THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
BY MOSES MAIMONIDES
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL ARABIC TEXT
BY M. FRIEDLANDER, PH.D
SECOND EDITION
REVISED THROUGHOUT
1904.

CHAPTER LXI On the Names of God

IT is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, he, vau and he. This name is applied exclusively to God, and is on that account called Shem ha-meforash,” The nomen proprium.” It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine Being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar, as we have already explained. Even the name Adonay,” Lord,” which has been substituted for the Tetragrammaton, is derived from the appellative” lord” : comp.” The man who is the lord (adone) of the land spake roughly to us” (Gen. xliii. 3°). The difference between Adoni ,” my lord,” (with hirek under the nun), or Adonay with kamez), is similar to the difference between Sari,” my prince,” and Sarai, Abraham’s wife (ib. xvi. 1), the latter form denoting majesty and distinction. An angel is also addressed as” Adonay” : e.g.,” Adonay (My lord), pass not away, I pray thee” (ib. xviii. 3). 1 have restricted my explanation to the term Adonay, the substitute for the Tetragrammaton, because it is more commonly applied to God than any of the other names which are in frequent use, like dayyan,” judge,” shadday,” almighty zaddik, righteous,” hannun,” gracious,” rahum” merciful,” and elohim” chief all these terms are unquestionably appellations and derivatives. The derivation of the name, consisting of yod, hi, vau, and he, is not positively known, the word having no additional signification. This sacred name, which, as you know, was not pronounced except in the sanctuary by the appointed priests, when they gave the sacerdotal blessing, and by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, undoubtedly denotes something which is peculiar to God, and is not found in any other being. It is possible that in the Hebrew language, of which we have now but a slight knowledge, the Tetragrammaton, in the way it was pronounced, conveyed the meaning of” absolute existence.” In short, the majesty of the name and the great dread of uttering it, are connected with the fact that it denotes God Himself, without including in its meaning any names of the things created by Him. Thus our Sages say :” ‘ My name ‘ (Num. vi. 2 7) means the name which is peculiar to Me.” -AM other names of God have reference to qualities, and do not signify a simple substance, but a substance with attributes, they being derivatives. On that account it is believed that they imply the presence of a plurality in God, I mean to say, the presence of attributes, that is, of some extraneous element superadded to His essence. Such is the meaning of all derivative names: they imply the presence of some attribute and its substratum, though this be not distinctly named. As, however, it has been proved, that God is not a substratum capable of attributes, we are convinced that those appellatives when employed as names of God, only indicate the relation of certain actions to Him, or they convey to us some notion of His perfection.

Hence R. Haninah would have objected to the expression” the great, the mighty, and the tremendous,” had it not been for the two reasons mentioned by him: because such expressions lead men to think that the attributes are essential, i.e., they are perfections actually present in God. The frequent use of names of God derived from actions, led to the belief that He had as many [essential] attributes as there were actions from which the names were derived. The following promise was therefore made, implying that mankind will at a certain future time understand this subject, and be free from the error it involves :” In that day will the Lord be One, and His name One” (Zech. xiv. 9). The meaning of this prophecy is this: He being One, will then be called by one name, which will indicate the essence of God; but it does not mean that His sole name will be a derivative [viz.,” One” ]. In the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer (chap. iii.) occurs the following passage:” Before the universe was created, there was only the Almighty and His name.” Observe how clearly the author states that all these appelatives employed as names of God came into existence after the Creation. This is true: for they all refer to actions manifested in the Universe. If, however, you consider His essence as separate and as abstracted from all actions, you will not describe it by an appellative, but by a proper noun, which exclusively indicates that essence. Every other name of God is a derivative, only the Tetragrammaton is a real nomen proprium, and must not be considered from any other point of view. You must beware of sharing the error of those who write amulets (kameot). Whatever you hear from them, or read in their works, especially in reference to the names which they form by combination, is utterly senseless; they call these combinations shemot (names) and believe that their pronunciation demands sanctification and purification, and that by using them they are enabled to work miracles. Rational persons ought not to listen to such men, nor in any way believe their assertions. No other name is called shem ha-meforash except this Tetragrammaton, which is written, but is not pronounced according to its letters. The words,” Thus shall ye bless the children of Israel” (Num. vi. 23) are interpreted in Siphri as follows:” ‘ Thus,’ in the holy language: again ‘ thus,’ with the Shem ha-meforash.” The following remark, is also found there:” In the sanctuary [the name of God is pronounced] as it is spelt, but elsewhere by its substitutes.” In the Talmud, the following passage occurs :” ‘ Ehus,’ i.e., with the shem ha-meforash.—You say [that the priests, when blessing the people, had to pronounce] the fhem ha-meforash: this was perhaps not the case, and they may have used other names instead.-We infer it from the words : ‘ And they shall put My name ‘ (Num. vi. 27), i.e., My name, which is peculiar to Me.” It has thus been shown that the shem ha-meforash (the proper name of God) is the Tetragrammaton, and that this is the only name which indicates nothing but His essence, and therefore our Sages in referring to this sacred term said My name’ means the one which is peculiar to Me alone.”

In the next chapter I will explain the circumstances which brought men to a belief in the power of Shemot (names of God): I will point out the main subject of discussion, and lay open to you its mystery, and then not any doubt will be left in your mind, unless you prefer to be misguided.

CHAPTER LXII On the Divine Name composed of Four, Twelve and Forty-two Letters

WE were commanded that, in the sacerdotal blessing, the name of the Lord should be pronounced as it is written in the form of the Tetragrammaton, the shem ha-meforash. It was not known to every one how the name was to be pronounced, what vowels were to be given to each consonant, and whether some of the letters capable of reduplication should receive a dagesh. Wise men successively transmitted the pronunciation of the name: it occurred only once in seven years that the pronunciation was communicated to a distinguished disciple. I must, however, add that the statement,” The wise men communicated the Tetragrammaton to their children and their disciples once in seven years,” does not only refer to the pronunciation but also to its meaning, because of which the Tetragrammaton was made a nomen proprium of God, and which includes certain metaphysical principles.

Our Sages knew in addition a name of God which consisted of twelve letters, inferior in sanctity to the Tetragrammaton. I believe that this was not a single noun, but consisted of two or three words, the sum of their letters being twelve, and that these words were used by our Sages as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton, whenever they met with it in the course or their reading the Scriptures, in the same manner as we at present substitute for it aleph, daleth, etc. [i.e., Adonay,” the Lord” ]. There is no doubt that this name also, consisting of twelve letters, was in this sense more distinctive than the name Adonay : it was never withheld from any of the students; whoever wished to learn it, had the opportunity given to him without any reserve : not so the Tetragrammaton: those who knew it did not communicate it except to a son or a disciple, once in seven years, When, however, unprincipled men had become acquainted with that name which consists of twelve letters and in consequence had become corrupt in faith-as is sometimes the case when persons with imperfect knowledge become aware that a thing is not such as they had imagined-the Sages concealed also that name, and only communicated it to the worthiest among the priests, that they should pronounce it when they blessed the people in the Temple; for the Tetragrammeton was then no longer uttered in the sanctuary on account of the corruption of the people. There is a tradition, that with the death of Simeon the just, his brother priests discontinued the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in the blessing; they used, instead, this name of twelve letters. It is further stated, that at first the name of twelve letters was communicated to every man; but when the number of impious men increased it was only entrusted to the worthiest among the priests, whose voice, in pronouncing it, was drowned amid the singing of their brother priests. Rabbi Tarphon said,” Once I followed my grandfather to the days [where the blessing was pronounced); I inclined my ear to listen to a priest [who pronounced the name], and noticed that his voice was drowned amid the singing of his brother priests.”

There was also a name of forty-two letters known among them. Every intelligent person knows that one word of forty-two letters is impossible. But it was a phrase of several words which had together forty-two letters. There is no doubt that the words had such a meaning as to convey a correct notion of the essence of God, in the way we have stated. This phrase of so many letters is called a name because, like other proper nouns, they represent one single object, and several words have been employed in order to explain more clearly the idea which the name represents: for an idea can more easily be comprehended if expressed in many words. Mark this and observe now that the instruction in regard to the names of God extended to the signification of each of those names, and did not confine itself to the pronunciation of the single letters which, in themselves, are destitute of an idea. Shem ha-meforash applied neither to the name of forty-two letters nor to that of twelve, but only to the Tetragrammaton, the proper name of God, as we have explained. Those two names must have included some metaphysical ideas. It can be proved that one of them conveyed profound knowledge, from the following rule laid down by our Sages:” The name of forty-two letters is exceedingly holy; it can only be entrusted to him who is modest, in the midway of life, not easily provoked to anger, temperate, gentle, and who speaks kindly to his fellow men. He who understands it, is cautious with it, and keeps it in purity, is loved above and is liked here below; he is respected by his fellow men; his learning remaineth with him, and he enjoys both this world and the world to come.” So far in the Talmud. How grievously has this passage been misunderstood! Many believe that the forty-two letters are merely to be pronounced mechanically; that by knowledge of these, without any further interpretation, they can attain to these exalted ends, although it is stated that he who desires to obtain a knowledge of that name must be trained in the virtues named before, and go through all the great preparations which are mentioned in that passage. On the contrary, it is evident that all this preparation aims at a knowledge of Metaphysics, and includes ideas which constitute the” secrets of the Law,” as we have explained (chap. xxxv.). In works on Metaphysics it has been shown that such knowledge, i.e., the perception of the active intellect, can never be forgotten: and this is meant by the phrase” his learning remaineth with him.”

When bad and foolish men were reading such passages, they considered them to be a support of their false pretensions and of their assertion that they could, by means of an arbitrary combination of letters, form a shem (“ a name” ) which would act and operate miraculously when written or spoken in a certain particular way. Such fictions, originally invented by foolish men, were in the course of time committed to writing, and came into the hands of good but weak-minded and ignorant persons who were unable to discriminate between truth and falsehood, and made a secret of these shemot (names). When after the death of such persons those writings were discovered among their papers, it was believed that they contained truths: for,” The simple believeth every word” (Prov. xiv. 15). We have already gone too far away from our interesting subject and recondite inquiry, endeavouring to refute a perverse notion, the absurdity of which every one must perceive who gives a thought to the subject. We have, however, been compelled to mention it, in treating of the divine names, their meanings, and the opinions commonly held concerning them. We shall now return to our theme. Having shown that all names of God, with the exception of the Tetragrammaton (Shem ha-meforash), are appellatives, we must now, in a separate chapter, speak on the phrase Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, (Exod. iii. 14), because it is connected with the difficult subject under discussion, namely, the inadmissibility of divine attributes.

CHAPTER LXIII On Ehyeh, Yab, and Shaddai

BEFORE approaching the subject of this chapter, we will first consider the words of Moses, And they shall say unto me, What is His name ? what shall I say unto them” (Exod. iii. 13), How far was this question, anticipated by Moses, appropriate, and how far was he justified in seeking to be prepared with the answer ? Moses was correct in declaring,” But, behold, they will not believe me, for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee” (ib. iv. 1): for any man claiming the authority of a prophet must expect to meet with such an objection so long as he has not given a proof of his mission. Again, if the question, as appears at first sight, referred only to the name, as a mere utterance of the lips, the following dilemma would present itself : either the Israelites knew the name, or they had never heard it: if the name was known to them, they would perceive in it no argument in favour of the mission of Moses, his knowledge and their knowledge of the divine name being the same. If, on the other hand, they had never heard it mentioned, and if the knowledge of it was to prove the mission of Moses, what evidence would they have that this was really the name of God ? Moreover, after God had made known that name to Moses, and had told him,” Go and gather the elders of Israel. . . . and they shall hearken to thy voice” (ib. xvi. 18), he replied,” Behold, they will not believe me nor hearken unto my voice,” although God had told him,” And they will hearken to thy voice” : whereupon God answered,” What is that in thine hand ?” and he said,” A rod” (ib. iv. 2). In order to obviate this dilemma, you must understand what I am about to tell you. You know how widespread were in those days the opinions of the Sabeans: all men, except a few individuals, were idolaters, that is to say, they believed in spirits, in man’s power to direct the influences of the heavenly bodies, and in the effect of talismans. Any one who in those days laid claim to authority, based it either, like Abraham, on the fact that, by reasoning and by proof he had been convinced of the existence of a Being who rules the whole Universe, or that some spiritual power was conferred upon him by a star, by an angel, or by a similar agency; but no one could establish his claim on prophecy, that is to say, on the fact that God had spoken to him, or had entrusted a mission to him: before the days of Moses no such assertion had ever been made. You must not be misled by the statements that God spoke to the Patriarchs, or that He had appeared to them. For you do not find any mention of a prophecy which appealed to others, or which directed them. Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or any other person before them did not tell the people,” God said unto me, you shall do this thing, or you shall not do that thing.” or” God has sent me to you.” Far from it! for God spoke to them on nothing but of what especially concerned them, i.e., He communicated to them things relating to their perfection, directed them in what they should do, and foretold them what the condition of their descendants would be: nothing beyond this. They guided their fellow-men by means of argument and instruction, as is implied, according to the interpretation generally received amongst us, in the words” and the souls that they had gotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5). When God appeared to our Teacher Moses, and commanded him to address the people and to bring them the message, Moses replied that he might first be asked to prove the existence of God in the Universe, and that only after doing so he would be able to announce to them that God had sent him. For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of” existing,” for the verb hayah denotes cc to be,” and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs” to be” and” to exist.” The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes” existence,” is repeated as an attribute. The word asher,” that,” corresponds to the Arabic illadi and illati, and is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun: it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh: the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyth, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical. This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term: or, in other words, He is” the existing Being which is the the existing Being,” that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never win be without existence. This I will dearly prove (II. Introd. Prop. 20 and chap. i.).

God thus showed Moses the proofs by which His existence would be frimly established among the wise men of His people. Therefore the explanation of the name is followed by the words,” Go, gather the elders of Israel,” and by the assurance that the elders would understand what God had shown to him, and would accept it, as is stated in the words,” And they will hearken to thy voice.” Then Moses replied as follows: They will accept the doctrine that God exists convinced by these intelligible proofs. But, said Moses, by what means shall I be able to show that this existing God has sent me ? Thereupon God gave him the sign. We have thus shown that the question,” What is His name” means” Who is that Being, which according to thy belief has sent thee ?” The sentence,” What is his name” (instead of, Who is He), has here been used as a tribute of praise and homage, as though it had been said, Nobody can be ignorant of Thy essence and of Thy real existence; if, nevertheless, I ask what is Thy name, I mean, What idea is to be expressed by the name ? (Moses considered it inappropriate to say to God that any person was ignorant of God’s existence, and therefore described the Israelites as ignorant of God’s name, not as ignorant of Him who was called by that name.) -- The name Jah likewise implies eternal existence. Shadday, however, is derived from day,” enough: comp.” for the stuff they had was sufficient” (dayyam, Exod. xxxvi. 7) the shin is equal to asher,” which,” as in she-kehar,” which already” (Eccles. ii. 16). The name Shadday, therefore, signifies” he who is sufficient” : that is to say, He does not require any other being for effecting the existence of what He created, or its conservation : His existence is sufficient for that. Ina similar manner the name basin implies” strength”; comp.” he was strong (hason) as the oaks” (Amos ii. 9). The same is the case with” rock,” which is a homonym, as we have explained (chap. xvi.). It is, therefore, clear that all these names of God are appellatives, or are applied to God by way of homonymy, like zur and others, the only exception being the tetragrammaton, the Shem ha-meforash (the nomen proprium of God), which is not an appellative: it does not denote any attribute of God, nor does it imply anything except His existence. Absolute existence includes the idea of eternity, i.e., the necessity of existence. Note well the result at which we have arrived in this chapter.

CHAPTER LXIV On “The Name of the Lord,” and” The Glory of God”

KNOW that in some instances by the phrase” the name of the Lord,” nothing but the name alone is to be understood; comp.” Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exod. xl. 7):” And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord” (Lev. xxiv. 16). This occurs in numerous other passages. In other instances it means the essence and reality of God Himself, as in the phrase” They shall say to me, What is his name” ? Sometimes it stands for” the word of God,” so that” the name of God,”” the word of God,” and” the command of God,” are identical phrases; comp.” for my name is in him” (Exod. xxiii. 2 1), that is, My word or My command is in him; i.e., he is the instrument of My desire and will. 1 shall explain this fully in treating of the homonymity of the term” angel” (II. chap. vi. and xxxiv.).—The same is the case with” The glory of the Lord.” The phrase sometimes signifies” the material light,” which God caused to rest on a certain place in order to show the distinction of that place, e.g, ,” And the glory of the Lord (kebod adonay) abode upon Mount Sinai and the cloud covered it” (Exod. xxiv. 16) :” And the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (ib. xl. 35). Sometimes the essence, the reality of God is meant by that expression, as in the words of Moses,” Show me thy glory” (ib. xxxiii. 18), to which the reply was given,” For no man shall see me and live” (ib. xx.). This shows that the glory of the Lord in this instance is the same as He Himself, and that” Thy glory” has been substituted for” Thyself,” as a tribute of homage; an explanation which we also gave of the words,” And they shall say unto me, What is his name ?” Sometimes the term cc glory” denotes the glorification of the Lord by man or by any other being. For the true glorification of the Lord consists in the comprehension of His greatness, and all who comprehend His greatness and perfection, glorify Him according to their capacity, with this difference, that man alone magnifies God in words, expressive of what he has received in his mind, and what he desires to communicate to others. Things not endowed with comprehension, as e.g., minerals, may also be considered as glorifying the Lord, for by their natural properties they testify to the omnipotence and wisdom of their Creator, and cause him who examines them to praise God, by means of speech or without the use of words, if the power of speech be wanting. In Hebrew this licence has been extended still further, and the use of the verb” to speak” has been admitted as applicable in such a case: things which have no comprehension are therefore said to give utterance to praise, e.g.,” All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee (Ps. xxxv. 10). Because a consideration of the properties of the bones leads to the discovery of that truth, and it is through them that it became known, they are represented as having uttered the divine praise: and since this [cause of God’s praise] is itself called” praise,” it has been said” the fulness of the whole earth is his praise” (Isa. vi. 3), in the same sense as” the earth is full of his praise (Hab. iii. 3). As to kabod being employed in the sense of praise, comp. Give praise (kabod) to the Lord your God” (Jer. xiii. 16): also” and in his temple does every one speak of his praise (kabod)” (Ps. xxix. g), etc. Consider well the homonymity of this term, and explain it in each instance in accordance with the context: you will thus escape great embarrassment.