He shall not build public places etc. I do not know what this means, if he refers to the charge not to make in them figures as they do, or not to set up therein suns as a sign to invite the public as they do.¹

footnotes: ¹ Maimonides merely refers here to architectural design. C. G.

So, too, is one who sets certain signs for himself etc. This is a gross error, for such thing is, indeed, permitted. Perhaps the text (Hullin, 95b) misled him, as he saw there, saying: "Such divination which is not like the divination of Eliezer (Gen. 24. 13–14) and Jonathan (I. Samuel, 20. 21–22) is not considered divining", and he evidently thought that the subject there is concerning a charge against such practice. Whereas it is not all so, for the meaning thereof is this: It is not proper to depend upon it. I wonder how he could think that way of such righteous men. Indeed, had they been present when he said it, they would have applied tongues of fire to his face.¹

footnotes: ¹ Maimonides does not quote the text verbatim, as he omits Jonathan. Eliezer was of the sons of Noah, against whom no charge of divination holds. He really acted in full reliance upon the sign he set for himself by giving her the presents without inquiring as to who she was. Such is forbidden to an Israelite. Jonathan merely set a sign to caution his lad. He did not practice divination, as he was righteous in his observance of the laws of the Torah. The text (Hullin, 95b) does refer to a charge against such practice, what Jonathan did, if one believes it divination. Maimonides deserves no tongues of flame in his face; here as everywhere he shines like a beacon of light. C. G.

All such and the like is permitted etc. Even this what they said (Hullin, 95b) 'House, suckling and woman although not divination yet it is a sign', was not said by them on the subject of whether such is forbidden or permitted, but as to its reliability, if it is proper to rely upon the pre-figurement thereof, and they declared that it is proper to rely upon such only after the third time, when there is a presumption of reliability in their favor.¹

footnotes: ¹ Maimonides interprets this concerning matters which already had come to pass, not of what is to happen in the future. Even the interpretation of Rashi (Ibid. q. v.) is not free from amazement regarding "suckling" mentioned in the text, which he claims that it refers to a newly-born babe. C. G.