find a reason why God commanded it, since idolaters brought wine as an
offering. But though I am unable to give a reason, another person
suggested the following one: Meat is the best nourishment for the
appetitive faculty, the source of which is the liver; wine supports
best the vital faculty, whose centre is the heart; music is most
agreeable to the psychic faculty, the source of which is in the brain.
Each one of our faculties approaches God with that which it likes best.
Thus the sacrifice consists of meat, wine, and music.
The use of keeping festivals is plain. Man derives benefit from such
assemblies: the emotions produced renew the attachment to religion;
they lead to friendly and social intercourse among the people. This is
especially the object of the commandment to gather the people together
on the Feast of Tabernacles, as is plainly stated: “that they may hear,
and that they may learn and fear the Lord” (Deut. xxxi. 12). The same
is the object of the rule that the money for the second tithe must be
spent by all in one place (ibid. xiv. 22–26), as we have explained
(chap. xxxix. p. 184). The fruit of trees in their fourth year, and the
tithe of the cattle, had to be brought to Jerusalem. There would
therefore be in Jerusalem the meat of the tithes, the wine of the fruit
of the fourth year, and the money of the second tithe. Plenty of food
would always be found there. Nothing of the above things could be sold;
nothing could be set aside for another year; the Law orders that they
should be brought “year by year” (Deut. xiv. 22); the owner was thus
compelled to spend part of them in charity. As regards the Festivals it
is especially enjoined: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and
thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant,
and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow” (ibid.
xvi. 14). We have thus explained the reason of every law belonging to
this class, and even many details of the laws.
CHAPTER XLVII
The precepts of the twelfth class are those which we have enumerated in
the section on “Purity” (Sefer tohorah). Although we have mentioned
their use in general, we will here offer an additional explanation, and
[first] fully discuss the object of the whole class, and then show the
reason of each single commandment, as far as we have been able to
discover it. I maintain that the Law which was revealed to Moses, our
Teacher, and which is called by his name, aims at facilitating the
service and lessening the burden, and if a person complains that
certain precepts cause him pain and great trouble, he cannot have
thought of the habits and doctrines that were general in those days.
Let him consider the difference between a man burning his own son in
serving his god, and our burning a pigeon to the service of our God.
Scripture relates, “for even their sons and their daughters they burn
in the fire to their gods” (Deut. xii. 31). This was the way in which
the heathen worshipped their gods, and instead of such a sacrifice we
have the burning of a pigeon or a handful of flour in our worship. In
accordance with this fact, the Israelites, when disobedient, were
rebuked by God as follows: “O My people, what have I done unto thee?
and wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me” (Mic. vi. 3).
Again, “Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? a land of darkness?
Wherefore say my people, We are miserable; we will come no more unto
thee” (Jer. ii. 31); that is to say, Through which of the commandments
has the Law become burdensome to the Israelites, that they renounce it?
In the same manner God asks the people, “What iniquity have your
fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?” etc. (ibid. ii.
5). All these passages express one and the same idea.
This is the great principle which you must never lose sight of. After
having stated this principle, I repeat that the object of the Sanctuary
was to create in the hearts of those who enter it certain feelings of
awe and reverence, in accordance with the command, “You shall reverence
my sanctuary” (Lev. xix. 30). But when we continually see an object,
however sublime it may be, our regard for that object will be lessened,
and the impression we have received of it will be weakened. Our Sages,
considering this fact, said that we should not enter the Temple
whenever we liked, and pointed to the words: “Make thy foot rare in the
house of thy friend” (Prov. xxv. 17). For this reason the unclean were
not allowed to enter the Sanctuary, although there are so many kinds of
uncleanliness, that [at a time] only a few people are clean. For even
if a person does not touch a beast that died of its own accord (Lev.
xi. 27), he can scarcely avoid touching one of the eight kinds of
creeping animals (ibid. 29, seq.), the dead bodies of which we find at
all times in houses, in food and drink, and upon which we frequently
tread wherever we walk; and, if he avoids touching these, he may touch
a woman in her separation (ibid. xv. 18), or a male or female that have
a running issue (ibid. ver. 1, seq. and 25, seq.), or a leper (ibid.
xiii. 46), or their bed (ibid. xv. 5). Escaping these, he may become
unclean by cohabitation with his wife, or by pollution (ibid. 15), and
even when he has cleansed himself from any of these kinds of
uncleanliness, he cannot enter the Sanctuary till after sunset; but not
being enabled to enter the Sanctuary at night time, although he is
clean after sunset, as may be inferred from Middot and Tamid, he is
again, during the night, subject to becoming unclean either by
cohabiting with his wife or by some other source of uncleanliness, and
may rise in the morning in the same condition as the day before. All
this serves to keep people away from the Sanctuary and to prevent them
from entering it whenever they liked. Our Sages, as is well known,
said, “Even a clean person may not enter the Sanctuary for the purpose
of performing divine service, unless he takes previously a bath.” By
such acts the reverence [for the Sanctuary] will continue, the right
impression will be produced which leads man, as is intended, to
humility.
The easier the diffusion of uncleanliness is, the more difficult and
the more retarded is its purification. Most easily is uncleanliness
communicated by the dead body to those who are under the same roof,
especially to relatives. The purification can only be completed by
means of the ashes of the red heifer, however scarce it may be, and
only in seven days (Num. xix. 11). The uncleanness caused by a woman
having running issue or during her separation is more frequent than
that caused by contact with unclean objects; seven days are therefore
required for their purification (Lev. xv. 19, 28), whilst those that
touch them are only unclean one day (ibid. vii. 18). Males or females
that are unclean through running issue, and a woman after childbirth,
must in addition bring a sacrifice, because their uncleanness occurs
less frequently than that of women in their separation. All these cases
of uncleanliness, viz., running issue of males or females,
menstruations, leprosy, dead bodies of human beings, carcases of beasts
and creeping things, and issue of semen, are sources of dirt and filth.
We have thus shown that the above precepts are very useful in many
respects. First, they keep us at a distance from dirty and filthy
objects; secondly, they guard the Sanctuary; thirdly, they pay regard
to an established custom (for the Sabeans submitted to very troublesome
restrictions when unclean, as you will soon hear); fourthly, they
lightened that burden for us; for we are not impeded through these laws
in our ordinary occupations by the distinction the Law makes between
that which is unclean and that which is clean. For this distinction
applies only in reference to the Sanctuary and the holy objects
connected with it; it does not apply to other cases. “She shall touch
no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary” (Lev. xii. 4). Other
persons [that do not intend to enter the Sanctuary or touch any holy
thing], are not guilty of any sin if they remain unclean as long as
they like, and eat, according to their pleasure, ordinary food that has
been in contact with unclean things. But the practice of the Sabeans,
even at present general in the East, among the few still left of the
Magi, was to keep a menstruous woman in a house by herself, to burn
that upon which she treads, and to consider as unclean every one that
speaks with her; even if a wind passed over her and a clean person, the
latter was unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans. See the difference
between this practice and our rule, that “whatever services a wife
generally does to her husband, she may do to him in her separation”;
only cohabitation is prohibited during the days of her uncleanness.
Another custom among the Sabeans, which is still widespread, is this:
whatever is separated from the body, as hair, nail, or blood, is
unclean; every barber is therefore unclean in their estimation, because
he touches blood and hair; whenever a person passes a razor over his
skin he must take a bath in running water. Such burdensome practices
were numerous among the Sabeans, whilst we apply the laws that
distinguish between the unclean and the clean only with regard to
hallowed things and to the Sanctuary. The divine words, “And ye shall
sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy” (Lev. xi. 44), do not refer
to these laws at all. According to Sifra, they refer to sanctity by
obedience to God’s commandments. The same interpretation is given in
Sifra of the words, “Ye shall be holy,” i.e. obedient to His
commandments (xix. 2). Hence the transgression of commandments is also
called uncleanliness or defilement. This term is especially used of the
chief and principal crimes, which are idolatry, adultery, and murder.
In reference to idolatry it is said, “He hath given of his seed unto
Molech to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name” (ibid. xx.
3). In reference to adultery we read, “Defile not ye yourselves in any
of these things” (ibid. xviii. 24), and “Defile not the land” (Num.
xxxv. 34) in reference to murder. It it therefore clear that the term
“defilement” [or uncleanliness] is used homonymously of three things:
1. Of man’s violation and transgression of that which he is commanded
as regards his actions and his opinions. 2. Of dirt and filth; comp.
“Her filthiness in her skirts” (Lam. i. 9). 3. Of the above-named
imaginary defilement such as touching and carrying certain objects, or
being with them under the same roof. In reference to the third kind,
our Sages said, The words of the Law are not subject to becoming
unclean (B. T. Ber. 22a). In the same manner the term “holiness” is
used homonymously of three things corresponding to the three kinds of
uncleanness. As uncleanness caused by a dead body could only be removed
after seven days, by means of the ashes of the red heifer, and the
priests had constantly occasion to enter the Sanctuary, the Law
exceptionally forbids them to defile themselves by a dead body (Lev.
xxi. 1), except in cases where defilement is necessary, and the
contrary would be unnatural. For it would be unnatural to abstain from
approaching the dead body of a parent, child, or brother. As it was
very necessary that the high-priest should always be in the Sanctuary,
in accordance with the Divine command, “And it shall always be on his
forehead” (Exod. xxviii. 38), he was not permitted to defile himself by
any dead body whatever, even of the above-named relatives (Lev. xxi.
10–12). Women were not engaged in sacrificial service; the above law
consequently does not apply to women; it is addressed to “the sons of
Aaron,” and not to “the daughters of Aaron.” It was, however,
impossible to assume that none of the Israelites made a mistake, by
entering the Sanctuary, or eating hallowed things in a state of
uncleanliness. It was even possible that there were persons who did
this knowingly, since there are wicked people who commit knowingly even
the greatest crimes; for this reason certain sacrifices were commanded
as an atonement for the defilement of the Sanctuary and its hallowed
things. They were of different kinds; some of them atoned for
defilement caused ignorantly, others for defilement caused knowingly.
For this purpose were brought the goats on the Festivals and the
New-moon days (Num. xxviii. 15, 22, etc.), and the goat sent away on
the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 16), as is explained in its place
(Mishnah Shebnot, i. 4). These sacrifices serve to prevent those who
defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord knowingly from thinking that they had
not done a great wrong; they should know that they obtained atonement
by the sacrifice of the goat, as the Law says, “That they die not in
their uncleanness” (Lev. xv. 31); “That Aaron may bear the iniquity of
the holy things” (Exod. xxviii. 38). This idea is frequently repeated.
The uncleanness through leprosy we have already explained. Our Sages
have also clearly stated the meaning thereof. All agree that leprosy is
a punishment for slander. The disease begins in the walls of the houses
(Lev. xiv. 33, seq.). If the sinner repents, the object is attained; if
he remains in his disobedience, the disease affects his bed and house
furniture; if he still continues to sin, the leprosy attacks his own
garments, and then his body. This is a miracle received in our nation
by tradition, in the same manner as the effect of the trial of a
faithless wife (Num. v. 11, seq.). The good effect of this belief is
evident. Leprosy is besides a contagious disease, and people almost
naturally abhor it, and keep away from it. The purification was
effected by cedar-wood, hyssop, scarlet thread, and two birds (Lev.
xiv. 4); their reason is stated in various Midrashic sayings, but the
explanation does not agree with our theory. I do not know at present
the reason of any of these things; nor why cedar-wood, hyssop, and
scarlet were used in the sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. xix. 6); nor
why a bundle of hyssop was commanded for the sprinkling of the blood of
the Passover-lamb (Exod. xii. 22). I cannot find any principle upon
which to found an explanation why these particular things have been
chosen.
The red heifer is called a sin-offering, because it effects the
purification of persons that have become unclean through the dead body
of a human being, and enables them to enter the Sanctuary [and to eat
of hallowed things]. The idea taught by this law is this: Those who
have defiled themselves would never be allowed to enter the Sanctuary,
or to partake of holy things, were it not for the sacrifice of the red
heifer, by which this sin is removed; in the same manner as the plate
[which the high-priest wears on his forehead] atones for uncleanness,
and as a similar object is attained by the goats that are burnt. For
this reason those were unclean who were engaged in the sacrifice of the
heifer or the goats which were burnt, and even their garments were
unclean. The same was the law in the case of the goat that was sent
away [on the Day of Atonement]; for it was believed that it made
unclean those who touched it, because it carried off so many sins.
We have now mentioned the reasons for those commandments of this class,
for which we were able to give a satisfactory reason according to our
view.
CHAPTER XLVIII
The precepts of the thirteenth class are those which we have enumerated
in the “Laws concerning forbidden food” (Hilkot maakalot asurot), “Laws
concerning killing animals for food” (Hilkot sheḥitah), and “Laws
concerning vows and Nazaritism” (Hilkot nedarim u-nezirot). We have
fully and very explicitly discussed the object of this class in this
treatise, and in our Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers. We will
here add a few remarks in reviewing the single commandments which are
mentioned there.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome.
There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious
character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii.
23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork
contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of
superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine’s
flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food
are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how
emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome
objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable
is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine’s flesh,
the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be
seen at present in the country of the Franks. A saying of our Sages
declares: “The mouth of a swine is as dirty as dung itself” (B. T. Ber.
25a)
The fat of the intestines makes us full, interrupts our digestion, and
produces cold and thick blood; it is more fit for fuel [than for human
food].
Blood (Lev. xvii. 12), and nebelah, i.e., the flesh of an animal that
died of itself (Deut. xiv. 21), are indigestible, and injurious as
food; Trefah, an animal in a diseased state (Exod. xxii. 30), is on the
way of becoming a nebelah.
The characteristics given in the Law (Lev. xi., and Deut. xiv.) of the
permitted animals, viz., chewing the cud and divided hoofs for cattle,
and fins and scales for fish, are in themselves neither the cause of
the permission when they are present, nor of the prohibition when they
are absent; but merely signs by which the recommended species of
animals can be discerned from those that are forbidden.
The reason why the sinew that shrank is prohibited is stated in the Law
(Gen. xxxii. 33).
It is prohibited to cut off a limb of a living animal and eat it,
because such act would produce cruelty, and develop it; besides, the
heathen kings used to do it; it was also a kind of idolatrous worship
to cut off a certain limb of a living animal and to eat it.
Meat boiled in milk is undoubtedly gross food, and makes overfull; but
I think that most probably it is also prohibited because it is somehow
connected with idolatry, forming perhaps part of the service, or being
used on some festival of the heathen. I find a support for this view in
the circumstance that the Law mentions the prohibition twice after the
commandment given concerning the festivals “Three times in the year all
thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Exod. xxiii. 17, and
xxxiv. 23), as if to say, “When you come before me on your festivals,
do not seethe your food in the manner as the heathen used to do.” This
I consider as the best reason for the prohibition; but as far as I have
seen the books on Sabean rites, nothing is mentioned of this custom.
The commandment concerning the killing of animals is necessary, because
the natural food of man consists of vegetables and of the flesh of
animals; the best meat is that of animals permitted to be used as food.
No doctor has any doubts about this. Since, therefore, the desire of
procuring good food necessitates the slaying of animals, the Law
enjoins that the death of the animal should be the easiest. It is not
allowed to torment the animal by cutting the throat in a clumsy manner,
by poleaxing, or by cutting off a limb whilst the animal is alive.
It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day
(Lev. xxii. 28), in order that people should be restrained and
prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young
is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under
such circumstances it very great. There is no difference in this case
between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the
love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by
reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man
but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb,
because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted
to us, and in these cases the mother recognises her young.
The same reason applies to the law which enjoins that we should let the
mother fly away when we take the young. The eggs over which the bird
sits, and the young that are in need of their mother, are generally
unfit for food, and when the mother is sent away she does not see the
taking of her young ones, and does not feel any pain. In most cases,
however, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest
untouched, because [the young or the eggs], which he is allowed to
take, are, as a rule, unfit for food. If the Law provides that such
grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful
must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellow-men. When in
the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the
phrase, “Thy mercy extendeth to young birds,” it is the expression of
the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts
of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the
other opinion.
The reason why we cover the blood when we kill animals, and why we do
it only when we kill clean beasts and clean birds, has already been
explained by us (supra, chap. xlvi., p. 362).
In addition to the things prohibited by the Law, we are also commanded
to observe the prohibitions enjoined by our own vows (Num. xxx.). If we
say, This bread or this meat is forbidden for us, we are not allowed to
partake of that food. The object of that precept is to train us in
temperance, that we should be able to control our appetites for eating
and drinking. Our Sages say accordingly, “Vows are a fence for
abstinence.” As women are easily provoked to anger, owing to their
greater excitability and the weakness of their mind, their oaths, if
entirely under their own control, would cause great grief, quarrel, and
disorder in the family; one kind of food would be allowed for the
husband, and forbidden for the wife; another kind forbidden for the
daughter, and allowed for the mother. Therefore the Law gives the
father of the family control over the vows of those dependent on him. A
woman that is independent, and not under the authority of a chief of
the family, is, as regards vows, subject to the same laws as men; I
mean a woman that has no husband, or that has no father, or that is of
age, i.e., twelve years and six months.
The object of Nazaritism (Num. vi.) is obvious. It keeps away from wine
that has ruined people in ancient and modern times. “Many strong men
have been slain by it” (Prov. xxvii. 26). “But they also have erred
through wine, ... the priest and the prophet” (Isa. xxviii. 7). In the
law about the Nazarite we notice even the prohibition, “he shall eat
nothing that is made of the vine tree” (Num. vi. 4), as an additional
precaution, implying the lesson that man must take of wine, only as
much as is absolutely necessary. For he who abstains from drinking it
is called “holy”; his sanctity is made equal to that of the
high-priest, in not being allowed to defile himself even to his father,
to his mother, and the like. This honour is given him because he
abstains from wine.
CHAPTER XLIX
The precepts of the fourteenth class are those which we enumerated in
the Section on Women, the Laws concerning forbidden sexual intercourse,
and cross-breeding of cattle (Sefer nashim, Hilkot issure biah ve-kalee
behemah). The law concerning circumcision belongs also to this class.
The general purpose of these precepts has already been described by us.
We will now proceed to explain them singly.
It is well known that man requires friends all his lifetime. Aristotle
explains this in the ninth book of his Nikomachean Ethics. When man is
in good health and prosperous, he enjoys the company of his friends; in
time of trouble he is in need of them; in old age, when his body is
weak, he is assisted by them. This love is more frequent and more
intense between parents and children, and among [other] relations.
Perfect love, brotherhood, and mutual assistance is only found among
those near to each other by relationship. The members of a family
united by common descent from the same grandfather, or even from some
more distant ancestor, have towards each other a certain feeling of
love, help each other, and sympathize with each other. To effect this
is one of the chief purposes of the Law. Professional harlots were
therefore not tolerated in Israel (Deut. xxiii. 18), because their
existence would disturb the above relationship between man and man.
Their children are strangers to everybody; no one knows to what family
they belong; nor does any person recognize them as relatives. And this
is the greatest misfortune that can befall any child or father. Another
important object in prohibiting prostitution is to restrain excessive
and continual lust; for lust increases with the variety of its objects.
The sight of that to which a person has been accustomed for a long time
does not produce such an ardent desire for its enjoyment as is produced
by objects new in form and character. Another effect of this
prohibition is the removal of a cause for strife; for if the
prohibition did not exist, several persons might by chance come to one
woman, and would naturally quarrel with each other; they would in many
cases kill one another, or they would kill the woman. This is known to
have occurred in days of old, “And they assembled themselves by troops
in a harlot’s house” (Jer. v. 7). In order to prevent these great
evils, and to effect the great boon that all men should know their
relationship to each other, prostitutes (Deut. xxiii. 17) were not
tolerated, and sexual intercourse was only permitted when man has
chosen a certain female, and married her openly; for if it sufficed
merely to choose her, many a person would bring a prostitute into his
house at a certain time agreed upon between them, and say that she was
his wife. Therefore it is commanded to perform the act of engagement by
which he declares that he has chosen her to take her for his wife, and
then to go through the public ceremony of marriage. Comp. “And Boaz
took ten men,” etc. (Ruth iv. 2). It may happen that husband and wife
do not agree, live without love and peace, and do not enjoy the benefit
of a home; in that case he is permitted to send her away. If he had
been allowed to divorce her by a mere word, or by turning her out of
his house, the wife would wait for some negligence [on the part of the
husband], and then come out and say that she was divorced; or having
committed adultery, she and the adulterer would contend that she had
then been divorced. Therefore the law is that divorce can only take
place by means of a document which can serve as evidence, “He shall
write her a bill of divorcement” (Deut. xxiv. 1). There are frequently
occasions for suspicion of adultery and doubts concerning the conduct
of the wife. Laws concerning a wife suspected of adultery (sotah) are
therefore prescribed (Num. v.); the effect of which is that the wife,
out of fear of the “bitter waters,” is most careful to prevent any
ill-feeling on the part of her husband against her. Even of those that
felt quite innocent and safe most were rather willing to lose all their
property than to submit to the prescribed treatment; even death was
preferred to the public disgrace of uncovering the head, undoing the
hair, rending the garments and exposing the heart, and being led round
through the Sanctuary in the presence of all, of women and men, and
also in the presence of the members of the Synhedrion. The fear of this
trial keeps away great diseases that ruin the home comfort.
As every maiden expects to be married, her seducer therefore is only
ordered to marry her; for he is undoubtedly the fittest husband for
her. He will better heal her wound and redeem her character than any
other husband. If, however, he is rejected by her or her father, he
must give the dowry (Exod. xxii. 15). If he uses violence he has to
submit to the additional punishment, “he may not put her away all his
days” (Deut. xxii. 29).
The reason of the law concerning marrying the deceased brother’s wife
is stated in the Bible (Deut. xxv. 5). It was a custom in force before
the Law was given, and the Law perpetuated it. The ceremony of ḥaliẓah
(ibid. 6, seq.), “taking off the shoe,” has been introduced, because in
those days it was considered disgraceful to go through that ceremony,
and in order to avoid the disgrace, a person might perhaps be induced
to marry his deceased brother’s wife. This is evident from the words of
the Law: “So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his
brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of
him that hath his shoe loosed” (Deut. xxv. 9). In the action of Judah
we may perhaps notice an example of a noble conduct, and uprightness in
judgment. He said: “Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed; behold,
I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her” (Gen. xxxviii. 23). For
before the Lawgiving, the intercourse with a harlot was as lawful as
cohabitation of husband and wife since the Lawgiving; it was perfectly
permitted, nobody considered it wrong. The hire which was in those days
paid to the harlot in accordance with a previous agreement, corresponds
to the ketubah which in our days the husband pays to his wife when he
divorces her. It is a just claim on the part of the wife, and the
husband is bound to pay it. The words of Judah, “Let her take it to
her, lest we be shamed,” etc., show that conversation about sexual
intercourse, even of that which is permitted, brings shame upon us; it
is proper to be silent about it, to keep it secret, even if the silence
would lead to loss of money. In this sense Judah said: It is better for
us to lose property, and to let her keep what she has, than to make our
affair public by inquiring after her, and bring still more shame upon
us. This is the lesson, as regards conduct, to be derived from this
incident. As to the uprightness to be learned therefrom, it is
contained in the words of Judah when he wanted to show that he had not
robbed her, that he has not in the least departed from his agreement
with her. For he said, “Behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not
found her.” The kid was probably very good, therefore he points to it,
saying, “this kid.” This is the uprightness which he had inherited from
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: that man must not depart from his given
word, nor deviate from what he agreed upon; but he must give to others
all that is due to them. It makes no difference whether he holds a
portion of his neighbour’s property as a loan or a trust, or whether he
is in any other way his neighbour’s debtor, owing him wages or the
like.
The sum which the husband settles upon his wife (ketubah) is to be
treated in the same way as the wages of a hired servant. There is no
difference whether a master withholds the wages of a hired servant, or
deprives his wife of that which is due to her; whether a master wrongs
a hired servant, and brings charges against him with the intention to
send him away without payment, or a husband treats his wife in a manner
that would enable him to send her away without the payment of the
promised sum.
The equity of the statutes and judgments of the Law in this regard may
be noticed in the treatment of a person accused of spreading an evil
report about his wife (Deut. xxii. 13, seq.). There is no doubt that
the man that did this is bad, does not love his wife, and is not
pleased with her. If he desired to divorce her in a regular manner,
there is nothing to prevent him, but he would be bound to give her what
is due unto her; but instead of this, “he gives occasion of speech
against her” (ibid. xxii. 14), in order to get rid of his wife without
paying anything; he slanders her, and utters falsehood in order to keep
in his possession the fifty shekels of silver, the dowry fixed in the
Law for maidens, which he is obliged to pay unto her. He is therefore
sentenced to pay one hundred shekels of silver, in accordance with the
principle, “Whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his
neighbour” (Exod. xxii. 9). The Law is also analogous to that about
false witnesses, which we have explained above (chap. xli. p. 195). For
he intended to cheat her of her fifty shekels of silver, he must
therefore [add fifty, and] pay her a hundred shekels. This is his
punishment for withholding from her her due, and endeavouring to keep
it. But in so far as he degraded her, and spread the rumour that she
was guilty of misconduct, he was also degraded, and received stripes,
as is implied in the words, “and they shall chastise him” (Deut. xxii.
18). But he sinned besides in clinging to lust, and seeking only that
which gave pleasure to him; he was therefore punished by being
compelled to keep his wife always, “he may not put her away all his
days” (ibid. 19); for he has been brought to all this only because he
may have found her ugly. Thus are these bad habits cured when they are
treated according to the divine Law; the ways of equity are never lost
sight of; they are obvious and discernible in every precept of the Law
by those who consider it well. See how, according to the Law, the
slanderer of his wife, who only intended to withhold from her what he
is bound to give her, is treated in the same manner as a thief who has
stolen the property of his neighbour; and the false witness (Deut. xix.
16, seq.) who schemes to injure, although the injury was in reality not
inflicted, is punished like those who have actually caused injury and
wrong, viz., like the thief and the slanderer. The three kinds of
sinners are tried and judged by one and the same law. See how wonderful
are the divine laws, and admire His wonderful deeds. Scripture says:
“The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment” (Deut.
xxxii. 4), i.e., as His works are most perfect, so are His laws most
equitable; but our mind is too limited to comprehend the perfection of
all His works, or the equity of all His laws; and as we are able to
comprehend some of His wonderful works in the organs of living beings
and the motions of the spheres, so we understand also the equity of
some of His laws; that which is unknown to us of both of them is far
more than that which is known to us. I will now return to the theme of
the present chapter.
The law about forbidden sexual intercourse seeks in all its parts to
inculcate the lesson that we ought to limit sexual intercourse
altogether, hold it in contempt, and only desire it very rarely. The
prohibition of pederasty (Lev. xviii. 22) and carnal intercourse with
beasts (ibid. 23) is very clear. If in the natural way the act is too
base to be performed except when needed, how much more base is it if
performed in an unnatural manner, and only for the sake of pleasure.
The female relatives whom a man may not marry are alike in this
respect—that as a rule they are constantly together with him in his
house; they would easily listen to him, and do what he desires; they
are near at hand, and he would have no difficulty in procuring them. No
judge could blame him if found in their company. If to these relatives
the same law applied as to all other unmarried women, if we were
allowed to marry any of them, and were only precluded from sexual
intercourse with them without marriage, most people would constantly
have become guilty of misconduct with them. But as they are entirely
forbidden to us, and sexual intercourse with them is most emphatically
denounced unto us as a capital crime, or a sin punishable with
extinction (karet), and as there is no means of ever legalizing such
intercourse, there is reason to expect that people will not seek it,
and will not think of it. That the persons included in that prohibition
are, as we have stated, at hand and easily accessible, is evident. For
as a rule, the mother of the wife, the grandmother, the daughter, the
granddaughter, and the sister-in-law, are mostly with her; the husband
meets them always when he goes out, when he comes in, and when he is at
his work. The wife stays also frequently in the house of her husband’s
brother, father, or son. It is also well known that we are often in the
company of our sisters, our aunts, and the wife of our uncle, and are
frequently brought up together with them. These are all the relatives
which we must not marry. This is one of the reasons why intermarriage
with a near relative is forbidden. But according to my opinion the
prohibition serves another object, namely, to inculcate chastity into
our hearts. Licence between the root and the branch, between a man and
his mother, or his daughter, is outrageous. The intercourse between
root and branch is forbidden, and it makes no difference whether the
male element is the root or the branch, or both root and branch combine
in the intercourse with a third person, so that the same individual
cohabits with the root and with the branch. On this account it is
prohibited to marry a woman and her mother, the wife of the father or
of the son; for in all these cases there is the intercourse between one
and the same person on the one side and root and branch on the other.
The law concerning brothers is like the law concerning root and branch.
The sister is forbidden, and so is also the sister of the wife and the
wife of the brother; because in the latter cases two persons who are
considered like root and branch, cohabit with the same person. But in
these prohibitions brothers and sisters are partly considered as root
and branch and partly as one body; the sister of the mother is
therefore like the mother, and the sister of the father like the
father, and both are prohibited; and since the daughter of the parent’s
brother or sister is not included in the number of prohibited
relatives, so may we also marry the daughter of the brother or the
sister. The apparent anomaly, that the brother of the father may marry
a woman that has been the wife of his brother’s son, whilst the nephew
must not marry a woman that has been the wife of his father’s brother,
can be explained according to the above-mentioned first reason. For the
nephew is frequently in the house of his uncle, and his conduct towards
the wife of his uncle is the same as that towards his brother’s wife.
The uncle, however, is not so frequent in the house of his nephew, and
he is consequently less intimate with the wife of his nephew; whilst in
the case of father and son, the familiarity of the father with his
daughter-in-law is the same at that of the son with the wife of his
father, and therefore the law and punishment is the same for both
[father and son]. The reason why it is prohibited to cohabit with a
menstruous woman (Lev. xviii. 19) or with another man’s wife (ibid.
20), is obvious, and requires no further explanation.
It is well known that we must not indulge in any sensual enjoyment
whatever with the persons included in the above prohibitions; we must
not even look at them if we intend to derive pleasure therefrom. We
have explained this in “the laws about forbidden sexual intercourse”
(Hilkot issure bïah, xxi. 1–2), and shown that according to the Law we
must not even engage our thoughts with the act of cohabitation (ibid.
19) or irritate the organ of generation; and when we find ourselves
unintentionally in a state of irritation, we must turn our mind to
other thoughts, and reflect on some other thing till we are relieved.
Our Sages (B.T. Kidd 30b), in their moral lessons, which give
perfection to the virtuous, say as follows: “My son, if that monster
meets you, drag it to the house of study. It will melt if it is of
iron; it will break in pieces if it is of stone: as is said in
Scripture, ‘Is not my word like a fire? saith the Lord, and like a
hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?’” (Jer. xxiii. 29). The author
of this saying thus exhorts his son to go to the house of study when he
finds his organ of generation in an irritated state. By reading,
disputing, asking, and listening to questions, the irritation will
certainly cease. See how properly the term monster is employed, for
that irritation is indeed like a monster. Not only religion teaches
this lesson, the philosophers teach the same. I have already quoted
verbatim the words of Aristotle. He says: “The sense of touch which is
a disgrace to us, leads us to indulge in eating and sensuality,” etc.
He calls people degraded who seek carnal pleasures and devote
themselves to gastronomy; he denounces in extenso their low and
objectionable conduct, and ridicules them. This passage occurs in his
Ethics and in his Rhetoric.
In accordance with this excellent principle, which we ought strictly to
follow, our Sages teach us that we ought not to look at beasts or birds
in the moment of their copulation. According to my opinion, this is the
reason why the cross-breeding of cattle is prohibited (Lev. xix. 19).
It is a fact that animals of different species do not copulate
together, unless by force. It is well known that the low class of
breeders of mules are regularly engaged in this work. Our Law objected
to it that any Israelite should degrade himself by doing these things,
which require so much vulgarity and indecency, and doing that which
religion forbids us even to mention, how much more to witness or to
practise, except when necessary. Cross-breeding, however, is not
necessary. I think that the prohibition to bring together two species
in any kind of work, as included in the words, “Thou shalt not plow
with an ox and an ass together” (Deut. xxii. 10), is only a preventive
against the intercourse of two species. For if it were allowed to join
such together in any work, we might sometimes also cause their
intercourse. That this is the reason of the commandment is proved by
the fact that it applies to other animals besides ox and ass; it is
prohibited to plow not only with ox and ass together, but with any two
kinds. But Scripture mentions as an instance that which is of regular
occurrence.
As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit
sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as
possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that
circumcision is to remove a defect in man’s formation; but every one
can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to
require external completion, especially as the use of the fore-skin to
that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a
complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for
perfecting man’s moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that
organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital
function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision
simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that
circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes
lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when
it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning. Our
Sages (Beresh. Rabba, c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman,
with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from
him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment
concerning circumcision. And who was the first to perform this
commandment? Abraham, our father! of whom it is well known how he
feared sin; it is described by our Sages in reference to the words,
“Behold, now I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon” (Gen. xii.
11).
There is, however, another important object in this commandment. It
gives to all members of the same faith, i.e., to all believers in the
Unity of God, a common bodily sign, so that it is impossible for any
one that is a stranger, to say that he belongs to them. For sometimes
people say so for the purpose of obtaining some advantage, or in order
to make some attack upon the Jews. No one, however, should circumcise
himself or his son for any other reason but pure faith; for
circumcision is not like an incision on the leg, or a burning in the
arm, but a very difficult operation. It is also a fact that there is
much mutual love and assistance among people that are united by the
same sign when they consider it as [the symbol of] a covenant.
Circumcision is likewise the [symbol of the] covenant which Abraham
made in connexion with the belief in God’s Unity. So also every one
that is circumcised enters the covenant of Abraham to believe in the
unity of God, in accordance with the words of the Law, “To be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. xvii. 7). This purpose of
the circumcision is as important as the first, and perhaps more
important.
This law can only be kept and perpetuated in its perfection, if
circumcision is performed when the child is very young, and this for
three good reasons. First, if the operation were postponed till the boy
had grown up, he would perhaps not submit to it. Secondly, the young
child has not much pain, because the skin is tender, and the
imagination weak; for grown-up persons are in dread and fear of things
which they imagine as coming, some time before these actually occur.
Thirdly, when a child is very young, the parents do not think much of
him; because the image of the child, that leads the parents to love
him, has not yet taken a firm root in their minds. That image becomes
stronger by the continual sight; it grows with the development of the
child, and later on the image begins again to decrease and to vanish.
The parents’ love for a new-born child is not so great as it is when
the child is one year old; and when one year old, it is less loved by
them than when six years old. The feeling and love of the father for
the child would have led him to neglect the law if he were allowed to
wait two or three years, whilst shortly after birth the image is very
weak in the mind of the parent, especially of the father who is
responsible for the execution of this commandment. The circumcision
must take place on the eighth day (Lev. xii. 3), because all living
beings are after birth, within the first seven days, very weak and
exceedingly tender, as if they were still in the womb of their mother;
not until the eighth day can they be counted among those that enjoy the
light of the world. That this is also the case with beasts may be
inferred from the words of Scripture: “Seven days shall it be under the
dam” (Lev. xxii. 27), as if it had no vitality before the end of that
period. In the same manner man is circumcised after the completion of
seven days. The period has been fixed, and has not been left to
everybody’s judgment.
The precepts of this class include also the lesson that we must not
injure in any way the organs of generation in living beings (ibid.
xxii. 24). The lesson is based on the principle of “righteous statutes
and judgment” (Deut. iv. 8); we must keep in everything the golden
mean; we must not be excessive in love, but must not suppress it
entirely; for the Law commands, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen. i.
22). The organ is weakened by circumcision, but not destroyed by the
operation. The natural faculty is left in full force, but is guarded
against excess. It it prohibited for an Israelite “that is wounded in
the stones, or hath his privy member cut off” (Deut. xxiii. 2), to
marry an Israelitish woman; because the sexual intercourse is of no use
and of no purpose; and that marriage would be a source of ruin to her,
and to him who would claim her. This is very clear.
In order to create a horror of illicit marriages, a bastard was not
allowed to marry an Israelitish woman (ibid. xxiii. 3); the adulterer
and the adulteress were thus taught that by their act they bring upon
their seed irreparable injury. In every language and in every nation
the issue of licentious conduct has a bad name; the Law therefore
raises the name of the Israelites by keeping them free from the
admixture of bastards. The priests, who have a higher sanctity, are not
allowed to marry a harlot, or a woman that is divorced from her
husband, or that is profane (Lev. xii. 7); the high-priest, the noblest
of the priests, must not marry even a widow, or a woman that has had
sexual intercourse of any kind (ibid. xii. 14). Of all these laws the
reason is obvious. If bastards were prohibited to marry any member of
the congregation of the Lord, how much more rigidly had slaves and
handmaids to be excluded. The reason of the prohibition of
intermarriage with other nations is stated in the Law: “And thou take
of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring
after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods”
(Exod. xxxiv. 16).
Most of the “statutes” (ḥukkim), the reason of which is unknown to us,
serve as a fence against idolatry. That I cannot explain some details
of the above laws or show their use is owing to the fact that what we
hear from others is not so clear as that which we see with our own
eyes. Thus my knowledge of the Sabean doctrines, which I derived from
books, is not as complete as the knowledge of those who have witnessed
the public practice of those idolatrous customs, especially as they
have been out of practice and entirely extinct since two thousand
years. If we knew all the particulars of the Sabean worship, and were
informed of all the details of those doctrines, we would clearly see
the reason and wisdom of every detail in the sacrificial service, in
the laws concerning things that are unclean, and in other laws, the
object of which I am unable to state. I have no doubt that all these
laws served to blot out wrong principles from man’s heart, and to
exterminate the practices which are useless, and merely a waste of time
in vain and purposeless things. Those principles have turned the mind
of the people away from intellectual research and useful actions. Our
prophets therefore describe the ways of the idolaters as follows:
“(They go) after vain things which cannot profit nor deliver; for they
are vain” (1 Sam. xii. 21); “Surely our fathers have inherited lies,
vanity and things wherein there is no profit” (Jer. xvi. 19). Consider
how great the evil consequences of idolatry are, and say whether we
ought with all our power to oppose it or not! Most of the precepts
serve, as has been stated by us, as a mere fence against those
doctrines [of idolatry], and relieve man from the great and heavy
burdens, from the pains and inflictions which formed part of the
worship of idols. Every positive or negative precept, the reason of
which is unknown to thee, take as a remedy against some of those
diseases with which we are unacquainted at present, thank God. This
should be the belief of educated men who know the true meaning of the
following divine dictum: “I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek me in
vain” (Isa. xlv. 19).
I have now mentioned all the commandments of these fourteen classes one
by one, and pointed out the reason of each of them, with the exception
of a few for which I was unable to give the reason, and of some details
of less importance; but implicitly we have given the reason even of
these, and every intelligent reader will easily find it.
The reasons of the Precepts are now complete.
CHAPTER L
There are in the Law portions which include deep wisdom, but have been
misunderstood by many persons; they require, therefore, an explanation.
I mean the narratives contained in the Law which many consider as being
of no use whatever; e.g., the list of the various families descended
from Noah, with their names and their territories (Gen. x.); the sons
of Seir the Horite (ibid. xxxvi. 20–30); the kings that reigned in Edom
(ibid. 31, seq.); and the like. There is a saying of our Sages (B.T.
Sanh. 99b) that the wicked king Manasse frequently held disgraceful
meetings for the sole purpose of criticising such passages of the Law.
“He held meetings and made blasphemous observations on Scripture,
saying, Had Moses nothing else to write than, And the sister of Lotan
was Timna” (Gen. xxxvi. 22)? With reference to such passages, I will
first give a general principle, and then discuss them seriatim, as I
have done in the exposition of the reasons of the precepts.
Every narrative in the Law serves a certain purpose in connexion with
religious teaching. It either helps to establish a principle of faith,
or to regulate our actions, and to prevent wrong and injustice among
men; and I will show this in each case.
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe
has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual
being, Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses
was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would
have doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had
been added, seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the
earth in different families and with different languages, very unlike
the one to the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the
genealogy of the nations (Gen. v. and x.), and the manner how they
branched off from a common root. It names those of them who were well
known, and tells who their fathers were, how long and where they lived.
It describes also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all
parts of the earth, and to the formation of their different languages,
after they had lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one
language (ibid. xi.), as would be natural for descendants of one
person. The accounts of the flood (ibid. vi.-viii.) and of the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ibid. xix.), serve as an
illustration of the doctrine that “Verily there is a reward for the
righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth” (Ps. lviii.
12).
The narration of the war among the nine kings (ibid. xiv.) shows how,
by means of a miracle, Abraham, with a few undisciplined men, defeated
four mighty kings. It illustrates at the same time how Abraham
sympathized with his relative, who had been brought up in the same
faith, and how he exposed himself to the dangers of warfare in order to
save him. We further learn from this narrative how contented and
satisfied Abraham was, thinking little of property, and very much of
good deeds; he said, “I will not take from a thread even to a
shoe-latchet” (Gen. xiv. 23).
The list of the families of Seir and their genealogy is given in the
Law (ibid. xxxvi. 20–30), because of one particular commandment. For
God distinctly commanded the Israelites concerning Amalek to blot out
his name (Deut. xxv. 17–19). Amalek was the son of Eliphas and Timna,
the sister of Lotan (ibid. xxxvi. 12). The other sons of Esau were not
included in this commandment. But Esau was by marriage connected with
the Seirites, as is distinctly stated in Scripture; and Seirites were
therefore his children; he reigned over them; his seed was mixed with
the seed of Seir, and ultimately all the countries and families of Seir
were called after the sons of Esau who were the predominant family, and
they assumed more particularly the name Amalekites, because these were
the strongest in that family. If the genealogy of these families of
Seir had not been described in full they would all have been killed,
contrary to the plain words of the commandment. For this reason the
Seirite families are fully described, as if to say, the people that
live in Seir and in the kingdom of Amalek are not all Amalekites; they
are the descendants of some other man, and are called Amalekites
because the mother of Amalek was of their tribe. The justice of God
thus prevented the destruction of an [innocent] people that lived in
the midst of another people [doomed to extirpation]; for the decree was
only pronounced against the seed of Amalek. The reason of this decree
has already been stated by us (p. 205).
The kings that have reigned in the land of Edom are enumerated (Gen
xxxvi. 31, seq.) on account of the law, “Thou mayst not set a stranger
over thee, which is not thy brother” (Deut. xvii. 15). For of these
kings none was an Edomite; wherefore each king is described by his
native land; one king from this place, another king from that place.
Now I think that it was then well known how these kings that reigned in
Edom conducted themselves, what they did, and how they humiliated and
oppressed the sons of Esau. Thus God reminded the Israelites of the
fate of the Edomites, as if saying unto them, Look unto your brothers,
the sons of Esau, whose kings were so and so, and whose deeds are well
known. [Learn therefrom] that no nation ever chose a foreigner as king
without inflicting thereby some great or small injury upon the country.
In short, what I remarked in reference to our ignorance of the Sabean
worship, applies also to the history of those days. If the religious
rules of the Sabeans and the events of those days were known to us, we
should be able to see plainly the reason for most of the things
mentioned in the Pentateuch.
It is also necessary to note the following observations. The view we
take of things described by others is different from the view we take
of things seen by us as eye-witnesses. For that which we see contains
many details which are essential, and must be fully described. The
reader of the description believes that it contains superfluous matter,
or useless repetition, but if he had witnessed the event of which he
reads, he would see the necessity of every part of the description.
When we therefore notice narratives in the Torah, which are in no
connexion with any of the commandments, we are inclined to think that
they are entirely superfluous, or too lengthy, or contain repetitions;
but this is only because we do not see the particular incidents which
make those narratives noteworthy. Of this kind is the enumeration of
the stations [of the Israelites in the wilderness] (Num. xxxiii.). At
first sight it appears to be entirely useless; but in order to obviate
such a notion Scripture says, “And Moses wrote their goings out
according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord” (ibid. ver.
2). It was indeed most necessary that these should be written. For
miracles are only convincing to those who witnessed them; whilst coming
generations, who know them only from the account given by others, may
consider them as untrue. But miracles cannot continue and last for all
generations; it is even inconceivable [that they should be permanent].
Now the greatest of the miracles described in the Law is the stay of
the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years, with a daily supply
of manna. This wilderness, as described in Scripture, consisted of
places “wherein were fiery serpents and scorpions, and drought, where
there was no water” (Deut. viii. 15); places very remote from
cultivated land, and naturally not adapted for the habitation of man,
“It is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates,
neither is there any water to drink” (Num. xx. 5); “A land that no man
passed through, and where no man dwelt” (Jer. ii. 6). [In reference to
the stay of the Israelites in the wilderness], Scripture relates, “Ye
have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink”
(Deut. xix. 5). All these miracles were wonderful, public, and
witnessed by the people. But God knew that in future people might doubt
the correctness of the account of these miracles, in the same manner as
they doubt the accuracy of other narratives; they might think that the
Israelites stayed in the wilderness in a place not far from inhabited
land, where it was possible for man to live [in the ordinary way]; that
it was like those deserts in which Arabs live at present; or that they
dwelt in such places in which they could plow, sow, and reap, or live
on some vegetable that was growing there; or that manna came always
down in those places as an ordinary natural product; or that there were
wells of water in those places. In order to remove all these doubts and
to firmly establish the accuracy of the account of these miracles,
Scripture enumerates all the stations, so that coming generations may
see them, and learn the greatness of the miracle which enabled human
beings to live in those places forty years.
For this very reason Joshua cursed him who would ever build up Jericho
(Josh. vi. 26); the effect of the miracle was to remain for ever, so
that any one who would see the wall sunk in the ground would understand
that it was not in the condition of a building pulled down by human
hands, but sunk through a miracle. In a similar manner the words, “At
the commandment of the Lord the children of Israel journeyed, and at
the commandment of the Lord they pitched” (Num. ix. 18), would suffice
as a simple statement of facts; and the reader might at first sight
consider as unnecessary additions all the details which follow, viz.,
“And when the cloud tarried long.... And so it was when the cloud was a
few days.... Or whether it were two days,” etc. (ibid. ix. 19–22). But
I will show you the reason why all these details are added. For they
serve to confirm the account, and to contradict the opinion of the
nations, both of ancient and modern times, that the Israelites lost
their way, and did not know where to go; that “they were entangled in
the land” (Exod. xiv. 3); wherefore the Arabs unto this day call that
desert Al-tih, “the desert of going astray,” imagining that the
Israelites erred about, and did not know the way. Scripture, therefore,
clearly states and emphatically declares that it was by God’s command
that the journeyings were irregular, that the Israelites returned to
the same places several times, and that the duration of the stay was
different in each station; whilst the stay in one place continued for
eighteen years, in another place it lasted one day, and in another one
night. There was no going astray, but the journey was regulated by “the
rising of the pillar of cloud” (Num. ix. 17). Therefore all these
details are given. Scripture clearly states that the way was near,
known, and in good condition; I mean the way from Horeb, whither they
came intentionally, according to the command of God, “Ye shall serve
God upon this mountain” (Exod. ii. 12), to Kadesh-barnea, the beginning
of inhabited land, as Scripture says, “Behold, we are now in Kadesh, a
city in the uttermost of thy border” (Num. xx. 16). That way was a
journey of eleven days; comp. “Eleven days’ journey from Horeb, by the
way of mount Seir, unto Kadesh-barnea” (Deut. i. 3). In such a journey
it is impossible to err about for forty years; but Scripture states the
cause of the delay.
In like manner there is a good reason for every passage the object of
which we cannot see. We must always apply the words of our Sages: “It
is not a vain thing for you” (Deut. xxxii. 47), and if it seems vain,
it seems your fault.
CHAPTER LI
The present chapter does not contain any additional matter that has not
been treated in the [previous] chapters of this treatise. It is a kind
of conclusion, and at the same time it will explain in what manner
those worship God who have obtained a true knowledge concerning God; it
will direct them how to come to that worship, which is the highest aim
man can attain, and show how God protects them in this world till they
are removed to eternal life.
I will begin the subject of this chapter with a simile. A king is in
his palace, and all his subjects are partly in the country, and partly
abroad. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards the king’s
palace, and their faces in another direction; and some are desirous and
zealous to go to the palace, seeking “to inquire in his temple,” and to
minister before him, but have not yet seen even the face of the wall of
the house. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and
go round about in search of the entrance gate; others have passed
through the gate, and walk about in the ante-chamber; and others have
succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace, and being in
the same room with the king in the royal palace. But even the latter do
not immediately on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him;
for, after having entered the inner part of the palace, another effort
is required before they can stand before the king—at a distance, or
close by—hear his words, or speak to him. I will now explain the simile
which I have made. The people who are abroad are all those that have no
religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by
tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north,
the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our country who are
like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human
beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the
form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey.
Those who are in the country, but have their backs turned towards the
king’s palace, are those who possess religion, belief, and thought, but
happen to hold false doctrines, which they either adopted in
consequence of great mistakes made in their own speculations, or
received from others who misled them. Because of these doctrines they
recede more and more from the royal palace the more they seem to
proceed. These are worse than the first class, and under certain
circumstances it may become necessary to slay them, and to extirpate
their doctrines, in order that others should not be misled.
Those who desire to arrive at the palace, and to enter it, but have
never yet seen it, are the mass of religious people; the multitude that
observe the divine commandments, but are ignorant. Those who arrive at
the palace, but go round about it, are those who devote themselves
exclusively to the study of the practical law; they believe
traditionally in true principles of faith, and learn the practical
worship of God, but are not trained in philosophical treatment of the
principles of the Law, and do not endeavour to establish the truth of
their faith by proof. Those who undertake to investigate the principles
of religion, have come into the ante-chamber; and there is no doubt
that these can also be divided into different grades. But those who
have succeeded in finding a proof for everything that can be proved,
who have a true knowledge of God, so far as a true knowledge can be
attained, and are near the truth, wherever an approach to the truth is
possible, they have reached the goal, and are in the palace in which
the king lives.
My son, so long as you are engaged in studying the Mathematical
Sciences and Logic, you belong to those who go round about the palace
in search of the gate. Thus our Sages figuratively use the phrase:
“Ben-zoma is still outside.” When you understand Physics, you have
entered the hall; and when, after completing the study of Natural
Philosophy, you master Metaphysics, you have entered the innermost
court, and are with the king in the same palace. You have attained the
degree of the wise men, who include men of different grades of
perfection. There are some who direct all their mind toward the
attainment of perfection in Metaphysics, devote themselves entirely to
God, exclude from their thought every other thing, and employ all their
intellectual faculties in the study of the Universe, in order to derive
therefrom a proof for the existence of God, and to learn in every
possible way how God rules all things; they form the class of those who
have entered the palace, namely, the class of prophets. One of these
has attained so much knowledge, and has concentrated his thoughts to
such an extent in the idea of God, that it could be said of him, “And
he was with the Lord forty days,” etc. (Exod. xxxiv. 28); during that
holy communion he could ask Him, answer Him, speak to Him, and be
addressed by Him, enjoying beatitude in that which he had obtained to
such a degree that “he did neither eat bread nor drink water” (ibid.);
his intellectual energy was so predominant that all coarser functions
of the body, especially those connected with the sense of touch, were
in abeyance. Some prophets are only able to see, and of these some
approach near and see, whilst others see from a distance: comp. “The
Lord hath appeared from far unto me” (Jer. xxxi. 3). We have already
spoken of the various degrees of prophets; we will therefore return to
the subject of this chapter, and exhort those who have attained a
knowledge of God, to concentrate all their thoughts in God. This is the
worship peculiar to those who have acquired a knowledge of the highest
truths; and the more they reflect on Him, and think of Him, the more
are they engaged in His worship. Those, however, who think of God, and
frequently mention His name, without any correct notion of Him, but
merely following some imagination, or some theory received from another
person, are, in my opinion, like those who remain outside the palace
and distant from it. They do not mention the name of God in truth, nor
do they reflect on it. That which they imagine and mention does not
correspond to any being in existence; it is a thing invented by their
imagination, as has been shown by us in our discussion on the Divine
Attributes (Part I. chap. 1.). The true worship of God is only possible
when correct notions of Him have previously been conceived. When you
have arrived by way of intellectual research at a knowledge of God and
His works, then commence to devote yourselves to Him, try to approach
Him and strengthen the intellect, which is the link that joins you to
Him. Thus Scripture says, “Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest
know that the Lord He is God” (Deut. iv. 35); “Know therefore this day,
and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord He is God” (ibid. 36);
“Know ye that the Lord is God” (Ps. c. 3). Thus the Law distinctly
states that the highest kind of worship to which we refer in this
chapter, is only possible after the acquisition of the knowledge of
God. For it is said, “To love the Lord your God, and to serve Him with
all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. xi. 13), and, as we have
shown several times, man’s love of God is identical with His knowledge
of Him. The Divine service enjoined in these words must, accordingly,
be preceded by the love of God. Our Sages have pointed out to us that
it is a service in the heart, which explanation I understand to mean
this: man concentrates all his thoughts on the First Intellect, and is
absorbed in these thoughts as much as possible. David therefore
commands his son Solomon these two things, and exhorts him earnestly to
do them: to acquire a true knowledge of God, and to be earnest in His
service after that knowledge has been acquired. For he says, “And thou,
Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a
perfect heart ... if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if
thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever” (1 Chron. xxviii. 9).
The exhortation refers to the intellectual conceptions, not to the
imaginations; for the latter are not called “knowledge,” but “that
which cometh into your mind” (Ezek. xx. 32). It has thus been shown
that it must be man’s aim, after having acquired the knowledge of God,
to deliver himself up to Him, and to have his heart constantly filled
with longing after Him. He accomplishes this generally by seclusion and
retirement. Every pious man should therefore seek retirement and
seclusion, and should only in case of necessity associate with others.
Note.—I have shown you that the intellect which emanates from God unto
us is the link that joins us to God. You have it in your power to
strengthen that bond, if you choose to do so, or to weaken it gradually
till it breaks, if you prefer this. It will only become strong when you
employ it in the love of God, and seek that love; it will be weakened
when you direct your thoughts to other things. You must know that even
if you were the wisest man in respect to the true knowledge of God, you
break the bond between you and God whenever you turn entirely your
thoughts to the necessary food or any necessary business; you are then
not with God, and He is not with you; for that relation between you and
Him is actually interrupted in those moments. The pious were therefore
particular to restrict the time in which they could not meditate upon
the name of God, and cautioned others about it, saying, “Let not your
minds be vacant from reflections upon God.” In the same sense did David
say, “I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right
hand, I shall not be moved” (Ps. xvi. 8); i.e., I do not turn my
thoughts away from God; He is like my right hand, which I do not forget
even for a moment on account of the ease of its motions, and therefore
I shall not be moved, I shall not fall.
We must bear in mind that all such religious acts as reading the Law,
praying, and the performance of other precepts, serve exclusively as
the means of causing us to occupy and fill our mind with the precepts
of God, and free it from worldly business; for we are thus, as it were,
in communication with God, and undisturbed by any other thing. If we,
however, pray with the motion of our lips, and our face toward the
wall, but at the same time think of our business; if we read the Law
with our tongue, whilst our heart is occupied with the building of our
house, and we do not think of what we are reading; if we perform the
commandments only with our limbs, we are like those who are engaged in
digging in the ground, or hewing wood in the forest, without reflecting
on the nature of those acts, or by whom they are commanded, or what is
their object. We must not imagine that [in this way] we attain the
highest perfection; on the contrary, we are then like those in
reference to whom Scripture says, “Thou art near in their mouth, and
far from their reins” (Jer. xii. 2).
I will now commence to show you the way how to educate and train
yourselves in order to attain that great perfection.
The first thing you must do is this: Turn your thoughts away from
everything while you read Shemaʻ or during the Tefillah, and do not
content yourself with being devout when you read the first verse of
Shema, or the first paragraph of the prayer. When you have successfully
practised this for many years, try in reading the Law or listening to
it, to have all your heart and all your thought occupied with
understanding what you read or hear. After some time when you have
mastered this, accustom yourself to have your mind free from all other
thoughts when you read any portion of the other books of the prophets,
or when you say any blessing; and to have your attention directed
exclusively to the perception and the understanding of what you utter.
When you have succeeded in properly performing these acts of divine
service, and you have your thought, during their performance, entirely
abstracted from worldly affairs, take then care that your thought be
not disturbed by thinking of your wants or of superfluous things. In
short, think of worldly matters when you eat, drink, bathe, talk with
your wife and little children, or when you converse with other people.
These times, which are frequent and long, I think, must suffice to you
for reflecting on everything that is necessary as regards business,
household, and health. But when you are engaged in the performance of
religious duties, have your mind exclusively directed to what you are
doing.
When you are alone by yourself, when you are awake on your couch, be
careful to meditate in such precious moments on nothing but the
intellectual worship of God, viz., to approach Him and to minister
before Him in the true manner which I have described to you—not in
hollow emotions. This I consider as the highest perfection wise men can
attain by the above training.
When we have acquired a true knowledge of God, and rejoice in that
knowledge in such a manner, that whilst speaking with others, or
attending to our bodily wants, our mind is all that time with God; when
we are with our heart constantly near God, even whilst our body is in
the society of men; when we are in that state which the Song on the
relation between God and man poetically describes in the following
words: “I sleep, but my heart waketh; it is the voice of my beloved
knocketh” (Song v. 2):—then we have attained not only the height of
ordinary prophets, but of Moses, our Teacher, of whom Scripture
relates: “And Moses alone shall come near before the Lord” (ibid.
xxxiv. 28); “But as for thee, stand thou here by me” (Deut. v. 28). The
meaning of these verses has been explained by us.
The Patriarchs likewise attained this degree of perfection; they
approached God in such a manner that with them the name of God became
known in the world. Thus we read in Scripture: “The God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.... This is My name for ever” (Exod.
iii. 15). Their mind was so identified with the knowledge of God, that
He made a lasting covenant with each of them: “Then will I remember my
covenant with Jacob,” etc. (Lev. xxvi. 42). For it is known from
statements made in Scripture that these four, viz., the Patriarchs and
Moses, had their minds exclusively filled with the name of God, that
is, with His knowledge and love; and that in the same measure was
Divine Providence attached to them and their descendants. When we
therefore find them also, engaged in ruling others, in increasing their
property, and endeavouring to obtain possession of wealth and honour,
we see in this fact a proof that when they were occupied in these
things, only their bodily limbs were at work, whilst their heart and
mind never moved away from the name of God. I think these four reached
that high degree of perfection in their relation to God, and enjoyed
the continual presence of Divine Providence, even in their endeavours
to increase their property, feeding the flock, toiling in the field, or
managing the house, only because in all these things their end and aim
was to approach God as much as possible. It was the chief aim of their
whole life to create a people that should know and worship God. Comp.
“For I know him, that he will command his children and his household
after him” (Gen. xviii. 19). The object of all their labours was to
publish the Unity of God in the world, and to induce people to love
Him; and it was on this account that they succeeded in reaching that
high degree; for even those [worldly] affairs were for them a perfect
worship of God. But a person like myself must not imagine that he is
able to lead men up to this degree of perfection. It is only the next
degree to it that can be attained by means of the above-mentioned
training. And let us pray to God and beseech Him that He clear and
remove from our way everything that forms an obstruction and a
partition between us and Him, although most of these obstacles are our
own creation, as has several times been shown in this treatise. Comp.
“Your iniquities have separated between you and your God” (Isa. lix.
2).
An excellent idea presents itself here to me, which may serve to remove
many doubts, and may help to solve many difficult problems in
metaphysics. We have already stated in the chapters which treat of
Divine Providence, that Providence watches over every rational being
according to the amount of intellect which that being possesses. Those
who are perfect in their perception of God, whose mind is never
separated from Him, enjoy always the influence of Providence. But those
who, perfect in their knowledge of God, turn their mind sometimes away
from God, enjoy the presence of Divine Providence only when they
meditate on God; when their thoughts are engaged in other matters,
divine Providence departs from them. The absence of Providence in this
case is not like its absence in the case of those who do not reflect on
God at all; it is in this case less intense, because when a person
perfect in his knowledge [of God] is busy with worldly matters, he has
not knowledge in actuality, but only knowledge in potentiality [though
ready to become actual]. This person is then like a trained scribe when
he is not writing. Those who have no knowledge of God are like those
who are in constant darkness and have never seen light. We have
explained in this sense the words: “The wicked shall be silent in
darkness” (1 Sam. ii. 9) whilst those who possess the knowledge of God,
and have their thoughts entirely directed to that knowledge, are, as it
were, always in bright sunshine; and those who have the knowledge, but
are at times engaged in other themes, have then as it were a cloudy
day: the sun does not shine for them on account of the cloud that
intervenes between them and God.
Hence it appears to me that it is only in times of such neglect that
some of the ordinary evils befall a prophet or a perfect and pious man;
and the intensity of the evil is proportional to the duration of those
moments, or to the character of the things that thus occupy their mind.
Such being the case, the great difficulty is removed that led
philosophers to assert that Providence does not extend to every
individual, and that man is like any other living being in this
respect, viz., the argument based on the fact that good and pious men
are afflicted with great evils. We have thus explained this difficult
question even in accordance with the philosophers’ own principles.
Divine Providence is constantly watching over those who have obtained
that blessing which is prepared for those who endeavour to obtain it.
If man frees his thoughts from worldly matters, obtains a knowledge of
God in the right way, and rejoices in that knowledge, it is impossible
that any kind of evil should befall him while he is with God, and God
with him. When he does not meditate on God, when he is separated from
God, then God is also separated from him; then he is exposed to any
evil that might befall him; for it is only that intellectual link with
God that secures the presence of Providence and protection from evil
accidents. Hence it may occur that the perfect man is at times not
happy, whilst no evil befalls those who are imperfect; in these cases
what happens to them is due to chance. This principle I find also
expressed in the Law. Comp. “And I will hide my face from them, and
they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them;
so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us,
because our God is not among us?” (Deut. xxxi. 17). It is clear that we
ourselves are the cause of this hiding of the face, and that the screen
that separates us from God is of our own creation. This is the meaning
of the words: “And I will surely hide my face in that day, for all the
evils which they shall have wrought” (ibid. ver. 18). There is
undoubtedly no difference in this regard between one single person and
a whole community. It is now clearly established that the cause of our
being exposed to chance, and abandoned to destruction like cattle, is
to be found in our separation from God. Those who have their God
dwelling in their hearts, are not touched by any evil whatever. For God
says: “Fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy
God” (Isa. xli. 10). “When thou passest through the waters, I will be
with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee” (ibid.
xliii. 2). For if we prepare ourselves, and attain the influence of the
Divine Intellect, Providence is joined to us, and we are guarded
against all evils. Comp. “The Lord is on my side; I will not fear; what
can man do unto me?” (Ps. cxviii. 6). “Acquaint now thyself with him,
and be at peace” (Job xxii. 21); i.e., turn unto Him, and you will be
safe from all evil.
Consider the Psalm on mishaps, and see how the author describes that
great Providence, the protection and defence from all mishaps that
concern the body, both from those that are common to all people, and
those that concern only one certain individual; from those that are due
to the laws of Nature, and those that are caused by our fellow-men. The
Psalmist says: “Surely he will deliver thee from the snare of the
fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his
feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: His truth shall be thy
shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night;
nor for the arrow that flieth by day” (Ps. xci. 3–5). The author then
relates how God protects us from the troubles caused by men, saying, If
you happen to meet on your way with an army fighting with drawn swords,
killing thousands at your left hand and myriads at your right hand, you
will not suffer any harm; you will behold and see how God judges and
punishes the wicked that are being slain, whilst you remain unhurt. “A
thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand;
but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold
and see the reward of the wicked” (ibid. vers. 7, 8). The author then
continues his description of the divine defence and shelter, and shows
the cause of this great protection, saying that such a man is well
guarded “Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver
him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name” (ibid. ver.
14). We have shown in previous chapters that by the “knowledge of God’s
name,” the knowledge of God is meant. The above passage may therefore
be paraphrased as follows: “This man is well guarded, because he hath
known me, and then (bi chashak) loved me.” You know the difference
between the two Hebrew terms that signify “to love,” ahab and ḥashak.
When a man’s love is so intense that his thought is exclusively engaged
with the object of his love, it is expressed in Hebrew by the term
ḥashak.
The philosophers have already explained how the bodily forces of man in
his youth prevent the development of moral principles. In a greater
measure this is the case as regards the purity of thought which man
attains through the perfection of those ideas that lead him to an
intense love of God. Man can by no means attain this so long as his
bodily humours are hot. The more the forces of his body are weakened,
and the fire of passion quenched, in the same measure does man’s
intellect increase in strength and light; his knowledge becomes purer,
and he is happy with his knowledge. When this perfect man is stricken
in age and is near death, his knowledge mightily increases, his joy in
that knowledge grows greater, and his love for the object of his
knowledge more intense, and it is in this great delight that the soul
separates from the body. To this state our Sages referred, when in
reference to the death of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, they said that
death was in these three cases nothing but a kiss. They say thus: We
learn from the words, “And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in
the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. xxxiv. 5), that his
death was a kiss. The same expression is used of Aaron: “And Aaron the
priest went up into Mount Hor ... by the mouth of the Lord, and died
there” (Num. xxxiii. 38). Our Sages said that the same was the case
with Miriam; but the phrase “by the mouth of the Lord” is not employed,
because it was not considered appropriate to use these words in the
description of her death as she was a female. The meaning of this
saying is that these three died in the midst of the pleasure derived
from the knowledge of God and their great love for Him. When our Sages
figuratively call the knowledge of God united with intense love for Him
a kiss, they follow the well-known poetical diction “Let him kiss me
with the kisses of his mouth” (Song i. 2). This kind of death, which in
truth is deliverance from death, has been ascribed by our Sages to none
but to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The other prophets and pious men are
beneath that degree; but their knowledge of God is strengthened when
death approaches. Of them Scripture says, “Thy righteousness shall go
before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward” (Isa. lviii.
8). The intellect of these men remains then constantly in the same
condition, since the obstacle is removed that at times has intervened
between the intellect and the object of its action; it continues for
ever in that great delight, which is not like bodily pleasure. We have
explained this in our work, and others have explained it before us.
Try to understand this chapter, endeavour with all your might to spend
more and more time in communion with God, or in the attempt to approach
Him; and to reduce the hours which you spend in other occupations, and
during which you are not striving to come nearer unto Him. This
instruction suffices for the object of this treatise.
CHAPTER LII
We do not sit, move, and occupy ourselves when we are alone and at home
in the same manner as we do in the presence of a great king; we speak
and open our mouth as we please when we are with the people of our own
household and with our relatives, but not so when we are in a royal
assembly. If we therefore desire to attain human perfection, and to be
truly men of God, we must awake from our sleep, and bear in mind that
the great king that is over us, and is always joined to us, is greater
than any earthly king, greater than David and Solomon. The king that
cleaves to us and embraces us is the Intellect that influences us, and
forms the link between us and God. We perceive God by means of that
light that He sends down unto us, wherefore the Psalmist says, “In Thy
light shall we see light” (Ps. xxxvi. 9): so God looks down upon us
through that same light, and is always with us beholding and watching
us on account of this light. “Can any hide himself in secret places
that I shall not see him?” (Jer. xxiii. 24). Note this particularly.
When the perfect bear this in mind, they will be filled with fear of
God, humility, and piety, with true, not apparent, reverence and
respect of God, in such a manner that their conduct, even when alone
with their wives or in the bath, will be as modest as they are in
public intercourse with other people. Thus it is related of our
renowned Sages that even in their sexual intercourse with their wives
they behaved with great modesty. They also said, “Who is modest? He
whose conduct in the dark night is the same as in the day.” You know
also how much they warned us not to walk proudly, since “the fulness of
the whole earth is His glory” (Isa. vi. 3). They thought that by these
rules the above-mentioned idea will be firmly established in the hearts
of men, viz., that we are always before God, and it is in the presence
of His glory that we go to and fro. The great men among our Sages would
not uncover their heads because they believed that God’s glory was
round them and over them; for the same reason they spoke little. In our
Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers (chap. i. 17) we have fully
explained how we have to restrict our speech. Comp. “For God is in
heaven and thou upon earth, therefore let thy words be few” (Eccles. v.
1).
What I have here pointed out to you is the object of all our religious
acts. For by [carrying out] all the details of the prescribed
practices, and repeating them continually, some few pious men may
attain human perfection. They will be filled with respect and reverence
towards God; and bearing in mind who is with them, they will perform
their duty. God declares in plain words that it is the object of all
religious acts to produce in man fear of God and obedience to His
word—the state of mind which we have demonstrated in this chapter for
those who desire to know the truth, as being our duty to seek. Comp.
“If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are
written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful
name, the Lord thy God” (Deut. xxviii. 58). Consider how clearly it is
stated here that the only object and aim of “all the words of this law”
is to [make man] fear “the glorious and fearful name.” That this end is
attained by certain acts we learn likewise from the phrase employed in
this verse: “If thou wilt not observe to do ... that thou mayest fear.”
For this phrase clearly shows that fear of God is inculcated [into our
hearts] when we act in accordance with the positive and the negative
precepts. But the truths which the Law teaches us—the knowledge of
God’s Existence and Unity—create in us love of God, as we have shown
repeatedly. You know how frequently the Law exhorts us to love God.
Comp. “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. vi. 5). The two
objects, love and fear of God, are acquired by two different means. The
love is the result of the truths taught in the Law, including the true
knowledge of the Existence of God; whilst fear of God is produced by
the practices prescribed in the Law. Note this explanation.
CHAPTER LIII
This chapter treats of the meaning of three terms which we find
necessary to explain, viz., ḥesed (“loving-kindness”), mishpat
(“judgment”), and ẓedakah (“righteousness”).
In our Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers (chap. v. 7) we have
explained the expression ḥesed as denoting an excess [in some moral
quality]. It is especially used of extraordinary kindness.
Loving-kindness is practised in two ways: first, we show kindness to
those who have no claim whatever upon us; secondly, we are kind to
those to whom it is due, in a greater measure than is due to them. In
the inspired writings the term ḥesed occurs mostly in the sense of
showing kindness to those who have no claim to it whatever. For this
reason the term ḥesed is employed to express the good bestowed upon us
by God: “I will mention the loving-kindness of the Lord” (Isa. lxiii.
7). On this account, the very act of the creation is an act of God’s
loving-kindness. “I have said, The Universe is built up in
loving-kindness” (Ps. lxxxix. 3); i.e., the building up of the Universe
is an act of loving-kindness. Also, in the enumeration of God’s
attributes, Scripture says: “And abundant in loving-kindness” (Exod.
xxxiv. 6).
The term ẓedakah is derived from ẓedek, “righteousness”; it denotes the
act of giving every one his due, and of showing kindness to every being
according as it deserves. In Scripture, however, the expression ẓedakah
is not used in the first sense, and does not apply to the payment of
what we owe to others. When we therefore give the hired labourer his
wages, or pay a debt, we do not perform an act of ẓedakah. But we do
perform an act of ẓedakah when we fulfil those duties towards our
fellow-men which our moral conscience imposes upon us; e.g., when we
heal the wound of the sufferer. Thus Scripture says, in reference to
the returning of the pledge [to the poor debtor]: “And it shall be
ẓedakah (righteousness) unto thee” (Deut. xxiv. 11). When we walk in
the way of virtue we act righteously towards our intellectual faculty,
and pay what is due unto it; and because every virtue is thus ẓedakah,
Scripture applies the term to the virtue of faith in God. Comp. “And he
believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him as righteousness”
(Gen. xv. 6); “And it shall be our righteousness” (Deut. vi. 25).
The noun mishpat, “judgment,” denotes the act of deciding upon a
certain action in accordance with justice which may demand either mercy
or punishment.
We have thus shown that ḥesed denotes pure charity; ẓedakah kindness,
prompted by a certain moral conscience in man, and being a means of
attaining perfection for his soul, whilst mishpat may in some cases
find expression in revenge, in other cases in mercy.
In discussing the impropriety of admitting attributes of God (Part I.,
chap. liii., seq.), we stated that the divine attributes which occur in
Scripture are attributes of His actions; thus He is called ḥasid,
“kind,” because He created the Universe; ẓaddik, “righteous,” on
account of His mercy with the weak, in providing for every living being
according to its powers; and shofet, “judge,” on account of the
relative good and the great relative evils that are decreed by God’s
justice as directed by His wisdom. These three names occur in the
Pentateuch: “Shall not the Judge (shofet) of all the earth,” etc. (Gen.
xviii. 25); “Righteous (ẓaddik) and upright is he” (Deut. xxxii. 4);
“Abundant in loving-kindness” (ḥesed, Exod. xxxiv. 6).
We intended in explaining these three terms to prepare the reader for
the next chapter.
CHAPTER LIV
The term ḥokmah (“wisdom”) in Hebrew is used of four different things:
(1) It denotes the knowledge of those truths which lead to the
knowledge of God. Comp. “But where shall wisdom be found?” (Job xxviii.
12); “If thou seekest her like silver” (Prov. ii. 4). The word occurs
frequently in this sense. (2) The expression ḥokmah denotes also
knowledge of any workmanship. Comp. “And every wise-hearted among you
shall come and make all that the Lord hath commanded” (Exod. xxxv. 10);
“And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin” (ibid. ver. 25).
(3) It is also used of the acquisition of moral principles. Comp. “And
teach his senators wisdom” (Ps. cv. 22); “With the ancient is wisdom”
(Job xii. 12): for it is chiefly the disposition for acquiring moral
principles that is developed by old age alone. (4) It implies, lastly,
the notion of cunning and subtlety; comp. “Come on, let us deal wisely
with them” (Exod. i. 10). In the same sense the term is used in the
following passages: “And fetched thence a wise woman” (2 Sam. xiv. 2);
“They are wise to do evil” (Jer. iv. 22). It is possible that the
Hebrew ḥokmah (“wisdom”) expresses the idea of cunning and planning,
which may serve in one case as a means of acquiring intellectual
perfection, or good moral principles; but may in another case produce
skill in workmanship, or even be employed in establishing bad opinions
and principles. The attribute ḥakam (“wise”) is therefore given to a
person that possesses great intellectual faculties, or good moral
principles, or skill in art; but also to persons cunning in evil deeds
and principles.
According to this explanation, a person that has a true knowledge of
the whole Law is called wise in a double sense; he is wise because the
Law instructs him in the highest truths, and secondly, because it
teaches him good morals. But as the truths contained in the Law are
taught by way of tradition, not by a philosophical method, the
knowledge of the Law, and the acquisition of true wisdom, are treated
in the books of the Prophets and in the words of our Sages as two
different things; real wisdom demonstrates by proof those truths which
Scripture teaches us by way of tradition. It is to this kind of wisdom,
which proves the truth of the Law, that Scripture refers when it extols
wisdom, and speaks of the high value of this perfection, and of the
consequent paucity of men capable of acquiring it, in sayings like
these: “Not many are wise” (Job xxxii. 9); “But where shall wisdom be
found” (ibid. xxviii. 12)? In the writings of our Sages we notice
likewise many passages in which distinction is made between knowledge
of the Law and wisdom. They say of Moses, our Teacher, that he was
Father in the knowledge of the Law, in wisdom and in prophecy. When
Scripture says of Solomon, “And he was wiser than all men” (1 Kings v.
11), our Sages add, “but not greater than Moses”; and the phrase, “than
all men,” is explained to mean, “than all men of his generation”; for
this reason [only] “Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol,” the
renowned wise men of that time, are named. Our Sages further say, that
man has first to render account concerning his knowledge of the Law,
then concerning the acquisition of wisdom, and at last concerning the
lessons derived by logical conclusions from the Law, i.e., the lessons
concerning his actions. This is also the right order: we must first
learn the truths by tradition, after this we must be taught how to
prove them, and then investigate the actions that help to improve man’s
ways. The idea that man will have to render account concerning these
three things in the order described, is expressed by our Sages in the
following passage: “When man comes to the trial, he is first asked,
‘Hast thou fixed certain seasons for the study of the Law? Hast thou
been engaged in the acquisition of wisdom? Hast thou derived from one
thing another thing?’” This proves that our Sages distinguished between
the knowledge of the Law on the one hand, and wisdom on the other, as
the means of proving the lessons taught in the Law by correct
reasoning.
Hear now what I have to say after having given the above explanation.
The ancient and the modern philosophers have shown that man can acquire
four kinds of perfection. The first kind, the lowest, in the
acquisition of which people spend their days, is perfection as regards
property; the possession of money, garments, furniture, servants, land,
and the like; the possession of the title of a great king belongs to
this class. There is no close connexion between this possession and its
possessor; it is a perfectly imaginary relation when on account of the
great advantage a person derives from these possessions, he says, This
is my house, this is my servant, this is my money, and these are my
hosts and armies. For when he examines himself he will find that all
these things are external, and their qualities are entirely independent
of the possessor. When, therefore, that relation ceases, he that has
been a great king may one morning find that there is no difference
between him and the lowest person, and yet no change has taken place in
the things which were ascribed to him. The philosophers have shown that
he whose sole aim in all his exertions and endeavours is the possession
of this kind of perfection, only seeks perfectly imaginary and
transient things; and even if these remain his property all his
lifetime, they do not give him any perfection.
The second kind is more closely related to man’s body than the first.
It includes the perfection of the shape, constitution, and form of
man’s body; the utmost evenness of temperaments, and the proper order
and strength of his limbs. This kind of perfection must likewise be
excluded from forming our chief aim; because it is a perfection of the
body, and man does not possess it as man, but as a living being; he has
this property besides in common with the lowest animal; and even if a
person possesses the greatest possible strength, he could not be as
strong as a mule, much less can he be as strong as a lion or an
elephant; he, therefore, can at the utmost have strength that might
enable him to carry a heavy burden, or break a thick substance, or do
similar things, in which there is no great profit for the body. The
soul derives no profit whatever from this kind of perfection.
The third kind of perfection is more closely connected with man himself
than the second perfection. It includes moral perfection, the highest
degree of excellency in man’s character. Most of the precepts aim at
producing this perfection; but even this kind is only a preparation for
another perfection, and is not sought for its own sake. For all moral
principles concern the relation of man to his neighbour; the perfection
of man’s moral principles is, as it were, given to man for the benefit
of mankind. Imagine a person being alone, and having no connexion
whatever with any other person, all his good moral principles are at
rest, they are not required, and give man no perfection whatever. These
principles are only necessary and useful when man comes in contact with
others.
The fourth kind of perfection is the true perfection of man; the
possession of the highest intellectual faculties; the possession of
such notions which lead to true metaphysical opinions as regards God.
With this perfection man has obtained his final object; it gives him
true human perfection; it remains to him alone; it gives him
immortality, and on its account he is called man. Examine the first
three lands of perfection, you will find that, if you possess them,
they are not your property, but the property of others; according to
the ordinary view, however, they belong to you and to others. But the
last kind of perfection is exclusively yours; no one else owns any part
of it, “They shall be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee”
(Prov. v. 17). Your aim must therefore be to attain this [fourth]
perfection that is exclusively yours, and you ought not to continue to
work and weary yourself for that which belongs to others, whilst
neglecting your soul till it has lost entirely its original purity
through the dominion of the bodily powers over it. The same idea is
expressed in the beginning of those poems, which allegorically
represent the state of our soul. “My mother’s children were angry with
me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard
have I not kept” (Song i. 6). Also the following passage refers to the
same subject, “Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years
unto the cruel” (Prov. v. 9).
The prophets have likewise explained unto us these things, and have
expressed the same opinion on them as the philosophers. They say
distinctly that perfection in property, in health, or in character, is
not a perfection worthy to be sought as a cause of pride and glory for
us; that the knowledge of God, i.e., true wisdom, is the only
perfection which we should seek, and in which we should glorify
ourselves. Jeremiah, referring to these four kinds of perfection, says:
“Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither
let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in
his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he
understandeth and knoweth me” (Jer. ix. 22, 23). See how the prophet
arranged them according to their estimation in the eyes of the
multitude. The rich man occupies the first rank; next is the mighty
man; and then the wise man; that is, the man of good moral principles:
for in the eyes of the multitude, who are addressed in these words, he
is likewise a great man. This is the reason why the three classes are
enumerated in this order.
Our Sages have likewise derived from this passage the above-mentioned
lessons, and stated the same theory that has been explained in this
chapter, viz., that the simple term ḥokmah, as a rule, denotes the
highest aim of man, the knowledge of God; that those properties which
man acquires, makes his peculiar treasure, and considers as his
perfection, in reality do not include any perfection; and that the
religious acts prescribed in the Law, viz., the various kinds of
worship and the moral principles which benefit all people in their
social intercourse with each other, do not constitute the ultimate aim
of man, nor can they be compared to it, for they are but preparations
leading to it. Hear the opinion of our Sages on this subject in their
own words. The passage occurs in Bereshit Rabba, and runs thus, “In one
place Scripture says, ‘And all things that are desirable (ḥafaẓim) are
not to be compared to her’ (Prov. viii. 11); and in another place, ‘And
all things that thou desirest (ḥafaẓeḥa) are not to be compared unto
her’” (ibid. iii. 15). By “things that are desirable” the performance
of Divine precepts and good deeds is to be understood, whilst “things
that thou desirest” refer to precious stones and pearls. Both—things
that are desirable, and things that thou desirest—cannot be compared to
wisdom, but “in this let him that glorieth glory, that he understandeth
and knoweth me.” Consider how concise this saying is, and how perfect
its author; how nothing is here omitted of all that we have put forth
after lengthy explanations and preliminary remarks.
Having stated the sublime ideas contained in that Scriptural passage,
and quoted the explanation of our Sages, we will now complete what the
remainder of that passage teaches us. The prophet does not content
himself with explaining that the knowledge of God is the highest kind
of perfection; for if this only had been his intention, he would have
said, “But in this let him who glorieth glory, that he understandeth
and knoweth me,” and would have stopped there; or he would have said,
“that he understandeth and knoweth me that I am One,” or, “that I have
not any likeness,” or, “that there is none like me,” or a similar
phrase. He says, however, that man can only glory in the knowledge of
God and in the knowledge of His ways and attributes, which are His
actions, as we have shown (Part I. liv.) in expounding the passage,
“Show me now thy ways” (Exod. xxxviii. 13). We are thus told in this
passage that the Divine acts which ought to be known, and ought to
serve as a guide for our actions, are, ḥesed, “loving-kindness,”
mishpat, “judgment,” and ẓedakah, “righteousness.” Another very
important lesson is taught by the additional phrase, “in the earth.” It
implies a fundamental principle of the Law; it rejects the theory of
those who boldly assert that God’s providence does not extend below the
sphere of the moon, and that the earth with its contents is abandoned,
that “the Lord hath forsaken the earth” (Ez. viii. 12). It teaches, as
has been taught by the greatest of all wise men in the words, “The
earth is the Lord’s” (Exod. ix. 29), that His providence extends to the
earth in accordance with its nature, in the same manner as it controls
the heavens in accordance with their nature. This is expressed in the
words, “That I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment,
and righteousness in the earth.” The prophet thus, in conclusion, says,
“For in these things I delight, saith the Lord,” i.e., My object [in
saying this] is that you shall practise loving-kindness, judgment, and
righteousness in the earth. In a similar manner we have shown (Part I.
liv.) that the object of the enumeration of God’s thirteen attributes
is the lesson that we should acquire similar attributes and act
accordingly. The object of the above passage is therefore to declare,
that the perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by him
when he has acquired—as far as this is possible for man—the knowledge
of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it
influences His creatures in their production and continued existence.
Having acquired this knowledge he will then be determined always to
seek loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, and thus to imitate
the ways of God. We have explained this many times in this treatise.
This is all that I thought proper to discuss in this treatise, and
which I considered useful for men like you. I hope that, by the help of
God, you will, after due reflection, comprehend all the things which I
have treated here. May He grant us and all Israel with us to attain
what He promised us, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and
the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped” (Isa. xxxv. 5); “The people
that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the
shadow of death upon them hath the light shined” (ibid. ix. 1).
God is near to all who call Him, if they call Him in truth, and turn to
Him. He is found by every one who seeks Him, if he always goes toward
Him, and never goes astray. Amen.
NOTES
[1] See infra, page 4, note 1.
[2] See infra, page 5, note 4.
[3] Saadiah proves the existence of the Creator in the following
way:—1. The Universe is limited, and therefore cannot possess an
unlimited force. 2. All things are compounds; the composition must be
owing to some external cause. 3. Changes observed in all beings are
effected by some external cause. 4. If time were infinite, it would be
impossible to conceive the progress of time from the present moment to
the future, or from the past to the present moment. (Emunot vedeʻot,
ch. i.).—Baḥya founds his arguments on three propositions:—1. A thing
cannot be its own maker. 2. The series of successive causes is finite.
3. Compounds owe their existence to an external force. His arguments
are:—1. The Universe, even the elements, are compounds consisting of
substance and form. 2. In the Universe plan and unity is discernible.
(Ḥobot ha-lebabot, ch. i.)