This (chapter) will explain¹ (MK II 53), Kaspi says, “the explanation of this vision will be found in the Gevia‘.” the second vision of Abraham, which begins: “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, and the Lord appeared unto Abram and said unto him, ‘I am God Almighty; walk before me and be thou whole-hearted.’”² I have already discussed the name “God” (’El), and the name “Almighty” (Shaddai) in many places, where I have pointed out that (the Torah) ascribes these weak names to the Lord, in the context of the command to be fruitful and multiply,³ (MK II 53). In that work (MK II 143) Kaspi explains that Shaddai is superior to ’El. Kaspi’s explanation of the names of God is discussed above in Chapter 3. On the name Shaddai, see above chap. IV, n. 13. both here and in the context of Jacob.⁴ For this reason this (verse) does not use “I am the Lord …” (At the same time) I do not insist that this (explanation of that name) is certain and necessary, for it is not (necessarily) acceptable to everyone. I do say, however, that this explanation is the best and most exact, in accordance with Maimonides’ fifth cause of contradiction, i.e., substitution and change.⁵, Introduction. The use of this method of contradictions in Kaspi’s exegesis is discussed above pp. 42–43.

footnotes: ¹ 1. In commenting on this chapter of Genesis in Maṣref La-Kesef ² 2. Gen. 17:1. ³ 3. Maṣref La-Kesef ⁴ 4. Gen. 32:11. ⁵ 5. The Guide

I have already explained “Walk before me and be thou whole-hearted.”⁶ stem connotes an ongoing, incomplete action. In the present verse, the word hit’halekh (“walk”) is used. There is no question why these words that imply weakness are used in reference to Abraham,⁷ for in spite of Abraham’s previous attainment of complete wholeness and perfection of prophecy, | there will occur some weakness at the time of a later prophetic vision, as Maimonides revealed in his book in the chapters dealing with prophecy.⁸ II:45.

footnotes: ⁶ 6. In chap. II, p. 139 Kaspi explained that the hitpa‘el ⁷ 7. According to the previous note, Abraham is told by God to continue to develop his “wholeheartedness”—an implication that Abraham was still incomplete. ⁸ 8. Guide

“And Abram fell on his face.”⁹ Even though this did not take place at the outset of the prophecy, as occurred in the earlier prophecy of the Sundering of the pieces, what happened here is in accordance with Maimonides’ statement that “afterward that trembling becomes greater.”¹⁰ II:41; he means that as the vision progresses and becomes more intense, the prophet is bereft of his strength.

footnotes: ⁹ 9. V. 3. ¹⁰ 10. Guide

The statement (of the Lord) in this vision goes beyond the preceding (promises from God that Abraham would have) seed and be multiplied, and (beyond the promise) that Abraham, i.e., his descendants, would inherit the land. What He added to all of this was that He would be their God. This would be the finest facet of the covenant made with Abraham in the vision of the Sundering. (This fact) that those among his descendants who would be complete would achieve this (closeness to God) was not mentioned there.¹¹

footnotes: ¹¹ 11. Nachmanides, in commenting on Gen. 15:28, explains that what was new in this promise is that for the first time the boundaries of the promised land are delineated, and Abraham is assured that no future sins will stand in the way of the promise.

“And as for thee, thou shall keep my covenant.”¹² These words explain that the term “covenant,” which was used in the vision of the covenant, could be used as an equivocal term having three meanings: the first was in reference to the covenant of inheritance, as mentioned in the vision of the Sundering; the second refers to (the promise) “to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee”; and the third is in reference to the covenant of the circumcision. In the same way it is always proper to divide a general term, whether it be an equivocal term or a conventional term, into its parts.¹³ The covenant of circumcision has a similar function to that of the covenants mentioned earlier, (even though this was not stated explicitly, for) it was not appropriate to say in that connection, “it shall be a token of a covenant,” or “it shall be a sign.”

footnotes: ¹² 12. V. 9. ¹³ 13. The importance of the distinction between genus and species has been discussed above, pp. 48–49.

“And God said unto Abraham: ‘As for Sarai thy wife …’”¹⁴ Whoever wishes to explain prophecy should compare it to speculative matters,¹⁵ (MK I 86), which explains that “the intellect and prophecy are both faculties of the soul.” and that in turn to practical matters,¹⁶ (AS II 105) Kaspi says that Moses illustrated the secrets of the universe graphically, through the use of the Temple-plan, for “all the prophets … used such (aids) … so that those who saw them would understand …” for then he will understand. Now it is clear from all these matters, that what comes later is superior. Accordingly, in the present vision, Abraham perceived during the initial period of seclusion that he would have descendants, that the Lord would be his God, and that his descendants would be circumcised—but it was not clear to him from which woman (he would have those children). This is only apprehended at this subsequent stage, as is always the case with the prophets. This was how it was at the vision of the Sundering (as well). (At a later stage) there is either some further explanation of what had preceded earlier or else some new insight. In the present instance, what was new and additional was the news that he would have a child from Sarah.

footnotes: ¹⁴ 14. V. 15. ¹⁵ 15. Cf. Ṭirat Kesef ¹⁶ 16. In the Menorat Kesef

“And said in his heart, ‘shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old, and shall Sarah …’”¹⁷ As for these words, I have already explained the phrase “in his heart” in connection with “and it grieved Him at His heart”¹⁸ and “And the Lord said in His heart,”¹⁹ in Maṣref La-Kesef.²⁰ (MK II 34) Kaspi invokes the principle that “the Torah speaks in the language of men” in regard to these verses. On this principle, see above Chapter 2. Here the implication is that Abraham did not want the Lord or anyone else to hear him, teaching us that it is not correct to doubt the king’s words at all. The writer of the Torah recorded this for us so that we should understand | what I have explained here. The masses should certainly not feel that Abraham was in doubt. (Instead they should feel that “in his heart”) has the same meaning as when it is used with Eliezer²¹ and Esau.²² The reason for his speaking “in his heart” was that it was not right that his contemporaries should think that Abraham was in doubt or uncertain of the promise of the Lord, or uncertain of his ability to understand God’s word in spite of his being so great a prophet.

footnotes: ¹⁷ 17. V. 17. ¹⁸ 18. Gen. 6:6. ¹⁹ 19. Gen. 8:21. ²⁰ 20. In Maṣref La-Kesef ²¹ 21. Gen. 24:45, “… and before I had done speaking to my heart …” ²² 22. Gen. 27:41, “… and Esau said in his heart: ‘Let the days of mourning for my father be at hand …’” In this and the previous note, the phrase means, “he thought to himself.”

Now the purpose of this statement, and what it implies, was that the Lord told him of the decree that he would father a son of Sarah that would become a nation. This was a special decree of a future event that was to be like the rising of tomorrow’s sun, or tomorrow’s rainfall.²³ This was something that Abraham did not understand.

footnotes: ²³ 23. He means that it was not clear whether the realization of the promise was conditional upon other factors.

Yiṣḥak poses no question,²⁴ for it is known that yiṣḥak is equivocal, referring either to a mocking that conveys an intent that is evil or corrupt, or to a (benign) mixture of joy, introspection, and incredulity. In the present context one meaning is intended, while in the next chapter, regarding Sarah, the other occurs.²⁵, which implies “happiness,” as opposed to heikhat, which implies “mockery,” in the case of Sarah.

footnotes: ²⁴ 24. The question that is implied by the name is that, according to the above, Abraham was not incredulous, but merely did not understand the promise fully, yet this name implies that Abraham mocked at the idea of Sarah giving birth. ²⁵ 25. Cf. Gen. 18:12. This distinction is similar to the one made by Onkelos, who translates the present “laughter” as ve-ḥadei

“Oh that Ishmael might live before thee.”²⁶ Such words are not appropriate for a man such as Abraham, for by uttering them he attributed deception or exaggeration to God. God had told him that Sarah would give birth, and this answer—“Oh that Ishmael might live before thee”—was as if he said, “(You must be referring to) this son, for otherwise this is impossible and cannot happen.” The answer to all this is that this entire passage displays remarkable wisdom, and can be attested to by those knowing logic. Abraham said to the Lord, “Regarding what you mentioned earlier in the vision—i.e., ‘I will make thee exceeding fruitful … and I will establish my covenant … and I will give unto thy seed the land of thy sojournings …’—clearly these things are as necessary as tomorrow’s sunrise, for all of this explains the earlier vision of the Sundering, which spoke of the covenant. This, however, could all apply equally to Ishmael, who is already born.”²⁷ (MK I 89) Kaspi explains otherwise, saying that Abraham doubted the possibility of Sarah’s conceiving, in the same way that Moses asked, “If flocks and herds be slain for them, will they suffice them?” (Num. 11:22). All this is meant by the words “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee,” which assert that it might be Ishmael who would be fruitful and have children who would inherit the land of Canaan. (In other words) he is saying, “God, in your words there are two mysteries that I do not understand. In either case what you have said is correct, for it is impossible for you to lie, for ‘God is not man that He should lie.’”²⁸ This is the meaning of Abraham’s words, in the same sense as his saying, “Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?”

footnotes: ²⁶ 26. V. 18. ²⁷ 27. In Ṭirat Kesef ²⁸ 28. Num. 23:19.

Accordingly, “Oh that Ishmael …” should not be taken in the sense that stumbling women would speak, neither according to the ways of effeminate men. It is certain that when Moses wrote this scroll and express statement, which is the Torah and its narratives, (he did not intend to imply such doubts).

The Lord then answers him, resolving both the first and second doubts in their proper order. He said to him: “Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shall call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed | after him.”²⁹ The meaning of this statement of God the teacher to Abraham His student is, “Regarding your doubt whether the decree that you will have a son from Sarah is necessary or contingent, know that it is necessary, even though there is no mention of a covenant or an oath in that context.” This is the meaning of His word “nay,” which is similar to “Nay, for we are guilty,”³⁰ or wherever “nay” constitutes the first word of a sentence. Similarly it is said in the prayers, “Nay, we have sinned,”³¹ (“We”). which is similar to “Moreover she is my sister,”³² where the meaning is “in truth (we have sinned).” This is in accordance with Maimonides’ definition of truth as he explained in (the Guide) I:50,³³ and in accordance with the books of the philosophers.³⁴ Thus, with this separate word “nay,” the Lord informed Abraham that the decree “and moreover I will give thee a son of her” was for a necessary future event. The Lord told him, “While it is true that you are in doubt, and you have said that the future decrees mentioned above, including the vision of the Sundering, while true might refer to Ishmael—nonetheless know that the decrees are such that they refer to Isaac, who will be born of Sarah. And if there be a decree included in the above that does refer to both Isaac and Ishmael, and that says ‘I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations out of thee and kings will come out of thee,’ nonetheless the decree saying ‘I will establish my covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee,’ which follows, refers exclusively to Isaac.” This is the meaning of the words “I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him,” which are spoken at this point, as well as the meaning of “As for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly.”³⁵ By way of further clarification of the above-mentioned covenant as described in the vision of the Sundering, God reaffirms that “my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee.” The meaning of this statement is, “As for Ishmael, while I referred to him earlier when I said you would be multiplied—I was not referring to him at all when I said that I would establish my covenant (between me and thee and thy seed after thee); indeed I have not made any covenant with you that could refer to Ishmael.” At the close of the (prophetic) seclusion the Lord informs Abraham that in addition (Isaac will be born) “at this set time in the next year,” (for the conclusion of a vision) is the most auspicious.

footnotes: ²⁹ 29. V. 19. ³⁰ 30. Gen. 42:21. The JPS trans. is, “We are verily guilty.” ³¹ 31. This is in reference to the confessional prayers on the Day of Atonement, which have the term ’anaḥnu ³² 32. Gen. 20:12. ³³ 33. There Maimonides differentiates between the states of belief and certainty as follows: “Belief is the affirmation that what has been presented is outside the mind just as it has been represented in the mind. If together with this belief one realizes that a belief different from it is in no way possible, and that no starting point be found in the mind for a rejection of this belief, or for a supposition that a different belief is possible, there is certainty.” Kaspi repeats this definition in AS I 36. ³⁴ 34. Cf. chap. V, n. 1. ³⁵ 35. V. 20.

There is another great and remarkable observation. In several places I have written that the giver of the Torah, as well as those who established the Hebrew language in general, agreed to the usage whereby the past tense (of a verb) could be used to refer to the future, and vice versa.³⁶ (MK II 36) Kaspi explains that the words “I have set my bow in the cloud” (Gen. 9:13) refer simultaneously to the past and the future, for “the daily sphere has circled continuously since the creation of the world, therefore all future is necessarily described as the past, for these two tenses only have reference to the present.” Elsewhere (MK II 64, 104) he explains this usage as due to the fact that “the future is potentially the past, certainly when the future is close to being realized.” This point, alluded to later in the Gevia’ Kesef (chap. XVIII), is the esoteric doctrine referred to here, being that change is the actualization of potentiality. See Aristotle, Physics I, 7. This in effect blurs the distinction between past and future, permitting Kaspi to explain here that future and past are interchangeable. This is discussed above pp. 49–51. As I explained, this is correct for several reasons, each instance depending on its particular signification and literal meaning. This method was one of the effective techniques used by the writer of the Torah to conceal esoteric doctrine, (using terms) that are in doubt or subject to interpretation, | which are a form of equivocation. Two such places are here, for the words natati mimenah lekha ben (lit. “I have given you a son of her”) refer exclusively to the future, as up to that point this had not been done, even in an esoteric sense. On the other hand, beirakhti ’oto ve-hifreiti ’oto (“I have blessed him and made him fruitful”) refers exclusively to the past, for earlier the Lord had said, “ve-hifreiti ’otekha bi-me’od me’od (“I will multiply thee exceedingly”),³⁷ which is an explicit utterance (of blessing being given).

footnotes: ³⁶ 36. In Maṣref La-Kesef ³⁷ 37. V. 2. Kimḥi explained that Ishmael was blessed earlier when the angel appeared to Hagar (Gen. 16:10).

The phrase “As for Ishmael, I have heard thee” does not pose a problem by implying that Abraham had uttered a new prayer in the words “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee.”³⁸ For the expression is equivocal, intentionally written in this attractive way by the writer of the Torah so that its exoteric sense be understood (as a new prayer).³⁹, Introduction, Maimonides describes the second kind of parable as having many words, “not every one of which adds something to the intended meaning. They serve rather to embellish the parable and render it more coherent, or to conceal further the intended meaning …” Here Kaspi says that the details are both for coherence and concealment. According to this exoteric explanation, the meaning of the verse, when God says “I will bless him and make him fruitful,” refers exclusively to the future (as blessings promised for the future in response to Abraham’s new prayer), as an event that will exist in the future. This will be either on account of its being presently spoken (as a blessing for the future) or because right now it is in potential. My own (preferred) explanation, however, is in accordance with the esoteric meaning and with precise philosophic insight. Both explanations here possess truth.⁴⁰ This is true of the entire Torah, in that every term and statement possesses a meaning within a meaning, both of which are true. It is similar in every science, in every means of expression and artistry, or artistic instrument.

footnotes: ³⁸ 38. He means that God’s words here might be taken to be providing a new blessing for Ishmael, in response to a new request that had been made by Abraham. ³⁹ 39. In the Guide ⁴⁰ 40. He means that the esoteric meaning does not negate the exoteric or literal meaning. Kaspi’s attitude to the two levels of exegesis, the exoteric and the esoteric, is discussed at length in Chapter 2.

“And He left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.”⁴¹ These words are similar to “The Lord went His way as soon as He had left off speaking with Abraham,”⁴² as well as “and God went up from him,”⁴³ said of Jacob. Undoubtedly it is always like this, but it is not always necessary that it be so written. In any case the meaning is clearly that it is God who removes Himself from the person. Maimonides explained the equivocal nature of ‘alah (“ascend”) and halakh (“went”) to allude to this.⁴⁴ I:10 says: “‘Alah is the opposite of prophetic inspiration and its ennobling.” All of this is by way of “the Torah speaks in the language of men,”⁴⁵ 31b. This doctrine is discussed in Chapter 2. for kings depart from servants at will, not the other way around, for a servant lacks sufficient power to hold a king back. If a servant does have any power in such matters, it is only as when Jacob said, “Let me go.”⁴⁶ (MK I 90) this verse is explained as being necessary to indicate that the vision ended at this point, so that the circumcision that followed was not merely in a vision, but was carried out while fully awake. This is consistent with his comments below in chap. XIII, pp. 216–217. These matters are all very profound, to be understood by those who know the true nature of prophecy as explained by Maimonides in the Guide II:36, as well as (the true nature of) the rational, speculative faculty.

footnotes: ⁴¹ 41. V. 22. ⁴² 42. Gen. 18:33. ⁴³ 43. Gen. 35:13. ⁴⁴ 44. Guide ⁴⁵ 45. BT Bava’ Meṣi‘a’ ⁴⁶ 46. In Ṭirat Kesef