after the giving of the Torah. I mean to say that it was a permitted act that did not by any means arouse repugnance. The payment of the hire that was agreed upon to a harlot was in that time something similar to the pay¬ ment now of a wife's dowry when she is divorced, I mean that it was one of the rights of the woman with regard to which the man had to discharge his obligation. Accordingly Judah's saying, Lest we be put to shame, teaches us that to speak of any matters pertaining to sexual intercourse — even of those that are permitted — is shameful for us and that it is proper to be silent about them and to conceal them, even if this should lead to loss of money. This is just as you see Judah doing, in saying: It is better that we should suffer a loss and that she should keep what she has taken than that we should give publicity to our search and bring shame upon us. This is the excellent moral habit that we learn from this story. As for the precept of justice by which we profit, it is to be found in the word in which he answers that he is innocent of all violence with regard to the woman, that he does not go back on his word, and that he does not diminish the price agreed upon with her: Behold, I sent this kid, and so on. That kid was indubitably one that among those of its species was possessed of the highest excellence; therefore in referring to it he employs [the demonstrative pronoun] this. This is the justice that they had taken over from Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham: namely, that one must not make changes in one’s given word or break one’s promise; that all obligations must be discharged fully and integrally; that there is no difference between what has been given to one as a loan or a deposit and what you owe him in any way whatever as wages or something else. The dowry of all wives has the same status as the wages of all hired men, and there is no difference between one who withholds the wages of a hired man and one who does this to his wife. Again there is no difference between one who persecutes a hired man and devises ruses in order to send him away without | paying his wages and one who does the same thing to his wife with a view to sending her away without paying her dowry. Do you not behold how great is the justice of these righteous statutes and judgments, 19 as shown in what is ordained with regard to a man who gives [his wife \ a bad reputation.20 There is no doubt that a wicked man of this kind did not find his wife, to whom he gave a bad reputation, to his taste and thought her ugly. If he had wished to divorce her in the way this is done by everyone who divorces his wife, there would have been no impediment. But if he had divorced her, he would have been obliged to give her what was due to her. Accordingly he laid wanton charges 21 against her, in order to get rid 19. Deut. 4:8. 20. Cf. Deut. 22:15-19. 21. Cf. Deut. 22:14.
U5*] The Guide of the Perplexed ill • 49 60 j of her without payment, and slandered her and defamed her by accusing her of things that it was impossible for her to have committed, in order to withhold from her the sum that she had the right to demand from him, namely, fifty shekels of silver — this being the dowry for virgins fixed in the Torah, He, may He be exalted, has commanded that he pay a hundred shekels of silver, this being based upon the principle that whom the judges shall condemn he shall pay double unto his neighbor 22 and conforming to the law concerning false witnesses, as we have already explained.23 For in a similar way he who gave [ his wife ] a bad reputation wanted to make her lose the fifty shekels that she had the right to receive from him and instead is forced to pay one hundred. This is the punishment for his having wanted to withhold the sum that he had the obligation to pay and for his having desired to appropriate it. The punishment for his having sullied her honor by accusing her of adultery is to have his own honor sullied through being flogged with a whip: And they shall chastise him.2* His punishment for his preferring his concupiscence and his seeking nothing but pleasure is to have her tied to him forever: He may not put her away all his days.25 For the cause that brought everything about was his thinking her ugly. In this way bad moral habits are cured, when the divine command is the physician. You will never cease discovering the clear and evident manifestation of justice in all the commandments of this Law, if you consider them carefully. Consider how the sentence of a man who gives [his wife~\ a \ bad reputation, wishing to withhold the sum that he had the obligation to pay, is made to be equal to that of the thief who has taken property belonging to someone else; and how* the sentence of a false witness who wished to do harm is made like the sentence, even if he did not succeed, of those who actually did harm and injury— I refer to the thief and the man who gives [his wife ] a bad reputation. The sentence to be passed on all three is determined by one Law and one judgment 26 Marvel exceedingly at the wisdom of His command¬ ments, may He be exalted, just as you should marvel at the wisdom mani¬ fested in the things He had made. It says: The Rock, His work is perfect^ for all His ways are judgment 27 It says that just as the things made by Him are consummately perfect, so are His commandments consum¬ mately just. However, our intellects are incapable of apprehending the perfection of everything that He has made and the justice of everything He has commanded. We only apprehend the justice of some of His command¬ ments just as we only apprehend some of the marvels in the things He has So6 The Guide of the Perplexed III • 49 [ n6« made, in the parts of the body of animals and in the motions of the spheres. What is hidden from us in both these classes28 of things is much more considerable than what is manifest. Now we shall return to the subject of the chapter.
As for the prohibitions against illicit unions,29 all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male30 in his house and that they are easy of access for him and can be easily controlled by him — there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence 5 and no judge could blame the male | for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man’s wives, most people would have con¬ stantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this — I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off5i — so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them.
It is very clear that relations are easy with all women included in the prohibitions concerning illicit unions. For it is very general that if a man has a wife, her mother, her grandmother, her daughter, her granddaughter, and her sister will be in his house most of the time, so that the husband will constantly meet them whenever he enters, goes out, and is engaged upon his business. A wife also is often in contact with her husband’s brother, his father, and his son. It is likewise manifest that in most cases a man is often in the company of his sisters, maternal and paternal aunts, and the wrife of his paternal uncle, and is brought up together with them. Now these are the women with whom union is illicit because of their being relatives. Con¬ sider this, this being one of the reasons why intercourse with relatives is prohibited.
28. Literally: species. 29. Literally: nudities. 30. Literally: of the individual.
51. Cf. Ill 41.
ii 66] The Guide of the Perplexed III -49 607 The second reason derives, in my opinion, from the wish to respect the sentiment of shame. For it would be a most shameless thing if this act could take place between the root and the branch, I refer to sexual intercourse 32 with the mother or the daughter. On the ground of the root and the branch, sexual intercourse of one of the two with the other has been forbidden. There is no difference between a root having intercourse with a branch or a branch with a root; or the root and the branch joining in having inter¬ course with a third individual, I mean that one individual reveals his nakedness in intercourse both with a root and a branch. Therefore it is forbidden to take together | a woman and her mother and to have inter¬ course with the wife of one’s father and the wife of one’s son, for all this is revealing one’s nakedness before the nakedness of both a root and a branch. Being brother or sister is like being root and branch. But once the sister was forbidden, also the sister of the wife and the wife of the brother are forbidden. For this would constitute the joining of two individuals who are like root and branch in sexual intercourse with a third individual.
As union between a brother and a sister is strictly forbidden and as they are to have the same relation as a root and a branch or even are considered to be one and the same individual, sexual intercourse with one’s maternal aunt is also forbidden, for she has the same status as one’s mother, and also intercourse with one’s paternal aunt, as she has the same status as one’s father. And just as the daughter of one’s paternal uncle and the daughter of one’s paternal aunt are not forbidden, the daughter of one’s brother and the daughter of one’s sister are likewise not forbidden because of the analogy. The fact that the wife of a brother’s son is permitted to the paternal uncle, whereas the wife of the paternal uncle is forbidden to the son of a brother, may be explained by the first reason. For a brother’s son is in most cases to be found in his paternal uncle’s house and approaches his paternal uncle’s wife just as he approaches his brother’s wife 5 whereas a paternal uncle is not to be found in this way in the house of his brother’s son and does not approach the latter’s wife. Do you not see that in view of the fact that a father has the same opportunity to approach a wife of his son as the son has to approach a wife of his father, the prohibition is equally strict in both cases, its transgression being punished by one capital punishment.
The reason for the prohibition against having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and with a married woman is too clear to be in need 32. Or: marriage. In the following passage likewise, the word translated as “sexual inter¬ course” may also mean “marriage.”
608 The Guide of the Perplexed III ■ 49 [ 117a of a search for a reason. You know that we are forbidden to take pleasure in any way in a woman who is prohibited to us,* 3 even to look at such a woman with a view to pleasure, as we have explained in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations.** We have explained there35 that in our Law it is not permitted in any way to let our thought range freely with regard to the subject of sexual union or in any way whatever to provoke sexual excite¬ ment. If a man becomes sexually excited without having intended it, he is obliged to | direct his mind to some other thought and to reflect on some¬ thing else until this sexual excitement passes away. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, say in their precepts, which perfect the virtuous:36 My son, if this abominable one affects you, drag him to the house of study. If he is of iron, he will melt. If he is of stone, he will break into pieces. For it is said: Is not my word like as fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?*1 [The Sage] says to his son with a view to giving him a rule of conduct: If you feel sexual excitement and suffer because of it, go to the house of study, read, take part in discussions, put questions, and be asked in your turn, for then this suffering will indubitably pass away. Marvel at his expression, this abominable one, and what an abomination this is! This precept is not only valid from the point of view of the Law, for the philosophers consider this matter in the same way. I have already made known to you38 the text of Aristotle’s saying that this sense is a disgrace to us, he means the sense of touch, which leads us to give preference to eating and sexual intercourse. In his writings he designates the people who give preference to sexual intercourse and to eating all kinds of dishes as abject, and expresses at length his blame of them and his mockery of them. You will find this in his book on Ethics and in his book on Rhetoric.39 With a view to this excellent moral habit, which one ought to have the firm purpose to seek and to acquire, the Sages, may their memory be blessed, have for¬ bidden the contemplation of beasts and birds when they copulate.*0 In my opinion this is also the reason why the interbreeding of beasts is prohibited. For it is well known that in most cases an individual of one species is not moved to copulate with an individual of another species unless it be brought to it by hand, as is constantly done, as you may see, by those loose men who are engaged in bringing about the procreation of mules. The Law did not wish that an individual of Israel should be so low as to engage in this 33. Literally: in a nakedness. 34. Cf. Mishneh Torah, Issurei Bi’ah, XXI 1—2.
39. Cf. Nicomachean Ethics iii, 1 o. 1 1 i81)2 ff.; Rhetoric 1.11.1570318 ff.
activity because of its abjectness and shamelessness and because he would thereby be engaged | in things the very mention of which— and, all the more, contact with which — is repugnant to the Law unless there be necessity. Such interbreeding, however, is not necessary. It also seems to me that the reason for the prohibition against bringing together two species for any kind of work may also be found in the wish to render more difficult the interbreeding of two species. I mean to say that its dictum, Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together*1 is due to the possibility that if the two are brought together they might sometimes copulate. A proof for this may be found in the fact that this commandment is general and applies not only to oxen and asses: It is indifferent whether they are an ox and an ass or any other two species. But Scripture speaks about what is usual.*2 Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circum¬ cision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes per¬ haps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory he blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him.*5 In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Who | first began to perform this act, if not Abraham who was celebrated for his chastity — as has been men¬ tioned by the Sages,** may their memory be blessed, with reference to his dictum: Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon.*5 According to me circumcision has another very important meaning, 41. Deut. 22:10. 42. Mishnah, Baba Qamma, V 7. 43. Genesis Rabbah, LXXX.
6I0 The Guide of the Perplexed III 49 [ n8Z> namely, that all people professing this opinion — that is, those who believe in the unity of God — should have a bodily sign uniting them so that one who does not belong to them should not be able to claim that he was one of them, while being a stranger. For he would do this in order to profit by them or to deceive the people who profess this religion. Now a man does not perform this act46 upon himself or upon a son of his unless it be in conse¬ quence of a genuine belief. For it is not like an incision in the leg or a burn in the arm, but is a very, very hard thing.
It is also well known what degree of mutual love and mutual help exists between people who all bear the same sign, which forms for them a sort of covenant and alliance. Circumcision is a covenant made by Abraham our Father with a view to the belief in the unity of God. Thus everyone who is circumcised joins Abraham's covenant. This covenant imposes the obligation to believe in the unity of God: To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee,47 This also is a strong reason, as strong as the first, which may be adduced to account for circumcision; perhaps it is even stronger than the first.
The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons. The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard. The third is that the parents of a child | that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandon¬ ment of circumcision because of the father’s love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.48 uga] The Guide of the Perplexed III • 49 611 The fact that circumcision is performed on the eighth day is due to the circumstance that all living beings are very weak and exceedingly tender when they are born, as if they were still in the womb. This is so until seven days are past. It is only then that they are counted among those who have contact with the air. Do you not see that this point is also taken into account with regard to beasts? — Seven days shall it be with its dam, and so on.*9 It is as if before that period it were an abortion. Similarly with regard to man; he is circumcised after seven days have passed. In this way the matter is fixed: You do not make out of it something that varies.
This class of commandments also includes the prohibition against mutilating the sexual organs of all the males of animals,50 which is based on the principle of righteous statutes and judgments,51 I mean the principle of keeping the mean in all matters; sexual intercourse should neither be excessively indulged, as we have mentioned, nor wholly abolished. Did He 52 not command and say: Be fruitful and multiply?Si Accordingly this organ is weakened by means of circumcision, but not extirpated through ex¬ cision.54 | What is natural is left according to nature, but measures are taken against excess. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off 55 is forbidden to marry a woman of Israel, for such cohabitation would be perverted and aimless. Such a marriage would likewise be a stumbling- block for the woman and for him who seeks her out. This is very clear.
In order to deter people from illicit unions, a bastard is forbidden to marry a daughter of Israel;56 so that the adulterous man and adulterous woman should know that by committing their act they attach to their descendants a stigma that can never be effaced. The children born of adultery being, moreover, always despised to every way of life and in every nation,57 the seed of Israel is regarded as too noble to mix with bastards.
Because of the nobility of Priests they are forbidden to marry a prostitute, a divorced woman, and a woman born of the illicit marriage [of a Priest].58 The High Priest, who is the noblest among the Priests, is even forbidden to marry a widow and a woman that is not a virgin.59 The reason for all this is clear. Mingling of bastards with the congregation of the Lord 60 being forbidden, that of male and female slaves with it is prohibited all the more.
The reason for the prohibition of intermarriage with the Gentiles is 52. Or: it (i.e., Scripture). 55. Gen. 1:22. 54. Or: entirely extirpated.
55. Cf. Deut. 23:2: 56. Cf. Deut. 23:3. 57. Or: religious community.
58. Literally: profaned woman. Cf. Lev. 21:7; B.T., Qiddushin, 77a.
6 12 The Guide of the Perplexed III -49 [ ngi explained in the text of the Torah: And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and so on.61 In the case of most of the statutes whose reason is hidden from us, everything serves to keep people away from idolatry. The fact that there are particulars the reason for which is hidden from me and the utility of which I do not understand, is due to the circumstance that things known by hearsay are not like things that one has seen. Hence the extent of my knowledge of the ways of the Sabians drawn from books62 is not comparable to the knowledge of one who saw their practices with his eyes; this is even more the case since these opinions have disappeared two thousand years ago or even before that. If we knew the particulars of those practices and heard details concerning those opinions, we would become clear regarding the wisdom manifested in the details of the practices prescribed in the commandments concerning | the sacrifices and the forms of uncleanness and other matters whose reason cannot, to my mind, be easily grasped. For I for one do not doubt that all this was intended to efface those untrur opinions from the mind and to abolish those useless practices, which brought about a waste of lives in vain and futile things.65 Those opinions turned away human thought from concern with the conception of an intelligible and