mentioned in Scripture took place in a vision or dream; it makes no
difference whether this is expressly stated or not, as we have
explained above. This is a point of considerable importance. In some
cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in
others, the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately
is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for if the fact
that an angel has been heard is only mentioned at the end, you may rest
satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a
prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks
to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to
him, or he hears some one speaking to him without seeing the speaker,
or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the
speaker was an angel. In this latter kind of prophecies, the prophet
relates that he saw a man who was doing or saying something, and that
he learnt afterwards that it was an angel.
This important principle was adopted by one of our Sages, one of the
most distinguished among them, R. Ḥiya the Great (Bereshit Rabba,
xlviii.), in the exposition of the Scriptural passage commencing, “And
the Lord appeared unto him in the plain of Mamre” (Gen. xviii.). The
general statement that the Lord appeared to Abraham is followed by the
description in what manner that appearance of the Lord took place;
namely, Abraham saw first three men; he ran and spoke to them. R. Ḥiya,
the author of the explanation, holds that the words of Abraham, “My
Lord, if now I have found grace in thy sight, do not, I pray thee, pass
from thy servant,” were spoken by him in a prophetic vision to one of
the men; for he says that Abraham addressed these words to the chief of
these men. Note this well, for it is one of the great mysteries [of the
Law]. The same, I hold, is the case when it is said in reference to
Jacob, “And a man wrestled with him” (Gen. xxxii. 25); this took place
in a prophetic vision, since it is expressly stated in the end (ver.
31) that it was an angel. The circumstances are here exactly the same
as those in the vision of Abraham, where the general statement, “And
the Lord appeared to him,” etc., is followed by a detailed description.
Similarly the account of the vision of Jacob begins, “And the angels of
God met him” (Gen. xxxii. 2); then follows a detailed description how
it came to pass that they met him; namely, Jacob sent messengers, and
after having prepared and done certain things, “he was left alone,”
etc., “and a man wrestled with him” (ibid. ver. 24). By this term “man”
[one of] the angels of God is meant, mentioned in the phrase, “And
angels of God met him”; the wrestling and speaking was entirely a
prophetic vision. That which happened to Balaam on the way, and the
speaking of the ass, took place in a prophetic vision, since further
on, in the same account, an angel of God is introduced as speaking to
Balaam. I also think that what Joshua perceived, when “he lifted up his
eyes and saw, and behold a man stood before him” (Josh. v. 13) was a
prophetic vision, since it is stated afterwards (ver. 14) that it was
“the prince of the host of the Lord.” But in the passages, “And an
angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal” (Judges ii. 1); “And it came to
pass that the angel of the Lord spake these words to all Israel” (ibid.
ver. 2); the “angel” is, according to the explanation of our Sages,
Phineas. They say, The angel is Phineas, for, when the Divine Glory
rested upon him, he was “like an angel.” We have already shown (chap.
vi.) that the term “angel” is homonymous, and denotes also “prophet,”
as is the case in the following passages:—“And He sent an angel, and He
hath brought us up out of Egypt” (Num. xx. 16); “Then spake Haggai, the
angel of the Lord, in the Lord’s message” (Hagg. i. 13); “But they
mocked the angels of God” (2 Chron. xxxvi. 16).—Comp. also the words of
Daniel, “And the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the
beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of
the evening oblation” (Dan. ix. 11). All this passed in a prophetic
vision. Do not imagine that an angel is seen or his word heard
otherwise than in a prophetic vision or prophetic dream, according to
the principle laid down:—“I make myself known unto him in a vision, and
speak unto him in a dream” (Num. xii. 6). The instances quoted may
serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention. From
the rule laid down by us that prophecy requires preparation, and from
our interpretation of the homonym “angel,” you will infer that Hagar,
the Egyptian woman, was not a prophetess; also Manoah and his wife were
no prophets; for the speech they heard, or imagined they heard, was
like the bat-kol (prophetic echo), which is so frequently mentioned by
our Sages, and is something that may be experienced by men not prepared
for prophecy. The homonymity of the word “angel” misleads in this
matter. This is the principal method by which most of the difficult
passages in the Bible can be explained. Consider the words, “And an
angel of the Lord found her by the well of water” (Gen. xvi. 7), which
are similar to the words referring to Joseph—“And a man found him, and
behold, he was erring in the field” (ibid. xxxvii. 15). All the
Midrashim assume that by man in this passage an angel is meant.
CHAPTER XLIII
We have already shown in our work that the prophets sometimes prophesy
in allegories; they use a term allegorically, and in the same prophecy
the meaning of the allegory is given. In our dreams, we sometimes
believe that we are awake, and relate a dream to another person, who
explains the meaning, and all this goes on while we dream. Our Sages
call this “a dream interpreted in a dream.” In other cases we learn the
meaning of the dream after waking from sleep. The same is the case with
prophetic allegories. Some are interpreted in the prophetic vision.
Thus it is related in Zechariah, after the description of the
allegorical vision—“And the angel that talked with me came again and
waked me as a man that is awakened from his sleep. And he said unto me,
‘What dost thou see?’” etc. (Zech. iv. 1–2), and then the allegory is
explained (ver. 6, sqq.).
Another instance we find in Daniel. It is first stated there: “Daniel
had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed” (Dan. vii. 1). The
whole allegory is then given, and Daniel is described as sighing that
he did not know its interpretation. He asks the angel for an
explanation, and he received it in a prophetic vision. He relates as
follows: “I came near unto one of those that stood by, and asked him
the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the
interpretation of the things” (ibid. ver. 16). The whole scene is
called ḥazon (vision), although it was stated that Daniel had a dream,
because an angel explained the dream to him in the same manner as is
mentioned in reference to a prophetic dream. I refer to the verse: “A
vision appeared to me Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the
first” (ibid. viii. 1). This is clear, for ḥazon (vision) is derived
from ḥaza, “to see,” and mareh, “vision,” from raah, “to see”; and ḥaza
and raah are synonymous. There is therefore no difference whether we
use mareh, or maḥazeh, or ḥazon, there is no other mode of revelation
but the two mentioned in Scripture: “In a vision I make myself known to
him, in a dream I will speak unto him” (Num. xii. 6). There are,
however, different degrees [of prophetic proficiency], as will be shown
(chap. xlv.).
There are other prophetic allegories whose meaning is not given in a
prophetic vision. The prophet learns it when he awakes from his sleep.
Take, e.g., the staves which Zechariah took in a prophetic vision.
You must further know that the prophets see things shown to them
allegorically, such as the candlesticks, horses, and mountains of
Zechariah (Zech. iv. 2; vi. 1–7), the scroll of Ezekiel (Ezek. ii. 9),
the wall made by a plumb-line (Amos vii. 7), which Amos saw, the
animals of Daniel (Dan. vii. and viii.), the seething pot of Jeremiah
(Jer. i. 13), and similar allegorical objects shown to represent
certain ideas. The prophets, however, are also shown things which do
not illustrate the object of the vision, but indicate it by their name
through its etymology or homonymity. Thus the imaginative faculty forms
the image of a thing, the name of which has two meanings, one of which
denotes something different [from the image]. This is likewise a kind
of allegory. Comp. Makkal shaked, “almond staff,” of Jeremiah (i.
11–12). It was intended to indicate by the second meaning of shaked the
prophecy, “For I will watch” (shoked), etc., which has no relation
whatever to the staff or to almonds. The same is the case with the
kelub ḳayiẓ, “a basket of summer fruit,” seen by Amos, by which the
completion of a certain period was indicated, “the end (ha-ḳeẓ) having
come” (Amos viii. 2). Still more strange is the following manner of
calling the prophet’s attention to a certain object. He is shown a
different object, the name of which has neither etymologically nor
homonymously any relation to the first object, but the names of both
contain the same letters, though in a different order. Take, e.g., the
allegories of Zechariah (chap. xi. 7, sqq.). He takes in a prophetic
vision staves to lead the flock; he calls the one Noʻam (pleasure), the
other ḥobelim. He indicates thereby that the nation was at first in
favour with God, who was their leader and guide. They rejoiced in the
service of God, and found happiness in it, while God was pleased with
them, and loved them, as it is said, “Thou hast avouched the Lord thy
God,” etc., and “the Lord hath avouched thee,” etc. (Deut. xxvi. 17,
18). They were guided and directed by Moses and the prophets that
followed him. But later a change took place. They rejected the love of
God, and God rejected them, appointing destroyers like Jeroboam and
Manasse as their rulers. Accordingly, the word ḥobelim has the same
meaning [viz., destroying] as the root ḥabal has in Meḥabbelim keramim,
“destroying vineyards” (Song of Sol. ii. 15). But the prophet found
also in this name Ḥobelim the indication that the people despised God,
and that God despised them. This is, however, not expressed by the word
ḥabal, but by a transposition of the letters Ḥet, Bet, and Lamed, the
meaning of despising and rejecting is obtained. Comp. “My soul loathed
them, and their soul also abhorred me” [baḥalah] (Zech. xi. 8). The
prophet had therefore to change the order of the letters in ḥabal into
that of Baḥal. In this way we find very strange things and also
mysteries (Sodot) in the words neḥoshet, Kalal, regel, ʻegel, and
ḥashmal of the Mercabah, and in other terms in other passages. After
the above explanation you will see the mysteries in the meaning of
these expressions if you examine them thoroughly.
CHAPTER XLIV
Prophecy is given either in a vision or in a dream, as we have said so
many times, and we will not constantly repeat it. We say now that when
a prophet is inspired with a prophecy he may see an allegory, as we
have shown frequently, or he may in a prophetic vision perceive that
God speaks to him, as is said in Isaiah (vi. 8), “And I heard the voice
of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” or he
hears an angel addressing him, and sees him also. This is very
frequent, e.g., “And the angel of God spake unto me,” etc. (Gen. xxxi.
11); “And the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Dost
thou not know what these are” (Zech. iv. 5); “And I heard one holy
speaking” (Dan. viii. 13). Instances of this are innumerable. The
prophet sometimes sees a man that speaks to him. Comp., “And behold
there was a man, whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, and
the man said to me,” etc. (Ezek. xl. 3, 4), although the passage
begins, “The hand of the Lord was upon me” (ibid. ver. 1). In some
cases the prophet sees no figure at all, only hears in the prophetic
vision the words addressed to him; e.g., “And I heard the voice of a
man between the banks of Ulai” (Dan. viii. 16); “There was silence, and
I heard a voice” (in the speech of Eliphaz, Job iv. 16); “And I heard a
voice of one that spake to me” (Ezek. i. 28). The being which Ezekiel
perceived in the prophetic vision was not the same that addressed him;
for at the conclusion of the strange and extraordinary scene which
Ezekiel describes expressly as having been perceived by him, the object
and form of the prophecy is introduced by the words, “And I heard a
voice of a man that spake to me.” After this remark on the different
kinds of prophecy, as suggested by Scripture, I say that the prophet
may perceive that which he hears with the greatest possible intensity,
just as a person may hear thunder in his dream, or perceive a storm or
an earthquake; such dreams are frequent. The prophet may also hear the
prophecy in ordinary common speech, without anything unusual. Take,
e.g., the account of the prophet Samuel. When he was called in a
prophetic vision, he believed that the priest Eli called him; and this
happened three times consecutively. The text then explains the cause of
it, saying that Samuel naturally believed that Eli had called him,
because at that time he did not yet know that God addressed the prophet
in this form, nor had that secret as yet been revealed to him. Comp.,
“And Samuel did not yet know the Lord, and the word of the Lord was not
yet revealed to him,” i.e., he did not yet know, and it had not yet
been revealed to him, that the word of God is communicated in this way.
The words, “He did not yet know the Lord,” may perhaps mean that Samuel
had not yet received any prophecy; for in reference to a prophet’s
receiving divine communication it is said, “I make myself known to him
in a vision, I speak to him in a dream” (Num. xii. 6). The meaning of
the verse accordingly is this, Samuel had not yet received any
prophecy, and therefore did not know that this was the form of
prophecy. Note it.
CHAPTER XLV
After having explained prophecy in accordance with reason and
Scripture, I must now describe the different degrees of prophecy from
these two points of view. Not all the degrees of prophecy which I will
enumerate qualify a person for the office of a prophet. The first and
the second degrees are only steps leading to prophecy, and a person
possessing either of these two degrees does not belong to the class of
prophets whose merits we have been discussing. When such a person is
occasionally called prophet, the term is used in a wider sense, and is
applied to him because he is almost a prophet. You must not be misled
by the fact that according to the books of the Prophets, a certain
prophet, after having been inspired with one kind of prophecy, is
reported to have received prophecy in another form. For it is possible
for a prophet to prophesy at one time in the form of one of the degrees
which I am about to enumerate, and at another time in another form. In
the same manner, as the prophet does not prophesy continuously, but is
inspired at one time and not at another, so he may at one time prophesy
in the form of a higher degree, and at another time in that of a lower
degree; it may happen that the highest degree is reached by a prophet
only once in his lifetime, and afterwards remains inaccessible to him,
or that a prophet remains below the highest degree until he entirely
loses the faculty; for ordinary prophets must cease to prophesy a
shorter or longer period before their death. Comp. “And the word of the
Lord ceased from Jeremiah” (Ezra i. 1); “And these are the last words
of David” (2 Sam. xxiii. 1). From these instances it can be inferred
that the same is the case with all prophets. After this introduction
and explanation, I will begin to enumerate the degrees of prophecy to
which I have referred above.
(1) The first degree of prophecy consists in the divine assistance
which is given to a person, and induces and encourages him to do
something good and grand, e.g., to deliver a congregation of good men
from the hands of evildoers; to save one noble person, or to bring
happiness to a large number of people; he finds in himself the cause
that moves and urges him to this deed. This degree of divine influence
is called “the spirit of the Lord”; and of the person who is under that
influence we say that the spirit of the Lord came upon him, clothed
him, or rested upon him, or the Lord was with him, and the like. All
the judges of Israel possessed this degree, for the following general
statement is made concerning them:—“The Lord raised up judges for them;
and the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them” (Judges ii. 18).
Also all the noble chiefs of Israel belonged to this class. The same is
distinctly stated concerning some of the judges and the kings:—“The
spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah” (ibid. xi. 29); of Samson it is
said, “The spirit of the Lord came upon him” (ibid. xiv. 19); “And the
spirit of the Lord came upon Saul when he heard those words” (1 Sam.
xi. 6). When Amasa was moved by the holy spirit to assist David, “A
spirit clothed Amasa, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine
are we, David,” etc. (1 Chron. xii. 18). This faculty was always
possessed by Moses from the time he had attained the age of manhood; it
moved him to slay the Egyptian, and to prevent evil from the two men
that quarrelled; it was so strong that, after he had fled from Egypt
out of fear, and arrived in Midian, a trembling stranger, he could not
restrain himself from interfering when he saw wrong being done; he
could not bear it. Comp. “And Moses rose and saved them” (Exod. ii.
17). David likewise was filled with this spirit, when he was anointed
with the oil of anointing. Comp. “And the spirit of God came upon David
from that day and upward” (1 Sam. xvi. 13). He thus conquered the lion
and the bear and the Philistine, and accomplished similar tasks, by
this very spirit. This faculty did not cause any of the above-named
persons to speak on a certain subject, for it only aims at encouraging
the person who possesses it to action; it does not encourage him to do
everything, but only to help either a distinguished man or a whole
congregation when oppressed, or to do something that leads to that end.
Just as not all who have a true dream are prophets, so it cannot be
said of every one who is assisted in a certain undertaking, as in the
acquisition of property, or of some other personal advantage, that the
spirit of the Lord came upon him, or that the Lord was with him, or
that he performed his actions by the holy spirit. We only apply such
phrases to those who have accomplished something very good and grand,
or something that leads to that end; e.g., the success of Joseph in the
house of the Egyptian, which was the first cause leading evidently to
great events that occurred subsequently.
(2) The second degree is this: A person feels as if something came upon
him, and as if he had received a new power that encourages him to
speak. He treats of science, or composes hymns, exhorts his fellow-men,
discusses political and theological problems; all this he does while
awake, and in the full possession of his senses. Such a person is said
to speak by the holy spirit. David composed the Psalms, and Solomon the
Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon by this spirit;
also Daniel, Job, Chronicles, and the rest of the Hagiographa were
written in this holy spirit; therefore they are called ketubim
(Writings, or Written), i.e., written by men inspired by the holy
spirit. Our Sages mention this expressly concerning the Book of Esther.
In reference to such holy spirit, David says: “The spirit of the Lord
spoke in me, and his word is on my tongue” (2 Sam. xxiii. 2); i.e., the
spirit of the Lord caused him to utter these words. This class includes
the seventy elders of whom it is said, “And it came to pass when the
spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, and did not cease” (Num.
xi. 25); also Eldad and Medad (ibid. ver. 26); furthermore, every high
priest that inquired [of God] by the Urim and Tummim; on whom, as our
Sages say, the divine glory rested, and who spoke by the holy spirit;
Yahaziel, son of Zechariah, belongs likewise to this class. Comp. “The
spirit of the Lord came upon him in the midst of the assembly, and he
said, Listen, all Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, thus saith the
Lord unto you,” etc. (2 Chron. xx. 14, 15); also Zechariah, son of
Jehoiada the priest. Comp. “And he stood above the people and said unto
them, Thus saith God” (ibid. xxiv. 20); furthermore, Azariah, son of
Oded; comp. “And Azariah, son of Oded, when the spirit of the Lord came
upon him, went forth before Asa,” etc. (ibid. xv. 1, 2); and all who
acted under similar circumstances. You must know that Balaam likewise
belonged to this class, when he was good; this is indicated by the
words, “And God put a word in the mouth of Balaam” (Num. xxiii. 5),
i.e., Balaam spoke by divine inspiration; he therefore says of himself,
“Who heareth the words of God,” etc. (ibid. xxiv. 4). We must
especially point out that David, Solomon, and Daniel belonged to this
class, and not to the class of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nathan the prophet,
Ahijah the Shilonite, and those like them. For David, Solomon, and
Daniel spoke and wrote inspired by the holy spirit, and when David
says, “The God of Israel spoke and said unto me, the rock of Israel” (2
Sam. xxiii. 3), he meant to say that God promised him happiness through
a prophet, through Nathan or another prophet. The phrase must here be
interpreted in the same manner as in the following passages, “And God
said to her” (Gen. xxv. 26); “And God said unto Solomon, Because this
hath been in thy heart, and thou hast not kept my covenant,” etc. (1
Kings xi. 11). The latter passage undoubtedly contains a prophecy of
Ahijah the Shilonite, or another prophet, who foretold Solomon that
evil would befall him. The passage, “God appeared to Solomon at Gibeon
in a dream by night, and God said” (ibid. iii. 5), does not contain a
real prophecy, such as is introduced by the words: “The word of the
Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying” (Gen. xv. 1); or, “And God said
to Israel in the visions of the night” (ibid. xlvi. 2), or such as the
prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah contain; in all these cases the
prophets, though receiving the prophecy in a prophetic dream, are told
that it is a prophecy, and that they have received prophetic
inspiration. But in the case of Solomon, the account concludes, “And
Solomon awoke, and behold it was a dream” (1 Kings iii. 15); and in the
account of the second divine appearance, it is said, “And God appeared
to Solomon a second time, as he appeared to him at Gibeon” (ibid. ix.
2); it was evidently a dream. This kind of prophecy is a degree below
that of which Scripture says, “In a dream I will speak to him” (Num.
xii. 6). When prophets are inspired in a dream, they by no means call
this a dream, although the prophecy reached them in a dream, but
declare it decidedly to be a prophecy. Thus Jacob, our father, when
awaking from a prophetic dream, did not say it was a dream, but
declared, “Surely there is the Lord in this place,” etc. (Gen. xxviii.
16); “God the Almighty appeared to me in Luz, in the land of Canaan”
(ibid. xlviii. 3), expressing thereby that it was a prophecy. But in
reference to Solomon we read:—“And Solomon awoke, and behold it was a
dream” (1 Kings iii. 15). Similarly Daniel declares that he had a
dream; although he sees an angel and hears his word, he speaks of the
event as of a dream; even when he had received the information
[concerning the dreams of Nebukadnezzar], he speaks of it in the
following manner—“Then was the secret revealed to Daniel in a night
vision” (Dan. ii. 19). On other occasions it is said, “He wrote down
the dream”; “I saw in the visions by night,” etc.; “And the visions of
my head confused me” (Dan. vii. 1, 2, 15); “I was surprised at the
vision, and none noticed it” (ibid. viii. 27). There is no doubt that
this is one degree below that form of prophecy to which the words, “In
a dream I will speak to him,” are applied. For this reason the nation
desired to place the book of Daniel among the Hagiographa, and not
among the Prophets. I have, therefore, pointed out to you, that the
prophecy revealed to Daniel and Solomon, although they saw an angel in
the dream, was not considered by them as a perfect prophecy, but as a
dream containing correct information. They belonged to the class of men
that spoke, inspired by the ruaḥ ha-kodesh, “the holy spirit.” Also in
the order of the holy writings, no distinction is made between the
books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Psalms, Ruth, and Esther; they
are all written by divine inspiration. The authors of all these books
are called prophets in the more general sense of the term.
(3) The third class is the lowest [class of actual prophets, i.e.] of
those who introduce their speech by the phrase, “And the word of the
Lord came unto me,” or a similar phrase. The prophet sees an allegory
in a dream—under those conditions which we have mentioned when speaking
of real prophecy—and in the prophetic dream itself the allegory is
interpreted. Such are most of the allegories of Zechariah.
(4) The prophet hears in a prophetic dream something clearly and
distinctly, but does not see the speaker. This was the case with Samuel
in the beginning of his prophetic mission, as has been explained (chap.
xliv.).
(5) A person addresses the prophet in a dream, as was the case in some
of the prophecies of Ezekiel. Comp. “And the man spake unto me, Son of
man,” etc. (Ezek. xl. 4).
(6) An angel speaks to him in a dream; this applies to most of the
prophets; e.g., “And an angel of God said to me in a dream of night”
(Gen. xxxi. 11).
(7) In a prophetic dream it appears to the prophet as if God spoke to
him. Thus Isaiah says, “And I saw the Lord, and I heard the voice of
the Lord saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (Isa. vi.
1, 8). Micaiah, son of Imla, said likewise, “I saw the Lord” (1 Kings
xxii. 19).
(8) Something presents itself to the prophet in a prophetic vision; he
sees allegorical figures, such as were seen by Abraham in the vision
“between the pieces” (Gen. xv. 9, 10); for it was in a vision by
daytime, as is distinctly stated.
(9) The prophet hears words in a prophetic vision; as, e.g., is said in
reference to Abraham, “And behold, the word came to him, saying, This
shall not be thine heir” (ibid. xv. 4).
(10) The prophet sees a man that speaks to him in a prophetic vision;
e.g., Abraham in the plain of Mamre (ibid. xviii. 1), and Joshua in
Jericho (Josh. v. 13).
(11) He sees an angel that speaks to him in the vision, as was the case
when Abraham was addressed by an angel at the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen.
xxii. 15). This I hold to be—if we except Moses—the highest degree a
prophet can attain according to Scripture, provided he has, as reason
demands, his rational faculties fully developed. But it appears to me
improbable that a prophet should be able to perceive in a prophetic
vision God speaking to him; the action of the imaginative faculty does
not go so far, and therefore we do not notice this in the case of the
ordinary prophets; Scripture says expressly, “In a vision I will make
myself known, in a dream I will speak to him”; the speaking is here
connected with dream, the influence and the action of the intellect is
connected with vision; comp. “In a vision I will make myself known to
him” (etvaddaʻ, hitpael of yadaʻ, “to know”), but it is not said here
that in a vision anything is heard from God. When I, therefore, met
with statements in Scripture that a prophet heard words spoken to him,
and that this took place in a vision, it occurred to me that the case
in which God appears to address the prophet seems to be the only
difference between a vision and a dream, according to the literal sense
of the Scriptural text. But it is possible to explain the passages in
which a prophet is reported to have heard in the course of a vision
words spoken to him, in the following manner: at first he has had a
vision, but subsequently he fell into a deep sleep, and the vision was
changed into a dream. Thus we explained the words, “And a deep sleep
fell upon Abram” (Gen. xv. 12); and our Sages remark thereon, “This was
a deep sleep of prophecy.” According to this explanation, it is only in
a dream that the prophet can hear words addressed to him; it makes no
difference in what manner words are spoken. Scripture supports this
theory, “In a dream I will speak to him.” But in a prophetic vision
only allegories are perceived, or rational truths are obtained, that
lead to some knowledge in science, such as can be arrived at by
reasoning. This is the meaning of the words, “In a vision I will make
myself known unto him.” According to this second explanation, the
degrees of prophecy are reduced to eight, the highest of them being the
prophetic vision, including all kinds of vision, even the case in which
a man appears to address the prophet, as has been mentioned. You will
perhaps ask this question: among the different degrees of prophecy
there is one in which prophets, e.g., Isaiah, Micaiah, appear to hear
God addressing them; how can this be reconciled with the principle that
all prophets are prophetically addressed through an angel, except Moses
our Teacher, in reference to whom Scripture says, “Mouth to mouth I
speak to him” (Num. xii. 8)? I answer, this is really the case, the
medium here being the imaginative faculty that hears in a prophetic
dream God speaking; but Moses heard the voice addressing him “from
above the covering of the ark from between the two cherubim” (Exod.
xxv. 22) without the medium of the imaginative faculty. In Mishne-torah
we have given the characteristics of this kind of prophecy, and
explained the meaning of the phrases, “Mouth to mouth I speak to him”;
“As man speaketh to his neighbour” (Exod. xxxiii. 11), and the like.
Study it there, and I need not repeat what has already been said.
CHAPTER XLVI
One individual may be taken as an illustration of the individuals of
the whole species. From its properties we learn those of each
individual of the species. I mean to say that the form of one account
of a prophecy illustrates all accounts of the same class. After this
remark you will understand that a person may sometimes dream that he
has gone to a certain country, married there, stayed there for some
time, and had a son, whom he gave a certain name, and who was in a
certain condition [though nothing of all this has really taken place];
so also in prophetic allegories certain objects are seen, acts
performed—if the style of the allegory demands it—things are done by
the prophet, the intervals between one act and another determined, and
journeys undertaken from one place to another; but all these things are
only processes of a prophetic vision, and not real things that could be
perceived by the senses of the body. Some of the accounts simply relate
these incidents [without premising that they are part of a vision],
because it is a well-known fact that all these accounts refer to
prophetic visions, and it was not necessary to repeat in each case a
statement to this effect.
Thus the prophet relates: “And the Lord said unto me,” and need not add
the explanation that it was in a dream. The ordinary reader believes
that the acts, journeys, questions, and answers of the prophets really
took place, and were perceived by the senses, and did not merely form
part of a prophetic vision. I will mention here an instance concerning
which no person will entertain the least doubt. I will add a few more
of the same kind, and these will show you how those passages must be
understood which I do not cite. The following passage in Ezekiel (viii.
1, 3) is clear, and admits of no doubt: “I sat in mine house, and the
elders of Judah sat before me, etc., and a spirit lifted me up between
the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to
Jerusalem,” etc.; also the passage, “Thus I arose and went into the
plain” (iii. 2, 3), refers to a prophetic vision; just as the words,
“And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven and
tell the stars, if thou be able to number them” (Gen. xv. 5) describe a
vision. The same is the case with the words of Ezekiel (xxxvii. 1),
“And set me down in the midst of the valley.” In the description of the
vision in which Ezekiel is brought to Jerusalem, we read as follows:
“And when I looked, behold a hole in the wall. Then said he unto me,
Son of man, dig now in the wall; and when I had digged in the wall,
behold a door” (ibid. viii. 7–8), etc. It was thus in a vision that he
was commanded to dig in the wall, to enter and to see what people were
doing there, and it was in the same vision that he digged, entered
through the hole, and saw certain things, as is related. Just as all
this forms part of a vision, the same may be said of the following
passages: “And thou take unto thee a tile,” etc., “and lie thou also on
thy left side,” etc.; “Take thou also wheat and barley,” etc., “and
cause it to pass over thine head and upon thy beard” (chaps, iv. and
v.) It was in a prophetic vision that he saw that he did all these
actions which he was commanded to do. God forbid to assume that God
would make his prophets appear an object of ridicule and sport in the
eyes of the ignorant, and order them to perform foolish acts. We must
also bear in mind that the command given to Ezekiel implied
disobedience to the Law, for he, being a priest, would, in causing the
razor to pass over every corner of the beard and of the head, have been
guilty of transgressing two prohibitions in each case. But it was only
done in a prophetic vision. Again, when it is said, “As my servant
Isaiah went naked and barefoot” (Isa. xx. 3), the prophet did so in a
prophetic vision. Weak-minded persons believe that the prophet relates
here what he was commanded to do, and what he actually did, and that he
describes how he was commanded to dig in a wall on the Temple mount
although he was in Babylon, and relates how he obeyed the command, for
he says, “And I digged in the wall.” But it is distinctly stated that
all this took place in a vision.
It is analogous to the description of the vision of Abraham which
begins, “The word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying” (Gen.
xv. 1); and contains at the same time the passage, “He brought him
forth abroad, and said, Look now to the heaven and count the stars”
(ibid. ver. 6). It is evident that it was in a vision that Abraham saw
himself brought forth from his place looking towards the heavens and
being told to count the stars. This is related [without repeating the
statement that it was in a vision]. The same I say in reference to the
command given to Jeremiah, to conceal the girdle in the Euphrates, and
the statement that he concealed it, examined it after a long time, and
found it rotten and spoiled (Jer. xiii. 4–7). All this was
allegorically shown in a vision; Jeremiah did not go from Palestine to
Babylon, and did not see the Euphrates. The same applies to the account
of the commandment given to Hosea (i.-iii.): “Take unto thee a wife of
whoredom, and children of whoredom,” to the birth of the children and
to the giving of names to them. All this passed in a prophetic vision.
When once stated that these are allegories, there is left no doubt that
the events related had no real existence, except in the minds of those
of whom the prophet says: “And the vision of every one was unto them
like the words of a sealed book” (Isa. xxix. 11). I believe that the
trial of Gideon (Judges vi. 21, 27) with the fleece and other things
was a vision. I do not call it a prophetic vision, as Gideon had not
reached the degree of prophets, much less that height which would
enable him to do wonders. He only rose to the height of the Judges of
Israel, and he has even been counted by our Sages among persons of
little importance, as has been pointed out by us.
The same can be said of the passage in Zechariah (xi. 7), “And I fed
the flock of slaughter,” and all the incidents that are subsequently
described; the graceful asking for wages, the acceptance of the wages,
the wanting of the money, and the casting of the same into the house of
the treasure; all these incidents form part of the vision. He received
the commandment and carried it out in a prophetic vision or dream.
The correctness of this theory cannot be doubted, and only those do not
comprehend it who do not know to distinguish between that which is
possible, and that which is impossible. The instances quoted may serve
as an illustration of other similar Scriptural passages not quoted by
me. They are all of the same kind, and in the same style. Whatever is
said in the account of a vision, that the prophet heard, went forth,
came out, said, was told, stood, sat, went up, went down, journeyed,
asked, or was asked, all is part of the prophetic vision; even when
there is a lengthened account, the details of which are well connected
as regards the time, the persons referred to, and the place. After it
has once been stated that the event described is to be understood
figuratively, it must be assumed for certain that the whole is a
prophetic vision.
CHAPTER XLVII
It is undoubtedly clear and evident that most prophecies are given in
images, for this is the characteristic of the imaginative faculty, the
organ of prophecy. We find it also necessary to say a few words on the
figures, hyperboles, and exaggerations that occur in Scripture. They
would create strange ideas if we were to take them literally without
noticing the exaggeration which they contain, or if we were to
understand them in accordance with the original meaning of the terms,
ignoring the fact that these are used figuratively. Our Sages say
distinctly Scripture uses hyperbolic or exaggerated language; and quote
as an instance, “cities walled and fortified, rising up to heaven”
(Deut. i. 28). As a hyperbole our Sages quote, “For the bird of heaven
carries the voice” (Eccles. x. 20); in the same sense it is said,
“Whose height is like that of cedar trees” (Amos ii. 9). Instances of
this kind are frequent in the language of all prophets; what they say
is frequently hyperbolic or exaggerated, and not precise or exact. What
Scripture says about Og, “Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead,
nine cubits its length,” etc. (Deut.), does not belong to this class of
figures, for the bedstead (eres, comp. arsenu, Song of Sol. i. 16) is
never exactly of the same dimensions as the person using it; it is not
like a dress that fits round the body; it is always greater than the
person that sleeps therein; as a rule, it is by a third longer. If,
therefore, the bed of Og was nine cubits in length, he must, according
to this proportion, have been six cubits high, or a little more. The
words, “by the cubit of a man,” mean, by the measure of an ordinary
man, and not by the measure of Og; for men have the limbs in a certain
proportion. Scripture thus tells us that Og was double as long as an
ordinary person, or a little less. This is undoubtedly an exceptional
height among men, but not quite impossible. As regards the Scriptural
statement about the length of man’s life in those days, I say that only
the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the
ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in
consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living,
or by way of miracle, which admits of no analogy.
We must further discuss the figurative language employed in Scripture.
In some cases this is clear and evident, and doubted by no person;
e.g., “The mountains and hills shall break forth in song before you,
and all the trees of the wood clap their hands” (Isa. lv. 12); this is
evidently figurative language; also the following passage—“The
fir-trees rejoice at thee,” etc. (ibid. xiv. 8), which is rendered by
Jonathan, son of Uzziel, “The rulers rejoice at thee, who are rich in
possessions.” This figure is similar to that used in the phrase,
“Butter of kine and milk of sheep,” etc. (Deut. xxxii. 14).
And these figures are very frequent in the books of the prophets. Some
are easily recognised by the ordinary reader as figures, others with
some difficulty. Thus nobody doubts that the blessing, “May the Lord
open to thee his good treasure, the heavens,” must be taken
figuratively; for God has no treasure in which He keeps the rain. The
same is the case with the following passage—“He opened the doors of
heaven, he rained upon them manna to eat” (Ps. lxxviii. 23, 24). No
person assumes that there is a door or gate in heaven, but every one
understands that this is a simile and a figurative expression. In the
same way must be understood the following passages—“The heavens were
opened” (Ezek. i. 1); “If not, blot me out from thy book which thou
hast written” (Exod. xxxii. 32); “I will blot him out from the book of
life” (ibid. ver. 33). All these phrases are figurative; and we must
not assume that God has a book in which He writes, or from which He
blots out, as those generally believe that do not find figurative
speech in these passages. They are all of the same kind. You must
explain passages not quoted by me by those which I have quoted in this
chapter. Employ your reason, and you will be able to discern what is
said allegorically, figuratively, or hyperbolically, and what is meant
literally, exactly according to the original meaning of the words. You
will then understand all prophecies, learn and retain rational
principles of faith, pleasing in the eyes of God who is most pleased
with truth, and most displeased with falsehood; your mind and heart
will not be so perplexed as to believe or accept as law what is untrue
or improbable, whilst the Law is perfectly true when properly
understood. Thus Scripture says, “Thy testimonies are righteousness for
ever” (Ps. cxix. 144); and “I the Lord speak righteousness” (Isa. xlv.
19). If you adopt this method, you will not imagine the existence of
things which God has not created, or accept principles which might
partly lead to atheism, or to a corruption of your notions of God so as
to ascribe to Him corporeality, attributes, or emotions, as has been
shown by us, nor will you believe that the words of the prophets are
false; for the cause of this disease is ignorance of what we have
explained. These things belong likewise to the mysteries of the Law;
and although we have treated them in a general manner, they can easily
be understood in all their details in accordance with the above
remarks.
CHAPTER XLVIII
It is clear that everything produced must have an immediate cause which
produced it; that cause again a cause, and so on, till the First Cause,
viz., the will and decree of God is reached. The prophets therefore
omit sometimes the intermediate causes, and ascribe the production of
an individual thing directly to God, saying that God has made it. This
method is well known, and we, as well as others of those who seek the
truth, have explained it; it is the belief of our co-religionists.
After having heard this remark, listen to what I will explain in this
chapter; direct your special attention to it more than you have done to
the other chapters of this part. It is this: As regards the immediate
causes of things produced, it makes no difference whether these causes
consist in substances, physical properties, freewill, or chance—by
freewill I mean that of man—or even in the will of another living
being. The prophets [omit them and] ascribe the production directly to
God and use such phrases as, God has done it, commanded it, or said it;
in all such cases the verbs “to say,” “to speak,” “to command,” “to
call,” and “to send” are employed. What I desired to state in this
chapter is this: According to the hypothesis and theory accepted, it is
God that gave will to dumb animals, freewill to the human being, and
natural properties to everything; and as accidents originate in the
redundancy of some natural force, as has been explained [by Aristotle],
and are mostly the result of the combined action of nature, desire, and
freewill: it can consequently be said of everything which is produced
by any of these causes, that God commanded that it should be made, or
said that it should be so. I will give you instances, and they will
guide you in the interpretation of passages which I do not mention. As
regards phenomena produced regularly by natural causes, such as the
melting of the snow when the atmosphere becomes warm, the roaring of
the sea when a storm rages [I quote the following passages], “He
sendeth his word and melteth them” (Ps. cxlvii. 18); “And he saith, and
a storm-wind riseth, and lifteth up its waves” (ibid. cvii. 25). In
reference to the rain we read: “I will command the clouds that they
shall not rain,” etc. (Isa. v. 6). Events caused by man’s freewill,
such as war, the dominion of one nation over another, the attempt of
one person to hurt another, or to insult him, [are ascribed to God, as]
e.g., in reference to the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar and his host, “I
have commended my holy ones, also I have called my heroes for my anger”
(Isa. xiii. 3); and “I will send him against a hypocrite nation” (ibid.
x. 6); in reference to Shimei, son of Gera, “For God said to him, Curse
David” (2 Sam. xvi. 10); in reference to the deliverance of Joseph, the
righteous, from prison, “He sent an angel and loosed him” (Ps. cv. 20);
in reference to the victory of the Persians over the Chaldees, “I will
send to Babylon scatterers, and they shall scatter it” (Jer. li. 2); in
reference to the providing of food to Eliah, “I have commanded there a
woman, a widow, to maintain thee” (1 Kings xvii. 9); and Joseph, the
righteous, says: “Not ye have sent me hither,” etc. (Gen. xlv. 8). The
case that the will of an animal or its desire for some of its natural
wants is the cause of some event, may be illustrated by the following
instance: “And God spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah” (ii.
11). The act is ascribed to God, because He gave the fish the will, and
not because He made it a prophet or endowed it with a prophetical
spirit. Similarly it is said of the locusts that appeared in the days
of Joel, son of Pethuel, “Mighty is he that accomplishes his word”
(Joel ii. 11); or of the beasts that took possession of the land of
Edom when destroyed in the days of Sennacherib, “He cast lot for them,
and his hand divided it unto them by a line” (Isa. xxxiv. 17). Although
here the verbs “to say,” “to command,” “to send,” are not used, the
meaning is evidently the same, and you must explain all passages that
are analogous to it in a similar manner. Events evidently due to chance
are ascribed to God; e.g., in reference to Rebecca, “Let her be a wife
to the son of thy master, as the Lord spake” (Gen. xxiv. 51); in
reference to David and Jonathan, “Go, for the Lord has sent thee.” (1
Sam. xx. 22); in reference to Joseph, “God sent me before you” (Gen.
xlv. 7). You see clearly that the providing of a cause, in whatever
manner this may take place, by substance, accident, freewill, or will,
is always expressed by one of the five terms, commanding, saying,
speaking, sending, or calling. Note this, and apply it everywhere
according to the context. Many difficulties will thereby be removed,
and passages apparently containing things far from truth will prove to
be true. This is the conclusion of the treatise on Prophecy, its
allegories and language. It is all I intend to say on this subject in
this treatise. We will now commence to treat of other subjects, with
the help of the Most High.
PART III
INTRODUCTION
We have stated several times that it is our primary object in this
treatise to expound, as far as possible, the Biblical account of the
Creation (Maʻaseh bereshit) and the description of the Divine Chariot
(Maʻaseh mercabah) in a manner adapted to the training of those for
whom this work is written.
We have also stated that these subjects belong to the mysteries of the
Law. You are well aware how our Sages blame those who reveal these
mysteries, and praise the merits of those who keep them secret,
although they are perfectly clear to the philosopher. In this sense
they explain the passage, “Her merchandise shall be for them that dwell
before the Lord, to eat sufficiently” (Isa. xxiii. 18), which concludes
in the original with the words ve-li-me-kasseh ʻatik, i.e., that these
blessings are promised to him who hides things which the Eternal has
revealed [to him], viz., the mysteries of the Law (Babyl. Talmud,
Pesaḥim 119a). If you have understanding you will comprehend that which
our Sages pointed out. They have clearly stated that the Divine Chariot
includes matters too deep and too profound for the ordinary intellect.
It has been shown that a person favoured by Providence with reason to
understand these mysteries is forbidden by the Law to teach them except
vivâ voce, and on condition that the pupil possess certain
qualifications, and even then only the heads of the sections may be
communicated. This has been the cause why the knowledge of this mystery
has entirely disappeared from our nation, and nothing has remained of
it. This was unavoidable, for the explanation of these mysteries was
always communicated vivâ voce, it was never committed to writing. Such
being the case, how can I venture to call your attention to such
portions of it as may be known, intelligible, and perfectly clear to
me? But if, on the other hand, I were to abstain from writing on this
subject, according to my knowledge of it, when I die, as I shall
inevitably do, that knowledge would die with me, and I would thus
inflict great injury on you and all those who are perplexed [by these
theological problems], I would then be guilty of withholding the truth
from those to whom it ought to be communicated, and of jealously
depriving the heir of his inheritance. I should in either case be
guilty of gross misconduct.
To give a full explanation of the mystic passages of the Bible is
contrary to the Law and to reason; besides, my knowledge of them is
based on reasoning, not on divine inspiration [and is therefore not
infallible]. I have not received my belief in this respect from any
teacher, but it has been formed by what I learnt from Scripture and the
utterances of our Sages, and by the philosophical principles which I
have adopted. It is therefore possible that my view is wrong, and that
I misunderstood the passages referred to. Correct thought and divine
help have suggested to me the proper method, viz., to explain the words
of the prophet Ezekiel in such a manner that those who will read my
interpretation will believe that I have not added anything to the
contents of the text, but only, as it were, translated from one
language into another, or given a short exposition of plain things.
Those, however, for whom this treatise has been composed, will, on
reflecting on it and thoroughly examining each chapter, obtain a
perfect and clear insight into all that has been clear and intelligible
to me. This is the utmost that can be done in treating this subject so
as to be useful to all without fully explaining it.
After this introductory remark I ask you to study attentively the
chapters which follow on this sublime, important, and grand subject,
which is the pin upon which everything hangs, and the pillar upon which
everything rests.
CHAPTER I
It is well known that there are men whose face is like that of other
animals; thus the face of some person is like that of a lion, that of
another person like that of an ox, and so on; and man’s face is
described according as the form of his face resembles the form of the
face of other animals. By the expressions, “the face of an ox,” “the
face of a lion,” “the face of an eagle” (Ezek, i. 10), the prophet
describes a human face inclining towards the forms of these various
species. This interpretation can be supported by two proofs. First, the
prophet says of the Ḥayyot in general that “their appearance is this,
they have the form of man” (ver. 5), and then in describing each of the
Ḥayyot he attributes to them the face of a man, that of an ox, that of
a lion, and that of an eagle. Secondly, in the second description of
the Chariot, which is intended as a supplement to the first, the
prophet says, Each hath four faces; the one is the face of a cherub,
the second a man’s face, the third a lion’s face, and the fourth that
of an eagle (ibid. x. 14). He thus clearly indicates that the terms
“the face of an ox” and “the face of a cherub” are identical. But
cherub designates “a youth.” By analogy we explain the two other
terms—“the face of a lion” and “the face of an eagle” in the same
manner. “The face of the ox” has been singled out on account of the
etymology of the Hebrew term shor (ox), as has been indicated by me. It
is impossible to assume that this second description refers to the
perception of another prophetic vision, because it concludes thus:
“This is the Ḥayyah which I saw at the river Chebar” (ibid. ver. 15).
What we intended to explain is now clear.
CHAPTER II
The prophet says that he saw four Ḥayyot; each of them had four faces,
four wings, and two hands, but on the whole their form was human. Comp.
“They had the likeness of a man” (Ezek. i. 5). The hands are also
described as human hands, because these have undoubtedly, as is well
known, such a form as enables them to perform all manner of cunning
work. Their feet are straight; that is to say, they are without joints.
This is the meaning of the phrase “a straight foot,” taken literally.
Similarly our Sages say, the words, “And their feet were straight feet”
(ibid. i. 7), show that the beings above do not sit. Note this
likewise. The soles of the feet of the Ḥayyot, the organs of walking,
are described as different from the feet of man, but the hands are like
human hands. The feet are round, for the prophet says, “like the sole
of a round foot.” The four Ḥayyot are closely joined together, there is
no space or vacuum left between them. Comp. “They were joined one to
another” (ibid. i. 9). “But although they were thus joined together,
their faces and their wings were separated above” (ibid. ver. 11).
Consider the expression “above” employed here, although the bodies were
closely joined, their faces and their wings were separated, but only
above. The prophet then states that they are transparent; they are
“like burnished brass” (ibid. ver. 7). He also adds that they are
luminous. Comp. “Their appearance was like burning coals of fire”
(ibid. ver. 13). This is all that has been said as regards the form,
shape, face, figure, wings, hands, and feet of the Ḥayyot. The prophet
then begins to describe the motions of these Ḥayyot, namely, that they
have a uniform motion, without any curvature, deviation, or deflexion:
“They turned not when they went” (ver. 17). Each of the Ḥayyot moves in
the direction of its face. Comp. “They went every one in the direction
of his face” (ver. 9). Now, it is here clearly stated that each Ḥayyah
went in the direction of its face, but since each Ḥayyah has several
faces, I ask, in the direction of which face? In short, the four Ḥayyot
do not move in the same direction; for, if this were the case, a
special motion would not have been ascribed to each of them; it would
not have been said, “They went each one towards the side of his face.”
The motion of these Ḥayyot is further described as a running, so also
their returning is described as a running. Comp. “And the Ḥayyot ran,
and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning” (ver. 14),
raẓoh being the infinitive of ruẓ, “to run,” and shob the infinitive
instead of shub, “to return.” The ordinary words, haloch and bo, “to
go” and “to come,” are not used, but such words as indicate running to
and fro; and these are further explained by the phrase, “As the
appearance of a flash of lightning” (bazak, used by the prophet, is
identical with barak), for the lightning appears to move very quickly;
it seems to hasten and to run from a certain place, and then to turn
back and to come again to the place from which it had started. This is
repeated several times with the same velocity. Jonathan, the son of
Uzziel, renders the phrase raẓo vashob thus: They move round the world
and return at once, and are as swift as the appearance of lightning.
This quick movement and return the Ḥayyah does not perform of its own
accord, but through something outside of it, viz., the Divine Will; for
“to whichever side it is the Divine Will that the Ḥayyah should move,
thither the Ḥayyah moves,” in that quick manner which is expressed by
“running and returning.” This is implied in the words, “Whithersoever
the spirit was to go they went” (ver. 20); “They turned not when they
went” (ver. 17). By “the spirit” (ruaḥ), the prophet does not mean “the
wind,” but “the intention,” as we have explained when discussing the
homonym ruaḥ (spirit). The meaning of the phrase is, that whithersoever
it is the Divine Will that the Ḥayyah shall go, thither it runs.
Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, gives a similar explanation: Towards the
place whither it is the will to go, they go; they do not turn when they
go. The employment of the future tense of the verbs yihyeh and yeleku
in this passage seems to imply that sometimes it will be the will of
God that the Ḥayyah should move in one direction, in which it will in
fact move, and at other times it will be His will that the Ḥayyah
should move in the opposite direction, in which it will then move. An
explanation is, however, added, which is contrary to this conclusion,
and shows that the future form (yihyeh) of the verb has here the
meaning of the preterite, as is frequently the case in Hebrew. The
direction in which God desires the Ḥayyah to move has already been
determined and fixed, and the Ḥayyah moves in that direction which His
will has determined long ago, without having ever changed. The prophet,
therefore, in explaining, and at the same time concluding [this
description of the Ḥayyot], says, “Whithersoever the spirit was to go
they go, thither was the spirit to go” (ver. 20). Note this wonderful
interpretation. This passage forms likewise part of the account of the
motion of the four Ḥayyot which follows the description of their form.
Next comes the description of another part; for the prophet relates
that he saw a body beneath the Ḥayyot, but closely joining them. This
body, which is connected with the earth, consists likewise of four
bodies, and has also four faces. But no distinct form is ascribed to
it; neither that of man nor that of any other living being. The [four
bodies] are described as great, tremendous, and terrible; no form is
given to them, except that they are covered with eyes. These are the
bodies called Ofannim (lit. wheels). The prophet therefore says: “Now,
as I beheld the Ḥayyot, behold one wheel upon the earth beside the
living creatures, with his four faces” (ver. 15). He thus distinctly
states that the Ofannim form a body, of which the one part touches the
Ḥayyot, and the other part the earth; and that the Ofan has four faces.
But he continues—“The appearance of the Ofannim (wheels) and their work
was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness”
(ver. 16). By speaking of four Ofannim, after having mentioned only one
Ofan, the prophet indicates that the “four faces” and the “four
Ofannim” are identical. These four Ofannim have the same form; comp.,
“And they four had one likeness.” The Ofannim are then described as
partly inter-joined; for “their appearance and their work was as it
were a wheel in the middle of a wheel” (ver. 16). In the description of
the Ḥayyot such a phrase, with the term “in the middle of” (tok) is not
employed. The Ḥayyot are partly joined, according to the words, “they
were joined one to another” (ver. 11); whilst in reference to the
Ofannim it is stated that they are partly intermixed, “as it were a
wheel in the middle of a wheel.” The body of the Ofannim is described
as being covered with eyes; it is possible that a body covered with
real eyes is here meant, or a body with different colours [ʻayin
denoting “eye,” also “colour”], as in the phrase “the colour thereof
[ʻeno] as the colour (keʻen) of bdellium” (Num. xi. 7); or a body
filled with likenesses of things. In this latter sense the term ʻayin
is used by our Sages in phrases like the following:—Like that [keʻen]
which he has stolen, like that [keʻen] which he has robbed; or
different properties and qualities are meant, according to the meaning
of the word ʻayin in the passage, “It may be that the Lord will look
(beʻenai) on my condition” (2 Sam. xvi. 12). So much for the form of
the Ofannim. Their motion is described as being without curvature and
deviation; as being straight, without any change. This is expressed in
the words, “When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they
turned not when they went” (E.; ver. 17). The four Ofannim do not move
of their own accord, as the Ḥayyot, and have no motion whatever of
their own; they are set in motion by other beings, as is emphatically
stated twice. The Ḥayyot are the moving agents of the Ofannim. The
relation between the Ofan and the Ḥayyah may be compared to the
relation between a lifeless body tied to the hand or the leg of a
living animal; whithersoever the latter moves, thither moves also the
piece of wood, or the stone, which is tied to the named limb of the
animal. This is expressed in the following words:—“And when the Ḥayyot
went, the Ofannim went by them; and when the living creatures were
lifted up from the earth, the Ofannim were lifted up” (ver. 19); “and
the Ofannim were lifted up over against them” (ver. 20). And the cause
of this is explained thus:—“The spirit of the Ḥayyah was in the
Ofannim” (ibid.). For the sake of emphasis and further explanation the
prophet adds, “When those went, these went; and when those stood, these
stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the Ofannim were
lifted up over against them; for the spirit of the Ḥayyah was in the
Ofannim” (ver. 21). The order of these movements is therefore as
follows:—Whithersoever it is the will of God that the Ḥayyot should
move, thither they move of their own accord. When the Ḥayyot move the
Ofannim necessarily follow them, because they are tied to them, and not
because they move of their own accord in the direction in which the
Ḥayyot move. This order is expressed in the words, “Whithersoever the
spirit was to go, they went, thither was the spirit to go; and the
Ofannim were lifted up over against them; for the spirit of the Ḥayyah
was in the Ofannim” (ver. 20). I have told you that Jonathan, the son
of Uzziel, translates the verse thus, “to the place whither it was the
will that the Ḥayyot should go,” etc.
After having completed the account of the Ḥayyot, with their form and
motion, and of the Ofannim, which are beneath the Ḥayyot, connected
with them and forced to move when the Ḥayyot move, the prophet begins
to describe a third object which he perceived prophetically, and gives
the account of a new thing, viz., of that which is above the Ḥayyot. He
says that the firmament is above the four Ḥayyot, above the firmament
is the likeness of a throne, and over the throne the likeness of the
appearance of man. This is the whole account of what the prophet
perceived at first at the river Chebar.
CHAPTER III
When Ezekiel recalled to memory the form of the Chariot, which he
described in the beginning of the book, the same vision presented
itself to him a second time; in this vision he was borne to Jerusalem.
He explains in describing it things which have not been made clear at
first, e.g., he substitutes the term “cherubim” for Ḥayyot, whereby he
expresses that the Ḥayyot of the first vision are likewise angels like
the cherubim. He says, therefore: “Where the cherubims went, the
Ofannim went by them: and when the cherubims lifted up their wings to
mount up from the earth, the same Ofannim also turned not from beside
them” (x. 16). By these words he shows how closely connected the two
motions are [viz., that of the Ḥayyot and that of the Ofannim]. The
prophet adds, “This is the Ḥayyah that I saw under the God of Israel by
the river of Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubims” (ver. 20). He
thus describes the same forms and the same motions, and states that the
Ḥayyot and the cherubim are identical. A second point is then made
clear in this second description, namely, that the Ofannim are
spherical; for the prophet says, “As for the Ofannim, it was cried unto
them in my hearing, O sphere” (ver. 13). A third point concerning the
Ofannim is illustrated here in the following words: “To the place
whither the head looked they followed it: they turned not as they went”
(ver. 11). The motion of the Ofannim is thus described as involuntary,
and directed “to the place whither the head looketh”; and of this it is
stated that it moves “whither the spirit is to go” (i. 20). A fourth
point is added concerning the Ofannim, namely, “And the Ofannim were
full of eyes round about, even the Ofannim that they four had” (x. 12).
This has not been mentioned before. In this second description there
are further mentioned “their flesh, and their backs, and their hands,
and their wings” (ibid.), whilst in the first account none of these is
mentioned; and it is only stated that they are bodies. Though they are
endowed in the second account with flesh, hands, and wings, no form is
given to them. In the second account each ofan is attributed to a
cherub, “one ofan by one cherub, and another ofan by another cherub.”
The four Ḥayyot are then described as one Ḥayyah on account of their
interjoining: “This is the Ḥayyah that I saw under the God of Israel by
the river of Chebar” (ver. 20). Also the Ofannim, though being four in
number, as has been mentioned, are called “one ofan upon the earth”
(ver. 15), because they interjoin, and “they four have one likeness”
(ver. 16). This is the additional explanation which the second vision
gives of the form of the Ḥayyot and the Ofannim.
CHAPTER IV
It is necessary to call your attention to an idea expressed by
Jonathan, the son of Uzziel. When he saw that the prophet says in
reference to the Ofannim, “It was cried unto them in my hearing, O
gilgal” (“sphere”) (x. 13), he assumed that by Ofannim the heavens are
meant, and rendered ofan by gilgal, “sphere,” and ofannim by gilgelaya,
“spheres.” I have no doubt that he found a confirmation of his opinion
in the words of the prophet that the Ofannim were like unto the colour
of tarshish (ver. 16), a colour ascribed to the heavens, as is well
known. When he, therefore, noticed the passage, “Now as I beheld the
Ḥayyot, behold one Ofan upon the earth” (i. 15), which clearly shows
that the Ofannim were upon the earth, he had a difficulty in explaining
it in accordance with his opinion. Following, however, his
interpretation, he explains the terms ereẓ, employed here as denoting
the inner surface of the heavenly sphere, which may be considered as
ereẓ (“earth” or “below”), in relation to all that is above that
surface. He therefore translates the words ofan eḥad ba-areẓ as
follows: “One ofan was below the height of the heavens.” Consider what
his explanation of the passage must be. I think that he gave this
explanation because he thought that gilgal denotes in its original
meaning “heaven.” My opinion is that gilgal means originally “anything
rolling”; comp. “And I will roll thee (ve-gilgaltika) down from the
rocks” (Jer. li. 25); “and rolled (va-yagel) the stone” (Gen. xxix.
10); the same meaning the word has in the phrase: “Like a rolling thing
(gilgal) before the whirlwind” (Isa. xvii. 13). The poll of the head,
being round, is therefore called gulgolet; and because everything round
rolls easily, every spherical thing is called gilgal; also the heavens
are called gilgallim on account of their spherical form. Thus our Sages
use the phrase, “It is a wheel (gilgal) that moves round the world”;
and a wooden ball, whether small or large, is called gilgal. If so, the
prophet merely intended by the words, “As for the Ofannim, it is cried
to them in my hearing, O sphere” (gilgal), to indicate the shape of the
Ofannim, as nothing has been mentioned before respecting their form and
shape; but he did not mean to say that the Ofannim are the same as the
heavens. The term “like tarshish” is explained in the second account,
in which it is said of the Ofannim: “And the appearance of the ofannim
was like the colour of tarshish.” This latter passage is translated by
Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, “like the colour of a precious stone,”
exactly in the same manner as Onkelos translates the phrase ke-maʻase
libnat ha-sappir, “like the work of the whiteness of sapphire” (Exod.
xxix. 10). Note this. You will not find it strange that I mention the
explanation of Jonathan, son of Uzziel, whilst I gave a different
explanation myself; for you will find many of the wise men and the
commentators differ sometimes from him in the interpretation of words
and in many things respecting the prophets. Why should it be otherwise
in these profound matters? Besides, I do not decide in favour of my
interpretation. It is for you to learn both—the whole of his
explanation, from what I have pointed out to you, and also my own
opinion. God knoweth which of the two explanations is in accordance
with that which the prophet intended to say.
CHAPTER V
It is necessary to notice that the plural marot elohim, “visions of
God,” is here used, and not the singular mareh, “vision,” for there
were several things, of different kinds, that were perceived by the
prophet. The following three things were perceived by him: the Ofannim,
the Ḥayyot, and the man above the Ḥayyot. The description of each of
these visions is introduced by the word va-ereh, “and I beheld.” For
the account of the Ḥayyot, begins, “And I looked (va-ereh), and behold
a whirlwind,” etc. (Ezek. i. 4). The account of the Ofannim begins:
“Now as I beheld (va-ereh) the Ḥayyot, behold one Ofan upon the earth”
(ver. 15). The vision of that which is above the Ḥayyot in order and
rank begins: “And I saw (va-ereh) as the colour of the amber, etc.,
from the appearance of his loins even upward” (ver. 27). The word
va-ereh, “and I beheld,” only occurs these three times in the
description of the Mercabah. The doctors of the Mishnah have already
explained this fact, and my attention was called to it by their
remarks. For they said that only the two first visions, namely, that of
the Ḥayyot and the Ofannim, might be interpreted to others; but of the
third vision, viz., that of the ḥashmal and all that is connected with
it, only the heads of the sections may be taught. Rabbi [Jehudah], the
Holy, is of opinion that all the three visions are called maʻaseh
mercabah, and nothing but the heads of the sections could be
communicated to others. The exact words of the discussion are as
follows:—Where does maʻaseh mercabhah end? Rabbi says, with the last
va-ereh; Rabbi Yiẓḥak says it ends at the word ḥashmal (ver. 27). The
portion from va-ereh to ḥashmal may be fully taught; of that which
follows, only the heads of the sections; according to some it is the
passage from va-ereh to ḥashmal, of which the heads of the sections may
be taught, but that which follows may only be studied by those who
possess the capacity, whilst those that cannot study it by themselves
must leave it.—It is clear from the words of our Sages that different
visions are described, as may also be inferred from the repetition of
the word va-ereh, and that these visions are different from each other
in degree; the last and highest of them is the vision commencing, “And
I saw as the colour of ḥashmal”; that is to say, the divided figure of
the man, described as “the appearance of fire, etc., from the
appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his
loins even downward,” etc. There is a difference of opinion among our
Sages whether it is permitted to give by way of hints an exposition of
any part of this third vision, or whether it is prohibited even to
teach of it the heads of the sections, so that only the wise can arrive
at understanding it by their own studies. You will also notice a
difference of opinion among our Sages in reference to the two first
visions, viz., that of the Ḥayyot and that of the Ofannim whether these
may be taught explicitly or only by way of hints, dark sayings, and
heads of sections. You must also notice the order of these three
visions. First comes the vision of the Ḥayyot, because they are first
in rank and in the causal relation, as it is said, “For the spirit of
the Ḥayyah was in the Ofannim” and also for other reasons. The vision
of the Ofannim [comes next, and] is followed by one which is higher
than the Ḥayyot, as has been shown. The cause of this arrangement is,
that in study the first two must necessarily precede the third, and in
fact they lead to it.
CHAPTER VI
The sublime and great subject which Ezekiel by prophetic impulse began
to teach us in the description of the Mercabah, is exactly the same
which Isaiah taught us in general outlines, because he did not require
all the detail. Isaiah says, “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne,
high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood
seraphims,” etc. (Isa. vi. 1 seq.). Our Sages have already stated all
this clearly, and called our attention to it. For they say that the
vision of Ezekiel is the same as that of Isaiah, and illustrate their
view by the following simile:—Two men saw the king riding, the one a
townsman, the other a countryman. The former, seeing that his
neighbours know well how the king rides, simply tells them that he saw
the king; but the villager, wishing to tell his friends things which
they do not know, relates in detail how the king was riding, describes
his followers, and the officers who execute his order and command. This
remark is a most useful hint; it is contained in the following passage
(Ḥagigah, 13 b): “Isaiah saw all that has been seen by Ezekiel; Isaiah
is like a townsman that sees the king, Ezekiel like a countryman that
sees the king.” These words can be explained in the manner which I have
just mentioned, viz., the generation of Isaiah did not require the
detailed description; his account, “I saw the Lord,” etc., sufficed.
The generation of the Babylonian exile wanted to learn all the details.
It is, however, possible that the author of this saying held Isaiah as
more perfect than Ezekiel, so that the vision might have overawed
Ezekiel and appeared fearful to him; but Isaiah was so familiar with it
that he did not consider it necessary to communicate it to others as a
new thing, especially as it was well known to the intelligent.
CHAPTER VII
One of the points that require investigation is the connexion between
the vision of the mercabah and the year, month, and day, and also the
place of the vision. A reason must be found for this connexion, and we
must not think that it is an indifferent element in the vision. We must
consider the words, “the heavens were opened” (Ezek. i. 1); they give
the key to the understanding of the whole. The figure of opening, also
that of opening the gates, occurs frequently in the books of the
prophets; e.g., “Open ye the gates that the righteous nation may enter
in” (Isa. xxvi. 2); “He opened the doors of heaven” (Ps. lxxviii. 23);
“Lift them up, ye everlasting doors” (ibid. xxiv. 9); “Open to me the
gates of righteousness, I will go into them, and I will praise the
Lord” (ibid. cxviii. 19). There are many other instances of this kind.
You must further notice that the whole description refers undoubtedly
to a prophetic vision, as it is said, “And the hand of the Lord was
there upon him” (Ezek. i. 3); and yet there is a very great difference
between the various parts of the description, for in the account of the
Ḥayyot the prophet does not say four Ḥayyot, but “the likeness of the
four Ḥayyot” (ibid. ver. 5); similarly he says, “And the likeness of a
firmament was over the heads of the Ḥayyot” (ver. 22); “as the
appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne,” and “the
likeness of the appearance of man above it” (ver. 26). In all these
instances the word “likeness” is used, whilst in the account of the
Ofannim the phrases, “the likeness of Ofannim,” the “likeness of an
Ofan,” are not employed, but they are described in a positive manner as
beings in actual existence, with their real properties. The sentence
“they four had one likeness” must not mislead you, for here the word
“likeness” is not used in the same connexion or in the same sense as
indicated above. In the description of the last vision the prophet
confirms and explains this view. When he commences to describe the
firmament in detail, he says, “the firmament,” without adding the words
“the likeness of,” for he says, “And I looked, and behold, in the
firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over
them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of
a throne” (x. 1). Here the prophet speaks of “the firmament” and not of
“the likeness of the firmament,” as he does when he connects the
firmament with the heads of the likeness of the Ḥayyot (i. 22). But, as
regards the throne, he says, “the likeness of a throne appeared over
them,” in order to indicate that the firmament was first perceived and
then the likeness of the throne was seen over it. Consider this well.
You must further notice that in the description of the first vision the
Ḥayyot have wings and at the same time human hands, whilst in the
second vision, in which the term cherubim is substituted for Ḥayyot, at
first only wings were perceived, and later on human hands were seen.
Comp. “And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man’s hand
under their wings” (x. 8). Here “form” (tabnit) is used instead of
“likeness” (demut); and the hands are placed under the wings. Note
this.
Consider that in reference to the ofannim, the prophet says,
le-ʻummatam, “over against them,” although he does not ascribe to them
any form.
He further says, “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in
the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory,” etc. (i. 28).
The substance and true essence of the bow described here is well known.
The simile and comparison is in this case very extraordinary, and is
undoubtedly part of the prophecy; and note it well.
It is also noteworthy that the likeness of man above the throne is
divided, the upper part being like the colour of ḥashmal, the lower
part like the appearance of fire. As regards the word ḥashmal, it has
been explained to be a compound of two words ḥash and mal, including
two different notions, viz., ḥash signifying “swiftness,” and mal
denoting “pause.” The two different notions are here joined in one word
in order to indicate figuratively the two different parts,—the upper
part and the lower. We have already given a second explanation, namely,
that ḥashmal includes the two notions of speech and silence; in
accordance with the saying of our Sages, “At times they are silent, at
times they speak,” thus deriving hash of the same root as heḥeshethi,
“I have been silent” (Isa. xlii. 14); the word ḥashmal thus includes
two notions, and indicates “speech without sound.” There is no doubt
that the words, “at times they are silent, at times they speak,” refer
to a created object. Now consider how they clearly stated that the
divided likeness of man over the throne does not represent God, who is
above the whole chariot, but represents a part of the creation. The
prophet likewise says “that is the likeness of the glory of the Lord”;
but “the glory of the Lord” is different from “the Lord” Himself, as
has been shown by us several times. All the figures in this vision
refer to the glory of the Lord, to the chariot, and not to Him who
rides upon the chariot; for God cannot be compared to anything. Note
this. I have thus given you also in this chapter as much of the heads
of the sections as will be useful to you for the comprehension of this
subject, if you fill out [the sections of] these heads. If you consider
all that has been said in this part up to this chapter, the greater
part of this subject or the whole of it will be clear to you, except a
few points and some repetitions the meaning of which is unknown.
Perhaps further study will help to reveal even these things so that
nothing will remain unintelligible.
Do not expect or hope to hear from me after this chapter a word on this
subject, either explicitly or implicitly, for all that could be said on
it has been said, though with great difficulty and struggle. I will now
begin to treat of some of the other subjects which I hope to elucidate
in this treatise.
CHAPTER VIII
Transient bodies are only subject to destruction through their
substance and not through their form, nor can the essence of their form
be destroyed; in this respect they are permanent. The generic forms, as
you know, are all permanent and stable. Form can only be destroyed
accidentally, i.e., on account of its connexion with substance, the
true nature of which consists in the property of never being without a
disposition to receive form. This is the reason why no form remains
permanently in a substance; a constant change takes place, one form is
taken off and another is put on. How wonderfully wise is the simile of
King Solomon, in which he compares matter to a faithless wife; for
matter is never found without form, and is therefore always like such a
wife who is never without a husband, never single; and yet, though
being wedded, constantly seeks another man in the place of her husband;
she entices and attracts him in every possible manner till he obtains
from her what her husband has obtained. The same is the case with
matter. Whatever form it has, it is disposed to receive another form;
it never leaves off moving and casting off the form which it has in
order to receive another. The same takes place when this second form is
received. It is therefore clear that all corruption, destruction, or
defect comes from matter. Take, e.g., man; his deformities and
unnatural shape of limbs; all weakness, interruption, or disorder of
his actions, whether innate or not, originate in the transient
substance, not in the form. All other living beings likewise die or
become ill through the substance of the body and not through its form.
Man’s shortcomings and sins are all due to the substance of the body
and not to its form; while all his merits are exclusively due to his
form. Thus the knowledge of God, the formation of ideas, the mastery of
desire and passion, the distinction between that which is to be chosen
and that which is to be rejected, all these man owes to his form; but
eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, excessive lust, passion, and all
vices, have their origin in the substance of his body. Now it was clear
that this was the case,—it was impossible, according to the wisdom of
God, that substance should exist without form, or any of the forms of
the bodies without substance, and it was necessary that the very noble
form of man, which is the image and likeness of God, as has been shown
by us, should be joined to the substance of dust and darkness, the
source of all defect and loss. For these reasons the Creator gave to
the form of man power, rule, and dominion over the substance;—the form
can subdue the substance, refuse the fulfilment of its desires, and
reduce them, as far as possible, to a just and proper measure. The
station of man varies according to the exercise of this power. Some
persons constantly strive to choose that which is noble, and to seek
perpetuation in accordance with the direction of their nobler
part,—their form; their thoughts are engaged in the formation of ideas,
the acquisition of true knowledge about everything, and the union with
the divine intellect which flows down upon them, and which is the
source of man’s form. Whenever they are led by the wants of the body to
that which is low and avowedly disgraceful, they are grieved at their
position, they feel ashamed and confounded at their situation. They try
with all their might to diminish this disgrace, and to guard against it
in every possible way. They feel like a person whom the king in his
anger ordered to remove refuse from one place to another in order to
put him to shame; that person tries as much as possible to hide himself
during the time of his disgrace; he perhaps removes a small quantity a
short distance in such a manner that his hands and garments remain
clean, and he himself be unnoticed by his fellow-men. Such would be the
conduct of a free man, whilst a slave would find pleasure in such
work;—he would not consider it a great burden, but throw himself into
the refuse, smear his face and his hands, carry the refuse openly,
laughing and singing. This is exactly the difference in the conduct of
different men. Some consider, as we just said, all wants of the body as
shame, disgrace, and defect to which they are compelled to attend; this
is chiefly the case with the sense of touch, which is a disgrace to us
according to Aristotle, and which is the cause of our desire for
eating, drinking, and sensuality. Intelligent persons must, as much as
possible, reduce these wants, guard against them, feel grieved when
satisfying them, abstain from speaking of them, discussing them, and
attending to them in company with others. Man must have control over
all these desires, reduce them as much as possible, and only retain of
them as much as is indispensable. His aim must be the aim of man as
man, viz., the formation of ideas, and nothing else. The best and
sublimest among them is the idea which man forms of God, angels, and
the rest of the creation according to his capacity. Such men are always
with God, and of them it is said, “Ye are princes, and all of you are
children of the Most High” (Ps. lxxxii. 6). This is man’s task and
purpose. Others, however, that are separated from God form the
multitude of fools, and do just the opposite. They neglect all thought
and all reflection on ideas, and consider as their task the cultivation
of the sense of touch,—that sense which is the greatest disgrace; they
only think and reason about eating and love. Thus it is said of the
wicked who are drowned in eating, drinking, and love, “They also have
erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way,” etc.
(Isa. xxviii. 7), “for all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so
that there is no place clean” (ver. 8); again, “And women rule over
them” (ibid. iii. 2),—the opposite of that which man was told in the
beginning of the creation, “And for thy husband shall thy desire be,
and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. iii. 16). The intensity of their
lust is then described thus, “Every one neighed after his neighbour’s
wife,” etc. (Jer. v. 8); “they are all adulterers, an assembly of
treacherous men” (ibid. ix. 2). The whole book of the Proverbs of
Solomon treats of this subject, and exhorts to abstain from lust and
intemperance. These two vices ruin those that hate God and keep far
from Him; to them the following passages may be applied, “They are not
the Lord’s” (ibid. v. 10); “Cast them out of my sight, and let them go
forth” (ibid. xv. 1). As regards the portion beginning, “Who can find a
virtuous woman?” it is clear what is meant by the figurative
expression, “a virtuous woman.” When man possesses a good sound body
that does not overpower him nor disturb the equilibrium in him, he
possesses a divine gift. In short, a good constitution facilitates the
rule of the soul over the body, but it is not impossible to conquer a
bad constitution by training. For this reason King Solomon and others
wrote the moral lessons; also all the commandments and exhortations in
the Pentateuch aim at conquering the desires of the body. Those who
desire to be men in truth, and not brutes, having only the appearance
and shape of men, must constantly endeavour to reduce the wants of the
body, such as eating, love, drinking, anger, and all vices originating
in lust and passion; they must feel ashamed of them and set limits to
them for themselves. As for eating and drinking in so far as it is
indispensable, they will eat and drink only as much as is useful and
necessary as food, and not for the purpose of pleasure. They will also
speak little of these things, and rarely congregate for such purposes.
Thus our Sages, as is well known, kept aloof from a banquet that was
not part of a religious act, and pious men followed the example of R.
Phineḥas, son of Jair, who never dined with other persons, and even
refused to accept an invitation of R. Jehudah, the Holy. Wine may be
treated as food, if taken as such, but to form parties for the purpose
of drinking wine together must be considered more disgraceful than the
unrestrained conduct of persons who in daylight meet in the same house
undressed and naked. For the natural action of the digestive organ is
indispensable to man, he cannot do without it; whilst drunkenness
depends on the free will of an evil man. To appear naked in the
presence of other people is misconduct only according to public
opinion, not according to the dictates of reason, whilst drunkenness,
which ruins the mind and the body of man, reason stamps as a vice. You,
therefore, who desire to act as human beings must keep away from it,
and even from speaking of it. On sexual intercourse, I need not add
anything after I have pointed out in the commentary on Abot (i. 17) how
it is treated by our Law, which is the teaching of pure wisdom—no
excuse whatever should induce us to mention it or to speak of it. Thus
our Sages said, that Elisha the prophet is called holy, because he did
not think of it, and consequently never found himself polluted with
semen. In a similar manner they say that Jacob had the first issue of
semen for the conception of Reuben. All these traditional stories have
the object of teaching the nation humane conduct. There is a well-known
saying of our Sages, “The thoughts about the sin are more dangerous
than the sin itself.” I can offer a good explanation of this saying:
When a person is disobedient, this is due to certain accidents
connected with the corporeal element in his constitution; for man sins
only by his animal nature, whereas thinking is a faculty of man
connected with his form,—a person who thinks sinfully sins therefore by
means of the nobler portion of his self; and he who wrongly causes a
foolish slave to work does not sin as much as he who wrongly causes a
noble and free man to do the work of a slave. For this specifically
human element, with all its properties and powers, should only be
employed in suitable work, in attempts to join higher beings, and not
in attempts to go down and reach the lower creatures. You know how we
condemn lowness of speech, and justly so, for speech is likewise
peculiar to man and a boon which God granted to him that he may be
distinguished from the rest of living creatures. Thus God says, “Who
gave a mouth to man?” (Exod. iv. 11); and the prophet declares, “The
Lord God hath given me a learned tongue” (Isa. l. 4). This gift,
therefore, which God gave us in order to enable us to perfect
ourselves, to learn and to teach, must not be employed in doing that
which is for us most degrading and perfectly disgraceful; we must not
imitate the songs and tales of ignorant and lascivious people. It may
be suitable to them, but is not fit for those who are told, “And ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. xix.
6). Those who employ the faculty of thinking and speaking in the
service of that sense which is no honour to us, who think more than
necessary of drink and love, or even sing of these things; they employ
and use the divine gift in acts of rebellion against the Giver, and in
the transgression of His commandments. To them the following words may
be applied: “And I multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared
for Baal” (Hos. ii. 10). I have also a reason and cause for calling our
language the holy language—do not think it is exaggeration or error on
my part, it is perfectly correct—the Hebrew language has no special
name for the organ of generation in females or in males, nor for the
act of generation itself, nor for semen, nor for secretion. The Hebrew
has no original expressions for these things, and only describes them
in figurative language and by way of hints, as if to indicate thereby
that these things should not be mentioned, and should therefore have no
names; we ought to be silent about them, and when we are compelled to
mention them, we must manage to employ for that purpose some suitable
expressions, although these are generally used in a different sense.
Thus the organ of generation in males is called in Hebrew gid, which is
a figurative term, reminding of the words, “And thy neck is an iron
sinew” (gid) (Isa. xlviii. 4). It is also called shupka, “pouring out”
(Deut. xxiii. 2), on account of its function. The female organ is
called kobah (Num. xxv. 8), from kebah (Deut. xviii. 3), which denotes
“stomach”; reḥem, “womb,” is the inner organ in which the fœtus
develops; ẓoah (Isa. xxviii. 8), “refuse,” is derived from the verb
yaẓa, “he went out”; for “urine” the phrase meme raglayim, “the water
of the feet” (2 Kings. xviii. 17), is used; semen is expressed by
shikbat zeraʻ, “a layer of seed.” For the act of generation there is no
expression whatever in Hebrew; it is described by the following words
only: baʻal, “he was master”; shakab, “he lay”; laḳaḥ, “he took”;
gillah ʻervah, “he uncovered the nakedness.” Be not misled by the word
yishgalennah (Deut. xxviii. 30), to take it as denoting that act; this
is not the case, for shegal denotes a female ready for cohabitation.
Comp. “Upon thy right hand did stand the maiden” (shegal) “in gold of
Ophir” (Ps. xlv. 10). Yishgalennah, according to the Kethib, denotes
therefore “he will take the female for the purpose of cohabitation.”
We have made in the greater part of this chapter a digression from the
theme of this treatise, and introduced some moral and religious matter,
although they do not entirely belong to the subject of this treatise,
but the course of the discussion has led to it.
CHAPTER IX
The corporeal element in man is a large screen and partition that
prevents him from perfectly perceiving abstract ideals; this would be
the case even if the corporeal element were as pure and superior as the
substance of the spheres; how much more must this be the case with our
dark and opaque body. However great the exertion of our mind may be to
comprehend the Divine Being or any of the ideals, we find a screen and
partition between Him and ourselves. Thus the prophets frequently hint
at the existence of a partition between God and us. They say He is
concealed from us in vapours, in darkness, in mist, or in a thick
cloud; or use similar figures to express that on account of our bodies
we are unable to comprehend His essence. This is the meaning of the
words, “Clouds and darkness are round about Him” (Ps. xcvii. 2). The
prophets tell us that the difficulty consists in the grossness of our
substance; they do not imply, as might be gathered from the literal
meaning of their words, that God is corporeal, and is invisible because
He is surrounded by thick clouds, vapours, darkness, or mist. This
figure is also expressed in the passage, “He made darkness His secret
place” (Ps. xviii. 12). The object of God revealing Himself in thick
clouds, darkness, vapours, and mist was to teach this lesson; for every
prophetic vision contains some lesson by means of allegory; that mighty
vision, therefore, though the greatest of all visions, and above all
comparison, viz., His revelation in a thick cloud, did not take place
without any purpose, it was intended to indicate that we cannot
comprehend Him on account of the dark body that surrounds us. It does
not surround God, because He is incorporeal. A tradition is current
among our people that the day of the revelation on Mount Sinai was
misty, cloudy, and a little rainy. Comp. “Lord, when thou wentest forth
from Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth
trembled, and the heavens dropped water” (Judges v. 4). The same idea
is expressed by the words “darkness, clouds, and thick darkness” (Deut.
iv. 11). The phrase does not denote that darkness surrounds God, for
with Him there is no darkness, but the great, strong, and permanent
light, which, emanating from Him, illuminates all darkness, as is
expressed by the prophetic simile, “And the earth shined with His
glory” (Ezek. xliii. 2).
CHAPTER X
The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term
non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of
properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered
by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death
and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without
any qualification, non-existence does not require any agent, an agent
is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view
this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require
an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes
blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they
consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now
state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical
research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to
some extent the cause of the motion, e.g., if one removes the pillar
which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated
by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.); in this sense we say of
him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that
property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as
we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced
darkness, so we say of him who destroyed the sight of any being that he
produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative
properties, and require no agent. In accordance with this view we
explain the following passage of Isaiah: “I form the light and create
(bore) darkness: I make peace, and create (bore) evil” (Isa. xlv. 7),
for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the
prophet does not say, I make (ʻoseh) darkness, I make (ʻoseh) evil,
because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which
the verb “to make” would apply; the verb bara “he created” is used,
because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g.,
“In the beginning God created” (bara), etc.; here the creation took
place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be
produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must
explain the following passage: “Who hath made man’s mouth? or who
maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing,” etc. (Exod. iv. 11). The
passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to
speak? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create
a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who
produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be
called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains
from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so,
that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these
different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected
with a thing that does not exist; only indirectly is non-existence
described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct
manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence;
accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing
thing.
After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been
proved, the [so-called] evils are evils only in relation to a certain
thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing,
either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of
some of its good conditions. The proposition has therefore been laid
down in the most general terms, “All evils are negations.” Thus for man
death is evil; death is his non-existence. Illness, poverty, and
ignorance are evils for man; all these are privations of properties. If
you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies,
you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is
wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction
between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or
do not know the nature of things,—who, e.g., do not know that health in
general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The
absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the
absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other
things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.
After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot
be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct
intention to produce evil; this is impossible. His works are all
perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good;
whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon.
Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He
creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such
as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on
that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings
that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to
destruction or evil; consequently the true work of God is all good,
since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the
world says therefore, “And God saw everything that He had made, and,
behold, it was very good” (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this
corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of
death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the
Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing
departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words
“and behold it was very good” (tob me’od); that even death was good in
accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I
said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the
prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the
direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the same idea is
expressed thus: “No evil comes down from above.”
CHAPTER XI
All the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain
intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise
due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is
absence of wisdom. A blind man, for example, who has no guide, stumbles
constantly, because he cannot see, and causes injury and harm to
himself and others. In the same manner various classes of men, each man
in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and
upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom,
which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to
the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others;
for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents
mutual injuries. This state of society is promised to us by the prophet
in the words: “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,” etc.; “and the
cow and the bear shall feed together,” etc.; and “the sucking child
shall play on the hole of the asp,” etc. (Isa. xi. 6 seq.). The prophet
also points out what will be the cause of this change; for he says that
hatred, quarrel, and fighting will come to an end, because men will
then have a true knowledge of God. “They shall not hurt nor destroy in
all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of
the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (ibid. ver. 9). Note it.
CHAPTER XII
Men frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than
the good things; many savings and songs of the nations dwell on this
idea. They say that a good thing is found only exceptionally, whilst
evil things are numerous and lasting. Not only common people make this
mistake, but even many who believe that they are wise. Al-Razi wrote a
well-known book On Metaphysics [or Theology]. Among other mad and
foolish things, it contains also the idea, discovered by him, that
there exists more evil than good. For if the happiness of man and his
pleasure in the times of prosperity be compared with the mishaps that
befall him,—such as grief, acute pain, defects, paralysis of the limbs,
fears, anxieties, and troubles,—it would seem as if the existence of
man is a punishment and a great evil for him. This author commenced to
verify his opinion by counting all the evils one by one; by this means
he opposed those who hold the correct view of the benefits bestowed by
God and His evident kindness, viz., that God is perfect goodness, and
that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. The origin of the
error is to be found in the circumstance that this ignorant man, and
his party among the common people, judge the whole universe by
examining one single person. For an ignorant man believes that the
whole universe only exists for him; as if nothing else required any
consideration. If, therefore, anything happens to him contrary to his
expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is evil. If,
however, he would take into consideration the whole universe, form an
idea of it, and comprehend what a small portion he is of the Universe,
he will find the truth. For it is clear that persons who have fallen
into this widespread error as regards the multitude of evils in the
world, do not find the evils among the angels, the spheres and stars,
the elements, and that which is formed of them, viz., minerals and
plants, or in the various species of living beings, but only in some
individual instances of mankind. They wonder that a person, who became
leprous in consequence of bad food, should be afflicted with so great
an illness and suffer such a misfortune; or that he who indulges so
much in sensuality as to weaken his sight, should be struck with
blindness! and the like. What we have, in truth, to consider is
this:—The whole mankind at present in existence, and a fortiori, every
other species of animals, form an infinitesimal portion of the
permanent universe. Comp. “Man is like to vanity” (Ps. cxliv. 4); “How
much less man, that is a worm; and the son of man, which is a worm”
(Job xxv. 6); “How much less in them who dwell in houses of clay”
(ibid. iv. 19); “Behold, the nations are as a drop of the bucket” (Isa.
xl. 15). There are many other passages in the books of the prophets
expressing the same idea. It is of great advantage that man should know
his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists
only for him. We hold that the universe exists because the Creator
wills it so; that mankind is low in rank as compared with the uppermost
portion of the universe, viz., with the spheres and the stars; but, as
regards the angels, there cannot be any real comparison between man and
angels, although man is the highest of all beings on earth; i.e., of
all beings formed of the four elements. Man’s existence is nevertheless
a great boon to him, and his distinction and perfection is a divine
gift. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are
due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We complain and
seek relief from our own faults; we suffer from the evils which we, by
our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is
far from being connected with them! Comp. “Is destruction his [work]?
No. Ye [who call yourselves] wrongly his sons, you who are a perverse
and crooked generation” (Deut. xxxii. 5). This is explained by Solomon,
who says, “The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart
fretteth against the Lord” (Prov. xix. 3).
I explain this theory in the following manner. The evils that befall
man are of three kinds:—