[99]. Foundations of the Law, chap. iv., 8, 9.
[100]. There is some ground for thinking that Maimonides thought of the eternal existence after death of the possessors of “acquired intellect” not as personal, but as a common existence in which they are all united as a single separate being. See Guide, III., chap. xxvii., and Foundations, ibid., and chap. ii., 5-6. This has been pointed out by Dr. Joel in Die Religionsphilosophie des Mose ben Maimon, Breslau, 1876 (p. 25, note).
[101]. Guide, I., chap. lxviii.
[102]. According to the division of the sciences current in those days, all this knowledge of true Being is contained in Physics and Metaphysics.
[103]. All this teaching is scattered up and down Maimonides’ works, partly in explicit statements and partly in hints (see, e.g., Guide, III., chap. li.). Dr. Scheyer was the first to work out these definitions in detail (ibid., chap. iii.). In general it must be remembered that Maimonides nowhere explains his whole system in logical order, and we are therefore compelled, if we would understand his system as it was conceived in his mind, to make use of scattered utterances, hints, and half-sentences written by the way, to explain obscure statements by others more precise, and to resort freely to inference.
[104]. Guide, III., chap. xiii., and Introduction to Commentary on the Mishnah, section Zera’im.
[105]. Introduction cited in last note.
[106]. Ibid.
[107]. Guide, III., chap. li. Maimonides does not there emphasise the difference between practical studies on the one hand and mathematics and logic on the other, because this is not germane to his purpose at the moment. But the distinction is necessarily implied.
[108]. Guide, III., chaps. xxvii. and liv.; Hilchoth De’oth, chaps. iii. and iv.