Gevia Kesef
גביע כסף
merged
https://www.sefaria.org/Gevia_Kesef
This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
-Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982
-https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH000885949/NLI
Gevia Kesef
Preface
Joseph Ibn Kaspi said: After giving thanks to God, who bestowed wisdom on our teacher Moses, the light of God and the light of Israel, in whose light we see light, I will begin by saying that the intention of this work is to write whatever I can regarding the secrets of the Torah that I did not see fit to write in the Maṣref La-Kesef, Ṭirat Kesef, Mizraḳ Kesef, and Menorat Kesef. I have called this book Yoreh De‘ah (“The Guide to Knowledge”), similar to the name Moreh Ha-Torah (“The Guide to the Torah”), for that is its meaning. Its agnomen reflecting my own name is Gevia‘ Kesef (“The Silver Goblet”), “it is that in which my lord drinketh.” We can begin with what is intended, with the help of the Lord.
Chapter 1
In addition to what has been written in the Menorat Kesef and Mizraḳ Kesef, (one should) know that it is correct to say of God that He is the first cause, in a sense that is compound as well as the (simple) sense of His essence. This is certainly true of the world of Separate Intelligences of which the Lord, may He be blessed, is part. The reason is that the world of Separate Intelligences, or if you will, the universe of the Intellect, or the universe of the Intelligences, consists of Him, blessed be He, His court and His attendants, as our Sages said. This category is divided, according to our conception, into three components, when described in terms of cause and effect, as Abu-Nasr (Al-Farabi) said (when he described them as) “the Primary One, the Secondary Ones, and the Active Intellect.” You should know that it was from this that in ancient times there first emerged a belief in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Only later was that belief transformed into something else. Indeed, the Lord, blessed be He, is the Primary One, and is the Father; the Intelligences are known as son or sons, as it says “sons of God,” “sons of might,” which is the main meaning of those verses. Certainly God is called “Father” throughout the Torah and the Bible, for He is the primary bestower of life for all. The Active Intellect is referred to as “the Spirit of God,” “the Holy Spirit,” or “the Spirit of the Lord.” All this is evident.
Accordingly, the world of Separate Intelligences is in one respect one, and in another respect many. If you will you may say (the Separate Intelligences) are many and they are one. Alternatively, | the world of Separate Intelligences as a whole is three, and is one. It was in this manner that the convention of the trinity arose. Even the Primary One (God) Himself could be described in this manner, being one unto Himself and also the threefold cause of the Intelligences and the Active Intellect. Accordingly it could also be said of Him that He is one and He is three, even while He is absolutely one, while everything else is many, for they are compounded of and perfected by cause and effect, which is not so with God, for He has no cause. This is according to our Torah. For this reason the Men of the Great Assembly said, “They import holiness to you three times,” in referring to the statement of Isaiah, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts …” where the threefold repetition refers to the world of Separate Intelligences in general, and the Lord in particular.
Chapter 2
In the Mizraḳ Kesef I explained the changes that occur (regarding the names of God) in the Account of Creation, where sometimes He is called God, sometimes the Lord God, and sometimes the Lord. I will now complete this with respect to changes occurring in the Torah after the order of Creation, beginning with “These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and wholehearted; Noah walked with God.” Notice that, similar to Job, it says that Noah was righteous, not that he was wise, for the intent is to refer to the whole narrative including Noah and his generations as far as Abraham. And even though the Lord spoke with him so that he was a prophet (and therefore must have been wise), it is as Maimonides explained—that “prophecy” and “prophet” are equivocal. Thus of Noah it is said, “Noah walked with God,” not “… with the Lord” using the ineffable name. This is like “and Enoch walked with God,” which is written of Enoch. The use of the hitpa‘el is known from the study of logic as an action still in progress and incomplete. It is thus with every usage of the hitpa‘el stem in Hebrew. Reliable evidence for this is “there you shall sell yourselves … for bondmen and bondwomen …,” which must be in the progressive aspect with the transactions uncompleted. Proof of this is provided by “and no man shall buy you.” Noah’s greatest perception was his recognition of the heavenly influences, similar to his contemporaries, who also did not realize that there was an existent beyond the Heavenly Spheres. For this reason he attributed most matters, and certainly the flood with the action of the wind that caused the waters to subside, as well as the other details of the story, to the causative action of the Heavenly Spheres, | which are what is intended in the name of “God” (’Elokim). Notice especially that at the outset “God” is mentioned,” then there is a change to the name “Lord” when it is written, “And the Lord said unto Noah: come thou and all thy house into the ark.” This was (written) to inform us, the recipients of the Torah, that the Lord was the first cause (of those events), and that when we cling to Him we are protected from any evils caused by the constellations or the signs of heaven. Similarly it says, “Thus did Noah according to all that the Lord commanded him.” It was, however, very important that regarding Noah’s sacrifice to God the Torah not mention the name “God” (to whom Noah sacrificed), but only “Lord,” which is the ineffable and unique name, for the error of contemporary nations was that they sacrificed to the heavenly host. In the Torah Moses intended above all to remove that belief from us, and to have us believe in the world of the Separate Intelligences that exist in addition to the Heavenly Spheres. Moses did the same regarding (his description of) of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. As for the “dispersed generation,” who believed exclusively in the Heavenly Spheres, it is clearly fitting to refer to Him who intervened with them as “the Lord” in His glory.
Chapter 3
When the writer of the Torah began with the stories of Abraham he wrote, “Now the Lord said to Abram: Get thee out …” for Abraham was the first one to discover a belief affirming the existence of the world of Separate Intelligences. This opinion caused him to leave his land, doing what he did, for which the Lord acted to save him on various occasions. Consequently in the stories of Abraham, “Lord” is stated repeatedly, except for those few places where there is good reason.
Firstly, in the vision beginning, “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared unto Abram and said unto him: I am God Almighty …” Having begun with “Lord” in accordance with the principle I mentioned—that Abraham possessed this important knowledge—the writer of the Torah continues the rest of the vision without mentioning “Lord” again, for the vision refers to material things appealing to the imagination, such as Abraham’s becoming the patriarch for many peoples through Isaac and Ishmael; and also the command to make the sign in his flesh, and that of his descendants. For this reason “God” is used, for being equivocal, it refers to the Heavenly Spheres as well as the imaginative faculty predominating in every prophet, except Moses. This is certainly the case when those prophets perceive that which is of a material nature and imagined, as has been explained. The Torah is likewise precise in its use of Shaddai (“Almighty”), which, being an adjective similar to davvai, refers to someone victorious (alone) whenever | large numbers of people would (ordinarily) be necessary, as has been explained. It is the same in the Lord’s words to Jacob, and in those of Isaac to Jacob (when he said), “and God Almighty bless thee and make thee fruitful and multiply thee.” It is likewise in Jacob’s words to Joseph, (when saying) “God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan and said unto me …”
In this verse “walk before me …” in the context of Abraham, the use of the hitpa‘el stem teaches us that the intended meaning of this commandment is to things of a corporeal nature, belonging to the imaginative faculty. Similarly, the occurrence twice of “God” in the story of the smiting of Sodom, where there was an overflow of fire and brimstone that was similar to (Noah’s) flood with its overflow of water, teaches us that (the Heavenly Spheres) are the proximate and essential cause of everything. Now “Lord” is used most of the time to teach us that the Lord in His glory is the ultimate cause of all the actions and powers of the Heavenly Spheres. In the story of Abraham with Abimelech, when it is related that God spoke to Abimelech, the name “God” (’Elokim) is used, for he only believed in the Heavenly Spheres, and his (prophetic) faculty was exclusively an expression of the imaginative faculty. It appears that the latter consideration is mentioned even regarding Abraham himself. However, in the recovery of Abimelech it says, “for the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs” in order to prevent our erring and to ensure our belief that the Lord is the primary cause of all. Similarly, later regarding Abraham there is the precise beginning of “And the Lord remembered Sarah …” Thus, because of the circumcision (that was to be commanded), it states, “as God had commanded him,” in a usage of the name that is similar to that mentioned in the earlier vision. We can certainly note the precision of “God (’Elokim) hath made laughter for me,” which does not use “the Lord.” (This usage is correct) for it is not correct to attribute laughter or a similar attribute (to the Lord, but rather) to the world of Separate Intelligences. There is a similar precision in “And God said unto Abraham, ‘let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad and because of thy bondwoman,’ ” for such matters of the imagination, including offspring, can only be properly associated with the imaginative faculty, which is an equivocal term for the name “God.” This is true of material and imagined matters in general, for the imagination is corporeal or material.
The statement regarding Hagar “And God opened her eyes” —is surely similar to that which was said of Eve. Regarding what is said of Rebecca—“And the Lord said unto her” —there is no problem, for | it is not always and forever necessary to be precise. Sometimes the Torah is exact, and at other times it is inexact, as Maimonides wrote regarding the fifth cause of contradiction as found in the Torah and Prophets. Accordingly, occasionally the Torah will be careful to use “God” on account of His being the immediate cause, while at other times “Lord” appears on account of His being the distant mover of all. Reliable evidence of this usage is “And the Lord said to the children of Israel,” (which conveys the truth that) in any case He is the mediate speaker.
At the binding of Isaac the use of “God” at the outset, in the command to sacrifice his son, was most appropriate, for (that command) was not apposite of the Lord. For this reason, when preventing the act, the Torah states, “the angel of the Lord” and not “the angel of God.” This is because such prevention becomes obvious when one perceives the existence of the world of Separate Intelligences, and clings to that world. When the Torah refers to Abraham’s act, it is careful to say, “thou art a God-fearing man, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thy only son …,” for the sacrifice of his son was because he feared God, i.e., the Heavenly Spheres. Such an act was also the result of the imagination, for such was and still is, the custom of the nations in making offerings and sacrifices. Furthermore when interrupted (by the angel, Abraham) said, “ ’Adonai yir’eh,” as opposed to the previous “God will provide Himself …” spoken during the preparation.
When Laban and Bethuel answered Eliezer, saying, “the thing proceedeth from the Lord,” even though they knew only of “God,” (they mentioned “Lord”) because Eliezer the servant of Abraham had attributed everything to the Lord, irr saying, “O Lord, the God of my master Abraham,” as with all his statements. Similarly Abimelech said to Isaac, “We saw plainly that the Lord was with thee,” i.e., “the Lord who is your God in some way gives you strength and success.”
Regarding Isaac, first it is written, “God blessed Isaac his son,” for (at that young age) he had not yet experienced divine (revelation). Yet from that point on, only “Lord” is mentioned in his context. It is the same regarding Rebecca, his wife.
In the stories of Jacob, however, the Torah always uses “Lord,” for he was more complete than was Isaac. Thus, unlike Isaac, who had not been as | complete as Abraham, it is not said of Jacob, “because that Abraham hearkened to my voice,” or “for my servant Abraham’s sake.” The exception (where “God” appears in the stories of Jacob) is “the house of God,” and that is on account of its being followed by “and this is the gate of heaven.” Jacob said that because he recognized that the place was conducive to prophecy and perception because of the celestial cause that predominated there, as Ibn Ezra noted. He continued to say, “If God will be with me …” (using ’Elokim) in accordance with the opinion of our Torah that the world of Separate Intelligences is the first cause. The proof of this is provided by the opening verse of the Torah, “In the beginning God created …” as I have explained. When Jacob’s wives speak, and when Jacob speaks to them, they mention “God,” for that is appropriate for them, as we have already mentioned. This is especially the case as they are the daughters of (the pagan) Laban, as is proved by Rachel when she coveted the teraphim. When on occasion they do mention “Lord,” it is only because they learnt this from Jacob. Notice the precision regarding Laban when the Torah says, “and God came to Laban,” similar to what was written of Abimelech, in accordance with his confused belief in the power of the Heavenly Sphere and that of the imagination. Laban said to Jacob, “the God of your father spoke unto me yesternight saying …,” for how could the god of Laban assist Jacob when (Jacob) did not believe in him. Similarly he said, “the Lord watch between me and thee,” in accordance with Jacob’s belief. Furthermore Laban made Jacob swear by the Lord, for Jacob feared Him, and not God. In summarizing in conclusion, Laban said, “The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor … judge betwixt us …” whereas “Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.” Jacob uses “God” when saying “and the angels of God met him,” and “this is God’s camp,” as well as “I have seen God face to face” and “for thou hast striven with God,” for all of them are in a prophetic use of the imagination. It is similar with “And God said unto Jacob,” | and “there God was revealed unto him,” as well as “and God appeared unto Jacob again” and “where God spoke with him.”
Certainly (this usage of “God”) is true of Joseph, for his prophetic faculty utilized dreams, especially when the composite image concerned corporeal and imaginative matters. This completes the Book of Genesis.
It is well known that the primary concern of Exodus is with Moses, starting, “And Moses was keeping the flock …” Notice the care in ordering that episode, for initially it states “the mountain of God,” for that mountain was where He always appeared. Later, at the onset of Moses’ vision he perceived an angel. Later yet, having gone higher, it is written, “When the Lord saw.” Nonetheless when saying “Draw not nigh hither,” the words are attributed not to the Lord but to God, for it is only later, after “put off thy shoes,” that we find “and the Lord said …” Again later, having already perceived (the Lord), Moses’ perception was weakened at the hiding (of the Lord), and he shrank back at the prospect of accepting the Lord’s charge. Consequently it says, “And Moses said unto God, ‘who am I that I should go unto Pharaoh.’ ” This resulted from the weakness of the imaginative faculty, which Moses at that moment perceived as not having been completely purified. Similarly, when it is later mentioned that His name was hidden from Moses, it states, “And Moses said unto God.” Furthermore, Moses did not know that “God” is equivocal, proof being that when the Lord answered him, He did not inform Moses that His name was “I am that I am” as well as “the Lord.” For this reason (of Moses’ ignorance) it was correct to write, “And God said … unto Moses.”
From that point and on, however, (only) “Lord” is used. It is only as explained regarding “And God said unto Moses” that we can understand “I am the Lord” as making the expression more acceptable. Subsequently, the Torah consistently uses “Lord” up to “Now Jethro heard.” | In the context of Jethro, “God” is used, for he was a gentile. (“God”) is likewise mentioned by Moses in reference to the masses and their statutes, in saying, “I make them know the statutes of God and His laws,” and not “the statutes of the Lord.” At the gathering (of the people at Mount Sinai) Moses was careful (to write “God”), for he did not want to associate his ascent with “the Lord,” only with “God.” Similarly it says, “And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God,” when they approached the Heavenly Sphere together, in a physical sense,—something which cannot be true of the Lord, who has no place. Yet it does say there, “And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai,” (and not “God”) for it was there that the influence of the world of Separate Intelligences was in effect over Moses. Regarding the Ten Commandments the Torah is even more precise when it says, “And God spoke all these words saying.” The reason is that while we find “And the Lord spoke” in several places in reference to Moses, in this case it is known that God spoke with all Israel. Therefore “And the Lord said” is an accurate allusion to the world of Separate Intelligences. Nonetheless the speaker was God (the Lord), as is evident from the portion Va’etḥanan in the verse, “The Lord spoke with you face to face … I stood between the Lord and you …” Notice how careful these words are in informing us of the true identity of that speaker and in attributing those words to the Lord in His glory, for it was He who was after all the distant speaker. In addition Moses says of himself “but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God (not “the Lord”) was,” for such is the style in Hebrew.
From that point and on, throughout the Book of Exodus, as well as the Book of Leviticus, only “the Lord” is written.
In the Book of Numbers, however, it is written, “and the people spoke against their God against Moses,” it being impossible to relate their action to a Lord that they did not know, or know of. Evidence of this is provided by the fact that even at Mount Sinai, where Moses wanted foremost to have them believe in the Lord, they said at the end, “but let not God speak with us” instead of “the Lord.”
In the story of Balaam it is written initially, “And God came unto Balaam and said,” for that is what he believed. In addition his prophetic faculty was by virtue of his imagination, even though Balaam and Balak mentioned the name “Lord” several times — | that was only because He is the God of Israel. Every nation, besides knowing the names of its gods, knows also the names of the gods of other nations, such as “Nergal,” “Ashima,” and the others. This is like our comments regarding the words of Abimelech and Laban in speaking with the patriarchs.
In the Book of Deuteronomy only “Lord” is used. Most precise of all is the statement made of the Lord, “And He made them move to and fro in the desert forty years.” After all, it is well known that Moses our teacher was a more immediate cause of their movement than any external factor, while the Lord was the distant cause. One can conclude that throughout the Torah and Scripture there are several intermediary causes, whether the most distant or more immediate, while there is nothing at all equivocal in the name “Lord.” The name (“Lord”) retains its original meaning always, even though all things are attributed to it, for it is the cause and (first) mover of everything, from a distance. Maimonides explained this in the final chapter of Part II (of the Guide).
Chapter 4
In my opinion there are three names exclusively applied to the Lord. This means that they are primary, and not derivative, appellations. Even though some of them are on the pattern used for derivative names, they (themselves) are not derivative. These are the tetragrammaton, i.e., yod he’ vav he’ ; the name yod he’, which is one-half of the former; as well as ’Ehyeh. This is in accordance with what I have written of this in the Menorat Kesef. In brief I will say here that each of these three names is the special name of the Prime Cause, and that not one of these (names) can be associated with the world of Separate Intelligences, and certainly not with what is below them. Even though they are all primary names, what is unique and special about each of them is the following.
The tetragrammaton is unique and special in that, even though it has some meaning and interpretation according to its letters, if (it) is like yigleh and yirbeh, it is different and distinct from every name because of the prohibition of reading it (according to its letters). Thus, because it has an interpretation (perush) as well as a distinctness (hefresh), it is known for both reasons as the shem ha-meforash, for the root parash has both these meanings, which are really one. This is the precise and special nature of this name—that with respect to its letters it has a meaning, but that with respect to its reading it has no meaning, except in the Temple. And in the Temple, when it is pronounced, it has no independent meaning, | but only (a meaning) by way of allusion that cannot be measured (with precision). The name can be read in one of two ways, or in both of them together, one after the other, according to how the Men of the Great Assembly pointed it in the Bible. One was with a shva’ under the yod and a ḳameṣ under the vav, with a naḥ under the two he’ letters. The other was with a shva’ under the yod, a ḥolem under the first he’, and a ḥireḳ under the vav. There is no name in Hebrew with a construction similar to this. The latter formulation was only made by the Men of the Great Assembly when it was preceded by ’Adonai, spelled with an ’alef-dalet, as occurred at the vision of the covenant regarding Abraham, and in Va’etḥanan with Moses. This strange pointing of the ineffable name was necessary, for (in its usual pointing) it is read by people as the spelling ’alef-dalet, and how could they read ’Adonai ’Adonai (as if the same name were written twice). Therefore it is read as if it were written ’Adonai ’Elokim. The punctuation of the ineffable name has no meaning, and neither does its pronunciation, yet it does possess meaning according to its letters, for if we were (permitted) to read it at will, its meaning would be “exists” and “causes to exist,” which would (not) be exclusive to Him.
They not only made the ineffable name exclusive to Him, they also made His attributes exclusive, through the use and pronunciation of ’Adonai. For it at no time appears with a ḥireḳ under the nun (in which case it would mean “my master”), but only appears with a ḳameṣ so as to indicate an absolute master, as in davvai or Shaddai, (the latter) being derived from shoded (“destruction”). Proof (for the latter) is the verse “As destruction (kāshud) from the Almighty (mi-Shaddai) shall it come.” Even though this form can be found in the Hebrew usage in that ’Adonai could mean “my lords,” as has been claimed in this matter, the intent of the Men of the Great Assembly is that it be understood without the adjective “my,” but alone, as in ’adon (“master”) or Shaddai (“Almighty”), That is why Maimonides was careful to compare (’Adonai) to “Sarai,” the wife of Abram, saying in the Guide I:61 that such endings “are emphatic and of a general character,” for every specific reference to “my” or “ours” gives a particular (connotation excluding other referents). (Nowhere in relation to God) does the Bible state ’adoni with a ḥireḳ under the nun, even when David and the prophets exclaimed, “the Lord (’Adonai), the Lord (tetragrammaton) of hosts.” Notice how the writer of the Torah was careful to convey the equivocal meaning of ’Adonai when it has the ḳameṣ under the nun, for it can be understood either as “Lord” (’adon) or as “my lord” (’adoni). Thus when He wanted to mention the wife of Abraham, and to allude to his lordship in general, it says| “thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be,” i.e., one could err regarding “Sarai” by explaining it as containing “my,” whereas with “Sarah” one cannot err. This is similar to the prophets’ writing ha-’Adon (“the Lord”), as I have explained.
What emerges from all that they wrote is that the tetragrammaton refers exclusively to the Lord, because of its unique character, as I have described it.
It is also evident that yod he’ refers exclusively to Him, for being one-half of the ineffable name, it has no meaning at all. Certainly its meaning is not “eternal,” as Maimonides thinks it is, without diminishing from his glory. (After all) nothing like it is to be found anywhere in the Hebrew language. This name is special in that everyone pronounces it, but no one understands it.
’Ehyeh ’asher ’Ehyeh (“I am that I am”) refers exclusively to the Lord in a different way. It has meaning as written and as pointed. Like the (tetragrammaton) it refers exclusively to Him, and is a hylic name. This is because the qualifying clause (“that I am”) is identical with the subject (“I am”), giving the appearance of a mockery. Yet it is not a mockery, for the repetition alludes to the fact that we cannot perceive Him in any specific manner, which is the meaning of “for man shall not see me and live” and “my face shall not be seen.”
This being the case, what these three names have in common is that each is necessarily a primary name, for every derivative name must be composed of two elements, a predicate relating to a subject, even though it may not say so specifically. Because only the Lord is independent of such duality, whether from above or below, He is unique in having a special primary name, which is not derived. These three names share this (characteristic), each of them with its own special properties, as we have explained.
Chapter 5
Notice how the truth is its own witness and consistent in every respect. The number three is well established among all nations, one of the reasons being that it is a complete numeral, possessing a beginning and a middle, as stated by Aristotle in De Caelo. Consequently our prayers are characterized by the number three. Therefore the giver of the Torah, in agreeing with this (universality of the number three), enunciated three (divine) names at the beginning of the Torah, | as above. These (names) are “God,” “the Lord God,” and “the Lord.” Subsequently, at the auspicious encounter of Moses with the Lord during the second forty-day period (at Mount Sinai), it is written “the Lord the Lord God” (Tetragrammaton tetragrammaton ’El). In the priestly blessing “Lord” appears three times. Similarly, when the names of God were given, they were three in number: the tetragrammaton, “’Ehyeh,” (and the bigrammaton). This also accords with our perception of the world of Intelligences in every respect. It is also in accordance with our conception of the first Intelligence, as explained above. This is not in the sense that the world (of Separate Intelligences) can be divided conceptually into three parts, the Primary One, the Secondary Ones (the Intelligences), and the Active Intellect—but that rather each of the Intelligences, with the exception of the first, has at least three components, in that it consists of its perceptions of the Primary One, as well as of the immediately preceding Intelligence, as well as (its perception) of itself. Even the Primary One Himself has a threefold aspect in that He is cause of the assorted Intelligences in three ways: as efficient cause, formal cause, and final cause. In further explanation of all this, Isaiah wrote, “And one called to another and said, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts …’ ” The exact meaning of “hosts” in this context is the Separate Intelligences, while elsewhere “hosts” refers to the Heavenly Spheres, and all Israel. They are all true.
(The Men of the Great Assembly) arranged certain of our prayers to clarify that the threefold repetition (of “holy”) in Isaiah refers to the world of Separate Intelligences, whether to that entire world or only the highest part. Thus, when addressing the Lord, the (prayer) says, “they attest three times to your holiness,” and “those who treble their sanctification of you.” I have also spoken at length on this in the Menorat Kesef. From my words at the beginning of the work, one can understand the verbal similarity between us and the Christians, in that with regard to the trinity they speak of “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit,” asserting that they are both three and one, which is similar (to what we say). This is all written in the Torah, (such as) when the Lord is described as a father, most remarkably when it says “(thou didst forget God) that bore thee,” for this of necessity means that He has a child. This is especially so in view of the verse “Ye are the children of the Lord your God.” Furthermore it is written with regard to the Active Intellect: “the spirit of God,” corresponding to “the spirit.” Yet | we are really far-removed from the Christians in opinions despite an external similarity in phrases and in speech, even though some individuals among them are similar to us (in opinions).
Chapter 6
What is written in this work up to this point, as well as what is written in Mizraḳ Kesef and Menorat Kesef, has resolved the first sixteen questions that we enumerated in Kesef Sigim. Therefore I will now proceed to resolve the others one at a time, by writing my opinion regarding the seventeenth question, which embodies two doubts. Regarding the first, it is clear that even though Noah attempted to bring beasts and fowl into the ark to save some seed from each (species) through growth, before the floodwaters came, nonetheless when the rain began and continued for several days, several of the beasts and fowl came in the door on their own for shelter and protection from the pouring rain, for the ark door, which was on the side, remained open for four, five, or ten days, (possibly) more. Certainly after the waters had lifted the ark and raised it above ground level, Noah must have forcibly pushed off certain beasts and fowl, for he needed no more than a (certain) number to preserve the species, while he did not have a lot of food in the ark to support and manage them (all). It is not necessary to take the numbers “seven” or “two” literally, for “two” refers to the minimum necessary to maintain the species, i.e., male and female. The number “seven” connotes “many,” (as many) as Noah saw fit (to take), for the Hebrew language does often refer to a multitude with the number “seven.” The reason that the Lord commanded Noah to take many pure beasts was because man has great need for nourishment, so Noah and his children could eat them in the ark. Furthermore, because (the pure beasts) would be continuously fit for consumption later on, it was necessary that many of them emerge from the ark. In addition, when Noah emerged it says “he took of them for an offering,” but not from the impure beasts.
Regarding the fowl, many were necessary, both pure and impure. As for the pure, (many were necessary) for the same reason as the many pure beasts, and as for the impure, many were necessary, for undoubtedly sickness and death prevailed among the fowl in the ark—for being accustomed to fly, they would die when confined in the ark, and only a few survive, as we can see for ourselves | when birds are sent from this country by ship across the sea to the king of Ishmael, as a gift.
Furthermore, because fowl can fly a long distance to concealed places, many of them flew to and entered the ark, whether with or against Noah’s will. This solves the doubt engendered by the question.
Regarding the resolution of the second doubt as mentioned there, and the others in Kesef Sigim included in the seventeenth question, what I wrote in the Maṣref La-Kesef and the Ṭirat Kesef suffices to answer it. Nonetheless, writing with great brevity, I can say here that the giver of the Torah wrote Genesis in a manner similar to Job; i.e., he wrote narratives describing passing matters, determined to inform us in Genesis of the righteous and their activities in all their details. This is particularly with regard to the patriarchs and their descendants. This (was done) because most people strive to imitate their forefathers. For this reason Moses in the Torah told us to offer sacrifices, even though in truth they are an abomination. This, however, is something that it is not proper for the masses to know, (for sacrifices) are necessary to maintain a community. This is especially (necessary) when the opinion of the masses is that sacrifice is most desired by the Lord. Under no circumstances, however, should (sacrifices be offered) to the Heavenly Spheres, but only to the Lord. The same is true of prayer, for even though it is superior to sacrifice, as Maimonides has hinted, nonetheless when we make assembly halls, a Temple, or synagogues, these, like sacrifices, are not necessary in truth. In the final analysis, however, we must admit that our religion does permit sacrifice when to the Lord, and therefore Moses was correct in writing for us, by way of anecdote, of what occurred in earlier times, those things that demonstrate truth to us individuals, and coarse knowledge to the masses, teaching them how to act in relation to the Lord. Thus, for (the benefit of singular) individuals, when Adam was in the garden of Eden and the Lord told him of | all the animals that he took, Scripture does not mention that He told Adam to sacrifice them. God did not bring them to him for that purpose, but only to see what Adam would name them—i.e., to observe and examine their nature so as to give them a Hebrew name indicating their nature in some way. And that is what he did.
In a later passage, in writing of Adam’s three sons, far be it from (the writer of the Torah) to say that the righteous Seth made a sacrifice, as was said of Cain and Abel, the (foolish) enthusiasts. In order to benefit the masses, however, it is written that they (sacrificed) to the Lord, and not to God, as it is written, “He that sacrifices unto God, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed.” Later, regarding Noah, who was as righteous as Abel, Job and his friends, the Torah was careful not to write that the Lord commanded Noah to sacrifice to Him, and not to write that he should take many animals into the ark for the purpose of making a sacrifice. Instead (the purpose was) to maintain the species, and Noah made the sacrifices of his own accord, as did Abel and Job. In any case, Noah’s sacrifice is described as made “to the Lord,” and also (resulting in) “the Lord smelled the sweet savor,” for that is what the masses should believe. Proof of this is provided by the words “for a sweet savor unto the Lord.” For select individuals, however, the writer of the Torah did not write that the three patriarchs sacrificed to the Lord, but wrote only that they made an altar and a house and a pillar. Generally a structure is erected in commemoration, as is written regarding the Gadites and the Reubenites, and some of the acts of Gideon. These (structures) remind us that they are to be preferred over making a sacrifice, and the Torah, by omitting to make any mention of sacrifice (by the patriarchs), teaches us that sacrifice is not desirable. Thus neither the patriarchs nor Moses at the altar known as ’Adonai-nissi offered (sacrifice). When subsequently Moses began to command Israel to make sacrifices, it was commanded to be performed by the young men among them, as it is written, “the young men of the children of Israel.” Onkelos translated this as zeṭuṭi benei yisra’el, which connotes “youths” in Hebrew. It is clear, for those who can see, that from the way in which sacrifices are described in the Torah, they were (permitted) only by way of necessity, for the reason mentioned by Maimonides. This is certainly true of the description in Jeremiah of child-sacrifice to Baal and Molech, and all the more true of the fact that the writer of the Torah recorded the binding of Isaac, as I wrote in Ṭirat Kesef and Maṣref La-Kesef. If the Lord grant me length of days, I will gather all (these ideas) in the present work.
What I wrote (in Kesef Sigim) regarding Noah and his descendants at the time of the division (of that generation) was occasioned by confusion (in that matter). Just as it is clear what is the benefit gained from the story of the flood in all its details—that, as Maimonides said, by reading the prophetic books we know that God was cognizant of their deeds (and therefore brought on the flood)—so too, in truth, the entire story (of the divided generation) teaches the same lesson. How can this be disputed—for we see such things constantly. As for the passing details regarding large numbers and small numbers, and large segments of the earth with small segments—these are but as Maimonides said regarding Job, that whether or not he existed, there are many people like him who do exist. This is also true of the story of the uncovering of Noah, and the actions taken by his sons in that regard. (In this regard) I have already written whatever is necessary (to understand this matter) in Ṭirat Kesef and Maṣref La-Kesef. This is likewise true of the narrative of the divided generation. In Miẓrak Kesef I have already informed you of the meaning of “there is no chronological order in Scripture.” (It means that) it is not always necessary that what precedes in order precede in cause, for sometimes it may not be a cause at all, while at other times it might be a cause but only an accidental one (and not an essential one), as is the case when lightning strikes and kills an ox or sheep. There are many instances of this. It was, however, necessary that the masses understand this story in a manner appropriate to them, i.e., that the world was created in time and ex nihilo. Yet (it was not necessary) that they understand it in as crude a manner as they do. Certainly it is not correct for the complete sage to understand (these things) in the same manner as does the absolute fool, and certainly not when it comes to intelligibles, for how can we equate an angel with matter? Consequently it was necessary to write that the people who left there (in the divided generation) settled (in the land of Shinar), because of the narratives of the Creation, of the flood, and of the ark resting on Mount Ararat, i.e., in the lands of Babylon and Shinar, as is written regarding Sennacherib. Even prior to the divided generation, the author of the Torah was careful to write of other lands and languages in the context of the three sons of Noah. This being the case, the verse “And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech” does not refer to “earth” as an all-inclusive term … in Kesef Sigim.
Chapter 7
The explanation of Abraham’s first vision, beginning “After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram,” needs to be written, because this vision is subtle and profound. In the first place, I will say that to understand the vision of the Sundering, (one should know that) the purpose of the Torah in writing all the details of this story was to inform us that this (vision actually) took place involving Abraham our forefather and the Lord; and also to inform us what it was that Abraham said to the Lord and what the Lord said to Abraham. | Abraham’s actions occurred literally, in a manner similar to what is recorded in the Book of Job. And even though it is possible to say that Job and his friends never existed, the same could not be said of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants. No matter what, we had patriarchs of old, for we did not spring out of the dust.
Having said this, I will (now) explain this episode accurately. I can affirm that in writing this story, the author of the Torah intended to teach us many important things, (to be learnt from) every statement and every affirmation, as is clear. Thus, in the first place, from the specific statement “in a vision,” we learn that wherever it is written that “the word of the Lord came to so-and-so” or “And the word of the Lord came” or “And the Lord said,” and similarly, “And the Lord spoke,” or whenever the Lord’s word is spoken of as coming to a prophet, whether it be in a vision or a sight, for they are the same, or whether it be in a dream, it always comes as a force settling on the prophet, as will be explained in several places.
“I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.” The intention of these words is to material reward in this world, even though the words “shield” and “reward” could be understood as referring to a spiritual (reward), such as in the world to come, (but such a spiritual sense) is unlikely according to the Hebrew usage. Proof is from the preceding “Fear not, Abram,” for “fear” (yir’ah) in its Hebrew usage can only be used in the context of this-worldly fear, of whatever kind it might be, or else the absence of what is good. Further proof of this is that evidently Abraham took it in the same way, (from his words) “what wilt thou give me since I go hence childless.” God even explained the reward to him: “he that comes forth out of thy own bowels shall be thine heir.” The complete statement, from “thy reward shall be exceeding great” until “so shall thy seed be,” did not add any new information from God, for it is not necessary that the Torah should (always) say something new on account of people’s talk.
Now a prophet, or anyone else, should not pray to the Lord to renew His favor, nor should he request reassurance of the Lord’s earlier words. Accordingly, when the Lord had said to Abraham, “thy reward shall be exceeding great,” Abraham requested an explanation of the words | “reward” and “great.” God then explained these terms to him at length, as well as the phrase “I am thy shield,” which was added to them. This is similar to “Hast thou not made a hedge about him, and about his house and about all that he has on every side.?” Now Abraham says two things: firstly, regarding the Lord’s closing statement with which He had left Abraham, and which being so important was therefore concise, Abraham says, “What wilt thou give me?” This is in reference to any future rewards that might be bestowed. (Secondly), regarding the Lord’s opening words, “I am thy shield,” which is in reference to what is already in Abraham’s possession, Abraham says, “That which you protect can only benefit Eliezer, who, because I have no son, is necessarily my (only) inheritor.” Subsequently, having stated the Lord’s words and their explanation, the giver of the Torah records that Abraham believed in the Lord, “and He counted it to him for righteousness.”
Then the giver of the Torah wrote that the Lord, in speaking with Abraham again, promised that he would inherit this land, the land of Canaan. While this had already been promised, (it is repeated here) for the promise to Abraham was to be repeated twice. (This happened) the first time in “unto thy seed will I give this land,” and the second time in “to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever.” This teaches us of three modes of expression, for on occasion Hebrew will refer to “a man” and intend his seed. This is because it is correct to associate a father with what will happen to his seed, and vice versa. This is something precious in the prophetic books, (such as) in the words of the Lord to Elijah when Ahab’s fate was foretold (by God). Remember this.
In this context the giver of the Torah taught us another precious lesson. This is (occasioned by the fact) that even the initial promise, that which promised the bestowal (of children), had already been promised several times by the Lord. It had been written first as “unto thy seed will I give all this land,” and more specifically the second time in “I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise walk through the land …” Accordingly, these promises having already been made, (God’s) words here are superfluous and repetitious. Abraham’s words present other problems, for in regard to the promise of the land, the Torah says, “And he believed in the Lord,” yet on the two previous occasions this is not stated. Did he not | believe until the third time? (This is even more questionable) for he did already have faith, proof being that after each vision it states, “And he builded there an altar unto the Lord.” (The answer to all these questions) is that this is all to teach us that it is proper for a king to make promises to his servants many times in various ways, on some occasions the servant will remain silent, while at other times he will answer and question. This is certainly the case when the king’s words incorporate words and names that are equivocal. In this instance “seed” and “son” are equivocal terms, for one can correctly refer thereby either to a blood-relative or to one who is merely nurtured by (an adoptive) father, as is the case with “and was unto him as a daughter.” Because all this is imaginable, and is similar to what is mentioned in the Metaphysics, Abraham therefore inquired on this third occasion if (God’s) words intended the (servant) living in his house. God then explained to him that “he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels (shall be thine heir).” Thus, God’s words having been reiterated several times, Abraham trusted and believed even more.
Because (the promise of seed) was destined to be fulfilled in his own lifetime, and was not fraught with dangers, Abraham did not request a sign as he had done regarding the promise of entry into the land, which was in the distant future and accompanied by pronounced danger. Furthermore (he did not continue to ask for signs) for the longer a sage and a prophet continue to have recourse to the intellect, they become more and more casuistic. Here, (further) request for signs would have been casuistic, shrewd, and devious, even had that request been for a proof that was speculative or prophetic.
Chapter 8
The elect and most wise sages, may their memory be blessed, said that “Moses wrote his book and the Book of Job.” Elsewhere they said that “Job never existed, for he was but a parable.” Their intention was to say that Moses composed the Book of Job, in his wisdom, to inform us of great truths, similar to what is said of the earliest philosophers. Such is the work written by Ibn Zur‘a that tells the parable of the argument of man with the rest of the animals. When a story is told as if it actually happened, one can learn from the dialogue several matters in practical philosophy, as well as precious things regarding natural science, whose goal is the attainment of the perfection and immortality of the soul. This is true of the Book of Job in every respect.
There is no doubt | that the first man existed, as did Noah, the patriarchs, and the (twelve) tribes. God forbid that the (sages), in attributing both (the Torah and Job) to Moses, meant thereby that the Torah is similar to Job in this respect. Their intention, rather, was to state that the Torah, like (Job), contains fundamental aspects of practical and theoretical philosophy. (Their statement) also teaches us that in the Torah some places contain parables and metaphors, including the episode (in the life) of Abraham regarding the heifer and the she-goat and ram, as well as that entire parable, and the incident of Jacob’s ladder, etc. This is especially true of this book (of Genesis) in the Torah, for in my opinion it is this book which the sages referred to as “the work of Creation.” The most profound part of (Genesis) is the section concluding, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” The book (of Genesis), containing in its entirety all that transpired before the birth of Moses, is the most important book in the Torah. This fact (of it having taken place prior to the birth of Moses) constitutes one of the special aspects of Genesis, for the Book of Exodus, and the following books, were easy (for Moses) to write, having seen everything with his own eyes. It was difficult, however, (to write) of what had occurred thousands of years earlier. Nevertheless, for Moses it was “but a small thing,” for nothing in the past was beyond Moses’ ability to write, even that which occured thousands of years previously. (It was no more difficult) than writing of what was to occur in years to come, as I will explain elsewhere. As a rule, whatever Moses wrote regarding past and future (events), he knew and wrote in accordance with the word (of God), for everything was conveyed to him from the Lord, or if you will, from heaven. This is especially true of those stories in Genesis referring to the past, for they are all categorical, i.e., anecdotal, statements. This is true of many preceding matters. Even though the sages said, “the (entire) Torah given at Sinai was written in black fire upon white fire,” my opinion is that they were referring primarily to Genesis, for it is the most important (of all), being “apples of gold in settings of silver.” | This (last verse) is especially true of Genesis, as it contains the exalted secrets and mysteries of the Torah, as well as the commandments of the heart that subsequently occur in the Torah in the form of nonanecdotal statements, such as “I am the Lord thy God,” “thou shalt have no other Gods,” and “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (This is also true of) “thou shalt love …” and “thou shalt fear.” All these (commandments) come in the book (of Genesis) in narrative and anecdotal form. For this reason the sages praised this book by referring to it as “the work of Creation,” as stated above.
Chapter 9
The wise know that a term when used as a verb can refer equally to a distant and a proximate agent, and that these adjectives (distant, proximate) can be understood in varying degrees, both more and less. Therefore in saying “act, do, make, create, move, bring forth, write, speak, say, build, destroy, forbid, permit, give, leave, eat, see, hear, remember,” as well as every verb used in any expression, it is correct, necessary, and proper to affirm, absolutely and without qualification, that (such verbs) can refer equally to the nearest agent and the furthest. In the Torah this (affirmation) has reference to the Lord, for He is above all the Separate Intelligences, the Heavenly Spheres, and so much more above earthly matter. (This is the meaning of the verse) “And He made them wander to and fro in the wilderness forty years,” meaning that the Lord on high caused the Israelites to move, but (in such a way that) He was necessarily only the distant, prime mover, while Moses was the most proximate external (cause). To this one can add “writes,” “says,” and “speaks” (when attributed to God in the Torah) as well as the other verbs that I may or may not have mentioned.
Regarding that which Moses wrote in the Torah, that “I am the Lord that brought thee out from Ur Kasdim, to give thee this land to inherit it: And he said, ‘O Lord, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?’” (we learn that) from these words God promised Abraham that in the future the land (of Canaan) would be completely inherited by his descendants, as was realized by Joshua. Abraham then asked for a sign and proof of this (promise), for | his words “whereby shall I know” are no different from those attributed by the writer of the Book of Kings to Hezekiah when he said, “What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me?” It was also no worse than that written in the Torah that the Lord on his own accord informed Moses, “This shall be the token unto thee that I have sent thee.” As a rule, a prophet or a sage may at times request a sign or proof, while at other times he may rely in the matter on other things. Sometimes the teacher may provide (the sign) of his own accord, or from a recognition that his student doubts his words to a greater or lesser degree. Either he will provide rational proof or else (he will do it in such a way) that others will not doubt. This is similar to Aristotle’s mentioning in his book signs and proofs of the continued existence of the heavens, for the benefit of his students. There are others like this, as Maimonides wrote in (the Guide) I:21.
While we cannot compare or equate the Torah to other books, nor can we compare Moses, who wrote the Torah, with other authors, (nor can we compare them to) the Lord, who was the prime writer and giver of the Torah, nonetheless we may conceive of a relation between this holy book and its meaning, and other books, by way of analogy. This is similar, for example, to our describing Natural Matter, which is the work of God, by analogy to the lowly product, i.e., a container of urine.
For this reason, (we can explain) that when Abraham the student (of God) asked for a sign and proof from his great teacher, the Lord, that He should verify in any way what had been asserted, it was just as Alexander might have asked of his teacher, Aristotle, or ’Abaye of Rava’ his teacher. Everything is according to the occupation and level of the individual, for “the fool will believe everything, while the wise will understand well,” or in any case (the wise) will want to know the meaning to the greatest possible extent. Such is the nature of the questions that sages ask of the Lord, and that the prophets ask and are praised for. It is through this that “The Lord rejoices in his works.” Thus when Abraham said, | “Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?,” it was the same as Moses’ saying, “If flocks and herds be slain, will they suffice them?” There are many passages like this.
In answer, the Lord tells him, “Take me a heifer of three years old” until “And Abram drove them away,” and then, “It came to pass that, when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and He said unto Abram, ‘… for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.’ … and it came to pass when the sun went down …” One should know that occasionally it is the custom of the Lord to inform the prophets, his students, of future things that will come to pass, using phrases and words that occur in the form of parable and metaphor, as was done in the case of Jacob’s parable of the ladder with its appropriate (symbols). It was similar in the case of Ezekiel, when all of Metaphysics occurred in a parable; in the case of Jeremiah with regard to the future, in the parables that begin, “I see the rod of an almond tree” and “the seething pot”; and in the case of Amos, in the parables that begin “Plumbline” and a “basket of summer fruit.” In these cases it is not necessary that the words always come in one form, for it is in accordance with a teacher’s wisdom that he makes changes in his words, while retaining the original meaning. What is meant by this is shown when on occasion the Lord inquires of a prophet, “What do you see,” and the prophet answers, “I see thus and so,” to which the Lord replies, “The explanation is thus and so.” This is what occurred in the cases of Jeremiah and Amos, mentioned above. Sometimes not all the details of the question and answer are mentioned, as when the Lord merely provides the parable for the “student,” who later establishes his own explanation. This happened to Ezekiel, when the Lord provided him with a parable, in which, according to the most outstanding of our sages, “the dead in Ezekiel were a parable.” And even though the Lord subsequently provided him with an explanation, saying, “These bones are the whole house of Israel, and I will put my spirit in you, and ye shall live,” it was not necessary for Him to say to Ezekiel, “Know that these bones are the whole house of Israel,” for had He omitted this, the meaning would have been retained, and the omission would have been correct.
Accordingly, as Maimonides said, it is not always necessary that all the details of a parable | and its interpretation be identical. Here (in the vision of the Sundering) the parable includes everything from the term “heifer” until the words “and Abram drove them away.” The interpretation extends from “thy seed shall be a stranger” until “is not yet full.” Accordingly, while the solution covers four verses, it is found in only two verses: i.e., “Know of a surety” and “In the fourth generation.” It excludes “for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full,” for these two other verses do not explain what is in the parable, but rather they provide new information that together with the others relates to what was intended for Abraham. Now the Lord, (like) a teacher, was careful to conceal in the middle that which was not part of the main explanation of the parable, as is proper for one who wishes to conceal and hide, as I have explained in regard to Jacob’s words “as long as men come to Shiloh.” Likewise there are other words in the parable that are not an integral part of the intended promise, including “and he laid each half over against the other,” as I will explain later. It appears from all of this that the Lord wanted to reveal to Abraham that some of his seed would be slaves in a strange land not owned by them, but He did not want to reveal to him which land (that would be), except to tell him that the fourth generation would escape from that servitude. This is what occurred in Egypt, as it is written, “And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation,” and then, “Now there arose a new king over Egypt,” which began the enslavement of the tribes. Included were the generations of Kohath, Amram, and Moses. Thus, the words “thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them” accord with the manner of every wise teacher, and are certainly appropriate words for the great teacher who is the Lord.
“Thy seed shall be a stranger” refers to Egypt, saying that his seed would serve and be afflicted by the Egyptians.
“Four hundred years” has no allusion in the parable, but it was considered correct by the teacher to reveal the complete explanation and intended meaning at that point. This figure is related to “thy seed shall be a stranger,” but the phrase “and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them” is not necessarily part of the figure (of four hundred years). In a sense it would be correct | to say that they were afflicted for (four hundred years) during all that time, for it is the lot of every stranger (to be afflicted). Reliable evidence of this (affliction) is provided by the (names) of the wells dug by Isaac, called ‘Eseḳ (“contention”) and Siṭnah (“enmity”), as well as the incident of (the rape of) Dinah in Jacob’s lifetime. In any case, Isaac and Jacob were aliens, downtrodden and subservient for a time in Egypt, a fact which justifies the figure of four hundred years, and removes any inconsistency. However, part of (the four hundred years) was more intense and literal as far as the words “serve” and “afflict.” (This is consistent) with what I mentioned above, saying that descriptive words can be used in an exact literal sense, and also in a loose sense. The Lord revealed to Abraham that the words “thy seed shall be a stranger” referred to three generations, when He stated afterwards “the fourth generation …” That fourth generation was the one that entered the land in the time of Joshua, the generation that was led about in the desert having been the third generation that endured in part the suffering in Egypt, starting on the day that Moses was born and continuing until the time of the burning bush, when he was eighty years old. (In this matter) it is not necessary to detail the components and the people involved.
The explanation of the parable (of the Sundering) is that the three animals that are mentioned are a metaphor for the three generations discussed above, while the turtle-dove and the young pigeon refer to the fourth generation. The Lord commanded him to sunder the three species so that their blood could be offered to the Lord. The words “all these” (“he took him …”) refers only to the livestock, in that later it is written, “but the birds divided he not.” The word “all” poses no problem (by implying that Abraham took everything) to one who knows the holy language. All of this refers to the beating and pursuing of the Israelites that took place during those three generations, which resulted in their being considered corpses. One need not say “like corpses,” for they really were dead bodies, in accordance with what is explained in the Metaphysics, and certainly in view of what is written in the Posterior Analytics and the De Caelo.
The fact that the birds were not sundered, i.e., the turtle-dove and the young pigeon, was in reference to the absence of persecution | of the fourth generation at the hands of the Egyptians.
The meaning of the birds of prey that descended, which included birds that stamp on their prey, as is known from Jeremiah’s words, as well as those of Ezekiel in explaining [“strangers” as a description of the three kinds of deceased], is in reference to the coming together of all the Egyptians, king and people, for the purpose of enslaving them. As it is written, “and he said unto his people,” and “the heart of Pharaoh and his servants were turned.”
When Abraham drove away the stamping birds of prey that drink blood, it was in reference to the three generations that were not completely destroyed, for (after all) six hundred thousand warriors, not counting women and children, escaped from Egypt.
The Lord, as a teacher would do, described three species of animal to Abraham—a heifer, a she-goat, and a ram. These were, as noted earlier, a parable and metaphor for the three generations of Jews who were strangers and servants. The number is appropriate: three species that correspond to three generations. The number “three” is a properly equivocal term, for the intent is to one she- goat, one heifer, and one ram, a sum of three, with each one constituting a third, no matter which one is placed first, which one second, and which one third. Now (the Lord) as the teacher, mentioned these three animals three times, to emphasize and reinforce that this was indeed coming from God. Joseph learnt from this (repetition) when he said in reference to the cows and the heaped stalks, “The dream of Pharaoh is one … and for that the dream was doubled twice, it is because the thing is established by God,” all the more had it been repeated thrice, for “the threefold cord is not quickly broken,” and “a ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it.” Were one to say there were actually three heifers and three she-goats and three rams, that too would be correct, for the truth is | the truth no matter which side it is looked upon. As Aristotle said, “the truth is its own witness and consistent on every side.”
I can now explain the meaning of the words ‘eglah (“heifer”), ‘ez (“she-goat”), and ’ayil (“ram”) in accordance with their precise significance. (This is possible) as these things are unlike sacrifices, of which Maimonides said that it is impossible for them to be without some species or number. The Torah describes the congregation of Israel first as a heifer (‘eglah), which is customary, as it is written, “Ephraim is a heifer well-broken.” Furthermore, ‘eglah is derived from ‘agol (“circle”), as in a continuously revolving cycle that alludes to (that which repeats itself) in our patriarchs and ourselves. A meaning is also found through metathesis in a manner that is similar to Maimonides’ allusion regarding regel-‘egel. Accordingly, (the metathesis of ‘egel) is ge‘olah (“loathing”), as in “thy soul loathed,” similar to what Maimonides noted in connection with ḥovel, a verb whose metathesis is vohel, alluding to “and their soul also loathed me.” (‘Egel thus) refers to the fact that the (Israelites in Egypt) would be loathsome in their servitude.
‘Ez (“she-goat”) alludes to ‘oz (“strength”), for it would require much fortitude to endure the suffering in Egypt, (and necessitate their turning to) Him who “giveth power to the faint.” In addition (there is a reference) by way of metathesis in that za‘ (“move”) implies that that generation would wander in that place.
’Ayil (“ram”) is (in reference to) the verse “as a man that has no help (’ayil),” which gives it the meaning of “strength,” as with ‘oz. The metathesis (of ’ayil) is ya’al, which gives the meaning of one who desires other circumstances, for the will of the Lord was (otherwise), as in “he bowed his shoulder to bear (that which was not his will).”
The whole parable relates their (destiny) to animals, for those people were as animals, not having received the true Torah, which “maketh wise the simple.” Furthermore, the (Israelites) were like weak animals in relation to their oppressors, and for this reason a heifer, and not a cow, is mentioned, for a cow implies that which is strong, as in “a stubborn cow.”
The turtle-dove and pigeon are birds that refer to the fourth generation, which would escape from there like a winged bird to go to Israel, as explained above. In addition | the word tor is a homonym, indicating a specified period, as in “when the turn (tor) of Esther was come.” This is true both of the agent and the one acted upon, for from the point of view of Israel the sages said in Hallel, “from here we learn that God calculates the redemption,” which I explained in the context of the burning bush; from the point of view (of the acted upon), it is said of the Amorites and their neighbors, “for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.” The words of Jeremiah regarding Nebuchadnezzar, “until his time come,” are similar to this. (A similar specified period is found) in Ezekiel’s statement foretelling the destruction of the land of Israel and the victory of Nebuchadnezzar, “A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, shall I make it; this also shall come no more until he come whose right it is, and I will give it him.”
Gozal (“pigeon”) is likewise equivocal, in that it refers also to stealing (gazal). This term provides a complete description (of the generation entering the land) that is consistent with “they are a nation void of counsel.” The generation that laid siege to the land of Israel was compared to a pigeon (gozal) in its relation to the Canaanites, in accordance with the opinion of many, or (at least) some, including Joshua himself, who wrote, “And the men pursued after them.” Reliable evidence of this is that in Deuteronomy Moses compares the taking of the land of Canaan by the Israelites to the taking of the Horite land by the descendants of Esau, and the land of the Rephaim by the Ammonites. The (operative) principle is “the Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away,” or as Jeremiah said in the name of the Lord, “I have made the earth” (and can give it to whomever I choose).
“And he laid each half over against the other”; this was only so that the flaming torch could pass between the sundered pieces so that the covenant could be made involving the Lord and Abram. By sundering these carcasses, (it was undertaken that the covenant) would not be sundered as they were. Such was the custom of old, as it is written, “they cut the calf in twain and passed between the parts thereof.” In this context, | ‘agal could be understood as alluding to ‘agalah (“carriage”). If there are other (allusions), there would be no harm done.
“The pillar of fire” alludes to the glory of the Lord, for “the Lord thy God is a devouring fire,” and the appearance of the Lord’s glory is that of a consuming fire.
“And also that nation whom they shall serve, will I judge, and afterward shall they come out with great substance.” Even though this is located in the explanation of the parable, it does not explain any words appearing in the parable, as I have stated above. Instead it contains a new teaching, unmentioned above. It is the same with “but thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in good old age,” which teaches that the promised destiny would not begin with himself, but with Isaac.
Notice another precise thing: throughout this vision there are three levels. Those coming later are more important than the earlier ones. This is correct when anyone secludes himself in examination of his soul, whether in a dimension of intellectual (endeavor) or prophetic (endeavor), as the philosophers have written. The first (stage) of this important event occurred (on the level of prophecy described by the phrase) “in a vision do I make myself known unto him.” That this stage took place at a specific hour during the day is proved by “when the sun was going down.” When the day was coming to an end and the sun was about to set, Abram took strength a second time, and achieved a higher level. This is the meaning of “when the sun was going down.” The great seclusion caused: “a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and lo, a dread, even a great darkness, fell upon him.” At this level, greater than the preceding, the explanation of what had been hidden was achieved, i.e., the explanation of the (earlier) parable. This would happen with Jeremiah and Amos in the wake of preceding (parables). Later Abraham took strength a third time, having preceded that with prophetic seclusion. (At that point) the sun had settled completely, so there was the intense darkness of night, even “thick darkness” (‘alaṭah), which was more intense than (mere) “darkness” (ḥashekhah). In addition (at this level) there was a smoking furnace, as there was at Mount Sinai, as it is said, “and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of the furnace.” At this point the Lord’s glory came down upon him in the image of a flaming torch, passing between these sundered parts, and by passing through (them) made a covenant with Abraham, as it is said, “On that day God made a covenant with Abram, saying,” where (“on that day”) means “at that moment.” | This is like “on the day that thou eatest thereof” (meaning “at that moment that thou eatest thereof”).
The expression “to make a covenant,” as well as any expression of an oath (by the Lord), occurs in the sense of “the Torah speaks in the language of men.” It merely conveys the idea of something permanent and necessary. Now even though (the subject of the covenant) referred to a future event, (the likelihood of its coming to be) was of the order of tomorrow’s sunrise (i.e., a certainty), and not of the order of rainfall on the morrow (which would be contingent). This promise of the land that was made to Abraham was more secure and well bound than any of the earlier promises made to him in this regard, for it was by way of a covenant. (This is shown) in truth by the fact that when Abraham asked of the Lord, “Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?”, which the wise know was because one can only rely on that which is proved, the Lord’s answer was essentially to establish a covenant. The reason for this was that future events from the Lord of a prophetic nature (are proven by a covenant), just as things that exist at present are proven by a wise teacher who adduces conclusion from necessary and independent premises. It is known that the Lord interchanges modes, i.e., the prophetic modes and those of the rational sciences. Consequently Abraham inquired correctly when he said, “Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” and the Lord answered him correctly. This was similar to if Averroës had asked Aristotle, “How shall I know that every man is sentient?” to which the reply would have been, “Know that every man is an animal, and every animal is sentient.” This was how Abraham, in an imprecise manner, inquired of the Lord, in accordance with the dimension of the prophetic mode, which is appropriate for future events. The Lord answered him with the appropriate means by making a necessary proof consisting of a covenant that verified that the future decree was necessary, not contingent. The Lord, however, preceded that proof by stating, “Take me a heifer …” and that entire passage, by way of introducing the desired statement, (to answer) the request to know that the matter was as necessary as tomorrow’s sunrise.
Accordingly, Abraham’s words “whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it” were as if he had said, “Lord God, | on several occasions you have promised me that ‘this land will I give unto you,’ but I do not know if this future decree is necessary or contingent, and therefore I am in doubt and afraid. Explain this to me.” The Lord then fulfilled Abraham’s desire through the making of the covenant, which informed Abraham that (the promise) was a necessary one. It was for this reason that Abraham said “how shall I know” and did not say “how shall I believe” or “how shall I think” or “how is it possible,” as had been said earlier in regard to the two earlier promises, i.e., the promise of seed, and that of———. In this regard, Maimonides explained ’emunah (“faith”) and ha’amanah (“the act of believing”) in the Guide I:50. In the Posterior Analytics it has been explained that what is not known by means of a necessary proof is considered a “justifiable conception,” or a thought that is right and just. It is similar with the mode of prophecy, for that which is not known with certainty, as the knowledge of the future rising of the sun, is described in these terms (i.e., “belief”). Therefore earlier it states, “And He counted it to him for righteousness” (i.e., Abraham’s acceptance of the promise of seed), for God had not informed Abraham that it was a necessary promise, and Abraham did not ask for such (assurance) except in this case (of the land), for whatever reason. It was only after Abraham did well in the binding of Isaac that the Lord, of His own accord, provided Abraham the necessary knowledge, i.e., the (necessary) great multiplication of his seed, in the words “by myself have I sworn.” Had the Lord made (such) a covenant with Jacob, or sworn on the words “I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude,” then Jacob would not have feared on account of Esau. (His fear) was not because Jacob was foolish, he merely followed Abraham’s thinking (in not asking for such a covenant regarding seed), for Abraham did not ask “how shall I know …” in relation to the promise of his personal benefits, or of the multiplication of his seed. Those things were close in time to being fulfilled, as well as close in reality, for they were naturally probable. (This is) enough on this subject.
In the Kesef Sigim I asked what was the sin of Israel for which God decreed such troubles on them, | and I also said that in any case the writer of the Torah should not have mentioned their sufferings without (also mentioning) their sins. For such (undeserved punishment) is considered evil and distasteful by the masses, and even by those few people (close to) the Lord. The answer is that the Lord did not intend this (decree) by way of suffering and punishment, neither did He intend to burden Abraham’s heart, for His intention throughout this vision was to impart good news to him. If one would ask, how can “and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them” be good news, the answer is to be found by asking, how could God’s promise to Manoah’s wife, stating “behold now, thou art barren … but thou shalt conceive and bear a son,” be good news? After all (giving birth) involves the problems of suffering, pain, and fear, in accordance with the characterization of giving birth as “in pain thou shall bring forth children,” i.e., conception and giving birth are compared to suffering. It is similar in the precise statement “as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children,” where the term ḥalah is not related to ḥayil (“strength”). (In the case of Abraham) the tidings of a child and children are mentioned in a precise way in that they only mention the existence of the child (and not the suffering that precedes), when it says, “I will bless her and moreover I will give thee a son of her,” and elsewhere, “I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh around, and lo, thy wife shall have a son.” This was as if to inform us that (God) did not wish her (to have) the pains preceding the birth of the child, for her benefit and satisfaction——— ———. Yet it was impossible to achieve such a benefit without its preceding pains and suffering.
Reliable evidence for this is provided by those going to sea in ships who risk and endanger their lives in order to profit thousands of gold pieces when they reach their destination, and then they thank God for His mercies, as David has written. Should they, on account of the dangers, avoid traveling on the sea or not rejoice at the profits? It is similar with the merchants traveling in the desert, and (the soldiers) who conquer cities in war, and in so doing suffer many things, including death. Why should I need to mention these examples, when the achievement of all benefits in the world is just like this. Even women and children know that a man achieves nothing by merely lying with his wife.
Now this is especially true here (in the case of Abraham’s descendants in Egypt), when those problems mentioned, i.e., the servitude and affliction, are themselves the cause of “and afterwards they shall come out with great substance,” and “in the fourth generation they shall come back hither.” This is true for several reasons: Firstly, were it not | for (these problems), there would not have occurred “the children of Israel sighed … and their cry came up to God,” which was the essential reason that the Lord took them from Egypt. This is also true of “I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters.” Had the children of Israel lived in Egypt in peace, and had none of this (affliction) existed, they would not have inherited the land of Canaan or built the Temple. The same applies (to all the benefits) listed in the Hallel in “how many degrees of goodness has God wrought with us,” which does not include “every woman shall ask of her neighbor and of her that sojourneth in her house,” and “And they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold … and raiment … and they despoiled the Egyptians.” Altogether, the servitude and affliction were the essential cause of the success of our forefathers in improving body and soul, the ultimate (goal). This is to be compared to those at sea en route to their destination, who are led to another destination against their will by a storm brought by the Lord, only to profit many times more (than originally planned), or to profit instead of losing their lives and money had they reached their intended destination. This is a constant occurrence on land and sea. The same is true of our people (in Egypt) in their success (in improving their body and soul). The enslavement of Joseph after he was sold and imprisoned and tied (hand) and foot was similar. The whole matter is to be compared to a sick man who is fed “sangvin” (which is a bitter potion) causing him to recuperate and stay alive, only to die later when he is fed honey. The sages compare this to one whose organ was severed in wartime by an enemy, resulting in a loss of blood that saved his life, for (all along) he had been in need of bloodletting to prevent his death. Why should I continue at length in a matter which even babes know?
“But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace” poses no question, for “peace” fluctuates by degrees, so that Abraham’s peace exceeded that of his seed, who were slaves. Notice this precision (of expression), for in truth this applies to affirmations regarding the Lord.
“And afterward they shall come out with great substance.” The acquisition of worldly possessions is an evil (when evaluated in light of) the highest truths. In the final analysis one can only eat food and wear clothing, yet who could explain this to the masses of our people? Isaiah expresses this when he says, “O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of Asshur, though he smite thee with the rod and lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.” | This phrase, “after the manner of Egypt,” was meant to inform them that the news of Egypt’s affliction of our people was good news, not news of suffering and castigation. Isaiah used to say this to the people of Zion, where the words “be not afraid …” were not in reference to the rod (he did not deny that they would be smitten), but that the smiting would not be an evil thing. Whatever I have said is to be found in the wise saying, “You shall not achieve that for which you yearn, without first enduring that which you despise.” In this world this is similar to “Thou shalt not eat its honey except that it be mixed with poison.” This is the meaning of “but thou shall go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age,” where the death and burial themselves are not good news, but only necessary, whereas the good news was that this would happen in peace and in a good old age. Certainly the promise mentioned to Abraham earlier was likewise, in saying “and they shall afflict them … and afterward they shall come out …”
In the case of the news and the blessing, “Behold, thou art with child, and thou shall bear a son,” that were told to Hagar, (her conceiving is mentioned) because the conception and birth necessarily precede the existence of the child, thus those evils (must precede) the benefits and the blessing. (This is also stated explicitly) in the curse of Eve, beginning “and unto the woman He said …”
(In conclusion) it was necessary that these ideas precede, both in time and causal relation, their exodus “with great substance.” Otherwise they would have left poor and without property, or at most with very few possessions. Note carefully that on both occasions when the Lord promised that Sarah would have a child, He does not mention the conception and birth, as was done with Hagar, but instead is careful to mention only the existence of the child, that which is the blessing.
Chapter 10
This (chapter) will explain the second vision of Abraham, which begins: “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, and the Lord appeared unto Abram and said unto him, ‘I am God Almighty; walk before me and be thou whole-hearted.’” I have already discussed the name “God” (’El), and the name “Almighty” (Shaddai) in many places, where I have pointed out that (the Torah) ascribes these weak names to the Lord, in the context of the command to be fruitful and multiply, both here and in the context of Jacob. For this reason this (verse) does not use “I am the Lord …” (At the same time) I do not insist that this (explanation of that name) is certain and necessary, for it is not (necessarily) acceptable to everyone. I do say, however, that this explanation is the best and most exact, in accordance with Maimonides’ fifth cause of contradiction, i.e., substitution and change.
I have already explained “Walk before me and be thou whole-hearted.” There is no question why these words that imply weakness are used in reference to Abraham, for in spite of Abraham’s previous attainment of complete wholeness and perfection of prophecy, | there will occur some weakness at the time of a later prophetic vision, as Maimonides revealed in his book in the chapters dealing with prophecy.
“And Abram fell on his face.” Even though this did not take place at the outset of the prophecy, as occurred in the earlier prophecy of the Sundering of the pieces, what happened here is in accordance with Maimonides’ statement that “afterward that trembling becomes greater.”
The statement (of the Lord) in this vision goes beyond the preceding (promises from God that Abraham would have) seed and be multiplied, and (beyond the promise) that Abraham, i.e., his descendants, would inherit the land. What He added to all of this was that He would be their God. This would be the finest facet of the covenant made with Abraham in the vision of the Sundering. (This fact) that those among his descendants who would be complete would achieve this (closeness to God) was not mentioned there.
“And as for thee, thou shall keep my covenant.” These words explain that the term “covenant,” which was used in the vision of the covenant, could be used as an equivocal term having three meanings: the first was in reference to the covenant of inheritance, as mentioned in the vision of the Sundering; the second refers to (the promise) “to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee”; and the third is in reference to the covenant of the circumcision. In the same way it is always proper to divide a general term, whether it be an equivocal term or a conventional term, into its parts. The covenant of circumcision has a similar function to that of the covenants mentioned earlier, (even though this was not stated explicitly, for) it was not appropriate to say in that connection, “it shall be a token of a covenant,” or “it shall be a sign.”
“And God said unto Abraham: ‘As for Sarai thy wife …’” Whoever wishes to explain prophecy should compare it to speculative matters, and that in turn to practical matters, for then he will understand. Now it is clear from all these matters, that what comes later is superior. Accordingly, in the present vision, Abraham perceived during the initial period of seclusion that he would have descendants, that the Lord would be his God, and that his descendants would be circumcised—but it was not clear to him from which woman (he would have those children). This is only apprehended at this subsequent stage, as is always the case with the prophets. This was how it was at the vision of the Sundering (as well). (At a later stage) there is either some further explanation of what had preceded earlier or else some new insight. In the present instance, what was new and additional was the news that he would have a child from Sarah.
“And said in his heart, ‘shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old, and shall Sarah …’” As for these words, I have already explained the phrase “in his heart” in connection with “and it grieved Him at His heart” and “And the Lord said in His heart,” in Maṣref La-Kesef. Here the implication is that Abraham did not want the Lord or anyone else to hear him, teaching us that it is not correct to doubt the king’s words at all. The writer of the Torah recorded this for us so that we should understand | what I have explained here. The masses should certainly not feel that Abraham was in doubt. (Instead they should feel that “in his heart”) has the same meaning as when it is used with Eliezer and Esau. The reason for his speaking “in his heart” was that it was not right that his contemporaries should think that Abraham was in doubt or uncertain of the promise of the Lord, or uncertain of his ability to understand God’s word in spite of his being so great a prophet.
Now the purpose of this statement, and what it implies, was that the Lord told him of the decree that he would father a son of Sarah that would become a nation. This was a special decree of a future event that was to be like the rising of tomorrow’s sun, or tomorrow’s rainfall. This was something that Abraham did not understand.
Yiṣḥak poses no question, for it is known that yiṣḥak is equivocal, referring either to a mocking that conveys an intent that is evil or corrupt, or to a (benign) mixture of joy, introspection, and incredulity. In the present context one meaning is intended, while in the next chapter, regarding Sarah, the other occurs.
“Oh that Ishmael might live before thee.” Such words are not appropriate for a man such as Abraham, for by uttering them he attributed deception or exaggeration to God. God had told him that Sarah would give birth, and this answer—“Oh that Ishmael might live before thee”—was as if he said, “(You must be referring to) this son, for otherwise this is impossible and cannot happen.” The answer to all this is that this entire passage displays remarkable wisdom, and can be attested to by those knowing logic. Abraham said to the Lord, “Regarding what you mentioned earlier in the vision—i.e., ‘I will make thee exceeding fruitful … and I will establish my covenant … and I will give unto thy seed the land of thy sojournings …’—clearly these things are as necessary as tomorrow’s sunrise, for all of this explains the earlier vision of the Sundering, which spoke of the covenant. This, however, could all apply equally to Ishmael, who is already born.” All this is meant by the words “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee,” which assert that it might be Ishmael who would be fruitful and have children who would inherit the land of Canaan. (In other words) he is saying, “God, in your words there are two mysteries that I do not understand. In either case what you have said is correct, for it is impossible for you to lie, for ‘God is not man that He should lie.’” This is the meaning of Abraham’s words, in the same sense as his saying, “Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?”
Accordingly, “Oh that Ishmael …” should not be taken in the sense that stumbling women would speak, neither according to the ways of effeminate men. It is certain that when Moses wrote this scroll and express statement, which is the Torah and its narratives, (he did not intend to imply such doubts).
The Lord then answers him, resolving both the first and second doubts in their proper order. He said to him: “Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shall call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed | after him.” The meaning of this statement of God the teacher to Abraham His student is, “Regarding your doubt whether the decree that you will have a son from Sarah is necessary or contingent, know that it is necessary, even though there is no mention of a covenant or an oath in that context.” This is the meaning of His word “nay,” which is similar to “Nay, for we are guilty,” or wherever “nay” constitutes the first word of a sentence. Similarly it is said in the prayers, “Nay, we have sinned,” which is similar to “Moreover she is my sister,” where the meaning is “in truth (we have sinned).” This is in accordance with Maimonides’ definition of truth as he explained in (the Guide) I:50, and in accordance with the books of the philosophers. Thus, with this separate word “nay,” the Lord informed Abraham that the decree “and moreover I will give thee a son of her” was for a necessary future event. The Lord told him, “While it is true that you are in doubt, and you have said that the future decrees mentioned above, including the vision of the Sundering, while true might refer to Ishmael—nonetheless know that the decrees are such that they refer to Isaac, who will be born of Sarah. And if there be a decree included in the above that does refer to both Isaac and Ishmael, and that says ‘I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations out of thee and kings will come out of thee,’ nonetheless the decree saying ‘I will establish my covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee,’ which follows, refers exclusively to Isaac.” This is the meaning of the words “I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him,” which are spoken at this point, as well as the meaning of “As for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly.” By way of further clarification of the above-mentioned covenant as described in the vision of the Sundering, God reaffirms that “my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee.” The meaning of this statement is, “As for Ishmael, while I referred to him earlier when I said you would be multiplied—I was not referring to him at all when I said that I would establish my covenant (between me and thee and thy seed after thee); indeed I have not made any covenant with you that could refer to Ishmael.” At the close of the (prophetic) seclusion the Lord informs Abraham that in addition (Isaac will be born) “at this set time in the next year,” (for the conclusion of a vision) is the most auspicious.
There is another great and remarkable observation. In several places I have written that the giver of the Torah, as well as those who established the Hebrew language in general, agreed to the usage whereby the past tense (of a verb) could be used to refer to the future, and vice versa. As I explained, this is correct for several reasons, each instance depending on its particular signification and literal meaning. This method was one of the effective techniques used by the writer of the Torah to conceal esoteric doctrine, (using terms) that are in doubt or subject to interpretation, | which are a form of equivocation. Two such places are here, for the words natati mimenah lekha ben (lit. “I have given you a son of her”) refer exclusively to the future, as up to that point this had not been done, even in an esoteric sense. On the other hand, beirakhti ’oto ve-hifreiti ’oto (“I have blessed him and made him fruitful”) refers exclusively to the past, for earlier the Lord had said, “ve-hifreiti ’otekha bi-me’od me’od (“I will multiply thee exceedingly”), which is an explicit utterance (of blessing being given).
The phrase “As for Ishmael, I have heard thee” does not pose a problem by implying that Abraham had uttered a new prayer in the words “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee.” For the expression is equivocal, intentionally written in this attractive way by the writer of the Torah so that its exoteric sense be understood (as a new prayer). According to this exoteric explanation, the meaning of the verse, when God says “I will bless him and make him fruitful,” refers exclusively to the future (as blessings promised for the future in response to Abraham’s new prayer), as an event that will exist in the future. This will be either on account of its being presently spoken (as a blessing for the future) or because right now it is in potential. My own (preferred) explanation, however, is in accordance with the esoteric meaning and with precise philosophic insight. Both explanations here possess truth. This is true of the entire Torah, in that every term and statement possesses a meaning within a meaning, both of which are true. It is similar in every science, in every means of expression and artistry, or artistic instrument.
“And He left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.” These words are similar to “The Lord went His way as soon as He had left off speaking with Abraham,” as well as “and God went up from him,” said of Jacob. Undoubtedly it is always like this, but it is not always necessary that it be so written. In any case the meaning is clearly that it is God who removes Himself from the person. Maimonides explained the equivocal nature of ‘alah (“ascend”) and halakh (“went”) to allude to this. All of this is by way of “the Torah speaks in the language of men,” for kings depart from servants at will, not the other way around, for a servant lacks sufficient power to hold a king back. If a servant does have any power in such matters, it is only as when Jacob said, “Let me go.” These matters are all very profound, to be understood by those who know the true nature of prophecy as explained by Maimonides in the Guide II:36, as well as (the true nature of) the rational, speculative faculty.
Chapter 11
The masses or those who dabble in philosophy think that when Moses handed the commentary of his book to Joshua, (and when that was given) by Joshua to the elders, and by the elders to the prophets, and by the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly, the most important part (of the commentary) began only | at “Ye shall dwell in booths seven days,” and other similar practical commandments. Some think, perhaps, that such (a commentary) was only formulated with regard to these (practical) commandments. Far be this from the truth, for (that part of the commentary) was minor, while the major portion, and the most important, pertained to the speculative commandments of the heart, and to the anecdotes that make up the Book of Genesis, and which are, in fact, in explanation of (the speculative commandments).
For this reason, the explanations that I have mentioned in regard to these two visions, as well as similar matters derived from speculative philosophy, and subsequently those derived from practical philosophy, are, in fact, the things that Moses taught as the essential, and primarily intended, subject-matter. This was the case with those that followed him.
Chapter 12
Know that in the Torah, when any prophet expresses a thought that implies some question or uncertainty, it does not mean that that prophet doubts the word of the Lord, or considers the possibility that His word, whether great or small, could be voided. (The reason is that a prophet knows that) “there shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord.” When such statements are spoken by the prophets, as when Abraham said, “Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old,” and “Wilt thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked”; or when Jacob said, “Thou saidest, ‘I will surely do thee good’”; or when Moses uttered several statements of this kind—all these are spoken in the fullest faith that the word of the Lord will neither fail nor deceive. These statements come instead by way of investigative query, inasmuch as the word of the Lord can be interpreted in various ways. The student, i.e., the prophet, requests clarification of whether (the Lord’s) intention is to (all) the interpretations or some of them, and if to some of them, how many and which ones. Regarding this variety of interpretations, there are many things to consider. The most important, those that override the others, are two: are there terms or phrases which are equivocal; and, what is the mode of expression? (The latter factor occurs) when (it is not clear whether the expression) is contingent or necessary, because it lacks a qualifying phrase. An example of a contingent statement (that is unclear) is, “It may be that I shall be builded up through her.” An example of a necessary statement (that is similary unclear) because it lacks a qualifying phrase, is, “I will give thee a son of her.” Statements having qualifying phrases include “Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son,” which (indicates) a covenantal obligation or an expression of an oath. Nowhere in the Torah is there an expression that has qualifying phrases unless such a phrase conforms to these (two) formulations. Even the pronouncements of Isaiah on the destruction of Edom are not really necessary expressions—certainly none of the others (that prophesy destruction).
The general rule here is that both | the fool and the wise raise questions, but that while the fool asks in order to make fun, a wise person will inquire out of consideration of the principles of science. This is meant by “it is not out of wisdom that thou inquirest concerning this,” for indeed (Ecclesiastes) asks precisely that question —however, it is from such considerations that he attained wisdom, for he inquired in investigation of that detail in a manner that a fool would not even ask regarding general principles. (Similarly) Aristotle said that one only knows something by comprehending it from both points of view, as is recorded in the Posterior Analytics.
Chapter 13
This (chapter) explains the third version of Abraham, which begins, “And the Lord appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre.” Maimonides in the Guide II:36 wrote something in this manner: “It is known that a matter that occupies a man greatly—he being bent upon it and desirous of it—while he is awake and while his senses function, is that with regard to which the imaginative faculty acts while he is asleep …”
This is proven by the dreams of every person, as, for example, when fools experience a nocturnal emission, and the wise experience the speculative sciences or future events, whether literally or metaphorically. On occasion the metaphor will be concerning practical philosophy, as was the case here with Abraham, for generous hospitality toward guests that are good and honorable is a principle of practical philosophy. Such was his manner when awake, and it was in that form that Abraham saw the vision in comprehending the configuration of the future. In my opinion this parable belongs to the second category enumerated by Maimonides, may his memory be blessed, for significance is to be found only in the general outline of the parable, with the details that are present being for aesthetic reasons, and not to conceal the hidden meaning.
At the outset the giver of the Torah mentions the general location and the specific place, where “the terebinths of Mamre” is the general place-name. This teaches us that a location is instrumental, in that (it provides) the circumstantial factors. This is certainly true of the specific place when added to the position of the person in relation to that place. In the present case he is seated (yoshev), in the manner of all who are composed (meyushav ha-da‘at) in the act of speculative withdrawal, as opposed to one who is standing and moving around. This is also implied by his being in the tent, separated from people.
“Door” is necessarily stated for two reasons. The first is required for the following “appeared unto him … and lo, three men”; the other is to teach us that his wife was not there with him, but she was within. By being at the door of the tent, he combined a dual separation, both from his wife and from his contemporaries, (both of which) prevent the achievement of everything good by one who frequents their company.
“In the heat of the day” specifies the time as that time when one separates from people, as each one stays in his tent on account of the heat, as it was evidently the summertime. | This is proven by “He took curd and milk and the calf.”
Abraham, however, was not asleep, for this was a vision and not a dream. This has already been explained by Maimonides. In the case of Lot, however, because it was a dream, the event occurred at night (when he was asleep).
“And he looked, and behold, three men stood over against him.” This is true in my opinion, for from that point until “and they did eat” contains nothing but the parable, whose general meaning accords with what I have already said, in that it relates Abraham’s wholeness in matters of practical philosophy, which in turn is a stepping-stone to theoretical philosophy. It was proper that here too there are some matters regarding theoretical principles.
For this reason it says that these three men “stood over against him,” for as Maimonides said in the Guide II:36, “Know that the true reality and quidity of prophecy consists in its being an overflow overflowing from God … through the intermediation of the Active Intellect toward the rational faculty in the first place and thereafter toward the imaginative faculty.” Therefore these three men, personages, or individuals were (an allusion to) these three existents, i.e., the Active Intellect, the rational faculty, and the imaginative faculty. (These three were present) in the case of every prophet, with the exception of Moses our teacher, who had but two, their agnomen being the two cherubim, i.e., the Active Intellect and the rational faculty. The lesser prophets possessed but two faculties: the rational and the imaginative. This is the meaning of “And the two angels came to Sodom,” for in the case of Lot only these came, as the Active Intellect did not overflow onto his rational faculty.
“And when he saw them he ran to meet them.” (This teaches that) it is necessary for one to pursue after (the attainment of prophecy) by means of prophetic or speculative seclusion, and then to be subservient to (that goal). This is (the meaning of) “and bowed down to the earth.”
“My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.” The sages, may their memory be blessed, revealed that “Abraham addressed their leader,” for even though in any language it would be correct not to be so precise, yet it is appropriate to use precision in these profound matters. The intention here is to convey that Abraham persisted in his prophetic speculation, by holding on to the coattails of the Active Intellect to prevent it from passing away from him, as had previously occurred when “God went up from Abraham.” I mean that he did not want the overflow to the rational faculty to cease.
The sages were also careful in saying, “They appeared (nir’u) to Abraham in the image of people, for Abraham’s faculty was superior, while for Lot they were in the image (nidmu) of angels, as Lot’s faculty was weak.” Regarding this statement, Maimonides said in the Guide II:45 that “this is a great prophetic secret,” and this statement caused a problem for those who dabble in philosophy, for they found that in the Guide II:45 Maimonides wrote | that the sight of an angel (in a prophetic vision) indicates a level that is superior to a vision where a person is seen. If, however, I have read well, then these dabblers in philosophy are not philosophers. The reason is that in that place Maimonides arranges the levels (of prophecy) so that they occur in a dream as far as the seventh level; from there he begins with visions, which are superior to dreams, as it is written, “Do I in a vision make myself known to him, I do speak with him in a dream.” These two postulated categories constitute superior prophetic states, and within each category Maimonides in that chapter arranges the disparate levels. Now within each category he undoubtedly asserts that to see an angel is to experience a higher level than to see a person. Abraham and Lot, however, were not within the same category according to the two categories mentioned. They were in two separate categories in this episode, for Abraham experienced a vision, while Lot experienced a dream. The vision is a superior faculty, while the dream is an inferior faculty. For this reason they said that in the case of Abraham, whose faculty was superior, the angels “appeared to him,” while in the case of Lot, whose faculty was inferior, they appeared to him in an image. Consequently, it was within this category (of visions) that Abraham saw people, a most propitious event, being the tenth level according to the enumeration of Maimonides. In the case of Lot, the event was the lesser of the two, for when at the end of the dream he saw angels, it was the sixth level in Maimonides’ enumeration. In summary, this statement of the sages, may their memory be blessed, says only, “Abraham in his vision saw people, while Lot in his dream saw angels.” It makes no difference if we say “superior faculty, inferior faculty” or “in a vision, in a dream” or “they appeared, they were in the image, he saw.” It is only that people think that different terms possess different (meanings). At the binding of Isaac, it states that Abraham saw angels, which corresponded to the eleventh level enumerated by Maimonides.
“Let now a little water be fetched … and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and stay ye your heart.” All this is explained in light of Maimonides’ comments, which illuminate our eyes, in accordance with what he wrote regarding the equivocal nature of ’akhal (“eat”), as well as his allusion there to (drinking) water. It is similar with Solomon’s statement of the wise, “Come, eat of my bread, drink of the wine.”
Add to this that it is correct to use an expression of washing (in this verse), to connote the purification of thoughts.
“The herd.” This term is an allusion to keen observation (necessary for prophecy), as in “the priest shall not seek (yevaḳer).”
“Curd and milk.” These terms are always used by the prophets in reference to good things, such as “I have drunk my wine | with my milk.” Moses described the good principle in general as “curd of kine and milk of sheep.”
The fact that the verse does not say “and they drank” as it says “and they did eat” does not pose a problem, for it is not necessary (to say this).
“Under the tree.” There is no doubt that this was the tree of life, or one of “the other trees of the garden.” It is certainly not the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
In general, all this talk, with questions and answers, is correct, for it took place as words inwardly spoken, all this being included under dibbur (“speaking”) and ’amirah (“saying”), which are independent terms. Yet on account of the fact that the writer of the Torah recorded that “Sarah heard (words being spoken),” which in my opinion is to be taken literally, one must say that He who gave the Torah intended this to be understood (as affirming that their conversation) included outwardly spoken words, similar to one who speaks in his sleep while dreaming. There is no doubt that most prophecies of the prophets, with the exception of Moses, were just like this. So in my opinion Sarah heard Abraham speaking with the angel, but without knowing (or) seeing the angel. It would also appear that she possessed one of the lower aspects of prophecy mentioned by Maimonides, especially in this chapter, where she secludes herself upon seeing her husband conversing with the angels through question and answer. It was on that lower level that she prophesied, in a manner similar to the prophecy of Saul when he met the group of prophets. (It was in this manner) that she heard the words of the angel when saying, “I will … return to thee when the season cometh around; and lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.”
“Now Sarah and Abraham were old, and well stricken with age, and it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.” These words are not part of the vision, but they are written by the writer of the vision to preface what follows, so that this fact be understood by those who receive and constantly study the Torah. This is like “And Sarai was barren”; “And Joseph was of beautiful form and fair to look on.” This is to be compared to one who says something in order to inform his fellow.
“And Sarah laughed within herself.” Because this laughter was unlike that of Abraham, the giver of the Torah was careful to say that this was “within herself (be-ḳirbah).” Be-ḳirbah refers to the intestine (ḳerev), which is an organ that is inferior to the heart. Here it is written “within herself” to indicate an esoteric meaning, which was similarly indicated in (Abraham’s) context by the words “in his heart.”
The Torah is correct in saying, “And the Lord said unto Abraham ‘wherefore did Sarah laugh,’” for it is not proper for the glorified and honored One to converse with women, especially when, as here, they err in the presence of the Lord. It is likewise correct in saying that Sarah denied this, for (we are thereby informed) that the angels informed her to her face | of what she had uttered within herself—(thereby teaching that) “God tries the reins.” In addition these words, “when the season cometh around and Sarah shall have a son,” strengthened what had been said in the earlier vision, which had possibly taken place on the same day.
“And the men rose up from thence.” The inner meaning is self-evident, in that Lot was made to understand the (impending) destruction of Sodom. Furthermore (we learn) that every action of the Lord, whether good or evil, is effected through angels and messengers, inasmuch as every time that “angel” (mal’akh) occurs in Hebrew, its meaning is “a messenger of the Lord” or occasionally a man’s messenger, whether he be more or less important.
He who gave the Torah related to us what the Lord said to Himself and what He said to His servants surrounding Him, in the manner done regarding Saul or other (rulers).
The purpose for which He who gave the Torah wrote all this (dialogue) is evident, as is its explanation: the entire discussion is in order to beautify the parable. This is similar to the Lord’s dialogues with Adam and Cain, where what is important is the meaning that emerges as a whole from the narrative. (In the present instance) the lesson is that sometimes a certain number of righteous people will save a certain number of wicked people. What these numbers are will vary according to the situation, the time, and the place.
Having said this, I will answer the problem that I mentioned in this connection in the Kesef Sigim.
“And Abraham returned unto his place.” Maimonides explained the equivocal nature of “place” (maḳom).
“And the two angels came to Sodom at even.” The lengthy narrative that is written here by Him who gave the Torah is in order to beautify the parable, in addition to several lessons that are to be learned from each and every expression, which it is not necessary to describe.
(The answer to the problem is) let us suppose that we can compare this to one who dreams of such a matter when he is asleep, something that happens to us and to others constantly, as happened at the smiting of the men of Gibeah. (So too Lot) having dreamt this at the outset of the night, arose from his sleep and when awake went out to his sons-in-law to tell them what had transpired. In any case, He who gave the Torah wrote that Lot was spurred by his thoughts at sunrise, to leave there when awake, as it concludes, “the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar.” This happened after he had seen this entire event, part of which had occurred when he was awake. This was similar to the Lord’s command to Noah, “Make thee an ark of gopher-wood,” which was spoken in a dream and fulfilled when awake. He who gave the Torah wrote this in such a manner, so as to teach and inform us.
Chapter 14
This (chapter) explains the fourth vision | of Abraham, (which begins with) “And it came to pass after these things that God did prove Abraham.” There are deep things in this matter that are discussed elsewhere, but I will write here what is appropriate to the intention of this work. When He who gave the Torah wrote this story, He intended many final causes.
Firstly, He wanted to inform us that God tests people, (to find out) if there are among them those who love Him, or not. This is in accordance with what is stated in the Torah many times. Now even though all (such phrases as “God did prove Abraham”) are to be understood according to “the Torah speaks in the language of men.” Maimonides excelled greatly when he said at length, in Guide III: 24, that the intended meaning (of “God did prove Abraham”) was “to make known and inform.” Not everyone, however, will understand what he said. Even so, there is a benefit that accrues to the masses of our people, as well as to the select individuals in their respective ways, and that is that the Lord tests us, (which we take) as an article of faith.
The second benefit is (that we are to learn) that it is correct for the Lord, as it is for us, to command something and then later (to command) its opposite, as was the case here. Both commands are correct, in accordance with the moment, for “a word in its season, how good is it.” This does not practice deception, for (a command is) a noncategorical statement, which as such does not affirm what is true or false.
The third benefit, besides that mentioned by Maimonides, one that is most precious, is the greatest principle for which the (chapter) was recorded. It was the fact that (Abraham) was prevented from carrying it out at the point when he was approaching the act (of sacrifice of Isaac). For this reason, the verse is careful to say that when He, may He be blessed, commanded this act, it was only by way of a test. Heaven forbid that He would command in such a manner as to intend its fulfillment. The purpose (of the command) was to uproot, undermine, and weaken the established belief that was in the heart of the people, that those who are punctiliously careful take of their children to make sacrifices to their gods. Furthermore, while it is true that He who gave the Torah permitted them to take other forms of life as sacrifice to the Lord our God, as an expression of guilt, Heaven forbid that the human species be used for this purpose. This even includes the prohibition against passing through fire, as is seen from the careful omission of any mention of kindling of fire, even though the high priest would act in that manner. While it does say earlier that “he took in his hand the fire,” this is avoided in the verse “And Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar on the wood.” Had this stated, “And he placed the fire under the wood,” or “… on the altar,” it would have been understood by foolish people as indicating that Abraham was at least (able) to pass Isaac through the fire.
The significance (of that custom) is known from the Torah and Prophets, in that the ultimate sacrifice in those generations was to offer their children as a sacrifice to their gods, | whether that be by passing them through the fire, or to burn them completely, or to slaughter them and cast their blood as a food-offering to their gods. This is all evident to one who does not sit at street-corners. One can find a specific instance of this in the Book of Kings, where the king of Moab sacrificed his eldest son, which was certainly a burnt-offering to his god. It is known that one of our sins was that our people were unable to overcome such beliefs, in spite of all the prophylactic measures used by the Torah to make us understand the matter.
Even Jephthah, who was not one of those considered wicked but only vain, in that he was not wise, actually meant to fulfill the will of the Lord when he swore, saying, “Whatsoever cometh forth out of the doors of my house to meet me … it shall be the Lord’s, and I shall offer it up for a burnt-offering.” The meaning of “it shall be the Lord’s” is not as Ibn Ezra explained. Jephthah did not consider the sacrifice of a human being an abomination to the Lord, so that when he said this later, he was not specific, for it never occurred to him that it might be his daughter, as did in fact happen. His fate proves his lack of wisdom. For in spite of everything, had he been wise he would have withdrawn his vow. Instead he imagined that the (consummation of his vow) was an act of great piety. While he read this episode (of Genesis) in particular, having read it he was not aware of this final cause, for he considered the Lord’s prevention of Abraham to be only an act of mercy on account of (Isaac’s being) an only son in (Abraham’s) old age. (So Jephthah thought that) whoever would carry this out would be more praiseworthy and pious, especially (for someone like) Jephthah, a young man in his prime. It is possible that Jephthah expected an angel to call out to him, “Lay not thy hand upon the lad,” and continued to wait for it.
So this foolish enthusiast sacrificed his only daughter in fire unto the Lord, in a similar manner to what the wise Abraham began to do with his only son, and similar to the act of the king of Moab in sacrificing his eldest son to his god Chemosh, as well as similar to the acts of some of our people, who in their sin sacrificed to idols. Because Jephthah was one of our lesser leaders, the sages said, “Jephthah was in his generation like Samuel in his generation.” His whole life-story reflects this, for it contains only that one military victory, something which happens to many people.
There is no question from the fact that it is written that the maiden said “bewail my virginity, I and my companions,” for these were none other than Miriam and her companions Hulda and Deborah. She was but a complete fool, as was her father, and the reason that she did not bemoan her (impending) death was that she imagined that she would be saved, and thereby achieve the level of Isaac. She cried instead | over her virginity, which would be destroyed in (passing through) the fire, and would prevent the pleasure that would otherwise have been gotten by one of the young men beloved of her. There are many such nonsensical things (that could be attributed) to her and her girlfriends, who were undoubtedly many, as is evident from their subsequent gathering at the place of the burning to bewail her (fate). (This is similar to) what is written regarding the death of Moses, “And the children of Israel wept for Moses,” where they did not even have the place where he died before them, for it was unknown. (If so, then) certainly in the case of this fool who built an altar on which to sacrifice his daughter in fire to the Lord, in imitation of Abraham, who was called by the Lord “my friend,” (they gathered to bewail her where she had died). But in truth, Jephthah substituted ’oyev (“enemy”) for ’ohev (“friend”). The fact that it is not written that Jephthah built an altar does not pose a problem, for the author of the Book of Judges was a wise man for whom it was more than sufficient to write of this matter using hidden terms and words. This is certainly true in view of the fact that it is not necessary to write everything, as I have stated several times.
In general, the Torah attempted to cure this serious disease that occurred in our people in those times, similar to the manner in which it is presented here. This is in accordance with my earlier words, stating that these books preface the commandments. For this reason, He who gave the Torah spoke at length in describing the offensive nature of this (child-sacrifice), when He said, “also their sons and daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods,” an act that was particularly associated with Molech. For this reason too, the punishment for this sin is greater than all (other) sins, if sacrifice is made to others—quite the opposite of the thoughts of those who considered this child-sacrifice most appropriate for all people. It was enough—more than enough—that in one respect He permitted them to kill an animal, that which is our brother (species), the offspring of our father (genus that is known as) “living,” which is the category that most immediately encompasses us humans and the animals. But while this was (permitted) with conditions, it was not so with relation to the human species, for man was created in the image of God. Consequently such worship entails the sin of murder and the sin of committing an abomination before the Lord, as I have explained.
Notice the precision of Jeremiah’s words, for those who can understand. For he wrote in his book, and mentioned it three times, which is the number of sins of our people, that “they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind”; and elsewhere, “And they have built the high places of Baal, | to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal; which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind to do this abomination.” Now examine the words of these statements, especially “which I commanded not.” Why say that He has not commanded us to worship Baal and Molech—the meaning, however, must be that what is not commanded is that we do this (even) for Him, may His name be blessed, for it is abominable to Him. And even though He commanded us to do this (sacrifice) for Him using animals, that was, so to speak, by force and through circumstance, as happened when He led the people round about by way of the desert, forced in a way lest the people turn back.
Jeremiah was also careful when he said, by way of “the Torah speaks in the language of men,” that “it neither came into my mind.” It means that “I never thought that after the express prohibitions anyone would make such a sacrifice of his children.” This is the meaning of “this abomination,” as if to say, “Had this occurred to me I might have commanded this to be done for me, for I have commanded them to do for me other things similar to this, until such time as their misconceptions be dissipated.”
So in general the (main) purpose of writing this narrative in the Torah is this one. Perhaps, as Maimonides wrote, its impact exists up to the present time. (Moses) wrote this (chapter) and did what he could, even though he saw at the end that the people would “rise up and go astray after the foreign gods of the land,” (for he wanted) peace and truth in his own lifetime. (Moses) communicated this to them in the context of Abraham, our first patriarch, for God had prevented him from making such a sacrifice to Him, and Abraham had made the sacrifice to Him by substituting a ram, (teaching that) it is proper for us to do the same. It was especially on this account that He commanded that a ram be included in the sacrifices to be made to Him. While this was to be communicated to the masses, it was also to be understood, by the select individuals among us, that even the sacrifice of a ram and other animals was something not desirable to the Lord. Reliable evidence of this is that clearly, after God told him “lay not thy hand upon the lad,” it is not written that He said to Abraham, “instead offer a sacrifice to me using a ram or another (animal).” Instead it is stated that Abraham, of his own volition, “took the ram and offered it up for a burnt-offering instead of his son.” This was to teach us that (the sacrifice of the ram) was not the Lord’s first and primary intention. It is also careful not to say that Abraham sacrificed the ram on the altar that he had built, but (it says that) he offered it on the mountain, as if to teach us that it is not proper to do such a thing on an altar, or on any attractive structure. The reason is that an altar without any sacrifice on it is more acceptable as a sign and a memorial, | as I said earlier. And though even an altar and house (of offering) are themselves not the most desired good, they are nonetheless more acceptable, if made, than is sacrifice, as Maimonides wrote.
(The Torah) teaches us other vaunted secrets and beautiful wisdom, in the manner of all of the Lord’s works, of which the Torah is one—in accordance with the fact known to us that our Torah is from heaven.
Accordingly, when it says here, “And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns,” the words “lifted up his eyes” teach us that it was (an act) not consciously caused or intended, but rather was a circumstantial sighting, quite accidental, similar to “and Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of the Jordan.”
The word ’ayil (“ram”) teaches us in the first place that the sacrifice was of an animal. In the second place, by derivation from ’eilei ha-’areṣ (“the mighty of the land”), we learn that this was a matter of force, i.e., force, might, and coercion. Furthermore (’ayil alludes to) the mighty of the land, in that ministers, deputies, and kings desire things such as this. In any case, there is a further implication by virtue of metathesis, i.e., to ya’al, as in “Moses took upon him (ho’il) to expound this law,” a phrase that points to coercion. This was (the kind of coercion that) began with coercion but ended with freedom of will, in the manner of those who cast their baggage into the sea, as Aristotle wrote. This is all alluded to by the word ’ayil, with this allusion to be found in regard to the word ḥovlim.
It is furthermore written, “behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns.” This indicates in the first place the matter of coercion, for the ram was caught in the thorns, held there with bonds that prevented anyone from taking it. The Torah indicates especially, by means of the term sevakh (“thicket”), which is derived from the contortion (sibukh) and confusion of thought, that the practice of sacrifice signifies confused thinking.
The term beḳarnav (“by his horns”) indicates knowledge and mental representation, for (ḳeren) alludes to what is elevated and sublime, as in “my horn (ḳarni) is exalted” and “He lifted up a horn (ḳeren) for His people.”
Do not take these minute observations that are made in regard to these delicate subjects as finding meanings that were never intended by their speaker, for this is precisely the style of Him who gave our Torah in profound matters. There are many of this species to be found in the prophetic writings, as Maimonides alluded when explaining ḥashmal, ḥovlim, and the others. All that he said is valid, in agreement with the truth that “issues from the well of salvation,” and from his book do we draw forth (the truth).
Thus, what emerges from all this is that the primary intention (of the episode was to teach us) the prevention of (the sacrifice of) offspring, as mentioned. As for the sacrifice of the ram that is mentioned, (the lesson is) our forefather acted voluntarily, which was intended to assure that we would practice self-control (and not sacrifice). If, however, we do choose to make a sacrifice because, to our discredit, we are not able to exist without them, (we are taught that) we should sacrifice only to Him, may He be magnified, in the way that our forefather did. |
Now notice the difference between the lesson that a fool will glean from the verses of the Torah and what a treasured individual will take from them. For in this episode, what is known to the select individual to be a complete abomination to the Lord is taken by the masses as something which, if completed, would constitute the pinnacle of worship and what is desired by God. This is certainly, primarily true of the masses of that generation to whom the Torah was given. They must have been proud of the piety of Abraham, the progenitor, who wanted to sacrifice his only son, and would have been even happier in praising this father had he finished the act, priding themselves before their Egyptian and other neighbors. The Torah, which is perfect and without blemish, revealed the truth by using words and statements whose exoteric meaning points to things that will be understood by the foolish, but whose subtle and esoteric meaning points out the truth to the treasured few. The sages, who knew all the intentions and secrets of the Torah, excelled in saying, “The Torah was written as black fire on white fire.” Maimonides also excelled when he said that the Torah was written by way of “apples of gold in settings of silver.”
Maimonides excelled further in saying that the intention of the Torah, in informing us that the actual binding took place three days after the command, was so that we should not imagine that it was carried out in confusion and haste, but rather after considered thought. For Abraham (must have) wondered how the Lord could command him to perform such an abomination as it was subsequently shown to be. He longed in silence to know the Lord’s intent—not only three days, but four, five, or more, for (after) “on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off,” it is written twice that “they went both of them together.” This accords with what Elijah understood here, for he went on many journeys with Elisha in going up to heaven.
This consideration also provides one of the reasons that Abraham left the young men behind, in that it must have taken several days for Abraham to construct the altar by himself, with some help from the lad Isaac. Other reasons for (leaving them behind) were the fact that they were inferior people, as our sages said, “they were people who are to be compared to an ass,” who consequently were not fit to accompany Abraham in such a holy place, as was the case with (God saying to Moses) “draw not nigh hither.” In addition they were not compatible | with the revelation of so important a secret as this, nor with the performance of so important an act by Abraham, nor that they should (even) recognize the existence of the problem of procrastination that I have referred to.
He who gave the Torah was likewise careful not to mention that Abraham kindled any fire below the wood once Isaac was placed on the altar, in accordance with the reason that I discussed above. An additional reason was that the wood would have easily and swiftly caught fire, thereby giving off some smoke that might have suffocated Isaac.
While our patriarch Abraham was a man of God, he was not a fool who might confuse contingent statements with necessary ones, so one must say that he did consider the possibility of what did (in fact) happen, when “the angel of the Lord called out to him out of heaven.” Reliable evidence that (he considered this possibility) is the fact that he said, “God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering.” Had he been a fool and not foreseen that possibility, he would have hurried to slaughter his son, as did the fool the king of Moab.
He who gave the Torah was furthermore careful in that the command (to sacrifice Isaac) is recorded as using only one name (without repetition), while in preventing (the sacrifice, the Torah records) “Abraham, Abraham,” where (the repetition) is to inform us that the royal edict to desist was more insistent than the command (to sacrifice had been). This allusion is intended for singular individuals, while for the masses (the repetition of the name) is taken to allude to the fact that the sword was already placed on Isaac’s neck, out of Abraham’s urgent desire to slaughter him. The knowledgeable individual, however, will benefit from the first and truthful exposition.
There is another careful usage by Him who wrote the Torah. When commanding the sacrifice, “God” is mentioned, not the glorious name (which is the tetragrammaton). Accordingly Abraham said, “God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering,” and it says, “of which God had told him.” Even subsequent (to the order to desist), when speaking ex post facto, it is said, “… thou art a God-fearing man,” instead of “a man who fears the Lord.” When desisting, however, it is written, “the angel of the Lord,” instead of “the angel of God.” It also says, “in the mount where the Lord is seen.” This is further explained elsewhere, where I explain the names of God.
The Torah is likewise careful to state simply, “offer him there for a burnt-offering,” and “he offered him up for a burnt-offering instead of his son,” without any mention that it was a burnt-offering “to the Lord” or “to God.” While this (latter statement that Abraham offered the ram instead of his son) occurred at the command to desist, when Abraham was speaking with the glorious Lord and His angel, heaven forbid that Abraham offer the sacrifice to “the Lord,” neither as the preferred goal nor from any other consideration. I mean to say that this is in accordance with Abraham’s status, for what came later (in the Torah regarding sacrifice to “the Lord”) was necessary only for the masses, but not for the individual and the few for whom (sacrifice) is an abomination. Neither does it say that (Abraham offered the ram) “to God,” for that would have reaffirmed the masses of our people in their belief that (sacrifices) should be made to the cherubim | and the other forms that they make for themselves. This (belief of the masses) is the same as what was said at the incident of the golden calf, when they offered sacrifices to it, saying, “This is thy God, O Israel.” Accordingly there is much in this phrase that says “he offered him up for a burnt-offering.”
The use of the name “Lord” is for the benefit of the select few, while most mention of the name “God” is for the benefit of the masses. This is the case throughout the entire Torah, in that it arranges the benefits in accordance with these two categories that exist in the people. While because of (our many) sins one cannot appropriately consider the select few to constitute an (entire) category, nonetheless this could be compared to the sun and the moon, which, even though they be individuals, are called a species.
The sum product of Maimonides’ comments on this episode, and of what I have said that was stimulated by him, is that there are many purposes for which the entire incident was recorded, which are in addition to the many benefits that are to be found in the several details of a story such as this.
The first two benefits—those that are mentioned by Maimonides—are, in short, to teach us the extent to which the fear of heaven can reach, (as well as to teach us the confidence that a prophet has that his vision is accurate).
The third benefit is that (we learn that) the Holy King does test His servants, and therefore one should be on guard for this, especially with regard to false prophets, in that it is vital that we believe (that they are sent to test us). For if this happened to our patriarch, it cannot but happen to us.
The fourth benefit is that this King can say one thing (today) and its opposite tomorrow, all according to the setting. This is similar to “at that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi,” which does not express any change or substitution in Him, as those who know the truth can attest.
The fifth benefit is that we are taught that Mount Moriah is a place chosen by the Lord, as was certainly affirmed by Abraham and Isaac on this auspicious occasion. Accordingly all our generations should agree that the house of God should be there, without disagreement and everyone requesting that this place be within its allotted portion, as mentioned by Maimonides.
The sixth benefit is (to teach us that) heaven forbid that the Lord desire one to make a sacrifice or an offering of any non-human thing.
The seventh benefit (teaches that) He wishes sacrifices and offerings to consist of that which is other than human.
The eighth benefit is (to teach us that) He does not want (such nonhuman sacrifice) with any essential or primary intentions, but only in an ancillary intention, in that He tolerates a restricted number of sacrifices being offered to Him when “any man of you bringeth an offering.”
The ninth benefit | (is that we learn) that it is not correct under 147 any circumstances for a descendant of Abraham to do such a thing unto other gods, in the manner of the nations, for Abraham did not do such a thing.
The tenth benefit is found in the conclusion, from “and the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham a second time” until “… because thou hast hearkened to my voice.” (It is the promise of an earthly reward) because the masses will not uphold all or even a few of the (above-mentioned) nine goals, unless they know that there is this reward, and in order to receive a reward that consists of a material good, which pertains to this world. The select individuals, however, have no reward in this world, and as for the world to come, that reward comes by itself in the fulfillment of truth, Torah, and wisdom—which are all one.
The Torah is careful to allude twice to reward. The first was at the beginning, when saying, “because thou hast done this thing and hast not withheld thy son, thy only son,” which refers to (Abraham’s obedience to) the command (to sacrifice). The other was at the conclusion of his words, saying, “because thou hast hearkened to my voice,” which refers to (the command) to desist, which was superior. This (reward) would take effect in the manner that we have described.
One could ask why this reward and recompense is stated by the Lord as “because thou hast done this thing”; after all, what is promised here is the great multiplication of his seed, and that was something already promised to him by the Lord on many occasions—what does the Lord introduce here that is new? The answer is that what is new is contained in the words “By myself I have sworn,” for up to that point the Lord had never taken an oath on this matter (regarding his seed) that meant to say that the decree (of multiplication of seed that had been previously mentioned) was as necessary as tomorrow’s sunrise. Accordingly this (oath) constitutes a great and merciful innovation.
Notice too how He who gave the Torah revealed to us the distinction between dibber (“he said”) and nishba‘ (“swore”), when He said later, “… and who spoke unto me and who swore unto me saying, ‘unto thy seed will I give this land.’” This (“spoke unto me” refers to the promise of the inheritance of the land that) was made in the earliest visions, while “who swore unto me” refers to the (oath taken in the) vision of the Sundering.
The general principle is that dibber (“said”) and ḥashav (“thought’) are generic terms, while nishba‘ (“swore”) is the species. This is the same as the relation of “animate” to “man.” Consequently, every use of nishba‘ is a species of dibber, and not the reverse. Remember all of this.
Chapter 15
(This chapter deals) with many solutions to the numerous doubts which I wrote of in Kesef Sigim, alluded to in the questions numbered eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one, (which I will deal with here) because these four numbers relate to the four wonderful visions which are ascribed | to Abraham by Him who wrote the Torah. He wrote them for us, so that we should notice certain observations. We have already written some of this above, but I will now go back to them to complete matters.
In the first place, with regard to Abraham’s first vision, to which I raised questions that were included in the total of twenty-eight, I prefaced the solution of the first doubt by saying that the decree of slavery was not made in order to punish (Abraham’s descendants). It was instead a burden to be suffered for the sake of great profit, similar to those who go out to sea. This is as the wise man has said, “You shall not achieve that for which you yearn, without first enduring that which you despise.” As for the question, mentioned in Kesef Sigim, that what is written in the Book of Samuel, “and again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them,” does not specifically mention how they sinned, there is no problem. For a prophet is to be relied upon when he says that the Lord was angry with them, as the Lord would not do this without reason. As Maimonides said, in general one cannot find any expression of (divine) anger in any of the books of the Bible, unless it be with reference to idolatry. Subsequently Maimonides implied that idolatry is a genus encompassing every mental thought that attributes to the Lord any emotions or shortcomings, or any incomplete knowledge of the Lord. Therefore no question is posed by the many places throughout the books of the Bible where one finds an expression of anger attributed to the Lord. Maimonides refers to this secret when he says that our inability to perceive His essence does not constitute idolatry, unless one bows down to some image.
As for what I mentioned there (in Kesef Sigim when I noted that) the Lord did not reveal to Samuel any immediate sin or anger, (the answer is that) it is the same as when the Lord said to Samuel, “Behold, I will do a thing in Israel at which both the ears of everyone who heareth it shall tingle,” whose explanation follows in close proximity when it says, “In that day will I perform against Eli all that I have spoken against his house.” The anger of the Lord against Hophni and Phinehas, as communicated by the man of God, as well as the decree that they would both die on one day, was what had been previously spoken. These (two) were at the head of the army, | and caused the defeat of Israel on account of their sins, for they were the high priests who led the Ark that went with the camp at its head. Now when they fled, the battle-formation was broken, as happened at the incident of Achan, as I will yet explain. This is because an individual can turn a multitude when he is at the head of a battle-formation or of the people. The proof of this is (what happened to) Zedekiah. It has already been said that the fate decreed for the whole will change the fate decreed over its part.
As for the question appropriate to this book, mentioned in Kesef (Sigim), asking what was the sin (of the Egyptians), for after all, the Lord had decreed that they would enslave the Israelites, in addition to several other similar passages that I mentioned there, one should know that there is sufficient answer in what Maimonides wrote in the last chapter of the second part (of the Guide), when he said that Scripture usually attributes to the Lord every possible expression, including “acting,” “sending,” and “commanding,” that could refer to any existent, whether human or any other. This applies no matter if that (act) be natural, voluntary, or accidental. The response to the problem is clear—that even though Scripture stated that the Lord decreed and ordered in the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians that they should do this, the truth of the matter is that they did this out of their own complete free choice. The Lord did not cause them in any essential way. It is the same with Nebuchadnezzar, as recounted in the narratives of Jeremiah, and with Sennacherib in the narratives of Isaiah. It is only that He who gave the Torah provided a common reason for the benefit of the masses when He said that Pharaoh and his people acted with more evil intent than what the Lord desired and had decreed. For this reason, at the time of the decree it is said, “they shall serve them and they shall afflict them,” and no more, while (at the time of the enslavement) the verse says, “and the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor,” as well as “and they made their lives bitter,” and “every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.” This was explained further when it is recounted that Jethro said, “for that they dealt proudly against them,” which was explained by David when he said, “thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them,” i.e., “they did more than you decreed.” This is in accordance with the general comment of Zechariah, saying, “I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.” Isaiah also explained this in the context of Sennacherib, having learnt the principle from the Torah, when he combined this with other facets of an agent of destruction, in saying of Sennacherib, “O Asshur, the rod of mine anger …” until the end of that chapter. Elsewhere, regarding Nebuchadnezzar, Isaiah said similarly when he began with, “Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon …” until the end of the chapter, including “Now hear this, thou that art given to pleasures …”
| In general he accused Nebuchadnezzar of two sins: the first was that he had not pitied anyone, and had overly pressed his yoke on the elderly; the second was that he had denied the Lord who had given him this power.
Jeremiah also wrote something similar when he said, “Thou art my maul and weapons of war.” Isaiah also alluded to this when he called Sennacherib “the Lord’s anger,” intending him to strike with a rod by way of rebuke. In this matter he mauled with the rod, dying under the rod. Jeremiah also said, “for the Lord (is a God of recompenses),” i.e., (Sennacherib) acted with excessive evil.
Solomon also explained this when he said of the Lord, “The Lord hath made everything for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” as I explained in its place.
Proof is (the history of) the kings of Israel, as is evident from the narrative of their lives, wherein the second (king) destroyed the first, and the third destroyed the second, as happened to them all. As for what was said of Baasa in “And moreover by the hand of Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of the Lord against Baasa … because of all the evil that he did … and because he smote him,” this (last phrase) refers to what was in the distant future, i.e., that Jehu prophesied that Zimri would destroy Baasa and his house, as is subsequently written, “Thus did Zimri destroy …”
As a rule, whenever there are two people or many wicked nations, it is divine wisdom, as well as complete justice, that one of them will destroy the other in a manner that is deserved, such as the sword, while subsequently another wicked (agent) comes and destroys the earlier victor. So it is always. He who gave the Torah alluded to this when He says of the victory of the descendants of Lot over the rest of the nations, that the Lord had decreed thus to destroy the victor, as it says “(And in Seir dwelt the Horites aforetime, but the children of Esau succeeded them; and they destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead;) as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them.” In several places the success of Israel is attributed to the righteousness of the patriarchs, and the fact that He had sworn to them (not to destroy their descendants)—which is true, but in addition (their victory) was attributable to “the wickedness of these nations.” Proof of this is the victory of the descendants of Lot, even though they did not have the merits of the patriarchs or the oath of the Lord. For this reason Ibn Ezra said of the expression “at the hand of every beast will I require it” that it means, “I will order another to kill this one.” Hillel also said, “Because you have drowned others, others have drowned you; those who drowned you shall themselves be drowned,” which is satisfactory and completely just, in that it is universal that a destroyer, | whether he be man or some other animal, will be surrounded by his fellows who will plot against his life.
This is similar to Isaiah, who said, “When thou hast ceased to spoil, thou shalt be spoilt; and when thou art weary of dealing treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee.” Habakkuk likewise, in answering his confusion regarding the success of Nebuchadnezzar, (wrote) that in truth Nebuchadnezzar was evil, and had not succeeded on account of his righteousness, but only because it was necessary for him to destroy some other wicked (person). Later Habakkuk says of him, “Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall exact interest of thee … because thou hast spoilt many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall spoil thee.” This states the solution that is found in the Torah and the Prophets, without reference to the masses, that is (that they would be punished on account of) the sins mentioned in Isaiah and Jeremiah. This issue is likewise mentioned in Zechariah.
This is certainly true when there is, in addition, some sin, such as when Isaiah attributed to Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar the denial of the Lord, who had given them the power, and the performance of sorcery, and others. There is, however, sufficient answer for the select few people in the other explanations that I mentioned, i.e., “the rod of my anger,” “thou art my maul,” “the wicked for the day of evil,” “at the hand of every beast will I require it,” as well as what was written of the descendants of Lot, to which was added, “as Israel did unto the land of his possession,” as well as, “not for thy righteousness … but for the wickedness of these nations …”
As a rule, in these matters of victors and vanquished—or, if you will, “destroyers” and “destroyed,” for such is the case with the sword and warfare—Scripture will sometimes explain the cause from the point of view of the defeated, and sometimes from the point of view of the victor. From the point of view of the vanquished, (we find) “for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full,” while from the point of view of the victor, (we find) that Ezekiel said of the destruction of the land of Israel: “a ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it; this also shall be until he come, whose right it is, and I will give it him.” It is always like this. But why should we seek for reasons other than what is written in the Torah in this regard, for Moses said to Israel that they were not more righteous than the Canaanites to the extent that they could justify the victory and the destruction of the Canaanites, with the inheritance of their land, purely on account of (the righteousness of the Israelites). The proof is that He did the same for the descendants of Lot who conquered other lands. It was, instead, that the Canaanites had to be destroyed by some executioner, as Isaiah said, “I have created the waster to destroy.” Even in the case (of the Canaanites), the Lord found it necessary to lengthen the time allotted to the vanquished, which was “until all the generation of the desert was consumed,” as Maimonides and Ibn Ezra wrote.
Altogether it is evident from the Torah | that the children of Israel did not at all deserve to destroy the Canaanites, and for this reason, after a period known to the Lord, similar to Ezekiel’s saying of Nebuchadnezzar “until his time come,” which period was immediately following the first beast, that beast destroyed Israel who had been a destroyer. This in general was the case with the succeeding kings of Israel. Accordingly, all this should be clear to the masses as well as the select individuals.
As for what was asked in the place regarding the story of Balaam, when the Lord permitted him to go to the king of Moab, and later put an angel in the way, the answer is to be found in the words of Plato to his students, when he answered his students, “Let them enter.” This was mentioned by Aristotle in the Sophistical Refutations to say that sometimes one will use an expression that makes an affirmative assertion, which when exaggerated, incredulous, or angry is intended to negate (that assertion). This, however, cannot be sensed from the written word—as Rabbeinu Jonah commented on “and offer him there for a burnt-offering,” saying that this (inflection) cannot be discerned from the words (alone) without some comment from the one who commands, or some aspect of what is being commanded. Indeed there are several instances of this in the Prophets, as when Ezekiel said in the name of God, “Go ye, serve every one his idols.” It was for this reason that our sages said “from scribes and not from books.” In the same way as happened in the incident of Plato, where the outcome indicated the initial intent, so too when the Lord said to Balaam, “go with them,” it was an assertion that was by way of exaggeration and anger.
All this is clear to the philosophers, while Moses taught us this wonderful esoteric doctrine by the way in which he related this story of Balaam.
I have already said that Maimonides, in the final chapter of the second part (of the Guide), explained that everything is attributed to the Lord as the efficient cause. (In that case) why do we need to be troubled in this matter regarding Balaam, for if we wish (we can say that) he was dreaming, and that he dreamt this (command from the Lord), as when today such things happen to us on occasion? The fine and precise meaning here, however, is that He who gave the Torah wrote all this, as I explained the meaning of the statement that the episode of Balaam, in making up the totality of the pericope Balak, only tells part of the episode.
As for what I considered there in the matter of Moses, | know that it was indeed so, for the Lord being the prime mover of everything, and Moses’ power of prophecy and perception being so immediate, (one can say) that the Lord was the first cause of Moses’ making the move to go to Egypt to take the children of Israel out, even though it is said in the framework of natural causation.
The final command made to Moses by the Lord, stating “The Lord said unto Moses in Midian: ‘Go, return into Egypt, for all the men are dead that sought thy life,’” was said to reinforce and reiterate (what had preceded) at the end of the vision of the burning bush, for between that and this the original Pharaoh, or one or another of his servants of whom Moses had to be afraid on account of the killing of the Egyptian, had died.
Adjacent to that is the verse “and Moses took his wife and sons and set them upon an ass” —now who commanded him (to do) this? In truth it was his imaginative faculty, i.e., his love for his wife and children, that induced him to do this—not the intellectual or prophetic faculty. It was to this (act) that our sages referred when they said, “We have regrets regarding our ancestors.”
This was not at all a good idea, so that when he came to the inn and laid his head down to sleep, he pondered over the issue, either in his wakened state or when asleep. He then made the mental recognition that it had been a bad idea, and became agitated over that error. His intellect became so accusing that his soul was close to death, and he was gripped by trembling, panic, and numbness. This is all included in the statement that “the Lord met him and sought to kill him,” (meaning that all) this passed through the imaginative faculty. (In this regard) one should keep in mind the saying “Yet how wilt thou do in the thickets of the Jordan,” in the event that I am mistaken in this regard. (In any case) Moses had a very powerful attack of sickness, such as febris ephemeralis, which is a kind of daytime fever. Therefore Zipporah, whether on her own or at Moses’ command, acted in a way that was a known omen among them, by sprinkling blood on him, particularly on his feet. The reason was that they believed that blood restores nature, especially for one like Moses, of whom it is said, “he is trusted in all my house.” This omen healed Moses…. Proof of this is the act whereby they sprinkled on their doorposts to ward off the effects of the imaginative faculty of the Israelites when they would hear the (cries) of Egypt at the death of the firstborn. It is the same in regard to the leper.
Zipporah could not find an organ that was immediately available, other than her son’s foreskin. One does not have to say that he was not circumcised, for even the part remaining (after the circumcision) on the baby is called “the foreskin” or “of the foreskin.”
All these are precious matters. The contents of this chapter are all necessary to answer the eighteenth question in Kesef Sigim.
Chapter 16
As for the answer to the nineteenth question, I have already stated the answer to the first doubt, while the answer of the second (doubt) was answered in my Maṣref | La-Kesef, for it was there that I discussed the issue of excision. As for the rest of the answers to the remaining doubts, what I wrote earlier in explaining that vision suffices, when put together with the explanation of its terms and general purposes as written in (Maṣref) La-Kesef and Ṭirat Kesef.
Chapter 17
As for the solution to the twentieth question, know that by way of answering the first (doubt), whenever any prophet, with the exception of Moses, experiences prophecy, there are several necessary limits, which include, among others, spatial and temporal factors. This is found in all the prophets, including the Account of the Chariot in Ezekiel. Maimonides, as well as the sages who speculate, alluded to this, as can be seen in their investigations.
For this reason, He who gave the Torah indicated in the present situation regarding Abraham, by way of parable and metaphor, that (Abraham was situated in) “the terebinths of Mamre.” He also said that “he sat,” for had he been moving around he would not have been mentally composed in either intellectual or prophetic (speculation). He would certainly not have dozed unless he was seated. Sleep is a necessity for prophets.
The fact that at that time it was “in the heat of the day” was also helpful, for the midday sleep was then. I have already discussed most of this above, including the answers to the (second), the fourth, and the fifth doubts. This will suffice for those who understand what I wrote in the chapter dealing specifically with Abraham’s third vision. What I will write presently refers to the third enumerated doubt.
These numbers vary for the same reasons as those mentioned by Maimonides regarding the numbers involved in the sacrifices. This is especially true of Abraham’s starting with the number fifty, which was convenient on account of its being one-half of a hundred. When he concluded with the number ten, it was in accordance with the custom of the Hebrews, such as “more than ten rulers that are in a city” and “(am I not better to thee) than ten sons.” This is especially in view of the fact that ten constitutes the first aggregate of single numbers, while this number of people can generally make sufficient impression on an audience to have them obey their instruction. Had there been that number (of righteous people) with Lot, (the Sodomites) would have heeded his advice to leave the cities, until that overwhelming storm had passed—instead of (the Sodomites) regarding him as a clown. But what can one person or a few individuals do, when there are many avenues of escape? (For example) Noah escaped without fleeing to another land, for the flood encompassed a great and broad area, and he was forced to construct an ark. Lot, (however,) as well as those of his household who were obedient to him, and others who were with him by listening to him, went to Zoar.
… they escaped from Nineveh, that other “ship,” when everyone young and old went out of Nineveh. There is no doubt that the Lord’s word, | “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” was (nonetheless) fulfilled. Jonah revealed this to us by recording in his book that even after he found out that the Lord withdrew the evil (punishment) once the people repented in subservience, it states, “But it displeased Jonah exceedingly.” The purpose (of the decree) had been for the (people of Nineveh) to fear their fate as spoken by the prophet of the Lord, and (in fact) they did not harden their heart, as had the Egyptians, and as a result they all fled an undisclosed distance from the city. When Jonah wrote for us, “Then Jonah went out of the city till he might see what would become of the city,” he revealed something else, for once he knew, as he tells us he did, that the Lord had withdrawn the evil (punishment), why would he go out? And why (does it say), “to see what would become of it”?
(The answer is that) he was still in some doubt regarding the decree’s statement that “yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” (whether its mode be) necessary or contingent. For according to Hebrew, as well as the vernacular, it is known that when one says “city” or “land,” one can have reference to the land or the city as separate from their inhabitants, or (else) be referring to their inhabitants (alone) without (the land or city). One could also be referring to them all. Now Jonah saw that at least the inhabitants were escaping, so finally his doubt as to the sin of the city was resolved, and he left it. In any case he desired to see the act of the Lord in destroying it, to know whether it would be similar to the destruction of Sodom (with) fire, brimstone, and salt —or (whether it would be) with fire alone.
Thus it became evident to Jonah, on the basis of several considerations, that the original decree, stating, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” which might have referred to both the city and its inhabitants, undoubtedly did refer (to them both), but (in different ways, for) the execution of the decree on the city was necessary, while what had been intended for its inhabitants was contingent, for that was how it happened.
Consequently there was no change in the will expressed by the word of the Lord in this instance, or in that of his prophet. This was even though the inhabitants of Nineveh escaped from off that land, as I will further explain in its proper place.
David similarly escaped the sword of Saul and Absalom. It was in reference to this that Solomon said, “he by his wisdom delivered the city.” What he was saying was that an individual (can save a city) either by the submission of the inhabitants of the city to his counsel, or because they are the kind of people to listen to the counsel of the wise, or else because his worth, on account of his wisdom, makes him great in their eyes. Jeremiah said of such a person, “if ye can find a man.” In truth, were we to describe such a one, i.e., one who inspires faith, he would be Zedekiah. For he was the king who vigorously withstood Jeremiah’s advice to “bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live.” And so it was that in the domain of the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple with all its inhabitants, no one went out at all, neither did they construct an ark, as did Noah, or something similar (to help them escape).
| In general (therefore) the leader of the people is to be equated with the people. Ezekiel was referring to this singular type of person when he said, “I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the breach before me,” to prevent the destruction of Jerusalem. This was something not said of Baruch ben Neriah or his kind, and not even of Jeremiah. As for what Ezekiel said elsewhere, that three men cannot save a city but only themselves, if they are righteous —that does not contradict (what I have said). For some decrees are necessary, and others are contingent by nature, with the reason in each case depending on the time and place.
Ezekiel also revealed to us in that place another secret, by explaining the identity of these three who are described. For he neither spoke in general, nondescript terms nor did he identify them as Aaron, Moses, and Samuel. He identified them only as Noah, Daniel, and Job. Now Noah and Job were kindred of Abel, and as for Daniel, perhaps he too (belonged in their category), for we have no evidence that his (level of prophetic) knowledge was other than a dream faculty, something which possibly was common to Abel and his kindred. For this reason Daniel was included in the Hagiographa together with Job. (For people such as these) it is enough if they can manage to save themselves, for they do not possess any great wisdom, nor do they command (enough) respect on account of which all the inhabitants of a city or a land can escape.
The sum of this chapter is the resolution of the entire question numbered twenty in Kesef Sigim, in the shortest way possible to me.
Chapter 18
This is the solution to the twenty-first question. What I wrote earlier in explaining Abraham’s fourth vision, (contains) the essential solution to all (the doubts in this question). While it is certainly true that Abraham was a man who was born, there is clearly the possibility that this entire event occurred to him in a dream. Whether or not this took place, Moses in his wisdom wrote this entire anecdote for our benefit, in accordance with the ten purposes that I described earlier. (Those ten) were all for the benefit of us, the children of Israel, we who received the Torah and study it continuously.
In addition to this (consideration), every (expression in the story of the binding of Isaac) is true, and accords with logic and the conventions of the Hebrew language.
Thus he said “did prove” and “for now I know” by way of “the Torah speaks in the language of men” in accordance with Ibn Ezra’s explanation of “it repented the Lord that He had made man.” For it is customary for people to say of a man who destroyed what he built, that “he repented having built …” This is certainly true if we know what Maimonides said in addition when he explained that statement, together with my exposition of the special case in which Joshua revealed the secret when he wrote the words “the men pursued after them,” which I wrote in the Mizraḳ | Kesef.
Because the Torah was given to the masses at large, its author was forced to write terms and statements that accorded with their thinking, and that were suited to their beliefs and follies, for their own good. Now it is their accepted opinion that the Lord tests, and that He will know at a point in the future what He did not know previously. (Consequently) He who wrote the Torah was forced to permit them to retain some anthropomorphic beliefs. The one who practiced this to an extreme was Avicenna, but not, heaven forbid, Moses. Thus it is certainly correct to write “did prove” and “for now I know” and to attribute this to the Lord, for He was in one sense the distant mover of all this, Abraham being the immediate (mover). This was one of the reasons for saying “and God did prove,” for that was a precise allusion to Abraham himself, or to his imaginative faculty and his nature, which was the origin and cause of his action. This accords with the recorded definition of “nature” and “natural force.”
As for the phrase “offer him there for a burnt-offering,” there can be no doubt, for in the Hebrew language as well as in logic, every expression of movement does not necessarily refer to the consummation of the act. Sometimes the reference will be to a middle, beginning, or even prior to the beginning, on account of its being a proximate or distant potential. Thus, for example, we can say of “the child that will be born” that it writes, eats, is a prophet, or is wise—by virtue of it’s being in potential. As a rule, every adjective and verb will occasionally modify what exists in potential, as they do what is actual, for the term nimṣa’ (“exist”) and hayah (“be”) are ascribed to everything, whether actual or potential. Furthermore, what exists (in actuality) only in the soul (is to be considered) as if existing outside of it as well. So, too, what exists only as the spoken word, (is to be considered) as if existing outside the soul. Proof are the words of the writer of the Torah, who, when he wrote, “I was restored unto mine office and he was hanged,” revealed (this truth), for that had only existed as the spoken word. He also wrote that Jacob said, “which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow,” which was (only) potential. He further wrote, regarding Jeremiah, “and you gave them wine to drink,” (even though) it was still in potential and close to realization. In the context of Jeremiah it is written, regarding the unspoken and spoken word, “See, I have set thee this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root and to pull down, and to destroy and to overthrow; to build and to plant,” i.e., that the villages and the houses (would be destroyed by Jeremiah) by hand, but not rebuilt by (Jeremiah’s) hand. There are several such metaphors in Scripture. All this is true in accordance with true logic. These are logical principles upon which the entire Torah and Prophets depend. As for the rest of this vision, I already dealt with those matters at length.
Chapter 19
As for the solution to the twenty-second question, I say that Maimonides commented on this in one of the chapters of the third part (of the Guide), the one that begins by saying, | “There are also things which belong to the mysteries of the Torah which have caused many people to stumble.” He went on to provide an explanation and reason why each (was included in the Torah). It was for that reason that I composed the Ṭirat Kesef, in order to explain the purposes of the stories (in the Torah), all of which are categorical statements known as ’imrah (“affirmation”), in the same way that Maimonides explained the purposes of the commandments, all of which are noncategorical statements.
What I will write here relates to the issue of the excessive length (of those stories), as well as their repetitiveness. Excessive length in any description that might be, is necessary for the masses, in that one of the purposes of the Torah is that it be accessible to the mass of women and children, as I have written. Now while it is true that the singular individuals can be satisfied with abbreviated terminology, this is not the case with the masses, for nothing will make an impression on them unless there is a lengthy description. For this reason it was necessary (for the Torah) to dwell at length on the subject of curses and blessings, particularly when (Moses) died, (and the prolixity extended) to cover all of Deuteronomy. In addition to reiterating for their sake, (Moses) repeated several things for the benefit of us who read the Torah today. Thus he said “a copy of this law,” intending us to read some things in the Book of Exodus in the wintertime, and to repeat them when we read the Book of Deuteronomy in the summer. In spite of this, (those things) are not impressed on our hearts.
This is illustrated when Isaiah, in rebuking the masses of women, began by saying, “Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,” and continued to mention many of their specific ornaments. Now it would have sufficed for the wise had he said, “they multiplied their ornaments.” The prophets did this many times, having learnt it from the Torah.
In addition, repetition and duplication indicate that something is established and overpowering, as in the threefold repetition of “a ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it,” and many others like it. This purpose was pointed out by Him who gave the Torah most notably in the case of Joseph, who told Pharaoh, “For that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice, it is because the thing is established by God.” Other instances should be compared to this statement.
Moses was particularly prolix with regard to the sacrifices of the oxen at the festival of Tabernacles, and of the princes —to an extreme point. The reason for that is that the Torah is divided into five books and then into paragraphs, some of which are intended exclusively for the masses. The reason for this is that the Torah was to be handed to the masses (as well as) the singular individuals, which are opposites. So it was necessary to write some things exclusively for the select few, | and some things exclusively for the masses. The part that is intended for “the individuals of truth” relates to the subjects of the Account of Creation and the Account of the Chariot. This includes most of Genesis. The part that is exclusively for the masses includes most of Leviticus, which is mostly sacrifices and related things that include all the sacrificial rites. Sacrifice was one of the most necessary practices for the masses to be able to rely on its performance, just as the select few rely on intellectual truths. For this reason Moses impressed this act upon their hearts, by describing the sacrifices of the princes at length. Thus, while they were all of a kind, he recorded the sacrifice twelve complete times—whereas had this been a matter concerning the select few, it would have sufficed to write the procedure followed by the first prince, and then said, “and thus did each one.” That would have been the same as in the case of the six branches of the candelabra, which was written for intellectual purposes. Even some of the popular subjects used such methods, such as “and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother,” for the Torah customarily uses analogy based on specific example, which is known as a principle of logic. Thus, the Torah will mention a specific instance or one component, and will then make a generalizing statement, and if that is not done (explicitly), then it will be implied. (Such a case is) that which is written in the Torah, “thou shall make a parapet for thy roof,” which Maimonides explained as being a generic commandment (encompassing) the removal of every obstacle from one’s house, every stone that abuts, every nail on the ground, as well as whatever is similar to this.
So the reason for the lengthy repetition time and again, which is again summarized and totaled species by species, as it appears in the sacrifices of the princes, (has as its purpose) to impress upon the masses how great people should offer gifts and donations to the Lord, and by extension so should every person. Now the princes brought exceedingly large gifts (to be sacrificed), but when Moses saw that they were approaching simultaneously to sacrifice the six covered wagons and the rest, he knew that it would not make as great an impression on the masses who were looking on as would be the case were they to do it over a period of days. For that reason he commanded them to bring their sacrifices during twelve days, so that one prince each day would bring his sacrifices to the dedication of the altar. Thus the Israelite masses would gather day after day for twelve days to see this (spectacle).
Now in the same way that we who see the twelvefold | repetition of each paragraph are so deeply impressed, so that even though we might not absorb the description of the six covered wagons when we see it in Scripture or hear it once a year being read, we would (certainly) absorb those sacrifices that are read and heard twelve times, so too with the bullocks of the festival of Tabernacles. The reason is that He who gave the Torah was forced to have the masses believe that sacrifice is cherished by God, as the masses do indeed believe. All the nations also (believe this). Thus, in accord with the thinking of the masses, He said, “for a sweet savor unto the Lord,” as well as, “the Lord smelled the sweet savor,” which are like “and the men pursued after them.” The same is the case with the other rites ascribed (as desirable) to the Lord. Now notice how careful Moses was, for while he wrote at excessive length on the issue of sacrifice, so as to arouse the masses to life, (when he came to) what was intended for the select few, he used an abbreviated style, suppressed into one verse. This is in connection with “When Moses went into the tent of meeting that he might speak with him, then he heard the voice speaking unto him from above the ark-cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him.” The Men of the Great Assembly were likewise careful to make this verse the final one of the weekly pericope. This is all as if Scripture, or Moses who wrote it, said that the mass of princes went to extremes in bringing sacrifices, gifts, and offerings at the tent of meeting, whereas Moses, who was the greatest prince, brought no gifts at all. It was not that this was an affront, as happened to the wicked men as recounted at the beginning of the Book of (Samuel), but rather that he performed something more acceptable and preferred by the Lord, and that was intellectual speculation and cleaving to Him.
Notice the careful formulation of “that he might speak with him,” for that alludes to Moses (speaking to) himself, as God is not mentioned previously as the referent (of “he”). But Moses was speaking with himself, and with his essence, i.e., his intellect. The “voice” refers to the intellectual overflow. This is all understood by the wise.
There is, however, another observation on the isue of the repetition of anecdotes that involve changes in expression and words, such as the story of Eliezer and the story of the dream of Pharaoh. Easy subject matter is to be taken as metaphorical and analogous to more difficult matters, as the sages said, “Extrapolate from the explicit to the implicit,” which is also what all the philosophers usually say. Now Moses in the Torah on several occasions repeats things with small changes, especially | in Deuteronomy.
The most remarkable of all, for the masses, are the changes appearing in the Ten Commandments, that being the best known, as the occasion when the Lord Himself came down on the mountain and spoke, like a king of flesh and blood. (The changes in the two accounts) teach us that that was not the case. This was certainly true of the (command to keep) the Sabbath, for in the portion of Jethro there is one final cause that is mentioned, whereas there is another in Va’et’ḥanan. (The answer is that) “the ordinances of the Lord are true, they are righteous altogether,” and therefore in both cases Moses was the immediate speaker, while God Himself, while also speaking, stood from afar. Our sages of blessed memory pointed this out by saying, “‘Remember’ and ‘observe’ were both spoken in one utterance,” where because “utterance” is a genus that includes both the spoken and unspoken word, their statement is also true of the spoken words, as “remember” and “observe” are synonymous. This is like someone who says today, “The wine is good,” and tomorrow says, “The port is good.” Their statement is certainly true of the unspoken word, for the mental representation is one, so that the two purposes that are enunciated with regard to the Sabbath as being “in one utterance” were (meant to refer to) the unspoken word.
Chapter 20
As for the solution to the twenty-third question, it is thus: know that it is necessary for the masses to believe in general that in regard to blessings and curses, a blessing will bring about some good, while a curse will cause harm. This is certainly (to be believed if that blessing or curse issues) from the mouths of the zealous and favored of the Lord. It is the same today, for this (popular belief) effects for the masses the two necessary and well-known purposes enumerated by Maimonides in the Introduction to the Mishnah. These (purposes) are to provide company and service for one who is perfect in his knowledge.
Thus it is altogether necessary to establish a firm belief in the benefits of blessings and the harmful effects of curses, in the imagination of the masses. (They are to believe this) especially in those instances where distinctive configurations are used, such as those that we utilize today that involve excommunication, and even more so the bed and horns. It was particularly for this reason that Moses instituted “these shall stand … to bless … and these shall stand … to curse …” And therefore Moses preceded (that ceremony by stating) in Genesis—which related past events—that God Himself blessed some of His creatures and cursed others. After that (Moses relates that) Noah cursed Canaan and blessed his other sons. Moses similarly spoke at length of the rivalry of Jacob and Esau to receive the blessing of their zealous father, Isaac. (In regard to that incident) if the truth be that Esau and Jacob never existed, then neither did Moses and Aaron, and if Rebecca (likewise did not exist), then neither did Miriam exist.
It is similarly written that Jacob blessed his children when he died, as did Moses when he died. As for (what happened) in the story of Balaam, the explanation is clearly that that fool was universally known for the fact that whomever he blessed was blessed, and whomever he cursed was accursed. Consequently Moses was forced to have them believe that (Balaam) had not cursed them but had 154a blessed them. This is in a manner of | a physician, who is (like any) leader, in that he prevents the onset of disease by the maintenance of good health, and even improving it. Now (in the incident with Balaam), had that mass, including women and children, believed, heaven forbid, that Balaam had cursed them, then the plague would have taken hold of the Israelites. This is because they were affected by their imaginative faculty, whose effect is a matter known even today, as the physicians are most aware.
As for the “devoted thing” of Achan, in my opinion Achan was an officer of the army, for he was from the tribe of Judah, and (as such) he stood at the head of those three thousand men. Now because he knew in his heart that he had violated the “devoted thing,” his conscience afflicted him as he was fighting, and being frightened that that transgression would trip him up, he fled. When he fled, so did those in his camp, and they were beaten by the men of Ai. Now it is neither necessary nor proper that all (this) be written in the text. One should extrapolate from this.
As a rule, those who write Scripture compose the stories to communicate to us the sciences of theoretical and practical philosophy, and out of the necessity of political stability. (Therefore) they write things that are of an accidental nature in such a way that the masses will take them to be of an essential nature, for that is what is necessary for political stability. It is all for the sake of providing company and service for the treasured individual, as Maimonides has written. (In any case) the masses consider accidental causes to be essential causes, and certainly there are places where the opposite (is true). Remember all of this.
Chapter 21
As for the solution to the twenty-fourth question, it is written in the Menorat Kesef, with the subject having been explicitly (discussed) in the book The Intellectual Circles. For we would be correct to imagine the entire universe as a ladder, whether we begin at the top and descend to the bottom (or we begin at the bottom and ascend to the top). This is (the meaning of) “going up and coming down,” i.e., “sometimes going up and sometimes coming down.” One should add to this what Maimonides said in two of his writings, which together are correct. There are in addition as many as seventy interpretations, that is to say, seventy plus seventy ad infinitum. Herein, in these profound configurations, is the distinctiveness of the Torah, as Maimonides wrote regarding the equivocal term ’avar (“pass”). Whoever deals with these things at length is to be most praised, in opposition to (one dealing with) the literal meaning of verses.
Chapter 22
| As for the solution to the twenty-fifth question, know that Maimonides discussed this at length in the chapters dealing with prophecy, and asserted that several of them occurred in a dream, by including them among that class of things of which it is impossible that they occurred while (the prophet) was awake. He even said that “this is a thing that can be doubted or not known by him who confuses the possible things with the impossible ones.” Now my opinion is that this is true in certain cases, whereas in other cases I would question (him).
Thus, in the case of Jacob, I admit that the entire narrative of “and Jacob sent messengers” occurred as something seen in a dream. Nonetheless, in my opinion Jacob carried this out when he awoke, as happened in many such cases. As for the wrestling with the angel, this never occurred other than in a dream. The touching of the hollow of his thigh (and the passage following) until “the sinew of the thigh vein” was intended as an allusion to evil events that would befall Jacob in respect of women, for nasheh (“thigh vein”) is equivocal, similar to ḥovlim and the like. Accordingly he experienced the events of Dinah, Rachel, and Rebeccah’s handmaid.
Similarly, I maintain that the incident wherein Isaiah went naked and barefoot occurred in its entirety when he was awake, having been commanded to (act) thus in a dream. This was similar to Ezekiel’s being commanded in a dream, which (is followed by) his saying, “I arose in the morning and did so,” as well as, “I say for a fact that what I have done will be done to you.” One cannot raise a question from Isaiah’s statement (in the above passage) of “with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt,” and “naked and barefoot.” For this should be understood in accordance with logic and nature, (which assert that) terms signifying deprivation or absolute negation (could be used) to describe one who possesses some partial perfection, as was explained in the Prior Analytics and De Caelo. It was similar with Ezekiel when he ate “bread on cow’s dung,” where the real meaning is (that he ate bread) in proximity to those things. It was similar when he shaved his beard and head, that being an appropriate prophetic act.
Further remarkable acts of this kind, performed as temporary decrees, include Ezekiel’s lying on his sides (for 390 days), even though it would have sufficed to act thus for one moment; also the act of Jeremiah in hiding the girdle in the river Perath for who knows, he might have waded partway into the Perath river; as well as the act of Hosea —for there would be no wonder if on one occasion he lay with a harlot in order to achieve the acceptance by the masses of the prophetic metaphor, for the purpose of saving the entire people, (and in the hope) that they might hear and desist. Together these instances illustrate the principle that prophets cus-155a tomarily | do things to make an impression upon the observers.
Reliable evidence of this is provided by Ahijah the Shilonite, who tore that garment into twelve strips. Now he could have communicated the prophetic message without tearing a garment. It was, however, precisely this prophetic method (that would be undertaken) to reinforce the impact on the imagination of the hearer. So too the prophet suffered emotional bitterness and injury in order to make an impression on Ahab.
And the false prophets imitated these things, such as the act of Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah in making iron horns for himself when awake, (and imitated) Jeremiah the true prophet, who also made himself bands and bars and put them on his neck.
That this took place while he was awake, even according to Maimonides, is proven by Hananiah, who broke them. This is especially true of what is written in Ezekiel, where he was to do certain things before all Israel, and the Lord was to say to him “What doest thou,” so that Ezekiel could answer by way of parable and analogy, “You should do the same thing, for Jerusalem is to be destroyed.”
For this reason I question Maimonides in several instances where he said that they never occurred when the prophet was awake. It is my intention to say that whenever a prophet was commanded in a dream to do something when awake, he—i.e., the prophet—did that when he was awake.
There were, however, without any doubt instances where the prophet did not do those things when awake, for they only occurred as part of a dream, but never when awake, such as Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard, and the eagle of Ezeliek, which are to be compared to philosophic parables that compare matter to wax, and many others that are similar. What must be undertaken with precision is to distinguish the one kind (of prophetic dream) from the other—and for this, great study is required.
Chapter 23
As for the solution to the twenty-sixth question, it was clarified by Him who gave the Torah, when at the conclusion of His words He stated with reference to all of them, “because they had defiled their sister,” having said of Shechem alone at the outset that “he had defiled Dinah their sister.”
Ezekiel clarified this when he said, “I have appointed thee a watchman unto the house of Israel,” and said, “thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his 156 blood will I require at thy hand.” | Maimonides explained this (by saying) that one who omits to save another could be said to have killed him. The sages, may their memory be blessed, said also, “Whoever had it within his power to oppose (an act), but did not do so, could be said to have committed it.” It is a general rule, whether in Hebrew or any (other) language, that an act is attributed to and associated with anyone who omitted to prevent that act, or who did not bring about its opposite.
For this reason it is said, “every daughter you shall give life,” and “Joshua gave life,” as well as “Elisha gave life.” There are many similar instances.
Consequently, there is no doubt that had all the inhabitants of the city (of Shechem) not remained silent, Shechem would not have been able to do this. (Their guilt) is all the more evident in that it would appear, from the Torah’s hint in the words “because they had defiled their sister.” that they were amused in that (affair). (Other instances of such terminology are) what is written, “ye have slain his sons three-score and ten,” and “so Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner.”
Now even though the writer of the Torah did not allude to this here, in my opinion there is (further) justification for the children of Jacob, from something that occurred earlier to Abraham, as well as to Isaac and Jacob. This is the fact that the land of Canaan belonged to them, as Jeremiah explained when he said, “I have made the earth … and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto me.” And because the Lord had decreed and desired that the descendants of Abraham would destroy the Canaanites, what (Jacob’s) children did in the present instance to Shechem was part of the divine will and decree. What was done was done. If only they had done the same with all the Canaanites, then our forefathers would not have had to wander in the desert for forty years.
Now even though this is all true, the writer of the Torah demonstrated to us the wisdom of old, experienced men, as Aristotle said in the Ethics, that to listen to the old is no less than to listen to demonstrative proof. For this reason, while Jacob the old man saw that justice required that his sons do what they did, he became angry and said that one should not endanger oneself on account of what may or may not be. One should certainly not (endanger oneself) in order to hasten the appointed time that had been told to Abraham.
Thus, at Jacob’s death, he said to them, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce.” This was all written by the writer of the Torah to reprove us, and to teach us knowledge. And if by our sins we transgressed and erred (in the past), we continue to do so today.
Chapter 24
| As for the solution to the twenty-seventh question, I have already written it in the Shulḥan Kesef.
Chapter 25
As for the solution to the twenty-eighth question, I have already written sufficiently of it in the Maṣref La-Kesef and Ṭirat Kesef.
With this, the questions that I wrote that appertain to the Book of Genesis have been completed.