As for the solution to the twenty-third question,¹ it is thus: know that it is necessary for the masses to believe in general that in regard to blessings and curses, a blessing will bring about some good, while a curse will cause harm.² This is certainly (to be believed if that blessing or curse issues) from the mouths of the zealous and favored of the Lord. It is the same today, for this (popular belief) effects for the masses the two necessary and well-known purposes enumerated by Maimonides in the Introduction to the Mishnah.³ ed. M. D. Rabinowitz (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964), pp. 79 ff. These (purposes) are to provide company and service for one who is perfect in his knowledge.⁴

footnotes: ¹ 1. From the passage that follows, it appears that the question inquired what effect blessings or curses could possibly have on the well-being of the recipient, for reason would indicate that the Torah bestows rewards and punishments according to what is deserved, and not according to any verbal pronouncements that might be made. If so, why does the Torah enumerate and emphasize the events surrounding blessings and curses? ² 2. Kaspi’s answer is that actually verbal pronouncements of blessing and curse have no objective effect that in some metaphysical way affects the fortunes of a recipient—instead such pronouncements have other benefits that are of a political nature. It is only a mistaken belief of the masses that there is some metaphysical effect of a blessing or a curse. ³ 3. Maimonides, Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah, ⁴ 4. Maimonides states this as: “to make a society for the wise so that they not remain isolated … [the wise) would have had to learn the arts of ploughing, reaping, winnowing, and sowing … so when would they have had the opportunity to acquire wisdom?”

Thus it is altogether necessary to establish a firm belief in the benefits of blessings and the harmful effects of curses, in the imagination of the masses. (They are to believe this) especially in those instances where distinctive configurations are used, such as those that we utilize today that involve excommunication, and even more so the bed and horns.⁵ in his strictures to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Hil. Shevuot 11:13, similarly refers to the Geonic practice of excommunication accompanied by horns, extinguished candles, and overturned beds, all intended to overwhelm those present. These and similar practices, as carried out by the Geonim, are documented in S. Assaf, Ha-‘Onshin Aḥar Ḥatimat Ha-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1922), pp. 32 ff. On the use of such customs as an aid in Kaspi’s exegesis, see above Chapter 2 and chap. VI, n. 6. The present instance is consistent with Kaspi’s insistence (cf. ’Adnei Kesef AK 152) that prophetic actions were designed so as to have maximum impact on the masses. It was particularly for this reason that Moses instituted “these shall stand … to bless … and these shall stand … to curse …”⁶ And therefore Moses preceded (that ceremony by stating) in Genesis—which related past events—that God Himself blessed some of His creatures and cursed others.⁷ After that (Moses relates that) Noah cursed Canaan and blessed his other sons.⁸ Moses similarly spoke at length of the rivalry of Jacob and Esau to receive the blessing of their zealous father, Isaac.⁹ (In regard to that incident¹⁰) if the truth be that Esau and Jacob never existed, then neither did Moses and Aaron, and if Rebecca (likewise did not exist), then neither did Miriam exist.¹¹

footnotes: ⁵ 5. Rabad, ⁶ 6. Deut. 27:12. ⁷ 7. Gen. 1:3 et al. ⁸ 8. Gen. 9:25. ⁹ 9. Gen. 25:29 ff. ¹⁰ 10. Here Kaspi appears to direct these parenthetic remarks to contemporary allegorists (see Chapter 2) who attempted to explain certain patriarchal narratives as more symbolic than real. The narrative of the blessing of Jacob at the expense of Esau, with its moral problems and issues, would have been a likely candidate for such allegorical interpretation. ¹¹ 11. Regarding Job, Kaspi makes a similar assertion when he says (AS I 137): “The verse says, ‘there was a man in the land of Uz …’; accordingly, how could the early and late commentators doubt that he existed,” for one would then have to doubt the existence of all the personalities in the Bible.

It is similarly written that Jacob blessed his children¹² when he died, as did Moses when he died.¹³ As for (what happened) in the story of Balaam,¹⁴ the explanation is clearly that that fool was universally known for the fact that whomever he blessed was blessed, and whomever he cursed was accursed. Consequently Moses was forced to have them believe that (Balaam) had not cursed them but had 154a blessed them.¹⁵ This is in a manner of | a physician, who is (like any) leader, in that he prevents the onset of disease by the maintenance of good health, and even improving it. Now (in the incident with Balaam), had that mass, including women and children, believed, heaven forbid, that Balaam had cursed them, then the plague would have taken hold of the Israelites. This is because they were affected by their imaginative faculty, whose effect is a matter known even today, as the physicians are most aware.

footnotes: ¹² 12. Gen. 49. ¹³ 13. Deut. 33:1 ff. ¹⁴ 14. The question that is here addressed is: Why did the entire episode involving the thwarting of Balaam’s intention to curse the people have to take place, if according to Kaspi’s earlier contention the mere verbal pronouncement of blessing or curse has no metaphysical effect? Balaam himself declared, “when He hath blessed I cannot call it back” (Num. 23:20)—if so, why did God intercede in the first place? ¹⁵ 15. Kaspi’s answer is that in fact there was no metaphysical effect that might have issued from his pronouncements. The reason for God’s precautions was the belief of the Israelite masses that there was just such an effect, and it was that belief itself which was a source of danger, as Kaspi now goes on to explain. For an analysis and discussion of Kaspi’s psychological explanation as articulated here and elsewhere, as well as its roots in Averroëan and Maimonidean thought, see Chapter 4.

As for the “devoted thing” of Achan,¹⁶ in my opinion Achan was an officer of the army, for he was from the tribe of Judah,¹⁷ and (as such) he stood at the head of those three thousand men. Now because he knew in his heart that he had violated the “devoted thing,” his conscience afflicted him as he was fighting, and being frightened that that transgression would trip him up, he fled. When he fled, so did those in his camp, and they were beaten by the men of Ai. Now it is neither necessary nor proper that all (this) be written in the text.¹⁸ One should extrapolate from this.¹⁹

footnotes: ¹⁶ 16. The reference is to Josh. 7:1 ff., where it is related that as a result of a curse, Achan was defeated in battle. Here too the implication is that, contrary to Kaspi’s assertion, such a curse has some metaphysical effect. ¹⁷ 17. “Achan the son of Carmi … of the tribe of Judah” (Josh. 7:1). ¹⁸ 18. On the issue of the precision of Scriptural description, see Chapter 2. ¹⁹ 19. On several occasions in his writings, Kaspi refers to the incident of Achan as the archetype of the effects of the imaginative faculty. See Chapter 4.

As a rule, those who write Scripture compose the stories to communicate to us the sciences of theoretical and practical philosophy, and out of the necessity of political stability. (Therefore) they write things that are of an accidental nature in such a way that the masses will take them to be of an essential nature, for that is what is necessary for political stability.²⁰ It is all for the sake of providing company and service for the treasured individual, as Maimonides has written. (In any case) the masses consider accidental causes to be essential causes, and certainly there are places where the opposite (is true). Remember all of this.

footnotes: ²⁰ 20. On the issue of what is properly to be imparted to the masses, and what is the attitude of the select few to the masses, see Chapter 4.