This (chapter) explains the third version of Abraham,¹ (MK II 54) Kaspi says of this vision, “The person who has the Gevia‘ in his hand will know the intent of this narrative.” which begins, “And the Lord appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre.”² Maimonides in the Guide II:36 wrote something in this manner: “It is known that a matter that occupies a man greatly—he being bent upon it and desirous of it—while he is awake and while his senses function, is that with regard to which the imaginative faculty acts while he is asleep …”

footnotes: ¹ 1. In the Maṣref La-Kesef ² 2. Gen. 18:1.

This is proven by the dreams of every person,³ 55a: “a person sees in his dreams what his heart thinks about.” Aristotle (On Dreams 3, 460b) says: “… stimulatory movements, based upon sensory impressions, whether the latter are derived from external objects or from within the body, present themselves not only when the person is awake, but also when this affection which is called sleep has come upon them, with even greater impressiveness …” Averroës expands on this in the Epitome of the Parva Naturalia, ed. H. Blumberg (Cambridge: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1954), p. 45, saying that if one who sleeps feels as if he sees or hears, such a feeling has its beginning in the awakened state. But because the faculties of thought and memory do not function during sleep, the imaginative faculty can govern the soul unimpeded. The result is the distorted images of dreams. Such dreams cannot clarify rational truths, but occasionally do portend future events. This is reflected by Kaspi’s saying that the dream contained no rational truths, but only a future event, i.e., the birth of Isaac. (In the ‘Ammudei Kesef (AM 117), Kaspi states that according to Averroës, prophecy always occurs when awake. This is not born out by our editions of the Epitome.) This presence of the imaginative faculty in prophetic dreams is used by Kaspi to solve another problem: the interpretation of such dreams likewise requires the active participation of the imaginative faculty of the interpreter. That faculty is aroused by a detailed description of the images in the original dream, thereby enabling the interpreter to reconstruct the “message” of the dream. In this way Kaspi explains (Ṭirat Kesef, MK I 124) the need for the Torah to repeat the many details of Pharaoh’s dream as recounted to Joseph. This solution, as offered by Kaspi, is likewise based upon Averroës’ Epitome, p. 52, where the whole process is compared to the physician’s diagnosis, which relies heavily on a complete description by the patient of the perceived symptoms experienced. For a similar analogy borrowed from Averroës, see above in Chapter 4, p. 120. It should also be noted that the Commentary of Samuel ben Hofni Gaon on the Torah, ed. by Aaron Greenbaum (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1978), p. 112, also says in the context of Pharaoh’s dream that “it is necessary for the interpreter of a dream to be very precise with the words of the dreamer in examining the dream … as is the case with a physician as well.” As this commentary was written at the end of the tenth century, it obviously antedates Averroës’ words quoted earlier, even though Greenbaum’s formulation appears to identify Averroës as Samuel ben Ḥofni’s source (cf. his n. 55 passim). as, for example, when fools experience a nocturnal emission, and the wise experience the speculative sciences or future events, whether literally or metaphorically. On occasion the metaphor will be concerning practical philosophy, as was the case here with Abraham, for generous hospitality toward guests that are good and honorable is a principle of practical philosophy.⁴ VI, 5, 1140b, Aristotle defines practical philosophy as “a reasoned and true state of capacity to act with regard to human goods.” Such was his manner when awake, and it was in that form that Abraham saw the vision in comprehending the configuration of the future.⁵ In my opinion this parable belongs to the second category enumerated by Maimonides,⁶ may his memory be blessed, for significance is to be found only in the general outline of the parable, with the details that are present being for aesthetic reasons, and not to conceal the hidden meaning.

footnotes: ³ 3. Cf. BT Berakhot ⁴ 4. In the Nichomachean Ethics ⁵ 5. Cf. above n. 3. ⁶ 6. Cf. above chap. X, n. 39.

At the outset the giver of the Torah mentions the general location and the specific place,⁷ (MK I 72) he explains that place can be either inclusive (kolel) or exclusive (meyuḥad), and such terms fluctuate by degree. where “the terebinths of Mamre” is the general place-name. This teaches us that a location is instrumental, in that (it provides) the circumstantial factors. This is certainly true of the specific place when added to the position of the person in relation to that place. In the present case he is seated (yoshev), in the manner of all who are composed (meyushav ha-da‘at) in the act of speculative withdrawal, as opposed to one who is standing and moving around.⁸ This is also implied by his being in the tent, separated from people.⁹

footnotes: ⁷ 7. In Ṭirat Kesef ⁸ 8. Cf. below chap. XVII, which explains that any movement would have rendered Abraham incapable of contemplation, whether rational or prophetic. ⁹ 9. He means to say that Abraham would have been distracted by company.

“Door”¹⁰, lit. “the opening of the tent.” is necessarily stated for two reasons. The first is required for the following “appeared unto him … and lo, three men”; the other is to teach us that his wife was not there with him, but she was within. By being at the door of the tent, he combined a dual separation, both from his wife and from his contemporaries,¹¹ (both of which) prevent the achievement of everything good by one who frequents their company.¹²

footnotes: ¹⁰ 10. In Heb. petaḥ ha-’ohel ¹¹ 11. This phrase reflects Kaspi’s own attitudes to his contemporaries, especially the masses to be found in the street. For more discussion of this aspect of Kaspi’s life, see Chapter 1. ¹² 12. This disparaging remark includes wives. In AS I 17 he refers to erring wives who distract their husbands from prayer and contemplation of spiritual themes.

“In the heat of the day” specifies the time as that time when one separates from people, as each one stays in his tent on account of the heat, as it was evidently the summertime. | This is proven by “He took curd and milk and the calf.”¹³

footnotes: ¹³ 13. Kaspi apparently has in mind the general practice among farmers breeding cattle to prefer the late spring as the best calving season, for a variety of reasons. The term “calf” usually applies only to the first several months after birth, and therefore any reference to “calf,” as in the present verse, would in all likelihood occur in the summertime.

Abraham, however, was not asleep, for this was a vision and not a dream.¹⁴ II:45, which states: “every vision in which you find the prophet hearing speech was in its beginning a vision, but ended in a state of submersion [i.e., sleep] and became a dream … all speech that is heard is heard only in a dream.” Consequently, Abraham was awake initially, in experiencing a vision, but later he fell asleep and had his prophetic dream. This has already been explained by Maimonides.¹⁵ II:41. In the case of Lot, however, because it was a dream, the event occurred at night (when he was asleep).¹⁶

footnotes: ¹⁴ 14. This appears to contradict his statement in chap. XVII, below, p. 248 that Abraham was indeed sleeping, “for sleep is a necessity for prophets.” The contradiction is resolved by keeping in mind the Guide ¹⁵ 15. Guide ¹⁶ 16. The events recounted in Gen. 19:1 started out as a dream.

“And he looked, and behold, three men stood over against him.”¹⁷ This is true in my opinion,¹⁸ for from that point until “and they did eat”¹⁹ contains nothing but the parable, whose general meaning accords with what I have already said, in that it relates Abraham’s wholeness in matters of practical philosophy,²⁰ which in turn is a stepping-stone to theoretical philosophy.²¹ It was proper that here too there are some matters regarding theoretical principles.

footnotes: ¹⁷ 17. V. 2. ¹⁸ 18. He means that Abraham responded that way in his vision to the three men who appeared to him. ¹⁹ 19. V. 8. ²⁰ 20. Kimḥi says that “this entire story was written to teach us how to relate to people with righteousness and kindness, for it is an act of kindness to bring people into one’s house and to fulfill all their needs.” ²¹ 21. He means that proficiency in practical philosophy must precede the intellectual virtues.

For this reason it says that these three men “stood over against him,” for as Maimonides said in the Guide II:36, “Know that the true reality and quidity of prophecy consists in its being an overflow overflowing from God … through the intermediation of the Active Intellect toward the rational faculty in the first place and thereafter toward the imaginative faculty.” Therefore these three men, personages, or individuals were (an allusion to) these three existents, i.e., the Active Intellect, the rational faculty, and the imaginative faculty. (These three were present) in the case of every prophet, with the exception of Moses our teacher, who had but two, their agnomen being the two cherubim,²² (AS II 109), Kaspi says otherwise, that the cherubim refer to the two upper worlds that dominate the third, lowest world. i.e., the Active Intellect and the rational faculty.²³ II:45 (AM 121) Kaspi adds that Moses’ rational faculty was an “emanated intellect.” The lesser prophets possessed but two faculties: the rational and the imaginative. This is the meaning of “And the two angels came to Sodom,”²⁴ for in the case of Lot only these came, as the Active Intellect did not overflow onto his rational faculty.²⁵ (MK II 56) he adds that “even the two that did appear were not the two that are represented by the two cherubim … these are important matters, all being found in the Gevia‘.” The implication is that Moses’ prophetic faculties were categorically different from those of any other prophet. For further discussion of Kaspi’s attitudes to prophecy, notably that of Moses, see Mesch, Studies, pp. 80–106.

footnotes: ²² 22. Exod. 25:22 states: “I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony.” In the Menorat Kesef ²³ 23. In commenting on the Guide ²⁴ 24. Gen. 19:1, in reference to their visit to Lot. ²⁵ 25. In the Maṣref La-Kesef

“And when he saw them he ran to meet them.”²⁶ (This teaches that) it is necessary for one to pursue after (the attainment of prophecy) by means of prophetic or speculative seclusion, and then to be subservient to (that goal). This is (the meaning of) “and bowed down to the earth.”

footnotes: ²⁶ 26. V. 2.

“My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.”²⁷ The sages, may their memory be blessed, revealed that “Abraham addressed their leader,”²⁸ 48, in noticing that Abraham uses the singular. for even though in any language it would be correct not to be so precise, yet it is appropriate to use precision in these profound matters.²⁹ (MK I 91–92) saying that this story teaches but one basic idea—the pleasurable nature of intellectual attachment. Consequently, he asserts that “one should not inquire as to details of the story, for they all follow from his initial imagining of the three men…. For this reason I am surprised that Maimonides says that there is a great secret here …” From the Gevia‘ Kesef here it is clear that Kaspi finds such esoteric doctrines through the careful analysis of the Scriptural text. On the significance of this passage for the general problem of Kaspi’s attitude to precise observation in Scripture, see above p. 60. Certainly there is room for modification of the statement that “Kaspi is the extreme opponent of every precise observation … mocking every question of a superfluity or omission in Scripture,” which is found in N. Leibowitz, ‘ Iyyunim Ḥadashim Be-Sefer Shemot (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1969), p. 66. The intention here is to convey that Abraham persisted in his prophetic speculation, by holding on to the coattails of the Active Intellect to prevent it from passing away from him, as had previously occurred when “God went up from Abraham.”³⁰ I mean that he did not want the overflow to the rational faculty to cease.

footnotes: ²⁷ 27. V. 3. ²⁸ 28. Genesis Rabbah ²⁹ 29. These words, indeed the entire passage, should be contrasted with Kaspi’s words in Ṭirat Kesef ³⁰ 30. Gen. 17:22.

The sages were also careful in saying, “They appeared (nir’u) to Abraham in the image of people, for Abraham’s faculty was superior, while for Lot they were in the image (nidmu) of angels, as Lot’s faculty was weak.”³¹ have nidmu in both cases, and in Tanḥuma’ Yashan they are reversed, with Abraham nidmu and with Lot nir’u. Regarding this statement, Maimonides said in the Guide II:45 that “this is a great prophetic secret,” and this statement caused a problem for those who dabble in philosophy,³² for they found that in the Guide II:45 Maimonides wrote | that the sight of an angel (in a prophetic vision) indicates a level that is superior to a vision where a person is seen. If, however, I have read well, then these dabblers in philosophy are not philosophers.³³ The reason is that in that place Maimonides arranges the levels (of prophecy) so that they occur in a dream as far as the seventh level; from there he begins with visions, which are superior to dreams, as it is written, “Do I in a vision make myself known to him, I do speak with him in a dream.”³⁴ These two postulated categories constitute superior prophetic states, and within each category Maimonides in that chapter arranges the disparate levels. Now within each category he undoubtedly asserts that to see an angel is to experience a higher level than to see a person. Abraham and Lot, however, were not within the same category according to the two categories mentioned. They were in two separate categories in this episode, for Abraham experienced a vision, while Lot experienced a dream. The vision is a superior faculty, while the dream is an inferior faculty. For this reason they said that in the case of Abraham, whose faculty was superior, the angels “appeared to him,” while in the case of Lot, whose faculty was inferior, they appeared to him in an image.³⁵ Consequently, it was within this category (of visions) that Abraham saw people, a most propitious event, being the tenth level according to the enumeration of Maimonides. In the case of Lot, the event was the lesser of the two, for when at the end of the dream he saw angels, it was the sixth level in Maimonides’ enumeration. In summary, this statement of the sages, may their memory be blessed, says only, “Abraham in his vision saw people, while Lot in his dream saw angels.” It makes no difference if we say “superior faculty, inferior faculty” or “in a vision, in a dream” or “they appeared, they were in the image, he saw.” It is only that people think that different terms possess different (meanings).³⁶ attempted to deal with this problem as well. Narboni says that in Guide II:6 the reference is not to the levels of prophecy but to the way in which a prophet perceives his soul, whether as angelic or human. Of the two perceptions, the latter is superior. Shemtov repeats this answer, as does Gersonides in explaining why the men in the case of Abraham changed to angels with Lot. Kaspi’s answer here was taken up by Ibn Crescas in his commentary to the Guide. Cf. also AM 93. At the binding of Isaac, it states that Abraham saw angels, which corresponded to the eleventh level enumerated by Maimonides.³⁷ II:45, i.e, one level above the one achieved here.

footnotes: ³¹ 31. Our editions of Genesis Rabbah 50 ³² 32. Cf. above chap. XI, n. 1. ³³ 33. He means that they are not yet complete philosophers, for if they were, they would see that there is no contradiction. ³⁴ 34. Num. 12:6. ³⁵ 35. Cf. above n. 31. ³⁶ 36. Other commentators to the Guide ³⁷ 37. Guide

“Let now a little water be fetched … and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and stay ye your heart.”³⁸ All this is explained in light of Maimonides’ comments, which illuminate our eyes, in accordance with what he wrote regarding the equivocal nature of ’akhal (“eat”), as well as his allusion there to (drinking) water.³⁹ I:30. Kaspi means that even though it states that they ate and drank, it is certain that this is to be understood figuratively, for the entire event occurred in a vision, and later as a dream. The figurative meaning, according to Maimonides, is that they achieved “intellectual apprehension.” It is similar with Solomon’s statement of the wise, “Come, eat of my bread, drink of the wine.”⁴⁰

footnotes: ³⁸ 38. Vv. 4–5. ³⁹ 39. Guide ⁴⁰ 40. Prov. 9:5.

Add to this that it is correct to use an expression of washing (in this verse), to connote the purification of thoughts.⁴¹

footnotes: ⁴¹ 41. V. 4, “and wash your feet.”

“The herd.”⁴² This term is an allusion to keen observation (necessary for prophecy), as in “the priest shall not seek (yevaḳer).”⁴³, having the same root as yevaḳer.

footnotes: ⁴² 42. V. 7. ⁴³ 43. Lev. 13:36. “Herd” in Hebrew is baḳar

“Curd and milk.”⁴⁴ These terms are always used by the prophets in reference to good things, such as “I have drunk my wine | with my milk.”⁴⁵ Moses described the good principle in general as “curd of kine and milk of sheep.”⁴⁶

footnotes: ⁴⁴ 44. V. 8. ⁴⁵ 45. Cant. 5:1. ⁴⁶ 46. Deut. 32:14.

The fact that the verse does not say “and they drank” as it says “and they did eat” does not pose a problem, for it is not necessary (to say this).

“Under the tree.”⁴⁷ There is no doubt that this was the tree of life, or one of “the other trees of the garden.”⁴⁸ It is certainly not the tree of knowledge of good and evil.⁴⁹, Kaspi’s nonextant commentary on the opening chapters of Genesis. One possibility is offered by Kimḥi’s remarks to Gen. 2:17, which explain that the tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolized sexual knowledge, implied by the fact that Adam and Eve recognized their nakedness after eating thereof. Consequently Kaspi might be saying that sexual preparedness is not a precondition of the attainment of prophecy. Cf. above chap. IX, n. 124.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ 47. Vv. 4, 8. ⁴⁸ 48. Gen. 2:9. ⁴⁹ 49. This cryptic allusion is probably to an idea developed in Mizraḳ Kesef

In general, all this talk, with questions and answers, is correct, for it took place as words inwardly spoken,⁵⁰ all this being included under dibbur (“speaking”) and ’amirah (“saying”), which are independent terms. Yet on account of the fact that the writer of the Torah recorded that “Sarah heard (words being spoken),”⁵¹ which in my opinion is to be taken literally, one must say that He who gave the Torah intended this to be understood (as affirming that their conversation) included outwardly spoken words, similar to one who speaks in his sleep while dreaming.⁵² There is no doubt that most prophecies of the prophets, with the exception of Moses, were just like this. So in my opinion Sarah heard Abraham speaking with the angel, but without knowing (or) seeing the angel. It would also appear that she possessed one of the lower aspects of prophecy mentioned by Maimonides, especially in this chapter, where she secludes herself upon seeing her husband conversing with the angels through question and answer.⁵³ It was on that lower level that she prophesied, in a manner similar to the prophecy of Saul when he met the group of prophets.⁵⁴ (It was in this manner) that she heard the words of the angel when saying, “I will … return to thee when the season cometh around; and lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.”⁵⁵ (MK I 92) there is another, simpler solution to this problem: Sarah did not participate at all—Abraham only saw in his vision that she reacted in this way. Likewise he explains that it was only in his imagination (nafal be-dimyono) that they ate and rose up.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ 50. He means that these words were not mouthed, but were communicated in the framework of the prophetic vision. ⁵¹ 51. V. 10. ⁵² 52. This is Kaspi’s first answer to the problem raised by Nachmanides in commenting on Gen. 18:1; i.e., how, according to Maimonides, could Sarah overhear the conversation if the entire chapter is only a vision that affected Abraham’s internal senses exclusively? The present answer is that Abraham might have spoken the words as they occurred in the vision. Kimḥi gives the same answer here, saying that “the sounds of speaking” emanate from the prophet, as in Dan. 10:7, “And I Daniel alone saw the vision; for the men that were with me saw not the vision; how-beit a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves.” ⁵³ 53. This is a second answer to the above-mentioned problem. It might be prompted by the fact that the first answer does not explain how she heard the angels themselves speaking, for Abraham must have only mouthed his own words. ⁵⁴ 54. I Sam. 10:10, “… a band of prophets met him; and the spirit of God came mightily upon him, and he prophesied among them.” Similarly here, the mere proximity to a prophet can engender a similar state of prophecy. ⁵⁵ 55. V. 10. In Ṭirat Kesef

“Now Sarah and Abraham were old, and well stricken with age, and it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.”⁵⁶ These words are not part of the vision, but they are written by the writer of the vision to preface what follows,⁵⁷ so that this fact be understood by those who receive and constantly study the Torah. This is like “And Sarai was barren”;⁵⁸ “And Joseph was of beautiful form and fair to look on.”⁵⁹ This is to be compared to one who says something in order to inform his fellow.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ 56. V. 11. ⁵⁷ 57. Kimḥi likewise says that the verse explains why Sarah laughed. ⁵⁸ 58. Gen. 11:30. ⁵⁹ 59. Gen. 39:6.

“And Sarah laughed within herself.”⁶⁰ Because this laughter was unlike that of Abraham,⁶¹ the giver of the Torah was careful to say that this was “within herself (be-ḳirbah).” Be-ḳirbah refers to the intestine (ḳerev), which is an organ that is inferior to the heart.⁶² as an allusion to her innards. In the Talmud (BT Megillah 9a) this term was one of the emendations of the seventy sages who translated the Bible for Ptolemy of Alexandria. They all changed the term to read bi-ḳeroveha (“her intestines”) to imply an organ inferior to the heart (cf. Rashi’s comments ad loc.). According to this, their emendation was motivated by the same problem that Kaspi raises, and their answer is identical to his. Here it is written “within herself” to indicate an esoteric meaning, which was similarly indicated in (Abraham’s) context by the words “in his heart.”

footnotes: ⁶⁰ 60. V. 12. ⁶¹ 61. In Gen. 17:17 we find, “And Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said in his heart.” ⁶² 62. Rashi also understands be-ḳirbah

The Torah is correct in saying, “And the Lord said unto Abraham ‘wherefore did Sarah laugh,’”⁶³ for it is not proper for the glorified and honored One to converse with women, especially when, as here, they err in the presence of the Lord. It is likewise correct in saying that Sarah denied this, for (we are thereby informed) that the angels informed her to her face | of what she had uttered within herself—(thereby teaching that) “God tries the reins.”⁶⁴ (MK II 55) when he describes her as “a righteous, proper, and humble woman.” In addition these words, “when the season cometh around and Sarah shall have a son,” strengthened what had been said in the earlier vision, which had possibly taken place on the same day.

footnotes: ⁶³ 63. V. 13. ⁶⁴ 64. Jer. 11:20. Kaspi’s criticism of Sarah is balanced in Maṣref La-Kesef

“And the men rose up from thence.”⁶⁵ The inner meaning is self-evident, in that Lot was made to understand the (impending) destruction of Sodom.⁶⁶ Furthermore (we learn) that every action of the Lord, whether good or evil, is effected through angels and messengers, inasmuch as every time that “angel” (mal’akh) occurs in Hebrew, its meaning is “a messenger of the Lord” or occasionally a man’s messenger, whether he be more or less important.⁶⁷ II:6, “the meaning of an angel is a messenger … accordingly everyone who carries out an order is an angel.” In Sharsherot Kesef (TK 20), however, Kaspi says: “the Provençal of mel’akhah is oeuvre, and the Provençal of mal’akh is oeuvrier. Therefore the Provençal of mal’akh is not messager, meaning ‘a messenger’—with all due respect to Maimonides. And even though every mal’akh is a messenger, and every messenger is a mal’akh, they are not essentially the same.” Kaspi makes no attempt to reconcile these conflicting comments. Gersonides, throughout his comments to this chapter, considers these men to be contemporary prophets who visited Abraham and Lot at God’s behest. His reason is that mal’akh is a term describing a prophet. According to this, the episode involved no prophetic vision at all.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ 65. V. 16. ⁶⁶ 66. He means that no physical messengers visited Lot to bring this news—it all occurred in a dream. ⁶⁷ 67. This accords with the Guide

He who gave the Torah related to us what the Lord said to Himself⁶⁸ and what He said to His servants surrounding Him, in the manner done regarding Saul or other (rulers).⁶⁹

footnotes: ⁶⁸ 68. Gen. 18:17–21 relates God’s “thoughts” in the matter of the destruction of Sodom. ⁶⁹ 69. Cf. I Sam. 19:1.

The purpose for which He who gave the Torah wrote all this (dialogue) is evident, as is its explanation: the entire discussion is in order to beautify the parable.⁷⁰, Introduction, where the second kind of Scriptural parable is only concerned with the main outline of the story, while the details are for embellishment and coherence. This is similar to the Lord’s dialogues with Adam and Cain, where what is important is the meaning that emerges as a whole from the narrative. (In the present instance) the lesson is that sometimes a certain number of righteous people will save a certain number of wicked people. What these numbers are will vary according to the situation, the time, and the place.⁷¹ (MK II 56) Kaspi says: “these numbers will be explained in the Gevia‘.” Actually their explanation is provided later in this work, in chap. XVII.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ 70. Here once again Kaspi refers to the Guide ⁷¹ 71. In Maṣref La-Kesef

Having said this, I will answer the problem that I mentioned in this connection in the Kesef Sigim.⁷²

footnotes: ⁷² 72. While this work is not extant, it appears that the question was: If the episode in Sodom was only a dream, did Lot and his family actually leave Sodom, and was the city destroyed—or was that only in a dream as well? These were questions likewise posed by Nachmanides in his commentary to Gen. 18:1.

“And Abraham returned unto his place.”⁷³ Maimonides explained the equivocal nature of “place” (maḳom).⁷⁴ I:8, “it is a term denoting an individual’s rank and situation … with reference to his perfection in some matter.” Here the meaning would be that Abraham descended from his previous level of prophetic inspiration.

footnotes: ⁷³ 73. Gen. 18:33. ⁷⁴ 74. Guide

“And the two angels came to Sodom at even.”⁷⁵ The lengthy narrative that is written here by Him who gave the Torah is in order to beautify the parable,⁷⁶ in addition to several lessons that are to be learned from each and every expression, which it is not necessary to describe.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ 75. Gen. 19:1. ⁷⁶ 76. Cf. above n. 70.

(The answer to the problem is) let us suppose that we can compare this to one who dreams of such a matter when he is asleep, something that happens to us and to others constantly, as happened at the smiting of the men of Gibeah.⁷⁷ (MK I 94) he notes this similarity, saying that one should not be surprised at the behavior of the Sodomites, for “the people of Gibeah, who were Israelites, also did this.” (So too Lot) having dreamt this at the outset of the night, arose from his sleep and when awake went out to his sons-in-law to tell them what had transpired.⁷⁸ In any case, He who gave the Torah wrote that Lot was spurred by his thoughts at sunrise, to leave there when awake,⁷⁹ as it concludes, “the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar.”⁸⁰ This happened after he had seen this entire event, part of which had occurred when he was awake. This was similar to the Lord’s command to Noah, “Make thee an ark of gopher-wood,”⁸¹ which was spoken in a dream and fulfilled when awake.⁸² He who gave the Torah wrote this in such a manner, so as to teach and inform us.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ 77. This refers to the episode recounted in Judg. 19–20, which bears several close similarities to the story of the angels in Sodom. In Ṭirat Kesef ⁷⁸ 78. Accordingly, the prophetic dream concluded when Lot awoke, and they proceeded to leave the city. ⁷⁹ 79. While Kimḥi generally accepts Maimonides’ contention that prophetic experiences occur in visions (cf. his comments to Gen. 15), in the present chapter he is of the opinion that there were angels who assumed human form and visited Lot in Sodom. Kaspi, however, is more consistent in the episode at hand, in asserting that there were no angels in human form. ⁸⁰ 80. Gen. 19:23. ⁸¹ 81. Gen. 5:14. ⁸² 82. The idea that a prophet, once he is awake, fulfills the directives that were communicated in a vision is taken up below, chap. XXII.