Q&A: Chapter 32 in The Guide for the Perplexed
Chapter 32 in The Guide for the Perplexed
Question
What does the Rabbi say about Maimonides’ statement that the Holy One, blessed be He, required sacrifices because abolishing them would have been too extreme? Similarly, it would not have made sense if, in his own day, someone had come along and abolished prayers and fasts.
Is it possible to infer from this that, according to Maimonides, the most advanced state of serving God would be to abolish prayers and fasts as well?
Answer
Absolutely not. That is merely an example of something that would not be acceptable to abolish. But it is possible that abolishing prayers and fasts is not reasonable even in itself.
Discussion on Answer
And why, in your view, might it be unreasonable to abolish prayers and fasts? I understand you don’t mean on the halakhic level.
It really is strange.
If the Sages instituted prayers on the assumption that they are accepted, and in your opinion that isn’t true, why does the enactment remain binding for you?
Maimonides says that abolishing the sacrifices, although it would have been reasonable, would have been too extreme, and therefore they were not abolished. Similarly, it is not reasonable to abolish prayers and fasts (and perhaps in his view that really is unreasonable, or perhaps not. In my opinion, it remains an open question).
I’d be glad if the Rabbi could explain a bit more. In this chapter of the Guide, Maimonides explains that God does not accelerate processes of psychological maturation either. And that the matter of sacrifices to the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, was meant to soften the break from idolatry. Then Maimonides writes that such a situation would be similar to one in which, in his own day, some authority would come and abolish fasts and prayers. My question is how the Rabbi understands this Maimonides. Aside from the question of whether, in your view, Maimonides is even right about this idea at all. I’m trying to understand the plain meaning of Maimonides.