥafaẓim) are
not to be compared to her’ (Prov. viii. 11); and in another place, ‘And
all things that thou desirest (ḥafaẓeḥa) are not to be compared unto
her’” (ibid. iii. 15). By “things that are desirable” the performance
of Divine precepts and good deeds is to be understood, whilst “things
that thou desirest” refer to precious stones and pearls. Both—things
that are desirable, and things that thou desirest—cannot be compared to
wisdom, but “in this let him that glorieth glory, that he understandeth
and knoweth me.” Consider how concise this saying is, and how perfect
its author; how nothing is here omitted of all that we have put forth
after lengthy explanations and preliminary remarks.
Having stated the sublime ideas contained in that Scriptural passage,
and quoted the explanation of our Sages, we will now complete what the
remainder of that passage teaches us. The prophet does not content
himself with explaining that the knowledge of God is the highest kind
of perfection; for if this only had been his intention, he would have
said, “But in this let him who glorieth glory, that he understandeth
and knoweth me,” and would have stopped there; or he would have said,
“that he understandeth and knoweth me that I am One,” or, “that I have
not any likeness,” or, “that there is none like me,” or a similar
phrase. He says, however, that man can only glory in the knowledge of
God and in the knowledge of His ways and attributes, which are His
actions, as we have shown (Part I. liv.) in expounding the passage,
“Show me now thy ways” (Exod. xxxviii. 13). We are thus told in this
passage that the Divine acts which ought to be known, and ought to
serve as a guide for our actions, are, ḥesed, “loving-kindness,”
mishpat, “judgment,” and ẓedakah, “righteousness.” Another very
important lesson is taught by the additional phrase, “in the earth.” It
implies a fundamental principle of the Law; it rejects the theory of
those who boldly assert that God’s providence does not extend below the
sphere of the moon, and that the earth with its contents is abandoned,
that “the Lord hath forsaken the earth” (Ez. viii. 12). It teaches, as
has been taught by the greatest of all wise men in the words, “The
earth is the Lord’s” (Exod. ix. 29), that His providence extends to the
earth in accordance with its nature, in the same manner as it controls
the heavens in accordance with their nature. This is expressed in the
words, “That I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment,
and righteousness in the earth.” The prophet thus, in conclusion, says,
“For in these things I delight, saith the Lord,” i.e., My object [in
saying this] is that you shall practise loving-kindness, judgment, and
righteousness in the earth. In a similar manner we have shown (Part I.
liv.) that the object of the enumeration of God’s thirteen attributes
is the lesson that we should acquire similar attributes and act
accordingly. The object of the above passage is therefore to declare,
that the perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by him
when he has acquired—as far as this is possible for man—the knowledge
of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it
influences His creatures in their production and continued existence.
Having acquired this knowledge he will then be determined always to
seek loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, and thus to imitate
the ways of God. We have explained this many times in this treatise.
This is all that I thought proper to discuss in this treatise, and
which I considered useful for men like you. I hope that, by the help of
God, you will, after due reflection, comprehend all the things which I
have treated here. May He grant us and all Israel with us to attain
what He promised us, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and
the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped” (Isa. xxxv. 5); “The people
that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the
shadow of death upon them hath the light shined” (ibid. ix. 1).
God is near to all who call Him, if they call Him in truth, and turn to
Him. He is found by every one who seeks Him, if he always goes toward
Him, and never goes astray. Amen.
NOTES
[1] See infra, page 4, note 1.
[2] See infra, page 5, note 4.
[3] Saadiah proves the existence of the Creator in the following
way:—1. The Universe is limited, and therefore cannot possess an
unlimited force. 2. All things are compounds; the composition must be
owing to some external cause. 3. Changes observed in all beings are
effected by some external cause. 4. If time were infinite, it would be
impossible to conceive the progress of time from the present moment to
the future, or from the past to the present moment. (Emunot vedeʻot,
ch. i.).—Baḥya founds his arguments on three propositions:—1. A thing
cannot be its own maker. 2. The series of successive causes is finite.
3. Compounds owe their existence to an external force. His arguments
are:—1. The Universe, even the elements, are compounds consisting of
substance and form. 2. In the Universe plan and unity is discernible.
(Ḥobot ha-lebabot, ch. i.)