150 CHAPTER FIVE
the term to denigrate any form of nonscientifi c thinking. Two examples
of this general use may suffi ce here.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Pesahim 4:10, Maimonides dis-
cusses the content of the Book of Medicines (Sefer refuot) that King
Hezekiah had put away, and the reasons why this act was (generally) ap-
plauded. According to him, “The Book of Medicines was a book which
decrees healing by methods that are not approved^118 by the Law, like the
claims of the perpetrators of talismans that a talisman in a certain form
should be done [to cure] a certain disease.” Maimonides’ wording here
resembles the one used in his description of the theurgical practices of the
Sabians in the Guide; “that such and such... should be done for so and
so... .” The comparison with the Sabians leaves little room for doubt
that Maimonides regarded such talismans as sheer nonsense.^119 One
would have expected him to object to the very content of such a book,
but this option does not really exist for Maimonides: the book is listed in
theMishnah together with hallowed relics from the distant past, such as
the brazen serpent made by Moses in the desert [Num. 21:8]. The Mish-
nah thus presents the book as having been acceptable prior to Hezekiah’s
ban. As we have seen above, in the case of the book of Shiur Qoma,
Maimonides dodges unnecessary criticism of what people believe to have
been sanctioned by the Sages, lest it be interpreted as challenging their
authority. Whenever possible, he looks for ways to skirt such criticism
without compromising his principles.^120 He therefore says: “Its author
had composed it with the intention of learning the nature of the world
(alatariq al-ilm bi-tabiat al- wujud) and did not intend its content to be
used. This [in itself] is permissible.” In other words, the scientifi c endeavor
undertaken by the author of the Book of Medicines was not in itself rep-
rehensible, nor was the reading of the book forbidden. Both the compo-
sition of the book and its reading were then legitimate manifestations of
academic curiosity, but they became harmful when the book was used
for the wrong purposes.
The relevance of this passage for our discussion, however, does not lie
in the explanation Maimonides suggests, but in the one he rejects. Ac-
cording to a widespread story, the Book of Medicines was composed by
King Solomon. It prescribed medicines for all kinds of ailments,^121 and
Hezekiah banned it because he saw that people turned to medicine rather
(^118) Ma la tujibu sharia; literally: “What the Law does not oblige [to do],” but in fact equiva-
lent to the umur mahzura (“forbidden things”) at the end of this sentence.
(^119) Guguenheim’s claim (Aristote au mont Saint- Michel, 145) that Maimonides shared the
belief in astrological amulets is as baseless as it is puzzling.
(^120) See chap. 3, above, apud note 80 ff.; and chap. 4, above, apud note 163.
(^121) Contrary to Gellman’s interpretation (“Maimonides’ ‘Ravings,’ ” 315– 22), the book is
not described as a “cure all” and Maimonides does not argue against such a description.