This (chapter) explains the fourth vision¹ II:41) asserts that the angel in verses 11, 15, was “in a vision or a dream.” Later in this work (chap. XVIII), Kaspi considers the possibility that the entire event was a prophetic dream, but does not come to any definite conclusions. | of Abraham, (which begins with) “And it came to pass after these things that God did prove Abraham.”² There are deep things in this matter that are discussed elsewhere,³ (MK I 46) there is a lengthy discussion of the meaning of nisah, where Kaspi takes issue with Maimonides to say that “even though the Lord knew intellectually that Abraham was a man who feared the Lord, He wanted at this point to have experiential knowledge of this, by way of ‘the Torah speaks in the language of men.’ ” but I will write here what is appropriate to the intention of this work.⁴ (MK II 62), in commenting on this chapter, Kaspi writes: “what I have to say on this [episode] will be found in the Gevia‘, and in the Ṭirat Kesef.” When He who gave the Torah wrote this story, He intended many final causes.⁵

footnotes: ¹ 1. The expression “fourth vision” is not clear, for it may refer to the entire chapter 22 of Genesis, in which case the binding of Isaac took place only in a vision of prophecy; or else it may refer to the first two verses alone, in which God appears to Abraham and commands the sacrifice. Kimḥi refers to these opening verses as a vision, while Maimonides (Guide ² 2. Gen. 22:1. ³ 3. In the Ṭirat Kesef ⁴ 4. In Maṣref La-Kesef ⁵ 5. This refers to the fourth of the four Aristotelian causes, which describes the purpose of an object. On Kaspi’s use of these four causes in his exegesis, see above Chapter 2.

Firstly, He wanted to inform us that God tests people, (to find out) if there are among them those who love Him, or not. This is in accordance with what is stated in the Torah many times. Now even though all (such phrases as “God did prove Abraham”) are to be understood according to “the Torah speaks in the language of men.”⁶ Maimonides excelled greatly when he said at length, in Guide III: 24, that the intended meaning (of “God did prove Abraham”) was “to make known and inform.” Not everyone, however, will understand what he said. Even so, there is a benefit that accrues to the masses of our people, as well as to the select individuals in their respective ways, and that is that the Lord tests us, (which we take) as an article of faith.⁷

footnotes: ⁶ 6. On this principle, see Chapter 2. ⁷ 7. Cf. below in chap. XVIII, where Kaspi explains the benefits, to the masses and the select few, respectively.

The second benefit is (that we are to learn) that it is correct for the Lord, as it is for us, to command something and then later (to command) its opposite, as was the case here.⁸, chap. XVIII, where Kaspi says that the later command to desist did not rescind the original command but, rather, clarified its nature. Both commands are correct, in accordance with the moment, for “a word in its season, how good is it.”⁹ This does not practice deception, for (a command is) a noncategorical statement, which as such does not affirm what is true or false.¹⁰

footnotes: ⁸ 8. This statement is modified later in the Gevia‘ Kesef ⁹ 9. Prov. 15:23. ¹⁰ 10. On categorical and noncategorical statements, see above chap. VIII.

The third benefit, besides that mentioned by Maimonides, one that is most precious, is the greatest principle for which the (chapter) was recorded. It was the fact that (Abraham) was prevented from carrying it out at the point when he was approaching the act (of sacrifice of Isaac). For this reason, the verse is careful to say that when He, may He be blessed, commanded this act, it was only by way of a test. Heaven forbid that He would command in such a manner as to intend its fulfillment. The¹¹ (Paris, 1893), p. 504, refers to this quotation from Kaspi, but is unable to identify it as coming from the Gevia‘ Kesef. purpose (of the command) was to uproot, undermine, and weaken the established belief that was in the heart of the people, that those who are punctiliously careful take of their children to make sacrifices to their gods. Furthermore, while it is true that He who gave the Torah permitted them to take other forms of life as sacrifice to the Lord our God, as an expression of guilt, Heaven forbid that the human species be used for this purpose. This even includes the prohibition against passing through fire, as is seen from the careful omission of any mention of kindling of fire, even though the high priest would act in that manner.¹² While it does say earlier that “he took in his hand the fire,”¹³ this is avoided in the verse “And Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar on the wood.”¹⁴ Had this stated, “And he placed the fire under the wood,” or “… on the altar,” it would have been understood by foolish people as indicating that Abraham was at least (able) to pass Isaac through the fire.

footnotes: ¹¹ 11. The section that begins here, continuing until “would act in that manner,” was quoted by Abraham b. Solomon in his Arabic commentary to the Prophets. Renan, Ecrivains Juifs Français du XIVe Siècle ¹² 12. This reference is unclear. Perhaps Kaspi is referring to Lev. 16:27, “and they shall burn in the fire the skins and the flesh and the dung,” which Ibn Ezra explained was performed by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. Cf. Nachmanides to that verse. ¹³ 13. V. 13, which would imply that a fire was kindled. ¹⁴ 14. V. 9.

The significance (of that custom) is known from the Torah and Prophets, in that the ultimate sacrifice in those generations was to offer their children as a sacrifice to their gods, | whether that be by passing them through the fire,¹⁵ or to burn them completely, or to slaughter them and cast their blood as a food-offering to their gods. This is all evident to one who does not sit at street-corners.¹⁶, alluding to those who spend their time on the streets, not engaged in any useful activity. One can find a specific instance of this in the Book of Kings,¹⁷ where the king of Moab sacrificed his eldest son, which was certainly a burnt-offering to his god.¹⁸ It is known that one of our sins was that our people were unable to overcome such beliefs, in spite of all the prophylactic measures used by the Torah to make us understand the matter.

footnotes: ¹⁵ 15. This custom only singed the body in the fire. ¹⁶ 16. Cf. the Talmudic expression yoshvei ḳeranot ¹⁷ 17. II Kings 3:27. ¹⁸ 18. In that verse it is not clear what was the purpose of that act of sacrifice at that point. Kaspi’s explanation agrees with that of Rashi, as opposed to Kimḥi.

Even Jephthah, who was not one of those considered wicked but only vain,¹⁹ 60: “Was there not Phinehas the high priest to absolve his vow? The answer is that Phinehas said, ‘He needs me, why should I go to him?’ While Jephthah said, ‘I am the chief-officer of Israel, why should I go to him?’” in that he was not wise, actually meant to fulfill the will of the Lord when he swore, saying, “Whatsoever cometh forth out of the doors of my house to meet me … it shall be the Lord’s, and I shall offer it up for a burnt-offering.”²⁰ The meaning of “it shall be the Lord’s” is not as Ibn Ezra explained.²¹ (Heidelberg, 1903), p. 10, contains a passage saying that Jephthah did execute his daughter, and would even have sacrificed an entire family, had it been the first to meet him upon his return home. A more likely version of Ibn Ezra’s view of this episode, and one that fits into the present passage of the Gevia‘ Kesef, is to be found in Nachmanides’ Commentary to Lev. 27:29. In that passage Nachmanides says: “Do not be misled by the error of Ibn Ezra, who says that … Jephthah intended that person to be separated from society to serve God in prayer and appreciation, while if it were to be an animal that met him, he would sacrifice it. Accordingly Jephthah built a house for his daughter outside of the city, where she secluded herself, and he supported her all her life, for she knew no man and was bound up there. Such an interpretation is vacuous …” Nachmanides himself is of the opinion that Jephthah’s daughter was in fact sacrificed. This agrees with Kaspi’s view in the passage following this one. Jephthah did not consider the sacrifice of a human being an abomination to the Lord, so that when he said this later, he was not specific, for it never occurred to him that it might be his daughter, as did in fact happen.²² (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1913), vol. IV, pp. 43–46, vol. VI, p. 203, n. 109. His fate proves his lack of wisdom.²³ For in spite of everything, had he been wise he would have withdrawn his vow.²⁴ Instead he imagined that the (consummation of his vow) was an act of great piety. While he read this episode (of Genesis) in particular, having read it he was not aware of this final cause, for he considered the Lord’s prevention of Abraham to be only an act of mercy on account of (Isaac’s being) an only son in (Abraham’s) old age. (So Jephthah thought that) whoever would carry this out would be more praiseworthy and pious, especially (for someone like) Jephthah, a young man in his prime.²⁵ It is possible that Jephthah expected an angel to call out to him, “Lay not thy hand upon the lad,” and continued to wait for it.

footnotes: ¹⁹ 19. Kaspi probably has in mind the following statement found in Genesis Rabbah ²⁰ 20. Judg. 11:31. ²¹ 21. There is no surviving commentary of Ibn Ezra to the Book of Judges, so this cryptic reference can only be guessed at. L. Levy, Reconstruction des Commentars Ibn Ezras zu den Ersten Propheten ²² 22. From this, as well as the following passage, it is clear that Kaspi, like Nachmanides, interpreted that episode as culminating in the daughter’s death. This view is opposed by Kimḥi and Gersonides (as well as Ibn Ezra, as we have seen), who in their commentaries to Judges explain the oath as dedicating her to the service of God for the duration of her life. A possible explanation for Kaspi’s rejection of Kimḥi and Ibn Ezra on this point, in spite of their general influence on his work, might emphasize Kaspi’s preference for a literal reading of Scripture. In the episode at hand, the literal meaning appears to point toward the actual sacrifice and death of Jephthah’s daughter. For views similar to Kaspi’s, cf. L. Ginzberg, The Legendi of the Jews ²³ 23. It would have been more accurate to say, “his daughter’s fate proves his lack of wisdom.” ²⁴ 24. Cf. n. 19. ²⁵ 25. As a young man Jephthah could have other children, unlike Abraham.

So this foolish enthusiast sacrificed his only daughter in fire unto the Lord, in a similar manner to what the wise Abraham began to do with his only son, and similar to the act of the king of Moab in sacrificing his eldest son to his god Chemosh,²⁶ as well as similar to the acts of some of our people, who in their sin sacrificed to idols. Because Jephthah was one of our lesser leaders, the sages said, “Jephthah was in his generation like Samuel in his generation.”²⁷ 25b. His whole life-story reflects this, for it contains only that one military victory,²⁸ something which happens to many people.

footnotes: ²⁶ 26. Chemosh was the god of Moab, as in I Kings 11:7, 23. ²⁷ 27. BT Rosh Hashanah ²⁸ 28. Actually two victories are recorded: II Kings 11:33 (against Moab) and II Kings 12:4 (against Gilead).

There is no question²⁹ from the fact that it is written that the maiden said “bewail my virginity, I and my companions,” for these were none other than Miriam and her companions Hulda and Deborah.³⁰ 14b, “There were two arrogant women and their names are evil—the one is Deborah, and the other Huldah.” Kaspi might include Miriam as an arrogant woman on account of her comment in Num. 12:2, “Hath the Lord spoken only with Moses, hath he not spoken also with us?” Accordingly, Jephthah’s daughter would be considered arrogant for bemoaning her virginal state. She was but a complete fool, as was her father, and the reason that she did not bemoan her (impending) death was that she imagined that she would be saved, and thereby achieve the level of Isaac. She cried instead | over her virginity, which would be destroyed in (passing through) the fire, and would prevent the pleasure that would otherwise have been gotten by one of the young men beloved of her. There are many such nonsensical things (that could be attributed) to her and her girlfriends, who were undoubtedly many, as is evident from their subsequent gathering at the place of the burning to bewail her (fate).³¹ (This is similar to) what is written regarding the death of Moses, “And the children of Israel wept for Moses,”³² where they did not even have the place where he died before them, for it was unknown. (If so, then) certainly in the case of this fool who built an altar on which to sacrifice his daughter in fire to the Lord, in imitation of Abraham, who was called by the Lord “my friend,”³³ (they gathered to bewail her where she had died). But in truth, Jephthah substituted ’oyev (“enemy”) for ’ohev (“friend”).³⁴ is lit. “one who is a lover of.” The fact that it is not written that Jephthah built an altar does not pose a problem, for the author of the Book of Judges was a wise man³⁵ 14b, the author of Judges was Samuel the prophet. for whom it was more than sufficient to write of this matter using hidden terms and words. This is certainly true in view of the fact that it is not necessary to write everything, as I have stated several times.³⁶

footnotes: ²⁹ 29. The question is that this verse favors the explanation of Kimḥi and Gersonides (cf. n. 22) that it was her sexual satisfaction, not her life, that was at stake. ³⁰ 30. The context would imply that all four of these women remained virgins; however, Judg. 4:4 describes Deborah as the wife of Lappidoth. The only other reference to these women as a group is in BT Megillah ³¹ 31. Judg. 11:40. ³² 32. Deut. 34:8. ³³ 33. Isa. 41:8. ³⁴ 34. ’Ohev ³⁵ 35. According to BT Bava’ Batra’ ³⁶ 36. For further discussion of the issue of Scriptural precision, see above pp. 60 ff.

In general, the Torah attempted to cure this serious disease that occurred in our people in those times, similar to the manner in which it is presented here.³⁷ III:24, takes strong exception to this explanation, saying that the event was not known to anyone but Abraham and Isaac themselves. According to this view, the present phrase by Kaspi, “in those times,” must be taken to refer to the period when the Israelites were in the desert and, subsequently, in the land of Canaan, and not to the patriarchal era, since it was only in the later period, after the Book of Genesis was written, that they could have known of the episode. A similar theme is struck in Kimḥi’s comments to Gen. 22:1. This is in accordance with my earlier words, stating that these books preface the commandments. For this reason, He who gave the Torah spoke at length in describing the offensive nature of this (child-sacrifice), when He said, “also their sons and daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods,”³⁸ an act that was particularly associated with Molech.³⁹ For this reason too, the punishment for this sin is greater than all (other) sins, if sacrifice is made to others—quite the opposite of the thoughts of those who considered this child-sacrifice most appropriate for all people. It was enough—more than enough—that in one respect He permitted them to kill an animal, that which is our brother (species), the offspring of our father (genus that is known as) “living,” which is the category that most immediately encompasses us humans and the animals.⁴⁰, MK I 102–103) that the genus and species are to be compared to the father-and-son relationship, for one father can beget many children and grandchildren. Accordingly, genus corresponds to “living” while species would be “man,” with another species, such as livestock, to be considered a “brother” species. The importance that Kaspi attaches to these logical categories is discussed in Chapter 2, above pp. 48–49. One can also note the probable influence of Francis of Assisi in Kaspi’s attitude to the fate of animals and other forms of animate life, which is markedly sensitive to the death of animate beings—see, for example, Kaspi’s explanation for sending away the mother bird (Maṣref La-Kesef, MK II 293). For further discussion, see S. Pines, “Histabberut,” p. 315, and W. Bacher, “Joseph Ibn Kaspi als Bibelerklärer,” Festschrift zu Herman Cohens Siebzigstem Geburtstag (Berlin: Cassirer, 1912), pp. 119–135. But while this was (permitted) with conditions, it was not so with relation to the human species, for man was created in the image of God. Consequently such worship entails the sin of murder and the sin of committing an abomination before the Lord, as I have explained.

footnotes: ³⁷ 37. Ibn Ezra quotes Saadya’s explanation that the binding of Isaac was for the benefit of Abraham’s contemporaries, who would learn from his example. Maimonides, in Guide ³⁸ 38. Deut. 12:31. ³⁹ 39. See Lev. 18:21, 20:3. ⁴⁰ 40. In explaining the genealogical details that follow the binding of Isaac (Gen. 22:20–24), Kaspi says (Ṭirat Kesef

Notice the precision of Jeremiah’s words, for those who can understand. For he wrote in his book, and mentioned it three times, which is the number of sins of our people,⁴¹ that “they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind”;⁴² and elsewhere, “And they have built the high places of Baal, | to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal; which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind to do this abomination.”⁴³ Now examine the words of these statements, especially “which I commanded not.” Why say that He has not commanded us to worship Baal and Molech—the meaning, however, must be that what is not commanded is that we do this (even) for Him, may His name be blessed, for it is abominable to Him.⁴⁴ And even though He commanded us to do this (sacrifice) for Him using animals, that was, so to speak, by force and through circumstance, as happened when He led the people round about by way of the desert,⁴⁵ forced in a way lest the people turn back.⁴⁶ III:32, invoking the same illustration to show that in certain matters, including sacrifices, God has no choice but to permit certain forms of behavior, as a means to their eventual eradication.

footnotes: ⁴¹ 41. Cf. Amos 2:4, 6, “For three transgressions of Judah will I not reverse it …” ⁴² 42. Jer. 7:31. ⁴³ 43. Jer. 19:5. ⁴⁴ 44. He means this should be read as if: “which I did not even command you to sacrifice to me …” ⁴⁵ 45. Exod. 15:37. ⁴⁶ 46. The entire passage recapitulates the Guide

Jeremiah was also careful when he said, by way of “the Torah speaks in the language of men,” that “it neither came into my mind.” It means that “I never thought that after the express prohibitions anyone would make such a sacrifice of his children.” This is the meaning of “this abomination,” as if to say, “Had this occurred to me I might have commanded this to be done for me, for I have commanded them to do for me other things similar to this, until such time as their misconceptions be dissipated.”

So in general the (main) purpose of writing this narrative in the Torah is this one. Perhaps, as Maimonides wrote,⁴⁷ III:24) said that Abraham established the unity of God, by drawing people to his faith. its impact exists up to the present time. (Moses) wrote this (chapter) and did what he could, even though he saw at the end that the people would “rise up and go astray after the foreign gods of the land,”⁴⁸ (for he wanted) peace and truth in his own lifetime. (Moses) communicated this to them in the context of Abraham, our first patriarch, for God had prevented him from making such a sacrifice to Him, and Abraham had made the sacrifice to Him by substituting a ram, (teaching that) it is proper for us to do the same. It was especially on this account that He commanded that a ram be included in the sacrifices to be made to Him. While this was to be communicated to the masses, it was also to be understood, by the select individuals among us, that even the sacrifice of a ram and other animals was something not desirable to the Lord. Reliable evidence of this is that clearly, after God told him “lay not thy hand upon the lad,” it is not written that He said to Abraham, “instead offer a sacrifice to me using a ram or another (animal).” Instead it is stated that Abraham, of his own volition, “took the ram and offered it up for a burnt-offering instead of his son.” This was to teach us that (the sacrifice of the ram) was not the Lord’s first and primary intention. It is also careful not to say that Abraham sacrificed the ram on the altar that he had built, but (it says that) he offered it on the mountain,⁴⁹ as if to teach us that it is not proper to do such a thing on an altar, or on any attractive structure. The reason is that an altar without any sacrifice on it is more acceptable as a sign and a memorial, | as I said earlier.⁵⁰ And though even an altar and house (of offering) are themselves not the most desired good, they are nonetheless more acceptable, if made, than is sacrifice, as Maimonides wrote.⁵¹ III:32.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ 47. Maimonides (Guide ⁴⁸ 48. Deut. 31:16. ⁴⁹ 49. V. 14, “in the mount where the Lord is seen.” ⁵⁰ 50. See chap VI, p. 161, where Kaspi indicates a preference for altars that serve as memorials rather than as places of sacrifice. ⁵¹ 51. Guide

(The Torah) teaches us other vaunted secrets and beautiful wisdom, in the manner of all of the Lord’s works, of which the Torah is one—in accordance with the fact known to us that our Torah is from heaven.

Accordingly, when it says here, “And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns,”⁵² the words “lifted up his eyes” teach us that it was (an act) not consciously caused or intended, but rather was a circumstantial sighting, quite accidental, similar to “and Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of the Jordan.”⁵³

footnotes: ⁵² 52. V. 13. ⁵³ 53. Gen. 13:10.

The word ’ayil (“ram”) teaches us in the first place that the sacrifice was of an animal. In the second place, by derivation from ’eilei ha-’areṣ (“the mighty of the land”),⁵⁴ we learn that this was a matter of force, i.e., force, might, and coercion.⁵⁵ Furthermore (’ayil alludes to) the mighty of the land, in that ministers, deputies, and kings desire things such as this. In any case, there is a further implication by virtue of metathesis, i.e., to ya’al, as in “Moses took upon him (ho’il) to expound this law,”⁵⁶ a phrase that points to coercion.⁵⁷ (TK 17), where he explains that ya’al indicates “desire.” In fact he accuses Kimḥi of being inconsistent in explaining ho’il Mosheh as “Moses desired,” while explaining vayo’el Sha’ul (“and Saul adjured”) as a forced oath. Here Kaspi is himself guilty of inconsistency. This was (the kind of coercion that) began with coercion but ended with freedom of will, in the manner of those who cast their baggage into the sea, as Aristotle wrote.⁵⁸ XXII, 931b, 19–38, which explains why a stormy sea is calmed when objects are cast into that sea. Consequently Kaspi explains that as an act done unwillingly, but whose end-product is desirable. This is all alluded to by the word ’ayil, with this allusion to be found in regard to the word ḥovlim.⁵⁹, in the Guide II:43.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ 54. Ezek. 13:17. ⁵⁵ 55. He means that even the substitution of the ram and its sacrifice was an act of questionable desirability, the result of circumstance and contingency. ⁵⁶ 56. Deut. 1:5. ⁵⁷ 57. The passage is curiously contradicted by Kaspi in his Sharsherot Kesef ⁵⁸ 58. The only such reference is to be found in the Pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata ⁵⁹ 59. This alludes to the use of metathesis, as demonstrated by the word ḥovlim

It is furthermore written, “behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns.” This indicates in the first place the matter of coercion, for the ram was caught in the thorns, held there with bonds that prevented anyone from taking it. The Torah indicates especially, by means of the term sevakh (“thicket”), which is derived from the contortion (sibukh) and confusion of thought, that the practice of sacrifice signifies confused thinking.

The term beḳarnav (“by his horns”) indicates knowledge and mental representation, for (ḳeren) alludes to what is elevated and sublime, as in “my horn (ḳarni) is exalted”⁶⁰ and “He lifted up a horn (ḳeren) for His people.”⁶¹

footnotes: ⁶⁰ 60. I. Sam. 2:1. ⁶¹ 61. Ps. 148:14.

Do not take these minute observations that are made in regard to these delicate subjects as finding meanings that were never intended by their speaker, for this is precisely the style of Him who gave our Torah in profound matters.⁶² There are many of this species to be found in the prophetic writings, as Maimonides alluded when explaining ḥashmal, ḥovlim, and the others.⁶³ II:43. All that he said is valid, in agreement with the truth that “issues from the well of salvation,”⁶⁴ and from his book do we draw forth (the truth).

footnotes: ⁶² 62. For the implications of this statement, see above p. 60. ⁶³ 63. Guide ⁶⁴ 64. Isa. 12:3.

Thus, what emerges from all this is that the primary intention (of the episode was to teach us) the prevention of (the sacrifice of) offspring, as mentioned. As for the sacrifice of the ram that is mentioned, (the lesson is) our forefather acted voluntarily, which was intended to assure that we would practice self-control (and not sacrifice). If, however, we do choose to make a sacrifice because, to our discredit, we are not able to exist without them, (we are taught that) we should sacrifice only to Him, may He be magnified, in the way that our forefather did. |

Now notice the difference between the lesson that a fool will glean from the verses of the Torah and what a treasured individual will take from them. For in this episode, what is known to the select individual to be a complete abomination to the Lord is taken by the masses as something which, if completed, would constitute the pinnacle of worship and what is desired by God. This is certainly, primarily true of the masses of that generation to whom the Torah was given.⁶⁵ (TK 32) when he says, “they were an ordinary collection of masses,” who believed in all kinds of nonsense. They must have been proud of the piety of Abraham, the progenitor, who wanted to sacrifice his only son, and would have been even happier in praising this father had he finished the act, priding themselves before their Egyptian and other neighbors. The Torah, which is perfect and without blemish, revealed the truth by using words and statements whose exoteric meaning points to things that will be understood by the foolish, but whose subtle and esoteric meaning points out the truth to the treasured few. The sages, who knew all the intentions and secrets of the Torah, excelled in saying, “The Torah was written as black fire on white fire.”⁶⁶ 6:1. Maimonides also excelled when he said that the Torah was written by way of “apples of gold in settings of silver.”⁶⁷ in referring to Prov. 25:11.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ 65. Kaspi’s attitude to that generation is summed up in Tam Ha-Kesef ⁶⁶ 66. JT Shekalim ⁶⁷ 67. Introduction to the Guide

Maimonides excelled further in saying that the intention of the Torah, in informing us that the actual binding took place three days after the command, was so that we should not imagine that it was carried out in confusion and haste, but rather after considered thought.⁶⁸ For Abraham (must have) wondered how the Lord could command him to perform such an abomination as it was subsequently shown to be. He longed in silence to know the Lord’s intent—not only three days, but four, five, or more, for (after) “on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off,” it is written twice that “they went both of them together.”⁶⁹ This accords with what Elijah understood here, for he went on many journeys with Elisha in going up to heaven.⁷⁰

footnotes: ⁶⁸ 68. A similar thought is found in Rashi and Nachmanides in their comments on that verse. ⁶⁹ 69. Vv. 6, 8, which could be taken to mean that they continued “together” for some time after the initial three days had elapsed. ⁷⁰ 70. II Kings 2:1–6, which says that Elijah and Elisha “went together,” “came together,” “came down,” prior to the ascent of Elijah in the whirlwind, without specifying the time that had elapsed.

This consideration also provides one of the reasons that Abraham left the young men behind, in that it must have taken several days for Abraham to construct the altar by himself, with some help from the lad Isaac.⁷¹ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), vol. VI, p. 480, n. 90. Ibn Ezra suggested that Isaac was thirteen (in his comments to Gen. 22:4). Other reasons for (leaving them behind) were the fact that they were inferior people, as our sages said, “they were people who are to be compared to an ass,”⁷² 62a; BT Ketuvot 111a, which is based on Abraham’s telling them to remain with the ass. who consequently were not fit to accompany Abraham in such a holy place, as was the case with (God saying to Moses) “draw not nigh hither.”⁷³ In addition they were not compatible | with the revelation of so important a secret as this, nor with the performance of so important an act by Abraham, nor that they should (even) recognize the existence of the problem of procrastination that I have referred to.

footnotes: ⁷¹ 71. Accordingly, Isaac at the time was a young boy. This follows Maimonides’ belief that Isaac could not have been thirty seven, for in that case Isaac’s merit in accepting the sacrifice would far have exceeded Abraham’s. (This opinion is attributed to Maimonides by his son, Abraham Maimuni.) Cf. S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews ⁷² 72. BT Yevamot ⁷³ 73. Exod. 3:5.

He who gave the Torah was likewise careful not to mention that Abraham kindled any fire below the wood once Isaac was placed on the altar, in accordance with the reason that I discussed above. An additional reason was that the wood would have easily and swiftly caught fire, thereby giving off some smoke that might have suffocated Isaac.

While our patriarch Abraham was a man of God,⁷⁴ he was not a fool who might confuse contingent statements with necessary ones, so one must say that he did consider the possibility of what did (in fact) happen, when “the angel of the Lord called out to him out of heaven.” Reliable evidence that (he considered this possibility) is the fact that he said, “God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering.” Had he been a fool and not foreseen that possibility, he would have hurried to slaughter his son, as did the fool the king of Moab.⁷⁵

footnotes: ⁷⁴ 74. Kaspi says that because Abraham was a man of God, one might expect him to accept God’s command without any questions and without any hesitation, whereas in fact Abraham was careful to consider the possibility that Kaspi goes on to describe. ⁷⁵ 75. Cf. above nn. 17–18.

He who gave the Torah was furthermore careful in that the command (to sacrifice Isaac) is recorded as using only one name (without repetition), while in preventing (the sacrifice, the Torah records) “Abraham, Abraham,” where (the repetition) is to inform us that the royal edict to desist was more insistent than the command (to sacrifice had been). This allusion is intended for singular individuals, while for the masses (the repetition of the name) is taken to allude to the fact that the sword was already placed on Isaac’s neck, out of Abraham’s urgent desire to slaughter him.⁷⁶ The knowledgeable individual, however, will benefit from the first and truthful exposition.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ 76. Such an explanation accords with Kimḥi’s comments.

There is another careful usage by Him who wrote the Torah. When commanding the sacrifice, “God” is mentioned, not the glorious name (which is the tetragrammaton). Accordingly Abraham said, “God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering,” and it says, “of which God had told him.”⁷⁷ Even subsequent (to the order to desist), when speaking ex post facto, it is said, “… thou art a God-fearing man,”⁷⁸ instead of “a man who fears the Lord.” When desisting, however, it is written, “the angel of the Lord,” instead of “the angel of God.” It also says, “in the mount where the Lord is seen.”⁷⁹ This is further explained elsewhere,⁸⁰. where I explain the names of God.⁸¹

footnotes: ⁷⁷ 77. V. 3. ⁷⁸ 78. V. 12. ⁷⁹ 79. V. 14. ⁸⁰ 80. Cf. the opening chapters of the Gevia‘ Kesef ⁸¹ 81. The general subject of God’s names is discussed above in Chapter 3, and the specific reference to this chapter will be found there.

The Torah is likewise careful to state simply, “offer him there for a burnt-offering,” and “he offered him up for a burnt-offering instead of his son,” without any mention that it was a burnt-offering “to the Lord” or “to God.” While this (latter statement that Abraham offered the ram instead of his son) occurred at the command to desist, when Abraham was speaking with the glorious Lord and His angel, heaven forbid that Abraham offer the sacrifice to “the Lord,” neither as the preferred goal nor from any other consideration.⁸² I mean to say that this is in accordance with Abraham’s status, for what came later (in the Torah regarding sacrifice to “the Lord”) was necessary only for the masses, but not for the individual and the few for whom (sacrifice) is an abomination. Neither does it say that (Abraham offered the ram) “to God,”⁸³ for that would have reaffirmed the masses of our people in their belief that (sacrifices) should be made to the cherubim | and the other forms that they make for themselves. This (belief of the masses) is the same as what was said at the incident of the golden calf, when they offered sacrifices to it, saying, “This is thy God, O Israel.”⁸⁴ Accordingly there is much in this phrase that says “he offered him up for a burnt-offering.”

footnotes: ⁸² 82. This is in answer to the question that might be posed: Why does the Torah not say that Abraham offered the sacrifice to “the Lord,” in accordance with his perception of the divine existent, as had been explained in the earlier chapters of the Gevia‘ Kesef? ⁸³ 83. This is in answer to the question: If it was “God” who commanded the sacrifice in the first place, then Abraham should have offered the substitute ram to that “God,” so why is the name of God omitted? ⁸⁴ 84. Exod. 32:4.

The use of the name “Lord” is for the benefit of the select few, while most mention of the name “God” is for the benefit of the masses. This is the case throughout the entire Torah, in that it arranges the benefits in accordance with these two categories that exist in the people. While because of (our many) sins one cannot appropriately consider the select few to constitute an (entire) category, nonetheless this could be compared to the sun and the moon, which, even though they be individuals, are called a species.

The sum product of Maimonides’ comments on this episode, and of what I have said that was stimulated by him, is that there are many purposes for which the entire incident was recorded, which are in addition to the many benefits that are to be found in the several details of a story such as this.

The first two benefits—those that are mentioned by Maimonides—are, in short, to teach us the extent to which the fear of heaven can reach,⁸⁵, and which is here included in the parentheses. The omission of this benefit might not be entirely accidental, for its point is somewhat contradicted by Kaspi’s earlier statement (cf. above chap. X, p. 196) that Abraham was uncertain of his comprehension of God’s words in the earlier visions in chap. 15 of Genesis. (as well as to teach us the confidence that a prophet has that his vision is accurate).

footnotes: ⁸⁵ 85. In the MS at this point there is a repetition of the last sentence, clearly a mistake. It is, however, almost certain that what should be inserted here is the second benefit listed by Maimonides in that chapter of the Guide

The third benefit is that (we learn that) the Holy King does test His servants, and therefore one should be on guard for this, especially with regard to false prophets, in that it is vital that we believe (that they are sent to test us). For if this happened to our patriarch, it cannot but happen to us.

The fourth benefit is that this King can say one thing (today) and its opposite tomorrow, all according to the setting. This is similar to “at that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi,”⁸⁶ which does not express any change or substitution in Him, as those who know the truth can attest.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ 86. Deut. 10:8. Kaspi means that originally (Exod. 13:2) God had taken the firstborn unto Him, an act which is apparently rescinded at the episode of the golden calf, where God takes the Levites in their stead—in this case too, there is no contradiction, for it is all “according to the setting.”

The fifth benefit is that we are taught that Mount Moriah is a place chosen by the Lord, as was certainly affirmed by Abraham and Isaac on this auspicious occasion. Accordingly all our generations should agree that the house of God should be there, without disagreement and everyone requesting that this place be within its allotted portion, as mentioned by Maimonides.⁸⁷ III:45.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ 87. Guide

The sixth benefit is (to teach us that) heaven forbid that the Lord desire one to make a sacrifice or an offering of any non-human thing.

The seventh benefit (teaches that) He wishes sacrifices and offerings to consist of that which is other than human.⁸⁸

footnotes: ⁸⁸ 88. He means that if sacrifices have to be made, then they should consist of animals.

The eighth benefit is (to teach us that) He does not want (such nonhuman sacrifice) with any essential or primary intentions, but only in an ancillary intention, in that He tolerates a restricted number of sacrifices being offered to Him when “any man of you bringeth an offering.”⁸⁹. as saying, “this is permission granted to sacrifice (but it is not a command).”

footnotes: ⁸⁹ 89. Lev. 1:2, which is understood by the Sifra’ Lev

The ninth benefit | (is that we learn) that it is not correct under 147 any circumstances for a descendant of Abraham to do such a thing unto other gods, in the manner of the nations, for Abraham did not do such a thing.

The tenth benefit is found in the conclusion, from “and the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham a second time” until “… because thou hast hearkened to my voice.”⁹⁰ (It is the promise of an earthly reward) because the masses will not uphold all or even a few of the (above-mentioned) nine goals, unless they know that there is this reward, and in order to receive a reward that consists of a material good, which pertains to this world. The select individuals, however, have no reward in this world,⁹¹ 142b, “there is no reward in this world.” and as for the world to come, that reward comes by itself in the fulfillment of truth, Torah, and wisdom—which are all one.⁹² (TK 1–7) to an examination of the rewards in both worlds and asserts that material rewards have as their only purpose “the achievement of wisdom and perfection.” For a discussion of Kaspi’s assertion that truth, the Torah, and philosophic wisdom are all “one,” see Mesch, Studies, pp. 96–106.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ 90. Vv. 15–16. ⁹¹ 91. Cf. BT Ḥullin ⁹² 92. Kaspi devotes one of the homilies in Tam Ha-Kesef

The Torah is careful to allude twice to reward. The first was at the beginning, when saying, “because thou hast done this thing and hast not withheld thy son, thy only son,” which refers to (Abraham’s obedience to) the command (to sacrifice). The other was at the conclusion of his words, saying, “because thou hast hearkened to my voice,”⁹³ which refers to (the command) to desist, which was superior. This (reward) would take effect in the manner that we have described.⁹⁴ (MK II 63) Kaspi gives the same explanation, adding, “as I will explain in the Ṭirat Kesef.” The editor comments that there is no such explanation in the Ṭirat Kesef —it is obvious that the reference should correctly refer to the Gevia‘ Kesef.

footnotes: ⁹³ 93. V. 12. ⁹⁴ 94. In the Maṣref La-Kesef

One could ask why this reward and recompense is stated by the Lord as “because thou hast done this thing”; after all, what is promised here is the great multiplication of his seed, and that was something already promised to him by the Lord on many occasions—what does the Lord introduce here that is new? The answer is that what is new is contained in the words “By myself I have sworn,”⁹⁵ for up to that point the Lord had never taken an oath on this matter (regarding his seed) that meant to say that the decree (of multiplication of seed that had been previously mentioned) was as necessary as tomorrow’s sunrise. Accordingly this (oath) constitutes a great and merciful innovation.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ 95. V. 16. This answer is similar to the answers of Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides, and Kimḥi. Kaspi, however, is the only one to adduce proof from Gen. 24:7.

Notice too how He who gave the Torah revealed to us the distinction between dibber (“he said”) and nishba‘ (“swore”), when He said later, “… and who spoke unto me and who swore unto me saying, ‘unto thy seed will I give this land.’”⁹⁶ This (“spoke unto me” refers to the promise of the inheritance of the land that) was made in the earliest visions,⁹⁷ while “who swore unto me” refers to the (oath taken in the) vision of the Sundering.⁹⁸

footnotes: ⁹⁶ 96. Gen. 24:7. ⁹⁷ 97. Cf. Gen. 12:7, “And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, ‘unto thy seed will I give this land …’” ⁹⁸ 98. Cf. Gen. 15:18, “In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘unto thy seed have I given this land …’”

The general principle is that dibber (“said”) and ḥashav (“thought’) are generic terms, while nishba‘ (“swore”) is the species. This is the same as the relation of “animate” to “man.” Consequently, every use of nishba‘ is a species of dibber, and not the reverse.⁹⁹ Remember all of this.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ 99. For further discussion of this and other uses of the categories of genus and species, see above Chapter 2.