as being a body consisting of timber, a body that is hollow, oblong, and 16. Eccles. 5:1.
144 The Guide of the Perplexed 1-60 [ 76 a composed of a number of pieces of timber j that is, he has attained equality with one who has represented the ship by means of affirmative attributes. As for those whom we have cited in the parable as being prior to him, every one of them is more remote from representing the ship to himself than the one who comes after him; thus the first one figuring in our parable knows nothing but the bare term alone. Accordingly the negative attributes make you come nearer in a similar way to the cognition and apprehension of God, may He be exalted. Desire then wholeheartedly that you should know by demonstration some additional thing to be negated, but do not desire to negate merely in words. For on every occasion on which it becomes clear to you by means of a demonstration that a thing whose existence is thought to pertain to Him, may He be exalted, should rather be negated with reference to Him, you undoubtedly come nearer to Him by one degree. In this respect there are people who are very near to Him, whereas others are extremely far away from Him — not that there is in this matter a local nearness so that one may come nearer or get farther away from Him, as is thought by those whose | mental eyes are blind. Understand this well and know it and rejoice therein. For the way has become clear to you by walking in which you may come near to Him, may He be exalted. Walk accordingly therein if you so wish.
On the other hand, the predication of affirmative attributes of Him, may He be exalted, is very dangerous. For it has been already demonstrated that anything that we think of as a perfection — even if it existed as per¬ taining to Him — in accordance with the opinion of those who believe in the attributes, nevertheless would not belong to the species of perfection that we think of,1 save only by equivocation, just as we have made clear.2 Accordingly you must of necessity go over to the notion of negation. For if you say that, with one knowledge and with this changeless knowledge that has no multiplicity in it, He knows the multiple and changeable things that are constantly being renewed without any renewal of knowledge in Him, and that His knowledge of a thing before it has come into being and after it has acquired reality as existent and after it has ceased to exist is one and the same knowledge in which there is no change, you have clearly stated that He knows with a knowledge that is not like our knowledge. Similarly it follows necessarily that He exists, but not according to the notion of that existence which is in us. Consequently you resort to negations. Accordingly you have not arrived at a knowledge of the true reality of an essential attribute, but you have arrived at multiplicity. For you believe 1. Or: that we think perfection. 2.. Cf. I 56.
76 b ] The Guide of the Perplexed I • 60 tjj that He is a certain essence possessing unknown attributes. Now with regard to the attributes that, as you deem, should be affirmed with reference to Him, if you deny that they have a likeness to the attributes known to us, it follows that they do not belong to the same species as the latter. Accord¬ ingly the matter of affirmation of attributes has, as it were, withdrawn from you; for if you say God, may He be exalted, is a certain substratum bearing certain things as adjuncts3 and that this substratum is not like these adjuncts, the utmost of our apprehension would be, on the basis of this belief, polytheism4, and nothing else. For every substratum bearing things is undoubtedly, | according to its definition, a duality,5 even if it be one in its existence. For the notion of the substratum is different from that of the adjunct borne by it. Now the demonstration of the impossibility of composition in Him, may He be exalted, and, to go even further, the demonstration of His absolute simplicity, which is extreme and ultimate,6 will be made clear to you in certain chapters of this Treatise.
I shall not say that he who affirms that God, may He be exalted, has positive attributes either falls short of apprehending Him or is an associator or has an apprehension of Him that is different from what He really is, but I shall say that he has abolished his belief in the existence of the deity without being aware of it. To make this clear: he who falls short of the apprehension of the true reality of some matter is one who apprehends part of it and is ignorant of another part — for instance, someone who apprehends in the notion of man the necessary concomitants of animality and does not apprehend in it the necessary concomitants of rationality. Now there is no multiplicity in the true reality of the existence of God, may He be exalted, so that one thing pertaining to Him might be understood while another remains unknown. In a similar way an associator with reference to a certain thing is one who represents to himself the true reality of a certain essence as this essence veritably is and affirms of another essence that its true reality is like that of the first essence. Now in the opinion of those who think that the attributes in question exist, these attributes are not the essence of the deity, but rather notions superadded to the essence. Furthermore, one who has an apprehension of a thing that is different from what that thing really is, must yet necessarily apprehend something of it as it really is. However, I shall not say of him who represents to himself that taste is a quantity, that his representation of the thing is different from what the latter really is; 3. A more literal translation would be: upon which certain borne things are superposed.
4. Literally: associationism. g. Literally: is undoubtedly two.
6. Literally: in the uttermost extremity.
146 The Guide of the Perplexed 1-60 [77a rather I shall say that he is ignorant of the being of taste and does not know to what the term applies. This is a very subtle speculation 5 understand it.
In accordance with this elucidation you shall know that he is incapable of apprehending the deity and is far removed from knowledge of Him who has no clear understanding of the necessity of negating with respect to God a notion negated by someone else on the basis of a demonstration. And, as we have made clear in the beginning of this chapter, the fewer | negations there are on his part, the more his apprehension falls short.
As for one who affirms an attribute of Him without knowing a thing about it except the mere term, it may be considered that the object to which he imagines the term applies is a nonexistent notion — an invention that is false 5 for he has, as it were, applied this term to a notion lacking existence, as nothing in existence is like that notion. An example is that of a man who has heard the term elephant and knows that it is an animal and demands to know its shape and true reality. Thereupon one who is himself mistaken or who misleads others tells him that it is an animal possessing one leg and three wings, inhabiting the depths of the sea, having a transparent body and a broad face like that of man in its form and shape, talking like a man, and sometimes flying in the air, while at other times swimming like a fish. I will not say that this representation of the elephant differs from what the latter really is, nor that the man in question falls short in his apprehension of the elephant. But I shall say that the thing that he has imagined as having these attributes7 is merely an invention and is false and that there is nothing in existence like that, but that it is a thing lacking existence to which a term signifying an existent thing has been applied — a thing like “anqa mughrib”8 or a centaur and other imaginary forms of this kind to which a term simple9 or compound, signifying some existent thing, has been applied. In the present case the matter is similar and of the same kind.10 For God, may His praise be magnified, is an existent whose existence has been demonstrated to be necessary. And, as I shall demonstrate,11 from His being the necessarily existent there necessarily follows His absolute sim¬ plicity.
As for thinking that this simple essence — whose existence, as has been said, is necessary — is endowed with attributes and with other notions accompanying it: the thing thus imagined cannot, as has been demonstrated, be existent in any respect. Accordingly, if we say that | this essence, which 7. Literally: this attribute. 8. A fabulous bird, g. Literally: one. Ibn Tibbon translates: simple.
10. Literally: equal. 11. Cf. II l.
78a] The Guide of the Perplexed 1-61 i^-j for the sake of example shall be called deity, is an essence in which subsist many notions that are predicated of it, we apply this term12 to absolute nonexistence. Consider accordingly how great is the danger in affirming with reference to Him [positive] attributes. Accordingly it behooves us to believe with regard to the attributes figuring in the revealed books or the books of the prophets that all of them are mentioned only to direct the mind toward nothing but His perfection, may He be exalted, or that they are attributes referring to actions proceeding from Him, as we have made clear.
CHAPTER 61 All the names of God, may He be exalted, that are to be found in any of the books derive from actions. There is nothing secret in this matter. The only exception is one name: namely, Yod, He, Vav, He. This is the name of God, may He be exalted, that has been originated without any derivation, and for this reason it is called the articulated name. This means that this name gives a clear unequivocal indication of His essence, may He be exalted. On the other hand, all the other great names give their indication in an equivocal way, being derived from terms signifying actions the like of which, as we have made clear,1 exist as our own actions. Even the name that is uttered instead of Yod, He, Vav, He, is derived from a term signifying lordship: The man, the lord \?adonf\ of the land, spoke.'2. The difference between your saying ^Adoni— with an “I” vocalization of the nun — and your saying [3Adonai — with] an A vocalization of the nun — is analogous to the difference between your saying Sarri, which means my chief, and your saying Sarai, the wife of Abram} For these words [those having a termina¬ tion “ai”] are emphatic and of a general character applicable also to other beings. Thus it has been said to an angel: ^Adonai. \my lord], pass not away, I pray thee} I have explained | this to you especially with regard to 3 Adonai [which is uttered instead of Y.H.V.H.] because it is the most particularized of the commonly known names of [God], may He be exalted 5 for in the case of all the others, such as the Judge, the Just, the Gracious, the Merciful, and Elohim, it is manifest that they are used in a general way as well as 12. Literally: these terms. The term in question appears to be God. t. Cf. I 54. 2. Gen. 42:30. 3. Gen. 12:17. 4- Gen. 18:3.
that they are derived. As for the name that, if pronounced, is composed of Yod, He, Vav, and He, no commonly accepted derivation of it is known and none other than He has a part in it. There can be no doubt about the fact that this great name, which as you know is not pronounced except in the Sanctuary by the sanctified Priests of the Lord and only in the benediction of the Priests and by the High Priest upon the day of fasting, is indicative of a notion with reference to which there is no association between God, may He be exalted, and what is other than He. Perhaps it indicates the notion of a necessary existence,5 according to the [Hebrew] language, of which we today know only a very scant portion and also with regard to its pronuncia¬ tion. Generally speaking, the greatness of this name and the prohibition against pronouncing it are due to its being indicative of the essence of Him, may He be exalted, in such a way that none of the created things is associated with Him in this indication. As the Sages, may their memory be blessed, have said of it: My name that is peculiar to Me.
As for the other names, all of them, because of their being derived, indicate attributes; that is, not an essence alone, but an essence possessing attributes. For this reason they produce in one’s fantasy the conception of multiplicity; I mean to say that they produce in one’s fantasy the thought that the attributes exist, and that there is an essence and a notion superadded to this essence. For the indications of all derivative terms are such that they indicate a notion and a substratum that is not clearly stated and with which the notion in question is connected. However, as it has been demonstrated that God, may He be exalted, is not a substratum with which some notions are connected, it is known that the derived names are to be understood either with reference to the relation of a certain action to Him or with reference to directing the mind toward His perfection. For this reason | Rabbi Haninah would have shrunk from the dictum of Scripture, the Great, the Valiant, and the Terrible, were it not for the two necessary obligations mentioned by him. He would have done so because these names produce in one’s fantasy the thought of essential attributes; I mean the thought that these names refer to perfections existing in Him. And when the names deriving from the actions pertaining to Him, may He be exalted, were multiplied, they produced in the fantasy of some men the thought that He has many attributes, just as there is a multiplicity of actions from which these names derive. Hence Scripture promises that an apprehension that will put an end to this delusion will come to men. Thus it says: In that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one;6 which means that in the same way g. Literally: the notion of a necessity of existence. 6. Zech. 14:9.
79 «] The Guide of the Perplexed I • 61 as He is one, He will be invoked at that time by one name only, by that which is indicative only of the essence and which is not derivative. In the Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer they have said: Before the world was created, there were only the Holy One, blessed be He, and His name.'1 Consider now how this dictum states clearly that all the derivative names have come into being after the world has come into being. This is correct, for all these names have been laid down8 so as to correspond to the actions existing in the world. However, if you envisage His essence as it is when divested and stripped of all actions, He no longer has a derived name in any respect whatever, but only one original name that indicates His essence. In fact we have no nonderivative name except the one in question, namely, Yod, He, Vav, He, which is the articulated name simply.
Do not think anything other than this and do not let occur to your mind the vain imaginings of the writers of charms9 or what names you may hear from them or may find in their stupid books, names that they have invented, which are not indicative of any notion whatsoever, but which they call the names and of which they think that they necessitate holiness and purity and work miracles. All these are stories that it is not seemly for a perfect man to listen to, | much less to believe. None is called the articulated name except the name having four letters that is written but not read in accordance with the sounds written down. For the Sages have stated clearly in Sifre: Thus shall ye bless the children of Israel,10 Thus: [ that is], in these words; Thus: [ that is], using the articulated name. It is also said there: In the Temple, [ the name is pronounced ] as it is written, [ whereas ] in [the rest of ] the country the name used to replace it [is pronounced instead ]. And in the Talmud it is said:11 Thus means with the articulated name. And if you ask: With the articulated name or with the name used to replace it? this may be learnt from the words: And they shall put My name12 — that is, My name that is peculiar to Me. Thus it has become clear to you that the articulated name is the name having four letters and that it alone is indicative of the essence without associating any other notion with it. For this reason the Sages have said of it that it is the name that is peculiar to Me. Now I shall make clear to you what has incited men to the beliefs with regard to the 7. Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, III.
8. wudi'at. The terms implied that the names in question were invented and assigned the generally accepted meanings they have.
9. qamicot; i.e., holy names, etc., written on a piece of parchment or on paper and used as protective charms.
10. Num. 6:23, and the Sifre on this verse. 11. B.T., Sota, 38a. 12. Num. 6:27.
jjo The Guide of the Perplexed 1-62 [ 7g b names, and I will make clear to you the root of this question, and I will strip it of its covering so that nothing doubtful remains, unless you wish to lead yourself astray with reference to a chapter coming after this.
CHAPTER 62 We have received a commandment with regard to the benediction of Priests in which the name of the Lord figures as it is written. This name is the articulated name. Now not everybody knew how this name was to be pronounced and how every one of its letters should be vocalized and which of the letters, if any, should be redoubled. Accordingly the men of knowledge have transmitted this, I mean the mode of pronouncing it, but they did not teach it to anyone except once a week to a worthy scholar} I believe | that the dictum, The sages transmit the name having four letters once a week to their sons and their pupils,2 refers not only to their teaching the mode of pronouncing this name but also to their making known the notion because of which this name has been originated without any deriva¬ tion. Accordingly there also would be in this notion a divine secret.
Furthermore, though they used3 a name having twelve letters, that name was in sanctity inferior to the name having four letters. In my opinion the most probable supposition is that the name that had twelve letters was not one name but two or three, the sum of the letters of which came to twelve. This name was uttered in all the cases in which the name having four letters occurred in the reading of Scripture, just as we utter today in the same cases the letters aleph and daleth. Now this name also, namely, that having twelve letters, is undoubtedly indicative of a notion more particularly pertaining to God than is the case with regard to what is indicated by aleph and daleth. But this name was not prohibited and withheld from any of the men of knowledge $ on the contrary, everybody who sought to learn this name was taught it. This was not the case with regard to the name having four letters. For no one of those knowing it taught it to anyone except once a week to his son and his pupil. In consequence, blameworthy people started learning the name having twelve letters, and through this corrupted beliefs. This happens whenever anyone who is not a perfect man comes to know that something 3. Literally: a name was with them.
is not as he had imagined it to be in the first place. The Sages therefore made a secret of this name likewise, and taught it only to the discreet among the Priests that they might use it in giving their benediction to the people in the Sanctuary, as they had ceased mentioning the articulated name in the Sanctuary because of the corruption of the people. They say: After the death of Simon the Just, his brethren the Priests stopped using the name in giving their benediction,-4 in giving their benediction they used the name | having twelve letters. They also say: At first the name having twelve letters was transmitted to everyone. [ However ] when libertines became numerous, it was transmitted only to the discreet among the Priests; and the discreet among the Priests uttered it [ in such fashion] that it should be inaudible in the [ singing of] melodies by their brethren the [other] Priests. Rabbi Tarphon says: Once I ascended the dais after the father of [my] mother, listened to an [officiating] Priest, and heard that he uttered [the name in question in such fashion] that it should be inaudible in the [singing of] melodies by his brethren the [other] Priests.5 They also had a name having forty-two letters. Now it is known to everyone capable of mental representation that it is in no way possible that forty-two letters should form one word; these were certainly several words, the number of the letters of which amounted to forty-two. There is no doubt that these words were necessarily indicative of several notions and that these notions came near to a representation of the essence of Him, may He be exalted, in the way we have stated.
These words that had numerous letters were called name only because of their being indicative of one notion only, like the other names originated without any derivation. And these words were numerous only with a view to making the notion in question understood. For sometimes many words are used in order to make a single notion understood. Understand this accordingly, and know that that which was taught were the notions indi¬ cated by these names and not merely the pronunciation, devoid of all representation, of the letters. The term articulated name is never applied to the name having twelve letters or to the name having forty-two letters. For the articulated name is the name that is peculiar to Him, as we have made clear, whereas the two others necessarily taught some sort of divine science. The fact that it taught science is proved by | the following dictum on this subject: The name having forty-two letters is holy and sanctified and is only transmitted to one who is discreet, has reached the middle of his life, is not prone to anger or to drunkenness, does not arouse criticism by his way of life, and speaks agreeably with people. And he who knows it is heedful ijj2 The Guide of the Perplexed 1-62 [ 8ia