“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...

CHAPTER II

Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance;

the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the

closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its

solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is

a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of

countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and

correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, “and ye shall be like

Elohim” (Gen. iii. 5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the

sentence “and ye shall be like princes.” Having pointed out the

homonymity of the term “Elohim” we return to the question under

consideration. “It would at first sight,” said the objector, “appear

from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal

to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with

intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil:

but that Adam’s disobedience to the command of God procured him that

great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of

distinguishing between good and evil—the noblest of all the faculties

of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus

appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the

means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not

attained previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain man

was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his nature was changed

for the better, and he was made to shine as a star in the heavens.”

Such was the purport and subject of the question, though not in the

exact words of the inquirer. Now mark our reply, which was as

follows:—“You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and

nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been

the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment

withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as

if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition.

Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not

to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find

after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man

as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience.

With reference to this gift the Bible states that “man was created in

the form and likeness of God.” On account of this gift of intellect man

was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said:

“And the Lord God commanded Adam” (Gen. ii. 16)—for no commandments are

given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of

understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true

and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely.

The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent

truths (morals), not in that of necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not

correct to say, in reference to the proposition “the heavens are

spherical,” it is “good” or to declare the assertion that “the earth is

flat” to be “bad”; but we say of the one it is true, of the other it is

false. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by

the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong,

by tob and ra’. Thus it is the function of the intellect to

discriminate between the true and the false—a distinction which is

applicable to all objects of intellectual perception. When Adam was yet

in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and

reason—on account of which it is said: “Thou hast made him (man) little

lower...

CHAPTER III

It might be thought that the Hebrew words temunah and tabnit have one

and the same meaning, but this is not the case. Tabnit, derived from

the verb banah (he built), signifies the build and construction of a

thing—that is to say, its figure, whether square, round, triangular, or

of any other shape. Comp. “the pattern (tabnit) of the Tabernacle and

the pattern (tabnit) of all its vessels” (Exod. xxv. 9); “according to

the pattern (tabnit) which thou wast shown upon the mount” (Exod. xxv.

40); “the form of any bird” (Deut. iv. 17); “the form (tabnit) of a

hand” (Ezek. viii. 3); “the pattern (tabnit) of the porch” (1 Chron.

xxviii. 11). In all these quotations it is the shape which is referred

to. Therefore the Hebrew language never employs the word tabnit in

speaking of the qualities of God Almighty.

The term temunah, on the other hand, is used in the Bible in three

different senses. It signifies, first, the outlines of things which are

perceived by our bodily senses, i.e., their shape and form; as, e.g.,

“And ye make an image the form (temunat) of some likeness” (Deut. iv.

16); “for ye saw no likeness” (temunah) (Deut. iv. 15). Secondly, the

forms of our imagination, i.e., the impressions retained in imagination

when the objects have ceased to affect our senses. In this sense it is

used in the passage which begins “In thoughts from the visions of the

night” (Job iv. 13), and which concludes “it remained but I could not

recognize its sight, only an image—temunah—was before my eyes,” i.e.,

an image which presented itself to my sight during sleep. Thirdly, the

true form of an object, which is perceived only by the intellect: and

it is in this third signification that the term is applied to God. The

words “And the similitude of the Lord shall he behold” (Num. xii. 8)

therefore mean “he shall comprehend the true essence of the Lord.”

Guide for the perplexed.

A note for listeners.

I'm sorry that we won't be continuing this podcast. The reason is that there are so many references and sub clauses in the text that it doesn't translate well into speech, automated or otherwise. I apologize if you were one of the few who were following this podcast. My goal is to bring some of the wisdom of the ages to folks who haven't had a chance to read these older classics, but The Guide For The Perplexed was not a good attempt. I've learned from this experience, and will do better next time. Please keep a look out for another attempt.