and menstruation are more frequent than contact with an unclean individual; hence these require seven days for purification,15 and whoever approached someone who was unclean requires one day.16 The purification of a man or a woman having running issue and of a woman after childbirth was only completed by means of a sacrifice, for such cases are rarer than menstruation. Also, all these things are disgusting — I mean a menstruating woman, a man or a woman having running issue, a leper, a corpse, a carcass of a beast, a creeping animal, and issue of semen. Accordingly many purposes are achieved by means of these laws. One of them is to keep men away from dis¬ gusting things. The second is to safeguard the Sanctuary. The third is to protect what is generally accepted and customary, for, as you will hear presently, unpleasant things were imposed on the Sabians in cases of un¬ cleanness. The fourth is to ease unpleasant restrictions and to order things in such a manner that questions of uncleanness and cleanness should not prevent a man from engaging in any of his occupations 5 for this matter of uncleanness and cleanness concerns only the Holy Place and holy things, nothing else: She shall touch no holy thing, nor come into the Sanctuary.11 As for the rest, there is no sin if one remains unclean as long as one wishes and eats, as one wishes, ordinary food that has become unclean. It is generally ii. Cf., e.g., Lev. 22:6-7. 12. Tractates of the Mishnah.
nou ] The Guide of the Perplexed III • 47 jpj known that according to the usages observed up to | our times by the Sabians in the lands of the East, I refer to the remnants of the Magians,18 the menstruating woman remains isolated in her house; the places upon which she treads are burnt; whoever speaks with her becomes unclean; and if a wind that blows passes over a menstruating woman and a clean individual, the latter becomes unclean. See how great the difference is between this and our dictum: All the various kinds of work that a wife does for her husband, are also done by a menstruating woman for her husband, except for washing his face, and so on.19 It is only forbidden to have intercourse with her in the days in which she is unclean and defiled. Another generally known usage of the Sabians that continues to our time is to regard as unclean everything that is separated from the body — that is, hair or nails or blood. Therefore every barber is unclean, in their opinion, because he touches blood and hair; and everyone wrho shaves must immerse in running water. They have many burdensome usages of this kind, whereas as for us we only claim that some¬ thing is unclean or clean with regard to holy things and to the Sanctuary.
As for His dictum, may He be exalted, Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy, for I am holy,20 it does not apply at all to uncleanness and cleanness. Siphra states literally: This concerns sanctification by the com¬ mandments; they also say of His dictum, Ye shall be holy,2* that this concerns sanctification by the commandments. For this reason, transgression of the commandments is also called uncleanness. This expression is used with regard to the mothers and roots of the commandments, namely, [the command¬ ments concerning] idolatry, incest, and shedding of blood. With regard to idolatry it says: Because he hath given of his seed unto Molech to render unclean My Sanctuary 22 And with regard to incest it says: Do not make yourself unclean with all these things, and so on 25 And with regard to shedding of blood it says: You shall not make unclean the land, and so on.2* It therefore has become clear that the term uncleanness is used equivocally in three different senses: It is used of disobedience and of transgression of commandments concerning action or opinion; it is used of dirt and filth, | Her uncleanness is in her skirts;25 and it is used according to these fancied notions, I refer to touching or carrying certain things or to being under the same roof with certain things. With reference to this last sense, we say: The words of the Torah are not subject to becoming unclean.26 Similarly the 20. Lev. 11:44. The Siphra is to this verse. 21. Lev. 19:2. The Siphra is to this verse. 22. Lev. 20:3. 23. Lev. 18:24.
24. Num. 33:34. Maimonides’ quotation is not exact. 25. Lam. 1:g.
The Guide of the Perplexed III -47 [ 110& term holiness is used equivocally in three senses opposed to those three senses.
In view of the fact that purification from the uncleanness caused by a corpse could only be achieved after seven days and also after the ashes of a [red] heifer have been found, and since the Priests were always in need of entering the Sanctuary for the purpose of sacrificing, every Priest in par¬ ticular was forbidden to expose himself to being made unclean by a corpse unless it were a case of strong necessity in which it would be difficult for nature to avoid this; I refer to avoiding contact with one’s parents, children, and brothers.27 And as there was great need that the High Priest should be constantly in the Sanctuary — according to its dictum: And ft28 shall always be upon his forehead™ — he was absolutely forbidden to expose himself to the uncleanness of a corpse, even of those of relatives. Do you not see that this prohibition does not extend to women? It is said: The sons of Aaron™ and not: the daughters of Aaron, women not being needed in sacrifice.
As it cannot be avoided that sometimes an individual may be negligent and may enter the Sanctuary while he is unclean or eat holy things while he is unclean, or else he may even do it deliberately — for the majority of wicked people commit grave acts of disobedience deliberately — sacrifices were com¬ manded that would atone for the uncleanness of the Sanctuary and its holy things. These sacrifices were of various kinds, some of them intended to atone for deliberate transgressions and others for those committed inad¬ vertently. These are the he- goats of [the festivals of] pilgrimage, the he-goats of the New-Moons, and the he-goat that was sent forth, 31 as has been explained in its place. These things were commanded so that the deliberate transgressor should not think that he has not committed a great sin in rendering the Sanctuary of the Lord unclean; but on the other hand he will know that his sin has been atoned for by means of the he-goat. For it says: That they die not in their uncleannessf 2 and it also says: | And Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things, and so on.™ This notion is often repeated.
As for the uncleanness of leprosy, we have already explained its meaning. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have also explained it. They have made known to us that the established principle in regard to it is that it is a punishment for slander 34 and that at first this change appears in the walls.35 If the man repents, the purpose has been achieved. If, ma J The Guide of the Perplexed III -47 however, he continues in his disobedience, the change extends to his bed and his house furniture. If he still persists in his disobedience, it passes over to his clothing, then to his body. This is a miracle that was perpetuated in the religious community like that of the waters of the woman suspected of adultery,36 The utility of this belief is manifest, there being also the fact that leprosy is contagious and that, almost by nature, all men find it dis¬ gusting. The reason why purification from it was effected by means of cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet thread, and two birds f is given in the Mid- rashimf 8 but it does not fit in with our purpose, and up to now I do not know the reason for any of these things; nor why cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet thread were used in the ceremony of the red heifer nor why a bunch of hyssop was used for the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb. I cannot find any reason whereby I could account for these species having been singled out.
The reason why the red heifer is called a sin-offering is that through it the purification of the individual rendered unclean by a corpse is made perfect so that afterwards he may enter the Sanctuary. The meaning of this is that in the cases in which individuals were defiled by a corpse, they would have been forbidden ever to enter the Sanctuary and to eat holy things unless there had been this heifer, which carried away this sin. This is similar to the plate [worn by the High Priest on his forehead], which brings expiation for uncleanness, and similar to the goats that are burnt.39 For this reason one who engaged in [ the sacrifice of] the [red] heifer and in [ that of] the goats that are burnt, rendered the garments unclean.40 Similarly one who ap¬ proached the he-goat j that was sent forth became unclean41 — according to what is believed — because of the great sins that it carried away.
We have thus given the reasons, as they appear to us, for those com¬ mandments included in this class whose reasons we know.
36. Cf. Num. 5:11-31. 57. Cf. Lev. 14:4 and 51.
38. In the text: Midrashoth. Cf. Leviticus Rabbah, XVI.
39. Cf. Lev. 16:37; Num. 15:24- 41. Cf. Lev. 16:26.
CHAPTER 48 The commandments comprised in the thirteenth class are those that we have enumerated in Laws concerning Forbidden Foods, in Laws con¬ cerning Slaughtering and in Laws concerning Vows and Nazar itism. We have already given, in this Treatise1 and in the Commentary on Aboth,2 an exhaustive and eloquent exposition of the utility of this class. We shall add to the clarity of this explanation by examining closely the single commandments included therein.
I say, then, that to eat any of the various kinds of food that the Law has forbidden us is blameworthy. Among all those forbidden to us, only pork and fat may be imagined not to be harmful. But this is not so, for pork is more humid than is proper and contains much superfluous matter. The major reason why the Law abhors it is its being very dirty and feeding on dirty things. You know to what extent the Law insists upon the need to remove filth out of sight, even in the field and in a military camp,3 and all the more within cities. Now if swine were used for food, market places and even houses would have been dirtier than latrines, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.4 You know the dictum of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed: The mouth of a swine is like walking excrement } The fat of the intestines, too, makes us full, spoils the digestion, and produces cold and thick blood. | It is more suitable to burn it. Blood, on the one hand, and carcasses of beasts that have died, on the other, are also difficult to digest and constitute a harmful6 nourishment. It is well known that a beast that is terephah 7 is close to being a carcass.
With reference to the signs marking a permitted animal — that is, chewing the cud and divided hoofs in the case of beasts, and fins and scales in the case of fish8 — know that their existence is not in itself a reason for animals being permitted nor their absence a reason for animals being pro¬ hibited; they are merely signs by means of which the praised species may be discerned from the blamed species.
The reason why the sinew of the thigh vein is prohibited, is given in the [scriptural] text.9 The reason for the prohibition against eating a limb [ cut off ] a living l. Cf. Ill 35. 2. A tractate of the Mishnah. 3. Cf. Deut. 23: 13-15. Cf, III 41.
4. I.e., of the western Europeans. 5' B.T., Berakhoth, 25a. Literally: bad.
7. I.e., an animal that is diseased or wounded.
112 a] The Guide of the Perplexed III -48 animal 10 is because this would make one acquire the habit of cruelty. Such things were done in those times by the kings of the Gentiles; this was also an action used in idolatry — I mean to cut off a certain limb from a beast and to eat it.
As for the prohibition against eating meat [boiled] in milk,1' it is in my opinion not improbable that — in addition to this being undoubtedly very gross food and very filling — idolatry had something to do with it. Perhaps such food was eaten at one of the ceremonies of their cult or at one of their festivals. A confirmation of this may, in my opinion, be found in the fact that the prohibition against eating meat [ boiled ] in milk, when it is mentioned for the first two times,12 occurs near the commandment concerning pil¬ grimage: Three times in the year, and so on.15 It is as if it said: When you go on pilgrimage and enter the house of the Lord your God, do not cook there in the way they used to do. According to me this is the most probable14 view regarding the reason for this prohibition; but I have not seen this set down in any of the books of the Sabians that I have read.
The commandment concerning the slaughtering of animals is neces¬ sary. For the natural food of man consists only of the plants deriving from the seeds growing in the earth and of the flesh of animals, the most excellent kinds of meat being those that are | permitted to us. No physician is ignorant of this. Now since the necessity to have good food requires that animals be killed, the aim was to kill them in the easiest manner, and it was forbidden to torment them through killing them in a reprehensible manner by piercing the lower part of their throat or by cutting off one of their members, just as we have explained.
It is likewise forbidden to slaughter it and its young on the same day,'5 this being a precautionary measure in order to avoid slaughtering the young animal in front of its mother. For in these cases animals feel very great pain, there being no difference regarding this pain between man and the other animals. For the love and the tenderness of a mother for her child is not consequent upon reason, but upon the activity of the imaginative faculty, which is found in most animals just as it is found in man. This law applies in particular to ox and lamb, because these are the domestic animals that we are allowed to eat and that in most cases it is usual to eat; in their case the mother can be differentiated from her young.
11. Cf. Exod. 23: 19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21. Cf. Onqelos’ translation of these passages.
14. Literally: the strongest. 15. Cf. Lev. 22:28.
6oo The Guide of the Perplexed III 48 [112 b This is also the reason for the commandment to let [ the mother ] go from the nest,16 For in general the eggs over which the bird has sat and the young that need their mother are not fit to be eaten. If then the mother is let go and escapes of her own accord, she will not be pained by seeing that the young are taken away. In most cases this will lead to people leaving every¬ thing alone, for what may be taken is in most cases not fit to be eaten. If the Law takes into consideration these pains of the soul in the case of beast and birds, what will be the case with regard to the individuals of the human species as a whole? You must not allege as an objection against me the dictum of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed:17 He who says: Thy mercy extendeth to young birds, and so on.iB For this is one of the two opinions mentioned by us19 — I mean the opinion of those who think that there is no reason for the Law except only the will [of God] — but as for us, | we follow only the second opinion.
We have already drawn attention to the fact that the Torah itself set for the reason for the covering of blood and that this commandment applies in particular to clean wild beasts and clean birds.20 Besides the ordinances given to us concerning the prohibition of for¬ bidden food, ordinances have also been prescribed to us with regard to the vows by which we impose prohibitions on ourselves.21 Whenever a man says: This bread or this meat is forbidden to me, it is forbidden to him to eat it — all this being training with a view to achieving temperance and to restraining the appetite for eating and drinking. They say: Vows are a fence for abstinence,22 As women are prone to anger, being easily affected and having weak souls, there would have been grave troubles, quarrels, and disorder in the house, if their oaths had been under their control. For a certain kind of food would have been permitted for the husband and for¬ bidden for the wife and another kind would have been forbidden for the daughter and permitted for the mother. Therefore the matter, with every¬ thing pertaining to it, is given into the charge of the master of the house. Do you not see that a woman who is governed by herself and not dependent upon the control of the master of the house, has with regard to vows the same status as men? — I refer to a woman who has no husband and no father or has arrived at the age of puberty, I mean one that is of age.™ The reason for nazaritism is most manifest 5 it consists in bringing about abstinence from drinking wine, which has caused the ruin of the 18. Such an individual is blamed in the Mishnah. 19. Cf. Ill 26 and 31.
20. Cf. Ill 46. 21. Cf. Nura. 30:3-17. 22. Mishnah, Aboth, III 13.
23. According to B.T., Nedarirn, 70a-b, the age referred to is twelve years and six months.
113a] The Guide of the Perplexed III • 49 601 ancients and the moderns: Many, yea, a mighty host have been slain by it But these also have erred through wine, and so on.25 The prohibition you see against eating anything that cometh of the grape vine 26 results from the law regarding nazaritism, being an additional measure made with a view to the avoidance of wine, so that people should content themselves with no more of it than is necessary. For whoever avoids it is called holy and is put in the same rank as a High Priest as far as holiness is concerned, | so that, like the latter, he may not render himself unclean through contact with a corpse, even that of his father or his mother 21 All this high esteem is given to him because he abstains from drink.
CHAPTER 49 CHAPTER 49 The commandments included in the fourteenth class are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women and in Laws on Prohibited Sexual Relations. The interbreeding of beasts 1 and the commandment of circumcision also belong to this class. The purpose of this class of command¬ ments has already been reported.2 Now I shall begin to explain the par¬ ticulars.
I say then: It is well known that friends are something that is necessary for man throughout his whole life. Aristotle has already set this forth in the ninth book of the “Ethics.”3 For in a state of health and happiness, a man takes pleasure in their familiar relationship with him $ in adversity he has recourse to them; and in his old age, when his body is grown weak, he seeks their help. The same things may be found to a much greater extent in the relationship with one’s children and also in the relationship with one’s relatives. For fraternal sentiments and mutual love and mutual help can be found in their perfect form only among those who are related by their ancestry. Accordingly a single tribe that is united through a common ancestor — even if he is remote — because of this, love one another, help one 27. Cf. Num. 6:7.
1. No part of the Mishneh Torah is called “Interbreeding of Beasts.” The subject is treated by Maimonides in the “Book of Seeds” ( ZeraHm ), “Laws concerning Inter¬ breeding” ( Kihaim ).
2. Cf. Ill 35.
3. In fact, the passage occurs in Book VIII (11 5533 ff.) of the Nicomachean Ethics.
24 $02 The Guide of the Perplexed III • 49 [ 113 b another, and have pity on one another 5 and the attainment of these things is the greatest purpose of the Law. Hence harlots are prohibited,4 because through them lines of ancestry are destroyed. For a child born of them is a stranger to the people; no one knows to what family group he belongs, and no one in his family group knows him; and this is the worst of conditions for him and for his father. Another important consideration comes in as a reason | for the prohibition of harlots. This is the prevention of an intense lust for sexual intercourse and for constant preoccupation with it. For lust is increased through the change of the individuals that are harlots, for man is not stirred in the same way by an individual to whom he has been con¬ tinuously accustomed as by individuals who are constantly renewed and who differ in shapes and manners. In the prohibition of harlots there is a very great utility — namely, the prevention of evils; for if harlots were permitted, a number of men might happen to betake themselves at one and the same time to one woman; they would inevitably quarrel and in most cases they would kill one another or kill the woman, this being — as is well known — a thing that constantly happens: And they assemble themselves in troops at a prostitute’s house.5 In order to prevent these great evils and to bring about this common utility - namely, knowledge of the lines of ancestry - harlots and male prostitutes are prohibited and there is no way to engage in per¬ mitted sexual intercourse other than through singling out a woman for oneself and marrying her in public. For if it sufficed merely to single her out, most men would bring a harlot to their house for a certain time, having made an agreement with her about this, and say that she is a wife. There¬ fore a binding ceremony and a certain act have been prescribed signifying that the woman is allotted to the man; this is the betrothal. Then when the act is made in public, it is the ceremony of marriage: And Boaz took ten men, and so on.6 Sometimes the union of the two may be discordant and matters in their household not in good order. Consequently divorce is per¬ mitted. However, if a divorce could become valid merely by means of the utterance of words or through the man’s turning the woman out of his house, the woman might watch for some negligence on the part of her husband and then go out and claim to be divorced. Or if some individual had fornicated with her, she and the adulterer might claim that she had been divorced beforehand. Therefore the Law has given to us the ordinance that a divorce can only be made valid by means of a writ attesting it: And he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and so on?
As accusations8 of adultery | and imaginings concerned with it are very ii4&] The Guide of the Perplexed III • 49 doj frequent with regard to women, the Law has given us ordinances concerning the woman who is suspected of adultery? These ordinances oblige every married woman to take extreme care in her behavior and to have recourse to the greatest precautions, lest the heart of her husband be incensed on her account. For she anticipates with apprehension the horror of the waters of the woman suspected of adultery. If she is pure and has safeguarded herself, most men would give everything they possess in order to be liberated from having to make her undergo this procedure; they would even prefer death to this great shame, which consists in uncovering the woman’s head, undoing her hair, tearing her garments so that the heart is exposed, and making her go round throughout the whole Sanctuary in the presence of the public, both men and women, and in the presence of the Great Court of Law?0 Through these apprehensions, grave evils have been cut short that would have destroyed the order of a certain number of households.
As every girl who is a virgin is set for marriage with the first man that happens along, her seducer is only obliged to marry her; for he is the one who is most suitable for her, and this indubitably makes better repair for the flaw in her than her marrying another man. If, however, she or her father does not wish this, the seducer must pay a dowry.11 There is addi¬ tional punishment for a man who has raped a girl: He may not put her away all his days?2 As for the reason for the levirate, it is literally stated [in Scripture] that this was an ancient custom that obtained before the giving of the Torah1 3 and that was perpetuated by the Law.14 As for the ceremony of taking off the shoe,15 the reason for it is to be found in the fact that the actions of which it is composed were considered shameful, according to the customs of those times, and that on account of this the brother-in-law might perhaps wish to avoid this shame and consequently to marry his brother's widow. This is made manifest in the text of the Torah: So shall it be done unto the man, and so on. And his name shall be called in Israel, and so on.16 From the story of Judah 17 a noble moral habit and equity in conduct may be learnt $ this appears from [Judah’s] words: Let her take it, lest we be put to shame; behold, I sent j this kid.10 The interpretation of this is as follows: Before the giving of the Torah sexual intercourse with a harlot was regarded in the same way as sexual intercourse with one's wife is regarded 9. Cf. Num. 5:11-31. Cf. Ill 47. 10. Cf. Num. 5:18. 11. Cf. Exod. 22:16.
17. The story of Judah and Tamar; cf. Gen. 38.
18. Gen. 38: 23.
604 The Guide of the Perplexed III -49 [115a