(This chapter deals) with many solutions to the numerous doubts which I wrote of in Kesef Sigim,¹ the present work. alluded to in the questions numbered eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one, (which I will deal with here) because these four numbers relate to the four wonderful visions which are ascribed | to Abraham by Him who wrote the Torah. He wrote them for us, so that we should notice certain observations. We have already written some of this above, but I will now go back to them to complete matters.

footnotes: ¹ 1. See above pp. 128–129 for a discussion of the relationship of the Kesef Sigim

In the first place, with regard to Abraham’s first vision, to which I raised questions that were included in the total of twenty-eight,² relating to Genesis, as can be seen from the end of the Gevia‘ Kesef, which concludes Genesis with the twenty-eighth question. I prefaced the solution of the first doubt by saying that the decree of slavery was not made in order to punish (Abraham’s descendants). It was instead a burden to be suffered for the sake of great profit, similar to those who go out to sea.³ This is as the wise man has said, “You shall not achieve that for which you yearn, without first enduring that which you despise.”⁴ As for the question, mentioned in Kesef Sigim, that what is written in the Book of Samuel, “and again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them,”⁵ does not specifically mention how they sinned, there is no problem. For a prophet is to be relied upon when he says that the Lord was angry with them, as the Lord would not do this without reason. As Maimonides said,⁶ I:36, emphatically asserts that every reference to divine anger in Scripture is found in the context of idolatry. Kaspi raises the question in his commentaries (AM 46) that God becomes angry with Moses in Exod. 4:14, and if so, could Moses be guilty of idolatry? In the ’Ammudei Kesef there, Kaspi suggests that Maimonides simply forgot about that reference, but in the Maskiyyot Kesef he says that Maimonides’ intention was to assert the fact that Moses did not possess a strong faith at that stage. This interpretation of Maimonides must be kept in mind in reading the passage that follows in the present work, especially the phrase “any incomplete knowledge of the Lord.” in general one cannot find any expression of (divine) anger in any of the books of the Bible, unless it be with reference to idolatry. Subsequently Maimonides implied that idolatry is a genus encompassing every mental thought that attributes to the Lord any emotions or shortcomings, or any incomplete knowledge of the Lord. Therefore no question is posed by the many places throughout the books of the Bible where one finds an expression of anger attributed to the Lord.⁷ Maimonides refers to this secret when he says that our inability to perceive His essence does not constitute idolatry, unless one bows down to some image.⁸ I:36 states: “now the books of the Prophets only make this strong assertion [of anger] because it asserts a strong assertion attaching to Him, may He be exalted; I refer to idolatrous worship.”

footnotes: ² 2. There were evidently twenty-eight questions in Kesef Sigim ³ 3. Cf. above chap. IX, p. 190. ⁴ 4. Cf. above chap. IX, p. 193. ⁵ 5. II Sam. 24:1. ⁶ 6. Maimonides, in the Guide ⁷ 7. Cf. preceding note. ⁸ 8. Guide

As for what I mentioned there (in Kesef Sigim when I noted that) the Lord did not reveal to Samuel any immediate sin or anger, (the answer is that) it is the same as when the Lord said to Samuel, “Behold, I will do a thing in Israel at which both the ears of everyone who heareth it shall tingle,”⁹ whose explanation follows in close proximity when it says, “In that day will I perform against Eli all that I have spoken against his house.”¹⁰ The anger of the Lord against Hophni and Phinehas, as communicated by the man of God, as well as the decree that they would both die on one day, was what had been previously spoken.¹¹ These (two) were at the head of the army, | and caused the defeat of Israel on account of their sins,¹² for they were the high priests who led the Ark that went with the camp at its head. Now when they fled, the battle-formation was broken, as happened at the incident of Achan, as I will yet explain.¹³ This is because an individual can turn a multitude when he is at the head of a battle-formation or of the people. The proof of this is (what happened to) Zedekiah.¹⁴ It has already been said that the fate decreed for the whole will change the fate decreed over its part.¹⁵

footnotes: ⁹ 9. I Sam. 3:11. ¹⁰ 10. I Sam. 3:12. ¹¹ 11. Cf. I Sam. 2:27–36. ¹² 12. The account of the military defeat and the loss of the Ark is recounted in I Sam. 4:1–11. The sins of Eli’s sons are recounted in I Sam. 2:12 ff. ¹³ 13. The story of the defeat of Achan and his army is recounted in Josh. 7. Kaspi discusses the event below in chap. XX. See also above, p. 117. ¹⁴ 14. Jer. 39:4 relates that “it came to pass that when Zedekiah the king of Judah and all the men of war saw them, then they fled …” ¹⁵ 15. I have been unable to locate the reference for this somewhat cryptic remark.

As for the question appropriate to this book, mentioned in Kesef (Sigim), asking what was the sin (of the Egyptians), for after all, the Lord had decreed that they would enslave the Israelites,¹⁶ (Introduction to the Ethics of the Fathers), ed. M. D. Rabinowitz (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1962), p. 211, where in the eighth chapter Maimonides answered that God had not decreed which nation would enslave the Israelites—consequently the Egyptians chose freely to enslave them. In the absence of the Kesef Sigim, it is difficult to explain why Kaspi chose to ignore Maimonides’ answer in favor of an ambiguous passage in the Guide. in addition to several other similar passages that I mentioned there, one should know that there is sufficient answer in what Maimonides wrote in the last chapter of the second part (of the Guide), when he said that Scripture usually attributes to the Lord every possible expression, including “acting,” “sending,” and “commanding,” that could refer to any existent, whether human or any other.¹⁷ II:48. This applies no matter if that (act) be natural, voluntary, or accidental. The response to the problem is clear—that even though Scripture stated that the Lord decreed and ordered in the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians that they should do this, the truth of the matter is that they did this out of their own complete free choice. The Lord did not cause them in any essential way. It is the same with Nebuchadnezzar, as recounted in the narratives of Jeremiah, and with Sennacherib in the narratives of Isaiah. It is only that He who gave the Torah provided a common reason for the benefit of the masses when He said that Pharaoh and his people acted with more evil intent than what the Lord desired and had decreed. For this reason, at the time of the decree it is said, “they shall serve them and they shall afflict them,”¹⁸ and no more, while (at the time of the enslavement) the verse says, “and the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor,”¹⁹ as well as “and they made their lives bitter,”²⁰ and “every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”²¹ This was explained further when it is recounted that Jethro said, “for that they dealt proudly against them,”²², i.e., deliberate cruelty. which was explained by David when he said, “thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them,”²³ i.e., “they did more than you decreed.” This is in accordance with the general comment of Zechariah, saying, “I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.”²⁴ Isaiah also explained this in the context of Sennacherib, having learnt the principle from the Torah, when he combined this with other facets of an agent of destruction, in saying of Sennacherib, “O Asshur, the rod of mine anger …”²⁵ until the end of that chapter. Elsewhere, regarding Nebuchadnezzar, Isaiah said similarly when he began with, “Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon …”²⁶ until the end of the chapter, including “Now hear this, thou that art given to pleasures …”²⁷

footnotes: ¹⁶ 16. The same question had been asked by Maimonides in the Shmonah Peraḳim ¹⁷ 17. Guide ¹⁸ 18. Gen. 15:13. ¹⁹ 19. Exod. 1:13; i.e., “with rigor” indicates that the Egyptians went beyond their mandate from the Lord. ²⁰ 20. Exod. 1:14. ²¹ 21. Exod. 1:22; i.e., the murder of the children cannot be included in the decree “and they shall afflict them.” ²² 22. Exod. 18:11, which in the Hebrew reads zadu ²³ 23. Neh. 9:10. ²⁴ 24. Zech. 1:15. ²⁵ 25. Isa. 10:5. ²⁶ 26. Isa. 47:1. ²⁷ 27. Isa. 47:8.

| In general he accused Nebuchadnezzar of two sins: the first was that he had not pitied anyone, and had overly pressed his yoke on the elderly;²⁸ the second was that he had denied the Lord who had given him this power.²⁹

footnotes: ²⁸ 28. Isa. 47:6, “thou didst show them no mercy; upon the aged hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke …” ²⁹ 29. Isa. 47:10, “and thou hast been secure in thy wickedness, thou hast said, ‘none seeth me.’”

Jeremiah also wrote something similar when he said, “Thou art my maul and weapons of war.”³⁰ (AK II 23) Kaspi says that this verse raises “many questions and answers,” and adds that the issue will be found in the Gevia’ Kesef. Isaiah also alluded to this when he called Sennacherib “the Lord’s anger,”³¹ intending him to strike with a rod by way of rebuke. In this matter he mauled with the rod, dying³² under the rod. Jeremiah also said, “for the Lord (is a God of recompenses),”³³ i.e., (Sennacherib) acted with excessive evil.

footnotes: ³⁰ 30. Jer. 51:20. In the ’Adnei Kesef ³¹ 31. Isa. 10:5, “O Asshur, the rod of mine anger …” ³² 32. The reference of the predicate is unclear, in that they could refer to the demise of Asshur or of the enemies of the Lord, i.e., the tribe of Judah, which was mauled by Nebuchadnezzar, as recounted in Jer. 52. ³³ 33. Jer. 51:56. It is not clear that this is the verse that Kaspi refers to, for the MS is unclear at this point. Going by the first two words “El tetragrammaton” (cf. fol. 148a), the verse quoted in the translation would make the best sense.

Solomon also explained this when he said of the Lord, “The Lord hath made everything for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,”³⁴ as I explained in its place.³⁵, to say that all things were created with their intended purpose in mind. In the second commentary, Kaspi says (AS I 105) that the implication of the verse is that the wicked are the tools of God, “like the arrows in the hand of a warrior,” to effect divine retribution. Such tools might themselves be punished at a later stage—as was the case with Nebuchadnezzar, who was punished by Cyrus and Darius.

footnotes: ³⁴ 34. Prov. 16:4. ³⁵ 35. Kaspi’s explanation of this verse in his first commentary on Proverbs follows Ibn Janaḥ’s Sefer Ha-Shorashim

Proof is (the history of) the kings of Israel, as is evident from the narrative of their lives, wherein the second (king) destroyed the first, and the third destroyed the second, as happened to them all. As for what was said of Baasa in “And moreover by the hand of Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of the Lord against Baasa … because of all the evil that he did … and because he smote him,”³⁶ this (last phrase) refers to what was in the distant future, i.e., that Jehu prophesied that Zimri would destroy Baasa and his house, as is subsequently written, “Thus did Zimri destroy …”³⁷

footnotes: ³⁶ 36. I Kings 16:7. ³⁷ 37. V. 12.

As a rule, whenever there are two people or many wicked nations, it is divine wisdom, as well as complete justice, that one of them will destroy the other in a manner that is deserved, such as the sword, while subsequently another wicked (agent) comes and destroys the earlier victor.³⁸ 10b provides the following situation that explains how this works: a man who committed murder but cannot be punished because of some technicality happens to be sitting in a room, and is killed accidentally when a man who should have been committed to a city of refuge for manslaughter falls upon him from a nearby ladder. In this way the former is killed, as he deserves, while the latter is sent to the city of refuge after all, for the present homicide. In this case, the latter is the tool of God. So it is always. He who gave the Torah alluded to this when He says of the victory of the descendants of Lot over the rest of the nations, that the Lord had decreed thus to destroy the victor, as it says “(And in Seir dwelt the Horites aforetime, but the children of Esau succeeded them; and they destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead;) as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them.”³⁹ (MK II 275) Kaspi says that this verse teaches that nations possess and are dispossessed of lands “according to God’s will.” In several places the success of Israel is attributed to the righteousness of the patriarchs, and the fact that He had sworn to them (not to destroy their descendants)—which is true, but in addition (their victory) was attributable to “the wickedness of these nations.”⁴⁰ Proof of this is the victory of the descendants of Lot,⁴¹ even though they did not have the merits of the patriarchs or the oath of the Lord. For this reason Ibn Ezra said of the expression “at the hand of every beast will I require it”⁴² that it means, “I will order another to kill this one.”⁴³ Hillel also said, “Because you have drowned others, others have drowned you; those who drowned you shall themselves be drowned,”⁴⁴ 2:7, BT Succah 50a. which is satisfactory and completely just, in that it is universal that a destroyer, | whether he be man or some other animal, will be surrounded by his fellows who will plot against his life.

footnotes: ³⁸ 38. BT Makkot ³⁹ 39. Deut. 2:12. In Maṣref La-Kesef ⁴⁰ 40. Deut. 9:5. ⁴¹ 41. Cf. above n. 39, as well as Deut. 2:9, “because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.” ⁴² 42. Gen. 9:5, and Ibn Ezra’s comment thereon. ⁴³ 43. He means that if one beast kills a human, it will itself be killed by another beast, effecting natural justice even in the animal world. ⁴⁴ 44. BT Ethics of the Fathers

This is similar to Isaiah, who said, “When thou hast ceased to spoil, thou shalt be spoilt; and when thou art weary of dealing treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee.”⁴⁵ Habakkuk likewise, in answering his confusion regarding the success of Nebuchadnezzar, (wrote) that in truth Nebuchadnezzar was evil, and had not succeeded on account of his righteousness, but only because it was necessary for him to destroy some other wicked (person).⁴⁶ Later Habakkuk says of him, “Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall exact interest of thee … because thou hast spoilt many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall spoil thee.”⁴⁷ This states the solution that is found in the Torah and the Prophets, without reference to the masses, that is (that they would be punished on account of) the sins mentioned in Isaiah and Jeremiah. This issue is likewise mentioned in Zechariah.⁴⁸

footnotes: ⁴⁵ 45. Isa. 33:1. ⁴⁶ 46. Hab. 1:12, “thou hast ordained them for judgment …” and v. 13, “when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he …” ⁴⁷ 47. Hab. 2:7-8. ⁴⁸ 48. Zech. 1:15.

This is certainly true when there is, in addition, some sin, such as when Isaiah attributed to Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar the denial of the Lord, who had given them the power,⁴⁹ and the performance of sorcery,⁵⁰ and others. There is, however, sufficient answer for the select few people in the other explanations that I mentioned, i.e., “the rod of my anger,” “thou art my maul,” “the wicked for the day of evil,” “at the hand of every beast will I require it,” as well as what was written of the descendants of Lot, to which was added, “as Israel did unto the land of his possession,”⁵¹ as well as, “not for thy righteousness … but for the wickedness of these nations …”⁵²

footnotes: ⁴⁹ 49. Cf. above nn. 28-29. ⁵⁰ 50. Isa. 47:9, “for the multitude of thy sorceries and the great abundance of thy enchantments …” ⁵¹ 51. Cf. above n. 39. ⁵² 52. In commenting on Isa. 53:4-5 (AK I 167-8), which says, “we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted, but he was wounded because of our transgressions …” Kaspi says that the meaning is that the nations who afflicted Israel would themselves realize that they could not hide behind the excuse that they were merely the tools of God to punish the Jews. This realization would come to them when they were themselves defeated. Kaspi develops this idea by referring to several of the verses quoted here.

As a rule, in these matters of victors and vanquished—or, if you will, “destroyers” and “destroyed,” for such is the case with the sword and warfare—Scripture will sometimes explain the cause from the point of view of the defeated, and sometimes from the point of view of the victor. From the point of view of the vanquished, (we find) “for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full,”⁵³ while from the point of view of the victor, (we find) that Ezekiel said of the destruction of the land of Israel: “a ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it; this also shall be until he come, whose right it is, and I will give it him.”⁵⁴ It is always like this. But why should we seek for reasons other than what is written in the Torah in this regard, for Moses said to Israel that they were not more righteous than the Canaanites to the extent that they could justify the victory and the destruction of the Canaanites, with the inheritance of their land, purely on account of (the righteousness of the Israelites).⁵⁵ The proof is that He did the same for the descendants of Lot who conquered other lands.⁵⁶ It was, instead, that the Canaanites had to be destroyed by some executioner, as Isaiah said, “I have created the waster to destroy.”⁵⁷ Even in the case (of the Canaanites), the Lord found it necessary to lengthen the time allotted to the vanquished, which was “until all the generation of the desert was consumed,”⁵⁸ as Maimonides and Ibn Ezra wrote.⁵⁹ 2:9, that the fourth generation does refer to that of the children of Moses, who indeed inherited the land.

footnotes: ⁵³ 53. Gen. 15:16. ⁵⁴ 54. Ezek. 21:32. ⁵⁵ 55. Deut. 9:5, “Not for thy righteousness … dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations …” ⁵⁶ 56. Cf. above n. 39. ⁵⁷ 57. Isa. 54:16. ⁵⁸ 58. Num. 32:13. ⁵⁹ 59. Kaspi possibly refers here to the explanation, found both in Ibn Ezra’s comments to Gen. 15:6 and Maimonides’ Commentary to the Mishnah ’Eruvin

Altogether it is evident from the Torah | that the children of Israel did not at all deserve to destroy the Canaanites, and for this reason, after a period known to the Lord, similar to Ezekiel’s saying of Nebuchadnezzar “until his time come,” which period was immediately following the first beast,⁶⁰ that beast destroyed Israel who had been a destroyer. This in general was the case with the succeeding kings of Israel. Accordingly, all this should be clear to the masses as well as the select individuals.⁶¹ see chapter 2 pp. 74-75, in the context of Christian polemics.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ 60. Dan. 7:3-4. ⁶¹ 61. For a discussion of possible reasons why Kaspi included the aforegoing passage in the Gevia’ Kesef,

As for what was asked in the place⁶² regarding the story of Balaam, when the Lord permitted him to go to the king of Moab, and later put an angel in the way,⁶³ the answer is to be found in the words of Plato to his students, when he answered his students, “Let them enter.” This was mentioned by Aristotle in the Sophistical Refutations to say that sometimes one will use an expression that makes an affirmative assertion, which when exaggerated, incredulous, or angry is intended to negate (that assertion).⁶⁴ VII, 106, 260a. Kaspi quotes this passage again in Ṭirat Kesef (MK I 163) to say that Balaam should have recognized God’s anger in permitting him to leave. This, however, cannot be sensed from the written word—as Rabbeinu Jonah commented on “and offer him there for a burnt-offering,”⁶⁵ saying that this (inflection) cannot be discerned from the words (alone) without some comment from the one who commands, or some aspect of what is being commanded. Indeed there are several instances of this in the Prophets, as when Ezekiel said in the name of God, “Go ye, serve every one his idols.”⁶⁶ It was for this reason that our sages said “from scribes and not from books.”⁶⁷ (MK I 124) and Maṣref La-Kesef (MK II 42), and it is also found in Judah Halevy’s Cusari I:72. In the same way as happened in the incident of Plato, where the outcome indicated the initial intent, so too when the Lord said to Balaam, “go with them,” it was an assertion that was by way of exaggeration and anger.⁶⁸

footnotes: ⁶² 62. Kaspi is referring to Kesef Sigim. ⁶³ 63. Num. 22:20 ff.; i.e., why did the Lord become angry? ⁶⁴ 64. Sophistical Refutations ⁶⁵ 65. A commentary of Rabbeinu Jonah to Genesis is not extant but the gist of his comments appears to follow in the next words of the passage. ⁶⁶ 66. Ezek. 20:39. On the importance of context to Kaspi’s exegesis, see above p. 71. ⁶⁷ 67. The source of this statement is unknown. Kaspi quotes it again in Ṭirat Kesef ⁶⁸ 68. Rashi ad loc. also comments that God’s anger was occasioned by the fact that even though Balaam saw that God did not really want him to go, he went nonetheless.

All this is clear to the philosophers, while Moses taught us this wonderful esoteric doctrine by the way in which he related this story of Balaam.

I have already said that Maimonides, in the final chapter of the second part (of the Guide), explained that everything is attributed to the Lord as the efficient cause.⁶⁹ II:48, cf. above p. 46. (In that case) why do we need to be troubled in this matter regarding Balaam, for if we wish (we can say that) he was dreaming, and that he dreamt this (command from the Lord), as when today such things happen to us on occasion? The fine and precise meaning here, however, is that He who gave the Torah wrote all this,⁷⁰ as I explained the meaning of the statement that the episode of Balaam, in making up the totality of the pericope Balak, only tells part of the episode.⁷¹

footnotes: ⁶⁹ 69. Guide ⁷⁰ 70. These vague words might mean that even though it is not clear that God did indeed say these things to Balaam, or that Balaam acted in this way, one thing is certain, and that is that God Himself told Moses how to write this episode in such a way that the reader should come to the conclusion that the entire episode took place as it is literally described. ⁷¹ 71. Perhaps he means to say that not all the details of the episode are recorded—consequently any conclusions as to whether the event happened as described must be tentative in nature.

As for what I considered there in the matter of Moses, | know that it was indeed so,⁷² where the question was probably: In Exod. 4:20-26 it appears that the Lord is angry with Moses for going back to Egypt, and punishes him with sickness—does this not contradict the fact that it was the Lord Himself who had commanded Moses to return, as recorded in the preceding chapters? for the Lord being the prime mover of everything, and Moses’ power of prophecy and perception being so immediate, (one can say) that the Lord was the first cause of Moses’ making the move to go to Egypt to take the children of Israel out, even though it is said in the framework of natural causation.⁷³

footnotes: ⁷² 72. Again the reference is to Kesef Sigim, ⁷³ 73. He means that the description of Moses’ departure from Egypt uses language that omits any reference to divine causation; thus “And Moses took … and set them … and returned to the land of Egypt…” (Exod. 4:20).

The final command made to Moses by the Lord, stating “The Lord said unto Moses in Midian: ‘Go, return into Egypt, for all the men are dead that sought thy life,’”⁷⁴ was said⁷⁵ to reinforce and reiterate (what had preceded) at the end of the vision of the burning bush, for between that and this⁷⁶ the original Pharaoh, or one or another of his servants of whom Moses had to be afraid on account of the killing of the Egyptian, had died.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ 74. Exod. 4:19. ⁷⁵ 75. Kaspi here is referring to the problem, noticed by Ibn Ezra in his comments on this verse, that the verse is out of place, and should come in the earlier vision of the burning bush. ⁷⁶ 76. He means that between the time of the vision of the burning bush and Moses’ departure, that person had died.

Adjacent to that is the verse “and Moses took his wife and sons and set them upon an ass”⁷⁷ —now who commanded him (to do) this? In truth it was his imaginative faculty,⁷⁸ AM 47) that at the time of these events, Moses had not yet reached to full maturity of his intellectual and prophetic faculties. i.e., his love for his wife and children, that induced him to do this—not the intellectual or prophetic faculty. It was to this (act) that our sages referred when they said, “We have regrets regarding our ancestors.”⁷⁹ ’ Jethro, chap. 1.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ 77. Exod. 4:20. ⁷⁸ 78. Kaspi deals with the effects of the imaginative faculty later in chap. XX. See also above pp. 114 ff. The present passage does not necessarily contradict Kaspi’s earlier statement (above chap. III, p. 141, and chap. XIII, p. 209) that the imaginative faculty was not operative in the case of Moses, for Kaspi states elsewhere (Maskiyyot Kesef, ⁷⁹ 79. Mekhilta

This was not at all a good idea, so that when he came to the inn and laid his head down to sleep, he pondered over the issue,⁸⁰ either in his wakened state or when asleep. He then made the mental recognition that it had been a bad idea, and became agitated over that error. His intellect became so accusing that his soul was close to death, and he was gripped by trembling, panic, and numbness.⁸¹ chap. XX, below pp. 266-267, Kaspi says that such symptoms were well known to the physicians of his time. This is all included in the statement that “the Lord met him and sought to kill him,”⁸² (meaning that all) this passed through the imaginative faculty. (In this regard) one should keep in mind the saying “Yet how wilt thou do in the thickets of the Jordan,”⁸³ in the event that I am mistaken in this regard.⁸⁴ (In any case) Moses had a very powerful attack of sickness, such as *febris ephemeralis,*⁸⁵ ed. S. Muntner (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1959). p. 64. which is a kind of daytime fever. Therefore Zipporah, whether on her own or at Moses’ command, acted in a way that was a known omen among them, by sprinkling blood on him, particularly on his feet. The reason was that they believed that blood restores nature, especially for one like Moses, of whom it is said, “he is trusted in all my house.”⁸⁶ III:17, where the idea is developed that individual providence “is consequent upon the intellect and attached to it.” The text of the Gevia’ in the following sentence appears to be corrupt, and quite untranslatable. This omen healed Moses…. Proof of this is the act whereby they sprinkled on their doorposts⁸⁷ to ward off the effects of the imaginative faculty of the Israelites when they would hear the (cries) of Egypt at the death of the firstborn. It is the same in regard to the leper.⁸⁸

footnotes: ⁸⁰ 80. He means that Moses realized that by taking his wife and children along he had not followed the precise instructions of God, and so he was troubled. ⁸¹ 81. Later in the Gevia’ Kesef, ⁸² 82. Exod. 4:24. ⁸³ 83. Jer. 12:5. ⁸⁴ 84. What Kaspi means is to be found in the light of Kimḥi’s explanation of the verse, which has God asking Jeremiah how he could possibly understand God’s ways if he has difficulty in understanding human behavior. Kaspi invokes the verse to show the difficulty of fathoming the precise meaning of Moses’ behavior and the passage in general. ⁸⁵ 85. Maimonides’ Pirḳei Moshe, ⁸⁶ 86. Num. 12:7; i.e., Moses was more conducive to divine providence. Cf. Guide ⁸⁷ 87. Exod. 12:21. ⁸⁸ 88. Lev. 14:7. Part of the purification of the leper was to sprinkle blood upon him, which Kaspi maintains was for the benefit of his imaginative faculty, blood being an omen of life and health.

Zipporah could not find an organ that was immediately available, other than her son’s foreskin.⁸⁹ One does not have to say that he was not circumcised,⁹⁰ for even the part remaining (after the circumcision) on the baby is called “the foreskin” or “of the foreskin.”

footnotes: ⁸⁹ 89. Kaspi apparently does not accept the idea (cf. Rashi and Ibn Ezra on Exod. 4:24) that Moses had omitted to circumcise his newborn son—the baby was circumcised, but a small residue of skin remained to be conveniently used by Zipporah. ⁹⁰ 90. Cf. above n. 89.

All these are precious matters. The contents of this chapter are all necessary to answer the eighteenth question in Kesef Sigim.