differentiates between man-made laws195 (the nomos) and divine law. We recognize that expecting humans to follow a man-made law has different implications than the expectation of the observance of divinely ordained commands. In GP II: 40, Maimonides identifies law as divine196 by its ends and utility and posits that divine law, which, despite being attentive to “the soundness of the circumstances pertaining to the body,” places focus on “the soundness of belief” in order to “inculcate correct opinions with regard to God.”197 Maimonides states: “You must know that this guidance comes from Him, may He be exalted, and this Law is divine.”198 Contrary to the nomos, divine law is predicated upon the belief in God. And yet, divine law should be imparted to the humans in the manner similar to that of the nomos by the most perfect individuals. Maimonides asserts that God placed “the faculty of the ruling” in certain individuals, namely, “the prophet or the bringers of the nomos” for whom “this guidance comes from Him, may He be exalted, and that the Law is divine.”199
With the divinity of the Law established in GP II: 39–40, Maimonides discusses the purpose of the commandments throughout III: 25 to 49. In GP III: 25, Maimonides elucidates the four kinds of actions: vain, futile, frivolous, and good or excellent. The latter kind of actions results in the attainment of noble end and is related to the acts of divine legislation. Maimonides argues that all commandments have reasons and purpose. In GP III: 35, Maimonides divides the commandments into fourteen classes and then further separates these commandments into two larger groups: “transgressions between man and his fellow man and transgressions between man and God.”200 The latter differentiation points out that according to Maimonides, the former are specific to the social/political concerns, while the latter relate to the metaphysical issues. In GP II: 39, Maimonides addresses the divine Law aimed at the individual perfection. Recalling his view of the welfare of the body as contrasted with the welfare of the soul, ostensibly, it is the commandments that relate to the metaphysical issues that pertain to the individual perfection.
This still does not answer the question as to why humans should abide by the commandments. In GP III: 44, Maimonides states that the commandments are “the constant commemoration of God, the love of Him and the fear of Him.” In the Laws of the Principles of the Torah,201 Maimonides specifically addresses the commandments that focus on love for God and on His awesomeness. Only when one is obeying God out of love and without any expectations of a reward, is human perfection exemplified.202 We note here, without claiming a direct analogy, that one’s love of God is reminiscent of Shinran’s conception of shinjin free of hakarai, any calculative thinking.
Moral Virtue and Individual Perfection
There still remains a question whether there is a relationship between moral issues and one’s individual perfection? Does human perfection testify to moral perfection? We recall that an outcome of being embraced by Amida, a human becomes perfected by Amida’s perfection. How does it compare to Maimonides’ view on human perfection? In GP III: 27, Maimonides is explicit in holding morality inferior to rational perfection. Some scholars argue that Maimonides differentiates between ethics known by intellect and ethics resulting from generally accepted opinion; hence, he maintains two types of ethics: rational and conventional.203 This distinction allows taking into account different circumstances and is in line with Maimonides’ view that most people cannot achieve intellectual perfection. When viewing ethics’ primary goal in terms of the well-being of humans (the generally accepted opinions ethics), the improved conditions can potentially lead to attaining intellectual perfection.204 Yet, for the most people, the doctrine of the mean is the most suitable approach. Therefore, the commandments, which are used to govern society-at-large rather than focus on the exceptional individuals, are perceived as an approach from the standpoint of the mean.
Do the improved human conditions always lead to human moral perfection? Furthermore, does moral perfection result in subsequent intellectual perfection? Some scholars argue that for Maimonides human moral perfection is the means to the final, ultimate perfection which is indisputably intellectual (theoretical and metaphysical) perfection.205 In their view, for Maimonides ethics relates to the faculty of the soul since the body disintegrates as the result of death. Other scholars206 to the contrary hold that for Maimonides practical ethics is primary. Given Maimonides’ view of God, the ultimate aim is to attain knowledge of God’s actions (i.e., loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness) rather than His incomprehensible to humans’ metaphysical essence.207 Keeping in mind that Maimonides often argues that the latter goal is unattainable, Maimonides’ ultimate aim seems unrelated to the pursuit of purely theoretical, metaphysical truths.
However, this interpretation seems to overlook the significance of Maimonides’ words that the true human perfection “consists in the acquisition of the rational virtues”: which are “the conception of intelligibles, which teach true opinions concerning the divine things.”208 To reiterate, Maimonides maintains that there are four types of perfections: “The first and the most defective . . . is the perfection of the possessions.”209 The second is the perfection of the bodily constitution (a corporeal perfection). The third is the perfection of moral virtues, which is “a preparation for something else and not an end in itself.”210 The fourth is “the true human perfection.”211 In other words, ultimate perfection transcends any material concerns and assumes a metaphysical stance. In sum, ultimate perfection is “neither the perfection of possession nor the perfection of health nor the perfection of moral habits is a perfection of which one should be proud or that one should desire; the perfection of which one should be proud and that one should desire is knowledge of Him.”212 This statement once again exemplifies the tension between the ideal and the real state of the affairs since in GP III: 51, Maimonides states that, “mostly this [perfection] is achieved in solitude and isolation.”213
The attempts for solitary pursuits are again disrupted by the politico-religious demands. Maimonides links a distraction from intellectual cognition with “the evils of this world” which is “proportionate to the duration of the period of distraction.”214 If one cannot attain solitude, one is still capable of imitating God’s actions. Maimonides articulates imitatio Dei in III: 51: “If, however, you have apprehended God and His acts in accordance with what is required by the intellect, you should afterwards engage in totally devoting yourself to Him, endeavor to come closer to Him, and strengthen the bond between you and Him—that is, the intellect.”215 We recall that Maimonides’ crucial discussion of imitatio Dei appears already in GP I: 54 where God is discussed in terms of His actions. Man’s imitating God relates to Maimonides’ conception of ethics, although the focus on ethics is more apparent in Maimonides’ legal works than in the Guide. In the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides discusses how one imitates divine activity.216 To imitate God means perfecting one’s character traits and ethical activity to the extent of one’s ability. The fact that the emphasis is placed on the actions alludes to the fact that the Torah, at least partially, is a political document that spells out the guidelines for perfect political leadership capable of “translating” knowledge and divine science into the rules of governance. The human expression of imitatio Dei is this precise translation. The rules of governance demand intellectual perfection. The politico-religious focus once again intersects with the solitary pursuits in Maimonides’ discussion of the nature of prophecy. Ostensibly, one’s politico-religious environment might be a major factor.
The issue of solitude underscores this discussion again: “every excellent man stays frequently in solitude and does not meet anyone unless it is necessary.”217 Solitude allows for the strongest bond since one’s thoughts are totally devoted to God and are emptied of anything else. But how does one engage in daily activities? Maimonides states that when one’s consciousness is empty of anything but God “his intellect is wholly turned toward Him.” He invokes Song of Songs: “I sleep, but my heart waketh; it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh.”218 According to Maimonides, Moses’ uniqueness
