## Gevia Kesef Chapter 9

###### Gevia Kesef 9:1
[Gevia Kesef 9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:1)

ידוע לחכמים איך המלה מונחת לפועל היא שוה בלשון אם לפועל הרחוק אם לקרוב. וכי אלו התארים, ר״ל הקרוב, הם מקבלים פחות ויתר כי יש רחוק יותר מרחוק וכן קרוב יותר מקרוב עד כמה מדריגות. ולכן אמרנו ״פועל, עושה, יוצר, בורא, מניע, מוציא, כותב, מדבר, אומר, בונה, הורס, אוסר, מתיר, נותן, נוטש, אוכל, רואה, שומע, זוכר,״ ובכלל כל שמות פועל בכל לשון שאתה שומע, כי ראוי ומחויב והגון ונאה וצורך לומר במוחלט ובסתם על הפועל היותר רחוק כמו על הפועל היותר קרוב. והמשל בזה בתורה על השי״ת העליון על כל השכלים הנפרדים אף כי על הגשמים השמימיים, כ״ש על הגשמים הארציים. ״ויניעם במדבר מ׳ שנה״ כלומר שיי׳ העליון היה מניע לישראל והנה הוא ית׳ היה בהכרח היותר רחוק וראשון. ואולם משה היה היותר קרוב מאשר מחוץ. ובזה תקיש בכותב ואומר ומדבר, וזולת זה ממה שזכרתי ומה שלא זכרתי.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.¹ II:48 affirming that actions are attributed directly to God, even when His will is realized through a natural framework of causes. 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.² (This is the meaning of the verse) “And He made them wander to and fro in the wilderness forty years,”³ 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.⁴ (MK I 65) Kaspi writes, “the agent and the one acted on join together, so in several ways the agent is considered as acted upon.” He quotes, “and Joseph made ready his chariot” (Gen. 46:29), where Joseph only issued the command that this be done. So too is “So Solomon built the house” (I Kings 6:14).

footnotes:
¹ 1. This refers to Gen. 15:7, “I am the Lord that brought thee out from Ur Kasdim …” which is here interpreted as referring to God acting through intermediate causes. This is similar to Maimonides’ statement in the Guide
² 2. On these worlds, and the divine role, see above chap. I.
³ 3. Num. 32:13.
⁴ 4. In Ṭirat Kesef


###### Gevia Kesef 9:2
[Gevia Kesef 9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:2)

ואומר כי משה רבינו כתב בספרו ״ויאמר אליו אני יי׳ אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים לתת לך את הארץ הזאת לרשתה.״ ״ויאמר יי׳ אלוקים במה אדע כי אירשנה.״ העולה מזה כי יי׳ יעד לאברהם כי לעתיד תהיה לו כולו לזרעו בפועל היות הארץ ירושה כמו שנתקיים זה על ידי יהושע. והנה אברהם שאל אות ומופת על זה כי אין | הבדיל בין אמרו ״במה אדע״ ובין מה שכתב כותב ספר מלכים שאמר חזקיה ״מה האות כי ירפא יי׳ לי.״ וזה לא היה גרוע ממה שכתב כותב התורה שאמר לו השם מעצמו למשה ״וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך.״ ובכלל כי הנביא או החכם פעם ישאל אות או מופת, ופעם יבטח בדבר בזולת זה, ופעם יתנהו הרב מעצמו, או מצד שיכיר כי התלמיד מפקפק בדבריו אם מעט ואם הרבה. או שיעשה זה דרך מופת או מפני שאחרים לא יפקפקו בזה כמו שעשה אריסטו בעשותו לתלמידיו בספרו אותות ומופתים על קיום מציאות התכונה, ובזולת זה כמו שכתב המורה פרק כ״א מראשון.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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?’”⁵ (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?”⁶ (AK I 73) the reader is referred to the *Gevia’ Kesef*, in explaining that Hezekiah, like Abraham here, did not request proof because he doubted God. 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.”⁷ 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.⁸, I, 10–12, which proves that the heaven is necessarily ungenerated and indestructible. There are others like this, as Maimonides wrote in (the *Guide*) I:21.⁹.

footnotes:
⁵ 5. Gen. 15:7–8.
⁶ 6. II Kings 20:8. In ’Adnei Kesef
⁷ 7. Exod. 3:12.
⁸ 8. Aristotle, De Caelo
⁹ 9. I have not located such a reference in that chapter of the Guide


###### Gevia Kesef 9:3
[Gevia Kesef 9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:3)

ואע״פ שאין יחס וערך בין ספר תורה ובין יתר שאר הספרים, וכן אין יחס בין משה כותב ספר תורה ובין יתר כותבי הספרים, בין השי״ת שהיה הכותב והנותן בראש, הנה ראוי לנו כי על צד הציור ביחס נמשל עניני זה הספר הקדוש ועניני מרע״ה אל זולתו, כמו שנעשה על דרך משל כשנרצה לצייר ענין ההיולי הטבעי שהוא מעשה הש׳ אל העביט של מי רגלים שהוא מעשה הפחות (תובל קין).⁴³

footnotes:
⁴³ מובן מלים אלה עדיין קשה.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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,¹⁰, such as “the writer of the Torah” and “the bestower of the Torah.” See also AK I 136. nonetheless we may conceive of a relation between this holy book and its meaning, and other books, by way of analogy.¹¹ This is similar, for example, to our describing Natural Matter,¹², which in Aristotelian metaphysics is the cosmic First Matter, from which all matter is derived. which is the work of God, by analogy to the lowly product, i.e., a container of urine.

footnotes:
¹⁰ 10. This establishes the exact referent for the less precise phrasings that are found elsewhere in the Gevia’ Kesef
¹¹ 11. Cf. below chap. X, n. 16.
¹² 12. In Heb. hiyyuli ha-tiv‘i


###### Gevia Kesef 9:4
[Gevia Kesef 9:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:4)

ולכן נאמר כי אברהם התלמיד שאל אות ומופת אל הרב הגדול השי״ת במה שהיה מניח לו כלום לאמת מה שהיה מניח, כמו ששאל אלקסנדור לאריסתו רבו וישאל אביי לרבא רבו ובכלל איש איש על עבודתו וכפי מדריגתו. והפתי יאמין לכל דבר והערום יבין לא שירו וירצה על כל פנים לדעת הדבר על צד היותר אמת שיוכל. ומהו שאלת החכמים לשם ושאילת הנביאים לשם, וזהו שבחם ובזה ישמח ה׳ במעשיו, כמו שאמר אברהם | ״הלבן ק׳ שנה יולד״ וכן משה ״הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם״ ורבים כן.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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,¹³, vol. I, pt. II (Garden City: Image Books, 1962), pp. 10–11. or ’Abaye of Rava’ his teacher.¹⁴ ’, but ’Abbaye’s teacher was in fact Rabbah, according to Rashi’s comments on BT *Shabbat* 5b, s.v. *mi-de’amar*. Everything is according to the occupation and level of the individual, for “the fool will believe everything, while the wise will understand well,”¹⁵ 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.”¹⁶ Thus when Abraham said, | “Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?,”¹⁷ it was the same as Moses’ saying, “If flocks and herds be slain, will they suffice them?”¹⁸ There are many passages like this.

footnotes:
¹³ 13. In 343 B.C.E. Aristotle was invited to Pella by Philip of Macedon, to undertake the education of his son Alexander, who was then thirteen years old. When Alexander (later to be known as Alexander the Great) ascended the throne in 336, Aristotle returned to his native city. See F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy
¹⁴ 14. The MS has Rava
¹⁵ 15. Prov. 14:5.
¹⁶ 16. Ps. 104:31.
¹⁷ 17. Gen. 17:17.
¹⁸ 18. Num. 11:22.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:5
[Gevia Kesef 9:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:5)

לכן השיבו הש׳ ״קחה לי עגלה משולשת״ עד ״וישב אותם אברם.״ ואחר כך ״ויהי השמש לבא ותרדמה נפלה על אברם והנה אימה חשיכה גדולה ויאמר לאברם ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך ... ודור רביעי ישובו הנה כי לא שלם עון האמורי עד הנה.״ ואחר ״ויהי השמש באה.״ דע כי מנהג הש׳ לפעמים להודיע לנביאיו תלמידיו הענינים העתידים מחידושי הימים במאמרים ובמילות שיבאו בלשון משל וחידה כמו שעשה ליעקב בדברים ההוים במשל הסולם, וליחזקאל במשל כל המרכבה. וכמו שעשה בדברים העתידים לירמיהו במשל ״מקל שוקד אני רואה,״ וסיר נפוח, ולעמוס במשל ״אנך וכלוב קיץ.״ ואין הכרח שגם בזה המין יבאו דברי הרב בצורה אחת בכל הזמנים, אבל מחכמת הרב לעשות שינוים בדבריו, אע״פ שהמובן אחד. המשל בזה כי פעם ישאל⁴⁴ הש׳ לנביא ״מה אתה רואה״ והנביא משיב ״אני רואה כך וכך״ וה׳ אומר לו הפירוש כך וכך. כמו שבא הענין כן במה שזכרנו בירמיהו ועמוס. ופעם לא יבאו בדברים כל פרטי זה השאלה והתשובה, רק כי הש׳ מניח המשל לתלמיד, והוא אחר המשל מניח מעצמו פירוש לו כמו שקרא ליחזקאל שהניח לו הש׳ משל כדעת הנבחרים מרבותינו ז״ל שאמרו ״מיתי יחזקאל משל היה.״ ואח״כ אמר לו השם פירוש באמרו לו ״העצמות האלה כל בית ישראל המה ונתתי רוחי בכם וחייתם.״ ואין הכרח שאמר ליחזקאל ״ידוע תדע כי העצמות האלה כל בית ישראל המה.״ ולכן אלו השמיט מזה ״ידוע תדע״ היה נכון כי המובן אחד.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ בכתב יד כתוב ״ישעל.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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 …”¹⁹ 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).²⁰ It was similar in the case of Ezekiel, when all of Metaphysics occurred in a parable;²¹ 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”;²² and in the case of Amos, in the parables that begin “Plumbline” and a “basket of summer fruit.”²³ II:43. 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.²⁴ (MK II 289). This happened to Ezekiel, when the Lord provided him with a parable,²⁵ in which, according to the most outstanding of our sages, “the dead in Ezekiel were a parable.”²⁶ 92b. 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,”²⁷ (AM 8) Kaspi says that even though this chapter occurred in a vision, as a parable, there is no doubt that “the resurrection of the dead is true.” 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.²⁸ (MK I 27) Kaspi says similarly, “we will not give a reason for each word [of a Scriptural parable] in every place. Instead we will give a reason in general …” Kaspi moulded his commentaries on Scriptural use of parable, sometimes explaining at length, at other times in brief.

footnotes:
¹⁹ 19. Gen. 15:9–17.
²⁰ 20. Gen. 28:12.
²¹ 21. Ezek. 1.
²² 22. Jer. 1:11, 13.
²³ 23. Amos 7:7, 8:1. These parables are discussed in the Guide
²⁴ 24. This assertion is consistent with Kaspi’s doctrine that many divine decrees are only understood in the light of subsequent events, avoiding the need to postulate changes in divine decrees. See Maṣref La-Kesef
²⁵ 25. Ezek. 37.
²⁶ 26. BT Sanhedrin
²⁷ 27. Ezek. 37:11, 14. In ‘Ammudei Kesef
²⁸ 28. In Ṭirat Kesef


###### Gevia Kesef 9:6
[Gevia Kesef 9:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:6)

וכן אין הכרח בזה תמיד כמו שאמר המורה שיהיה כל חלקי המשל | והנמשל שוים. לכן הנה המשל בזה הוא ממלה עגלה עד שסיים ״וישב אותם אברהם.״ והנמשל בזה הוא ממלת ״גר יהיה זרעך״ עד שסיים ״עד הנה.״ יאמר בזה ההפרש שהוא כולל ארבע פסוקים, אינם מן המספר רק שני פסוקים, והם ״ויאמר לאברם ידוע תדע״ והפסוק ״ודור רביעי״ זולת ״כי לא שלם עון האמורי עד הנה.״ כי השני פסוקים האחרים אינם פירוש למלה הבאה במשל, אבל היה הודעה מחודשת, ואם הכל מתיחס למכוון לאברהם. והפליג השם הרב כי להסתיר שם באמצע הדברים מה שאינו עקר הכונה בפירוש המשל כי כן ראוי למי שירצה להחביא ולהטמין¹ כמו שביארתי במה שאמר יעקב ״עד כי יבא שילה.״ וכן יש במשל דברים שאינם מכוונת הייעוד כאמרו ״ויתן איש בתרו לקראת רעהו״ כמו שאבאר אחר זה. והעולה מזה כי רצה השם לגלות לאברהם כי מזרעו יהיה גרים כעבדים בארץ לא להם, ולא רצה לגלות לו איזה ארץ, הודיע לו וכי דור רביעי ימלטו מן העבודה ההיא. וכן היה הענין במצרים כי כתיב ״וימת יוסף וכל אחיו וכל הדור ההוא״ ואח״כ ״ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים״ והתחיל השעבוד לבני השבטים. על דרך משל דור קהת ודור עמרם ודור משה. ולכן אמר ״כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם״ רצה כדרך כל רב חכם, כ״ש דברי הרב הגדול הוא השם.

footnotes:
¹ בכתב יד כתוב ״להאמין״ שנראה שהוא בטעות.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
Accordingly, as Maimonides said,²⁹. 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.”³⁰ The interpretation extends from “thy seed shall be a stranger” until “is not yet full.”³¹ 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,³², meaning “to foster trust,” a rather unusual form of the verb in the present context. More appropriate would be a reading *le-haṭmin*, lit. “to hide.” as I have explained in regard to Jacob’s words “as long as men come to Shiloh.”³³ (MK II 105) where he rebuts the Christological interpretation that claims that the word *shiloh* is a reference to Jesus. At one point there he states that these four letters (*shiloh*) “are hidden and intermingled, so that no one should notice them unless he has very keen sight …”; i.e., the term is included to confuse and mislead, so as to hide the true meaning of the verse. 
Leo Strauss, in an essay on the methods that Maimonides utilized in the *Guide* to conceal and reveal the truth, enumerates this very same point as a primary vehicle for such a literary feat. See L. Strauss, “The Literary Character of the *Guide for the Perplexed,” Persecution and the Art of Writing* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 52. 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,”³⁴ 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,”³⁵ which began the enslavement of the tribes. Included were the generations of Kohath, Amram, and Moses.³⁶, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 4. 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.

footnotes:
²⁹ 29. Introduction to the Guide
³⁰ 30. V. 11.
³¹ 31. Vv. 13–16.
³² 32. The MS here has le-ha’amin
³³ 33. Gen. 49:10. This refers to a passage in the Maṣref La-Kesef
³⁴ 34. V. 10.
³⁵ 35. Exod. 1:6.
³⁶ 36. Rashi refers to the four generations as Judah, Pereẓ, Ḥeẓron, and Caleb. Nachmanides understands the reference to be to four generations of Amorites. Kaspi here follows Kimḥi’s listing of the generations. For further discussion of this, see C. Gordon, “Hebrew Origins in the Light of Recent Discovery,” in Biblical and Other Studies


###### Gevia Kesef 9:7
[Gevia Kesef 9:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:7)

אבל הכונה בזה ״גר יהיה זרעך במצרים ועבדו זרעך אותם וענו המצריים אותם.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
“Thy seed shall be a stranger” refers to Egypt, saying that his seed would serve and be afflicted by the Egyptians.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:8
[Gevia Kesef 9:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:8)

ואמר ד׳ מאות שנה, אין בזה המספר רמז במשל אבל היה טוב בעיני הרב שיגלה לו עתה בכלל פירוש ונמשל. וזה הלשון דבק עם ״כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם.״ ואמנם ״ועבדום וענו אותם״ אינו מחויב שיהיה תחת זה המספר, אם נכון זה מצד ר״ל | שחלק מה מהעבדות וענוי היה להם כל זה הזמן כי כן הוא העון לכל גר. והעד הנאמן בארות יצחק הנקראים עשק ושטנה. וליעקב ענין דינה. ועל כל פנים הנה יצחק ויעקב היו גרים ושפלים ונכנעים זמן מה במצרים לכן יצדק מספר ד׳ מאות שנה, ואין בזה סתירה. אבל קצתו היה יותר חזק ואמיתי בשם עבדות וענוי. וכבר הודעתיך כי התארים כולם יונחו על דרך האמת המדוקדק ועל דרך העברת. ואמנם גלה הש׳ לאברהם כי מה שאמר ״כי גר יהיה זרעך״ הכונה בו ג׳ דורות, כמה שאמר אחר כך ״ודור רביעי ישובו הנה.״ וזה הדור הד׳ יהיה הדור הנכנסים לארץ בימי יהושע כי כל בני הדור אשר סבב במדבר היה מן הדור השלשי אשר סבלו קצתם סבלות מצרים מיום שנולד משה עד מראות הסנה, שהיה בן שמונים שנה.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
“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).³⁷ Reliable evidence of this (affliction) is provided by the (names) of the wells dug by Isaac, called *‘Eseḳ* (“contention”) and *Siṭnah* (“enmity”),³⁸ as well as the incident of (the rape of) Dinah in Jacob’s lifetime.³⁹ In any case, Isaac and Jacob were aliens, downtrodden and subservient for a time in Egypt,⁴⁰ 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.⁴¹ 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.⁴² (In this matter) it is not necessary to detail the components and the people involved.

footnotes:
³⁷ 37. This is an attempt by Kaspi to answer the problem of the actual duration of the stay in Egypt, which would appear to have lasted less than the four hundred years foretold in Gen. 15:13. Gersonides considered the four-hundred-year period to have begun with Jacob’s birth; Kaspi follows Rashi, who computes the period from the birth of Isaac, and follows Kimḥi, who had stated that “affliction” could also refer to a condition of alienation, such as that which Isaac and Jacob experienced.
³⁸ 38. Gen. 26:20–21. Both names reflect the alienation of Isaac.
³⁹ 39. Gen. 34. This reflected the abuse and alienation of Jacob.
⁴⁰ 40. Actually Isaac never lived in Egypt. One explanation might be that Kaspi alludes to Isaac’s sojourn in the land of the Philistines, to the south of the land of Canaan, in Gen. 26.
⁴¹ 41. See below.
⁴² 42. Exod. 3:2. Kaspi computes this age by the fact that at his death Moses was 120 years old, which was after 40 years in the desert; therefore Moses was 80 when he appeared at Mount Sinai the first time.


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

ואין ראוי לדקדק בחלקים ואישים. וביאור זה המשל הוא כי המשולשת והמשולש שזכר הוא משל וחקוי להורות שלשת הדורות שזכרתי. ותור וגוזל הוא הוראה לדור רביעי שזכרתי. והבתור לג׳ מנים עשה השם אם שיקח דמם לשם ית׳ ואמר ״את כל אלה״ רומז לבד לבהמות. ואין קושיא ממלת ״כל״ למי שיודע לשון הקודש, כ״ש כי יבא אח״כ ״ואת הצפור לא בתר״ וזה הוראה למה שיהיה מוכים ודחופים כדרך כל העברים אותן הג׳ דורות, אם שהיו כולם פגרים מתים. ואין צריך לומר ״כמו״ אבל ממש פגרים מתים, כטעם הוא לפי מה שהתבאר במה שאחר הטבע. כ״ש שנכון זה מצד מה שהתבאר בספר המופת ובספרי⁴⁵ השמים והעולם.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ בכתב יד כתוב ״שבספר השמים והעולם״ שהוא טעות.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
The explanation of the parable (of the Sundering) is that the three animals that are mentioned⁴³, lit. “triplicate.” 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.⁴⁴ (MK II 162) Kaspi says, “the word *kol* [all] in Hebrew and its equivalent in Provençal are used when referring to the major portion of anything, just as long as a large number is involved …” All of this refers to the beating and pursuing of the Israelites that took place during those three generations,⁴⁵ (MK I 81) they are described as “tortured and dissipated.” 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*,⁴⁶ V, 16, 1021b, where Aristotle says that “we say a thing has been completely spoilt and completely destroyed when it in no way falls short of destruction and badness, but is at its last point. That is why death too is by a figure of speech called the end, because both are last things.” and certainly in view of what is written in the *Posterior Analytics*⁴⁷, but in the *Metaphysics* X, 3, 1054b, the following is found: “things are alike, if, not being absolutely the same, nor without difference in respect of their concrete substance, they are the same in form … other things are alike, if having the form, and being things in which difference of degree is possible, they have no difference of degree.” and the *De Caelo*.⁴⁸, III, 6, 305a, the following is found: “a destructive process which succeeds in destroying, i.e., resolving into smaller bodies.”

footnotes:
⁴³ 43. In Heb. shilush
⁴⁴ 44. In the Maṣref La-Kesef
⁴⁵ 45. In the Ṭirat Kesef
⁴⁶ 46. This is in reference to the Metaphysics
⁴⁷ 47. The meaning of likeness is not discussed in the Posterior Analytics
⁴⁸ 48. In De Caelo


###### Gevia Kesef 9:10
[Gevia Kesef 9:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:10)

והעדר הביתור מהצפור, שהוא סוג לתור וגוזל הוא הוראה להמנע ההכאות והדחיפות | משעבוד מצרים ומזולתם לדור הרביעי.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:11
[Gevia Kesef 9:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:11)

ורדת העיט שהוא סוג לקיבוץ העופות דורסים כמו שידוע מדברי ירמיהו ויחזקאל על הפירוש ״גרים״ שהוא תואר לשלשת המינים המתים הוא הוראה לקבוץ כל בני מצרים, מלך ועם, להעבידם, כמו שכתוב ״ויאמר אל עמו;״ ״ויהפך לבב פרעה ועבדיו.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
The meaning of the birds of prey that descended, which included birds that stamp on their prey, as is known from Jeremiah’s words,⁴⁹ as well as those of Ezekiel⁵⁰ in explaining [“strangers” as a description of the three kinds of deceased],⁵¹ AK II 8). But the problem with this is that if so, the words included in the brackets remain unexplained. Kimḥi, in his commentary to this verse, also includes the “birds of prey” as a generic term that refers to birds that stamp. 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,”⁵² and “the heart of Pharaoh and his servants were turned.”⁵³

footnotes:
⁴⁹ 49. Jer. 22:3.
⁵⁰ 50. Ezek. 22:29.
⁵¹ 51. The words in the brackets present a problem, in that they do not appear to belong here, if indeed they refer to “birds of prey” as a generic term. An alternative explanation of these words is that the references to Jeremiah and Ezekiel are to Jer. 12:9 and Ezek. 39:4, both of which use the phrase generically (cf. ’Adnei Kesef
⁵² 52. Exod. 1:9.
⁵³ 53. Exod. 14:5.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:12
[Gevia Kesef 9:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:12)

והשבת אברם לאותן העופות הדורסין האוכלים בשר ושותים דם, לאותן הג׳ דורות הוא הוראה. כי לא עשה כך כלה, אבל על כל פנים נמלטו משם שש מאות אלף רגלי זולת הנשים והטף.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
When Abraham drove away the stamping birds of prey that drink blood,⁵⁴ 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.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ 54. V. 11.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:13
[Gevia Kesef 9:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:13)

ואמנם כי צייר השם הרב לאברם זה תחילה בשלשת מיני בהמה והם עגלה ועז ואיל, שהם כמו שאמרנו משל וחקוי לשלשת דורות ישראל שהיו גרים ועבדים. הנה זה המספר ראוי לשלשת מינים כנגד ג׳ הדורות. ואמנם אמרו בשלשת ומשולש שוה תואר משותף נכון שהכונה בזה כי עגלה אחת ועז אחת ואיל אחד, שקבוצם שלשה, הנה כל אחד יתואר במשולש איך שתהפכם ותשים האחד התחלה ואחד שני ואחד שלישי. אמנם עשה הרב המלמד השלשת הזה וזכר פעמים ג׳ לחזוק ולהיות הדבר נכון מעם האלוקים. ומזה למד יוסף שאמר על משל הפירות והשבלים ״חלום אחד הוא ועל השנות החלום פעמים כי נכון הדבר מעם האלוקים.״ כ״ש בהיותו משולש כטעם ״והחוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק״ דומה לאמרו ״עוה עוה עוה אשימנה.״ ואם נאמר עם זה שגם היו שם שלשת העגלות ושלשה עזים ושלשה אילים, הנה הכל נכון כי האמת | אמת מכל צד שתהפך, כמו שאמר אריסטו ״האמת עד לעצמו״ ומסכים מכל צד.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.⁵⁵ would have been preferable to the uncommon *meshulash*. Ibn Ezra and Gersonides explain that the animals were to be three years old. Kaspi elsewhere (MK I 80, MK II 52) is unclear but it would appear that there he follows Rashi. Here, however, he makes it clear that there was one animal of each type, so that each was one-third of the total. Now (the Lord) as the teacher, mentioned these three animals three times, to emphasize and reinforce that this was indeed coming from God.⁵⁶ 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,”⁵⁷ all the more had it been repeated thrice, for “the threefold cord is not quickly broken,”⁵⁸ and “a ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it.”⁵⁹ Were one to say there were actually three heifers and three she-goats and three rams,⁶⁰ 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.”⁶¹

footnotes:
⁵⁵ 55. I have not found a precedent for this explanation. Rashi, Nachmanides, and Kimḥi all explain that there were three animals of each type. Nachmanides, however, is aware that according to that explanation, the term sheloshah
⁵⁶ 56. Later (chap. XIX) Kaspi enlarges upon this theme.
⁵⁷ 57. Gen. 41:25, 32.
⁵⁸ 58. Eccles. 4:12.
⁵⁹ 59. Ezek. 21:32.
⁶⁰ 60. This refers to Rashi, Nachmanides, and Kimḥi; cf. n. 55.
⁶¹ 61. Cf. chap. V, n. 1.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:14
[Gevia Kesef 9:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:14)

ואמנם נבאר המשל בשם עגלה ועז ואיל להוראות מכוונות. כי אלו הענינים אינם כענין הזבחים שאמר המורה עליהם שאי אפשר עליהם מבלתי מין מה ומספר מה. וזה תחילה תאר כנסת ישראל בעגלה, כי כן נהוג כמו שכתוב ״אפרים עגלה מלומדה.״ וגם מעגלה גזירה מעגול, כטעם גלגל הוא שחוזר בעולם אף כי על אבותינו ועלינו. וגם בזה הוראה מצד הפוכו כמו שרמז המורה ברגל עגל. והטעם געולה, כמו ״געלה נפשך״ וזה דומה למה שאמר המורה בשם חובל כי הפוכו בוחל מטעם ״גם נפשם בחלה בי.״ והנה רמז בזה כי אותם האנשים היו געולים בשעבוד.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.⁶² III:26. 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.”⁶³ 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.⁶⁴ 34a). A meaning is also found through metathesis⁶⁵ to be an important tool in exegesis, one that presupposes an intimate knowledge of the Hebrew language (cf. *Menorat Kesef*, AS II 108). Kaspi’s main source for this method is Ibn Janaḥ’s *Sefer Ha-Riḳmah*, ed. M. Wilensky (Jerusalem: Academy for the Hebrew Language, 1964), vol. I, p. 362, and ed. note, tracing this usage to Saadya. in a manner that is similar to Maimonides’ allusion regarding *regel-‘egel*.⁶⁶ II:43. Accordingly, (the metathesis of *‘egel*) is *ge‘olah* (“loathing”), as in “thy soul loathed,”⁶⁷ similar to what Maimonides noted in connection with *ḥovel*,⁶⁸ II:43. a verb whose metathesis is *vohel*, alluding to “and their soul also loathed me.”⁶⁹ (*‘Egel* thus) refers to the fact that the (Israelites in Egypt) would be loathsome in their servitude.

footnotes:
⁶² 62. Guide
⁶³ 63. Hos. 10:11.
⁶⁴ 64. This alludes to the rabbinic dictum that “the deeds of the fathers are a sign for their descendants” (BT Soṭah
⁶⁵ 65. Kaspi’s use of metathesis in the understanding of Biblical terms has been discussed at length above in Chapter 2. Kaspi considers these mehupakhim
⁶⁶ 66. Guide
⁶⁷ 67. Jer. 14:9.
⁶⁸ 68. Guide
⁶⁹ 69. Zech. 11:8.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:15
[Gevia Kesef 9:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:15)

ואמר עז להורות עוז כי היה יותר עז לסבול לסבלות מצרים, כטעם הנותן ליעף כח וגם מצד היפוכו זע ולא זע, כלומר נע ונד היה שם הדור ההוא.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
*‘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.”⁷⁰ In addition (there is a reference) by way of metathesis in that *za‘* (“move”) implies that that generation would wander in that place.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ 70. Isa. 40:29.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:16
[Gevia Kesef 9:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:16)

ואמנם איל כטעם ״כגבר אין איל״ ר״ל מטעם כח כמו עוז. ומצד היפוכו ״יאל״ כלומר חפץ במה שהיה אחר, שכן היה רצון השם כטעם ״ויט שכמו לסבול.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
*’Ayil* (“ram”)⁷¹ is (in reference to) the verse “as a man that has no help (*’ayil*),”⁷² 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,⁷³ for the will of the Lord was (otherwise), as in “he bowed his shoulder to bear (that which was not his will).”⁷⁴

footnotes:
⁷¹ 71. V. 9.
⁷² 72. Ps. 88:5.
⁷³ 73. See below in chap. XIV where this is discussed further.
⁷⁴ 74. Gen. 49:15.


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

ובכלל המשל הזה בבהמות כי אותן האנשים כבהמות נדמו כי עדיין לא קבלו התורה האמיתית המחכימת פתי. גם היו בהמות חלושות לפני צר, ולכן מצד זה ג״כ אמר עגלה לא פרה שיש לה כח כטעם ״כפרה סוררה.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.”⁷⁵ 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.”⁷⁶

footnotes:
⁷⁵ 75. Ps. 19:18.
⁷⁶ 76. Hos. 4:16.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:18
[Gevia Kesef 9:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:18)

ואמנם תור וגוזל שסוגם צפור כמו שאמרנו לדור רביעי כעוף יתעופף להמלט משם וללכת ארץ ישראל. ומצורף | לזה היות תור שם משותף מורה לזמן מוגבל, כטעם ״ובהגיע תור.״ וזה מצד הפועל והמקבל. ר״ל מצד ישראל, כמו שאמרו רז״ל בהלל ״מלמד שהקב״ה מחשב את הקץ״ כמו שאבאר במראות הסנה. ומצד האמורי וחביריו כמו שיאמר בזה ״כי לא שלם עון האמורי עד הנה.״ וכן דומה לזה אמר ירמיהו על נפילת נבוכדנצר ״עד בא עתו.״ ואמר יחזקאל על חורבן ארץ ישראל והצלחת נבוכדנצר ״עוה עוה עוה אשימנו. גם זה לא היה עד בא אשר לו המשפט ונתתיו.⁴⁶

footnotes:
⁴⁶ יחזקאל כא:לב ״עוה עוה עוה אשימנו גם זאת לו היה עד בא אשר לו המשפט ונתתיו.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
The turtle-dove and pigeon are birds that refer to the fourth generation, which would escape from there like a winged bird⁷⁷ (“bird”) from “rapid movement” (AK I 128). 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.”⁷⁸ This is true both of the agent and the one acted upon,⁷⁹ for from the point of view of Israel the sages said in *Hallel*, “from here we learn that God calculates the redemption,”⁸⁰ which I explained in the context of the burning bush;⁸¹ (MK II 127) explains the Exodus as being necessary (a) to redeem the Israelites, and (b) to punish the Egyptians. 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.”⁸² The words of Jeremiah regarding Nebuchadnezzar, “until his time come,”⁸³ 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.”⁸⁴

footnotes:
⁷⁷ 77. In commenting on Isa. 28:5, Kaspi derives ṣippor
⁷⁸ 78. Esther 2:15.
⁷⁹ 79. This is repeated subsequently on fol. 149.
⁸⁰ 80. This is a reference to the Passover Haggadah, in the section beginning “Blessed be He who keeps His promise to Israel,” which quotes vv. 13–14.
⁸¹ 81. Maṣref La-Kesef
⁸² 82. V. 16.
⁸³ 83. Jer. 27:7.
⁸⁴ 84. Ezek. 21:32. He means here that while the Israelites deserved to have their land ruined, Nebuchadnezzar also had a right to possess it.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:19
[Gevia Kesef 9:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:19)

ושם גוזל מצד שיתוף הגזילה אשר גזל, תאר גמור כמו שהוא, כמו ״גוי אובד עצות המה.״ ואמנם תאר הדור שלנו הלוכד ארץ ישראל בשם גוזל בערך לכנען וכפי מחשבת רבים או יחידים, כמו שכתב יהושע עצמו ״והאנשים רדפו אחריהם.״ והעד הנאמן מה שדמה משה פרשת אלה דברים לקחנו ארץ כנען אל מה שלקחו בני עשו ארץ החורי ובני עמון ארץ הרפאים. והכלל ״יי׳ נתן ויי לקח״ כמו שפירש ירמיהו מפי השם ואמר ״אנכי עשיתי את הארץ.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
*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.”⁸⁵ The generation that laid siege to the land of Israel was compared to a pigeon (*gozal*) in its relation to the Canaanites,⁸⁶ (MK I 75) Kaspi links the morality of Israel’s possession of the land to the principle that “Israel is not governed by the Zodiac” (BT *Nedarim* 32a), whereby there is a direct divine participation in the issue of when the Israelites are to take possession or be evicted from the land. On the question of natural laws and the fortunes of the Jews, see Pines, “Histabberut,” pp. 298 ff. in accordance with the opinion of many, or (at least) some,⁸⁷ irat *Kesef* (MR I 121) Kaspi refers to “many of our poeple” who object to Jews feeling free to take the land of Israel and consider it their own. including Joshua himself, who wrote, “And the men pursued after them.”⁸⁸ 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.⁸⁹ The (operative) principle is “the Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away,”⁹⁰ or as Jeremiah said in the name of the Lord, “I have made the earth”⁹¹ (and can give it to whomever I choose).

footnotes:
⁸⁵ 85. Deut. 32:28.
⁸⁶ 86. In Ṭirat Kesef
⁸⁷ 87. In Ṭ
⁸⁸ 88. Josh. 2:7. This verse implies that the land was taken with stealth and deceit.
⁸⁹ 89. Deut. 2:16–24.
⁹⁰ 90. Job 1:21.
⁹¹ 91. Jer. 27:5. cf. below chap. XXIII, p. 275, in the context of the slaughter of the Shechemites.


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

ואמר אמנם ״ויתן איש בתרו לקראת רעהו״ זה נעשה לבד כדי שלפיד האש יעבור בין הבתרים והגזרים האלה לכריתת ברית השם עם אברם. ובפרט על ענין הגזרים הפגרים ההם שלא יהיה כאלה. וזה היה מנהג קדום להם, כמו שכתוב ״העגל אשר כרתו לשניים ויעברו בין בתריו.״ וגם בזה | מן עגל ר״ל עגלה. ואם אחרים שם אין הזיק בזה.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
“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.⁹² Such was the custom of old,⁹³ as it is written, “they cut the calf in twain and passed between the parts thereof.”⁹⁴] a treaty” is derived from the practice of severing animals as the seal of a treaty. This custom is widely attested to in ancient times and exists among primitive peoples to this day; particularly among Hittites and Greeks there are many parallels. It is generally believed that when the contracting parties passed between the severed pieces, they accepted the covenant obligations and invoked upon themselves the fate of the animals if the terms of the pact were violated. See the commentary of Bechor Shor, who says (regarding Gen. 15:9) that the custom was to pass between the sundered parts of an animal. See also N. Sarna, *Understanding Genesis* (New York: Schocken, 1970), p. 126, and W. F. Albright, *Archaeology and the Religion of Israel* (Baltimore, 1942), p. 113. In this context, | *‘agal* could be understood as alluding to *‘agalah* (“carriage”). If there are other (allusions), there would be no harm done.

footnotes:
⁹² 92. This symbolism is similar to that of sacrifices, in which the animal was offered so that the owner would be spared the same fate.
⁹³ 93. Gersonides explained the significance as being a demonstration that the parties to the covenant are as one body, on account of the love between them.
⁹⁴ 94. Jer. 34:18. The phrase “to cut [likhrot


###### Gevia Kesef 9:21
[Gevia Kesef 9:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:21)

וטעם ״לפיד אש״ לרמוז לכבוד השם ״כי השם אלוקיך אש אכלה.״ ומראה כבוד השם כאש אוכלת.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
“The pillar of fire” alludes to the glory of the Lord, for “the Lord thy God is a devouring fire,”⁹⁵ and the appearance of the Lord’s glory is that of a consuming fire.

footnotes:
⁹⁵ 95. Deut. 4:24.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:22
[Gevia Kesef 9:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:22)

אמנם מה שבא בפירוש ״וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי ואח״כ יצאו ברכוש גדול״ אינו פירוש למלה קודמת למשל כמו שכתבתי למעלה. אבל הוא הוראה חדשה לא נרמז לפנים. וכן ״ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום תקבר בשיבה טובה״, כלומר כי התחלת זה היעוד לא יהיה ממך עצמך רק ביצחק.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
“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.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:23
[Gevia Kesef 9:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:23)

וראה עוד הפלגה כי בכלל זאת המראה ג׳ מדריגות. והמאוחרות נכבדות מהקודמות. וכן ראוי לכל מתבודד בציור נפשו אם מדריגת עיון אם מדריגת נבואה, כמו שכתבו הפילוסופים. וזה כי התחלת זה המעמד הנכבד היה שהוא שם נפרד עם ״במראה אליו אתודע.״ והוא ענין בו ביום באיזו שעה. והעד הנאמן כי אחר זה כתוב ״ויהי השמש לבא.״ ולכן התחזק שנית עוד אברם והשיג יותר כאשר פנה היום והיה קרוב לביאת השמש, ר״ל באמרו ״ויהי השמש לבא.״ ומרוב התבודדות ותרדימה ואימה וחשיכה גדולה נפלה עליו. ולכן בזאת המדריגה הנכבדת יותר מן הקודמות הגיע לנו פירוש הסתום ר״ל ביאור המשל כמו שהיה בא לירמיה ועמוס אחר מה שהיה. ואחר התחזק עוד שלישית אחר שקדמו בהתבודדות הנבואי כי באה השמש לגמרי והיה חשך הלילה עצום ועלתה שהוא חוזק מחשיכה. וגם היה שם תנור עשן כמו שהיה בהר סיני ״ויעל עשנו כעשן הכבשן.״ ואז ירד עליו יי׳ כבוד לדמות לפיד אש ועבר בין הגזרים האלה וכרת ברית עמו בהעברה, כמו שאמר ביום ההוא ״וכרת יי׳ את אברם ברית לאמר.״ כלומר ברגע ההוא | כטעם ״ביום אכלך ממנו.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
Notice another precise thing: throughout this vision there are three levels. Those coming later are more important than the earlier ones.⁹⁶ (MK I 88) Kaspi writes, “as the prophetic seclusion continues, the illumination of knowledge and perfection increases in degree, similar to the moon in the first half of the month … as opposed to the second half of the month, which is to be compared to the knowledge of generally known things [*mefursamot*].” See also MK II 45, AK I 21, AS II 133. 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.⁹⁷ II:41: “Prophetic revelation begins sometimes with a vision of prophecy. Thereupon the terror and the strong affection consequent upon the attainment of the perfection of the action of the imaginative faculty become intensified and then prophetic revelation comes, as is recounted of Abraham. For with regard to the beginning of that prophetic revelation, it is said: ‘The word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision.’ And with regard to its termination: ‘And a deep sleep fell upon Abram,’ and so on. And after that: ‘And He said unto Abram,’ and so on.” 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.”⁹⁸ That this stage took place at a specific hour during the day is proved by “when the sun was going down.”⁹⁹ 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 Amos¹⁰⁰ 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*).¹⁰¹ 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.”¹⁰² 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,”¹⁰³ where (“on that day”) means “at that moment.” | This is like “on the day that thou eatest thereof”¹⁰⁴ (meaning “at that moment that thou eatest thereof”).

footnotes:
⁹⁶ 96. In Ṭirat Kesef
⁹⁷ 97. This passage, and what follows it, reflects the following passage in the Guide
⁹⁸ 98. Num. 12:6.
⁹⁹ 99. He means that this stage occurred in the afternoon, when the sun was going down from its high point at noon.
¹⁰⁰ 100. Jer. 1; Amos 7:8.
¹⁰¹ 101. V. 17.
¹⁰² 102. Exod. 19:19.
¹⁰³ 103. V. 18.
¹⁰⁴ 104. Gen. 2:17, where “on that day” clearly means “at that moment.”


###### Gevia Kesef 9:24
[Gevia Kesef 9:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:24)

וטעם לשון כריתת ברית לשם, וכן כל לשון שבועה שהוא על דרך ״דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם״ להורות שהוא דבר קיים והכרחי. ואם הוא עתיד רצוני לומר שהוא במדריגת עליית השמש מחר, לא כמדריגת ירידת המטר מחר, והנה זה היעוד מן הארץ לאברהם שהיה בכריתת ברית, יותר קיים וקשר אמיץ מכמה יעודים שעשה לו לפנים על זה. ובאמת על מה ששאל אברהם לשם ״במה אדע כי אירשנה״ אשר מבואר לחכמים כי לא יקרא רק המפתית הנאמנת, הנה עקר התשובה מהשם לו על זה הוא כריתת ברית, כי זה בענינים עתידיים נבואיים מהשם. כענין רב חכם מוליד תולדות מהקדמות עצמיות הכרחיות בדברים ההוים. וידוע כי השם שם הנושאים מתחלפים, ר״ל נושא הנבואות ונושא החכמות העיוניות. אם כן בטוב שאל אברהם לשם שאמר ״במה אדע כי אירשנה״ ובטוב השיב לו השם כאילו שאל על דרך משל אבן רושד לאריסטו ״במה אדע כי כל אדם מרגיש״ וישיבנו ״ידוע תדע כי כל אדם חי וכל חי מרגיש, אם כן כל אדם מרגיש.״ כי על דרך זה ביחס גם שאל אברהם לשם לפי נושא מדריגת הנבואה, שהיא יעוד בדברים העתידים. השם השיבו ועשה לו מופת הכרחי לפי המלאכה. והיא כריתת ברית לאמת לו כי זאת הגזירה העתידה מחויבת, לא אפשרית. אבל שהקדים והציע לזה המופת ״קחה לי״ וכל הסיפור ההוא, להצעות לזה הדרוש התכליתי, ר״ל בקשתו שידע שהדבר הכריחי, היותו בעלית השמש מחר.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.”¹⁰⁵ 31b, BT *Yevamot* 71a. See above Chapter 2. 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).¹⁰⁶ 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.¹⁰⁷ (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.”¹⁰⁸ I, 4, 25b. The same syllogism is found in *Maṣref La-Kesef* (MK II 154). On the use of this principle in Kaspi’s exegesis, see above pp. 44–46. 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁵ 105. BT Bava’ Meṣi‘a’
¹⁰⁶ 106. The distinction between conclusions that are necessary and those that are contingent is an important part of the study of logic, at the basis of the laws of the syllogism. For further discussion of this aspect of Kaspi’s exegesis, see above pp. 44–46.
¹⁰⁷ 107. Here Kaspi attempts to show that what appears to be mere repetition of an earlier promise, and therefore a redundancy, is in fact quite necessary. The question of Scriptural redundancy is discussed again on fol. 152 ff.
¹⁰⁸ 108. This is the type of syllogism of a categorical nature that is analyzed by Aristotle in the Prior Analytics


###### Gevia Kesef 9:25
[Gevia Kesef 9:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:25)

וכן היה באמרו ״במה אדע כי אירשנה״ כאלו אמר ״השם אלוקים הנה | יעדת לי כמה פעמים הארץ הזאת לך אתננה, ואין אני יודע אם זאת הגזירה העתידה היא אפשרית או מחויבת ועל זה אני מסופק ומתפחד — לכן ביאר לי זה.״ והשם ית׳ הפיק רצונו בכריתת ברית ר״ל שהודיע לו שהיא הכרחית. ולכן אמר ״במה אדע״ ולא אמר ״במה אאמין״ או ״במה אחשוב״ או ״במה יצדק״ כמו שאמר אלה המלות למעלה על שתי היעודים הקודמים, ר״ל על יעוד הזרע ועל יעוד (דברו.)⁴⁷ וכבר ביאר המורה הוראת שם ״אמונה״ ו״האמנה״ פרק נ׳ מראשון. וגם מבואר בספר המופת כי מה שלא יודע במופת הכרחי יקרא מחשבת צודקת או מחשבה צודק וצדק. וכן בנושא זאת המלאכה ר״ל הנבואה, מה שלא יודע שהוא הכרחי כעליית השמש בעתיד, יקרא באלו המלות. ולכן אמר עוד למעלה ״ויחשביה לו צדקה״ כי לא הודיע לו האל שהוא הכרחי. וגם הוא לא שאל שהוא זה אלא אז לאיזה סבה. אמנם אחר שהטיב בענין העקידה נתן לו השם מעצמו זאת ההודעה ההכרחית, ר״ל על הפלגת רבוי הזרע, והוא אמר ״בי נשבעתי.״ ואלו כרת השם ברית עם יעקב או השבע על מה שאמר ״היטב איטיב עמך ושמתי את זרעך כחול הים אשר לא יספר מרוב״ לא פחד מעשו. ולא היה סכלות מיעקב כי הוא נמשך אחר דעת אברהם שגם הוא לא שאל ״במה אדע״ על ההטבה לו ורבוי זרעו, הוא בעבור שאלה הענינים הם קרובים להעשות לו קרבת זמן. אבל קרבת מציאות, ר״ל אפשר קרוב בטבע, ודי בזה.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ מלה אחרונה זו נתוספה בכתב אחר, ואין מובנה ברורה.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.¹⁰⁹) to go by. Here God’s words do not indicate whether the promise is necessary or contingent, so Abraham is unsure. 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———.¹¹⁰ inserted. 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.¹¹¹ I, 33, 88b, Aristotle says: “opinion may be concerned with that which is true or false, and can be otherwise: opinion is in fact the grasp of a premise which is immediate but not necessary … (on the other hand scientific knowledge) is universal, and proceeds by necessary connections, and that which is necessary cannot be otherwise.” 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.”¹¹² 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,”¹¹³ then Jacob would not have feared on account of Esau.¹¹⁴ (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.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ 109. Elsewhere (MK II 289, AK II 51) Kaspi explains that a prophet might be uncertain of the meaning of a divine statement, for a prophet has only the word-characters (mahut ha-millot
¹¹⁰ 110. Here the MS is unclear, with the word devaro
¹¹¹ 111. In the Posterior Analytics
¹¹² 112. Gen. 22:16.
¹¹³ 113. Gen. 32:13.
¹¹⁴ 114. Gen. 32:8.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:26
[Gevia Kesef 9:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:26)

ואמנם מה שכתבתי על ספק זה אחר בספר כסף סיגים, והוא מה חטאו אז ישראל כי השם גזר עליהם זאת הצרה, ואיך | שיהיה איך יניח ראוי לכותב התורה שיניח יסורין כלא. כי זה רע ומר להמון וגם ליחידי השם. התשובה כי השם לא כוון להניח בזה צרה ועונש, וגם השם לא כוון להכאיב לב אברהם, אבל חשב לתת לו בשורות טובות בכל המראה הזאת. ואיך ״ועבדום ועינו אותם״ בשורה טובה? ואשיבך ואיך היה בשורה טובה מה שאמר האל לאשת מנוח ״הנה נא את עקרה ויולדת בן״ כלומר איך ״והרית״ ברכה, אבל הוא צרה וצער וחילים וצירים, וגם מהות הלידה שכתוב ״עצבוניך והרוניך בעצב תלדי בנים״ ר״ל כי ההריון והלידה הוא כמן יסורין. וכן בהפלגת הבשורות ״כי חלה גם ילדה ציון את בניה״ ואין חלה ענינו ״חיל״ בשורה. אבל הבשורה לבד אמרו בן ובנים להעירנו על זה דקדק בבשורה שלא זכר רק מציאות הבן, באמרו ״וברכתי אותה וגם נתתי ממנה לך בן״ ובמקום אחר ״שוב אשוב אליך כעת חיה והנה בן לשרה אשתך״ כאלו העירנו כי לטובתה ולהנאתה לא רצה היסורין הקודמין למציאות הבן שכל וטוב. אבל אי אפשר להשיג הטוב ההוא מבלי הקדמת יסורין וצערים.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.¹¹⁵ 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,”¹¹⁶ 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,”¹¹⁷ 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,”¹¹⁸ 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,”¹¹⁹ and elsewhere, “I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh around, and lo, thy wife shall have a son.”¹²⁰ 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——— ———.¹²¹ (“intelligent and good”) whose reference is unclear, for they could refer to God, to Sarah, or the child. Yet it was impossible to achieve such a benefit without its preceding pains and suffering.¹²²

footnotes:
¹¹⁵ 115. Apparently the question was one of theodicy: How could this affliction in a strange land be deserved, if those people were not yet born?
¹¹⁶ 116. Judg. 13:3.
¹¹⁷ 117. Gen. 4:16.
¹¹⁸ 118. Isa. 66:8.
¹¹⁹ 119. Gen. 17:6.
¹²⁰ 120. Gen. 18:10.
¹²¹ 121. At this point the MS has two words sekhel veṭov
¹²² 122. At one point in Kaspi’s comments on Job (AS I 146), he says that the three friends of Job share the opinion that every righteous man properly experiences hardship, so that ultimately his happiness is increased.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:27
[Gevia Kesef 9:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:27)

והעד הנאמן יורדי הים באניות אשר נפשם ברעה תתמוגג, ובהגיעם אל מחוז חפצם ירויחו אלף אלפים זהובים, ויודו לה׳ חסדו כמו שכתב דוד. העל כל אלה נעזוב ההליכה בים, או לא נשמח על הריוח? וה״ה בסוחרים הולכי מדברות, וה״ה בכיבוש עיר ועירות במלחמות. כי הכובשים כמה צרות ואף מתות סובלים. ומה אזכור משלים, וכל השגות טובות העולם הזה הם כן. והנשים והטף יודעים כן. כי לא השיג איש דבר במשכבו עם אשתו.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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.¹²³ 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.¹²⁴ (As I 59) Kaspi similarly rebukes the masses, who “think that intercourse is in itself good and proper, and who like cockerels are constantly with their wives.” On the other hand, however, in *Maṣref La-Kesef* (MK II 256) Kaspi says: “they have said, ‘the greater the man the greater his evil inclination’ [BT *Succah* 52a]; consequently Moses’ natural functions did not weaken even when he was eighty years old … so one should not think that Moses withdrew from women, for he was no Augustinian or Carmelite (monk).”

footnotes:
¹²³ 123. Ps. 18:17–18, which repeats David’s praise in II Sam. 22:17: He sent from on high, He took me; He drew me out of many waters. He delivered me from my enemy most strong.
¹²⁴ 124. In Ḥaṣoṣrot Kesef


###### Gevia Kesef 9:28
[Gevia Kesef 9:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:28)

כ״ש שהצער הנזכר ר״ל הענוי והעבדות היה סבה עצמית אל ״ואח״כ יצאו ברכוש גדול״ ואל ״דור רביעי ישובו הנה״ מכמה פנים. זאת תחילה כי לולי זה | לא היה ״ויאנחו בני ישראל וכו׳״, ״ותעל שועתם וכו׳״ כמו שיזכור עוד, שזה היה סבה בעצם כי הוציאם השם ממצרים. וכן ״ראה ראיתי את עני עמי אשר במצרים״, וכן ״וגם ראיתי את הלחץ אשר המצרים לוחצים אותם.״ ואם בני ישראל עמדו במצרים בנחת ולא היה דבר מזה מעולם, ולא יצאו משם ולא ירשו את הארץ כנען ולא בנו את בית המקדש. ובכלל כל הכתוב בהלל ״כמה מעלות טובות למקום עלינו,״ ועוד לא היה ״ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה״, ״וישאלו ממצרים כלי כסף וכלי זהב וינצלו את מצרים.״ ובכלל היה העבדות והעינוי סבה עצמית לכל הצלחת אבותינו בתיקון הגוף והנפש, ומה יש עוד. ואין זה אלא כיורדי הים ללכת אל מחוז חפצם והשם יעמיד רוח סערה ויוליכם אל מקום אחר אינו חפצם, ושם ירויחו כפלי כפלים, או ירויחו תחת אשר אבדו נפשם וממונם אם הלכו אל מחוז חפצם. וזה מעשים בכל יום בים וביבשה. וכן היה בהצלחת עמנו בזה. וגם מעין זה עבדות יוסף מצד מכירתו, ואחרי כי נאסר וענו בכבל רגלו כמו שמפורש. והכל כענין החולה שישקוהו הסנגוי׳ן שהוא סבה עצמית לרפואתו וחיותו. ולאחר יתנו הדבש וימות. וכזה המשילו החכמים כמי שחתכו לו עורק במלחמה על⁴⁸ יד אויבו עד שיצא ממנו דם והצילו מן המות, כי היה צריך להקזה להנצל מן המות. ומה אאריך במה שהתינוקות יודעים.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ בכתב יד ״עד על יד אויבו...

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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,”¹²⁵ 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.”¹²⁶ 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,”¹²⁷., chap. 337. which does not include “every woman shall ask of her neighbor and of her that sojourneth in her house,”¹²⁸ and “And they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold … and raiment … and they despoiled the Egyptians.”¹²⁹ Altogether, the servitude and affliction were the essential cause of the success of our forefathers in improving body and soul, the ultimate (goal).¹³⁰ III:27, which states: “the law as a whole aims at two things: the welfare of the soul and the welfare of the body.” Kaspi expands upon this in *Sefer Ha-Musar* (AS II 61, *Ethical Wills* p. 133). 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”¹³¹, Kaspi refers to this potion as a medicine compounded of honey and vinegar. References to this medicine are found in Averroës’ *Epitome of Aristotle’s Physics* (Riva di Trento, 1559) and Maimonides’ *Be’ur Ha-Shemot Ha-Refu’ot*, ed. S. Muntner (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1969), p. 114, where in a responsum it is advocated to take a solution of vinegar and honey, about an hour after a meal, to assist the digestive process. The editor translates the term as “oxymel.” (which is a bitter potion) causing him to recuperate and stay alive, only to die later when he is fed honey.¹³² 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.¹³³ 129a. In Maimonides’ *Be’ur Ha-Shemot Ha-Refu’ot*, p. 143, he states: “[bloodletting] cleanses the blood and adjusts the liver, to facilitate the production of healthier blood.” Why should I continue at length in a matter which even babes know?¹³⁴, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 74.

footnotes:
¹²⁵ 125. Exod. 2:23.
¹²⁶ 126. Exod. 3:7.
¹²⁷ 127. This refers to the Passover Haggadah, which quotes Sifre’ Deut
¹²⁸ 128. Exod. 3:22.
¹²⁹ 129. Exod. 12:35–36.
¹³⁰ 130. This paraphrases the Guide
¹³¹ 131. In the Parma MS of Ḳevuṣat Kesef
¹³² 132. The point here is that the bitter vinegar is an active agent that effects the recovery.
¹³³ 133. Bloodletting is discussed in BT Shabbat
¹³⁴ 134. The idea of suffering as a discipline and as a didactic tool has a long history in Biblical thought. The “suffering servant of the Lord” is first found in Isaiah, and also is found in the Book of Job, in the speeches of Eliphaz and Elihu (Job 5:17, 33:16–30, 36:9–12). For further discussion of this point, see R. Gordis, “Elihu the Intruder,” in Biblical and Other Studies


###### Gevia Kesef 9:29
[Gevia Kesef 9:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:29)

ואין קושיא מאמרו ״ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום״ כי השלום מקבל פחות ויתר. והנה היה שלום אברהם יותר גדול משלום העוברים בניו. וראה הפלגתה, כי על דרך האמת הנה זה כאמיתות השם.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
“But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace” poses no question,¹³⁵ 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.¹³⁶

footnotes:
¹³⁵ 135. The question that might be considered is that according to the above, both that which precedes the word “but” and that which follows are good tidings. Consequently it would have made better sense to use the conjunctive “and.”
¹³⁶ 136. He means that affirmations regarding God fluctuate in their accuracy and literal meaning.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:30
[Gevia Kesef 9:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:30)

״ואחר כן יצאו ברכוש גדול״: כי קניני העולם הם רע על דרך האמת גדול. ואין שוב רק לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש ומי יאמר כן רק להמון עמנו. והנה סוף דבר הנה פירש זה המבוקש ישעיהו באמרו ״אל תירא עמי יושב ציון מאשור, בשבט יכה ומטהו וישא אליך בדרך מצרים.״ כי | עיקר זה להודיענו כי עדיין ענוי מצרים לעמנו היה בשורה טובה לא צרה ותוחכה וזה אמרו ״בדרך מצרים.״ וכן הנהיג לומר בזה כן לעם ציון כי אמרו ״אל תירא״ לא על ״בשבט״ רק כי אינו בשבט צרה. והעולה מכל מה שאמרנו מאמר החכם ״לא תשיג מה שתאהב עד שתסבול דברים אשר תשנא.״ ודומה לזה העולם הזה מזוג ״לא תאכל ממנו דבש כי אם מזוג כארס.״ ומזה המין ״ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום תקבר בשיבה טובה.״ ואין ״ותקבר ותבא אל אבותיך״ שהוא מיתה הזה בשורה טובה, אבל זה הכרח, וה״טובה״ בשלום ובשיבה טובה. כ״ש שדומה לזה היעוד שקדם זכרו, ר״ל אמרו ״ועבדו וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה ואח״כ יצאו ברכוש.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
“And afterward they shall come out with great substance.”¹³⁷ 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?¹³⁸ 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.”¹³⁹ | 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.”¹⁴⁰, attributed to Ibn Gabirol, trans. by B. H. Asher (London, 1895), II:19. In this world this is similar to “Thou shalt not eat its honey except that it be mixed with poison.”¹⁴¹, attributed to Ḥonein b. Iṣḥak Ha-Noṣri, ed. Leventhal (Frankfurt, 1896), p. 19: “How much a man rejoices in what makes him sick, but fears that which is his cure.” 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 …”

footnotes:
¹³⁷ 137. V. 14.
¹³⁸ 138. This theme, repeated throughout Kaspi’s writings, is especially notable in view of his relative wealth (see above p. 9). His attitude is best illustrated in his commentary to Ecclesiastes (AS I 186), where he explains that the entire Book of Ecclesiastes is “to verify one teaching, and that is that man’s endeavors in this-worldly affairs are vain and empty …” See also MK I 58; AK I 85; AS I 15, 103; SK 30.
¹³⁹ 139. Isa. 10:24.
¹⁴⁰ 140. Mivḥar Ha-Peninim
¹⁴¹ 141. Similarly in Muserei Ha-Philosophim


###### Gevia Kesef 9:31
[Gevia Kesef 9:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:31)

אמרו בבשורה ובברכה להגר ״הנך הרה ויולדת בן״ כי ההריון והלידה הקודמים למציאת הבן שהוא הטובה והברכה, הם דברים רעים. וקללות חוה כמו שכתוב ״ואל האישה אמר.״

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
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,¹⁴² (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 …”¹⁴³

footnotes:
¹⁴² 142. Gen. 16:11.
¹⁴³ 143. Gen. 3:16.


###### Gevia Kesef 9:32
[Gevia Kesef 9:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gevia%20Kesef/r/9:32)

אבל מוכרח הוא שיהיה אלו הדעות קודמות קדימת ומן וסבה לצאתם ברכוש גדול. כי לולא זה יצאו משם דלים בלא רכוש או ברכוש מעט. וראה הפלגה, כי כאשר בשר השם מציאת הבן לשרה פעמים, לא זכר לה הריון ולידה כמו שעשה בהגר, אבל דקדק לזכור בה מציאת הבן לה לבד, שהוא הברכה.

**Trans. by Basil Herring, New York, Ktav, 1982:**
(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.