Maimonides’
Mean of the Doctrines
1. Introduction to the Guide
The object of this treatise is to
enlighten a religious man who has been trained to believe in the truth of our
holy Law, who conscientiously fulfils his moral and religious duties, and at
the same time has been successful in his philosophical studies. Human reason
has attracted him to abide within its sphere; and he finds it difficult to
accept as correct the teaching based on the literal interpretation of the Law,
and especially that which he himself or others derived from those homonymons,
metaphorical, or hybrid expressions. Hence he is lost in perplexity and
anxiety. If he be guided solely by reason, and renounce his previous views
which are based on those expressions, he would consider that he had rejected
the fundamental principles of the Law; and even if he retains the opinions
which were derived from those expressions, and if, instead of following his
reason, he abandon its guidance altogether, it would still appear that his
religious convictions had suffered loss and injury. For he would then be left
with those errors which give rise to fear and anxiety, constant grief and great
perplexity.
2. Introduction to the Guide
In speaking about very obscure matters it
is necessary to conceal some parts and disclose others. Sometimes in the case
of certain dicta this necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the
basis of a certain premise, whereas in another place necessity requires that
the discussion proceed on the basis of another premise contradicting the first
one… The vulgar must in no way be aware of the contradiction; the author
accordingly uses some device to conceal it by all means.
3. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Deot 1:4
The straight path: This [involves
discovering] the midpoint temperament of each and every trait that man
possesses [within his personality.] This refers to the trait which is
equidistant from either of the extremes, without being close to either of them.
Therefore, the early Sages instructed a man to evaluate his traits, to
calculate them and to direct them along the middle path, so that he will be
sound {of body}. For example: he should not be wrathful, easily angered; nor be
like the dead, without feeling, rather he should [adopt] an intermediate
course; i.e., he should display anger only when the matter is serious enough to
warrant it, in order to prevent the matter from recurring. Similarly, he should
not desire anything other than that which the body needs and cannot exist
without, as [Proverbs 13:25] states: "The righteous man eats to satisfy
his soul." Also, he shall not labor in his business except to gain what he
needs for immediate use, as [Psalms 37:16] states: "A little is good for
the righteous man." He should not be overly stingy nor spread his money
about, but he should give charity according to his capacity and lend to the
needy as is fitting. He should not be overly elated and laugh [excessively],
nor be sad and depressed in spirit. Rather, he should be quietly happy at all
times, with a friendly countenance. The same applies with regard to his other
traits. This path is the path of the wise. Every man whose traits are
intermediate and equally balanced can be called a "wise man."
4. Guide 3:49
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.
5. Guide 3:53
[W]hen you walk in the way of the moral
virtues, you do justice to your rational soul, giving her the due that is her
right. And because every moral virtue is called zedakah, it says: “And he
believed in the Lord, and it was accounted to him as zedakah” (Gen. 15:6). I
refer to the virtue of faith.
6. Guide 2:32
The opinions of people concerning prophecy
are like their opinions concerning the eternity of the world or creation of the
world. I mean by this that just as the people to whose mind the existence of
the Deity is firmly established, have, as we have set forth [in 2.13], three
opinions concerning the eternity or creation of the world, so are there three
opinions concerning prophecy.
C1 - Creation ex nihilo (those who believe
in the Torah)
C2 - Creation out of eternal matter
(Plato)
C3 - Eternal universe (Aristotle)
P1 - Prophecy is given to whomever God
chooses (the vulgar)
P2 - Prophecy is a natural process and God
has no part in who receives it (the philosopher)
P3 - Prophecy is natural but can be
hindered by God at His choosing (the Torah and our foundation)
7. Guide 3:17
- No providence (Epicureans)
- Only permanent and ordered things have
providence, but not individuals (Aristotle)
- Everything has divine providence (Asharite)
- Man has free will, but divine providence also
acts over everything using divine wisdom (Mutazilite)
- Man and God have free will, and God is just.
Divine providence acts over all humans using divine justice. This may
imply some “suffering of love.” It may also imply violations of natural
law. (Believers in the Torah)
6.
7.
My
opinion on this principle of Divine Providence I will now explain to you. In
the principle which I now proceed to expound I do not rely on demonstrative
proof, but on my conception of the spirit of the Divine Law, and the writings
of the Prophets. The principle which I accept is far less open to objections,
and is more reasonable than the opinions mentioned before. It is this: In the
lower or sublunary portion of the Universe Divine Providence does not extend to
the individual members of species except in the case of mankind. It is only in
this species that the incidents in the existence of the individual beings,
their good and evil fortunes, are the result of justice, in accordance with the
words, "For all His ways are judgment." But I agree with Aristotle as
regards all other living beings, and à fortiori as regards plants and all the
rest of earthly creatures. For I do not believe that it is through the
interference of Divine Providence that a certain leaf drops [from a tree], nor
do I hold that when a certain spider catches a certain fly, that this is the
direct result of a special decree and will of God in that moment; it is not by
a particular Divine decree that the spittle of a certain person moved, fell on
a certain gnat in a certain place, and killed it; nor is it by the direct will
of God that a certain fish catches and swallows a certain worm on the surface
of the water. In all these cases the action is, according to my opinion,
entirely due to chance, as taught by Aristotle. Divine Providence is connected
with Divine intellectual influence, and the same beings which are benefited by
the latter so as to become intellectual, and to comprehend things
comprehensible to rational beings, are also under the control of Divine
Providence, which examines all their deeds in order to reward or punish them.
It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her contents, as in the
above-mentioned instance, or the roof of a house falls upon those within; but
it is not due to chance, according to our view, that in the one instance the
men went into the ship, or remained in the house in the other instance: it is
due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments,
the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding. I have been induced
to accept this theory by the circumstance that I have not met in any of the
prophetical books with a description of God's Providence otherwise than in
relation to human beings. The prophets even express their surprise that God
should take notice of man, who is too little and too unimportant to be worthy
of the attention of the Creator: how, then, should other living creatures be
considered as proper objects for Divine Providence! Comp. "What is man,
that thou takest knowledge of him?" (Ps. cxliv. 3); "What is man,
that thou art mindful of him?" (ibid. viii. 8). It is clearly expressed in
many Scriptural passages that God provides for all men, and controls all their
deeds--e.g., "He fashioneth their hearts alike, he considereth all their
works" (ibid. xxxiii. 15); "For thine eyes are open upon all the ways
of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways" (Jer. xxxii.
19). Again: "For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his
goings" (Job xxxii. 21). In the Law there occur instances of the fact that
men are governed by God, and that their actions are examined by him. Comp.
"In the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them" (Exod.
xxxii. 34) "I will even appoint over you terror" (Lev. xxvi. 16); "Whosoever
hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book" (Exod. xxxii. 33);
"The same soul will I destroy" (Lev. xxiii. 30); "I will even
set my face against that soul" (ibid. xx. 6). There are many instances of
this kind.
8.
8. Perek Chelek
One
group thinks that the expected good is the Garden of Eden, a place in which one
eats and drinks without any physical work or effort. They also believe that
there are houses made of precious stones, beds of silk, rivers flow with wine
and fragrant oils, and many other things of that sort. This group believes that
the evil is Gehennam, a place of raging fire, in which bodies are burned and
agonies of all sorts are inflicted upon men. Their descriptions of these
afflictions are told at a great length. This group adduces proof for their
opinions from the words of our sages and from passages in the Scripture whose
literal meaning seems either wholly or largely compatible with what they say.
A
second group asserts that the good for which we hope is the Days of the
Messiah, in whose time all men will be angels, and all of them will live
forever. They will be giants in stature and will grow in number and strength
until they have occupied the entire world forever. The Messiah will, with the
help of God, live forever. They also believe that in those days the earth will
bring forth garments woven, bread baked, and many other impossible things. In
this view, the evil is that a man may not be alive in those days and may not
merit the privilege of seeing them. This group also adduces proof from many
statements found in the writings of our sages and from Biblical verses whose
literal meaning seems to agree either wholly or partly with what they
say.
A
third group holds that the good for which we hope is the resurrection of the
dead. By this they mean that a man will live after his death and return to his
family and dear ones to eat and drink and never die again. According to this
opinion the devil is that a man may not live after his death among those who
are resurrected. Here, too, proof is adduced from many sayings that are found
in the words of the sages and from Biblical verses whose literal meaning seem
to teach this, wholly or in part.
A
fourth view holds that the goal of fulfilling the commandments is the
achievement of bodily peace and mundane success like fertile lands, extensive
possessions, many children, health, peace, and security. They also believe that
there will be a Jewish king who will rule over those who oppressed us. The evil
that will overtake us if we deny the Torah is the opposite of these, as in our
present exile. Those who hold this opinion likewise find support for their
views in verses of Torah, particularly the curses, and from other passages in
Scripture.
A
fifth group-and a large one-combines the opinion of all the others. They assert
that the ultimate hope is that the Messiah will come, that he will resurrect
the dead, who will enter the Garden of Eden where they will eat and drink in
perfect health forever.
9. Perek Chelek
You must know that the words of the sages
are differently interpreted by three groups of people.
The
first group is the largest one. I have observed them, read their books, and
heard about them. They accept the teachings of the sages in their simple
literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning
at all. They believe that all sorts of impossible things must be. They hold
such opinions because they have not understood science and are far from having
acquired knowledge. They possess no perfection which would rouse them to insight
from within, nor have they found anyone else to stimulate them to profounder
understanding. They, therefore, believe that the sages intended no more in
their carefully emphatic and straightforward utterances than they themselves
are able to understand with inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings
of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of
their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if
one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone
sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in
the world could believe such things true, much less edifying.
The
members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly.
Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sages in accordance with their own
meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group
destroys the glory of the Torah of God and says the opposite of what it
intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, “The nation is a wise and
understanding people” (Deut. 4:6). But this group expounds the laws and the
teachings of our sages in such a way that when the other peoples hear them they
say that this little person is foolish and ignoble.
The
worst offenders are preachers who preach and expound to the masses what they
themselves do not understand. Would that they keep silent about what they do
not know, as it is written: “If only they would be utterly silent, it would be
accounted to them as wisdom” (Job 13:5). Or they might at least say, “We do not
understand what our sages intended in this statement, and we do not know how to
explain it.” But they believe they do understand, and they vigorously expound
to the people what they think rather than what the sages really said. They,
therefore, give lectures to the people on the tractate Berakhot and on this
present chapter, and other texts, expounding them word-for-word according to
their literal meaning.
The
second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consists of persons who, having
read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple
literal sense and believe that the sages, understand them according to their
simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what
may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately
declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does
not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that their own intelligence is of a
higher order than that of the sages, and that the sages were simpletons who
suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so
pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of these
who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. They
regard themselves as cultivated men, scientists, critics, and philosophers. How
remote they are from true humanity compared to real philosophers! They are more
stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools.
This
is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established
greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science. If
these fools had worked at science hard enough to know how to write accurately
about theology and similar subjects both for the masses and for the educated,
and if they understood the relevance of philosophy, then they would be in a
position to understand whether the sages were in fact wise or not, and the real
meaning of their teachings would be clear to them.
There
is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly
appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense in which one speaks of
the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group
consists of men whom the greatness of our sages is clear. They recognize the
superiority of their intelligence from their words which point to exceedingly
profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books
teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of
truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the
sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the
impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the sages
did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages
contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of
things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and
parable which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example, the greatest
of our wise men (Solomon) began his book by saying: “To understand an analogy
and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles” (Prov. 1:6).
10. Guide 3:26
Just as there is disagreement among the
men of speculation among the adherents of the Law whether His works, may He be
exalted, are consequent upon wisdom or upon the will alone without being
intended toward any end at all, there is also the same disagreement among them
regarding our Laws, which He has given to us. Thus there are people who do not
seek for them any cause at all, saying that all Laws are consequent upon the
will alone. There are also people who say that every commandment and
prohibition in these Laws is consequent upon wisdom and aims at some end, and
that all Laws have causes and were given in view of some utility.
Yet,
as Maimonides goes on, it becomes clear he is much more nuanced in his approach
than “all or nothing.” Though he agrees that the generalities of the
commandments have some cause, he posits that for many, the particulars do not
have any cause whatsoever. He writes, “Know that wisdom rendered it
necessary... that there should be particulars for which no cause can be found;
it was, as it were, impossible in regard to the law that there could be nothing
of this class in it”.Thus, elements of the extreme opinions are included in his
own belief
No comments:
Post a Comment