cruel to animals for our own good, in order not to develop habits of cruelty. To ask why God does not provide for the
lower animals in the same way as he does for man, is the same as to ask why he did not endow the animals with reason.
The answer would be, so he willed, so his wisdom decreed. My opinion is not that God is ignorant of anything or is
incapable of doing certain things, but that Providence is closely related to reason. One has as much of Providence as he
has of the influence of the divine reason. It follows from this that Providence is not the same for all individuals of the
human species, but varies with the person's character and achievements. The prophets enjoy a special Providence; the
pious and wise men come next; whereas a person who is ignorant and disobedient is neglected and treated like a lower
animal, being left to the government of chance.[293]
Having disposed of the question of Providence, we may now resume the discussion undertaken above (p. 289) of the
nature of God's knowledge. The idea that God does not know the particular things in our world below is an old one and
is referred to in the Bible often. Thus, to quote one instance from the Psalms, the idea is clearly enunciated in the
following passage, "And they say [sc. the wicked], How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the most High?
Behold, these are the wicked; and, being alway at ease, they increase in riches. Surely in vain have I cleansed my heart,
and washed my hands in innocency...." (73, 11-13). The origin of this notion is in human experience, which sees the
adversity of the good and the prosperity of the wicked, though many of the troubles are of a man's own doing, who is a
free agent. But this view is wrong. For ignorance of any kind is a defect, and God is perfect. David pointed out this when
he said, "He that planted the ear shall he not hear? He that formed the eye shall he not see?" (94, 9). This means that
unless God knows what the senses are, he could not have made the sense organs to perceive.
We must now answer the other metaphysical arguments against God's knowledge of particulars. It is agreed that no new
knowledge can come to God which he did not have before, nor can he have many knowledges. We say therefore (we
who are believers in the Torah) that with one knowledge God knows many things, and his knowledge does not change
as the objects change. We say also that he knows all things before they come into being, and knows them always; hence
his knowledge never changes as the objects appear and disappear. It follows from this that his knowledge relates to the
non-existent and embraces the infinite. We believe this and say that only the absolutely non-existent cannot be known;
but the non-existent whose existence is in God's knowledge and which he can bring into reality can be known. As to
comprehending the infinite, we say with some thinkers that knowledge relates primarily to the species and extends
indirectly to the individuals included in the species. And the species are finite. The philosophers, however, decide that
there cannot be knowledge of the non-existent, and the infinite cannot be comprehended. God, therefore, as he cannot
have new and changing knowledge knows only the permanent things, the species, and not the changing and temporary
individuals. Others go still further and maintain that God cannot even know the permanent things, because knowledge of
many things involves many knowledges, hence multiplicity in God's essence. They insist therefore that God knows only
himself. My view is, says Maimonides, that the error of all these people is that they assume there is a relation of
resemblance between our knowledge and God's knowledge. And it is surprising that the philosophers should be guilty of
such an error, the very men who proved that God's knowledge is identical with his essence, and that our reason cannot
know God's essence.
The difference between our knowledge and God's knowledge is that we get our knowledge from the data of experience,
upon which it depends. Each new datum adds to our knowledge, which cannot run ahead of that which produces it. It is
different in the case of God. He is the cause of the data of experience. The latter follow his knowledge, and not vice
versa. Hence by knowing himself he knows everything else before it comes into being. We cannot conceive of his
knowledge, for to do this would be to have it ourselves.[294]
The last topic Maimonides considers in his philosophical work is the reason and purpose of the commandments of the
Bible, particularly the ceremonial precepts which apparently have no rational meaning. In fact there are those who
maintain that it is vain to search for reasons of the laws where none are given in the Bible itself; that the sole reason in
those cases is the will of God. These people labor under the absurd impression that to discover a rational purpose in the
ceremonial laws would diminish their value and reduce them to human institutions. Their divine character and origin is
attested in the minds of these people by their irrationality, by the fact that they have no human meaning. This is clearly
absurd, says Maimonides the rationalist. It is tantamount to saying that man is superior to God; and that whereas a man
will command only that which is of benefit, God gives orders which have no earthly use. The truth is quite the reverse,
and all the laws are for our benefit.[295]
Accordingly Maimonides undertakes to account for all the laws of the Bible. The Law, he says, has two purposes, the
improvement of the body and the improvement of the soul or the mind. The improvement of the soul is brought about by
study and reflection, and the result of this is theoretical knowledge. But in order to be able to realize this perfectly a
necessary prerequisite is the improvement of the body. This is inferior in value to perfection of the soul, but comes
naturally and chronologically first as a means to an end. For bodily perfection one must have health and strength as far
as one's constitution permits, and for this purpose a person must have his needs at all times. Social life is necessary for
the supply of the individuals' needs, and to make social life possible there must be rules of right and wrong to be
observed.[296]
Applying what has just been said to the Law, we may divide its contents broadly into four classes, (1) Precepts
inculcating true beliefs and ideas, such as the existence of God, his unity, knowledge, power, will, eternity. (2) Legal and
moral precepts, such as the inculcation of justice and a benevolent disposition for the good of society. (3) The narratives
and genealogies of the Law. (4) The ceremonial prescriptions.
Of these the purpose of the first two divisions is perfectly clear and admitted by all. True beliefs and ideas regarding God
and his government of the world are directly conducive to the highest end of man, knowledge and perfection of the soul.
Honorable and virtuous conduct is a preliminary requisite to intellectual perfection. The genealogies and narratives of the
Bible are also not without a purpose. They are intended to inculcate a theoretical doctrine or a moral, and to emphasize
the one or the other, which cannot be done so well by a bare statement or commandment. Thus, to take a few examples,
the creation of the world is impressed upon the reader beyond the possibility of a doubt by a circumstantial narrative of
the various steps in the process, the gradual peopling of the earth by the multiplication of the human race descended
from the first pair, and so on. The story of the flood and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has for its purpose to
emphasize the truth that God is a just judge, who rewards the pious and punishes the wicked. The genealogy of the
kings of Edom in Genesis (36, 31) is intended as a warning to Israel in the appointment of kings. These kings of the
Edomites were all of them foreigners not of Edom, and it is probable that the history of their tyrannical rule and
oppression of their Edomite subjects was well known to the people in Moses's time. Hence the point of the enumeration
of the list of kings and their origin is to serve as a deterring example to the Israelites never to appoint as king of Israel a
man who came from another nation, in accordance with the precept in Deuteronomy (17,15), "Thou mayest not put a
foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother."[297]
There remains the division of the ceremonial laws, which are the subject of dispute. The purpose in these precepts is not
evident, and opinions are divided as to whether they have any purpose. I will endeavor to show, says Maimonides, that
these also have one or more of the following objects: to teach true beliefs and opinions, to remove injustice and to
inculcate good qualities.
Abraham grew up among the Sabeans, who were star worshippers and believers in the eternity of the world. The object
of the law is to keep men away from the erroneous views of the Sabeans, which were prevalent in those days. The
Sabeans believed that the worship of the stars helps in the cultivation of the ground to make it fruitful. For this reason
they think highly of the husbandmen and laborers on the land. They also respect cattle and prohibit slaughtering them
because they are of benefit in the cultivation of the land. In the interest of agriculture they instituted the worship of the
stars, which they believed would cause the rain to fall and the earth to yield its fertility. On this account we find the
reverse of this in the Bible, telling us that worship of the stars will result in lack of rain and infertility.
In the life of nature we see how one thing serves another, and certain objects are not brought about except through
certain others, and development is gradual. So, for example, a young infant cannot be fed on meat and solid food, and
nature provides milk in the mother's breast. Similarly in governing the people of Israel, who were living in a certain
environment, God could not at once tear them away from the habits of thought to which they were accustomed, but he
led them gradually. Hence as they were accustomed to sacrificing to the stars, God ordered them to sacrifice to him, the
object being to wean them away from the idols in the easiest way possible. This is why the prophets do not lay stress on
the sacrifices. To be sure, it was not impossible for God to form their minds so that they would not require this form of
training, and would see at once that God does not need sacrifices, but this would have been a miracle. And while God
does perform miracles sometimes for certain purposes, he does not change the nature of man; not because he cannot,
but because he desires man to be free and responsible. Otherwise there would be no sense in laws and prophets.
Among the purposes of the law are abstention from self-indulgence in the physical appetites, like eating and drinking and
sensuous pleasure, because these things prevent the ultimate perfection of man, and are likewise injurious to civil and
social life, multiplying as they do sorrow and trouble and strife and jealousy and hate and warfare.
Another purpose is to inculcate gentleness and politeness and docility. Another is purity and holiness. External
cleanliness is also recommended, but not as a substitute for internal. The important thing is internal purity, external takes
a secondary place.
Maimonides ends the discussion of the Pentateuchal laws by dividing them into fourteen classes (following in this the
divisions in his great legal code, the "Yad Ha-Hazakah") and explaining the purposes of each class. It will be useful
briefly to reproduce the division here.
1. Those laws that concern fundamental ideas of religion and theology, including the duty of learning and teaching, and
the institutions of repentance and fasting. The purpose here is clear. Intellectual perfection is the greatest good of man,
and this cannot be attained without learning and teaching; and without wisdom there is neither good practice nor true
opinion. Similarly honoring the wise, swearing by God's name, and not to swear falsely—all these lead to a firm belief in
God's greatness. Repentance is useful to guard against despair and continuance in evil doing on the part of the sinner.
2. The precepts and prohibitions relating to idolatry. Here are included also the prohibition to mix divers kinds of seeds in
planting, the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years of its growth, and against wearing a
garment made of a mixture of wool and flax. The prohibition of idolatry is evident in its purpose, which is to teach true
ideas about God. The other matters above mentioned are connected with idolatry. Magic is a species of idolatry because
it is based on a belief in the direct influence of the stars. All practices done to produce a certain effect, which are not
justified by a reason or at least are not verified by experience, are forbidden as being superstitious and a species of
magic. Cutting the beard and the earlocks is forbidden on a similar ground because it was a custom of the idolatrous
priests. The same thing applies to mixing of cotton and flax, to men wearing women's garments and vice versa, though
here there is the additional reason, to prevent, namely, laxness in sexual morality.
3. The precepts relating to ethical and moral conduct. Here the purpose is clear, namely, to improve social life.
4. The rules relating to charity, loans, gifts, and so on. The purpose is to teach kindness to the poor, and the benefit is
mutual, for the rich man to-day may be poor to-morrow.
5. Laws relating to injury and damages. The purpose is to remove wrong and injustice.
6. Laws relating to theft, robbery, false witnesses. The purpose is to prevent injury by punishing the offender.
7. The regulation of business intercourse, like loan, hire, deposits, buying and selling, inheritance, and so on. The
purpose here is social justice to make life in society possible.
8. Laws relating to special periods, such as the Sabbath and the festivals. The purpose is stated in each case in the Law
itself, and it is either to inculcate a true idea like the creation in the case of the Sabbath, or to enable mankind to rest
from their labors, or for both combined.
9. The other practical observances like prayer, the reading of "Shema," and so on. These are all modes of serving God,
which lead to true opinions concerning him, and to fear and love.
10. The regulations bearing upon the temple and its service. The purpose of these was explained above in connection
with the institution of sacrifice, namely that it was a concession to the primitive ideas and customs of the people of those
times for the purpose of gradually weaning them away from idolatry.
11. Laws relating to sacrifices. The purpose was stated above and under 10.
12. Laws of cleanness and uncleanness. The purpose is to guard against too great familiarity with the Temple in order to
maintain respect for it. Hence the regulations prescribing the times when one may, and the occasions when one may not,
approach or enter the Temple.
13. The dietary laws. Unwholesome food is forbidden, also unclean animals. The purpose in some cases is to guard
against excess and self-indulgence. Some regulations like the laws of slaughter and others are humanitarian in their
nature.
14. Forbidden marriages, and circumcision. The purpose is to guard against excess in sexual indulgence, and against
making it an end in itself.[298]
To sum up, there are four kinds of human accomplishments or excellencies, (1) Acquisition of wealth, (2) Physical
perfection, strength, beauty, etc., (3) Moral perfection, (4) Intellectual and spiritual perfection. The last is the most
important. The first is purely external; the second is common to the lower animals; the third is for the sake of one's
fellowmen, in the interest of society, and would not exist for a solitary person. The last alone concerns the individual
himself. Jeremiah expresses this truth in his statement, "Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this,
that he understandeth, and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving kindness, judgment and righteousness
in the earth" (Jer. 9, 22). "Wise man" in the above quotation means the man of good morals. The important thing,
Jeremiah says, is to know God through his actions and to imitate him.[299]
Maimonides's ethics as well as his interpretation of the Pentateuchal laws is intellectualistic, as the foregoing account
shows. And it is natural that it should be. The prevailing trend of thought in the middle ages, alike among the Arabs, Jews
and Christians, was of this character. Aristotle was the master of science, and to him intellectual contemplation is the
highest good of man. The distinction of man is his rational faculty, hence the excellence and perfection of this faculty is
the proper function of man and the realization of his being. This alone leads to that "eudaimonia" or happiness for which
man strives. To be sure complete happiness is impossible without the complete development of all one's powers, but this
is because the reason in man is not isolated from the rest of his individual and social life; and perfection of mind requires
as its auxiliaries and preparation complete living in freedom and comfort. But the aim is after all the life of the intellect,
and the "dianoetic" virtues are superior to the practical. Theoretic contemplation stands far higher than practical activity.
Add to this that Aristotle's God is pure thought thinking eternally itself, the universal mover, himself eternally unmoved,
and attracting the celestial spheres as the object of love attracts the lover, without itself necessarily being affected, and
the intellectualism of Aristotle stands out clearly.
Maimonides is an Aristotelian, and he endeavors to harmonize the intellectualism and theorism of the Stagirite with the
diametrically opposed ethics and religion of the Hebrew Bible. And he is apparently unaware of the yawning gulf
extending between them. The ethics of the Bible is nothing if not practical. No stress is laid upon knowledge and
theoretical speculation as such. The wisdom and the wise man of the book of Proverbs no more mean the theoretical
philosopher than the fool and the scorner in the same book denote the one ignorant in theoretical speculation. "The
beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." This is the keynote of the book of Proverbs, and its precepts and
exhortations are practical and nothing else. That the Pentateuchal law is solely concerned with practical conduct,
religious, ceremonial and moral, needs not saying. It is so absolutely clear and evident that one wonders how so clear-
sighted a thinker like Maimonides could have been misled by the authority of Aristotle and the intellectual atmosphere of
the day to imagine otherwise. The very passage from Jeremiah which he quotes as summing up his idea of the summum
bonum, speaks against him, and he only succeeds in manipulating it in his favor by misinterpreting the word "wise."
Whatever the wise man may denote in the book of Proverbs, here in Jeremiah he is clearly contrasted with the person
who in imitation of God practices kindness, judgment and righteousness. The word does not denote the theoretical
philosopher, to be sure, but it approximates it more closely than the expression describing the ideal man of Jeremiah's
commendation.
It is in line with Maimonides's general rationalistic and intellectualistic point of view when he undertakes to find a reason
for every commandment, where no reason is given in the Law. He shows himself in this an opponent of all mysticism,
sentimentality and arbitrariness. Reason is paramount. The intellect determines the will, and not even God's will may be
arbitrary. His will is identical with his reason, hence there is a reason in everything that he wills. We may not in every
case succeed in finding the reason where he himself did not choose to tell us, but a reason there always is, and the
endeavor on our part to discover it should be commended rather than condemned.
The details of his motivation of the ceremonial laws are very interesting, and in many cases they anticipated, though in a
cruder form, the more scientific theories of modern critics. Take his interpretation of the institution of sacrifices. Take
away the personal manner of expression, which might seem to imply that God spoke to Moses in some such fashion as
this: You and I know that sacrifices have no inherent meaning or value. They rather smack of superstition and idolatry.
But what can we do? We cannot, i. e., we must not, change the nature of these people. We must train them gradually to
see the truth for themselves. They are now on the level of their environment, and believe in the efficacy of killing sheep
and oxen to the stars and the gods. We will use a true pedagogical method if we humor them in this their crudity for the
purpose of transferring their allegiance from the false gods to the one true God. Let us then institute a system of
sacrifices with all the details and minutiae of the sacrificial systems of the heathens and star worshippers. We shall
impose this system upon our people for the time being, and in the end as they grow wiser they will outgrow it—take away
this mode of expression in Maimonides's interpretation, which is not essential, and the essence may be rendered in more
modern terms thus. Man's religion is subject to change and development and progress like all his other institutions. The
forms they successively take in the course of their development are determined by the state of general intelligence and
positive knowledge that the given race or nation possesses. The same thing holds of religious development. The
institution of sacrifices is prevalent in all religious communities at a certain stage in their career. It starts with human
sacrifice, which is later discarded and replaced by sacrifices of animals. And this is again in the course of time
discontinued, leaving its traces only in the prayer book, which in Judaism has officially taken the place of the Temple
service.
While the merit of Maimonides in foreshadowing this modern understanding of ancient religion cannot be overestimated,
it is clear that in some of his other interpretations of Jewish ceremonial, he is wide of the mark. His rationalism could not
take the place of a knowledge of history. His motivation of the dietary laws on the score of hygiene or of moderation and
self-restraint is probably not true. Nor is the prohibition against mixing divers seeds, or wearing garments of wool and flax
mixed, or shaving the corner of the beard, and so on, due to the fact that these were the customs of the idolaters and
their priests. If Maimonides was bold enough to pull the sacrificial system down from its glorious pedestal in Jewish
tradition and admit that being inherently nothing but a superstition, it was nevertheless instituted with such great pomp
and ceremony, with a priestly family, a levitical tribe and a host of prescriptions and regulations, merely as a concession
to the habits and prejudices of the people, why could he not apply the same method of explanation to the few prohibitions
mentioned above? Why not say the ancient Hebrews were forbidden to mix divers seeds because they had been from
time immemorial taught to believe that there was something sinful in joining together what God has kept asunder; and in
order not to shock their sensibilities too rudely the new religion let them have these harmless notions in order by means
of these to inculcate real truths?
Before concluding our sketch of Maimonides we must say a word about his Bible exegesis. Though the tendency to read
philosophy into the Bible is as old as Philo, from whom it was borrowed by Clement of Alexandria and Origen and by
them handed down to the other Patristic writers, and though in the Jewish middle ages too, from Saadia down, the
verses of the Bible were employed to confirm views adopted from other considerations; though finally Abraham Ibn Daud
in the matter of exegesis, too, anticipated Maimonides in finding the Aristotelian metaphysic in the sacred scriptures, still
Maimonides as in everything else pertaining to Jewish belief and practice, so in the interpretation of the Bible also
obtained the position of a leader, of the founder of a school and the most brilliant and most authoritative exponent
thereof, putting in the shade everyone who preceded him and every endeavor in the same direction to which Maimonides
himself owed his inspiration. Maimonides's treatment of the Bible texts and their application to his philosophical
disquisitions is so much more comprehensive and masterly than anything in the same line done before him, that it made
everything else superfluous and set the pace for manifold imitation by the successors of Maimonides, small and great.
Reading the Bible through Aristotelian spectacles became the fashion of the day after Maimonides. Joseph Ibn Aknin,
Samuel Ibn Tibbon, Jacob Anatoli, Joseph Ibn Caspi, Levi Ben Gerson and a host of others tried their hand at Biblical
exegesis, and the Maimonidean stamp is upon their work.
We have already spoken of Maimonides's general attitude toward the anthropomorphisms in the Bible and the manner in
which he accounts for the style and mode of expression of the Biblical writers. He wrote no special exegetical work, he
composed no commentaries on the Bible. But his "Guide of the Perplexed" is full of quotations from the Biblical books,
and certain sections in it are devoted to a systematic interpretation of those Biblical chapters and books which lend
themselves most easily and, as Maimonid