CHAPTER 49

The commandments included in the fourteenth class are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women and in Laws on Prohibited Sexual Relations. The interbreeding of beasts¹ and the commandment of circumcision also belong to this class. The purpose of this class of commandments has already been reported.² Now I shall begin to explain the particulars.

I say then: It is well known that friends are something that is necessary for man throughout his whole life. Aristotle has already set this forth in the ninth book of the “Ethics.”³ For in a state of health and happiness, a man takes pleasure in their familiar relationship with him; in adversity he has recourse to them; and in his old age, when his body is grown weak, he seeks their help. The same things may be found to a much greater extent in the relationship with one’s children and also in the relationship with one’s relatives. For fraternal sentiments and mutual love and mutual help can be found in their perfect form only among those who are related by their ancestry. Accordingly a single tribe that is united through a common ancestor — even if he is remote — because of this, love one another, help one another, and have pity on one another; and the attainment of these things is the greatest purpose of the Law. Hence harlots are prohibited,4 because through them lines of ancestry are destroyed. For a child born of them is a stranger to the people; no one knows to what family group he belongs, and no one in his family group knows him; and this is the worst of conditions for him and for his father. Another important consideration comes in as a reason [113b] for the prohibition of harlots. This is the prevention of an intense lust for sexual intercourse and for constant preoccupation with it. For lust is increased through the change of the individuals that are harlots, for man is not stirred in the same way by an individual to whom he has been continuously accustomed as by individuals who are constantly renewed and who differ in shapes and manners. In the prohibition of harlots there is a very great utility — namely, the prevention of evils; for if harlots were permitted, a number of men might happen to betake themselves at one and the same time to one woman; they would inevitably quarrel and in most cases they would kill one another or kill the woman, this being — as is well known — a thing that constantly happens: And they assemble themselves in troops at a prostitute’s house.⁵ In order to prevent these great evils and to bring about this common utility — namely, knowledge of the lines of ancestry — harlots and male prostitutes are prohibited and there is no way to engage in permitted sexual intercourse other than through singling out a woman for oneself and marrying her in public. For if it sufficed merely to single her out, most men would bring a harlot to their house for a certain time, having made an agreement with her about this, and say that she is a wife. Therefore a binding ceremony and a certain act have been prescribed signifying that the woman is allotted to the man; this is the betrothal. Then when the act is made in public, it is the ceremony of marriage: And Boaz took ten men, and so on.⁶ Sometimes the union of the two may be discordant and matters in their household not in good order. Consequently divorce is permitted. However, if a divorce could become valid merely by means of the utterance of words or through the man’s turning the woman out of his house, the woman might watch for some negligence on the part of her husband and then go out and claim to be divorced. Or if some individual had fornicated with her, she and the adulterer might claim that she had been divorced beforehand. Therefore the Law has given to us the ordinance that a divorce can only be made valid by means of a writ attesting it: And he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and so on.⁷

As accusations⁸ of adultery [114a] and imaginings concerned with it are very frequent with regard to women, the Law has given us ordinances concerning the woman who is suspected of adultery.9 These ordinances oblige every married woman to take extreme care in her behavior and to have recourse to the greatest precautions, lest the heart of her husband be incensed on her account. For she anticipates with apprehension the horror of the waters of the woman suspected of adultery. If she is pure and has safeguarded herself, most men would give everything they possess in order to be liberated from having to make her undergo this procedure; they would even prefer death to this great shame, which consists in uncovering the woman’s head, undoing her hair, tearing her garments so that the heart is exposed, and making her go round throughout the whole Sanctuary in the presence of the public, both men and women, and in the presence of the Great Court of Law.¹⁰ Through these apprehensions, grave evils have been cut short that would have destroyed the order of a certain number of households.

As every girl who is a virgin is set for marriage with the first man that happens along, her seducer is only obliged to marry her; for he is the one who is most suitable for her, and this indubitably makes better repair for the flaw in her than her marrying another man. If, however, she or her father does not wish this, the seducer must pay a dowry.¹¹ There is additional punishment for a man who has raped a girl: He may not put her away all his days.¹²

As for the reason for the levirate, it is literally stated [in Scripture] that this was an ancient custom that obtained before the giving of the Torah¹³ and that was perpetuated by the Law.¹⁴ As for the ceremony of taking off the shoe,¹⁵ the reason for it is to be found in the fact that the actions of which it is composed were considered shameful, according to the customs of those times, and that on account of this the brother-in-law might perhaps wish to avoid this shame and consequently to marry his brother’s widow. This is made manifest in the text of the Torah: So shall it be done unto the man, and so on. And his name shall be called in Israel, and so on.¹⁶

From the story of Judah¹⁷ a noble moral habit and equity in conduct may be learnt; this appears from [Judah’s] words: Let her take it, lest we be put to shame; behold, I sent [114b] this kid.¹⁸ The interpretation of this is as follows: Before the giving of the Torah sexual intercourse with a harlot was regarded in the same way as sexual intercourse with one’s wife is regarded after the giving of the Torah. I mean to say that it was a permitted act that did not by any means arouse repugnance. The payment of the hire that was agreed upon to a harlot was in that time something similar to the payment now of a wife’s dowry when she is divorced, I mean that it was one of the rights of the woman with regard to which the man had to discharge his obligation. Accordingly Judah’s saying, Lest we be put to shame, teaches us that to speak of any matters pertaining to sexual intercourse — even of those that are permitted — is shameful for us and that it is proper to be silent about them and to conceal them, even if this should lead to loss of money. This is just as you see Judah doing, in saying: It is better that we should suffer a loss and that she should keep what she has taken than that we should give publicity to our search and bring shame upon us. This is the excellent moral habit that we learn from this story. As for the precept of justice by which we profit, it is to be found in the word in which he answers that he is innocent of all violence with regard to the woman, that he does not go back on his word, and that he does not diminish the price agreed upon with her: Behold, I sent this kid, and so on. That kid was indubitably one that among those of its species was possessed of the highest excellence; therefore in referring to it he employs [the demonstrative pronoun] this. This is the justice that they had taken over from Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham: namely, that one must not make changes in one’s given word or break one’s promise; that all obligations must be discharged fully and integrally; that there is no difference between what has been given to one as a loan or a deposit and what you owe him in any way whatever as wages or something else. The dowry of all wives has the same status as the wages of all hired men, and there is no difference between one who withholds the wages of a hired man and one who does this to his wife. Again there is no difference between one who persecutes a hired man and devises ruses in order to send him away without [115a] paying his wages and one who does the same thing to his wife with a view to sending her away without paying her dowry. Do you not behold how great is the justice of these righteous statutes and judgments,19 as shown in what is ordained with regard to a man who gives [his wife] a bad reputation.²⁰ There is no doubt that a wicked man of this kind did not find his wife, to whom he gave a bad reputation, to his taste and thought her ugly. If he had wished to divorce her in the way this is done by everyone who divorces his wife, there would have been no impediment. But if he had divorced her, he would have been obliged to give her what was due to her. Accordingly he laid wanton charges²¹ against her, in order to get rid of her without payment, and slandered her and defamed her by accusing her of things that it was impossible for her to have committed, in order to withhold from her the sum that she had the right to demand from him, namely, fifty shekels of silver — this being the dowry for virgins fixed in the Torah. He, may He be exalted, has commanded that he pay a hundred shekels of silver, this being based upon the principle that whom the judges shall condemn he shall pay double unto his neighbor22 and conforming to the law concerning false witnesses, as we have already explained.²³ For in a similar way he who gave [his wife] a bad reputation wanted to make her lose the fifty shekels that she had the right to receive from him and instead is forced to pay one hundred. This is the punishment for his having wanted to withhold the sum that he had the obligation to pay and for his having desired to appropriate it. The punishment for his having sullied her honor by accusing her of adultery is to have his own honor sullied through being flogged with a whip: And they shall chastise him.²⁴ His punishment for his preferring his concupiscence and his seeking nothing but pleasure is to have her tied to him forever: He may not put her away all his days.²⁵ For the cause that brought everything about was his thinking her ugly. In this way bad moral habits are cured, when the divine command is the physician. You will never cease discovering the clear and evident manifestation of justice in all the commandments of this Law, if you consider them carefully. Consider how the sentence of a man who gives [his wife] a [115b] bad reputation, wishing to withhold the sum that he had the obligation to pay, is made to be equal to that of the thief who has taken property belonging to someone else; and how the sentence of a false witness who wished to do harm is made like the sentence, even if he did not succeed, of those who actually did harm and injury — I refer to the thief and the man who gives [his wife] a bad reputation. The sentence to be passed on all three is determined by one Law and one judgment.²⁶ Marvel exceedingly at the wisdom of His commandments, may He be exalted, just as you should marvel at the wisdom manifested in the things He had made. It says: The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment.²⁷ It says that just as the things made by Him are consummately perfect, so are His commandments consummately just. However, our intellects are incapable of apprehending the perfection of everything that He has made and the justice of everything He has commanded. We only apprehend the justice of some of His commandments just as we only apprehend some of the marvels in the things He has made, in the parts of the body of animals and in the motions of the spheres. What is hidden from us in both these classes28 of things is much more considerable than what is manifest. Now we shall return to the subject of the chapter.

As for the prohibitions against illicit unions,²⁹ all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male³⁰ in his house and that they are easy of access for him and can be easily controlled by him — there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male [116a] for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man’s wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this — I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off³¹ — so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them.

It is very clear that relations are easy with all women included in the prohibitions concerning illicit unions. For it is very general that if a man has a wife, her mother, her grandmother, her daughter, her granddaughter, and her sister will be in his house most of the time, so that the husband will constantly meet them whenever he enters, goes out, and is engaged upon his business. A wife also is often in contact with her husband’s brother, his father, and his son. It is likewise manifest that in most cases a man is often in the company of his sisters, maternal and paternal aunts, and the wife of his paternal uncle, and is brought up together with them. Now these are the women with whom union is illicit because of their being relatives. Consider this, this being one of the reasons why intercourse with relatives is prohibited.

The second reason derives, in my opinion, from the wish to respect the sentiment of shame. For it would be a most shameless thing if this act could take place between the root and the branch, I refer to sexual intercourse32 with the mother or the daughter. On the ground of the root and the branch, sexual intercourse of one of the two with the other has been forbidden. There is no difference between a root having intercourse with a branch or a branch with a root; or the root and the branch joining in having intercourse with a third individual, I mean that one individual reveals his nakedness in intercourse both with a root and a branch. Therefore it is forbidden to take together [116b] a woman and her mother and to have intercourse with the wife of one’s father and the wife of one’s son, for all this is revealing one’s nakedness before the nakedness of both a root and a branch. Being brother or sister is like being root and branch. But once the sister was forbidden, also the sister of the wife and the wife of the brother are forbidden. For this would constitute the joining of two individuals who are like root and branch in sexual intercourse with a third individual.

As union between a brother and a sister is strictly forbidden and as they are to have the same relation as a root and a branch or even are considered to be one and the same individual, sexual intercourse with one’s maternal aunt is also forbidden, for she has the same status as one’s mother, and also intercourse with one’s paternal aunt, as she has the same status as one’s father. And just as the daughter of one’s paternal uncle and the daughter of one’s paternal aunt are not forbidden, the daughter of one’s brother and the daughter of one’s sister are likewise not forbidden because of the analogy. The fact that the wife of a brother’s son is permitted to the paternal uncle, whereas the wife of the paternal uncle is forbidden to the son of a brother, may be explained by the first reason. For a brother’s son is in most cases to be found in his paternal uncle’s house and approaches his paternal uncle’s wife just as he approaches his brother’s wife; whereas a paternal uncle is not to be found in this way in the house of his brother’s son and does not approach the latter’s wife. Do you not see that in view of the fact that a father has the same opportunity to approach a wife of his son as the son has to approach a wife of his father, the prohibition is equally strict in both cases, its transgression being punished by one capital punishment.

The reason for the prohibition against having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and with a married woman is too clear to be in need of a search for a reason. You know that we are forbidden to take pleasure in any way in a woman who is prohibited to us,33 even to look at such a woman with a view to pleasure, as we have explained in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations.³⁴ We have explained there³⁵ that in our Law it is not permitted in any way to let our thought range freely with regard to the subject of sexual union or in any way whatever to provoke sexual excitement. If a man becomes sexually excited without having intended it, he is obliged to [117a] direct his mind to some other thought and to reflect on something else until this sexual excitement passes away. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, say in their precepts, which perfect the virtuous:³⁶ My son, if this abominable one affects you, drag him to the house of study. If he is of iron, he will melt. If he is of stone, he will break into pieces. For it is said: Is not my word like as fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?³⁷ [The Sage] says to his son with a view to giving him a rule of conduct: If you feel sexual excitement and suffer because of it, go to the house of study, read, take part in discussions, put questions, and be asked in your turn, for then this suffering will indubitably pass away. Marvel at his expression, this abominable one, and what an abomination this is! This precept is not only valid from the point of view of the Law, for the philosophers consider this matter in the same way. I have already made known to you³⁸ the text of Aristotle’s saying that this sense is a disgrace to us, he means the sense of touch, which leads us to give preference to eating and sexual intercourse. In his writings he designates the people who give preference to sexual intercourse and to eating all kinds of dishes as abject, and expresses at length his blame of them and his mockery of them. You will find this in his book on Ethics and in his book on Rhetoric.³⁹ With a view to this excellent moral habit, which one ought to have the firm purpose to seek and to acquire, the Sages, may their memory be blessed, have forbidden the contemplation of beasts and birds when they copulate.⁴⁰ In my opinion this is also the reason why the interbreeding of beasts is prohibited. For it is well known that in most cases an individual of one species is not moved to copulate with an individual of another species unless it be brought to it by hand, as is constantly done, as you may see, by those loose men who are engaged in bringing about the procreation of mules. The Law did not wish that an individual of Israel should be so low as to engage in this activity because of its abjectness and shamelessness and because he would thereby be engaged [117b] in things the very mention of which — and, all the more, contact with which — is repugnant to the Law unless there be necessity. Such interbreeding, however, is not necessary. It also seems to me that the reason for the prohibition against bringing together two species for any kind of work may also be found in the wish to render more difficult the interbreeding of two species. I mean to say that its dictum, Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together,41 is due to the possibility that if the two are brought together they might sometimes copulate. A proof for this may be found in the fact that this commandment is general and applies not only to oxen and asses: It is indifferent whether they are an ox and an ass or any other two species. But Scripture speaks about what is usual.⁴²

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him.⁴³ In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Who [118a] first began to perform this act, if not Abraham who was celebrated for his chastity — as has been mentioned by the Sages,⁴⁴ may their memory be blessed, with reference to his dictum: Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon.⁴⁵

According to me circumcision has another very important meaning, namely, that all people professing this opinion — that is, those who believe in the unity of God — should have a bodily sign uniting them so that one who does not belong to them should not be able to claim that he was one of them, while being a stranger. For he would do this in order to profit by them or to deceive the people who profess this religion. Now a man does not perform this act46 upon himself or upon a son of his unless it be in consequence of a genuine belief. For it is not like an incision in the leg or a burn in the arm, but is a very, very hard thing.

It is also well known what degree of mutual love and mutual help exists between people who all bear the same sign, which forms for them a sort of covenant and alliance. Circumcision is a covenant made by Abraham our Father with a view to the belief in the unity of God. Thus everyone who is circumcised joins Abraham’s covenant. This covenant imposes the obligation to believe in the unity of God: To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.⁴⁷ This also is a strong reason, as strong as the first, which may be adduced to account for circumcision; perhaps it is even stronger than the first.

The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons. The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard. The third is that the parents of a child [118b] that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father’s love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.⁴⁸

The fact that circumcision is performed on the eighth day is due to the circumstance that all living beings are very weak and exceedingly tender when they are born, as if they were still in the womb. This is so until seven days are past. It is only then that they are counted among those who have contact with the air. Do you not see that this point is also taken into account with regard to beasts? — Seven days shall it be with its dam, and so on.49 It is as if before that period it were an abortion. Similarly with regard to man; he is circumcised after seven days have passed. In this way the matter is fixed: You do not make out of it something that varies.

This class of commandments also includes the prohibition against mutilating the sexual organs of all the males of animals,⁵⁰ which is based on the principle of righteous statutes and judgments,⁵¹ I mean the principle of keeping the mean in all matters; sexual intercourse should neither be excessively indulged, as we have mentioned, nor wholly abolished. Did He⁵² not command and say: Be fruitful and multiply?⁵³ Accordingly this organ is weakened by means of circumcision, but not extirpated through excision.⁵⁴ [119a] What is natural is left according to nature, but measures are taken against excess. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off⁵⁵ is forbidden to marry a woman of Israel, for such cohabitation would be perverted and aimless. Such a marriage would likewise be a stumbling-block for the woman and for him who seeks her out. This is very clear.

In order to deter people from illicit unions, a bastard is forbidden to marry a daughter of Israel;⁵⁶ so that the adulterous man and adulterous woman should know that by committing their act they attach to their descendants a stigma that can never be effaced. The children born of adultery being, moreover, always despised to every way of life and in every nation,⁵⁷ the seed of Israel is regarded as too noble to mix with bastards.

Because of the nobility of Priests they are forbidden to marry a prostitute, a divorced woman, and a woman born of the illicit marriage [of a Priest].⁵⁸ The High Priest, who is the noblest among the Priests, is even forbidden to marry a widow and a woman that is not a virgin.⁵⁹ The reason for all this is clear. Mingling of bastards with the congregation of the Lord⁶⁰ being forbidden, that of male and female slaves with it is prohibited all the more.

The reason for the prohibition of intermarriage with the Gentiles is explained in the text of the Torah: And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and so on.61

In the case of most of the statutes whose reason is hidden from us, everything serves to keep people away from idolatry. The fact that there are particulars the reason for which is hidden from me and the utility of which I do not understand, is due to the circumstance that things known by hearsay are not like things that one has seen. Hence the extent of my knowledge of the ways of the Sabians drawn from books⁶² is not comparable to the knowledge of one who saw their practices with his eyes; this is even more the case since these opinions have disappeared two thousand years ago or even before that. If we knew the particulars of those practices and heard details concerning those opinions, we would become clear regarding the wisdom manifested in the details of the practices prescribed in the commandments concerning [119b] the sacrifices and the forms of uncleanness and other matters whose reason cannot, to my mind, be easily grasped. For I for one do not doubt that all this was intended to efface those untrur opinions from the mind and to abolish those useless practices, which brought about a waste of lives in vain and futile things.⁶³ Those opinions turned away human thought from concern with the conception of an intelligible and from useful actions, as our prophets have explained to us, and have said: They walked after vain things that do not profit.⁶⁴ Jeremiah says: Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.⁶⁵ Consider how great was the extent of this corruption and whether or not it was fitting to spend one’s efforts on putting an end to this. Most of the commandments serve, therefore, as we have made clear, to put an end to these opinions and to lighten the great and oppressive burdens, the toil and the fatigue, that those people imposed upon themselves in their cult. Accordingly every commandment or prohibition of the Law whose reason is hidden from you constitutes a cure for one of those diseases, which today — thank God — we do not know any more. This is what should be believed by one who is endowed with perfection and knows the true meaning of His dictum, may He be exalted: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye Me for nothing.⁶⁶

I have now dealt one by one with all the commandments included in these classes and we have drawn attention to the reasons for them. There are only a few and some slight details for which I have not given reasons, even though in truth we have virtually given reasons also for these to him who is attentive and comprehending. [120a]