Our last class session focused on the human telos – our end or purpose – regarding our unique rationality; unlike other living beings, humans possess the ability to deliberate the rightness or wrongness of a situation. Consequently, this telos is aligned with the production of laws to uphold the perfection (welfare) of the soul and the perfection (welfare) of the body (Twersky, 314/ Guide Book 3, Chp. 27). To achieve these states of perfection (as much as a human can achieve perfection), aligning one’s thoughts and actions through moral training outlined by the Law is critical. This week’s texts focused on the theological and philosophical aspects of moral training throughout genealogical and covenantal kinships and emphasize the significance of united, ethical kinships.
In Chapter 49 of The Guide, Maimonides elaborates on laws pertaining to marriage and sexual relations. His reading of Aristotle’s human friendship and sociality molded much of his descriptions and reasonings for what he will describe as “moral and intellectual virtues of friendship” or, more generally, ‘ethical kinships.’ In an Aristotelian fashion, Maimonides emphasizes the importance of friendships (more broadly meaning familial relations, teacher-student relations, etc.): “When man is in good health and prosperous he enjoys the company of his friends; in time of trouble he is in need of them; in old age, when his body is weak, he is assisted by them” (Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, Book 9). Further, familial or ‘blood’ relations unite common descendants with a unique kind of love and compassion. Because of this, Maimonides explains why ‘professional harlots’ (prostitutes and those that are sexually promiscuous), sexual relations outside of marriage, etc. violate God’s commandments. This has a double meaning: not only does abiding by these laws maintain familial sanctity and kinship, but it also fabricates a network of moral challenges that, therefore, allow “the full development of intellective capacities” (Maimonides and Friendship, 19). Refraining from excessive lust and engaging in sexual acts with family members (of which Maimonides lists in The Guide)creates a thread of virtuous, rational actions and freedom brought forth from our uniquely human telos.
Similarly, Chapter 49 also focuses on the practice of circumcision and how it “plays a role in at least two different conceptual schemas; one related to sociability and kinship, the other to everyday devotional practices” (Maimonides and Friendship, 22). Similar to the purpose of the mezuzah and dietary restrictions, “the sign of the covenant impressed upon a man’s flesh may be considered broadly analogous to the sign of the covenant bolded to the doorpost of this house: both are practices that are meant to bring god to mind” (Maimonides and Friendship, 22). However, the act of circumcision invokes both a continuous, individual virtuous act and a societal kinship of sorts; not only is sensuality reduced with the practice (echoing the virtues explained within the context of marriage and sexual relations), but the act fosters a ‘universal family friendship,’ fusing the aspects of sociopolitical virtue and contemplative practice (which is why, scholars believe, Maimonides included this passage within his elaboration of virtuous kinships and not within passages concerning contemplative practice).
The act of circumcision unites these societal relations further: “circumcision is related both to character friendship (associated with common values [discussed above]) and family friendship (associated with descent from a common ancestor and a shared bodily sign” (Maimonides and Friendship, 24). Here, it is clear how Maimonides yearns to create a fusion of genealogical and covenantal kinships; further, it insinuates the idea of common flourishing beyond the familial unit into the whole of the Jewish people, or ‘eudiamonia,’ further incorporating Aristotelian ideology within his legal and theological interpretations.
Friendship as a virtue extends further into our human telos within how we choose our friends; Maimonides and Friendshipelaborates: “the central passage linking friendship with virtue is…where Maimonides analyzes Aristotle’s three typological categories of friendship – utility, pleasure and virtue friendship…(where) he identifies the ‘love of a student for teacher and of a teacher for a student’ as the paradigm of friendship based on virtue… ‘about which we are commanded’” (Maimonides and Friendship, 9). Moreover, these friendships between sages and scholars fosters inculcation of ethical behavior and the thirst for knowledge of God. Therefore, a person’s associations through ethical kinships are critical to his wellbeing.
Following this, it is necessary to discuss the role of converts within kinship. In Don Seeman’s “Kinship as Ethical Relation,” the significance of Obadiah the proselyte and the significance of ethical kinship through conversion is explained. For Maimonides, questions regarding the ‘belonging’ or kinship of converts is clear: in one of his responses to Obadiah he writes, “a man who left his father and mother, forsook his birthplace…who recognized the truth and righteousness of this people’s Law, and cast the things of this world from his heart…you (are a) disciple of our father Abraham who also left his father and his kindred and inclined Godward” (Twersky, 477). Here, lineage infractions are cast aside; similar to the intellectual freedom gained through moral practices discussed previously, the act of conversion illuminates a similar struggle to gain freedom. In an Aristotelian manner, he elaborates in The Guide,“accordingly a single tribe that is united through a common ancestor – even if he is remote – because of this love one another, help one another, and have pity on one another, and the attainment of these things is the greatest purpose of the Law.”
This begs the question: from what we have read, is the health and preservation of friendship through ethical kinship the ultimate purpose of the Law (according to Maimonides)? Throughout our study of Maimonides, we have encountered multiple ‘purposes’ of the Law, but do they all point back to a common theme/ reasoning?
On a different note, how does ethical kinship extend beyond those united under commonalities? From “Maimonides and Friendship, “virtue friendship should be considered a form of intellectual pleasure, which cannot be confused with the distractions of buying and selling or eating and cohabiting that Maimonides so caustically dismisses” (Maimonides and Friendship, 30). Can these ‘external’ friendships produce the same virtues as ‘ethical kinships,’ or are these virtues and pleasures exclusive to those produced through ‘ethical kinships’?
Olivia, I thought you did a good job in explaining the important points that were made in each text. I appreciated how you tied the themes of this week’s readings to one of the most central topics about Maimonides that we have discussed throughout the semester, which is the overall purpose of the Law with regards to human existence. As we read countless times this semester, Maimonides believed that man’s primary purpose in life is to study the Law in order to gain a better understanding of God and thereby grow closer to Him. The Law guides man to perfect himself by teaching the ways of maintaining a healthy body and soul. Our welfare is relevant even in the topic of friendship, since immoral friends can influence us to deviate from the Law and adopt unhealthy habits. This is why Maimonides strongly advised us to befriend those who study Torah, so that they will positive influence us to study the Torah and keep a moral lifestyle. “The nature of man is to be drawn in his traits and actions after friends and associates and to act in the manner customary to his community” (Hilkhot De‘ot 6:1). Since our nature is molded by that of our friends’, Maimonides stressed that it is important only associate with the righteous and to stay away from the wicked.
Olivia, this was great. I really appreciated your ability to bring forth ideas discussed in class and how you connected them to this weeks readings. It was quite impressive that the trends and ideas we have seen before in Maimonides reappeared in this weeks section, specifically, Maimonides emphasis on studying the law/ Torah. I particularly enjoyed how Maimonides integrated another Aristotelian idea with Jewish practice, specifically when it came to friendship. The two types of friendships Aristotle described are friendships of utility, and true friendships, which are connected by similar values. Maimonides takes this idea forward and weaves the importance of Torah study in a friend, suggesting that the study of Jewish law is the value that seemingly distinguishes friendships of utility with true friendships. We see the importance of Torah study further in the discussion of kinship, and as it relates with converts to Judaism. These are individuals who may not be blood decedents of Abraham and Sarah, yet nonetheless inherit the theological message that Abraham preached, and the Law of Moses, thereby joining them into the Jewish nation. In this, we see the Law again as an emphasis for creating a kinship and connection with the larger population of Jews.
Olivia, I thought you did a wonderful job analyzing the various texts for today’s class while providing us with interesting questions going into our discussion. First off, I think that laws help bridge humans to their ultimate telos. For humans, this telos can be defined as ultimate perfection, or as close to this as one can be, and in order to do so, one must adhere to the laws put forth as a means to guide them through life. What I mean by this is that the laws that we speak of in class, and even laws that come to mind, are present so that we as humans may follow them and reach the most righteous end, or telos, as possible. In my opinion, without these laws to guide us, humans would be caught up in their surroundings, and consequently becoming unable to fully differentiate what is always morally right and wrong. Furthermore, friendship, as discussed in your entry, has a strong impact on an individual’s behavior. By befriending those who study the Torah and have an understanding of what their telos is, one is able to stay on the “correct” path, which would in turn eventually bring you closer to God. In other words, one should surround him or herself with positive, devoted people with similar aspirations, so that each may achieve their own telos.
To answer your first question, I do believe that the purposes of the law point back to a common reasoning. By adhering to the laws, a human being is attempting to perfect his or her reasoning and overall well-being. These are obviously vague, but there are no two human beings that are completely identical, and each person has their own small intricacies within their interpretations of both the laws and God; however, there is still the end goal, or telos, of achieving ultimate perfection and closeness with God by following said laws.
Good job Olivia, I think you incorporated the readings with each other very well and have some good points. You seem to be confused by why Maimonides claims multiple things to be the true purpose of the law, as am I. He contradicts himself by claiming it again and again, which made me think of the 7 contradictions, and the fifth and seventh that Maimonides admitted to using. It may be that claiming the true purpose of a law is simply a signal to dig deeper into what he is saying. It is also possible that all purposes point back to a common theme like you said, and that they are all pieces of a puzzle that point to the real purpose that Maimonides wants to keep hidden from the average reader. If it is the first reason then the contradictions could come from the fifth contradiction: the contradictions are there as a teaching tool, to make the reader take note of what is being said. If it is the seconds reason then it is the seventh contradiction where the writer does not reveal the whole truth of something. I am inclined to believe that it is the fifth contradiction, and that Maimonides is using the claim of purpose as a signal to the reader that what he is about to say is significant and has an underlying truth to it. He does this chapter 27.
Great job summarizing the readings for this week, Olivia. I really appreciated your introduction to the reading for this week with a synopsis of what we discussed in class last week/the previous weeks reading. I think the focus on the role of converts within the role of kinship is an important distinction to point out. Your point that lineage is only a portion of what makes an individual a Jewish one is interesting. To answer your question about whether health and preservation of friendship through ethical kinship is the ultimate purpose of the Law (according to Maimonides), I believe from what we have read that for majority of the Law this is the ultimate purpose of the law. However, I think that a few parts of the Law, the ultimate purpose is not this. The ultimate purpose to the Law in this case is to maintain order in society, and prevent things that would be abnormal or problem causing, or otherwise break a different Law, from occurring.
Olivia, I really enjoyed reading your blog post and I found it to be a good analysis of this week’s readings. Furthermore, you connected the topic of kinship with our previous discussion of Maimonides quite astutely. One point that Dr. Seeman brought up in his essay “Maimonides and Friendship” that I found to be noteworthy: “Do the masses play a merely supportive role by maintaining the polis so that the best people can devote themselves to learning and thinking, or do they have their own independent relationship with these highest values of human life?” (Seeman, p. 6). This is a question with which I have been struggling throughout the semester. Maimonides asserts that what makes us human is our ability to think rationally, and therefore we must develop that capacity. But he also has asserted that most humans are extremely limited in their exercise of this capacity. Seeman argues, in his essay, that “Maimonides gravitated towards the more inclusive position…all classes of people can aspire to the best life in ways that condition their everyday activities even though they may fall ultimately short of the contemplative ideal” (Seeman, p. 6). Even the uneducated people in a population should befriend the sages, for they will be able to “learn from and emulate the ethical comportment of sages” (Seeman, p. 9). This relationship between sages and ordinary people is not meant for “material benefit” but rather for “ethical and intellectual benefits” that the ordinary people will receive (Seeman, p. 13).
Great Summary Olivia,
To answer your question, I think that there are certainly ‘multiple purposes’ to the law, and I do think that they all point to a singular ‘reason.’ Throughout this semester, one common theme in Maimonides’ interpretation of the law, is that it intends to allow individuals to ‘elevate’ themselves as people and as Jews. Some of the laws provide societal order, there are laws allow individuals to focus on the contemplation of God by removing distractions, and many of the laws also intend to maintain the Jewish faith, namely the unity of God and the idea that “There is one God that created the world in time.” I think that while the purposes of individual laws seem confusing or necessary, the purpose of the code of law in its entirety elucidates many of the more perplexing aspects of the law.