Maimonides (1138-1204) listed thirteen fundamental principles of Judaism in his Introduction to the chapter Chelek. Many scholars feel sure that he wrote them for uneducated Jews, who needed to think that all of these principles are true, as “necessary truths,” what the Greek philosopher Philo called “noble lies,” even though they are not all true. Others see that the principles could reflect Maimonides accurate view if they are not understood literally.
If the second understanding is correct, they can be understood as follows. The first is the obligation to know. God, who created this world. Many Jews agreed, including Ibn Ezra, who also articulated this basic concept: God “is all and all is from him.” We know God by learning what God created or formed.
Maimonides’ second principle requires the Jew to know that God is one. Ibn Ezra also stresses this idea. “God is One, and there is no second to Him. He also has no son or brother.”
His third principle requires the Jew to understand that God is incorporeal. Ibn Ezra states this as well. “God has neither body nor form.” Ibn Ezra reproves those who imagine God anthropomorphically in Genesis 1:26 and Deuteronomy 32:1, and anthropopathically in Genesis 6:6. Like Maimonides, he explains that descriptions of God in human form or with human emotions are mere metaphors. The Torah avoids philosophical abstractions and speaks in the language of ordinary people.
Fourthly, Maimonides emphasizes that God is first and last. Ibn Ezra remarks: “time did not precede Him.”
Fifthly, Jews must pray only to God. Ibn Ezra writes: “all hearts are insufficiently able to tell his greatness, and tongues have difficulty to speak His praise.”
Six: The two agree that prophecy is obtained naturally by developing the intellect.
Seven: They agree that Moses is the best of the prophets. Maimonides lists four ways in which Moses’s prophecy was superior to that of other prophets: (1) there was no intermediary, (2) he was the only prophet who could receive prophecy while awake, (3) he was undaunted by the experience, and (4) he could receive visions at will.
Maimonides’ eighth principle is that the Torah, both written and oral, is from heaven. This concept is ambiguous. Although Maimonides does not identify any parts of the Torah as not originating from Moses, it is possible that he did not mean that Moses wrote every statement in the Torah. It is conceivable that Maimonides merely wanted to emphasize that the entire Torah has a divine origin. Parts, such as the last twelve verses of Deuteronomy, may have been written by Joshua, but by means of prophecy. Had Maimonides mentioned the idea of “Torah from Sinai,” which is a different concept from “Torah from heaven,” he would have clearly meant that the entire Torah now in our hands was given to and written by Moses. Ibn Ezra also felt that the Torah was at least partially prophetically transmitted.
Maimonides’ ninth principle is that nothing may be added to or diminished from the Torah. Ibn Ezra agreed.
Maimonides’ tenth dogma is that God knows all. Ibn Ezra comments: “He knows the secret things, even like those that are revealed, those that are hidden like those that are seen. He searches the hearts.…” Like Maimonides, Ibn Ezra denies divine knowledge of human particulars. In his commentary to Genesis 18:21, he records: “for it is the truth that the All (namely, God) knows every particular (only) in a general manner, but not in a particular manner.”
As the eleventh principal, Maimonides speaks of divine reward and punishment. So, too, does Ibn Ezra. “His rule is justice and law.”
Both emphasize the importance of belief in the Messiah (principle 12), although they may differ in detail. In Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Melachim 11:1), Ibn Ezra (in his commentary on Numbers 24:17) cites Daniel and Deuteronomy 30:4-5 and warns that those who dismiss this biblical concept lack understanding.
Ibn Ezra’s rationalistic understanding of the world to come (principle 13) reflects the later Maimonidean. Life after death is reserved for those people who develop their intellect to know God. Their knowledge joins the divine and lives forever with the divine. By “joins the divine,” he means exists after the body dies.
Thus, in Genesis 5:22 and 24, which state that “Enoch walked with God,” Ibn Ezra explains that this indicates he developed his intellect. And the words, “he was not, for God took him,” are a way of saying that his body ceased functioning, but his intellect continued to exist.
I like your idea that we should not take the principles literally. Regarding principle 13, we can say that while Maimonides rejects a physical resurrection, he accepts a spiritual resurrection (that is, the soul, or, if you prefer, intellect or mind, resurrects from the body and joins God or is transformed or whatever.
Yes, we agree.
Maybe, these thoughts are of some help, dear Rabbi Israel Drazin; my view only: eternal destiny is based on the deepest orientation of the person, G-d judges the core moral-spiritual posture of a person — something deeper than circumstance. G-d’s justice is recognizably just — fair, compassionate, proportional — but also deeper, wiser, and more far‑reaching than we can see; this aligns with the idea that God’s justice is bigger than ours, not alien to ours. G-d’s justice is fair, compassionate, and morally intelligible — and G-d ensures that every soul has a real, uncoerced opportunity to choose the good. In this sense, heaven is simply what happens when a person says “yes” to God — not necessarily with a perfect theology, but with a heart oriented toward learning about G-d! If humans have real freedom, then the possibility of rejecting G-d must also be real. Understand this as an extension of Ibn Ezra’s view, through a humanistic approach. Best, stephen
Very interesting and very thoughtful. I have another idea. I will try to write it soon.
Israel
I think Koerbagh held a similar like Maimonides. Koerbagh said that salvation, both here and hereafter, is predicated on knowledge. Speficicly knowledge of God, and since Koerbagh equates God to nature, this means the study of nature. While I like Koerbagh, I prefer the view that if people love their neighbor, they will go to heaven or a future state. I do not know if I am right, but I like to think this and hope I am correct.
I am interested in your view of the binding of Isaac. I am reading a book by an Israeli American scholar Omri Boehm titled “Radical Universalism”. You might like it. He argues against Maimonides that Abraham was a greater prophet than Moses. He uses the Akedah story which of course has been interpreted in many different ways. Boehm argues that Abraham did not sacrifice his son because he realized that there was a fundamental moral law that even God was subject to. It is an interpretation I have heard before but not the only interpretation of the story. This insight, Boehm argues, makes Abraham an even greater prophet than Moses. Best.
Dear Robin,
It is always a pleasure to hear from a deep thinker like you. I disagree with Boehm. I do not think that Abraham was a prophet and he was certainly not at the level of Moses. He was a very good thinker.
I understand the event in Genesis 22 as a human inner struggle that Abraham had concerning a human’s relationship with God. (God certainly did not need to test Abraham.) He thought as his contemporaries that people need to show God that they love Him. The question is how to show that love. In his inner struggle, he recognized that his neighbors showed God love by giving God what they loved best, usually one of their children. He wondered, should I sacrifice my son Isaac? At the end of his thinking, he realized that such a gift was ridiculous. We should show God love by behaving as God wants us to behave.
Ibn Ezra’s rationalistic view of the world to come (principle 13) aligns with the later Maimonidean perspective. He believed that life after death is bestowed upon those who cultivate and develop their intellect to attain knowledge of God. This intellectual union with the divine ensures that their essence persists beyond physical death, essentially meaning that their consciousness or existence continues in a spiritual form after the body ceases to function.
Regarding Genesis 5:22 and 24, which state that “Enoch walked with God,” Ibn Ezra interprets this as an indication of Enoch’s development of his intellect. The phrase “he was not, for God took him” is understood to mean that Enoch’s physical body stopped functioning, but his intellectual soul continued to exist. In this view, Enoch’s ascent to be “with God” signifies the enduring existence of his knowledge and spiritual connection, beyond corporeal life.
However, dear Rabbi Israel Drazin, if eternal life depends on intellectual development, this could imply that those who lack such knowledge—possibly due to circumstances beyond their control—are excluded from the world to come. This raises questions about justice and inclusivity in the divine plan, aspects that traditional theology might address differently. Best, stephen
You raise a difficult question, one I thought about in the past. I do not remember whether I ever came up with an answer. I will try to remember.
I look forward to your answer as well. I also wondered if people who lacked intelligence would be excluded from the world to come if eternal life is only dependent on intellectual development.