Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 1

The secondary principles, based upon the three primary which we have mentioned, and derived from them, are eight. From the first principle, existence of God, are derived four secondary principles, including all those things implied in the existence of God, who is a necessary existent. They are as follows: Unity, as we explained it above; incorporeality—God is neither a body nor a corporeal power; independence of time; and freedom from defects.

It is clear from the nature of every one of these four principles that they follow essentially from the principle of the existence of God. For if God is not one, without any composition, He is not a necessary existent. Similarly if He is a body or a corporeal power. Likewise if He is dependent upon time, existing in one time and not in another, time is either prior to Him or posterior, as we shall see later, and He is neither eternal nor perpetual. This is our reason for counting independence of time as a principle, rather than eternity, as Maimonides does, for independence of time includes both eternity and perpetuity. Maimonides, who counts eternity as a separate principle, should have counted perpetuity also as a separate principle.

God’s freedom from defects we lay down as a principle in order to show that the necessary existent is not liable to sleep or forgetfulness or fatigue, and the like. Also to indicate that all those attributes which God must have, like power, will and others, without which He would be defective, are ascribed to Him in a manner that will not result in a defect in His nature. Precisely in what way these attributes and others are to be ascribed to God, will be made clear in the Second Book.

The dogmas based upon the second principle, divine revelation, are three: God’s knowledge, prophecy, and the genuineness of the divine messenger. And it is clear from the nature of these three that they necessarily follow from revelation. For if God does not know terrestrial existences, prophecy can not come from Him, nor a revealed Torah. And even assuming that God does know terrestrial existences, there will be no divine Torah unless there is prophecy and information communicated by God to man. And even if there is such a thing as prophecy by which man is informed of the future and given specific commandments to be followed by him and his descendants, like the command of circumcision given to Abraham, men would not have to obey the alleged prophet unless it is proven that he is a divine messenger sent to communicate to the people the commands of God. For this reason belief in the genuineness of the messenger is a principle common to all divine laws. For if we are convinced that the messenger is genuine, whether he be a man of the greatest ability or not of the greatest, it is possible that a general and adequate code should be given through him by God, to lead mankind to eternal happiness. This is the meaning of divine revelation.

This is the reason why we did not include the superiority of Moses as a prophet among the principles, primary or secondary, as Maimonides did. For nothing should be regarded as a fundamental principle unless a divine law can not be conceived without it, nor as a secondary principle, unless it follows necessarily from a fundamental principle. But the superiority of Moses as a prophet does not necessarily follow from a belief in the genuine character of the messenger, though it may be compared to a branch issuing from it. If we are to count it at all, it would be as a special principle of the law of Moses. But inasmuch as a conviction of the genuine character of the particular messenger of a given religion is a special dogma of the religion in question; and the intensity of belief in the given religion varies with the intensity of conviction in the genuine character of the messenger, we did not find it necessary to count the superiority of Moses as a special principle of the law of Moses. For as long as the genuineness of his mission has been verified, it is not necessary to verify the rank he holds among prophets. The question of the manner in which the authenticity of the mission must be verified beyond all doubt, will be discussed later on. The question why we regard divine revelation as a fundamental principle, and prophecy as a derivative principle following from the former, will be explained in the Third Book.

As to the third principle, reward and punishment, the secondary principle which is prior and essential to it is providence. For although we have already assumed God’s knowledge, viz., that He knows the deeds of men and orders their affairs by means of a divine law so that their social life may be permanent and well conditioned, it might still be said that by reason of man’s inferiority and little esteem in the eyes of God, the individual is ignored and not recompensed for his specific conduct in relation to his Maker, and that he is taken account of merely as a part of the whole, and not as an individual. For this reason we regard providence as a principle that is prior to reward and punishment, in order to call attention to the fact that divine providence extends to every individual, and recompenses him for his individual relations to God, as we are told that God did not have respect unto Cain and his offering, and more especially for his dealings with his fellowmen, as the Prophet says, Great in counsel, and mighty in work; whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Retribution is of two kinds, corporeal and spiritual; the principle therefore includes both. We did not think it proper to name corporeal and spiritual retribution as two separate principles, for the reason that some of our Rabbis say that the reward given for obedience to God’s commandments is not in this world. Corporeal retribution, therefore, should not be counted as a separate principle, according to my opinion. Hence I laid down reward and punishment as one principle, including both kinds. It will represent spiritual recompense to those who think that the main retribution is spiritual and not corporeal; and to those who believe in both kinds, it will stand for both together.

Thus the number of primary and secondary principles of divine law in general, according to this, are eleven: existence of God, and the four secondary principles derived from it, viz., unity, incorporeality, independence of time, freedom from defects. Then divine revelation and the three secondary principles depending upon it, viz., God’s knowledge, prophecy, and the authenticity of the prophet’s mission. Finally, reward and punishment, and the secondary principle based upon it, viz., providence. If we combine divine knowledge and providence into one, as Maimonides does, the number will be ten.

It is clear that they should not all be called fundamental principles, because they are not equally essential to divine law. Thus if one were a dualist or believed in the corporeality of God or that God is subject to time, this would not overthrow the divine law entirely; except for the fact that they are based upon the principle of the existence of God, and one who denies any one of them is virtually denying the fundamental principle, since he does not believe it in the proper manner. For this reason we did not treat them all alike as fundamental principles, as Maimonides does.

The superiority of Moses and the immutability of the law we regard as neither fundamental nor derivative principles, because they are not essential to divine law. They are merely like branches issuing from the belief in the authenticity of the prophet’s mission. If they are principles at all, primary or secondary, they are peculiar to the law of Moses, and not common to all divine law. Thus, belief in the Messiah and in the resurrection of the dead are dogmas peculiar to Christianity which can not be conceived without them. But the law of Moses can be conceived as existing without the belief in the superiority of Moses and the immutability of the law. It is better to say therefore that they are like branches issuing from the belief in the authenticity of the lawgiver’s mission, and not independent principles. Similarly, resurrection and the Messiah are like branches issuing from the dogma of reward and punishment, and not independent principles, primary or secondary, common to all divine law or peculiar to the law of Moses. Nor do we count the duty of worshipping God alone as a principle, because it is a specific command, and must not be counted as a principle, primary or secondary, as we have explained in the preceding chapter. On the other hand we count God’s knowledge and providence as two separate dogmas, because they are different, as Maimonides explains in the Guide, and as all later authorities agree, though Maimonides himself combines them into one.

We do not include freedom of choice and general purpose among principles fundamental or derived, though they are essentia to divine law, which can not be conceived without them, because they are not essential to divine law qua divine, as was said before. But the special purpose of divine law, namely spiritual reward and punishment, we do count among fundamental principles, because it is essential to divine law. Freedom of choice, however, is not essential to divine law qua divine, and therefore is not counted among principles, whether fundamental or derived. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is essential to divine law, and is presupposed by it, we will explain it in the Fourth Book. So much concerning the number of dogmas, fundamental and derivative. Blessed be the One who gives aid and determines. Amen, Amen.