## Gevia Kesef Chapter 17

###### Gevia Kesef 17:1
[Gevia Kesef 17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:1)

אמנם היתר השאלה הכ׳. דע כי על ראשון אני משיב, כי להגיע נבואה לנביאים זולת משה יש כמה הגבלות הכרחיות, אם ממקום אם מזמן, או זולת זה. ולכן בא בכמו זה בכל הנביאים, וגם במעשה מרכבה ליחזקאל. ועל זה רמז המורה וה״ה לחכמי העיון כמו שאנו רואים מעיוניהם.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
As for the solution to the twentieth question, know that by way of answering the first (doubt),¹ 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.² Maimonides, as well as the sages who speculate,³ a term usually referring to the gentile philosophers. alluded to this, as can be seen in their investigations.

footnotes:
¹ 1. From what follows, the doubt appears to be as follows: In Gen. 18:1, at the visit of the three men, why was it necessary to specify the exact place and time that the vision occurred?
² 2. Ezek. 1:1, “… as I was among the captives by the river Chebar …”; i.e., the physical factors must be conducive to prophetic inspiration.
³ 3. In Heb. ḥakhmei ha-’iyyun,


###### Gevia Kesef 17:2
[Gevia Kesef 17:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:2)

ולזה העיר נותן התורה על אברהם בזה למשל ודמיון, לכתוב ״באלוני ממרא.״ ואמר ״והוא יושב״ שאלו היה נע ונד לא היה מיושב בעיונו, אם עיוני אם נבואי. כ״ש שלא היה מתנמנם אלא א״כ היה יושב. והשינה הכרחית לנביאים.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.”⁴ 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.⁵ Sleep is a necessity for prophets.

footnotes:
⁴ 4. Gen. 18:1.
⁵ 5. On the implications of this statement, see above chap. XIII, n. 14.


###### Gevia Kesef 17:3
[Gevia Kesef 17:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:3)

גם עזרו בזה היות הזמן ההוא כחום היום שהיה עת שינת הצהרים. והרוב מזה כבר כתבנוהו לפנים, גם היתר הספק, גם הרביעי גם את הה׳. ובכלל די למבינים במה שכתבתי בפרק המיוחד למראה השלישית מאברהם. אבל אכתוב בזה בהיותו הספק המנוי השלישי.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.⁶ This will suffice for those who understand what I wrote in the chapter dealing specifically with Abraham’s third vision.⁷ What I will write presently refers to the third enumerated doubt.⁸

footnotes:
⁶ 6. The first, fourth, and fifth doubts are referred by Kaspi to other works (cf. above n. 1), and the third is taken up in what follows, so it would appear that the second is referred to in this phrase, even though the MS is unclear.
⁷ 7. Cf. above chap. XIII.
⁸ 8. From what follows it appears that the question was: Why does Abraham choose the particular numbers that he does in arguing the fate of Sodom before God, starting with fifty and ending with ten? (Gen. 18:23 ff.).


###### Gevia Kesef 17:4
[Gevia Kesef 17:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:4)

ואומר כי ענין אלו המספרים רבו כענין מה שאמר המורה בענין מספר הקרבנות, וכ״ש בהתחילו בחמישים עם שהיה זה נאות להיותו חצי מאה. אבל סיימו בעשרה כי כן מנהג העברים, כמו ״מעשרה שליטים אשר היו בעיר.״ וכן ״מעשרה בנים.״ כ״ש שהוא הקשר הראשון מן האחדים. ובכלל זה מספר אנשים נותן רושם לשומעים שיכנעו למוסרם. ואלו נמצאו שם כך עם לוט שמעו לקולו לצאת מן העירות והם עד יעבור זעם התגבורת ההוא, ולא היה כמצחק בעיניהם. אבל מה יעשה יחיד או יחידים כי מיני ההצלות רבות. ונח נמלט מבלי שברח לארץ אחרת כי היה המבול כולל גדול רחב והוצרך לעשות תיבה. ולוט וביתו הסרים אל משמעתו ועמו כך היו האחרים וכלם אם שמעו לו כי הלך אל צוער

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
These numbers vary for the same reasons as those mentioned by Maimonides regarding the numbers involved in the sacrifices.⁹ III:26, where Maimonides says that the numbers specified in the Torah with regard to sacrifices do not possess any particular significance, for “one particular number had necessarily to be chosen.” 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”¹⁰ and “(am I not better to thee) than ten sons.”¹¹ This is especially in view of the fact that ten constitutes the first aggregate of single numbers,¹² ed. D. Kaufmann (Berlin, 1880), p. 43. while this number of people can generally make sufficient impression on an audience to have them obey their instruction.¹³ 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?¹⁴ MK II 286 ff.); i.e., God had decreed that “the city” would be destroyed, but the exact meaning of “the city” would be clarified in the course of time, whether or not the inhabitants fled in repentance. This position of Kaspi reflects Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Exod. 33:21, which attempts to reconcile personal providence with the notion of fate as ordained by the stars. The example that Ibn Ezra uses is that of a city that is destined to be flooded and its inhabitants drowned. A prophet comes and warns them to repent before their fate is sealed; they obey him, repent, and leave the city. In their absence the river rises and floods the city. Thus Ibn Ezra reconciles divine providence with natural law. Kaspi appears to equate a divine decree with natural law in that neither can be changed permanently. For further discussion of this latter issue, see above Chapter 4. (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.¹⁵

footnotes:
⁹ 9. Guide
¹⁰ 10. Eccles. 7:19.
¹¹ 11. I Sam. 1:8.
¹² 12. A similar statement is made by Al-Batalyawsi in The Book of Intellectual Circles,
¹³ 13. Kaspi might here be referring to Num. 13, where the ten spies who returned from Canaan were able to sway and influence the masses.
¹⁴ 14. He means that there are alternative avenues to follow, with other leaders impressing them. Kaspi’s words here imply that even had the Sodomites repented, the city would still have been destroyed. This is consistent with Kaspi’s general position regarding the immutability of divine decrees (cf. Maṣref La-Kesef,
¹⁵ 15. Gen. 19:20.


###### Gevia Kesef 17:5
[Gevia Kesef 17:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:5)

... ונמלטו מננוה מן הספינה האחרת כי יצאו מן ננוה כולם מקטנם ועד גדלם. ונתקיים בלי | ספק מה שאמר השם ״עוד מ׳ יום וננוה נהפכת.״ וזה גלה לנו יונה כשכתב ספרו, כי אחר שידע כי נחם יי׳ על הרעה בעבור ההכנעה שעשו, שתכליתו היה שפחדו מייעוד נביא השם ולא כבדו לבם כאשר כבדו המצרים עד שברחו כולם מן העיר רחוק שעור לא נכתב, כתוב ״וירע אל יונה.״ וגם גלה עוד בכתבו לנו ״ויצא יונה מן העיר עד אשר יראה מה יהיה בעיר.״ ואם הוא ידע כי נחם יי׳ על הרעה, כמו שהעיר הוא על עצמו, מה טעם לצאת ממנו. ומה טעם ״לראות מה יהיה לה.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
…¹⁶ 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,”¹⁷ 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.”¹⁸ 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,”¹⁹ 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”?²⁰

footnotes:
¹⁶ 16. There seems to be an omission in the MS at this point, for not only is there a change to the Book of Jonah, there is also a direct approach to the problem of the immutability of divine decrees, which Kaspi was not addressing up to that point.
¹⁷ 17. Jon. 3:4.
¹⁸ 18. Jon. 4:1; what is implied here is that Jonah was displeased because he saw that the city was still going to be destroyed. Alternatively one can explain that Jonah was angry that the nations of the world would consider him a false prophet once the decree that he had announced did not come to pass (cf. Rashi ad loc.).
¹⁹ 19. Jon. 4:5.
²⁰ 20. The question is: Once Jonah knew that God had withdrawn his decree of punishment, why did Jonah even consider the possibility that something untoward might happen to the city?


###### Gevia Kesef 17:6
[Gevia Kesef 17:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:6)

אבל אם היותו עדיין בספק מה בגזירה האומרת ״עוד מ׳ יום וננוה נהפכת,״ כי אם הכרחית או אפשרית. עד שידוע כי לפי העברי, וגם בלע״ז, אמרנו עיר או ארץ יתכן שיהיה ענינו הארץ או העיר לבד יושביה, ויתכן יושביה ולא היא, ויתכן הכל. והוא ראה כי לפחות יושביה נמלטים. הנה הוא על כל פנים יצא מן הספק מעון העיר, ויצא מתוכה. וחשק לראות על כל פנים מעשה השם בהפיכתה, אם היא כמהפכת סדום וגפרית ומלח עם אש, או אש לבדו.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
(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.²¹ in chap. IX, above pp. 187-188. 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,²² 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 salt²³ —or (whether it would be) with fire alone.²⁴

footnotes:
²¹ 21. This distinction is discussed by Kaspi earlier in the Gevia’ Kesef,
²² 22. He means that Jonah realized that “Nineveh” in the decree had referred to the city environs and not to the inhabitants thereof, at least not in the same way. In what follows he develops this further.
²³ 23. Cf. Gen. 19:24.
²⁴ 24. Kimḥi, in his commentary to Jonah, explains that he left the city in the event that the people faltered in their repentance, in which case God might have determined once more to destroy the city. According to Kimḥi, the city was in fact not destroyed, whereas according to Kaspi it was.


###### Gevia Kesef 17:7
[Gevia Kesef 17:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:7)

ובכלל⁵⁸ כמה פנים, ובכלל נתאמת לו כי הגזירה האומרת ראשונה ״עוד מ׳ יום וננוה נהפחת״ הסובל היא ויושביה יחד, כן היה בלא ספק. אבל היה המצוק בה הכרחי, והמכוון ביושביה אפשרי, וכן היה.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ בכתב יד המלה ״ובכלל״ הוכפל.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.²⁵ (MK II 288). Kaspi’s contention that the city was indeed destroyed would conveniently explain the problem bothering all the commentators: Why was Jonah so angry and resentful? Kaspi would explain that Jonah wanted to save the city as well.

footnotes:
²⁵ 25. A similar, abbreviated answer is found in Maṣref La-Kesef


###### Gevia Kesef 17:8
[Gevia Kesef 17:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:8)

ולכן אין בכאן שנוי רצון בדבר השם או נביאו, כמו שאבאר יותר בענין, בהיות ובכלל נמלטו יושבי ננוה בברחם מעל הארץ.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.²⁶ or *Keforei Kesef,* on which see above p. 19.

footnotes:
²⁶ 26. This might be a reference to the Neḳudot Kesef


###### Gevia Kesef 17:9
[Gevia Kesef 17:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:9)

וכן נמלט דוד מחרב שאול ואבשלום. ועל זה אמר שלמה ״ומלט הוא את העיר בחכמתו.״ ואמר יחיד אם היה שיכנעו לעצתו יושבי העיר, אם שיהיו הם אנשים שומעים לעצת חכם, אם שהיה הוא כדאי מצד חכמתו היותו גדול בעיניהם. ועל כמו זה האיש אמר ירמיה ״אם תמצאו.״ ובאמת היה זה אם נתאר זה האיש, ר״ל מבקש אמונה, היה צדקיהו. כי הוא היה המלך ואם התחזק והתאפק לעצת ירמיה שאמר להם ״תנו את צואריכם בעול מלך בבל ועבדו אותו וחיו.״ והיה במלכות העיר ירושלים ובית המקדש וכל יושביה מבלי צאת משם כלל, ולא עשות תיבה כמו נח או הדומה לזה.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.”²⁷ 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.”²⁸ 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.”²⁹ 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).³⁰

footnotes:
²⁷ 27. Eccles. 9:15.
²⁸ 28. Jer. 5:1.
²⁹ 29. Jer. 27:12.
³⁰ 30. As a result of his opposition to Jeremiah’s counsel to submit, the city was finally taken by force, the king was taken captive, and the city destroyed, as related in Jer. 39.


###### Gevia Kesef 17:10
[Gevia Kesef 17:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:10)

| ובכלל כי ראש העם הוא בכלל העם. ועל כמו זה האיש היחיד אמר יחזקאל ״אם היה שם איש גודר גדר ועומד בפרץ,״ כי לא השחיט ירושלים. ולא אמר זה על ברוך בן נריה או הדומה לו, גם לא על ירמיה. גם מה שאמר במקום אחר כי שלשה אנשים לא יצילו העיר רק עצמם לבדם אם הם צדיקים, אין בזה סתירה. כי הגזירות פעם הם הכרחיות ופעם הם אפשריות בחמר. והטעם פעם אחת כן ופעם אחרת כן לפי הזמן והמקום.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
| In general (therefore) the leader of the people is to be equated with the people.³¹ 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,”³² to prevent the destruction of Jerusalem. This was something not said of Baruch ben Neriah or his kind, and not even of Jeremiah.³³ As for what Ezekiel said elsewhere, that three men cannot save a city but only themselves, if they are righteous³⁴ —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.³⁵

footnotes:
³¹ 31. He means that the leader’s will generally prevails over that of the people, either by force or by reason of the respect that he inspires.
³² 32. Ezek. 22:30.
³³ 33. He means that they were not leaders of the people as were the rulers and kings.
³⁴ 34. Ezek. 14:14-16.
³⁵ 35. Kaspi discusses this distinction earlier in chap. IX, above pp. 186 ff.


###### Gevia Kesef 17:11
[Gevia Kesef 17:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:11)

ועוד גלה לנו בכאן סוד אחר, והוא בפרשו אלו הג׳ הצדיקים מהתארים. כי לא אמר במוחלט ובסתם, גם לא פרט משה ואהרון ושמואל, רק אמר נח דניאל ואיוב. והנה נח ואיוב אחי הבל הם, ואולם דניאל אולי גם כן הוא לא ראינו השגתו רק חלומות. וכן היה אולי להבל וכל אחיו. ולכן נמנה דניאל בכלל הכתובים עם⁵⁹ איוב. ודי אם אלו יספיקו להציל עצמם כי אין להם חכמה גדולה, גם לא משא פנים שימלטו בעבורם כל בני עיר וארץ.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ בכתב יד כתוב ״אם״ שהוא ודאי בטעות.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.³⁶ He identified them only as Noah, Daniel, and Job.³⁷ Now Noah and Job were kindred of Abel,³⁸ 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,³⁹ (cf. above chap. XIII, pp. 210 ff.) are inferior to those occurring in visions. something which possibly was common to Abel and his kindred. For this reason Daniel was included in the Hagiographa together with Job.⁴⁰ II:45) that “Daniel, Job, and all the other writings have likewise been composed through this kind of Holy Spirit (which constitutes the second degree of prophecy).” (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.⁴¹ III: 17-18, that “providence is consequent upon the intellect and attached to it.” Thus those who are more complete in respect to their intellectual faculties are the ones who will be protected most.

footnotes:
³⁶ 36. He means that these leaders were not elevated from the masses, neither were they true wise men.
³⁷ 37. “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness …”
³⁸ 38. This is explained in chap. VI above p. 160, where Kaspi mentions that Noah, Job, and Abel belong in the same category, all of them having sacrificed to God, a sign that they were not complete in their wisdom. Here too their inadequacy is reflected in their inability to save their respective cities, had the occasion arisen.
³⁹ 39. He means that Daniel’s visions all occurred in prophetic dreams, which, as Maimonides showed in the Guide
⁴⁰ 40. He means that the third section of the bible, i.e., the Hagiographa, was written with a lower level of prophetic inspiration. This reflects Maimonides’ statement (Guide
⁴¹ 41. In this passage Kaspi is in accord with Maimonides’ doctrine of personal providence, as developed in the Guide


###### Gevia Kesef 17:12
[Gevia Kesef 17:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/17:12)

ובכלל העולה מזה הפרשה היתר כל השאלות המורשמות במספר העשרים בספר כסף סיגים, ביותר קצר שהיה אפשר לנו.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
The sum of this chapter is the resolution of the entire question numbered twenty in *Kesef Sigim,* in the shortest way possible to me.