V
GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED
Addressed to Joseph ben Judah and others like him, the Guide is intended to resolve the perplexity that philosophy poses for a student of the Law. Since the validity of the Law appears to be questioned by philosophy, the Guide contains a defense of the Law, including its practical purposes. Though largely speculative in character, the Guide therefore touches upon ethical matters. It is true that Maimonides accepts the Aristotelian distinction between the theoretical and practical sciences (Logic, XIV). One might therefore think that a work whose intention is avowedly speculative would exclude practical questions from its purview. The Guide is not, however, concerned with the theoretical sciences as such, but with the theoretical foundations of the Law, the “true science of the Law.” Knowledge of the foundations of the Law cuts across the distinction between the theoretical and practical spheres.
The following selections are reprinted, with minor changes, from the translation by Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), which was based on the Arabic text established by S. Munk (1856-66) and edited by I. Joel (1930). The numbers in brackets in the body of the text refer to the pagination of Munk’s edition.
GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED
PART I
Chapter 2
Years ago a learned man propounded as a challenge to me a curious objection. It behooves us now to consider this objection and our reply invalidating it. However, before mentioning this objection and its invalidation, I shall make the following statement. Every Hebrew knew that the term Elohim is equivocal, designating the deity, the angels, and the rulers governing the cities. Onqelos the Proselyte, peace be on him, has made it clear, and [13b] his clarification is correct, that in the dictum of Scripture, And you shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil,1 the last sense is intended. For he has translated: And you shall be as rulers. After thus having set forth the equivocality of this term, we shall begin to expound the objection.
This is what the objector said: It is manifest from the clear sense of the biblical text that the original purpose with regard to man was that he should be, as the other animals are, devoid of intellect, of thought, and of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil. However, when he disobeyed, his disobedience procured for him as its necessary consequence the great perfection peculiar to man, namely, his having the capacity that exists in us to make this distinction. Now this capacity is the noblest of the characteristics2 existing in us; it is in virtue of it that we are constituted as substances. It is surely a thing to be wondered at that man’s punishment for his disobedience should consist in his being granted a perfection that he did not possess before, namely, the intellect. This is like the story told by somebody that a certain man from among the people disobeyed and committed great crimes, and in consequence was made to undergo a metamorphosis,3 becoming a star in heaven. This was the intent and the meaning of the objection, though it was not literally as we have put it.
Hear now the intent of our reply. We said: O you who engage in theoretical speculation using the first notions that may occur to you and come to your mind and who consider withal that you understand a book that is the guide of the first and the last men while glancing through it as you would glance through a historical work or a piece of poetry—when, in some of your hours of leisure, you leave off drinking and copulating: collect yourself and reflect, for things are not as you thought following the first notion that occurred to you, but rather as is made clear through reflection upon the following speech.4 For the intellect that God made overflow unto man and that is the latter’s ultimate perfection, was that which Adam had been provided with before he disobeyed. It was because of this that it was said of him that he was created in the image of God and in His likeness. It was likewise on account of it that he was addressed by God and given commandments, as it says: And the Lord [14a] God commanded, and so on.5 For commandments are not given to beasts and beings devoid of intellect. Through the intellect one distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and that was found in [Adam] in its perfection and integrity. Base and noble,6 on the other hand, belong to the generally accepted opinions,7 not the intelligibles. For one does not say: it is noble that heaven is spherical, and it is base that the earth is flat; rather one says true and false [with regard to these assertions]. Similarly one expresses in our language the notions of truth and falsehood by means of the terms emeth and sheqer, and those of noble and base by means of the terms 
ov and ra‘.8 Now man in virtue of his intellect knows truth from falsehood; and this holds good for all intelligible things. Accordingly when man was in his most perfect and excellent state, in accordance with his inborn disposition and possessed his intellectual cognitions—because of which it is said of him: You have made him but little lower than Elohim9—he had no faculty that was engaged in any way with considering generally accepted opinions, and he did not apprehend them. So among these generally accepted things even that which is most manifestly base, namely, uncovering the genitals, was not base according to him, and he did not apprehend that it was base. However, when he disobeyed and inclined toward his imaginary desires and the pleasures of his corporeal senses—inasmuch as it is said: that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes10—he was punished by being deprived of that intellectual apprehension. He therefore disobeyed the commandment that was imposed upon him on account of his intellect and, attaining the apprehension of generally accepted opinions, he became absorbed with considering things base or noble. Then he knew how great his loss was, what he had been deprived of, and upon what a state he had entered. Hence it is said: And you shall be like Elohim knowing good and evil;11 and not: knowing the false and the true, or apprehending the false and the true. With regard to what is of necessity, there is no good and evil at all, but only the false and the true. Reflect on the dictum: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.12 It is not said: And the eyes of them both were opened, [14b] and they saw. For what was seen previously was exactly that which was seen afterwards. There had been no membrane over the eye that was now removed, but rather he entered upon another state in which he considered as base things that he had not previously considered base. Know, moreover, that this expression, I mean, to open,13 refers only to uncovering mental vision and in no respect means that the sense of sight has been newly acquired. Thus: And God opened her eyes;14 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened;15 Opening the ears, he hears not16—which is analogous to the verse, That have eyes to see and see not.17 Now concerning its saying with regard to Adam—He changes his face and You send him forth18—the interpretation and explanation of the verse are as follows: when the direction toward which man tended19 changed, he was driven forth. For panim20 is a term deriving from the verb panoh [to turn], since man turns his face toward the thing he wishes to take as his objective. The verse states accordingly that when man changed the direction toward which he tended and took as his objective the very thing a previous commandment had bidden him not to aim at, he was driven out of the Garden of Eden. This was the punishment corresponding to his disobedience; it was measure for measure. He had been given license to eat good things and to take pleasure in ease and tranquillity. When, however, as we have said, he became greedy, followed his pleasures and his imaginings, and ate what he had been forbidden to eat, he was deprived of everything and had to eat the meanest kinds of food, which he had not used as aliment before—and this only after toil and labor. As it says: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you, and so on; In the sweat of your brow, and so on.21 And it explains and says: And the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground.22 And God reduced him, with respect to his food and most of his circumstances, to the level of the beast. It says accordingly: And you shall eat the grass of the field.23 And it also says in explanation of this story: Adam,24 unable to dwell in dignity, is like the beasts that speak not.25
Praise be to the Master of the will whose aims and wisdom cannot be apprehended!
PART II
Chapter 33
It is clear to me that at the Gathering at Mount Sinai, not everything that reached Moses also reached all Israel. Speech was addressed to Moses alone; for this reason, in the whole Decalogue the second person singular is used, and he, peace be on him, went to the foot of the mountain and communicated to the people what he had heard. The text of the Torah reads: I stood between the Lord and you at that time to declare unto you the word of the Lord.1 It also says: Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.2 And it is explicitly said in the Mekhilta3 that he repeated to them each and every commandment as he heard it. Again a text of the Torah reads: That the people may hear when I speak with you, and so on.4 This is a proof that it was he who was spoken to and that they heard the great voice, but not the articulations of speech. About hearing [75a] this great voice, it says: When you heard the voice.5 And it also says: You heard the voice of words, but you saw no figure; only a voice.6 It does not say: you heard the words. Thus every time when their hearing words is mentioned, it is their hearing the voice that is meant, Moses being the one who heard words and reported them to them. This is the external meaning of the text of the Torah and of most of the dicta of the sages, may their memory be blessed. However, they also have a dictum formulated in several passages of the Midrashim7 and also figuring in the Talmud. This is their dictum:8 They heard “I”9 and “You shall not have”10 from the mouth of the Force.11 They mean that these words reached them just as they reached Moses our master and that it was not Moses our master who communicated them to them. For these two principles,12 I mean the existence of the deity and His being one, are apprehended by human speculation alone. Now with regard to everything that can be known by demonstration, the status of the prophet and that of everyone else who knows it are equal; there is no superiority of one over the other. Thus these two principles12 are not known through prophecy alone. The text of the Torah says: Unto you it was shown, and so on.13 As for the other commandments, they belong to the class of generally accepted opinions and traditions, not to the class of intelligibles 14. . . .
Chapter 40
It has been explained with utmost clarity that man is political by nature and that it is his nature to live in society. He is not like the other animals for which society is not a necessity. Because of the complex composition of this species1—for, as you know, it is the last one to have been composed—there are many differences between the individuals belonging to it, so that you can hardly find two individuals who are alike in [85b] any one of the kinds of moral habits, except in a way similar to that in which their visible forms may be alike. The cause of this is the difference of the mixtures,2 owing to which the various kinds of matter differ, and also the accidents that are a consequence of the form in question. For every natural form has certain distinctive accidents that are a consequence of it, those accidents being different from those which are a consequence of the matter. Nothing like this great difference between the various individuals is found among the other species of animals, in which the difference between individuals belonging to the same species is small, man being in this respect an exception. For you may find among us two individuals who seem, with regard to every moral habit, to belong to two different species. Thus you may find in an individual cruelty that reaches a point at which he kills the youngest of his sons in his great anger, whereas another individual is full of pity at the killing of a bug or any other insect, his soul being too tender for this. The same holds good for most accidents.
Now as the nature of the human species requires that there be those differences among the individuals belonging to it and as in addition society is a necessity for this nature, it is by no means possible that his society should be perfected except— and this is necessarily so—through a ruler who gauges the actions of the individuals, perfecting that which is deficient and reducing that which is excessive, and who prescribes actions and moral habits that all of them must always practice in the same way, so that the natural diversity is hidden through the multiple points of conventional accord and so that the community becomes well ordered. Therefore I say that the Law, although it is not natural, has a connection with what is natural. It is part of the wisdom of the deity with regard to the permanence of this species—whose existence He has willed—that He put into its nature that individuals belonging to it should have the faculty of ruling. Among them there is the one to whom the aforementioned governance has been revealed by prophecy directly; i.e., the prophet or someone who lays down the nomos.3 Among them there are also those who have the faculty to compel people to accomplish, observe, [86a] and actualize that which has been established by those two.4 They are a sovereign who adopts the nomos in question, and someone claiming to be a prophet who adopts the Law of the prophet—either the whole of it or a portion. His adopting a portion and abandoning another portion may be due either to this being easier for him or to his wishing out of jealousy to make people fancy that those matters came to him through a prophetic revelation and that with regard to them he does not follow somebody else. For among the people there are men who admire a certain perfection, take pleasure in it, have a passion for it, and wish people to imagine that this perfection belongs to them, though they know that they possess no perfection. Thus you see that there are many who lay a claim to, and give out as their own, the poetry of someone else. This has also been done with regard to certain works of men of science and to particular points of many sciences. For an envious and lazy individual sometimes comes upon a thing invented by somebody else and claims that it was he who invented it. This has also happened with regard to the prophetic perfection. For we find people who laid a claim to prophecy and said things with regard to which there had never been at any time a prophetic revelation coming from God; thus, for instance, Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah.5 And we find other people who laid a claim to prophecy and said things that God has indubitably said—I mean that had come through a prophetic revelation, but a prophetic revelation addressed to other people; thus, for instance, Hananiah, son of Azzur.6 Accordingly these men give out as their own the prophetic revelation in question and adorn themselves with it. The knowledge and discernment of all this are very clear. I shall explain this to you so that the matter not be obscure to you and that you have a criterion by means of which you are able to distinguish between the rule7 of nomoi that have been laid down, the rule7 of the divine Law, and the rule7 of those who take over something from the dicta of the prophets, raise a claim to it, and give it out as their own.
Concerning the nomoi with respect to which those who have laid them down have stated clearly that these are nomoi they have laid down by following their own thoughts, there is no need to adduce proofs for this, for with its being recognized by the adversary, no further evidence is needed. Accordingly I only want to give you knowledge concerning the ordinances7 [86b] with regard to which the claim is made that they are prophetic; some of them are truly prophetic—I mean divine—while others are nomoi,8 and others again are plagiarisms.
Accordingly if you find a Law the whole end of which and the whole purpose of the ruler thereof, who determined the actions required by it, are directed exclusively toward the ordering of the city9 and of its circumstances and the abolition in it of injustice and oppression; and if in that Law attention is not at all directed toward speculative matters, no heed is given to the perfecting of the rational faculty, and no regard is accorded to opinions being correct or faulty—the whole purpose of that Law being, on the contrary, the arrangement, in whatever way this may be brought about, of the circumstances of people in their relations with one another and provision for their obtaining, in accordance with the opinion of that ruler, a certain something deemed to be happiness—you must know that that Law is a nomos10 and that the man who laid it down belongs, as we have mentioned, to the third class, I mean to say to those who are perfect only in their imaginative faculty.
If, on the other hand, you find a Law all of whose ordinances are due to attention being paid, as was stated before, to the soundness of the body’s condition and also to the soundness of belief—a Law that takes pains to inculcate correct opinions with regard to God, may He be exalted in the first place, and with regard to the angels, and that desires to make man wise, to give him understanding, and to awaken his attention, so that he should know the whole of that which exists in its true form—you must know that this guidance comes from Him, may He be exalted, and that this Law is divine.
It remains for you to know whether he who lays claim to such a guidance is a perfect man to whom a prophetic revelation of that guidance has been vouchsafed, or whether he is an individual who lays claim to these dicta, having plagiarized them. The way of putting this to a test is to consider the perfection of that individual, to examine his actions carefully, and to study his way of life. The strongest of the indications you should pay attention to is constituted by his renunciation of, and contempt for, the bodily pleasures, for this is the first of the degrees of the people of science and, all the more, of the prophets. In particular this holds good with regard to the sense [87a] that is a disgrace to us—as Aristotle has set forth11—and especially in what belongs to it with regard to the foulness of copulation. For this reason God has stigmatized through it everyone who lays a claim to prophecy, so that the truth will be made clear to those who seek it and they will not go astray and fall into error. Do you not see how Zedekiah, son of Maaseiah, and Ahab, son of Kolaiah, claimed prophecy, were followed by the people, and gave forth dicta deriving from a revelation that had come to others; and how they were plunged into the vileness of the pleasure of sexual intercourse so that they fornicated with the wives of their companions and followers so that God made them notorious, just as He disgraced others, and the King of Babylon burned them. As Jeremiah has set forth, saying: And of them shall be taken up a curse by all the exiles of Judah that are in Babylon, saying: The Lord make you like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the King of Babylon roasted in the fire; because they have wrought vile deeds in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and have spoken words in My name falsely, which I commanded them not; but I am He that knows and am witness, says the Lord.12 Understand this intention.
PART III
Chapter 26
Just as there is disagreement among the men of speculation among the adherents of 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 [57b] any cause at all, saying that all the 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 the laws have causes and were given in view of some utility. It is, however, the doctrine of all of us—both of the multitude and of the elite—that all the laws have a cause, though we are ignorant of the causes for some of them and we do not know the manner in which they conform to wisdom. With regard to this the texts of the Book are clear: righteous statutes [
uqqim] and judgments;1 The judgments of the Lord are true, they are righteous altogether. 2
About the statutes designated as uqqim3—for instance those concerning the mixed fabric, meat in milk, and the sending of the goat4—[the sages], may their memory be blessed, make literally the following statement: Things which I have prescribed for you, you have no permission to investigate. Satan criticizes them and the nations of the world argue against them.5 They are not believed by the multitude of the sages to be things for which there is no cause at all and for which one must not seek an end. For this would lead, according to what we have explained, to their being considered as frivolous actions. On the contrary, the multitude of the sages believe that there indubitably is a cause for them—I mean to say a useful end—but that it is hidden from us either because of the incapacity of our intellects or the deficiency of our knowledge. Consequently there is, in their opinion, a cause for all the commandments; I mean to say that any particular commandment or prohibition has a useful end. In the case of some of them, it is clear to us in what way they are useful—as in the case of the prohibition of killing and stealing. In the case of others, their utility is not clear—as in the case of the interdiction of the first products6 [of trees] and of [sowing] the vineyard with diverse seeds.7 Those commandments whose utility is clear to the multitude are called mishpaim [judgments], and those whose utility is not clear to the multitude are called uqqim [statutes]. . . .
Chapter 27
The Law as a whole aims at two things: the well-being of the soul and the well-being of the body. As for the well-being of the soul, it consists in the multitude’s acquiring correct opinions corresponding to their respective capacity. Therefore some of them [namely, the opinions] are set forth explicitly and some of them are set forth in parables. For it is not within the nature of the common multitude that its capacity should suffice for apprehending that subject matter as it is. As for the well-being of the body, it comes about by the improvement of their ways of living one with another. This is achieved through two things. One of them is the abolition of their wronging one another. This means that every individual among the people is not permitted to act according to his will and up to the limits of his power, but is forced to do what is useful for the whole. The second consists in every individual among the people acquiring moral qualities that are useful for life in society so that the affairs of the city are well ordered. Know that as between these two aims, one is indubitably greater in nobility, namely, the well-being of the soul—I mean the giving of correct opinions—while the second aim—I mean the well-being of the body—is prior in nature and time. The latter aim consists in the governance of the city and the well-being of the states of all its people according to their capacity. This second aim is the more urgent one, and it is the one regarding which every effort has been made to formulate it and all its particulars precisely. For the first aim can only be achieved after achieving this second one. For it has already been demonstrated that man has two perfections: a first perfection, which is the perfection of the body, and an ultimate perfection, which is the perfection of the soul. The first perfection consists in being healthy and in the very best bodily state, and this is only possible through his finding the things necessary for him whenever he seeks them. These are his food and all the other things needed for the governance of his body, such as a shelter, bathing, and so forth. This cannot be achieved in any way by one isolated individual. For an individual can only attain all this through a political association, it being already known that man is political by nature. His ultimate perfection is to become rational in actuality, I mean to have an intellect in actuality: this consists in his knowing everything concerning all the beings that it is within the capacity of man to know in accordance with his ultimate perfection. It is clear that to this ultimate perfection there do not belong either actions or moral qualities and that it consists only of opinions toward which speculation has led and that investigation has rendered compulsory. It is also clear that this noble and ultimate perfection can only be achieved after the first perfection has been achieved. For a man cannot cognize an intelligible even when taught to understand it and all the more cannot become aware of it of his own accord, if he is in pain or is very hungry or is thirsty or is hot or is very cold. But once the first perfection has been achieved it is possible to achieve the ultimate perfection, which is indubitably more noble and is the only cause of permanent preservation.
The true Law then, which as we have already made clear is unique—namely, the Law of Moses our master—has come to bring us both perfections, I mean the well-being of the states of people in their relations with one another through the abolition of reciprocal wrongdoing and through the acquisition of a noble and excellent character. In this way the preservation of the inhabitants of the country and their permanent existence in the same order become possible, so that [60b] every one of them achieves his first perfection; and also the soundness of the beliefs and the giving of correct opinions through which ultimate perfection is achieved. The text of the Torah speaks of both perfections and informs us that the end of this Law in its entirety is the achievement of these two perfections. For He, may He be exalted, says: And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes [uqqim], to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.1 Here He puts the ultimate perfection first because of its nobility; for, as we have explained, it is the ultimate end. It is referred to in the dictum: For our good always. You know already what [the sages], may their memory be blessed, have said interpreting His dictum, may He be exalted: That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.2 They said: That it may be well with you in a world in which everything is well and that you may prolong your days in a world the whole of which is long.3 Similarly the intention of His dictum here, For our good always, is this same notion: I mean the attainment of a world in which everything is well and [the whole of which is] long. And this is perpetual preservation. On the other hand, His dictum, That He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day, refers to the first and corporeal preservation, which lasts for a certain duration and which can only be well ordered through political association, as we have explained.
Chapter 34
Among the things you likewise ought to know is that the Law does not pay attention to the isolated. The Law was not given with a view to things that are rare. For in everything that it wishes to bring about, be it an opinion or a moral habit or a useful work, it is directed only toward the things that occur in the majority of cases and pays no attention to what happens rarely or to the damage occurring to the unique human being because of this way of determination and because of the legal character of the governance. For the Law is a divine thing; and it is your business to reflect on the natural things in which the general utility, which is included in them, nonetheless necessarily produces damages to individuals, as is clear from our discourse and the discourse of others. In view of this consideration also, you will not wonder at the fact that the purpose of the Law is not perfectly achieved in every individual and that, on the contrary, it necessarily follows that there should exist individuals whom this governance of the Law does not make perfect. For not everything that derives necessarily from the natural specific forms is actualized in every individual. Indeed, all things proceed from one deity and one agent and have been given from one shepherd.1 The contrary of this is impossible, and we have already explained that the impossible has a stable nature that never changes.2 In view of this consideration, it also will not be possible that the laws be dependent on changes in the circumstances of the individuals and of the times, as is the case with regard to medical treatment, which is particularized for every individual in conformity with his present temperament. On the contrary, governance of the Law ought to be absolute and general, including everyone, even if it is necessary only for certain individuals and not necessary for others; for if it were made to fit individuals, the whole would be corrupted and you would make out of it something that varies.3 For this reason, matters that are primarily intended in the Law ought not to be dependent on time or place; but the decrees ought to be absolute and general, according to what He, may He be exalted, says: As for the congregation, there shall be one statute [uqqah] for you.4 However, only the general interests, those of the majority, are considered in them, as we have explained.
Chapter 38
The commandments comprised in the third class are those that we have enumerated in Laws Concerning Character Traits. The utility of all of them is clear and evident, for all concern moral qualities in virtue of which the association among people is in good condition. This is so manifest that I need not expatiate upon it. Know that certain commandments also contain prescriptions that are intended to lead to the acquisition of a useful moral quality, even if they prescribe certain actions that are deemed to be merely decreed by Scripture and not to have a purpose. We will explain them one by one in their proper places. As for those that we have enumerated in Laws Concerning Character Traits, they are all explicitly stated to have as their purpose the acquisition of the noble moral qualities in question.
Chapter 53
This chapter includes an interpretation of the meaning of three terms that we have need of interpreting: namely, esed [loving kindness], mishpa [judgment], and 
edaqah [righteousness].
We have already explained in the Commentary on Avot1 that the meaning of esed is excess in whatever matter excess is practiced. In most cases, however, it is applied to excess in beneficence. Now it is known that beneficence includes two notions, one of them consisting in the exercise of beneficence toward one who has no right at all to claim this from you, and the other consisting in the exercise of beneficence toward one who deserves it, but in a greater measure than he deserves. In most cases the prophetic books use the word esed in the sense of practicing beneficence toward one who has no right at all to claim this from you. Therefore every benefit that comes from Him, may He be exalted, is called esed. Thus it says: I will make mention of the loving-kindnesses [asdei] of the Lord.2 Hence this reality as a whole—I mean His (may He be exalted) bringing it into existence—is esed. Thus it says: The world is built up in loving-kindness [esed];3 the meaning of which is: the building up of the world is loving-kindness. And He, may He be exalted, says in an enumeration of His attributes: And abundant in loving-kindness .4
The word edaqah is derived from edeq, which means justice; justice being the granting to everyone to whom something is due, that which is due to him, and giving to every being what it deserves. But in the books of the prophets, fulfilling the duties imposed upon you with regard to others is not called edaqah in conformity with the first sense. For if you give a hired man his wages or pay a debt, this is not called edaqah. On the other hand, the fulfilling of duties with regard to others imposed upon you on account of moral virtue, such as remedying the injuries of all those who are injured, is called edaqah. Therefore it says with reference to the returning [131b] of a pledge:5 And it shall be edaqah unto you.6 For when you walk in the way of the moral virtues, you do justice unto your rational soul, giving it what is its due. And because every moral virtue is called edaqah, it says: And he believed in the Lord, and it was accounted to him as edaqah.7 I refer to the virtue of faith. This applies likewise to his dictum, may he be exalted: And it shall be edaqah unto us if we take care to observe, and so on.8
As for the word mishpa, it means judgment concerning what ought to be done to one who is judged, whether in the way of conferring a benefit or of punishment.
Thus it has been summarized that esed is applied to beneficence taken absolutely; edaqah, to every good action performed by you because of a moral virtue with which you perfect your soul; and mishpat sometimes has as its consequence punishment and sometimes the conferring of a benefit. When refuting the doctrine of divine attributes, we have already explained that every attribute by which God is described in the books of the prophets is an attribute of action.9 Accordingly He is described as asid [one possessing loving-kindness]10 because He has brought the whole into being; as addiq [righteous]11 because of His mercy toward the weak—I refer to the governance of the living being by means of its forces; and as Judge12 because of the occurrence in the world of relative good things and of relative great calamities, necessitated by judgment that is consequent upon wisdom.13 The Torah uses all three terms: Shall the Judge of all the earth;14 
addiq [righteous] and upright is He;15 And abundant in esed [loving-kindness].16 In interpreting the meaning of these terms, it was our purpose to prepare the way for the chapter that we shall bring after this one.
Chapter 54
The term wisdom [okhmah] is applied in Hebrew in four senses. [132a] It is applied to the apprehension of true realities, which have for their end the apprehension of Him, may He be exalted. It says: But wisdom, where shall it be found? and so on.1 It says: If you seek her as silver, and so on.2 This usage is frequent. The term is applied to acquiring arts, whatever the art might be: And every wise-hearted among you;3 And all the women that were wise-hearted.4 It is applied to acquiring moral virtues: And teach his elders wisdom;5 Is wisdom with aged men?6—for the thing that is acquired through mere old age is a disposition to achieve moral virtues. It is applied to the aptitude for stratagems and ruses: Come, let us deal wisely with them.7 According to this meaning it says: And fetched from there a wise woman,8 meaning thereby that she had an aptitude for stratagems and ruses. In this sense it is said: They are wise to do evil.9 It is possible that the meaning of wisdom in Hebrew indicates aptitude for stratagems and the application of thought in such a way that the stratagems and ruses may be used in achieving either rational or moral virtues, or in achieving skill in a practical art, or in working evil and wickedness. It has accordingly become plain that the term wise can be applied to one possessing the rational virtues, to one possessing the moral virtues, to everyone skilled in a practical art, and to one possessing ruses in working evil and wickedness. According to this explanation, one who knows the whole of the Law in its true reality is called wise in two respects: in respect of the rational virtues comprised in the Law and in respect of the moral virtues included in it. But since the rational matter in the Law is received through tradition and is not demonstrated by the methods of speculation, the knowledge of the Law came to be set up in the books of the prophets and the sayings of the sages as one separate species and wisdom,10 in an unrestricted sense, as another species. It is through this wisdom, in an unrestricted sense, that [132b] the rational matter that we receive from the Law through tradition, is demonstrated. All the texts that you find in the [scriptural] books that extol wisdom and speak of its wonder11 and of the rarity of those who acquire it—Now many are wise;12 But wisdom, where shall it be found? and so on;13 and many other texts of this kind—treat of that wisdom which teaches us to demonstrate the opinions of the Torah. This is also frequent in the sayings of the sages, may their memory be blessed; I mean that they set up the knowledge of the Torah as one separate species and wisdom as another species. They, may their memory be blessed, say of Moses our master: He was father in wisdom, father in the Torah, father among the prophets.14 And with reference to its dictum concerning Solomon, And he was wiser than all men,15 they say: Not [wiser] than Moses;16 for the dictum, than all men, means: than his contemporaries. Therefore you will find that it mentions Heman and Khalkol and Darda, the sons of Mahol,17 who were celebrated then as wise men. The sages, may their memory be blessed, mention likewise that man is required first to obtain knowledge of the Torah, then to obtain wisdom, then to know what is incumbent upon him with regard to the legal science of the Law—I mean the drawing of inferences concerning what one ought to do. And this should be the order observed: The opinions in question should first be known as being received through tradition; then they should be demonstrated; then the actions through which one’s way of life may be ennobled, should be precisely defined. This is what they, may their memory be blessed, literally say regarding man’s being required to give an account with respect to these three matters in this order. They say: When man comes to judgment, he is first asked: Have you fixed certain seasons for the study of the Torah? Have you ratiocinated concerning wisdom? Have you inferred one thing from another?18 It has thus become clear to you that, according to them, the science of the Torah is one species and wisdom is a different species, being the verification of the opinions of the Torah through correct speculation. After we have made all these preliminary remarks, hear what we shall say:
The ancient [133a] and the modern philosphers have made it clear that the perfections to be found in man consist of four species. The first and the most defective, but with a view to which the people of the earth spend their lives,19 is the perfection of possessions—that is, of what belongs to the individual in the manner of money, garments, tools, slaves, land, and other things of this kind. A man’s being a great king also belongs to this species of perfection. Between this perfection and the individual himself there is no connection whatever; there is only a certain relation, and most of the pleasure taken in the relation is purely imaginary. I refer to one’s saying: This is my house; this is my slave; this money is mine; these are my soldiers. For if he considers his own individual self, he will find that all this is outside his essence and that each of these possessions subsists as it is by itself. Therefore when the relation referred to has been abolished, there is no difference between an individual who has been a great king and the most contemptible of men, though nothing may have changed in any of the things that were attributed to him. The philosophers have explained that the endeavor and the efforts directed by man toward this kind of perfection are nothing but an effort with a view to something purely imaginary, to a thing that has no permanence. And even if these possessions should remain with him permanently during the whole of his life, he would by no means thereby achieve perfection with respect to his essence.
The second species has a greater connection than the first with the individual’s essence, being the perfection of the bodily constitution and shape—I refer to that individual’s temperament being most harmonious, his limbs well proportioned and strong as they ought to be. Neither should this species of perfection be taken as an end, for it is a corporeal perfection and does not belong to man qua man, but qua animal; for man has this in common with the lowest animals. Moreover even if the strength of a human individual reached its greatest [133b] maximum,20 it would not attain the strength of a strong mule, and still less the strength of a lion or an elephant. The end of this perfection consists, as we have mentioned, in man’s transporting a heavy burden or breaking a thick bone and in other things of this kind, from which no great utility for the body may be derived. Utility for the soul is absent from this species of perfection.
The third species is a perfection that to a greater extent than the second species concerns the individual’s essence. This is the perfection of the moral virtues. It consists in the individual’s moral habits having attained their ultimate excellence.21 Most of the commandments serve no other end than the attainment of this species of perfection. But this species of perfection is likewise a preparation for something else and not an end in itself. For all moral habits are concerned with what occurs between a human individual and someone else. This perfection regarding moral habits is, as it were, the disposition to be useful to people; consequently it is an instrument for someone else. For if you suppose a human individual is alone, acting on no one, you will find that all his moral virtues are in vain and without employment and unneeded, and that they do not perfect the individual in anything; for he only needs them and they again become useful to him in regard to someone else.
The fourth species is the true human perfection; it consists in the acquisition of the rational virtues—I refer to the conception of intelligibles, which teach correct opinions concerning the divine things. This is the final end; this is what gives the individual true perfection, a perfection belonging to him alone; and it gives him permanent perdurance; through it man is man. If you consider each of the three perfections mentioned before, you will find that they pertain to others than you, not to you, even though, according to the generally accepted opinion, they inevitably [134a] pertain both to you and to others. This ultimate perfection, however, pertains to you alone, no one else being associated in it with you in any way: They shall be only your own, and so on.22 Therefore you ought to desire to achieve this thing, which will remain permanently with you, and not weary and trouble yourself for the sake of others, O you who neglect your own soul so that its whiteness has turned into blackness through the corporeal faculties having gained dominion over it —as is said in the beginning of the poetical parables that have been coined for these notions; it says: My mother’s sons were incensed against me; they made me keeper of the vineyards; but my own vineyard have I not kept.23 It says on this very same subject: Lest you give your splendor to others, and your years to the cruel.24
The prophets, too, have explained to us and interpreted to us the selfsame notions—just as the philosophers have interpreted them—clearly stating to us that neither the perfection of possessions nor the perfection of health nor the perfection of moral habits is a perfection in which one should glory or that one should desire; the perfection in which one should glory and that one should desire is knowledge of Him, may He be exalted, which is the true science. Jeremiah says concerning these four perfections: Thus says 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 glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me.25 Consider how he mentioned them according to the order given them in the opinion of the multitude. For the greatest perfection in their opinion is that of the rich man in his riches, below him the mighty man in his might, and below him the wise man in his wisdom. [By the expression, “the wise man in his wisdom,”] he means him-who possesses the moral virtues; for such an individual is also held in high esteem by the multitude, to whom the discourse in question is addressed. Therefore these perfections are arranged in this order. The sages, may their memory be blessed, apprehended from this verse the [134b] very notions we have mentioned and have explicitly stated that which I have explained to you in this chapter: namely, that the term wisdom [okhmah], used in an unrestricted sense and regarded as the end, means in every place the apprehension of Him, may He be exalted; that the possession of the treasures acquired, and competed for, by man and thought to be perfection are not a perfection; and that similarly all the actions prescribed by the Law—I refer to the various species of worship and also the moral habits that are useful to all people in their mutual dealings—that all this is not to be compared with this ultimate end and does not equal it, being but preparations made for the sake of this end. Hear verbatim a text of theirs dealing with all these notions; it is a text in Bereshith Rabbah. It is said there: One scriptural dictum says: And all things desirable are not to be compared to her.26 Another scriptural dictum says: And all things you can desire are not to be compared to her.27 The expression, things desirable, refers to commandments and good actions; while, things you can desire, refers to precious stone and pearls. Neither things desirable nor things you can desire are to be compared to her, but let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me.28 Consider how concise is this saying, how perfect is he who said it, and how he left out nothing of all that we have mentioned and that we have interpreted and led up to at length.
As we have mentioned this verse and the wondrous notions contained in it, and as we have mentioned the saying of the sages, may their memory be blessed, about it, we will complete the exposition of what it includes. For when explaining in this verse the noblest ends, he does not limit them only to the apprehension of Him, may He be exalted. For if this were his purpose, he would have said: But let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, and have stopped there; or he would have said: that he understands and knows Me that I am One; or he would have said: that I have no figure, or that [135a] there is none like Me, or something similar. But he says that one should glory in the apprehension of Myself and in the knowledge of My attributes, by which he means His actions, as we have made clear29 with reference to its dictum: Show me now Your ways, and so on.30 In this verse31 he makes it clear to us that those actions that ought to be known and imitated are loving-kindness [esed], judgment [mishpa] and righteousness [edaqah]. He adds another corroborative notion through saying, in the earth32—this being a pivot of the Law. For matters are not as the overbold opine who think that His providence, may He be exalted, terminates at the sphere of the moon and that the earth and that which is in it are neglected: The Lord has forsaken the earth.33 Rather is. it as has been made clear to us by the master of those who know: That the earth is the Lord’s.34 He means to say that His providence also extends over the earth in the way that corresponds to what the latter is, just as His providence extends over the heavens35 in the way that corresponds to what they are. This is what he says: That I am the Lord who exercises loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth.36 Then he completes the notion by saying: For in these things I delight, says the Lord.37 He means that it is My purpose that there should come from you loving-kindness, righteousness, and judgment in the earth in the way we have explained with regard to the thirteen attributes:38 namely, that the purpose should be assimilation to them and that this should be our way of life. Thus the end that he sets forth in this verse may be stated as follows: It is clear that the perfection of man that may truly be gloried in is the one acquired by him who has achieved, in a measure corresponding to his capacity, apprehension of Him, may He be exalted, and who knows His providence extending over His creatures as manifested in the act of bringing them into being and in their governance as it is. The way of life of such an individual, after he has achieved this apprehension, will always have in view loving-kindness, righteousness , and judgment, through assimilation to His actions, may He be exalted, just as we have explained several times in this treatise.
NOTES
PART I
Chapter 2
Gen. 3:5
ma‘
n
. The term has many meanings and often, as in this passage, cannot be satisfactorily translated.
The Arabic verb sometimes designates a particular kind of transmigration.
The word may also refer to the scriptural story, but the translation given in the text is somewhat more probable.
Gen. 2:16.
Or: fine (al-asan).
The expression, “generally accepted opinions,” renders the Arabic term al-mashh
rt, which is used as a translation of the Greek endoxa.
In Hebrew.
Ps. 8:6.
Gen. 3:6.
Gen. 3:5.
Gen. 3:7.
Used in the verse.
Gen. 21:19.
Isa. 35:5.
Isa. 42:20.
Ezek.12:2.
Job 14:20.
The Arabic word derives from a root from which the usual word for “face” is likewise derived.
The Hebrew word for “face.”
Gen. 3: 18—19.
Gen. 3:23.
Gen. 3:18.
Or: man.
Ps.49:13.
PART II
Chapter 33
Deut. 5:5.
Exod. 19:19.
Mekhilta, commentary on Exod. 20:1.
Exod. 19:19.
Deut.5:20.
Deut.4:12.
In the text: Midrashot.
B.T., Makkot, 24a; Midrash on the Song of Songs, 1:2.
I.e., the First Commandment.
I.e., the Second Commandment.
The Hebrew word geburah, here translated “force,” sometimes designates the deity.
Literally: roots.
Deut.4:35.
See infra, Logic, VIII.
Chapter 40
I.e., the human species.
Or: temperaments.
Law.
I.e., the prophet and the one who lays down the nomos.
Cf. I Kings 22:11 and 24.
Cf. Jer. 28:1 ff.
Or: governances. The text has the plural.
I.e., composed of man-made laws.
madnah, i.e., polis.
The expression used is shar‘ah nmsiyyah; literally: nomic Law. nmsiyyah derives from nms, which is the Arabic form of the Greek word nomos. It signifies in the context a law promulgated by a legislator who was not a prophet.
Cf. Nicomachean Ethics iii.10, 1118b2ff. The passage referring to the sense of touch reads as follows in Rackham’s translation: “Hence the sense to which profligacy is related is the most universal of the senses; and there appears to be good ground for the disrepute in which it is held, because it belongs to us not as human beings but as animals.”
Jer. 29:22—23.
PART III
Chapter 26
Deut. 4:8.
Ps. 19:10.
This Hebrew term is sometimes interpreted as designating those religious laws that have no (or no obvious) explanation in terms of human reason. Cf. C.M., Eight Chapters, VI.
Cf. Deut. 22:11; Exod. 23:19; Lev. 16:10 and 21.
B.T., Yoma, 67b.
Literally: foreskin. Cf. Lev. 19:23.
Cf. Deut. 22:9.
Chapter 53
C.M., Avot, V 6, and II 10.
Isa. 63:7.
Ps. 89:3. In the English Bible: For ever is mercy built.
Exod. 34:6.
To the poor.
Deut. 24:13.
Gen. 15:6.
Deut. 6:25.
Guide, I 52—54.
A word deriving from the same verbal root as esed.
A word deriving from the same verbal root as edaqah.
Shophe, a word deriving from the same verbal root as mishpa.
The Arabic word for “judgment” (ukm) derives from the same verbal root as the Arabic word for “wisdom” (ikmah).
Gen. 18:25.
Deut.32:4.
Exod. 34:6.
Chapter 54
Job 28:12.
Prov. 2:4.
Exod. 35:10.
Exod. 35:25.
Ps. 105:22.
Job 12:12.
Exod. 1:10.
II Sam. 14:2.
Jer. 4:22.
It is not quite clear whether Maimonides uses here the Hebrew word okhmah or the Arabic word ikmah, each of which is written in the same way in Judeo-Arabic. The Arabic word also connotes “philosophy.” The Hebrew word may also have this connotation, and if Maimonides used it here, he undoubtedly had this connotation in mind.
Or: its strangeness.
Job 32:9.
Job 28:12.
B.T., Megillah, 13a.
I Kings 5:11.
B.T., Rosh Hashanah, 21b.
I Kings 5:11.
B.T., Shabbat, 31a.
Or: mutually destroy each other.
Literally: finality and end.
The Arabic word fa
lah, translated “excellence,” is the singular of the word translated in the preceding sentence as “virtues.”
Prov. 5:17.
Song of Songs 1:6.
Prov. 5:9.
Jer. 9:22—23.
Prov. 8:11.
Prov. 3:15.
Genesis Rabbah, XXXV in fine.
Cf. Guide, I 54.
Exod. 33:13.
Jer. 9:23 is referred to.
Jer. 9:23.
Ezek.9:9.
Exod. 9:29.
In the singular in Arabic.
Jer. 9:23.
Jer. 9:23.
Cf. Guide, I 54.