cornerstone.^86 Furthermore, as far as I know, in none of these sources—
naturally not the Muslim, but also not the Jewish or Christian sources—
can we fi nd a methodical analysis of the commandments and verses of the
Torah that associates them with rites described in the literature that Mai-
monides classifi es as “Sabian.” Maimonides is not content with a vague
reference to the Sabians, or even a general explanation of the command-
ments. He offers a highly detailed analysis of the sources, and presents a
meticulous comparison of the Torah, on the one hand, and the literature
described as “Sabian,” on the other. Maimonides’ originality lies in his
idea to systematically compare these two groups of texts, an idea that rep-
resents a revolutionary breakthrough in medieval refl ection on religion.
Paradoxically, the very scientifi c precision that brought Maimonides to
identify his sources explicitly has also obscured his originality, creating
the impression that, if indeed he used all the sources he cites, then every-
thing he wrote must derive from them. Precisely because of his meticulous
recording of what he learned from others, however, one must be attentive
to his repeated declarations regarding his own discoveries, the ones he did
not fi nd in any other book. Maimonides repeatedly emphasizes that he
did his own research on the Sabians.^87 In the “Letter on Astrology,” for
example, he states, “I also have read in all matters concerning all of idola-
try, so that it seems to me there does not remain in the world a composi-
tion on this subject, having been translated into Arabic from other lan-
guages, but that I have read it and have understood its subject matter and
have plumbed the depth of its thought,” and he hastens to add, “From
those books it became clear to me what the reason is for all those com-
mandments that everyone comes to think of as having no reasons at all
other than the decree of Scriptures.” In his detailed analysis of the reasons
for the commandments he painstakingly adds footnotes.^88
(^86) Ghayat al-hakim discusses al-Filaha al- nabatiyya in proximity to its mention of the Sabi-
ans, but does not identify them explicitly with each other. Judah Halevi regards the Filaha
as an Indian work, and describes the Indians as “a wayward people” (umma saiba); see
al-Kitab al- Khazari 16– 17 (Korobkin, 21).
(^87) Epistles, 481; “Letter on Astrology,” in Lerner and Mahdi, Medieval Po litical Philoso-
phy, 227– 36, on 229 (my emphasis). See also S. Sela, “Queries on Astrology Sent from
Southern France to Maimonides; Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, Translation and
Commentary,” Alef 4 (2004): 89– 190.
(^88) Regarding the verse, “A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear
woman’s clothing” (Deut 22:5), he says: “tajiduhu fi kitabtumtum” (Guide 3.37; Dalala,
399:9; Pines, 544). In his explanations of the prohibition of agricultural grafts he explains
that“dhakaru bi- bayan fi tilka al- fi laha (Guide 3.37; Dalala, 402:14; Pines, 549).” The pro-
hibition on eating blood arises, he claims, from the prevalence of the consumption of meat at
that time as part of idolatrous practices, “ka-ma bana fitumtum.” (Guide 3.41; Dalala,
411:13–15; Pines, 561); and the prohibition to sacrifi ce “leaven or honey” (Lev. 2:11) arises
from the pagan custom of sacrifi cing sweets,” ka-ma huwa mashhur fi’l-kutub allatidha-
kartu laka (Guide 3.46; Dalala, 427:18; Pines, 582).