Mozes Maimonides

HET LEVEN VAN MOZES MAIMONIDES

“Voordat de zon van Eli was ondergegaan, was de zoon van Samuel al opgekomen.” Voordat de stem van de profeten ophield het volk te leiden, waren de wetsuitleggers, de Talmoedgeleerden, al aan hun werk begonnen, en voordat de academies van soera’s en pumbadita werden gesloten, bloeiden er in het verre Westen al centra van Joods denken en geleerdheid. De omstandigheden die leidden tot de verplaatsing van het hoofdkwartier van de Joodse geleerdheid van het Oosten naar het Westen in de tiende eeuw worden als volgt beschreven in de Sefer ha-kabbalah van Rabbi Abraham ben David:

“Na de dood van Hizkia, het hoofd van de Academie en Prins van de Ballingschap, werden de academies gesloten en werden er geen nieuwe Geonim benoemd. Maar lang daarvoor had de Hemel gewild dat er een einde zou komen aan de geldelijke giften die vanuit Palestina, Noord-Afrika en Europa werden gestuurd. De Hemel had ook bepaald dat een schip dat vanuit Bari voer, zou worden buitgemaakt door Ibn Romahis, commandant van de zeemacht van Abd-er-rahman al-nasr. Vier vooraanstaande rabbijnen werden aldus gevangengenomen: Rabbi Husseil, vader van Rabbi Hananel, Rabbi Mozes, vader van Rabbi Hanok, Rabbi Shemarjahu, zoon van Rabbi Elhanan, en een vierde wiens naam niet is genoemd.” Opgetekend.

Ze waren bezig met een missie om subsidies te verzamelen voor de Academie in Soera. De ontvoerder verkocht hen als slaven; Rabbi Husseil werd naar Kairuan gebracht, Rabbi Shemarjahu bleef achter in Alexandrië en Rabbi Mozes werd naar Córdoba gebracht. Deze slaven werden door hun broeders vrijgekocht en kregen al snel belangrijke posities. Toen Rabbi Mozes naar Córdoba werd gebracht, werd aangenomen dat hij ongeletterd was. In die stad was een synagoge die destijds bekend stond onder de naam Keneset ha-midrash, en Rabbi Nathan, bekend om zijn grote vroomheid, was het hoofd van de gemeente. De leden van de gemeenschap hielden bijeenkomsten waar de Talmoed werd gelezen en besproken. Op een dag, toen Rabbi Nathan de Talmoed uitlegde en geen bevredigende verklaring kon geven voor de besproken passage, loste Rabbi Mozes het probleem onmiddellijk op en beantwoordde tegelijkertijd verschillende vragen die hem werden gesteld. Daarop sprak Rabbi Nathan de vergadering als volgt toe: ‘Ik ben ‘Hij zal niet langer uw leider zijn; die vreemdeling in rouwgewaad zal voortaan mijn leraar zijn, en u zult hem tot uw leider benoemen.’ De admiraal, die hoorde van de hoge prestaties van zijn gevangene, wilde de verkoop ongedaan maken, maar de koning stond deze terugtrekking niet toe, omdat hij verheugd was te vernemen dat zijn Joodse onderdanen voor hun religieuze onderwijs niet langer afhankelijk waren van de scholen in het Oosten.

Voortaan eisten de scholen in het Westen hun onafhankelijkheid op en overtroffen zelfs de moederinstellingen. De kaliefen, die over het algemeen rijk waren, moedigden filosofie en poëzie van harte aan; en, omdat ze over het algemeen liberaal van aard waren, koesterden ze vriendelijke gevoelens jegens hun Joodse onderdanen.

Zij mochten op gelijke voet met hun islamitische medeburgers wedijveren om rijkdom en eer. Filosofie en poëzie werden daarom door de Joden met dezelfde geestdrift beoefend als door de Arabieren. Ibn Gabirol, Ibn Hadesdai, Judas ha-Levi, Hananel, Alfasi, de Ibn Ezra’s en anderen die in die periode bloeiden, waren de sieraad van hun tijd en de trots van de Joden te allen tijde. Deze gunstige situatie bleef bestaan tijdens de heerschappij van de Omajjaden; maar toen de Moravieten en de Almohaden aan de macht kwamen, werd de horizon opnieuw donker en dreigden tegenspoed de vruchten van eeuwen te vernietigen. Te midden van deze duisternis verscheen een stralend lichtpunt dat licht en troost bracht: Mozes Maimonides.

Mozes, de zoon van Maimon, werd geboren in Córdoba op de 14e Nisan 4895 (30 maart 1135). Hoewel zijn geboortedatum uiterst nauwkeurig is vastgelegd, is er geen betrouwbare bron bewaard gebleven over zijn vroege leven. Zijn hele loopbaan bewijst echter dat hij zijn jeugd niet in ledigheid heeft doorgebracht; zijn opleiding moet in lijn zijn geweest met de hoop van zijn ouders dat hij, net als zijn vader en voorvaderen, ooit het eervolle ambt van Dayyan of rabbi zou bekleden en zich zou onderscheiden in theologische kennis. Waarschijnlijk vormden de Bijbel en de Talmoed de voornaamste onderwerpen van zijn studie; maar hij maakte ongetwijfeld optimaal gebruik van de mogelijkheden die het islamitische Spanje, en met name Córdoba, hem bood om algemene kennis te vergaren. In geen van zijn geschriften wordt vermeld wie zijn leraren waren; zijn vader was, zo lijkt het, zijn voornaamste gids en leermeester in vele kennisgebieden. David Conforte stelt in zijn historische werk Ḳore ha-dorot dat Maimonides de leerling was van twee eminente mannen, namelijk Rabbi Joseph Ibn Migash en Ibn Roshd (Averroes); dat hij door de eerste in de Talmoed werd onderwezen en door de laatste in de filosofie. Deze bewering lijkt onjuist, aangezien Maimonides nog maar een kind was toen Rabbi Joseph stierf en al op hoge leeftijd was toen hij kennismaakte met de geschriften van Ibn Roshd. De oorsprong van deze vergissing met betrekking tot Rabbi Joseph is gemakkelijk te achterhalen. Maimonides gebruikt in zijn Mishneh Tora, verwijzend naar Rabbi Isaac Alfasi en Rabbi Joseph, de uitdrukking “mijn leraren” (rabbotai), en deze uitdrukking, waarmee hij slechts zijn dankbaarheid jegens hun geschriften beschrijft, is letterlijk opgevat.

Wie zijn leraren ook waren, het is duidelijk dat hij door hen goed voorbereid was op zijn toekomstige missie. Op drieëntwintigjarige leeftijd begon hij zijn literaire carrière met een verhandeling over de Joodse kalender. Het is onbekend waar dit werk geschreven is, of het nu in Spanje of in Afrika was. De auteur vermeldt slechts dat hij het schreef op verzoek van een vriend, wiens naam hij echter niet noemt. Het onderwerp werd over het algemeen als zeer abstract beschouwd en vereiste een grondige kennis van wiskunde. Maimonides moet daarom, zelfs in deze vroege periode, door zijn kennissen als een diepgaand geleerde beschouwd zijn. De verhandeling is van elementaire aard. Waarschijnlijk schreef hij rond dezelfde tijd in het Arabisch een uitleg van logische termen, Millot higgayon, die door Moses Ibn Tibbon in het Hebreeuws werd vertaald.

De vroege periode van zijn leven lijkt niet gekenmerkt te zijn door noemenswaardige gebeurtenissen. Het is echter gemakkelijk voor te stellen dat de latere periode van zijn leven, die rijk was aan interessante gebeurtenissen, de exclusieve aandacht van zijn biografen opeiste. Zoiets is zeker: zijn jeugd was vol problemen en angsten; de vreedzame ontwikkeling van wetenschap en filosofie werd verstoord door oorlogen tussen moslims en christenen, en ook tussen de verschillende islamitische stromingen. De Moraviden, die de Omajjaden waren opgevolgd, waren gekant tegen vrijgevigheid en tolerantie; maar zij werden in wreedheid en fanatisme overtroffen door hun opvolgers. Córdoba werd in 1148 door de Almohaden ingenomen, toen Maimonides ongeveer dertien jaar oud was. De overwinningen van de Almohaden, eerst onder leiding van Mahadi Ibn Tamurt en vervolgens onder Abd-al-Mumen, gingen volgens alle getuigenissen gepaard met daden van extreme onverdraagzaamheid. Abd-al-Mumen duldde in zijn gebied geen ander geloof dan het geloof dat hij zelf beleed. Joden en christenen hadden de keuze tussen de islam en emigratie of een martelaarsdood. De Sefer ha-ḳabbalah bevat de volgende beschrijving van een van de vervolgingen die toen plaatsvonden:

“Na de dood van Rabbi Joseph ha-levi werd de studie van de Tora onderbroken, hoewel hij een zoon en een neef achterliet, die beiden onder zijn leiding diepgaande geleerden waren geworden. De rechtvaardige man (Rabbi Joseph) werd weggenomen vanwege het naderende kwaad. Na de dood van Rabbi Joseph brak er voor de Joden een tijd van onderdrukking en ellende aan. Zij verlieten hun huizen, ‘Zij die voor de dood bestemd waren, werden gedood, en zij die voor het zwaard bestemd waren, werden gedood, en zij die voor de hongersnood bestemd waren, werden gedood, en zij die voor de gevangenschap bestemd waren, werd dit gevangenschap; en – dit zou men kunnen toevoegen aan de woorden van Jeremia (15:2) – ‘zij die voor afvalligheid bestemd waren, werden afvallig.'”

Dit alles gebeurde door toedoen van Ibn Tamurt, die in 4902 (1142) besloot de naam van Israël uit te wissen en in feite geen enkel spoor van Joden achterliet in welk deel van zijn rijk dan ook.

Ibn Verga geeft in zijn werk over Joods martelaarschap, in Shebeṭ Jehudah, het volgende verslag van de gebeurtenissen van die tijd:

“In het jaar 4902 verschenen de legers van Ibn Tamurt. Er werd een proclamatie uitgevaardigd dat iedereen die weigerde zich tot de islam te bekeren ter dood zou worden gebracht en dat zijn bezittingen in beslag zouden worden genomen. Daarop verzamelden de Joden zich bij de poort van het koninklijk paleis en smeekten de koning om genade. Hij antwoordde: ‘Omdat ik medelijden met jullie heb, beveel ik jullie moslim te worden; want ik wil jullie redden van de eeuwige straf.’ De Joden antwoordden: ‘Ons heil hangt af van onze naleving van de goddelijke wet; u bent de meester van ons lichaam en ons bezit, maar onze zielen zullen worden geoordeeld door de koning die ze ons heeft gegeven en tot wie ze zullen terugkeren; wat ons toekomstige lot ook moge zijn, u, o koning, zult daarvoor niet verantwoordelijk worden gehouden.'” ‘Ik wil niet met jullie discussiëren,’ zei de koning, ‘want ik weet dat jullie zullen argumenteren volgens jullie eigen religie. Het is mijn absolute wil dat jullie mijn religie aannemen of ter dood worden gebracht.’ De Joden stelden toen voor te emigreren, maar de koning stond niet toe dat zijn onderdanen een andere koning dienden. Tevergeefs smeekten de Joden de edelen om voor hen te bemiddelen; de koning bleef onvermurwbaar. Zo verlieten vele gemeenschappen hun religie; maar binnen een maand stierf de koning plotseling. De zoon, in de overtuiging dat zijn vader een vroegtijdig einde had gevonden als straf voor zijn wreedheid jegens de Joden, verzekerde de onvrijwillige bekeerlingen dat het hem niet uitmaakte welke religie zij beleden. Daarom keerden veel Joden onmiddellijk terug naar de religie van hun voorvaderen, terwijl anderen enige tijd aarzelden, uit vrees dat de koning de schijnbare bekeerlingen in de val wilde lokken.

Uit deze verslagen blijkt dat tijdens deze rampspoed sommige Joden naar het buitenland vluchtten, sommigen als martelaren stierven en vele anderen zich tijdelijk uiterlijk bekeerden. Welke koers volgde de familie van Maimon? Offerden ze persoonlijk comfort en veiligheid op voor hun religieuze overtuiging, of verloochenden ze juist hun geloof omwille van louter wereldse overwegingen en deden ze alsof ze zich volledig onderwierpen aan de bevelen van de tiran? Een antwoord op deze vraag vinden we in de volgende aantekening die Maimonides aan zijn commentaar op de Misjna heeft toegevoegd:

“Ik heb dit werk nu voltooid, zoals beloofd, en ik smeek de Almachtige vurig ons te behoeden voor dwaling. Mocht iemand een onnauwkeurigheid in dit commentaar ontdekken of een betere verklaring hebben, laat mijn aandacht daarop gevestigd worden; en laat mij vrijgesproken worden door het feit dat ik met veel meer toewijding heb gewerkt dan wie dan ook die schrijft voor loon en winst, en dat ik onder de meest moeilijke omstandigheden heb gewerkt. Want de Hemel had bepaald dat we in ballingschap zouden gaan, en daarom werden we van plaats tot plaats gedreven; ik was dus gedwongen om aan het commentaar te werken terwijl ik over land reisde of over zee voer. Het had wellicht volstaan te vermelden dat ik in die tijd ook andere studies verrichtte, maar ik gaf er de voorkeur aan bovenstaande uitleg te geven om degenen die het commentaar willen bekritiseren of van aantekeningen willen voorzien, aan te moedigen, en tegelijkertijd de trage voortgang te verklaren van Dit werk. Ik, Mozes, de zoon van Maimon, ben ermee begonnen toen ik drieëntwintig jaar oud was, en heb het in Egypte voltooid, op de leeftijd van drieëndertig jaar, in het jaar 1479 Sel.(1168).”

In het boek Sefer Ḥaredim van Rabbi Eleazar Askari uit Safed staat de volgende uitspraak van Maimonides:

“Op sabbatavond, de 4e van Iyyar 4925 (1165), ging ik aan boord; op de daaropvolgende sabbat dreigden de golven ons leven te verwoesten. … Op de 3e van Sivan kwam ik veilig aan in Akko en werd zo gered van afvalligheid. … Op dinsdag, de 4e van Marḥeshvan 4926, verliet ik Akko, arriveerde in Jeruzalem na een reis vol moeilijkheden en gevaren, en bad op de plek van het grote en heilige huis op de 4e, 5e en 6e van Marḥeshvan. Op zondag, de 9e van die maand, verliet ik Jeruzalem en bezocht de grot van Machpelah in Hebron.”

Uit deze twee verklaringen kan worden afgeleid dat Maimonides en zijn familie in tijden van vervolging niet probeerden hun leven en bezittingen te beschermen door zich anders voor te doen. Ze onderwierpen zich aan de ontberingen van de ballingschap om trouw te blijven aan hun geloof. Carmoly, Geiger, Munk en anderen zijn van mening dat Maimonides’ verhandeling over onvrijwillige afvalligheid, evenals de verslagen van sommige islamitische auteurs, sterk bewijsmateriaal bevatten dat er een tijd was dat de familie van Maimon openlijk hun geloof in Mohammed beleed. Een kritische analyse van deze documenten dwingt ons echter hun bewijsmateriaal als ontoelaatbaar te verwerpen. Na een lange periode van onrust en angst arriveerde de familie van Maimon in Fostat, in Egypte, en vestigde zich daar. David, de broer van Mozes Maimonides, dreef handel in edelstenen, terwijl Mozes zich bezighield met zijn studies en zich interesseerde in de gemeenschappelijke aangelegenheden van de Joden.

Het lijkt erop dat Mozes enige tijd door zijn broer werd onderhouden, en toen deze broer stierf, verdiende hij de kost als arts; Maar hij zocht of ontving nooit enig voordeel uit zijn diensten aan zijn gemeenschap, noch uit zijn correspondentie of uit de werken die hij schreef ter lering van zijn medemensen; de voldoening zijn medemens van dienst te zijn, was voor hem een voldoende beloning.

De eerste publieke daad waarin Maimonides een leidende rol lijkt te hebben gespeeld, was een decreet dat in 1167 door de rabbijnse autoriteiten in Caïro werd uitgevaardigd. Het decreet begint als volgt:

“In vroeger tijden, toen stormen en onweer ons bedreigden, zwierven we van plaats tot plaats, maar door de genade van de Almachtige hebben we nu hier een rustplaats gevonden. Bij onze aankomst merkten we tot onze grote ontsteltenis dat de geleerden verdeeld waren; dat niemand van hen aandacht besteedde aan de behoeften van de gemeente. Daarom achtten we het onze plicht de heilige kudde te leiden, de toestand van de gemeenschap te onderzoeken, ‘de harten van de vaders met hun kinderen te verzoenen’ en hun verdorven wegen te corrigeren. De schade is groot, maar we kunnen erin slagen genezing te bewerkstelligen, en – overeenkomstig de woorden van de profeet – ‘Ik zal de verlorene zoeken, en wat is uitgeworpen zal Ik terugbrengen, en de gebrokene zal Ik genezen’ (Micha 4:6). “We besloten daarom het beheer van de gemeenschappelijke zaken in eigen handen te nemen, omdat we een ernstig kwaad in de gemeenschap ontdekten,” enzovoort.

Het was waarschijnlijk rond die tijd dat Maimon stierf. Condoleancebrieven werden vanuit alle hoeken naar zijn zoon Mozes gestuurd, zowel uit islamitische als christelijke landen; in sommige gevallen waren de brieven maanden onderweg voordat ze hun bestemming bereikten.

De belangstelling die Maimonides nu voor gemeenschapszaken toonde, belette hem niet om het grote en moeizame werk, het commentaar op de Misjna, te voltooien dat hij in Spanje was begonnen en tijdens zijn omzwervingen in Afrika had voortgezet. In dit commentaar wilde hij de essentie van de Gemara weergeven, de betekenis van elk dictum in de Misjna toelichten en aangeven welke van de verschillende meningen de goedkeuring van de Talmoedische autoriteiten hadden gekregen. Zijn doel met dit werk was om degenen die niet geneigd zijn de Gemara te bestuderen, in staat te stellen de Misjna te begrijpen en de studie van de Gemara te vergemakkelijken voor degenen die zich er wel in willen verdiepen. De commentator houdt zich over het algemeen aan de uitleg in de Gemara en waagt zich er alleen aan om af te wijken wanneer de halacha, of praktische wet, niet wordt aangetast. Hij erkent het voordeel dat hij heeft ondervonden van werken van zijn voorgangers, zoals de Halakot van Alfasi en de geschriften van de Geonim, maar stelde later dat fouten die in zijn werken werden ontdekt, voortkwamen uit zijn impliciete vertrouwen op die autoriteiten. Zijn originaliteit is duidelijk zichtbaar in de Inleiding en in de behandeling van algemene principes, die in sommige gevallen voorafgaat aan de uiteenzetting van een hele sectie of hoofdstuk, in andere gevallen aan die van een enkele regel. De commentator is over het algemeen beknopt, behalve wanneer de gelegenheid zich voordoet om ethische en theologische principes te behandelen, of een wetenschappelijk onderwerp, zoals gewichten en maten, of wiskundige en astronomische problemen. Hoewel aansporingen tot deugd en waarschuwingen tegen ondeugd in alle delen van zijn werk te vinden zijn, komen ze vooral veel voor in het commentaar op Abot, dat voorafgegaan wordt door een afzonderlijk psychologisch traktaat, getiteld De Acht Hoofdstukken. De uitspraak “Wie veel spreekt, begaat een zonde” leidde tot een les over de spaarzaamheid van het spreken; de uitleg van ‘olam ha-ba in het traktaat Sanhedrin (xi. 1) bracht hem ertoe de beginselen van het geloof te bespreken en de dertien artikelen van de Joodse geloofsbelijdenis uiteen te zetten. Het commentaar werd in het Arabisch geschreven en later vertaald in het Hebreeuws en andere talen. De waardering die het commentaar genoot, kan worden afgeleid uit het volgende feit: toen de Joden in Italië kennismaakten met de methode en de geest ervan, door een Hebreeuwse vertaling van een van de delen, stuurden ze een verzoek naar Spanje om een complete Hebreeuwse versie van het commentaar te verkrijgen. Rabbi Simḥah, aan wie de opdracht was toevertrouwd, vond geen bestaand exemplaar, maar hij slaagde erin, dankzij de invloed van Rabbi Shelomoh ben Aderet, een Hebreeuwse vertaling van dit belangrijke werk te laten maken. In de inleiding vermeldt de auteur dat hij een commentaar heeft geschreven op het Babylonische Talmoed-verhandeling Ḥullin en op bijna drie volledige delen, namelijk Moëd, Nashim en Nezikin. Van al deze commentaren is alleen die op Rosj Hasjana bekend.

In het jaar 1572 schreef Maimonides de Iggeret Teman, of Petaḥ-tiḳvah (“Brief aan de Joden in Jemen” of “Opening van hoop”) als antwoord op een brief van Rabbi Jacob al-Fayumi over de kritieke situatie van de Joden in Jemen. Sommige van deze Joden waren tot afvalligheid gedwongen, anderen waren wijsgemaakt dat bepaalde passages in de Bijbel verwezen naar de missie van Mohammed; weer anderen waren misleid door een bedrieger die zich voordeed als de Messias. De aard en stijl van Maimonides’ antwoord lijken te zijn aangepast aan de intellectuele gesteldheid van de Joden in Jemen, voor wie het geschreven was. Zij lazen waarschijnlijk de Bijbel met midrasjische commentaren en gaven de voorkeur aan de gemakkelijke en aantrekkelijke Agadah boven de serieuzere studie van de Halacha. Het is daarom niet verwonderlijk dat de brief opmerkingen en interpretaties bevat die niet te verenigen zijn met de filosofische en logische methode waarmee al Maimonides’ andere werken zich onderscheiden. Na enkele lovende woorden, waarin de auteur bescheiden de rechtvaardigheid van de hem toegejuichte lof betwist, probeert hij aan te tonen dat het huidige lijden van de Joden, samen met de talrijke gevallen van afvalligheid, door de profeten, met name door Daniël, was voorspeld en de gelovigen niet in verwarring zou moeten brengen. Men moet bedenken, vervolgt hij, dat de pogingen in het verleden om de Joodse religie uit te roeien steevast mislukt zijn; hetzelfde lot zou de huidige pogingen treffen, want “religieuze vervolgingen zijn van korte duur”. De argumenten die beweren aan te tonen dat in bepaalde Bijbelse passages naar Mohammed wordt verwezen, zijn gebaseerd op interpretaties die lijnrecht ingaan tegen het gezond verstand. Hij dringt er bij de Joden op aan, trouw te blijven aan hun geloof en hun kinderen in te prenten hoe groots de Openbaring op de berg Sinaï was en welke wonderen door Mozes werden verricht; ze moeten ook standvastig blijven in het geloof dat God de Messias zal zenden om hun volk te bevrijden, maar ze moeten nutteloze berekeningen over de Messiaanse tijd opgeven en op hun hoede zijn voor bedriegers. Hoewel er tekenen zijn die wijzen op de nadering van de beloofde bevrijding, en de tijden lijken overeen te komen met de periode van de laatste en meest wrede vervolging die in de visioenen van Daniël wordt genoemd (11 en 12), is de persoon in Jemen die zich voordoet als de Messias een bedrieger, en als er niet wordt opgepast, zal hij zeker kwaad aanrichten. Soortgelijke bedriegers in Córdoba, Frankrijk en Afrika hebben de menigte misleid en grote problemen over de Joden gebracht. Toch geeft de auteur, in tegenspraak met dit verstandige advies, een concrete datum voor de Messiaanse tijd, gebaseerd op een oude traditie; De inconsistentie is zo overduidelijk dat het onmogelijk is deze passage aan Maimonides zelf toe te schrijven. Waarschijnlijk is het een vervalsing en is het wellicht door de vertaler toegevoegd. Met uitzondering van de rijmende inleiding was de brief in het Arabisch geschreven, “opdat iedereen hem zou kunnen lezen en begrijpen”; met dat doel wenste de auteur dat er kopieën van gemaakt zouden worden en onder de Joden verspreid zouden worden. Rabbi Naḥum uit de Maghreb vertaalde de brief in het Hebreeuws.

Het succes van zijn eerste grote onderneming, de uitleg van de Misjna, moedigde Maimonides aan zichzelf een nog ambitieuzere taak te stellen. In zijn commentaar op de Misjna wilde hij degenen die de Gemara niet konden lezen, kennis laten maken met de resultaten die de Amoraim hadden behaald in hun discussies over de Misjna. Maar de Misjna, inclusief het commentaar, was geen wetboek dat gemakkelijk in noodsituaties geraadpleegd kon worden; alleen ingewijden zouden het betreffende gedeelte, hoofdstuk en paragraaf kunnen vinden waarin de gewenste informatie te vinden was. Bovendien was de halacha verder ontwikkeld sinds de tijd dat de Talmoed werd samengesteld. De veranderde omstandigheden hadden nieuwe vragen opgeroepen; deze werden besproken en beslecht door de Geonim, wier beslissingen, omdat ze in speciale brieven of verhandelingen waren vastgelegd, niet algemeen toegankelijk waren. Maimonides nam daarom de taak op zich een complete wetscode samen te stellen, die in de taal en stijl van de Misjna, en zonder discussie, de gehele geschreven en mondelinge wet zou bevatten, alle voorschriften die in de Talmoed, Sifra, Sifre en Tosefta zijn opgetekend, en de uitspraken van de Geonim. Volgens het plan van de auteur moest dit werk een oplossing bieden voor elke vraag die betrekking had op de religieuze, morele of sociale plichten van de Joden. Het was geenszins zijn bedoeling de studie van de Talmoed en de Midrasj te ontmoedigen; hij wilde slechts kennis van de wet verspreiden onder hen die, door onvermogen of andere omstandigheden, daartoe niet in staat waren. Om de volledigheid van de wetscode te waarborgen, stelde de auteur een lijst op van de zeshonderddertien voorschriften van de Pentateuch, verdeelde deze in veertien groepen, die hij vervolgens verder onderverdeelde, en zo aantoonde hoeveel positieve en negatieve voorschriften elk deel van de Misjne Thora bevatte. De principes die hem bij deze regeling leidden, werden uiteengezet in een apart traktaat, genaamd Sefer ha-miẓvot. Werken van soortgelijke aard, geschreven door zijn voorgangers, zoals de Halakot gedolot van Rabbi Shimon Kahira en de verschillende Azharot, zaten volgens Maimonides vol fouten, omdat de auteurs geen juiste methode hadden gevolgd. Maar een onderzoek van de door Maimonides vastgelegde regels en de toepassing ervan leidt tot de conclusie dat zijn resultaten niet minder willekeurig waren; zoals in feite is aangetoond door de kritiek van Naḥmanides. De Sefer ha-miẓvot werd in het Arabisch geschreven en driemaal in het Hebreeuws vertaald, namelijk door Rabbi Abraham ben Ḥisdai, Rabbi Shelomoh ben Joseph ben Job en Rabbi Moses Ibn Tibbon. Maimonides zelf wilde het boek in het Hebreeuws vertalen, maar tot zijn teleurstelling vond hij daar geen tijd voor.

Dit Sefer ha-miẓvot werd geschreven als voorbereiding op zijn belangrijkste werk, de Mishneh Torah, of Yad ha-ḥazakah, dat bestaat uit een Inleiding en veertien Boeken. In de Inleiding beschrijft de auteur eerst de keten van traditie van Mozes tot het einde van de Talmoed, en vervolgens legt hij zijn methode voor het samenstellen van het werk uit. Hij maakt onderscheid tussen de dicta die in de Talmoed te vinden zijn, Sifre, Sifra of Tosefta, enerzijds, en de dicta van de Geonim anderzijds; de eerste waren bindend voor alle Joden, de laatste slechts voor zover hun noodzaak en nut of het gezag van hun voordragers werd erkend. Nadat hij eenmaal de bronnen had vermeld waaruit hij zijn werk had samengesteld, achtte hij het niet nodig om in elk geval de autoriteit voor zijn mening of de specifieke passage waaruit hij zijn dictum ontleende te vermelden. Het toevoegen van verwijzingen naar elke paragraaf beschouwde hij waarschijnlijk als nutteloos voor de oningewijde en overbodig voor de geleerde. Later ontdekte hij zijn fout, omdat hij zelf de bronnen van sommige van zijn beslissingen niet meer kon terugvinden. Rabbi Joseph Caro herstelde dit tekort in zijn commentaar op de Mishneh Torah, genaamd Keseph Mishneh. De inleiding wordt gevolgd door een opsomming van de zeshonderddertien voorschriften en een beschrijving van de opzet van het werk, de indeling in veertien boeken en de indeling van deze boeken in secties, hoofdstukken en paragrafen.

Volgens de auteur is de Mishneh Torah slechts een compendium van de Talmoed; maar hij vond voldoende gelegenheid om zijn ware genialiteit, zijn filosofische geest en zijn ethische doctrines te tonen. Want bij het uiteenzetten van wat de traditionele wet voorschreef, moest hij zijn eigen oordeel gebruiken en beslissen of een bepaalde uitspraak letterlijk of figuurlijk moest worden opgevat, of het de definitieve beslissing van een meerderheid was of de verworpen mening van een minderheid; of het deel uitmaakte van de mondelinge wet of een voorschrift gebaseerd op de wetenschappelijke opvattingen van een bepaalde auteur; en of het universeel toepasbaar was of slechts bedoeld voor een specifieke periode of plaats. Het eerste boek, Sefer ha-madda‘, is de belichaming van zijn eigen ethische en theologische theorieën, hoewel hij regelmatig verwijst naar de uitspraken van onze wijzen en de formulering van de Talmoed gebruikt. Evenzo kan het gedeelte over de Joodse kalender, Hilkot ha-’ibur, als zijn oorspronkelijke werk worden beschouwd. In elke groep halakot wordt eerst de bron, een bepaalde passage uit de Pentateuch, geciteerd met de traditionele interpretatie, waarna de gedetailleerde regels in systematische volgorde volgen. De Misjneh Torah werd door de auteur in zuiver Hebreeuws geschreven; toen een vriend hem later vroeg het in het Arabisch te vertalen, zei hij dat hij liever zijn Arabische geschriften in het Hebreeuws vertaald zou zien dan andersom. De stijl is een imitatie van de Misjna; hij koos niet voor de filosofische stijl, zegt de auteur, omdat die onbegrijpelijk zou zijn voor de gewone lezer. Hij koos evenmin voor de profetische stijl, omdat die niet bij het onderwerp paste.

Tien jaar lang werkte hij dag en nacht hard aan de samenstelling van deze wetscode, die hij oorspronkelijk had ondernomen “voor zijn eigen bestwil, om hem op zijn hoge leeftijd de moeite en de noodzaak te besparen om bij elke gelegenheid de Talmoed te raadplegen.” Maimonides wist heel goed dat zijn werk op tegenstand zou stuiten van hen wier onwetendheid het zou blootleggen, van hen die het niet konden begrijpen en van hen die geneigd waren elke afwijking van hun eigen vooropgezette ideeën te veroordelen.

Maar hij had de voldoening te vernemen dat het in de meeste gemeenschappen van Israël goed werd ontvangen en dat er een algemene wens bestond om het te bezitten en te bestuderen. Dit succes bevestigde zijn hoop dat de Misjneh Tora, wanneer alle reden tot jaloezie zou zijn verdwenen, later door alle Joden als een gezaghebbende wetscode zou worden aanvaard. Deze hoop is niet bewaarheid. Het genie, de ernst en de ijver van Maimonides worden algemeen erkend; Maar zijn uitspraken werden niet volledig geaccepteerd. Hoe meer hij op zijn onfeilbaarheid aandrong, hoe meer de rabbijnse autoriteiten zijn woorden onderzochten en waar mogelijk fouten aanwezen. Zijn meningen werden niet altijd bekritiseerd en verworpen vanuit kwade motieven, zoals Maimonides en zijn volgelingen beweerden. De taal die Rabbi Abraham ben David in zijn aantekeningen (hasagot) bij de Misjneh Tora gebruikt, lijkt hard en respectloos als deze samen met de tekst van de bekritiseerde passage wordt gelezen, maar lijkt mild en tam vergeleken met de uitdrukkingen die Maimonides zo nu en dan gebruikte over mensen die toevallig andere meningen hadden dan hij.

Maimonides ontving veel complimentenbrieven waarin hij werd gefeliciteerd met zijn succes, maar ook brieven met kritiek en vragen over individuele halachot (islamitische wetsbepalingen). In de meeste gevallen had hij geen moeite zijn standpunt te verdedigen. Uit de antwoorden moet echter worden afgeleid dat Maimonides enkele correcties en aanvullingen aanbracht, die later in zijn werk werden opgenomen. De brieven die hij ontving over de Misjneh Torah en andere onderwerpen waren zo talrijk dat hij vaak klaagde over de tijd die hij eraan kwijt was en de ergernis die ze hem bezorgden; maar “hij verdroeg dit alles geduldig, zoals hij in zijn jeugd had geleerd het juk te dragen.” Het verbaasde hem niet dat velen zijn woorden verkeerd begrepen, want zelfs de eenvoudige woorden van de Pentateuch, “de Heer is één”, hadden hetzelfde lot ondergaan. Sommigen concludeerden uit het feit dat hij uitvoerig sprak over ‘Olam ha-ba, “de toekomstige staat van de ziel”, en verzuimde uit te wijden over de opstanding der doden, dat hij dit geloofsbeginsel volledig verwierp. Daarom vroegen ze Rabbi Samuel ha-levi van Bagdad om zijn mening te geven; de Rabbi besprak het onderwerp, maar volgens Maimonides probeerde hij het probleem op een zeer onbevredigende manier op te lossen. Daarop schreef hij eveneens een verhandeling “Over de opstanding der doden”, waarin hij zijn trouw aan dit geloofsartikel betuigde. Hij herhaalde de mening die hij had geuit in het commentaar op de Misjna en in de Misjneh Tora, maar “in meer woorden; hetzelfde idee werd in verschillende vormen herhaald, aangezien de verhandeling alleen bedoeld was voor vrouwen en het gewone volk.”

Deze theologische studies namen een groot deel van zijn aandacht in beslag, maar ze waren niet zijn enige bezigheid. In een brief aan Rabbi Jonathan van Lunel schrijft hij: “Hoewel de Thora vanaf mijn geboorte aan mij was verbonden en ik haar nog steeds liefheb als de vrouw van mijn jeugd, in wier liefde ik voortdurend vreugde vind, zijn vreemde vrouwen die ik aanvankelijk als haar dienstmeisjes in huis nam, haar rivalen geworden en nemen ze een deel van mijn tijd in beslag.” Hij wijdde zich met name aan de studie van de geneeskunde, waarin hij zich volgens Alkifti zo onderscheidde dat “de koning der Franken in Ascalon hem tot zijn arts wilde benoemen.” Maimonides weigerde deze eer. Alfadhel, de vizier van Saladin, koning van Egypte, bewonderde Maimonides’ genie en schonk hem vele onderscheidingen. De naam van Maimonides werd opgenomen in het register van artsen, hij ontving een pensioen en werd aan het hof van Saladin geïntroduceerd. De methode die hij in zijn beroepspraktijk hanteerde, beschrijft hij in een brief aan zijn leerling Ibn Aknin als volgt:

“Je weet hoe moeilijk dit beroep is voor een gewetensvolle en nauwkeurige persoon die alleen beweert wat hij met argumenten of gezag kan onderbouwen.” Deze methode wordt uitgebreider beschreven in een verhandeling over hygiëne, geschreven voor Alfadhel, de zoon van Saladin, die aan een ernstige ziekte leed en Maimonides om advies had gevraagd. In een brief aan Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon verwijst hij naar de hoeveelheid tijd die hij aan zijn medische praktijk besteedt en zegt: “Ik woon in Egypte (of Fostat); de koning woont in Caïro, dat ongeveer twee sabbatsreizen van de eerstgenoemde plaats verwijderd ligt. Mijn plichten jegens de koning zijn zeer zwaar. Ik ben verplicht hem elke dag vroeg in de ochtend te bezoeken; en wanneer hij, een van zijn kinderen of de bewoners van zijn harem onwel zijn, durf ik Caïro niet te verlaten, maar moet ik het grootste deel van de dag in het paleis blijven. Het gebeurt ook vaak dat een of twee van de koninklijke ambtenaren ziek worden, en dan moet ik hen verzorgen.” Normaal gesproken ga ik heel vroeg in de ochtend naar Caïro, en zelfs als er niets bijzonders gebeurt, keer ik niet vóór de middag terug, wanneer ik bijna van de honger omkom; maar ik tref de voorkamers vol met Joden en niet-Joden, met edellieden en gewone mensen, die op mijn terugkeer wachten,” enz.

Ondanks zijn zware professionele taken als hofarts, zette Maimonides zijn theologische studies voort. Nadat hij een religieuze gids – de Misjneh Torah – had samengesteld, gebaseerd op Openbaring en Traditie, achtte hij het noodzakelijk aan te tonen dat de daarin uiteengezette principes door de filosofie werden bevestigd. Deze taak volbracht hij in zijn Dalalāt al-ḥaïrin, “De Gids voor de Verwarden”, waarvan hieronder een analyse zal volgen. Het werk werd in het Arabisch geschreven en in Hebreeuwse letters. Later werd het, tijdens Maimonides’ leven, door Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon in het Hebreeuws vertaald. De vertaler raadpleegde Maimonides over alle moeilijke passages. De gemeente in Lunel, die niet op de hoogte was van Ibn Tibbons werk, of die de meest correcte vertaling van de Gids wilde hebben, schreef Maimonides een zeer vleiende brief met het verzoek het werk in het Hebreeuws te vertalen. Maimonides antwoordde dat hij dat niet kon doen, omdat hij niet genoeg tijd had voor nog dringender werk, en dat een vertaling werd voorbereid door de meest bekwame en geschikte man, Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon. Een tweede vertaling werd later gemaakt door Jehudah Alḥarizi. De Gids viel bij velen in de smaak, maar kreeg ook veel kritiek vanwege Maimonides’ eigenaardige opvattingen over engelen, profetie en wonderen, met name vanwege zijn bewering dat als het Aristotelische bewijs voor de eeuwigheid van het heelal hem had overtuigd, hij geen moeite zou hebben gehad om het Bijbelse scheppingsverhaal met die leer te verzoenen. De controverse over de Gids bleef lang na Maimonides de gemeenschap verdelen, en het is moeilijk te zeggen in hoeverre de hoop van de auteur om een verzoening tussen rede en openbaring te bewerkstelligen, is gerealiseerd. Zijn discipel, Joseph Ibn Aknin, aan wie het werk was opgedragen en van wie verwacht werd dat hij er het meeste baat bij zou hebben, lijkt teleurgesteld te zijn geweest. Zijn onvermogen om de twee tegenstrijdige elementen van geloof en wetenschap met elkaar te verzoenen, beschrijft hij allegorisch in de vorm van een brief aan Maimonides, waarin de volgende passage voorkomt:

“Spreek, want ik wil dat u gerechtvaardigd wordt; antwoord mij alstublieft, indien mogelijk. Enige tijd geleden verkreeg uw geliefde dochter, de mooie en charmante Kimah, genade en gunst in mijn ogen, en ik verloofde haar in trouw en trouwde met haar volgens de Wet, in aanwezigheid van twee betrouwbare getuigen, namelijk onze meester, Abd-allah en Ibn Roshd. Maar al snel werd zij mij ontrouw; zij had geen verwijt aan mij kunnen maken, toch verliet zij mij en ging weg uit mijn tent. Zij laat mij haar aangename gelaat niet langer zien en haar melodieuze stem niet meer horen. U hebt haar niet terechtgewezen of gestraft, en misschien bent u de oorzaak van dit wangedrag. Stuur nu de vrouw terug naar de man, want hij is – of zou kunnen worden – een profeet; hij zal voor u bidden dat Moge u leven, en moge zij standvastig en trouw zijn. Maar als u haar niet terugstuurt, zal de Heer u straffen. Zoek daarom vrede en streef ernaar; luister naar wat onze Wijzen zeiden: ‘Gezegend zij hij die de eigenaar zijn verloren bezit teruggeeft’; want deze zegen geldt in hogere mate voor hem die een man zijn deugdzame vrouw teruggeeft, de kroon van haar echtgenoot.”

Maimonides antwoordde in dezelfde trant en verweet zijn “schoonzoon” dat hij zijn vrouw valselijk van ontrouw had beschuldigd nadat hij haar had verwaarloosd; maar hij gaf hem zijn vrouw terug met het advies om in de toekomst voorzichtiger te zijn. In een andere brief spoort Maimonides Ibn Aknin aan zijn werken te bestuderen en voegt eraan toe: “Wees toegewijd aan de studie van de Wet van Mozes; verwaarloos die niet, maar wijd er integendeel het beste en het meeste van uw tijd aan, en als u mij vertelt dat u dat doet, ben ik ervan overtuigd dat u op de goede weg bent naar het eeuwige geluk.”

Van de brieven die na de voltooiing van de “Gids” werden geschreven, is die aan de wijzen van Marseille (1194) bijzonder opmerkelijk. Maimonides werd gevraagd naar zijn mening over astrologie. In zijn antwoord betreurde hij het dat zij nog niet in het bezit waren van zijn Misjneh Tora; daarin zouden zij het antwoord op hun vraag hebben gevonden. Volgens hem moet de mens alleen geloven wat hij met zijn intellectuele vermogens kan bevatten, met zijn zintuigen kan waarnemen of wat hij van een betrouwbare bron kan aannemen. Daarbuiten moet niets worden geloofd. Astrologische beweringen, die niet op een van deze drie kennisbronnen zijn gebaseerd, moeten worden verworpen. Hij had zelf astrologie bestudeerd en was ervan overtuigd dat het helemaal geen wetenschap was. Als er in de Talmoed uitspraken te vinden zijn die astrologie lijken voor te stellen als een ware kennisbron, dan kunnen deze verwijzen naar de verworpen mening van een kleine minderheid, of een allegorische betekenis hebben, maar ze zijn geenszins krachtig genoeg om principes die op logisch bewijs zijn gebaseerd, terzijde te schuiven.

De zwakte waarover Maimonides zo vaak klaagde in zijn correspondentie, nam geleidelijk toe, en hij stierf op zeventigjarige leeftijd, op 20 Tebeth 4965 (1204). Zijn dood was een bron van groot verdriet voor alle Joden. In Fostat werd een rouwperiode van drie dagen gehouden; in Jeruzalem werd een vastenperiode ingesteld; een deel van de Tochah (Lev. 26 of Deut. 29) werd voorgelezen, evenals het verhaal van de verovering van de Ark door de Filistijnen (1 Sam. 4). Zijn stoffelijke resten werden naar Tiberias gebracht. De algemene achting die Maimonides genoot, zowel bij zijn tijdgenoten als bij latere generaties, is uitgedrukt in het populaire gezegde: “Van Mozes tot Mozes was er niemand zoals Mozes.”

https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp004.htm

ANALYSIS OF THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED

https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp006.htm

IT is the object of this work “to afford a guide for the perplexed,” i.e. “to thinkers whose studies have brought them into collision with religion” (p. 9), “who have studied philosophy and have acquired sound knowledge, and who, while firm in religions matters, are perplexed and bewildered on account of the ambiguous and figurative expressions employed in the holy writings (p. 5). Joseph, the son of Jehudah Ibn Aknin, a disciple of Maimonides, is addressed by his teacher as an example of this kind of students. It was “for him and for those like him” that the treatise was composed, and to him this work is inscribed in the dedicatory letter with which the Introduction begins. Maimonides, having discovered that his disciple was sufficiently advanced for an exposition of the esoteric ideas in the books of the Prophets, commenced to give him such expositions “by way of hints.” His disciple then begged him to give him further explanations, to treat of metaphysical themes, and to expound the system and the method of the Kalām, or Mohammedan Theology. 1 In compliance with this request, Maimonides composed the Guide of the Perplexed. The reader has, therefore, to expect that the subjects mentioned in the disciple’s request indicate the design and arrangement of the present work, and that the Guide consists of the following parts:–1. An exposition of the esoteric ideas (sodot) in the books of the Prophets. 2. A treatment of certain metaphysical problems. 3. An examination of the system and method of the Kalām. This, in fact, is a correct account of the contents of the book; but in the second part of the Introduction, in which the theme of this work is defined, the author mentions only the first-named subject. He observes “My primary object is to explain certain terms occurring in the prophetic book. Of these some are homonymous, some figurative, and some hybrid terms.” “This work has also a second object. It is designed to explain certain obscure figures which occur in the Prophets, and are not distinctly characterised as being figures” (p. 2). Yet from this observation it must not be inferred that Maimonides abandoned his original purpose; for he examines the Kalām in the last chapters of the First Part (ch. lxx.-lxxvi.), and treats of certain metaphysical themes in the beginning of the Second Part (Introd. and ch. i.-xxv.). But in the passage quoted above he confines himself to a delineation of the main object of this treatise, and advisedly leaves unmentioned the other two subjects, which, however important they may be, are here of subordinate interest. Nor did he consider it necessary to expatiate on these subjects; he only wrote for the student, for whom a mere reference to works on philosophy and science was sufficient. We therefore meet now and then with such phrases as the following “This is folly discussed in works on metaphysics.” By references of this kind the author may have intended so create a taste for the study of philosophical works. But our observation only holds good with regard to the Aristotelian philosophy.

The writings of the Mutakallemim are never commended by him; he states their opinions, and tells his disciple that he would not find any additional argument, even if he were to read all their voluminous works (p. 133). Maimonides was a zealous disciple of Aristotle, although the theory of the Kalām might seem to have been more congenial to Jewish thought and belief. The Kalām upheld the theory of God’s Existence, Incorporeality, and Unity, together with the creatio ex nihilo. Maimonides nevertheless opposed the Kalām, and, anticipating the question, why preference should be given to the system of Aristotle, which included the theory of the Eternity of the Universe, a theory contrary to the fundamental teaching of the Scriptures, he exposed the weakness of the Kalām and its fallacies.

The exposition of Scriptural texts is divided by the author into two parts the first part treats of homonymous, figurative, and hybrid terms, 1 employed in reference to God; the second part relates to Biblical figures and allegories. These two parts do not closely follow each other; they are separated by the examination of the Kalām, and the discussion of metaphysical problems. It seems that the author adopted this arrangement for the following reason first of all, he intended to establish the fact that the Biblical anthropomorphisms do not imply corporeality, and that the Divine Being of whom the Bible speaks could therefore be regarded as identical with the Primal Cause of the philosophers. Having established this principle, he discusses from a purely metaphysical point of view the properties of the Primal Cause and its relation to the universe. A solid foundation is thus established for the esoteric exposition of Scriptural passages. Before discussing metaphysical problems, which he treats in accordance with Aristotelian philosophy, he disposes of the Kalām, and demonstrates that its arguments are illogical and illusory.

The “Guide for the Perplexed” contains, therefore, an Introduction and the following four parts:–1. On homonymous, figurative, and hybrid terms, 2. On the Supreme Being and His relation to the universe, according to the Kalām. 3. On the Primal Cause and its relation to the universe, according to the philosophers. 4. Esoteric exposition of some portions of the Bible (sodot) a. Maaseh bereshith, or the history of the Creation (Genesis, ch. i-iv .); b. on Prophecy; c. Maaseh mercabhah, or the description of the divine chariot (Ezekiel, ch. i.).

According to this plan, the work ends with the seventh chapter of the Third Part. The chapters which follow may be considered as an appendix; they treat of the following theological themes the Existence of Evil, Omniscience and Providence, Temptations, Design in Nature, in the Law, and in the Biblical Narratives, and finally the true Worship of God.

In the Introduction to the “Guide,” Maimonides (1) describes the object of the work and the method he has followed; (2) treats of similes; (3) gives “directions for the study of the work”; and (4) discusses the usual causes of inconsistencies in authors.

1 (pp. 2–3). Inquiring into the root of the evil which the Guide was intended to remove, viz., the conflict between science and religion, the author perceived that in most cases it originated in a misinterpretation of the anthropomorphisms in Holy Writ. ‘The main difficulty is found in the ambiguity of the words employed by the prophets when speaking of the Divine Being; the question arises whether they are applied to the Deity and to other things in one and the same sense or equivocally; in the latter case the author distinguishes between homonyms pure and simple, figures, and hybrid terms. In order to show that the Biblical anthropomorphisms do not imply the corporeality of the Deity, he seeks in each instance to demonstrate that the expression under examination is a perfect homonym denoting things which are totally distinct from each other, and whenever such a demonstration is impossible, he assumes that the expression is a hybrid term, that is, being employed in one instance figuratively and in another homonymously. His explanation of “form” (ẓelem) may serve as an illustration. According to his opinion, it invariably denotes “form” in the philosophical acceptation of the term, viz., the complex of the essential properties of a thing. But to obviate objections he proposes an alternative view, to take ẓelem as a hybrid term that may be explained as a class noun denoting only things of the same class, or as a homonym employed for totally different things, viz., “form” in the philosophical sense, and “form” in the ordinary meaning of the word. Maimonides seems to have refrained from explaining anthropomorphisms as figurative expressions, lest by such interpretation he might implicitly admit the existence of a certain relation and comparison between the Creator and His creatures.

Jewish philosophers before Maimonides enunciated and demonstrated the Unity and the Incorporeality of the Divine Being, and interpreted Scriptural metaphors on the principle that “the Law speaks in the language of man” but our author adopted a new and altogether original method. The Commentators, when treating of anthropomorphisms, generally contented themselves with the statement that the term under consideration must not be taken in its literal sense, or they paraphrased the passage in expressions which implied a lesser degree of corporeality. The Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Targumim abound in paraphrases of this kind. Saadiah in “Emunot ve-de‘ot,” Bahya in his “Ḥobot ha-lebabot,” and Jehudah ha-levi in the “Cusari,” insist on the necessity and the appropriateness of such interpretations. Saadiah enumerates ten terms which primarily denote organs of the human body, and are figuratively applied to God. To establish this point of view he cites numerous instances in which the terms in question are used in a figurative sense without being applied to God. Saadiah further shows that the Divine attributes are either qualifications of such of God’s actions as are perceived by man, or they imply a negation. The correctness of this method was held to be so obvious that some authors found it necessary to apologize to the reader for introducing such well-known topics. From R. Abraham ben David’s strictures on the Yad haḥazakah it is, however, evident that in the days of Maimonides persons were not wanting who defended the literal interpretation of certain anthropomorphisms. Maimonides, therefore, did not content himself with the vague and general rule, “The Law speaks in the language of man,” but sought carefully to define the meaning of each term when applied to God, and to identify it with some transcendental and metaphysical term. In pursuing this course he is sometimes forced to venture upon an interpretation which is much too far-fetched to commend itself even to the supposed philosophical reader. In such instances he generally adds a simple and plain explanation, and leaves it to the option of the reader to choose the one which appears to him preferable. The enumeration of the different meanings of a word is often, from a philological point of view, incomplete; he introduces only such significations as serve his object. When treating of an imperfect homonym, the several significations of which are derived from one primary signification, he apparently follows a certain system which he does not employ in the interpretation of perfect homonyms. The homonymity of the term is not proved; the author confines himself to the remark, “It is employed homonymously,” even when the various meanings of a word might easily be traced to a common source.

2 (pag. 4–8). In addition to the explanation of homonyms Maimonides undertakes to interpret similes and allegories. At first it had been his intention to write two distinct works–Sefer ha-nebuah, “A Book on Prophecy,” and Sefer ha-shevaah, “A Book of Reconciliation.” In the former work he had intended to explain difficult passages of the Bible, and in the latter to expound such passages in the Midrash and the Talmud as seemed to be in conflict with common sense. With respect to the “Book of Reconciliation,” he abandoned his plan, because he apprehended that neither the learned nor the unlearned would profit by it the one would find it superfluous, the other tedious. The subject of the “Book on Prophecy” is treated in the present work, and also strange passages that occasionally occur in the Talmud and the Midrash are explained.

The treatment of the simile must vary according as the simile is compound or simple. In the first case, each part represents a separate idea and demands a separate interpretation; in the other case, only one idea is represented, and it is not necessary to assign to each part a separate metaphorical meaning. This division the author illustrates by citing the dream of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 12 sqq.), and the description of the adulteress (Prov. vii. 6 sqq.). He gives no rule by which it might be ascertained to which of the two categories a simile belongs, and, like other Commentators, he seems to treat as essential those details of a simile for which he can offer an adequate interpretation. As a general principle, he warns against the confusion and the errors which arise when an attempt is made to expound every single detail of a simile. His own explanations are not intended to be exhaustive; on the contrary, they are to consist of brief allusions to the idea represented by the simile, of mere suggestions, which the reader is expected to develop and to complete. The author thus aspires to follow in the wake of the Creator, whose works can only be understood after a long and persevering study. Yet it is possible that he derived his preference for a reserved and mysterious style from the example of ancient philosophers, who discussed metaphysical problems in figurative and enigmatic language. Like Ibn Ezra, who frequently concludes his exposition of a Biblical passage with the phrase, “Here a profound idea (sod) is hidden,” Maimonides somewhat mysteriously remarks at the end of different chapters, “Note this,” “Consider it well.” In such phrases some Commentators fancied that they found references to metaphysical theories which the author was not willing fully to discuss. Whether this was the case or not, in having recourse to that method he was not, as some have suggested, actuated by fear of being charged with heresy. He expresses his opinion on the principal theological questions without reserve, and does not dread the searching inquiries of opponents; for he boldly announces that their displeasure would not deter him from teaching the truth and guiding those who are able and willing to follow him, however few these might be. When, however, we examine the work itself, we are at a loss to discover to which parts the professed enigmatic method was applied. His theories concerning the Deity, the Divine attributes, angels, creatio ex nihilo, prophecy, and other subjects, are treated as fully as might be expected. It is true that a cloud of mysterious phrases enshrouds the interpretation of Ma‘aseh bereshit (Gen. i-iii.) and Ma’aseh mercabah (Ez. i.). But the significant words occurring in these portions are explained in the First Part of this work, and a full exposition is found in the Second and Third Parts. Nevertheless the statement that the exposition was never intended to be explicit occurs over and over again. The treatment of the first three chapters of Genesis concludes thus: “These remarks, together with what we have already observed on the subject, and what we may have to add, must suffice both for the object and for the reader we have in view” (II. xxx.).

In like manner, he declares, after the explanation of the first chapter of Ezekiel “I have given you here as many suggestions as maybe of service to you, if you will give them a further development. . . . Do not expect to hear from me anything more on this subject, for I have, though with some hesitation, gone as far in my explanation as I possibly could go” (III. vii.).

3 (pag. 8–9), In the next paragraph, headed, “Directions for the Study of this Work,” he implores the reader not to be hasty with his Criticism, and to bear in mind that every sentence, indeed every word, had been fully considered before it was written down. Yet it might easily happen that the reader could not reconcile his own view with that of the author, and in such a case he is asked to ignore the disapproved chapter or section altogether. Such disapproval Maimonides attributes to a mere misconception on the part of the reader, a fate which awaits every work composed in a mystical style. In adopting this peculiar style, he intended to reduce to a minimum the violation of the rule laid down in the Mishnah (Ḥagigah ii. i), that metaphysics should not be taught publicly. The violation of this rule he justifies by citing the following two Mishnaic maxims: “It is time to do something in honour of the Lord” (Berakot ix. 5), and “Let all thy acts be guided by pure intentions” (Abot ii. i 7). Maimonides increased the mysteriousness of the treatise, by expressing his wish that the reader should abstain from expounding the work, lest he might spread in the name of the author opinions which the latter never held. But it does not occur to him that the views he enunciates might in themselves be erroneous. He is positive that his own theory is unexceptionally correct, that his esoteric interpretations of Scriptural texts are sound, and that those who differed from him–viz., the Mutakallemim on the one hand, and the unphilosophical Rabbis on the other–are indefensibly wrong. In this respect other Jewish philosophers–e.g. Saadiah and Baḥya–were far less positive; they were conscious of their own fallibility, and invited the reader to make such corrections as might appear needful. Owing to this strong self-reliance of Maimonides, it is not to be expected that opponents would receive a fair and impartial judgment at his hands.

4 (pag. 9–11). The same self-reliance is noticeable in the next and concluding paragraph of the Introduction. Here he treats of the contradictions which are to be found in literary works, and he divides them with regard to their origin into seven classes. The first four classes comprise the apparent contradictions, which can be traced back to the employment of elliptical speech the other three classes comprise the real contradictions, and are due to carelessness and oversight, or they are intended to serve some special purpose. The Scriptures, the Talmud, and the Midrash abound in instances of apparent contradictions; later works contain real contradictions, which escaped the notice of the writers. In the present treatise, however, there occur only such contradictions as are the result of intention and design.

PART I.

The homonymous expressions which are discussed in the First Part include–(1) nouns and verbs used in reference to God, ch. i. to ch. xlix.; (2) attributes of the Deity, ch. 1. to lx.; (3) expressions commonly regarded as names of God, ch. lxi. to lxx. In the first section the following groups can be distinguished–(a) expressions which denote form and figure, cii. i. to ch. vi.; (b) space or relations of space, ch. viii. to ch. xxv.; (c) parts of the animal body and their functions, ch. xxviii. to ch. xlix. Each of these groups includes chapters not connected with the main subject, but which serve as a help for the better understanding of previous or succeeding interpretations. Every word selected for discussion bears upon some Scriptural text which, according to the opinion of the author, has been misinterpreted. But such phrases as “the mouth of the Lord,” and “the hand of the Lord,” are not introduced, because their figurative meaning is too obvious to be misunderstood.

The lengthy digressions which are here and there interposed appear like outbursts of feeling and passion which the author could not repress. Yet they are “words fitly spoken in the right place”, for they gradually unfold the author’s theory, and acquaint the reader with those general principles on which he founds the interpretations in the succeeding chapters. Moral reflections are of frequent occurrence, and demonstrate the intimate connexion between a virtuous life and the attainment of higher knowledge, in accordance with the maxim current long before Maimonides, and expressed in the Biblical words, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. cxi. 10). No opportunity is lost to inculcate this lesson, he it in a passing remark or in an elaborate essay.

The discussion of the term “ẓelem” (cii. i.) afforded the first occasion for reflections of this kind. Man, “the image of God,” is defined as a living and rational being, as though the moral faculties of man were not an essential element of his existence, and his power to discern between good and evil were the result of the first sin. According to Maimonides, the moral faculty would, us fact, not have been required, if man had remained a purely rational being. It is only through the senses that “the knowledge of good and evil” has become indispensable. The narrative of Adam’s fall is, according to Maimonides, an allegory representing the relation which exists between sensation, moral faculty, and intellect. In this early part (ch. ii.), however, the author does not yet mention this theory; on the contrary, every allusion to it is for the present studiously avoided, its full exposition being reserved for the Second Part.

The treatment of ḥazah “he beheld” (ch. vi), is followed by the advice that the student should not approach metaphysics otherwise than after a sound and thorough preparation, because a rash attempt to solve abstruse problems brings nothing but injury upon the inexperienced investigator. The author points to the “nobles of the children of Israel” (Exod. xxiv. s i), who, according to his interpretation, fell into this error, and received their deserved punishment. He gives additional force to these exhortations by citing a dictum of Aristotle to the same effect. In a like way he refers to the allegorical use of certain terms by Plato (ch. xvii.) in support of his interpretation of “ẓur” (lit., “rock”) as denoting “Primal Cause.”

The theory that nothing but a sound moral and intellectual training would entitle a student to engage in metaphysical speculations is again discussed in the digression which precedes the third group of homonyms (xxxi.-xxxvi.). Man’s intellectual faculties, he argues, have this in common with his physical forces, that their sphere of action is limited, and they become inefficient whenever they are overstrained. This happens when a student approaches metaphysics without due preparation. Maimonides goes on to argue that the non-success of metaphysical studies is attributable to the following causes: the transcendental character of this discipline, the imperfect state of the student’s knowledge, the persistent efforts which have to be made even in the preliminary studies, and finally the waste of energy and time owing to the physical demands of man. For these reasons the majority of persons are debarred from pursuing the study of metaphysics. Nevertheless, there are certain metaphysical truths which have to be communicated to all men, e.g., that God is One, and that He is incorporeal; for to assume that God is corporeal, or that He has any properties, or to ascribe to Him any attributes, is a sin bordering on idolatry.

Another digression occurs as an appendix to the second group of homonyms (ch. xxvi.-xxvii.). Maimonides found that only a limited number of terms are applied to God in a figurative sense; and again, that in the “Targum” of Onkelos some of the figures are paraphrased, while other figures received a literal rendering. He therefore seeks to discover the principle which was applied both in the Sacred Text and in the translation, and he found it in the Talmudical dictum, “The Law speaketh the language of man.” For this reason all figures are eschewed which, in their literal sense, would appear to the multitude as implying debasement or a blemish. Onkelos, who rigorously guards himself against using any term that might suggest corporification, gives a literal rendering of figurative terms when there is no cause for entertaining such an apprehension. Maimonides illustrates this rule by the mode in which Onkelos renders “yarad” (“he went down,”), when used in reference to God. It is generally paraphrased, but in one exceptional instance, occurring in Jacob’s “visions of the night” (Gen. xlvi. i), it is translated literally; in this instance the literal rendering does not lead to corporification; because visions and dreams were generally regarded as mental operations, devoid of objective reality. Simple and clear as this explanation may be, we do not consider that it really explains the method of Onkelos. On the contrary, the translator paraphrased anthropomorphic terms, even when he found them in passages relating to dreams or visions; and indeed it is doubtful whether Maimonides could produce a single instance, in favour of his view. He was equally unsuccessful in his explanation of “ḥazah” “he saw” (ch. xlviii.). He says that when the object of the vision was derogatory, it was not brought into direct relation with the Deity; in such instances the verb is paraphrased, while in other instances the rendering is literal. Although Maimonides grants that the force of this observation is weakened by three exceptions, he does not doubt its correctness.

The next Section (ch. l. to ch. lix.) “On the Divine Attributes” begins with the explanation that “faith” consists in thought, not in mere utterance; in conviction, not in mere profession. This explanation forms the basis for the subsequent discussion. The several arguments advanced by Maimonides against the employment of attributes are intended to show that those who assume the real existence of Divine attributes may possibly utter with their lips the creed of the Unity and the Incorporeality of God, but they cannot truly believe it. A demonstration of this fact would be needless, if the Attributists had not put forth their false theses and defended them with the utmost tenacity, though with the most absurd arguments.

After this explanation the author proceeds to discuss the impropriety of assigning attributes to God. The Attributists admit that God is the Primal Cause, One, incorporeal, free from emotion and privation, and that He is not comparable to any of His creatures, Maimonides therefore contends that any attributes which, either directly or indirectly, are in contradiction to this creed, should not be applied to God. By this rule he rejects four classes of attributes viz., those which include a definition, a partial definition, a quality, or a relation. The definition of a thing includes its efficient Cause; and since God is the Primal Cause, He cannot be defined, or described by a partial definition. A quality, whether psychical, physical, emotional, or quantitative, is always regarded as something distinct from its substratum; a thing which possesses any quality, consists, therefore, of that quality and a substratum, and should not be called one. All relations of time and space imply corporeality; all relations between two objects are, to a certain degree, a comparison between these two objects. To employ any of these attributes in reference to God would be as much as to declare that God is not the Primal Cause, that He is not One, that He is corporeal, or that He is comparable to His creatures.

There is only one class of attributes to which Maimonides makes no objection, viz, such as describe actions, and to this class belong all the Divine attributes which occur in the Scriptures. The “Thirteen Attributes” (shelosh esreh middot, Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7) serve as an illustration. They were communicated to Moses when he, as the chief of the Israelites, wished to know the way in which God governs the universe, in order that he himself in ruling the nation might follow it, and thereby promote their real well-being.

On the whole, the opponents of Maimonides admit the correctness of this theory. Only a small number of attributes are the subject of dispute. The Scriptures unquestionably ascribe to God Existence, Life, Power, Wisdom, Unity, Eternity, and Will. The Attributists regard these as properties distinct from, but co-existing with, the Essence of God. With great acumen, and with equally great acerbity, Maimonides shows that their theory is irreconcilable with their belief in the Unity and the Incorporeality of God. He points out three different ways of interpreting these attributes:–1. They may be regarded as descriptive of the works of God, and as declaring that these possess such properties as, in works of man, would appear to be the result of the will, the power, and the wisdom of a living being. 2. The term “existing,” “one,” “wise,” etc., are applied to God and to His creatures homonymously; as attributes of God they coincide with His Essence; as attributes of anything beside God they are distinct from the essence of the thing. 3. These terms do not describe a positive quality, but express a negation of its opposite. This third interpretation appears to have been preferred by the author; he discusses it more fully than the two others. He observes that the knowledge of the incomprehensible Being is solely of a negative character, and he shows by simple and appropriate examples that an approximate knowledge of a thing can be attained by mere negations, that such knowledge increases with the number of these negations, and that an error in positive assertions is more injurious than an error in negative assertions. In describing the evils which arise from the application of positive attributes to God, he unsparingly censures the hymnologists, because he found them profuse in attributing positive epithets to the Deity. On the basis of his own theory he could easily have interpreted these epithets in the same way as he explains the Scriptural attributes of God. His severity may, however, be accounted for by the fact that the frequent recurrence of positive attributes in the literary composition of the Jews was the cause that the Mohammedans charged the Jews with entertaining false notions of the Deity.

The inquiry into the attributes is followed by a treatment of the names of God. It seems to have been beyond the design of the author to elucidate the etymology of each name, or to establish methodically its signification; for he does not support his explanations by any proof. His sole aim is to show that the Scriptural names of God in their true meaning strictly harmonize with the philosophical conception of the Primal Cause. There are two things which have so be distinguished in the treatment of the Primal Cause the Primal Cause per se, and its relation to the Universe. The first is expressed by the tetragrammaton and its cognates, the second by the several attributes, especially by rokeb ba‘arabot, “He who rideth on the ‘arabot” (Ps. lxviii. 4)

The tetragrammaton exclusively expresses the essence of God, and therefore it is employed as a nomen proprium. In the mystery of this name, and others mentioned in she Talmud, as consisting of twelve and of forty-two letters, Maimonides finds no other secret than the solution of some metaphysical problems. The subject of these problems is not actually known, but the author supposes that it referred to the “absolute existence of the Deity.” He discovers the same idea in ehyeh (Exod. iii. 14), in accordance with the explanation added in the Sacred Text: asher ehyeh, “that is, I am.” In the course of this discussion he exposes the folly or sinfulness of those who pretend to work miracles by the aid of these and similar names.

With a view of preparing the way for his peculiar interpretation of rokeb ba‘arabot, he explains a variety of Scriptural passages, and treats of several philosophical terms relative to the Supreme Being. Such expressions as “the word of God,” “the work of God,” “the work of His fingers,” “He made,” “He spake,” must be taken in a figurative sense; they merely represent God as the cause that some work has been produced, and that some person has acquired a certain knowledge. The passage, “And He rested on the seventh day” (Exod. xx. ii) is interpreted as follows: On the seventh Day the forces and laws were complete, which during the previous six days were in the state of being established for the preservation of the Universe. They were not to be increased or modified.

It seems that Maimonides introduced this figurative explanation with a view of showing that the Scriptural “God” does not differ from the “Primal Cause” or “Ever-active Intellect” of the philosophers. On the other hand, the latter do not reject the Unity of God, although they assume that the Primal Cause comprises the causa efficiens, the agens, and the causa finalis (or, the cause, the means, and the end); and that the Ever-active Intellect comprises the intelligens, the intellectus, and the intellectum (or, the thinking subject, the act or thought, and the object thought of); because in this case these apparently different elements are, in fact, identical. The Biblical term corresponding to “Primal Cause” is rokeb ba‘arabot, “riding on ‘arabot.” Maimonides is at pains to prove that ‘arabot denotes “the highest sphere,” which causes the motion of all other spheres, and which thus brings about the natural course of production and destruction. By “the highest sphere” he does not understand a material sphere, but the immaterial world of intelligences and angels, “the seat of justice and judgment, stores of life, peace, and blessings, the seat of the souls of the righteous,” etc. Rokeb ba’arabot, therefore, means He presides over the immaterial beings, He is the source of their powers, by which they move the spheres and regulate the course of nature. This theory is more fully developed in the Second Part.

The next section (chap. lxxi.-lxxvi.) treats of the Kalām. According to the author, the method of the Kalām is copied from the Christian Fathers, who applied it in the defence of their religious doctrines. The latter examined in their writings the views of the philosophers, ostensibly in search of truth, in reality, however, with the object of supporting their own dogmas. Subsequently Mohammedan theologians found in these works arguments which seemed to confirm the truth of their own religion; they blindly adopted these arguments, and made no inquiry whence these had been derived. Maimonides rejects à priori the theories of the Mutakallemim, because they explain the phenomena in the universe in conformity with preconceived notions, instead of following the scientific method of the philosophers. Among the Jews, especially in the East and in Africa, there were also some who adopted the method of the Kalām; in doing so they followed the Mu’tazilah (dissenting Mohammedans), not because they found it more correct than the Kalām of the Ashariyah (orthodox Mohammedans), hut because at the time when the Jews became acquainted with the Kalām it was only cultivated by the Mu‘tazilah. The Jews in Spain, however, remained faithful to the Aristotelian philosophy.

The four principal dogmas upheld by the dominant religions were the creatio ex nihilo, the Existence of God, His Incorporeality, and His Unity. By the philosophers the creatio ex nihilo was rejected, but the Mutakallemim defended it, and founded upon it their proofs for the other three dogmas. Maimonides adopts the philosophical proofs for the Existence, Incorporeality, and Unity of God, because they must be admitted even by those who deny the creatio ex nihilo, the proofs being independent of this dogma. In order to show that the Mutakallemim are mistaken in ignoring the organization of the existing order of things, the author gives a minute description of the analogy between the Universe, or Kosmos, and man, the mikrokosmos (ch. lxxii.). This analogy is merely asserted, and the reader is advised either to find the proof by his own studies, or to accept the fact on the authority of the learned. The Kalām does not admit the existence of law, organization, and unity in the universe. Its adherents have, accordingly, no trustworthy criterion to determine whether a thing is possible or impossible. Everything that is conceivable by imagination is by them held as possible. The several parts of the universe are in no relation to each other; they all consist of equal elements; they are not composed of substance and properties, but of atoms and accidents the law of causality is ignored; man’s actions are not the result of will and design, but are mere accidents. Maimonides in enumerating and discussing the twelve fundamental propositions of the Kalām (ch. lxiii,), which embody these theories, had apparently no intention to give a complete and impartial account of the Kalām; he solely aimed at exposing the weakness of a system which he regarded as founded not on a sound basis of positive facts, but on mere fiction; not on the evidences of the senses and of reason, but on the illusions of imagination.

After having shown that the twelve fundamental propositions of the Kalām are utterly untenable, Maimonides finds no difficulty in demonstrating the insufficiency of the proofs advanced by the Mutakallemim in support of the above-named dogmas. Seven arguments are cited which the Mutakallemim employ in support of the creatio ex nihilo. 1 The first argument is based on the atomic theory, viz., that the universe consists of equal atoms without inherent properties all variety and change observed in nature must therefore be attributed to an external force. Three arguments are supplied by the proposition that finite things of an infinite number cannot exist (Propos. xi.). Three other arguments derive their support from the following proposition (x.) Everything that can be imagined can have an actual existence. The present order of things is only one out of the many forms which are possible, and exist through the fiat of a determining power.

The Unity of God is demonstrated by the Mutakallemim as follows: Two Gods would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other. Maimonides points out that this might have been avoided by a suitable division of labour. Another argument is as follows The two Beings would have one element in common, and would differ in another each would thus Consist of two elements, and would not be God. Maimonides might have suggested that the argument moves in a circle, the unity of God being proved by assuming His unity. The following argument is altogether unintelligible: Both Gods are moved to action by will; the will, being without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in two separate beings. The fallacy of the following argument is clear: The existence of one God is proved; the existence of a second God is not proved, it would be possible; and as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist a second God. The possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence. Again, if one God suffices, the second God is superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity. Maimonides objects that it would not he an imperfection in either deity to act exclusively within their respective provinces. As in the criticism of the first argument, Maimonides seems here to forget that the existence of separate provinces would require a superior determining Power, and the two Beings would not properly be called Gods. The weakest of all arguments are, according to Maimonides, those by which the Mutakallemim sought to support the doctrine of God’s Incorporeality. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or He would be comparable to other beings but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be one. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

PART II.

The Second Part includes the following sections:–1. Introduction; 2. Philosophical Proof of the Existence of One Incorporeal Primal Cause (ch. i.); 3. On the Spheres and she Intelligences (ii.-xii.); 4. On the theory of the Eternity of the Universe (xiii.-xxix.); 5. Exposition of Gen. i.-iv. (xxx., xxxi.); 6. On Prophecy (xxxii.-xlviii.).

The enumeration of twenty-six propositions, by the aid of which the philosophers prove the Existence, the Unity, and the Incorporeality of the Primal Cause, forms the introduction so the Second Part of this work. The propositions treat of the properties of the finite and the infinite (i-iii., x.-xii., xvi.), of change and motion (iv.-ix., xiii.-xviii.), and of the possible and she absolute or necessary (xx.-xxv.); they are simply enumerated, but are not demonstrated. Whatever the value of these Propositions may be, they were inadequate for their purpose, and the author is compelled to introduce auxiliary propositions to prove the existence of an infinite, incorporeal, and uncompounded Primal Cause. (Arguments I. and III.)

The first and she fourth arguments may be termed cosmological proofs. They are based on the hypothesis that the series of causes for every change is finite, and terminates in the Primal Cause. There is no essential difference in the two arguments in the first are discussed the causes of the motion of a moving object; the fourth treats of the causes which bring about the transition of a thing from potentiality to reality. To prove that neither the spheres nor a force residing in them constitute the Primal Cause, the philosophers employed two propositions, of which the one asserts that the revolutions of the spheres are infinite, and the other denies the possibility that an infinite force should reside in a finite object. The distinction between she finite in space and the finite in time appears to have been ignored; for it is not shown why a force infinite in time could not reside in a body finite in space. Moreover, those who, like Maimonides, reject the eternity of the universe, necessarily reject this proof, while those who hold that the universe is eternal do not admit that the spheres have ever been only potential, and passed from potentiality to actuality. The second argument is supported by the following supplementary proposition If two elements coexist in a state of combination, and one of these elements is to be found as the same time separate, in a free state, is it certain that the second element is likewise to be found by itself. Now, since things exist which combine in themselves motive power and mass moved by that power, and since mass is found by itself, motive power must also be found by itself independent of mass.

The third argument has a logical character: The universe is either eternal or temporal, or partly eternal and partly temporal. It cannot be eternal in all its parts, as many parts undergo destruction; it is not altogether temporal, because, if so, the universe could not be reproduced after being destroyed. The continued existence of the universe leads, therefore, to the conclusion that there is an immortal force, the Primal Cause, besides the transient world.

These arguments have this in common, that while proving the existence of a Primal Cause, they at the same time demonstrate the Unity, the Incorporeality, and time Eternity of that Cause. Special proofs are nevertheless superadded for each of these postulates, and on the whole they differ very little from those advanced by the Mohammedan Theologians.

This philosophical theory of the Primal Cause was adapted by Jewish scholars to the Biblical theory of the Creator. The universe is a living, organized being, of which the earth is the centre. Any changes on this earth are due to the revolutions of the spheres; the lowest or innermost sphere, viz., the one nearest to the centre, is the sphere of the moon; the outermost or uppermost is “the all-encompassing sphere.” Numerous spheres are interposed but Maimonides divides all the spheres into four groups, corresponding to the moon, the sun, the planets, and the fixed stars. This division is claimed by the author as his own discovery; he believes that it stands in relation to the four causes of their motions, the four elements of the sublunary world, and the four classes of beings, viz., the mineral, the vegetable, the animal, and the rational. The spheres have souls, and are endowed with intellect; their souls enable them to move freely, and the impulse to the motion is given by the intellect in conceiving the idea of the Absolute Intellect. Each sphere has an intellect peculiar to itself; the intellect attached to the sphere of the moon is called “the active intellect” (Sekel ha-po‘ël). In support of this theory numerous passages are cited both from Holy Writ and from post-Biblical Jewish literature. The angels (elohim, malakim) mentioned in the Bible are assumed to be identical with the intellects of the spheres; they are free agents, and their volition invariably tends to that which is good and noble they emanate from the Primal Cause, and form a descending series of beings, ending with the active intellect. The transmission of power from one element to the other is called “emanation” (shefa‘). This transmission is performed without the utterance of a sound; if any voice is supposed to be heard, it is only an illusion, originating in the human imagination, which is the source of all evils (ch. xii.).

In accordance with this doctrine, Maimonides explains that the three men who appeared to Abraham, the angels whom Jacob saw ascend and descend the ladder, and all other angels seen by man, are nothing but the intellects of the spheres, four in number, which emanate from the Primal Cause (ch.. x). In his description of the spheres he, as usual, follows Aristotle. The spheres do not contain any of the four elements of the sublunary world, but consist of a quintessence, an entirely different element. Whilst things on this earth are transient, the beings which inhabit the spheres above are eternal. According to Aristotle, these spheres, as well as their intellects, coexist with the Primal Cause. Maimonides, faithful to the teaching of the Scriptures, here departs from his master, and holds that the spheres and the intellects had a beginning, and were brought into existence by the will of the Creator. He does not attempt to give a positive proof of his doctrine all he contends is that the theory of the creatio ex nihilo is, from a philosophical point of view, not inferior to the doctrine which asserts the eternity of the universe, and that he can refute all objections advanced against his theory (ch. xiii.-xxviii.).

He next enumerates and criticises the various theories respecting the origin of the Universe, viz.: A. God created the Universe out of nothing. B. God formed the Universe from an eternal substance. C. The Universe originating in the eternal Primal Cause is co-eternal.–It is not held necessary by the author to discuss the view of those who do not assume a Primal Cause, since the existence of such a cause has already been proved (ch. xiii.).

The objections raised to a creatio ex nihilo by its opponents are founded partly on the properties of Nature, and partly on those of the Primal Cause, They infer from the properties of Nature the following arguments: (1) The first moving force is eternal; for if it had a beginning, another motion must have produced it, and then it would not be the First moving force. (2) If the formless matter be not eternal, it must have been produced out of another substance; it would then have a certain form by which it might be distinguished from the primary substance, and then it would not formless. (3) The circular motion of the spheres does not involve the necessity of termination; and anything that is without an end, must be without a beginning. (4) Anything brought to existence existed previously in potentia; something must therefore have pre-existed of which potential existence could be predicated. Some support for the theory of the eternity of the heavens has been derived from the general belief in the eternity of the heavens.–The properties of the Primal Cause furnished the following arguments:–If it were assumed that the Universe was created from nothing, it would imply that the First Cause had changed from the condition of a potential Creator to that of an actual Creator, or that His will had undergone a change, or that He must be imperfect, because He produced a perishable work, or that He had been inactive during a certain period. All these contingencies would be contrary so a true conception of the First Cause (ch. xiv.).

Maimonides is of opinion that the arguments based on the properties of things in Nature are inadmissible, because the laws by which the Universe is regulated need not have been in force before the Universe was in existence. This refutation is styled by our author “a strong wall built round the Law, able to resist all attacks” (ch. xvii.). In a similar manner the author proceeds against the objections founded on the properties of the First Cause. Purely intellectual beings, he says, are not subject to the same laws as material bodies; that which necessitates a change in the latter or in the will of man need not produce a change in immaterial beings. As so the belief that the heavens are inhabited by angels and deities, it has not its origin in the real existence of these supernatural beings; it was suggested to man by meditation on the apparent grandeur of heavenly phenomena (ch. xviii.).

Maimonides next proceeds to explain how, independently of the authority or Scripture, he has been led to adopt the belief in the creatio ex nihilo. Admitting that the great variety of the things in the sublunary world can be traced to those immutable laws which regulate the influence of the spheres on the beings below–the variety in the spheres can only be explained as the result of God’s free will. According to Aristotle–the principal authority for the eternity of the Universe–it is impossible that a simple being should, according to the laws of nature, be the cause of various and compound beings. Another reason for the rejection of the Eternity of the Universe may be found in the fact that the astronomer Ptolemy has proved the incorrectness of the view which Aristotle had of celestial spheres, although the system of that astronomer is likewise far from being perfect and final (ch, xxiv.). It is impossible to obtain a correct notion of the properties of the heavenly spheres; “the heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s, but the earth hath He given to the children of man” (Ps. cxv. 16). The author, observing that the arguments against the creatio ex nihilo are untenable, adheres to his theory, which was taught by such prophets as Abraham and Moses. Although each Scriptural quotation could, by a figurative interpretation, be made to agree with the opposite theory, Maimonides declines to ignore the literal sense of a term, unless it be in opposition so well-established truths, as is the case with anthropomorphic expressions; for the latter, if taken literally, would be contrary to the demonstrated truth of God’s incorporeality (ch. xxv.). He is therefore surprised that the author of Pirke-di Rabbi Eliezer ventured to assume the eternity of matter, and he thinks it possible that Rabbi Eliezer carried the license of figurative speech too far. (Ch. xxvi.).

The theory of the creatio ex nihilo does not involve the belief that the Universe will at a future time be destroyed; the Bible distinctly teaches the creation, but not the destruction of the world except in passages which are undoubtedly conceived in a metaphorical sense. On the contrary, respecting certain parts of the Universe it is clearly stated “He established them for ever.” (Ps. cxlviii. 5.) The destruction of the Universe would be, as the creation has been, a direct act of the Divine will, and not the result of those immutable laws which govern the Universe. The Divine will would in that case set aside those laws, both in the initial and the final stages of the Universe. Within this interval, however, the laws remain undisturbed (ch. xxvii.). Apparent exceptions, the miracles, originate in these laws, although man is unable to perceive the causal relation. The Biblical account of the creation concludes with the statement that God rested on the seventh day, that is to say, He declared that the work was complete; no new act of creation was to take place, and no new law was to be introduced. It is true that the second and the third chapters of Genesis appear to describe a new creation, that of Eve, and a new law, viz., that of man’s mortality, but these chapters are explained as containing an allegorical representation of man’s psychical and intellectual faculties, or a supplemental detail of the Contents of the first chapter. Maimonides seems to prefer the allegorical explanation which, as it seems, he had in view without expressly stating it, in his treatment of Adams sin and punishment. (Part I. ch. ii.) It is certainly inconsistent on the one hand to admit that at the pleasure of the Almighty the laws of nature may become inoperative, and that the whole Universe may become annihilated, and on the other hand to deny, that during the existence of the Universe, any of the natural laws ever have been or ever will be suspended. It seems that Maimonides could not conceive the idea that the work of the All-wise should be, as the Mutakallemim taught–without plan and system, or that the laws Once laid down should not be sufficient for all emergencies.

The account of the Creation given in the book of Genesis is explained by the author according to the following two rules: First its language is allegorical; and, Secondly, the terms employed are homonyms. The words erez, mayim, ruaḥ, and ḥoshek in the second verse (ch. i.), are homonyms and denote the four elements: earth, water, air, and fire; in other instances erez is the terrestrial globe, mayim is water or vapour, ruaḥ denotes wind, and ḥoshek darkness: According to Maimonides, a summary of the first chapter may be given thus; God created the Universe by producing first the reshit the “beginning” (Gen. i. 1), or hatḥalah, i.e., the intellects which give to the spheres both existence and motion, and thus become the source of the existence of the entire Universe. At first this Universe consisted of a chaos of elements, but its form was successively developed by the influence of the spheres, and more directly by the action of light and darkness, the properties of which were fixed on the first day of the Creation. In the subsequent five days minerals, plants, animals, and the intellectual beings came into existence. The seventh day, on which the Universe was for the first time ruled by the same natural laws which still continue in operation, was distinguished as a day blessed and sanctified by the Creator, who designed it to proclaim the creatio ex nihilo (Exod. xx. xi). The Israelites were moreover commanded to keep this Sabbath in commemoration of their departure from Egypt (Deut. v. ii), because during the period of the Egyptian bondage, they had not been permitted to rest on that day. In the history of the first sin of man, Adam, Eve, and the serpent represent the intellect, the body, and the imagination. In order to complete the imagery, Samael or Satan, mentioned in the Midrash in connexion with this account, is added as representing man’s appetitive faculties. Imagination, the source of error, is directly aided by the appetitive faculty, and the two are intimately connected with the body, so which man generally gives paramount attention, and for the sake of which he indulges in sins; in the end, however, they subdue the intellect and weaken its power. Instead of obtaining pure and real knowledge, man forms false conceptions; in consequence, the body is subject to suffering, whilst the imagination, instead of being guided by the intellect and attaining a higher development becomes debased and depraved. In the three sons of Adam, Kain, Abel, and Seth, Maimonides finds an allusion to the three elements in man: the vegetable, the animal, and the intellectual. First, the animal element (Abel) becomes extinct; then the vegetable elements (Kain) are dissolved; only the third element, the intellect (Seth), survives, and forms the basis of mankind (ch. xxx., xxxi.).

Maimonides having so far stated his opinion in explicit terms, it is difficult to understand what he had in view by the avowal that he could not disclose everything. It is unquestionably no easy matter to adapt each verse in the first chapters of Genesis to the foregoing allegory; but such an adaptation is, according to the author’s own view (Part I., Introd., p. 19), not only unnecessary, but actually objectionable.

In the next section (xxxii.-xlviii.) Maimonides treats of Prophecy. He mentions the following three opinions:–1. Any person, irrespective of his physical or moral qualifications, may be summoned by the Almighty to the mission of a prophet. 2. Prophecy is the highest degree of mental development, and can only be attained by training and study. 3. The gift of prophecy depends on physical, moral, and mental training, combined with inspiration. The author adopts the lass-mentioned opinion. He defines prophecy as an emanation (shefa‘), which through the will of the Almighty descends from the Active Intellect so the intellect and the imagination of thoroughly qualified persons. The prophet is thus distinguished both from wise men whose intellect alone received the necessary impulse from the Active Intellect, and from diviners or dreamers, whose imagination alone has been influenced by the Active Intellect. Although it is assumed that the attainment of this prophetic faculty depends on God’s will, this dependence is nothing else but the relation which all things bear to the Primal Cause; for the Active Intellect acts in conformity with the laws established by the will of God; it gives an impulse to the intellect of man, and, bringing to light those mental powers which lay dormant, it merely turns potential faculty into real action. These faculties can be perfected to such a degree as to enable man to apprehend the highest truths intuitively, without passing through all the stages of research required by ordinary persons. The same fact is noticed wish respect to imagination; man sometimes forms faithful images of objects and events which cannot be traced to the ordinary channel of information, viz., impressions made on the senses. Since prophecy is the result of a natural process, it may appear surprising that, of the numerous men excelling in wisdom, so few became prophets. Maimonides accounts for this fact by assuming that the moral faculties of such men had not been duly trained. None of them had, in the author’s opinion, gone through the moral discipline indispensable for the vocation of a prophet. Besides this, everything which obstructs mental improvement, misdirects the imagination or impairs the physical strength, and precludes man from attaining to the rank of prophet. Hence no prophecy was vouchsafed to Jacob during the period of his anxieties on account of his separation from Joseph. Nor did Moses receive a Divine message during the years which the Israelites, under Divine punishment, spent in the desert. On the other hand, music and song awakened the prophetic power (comp. 2 Kings iii. 15), and

“The spirit of prophecy alights only on him who is wise, strong, and rich” (Babyl. Talm. Shabbat, 922). Although the preparation for a prophetic mission, the pursuit of earnest and persevering study, as also the execution of the Divine dictates, required physical strength, yet in the moment when the prophecy was received the functions of the bodily organs were suspended. The intellect then acquired true knowledge, which presented itself to the prophet’s imagination in forms peculiar to that faculty. Pure ideals are almost incomprehensible; man must translate them into language which he is accustomed to use, and he must adapt them to his own mode of thinking. In receiving prophecies and communicating them to others the exercise of the prophet’s imagination was therefore as essential as that of his intellect, and Maimonides seems to apply to this imagination the term “angel,” which is so frequently mentioned in the Bible as the medium of communication between the Supreme Being and the prophet.

Only Moses held his bodily functions under such control that even without their temporary suspension he was able to receive prophetic inspiration the interposition of the imagination was in his case not needed “God spoke to him mouth to mouth” (Num. xii. 1). Moses differed so completely from other prophets that the term “prophet” could only have been applied to him and other men by way of homonymy.

The impulses descending from the Active intellect so man’s intellect and to his imagination produce various effects, according to his physical, moral, and intellectual condition. Some men are thus endowed with extraordinary courage and with an ambition to perform great deeds, or they feel themselves impelled to appeal mightily to their fellowmen by means of exalted and pure language. Such men are filled with “the spirit of the Lord,” or, “with the spirit of holiness.” To this distinguished class belonged Jephthah, Samson, David, Solomon, and the authors of the Hagiographa. Though above the standard of ordinary men, they were not included in the rank of prophets. Maimonides divides the prophets into two groups, viz., those who receive inspiration in a dream and those who receive it in a vision. The first group includes the following five classes:–1. Those who see symbolic figures; 2. Those who hear a voice addressing them without perceiving the speaker; 3. Those who see a man and hear him addressing them; 4. Those who see an angel addressing them; 5. Those who see God and hear His voice. The other group is divided in a similar manner, but contains only the first four classes, for Maimonides considered it impossible that a prophet should see God in a vision. This classification is based on the various expressions employed in the Scriptures to describe the several prophecies.

When the Israelites received the Law at Mount Sinai, they distinctly heard the first two commandments, which include the doctrines of the Existence and the Unity of God; of the other eight commandments, which enunciate moral, not metaphysical truths, they heard the mere “sound of words”; and it was through the mouth of Moses that the Divine instruction was revealed to them. Maimonides defends this opinion by quotations from the Talmud and the Midrashim.

The theory that imagination was an essential element in prophecy is supported by the fact that figurative speech predominates in the prophetical writings, which abound in figures, hyperbolical expressions and allegories. The symbolical acts which are described in connexion with the visions of the prophets, such as the translation of Ezekiel from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ez. viii. 3), Isaiah’s walking about naked and barefoot (Isa. xx. 2), Jacob’s wrestling with the angel (Gen. xxxii. 17 sqq.), and the speaking of Balaam’s ass (Num. xxii. 28), had no positive reality. The prophets, employing an elliptical style, frequently omitted to state that a Certain event related by them was part of a vision or a dream. In consequence of such elliptical speech events are described in the Bible as coming directly from God, although they simply are the effect of the ordinary laws of nature, and as such depend on the will of God. Such passages cannot be misunderstood when it is borne in mind that every event and every natural phenomenon can for its origin be traced to the Primal Cause. In this sense the prophets employ such phrases as the following “And I will command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it” (Isa. v. 6); “I have also called my mighty men” (ibid. xi. 3).

PART III.

This part contains the following six sections:–1. Exposition of the ma‘aseh mercabah (Ez. i.), ch. i. vii.; 2. On the nature and the origin of evil, ch. viii. xii. 3. On the object of the creation, ch. xiii.,-xv.; 4. On Providence and Omniscience, ch. xvi.-xxv.; 5. On the object of the Divine precepts (ta‘ame ha-miẓvot) and the historical portions of the Bible, ch. xxv.-xl.; 6. A guide to the proper worship of God.

With great caution Maimonides approaches the explanation of the ma‘aseh mercabah, the chariot which Ezekiel beheld in a vision (Ez. i.). The mysteries included in the description of the Divine chariot had been orally transmitted from generation to generation, but in consequence of the dispersion of the Jews the chain of tradition was broken, and the knowledge of these mysteries had vanished. Whatever he knew of those mysteries he owed exclusively to his own intellectual faculties; he therefore could not reconcile himself to the idea that his knowledge should die with him. He committed his exposition of the ma‘aseh mercabah and the ma‘aseh bereshit to writing, but did not divest it of its original mysterious character; so that the explanation was fully intelligible to the initiated–that is to say, to the philosopher–but to the ordinary reader it was a mere paraphrase of the Biblical text.–(Introduction.)

The first seven chapters are devoted to the exposition of the Divine chariot. According to Maimonides three distinct parts are to be noticed, each of which begins with the phrase, “And I saw.” These parts correspond to the three parts of the Universe, the sublunary world, the spheres and the intelligences. First of all the prophet is made to behold the material world which consists of the earth and the spheres, and of these the spheres, as the more important, are noticed first. In the Second Part, in which the nature of the spheres is discussed, the author dwells with pride on his discovery that they can be divided into four groups. This discovery he now employs to show that the four “hayyot” (animals) represent the four divisions of the spheres. He points out that the terms which the prophet uses in the description of the hayyot are identical with terms applied to the properties of the spheres. For the four hayyot or “angels,” or cherubim, (1) have human form; (2) have human faces; (3) possess characteristics of other animals; (4) have human hands; (5) their feet are straight and round (cylindrical); (6) their bodies are closely joined so each other; (7) only their faces and their wings are separate; (8) their substance is transparent and refulgent; (9) they move uniformly; (10) each moves in its own direction; (11) they run; (12) swift as lightning they return towards their starting point; and (13) they move in consequence of an extraneous impulse (ruaḥ). In a similar manner the spheres are described:–(1) they possess the characteristics of man, viz., life and intellect; (2) they consist like man of body and soul; (3) they are strong, mighty and swift, like the ox, the lion, and the eagle, (4) they perform all manner of work as though they had hands; (5) they are round, and are not divided into parts; (6) no vacuum intervenes between one sphere and the other; (7) they may be considered as one being, but in respect to the intellects, which are the causes of their existence and motion, they appear as four different beings; (8) they are transparent and refulgent; (9) each sphere moves uniformly, (10) and according to its special laws; (11) they revolve with great velocity; (12) each point returns again so its previous position; (13) they are self-moving, yet the impulse emanates from an external power.

In the second part of the vision the prophet saw the ofannim. These represent the four elements of the sublunary world. For the ofannim (1) are connected with the ḥayyot and with the earth; (2) they have four faces, and are four separate beings, but interpenetrate each other “as though it were a wheel in the midst of a wheel” (Ez. i. 16); (3) they are covered with eyes; (4) they are not self-moving; (5) they are set in motion by the hayyot; (6) their motion is not circular but rectilinear. The same may almost be said of the four elements (1) they are in close Contact with the spheres, being encompassed by the sphere of the moon; earth occupies the centre, water surrounds earth, air has its position between water and fire; (2) this order is not invariably maintained; the respective portions change and they become intermixed and combined with each other (3) though they are only four elements they form an infinite number of things; (4) not being animated they do not move of their own accord; (5) they are set in motion by the action of the spheres; (6) when a portion is displaced it returns in a straight line to its original position.

In the third vision Ezekiel saw a human form above the ḥayyot. The figure was divided in the middle; in the upper portion the prophet only noticed that it was ḥashmal, (mysterious); from the loins downwards there was “the vision of the likeness of the Divine Glory,” and “the likeness of the throne.” The world of Intelligences was represented by the figure; these can only be perceived in as far as they influence the spheres, but their relation to the Creator is beyond human comprehension. The Creator himself is not represented in this vision.

The key to the whole vision Maimonides finds in the introductory words, “And the heavens were opened,” and in the minute description of the place and the time of the revelation. When pondering on the grandeur of the spheres and their influences, which vary according to time and place, man begins to think of the existence of the Creator. At the conclusion of this exposition Maimonides declares that he will, in the subsequent chapters, refrain from giving further explanation of the ma‘aseh mercabah. The foregoing summary, however, shows that the opinion of the author on this subject is fully stated, and it is indeed difficult to conceive what additional disclosures he could still have made.

The task which the author has proposed to himself in the Preface he now regarded as accomplished. He has discussed the method of the Kalām, the system of the philosophers, and his own theory concerning the relation between the Primal Cause and the Universe: he has explained the Biblical account of the creation, the nature of prophecy, and the mysteries in Ezekiel’s vision. In the remaining portion of the work the author attempts to solve certain theological problems, as though he wished to obviate the following objections, which might be raised to his theory that there is a design throughout the creation, and that the entire Universe is subject to the law of causation:–What is the purpose of the evils which attend human life? For what purpose was the world created? In how far does Providence interfere with the natural course of events? Does God know and foresee man’s actions? To what end was the Divine Law revealed These problems are treated seriatim.

All evils, Maimonides holds, originate in the material element of man’s existence. Those who are able to emancipate themselves from the tyranny of the body, and unconditionally so submit to the dictates of reason, are protected from many evils. Man should disregard the cravings of the body, avoid them as topics of conversation, and keep his thoughts far away from them; convivial and erotic songs debase man’s noblest gifts–thought and speech. Matter is the partition separating man from the pure Intellects; it is “the thickness of the cloud” which true knowledge has so traverse before it reaches man. In reality, evil is the mere negative of good “God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen. i. 3). Evil does not exist at all. When evils are mentioned in the Scriptures as the work of God, the Scriptural expressions must not be taken in their literal sense.

There are three kinds of evils:–1. Evils necessitated by those laws of production and destruction by which the species are perpetuated. 2. Evils which men inflict on each other; they are comparatively few, especially among civilized men. 3. Evils which man brings upon himself, and which comprise the majority of existing evils. The consideration of these three classes of evils leads to the conclusion that “the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works” (Ps. cxlv. 9).

The question, What is the object of the creation? must be left unanswered. The creation is the result of the will of God. Also those who believe that the Universe is eternal must admit that they are unable to discover the purpose of the Universe. It would, however, not be illogical to assume that the spheres have been created for the sake of man, notwithstanding the great dimensions of the former and the smallness of the latter. Still it must be conceded that, even if mankind were the main and central object of creation, there is no absolute interdependence between them; for it is a matter of course that, under altered conditions, man could exist without the spheres. All teleological theories must therefore be confined within the limits of the Universe as it now exists. They are only admissible in the relation in which the several parts of the Universe stand to each other; but the purpose of the Universe as a whole cannot be accounted for. It is simply an emanation from the will of God.

Regarding the belief in Providence, Maimonides enumerates the following five opinions:–1. There is no Providence; everything is subject to chance. 2. Only a part of the Universe is governed by Providence, viz., the spheres, the species, and such individual beings as possess the power of perpetuating their existence (e.g., the start); the rest–that is, the sublunary world–is left to mere chance. 3. Everything is predetermined; according to this theory, revealed Law is inconceivable. 4. Providence assigns its blessings to all creatures, according to their merits; accordingly, all beings, even the lowest animals, if innocently injured or killed, receive compensation in a future life. 5. According to the Jewish belief all living beings are endowed with free-will; God is just, and the destiny of man depends on his merits. Maimonides denies the existence of trials inflicted by Divine love, i.e. afflictions which befall man, not as punishments of sin, but as means to procure for him a reward in times to come. Maimonides also rejects the notion that God ordains special temptation. The Biblical account, according to which God tempts men, “to know what is in their hearts,” must not be taken in its literal sense; it merely states that God made the virtues of certain people known to their fellowmen in order that their good example should be followed. Of all creatures man alone enjoys the especial care of Providence because the acts of Providence are identical with certain influences (shefa‘) which the Active Intellect brings to bear upon the human intellect; their effect upon man varies according to his physical, moral, and intellectual condition; irrational beings, however, cannot be affected by these influences. If we cannot in each individual case see how these principles are applied, it must be borne in mind that God’s wisdom is far above that of man. The author seems to have felt that his theory has its weak points, for he introduces it as follows:–“My theory is not established by demonstrative proof; it is based on the authority of the Bible, and it is less subject to refutation than any of the theories previously mentioned.”

Providence implies Omniscience, and men who deny this, eo ipso, have no belief in Providence. Some are unable to reconcile the fate of man with Divine Justice, and are therefore of opinion that God takes no notice whatever of the events which occur on earth. Others believe that God, being an absolute Unity, cannot possess a knowledge of a multitude of things, or of things that do not yet exist, or the number of which is infinite. These objections, which are based on the nature of man’s perception, are illogical, for God’s knowledge cannot be compared to that of man; it is identical with His essence. Even the Attributists, who assume that God’s knowledge is different from His essence, hold that it is distinguished from man’s knowledge in the following five points:–1. It is one, although it embraces a plurality. 2. It includes even such things as do not yet exist. 3. It includes things which are infinite in number. 4. It does not change when new objects of perception present themselves. 5. It does not determine the course of events.–However difficult this theory may appear to human comprehension, it is in accordance with the words of Isaiah (lv. 8) “Your thoughts are not My thoughts, and your ways are not My ways.” According to Maimonides, the difficulty is to be explained by the fact that God is the Creator of all things, and His knowledge of the things is not dependent on their existence; while the knowledge of man is solely dependent on the objects which come under his cognition.

According to Maimonides, the book of Job illustrates the several views which have been mentioned above. Satan, that is, the material element in human existence, is described as the cause of Job’s sufferings. Job at first believed that man’s happiness depends on riches, health, and children; being deprived of these sources of happiness, he conceived the notion that Providence is indifferent to the fate of mortal beings. After a careful study of natural phenomena, he rejected this opinion. Eliphaz held that all misfortunes of man serve as punishments of past sins. Bildad, the second friend of Job, admitted the existence of those afflictions which Divine love decrees in order that the patient sufferer may be fitted to receive a bountiful reward. Zophar, the third friend of Job, declared that the ways of God are beyond human comprehension; there is but one explanation assignable to all Divine acts, namely: Such is His Will. Elihu gives a fuller development to this idea; he says that such evils as befell Job may be remedied once or twice, but the course of nature is not altogether reversed. It is true that by prophecy a clearer insight into the ways of God can be obtained, but there are only few who arrive at that exalted intellectual degree, whilst the majority of men must content themselves with acquiring a knowledge of God through the study of nature. Such a study leads man to the conviction that his understanding cannot fathom the secrets of nature and the wisdom of Divine Providence.

The concluding section of the Third Part treats of the purpose of the Divine precepts. In the Pentateuch they are described as the means of acquiring wisdom, enduring happiness, and also bodily comfort (ch. xxxi.). Generally a distinction is made between “ḥuḳḳim” (“statutes”) and mishpaṭim (“judgments”). The object of the latter is, on the whole, known, but the ḥuḳḳim are considered as tests of mans obedience; no reason is given why they have been enacted. Maimonides rejects this distinction; he states that all precepts are the result of wisdom and design, that all contribute to the welfare of mankind, although with regard to the ḥuḳḳim this is less obvious. The author draws another line of distinction between the general principles and the details of rules. For the selection and the introduction of the latter there is but one reason, viz. “Such is the will of God.”

The laws are intended to promote man’s perfection; they improve both his mental and his physical condition; the former in so far as they lead him to the acquisition of true knowledge, the latter through the training of his moral and social faculties. Each law thus imparts knowledge, improves the moral condition of man, or conduces to the well-being of society. Many revealed laws help to enlighten man, and to correct false opinions. This object is not always clearly announced. God in His wisdom sometimes withheld from the knowledge of man the purpose of commandments and actions. There are other precepts which tend to restrain man’s passions and desires. If the same end is occasionally attainable by other means, it must be remembered that the Divine laws are adapted to the ordinary mental and emotional state of man, and not to exceptional circumstances. In this work, as in the Yad ha-ḥazaḳah, Maimonides divides the laws of the Pentateuch into fourteen groups, and in each group he discusses the principal and the special object of the laws included in it.

In addition to the legislative contents, the Bible includes historical information; and Maimonides, in briefly reviewing the Biblical narratives, shows that these are likewise intended to improve man’s physical, moral, and intellectual condition. “It is not a vain thing for you” (Deut. xxxii. 47) and when it proves vain to anyone, it is his own fault.

In the final chapters the author describes the several degrees of human perfection, from the sinners who have turned from the right path to the best of men, who in all their thoughts and acts cling to the Most Perfect Being, who aspire after the greatest possible knowledge of God, and strive to serve their Maker in the practice of “loving-kindness, righteousness, and justice.” This degree of human perfection can only be attained by those who never forget the presence of the Almighty, and remain firm in their fear and love of God. These servants of the Most High inherit the choicest of human blessings they are endowed with wisdom they are godlike beings.

Footnotes

xxxix:1 See infra, page 4, note 1.

xl:1 See infra, page 5, note 4.

xlviii:1 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 he 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 so the future, or from the past to the present moment. (Emunot vede‘ot, 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.)

1. The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides Download

2. The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides Download

3. The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides Download

maimonides boete en berouw kopie Download

HET LEVEN VAN MOZES MAIMONIDES

ANALYSIS OF THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED

Dit delen: