see it in one of the chapters of this Treatise.25 The purpose of everyone endowed with intellect should be wholly directed to rejecting corporeality with respect to God, may He be exalted, and to considering all these appre¬ hensions as intellectual, not sensory. Understand this and reflect on it.
18. I.e., Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel, ig. billur. The use of this Arabic word may mean that Maimonides considered that the Hebrew word sappir (sapphire) meant “crystal.”
20. I.e., receive its coloring from them.
21. That of Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel.
22. mubdv’uha. The Arabic word generally connotes a creator ex nihilo, but it is less explicit than this Latin-English expression.
23. Cf. II 26. 24. gharib. The word generally means “strange.”
25. Cf. II 26.
CHAPTER 29 Sorrow [c eseb ] is an equivocal term. It is a term denoting pain and aching: In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.1 It is also a term denoting anger: And his father had not caused him to be sorry at any time,2 which means that he had not angered him. For he was sorrowful for the sake of David f he was angry for his sake. The term also denotes contrariety and disobedience: They rebelled and caused sorrow to His holy spirit f And cause Him sorrow in the desert f If there be in me any way of causing sorrow,-6 Every day they cause sorrow1 to my words.8 In accordance with the second or third sense it is said: He 9 sorrowed unto His heart, 10 In accord¬ ance with the second sense, the interpretation of the verse would be that God was angry with them11 because of their evil action. As for Scripture saying, unto his heart, it uses a similar expression in the story of Noah, namely: And God said unto His heart}2 Hear its meaning. The matter with regard to which it is said of | a man that he said in his heart or said unto his heart is a matter to which that man does not give utterance and that he does not tell to somebody else. Similarly it is said of every matter willed by God of which He does not speak to a prophet at the time when He accomplished an act corresponding to His will in this regard: God said unto His heart. It is thus likened to the human matter in virtue of the continual use of the rule: The Torah speaketh in the language of the sons of man}8 This is clear and manifest. Inasmuch as it is not made clear in the Torah with regard to the disobedience of the generation of the flood that an envoy of God was sent to them at that time, nor that prohibitions were imposed on them and that they were threatened with destruction, it is said of them that God was angry with them in His heart. Similarly in regard to His will that there should not be another flood. He did not say to a prophet at that time: Go and inform them of this. For this reason it is said: unto His heart. As for the interpretation of the passage, He sorrowed unto His heart, according to the third sense, its meaning14 would be as follows: man went 11. With Adam and Eve. 12. Gen. 8:21.
14. laterally: its interpretation. But the word used in Arabic is not the one occurring at the beginning of the sentence.
33 a ] The Guide of the Perplexed 1-30 6) contrary to the will of God regarding him. For the term heart is also used to designate the will, as we shall make clear when treating of the equivo¬ cality of the term heart. 15 CHAPTER 30 To eat \?akhol'\. The first meaning given to this word in the Hebrew language signifies the taking of food by living beings. This does not require an example. Subsequently the Hebrew language saw two notions in the action of eating. One of them was the destruction and disappearance of the thing eaten, I mean the corruption of its form that first takes place. The other notion is that of the growth of the living being due to the food he takes, the continuance of his life 1 due to it, and the duration of the existence, as well as the good condition, of all the forces of his body, likewise due to it. In accordance with | the one notion, the term eating is figuratively applied to all destruction and undoing and, in general, to all putting-off of a form. Thus: And the land of your enemies shall eat you up? A land that eateth up its inhabitants? Ye shall be eaten by the sword? Shall the sword eat? And the fire of the Lord burnt among them, and ate them up that were in the uttermost part of the camp.6 He 7 is a fire that eateth,e which means that He destroys those who disobey Him as a fire destroys that which is in its power. This use of the word is frequent. In accordance with the last notion, the term eating is applied figuratively to knowledge, learning, and, in general, the intellectual apprehensions through which the per¬ manence9 of the human form endures in the most perfect of states, just as the body endures through food in the finest of its states. Thus: Come ye, buy and eat?0 Hearken diligently unto Me, and eat ye that which is good?1 It is not good to eat much honey?2 My son, eat thou honey, for it is good, and the honeycomb is sweet to thy taste $ so know thou wisdom to be unto thy soul.1 5 This use is also frequent in the speech of the Sages, I mean the l5- Cf. I 39.
l. Literally: of his remaining, baqa 3 in Arabic. 2. Lev. 26:38.
9. Or: the remaining. In Arabic the same word is used as that referred to in n. 1, this chap.
13. Prov. 24:13-14.
64 The Guide of the Perplexed 1-50 [ 33 b designation of knowledge as eating. Thus: Come, eat fat meat at the house of Raba.1* They have also said: All eating and drinking referred to in this book 15 signify wisdom exclusively, 16 or, according to some copies, the Torah. Similarly they17 often designate knowledge as water. Thus: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye for water.16 Inasmuch as this use has become so frequent and widespread in the Hebrew language that it has become, as it were, the first meaning,19 the words meaning hunger and thirst are likewise employed to designate lack of knowledge and of apprehension. Thus: I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord,-20 My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God.2i This use is frequent, Jonathan ben Uziel, peace be on him, trans¬ lates22 the verse, With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation,23 by the words: With joy shall you receive a new teaching from the chosen of the righteous. Consider accordingly | that he interprets the word water as being the knowledge that will be received in those days. And he takes the Hebrew word for wells — macyene — to be the equivalent of meceyne hacedah;24 I mean thereby the notables25 who are the men of knowledge. And he26 says: From the chosen of the righteous, as righteousness is true salvation. See accordingly how he interprets every word in this verse with a view to the notion of knowledge and learning. Understand this.
14. B.T., Baba Bathra, 22a. 15. The Ecclesiast.
16. Midrash Qoheleth, 3:13. According to the present text of this Midrash, when the Ecclesiast speaks of eating, he refers solely to the Torah and to good works.
17. As the example in the following sentence shows, the third plural used in this passage refers to Scripture, and not or not only to the talmudic Sages.
18. Isa. 55:1.
19. The Arabic word used here signifies “conventional meaning.”
24. Literally: from the important people of the community. The word me'eyne — which, if the vocalization is not taken into account, is written in Hebrew in the same way as macyane (sources) — means “from the eyes,” “from the sources,” and (as Maimonides interprets it) “from the notables.” Num. 15:24.
25. al-acyan. This Arabic term derives from the same root as the Hebrew word in question (see preceding note) and has the same range of meanings.
26. Jonathan ben Uziel.
CHAPTER 51 Know that the human intellect has objects of apprehension that it is within its power and according to its nature to apprehend. On the other hand, in that which exists1 there also are existents and matters that, according to its nature, it is not capable of apprehending in any way or through any cause;2 the gates of their apprehension are shut before it. There are also in that which exists things of which the intellect may apprehend one state while not being cognizant of other states. The fact that it appre¬ hends does not entail the conclusion that it can apprehend all things — just as the senses have apprehensions but it is not within their power to ap¬ prehend at whatever distance the objects of apprehension may happen to be. Similarly with regard to all other bodily faculties, for the fact that a man is able to carry two hundred-weights does not mean that he is able to carry ten. The difference in capacity existing between the individuals of the species3 with regard to sensory apprehensions and all the other bodily faculties is manifest and clear to all men. However, it has a limit, inasmuch as these capacities4 cannot attain to every distance however far away nor to every degree however great it may happen to be. The identical rule obtains with regard to human intellectual apprehensions. There are great differences in capacity between the individuals of the species. This also is manifest and very clear to the men of knowledge. It may thus happen that whereas one individual discovers a certain notion by himself through his speculation, another individual | is not able ever to understand that notion. Even if it were explained to him for a very long time by means of every sort of expression and parable, his mind would not penetrate to it in any way, but would turn back without understanding it. This difference in capacity is likewise not infinite, for man’s intellect indubitably has a limit at which it stops. There are therefore things regarding which it has become clear to man that it is impossible to apprehend them. And he will not find that his soul longs for knowledge of them, inasmuch as he is aware of the l. The Arabic word wujud, which usually means “existence,” is often used by Maimonides with the meaning “that which exists” or “the totality of that which exists.” In the text to which this note refers, the word seems to have the latter meaning.
2. sabab. In Maimonides1 peculiar use of the term it may also mean “effect.”
3. The Arabic word al-na.wc (the species), most probably but not quite certainly, refers in this passage to only the human species.
4. Literally: and the matter. These words may refer to the capacities or to their difference. The meaning in any case remains practically identical.
impossibility of such knowledge and of there being no gate through which one might enter in order to attain it. Of this nature is our ignorance of the number of the stars of heaven and whether that number is even or odd, as well as our ignorance of the number of the species of living beings, minerals, plants, and other similar things.
On the other hand, there are things for the apprehension of which man will find that he has a great longing. The sway of the intellect endeavoring to seek for, and to investigate, their true reality exists at every time and in every group of men engaged in speculation. With regard to such things there is a multiplicity of opinions, disagreement arises between the men engaged in speculation, and doubts crop up 5 all this because the intellect is attached to an apprehension of these things, I mean to say because of its longing for them; and also because everyone thinks that he has found a way by means of which he will know the true reality of the matter. Now it is not within the power of the human intellect to give a demonstration of these matters. For in all things whose true reality is known through demonstration there is no tug of war and no refusal to accept a thing proven — unless indeed such refusal comes from an ignoramus who offers a resistance that is called resistance to demonstration.5 Thus you can find groups of people who dispute the doctrine that the earth is spherical and that the sphere has a circular motion6 and with regard to other matters of this kind. These folk do not enter into our purpose. The things about which there is this perplexity are very numerous in divine matters, few in | matters pertaining to natural science, and nonexistent in matters pertaining to mathematics.
Alexander of Aphrodisias 7 says that there are three causes of disagreement about things. One of them is love of domination and love of strife, both of which turn man aside from the apprehension of truth as it is. The second cause is the subtlety and the obscurity of the object of apprehension in itself and the difficulty of apprehending it. And the third cause is the ignorance 5. Literally: demonstrational resistance.
6. wa-kawn al-falak mustadiran. Ibn Tibbon translates: and that the sphere is round. The difference between his translation and that proposed above is due to the fact that the word mustadir means both “round” and “turning about.” In this case the latter mean¬ ing seems more appropriate.
7. Cf. Translator’s Introduction on the influence of this Greek commentator of Aristotle on Maimonides. The passage quoted by Maimonides occurs in a work of Alexander on “The Principles of the All according to the opinion of Aristotle” (“Maqalah fi’l-qawl fi mabadi3 al-kull cala ra’y Aristatalis al-faylasuf,” ed. A. Badawi, in: Aristu Hnda'l-cArab [Cairo, 1947]> PP- 253—77). This treatise is preserved only in an Arabic translation. There are only slight differences between Maimonides’ quotation and the text published by Badawi {loc. cit., p. 276, 11. 18—21).
of him who apprehends and his inability to grasp things that it is possible to apprehend. That is what Alexander mentioned. However, in our times there is a fourth cause that he did not mention because it did not exist among them. It is habit and upbringing. For man has in his nature a love of, and an inclination for, that to which he is habituated. Thus you can see that the people of the desert — notwithstanding the disorderliness of their life, the lack of pleasures, and the scarcity of food — dislike the towns, do not hanker after their pleasures, and prefer the bad circumstances to which they are accustomed to good ones to which they are not accustomed. Their souls accordingly would find no repose in living in palaces, in wearing silk clothes, and in the enjoyment of baths, ointments, and perfumes. In a similar way, man has love for, and the wish to defend, opinions to which he is habituated and in which he has been brought up and has a feeling of repulsion for opinions other than those. For this reason also man is blind to the apprehension of the true realities and inclines toward the things to which he is habituated. This happened to the multitude with regard to the belief in His corporeality and many other metaphysical 8 subjects as we shall make clear. All this is due to people being habituated to, and brought up on, texts that it is an established usage to think highly of and to regard as true and whose external meaning is indicative of the corporeality of God and of other imaginings with no truth in them, for these have been set forth as parables and riddles. This is so for reasons [ that I shall mention further on.
Do not think that what we have said with regard to the insufficiency of the human intellect and its having a limit at which it stops is a statement made in order to conform to Law.9 For it is something that has already been said and truly grasped by the philosophers without their having concern for a particular doctrine or opinion. And it is a true thing that cannot be doubted except by an individual ignorant of what has already been demon¬ strated. We have put this chapter before others only with a view to its serving as an introduction to that which shall come after it.
8. Or: divine — which is the literal meaning of the Arabic term used.
9. Literally: a speech said according to [religious] Law.
CHAPTER 32 You1 who study my Treatise, know that something similar to what happens to sensory apprehensions happens likewise to intellectual apprehensions in so far as they are attached to matter. For when you see with your eye, you apprehend something that is within the power of your sight to apprehend. If, however, your eyes are forced to do something they are reluctant to do — if they are made to gaze fixedly and are set the task of looking over a great distance, too great for you to see, or if you con¬ template very minute writing2 or a minute drawing3 that is not within your power to apprehend — and if you force your eye, in spite of its reluctance, to find out the true reality of the thing, your eye shall not only be too weak to apprehend that which you are unable to apprehend, but also too weak to apprehend that which is within your power to apprehend. Your eye shall grow tired, and you shall not be able to apprehend what you could apprehend before having gazed fixedly and before having been given this task. A similar discovery is made by everyone engaging in the speculative study of some science with respect to his state of reflection.* For if he applies himself to reflection and sets himself a task demanding his entire attention,3 he becomes dull and does not then understand even that which is within his scope to understand. | For the condition of all bodily faculties is, in this respect, one and the same. Something similar can happen to you with regard to intellectual apprehensions. For if you stay your progress because of a dubious point 5 if you do not deceive yourself into believing that there is a demonstration with regard to matters that have not been demonstrated; if you do not hasten to reject and categorically to pronounce false any assertions whose contradictories have not been demonstrated; if, finally, you do not aspire to apprehend that which you are unable to apprehend - you will have achieved human perfection and attained the rank of Rabbi Aqiba, peace be on him, who entered in peace and went out in peace 6 when engaged in the theoretical study of these metaphysical7 matters. If, on the other hand, you aspire to apprehend things that are beyond your apprehen¬ sion; or if you hasten to pronounce false, assertions the contradictories of which have not been demonstrated or that are possible, though very 1. In the singular. 2. khatt. The word also means “line.” 3. Or: painting.
4. Reflection ( tafakkur ) is a bodily faculty.
5. khatir, a term which may signify impulsions and thoughts which occur to an individual.
36a ] The Guide of the Perplexed 1-52 69 remotely so — you will have joined Elisha Aher.8 That is, you will not only not be perfect, but will be the most deficient among the deficient; and it shall so fall out that you will be overcome by imaginings and by an inclina¬ tion toward things defective, evil, and wicked — this resulting from the intellect’s being preoccupied and its light’s being extinguished. In a similar way, various species of delusive imaginings are produced in the sense of sight when the visual spirit9 is weakened, as in the case of sick people and of such as persist in looking at brilliant or minute objects.
In this regard it is said: Hast thou found, honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith and vomit it.10 In a similar way, the Sages, may their memory be blessed, used this verse as a parable that they applied to Elisha Aher. How marvellous is this parable, inasmuch as it likens knowledge to eating, a meaning about which we have spoken.11 It also mentions the most delicious of foods, namely, honey. Now, according to its nature, honey, if eaten to excess, upsets the stomach and causes vomiting. Accordingly Scripture says, as it were, that in spite of its sub¬ limity, greatness, and what it has of perfection, the nature of the apprehen¬ sion in question12— j if not made to stop at its proper limit and not conducted with circumspection — may be perverted into a defect, just as the eating of honey may. For whereas the individual eating in moderation is nourished and takes pleasure in it, it all goes if there is too much of it. Accordingly Scripture does not say, Lest thou be filled therewith and loathe it, but rather says, and vomit it. This notion is also referred to in Scripture in the dictum: It is not good to eat much honey, and so on,13 as well as in the dictum, Neither make thyself overwise; why shouldst thou destroy thyself?1* It likewise refers to this in the dictum: Guard thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and so on.15 This is also referred to by David in the dictum; Neither do I exercise myself in things too great or in things too marvellous for me?6 The Sages too intended to express this notion in their dictum: Do not inquire about things that are too marvellous for you; do not investigate what is hidden from you; inquire into things that are permitted to you-, you have no business with marvels. 17 This means that you should let your intellect move about only within the domain of things that man is able to grasp. For in regard to matters that it is not in the nature of man to grasp, 8. Literally: Elisha the Other.
9. A subtle corporeal substance supposed to transmit the images of objects seen by the eyes to the brain.
10. Prov. 25:16. 11. Literally: as we have said. Cf. I 50.
7© The Guide of the Perplexed 1-55 [ 36 b it is, as we have made clear, very harmful to occupy oneself with them. This is what the Sages intended to signify by their dictum, Whoever con¬ siders four things, and so on,i8 completing the dictum by saying, He who does not have regard for the honor of his Creator,• whereby they indicated what we have already made clear: namely, that man should not press for¬ ward to engage in speculative study of corrupt imaginings. When points appearing as dubious occur to him or the thing he seeks does not seem to him to be demonstrated, he should not deny and reject it, hastening to pronounce it false, but rather should persevere and thereby have regard for the honor of his Creator. He should refrain and hold back. This matter has already become clear. The intention of these texts set down by the prophets and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, is not, however, wholly to close the gate of speculation and to deprive the intellect of the apprehension of things that it is possible to apprehend — as is thought by the ignorant and neglectful, who | are pleased to regard their own deficiency and stupidity as perfection and wisdom, and the perfection and the knowledge of others as a deficiency and a defection from Law, and who thus regard darkness as light and light as darkness.18 Their purpose, in its entirety, rather is to make it known that the intellects of human beings have a limit at which they stop.