As for the solution to the twenty-second question,¹ I say that Maimonides commented on this in one of the chapters of the third part (of the Guide), the one that begins by saying, | “There are also things which belong to the mysteries of the Torah which have caused many people to stumble.”² III:50. He went on to provide an explanation and reason why each (was included in the Torah). It was for that reason that I composed the Ṭirat Kesef, in order to explain the purposes of the stories (in the Torah), all of which are categorical statements known as ’imrah (“affirmation”), in the same way that Maimonides explained the purposes of the commandments, all of which are noncategorical statements.³ III:25-50, provides a detailed rationale of the commandments of the Torah. Kaspi’s reference to the Ṭirat Kesef as intended to explain the purposes of the narratives in the Torah is consistent with the description in the Ḳevuṣat Kesef. On the distinction between categorical and noncategorical statements, see Ṭirat Kesef (MK I 1-2).

footnotes: ¹ 1. The question deals with the apparent repetitions and redundancies in Scripture, and inquires as to their purpose. ² 2. Guide ³ 3. Maimonides, in the Guide

What I will write here relates to the issue of the excessive length (of those stories), as well as their repetitiveness. Excessive length in any description that might be, is necessary for the masses, in that one of the purposes of the Torah is that it be accessible to the mass of women and children, as I have written. Now while it is true that the singular individuals can be satisfied with abbreviated terminology, this is not the case with the masses, for nothing will make an impression on them unless there is a lengthy description.⁴ (MK I 110) he says that “through repetition one’s memory is reinforced, and one’s impression is deepened.” For this reason it was necessary (for the Torah) to dwell at length on the subject of curses and blessings, particularly when (Moses) died, (and the prolixity extended) to cover all of Deuteronomy.⁵ In addition to reiterating for their sake, (Moses) repeated several things for the benefit of us who read the Torah today. Thus he said “a copy of this law,”⁶ intending us to read some things in the Book of Exodus in the wintertime, and to repeat them when we read the Book of Deuteronomy in the summer.⁷ In spite of this, (those things) are not impressed on our hearts.

footnotes: ⁴ 4. In the Ṭirat Kesef ⁵ 5. As Kaspi explains in the next chapter, the blessings and curses in the Torah are for the benefit of the masses, who should believe in their efficacy. Deuteronomy, with its surfeit of blessings and curses (cf. Deut. 27 ff.), was therefore perceived by Kaspi as intended for the masses. ⁶ 6. Deut. 17:18, lit. “a second Torah.” ⁷ 7. According to the rabbinic division of the Torah into fifty-four portions, approximately parallel to the number of Sabbaths, Exodus is read in the winter and Deuteronomy in the summer, with the result that the readings are equally spaced for maximum impact.

This is illustrated when Isaiah, in rebuking the masses of women, began by saying, “Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,”⁸ and continued to mention many of their specific ornaments. Now it would have sufficed for the wise had he said, “they multiplied their ornaments.” The prophets did this many times, having learnt it from the Torah.

footnotes: ⁸ 8. Isa. 3:16.

In addition, repetition and duplication indicate that something is established and overpowering, as in the threefold repetition of “a ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it,”⁹ and many others like it. This purpose was pointed out by Him who gave the Torah most notably in the case of Joseph, who told Pharaoh, “For that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice, it is because the thing is established by God.”¹⁰ Other instances should be compared to this statement.

footnotes: ⁹ 9. Ezek. 21:32. ¹⁰ 10. Gen. 41:32.

Moses was particularly prolix with regard to the sacrifices of the oxen at the festival of Tabernacles,¹¹ and of the princes¹² —to an extreme point. The reason for that is that the Torah is divided into five books and then into paragraphs, some of which are intended exclusively for the masses.¹³ The reason for this is that the Torah was to be handed to the masses (as well as) the singular individuals, which are opposites. So it was necessary to write some things exclusively for the select few, | and some things exclusively for the masses. The part that is intended for “the individuals of truth” relates to the subjects of the Account of Creation and the Account of the Chariot.¹⁴ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 38 ff. This includes most of Genesis. The part that is exclusively for the masses includes most of Leviticus, which is mostly sacrifices and related things that include all the sacrificial rites. Sacrifice was one of the most necessary practices for the masses to be able to rely on its performance, just as the select few rely on intellectual truths. For this reason Moses impressed this act upon their hearts,¹⁵ by describing the sacrifices of the princes at length. Thus, while they were all of a kind, he recorded the sacrifice twelve complete times—whereas had this been a matter concerning the select few, it would have sufficed to write the procedure followed by the first prince, and then said, “and thus did each one.” That would have been the same as in the case of the six branches of the candelabra,¹⁶ which was written for intellectual purposes.¹⁷ (AS II 103 ff.), while explaining the Temple as a microcosm reflecting the macrocosm of the universe, Kaspi explains that the candelabra represents the six Separate Intelligences, which are beyond man’s comprehension. Even some of the popular subjects used such methods, such as “and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother,”¹⁸ for the Torah customarily uses analogy based on specific example, which is known as a principle of logic.¹⁹), which states that “a general principle [binyan ’av], as contained in one or two Biblical laws, is applicable to all related laws.” Thus, the Torah will mention a specific instance or one component, and will then make a generalizing statement, and if that is not done (explicitly), then it will be implied. (Such a case is) that which is written in the Torah, “thou shall make a parapet for thy roof,”²⁰ 11:4. which Maimonides explained as being a generic commandment (encompassing) the removal of every obstacle from one’s house, every stone that abuts, every nail on the ground, as well as whatever is similar to this.

footnotes: ¹¹ 11. Num. 7:1-83, where the identical sacrifices brought by each of twelve princes at the dedication of the Tabernacle are repeated verbatim twelve times. ¹² 12. Num. 29:12-39. ¹³ 13. Cf. above chap. VIII, p. 170, where Kaspi explains that Genesis is intended primarily for the select individuals, whereas the later portions are for the masses. ¹⁴ 14. These two “accounts” correspond to the Aristotelian categories of Physics and Metaphysics respectively. See L. Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing ¹⁵ 15. This reflects Kaspi’s earlier comments that sacrifices are only for the benefit of the masses, who need to perform such ceremonies. Cf. chap. VI. ¹⁶ 16. Exod. 25:33, “so for the six branches going out of the candlestick …” ¹⁷ 17. In the Menorat Kesef ¹⁸ 18. Deut. 23:3, which does not repeat all the possible objects that might be lost. ¹⁹ 19. This refers to the third of the thirteen rules of Talmudic hermeneutics, as formulated by Rabbi Ishmael (in the introduction to the Sifra’ ²⁰ 20. Deut. 22:8, and MT Roṣe’aḥ

So the reason for the lengthy repetition time and again, which is again summarized and totaled species by species,²¹ as it appears in the sacrifices of the princes, (has as its purpose) to impress upon the masses how great people should offer gifts and donations to the Lord, and by extension so should every person. Now the princes brought exceedingly large gifts (to be sacrificed), but when Moses saw that they were approaching simultaneously to sacrifice the six covered wagons and the rest, he knew that it would not make as great an impression on the masses who were looking on as would be the case were they to do it over a period of days. For that reason he commanded them to bring their sacrifices during twelve days, so that one prince each day would bring his sacrifices to the dedication of the altar. Thus the Israelite masses would gather day after day for twelve days to see this (spectacle).

footnotes: ²¹ 21. Num. 7:84-88 provides the aggregate of all the twelve days of sacrifice.

Now in the same way that we who see the twelvefold | repetition of each paragraph are so deeply impressed, so that even though we might not absorb the description of the six covered wagons when we see it in Scripture or hear it once a year being read, we would (certainly) absorb those sacrifices that are read and heard twelve times,²² so too with the bullocks of the festival of Tabernacles. The reason is that He who gave the Torah was forced to have the masses believe that sacrifice is cherished by God, as the masses do indeed believe. All the nations also (believe this). Thus, in accord with the thinking of the masses, He said, “for a sweet savor unto the Lord,”²³ as well as, “the Lord smelled the sweet savor,” which are like “and the men pursued after them.”²⁴ The same is the case with the other rites ascribed (as desirable) to the Lord. Now notice how careful Moses was, for while he wrote at excessive length on the issue of sacrifice, so as to arouse the masses to life, (when he came to) what was intended for the select few, he used an abbreviated style, suppressed into one verse. This is in connection with “When Moses went into the tent of meeting that he might speak with him, then he heard the voice speaking unto him from above the ark-cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him.”²⁵ The Men of the Great Assembly were likewise careful to make this verse the final one of the weekly pericope.²⁶ Kaspi attached much importance to these divisions of the Torah—see above Chapter 2. This is all as if Scripture, or Moses who wrote it, said that the mass of princes went to extremes in bringing sacrifices, gifts, and offerings at the tent of meeting, whereas Moses, who was the greatest prince, brought no gifts at all. It was not that this was an affront, as happened to the wicked men as recounted at the beginning of the Book of (Samuel),²⁷ but rather that he performed something more acceptable and preferred by the Lord, and that was intellectual speculation and cleaving to Him.

footnotes: ²² 22. The description of the six covered wagons precedes the enumeration of the twelve days of sacrifice. ²³ 23. Num. 29:36. ²⁴ 24. He means that these verse are to be understood according to “the Torah speaks in the language of men.” ²⁵ 25. Num. 7:89, which follows upon the lengthy preceding passage depicting the twelve days of sacrifice by the princes. ²⁶ 26. This verse concludes the weekly portion Naso’. ²⁷ 27. The MS has “Saul,” quite evidently an error, as the reference is clearly to I Sam. 2:11-18, which describes the rapacity of Eli’s two sons in taking of the offerings brought to the Temple.

Notice the careful formulation of “that he might speak with him,” for that alludes to Moses (speaking to) himself, as God is not mentioned previously as the referent (of “he”).²⁸ But Moses was speaking with himself, and with his essence, i.e., his intellect.²⁹ AM 98) he says that “if we establish our intellect in actu, we bring God into our head, for the intellect is God, and God is the intellect…. the most complete person achieves the level of Moses, for God was in his head always to the greatest possible extent …” A similar phenomenon is apparently what Kaspi has in mind in the present passage. The “voice” refers to the intellectual overflow.³⁰ II:36, as well as above chap. VII. This is all understood by the wise.

footnotes: ²⁸ 28. He means that the pronoun “he” should refer to Moses, for God had not been mentioned in the immediately preceding verses. Thus Moses went in to speak to his own soul; i.e., to meditate in prophetic seclusion. ²⁹ 29. This is not the only place that Kaspi appears to substitute the human intellect of a man like Moses for the presence of God. Elsewhere (’Ammudei Kesef, ³⁰ 30. He means that while Moses was meditating in seclusion, an overflow of prophetic inspiration descended upon him. This alludes to the doctrine outlined in the Guide

There is, however, another observation on the isue of the repetition of anecdotes that involve changes in expression and words, such as the story of Eliezer and the story of the dream of Pharaoh.³¹ Easy subject matter is to be taken as metaphorical and analogous to more difficult matters, as the sages said, “Extrapolate from the explicit to the implicit,”³² 59a. which is also what all the philosophers usually say. Now Moses in the Torah on several occasions repeats things with small changes, especially | in Deuteronomy.³³

footnotes: ³¹ 31. In Gen. 24 Eliezer repeats, with small changes, the events that had occurred previously, as described in the Torah. In Gen. 41:1-24 Pharaoh’s dreams are first described as they happened, and then as they were related by Pharaoh, with small changes. ³² 32. BT Yoma ³³ 33. He means that by learning to be precise in these stories in Genesis, one is able to be similarly precise in the matters of faith as outlined in the repeated passages in Deuteronomy.

The most remarkable of all, for the masses, are the changes appearing in the Ten Commandments, that being the best known, as the occasion when the Lord Himself came down on the mountain and spoke, like a king of flesh and blood. (The changes in the two accounts) teach us that that was not the case. This was certainly true of the (command to keep) the Sabbath, for in the portion of Jethro there is one final cause that is mentioned,³⁴ whereas there is another in *Va’et’ḥanan.*³⁵ (The answer is that) “the ordinances of the Lord are true, they are righteous altogether,”³⁶ and therefore in both cases Moses was the immediate speaker, while God Himself, while also speaking, stood from afar. Our sages of blessed memory pointed this out by saying, “‘Remember’ and ‘observe’ were both spoken in one utterance,”³⁷ 27a, Shevu’ot 20b. where because “utterance” is a genus that includes both the spoken and unspoken word, their statement is also true of the spoken words, as “remember” and “observe” are synonymous.³⁸ This is like someone who says today, “The wine is good,” and tomorrow says, “The port is good.” Their statement is certainly true of the unspoken word, for the mental representation is one,³⁹ so that the two purposes that are enunciated with regard to the Sabbath as being “in one utterance” were (meant to refer to) the unspoken word.

footnotes: ³⁴ 34. Exod. 20:8, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” ³⁵ 35. Deut., 5:12, “Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” ³⁶ 36. Ps. 19:10; i.e., they are consistent, and must be taken together. ³⁷ 37. BT Rosh Ha-Shanah ³⁸ 38. What he means, possibly, is that both terms convey only one idea, and as such they were spoken as “one.” ³⁹ 39. In Heb. ‘inyan ha-maḥshavi ’eḥad.