“My dear pupil, ever since you resolved to come to me, from a distant

country, and to study under my direction, I thought highly of your

thirst for knowledge, and your fondness for speculative pursuits, which

found expression in your poems. I refer to the time when I received

your writings in prose and verse from Alexandria. I was then not yet

able to test your powers of apprehension, and I thought that your

desire might possibly exceed your capacity. But when you had gone with

me through a course of astronomy, after having completed the [other]

elementary studies which are indispensable for the understanding of

that science, I was still more gratified by the acuteness and the

quickness of your apprehension. Observing your great fondness for

mathematics, I let you study them more deeply, for I felt sure of your

ultimate success. Afterwards, when I took you through a course of

logic, I found that my great expectations of you were confirmed, and I

considered you fit to receive from me an exposition of the esoteric

ideas contained in the prophetic books, that you might understand them

as they are understood by men of culture. When I commenced by way of

hints, I noticed that you desired additional explanation, urging me to

expound some metaphysical problems; to teach you the system of the

Mutakallemim; to tell you whether their arguments were based on logical

proof; and if not, what their method was. I perceived that you had

acquired some knowledge in those matters from others, and that you were

perplexed and bewildered; yet you sought to find out a solution to your

difficulty. I urged you to desist from this pursuit, and enjoined you

to continue your studies systematically; for my object was that the

truth should present itself in connected order, and that you should not

hit upon it by mere chance. Whilst you studied with me I never refused

to explain difficult verses in the Bible or passages in rabbinical

literature which we happened to meet. When, by the will of God, we

parted, and you went your way, our discussions aroused in me a

resolution which had long been dormant. Your absence has prompted me to

compose this treatise for you and for those who are like you, however

few they may be. I have divided it into chapters, each of which shall

be sent to you as soon as it is completed. Farewell!”

Further information from Maimonides regarding how to read and understand the guide.

PART I

“Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth

the truth may enter in.”—(Isa. xxvi. 2.)

CHAPTER I

Some have been of opinion that by the Hebrew ẓelem, the shape and

figure of a thing is to be understood, and this explanation led men to

believe in the corporeality [of the Divine Being]: for they thought

that the words “Let us make man in our ẓelem” (Gen. i. 26), implied

that God had the form of a human being, i.e., that He had figure and

shape, and that, consequently, He was corporeal. They adhered

faithfully to this view, and thought that if they were to relinquish it

they would eo ipso reject the truth of the Bible: and further, if they

did not conceive God as having a body possessed of face and limbs,

similar to their own in appearance, they would have to deny even the

existence of God. The sole difference which they admitted, was that He

excelled in greatness and splendour, and that His substance was not

flesh and blood. Thus far went their conception of the greatness and

glory of God. The incorporeality of the Divine Being, and His unity, in

the true sense of the word—for there is no real unity without

incorporeality—will be fully proved in the course of the present

treatise. (Part II., ch. i.) In this chapter it is our sole intention

to explain the meaning of the words ẓelem and demut. I hold that the

Hebrew equivalent of “form” in the ordinary acceptation of the word,

viz., the figure and shape of a thing, is toär. Thus we find “[And

Joseph was] beautiful in toär (‘form’), and beautiful in appearance”

(Gen. xxxix. 6): “What form (toär) is he of?” (1 Sam. xxviii. 14): “As

the form (toär) of the children of a king” (Judges viii. 18). It is

also applied to form produced by human labour, as “He marketh its form

(toär) with a line,” “and he marketh its form (toär) with the compass”

(Isa. xliv. 13). This term is not at all applicable to God. The term

ẓelem, on the other hand, signifies the specific form, viz., that which

constitutes the essence of a thing, whereby the thing is what it is;

the reality of a thing in so far as it is that particular being. In man

the “form” is that constituent which gives him human perception: and on

account of this intellectual perception the term ẓelem is employed in

the sentences “In the ẓelem of God he created him” (Gen. i. 27). It is

therefore rightly said, “Thou despisest their ẓelem” (Ps. lxiii. 20);

the “contempt” can only concern the soul—the specific form of man, not

the properties and shape of his body. I am also of opinion that the

reason why this term is used for “idols” may be found in the

circumstance that they are worshipped on account of some idea

represented by them, not on account of their figure and shape. For the

same reason the term is used in the expression, “the forms (ẓalme) of

your emerods” (1 Sam. vi. 5), for the chief object was the removal of

the injury caused by the emerods, not a change of their shape. As,

however, it must be admitted that the term ẓelem is employed in these

two cases, viz. “the images of the emerods” and “the idols” on account

of the external shape, the term ẓelem is either a homonym or a hybrid

term, and would denote both the specific form and the outward shape,

and similar properties relating to the dimensions and the shape of

material bodies; and in the phrase “Let us make man in our ẓelem” (Gen.

i. 26), the term signifies “the specific form” of man, viz., his

intellectual perception, and does not refer to his “figure” or “shape.”

Thus we have shown the difference between ẓelem and toär, and explained

the meaning of ẓelem.

Demut is derived...