## Gevia Kesef Chapter 5

###### Gevia Kesef 5:1
[Gevia Kesef 5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/5:1)

ראה איך האמת עד לעצמו ומסכים מכל צד. וזה כי השלוש הוא דבר קדום לכל האומות. ואחד מיסודותיו הוא בעבור שמספר שלש הוא מספר שלם כי יש לו ראש ואמצע. ולכן אמר אריסטו בספר השמים והעולם. לכן נהגנו בתפילתנו לומר ענין השלשה. לכן נותן תורתינו הסכים לזה והניח בתחילת תורתינו ג׳ שמות כמו | שקדם. והם ״אלוקים״ ״יי׳ אלוקים״ ״יי׳״. ואמר כן במאמר הנכבד שהיה למשה עם יי׳ במ׳ יום השניים כתיב שם יי׳ אל. ובברכת אהרון יי׳ ג׳ פעמים. וכן במה שיחד שמות לשם הנכבד הניחם על מספר שלשה: שם יו׳ד ה׳א ו׳ו ה׳א ושם אהיה אשר אהיה. ובכלל כדי שיהיה השלוש נאמר בעולם השכלים מכל צד. ואם כציירנו השכל הראשון בכלל. וזהו כמו שקדם. לא מצד היות הכלל נחלק לג׳ חלקים בציורינו ראשון ושניים ושכל הפועל עם כל אחד מהשכלים זולת המשנה הקרוב לא הוא לפחות בעלי השלשה ענינים מצד היותו נשלם בהשכילו ראשון והשכל הקרוב לו למעלה ממנו ועצמותו. ואם בראשון לבדו יש לו ציור שלש מצד היותו סבה שלישיה לחלקיו השניים ר״ל ופועל צורה ותכלית.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
Notice how the truth is its own witness and consistent in every respect.¹ (MK I 83) Kaspi explains: “the meaning of this is that one side bears witness to the other side. But why should I quote other philosophers, while omitting the words of the perfect philosophers of our people, who said, ‘Words of truth are self-evident’ [*nikkarin divrei ’emet*]” (BT Soṭah 9a). Kaspi’s reference to other philosophers is to the long tradition in Islamic philosophy, starting with Al-Kindi and culminating in Averroës. The latter accepted the parity of philosophy and Scripture as two primary and infallible sources of truth. It is his formulation which is quoted in the present passage, as quoted in G. F. Hourani, *On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy (Kitab Fasl Al-Maqāl*) (London: Luzac, 1961), p. 51: “… demonstrative study does not lead to conclusions conflicting with what Scripture has given us; for truth does not oppose truth, but accords with it and bears witness to it.” This passage is also quoted by Falaquera, *Sefer Ha-Ma‘alot* (Berlin, 1894), p. 12. For a Hebrew translation, see *PAAJR XXV* (1956), p. 107. The number three is well established among all nations,² one of the reasons being that it is a complete numeral, possessing a beginning and a middle, as stated by Aristotle in *De Caelo*.³ I, 1, 168a: “For as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an ‘all,’ and the number they give is the triad.” Consequently our prayers are characterized by the number three.⁴ prayer in chap. I, above pp. 137–138. 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.⁵ 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*).⁶ In the priestly blessing “Lord” appears three times.⁷ Similarly, when the names of God were given, they were three in number: the tetragrammaton,⁸ “’Ehyeh,” (and the bigrammaton). This also accords with our perception of the world of Intelligences in every respect.⁹ It is also in accordance with our conception of the first Intelligence, as explained above.¹⁰ (AS II 82–83) he explains the details of this doctrine, where the first intelligence (the *mishneh ha-ḳarov*) necessarily has two perceptions: of itself and of the Lord. All lower intelligences have three perceptions: of themselves, of the immediately preceding intelligence, and of the Lord. 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.¹¹ I:69. 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.¹² In further explanation of all this, Isaiah wrote, “And one called to another and said, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts …’ ”¹³ 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.

footnotes:
¹ 1. In Ṭirat Kesef
² 2. He means that the number figures prominently in the theology of many religions.
³ 3. De Caelo
⁴ 4. This is probably in reference to the comments regarding the ḳedushah
⁵ 5. Cf. above chap. II, p. 138.
⁶ 6. Exod. 34:6.
⁷ 7. Num. 6:24–26.
⁸ 8. As Kaspi explained earlier, the tetragrammaton really includes two names, i.e., the full four letters, and the first two alone. This makes up the number three in the present context.
⁹ 9. These were explained above in chap. I, pp. 136–137.
¹⁰ 10. In the Menorat Kesef
¹¹ 11. This is explained in the Guide
¹² 12. Cf. above chap. I, p. 137, n. 14.
¹³ 13. Isa. 6:3.


###### Gevia Kesef 5:2
[Gevia Kesef 5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/5:2)

ולבאר לנו יותר כל זה כתב ישעיהו ״וקרא זה אל זה ואמר ק׳ק׳ק׳ יי׳ צבאות.״ והטעם המדקדק בצבאות במקום הזה, השכלים הנפרדים. ואם ביתר המקומות קראו הגשמים השמימיים וכל ישראל צבאותיו ית׳. והכל אמת. ולבאר לנו כי זה השלוש שזכר ישעיהו הוא כולו בעולם השכלים הנפרדים מן הצד שכתבתיו וזה מצד לקחנו הכלל ומצד לקחנו הפרט העליון, סדרו לנו בתפילתינו לשון מפרש זה. ואמר לשם ית׳ ״קדושה לך ישלשו״ וכן ״המשלשים לך קדושה.״ וכבר הארכנו גם על זה בספר מנורת כסף. וממה שכתבנו בזה מתחילת ספרינו גם הנה יובן לך איך אנחנו והנוצרים שוים במלות ר״ל בשלוש ובלשון אמרם ״אב ובן ורוח״, וכי הם שלשה והם אחד, כי זה ענין קרוב. וכתוב כולו בתורתינו ר״ל שתאר יי׳ ית׳ כאב. ויותר נפלא באמרו ״מחוללך״ וכן אם כן יש לו בן בהכרח. כ״ש שכתוב ״בנים אתם ליי׳ אלוקיכם.״ כ״ש שנאמר בתורה על השכל הפועל ״רוח אלוקים״ מן הרוח. אך כמה רחוקים | אנחנו מן הנוצרים בדעות. ואם אנחנו שוים במלות ובדבור החיצוני אם לא שיהיו כמונו היחידים מהם.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
(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.¹⁴ Thus, when addressing the Lord, the (prayer) says, “they attest three times to your holiness,” and “those who treble their sanctification of you.”¹⁵ prayer. I have also spoken at length on this in the *Menorat Kesef*.¹⁶ (AS II 80–95) without any reference to these verses or prayers. 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,”¹⁷ 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.”¹⁸ Furthermore it is written with regard to the Active Intellect: “the spirit of God,”¹⁹ 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).²⁰ LVI (1912), pp. 209–217.

footnotes:
¹⁴ 14. The term “Separate Intelligences” could accordingly refer to that world as a whole or to its highest component, the Lord Himself. Cf. chap. III, n. 42.
¹⁵ 15. This is according to the Sephardic version of the ḳedushah
¹⁶ 16. The subject is discussed in general in the Menorat Kesef
¹⁷ 17. Deut. 32:18.
¹⁸ 18. Deut. 14:1.
¹⁹ 19. Gen. 1:2.
²⁰ 20. This is but one of several statements that Kaspi makes indicating his concerns regarding Christological claims and Biblical exegesis. Many of the verses mentioned in the present chapter are included among the stock Christian arguments on these issues related to the trinity, and it is likely that their mention here is connected to such Christian claims. In this regard, see above Chapter 2, pp. 69 ff. for its impact on Kaspi’s exegesis, as well as Chapter 3, pp. 95–96 as to the latter years of Kaspi’s literary activity. It should be noted in the present context that while Kaspi appears here to countenance the idea of common approaches to exegesis, as a rule he is scathingly critical of Christological exegesis and polemics. For a list of references to Christianity in Kaspi’s writings, see W. Bacher, “Aus der Bibelexegese Joseph Ibn Kaspis,” MGWJ