CHAPTER XXIX

If we hear a person speaking whose language we do not understand, we

undoubtedly know that he speaks, but do not know what his words mean;

it may even happen that we hear some words which mean one thing in the

tongue of the speaker, and exactly the reverse in our language, and

taking the words in the sense which they have in our language, we

imagine that the speaker employed them in that sense. Suppose, e.g., an

Arab hears of a Hebrew the word abah, he thinks that the Hebrew relates

how a man despised and refused a certain thing, whilst the Hebrew in

reality says that the man was pleased and satisfied with it. The very

same thing happens to the ordinary reader of the Prophets; some of

their words he does not understand at all, like those to whom the

prophet says (Isa. xxix. 11), “the vision of all is become unto you as

the words of a book that is sealed”; in other passages he finds the

opposite or the reverse of what the prophet meant; to this case

reference is made in the words, “Ye have perverted the words of the

living God” (Jer. xxiii. 36). Besides, it must be borne in mind that

every prophet has his own peculiar diction, which is, as it were, his

language, and it is in that language that the prophecy addressed to him

is communicated to those who understand it. After this preliminary

remark you will understand the metaphor frequently employed by Isaiah,

and less frequently by other prophets, when they describe the ruin of a

kingdom or the destruction of a great nation in phrases like the

following:—“The stars have fallen,” “The heavens are overthrown,” “The

sun is darkened,” “The earth is waste, and trembles,” and similar

metaphors. The Arabs likewise say of a person who has met with a

serious accident, “His heavens, together with his earth, have been

covered”; and when they speak of the approach of a nation’s prosperity,

they say, “The light of the sun and moon has increased,” “A new heaven

and a new earth has been created,” or they use similar phrases. So also

the prophets, in referring to the ruin of a person, of a nation, or of

a country, describe it as the result of God’s great anger and wrath,

whilst the prosperity of a nation is the result of God’s pleasure and

satisfaction. In the former case the prophets employ such phrases as

“He came forth,” “came down,” “roared,” “thundered,” or “caused his

voice to be heard”; also “He commanded,” “said,” “did,” “made,” and the

like, as will be shown. Sometimes the prophets use the term “mankind”

instead of “the people of a certain place,” whose destruction they

predict; e.g., Isaiah speaking of the destruction of Israel says, “And

the Lord will remove man far away” (Isa. vi. 12). So also Zephaniah (i.

3, 4), “And I will cut off man from off the earth. I will also stretch

out mine hand upon Judah.” Note this likewise.

Having spoken of the language of the prophets in general, I will now

verify and prove my statement. When Isaiah received the divine mission

to prophesy the destruction of the Babylonian empire, the death of

Sennacherib and that of Nebuchadnezzar, who rose after the overthrow of

Sennacherib, he commences in the following manner to describe their

fall and the end of their dominion, their defeat, and such evils as are

endured by all who are vanquished and compelled to flee before the

victorious sword [of the enemy]: “For the stars of heaven, and the

constellations thereof, shall not give their light: the sun is darkened

in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine”

(xiii. 10); again, “Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth

shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and

in the day of his fierce anger” (xiii. 13). I do not think that any

person is so foolish and blind, and so much in favour of the literal

sense of figurative and oratorical phrases, as to assume that at the

fall of the Babylonian kingdom a change took place in the nature of the

stars of heaven, or in the light of the sun and moon, or that the earth

moved away from its centre. For all this is merely the description of a

country that has been defeated; the inhabitants undoubtedly find all

light dark, and all sweet things bitter: the whole earth appears too

narrow for them, and the heavens are changed in their eyes. He speaks

in a similar manner when he describes the poverty and humiliation of

the people of Israel, their captivity and their defeat, the continuous

misfortunes caused by the wicked Sennacherib when he ruled over all the

fortified places of Judah, or the loss of the entire land of Israel

when it came into the possession of Sennacherib. He says (xxiv. 17):

“Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of the

earth. And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of

the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh out of the midst

of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high

are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake. The earth is

utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved

exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard.” At the

end of the same prophecy, when Isaiah describes how God will punish

Sennacherib, destroy his mighty empire, and reduce him to disgrace, he

uses the following figure (xxiv. 23): “Then the moon shall be

confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign,”

etc. This verse is beautifully explained by Jonathan, the son of

Uzziel; he says that when Sennacherib will meet with his fate because

of Jerusalem, the idolaters will understand that this is the work of

God; they will faint and be confounded. He therefore translates the

verse thus: “Those who worship the moon will be ashamed, and those who

bow down to the sun will be humbled, when the kingdom of God shall

reveal itself,” etc. The prophet then pictures the peace of the

children of Israel after the death of Sennacherib, the fertility and

the cultivation of their land, and the increasing power of their

kingdom through Hezekiah. He employs here the figure of the increase of

the light of the sun and moon. When speaking of the defeated, he says

that for them the light of the sun and moon will be diminished and

darkened; in the same sense their light is said to increase for the

victorious. We can frequently notice the correctness of this figure of

speech. When great troubles befall us, our eyes become dim, and we

cannot see clearly because the spiritus visus is made turbid by the

prevailing vapours, and is weakened and diminished by great anxiety and

straits of the soul; whilst in a state of gladness and comfort of the

soul the spiritus visus becomes clear, and man feels as if the light

had increased. Thus the good tidings that the people shall dwell in

Zion, and in Jerusalem, and shall weep no more, etc., conclude in the

following manner: “Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the

light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the

light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breaches

of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound” (Isa. xxx. 19,

26); that is to say, when God will raise them up again after they had

fallen through the wicked Sennacherib. The phrase “as the light of

seven days” signifies, according to the commentators, “very great

light”: for in this same sense the number “seven” is frequently used in

Hebrew. I think that reference is made by this phrase to the seven days

of the dedication of the temple in the reign of Solomon; for there was

never a nation so great, prosperous, and happy in every respect, as

Israel was at that time, and therefore the prophet says, that Israel’s

greatness and happiness will be the same as it was in those seven days.

Speaking of wicked Edom, Israel’s oppressor, Isaiah says: “Their slain

also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their

carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all

the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled

together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as a leaf

falleth off from the vine, and as a fig falleth from the fig-tree. For

my sword shall be bathed in heaven; behold, I shall come down upon

Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment,” etc. (Isa.

xxxiv. 3–5). Will any person who has eyes to see find in these verses

any expression that is obscure, or that might lead him to think that

they contain an account of what will befall the heavens? or anything

but a figurative description of the ruin of the Edomites, the

withdrawal of God’s protection from them, their decline, and the sudden

and rapid fall of their nobles? The prophet means to say that the

individuals, who were like stars as regards their permanent, high, and

undisturbed position, will quickly come down, as a leaf falleth from

the vine, and as a fig falling from the fig-tree. This is self-evident;

and there would be no need to mention it, much less to speak on it at

length, had it not become necessary, owing to the fact that the common

people, and even persons who are considered as distinguished scholars,

quote this passage without regarding its context or its purpose, [in

support of their view of the future destruction of the heavens]. They

believe that Scripture describes here what will, in future, happen to

the heavens, in the same manner as it informs us how the heavens have

come into existence. Again, when Isaiah told the Israelites—what

afterwards became a well-known fact—that Sennacherib, with his allied

nations and kings, would perish, and that the Israelites would be

helped by God alone, he employed figurative language, and said: “See

how the heavens decay and the earth withers away, and all beings on the

earth die, and you are saved”; that is to say, those who have filled

the earth, and have been considered, to use an hyperbole, as permanent

and stable as the heavens, will quickly perish and disappear like

smoke; and their famous power, that has been as stable as the earth,

will be destroyed like a garment. The passage to which I refer begins:

“For the Lord hath comforted Zion; He hath comforted all her waste

places,” etc. “Hearken unto me, my people,” etc. “My righteousness is

near: my salvation is gone forth,” etc. It continues thus: “Lift up

your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath; for the

heavens shall vanish like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a

garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; for my

salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be

abolished” (Isa. li. 3–6). The restoration of the kingdom of Israel,

its stability and permanence, is described as a creation of heaven and

earth. For Isaiah frequently speaks of the land of a king as if it were

the whole Universe, as if heaven and earth belonged to him. He

therefore comforts Israel and says: “I, even I, am he that comforteth

you,” etc. “And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered

thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay

the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people”

(li. 12–16). In the following verses, Isaiah declares that the dominion

of Israel will continue, whilst that of the renowned and mighty people

will cease: “For the mountains shall depart,” etc. (liv. 10). In order

to express that the kingdom of the Messiah will be permanent, and that

the kingdom of Israel will not be destroyed any more, he says, “Thy sun

shall no more go down,” etc. (lx. 20). In metaphors like these, which

are intelligible to those who understand the context, Isaiah continues

to describe the details of the exile, the restoration, and the removal

of all sorrow, and says figuratively as follows: “I will create new

heavens and a new earth; for the first shall be forgotten, and their

memory shall be blotted out.” He explains this in the course of the

speech, by pointing out that by the phrase, “I will create,” he means

that God will give them perpetual gladness and joy in place of the

previous grief and mourning, which shall no longer be remembered. I

will now describe the sequence of the ideas, and the order of the

verses in which these ideas are contained. The prophet begins as

follows: “I will mention the loving-kindnesses of the Lord,” etc.

(lxiii. 7). He then gives (1) an account of God’s past kindness to us,

concluding with the words, “And he bare them and carried them all the

days of old” (ver. 9). (2) Next follows our rebellion: “But they

rebelled, and vexed his holy spirit,” etc. (ver. 10); (3) the dominion

of our enemies over us: “Our adversaries have trodden down thy

sanctuary; we are like those over whom thou hast never ruled,” etc.

(vers. 18, 19); (4) and the prophet’s prayer on our account: “Be not

wroth very sore,” etc. (lxiv. 9). (5) The prophet then describes how we

deserved these punishments, and how we were called to the truth but did

not respond: “I offered myself to be sought of them that asked not for

me,” etc. (lxv. 1); (6) promises mercy and pardon: “Thus saith the

Lord, As the new wine is found in the cluster,” etc. (ver. 8); (7)

predicts evil for our oppressors: “Behold, my servant shall eat, but ye

shall be hungry,” etc. (ver. 13); (8) and moral improvement of our

nation to such a degree that we shall be a blessing on the earth, and

the previous troubles will be forgotten: “And he shall call his

servants by another name: that he who blesseth himself in the earth,

shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the

earth, shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are

forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. For, behold, I

create new heavens, and a new earth: and the former shall not be

remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in

that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and

her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my

people,” etc. (lxv. 15–19). The whole subject must now be clear and

evident; for the words, “I create new heavens, and a new earth,” etc.,

are followed by the explanation, “I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and

her people a joy,” etc. The prophet then adds that the seed and name of

Israel will be as permanent as their faith and as the rejoicing in it,

which God promised to create and to spread over the whole earth: for

faith in God and rejoicing in it are two possessions which, once

obtained, are never lost or changed. This is expressed in the words:

“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, remain

before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain”

(lxvi. 22). But of other nations, in some instances, the seed remains,

whilst the name has perished; so, e.g., many people are of the seed of

the Persians or Greeks, without being known by that special name; they

bear the names of other nations, of which they form part. According to

my opinion, we have here a prophecy that our religion, which gives us

our special name, will remain permanently.

As these figures are frequent in Isaiah, I explained all of them. But

we meet with them also in the words of other prophets. Jeremiah, in

describing the destruction of Jerusalem in consequence of our sins,

says (iv. 23): “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and

void,” etc. Ezekiel (xxxii. 7, 8) foretells the destruction of the

kingdom of Egypt, and the death of Pharaoh, through Nebuchadnezzar, in

the following words: “And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the

heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a

cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of

heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land,

saith the Lord.” Joel, the son of Pethuel (ii. 10), describes the

multitude of locusts that came in his days as follows: “The earth shall

quake before them: the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon

shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.” Amos (viii.

9, 10), speaking of the destruction of Samaria, says: “I will cause the

sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day;

and I will turn your feasts,” etc. Micah (i. 3, 4), in relating the

fall of Samaria, uses the following well-known rhetorical figures:

“For, behold, the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come

down, and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains

shall be molten,” etc. Similarly Haggai (ii. 6, 7), in describing the

destruction of the kingdom of the Medes and Persians: “I will shake the

heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake

all nations,” etc. When [David] (Ps. lx. 4) describes how, during the

expedition of Joab against the Edomites, the nation was low and weak,

and how he prayed to God for His assistance, he says: “Thou hast made

the earth to tremble; thou hast broken it: heal the breaches thereof;

for it shaketh.” In another instance he expresses the idea that we need

not fear when we see other nations die and perish, because we rely on

God’s support, and not on our sword and strength, in accordance with

the words: “A people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help” (Deut.

xxxiii. 29); he says (Ps. xlvi. 2): “Therefore will we not fear, though

the earth be removed, and though the mountains be shaken in the midst

of the sea.”

The following figurative language is employed in Scripture in referring

to the death of the Egyptians in the Red Sea: “The waters saw thee;

they were afraid: the depths also were troubled, etc. The voice of thy

thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world; the

earth trembled and shook” (Ps. lxxvii. 17–19). “Was the Lord displeased

against the rivers?” etc. (Hab. iii. 8). “There went up a smoke out of

his nostrils,” etc. (Ps. xviii. 9). “The earth trembled,” etc. (Judges

v. 4, in the Song of Deborah). There are many other instances; but

those which I have not quoted can be explained in accordance with those

which I have cited.

Let us now consider the words of Joel (iii. 3–5): “And I will show

wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood and fire, and pillars of

smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,

before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come

to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be

delivered, for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance,”

etc. I refer them to the defeat of Sennacherib near Jerusalem; but they

may be taken as an account of the defeat of Gog and Magog near

Jerusalem in the days of the Messiah, if this appears preferable,

although nothing is mentioned in this passage but great slaughter,

destruction, fire, and the diminution of the light of the two

luminaries. You may perhaps object: How can the day of the fall of

Sennacherib, according to our explanation, be called “the great and the

terrible day of the Lord?” But you must know that a day of great

salvation or of great distress is called “the great and terrible day of

the Lord.” Thus Joel (ii. 11) says of the day on which the locusts came

over the land, “For the day of the Lord is great and terrible, and who

can abide it?”

Our opinion, in support of which we have quoted these passages, is

clearly established, namely, that no prophet or sage has ever announced

the destruction of the Universe, or a change of its present condition,

or a permanent change of any of its properties. When our Sages say,

“The world remains six thousand years, and one thousand years it will

be waste,” they do not mean a complete cessation of existing things;

the phrase “one thousand years it will be waste” distinctly shows that

time will continue; besides, this is the individual opinion of one

Rabbi, and in accordance with one particular theory. But on the other

hand the words, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles. i. 9), in

the sense that no new creation takes place in any way and under any

circumstances, express the general opinion of our Sages, and include a

principle which every one of the doctors of the Mishnah and the Talmud

recognises and makes use of in his arguments. Even those who understand

the words “new heavens and a new earth” in their literal sense hold

that the heavens, which will in future be formed, have already been

created and are in existence, and that for this reason the present

tense “remain” is used, and not the future “will remain.” They support

their view by citing the text, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Do

not imagine that this is opposed to our opinion. They mean, perhaps, to

say that the natural laws, by which the promised future condition of

Israel will be effected, have been in existence since the days of the

Creation, and in that they are perfectly correct. When I, however, said

that no prophet ever announced “a permanent change of any of its

properties,” I intended to except miracles. For although the rod was

turned into a serpent, the water into blood, the pure and noble hand

into a leprous one, without the existence of any natural cause that

could effect these or similar phenomena, these changes were not

permanent, they have not become a physical property. On the contrary,

the Universe since continues its regular course. This is my opinion;

this should be our belief. Our Sages, however, said very strange things

as regards miracles; they are found in Bereshit Rabba, and in Midrash

Koheleth, namely, that the miracles are to some extent also natural;

for they say, when God created the Universe with its present physical

properties, He made it part of these properties, that they should

produce certain miracles at certain times, and the sign of a prophet

consisted in the fact that God told him to declare when a certain thing

will take place, but the thing itself was effected according to the

fixed laws of Nature. If this is really the meaning of the passage

referred to, it testifies to the greatness of the author, and shows

that he held it to be impossible that there should be a change in the

laws of Nature, or a change in the will of God [as regards the physical

properties of things] after they have once been established. He

therefore assumes, e.g., that God gave the waters the property of

joining together, and of flowing in a downward direction, and of

separating only at the time when the Egyptians were drowned, and only

in a particular place. I have already pointed out to you the source of

this passage, and it only tends to oppose the hypothesis of a new

creation. It is said there: R. Jonathan said, God made an agreement

with the sea that it should divide before the Israelites; thus it is

said, “And the sea returned to its strength when the morning appeared”

(Exod. xiv. 27). R. Jeremiah, son of Elazar, said: Not only with the

sea, but with all that has been created in the six days of the

beginning [was the agreement made]; this is referred to in the words,

“I, even my hands have stretched out the heavens, and all their host

have I commanded” (Isa. xlv. 12); i.e., I have commanded the sea to

divide, the fire not to hurt Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, the lions

not to harm Daniel, and the fish to spit out Jonah. The same is the

case with the rest of the miracles.

We have thus clearly stated and explained our opinion, that we agree

with Aristotle in one half of his theory. For we believe that this

Universe remains perpetually with the same properties with which the

Creator has endowed it, and that none of these will ever be changed

except by way of miracle in some individual instances, although the

Creator has the power to change the whole Universe, to annihilate it,

or to remove any of its properties. The Universe, had, however, a

beginning and commencement, for when nothing was as yet in existence

except God, His wisdom decreed that the Universe be brought into

existence at a certain time, that it should not be annihilated or

changed as regards any of its properties, except in some instances;

some of these are known to us, whilst others belong to the future, and

are therefore unknown to us. This is our opinion and the basis of our

religion. The opinion of Aristotle is that the Universe, being

permanent and indestructible, is also eternal and without beginning. We

have already shown that this theory is based on the hypothesis that the

Universe is the necessary result of causal relation, and that this

hypothesis includes a certain amount of blasphemy. Having come thus far

we will make in the next chapter a few remarks on passages in the first

chapters of Genesis. For the primary object in this treatise has been

to expound as much as possible of the Scriptural account of the

Creation (maʻaseh bereshit), and the description of the heavenly

chariot (maʻaseh mercabah). But let us premise two general

observations.

First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is

generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal. For if

this were the case, wise men would not have kept its explanation

secret, and our Sages would not have employed figurative speech [in

treating of the Creation] in order to hide its true meaning, nor would

they have objected to discuss it in the presence of the common people.

The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt

ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even entirely to abandon

and reject the principles of our Faith. It is therefore right to

abstain and refrain from examining this subject superficially and

unscientifically. We must blame the practice of some ignorant preachers

and expounders of the Bible, who think that wisdom consists in knowing

the explanation of words, and that greater perfection is attained by

employing more words and longer speech. It is, however, right that we

should examine the Scriptural texts by the intellect, after having

acquired a knowledge of demonstrative science, and of the true hidden

meaning of prophecies. But if one has obtained some knowledge in this

matter he must not preach on it, as I stated in my Commentary on the

Mishnah (Ḥagigah, ii. 7), and our Sages said distinctly: From the

beginning of the book to this place—after the account of the sixth day

of the Creation—it is “the glory of God to conceal a thing” (Prov. xxv.

2).

We have thus clearly stated our opinion. It is, however, part of the

Divine plan that every one who has obtained some perfection transmit it

to some other persons, as will be shown in the chapter on Prophecy. It

is, therefore, impossible for a scholar to possess knowledge of these

problems, whether it be through his own researches or through his

master’s teaching, without communicating part of that knowledge to

others; it cannot be done in clear words; it must be done sparingly by

way of hints. We find in the words of some of our Sages numerous hints

and notes of this kind, but mixed up with the words of others and with

other subjects. In treating of these mysteries, as a rule, I quote as

much as contains the principal idea, and leave the rest for those who

are worthy of it.

Secondly, the prophets employ homonymous terms and use words which are

not meant to be understood in their ordinary signification, but are

only used because of some other meaning which they admit, e.g., “a rod

of an almond-tree (shaked),” because of the words which follow, “for I

will hasten (shaked)” (Jer. i. 11, 12), as will be shown in the chapter

on Prophecy. According to the same principle Ezekiel in the account of

the Divine Chariot employs, as we have stated the term ḥashmal (Ezek.

i. 4); also regel egel (v. 7), neḥoshet kalal (v. 7), and similar

terms; Zechariah (vi. 1) likewise adopts this method, and says: “And

the mountains were mountains of neḥoshet (brass),” and the like.

After these two remarks I will proceed to the chapter which I have

promised.

CHAPTER XXX

There is a difference between first and beginning (or principle). The

latter exists in the thing of which it is the beginning, or co-exists

with it; it need not precede it; e.g., the heart is the beginning of

the living being; the element is the beginning of that of which it is

the basis. The term “first” is likewise applied to things of this kind;

but is also employed in cases where precedence in time alone is to be

expressed, and the thing which precedes is not the beginning (or the

cause) of the thing that follows. E.g., we say A. was the first

inhabitant of this house, after him came B; this does not imply that A

is the cause of B inhabiting the house. In Hebrew, teḥillah is used in

the sense of “first”; e.g., when God first (teḥillat) spake to Hosea

(Hos. i. 1), and the “beginning” is expressed by reshith, derived from

rosh, “head,” the principal part of the living being as regards

position. The Universe has not been created out of an element that

preceded it in time, since time itself formed part of the Creation. For

this reason Scripture employs the term “bereshit” (in a principle), in

which the beth is a preposition denoting “in.” The true explanation of

the first verse of Genesis is as follows: “In [creating] a principle

God created the beings above and the things below.” This explanation is

in accordance with the theory of the Creation. We find that some of our

Sages are reported to have held the opinion that time existed before

the Creation. But this report is very doubtful, because the theory that

time cannot be imagined with a beginning, has been taught by Aristotle,

as I showed you, and is objectionable. Those who have made this

assertion have been led to it by a saying of one of our Sages in

reference to the terms “one day,” “a second day.” Taking these terms

literally, the author of that saying asked, What determined “the first

day,” since there was no rotating sphere, and no sun? and continues as

follows: Scripture uses the term “one day”; R. Jehudah, son of R.

Simon, said: “Hence we learn that the divisions of time have existed

previously.” R. Abahu said, “Hence we learn that God built worlds and

again destroyed them.” This latter exposition is still worse than the

former. Consider the difficulty which these two Rabbis found in the

statement that time existed before the creation of the sun. We shall

undoubtedly soon remove this difficulty, unless these two Rabbis

intended to infer from the Scriptural text that the divisions of time

must have existed before the Creation, and thus adopted the theory of

the Eternity of the Universe. But every religious man rejects this. The

above saying is, in my opinion, certainly of the same character as that

of R. Eliezer, “Whence were the heavens created,” etc., (chap. xxvi.).

In short, in these questions, do not take notice of the utterances of

any person. I told you that the foundation of our faith is the belief

that God created the Universe from nothing; that time did not exist

previously, but was created; for it depends on the motion of the

sphere, and the sphere has been created.

You must know that the particle et in the phrase et ha-shamayim ve-et

ha-areẓ (“the heavens and the earth”) signifies “together with”; our

Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances.

Accordingly they assume that God created with the heavens everything

that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the earth

includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the

heavens and the earth is implied in the words, “I call unto them, they

stand up together” (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently, all things were created

together, but were separated from each other successively. Our Sages

illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the

same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some

after three days, although all have been sown at the same time.

According to this interpretation, which is undoubtedly correct, the

difficulty is removed, which led R. Jehudah, son of R. Simon, to utter

the above saying, and consisted in the doubt as to the thing by which

the first day, the second, and the third were determined. In Bereshit

Rabba, our Sages, speaking of the light created on the first day

according to the Scriptural account, say as follows: these lights [of

the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the

same that were created on the first day, but were only fixed in their

places on the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse] has thus

been clearly stated.

We must further consider that the term ereẓ is a homonym, and is used

in a general and a particular sense. It has a more general

signification when used of everything within the sphere of the moon,

i.e., of all the four elements; and is used in particular of one of

them, of the lowest, viz., earth. This is evident from the passage:

“And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the

surface of the deep. And the wind of God moved upon the face of the

waters.” The term “earth” [mentioned here, and in the first verse]

includes all the four elements, whilst further on it is said, “And God

called the dry land Earth” (Gen. i. 10).

It is also important to notice that the words, “And God called a

certain thing a certain name,” are invariably intended to distinguish

one thing from others which are called by the same common noun. I

explain, therefore, the first verse in Genesis thus: In creating the

principle God created the things above and those below. Ereẓ in this

verse denotes “the things below,” or “the four elements,” and in the

verse, “And God called the dry land Earth” (ereẓ), it signifies the

element earth. This subject is now made clear.

The four elements indicated, according to our explanation, in the term

ereẓ “earth,” in the first verse, are mentioned first after the

heavens; for there are named ereẓ (earth), ruaḥ (air), mayim (water),

and ḥoshek (fire). By ḥoshek the element fire is meant, nothing else;

comp. “And thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire” (Deut.

iv. 36); and, “When ye heard the voice out of the midst of the ḥoshek”

(darkness) (ibid. v. 2); again, “All ḥoshek (darkness) shall be hid in

his secret places: a fire not blown shall consume him” (Job xx. 26).

The element fire is called ḥoshek because it is not luminous, it is

only transparent; for if it were luminous we should see at night the

whole atmosphere in flames. The order of the four elements, according

to the natural position is here described; namely, first earth, above

it water, air close to water, and fire above air; for by placing air

over water, ḥoshek (fire), which is “upon the face of the deep,” is

undoubtedly above air. It was here necessary to use the term ruaḥ

elohim, because air is described here as in motion (meraḥefet), and the

motion of the air is, as a rule, ascribed to God; comp. “And there went

forth a wind from the Lord” (Num. xi. 31); “Thou didst blow with thy

wind” (Exod. xv. 10); “And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind”

(ibid. x. 19), and the like. As the first ḥoshek, which denotes the

element fire, is different from the ḥoshek mentioned further on in the

sense of “darkness,” the latter is explained and distinguished from the

former, according to our explanation, in the words, “And darkness he

called Night.” This is now clear.

The phrase, “And he divided between the waters,” etc., does not

describe a division in space, as if the one part were merely above the

other, whilst the nature of both remained the same, but a distinction

as regards their nature or form. One portion of that which was first

called water was made one thing by certain properties it received, and

another portion received a different form, and this latter portion is

that which is commonly called water and of this it is said, “And the

gathering of the waters he called Seas.” Scripture even indicates that

the first mayim (“water”) in the phrase, “On the face of the waters,”

does not refer to the waters which form the seas; and that part of the

element “water,” having received a particular form, and being above the

air, is distinguished from the other part which has received the form

of ordinary water. For the words, “And he divided between the waters

which are beneath the firmament and the waters which are above the

firmament,” are similar in meaning to the phrase, “And God divided

between the light and the darkness,” and refer to a distinction by a

separate form. The firmament itself was formed of water; and in the

words of our Sages (Bereshit Rabba; cap. iv.), “The middle drop

congealed and formed the heavens.”

Here likewise Scripture says, in accordance with what I said above,

“And God called the firmament Heaven” (Gen. i. 8), in order to explain

the homonymity of the term shamayim (heaven), and to show that shamayim

in the first verse is not the firmament which is also called shamayim

(heaven). The difference is more clearly expressed in the words, “In

the open firmament of heaven” (ibid. i. 20); here it is shown that

“firmament” (rakiʻa), and “heaven” (shamayim), are two different

things. In consequence of this homonymity of the term shamayim the term

rakiʻa (firmament) is also used of the true heaven, just as the real

firmament is sometimes called shamayim (heaven); comp. “And God set

them in the rakiʻa (firmament) of the heaven” (ibid. i. 17).

This verse shows clearly that the stars, the sun, and the moon are not,

as people believe, on the surface of the spheres, but they are fixed in

the spheres, and this has been proved satisfactorily, there being no

vacuum in the Universe; for it is said, “in the firmament of the

heaven,” and not “upon the firmament of the heaven.”

It is therefore clear that there has been one common element called

water, which has been afterwards distinguished by three different

forms; one part forms the seas, another the firmament, and a third part

is over the firmament, and all this is separate from the earth. The

Scriptural text follows here a peculiar method in order to indicate

some extraordinary mysteries. It has also been declared by our Sages

that the portion above the firmament is only water by name, not in

reality, for they say (Babyl. Talmud, Ḥagigah 14b) “Four entered the

paradise,” etc. R. Akiba said to them, “When you come to the stores of

pure marble, do not say, Water, water, for it is written, ‘He that

telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight’” (Ps. ci. 7). Consider, if

you belong to the class of thinking men, how clearly and distinctly

this passage explains the subject for those who reflect on it!

Understand that which has been proved by Aristotle in his book On

Meteorology, and note whatever men of science have said on

meteorological matters.

It is necessary to inquire into the reason why the declaration “that it

was good” is not found in the account of the second day of the

Creation. The various Midrashic sayings of our Sages on this point are

well known; the best of them is the explanation that the creation of

the water was not completed on that day. According to my opinion the

reason is likewise clear, and is as follows: When the creation of any

part of the Universe is described that is permanent, regular, and in a

settled order, the phrase “that it is good” is used. But the account of

the firmament, with that which is above it and is called water, is, as

you see, of a very mysterious character. For if taken literally the

firmament would appear at first thought to be merely an imaginary

thing, as there is no other substance but the elements between us and

the lowest of the heavenly spheres, and there is no water above the

air; and if the firmament, with that which is over it, be supposed to

be above the heavens, it would a fortiori seem to be unreal and

uncomprehensible. But if the account be understood in a figurative

sense and according to its true meaning, it is still more mysterious,

since it was considered necessary to make this one of the most hidden

secrets, in order to prevent the multitude from knowing it. This being

the case, how could it be said [of the creation of the second day]

“that it was good”? This phrase would tell us that it is perfectly

clear what share the thing to which it refers takes in the permanent

existence of the Universe. But what good can people find in a thing

whose real nature is hidden, and whose apparent nature is not real?

Why, therefore, should it be said in reference to it, “that it was

good”? I must, however, give the following additional explanation.

Although the result of the second day’s creation forms an important

element among the existing things, the firmament was not its primary

object in the organization of the Universe, and therefore it could not

be said “that it was good”; it was only the means for the uncovering of

the earth. Note this. Our Sages have already explained that the herbs

and trees, which God caused to spring forth from the ground, were

caused by God to grow, after He had sent down rain upon them; and the

passage beginning, “And there went up a mist from the earth” (ii. 6),

refers to that which took place before the creative act, related in the

words, “Let the earth bring forth grass,” etc. (i. ii.). Therefore

Onkelos translates it: “And there had gone up a mist from the earth.”

It is also evident from the text itself, where it is distinctly said,

“And every plant in the field before it was in the earth,” etc. (ii.

5). This question is now explained.

It is well known to every philosopher that the principal causes of

production and destruction, after the influence of the spheres, are

light and darkness, in so far as these are accompanied by heat and

cold. For by the motion of the spheres the elements intermix, and by

light and darkness their constitution changes. The first change

consists in the formation of two kinds of mist; these are the first

causes of meteorological phenomena, such as rain; they also caused the

formation of minerals, of plants, of animals, and at last of man. It is

likewise known that darkness is the natural property of all things on

earth; in them light is accidental, coming from an external cause, and

therefore everything remains in a state of rest in the absence of

light. The Scriptural account of the Creation follows in every respect

exactly the same order, without any deviation.

Note also the saying of our Sages: “When the Universe was created, all

things were created with size, intellect, and beauty fully developed,

i.e., everything was created perfect in magnitude and form, and endowed

with the most suitable properties; the word ẓibyonam (their beauty)

used here has the same meaning as ẓebi, ‘glory’” (Ezek. xx. 6). Note

this likewise, for it includes a principle fully established.

The following point now claims our attention. The account of the six

days of creation contains, in reference to the creation of man, the

statement: “Male and female created he them” (i. 27), and concludes

with the words: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all

the host of them” (ii. 1), and yet the portion which follows describes

the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of

knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected

therewith, and all this as having taken place after Adam had been

placed in the Garden of Eden. All our Sages agree that this took place

on the sixth day, and that nothing new was created after the close of

the six days. None of the things mentioned above is therefore

impossible, because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently

fixed. There are, however, some utterances of our Sages on this subject

[which apparently imply a different view]. I will gather them from

their different sources and place them before you, and I will refer

also to certain things by mere hints, just as has been done by the

Sages. You must know that their words, which I am about to quote, are

most perfect, most accurate, and clear to those for whom they were

said. I will therefore not add long explanations, lest I make their

statements plain, and I might thus become “a revealer of secrets,” but

I will give them in a certain order, accompanied with a few remarks,

which will suffice for readers like you.

One of these utterances is this: “Adam and Eve were at first created as

one being, having their backs united; they were then separated, and one

half was removed and brought before Adam as Eve.” The term mi-ẓalʻotav

(lit. “of his ribs”) signifies “of his sides.” The meaning of the word

is proved by referring to ẓelʻa, “the side” of the tabernacle (Exod.

xxvi. 20), which Onkelos renders setar (“side”), and so also

mi-ẓalʻotav is rendered by him “mi-sitrohi” (of his sides). Note also

how clearly it has been stated that Adam and Eve were two in some

respects, and yet they remained one, according to the words, “Bone of

my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. ii. 23). The unity of the two is

proved by the fact that both have the same name, for she is called

ishshah (woman), because she was taken out of ish (man), also by the

words, “And shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh”

(ii. 24). How great is the ignorance of those who do not see that all

this necessarily includes some [other] idea [besides the literal

meaning of the words]. This is now clear.

Another noteworthy Midrashic remark of our Sages is the following: “The

serpent had a rider, the rider was as big as a camel, and it was the

rider that enticed Eve; this rider was Samaël.” Samaël is the name

generally applied by our Sages to Satan. Thus they say in several

places that Satan desired to entice Abraham to sin, and to abstain from

binding Isaac, and he desired also to persuade Isaac not to obey his

father. At the same time they also say, in reference to the same

subject, viz., the Akedah (“the binding of Isaac”), that Samaël came to

Abraham and said to him, “What! hast thou, being an old man, lost thy

senses?” etc. This shows that Samaël and Satan are identical. There is

a meaning in this name [Samaël], as there is also in the name naḥash

(“serpent”). In describing how the serpent came to entice Eve, our

Sages say: “Samaël was riding on it, and God was laughing at both the

camel and its rider.” It is especially of importance to notice that the

serpent did not approach or address Adam, but all his attempts were

directed against Eve, and it was through her that the serpent caused

injury and death to Adam. The greatest hatred exists between the

serpent and Eve, and between his seed and her seed; her seed being

undoubtedly also the seed of man. More remarkable still is the way in

which the serpent is joined to Eve, or rather his seed to her seed; the

head of the one touches the heel of the other. Eve defeats the serpent

by crushing its head, whilst the serpent defeats her by wounding her

heel. This is likewise clear.

The following is also a remarkable passage, most absurd in its literal

sense; but as an allegory it contains wonderful wisdom, and fully

agrees with real facts, as will be found by those who understand all

the chapters of this treatise. When the serpent came to Eve he infected

her with poison; the Israelites, who stood at Mount Sinai, removed that

poison; idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, have not got rid

of it. Note this likewise. Again they said: “The tree of life extends

over an area of five hundred years’ journey, and it is from beneath it

that all the waters of the creation sprang forth”; and they added the

explanation that this measure referred to the thickness of its body,

and not to the extent of its branches, for they continue thus: “Not the

extent of the branches thereof, but the stem thereof [korato, lit.,

‘its beam,’ signifying here ‘its stem’] has a thickness of five hundred

years’ journey.” This is now sufficiently clear. Again: “God has never

shown the tree of knowledge [of good and evil] to man, nor will He ever

show it.” This is correct, for it must be so according to the nature of

the Universe. Another noteworthy saying is this: “And the Lord God took

the man, i.e., raised him, and placed him in the Garden of Eden,” i.e.,

He gave him rest. The words “He took him,” “He gave him,” have no

reference to position in space, but they indicate his position in rank

among transient beings, and the prominent character of his existence.

Remarkable and noteworthy is the great wisdom contained in the names of

Adam, Cain, and Abel, and in the fact that it was Cain who slew Abel in

the field, that both of them perished, although the murderer had some

respite, and that the existence of mankind is due to Seth alone. Comp.

“For God has appointed me another seed” (iv. 25). This has proved true.

It is also necessary to understand and consider the words, “And Adam

gave names” (ii. 20); here it is indicated that languages are

conventional, and that they are not natural, as has been assumed by

some. We must also consider the four different terms employed in

expressing the relations of the heavens to God, bore (Creator), ʻoseh

(Maker), koneh (Possessor), and el (God). Comp. “God created the heaven

and the earth” (i. 1); “In the day that God made the earth and the

heavens” (ii. 4); “Possessor of heaven and earth” (xiv. 19); “God of

the Universe” (xxi. 31); “The God of heaven and the God of the earth”

(xxiv. 3). As to the verbs, konen, “he established,” tafaḥ, “he

spanned,” and natah, “he stretched out,” occurring in the following

passages, “Which thou hast established” (Ps. viii. 4), “My right hand

hath spanned the heavens” (Isa. xviii. 13), “Who stretchest out the

heavens” (Ps. civ. 2), they are included in the term ʻasah (“he made”);

the verb yaẓar, “he formed,” does not occur in reference to the

heavens. According to my opinion the verb yaẓar denotes to make a form,

a shape, or any other accident (for form and shape are likewise

accidents). It is therefore said, yoẓer or, “Who formeth the light”

(Isa. xiv. 7), light being an accident; yoẓer harim, “That formeth the

mountains” (Amos iv. 13), i.e., that gave them their shape. In the same

sense the verb is used in the passage, “And the Lord God formed

(va-yiẓer) all the beasts,” etc. (Gen. ii. 7). But in reference to the

Universe, viz., the heavens and the earth, which comprises the totality

of the Creation, Scripture employs the verb bara, which we explain as

denoting he produced something from nothing; also ʻasah (“he made”), on

account of the general forms or natural properties of the things which

were given to them; kanah, “he possessed,” because God rules over them

like a master over his servants. For this reason He is also called,

“The Lord of the whole earth” (Jos. iii. 11–13); ha-adon, “the Lord”

(Exod. xx., iii. 17). But although none can be a master unless there

exists something that is in his possession, this attribute cannot be

considered to imply the belief in the eternal existence of a materia

prima, since the verbs bara, “he created,” and ʻasah, “he made,” are

also employed in reference to the heavens. The Creator is called the

God of the heavens and the God of the Universe, on account of the

relations between Him and the heavens; He governs, and they are

governed; the word elohim does not signify “master” in the sense of

“owner”; it expresses the relation between His position in the totality

of existing beings, and the position of the heavens or the Universe; He

is God, not they, i.e., not the heavens. Note this.

This, together with those explanations which we have given, and which

we intend to give, in reference to this subject, may suffice,

considering the object of this treatise and the capacity of the reader.

CHAPTER XXXI

It is perhaps clear why the laws concerning Sabbath are so severe, that

their transgression is visited with death by stoning, and that the

greatest of the prophets put a person to death for breaking the

Sabbath. The commandment of the Sabbath is the third from the

commandment concerning the existence and the unity of God. For the

commandment not to worship any other being is merely an explanation of

the first. You know already from what I have said, that no opinions

retain their vitality except those which are confirmed, published, and

by certain actions constantly revived among the people. Therefore we

are told in the Law to honour this day; in order to confirm thereby the

principle of Creation which will spread in the world, when all peoples

keep Sabbath on the same day. For when the question is asked, why this

is done, the answer is given: “For in six days the Lord hath made,”

etc. (Exod. xx. 11). Two different reasons are given for this

commandment, because of two different objects. In the Decalogue in

Exodus, the following reason is given for distinguishing the Sabbath:

“For in six days,” etc. But in Deuteronomy (chap. v. 15) the reason is

given: “And thou shalt remember that thou hast been a slave in the land

of Egypt, etc., therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee,” etc. This

difference can easily be explained. In the former, the cause of the

honour and distinction of the day is given; comp. “Therefore the Lord

hath blessed the day of the Sabbath and sanctified it” (Exod. xx. 10),

and the cause for this is, “For in six days,” etc. But the fact that

God has given us the law of the Sabbath and commanded us to keep it, is

the consequence of our having been slaves; for then our work did not

depend on our will, nor could we choose the time for it; and we could

not rest. Thus God commanded us to abstain from work on the Sabbath,

and to rest, for two purposes; namely, (1) That we might confirm the

true theory, that of the Creation, which at once and clearly leads to

the theory of the existence of God. (2) That we might remember how kind

God has been in freeing us from the burden of the Egyptians.—The

Sabbath is therefore a double blessing: it gives us correct notions,

and also promotes the well-being of our bodies.

CHAPTER XXXII

There are as many different opinions concerning Prophecy as concerning

the Eternity or Non-Eternity of the Universe. For we have shown that

those who assume the existence of God as proved may be divided into

three classes, according to the view they take of the question, whether

the Universe is eternal or not. Similarly there are three different

opinions on Prophecy. I will not notice the view of the Atheist; he

does not believe in the Existence of God, much less in Prophecy; but I

will content myself with discussing the various opinions [on Prophecy]

held by those who believe in God.

1. Among those who believe in Prophecy, and even among our

coreligionists, there are some ignorant people who think as follows:

God selects any person He pleases, inspires him with the spirit of

Prophecy, and entrusts him with a mission. It makes no difference

whether that person be wise or stupid, old or young; provided he be, to

some extent, morally good. For these people have not yet gone so far as

to maintain that God might also inspire a wicked person with His

spirit. They admit that this is impossible, unless God has previously

caused him to improve his ways.

2. The philosophers hold that prophecy is a certain faculty of man in a

state of perfection, which can only be obtained by study. Although the

faculty is common to the whole race, yet it is not fully developed in

each individual, either on account of the individual’s defective

constitution, or on account of some other external cause. This is the

case with every faculty common to a class. It is only brought to a

state of perfection in some individuals, and not in all; but it is

impossible that it should not be perfect in some individual of the

class; and if the perfection is of such a nature that it can only be

produced by an agent, such an agent must exist. Accordingly, it is

impossible that an ignorant person should be a prophet; or that a

person being no prophet in the evening, should, unexpectedly on the

following morning, find himself a prophet, as if prophecy were a thing

that could be found unintentionally. But if a person, perfect in his

intellectual and moral faculties, and also perfect, as far as possible,

in his imaginative faculty, prepares himself in the manner which will

be described, he must become a prophet; for prophecy is a natural

faculty of man. It is impossible that a man who has the capacity for

prophecy should prepare himself for it without attaining it, just as it

is impossible that a person with a healthy constitution should be fed

well, and yet not properly assimilate his food; and the like.

3. The third view is that which is taught in Scripture, and which forms

one of the principles of our religion. It coincides with the opinion of

the philosophers in all points except one. For we believe that, even if

one has the capacity for prophecy, and has duly prepared himself, it

may yet happen that he does not actually prophesy. It is in that case

the will of God [that withholds from him the use of the faculty].

According to my opinion, this fact is as exceptional as any other

miracle, and acts in the same way. For the laws of Nature demand that

every one should be a prophet, who has a proper physical constitution,

and has been duly prepared as regards education and training. If such a

person is not a prophet, he is in the same position as a person who,

like Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii. 4), is deprived of the use of his hand, or

of his eyes, as was the case with the army of Syria, in the history of

Elisha (2 Kings vi. 18). As for the principle which I laid down, that

preparation and perfection of moral and rational faculties are the sine

quâ non, our Sages say exactly the same: “The spirit of prophecy only

rests upon persons who are wise, strong, and rich.” We have explained

these words in our Commentary on the Mishnah, and in our large work. We

stated there that the Sons of the Prophets were constantly engaged in

preparation. That those who have prepared themselves may still be

prevented from being prophets, may be inferred from the history of

Baruch, the son of Nerijah; for he followed Jeremiah, who prepared and

instructed him; and yet he hoped in vain for prophecy; comp., “I am

weary with my sighing, and rest have I not found.” He was then told

through Jeremiah, “Thus saith the Lord, Thus shalt thou say to him,

Thou seekest for thee great things, do not seek” (Jer. xlv. 5). It may

perhaps be assumed that prophecy is here described as a thing “too

great” for Baruch. So also the fact that “her prophets did not find

visions from the Lord” (Lam. ii. 4), may be considered as the result of

the exile of her prophets, as will be explained (chap. xxxvi.). There

are, however, numerous passages in Scripture as well as in the writings

of our Sages, which support the principle that it depends chiefly on

the will of God who is to prophesy, and at what time; and that He only

selects the best and the wisest. We hold that fools and ignorant people

are unfit for this distinction. It is as impossible for any one of

these to prophesy as it is for an ass or a frog; for prophecy is

impossible without study and training; when these have created the

possibility, then it depends on the will of God whether the possibility

is to be turned into reality. We must not be misled by the words of

Jeremiah (i. 5), “Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee, and

before thou camest forth from the womb I have sanctified thee”; for

this is the case with all prophets; there must be a physical

preparation from the beginning of their existence, as will be

explained. As to the words, “For I am young” (ibid. ver. 6), it is well

known that the pious Joseph, when he was thirty years old, is called by

the Hebrew “young” (naʻar); also Joshua, when he was nearly sixty years

old. For the statement, “and his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, was

young,” occurs in the account of the Golden Calf (Exod. xxxiii. 11).

Moses was then eighty-one years old, he lived one hundred and twenty

years; Joshua, who survived him fourteen years, lived one hundred and

ten years and must consequently have been at least fifty-seven years

old at the time when the Golden Calf was made, and yet he is called

naʻar, “young.” Nor must we be misled by prophecies like the following:

“I will pour out my spirit over all flesh, and your sons and your

daughters shall prophesy”; since it is distinctly stated what is meant

by “prophesy” in this place, viz., “Your old men will dream dreams,

your young men shall see visions.” For we call also prophets all those

who reveal something unknown by surmises, or conjectures, or correct

inferences. Thus “prophets of Baal” and “of Asherah” are mentioned in

Scripture. And God says, “If there arise among you a prophet or a

dreamer of dreams,” etc. (Deut. xiii. 1). As to the revelation on Mount

Sinai, all saw the great fire, and heard the fearful thunderings, that

caused such an extraordinary terror; but only those of them who were

duly qualified were prophetically inspired, each one according to his

capacities. Therefore it is said, “Come up unto the Lord, thou and

Aaron, Nadab and Abihu.” Moses rose to the highest degree of prophecy,

according to the words, “And Moses alone shall come near the Lord.”

Aaron was below him, Nadab and Abihu below Aaron, and the seventy

elders below Nadab and Abihu, and the rest below the latter, each one

according to his degree of perfection. Similarly our Sages wrote: Moses

had his own place and Aaron his own. Since we have touched upon the

revelation on Mount Sinai, we will point out in a separate chapter what

may be inferred as regards the nature of that event, both from the

Scriptural text, in accordance with reasonable interpretation, and from

the words of our Sages.

CHAPTER XXXIII

It is clear to me that what Moses experienced at the revelation on

Mount Sinai was different from that which was experienced by all the

other Israelites, for Moses alone was addressed by God, and for this

reason the second person singular is used in the Ten Commandments;

Moses then went down to the foot of the mount and told his fellow-men

what he had heard. Comp., “I stood between the Lord and you at that

time to tell you the word of the Lord” (Deut. v. 5). Again, “Moses

spake, and God answered him with a loud voice” (Exod. xix. 19). In the

Mechilta our Sages say distinctly that he brought to them every word as

he had heard it. Furthermore, the words, “In order that the people hear

when I speak with thee” (Exod. xix. 9), show that God spoke to Moses,

and the people only heard the mighty sound, not distinct words. It is

to the perception of this mighty sound that Scripture refers in the

passage, “When ye hear the sound” (Deut. v. 20); again it is stated,

“You heard a sound of words” (ibid. iv. 12), and it is not said “You

heard words”; and even where the hearing of the words is mentioned,

only the perception of the sound is meant. It was only Moses that heard

the words, and he reported them to the people. This is apparent from

Scripture, and from the utterances of our Sages in general. There is,

however, an opinion of our Sages frequently expressed in the Midrashim,

and found also in the Talmud, to this effect: The Israelites heard the

first and the second commandments from God, i.e., they learnt the truth

of the principles contained in these two commandments in the same

manner as Moses, and not through Moses. For these two principles, the

existence of God and His Unity, can be arrived at by means of

reasoning, and whatever can be established by proof is known by the

prophet in the same way as by any other person; he has no advantage in

this respect. These two principles were not known through prophecy

alone. Comp., “Thou hast been shown to know that,” etc. (Deut. iv. 34).

But the rest of the commandments are of an ethical and authoritative

character, and do not contain [truths] perceived by the intellect.

Notwithstanding all that has been said by our Sages on this subject, we

infer from Scripture as well as from the words of our Sages, that the

Israelites heard on that occasion a certain sound which Moses

understood to proclaim the first two commandments, and through Moses

all other Israelites learnt them when he in intelligible sounds

repeated them to the people. Our Sages mention this view, and support

it by the verse, “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this” (Ps.

lxii. 11). They state distinctly, in the beginning of Midrash Ḥazita,

that the Israelites did not hear any other command directly from God;

comp. “A loud voice, and it was not heard again” (Deut. v. 19). It was

after this first sound was heard that the people were seized with the

fear and terror described in Scripture, and that they said, “Behold the

Lord our God has shown us, etc., and now why shall we die, etc. Come

thou near,” etc. Then Moses, the most distinguished of all mankind,

came the second time, received successively the other commandments, and

came down to the foot of the mountain to proclaim them to the people,

whilst the mighty phenomena continued; they saw the fire, they heard

the sounds, which were those of thunder and lightning during a storm,

and the loud sound of the shofar; and all that is said of the many

sounds heard at that time, e.g., in the verse, “and all the people

perceived the sounds,” etc., refers to the sound of the shofar,

thunder, and similar sounds. But the voice of the Lord, that is, the

voice created for that purpose, which was understood to include the

diverse commandments, was only heard once, as is declared in the Law,

and has been clearly stated by our Sages in the places which I have

indicated to you. When the people heard this voice their soul left

them; and in this voice they perceived the first two commandments. It

must, however, be noticed that the people did not understand the voice

in the same degree as Moses did. I will point out to you this important

fact, and show you that it was a matter of tradition with the nation,

and well known by our Sages. For, as a rule, Onkelos renders the word

va-yedabber by u-mallel (“and God spake”); this is also the case with

this word in the beginning of the twentieth chapter of Exodus, but the

words ve-al yedabber immanu elohim, “let not God speak to us” (Exod.

xx. 19), addressed by the people to Moses, is rendered vela yitmallel

immanu min kodam adonai (“Let not aught be spoken to us by the Lord”).

Onkelos makes thus the same distinction which we made. You know that

according to the Talmud Onkelos received all these excellent

interpretations directly from R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, the wisest men

in Israel. Note it, and remember it, for it is impossible for any

person to expound the revelation on Mount Sinai more fully than our

Sages have done, since it is one of the secrets of the Law. It is very

difficult to have a true conception of the events, for there has never

been before, nor will there ever be again, anything like it. Note it.

CHAPTER XXXIV

The meaning of the Scriptural passage, “Behold I will send an angel

before thee,” etc. (Exod. xxiii. 20), is identical with the parallel

passage in Deuteronomy which God is represented to have addressed to

Moses at the revelation on Mount Sinai, namely, “I will raise them up a

prophet from among their brethren,” etc. (Deut. xviii. 18). The words,

“Beware of him, and obey his voice,” etc., said in reference to the

angel, prove [that this passage speaks of a prophet]. For there is no

doubt that the commandment is given to the ordinary people, to whom

angels do not appear with commandments and exhortations, and it is

therefore unnecessary to tell them not to disobey him. The meaning of

the passage quoted above is this: God informs the Israelites that He

will raise up for them a prophet, to whom an angel will appear in order

to speak to him, to command him, and to exhort him; he therefore

cautions them not to rebel against this angel, whose word the prophet

will communicate to them. Therefore it is expressly said in

Deuteronomy, “Unto him ye shall hearken” (Deut. xviii. 15); “And it

shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hearken unto my words which

he shall speak in my name,” etc. (ibid. 19). This is the explanation of

the words, “for my name is in him” (Exod. xxiv. 21). The object of all

this is to say to the Israelites, This great sight witnessed by you,

the revelation on Mount Sinai, will not continue for ever, nor will it

ever be repeated. Fire and cloud will not continually rest over the

tabernacle, as they are resting now on it; but the towns will be

conquered for you, peace will be secured for you in the land, and you

will be informed of what you have to do, by an angel whom I will send

to your prophets; he will thus teach you what to do, and what not to

do. Here a principle is laid down which I have constantly expounded,

viz., that all prophets except Moses receive the prophecy through an

angel. Note it.

CHAPTER XXXV

I have already described the four points in which the prophecy of Moses

our Teacher was distinguished from that of other prophets, in books

accessible to every one, in the Commentary on the Mishnah (Sanhedrin x.

1) and in Mishneh-torah (S. Maddʻa I. vii. 6); I have also adduced

evidence for my explanation, and shown the correctness thereof. I need

not repeat the subject here, nor is it included in the theme of this

work. For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers

exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and

after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in

this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly,

because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other

men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between

the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for

his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets.

That his prophecy was distinguished from that of all his predecessors

is proved by the passage, “And I appeared to Abraham, etc., but by my

name, the Lord, I was not known unto them” (Exod. vi. 3). We thus learn

that his prophetic perception was different from that of the

Patriarchs, and excelled it; a fortiori it must have excelled that of

other prophets before Moses. As to the distinction of Moses’ prophecy

from that of succeeding prophets, it is stated as a fact, “And there

arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew

face to face” (Deut. xxxiv. 10). It is thus clear that his prophetic

perception was above that of later prophets in Israel, who are “a

kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” and “in whose midst is the

Lord”; much more is it above that of prophets among other nations.

The general distinction between the wonders of Moses and those of other

prophets is this: The wonders wrought by prophets, or for them, are

witnessed by a few individuals, e.g., the wonders wrought by Elijah and

Elisha; the king of Israel is therefore surprised, and asked Gehazi to

describe to him the miracles wrought by Elisha: “Tell me, I pray thee,

all the great things that Elisha hath done. And it came to pass as he

was telling, etc. And Gehazi said: ‘My lord, O king, this is the woman,

and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life’” (2 Kings viii. 4,

5). The same is the case with the signs of every other prophet, except

Moses our Teacher. Scripture, therefore declares that no prophet will

ever, like Moses, do signs publicly in the presence of friend and

enemy, of his followers and his opponents; this is the meaning of the

words: “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,

etc., in all the signs and the wonders, etc., in the sight of all

Israel.” Two things are here mentioned together; namely, that there

will not arise a prophet that will perceive as Moses perceived, or a

prophet that will do as he did; then it is pointed out that the signs

were made in the presence of Pharaoh, all his servants and all his

land, the opponents of Moses, and also in the presence of all the

Israelites, his followers. Comp. “In the sight of all Israel.” This is

a distinction not possessed by any prophet before Moses; nor, as is

correctly foretold, will it ever be possessed by another prophet. We

must not be misled by the account that the light of the sun stood still

certain hours for Joshua, when “he said in the sight of Israel,” etc.

(Josh. x. 12); for it is not said there “in the sight of all Israel,”

as is said in reference to Moses. So also the miracle of Elijah, at

Mount Carmel, was witnessed only by a few people. When I said above

that the sun stood still certain hours, I explain the words “ka-jom

tamim” to mean “the longest possible day,” because tamim means

“perfect,” and indicates that that day appeared to the people at Gibeon

as their longest day in the summer. Your mind must comprehend the

distinction of the prophecy and the wonders of Moses, and understand

that his greatness in prophetic perception was the same as his power of

producing miracles. If you further assume that we are unable fully to

comprehend the nature of this greatness, you will understand that when

I speak, in the chapters which follow this, on prophecy and the

different classes of prophets, I only refer to the prophets which have

not attained the high degree that Moses attained. This is what I

desired to explain in this chapter.

CHAPTER XXXVI

Prophecy is, in truth and reality, an emanation sent forth by the

Divine Being through the medium of the Active Intellect, in the first

instance to man’s rational faculty, and then to his imaginative

faculty; it is the highest degree and greatest perfection man can

attain; it consists in the most perfect development of the imaginative

faculty. Prophecy is a faculty that cannot in any way be found in a

person, or acquired by man, through a culture of his mental and moral

faculties; for even if these latter were as good and perfect as

possible, they would be of no avail, unless they were combined with the

highest natural excellence of the imaginative faculty. You know that

the full development of any faculty of the body, such as the

imagination, depends on the condition of the organ, by means of which

the faculty acts. This must be the best possible as regards its

temperament and its size, and also as regards the purity of its

substance. Any defect in this respect cannot in any way be supplied or

remedied by training. For when any organ is defective in its

temperament, proper training can in the best case restore a healthy

condition to some extent, but cannot make such an organ perfect. But if

the organ is defective as regards size, position, or as regards the

substance and the matter of which the organ is formed, there is no

remedy. You know all this, and I need not explain it to you at length.

Part of the functions of the imaginative faculty is, as you well know,

to retain impressions by the senses, to combine them, and chiefly to

form images. The principal and highest function is performed when the

senses are at rest and pause in their action, for then it receives, to

some extent, divine inspiration in the measure as it is predisposed for

this influence. This is the nature of those dreams which prove true,

and also of prophecy, the difference being one of quantity, not of

quality. Thus our Sages say, that dream is the sixtieth part of

prophecy; and no such comparison could be made between two things of

different kinds, for we cannot say the perfection of man is so many

times the perfection of a horse. In Bereshit Rabba (sect. xvii.) the

following saying of our Sages occurs, “Dream is the nobelet (the unripe

fruit) of prophecy.” This is an excellent comparison, for the unripe

fruit (nobelet) is really the fruit to some extent, only it has fallen

from the tree before it was fully developed and ripe. In a similar

manner the action of the imaginative faculty during sleep is the same

as at the time when it receives a prophecy, only in the first case it

is not fully developed, and has not yet reached its highest degree. But

why need I quote the words of our Sages, when I can refer to the

following passage of Scripture: “If there be among you a prophet, I,

the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision, in a dream will

I speak to him” (Num. xii. 6). Here the Lord tells us what the real

essence of prophecy is, that it is a perfection acquired in a dream or

in a vision (the original mareh is a noun derived from the verb raah);

the imaginative faculty acquires such an efficiency in its action that

it sees the thing as if it came from without, and perceives it as if

through the medium of bodily senses. These two modes of prophecy,

vision and dream, include all its different degrees. It is a well-known

fact that the thing which engages greatly and earnestly man’s attention

whilst he is awake and in the full possession of his senses forms

during his sleep the object of the action of his imaginative faculty.

Imagination is then only influenced by the intellect in so far as it is

predisposed for such influence. It would be quite useless to illustrate

this by a simile, or to explain it fully, as it is clear, and every one

knows it. It is like the action of the senses, the existence of which

no person with common sense would ever deny. After these introductory

remarks you will understand that a person must satisfy the following

conditions before he can become a prophet: The substance of the brain

must from the very beginning be in the most perfect condition as

regards purity of matter, composition of its different parts, size and

position; no part of his body must suffer from ill-health; he must in

addition have studied and acquired wisdom, so that his rational faculty

passes from a state of potentiality to that of actuality; his intellect

must be as developed and perfect as human intellect can be; his

passions pure and equally balanced; all his desires must aim at

obtaining a knowledge of the hidden laws and causes that are in force

in the Universe; his thoughts must be engaged in lofty matters; his

attention directed to the knowledge of God, the consideration of His

works, and of that which he must believe in this respect. There must be

an absence of the lower desires and appetites, of the seeking after

pleasure in eating, drinking, and cohabitation; and, in short, every

pleasure connected with the sense of touch. (Aristotle correctly says

that this sense is a disgrace to us, since we possess it only in virtue

of our being animals; and it does not include any specifically human

element, whilst enjoyments connected with other senses, as smell,

hearing, and sight, though likewise of a material nature, may sometimes

include [intellectual] pleasure, appealing to man as man, according to

Aristotle. This remark, although forming no part of our subject, is not

superfluous, for the thoughts of the most renowned wise men are to a

great extent affected by the pleasures of this sense, and filled with a

desire for them. And yet people are surprised that these scholars do

not prophesy, if prophesying be nothing but a certain degree in the

natural development of man.) It is further necessary to suppress every

thought or desire for unreal power and dominion; that is to say, for

victory, increase of followers, acquisition of honour, and service from

the people without any ulterior object. On the contrary, the multitude

must be considered according to their true worth; some of them are

undoubtedly like domesticated cattle, and others like wild beasts, and

these only engage the mind of the perfect and distinguished man in so

far as he desires to guard himself from injury, in case of contact with

them, and to derive some benefit from them when necessary. A man who

satisfies these conditions, whilst his fully developed imagination is

in action, influenced by the Active Intellect according to his mental

training,—such a person will undoubtedly perceive nothing but things

very extraordinary and divine, and see nothing but God and His angels.

His knowledge will only include that which is real knowledge, and his

thought will only be directed to such general principles as would tend

to improve the social relations between man and man.

We have thus described three kinds of perfection: mental perfection

acquired by training, perfection of the natural constitution of the

imaginative faculty, and moral perfection produced by the suppression

of every thought of bodily pleasures, and of every kind of foolish or

evil ambition. These qualities are, as is well known, possessed by the

wise men in different degrees, and the degrees of prophetic faculty

vary in accordance with this difference. Faculties of the body are, as

you know, at one time weak, wearied, and corrupted, at others in a

healthy state. Imagination is certainly one of the faculties of the

body. You find, therefore, that prophets are deprived of the faculty of

prophesying when they mourn, are angry, or are similarly affected. Our

Sages say, Inspiration does not come upon a prophet when he is sad or

languid. This is the reason why Jacob did not receive any revelation

during the period of his mourning, when his imagination was engaged

with the loss of Joseph. The same was the case with Moses, when he was

in a state of depression through the multitude of his troubles, which

lasted from the murmurings of the Israelites in consequence of the evil

report of the spies, till the death of the warriors of that generation.

He received no message of God, as he used to do, even though he did not

receive prophetic inspiration through the medium of the imaginative

faculty, but directly through the intellect. We have mentioned it

several times that Moses did not, like other prophets, speak in

similes. This will be further explained (chap. xlv.), but it is not the

subject of the present chapter. There were also persons who prophesied

for a certain time and then left off altogether, something occurring

that caused them to discontinue prophesying. The same circumstance,

prevalence of sadness and dulness, was undoubtedly the direct cause of

the interruption of prophecy during the exile; for can there be any

greater misfortune for man than this: to be a slave bought for money in

the service of ignorant and voluptuous masters, and powerless against

them as they unite in themselves the absence of true knowledge and the

force of all animal desires? Such an evil state has been prophesied to

us in the words, “They shall run to and fro to seek the word of God,

but shall not find it” (Amos viii. 12); “Her king and her princes are

among the nations, the law is no more, her prophets also find no vision

from the Lord” (Lam. ii. 9). This is a real fact, and the cause is

evident; the pre-requisites [of prophecy] have been lost. In the

Messianic period—may it soon commence—prophecy will therefore again be

in our midst, as has been promised by God.

CHAPTER XXXVII

It is necessary to consider the nature of the divine influence, which

enables us to think, and gives us the various degrees of intelligence.

For this influence may reach a person only in a small measure, and in

exactly the same proportion would then be his intellectual condition,

whilst it may reach another person in such a measure that, in addition

to his own perfection, he can be the means of perfection for others.

The same relation may be observed throughout the whole Universe. There

are some beings so perfect that they can govern other beings, but there

are also beings that are only perfect in so far as they can govern

themselves and cannot influence other beings. In some cases the

influence of the [Active] Intellect reaches only the logical and not

the imaginative faculty; either on account of the insufficiency of that

influence, or on account of a defect in the constitution of the

imaginative faculty, and the consequent inability of the latter to

receive that influence: this is the condition of wise men or

philosophers. If, however, the imaginative faculty is naturally in the

most perfect condition, this influence may, as has been explained by us

and by other philosophers, reach both his logical and his imaginative

faculties: this is the case with prophets. But it happens sometimes

that the influence only reaches the imaginative faculty on account of

the insufficiency of the logical faculty, arising either from a natural

defect, or from a neglect in training. This is the case with statesmen,

lawgivers, diviners, charmers, and men that have true dreams, or do

wonderful things by strange means and secret arts, though they are not

wise men; all these belong to the third class. It is further necessary

to understand that some persons belonging to the third class perceive

scenes, dreams, and confused images, when awake, in the form of a

prophetic vision. They then believe that they are prophets; they wonder

that they perceive visions, and think that they have acquired wisdom

without training. They fall into grave errors as regards important

philosophical principles, and see a strange mixture of true and

imaginary things. All this is the consequence of the strength of their

imaginative faculty, and the weakness of their logical faculty, which

has not developed, and has not passed from potentiality to actuality.

It is well known that the members of each class differ greatly from

each other. Each of the first two classes is again subdivided, and

contains two sections, namely, those who receive the influence only as

far as is necessary for their own perfection, and those who receive it

in so great a measure that it suffices for their own perfection and

that of others. A member of the first class, the wise men, may have his

mind influenced either only so far, that he is enabled to search, to

understand, to know, and to discern, without attempting to be a teacher

or an author, having neither the desire nor the capacity; but he may

also be influenced to such a degree that he becomes a teacher and an

author. The same is the case with the second class. A person may

receive a prophecy enabling him to perfect himself but not others; but

he may also receive such a prophecy as would compel him to address his

fellow-men, teach them, and benefit them through his perfection. It is

clear that, without this second degree of perfection, no books would

have been written, nor would any prophets have persuaded others to know

the truth. For a scholar does not write a book with the object to teach

himself what he already knows. But the characteristic of the intellect

is this: what the intellect of one receives is transmitted to another,

and so on, till a person is reached that can only himself be perfected

by such an influence, but is unable to communicate it to others, as has

been explained in some chapters of this treatise (chap. xi.). It is

further the nature of this element in man that he who possesses an

additional degree of that influence is compelled to address his

fellow-men, under all circumstances, whether he is listened to or not,

even if he injures himself thereby. Thus we find prophets that did not

leave off speaking to the people until they were slain; it is this

divine influence that moves them, that does not allow them to rest in

any way, though they might bring upon themselves great evils by their

action. E.g., when Jeremiah was despised, like other teachers and

scholars of his age, he could not, though he desired it, withhold his

prophecy, or cease from reminding the people of the truths which they

rejected. Comp. “For the Word of the Lord was unto me a reproach and a

mocking all day, and I said, I will not mention it, nor will I again

speak in His name; but it was in mine heart as a burning fire, enclosed

in my bones, and I was wearied to keep it, and did not prevail” (Jer.

xx. 8, 9). This is also the meaning of the words of another prophet,

“The Lord God hath spoken, who shall not prophesy?” (Amos iii. 8) Note

it.

CHAPTER XXXVIII

Every man possesses a certain amount of courage, otherwise he would not

stir to remove anything that might injure him. This psychical force

seems to me analogous to the physical force of repulsion. Energy varies

like all other forces, being great in one case and small in another.

There are, therefore, people who attack a lion, whilst others run away

at the sight of a mouse. One attacks a whole army and fights, another

is frightened and terrified by the threat of a woman. This courage

requires that there be in a man’s constitution a certain disposition

for it. If man, in accordance with a certain view, employs it more

frequently, it develops and increases, but, on the other hand, if it is

employed, in accordance with the opposite view, more rarely, it will

diminish. From our own youth we remember that there are different

degrees of energy among boys.

The same is the case with the intuitive faculty; all possess it, but in

different degrees. Man’s intuitive power is especially strong in things

which he has well comprehended, and in which his mind is much engaged.

Thus you may yourself guess correctly that a certain person said or did

a certain thing in a certain matter. Some persons are so strong and

sound in their imagination and intuitive faculty that, when they assume

a thing to be in existence, the reality either entirely or partly

confirms their assumption. Although the causes of this assumption are

numerous, and include many preceding, succeeding, and present

circumstances, by means of the intuitive faculty the intellect can pass

over all these causes, and draw inferences from them very quickly,

almost instantaneously. This same faculty enables some persons to

foretell important coming events. The prophets must have had these two

forces, courage and intuition, highly developed, and these were still

more strengthened when they were under the influence of the Active

Intellect. Their courage was so great that, e.g., Moses, with only a

staff in his hand, dared to address a great king in his desire to

deliver a nation from his service. He was not frightened or terrified,

because he had been told, “I will be with thee” (Exod. iii. 12). The

prophets have not all the same degree of courage, but none of them have

been entirely without it. Thus Jeremiah is told: “Be not afraid of

them,” etc. (Jer. i. 8), and Ezekiel is exhorted, “Do not fear them or

their word” (Ezek. ii. 6). In the same manner, you find that all

prophets possessed great courage. Again, through the excellence of

their intuitive faculty, they could quickly foretell the future, but

this excellence, as is well known, likewise admits of different

degrees.

The true prophets undoubtedly conceive ideas that result from premisses

which human reason could not comprehend by itself; thus they tell

things which men could not tell by reason and ordinary imagination

alone; for [the action of the prophets’ mental capacities is influenced

by] the same agent that causes the perfection of the imaginative

faculty, and that enables the prophet thereby to foretell a future

event with such clearness as if it was a thing already perceived with

the senses, and only through them conveyed to his imagination. This

agent perfects the prophet’s mind, and influences it in such a manner

that he conceives ideas which are confirmed by reality, and are so

clear to him as if he deduced them by means of syllogisms.

This should be the belief of all who choose to accept the truth. For

[all things are in a certain relation to each other, and] what is

noticed in one thing may be used as evidence for the existence of

certain properties in another, and the knowledge of one thing leads us

to the knowledge of other things. But [what we said of the

extraordinary powers of our imaginative faculty] applies with special

force to our intellect, which is directly influenced by the Active

Intellect, and caused by it to pass from potentiality to actuality. It

is through the intellect that the influence reaches the imaginative

faculty. How then could the latter be so perfect as to be able to

represent things not previously perceived by the senses, if the same

degree of perfection were withheld from the intellect, and the latter

could not comprehend things otherwise than in the usual manner, namely,

by means of premiss, conclusion, and inference? This is the true

characteristic of prophecy, and of the disciplines to which the

preparation for prophecy must exclusively be devoted. I spoke here of

true prophets in order to exclude the third class, namely, those

persons whose logical faculties are not fully developed, and who do not

possess any wisdom, but are only endowed with imaginative and inventive

powers. It may be that things perceived by these persons are nothing

but ideas which they had before, and of which impressions were left in

their imaginations together with those of other things; but whilst the

impressions of other images are effaced and have disappeared, certain

images alone remain, are seen and considered as new and objective,

coming from without. The process is analogous to the following case: A

person has with him in the house a thousand living individuals; all

except one of them leave the house: when the person finds himself alone

with that individual, he imagines that the latter has entered the house

now, contrary to the fact that he has only not left the house. This is

one of the many phenomena open to gross misinterpretations and

dangerous errors, and many of those who believed that they were wise

perished thereby.

There were, therefore, men who supported their opinion by a dream which

they had, thinking that the vision during sleep was independent of what

they had previously believed or heard when awake. Persons whose mental

capacities are not fully developed, and who have not attained

intellectual perfection, must not take any notice of these [dreams].

Those who reach that perfection may, through the influence of the

divine intellect, obtain knowledge independent of that possessed by

them when awake. They are true prophets, as is distinctly stated in

Scripture, ve-nabi lebab ḥokmah (Ps. xc. 12), “And the true prophet

possesseth a heart of wisdom.” This must likewise be noticed.

CHAPTER XXXIX

We have given the definition of prophecy, stated its true

characteristics, and shown that the prophecy of Moses our Teacher was

distinguished from that of other prophets; we will now explain that

this distinction alone qualified him for the office of proclaiming the

Law, a mission without a parallel in the history from Adam to Moses, or

among the prophets who came after him; it is a principle in our faith

that there will never be revealed another Law. Consequently we hold

that there has never been, nor will there ever be, any other divine Law

but that of Moses our Teacher. According to what is written in

Scripture and handed down by tradition, the fact may be explained in

the following way: There were prophets before Moses, as the patriarchs

Shem, Eber, Noah, Methushelah, and Enoch, but of these none said to any

portion of mankind that God sent him to them and commanded him to

convey to them a certain message or to prohibit or to command a certain

thing. Such a thing is not related in Scripture, or in authentic

tradition. Divine prophecy reached them as we have explained. Men like

Abraham, who received a large measure of prophetic inspiration, called

their fellow-men together and led them by training and instruction to

the truth which they had perceived. Thus Abraham taught, and showed by

philosophical arguments that there is one God, that He has created

everything that exists beside Him, and that neither the constellations

nor anything in the air ought to be worshipped; he trained his

fellow-men in this belief, and won their attention by pleasant words as

well as by acts of kindness. Abraham did not tell the people that God

had sent him to them with the command concerning certain things which

should or should not be done. Even when it was commanded that he, his

sons, and his servants should be circumcised, he fulfilled that

commandment, but he did not address his fellow-men prophetically on

this subject. That Abraham induced his fellow-men to do what is right,

telling them only his own will [and not that of God], may be learnt

from the following passage of Scripture: “For I know him, because he

commands his sons and his house after him, to practise righteousness

and judgment” (Gen. xix. 19). Also Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, and

Amram influenced their fellow-men in the same way. Our Sages, when

speaking of prophets before Moses, used expressions like the following:

The bet-din (court of justice) of Eber, the bet-din of Methushelah, and

in the college of Methushelah; although all these were prophets, yet

they taught their fellow-men in the manner of preachers, teachers, and

pedagogues, but did not use such phrases as the following: “And God

said to me, Speak to certain people so and so.” This was the state of

prophecy before Moses. But as regards Moses, you know what [God] said

to him, what he said [to the people], and the words addressed to him by

the whole nation: “This day we have seen that God doth talk with man,

and that he liveth” (Deut. v. 21). The history of all our prophets that

lived after Moses is well known to you; they performed, as it were, the

function of warning the people and exhorting them to keep the Law of

Moses, threatening evil to those who would neglect it, and announcing

blessings to those who would submit to its guidance. This we believe

will always be the case. Comp. “It is not in the heavens that one might

say,” etc. (ibid. xxx. 12); “For us and for our children for ever”

(ibid. xxix. 28). It is but natural that it should be so. For if one

individual of a class has reached the highest perfection possible in

that class, every other individual must necessarily be less perfect,

and deviate from the perfect measure either by surplus or deficiency.

Take, e.g., the normal constitution of a being, it is the most proper

composition possible in that class; any constitution that deviates from

that norm contains something too much or too little. The same is the

case with the Law. It is clear that the Law is normal in this sense;

for it contains “Just statutes and judgments” (Deut. iv. 8); but “just”

is here identical with “equibalanced.” The statutes of the Law do not

impose burdens or excesses as are implied in the service of a hermit or

pilgrim, and the like; but, on the other hand, they are not so

deficient as to lead to gluttony or lewdness, or to prevent, as the

religious laws of the heathen nations do, the development of man’s

moral and intellectual faculties. We intend to discuss in this treatise

the reasons of the commandments, and we shall then show, as far as

necessary, the justice and wisdom of the Law, on account of which it is

said: “The Law of God is perfect, refreshing the heart” (Ps. xix. 8).

There are persons who believe that the Law commands much exertion and

great pain, but due consideration will show them their error. Later on

I will show how easy it is for the perfect to obey the Law. Comp. “What

does the Lord thy God ask of thee?” etc. (Deut. x. 12); “Have I been a

wilderness to Israel?” (Jer. ii. 31). But this applies only to the

noble ones; whilst wicked, violent, and pugnacious persons find it most

injurious and hard that there should be any divine authority tending to

subdue their passion. To low-minded, wanton, and passionate persons it

appears most cruel that there should be an obstacle in their way to

satisfy their carnal appetite, or that a punishment should be inflicted

for their doings. Similarly every godless person imagines that it is

too hard to abstain from the evil he has chosen in accordance with his

inclination. We must not consider the Law easy or hard according as it

appears to any wicked, low-minded, and immoral person, but as it

appears to the judgment of the most perfect, who, according to the Law,

are fit to be the example for all mankind. This Law alone is called

divine; other laws, such as the political legislations among the

Greeks, or the follies of the Sabeans, are the works of human leaders,

but not of prophets, as I have explained several times.

CHAPTER XL

It has already been fully explained that man is naturally a social

being, that by virtue of his nature he seeks to form communities; man

is therefore different from other living beings that are not compelled

to combine into communities. He is, as you know, the highest form in

the creation, and he therefore includes the largest number of

constituent elements; this is the reason why the human race contains

such a great variety of individuals, that we cannot discover two

persons exactly alike in any moral quality, or in external appearance.

The cause of this is the variety in man’s temperament, and in accidents

dependent on his form; for with every physical form there are connected

certain special accidents different from those which are connected with

the substance. Such a variety among the individuals of a class does not

exist in any other class of living beings; for the variety in any other

species is limited; only man forms an exception; two persons may be so

different from each other in every respect that they appear to belong

to two different classes. Whilst one person is so cruel that he kills

his youngest child in his anger, another is too delicate and

faint-hearted to kill even a fly or worm. The same is the case with

most of the accidents. This great variety and the necessity of social

life are essential elements in man’s nature. But the well-being of

society demands that there should be a leader able to regulate the

actions of man; he must complete every shortcoming, remove every

excess, and prescribe for the conduct of all, so that the natural

variety should be counterbalanced by the uniformity of legislation, and

the order of society be well established. I therefore maintain that the

Law, though not a product of Nature, is nevertheless not entirely

foreign to Nature. It being the will of God that our race should exist

and be permanently established, He in His wisdom gave it such

properties that men can acquire the capacity of ruling others. Some

persons are therefore inspired with theories of legislation, such as

prophets and lawgivers; others possess the power of enforcing the

dictates of the former, and of compelling people to obey them, and to

act accordingly. Such are kings, who accept the code of lawgivers, and

[rulers] who pretend to be prophets, and accept, either entirely or

partly, the teaching of the prophets. They accept one part while

rejecting another part, either because this course appears to them more

convenient, or out of ambition, because it might lead people to believe

that the rulers themselves had been prophetically inspired with these

laws, and did not copy them from others. For when we like a certain

perfection, find pleasure in it, and wish to possess it, we sometimes

desire to make others believe that we possess that virtue, although we

are fully aware that we do not possess it. Thus people, e.g., adorn

themselves with the poems of others, and publish them as their own

productions. It also occurs in the works of wise men on the various

branches of Science, that an ambitious, lazy person sees an opinion

expressed by another person, appropriates it, and boasts that he

himself originated it. The same [ambition] occurs also with regard to

the faculty of prophecy. There were men who, like Zedekiah, the son of

Chenaanah (1 Kings xxii. 11, 24) boasted that they received a prophecy,

and declared things which have never been prophesied. Others, like

Hananiah, son of Azzur (Jer. xxviii. 1–5), claim the capacity of

prophecy, and proclaim things which, no doubt, have been said by God,

that is to say, that have been the subject of a divine inspiration, but

not to them. They nevertheless say that they are prophets, and adorn

themselves with the prophecies of others. All this can easily be

ascertained and recognized. I will, however, fully explain this to you,

so that no doubt be left to you on this question, and that you may have

a test by which you may distinguish between the guidance of human

legislation, of the divine law, and of teachings stolen from prophets.

As regards those who declare that the laws proclaimed by them are their

own ideas, no further test is required; the confession of the defendant

makes the evidence of the witness superfluous. I only wish to instruct

you about laws which are proclaimed as prophetic. Some of these are

truly prophetic, originating in divine inspiration, some are of

non-prophetic character, and some, though prophetic originally, are the

result of plagiarism. You will find that the sole object of certain

laws, in accordance with the intention of their author, who well

considered their effect, is to establish the good order of the state

and its affairs, to free it from all mischief and wrong; these laws do

not deal with philosophic problems, contain no teaching for the

perfecting of our logical faculties, and are not concerned about the

existence of sound or unsound opinions. Their sole object is to

arrange, under all circumstances, the relations of men to each other,

and to secure their well-being, in accordance with the view of the

author of these laws. These laws are political, and their author

belongs, as has been stated above, to the third class, viz., to those

who only distinguish themselves by the perfection of their imaginative

faculties. You will also find laws which, in all their rules, aim, as

the law just mentioned, at the improvement of the material interests of

the people; but, besides, tend to improve the state of the faith of

man, to create first correct notions of God, and of angels, and to lead

then the people, by instruction and education, to an accurate knowledge

of the Universe: this education comes from God; these laws are divine.

The question which now remains to be settled is this: Is the person who

proclaimed these laws the same perfect man that received them by

prophetic inspiration, or a plagiarist, who has stolen these ideas from

a true prophet? In order to be enabled to answer this question, we must

examine the merits of the person, obtain an accurate account of his

actions, and consider his character. The best test is the rejection,

abstention, and contempt of bodily pleasures; for this is the first

condition of men, and a fortiori of prophets; they must especially

disregard pleasures of the sense of touch, which, according to

Aristotle, is a disgrace to us; and, above all, restrain from the

pollution of sensual intercourse. Thus God exposes thereby false

prophets to public shame, in order that those who really seek the truth

may find it, and not err or go astray; e.g., Zedekiah, son of Maasiah,

and Ahab, son of Kolaiah, boasted that they had received a prophecy.

They persuaded the people to follow them, by proclaiming utterances of

other prophets; but all the time they continued to seek the low

pleasures of sensual intercourse, committing even adultery with the

wives of their companions and followers. God exposed their falsehood as

He has exposed that of other false prophets. The king of Babylon burnt

them, as Jeremiah distinctly states: “And of them shall be taken up a

curse by all the captivity of Judah, which are in Babylon, saying, The

Lord make thee like Zedekiah, and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon

roasted in the fire. Because they have committed villainy in Israel,

and have committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives, and have

spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them” (Jer.

xxix. 22, 23). Note what is meant by these words.

CHAPTER XLI

I need not explain what a dream is, but I will explain the meaning of

the term mareh, “vision,” which occurs in the passage: “In a vision

(be-mareh) do I make myself known unto him” (Num. xii. 6). The term

signifies that which is also called mareh ha-nebuah, “prophetic

vision,” yad ha-shem, “the hand of God,” and maḥazeh, “a vision.” It is

something terrible and fearful which the prophet feels while awake, as

is distinctly stated by Daniel: “And I saw this great vision, and there

remained no strength in me, for my comeliness was turned in me into

corruption, and I retained no strength” (Dan. x. 8). He afterwards

continues, “Thus was I in deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the

ground” (ibid. ver. 9). But it was in a prophetic vision that the angel

spoke to him and “set him upon his knees.” Under such circumstances the

senses cease to act, and the [Active Intellect] influences the rational

faculties, and through them the imaginative faculties, which become

perfect and active. Sometimes the prophecy begins with a prophetic

vision, the prophet greatly trembles, and is much affected in

consequence of the perfect action of the imaginative faculty, and after

that the prophecy follows. This was the case with Abraham. The

commencement of the prophecy is, “The word of the Lord came to Abraham

in a vision” (Gen. xv. 1); after this, “a deep sleep fell upon

Abraham”; and at last, “he said unto Abraham,” etc. When prophets speak

of the fact that they received a prophecy, they say that they received

it from an angel, or from God; but even in the latter case it was

likewise received through an angel. Our Sages, therefore, explain the

words, “And the Lord said unto her” that He spake through an angel. You

must know that whenever Scripture relates that the Lord or an angel

spoke to a person, this took place in a dream or in a prophetic vision.

There are four different ways in which Scripture relates the fact that

a divine communication was made to the prophet. (1) The prophet relates

that he heard the words of an angel in a dream or vision; (2) He

reports the words of the angel without mentioning that they were

perceived in a dream or vision, assuming that it is well known that

prophecy can only originate in one of the two ways, “In a vision I will

make myself known unto him, in a dream I will speak unto him” (Num.

xii. 6). (3) The prophet does not mention the angel at all; he says

that God spoke to him, but he states that he received the message in a

dream or a vision. (4) He introduces his prophecy by stating that God

spoke to him, or told him to do a certain thing, or speak certain

words, but he does not explain that he received the message in a dream

or vision, because he assumes that it is well known, and has been

established as a principle that no prophecy or revelation originates

otherwise than in a dream or vision, and through an angel. Instances of

the first form are the following:—“And the angel of the Lord said unto

me in a dream, Jacob” (Gen. xxxi. 11); “And an angel said unto Israel

in a vision of night” (ibid. xlvi. 2); “And an angel came to Balaam by

night”; “And an angel said unto Balaam” (Num. xxii. 20–22). Instances

of the second form are these: “And Elohim (an angel), said unto Jacob,

Rise, go up to Bethel” (Gen. xxxv. 1); “And Elohim said unto him, Thy

name is Jacob,” etc. (ibid. xxxv. 10); “And an angel of the Lord called

unto Abraham out of heaven the second time” (ibid. xxii. 15); “And

Elohim said unto Noah” (ibid. vi. 13). The following is an instance of

the third form: “The word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a vision”

(ibid. xv. 1). Instances of the fourth form are: “And the Lord said

unto Abraham” (ibid. xviii. 13); “And the Lord said unto Jacob,

Return,” etc. (ibid. xxxi. 3); “And the Lord said unto Joshua” (Josh.

v. 9); “And the Lord said unto Gideon” (Judges vii. 2). Most of the

prophets speak in a similar manner: “And the Lord said unto me” (Deut.

ii. 2); “And the word of the Lord came unto me” (Ezek. xxx. 1); “And

the word of the Lord came” (2 Sam. xxiv. 11); “And behold, the word of

the Lord came unto him” (1 Kings xix. 9); “And the word of the Lord

came expressly” (Ezek. i. 3); “The beginning of the word of the Lord by

Hosea” (Hos. i. 2); “The hand of the Lord was upon me” (Ezek. xxxvii.

1). There are a great many instances of this class. Every passage in

Scripture introduced by any of these four forms is a prophecy

proclaimed by a prophet; but the phrase, “And Elohim (an angel) came to

a certain person in the dream of night,” does not indicate a prophecy,

and the person mentioned in that phrase is not a prophet; the phrase

only informs us that the attention of the person was called by God to a

certain thing, and at the same time that this happened at night. For

just as God may cause a person to move in order to save or kill another

person, so He may cause, according to His will, certain things to rise

in man’s mind in a dream by night. We have no doubt that the Syrian

Laban was a perfectly wicked man, and an idolater; likewise Abimelech,

though a good man among his people, is told by Abraham concerning his

land [Gerar] and his kingdom, “Surely there is no fear of God in this

place” (Gen. xx. 11). And yet concerning both of them, viz., Laban and

Abimelech, it is said [that an angel appeared to them in a dream].

Comp. “And Elohim (an angel) came to Abimelech in a dream by night”

(ibid. ver. 3); and also, “And Elohim came to the Syrian Laban in the

dream of the night” (ibid. xxxi. 24). Note and consider the distinction

between the phrases, “And Elohim came,” and “Elohim said,” between “in

a dream by night,” and “in a vision by night.” In reference to Jacob it

is said, “And an angel said to Israel in the visions by night” (Gen.

xlvi. 2), but in reference to Laban and Abimelech, “And Elohim came,”

etc. Onkelos makes the distinction clear; he translates, in the last

two instances, ata memar min kodam adonai, “a word came from the Lord,”

and not ve-itgeli, “and the Lord appeared.” The phrase, “And the Lord

said to a certain person,” is employed even when this person was not

really addressed by the Lord, and did not receive any prophecy, but was

informed of a certain thing through a prophet. E.g., “And she went to

inquire of the Lord” (Gen. xxv. 22); that is, according to the

explanation of our Sages, she went to the college of Eber, and the

latter gave her the answer; and this is expressed by the words, “And

the Lord said unto her” (ibid. ver. 23). These words have also been

explained thus, God spoke to her through an angel; and by “angel” Eber

is meant here, for a prophet is sometimes called “angel,” as will be

explained; or the angel that appeared to Eber in this vision is

referred to, or the object of the Midrash explanation is merely to

express that wherever God is introduced as directly speaking to a

person, i.e., to any of the ordinary prophets, He speaks through an

angel, as has been set forth by us (chap. xxxiv.).

CHAPTER XLII