The explanation¹ (MK II 51) Kaspi says that this vision “is explained in the Gevia‘ Kesef …” of Abraham’s first vision, beginning “After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram,”² needs to be written, because this vision is subtle and profound. In the first place, I will say that to understand the vision of the Sundering, (one should know that) the purpose of the Torah in writing all the details of this story was to inform us that this (vision actually) took place involving Abraham our forefather and the Lord; and also to inform us what it was that Abraham said to the Lord and what the Lord said to Abraham.³ (MK I 77) he explains that there was no speaking, for it occurred in Abraham’s sleep; their dialogue was comparable to a dream, involving a mental exchange between God and Abraham. | Abraham’s actions occurred literally, in a manner similar to what is recorded in the Book of Job.⁴ And even though it is possible to say that Job and his friends never existed, the same could not be said of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants.⁵ No matter what, we had patriarchs of old, for we did not spring out of the dust.⁶ 15a), where there is an opinion that Job never existed. Maimonides, in Guide III:22, appears to maintain this as an open possibility, and Kaspi likewise leaves the question open. See below chap. XVIII, where this is mentioned again.

footnotes: ¹ 1. In Ṃasref La-Kesef ² 2. Gen. 15:1. ³ 3. In the Ṭirat Kesef ⁴ 4. He means that both Abraham and Job are described in Scripture as historical personalities. ⁵ 5. This was a doctrine espoused by certain Provençal philosophers who allegorized certain passages and personalities in the Bible, most notably those of Abraham and Sarah. For a greater discussion of this, see above pp. 6 ff. and 37. ⁶ 6. The question of the historicity of Job occurs in the Talmud (BT Bava‘ Batra‘

Having said this, I will (now) explain this episode accurately. I can affirm that in writing this story, the author of the Torah intended to teach us many important things, (to be learnt from) every statement and every affirmation, as is clear. Thus, in the first place, from the specific statement “in a vision,”⁷ we learn that wherever it is written that “the word of the Lord came to so-and-so” or “And the word of the Lord came” or “And the Lord said,” and similarly, “And the Lord spoke,” or whenever the Lord’s word is spoken of as coming to a prophet,⁸ whether it be in a vision or a sight, for they are the same, or whether it be in a dream, it always comes as a force settling on the prophet,⁹ II:36) describes prophecy as “an overflowing from God” that settles on the soul of the prophet. as will be explained in several places.

footnotes: ⁷ 7. Here Kaspi notices an apparent redundancy, for this term is not usually found in prophetic visions. On Kaspi’s attitude toward the description of Scriptural details, see below. ⁸ 8. He means to include here every prophetic inspiration or appearance of the “holy spirit.” ⁹ 9. Maimonides (Guide

“I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.”¹⁰ The intention of these words is to material reward in this world, even though the words “shield” and “reward” could be understood as referring to a spiritual (reward), such as in the world to come, (but such a spiritual sense) is unlikely according to the Hebrew usage.¹¹ (MK I 78) Kaspi explains that promises of reward in the next world are not in need of prophetic confirmation—they can be adduced through intellectual means. Consequently, the present confirmation would refer to the world of the senses. Proof is from the preceding “Fear not, Abram,” for “fear” (yir’ah) in its Hebrew usage can only be used in the context of this-worldly fear, of whatever kind it might be, or else the absence of what is good. Further proof of this is that evidently Abraham took it in the same way, (from his words) “what wilt thou give me since I go hence childless.” God even explained the reward to him: “he that comes forth out of thy own bowels shall be thine heir.”¹² The complete statement, from “thy reward shall be exceeding great” until “so shall thy seed be,”¹³ did not add any new information from God, for it is not necessary that the Torah should (always) say something new on account of people’s talk.¹⁴

footnotes: ¹⁰ 10. Gen. 15:1. ¹¹ 11. Among the commentaries, Nachmanides and Gersonides explained the reference as to this world; Kimḥi and Seforno interpret the reward as applied to the next world. In the Ṭirat Kesef ¹² 12. V. 4. ¹³ 13. Vv. 1–5. ¹⁴ 14. On the role of Scriptural redundancies and Kaspi’s doctrine that “the Torah speaks in the language of men,” see above pp. 59 ff.

Now a prophet, or anyone else, should not pray to the Lord to renew His favor, nor should he request reassurance of the Lord’s earlier words. Accordingly, when the Lord had said to Abraham, “thy reward shall be exceeding great,” Abraham requested an explanation of the words | “reward” and “great.” God then explained these terms to him at length, as well as the phrase “I am thy shield,” which was added to them. This is similar to “Hast thou not made a hedge about him, and about his house and about all that he has on every side.?”¹⁵ Now Abraham says two things: firstly, regarding the Lord’s closing statement with which He had left Abraham, and which being so important was therefore concise,¹⁶, fol. 152a, Kaspi states that the importance and profundity of Scriptural description, vary inversely with the length of any given passage, so that the shorter the description, the more important it is. Abraham says, “What wilt thou give me?” This is in reference to any future rewards that might be bestowed. (Secondly), regarding the Lord’s opening words, “I am thy shield,” which is in reference to what is already in Abraham’s possession, Abraham says, “That which you protect can only benefit Eliezer, who, because I have no son, is necessarily my (only) inheritor.” Subsequently, having stated the Lord’s words and their explanation, the giver of the Torah records that Abraham believed in the Lord, “and He counted it to him for righteousness.”¹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁵ 15. Job 1:10, meaning that God would protect Abraham, as He did for Job. ¹⁶ 16. Later in the Gevia‘ Kesef ¹⁷ 17. V. 6.

Then the giver of the Torah wrote that the Lord, in speaking with Abraham again, promised that he would inherit this land, the land of Canaan. While this had already been promised, (it is repeated here) for the promise to Abraham was to be repeated twice. (This happened) the first time in “unto thy seed will I give this land,”¹⁸ and the second time in “to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever.”¹⁹ This teaches us of three modes of expression, for on occasion Hebrew will refer to “a man” and intend his seed. This is because it is correct to associate a father with what will happen to his seed, and vice versa. This is something precious in the prophetic books,²⁰ (MK II 39) he says, “one of the secrets of the Torah is that it usually associates the father with what is intended for the son, and vice versa.” (such as) in the words of the Lord to Elijah²¹ (MK II 286 ff.). when Ahab’s fate was foretold (by God). Remember this.

footnotes: ¹⁸ 18. Gen. 12:17. ¹⁹ 19. Gen. 13:15. Both these verses state that the land will be given to Abraham (“thee”), but in fact the land was possessed only by his descendants. Kaspi now explains the answer. ²⁰ 20. In Maṣref La-Kesef ²¹ 21. I Kings 21:29, where Elijah foretells the fall of Ahab, only to defer the decree till the period of Ahab’s descendants. This is consistent with Kaspi’s position that no divine decree can be rescinded, it can only be understood in a new light. See Maṣref La-Kesef

In this context the giver of the Torah taught us another precious lesson. This is (occasioned by the fact) that even the initial promise, that which promised the bestowal (of children),²² is found in the margin of the MS. had already been promised several times by the Lord. It had been written first as “unto thy seed will I give all this land,”²³ and more specifically the second time in “I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise walk through the land …”²⁴ Accordingly, these promises having already been made, (God’s) words here are superfluous and repetitious. Abraham’s words present other problems, for in regard to the promise of the land, the Torah says, “And he believed in the Lord,” yet on the two previous occasions this is not stated. Did he not | believe until the third time?²⁵ (MK II 287) to prove his point against Maimonides’ insistence that only decrees of punishment are subject to change, yet here Kaspi does not explain Abraham’s behavior as motivated by a fear that he might have misunderstood God’s initial promise. (This is even more questionable) for he did already have faith, proof being that after each vision it states, “And he builded there an altar unto the Lord.”²⁶ (The answer to all these questions) is that this is all to teach us that it is proper for a king to make promises to his servants many times in various ways, on some occasions the servant will remain silent, while at other times he will answer and question. This is certainly the case when the king’s words incorporate words and names that are equivocal.²⁷ (AK II 51) he says, “words and decrees are given by God to the prophet, and sometimes they are not understood at all, or understood only in part …” In this instance “seed” and “son” are equivocal terms, for one can correctly refer thereby either to a blood-relative or to one who is merely nurtured by (an adoptive) father, as is the case with “and was unto him as a daughter.”²⁸ instead of ke-vat. Kimḥi makes a similar point when he says that “seed” could refer to one of the members of his family, as in the verse “speaking peace to all his seed” (Esther 10:3). Because all this is imaginable, and is similar to what is mentioned in the Metaphysics,²⁹ V, 15, fol. 1021a: “For it is in this way that the father is called the father of his son; for the one has acted and the other has been acted upon in a certain way.” See above nn. 20–21. Abraham therefore inquired on this third occasion if (God’s) words intended the (servant) living in his house. God then explained to him that “he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels (shall be thine heir).” Thus, God’s words having been reiterated several times, Abraham trusted and believed even more.³⁰

footnotes: ²² 22. The word zera‘ ²³ 23. Gen. 12:7. ²⁴ 24 Gen. 13:16–17. ²⁵ 25. The question is raised by other exegetes. Nachmanides had answered by quoting Jer. 18:9–10, where the prophetic decree of blessing is changed to punishment. It is interesting that Kaspi quotes these very vv. in Maṣref La-Kesef ²⁶ 26. Gen. 12:7, 13:18. ²⁷ 27. In ’Adnei Kesef ²⁸ 28. II Sam. 12:3. In the MS le-vat ²⁹ 29. The passage in question occurs in the Metaphysics ³⁰ 30. Kimḥi explained what these several times were: first God said, “Out of thine own bowels”; then he is taken outside to see the stars as a sign that this will come true; finally God mentions His own name as if to swear by it.

Because (the promise of seed) was destined to be fulfilled in his own lifetime, and was not fraught with dangers, Abraham did not request a sign as he had done regarding the promise of entry into the land, which was in the distant future and accompanied by pronounced danger.³¹ Furthermore (he did not continue to ask for signs) for the longer a sage and a prophet continue to have recourse to the intellect, they become more and more casuistic. Here, (further) request for signs would have been casuistic, shrewd, and devious, even had that request been for a proof that was speculative or prophetic.

footnotes: ³¹ 31. Gersonides gives as the reason for this request: “for he did not know if his descendants would merit the necessary divine providence.” Here once again (cf. above n. 25) Kaspi chooses not to press this point against Maimonides.