Joseph Ibn Kaspi on the Secret Meaning of the Scroll of Esther*

Robert EISEN George Washington University

JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SECRET MEANING OF THE SCROLL OF ESTHER*

RÉSUMÉ

Dans son commentaire du Livre d’Esther, Joseph ibn Kaspi fait allusion à une inter- prétation ésotérique de l’histoire; pourtant il n’offre aucune indication de la nature de cette interprétation. Le présent article essaie de montrer, en se fondant sur des indices figurant dans ses autres écrits, que Kaspi regarde l’histoire d’Esther comme une allégorie révélatrice d’importants secrets philosophiques concernant le carac- tère des prédictions prophétiques. L’article essaie aussi de démontrer que Kaspi voit, en ces secrets philosophiques, d’importantes ramifications pour comprendre le développement de l’histoire juive — notamment, le déroulement de l’époque mes- sianique. En fin de compte, l’article montrera que la compréhension ésoterique de l’histoire d’Esther par Kaspi rend son commentaire extrêmement original parmi les commentaires juifs traditionnels du moyen âge sur le Livre d’Esther en général.

ABSTRACT

In his commentary on the Scroll of Esther, Joseph ibn Kaspi alludes to an esoteric reading to the story; however, he provides no information as to what this reading might be. In this article, an attempt is made to show, on the basis of clues in his other writings, that Kaspi treats the Esther story as an allegory unlocking important philosophical secrets about the nature of prophetic predictions. An attempt is also made to demonstrate that Kaspi saw these philosophical secrets as having important ramifications for understanding the process of Jewish history — in particular, the unfolding of the messianic era. Finally, it will be shown that Kaspi’s esoteric understanding of the Esther story makes his commentary highly original within the tradition of medieval Jewish commentaries on Esther in general.

Of the many medieval Jewish philosophers neglected by modern scholarship, Joseph ibn Kaspi (b. 1280) is certainly one of the more significant and intriguing. Born in Provence, this early fourteenth-century thinker produced

* I would like to thank Barry Walfish for reviewing this paper and providing helpful comments.

Revue des Études juives, 160 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2001, pp. 379-408 380 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER over twenty works most of which were exegetical1. Kaspi was one of a number of Jewish philosophers in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries who composed biblical commentaries in the spirit of the exegetical enter- prise set forth by Maimonides in his Guide of the Perplexed 2. As a philosopher, Kaspi’s orientation was radical but not particularly original. He belonged to the camp of philosophers that included such thinkers as Gersonides and Moses Narboni who were influenced by both Maimonides and Averroes, and produced a brand of naturalism anchored in a thoroughly Aristotelian, hence impersonal, conception of God. But where Kaspi did display originality was in his capacity as exegete. Kaspi exhibited great ingenuity in reading his non-traditional philosophical outlook into the biblical text. One of Kaspi’s major innovations was in the application of the canons of Aristotelian logic to unlock the esoteric meaning of Scripture3. And if this is not enough to pique the reader’s curiosity, Kaspi’s colorful personality certainly should. Throughout his commentaries, he displays a penchant for bombastic rhetoric in asserting his views and attacking those of his opponents. He also exhibits a keen sense of sarcasm, mischief, and playfulness in his attempt to hide his true philosophical ideas from the 1. Kaspi was born in the town of Argentière. Hence the name ‘Kaspi’ which is from the Hebrew word kesef meaning ‘silver’, an allusion to the French argent. The date of his death is not known but appears to have been sometime after 1332 which is the last year explicitly re- ferred to in any of his works. Relatively little is known about his life, but the scant biographi- cal information we have along with a discussion of his literary activity can be found in a number of sources. See M. STEINSCHNEIDER, “Joseph Kaspi”, in H. MALTER - A. MARX (eds.), Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1925, vol. 1, p. 89-135, originally published in Ersch und Grubers Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschatfen und Künste, sec. II, vol. 31, p. 59- 70; E. RENAN - A. NEUBAUER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi, philosophe et exégète”, in “Les écrivains juifs français du XIVe siècle”, Histoire Littéraire de la France, Paris, 1893, vol. 31, p. 477- 548; I. TWERSKY, “Joseph ibn Kaspi: Portrait of a Medieval Jewish Intellectual”, in I. TWERSKY (ed.), Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, Cambridge, MA, 1979, p. 231-57; B. HERRING, Joseph ibn Kaspi’s Gevi‘a Kesef: A Study in Medieval Jewish Philo- sophic Bible Commentary, New York, 1982, p. 3-33; H. KASHER, introduction to Kaspi’s ShulÌan Kesef (in Hebrew), H. KASHER (ed.), Jerusalem, 1996, p. 11-36. A summary of Kaspi’s literary activity is also contained in B. MESCH, Studies in Joseph ibn Caspi, Leiden, 1975, p. 43-58, and H. KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi as Philosophical Exegete” (in Hebrew), Ph.D. diss., Bar Ilan University, 1979, p. 5-11. 2. Not all of Kaspi’s exegetical works are commentaries strictly speaking. For instance, works like Gevi‘a Kesef and ShulÌan Kesef are topically arranged. Nonetheless, even in these works the problems discussed are often of an exegetical nature. 3. For a discussion of Kaspi’s hermeneutics, see HERRING, p. 33-76; KASHER, p. 19-38, 103-144; S. ROSENBERG, “Logic, Language, and Biblical Exegesis in the Writings of Joseph ibn Kaspi” (in Hebrew), in M. HALLAMISH - A. KASHER (eds.), Religion and Language, Tel Aviv, 1981, p. 105-114. Rosenberg mentions that Kaspi is preceded by ZeraÌiah Îen in ap- preciating the importance of logic for biblical exegesis. There are others. See, for instance, Jacob Anatoli’s introduction to Malmad Ha-Talmidim, Lyck, 1866, p. 2, in which Anatoli opens with a logical analysis of the first verses of Ecclesiastes. Yet, neither of these thinkers is nearly as comprehensive as Kaspi in applying logic to the reading of Scripture. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 381 masses. Kaspi’s determination to conceal his views explains why he is often difficult to read. He is frequently elusive, reveling in obscurity and contradiction in order to ensure that the masses will not be privy to his philosophical secrets4. Thus, not infrequently, Kaspi will voice support for traditional doctrines only to overturn them elsewhere, sometimes in the very same work5. The subject of this paper is Kaspi’s commentary on the Scroll of Esther, entitled Geliley Khesef (Rods of Silver)6. It is a work that like most of Kaspi’s corpus has received little treatment in modern scholarship7. How- ever, it is, I believe, important in that it gives us insight into both Kaspi the philosopher and Kaspi the exegete. The commentary is certainly an odd one. It is short — a mere nine pages in the printed editions — and it dwells on a highly specific and seemingly marginal problem in the Esther story. Kaspi is troubled by the fact that after Haman’s downfall, Mordecai is able to issue a decree that is given the king’s seal instructing the Jews to defend themselves on the day they are to

4. Compounding the problem of Kaspi’s difficult style is the fact that the printed editions of Kaspi’s works are inadequately edited, some being worse than others. The exceptions are Herring’s critical edition and English translation of Gevi‘a Kesef and Kasher’s recently published critical edition of ShulÌan Kesef. 5. In my overall approach toward Kaspi, I stand firmly with those who consistently read Kaspi as a radical Aristotelian-Averroist. These include Hannah Kasher, Barry Mesch (see especially, p. 96-106) and I. DIMANT, “Exegesis, Philosophy and Language in the Writings of Joseph Ibn Caspi”, Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1979. This view is not unanimous. Cf. TWERSKY, p. 251 n. 23, who appears to reject this approach. Cf. also Her- ring’s discussion of Kaspi’s views on miracles, p. 99-124, where he insists on taking Kaspi’s assertions regarding divine intervention into the natural order at face-value. More convincing is Kasher’s contention that such statements are meant to mask a thoroughly naturalistic understanding of miracles. See KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 76-83, and her notes to the fourth and fifth sections of ShulÌan Kesef, p. 189-210. See also DIMANT, p. 131-144 who takes a similar approach to Kaspi’s views on miracles. 6. The commentary is printed in ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, I. LAST (ed.), Pressburg, 1905, vol. 2, p. 30-39, which was edited on the basis of two manuscripts. Kaspi informs us at the beginning of his commentary that the work was composed in Majorca in 1331, a relatively late date compared to his other compositions. The title is taken from the Scroll of Esther itself where in verse 1:6 reference is made to “rods of silver” that, among other items, adorned the palace garden in which King Ahasuerus held his feast in the opening scene of the story. It should be noted that Isaac Last found a brief two-page supplement to Kaspi’s commentary on Esther in an Oxford manuscript which he published in Millu’im: Recensionen, Varianten, und Ergänzungen zu der Edition ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, Pressburg, 1904, p. 20-22. The supplement explicates individual words and phrases in the biblical story. Its content will not be dealt with in our discussion since it does not take up issues that are relevant to our discussion. 7. Barry Walfish is the only scholar who, to my knowledge, devotes considerable discussion to Kaspi’s treatment of Esther in his exhaustive study of Jewish medieval commentaries on Esther, Esther in Medieval Garb, Albany, 1993, especially, p. 81-83, 129-132. We have made extensive use of Walfish’s study in this paper; however, the interpretation of Kaspi of- fered here differs significantly from his. 382 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER be attacked by their enemies. This decree effectively annuls Ahasuerus’s earlier decree inspired by the wicked Haman that instructed the Gentiles in the kingdom to slaughter the Jews. Kaspi wonders how the second decree can annul the first given that, as King Ahasuerus himself says at one point, a decree from the king can never be vitiated. Kaspi spends the entire commentary proposing a solution to this dilemma. Yet, despite Kaspi’s dwelling on this apparently minor issue, he says clearly at the end of his work that the story of Esther contains deep secrets. The same assertion is voiced in other works. The questions we must therefore ask are as follows: Does Kaspi provide any clue as to the esoteric meaning of the Book of Esther? In particular, does Kaspi’s commentary offer some insight into this matter, or does it dwell on a relatively minor concern as a means of avoiding the esoteric content altogether? My argument will be that Kaspi’s commentary is indeed intended to unlock the secret meaning of the Esther story. I will attempt to show that from hints and clues provided in his commentary and in other works, it becomes clear that Kaspi saw the Book of Esther as an allegory teaching valuable philosophical lessons about Jewish history, particularly its culmination in the messianic period.

Let us begin with a more detailed description of the problem that is the focus of Kaspi’s commentary. In chapter three of the Book of Esther, we are told that Haman, smarting from the insult of Mordecai’s refusal to bow to him, asks for and receives permission from King Ahasuerus to issue an edict calling for the slaughter of all the Jews in the kingdom on the thirteenth day of the month of Adar. An edict is issued in the king’s name with the seal of the king’s signet for that very purpose8. Several chapters later, after Esther’s wiles succeed in bringing Haman’s downfall, Esther be- seeches the king to rescind his edict9. The king responds by telling Esther that “an edict that has been issued in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s signet may not be revoked,” but “you may…write with regard to the Jews as you see fit”10. As Kaspi understands it, the king is advising Esther that while he cannot revoke the first decree, he is encouraging her to come up with a creative plan of some sort to save her people from harm. Accord- ing to Kaspi’s paraphrase of the king’s remarks, the intent of the king’s statement is as follows: “I know of no plan [that would enable me] to abro- gate the decree…but if you can come up with a plan regarding this matter,

8. Esther 3:9-15. 9. Ibid., 8:3-6. 10. Ibid., 8:7-8. All translations of the biblical text are according to the new JPS Tanakh, Philadelphia, 1985. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 383 do as you see fit”11. At this point, Mordecai comes up with a solution. He dictates letters which are sent to all the provinces of the kingdom in the king’s name and sealed with his signet permitting the Jews to defend themselves on the day on which they are to attacked12. The Jews subsequently succeed in fending off their attackers and vanquish their enemies. Kaspi’s question is how Mordecai could issue the second decree in the name of the king effectively canceling the first one if, in fact, the king’s decree can never be revoked. Kaspi notes that Ibn Ezra had asked the same question: …How were the first letters [spelling out the initial decree] rescinded and abrogated? For it is known that one cannot revoke that which has been written in the name of the king and sealed with his signet. And if in some way the first ones [i.e., the letters] could possibly be abrogated, why did Mordecai take the extreme step of sending the second letter [instructing] the Jews that they kill [their] Gentile [adversaries]? Was it not sufficient for him to warn the Gentiles that they not harm the Jews13? Yet, while Kaspi applauds Ibn Ezra’s question he does not support his solution. Ibn Ezra suggests that the second decree informed the king’s subjects that the first decree was intended to instruct the Jews to attack their Gentile adversaries, not the reverse; but the wicked Haman, who had been ordered to issue the first decree, changed the wording to say that it was the Jews who were to be attacked. The second decree was therefore issued to make known this error and to implement the first decree as originally intended14. Kaspi has any number of problems with this answer. For instance, if it was possible for the king’s decrees to be in error due to the schemes of a rogue courtier, how were the people of the kingdom to be sure that the second decree was any more reliable than the first? Might it not also be forged? It also stands to reason that many people would have known that the accusations spelled out in the second decree against Haman were simply not true, thereby rendering the second decree ineffectual15. Kaspi therefore goes on to offer his own solution. He begins by saying that the answer to the problem has eluded previous commentators on this and other issues because of their lack of knowledge of the discipline of logic, a common complaint throughout his writings16. If one is properly

11. Geliley Khesef (henceforth GK), p. 31. We might mention that Kaspi’s reading is not the only plausible reading for this ambiguous passage. 12. Esther 8:9-14. 13. GK, p. 31. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid., p. 31-32. 16. Ibid., p. 32-33. 384 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER versed in the principles of logic, there is in fact no contradiction whatsoever between the first and second decrees issued by the king. For one, the decrees were clearly directed at different people. The first was addressed to the Gentiles in Ahasuerus’s dominion who were commanded to attack the Jews, while the second decree was issued to the Jews who were given permission to defend themselves. According to the rules of logic there is no necessary conflict between the two statements: Thus, I say, what question is there here? If Ahasuerus has in his kingdom two types of peoples, can he not command one of them one thing, and the other, another thing? For in the first letters he commanded all the [Gentile] peo- ples17, while in the second he issued a command to the Jews. What problem is there here? What contradiction or inconsistency is there here? This is like the example we have mentioned18: Reuven is walking, Simeon is not walking. The subjects here are different…19. Second, Kaspi argues, if the first decree ordered the Gentiles to kill the Jews, it could command them only to exert their best effort in fulfilling the decree; it could not mandate success. Much was going to depend on the re- action of the Jews, since there was no command that the Jews simply allow themselves to be slaughtered; on the contrary, they would presumably defend themselves. Therefore, not only were the subjects of the two decrees entirely different, so were the actions mandated by them. In the first, the Gentiles were commanded to make an effort to kill the Jews, while in the second, the Jews were told to defend themselves: …If the statement of Ahasuerus to the [Gentile] peoples was that they should kill the Jews — whether it be in giving permission for them to choose [to kill them], or by command — was this a necessary obligation? It was not a matter that depended on them; rather a command in this sort of matter means that they should exert their best effort here… For this [i.e., the success of the command] is in part dependent on the object [of the command — i.e., the Jews]. Thus, for example, if the king commands me, God forbid, to have sexual rela- tions with one of the young Hebrew women, and his command is urgent, and then I go quickly to her, and take hold of her, but she pushes me and strikes me and injures me on account of my transgression, and I flee — have I diso- beyed the word of the king? So it was with the first letters, that is, that he [i.e., the king] sent a message to the [Gentile] peoples to slaughter and kill the Jews. But He did not send a message in his correspondence that the Jews should ex- pose their necks to the swords, nor that they should not rise up to take revenge on those attacking them. In general, the [first] communication came to the [Gentile] peoples alone20.

17. See Esther 3:14, where it says that the decree was issued to “all the peoples”, which for Kaspi is understood to mean all the Gentile peoples. 18. Referring to a previous passage in GK, p. 33. 19. Therefore, there is no contradiction between these two statements. Ibid., p. 34. 20. GK, p. 34. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 385

Kaspi goes on to show in greater detail how the two decrees are indeed compatible21. Kaspi at this point asserts that the events described in the Book of Esther were nothing other than a miracle, for it was God who in effect brought about the defeat of the Jews’ enemies by striking fear in their hearts. God accomplished this purpose by carefully and elaborately orchestrating events such that Esther would become queen and Mordecai would rise to power as second-in-command to the king. The enemies of the Jews who witnessed these events realized that they had been divinely ordained and were so weakened in their fear that they were unable to mount an effective attack against the Jews. They were therefore soundly defeated on the day of battle22. Here Kaspi is basing himself on passages in the biblical text which mention a psychological component in the victory of the Jews. In Esther 8:17, we are told that when the king issued his second decree and the Jews re- acted with joy and celebration throughout the kingdom, “many of the people of the land professed to be Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them”. A short time later in verse 9:2, the text clearly tells us that the Jews successfully routed their enemies “for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples”. Again, in the next verse we are informed that all the officials of the provinces “showed deference to the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai had fallen upon them”. Kaspi closes out his commentary by asserting that the Book of Esther is more than a mere story, that it was written under divine inspiration, and that it contains deep and hidden secrets: The truth is that this scroll contains very exalted matters. For Mordecai the great sage wrote it23. It is also one of the books of the Writings, which are, as Maimonides asserts, written [at the inspiration] of the Divine Spirit, one of the levels of prophecy…24. How can any person of sound intellect come to think that the prophets write books to tell us tidings like the words of insipid women? [Is one] to think that Mordecai composed a story about Ahasuerus throwing a banquet for all his officials and courtiers, that he displayed the glory of his wealth and the glory of his kingdom for a hundred and eighty days, that afterwards he threw a banquet for seven days for all the inhabitants of Shushan, [telling us] likewise every event occurring at that banquet, and the advice of Memucan regarding Vashti, and many other matters in this scroll — [all] for no exalted purposes? Heaven forbid that the prophets and the sages truthfully [did something] of this sort… In general this book is one of the holy books, the details of which were composed and handed down to us in order to

21. Ibid., p. 34-36. 22. Ibid., p. 36-38. 23. Following Ibn Ezra in his comments on Esther 1:1. 24. Guide of the Perplexed, S. PINES (trans.), Chicago, 1963, II:45, p. 398-400. 386 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER

give us perfection of the soul. Nor is there any doubt that this book also contains deep secrets and great hints regarding the hidden matters of the Torah which are known to those who are better [scholars] than I. May the one who knows [such secrets] be blessed25. Kaspi concludes by declaring that the Esther story teaches us about the principle of divine providence and that if we fast and pray, as the Jews in the Esther story did, God will redeem us. Kaspi seems to be saying here that if the secrets of Esther are not known to him, at least this wisdom can be gleaned from the story26. With the conclusion of our summary of Kaspi’s commentary, we must now ask about the cryptic remarks just cited regarding the esoteric meaning of the Esther story. Kaspi notes that there are hidden secrets in the Book of Esther, but he also indicates that not only does his commentary not reveal them, he is not even privy to them. How seriously are we to take Kaspi here? Are his professions of ignorance and humility genuine? We have to suspect that Kaspi is himself concealing something. First of all, his philosophical exegesis in general is cast in an esoteric style of discourse in which pious statements often mask more radical positions27. Therefore, anything that Kaspi says about deeper philosophical truths has to be carefully scrutinized. Moreover, in this particular case, our suspicions are strengthened by a number of passages in Kaspi’s other works which hint that he indeed knows the secret meaning of the Scroll of Esther. The most significant is one that appears in a passage in Kaspi’s long commentary on Job in which he argues against Maimonides’ assumption that the Book of Job is a parable: For I believe, that he [i.e., Job] existed as written. But the gates of interpretation are not closed before us28 to interpret Ahasuerus as God who is ‘at the head’ and Haman as Satan. In such a manner we interpret that entire event. But Heaven forbid that we should [do so] with every biblical story; [we do this] only [with a passage] that comes from prophecies where necessity causes us to interpret it [as occurring] in a prophetic vision, in that its [occurrence] while [one is] awake is impossible29. 25. GK, p. 39. 26. Ibid. 27. For a discussion of Kaspi’s esoteric style of discourse, see KASHER, “Joseph Ibn Kaspi”, p. 12-19, and DIMANT, p. 4-8, 13-14. 28. Kaspi uses a variation on a similar statement made by Maimonides in Guide, II:25, p. 327. 29. ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, p. 138. Two commentaries on Job were written by Kaspi, a longer and shorter one. They appear under the title ShulÌan Kesef in Last’s edition. This des- ignation, however, seems to be an early one. That title was later given to another of Kaspi’s works. For a discussion of this matter, see KASHER, ShulÌan Kesef, p. 22. For an analysis of Kaspi’s commentaries on Job, see H. KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi’s Aristotelian Interpretation and Fundamentalist Interpretation of the Book of Job” (in Hebrew), Da‘at 20 (1988), p. 117- 125. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 387

Kaspi explains that, contrary to Maimonides, the Job story refers to actual events. But in a curious sidepoint Kaspi then adds that allegorical interpretation is still very much a viable option in understanding Scripture and cites the Esther story as an example. Ahasuerus represents God, with Kaspi availing himself of a pun on the final syllable of Ahasuerus’s name in the Hebrew and linking it with the word ‘head’30. Haman refers to Satan. However, Kaspi warns that one resorts to this type of interpretation only when necessity requires it — that is, in biblical passages which report a prophetic vision the images of which cannot be understood in their plain sense. Now Hannah Kasher sees Kaspi’s observations here about the Scroll of Esther as deliberate sarcasm, that he in no way supports the equation of Ahasuerus with God nor Haman with Satan. On the contrary, these examples are meant to show how absurd allegorical interpretation is when taken to extremes and why it must be rejected. Kasher also argues that Kaspi’s support for an esoteric reading of the Scroll of Esther in his actual commentary on that book reflects a change in attitude later on in his life when he came to look more favorably upon allegory. The commentary on Job, in Kasher’s estimation, was written much earlier than that on Esther31. It is unclear to me why Kasher insists on this reading. I see no reason to doubt that Kaspi was sincere in suggesting the allegorical representations for the Esther story. Moreover, there is at least one other passage in Kaspi’s writings in which he again alludes to one of those allegorical images. In Menorat Kesef, while discussing the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah in which the prophet envisions God on a throne, Kaspi grapples with the meaning of the imagery which depicts God as a king: Everything [pertaining to the imagery of God as king] is by way of metaphor according to the imagination of human beings. For they think that God is a body like a king [dressed] in royal garb trailing along the ground and that He sits in His sanctuary like Ahasuerus32. The comparison of God with Ahasuerus would seem an odd choice were we not aware of Kaspi’s statement in his commentary on Job. But with that statement in mind, it would appear that Kaspi again seems to be entertaining an association between Ahasuerus and God33.

30. The Hebrew for Ahasuerus is AÌashverosh, while the term for head is rosh. 31. KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi,” p. 21-22. 32. ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, vol. 2, p. 112 (my emphasis). 33. In light of these observations, there may be significance to another comparison between God and Ahasuerus in Mazref La-Kesef in Mishneh Kesef, I. LAST (ed.), Cracow, 1906, 388 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER

Strengthening this connection is that throughout his writing, Kaspi draws extensively upon the general equation of God with the image of a king when interpreting anthropomorphic imagery in the biblical text. This strat- egy is used frequently in the section of Menorat Kesef from which the passage just cited was drawn, a lengthy discussion in which Kaspi gives a philosophical interpretation of all biblical sources involving ma‘aseh merkavah — that is, passages alluding to the most esoteric of doctrines regarding God34. A particularly striking example of this tendency is also found in an extensive discussion in Tirat Kesef in which Kaspi interprets Moses’s famous encounter with God in Exodus 32, an encounter in which Moses asks to know God’s “glory”. Kaspi attempts to unlock the meaning of this mysterious passage by associating much of its imagery with a king and his entourage35. Kaspi’s association of Ahasuerus with God may also have been inspired by rabbinic precedent. In a typical midrashic play, the rabbis in a number of sources assume that references to King Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther which identify him only as “king” without his proper name are in fact references to God, the one true “king”. Thus, for example, on the clause in Esther 6:1, “That night, sleep deserted the king…”, we find in the Talmud the following comment of R. TanÌum: “The sleep of the King of the Uni- verse was disturbed”36. Another opinion in the same discussion equates the abating of the anger of “the king” in Esther 7:10 after the death of Haman with the abating of God’s anger37. Complicating the picture somewhat is a comment by Kaspi at the end of one of his two commentaries on Proverbs that seems to deny any allegorical reading to Esther whatsoever! His comment appears in a passage in which Kaspi criticizes those who insist on reading the Book of Proverbs and other biblical books allegorically. Kaspi exclaims: I cannot comprehend why this [form of interpretation] is [attempted]. Where have the prophets informed us that this [form of interpretation] was intended vol. 2, p. 221. Here Kaspi grapples with the meaning of God’s “book” to which Moses refers in his intimate dialogue with God in Ex. 32:32 in pleading for forgiveness on behalf of the Israelites. Kaspi surmises that this image is a metaphor referring to God’s knowledge of all that is, including His knowledge of Moses. What is interesting for our purposes is that Kaspi mentions here that this “book” is similar to Ahasuerus’s book which had recorded in it Mordecai’s deeds (Esther 6:2). It is possible that here again Kaspi is entertaining the notion that Ahasuerus is an allegorical representation of God. 34. See, for example, Menorat Kesef, in ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, vol. 2, p. 81, 117. 35. Tirat Kesef, in Mishneh Kesef, I. LAST (ed.), Pressburg, 1905, vol. 1, p. 145f. 36. B.T. Megillah 15b. See also Esther Rabbah 10:1 which makes a similar comment on this verse. 37. B.T. Megillah 16a. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 389

by Moses and Solomon? Why did they not say the same thing [i.e., give allegorical interpretations] with respect to Mordecai, Esther, and the ten sons of Haman whom they impaled38? Here Kaspi seems to think it absurd to interpret the Scroll of Esther allegorically. Yet, a statement of this sort should not trouble us. If Kaspi indeed believes that there is an allegorical reading for the Scroll of Esther alluding to divine secrets, we should not be surprised if he makes disclaimers of this sort. Obfuscation is a common technique in his discourse. Still, we cannot be sure about whether Kaspi believes in an esoteric understanding of Esther and whether the specific allegorical images suggested in his commentary on Job are to be taken seriously unless we attempt to play out the implications of those images. So let us proceed with the assumption that for Kaspi King Ahasuerus represents God, and Haman, Sa- tan. If this is the case, the problem at the center of Kaspi’s discussion, that King Ahasuerus’s first decree is overturned by a second one, would actually be referring to the problem of God’s decrees being overturned. In other words, Kaspi’s commentary is really about the following question: if God issues a decree, how can it be revoked? When Kaspi’s commentary is read in this fashion, his esoteric understanding of the Book of Esther practically jumps out at us. For the problem of God’s word being revoked is a key philosophical issue for Kaspi that occupies him in a number of places in his writings39. Kaspi cites what he sees as a glaring contradiction in the biblical text. On the one hand, there are verses that state emphatically that God’s will does not change, such as Numbers 23:19 which tells us that “God is not a man to be capricious, nor mortal to change His mind”, and I Samuel 15:19 which states that “the Glory of Israel [i.e., God] does not deceive or change His mind, for He is not human that He should change His mind”. And yet, as Kaspi points out, the Bible has any number of instances in which a prophet relays God’s will predicting a certain course of events and the prediction is later revoked. Such instances would suggest that God does change His mind. Thus, for

38. Second commentary on Proverbs, HaÂoÂrot Kesef, in ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, vol. 1, p. 131. While printed in this edition as the second of two commentaries, it was probably written in 1330 before the commentary identified as the first one. For a discussion of the chronol- ogy of composition of the two commentaries, see H. STROUDZE, “Les deux commentaires d’Ibn Kaspi sur les Proverb”, Revue des études juives 52 (1962), p. 71-76. 39. ShulÌan Kesef, p. 101-44; MaÂref La-Kesef, p. 286-91; Maskiyyot Kesef, S. WER- BLUNER (ed.), Frankfurt am Main, 1848, reprinted in Sheloshah Kadmoney Mefarshey Ha- Moreh, Jerusalem, 1961, p. 9-10. As I point out in n. 49 below, the question of the mutability of God’s word is often connected in Kaspi’s writings to the issue of how one verifies true prophecy. The first two selections of the three just cited are framed by this question. 390 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER example, after Isaiah informs King Hezekiah that he will die, God revokes the decree in response to Hezekiah’s prayers40. An example which Kaspi discusses in a number of places is Jonah’s prophetic prediction that the city of Nineveh will be destroyed on account of its sins. When the people of Nineveh repent, the city is spared41. How is it then that God’s will is immutable, if He is depicted as changing His mind in such cases? Kaspi solves the problem by suggesting that when it appears in the biblical text as if God’s will has changed because a given prediction has not come to pass, it is due to the fact that the original prediction came with certain hidden conditions and those conditions were not fulfilled. Those conditions were either not known to the prophet or were known to him but not explicitly stated in the biblical text. Thus, in such instances, God’s will has not changed42. In the examples just mentioned, the original prophecy to Isaiah in fact was conditional. God intended that Hezekiah would die, but only if he did not repent. Since he repented, he did not die43. However, the condition was not mentioned in the text, nor, as Kaspi surmises, was it likely that Isaiah himself was aware of it44. In the example of Nineveh, Kaspi uses the same reasoning. The original prediction contained a condition, in this case known to the prophet but not stated in the text, that Nineveh would be destroyed only if its people did not repent. When they repented, the city was therefore saved45. Furthermore, Kaspi explains, explicit statements by the prophets that God’s will has changed or that His decree has been revoked are nothing more than philosophically incorrect formulations for the masses who can only think of God in anthropomorphic terms46.

40. II Kings 20:1-5. 41. Jonah 3:1-10. 42. See sources cited in n. 39 above, especially ShulÌan Kesef, p. 118 f. which provides the fullest discussion of this matter. 43. In fact, the passage in II Kings 20:1-5 states that Hezekiah prayed and pleaded with God that He spare him on account of his past good deeds. Thus, even though Kaspi sees Hezekiah as praying in repentance, technically speaking repentance is not mentioned here. 44. ShulÌan Kesef, p. 126. 45. Ibid., p. 127-128. In this instance, however, Kaspi is not entirely sure as to the exact nature of the condition and entertains at least two possibilities. See Kaspi’s discussion and Kasher’s extensive notes ad loc. See also Gevi‘a Kesef, p. 250-251 and MaÂref La-Kesef, p. 288 which discuss the same case. 46. ShulÌan Kesef, p. 123. Kaspi invokes the talmudic dictum which was a favorite among medieval Jewish philosophers, “the Torah speaks in the language of human beings” (B.T. Yevamot 71a, Bava MeÂi‘a’ 31b). Kaspi utilizes this principle in a number of different ways, co-opting interpretations given to it by predecessors such as Ibn Ezra and Maimonides while also giving it his own original reading. See KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 136-144; HERRING, p. 57-63; DIMANT, p. 16-21. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 391

To make full sense of Kaspi’s discussion here, one must keep in mind that underlying all of Kaspi’s views is a philosophical orientation that is entirely naturalistic. In accordance with his Aristotelian-Averroist leanings, Kaspi’s God is cognizant of all that occurs in the world below — past, present, and future — on account of His being the efficient, formal, and final cause of all events. However, God cannot experience a change in knowledge or will, and cannot interact in a personal manner with the world below47. Also in accordance with this philosophical orientation is Kaspi’s notion that the prophet predicts the future by developing his intellect, which in turn allows him to gain intimate knowledge of the natural order pre-determined in the Divine Mind48. All of this explains why Kaspi is so concerned about the nullification of prophetic predictions. What the prophet predicts is in accordance with the order determined in the Divine Mind, and therefore, prophetic predictions must materialize as reported. It cannot be otherwise. Kaspi’s response to this dilemma is that prophetic predictions are in fact never nullified; it is just that human beings have the capacity to circumvent them if they are apprised of them49.

47. On the issue of divine knowledge, I support Kasher’s position over that of Pines. Pines argues that for Kaspi divine foreknowledge is only ‘probabilistic’ in that God does not know the future with perfect accuracy — though He knows it more accurately than human beings do. It is this factor that allows for contingency and human free will. Pines bases himself on a passage in Tam Ha-Kesef, I. LAST (ed.), London, 1913, p. 20-21, in which Kaspi appears to draw an analogy between the human faculty of divination and divine foreknowledge. See “The Probability of the Rise of the Jewish State according to Joseph ibn Kaspi and Spinoza” (in Hebrew), ‘Iyyun 14 (1963), p. 289-317. I will be citing the reprint in Between Jewish Thought and Non-Jewish Thought (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1974, p. 277-304; see especially p. 279-284. Kasher, however, rightly notes that Pines has read too much into the passage, and that there is no reason to doubt that for Kaspi God’s knowledge is all-encompassing and unerring in accuracy with respect to future events. The problem then is how to account for contingency and free will in human affairs. After a discussion of the relevant sources, Kasher demonstrates that Kaspi upholds the notion of free will on the basis of a number of philosophical considerations — though Kasher notes that Kaspi’s views on this matter are not absolutely consistent. Still, as Kasher notes, free will seems to have been an unshakeable premise for Kaspi. See KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 62-71. 48. Kaspi says very little on the mechanism of prophetic predictions. See Kasher’s discussion, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 87, which cites sources in which Kaspi expresses a number of views on this issue, all of which involve the prophet making predictions by virtue of his capacity for intimacy with the supralunar realm. However, see PINES, p. 279-282, who discusses Kaspi’s views on prophecy on the basis of the passage in Tam Ha-Kesef, cited in the previous note, suggesting a different mechanism. Here prophecy is identified with the faculty of divination. Kaspi may have therefore entertained different approaches toward this issue. Other aspects of Kaspi’s views on prophecy are dealt with by MESCH, p. 61-106. 49. Of course, this solution raises philosophical problems. If human beings can circumvent prophetic predictions and the pre-determined order in God’s mind which they embody, is God’s will truly immutable in the first place? As noted in n. 47 above, Kaspi emphatically supports the notion that human beings have free will. Therefore, Kaspi apparently believes that God’s will is immutable except for instances of the sort we are describing in which hu- 392 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER

The important point for us is that the Book of Esther appears to be deal- ing allegorically with the very question just discussed. Kaspi asks how is it that the king’s decree was overturned if such decrees can never be revoked? Kaspi’s answer: the decree against the Jews contained a series of unstated conditions that allowed Mordecai to issue a second decree calling upon the Jews to defend themselves. Mordecai exploited the fact that the first decree was not technically addressed to the Jews, nor did it in any way specify that the Jews were required to go passively to the slaughter. They therefore had the right to fight back. Thus, technically speaking, the king’s decree was not overturned; when its conditions were properly understood, the decree could be fulfilled at the same time that the Jews defended themselves. In the same way, God’s ‘decrees’ in the world as predicted by prophets — that is, events determined by the natural order — are irrevoca- ble, but they too may contain unstated conditions that when properly understood can allow one to circumvent them. Thus, when it appears as if God has changed His will, what has actually happened is that one of these hidden conditions has come into play. However, God’s will remains un- changed. Making sense of Kaspi’s association of Haman with Satan is more difficult, since Kaspi says relatively little about Satan in any of his works. Nonetheless, there are clues to unlock this ‘secret’ as well. In a brief statement in the long commentary on Job, Kaspi gives some insight into his views on Satan by approving of Maimonides’ interpretation of the verses in which Satan twice answers God’s question, “Where have you been?”50 Sa- tan’s reply, “I have been roaming all over the earth”51, is taken by Maimonides to mean “that there is no relationship between him and the upper world, in which there is no road for him”52. Most commentators be- man will comes into play. However, we cannot adequately discuss the full philosophical implications of Kaspi’s position here with respect to free will given the complexity of this matter. Unfortunately, Kasher, in her discussion of Kaspi’s views on free will, does not deal with the material under consideration here. We should note that in general many of Kaspi’s philosophical conceptions on issues mentioned here are unclear due to the fact that he composed no systematic philosophical treatises. Compounding the problem is that when he does speak on such issues, he often says very little. Furthermore, he frequently takes what appear to be contradictory philosophical positions on the same issues in different works. We have therefore deliberately restricted our remarks on such matters to generalities which will suffice for the purposes of our discussion. One point that we should also mention here is that, as pointed out in n. 39 above, Kaspi’s discussion of prophetic predictions and their relationship to divine will is often coupled with another matter, and that is the question of how one determines whether a person claiming prophecy is in fact a true prophet. This issue will be discussed below. 50. Job 1:7, 2:2. 51. Ibid. 52. Guide, III:22, p. 487. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 393 lieve that Maimonides is equating Satan with either matter, privation, or chance — all factors in Maimonides’ theory of evil53. Kaspi never clarifies which of these interpretations he approves of, but nonetheless it is clear that Satan represents some sort of natural explanation for evil, not the mythical figure that the tradition often assumes54. It is not hard to imagine how these considerations fit into Kaspi’s esoteric understanding of the Book of Esther. If Ahasuerus’s initial decree represents a prophetic prediction embodying God’s will, it obviously represents a prediction of oncoming harm. Kaspi is grappling with negative divine decrees, not positive ones, in that it is the former which human beings hope to overturn. Haman or Satan therefore represent some sort of natural force — whether it be matter, privation, chance, or some combination — which acts effectively as God’s intermediary in causing evil in the natural order. Thus, what the Esther story as a whole teaches in philosophical terms is that when the prophet makes negative predictions, he is making predictions about how natural forces will harm us. Our attempt to find hidden or unstated conditions in the prophecy so as to avoid harm are in effect an attempt to circumvent such forces. It is important to add that there is no reason to assume that Kaspi doubts the historical veracity of the events reported in Esther. Kaspi tends to up- hold the plain meaning of the biblical text even when it points to a deeper one55. We also have a passage in Menorat Kesef in which Kaspi explicitly refers in passing to the Esther story as an historical event56. Therefore Kaspi seems to have felt that the Esther story was an actual historical occurrence, but was cast into a form by Mordecai, its author, so as to impart esoteric wisdom. We could end our analysis here satisfied that we have shown that Kaspi indeed interprets the Book of Esther as hinting at a deeper philosophical truth. Yet, one suspects that there is more to say. For the key philosophical lesson being taught here — that negative prophetic predictions are often overturned due to hidden conditions — is embodied not just in any histori-

53. Avraham Nuriel discusses the various options before offering his own view in “To- wards a Clarification of the Concept of Satan in the Guide of the Perplexed” (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 5 (1986), p. 83-91. 54. ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, vol. 2, p. 140. Kaspi in the same discussion, however, disagrees with a number of other details in Maimonides’ views on Satan in the Book of Job. See also Kaspi’s comments in Menorat Kesef, p. 133, where, in discussing Zechariah’s prophecies, he assumes an association between Satan and the imagination. As Kaspi notes, this association also comes from Maimonides’ Guide III:22, p. 489. 55. This feature of Kaspi’s exegesis is discussed by HERRING, p. 35-41. See also the remarks of KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 19-27. 56. Menorat Kesef, p. 132. 394 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER cal occurrence, but in one involving the Jews and their relationship with their Gentile enemies. Is it possible then that Kaspi saw the Esther story as pointing to some deeper lesson about the overall course of Jewish history? This suggestion becomes plausible when one considers Kaspi’s views on the nature of the historical process. Both Shlomo Pines and Hannah Kasher have argued convincingly that Kaspi consistently interprets events in Jew- ish history in a thoroughly naturalistic manner, an approach that falls in line with Kaspi’s overall philosophical orientation. Events that are understood in biblical and rabbinic sources to be the result of divine intervention are in Kaspi’s thinking due to human initiative. Kaspi never states his radical views openly. But it becomes clear upon reading him carefully that for Kaspi God ‘rewards’ only in the sense that He is the remote cause of all human intellectual activity by which we maximize our welfare. God ‘punishes’ in that He ceases to be the remote cause of such activity in instances in which we fail to use our intellectual capacities for our benefit57. Significant events in Jewish history are interpreted accordingly. Perhaps the example most frequently cited by Kaspi is the destruction of first Tem- ple. In several passages Kaspi calls upon a number of human factors that caused the catastrophe. For one, the Jews were so preoccupied with idol- worship that they neglected to take care of their land and become proficient in the art of war. They also made the miscalculation of fighting the Baby- lonians rather than surrendering, contrary to the advice of Jeremiah. Kaspi will often cast these factors in terms palatable to a traditional audience. Thus, the determination of the Jews to fight the Babylonians rather than surrender is seen as transgressing the biblical commandment to heed the word of the prophet. But the radical nature of Kaspi’s orientation is just beneath the surface of such pronouncements58. Apparently, Kaspi even saw the messianic period as coming about from natural forces. As Pines notes, Maimonides may have preceded Kaspi in interpreting the progress of messianic events in this way; but whereas Maimonides is at best ambiguous about the extent of his naturalism here,

57. KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 72-74; PINES, especially p. 285-98; DIMANT, p. 146- 159. 58. First commentary on Proverbs, HaÂoÂrot Kesef, in ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, vol. 1, p. 41; Gevi‘a Kesef, p. 252; Tam Ha-Kesef, p. 34-41. In the last source, Kaspi explains how both Temples were destroyed due to human miscalculation on the part of the Jews. See also Gevi‘a Kesef, p. 235f., where Kaspi discusses a whole series of events in Jewish history starting from the slavery in Egypt. Again the naturalistic orientation is evident — though Kaspi is highly obscure at certain points of this account. A similar discussion appears in ’Adney Kesef, I. LAST (ed.), London, 1911, vol. 1, p. 165-172, where Kaspi deals with the suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 395

Kaspi is somewhat clearer in explaining the events of the messianic period as the result of human initiative59. In a lengthy and remarkable passage in Tam Ha-Kesef, Kaspi describes the messianic period as coming about by any number of possible political events. We will cite only a portion of this text: Who does not know, who does not see the perennial rises and falls, the perennial changes [of power] of each and every people? This [is witnessed] between the Islamic nations in the change [of power] of their governments. The same [occurs] between the Christian [peoples], and [in their relationship] with the Muslims… Thus, why would it be such a miracle in anyone’s view, [if] the land of Israel [was] returned to us from the hands of the Muslims? For [only] God knows why this [will happen]. Kaspi then goes on to recount how various nations have conquered the land of Israel in the past and that we simply cannot second-guess God’s plans with respect to the future. Summing up these thoughts, he exclaims: In general, all these changes [in the land of Israel] are reliable evidence and support that our return to the land of Israel is possible, for ‘possibility’60 has not ceased. Further on, the force of Kaspi’s naturalism becomes clear when he speculates in greater detail on the types of events that may bring the messianic period: One should learn [about] that which is hidden from that which is openly ex- plained, that it is possible that we will soon leave this exile for we are free and do not have an overlord. That is, when we were slaves imprisoned in Egypt, God took us out “defiantly”61. Why is it not easier for Him [to do this] for us today? Is there no more material in the hands of the Creator62 to bring into existence a man like Moses or someone of lesser stature than him to come before the kings and that they will hand us over to him just as Pharaoh finally did — even though at first Pharaoh was extremely stubborn? Or why will God not do for us as He did with respect to the second Temple [and] the ‘second animal’63? Cyrus made a pronouncement throughout his kingdom, “Anyone

59. PINES, p. 285-98. In a recent and extensive study of medieval Jewish philosophical views on messianism, Dov Schwartz has shown that Kaspi was by no means alone in interpreting the messianic period in rational, naturalistic fashion. A whole group of thinkers appear to have taken this approach in one way or another. See D. SCHWARTZ, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought (in Hebrew), Ramat-Gan, 1997. A large portion of Schwartz’s study is devoted to the naturalistic interpretation of messianism. See especially, chapter 5. Kaspi is dealt with in surprisingly brief fashion on p. 132. 60. I.e., as a general philosophical category. 61. Lit. “with a raised hand”, a phrase from Ex. 14:8. 62. A play on Jer. 18:6. 63. Kaspi alludes here to the imagery of the four animals described in Daniel’s prophecy in Dan. 8 that represent four kingdoms that will rule Israel throughout their exile before the arrival of the Messiah. 396 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER

of you of all His people etc.” [Ezra 1:3]. No human being made any effort in this matter. Have the artifices of God ceased? Does He not have yet one more instrument to take us out of our exile a third time, in a manner similar to the first time, or the second time, or perhaps by a third and new way which we cannot imagine? Why would it not be easy — as we have said — for Him to bring another man who would do what Moses did and go to the king of Egypt, and the king of the Tartars, and they will then hand over the Jews and the land of Israel? Or [perhaps] a king will arise and capture all of the land of Israel from the king of Egypt, called today ‘the Sultan’, and a pronouncement will be made throughout his entire kingdom that we should return to our land64… In general, who can tell of the ways, the ways of God? We cannot know even a fraction of what is known to God. In general, why should we [even] make an effort to think through how God will perform all of His wonders? For He knows what He will do, how and when He will do [it]. The principle [in all this] is that the matter [of redemption] is in the nature of the possible, and no Christian can argue with me…65. Kaspi’s traditional pronouncements about God here should not throw us. For despite his constant references to God in bringing about the redemption, what is he describing are historical processes governed by human initiative. As is his custom, Kaspi employs traditional expressions to mask his radical views. In the passages just cited, Kaspi’s emphasis is on political maneuverings which will result in the redemption. But in another passage in his commentary on Zechariah, Kaspi suggests that the Jews will eventually take military initiative in regaining sovereignty, an idea that has prompted a number of scholars, including Pines, to see striking parallels between Kaspi’s views and modern Zionism66. Kaspi tells us that “at the beginning of the renewal of our kingdom, at the time that we begin to go up and turn toward Jerusalem, all the nations will arouse themselves against us, and a large number of us will fall [in battle], but in the end we will be entirely victorious”67. With all this mind, we can begin to speculate on a link between Kaspi’s reading of the Book of Esther and his views on Jewish history. In particular, one wonders whether Kaspi is reading the story of Esther as a lesson in how the messianic period will unfold. The connection is not as far-fetched as it may seem. King Ahasuerus’s decree could be symbolic of God’s decrees repeated in the Torah and the Prophets that the Jews will eventually

64. The Sultan of Egypt refers to the Mamluk monarch in power during Kaspi’s time. The king of the Tartars refer to the king of the Mongols who were in Iraq during this period. See PINES, p. 289-90. 65. Tam Ha-Kesef, p. 42-45. 66. PINES, p. 290. 67. ’Adney Kesef, vol. 2, p. 154 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 397 fall under the dominion of Gentile nations and experience hardship under foreign rule68. Moreover, the process by which the Jews overcome the king’s decree in the Esther story could be symbolic of the way in which the Jews in the future will overcome their exile. The Jews will defeat their enemies in the messianic period by the same type of wily political maneuverings and military action that Mordecai and Esther used. And far from going against divine will, this type of initiative, Kaspi implies, will only be taking advantage of the hidden conditions in the predictions of the prophets. Those predictions, as the message of Esther tells us, by no means preclude the right of the Jews to reverse their bad fortune. Read in this way, Kaspi’s commentary on Esther could also be interpreted as a charge to ac- tivism in bringing about the messianic period. The exile will be ended by human will, not by waiting for God to break into history. Yet, if the argument here is to be more than speculation, we must find evidence of Kaspi’s concern for the messianic era within his actual commentary on the Book of Esther. In fact, there are two veiled suggestions of this sort. First, at one point in his commentary, Kaspi compares the progress of events in the Esther story to Joshua’s conquest of the land of Israel. As we saw earlier, Kaspi saw the defeat of the enemies of the Jews in Mordecai’s time as in part a psychological matter. So fearful had the Gentiles become of the Jews on account of Mordecai’s success and his rise to power, that they were unable to fight with the necessary zeal. Kaspi in- sinuates that Joshua met with success in conquering the land for similar rea- sons. The inhabitants of the land had become so fearful of the Israelites on account of hearing about their defeat of the Egyptians, that they were weakened in their ability to fight69. This analogy may have messianic overtones, for the conquest of the land of Israel is, after all, a key event in the messianic period. Thus, by drawing an analogy between the events of the Book of Esther and Joshua’s conquest, Kaspi may be suggesting that the Book of Esther has a messianic message. But the most important statement reflecting a messianic theme in Kaspi’s commentary on the Scroll of Esther is the very last remark in the text. As noted earlier, in the final section of his commentary Kaspi explains that

68. Here again we should emphasize that for Kaspi God’s ‘decrees’ in turn are symbolic of catastrophic events built into the natural order. Haman as Satan is representative of the harmful natural forces responsible for those events. 69. GK, p. 36-8. Kaspi bases his interpretation on statements in the biblical text which make note of the Canaanites’ fear of the Israelites. In Josh. 2:8, Rahab refers to the “dread” which her people feel toward the Israelites. An even stronger statement is contained in Josh. 5:1 which describes how the Amorites “lost heart” and had “no spirit” left in them upon hearing about the Israelites crossing the Jordan River. 398 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER there is an esoteric doctrine in the Book of Esther, one which he himself does not know. But Kaspi closes with the following final comment: And one of the great principles70 that we learned in this book is that God’s providence [comes] upon us, as [will] His pity for us, when we repent to Him, pray, and fast. For He has promised us a future world [’aÌarit] in His holy Torah in the verse, “Yet, even then etc.” [Lev. 26:44]. God will give wisdom to those who love Him, and a readied horse for war, but salvation is from God. Enough [has been said] about this in accordance with the purpose of this book. May God forgive my errors. Amen71. One may be tempted to read this closing remark as a standard traditional statement of messianic hope that one finds at the end of countless medieval Jewish texts. However, given all that we have said, there is reason to believe that Kaspi is relaying something significant here. Indeed if one reads the passage carefully, it is marvelous in its oscillation between revealing Kaspi’s true views and concealing them. Kaspi begins with the pious notion that from the Esther story we learn to repent, fast, and pray in order to experience God’s providence. Kaspi also makes clear that he has one very specific manifestation of divine providence in mind here, and that is the messianic period. He cites Leviticus 26:44-5 as evidence for the promised redemption where God exclaims: “Yet, even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or spurn them… I will remem- ber in their favor the covenant of the ancients”. It is hard to take Kaspi at his word here. Elsewhere he is critical of those who spend all of their time doing pious deeds, praying, and fasting72. And indeed in the very next sentence, Kaspi appears to subvert his traditional assertions in referring to God as the one who will give us “wisdom” and “a readied horse for war” to defeat our enemies. These phrases suggest that the redemption will come through human causes such as intellectual perfection and military action. In finishing this thought, however, Kaspi pulls back from his implied radicalism with a final pious exclamation, “but salvation is from God”73.

70. Lit. “cornerstones” (pinnot). 71. GK, p. 39. 72. See, for example, Maskiyyot Kesef, p. 144, on Guide, III:51, where Kaspi explicitly identifies the pious fool (Ìasid shoteh) as one who does nothing but perform pious deeds, pray, and fast. He is to be contrasted with the truly pious individual who appreciates the value of intellectual perfection. This is not to say that Kaspi sees no value in the commandments. They are of great utility in teaching one moral and intellectual perfection as Maimonides had taught, so long as they are understood as subordinate to those goals. See MESCH, p. 84-88. KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 38-48. 73. Kaspi’s wording is based on Prov. 21:31: “The horse is readied for the day of battle, / But victory is from the Lord”. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 399

Thus, beneath Kaspi’s traditional rhetoric here is the innuendo that the messianic period will not come about by fasting, prayer, and repentance — but human will. For the astute reader, it is this idea which Kaspi tells us is the “principle” taught to us by the Scroll of Esther74. If our interpretation is correct, what then are we to do with Kaspi’s statement, noted earlier in our summary of his commentary, that the events in the Scroll of Esther are miraculous in nature75? In order to evaluate this assertion, let us first cite the relevant passage: There is no doubt in my opinion that God performed a miracle on behalf of Mordecai and Esther and the righteous individuals that were there. For God, who is the agent of all [events], brought weakness and fear into the heart[s] of the peoples [in Ahasuerus’s kingdom]. For they heard about the miracle and the report [of events]76 from the month of Sivan [onward] in the far reaches of the kingdom — [namely,] the relationship of Esther77 and the ascendancy of Mordecai her uncle. It78 informed the peoples [in Ahasuerus’s kingdom] how the miracle occurred that He performed on behalf of the Jews in that He wanted that sleep would desert the king so that the scribes of the king were summoned79 and everything else that followed from this [resulting] from God’s wonders, so that Haman was impaled, and Mordecai came to power and became second-in-command to the king and Esther [became] queen. And what else [is there to tell]? And when the peoples [in Ahasuerus’s kingdom] heard these wondrous events that our God, blessed be He, did for us, they all trem- bled and melted in His presence…80. Kaspi is obviously speaking about miracles in natural terms here. That is, there is no suggestion that God performed miracles in the sense of directly 74. Our insights here may also help explain Kaspi’s remarks at the beginning of Kappot Kesef, in ‘Asarah Keley Kesef, vol. 2, p. 1-28, which is comprised of commentaries on Ruth and Lamentations. In his introduction to this work, Kaspi groups the Scrolls of Ruth, Lamen- tations, and Esther together as books which help explicate important matters in the Torah. Kaspi complains that these books are read aloud in the synagogue with the masses having little understanding of their true content. From our analysis of Kaspi’s commentary on the Scroll of Esther, one may conclude that Kaspi speaks of these three biblical books as a group because he regarded them as being united by their messianic content. The significance of the story of Esther in this respect is, of course, the subject of our present discussion. The messianic motif also comes through clearly in Kaspi’s opening remarks to his commentary on Ruth (p. 4) where he underscores the significance of the story for establishing the ascendancy of the Davidic line in its claim to eternal kingship. The role of Lamentations in Kaspi’s thinking is more difficult to determine because Kaspi alludes to, but refuses to discuss, esoteric doctrines in his commentary on that book (e.g., p. 14, 15, 22, 27). However, given that Lam- entations deals with the destruction of the first Temple, it is not hard to imagine how this book might have been connected in Kaspi’s mind to themes such as exile and redemption. 75. Above, p. 385. 76. The reference here is to the content of the second decree of Ahasuerus. 77. I.e., her relationship to her people, the Jews. 78. I.e., the second decree. 79. Esther 6:1 f. 80. GK, p. 36. 400 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER and willfully intervening in the order of events of the Esther story; rather, He performed them through that order by guiding events so as to save the Jews from destruction. This conception is by no means unusual. The general notion that miracles result from extensions of laws in the natural order is not uncommon in the medieval period, particularly after Maimonides who in certain passages allows for at least some miracles to be interpreted this way81. NaÌmanides’ conception of ‘hidden miracles’, a variation on this theme, was also influ- ential82. Moreover, we find the same approach toward miracles informing the interpretation of the Book of Esther in a number of other medieval exegetes. These include Joseph Kara (b. ca. 1060) who predates Kaspi, Gersonides (1288-1344) who is Kaspi’s contemporary, and Isaac Arama (1420-94) and Zechariah ben Saruk (fifteenth century) who come after him. All these exegetes to one degree or another believe that God’s hidden hand guided events in the Esther story in a manner similar to that described by Kaspi in the passage just cited. There is evidence that even some of the early rabbis entertained such notions83. This reading of Esther is inspired in part by the fact that nowhere in the Book of Esther does God’s name appear, an absence which seems to support a naturalistic understanding of events therein84. One is therefore tempted to conclude that Kaspi’s remarks about the miraculous nature of events in the Esther story are part of a larger tradition of medieval Jewish philosophical thought, in general, and exegesis of the Book of Esther, in particular. However, in all likelihood the matter is otherwise, for it is likely that Kaspi’s remarks are nothing more than pious rheto-

81. See MAIMONIDES, Eight Chapters, J. I. GORFINKLE (ed. and trans.), New York, 1912; repr. New York, 1956, p. 98-9; Guide, II:29, p. 345-346; Ma’amar TeÌiyyat Ha-Metim, J. FINKEL (ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 9 (1939). p. 23-24, 34-36. For a comprehensive treatment of miracles in medieval Jewish philosophy, see H. KREISEL, “Miracles in Medieval Jewish Philosophy”, Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1984- 5), p. 99-133. 82. For a discussion of this doctrine, see D. BERGER, “Miracles and the Natural Order in NaÌmanides”, Rabbi Moses NaÌmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Liter- ary Virtuosity, I. TWERKSY (ed.), Cambridge, MA, 1983, p. 107-128; the critique of Berger by M. NEHORAI, “NaÌmanides’ Theory of Miracle and of Nature and its Connection to R. Yehu- dah Ha-Levi” (in Hebrew), Da‘at 17 (1986), p. 23-31; Berger’s rejoinder in Da‘at 19 (1987), p. 169-170; D. NOVAK, The Theology of NaÌmanides Systematically Presented, Atlanta, 1992, p. 61-75; Y. T. LANGERMANN, “Acceptance and Devaluation: NaÌmanides’ Attitude Toward Science”, Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1:2 (1992), p. 223-245. 83. B. WALFISH, p. 79-89. In addition to the sources cited by Walfish in rabbinic literature, mention should also be made of the suggestive remark in B.T. Îullin 132b which relates Esther’s name to the doctrine of the hiding of God’s countenance (hester panim). 84. For a discussion of medieval Jewish views on this issue, see WALFISH, p. 76-79. The only other book in the Bible in which God’s name is not mentioned is the Song of Songs. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 401 ric to appease the traditional reader. For one, as a general observation, it is unlikely that Kaspi believed in miracles in the sense that any of the other authors just mentioned did, perhaps with the notable exception of Gersonides85. As we have noted, Kaspi’s God was entirely impersonal and therefore not capable of performing miracles. Thus, in his biblical commentaries Kaspi strives at every opportunity to show that miracles can be ex- plained as natural events of one sort or another brought about by the de- vices of the prophet himself86. But even more important, we must not lose sight of the whole point of Kaspi’s commentary. As we have shown, Kaspi views the Esther story as an allegory showing how human beings can overcome negative prophetic predictions that reflect the changeless will of God by understanding the unstated conditions of those predictions. The actions of Mordecai and Esther are an illustration of this idea. It is therefore difficult to see how the miraculous enters the picture here at all. Put another way, Kaspi’s reading assumes a static God, and the focus of his commentary is therefore on human initiative and its role in guiding events in the Esther story. This is in stark contrast to the other exegetes just mentioned — again, with the possible exception of Gersonides — who see God as playing a hidden, but nonetheless active, role in the events of the Esther story. We may also note that in the passage just cited, Kaspi subtly alludes to his true philosophical position by introducing God as “the agent of all [events]” (po‘el la-kol) before recounting the ‘miracles’ of the Esther story, a phrase which is more appropriate for a God who acts as First Cause than one who performs miracles87. There is perhaps no need to explain why Kaspi saw his esoteric reading of the Scroll of Esther as worthy of concealment. Kaspi knew full well that his views on the true meaning of the Esther story would not be acceptable to a traditional reader. But there is another series of observations which will give deeper insight into Kaspi’s motive for hiding his esoteric interpretation.

85. See n. 95 below. 86. Again, I support Kasher and Dimant over Herring on this point. See n. 5. 87. The same phrase is used one other time in Kaspi’s commentary, on the same page as the passage under discussion here (p. 36). Also relevant here is the fact that in his commentaries Kaspi makes frequent use of the principle first enunciated by Maimonides that events attributed to God in Scripture are often the result of intermediary natural causes even when those causes are not identified. Because God is the ultimate and remote cause of all events, it is not incorrect to attribute those events to Him directly. Thus, if Kaspi is attributing the events of the Esther story to God that are in fact due to natural causation, he is utilizing what he believes is a technique in Scripture itself. See Guide, II:48, p. 410; Tirat Kesef, p. 49; Gevi‘a Kesef, p. 172, 256. 402 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER

Kaspi’s position on how divine decrees can be revoked is often presented in conjunction with a discussion about how one determines the veracity of prophecy88. In Deuteronomy 18:18-22, one finds the stipulation that one who claims prophecy is deemed a genuine prophet only if his prophetic predictions actually materialize89. Yet, if, as Kaspi argues, prophetic predictions need not come true because of hidden and unstated conditions, there is a problem with the biblical test for prophecy since it appears to have been rendered impotent. A false prophet whose predictions did not come true could always hide behind the claim that there were unstated conditions in the original prediction that had not been fulfilled. Kaspi solves the problem with an original, though somewhat awkward theory. Kaspi argues that the prophets deliberately framed their prophecies according to certain pre-established rules. Negative prophecies predicting disaster were to be stated without any conditions, even if the prophet was well aware of them. That is, the people were not to be informed about whether the prediction would occur necessarily or was conditional upon their actions. Thus, Jonah in his warning to Nineveh says simply, “Forty days more, and Nineveh will be overthrown,” without specifying any con- ditions90. For as Kaspi argues, one of the major goals of the prophet was to encourage his listeners to repent. In instances that the prediction had no conditions and would necessarily materialize, there was in fact nothing they could do to avert disaster, and in such cases, if people were apprised of this information, they would have certainly seen no hope in bettering their con-

88. The discussion which follows draws primarily from ShulÌan Kesef, p. 101-144, which is Kaspi’s most extensive and sophisticated treatment of the issue. There are, however, other discussions of this topic noted in n. 39 above. See also the scholarly treatments of Kaspi’s views on this matter in HERRING, p. 42-43; KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi,” p. 94-97; idem, ShulÌan Kesef, p. 39-44. One may wonder, given our heavy reliance on ShulÌan Kesef in this paper, whether that work was written before or after the commentary on Esther. This is a question that cannot be answered. While Kaspi specifies the date he wrote the Esther commentary (1331), there is no such date given for ShulÌan Kesef. Moreover, as Kasher argues in the introduction to her edition of this work (p. 27-28), Kaspi seems to have composed this work over an extensive period of time. Even if Kaspi had specified a date for this work, it might not have helped us much. Such dates are not necessarily meaningful given that Kaspi seems to have revised many of his works throughout his lifetime. Thus we often find two works in which each makes explicit reference to the other. The problem of dating Kaspi’s works is treated by Kasher in “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 5-9. Despite these difficulties, Kasher attempts to show in her introduction to ShulÌan Kesef how Kaspi’s views on determining the veracity of prophecy evolved chronologically through several of his works (p. 41-44). 89. The passage reads as follows: “And should you ask yourselves, ‘How can we know that the oracle was not spoken by the Lord?’ — if the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by the Lord; the prophet has uttered it presumptuously: do not stand in dread of him”. 90. Jonah 3:4. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 403 duct91. Kaspi admits, however, that in some instances, the prophets did inform the people about conditions pertaining to negative prophecies. Kaspi seems to have in mind cases in which repentance is itself the condition upon which a negative prophecy depends, for here it is obvious that giving a full account of the prediction would encourage repentance. Positive prophecies on the other hand were to be stated with their conditions, if in fact such conditions applied. For if a positive prediction was conditional, it was best that the people know it so that they could improve their ways in anticipation of reward. Here Kaspi seems to have in mind instances in which the implementation of a positive prophecy was dependent on being obedient to God. People who knew that their good fortune was conditional in this way would certainly feel encouraged to improve their conduct. Leaving out the condition here would have made it seem as if the good fortune was certain, a situation which would only encourage compla- cency92. Kaspi concludes that these rules for framing prophecies constituted an esoteric tradition passed down orally to the select few from Moses onward. These rules allow us to make sense of the test for verifying prophecy in Deuteronomy 18. Kaspi argues that when the biblical text hinges the test of the prophet on valid prediction of the future, it is referring only to specific instances of positive prophecies that are stated without conditions. If a prophet makes such a prediction and his prophecy does not come true, he is clearly a false prophet because a genuine prophet will know the esoteric tradition that positive prophecies must always be stated with their conditions if such conditions exist. Thus, if the conditions are not stated, we can be sure that the prediction must be one that is unconditional and will necessar-

91. Kaspi does not seem to be concerned about the prospect that if an unconditional prophecy announcing impending doom causes people to repent, people may become disillu- sioned and lose their faith altogether when it becomes clear that repentance has not averted disaster. Kaspi implicitly addresses this problem in a somewhat callous manner by suggesting that if such people meet doom despite their repentance, at least “our souls will not be lost, and the rest [i.e., those witnessing] will hear and see” (ShulÌan Kesef, p. 140-141). In philosophical terms, what Kaspi means is that while such people will experience physical demise, they will achieve immortality for repenting. Moreover, those witnessing this disaster will benefit in being inspired to repent lest they meet the same fate. 92. This makes one wonder why the same logic would not apply to negative prophecies which are conditional upon repentance. Would people not be encouraged to repent knowing that repentance could avert disaster? In fact, as we just noted, Kaspi believes that in some instances the prophets do reveal conditions of negative prophecies if it will lead to repentance. But Kaspi’s wording suggests that this is not always the case. See p. 141: “Sometimes, the prophets will reveal that it [i.e., the negative prophecy] is possible, and will make it conditional upon ‘if we do not listen to the voice of God’”. Sometimes, but not always. Moreo- ver, Kaspi seems adamant throughout his discussion that negative prophecies generally be stated without conditions. 404 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER ily materialize. Its failure to materialize therefore proves beyond a doubt that the prophet is a false one93. All of this sheds valuable light on Kaspi’s determination to conceal his esoteric reading of the Esther story. As we have just seen, one of the purposes of prophetic predictions is to encourage repentance for the masses, and such predictions should therefore be cast in a manner that furthers this goal. And, in fact, just about every prophecy in the Bible forecasting doom for the Jewish people frames the issue in a manner designed to accomplish that very purpose; if the Jewish people sin, they will be punished with exile, and if they repent, they will be reconciled with God. Thus, it is obvious why Kaspi’s esoteric reading of the Book of Esther must also be concealed from the masses. It informs us about the true meaning of the biblical prophecies concerning the messianic period, that political and military initiatives will bring redemption — not piety in the traditional sense. In short, in concealing the esoteric meaning of the Esther story, Kaspi was not only hiding a truth that was harmful to the masses, he was also being mindful of what he believed to be the esoteric tradition of the prophets which specified that prophecies had to be formulated in a manner which would encourage the moral and intellectual development of the masses. Our final consideration here will be to evaluate the place of Kaspi’s reading of the Scroll of Esther within the tradition of Jewish commentaries written on it in the medieval period. Our task is greatly aided by the splendid study of Barry Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb, which deals with how the Book of Esther was interpreted by medieval Jewish exegetes94. Kaspi’s commentary appears to be distinguished by its radical naturalism. As we noted earlier, a number of other medieval exegetes both before and after Kaspi’s time saw in the Book of Esther a story illustrating how God’s providence can operate through natural events in a manner resonant with Kaspi’s philosophical orientation. However, we concluded that Kaspi ulti- mately shares little in common with these other interpreters. Most of these exegetes assume that God plays an active role in the story, even if His role

93. Kasher, in her introduction to ShulÌan Kesef (p. 40-41), has a somewhat different understanding of Kaspi’s views on these issues. She doubts that Kaspi believes in the ability of the prophet to predict the future and that the rules for the prophet’s formulations of his predictions are designed to give him an excuse to his audience when his predictions do not materialize. I am not sure why Kasher reads Kaspi in this way. One issue we cannot deal with in this discussion, is how Kaspi’s views here square with his belief in an impersonal God. Surely when Kaspi asserts that some prophecies are conditional upon repentance, he does not mean that God has responded to repentance in a personal manner. The immutability of divine will is, after all, basic to this whole discussion. A full treatment of this issue, in particular what Kaspi means by repentance, is beyond the scope of this paper. 94. We have already cited Walfish in n. 7 and n. 83 above. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 405 is a hidden one. By contrast, Kaspi’s reading assumes that God is impersonal and changeless and therefore focuses on the role of human initiative in the story95. Another issue that needs to be considered in assessing Kaspi’s commentary in the context of medieval Jewish exegesis is our suspicion that Kaspi sees the Esther story as embodying messianic themes. If our reading is correct, Kaspi was not the only one to see messianic motifs in this biblical book. At least two other medieval Jewish exegetes, Zechariah ben Saruk and Abraham Saba, saw in the defeat of Haman a symbolic foreshadowing of the defeat of Israel’s enemies and the coming of the final redemption96. And it is not difficult to see why this connection was made. The messianic motif emerges from a number of scattered rabbinic passages. Walfish notes that Haman is seen by rabbinic tradition as a descendant of the Amalekites, the eternal enemy of the Jewish people, and their defeat in the Book of Esther could therefore be easily interpreted as a symbol of Israel’s conquest of its enemies in the messianic period97. We also have rabbinic sources which link the story of Esther to the messianic period quite directly — al- beit in mysterious fashion. We have a source which claims that in the time of the Messiah, all books in the Writings — the third portion of the Hebrew Bible — will lose their value, except for the Scroll of Esther. There is another source which tells us that in the time of the Messiah only Purim and Yom Kippur will be celebrated98. These sources may have also inspired the medieval exegetes to connect the Scroll of Esther with the messianic period. Moreover, as Walfish notes, Jews in the medieval period were prone to make this connection given their experiences of constant persecution and humiliation under foreign rule99.

95. Above, p. 399-401. The only exegete who may share a similar approach to the Esther story is Gersonides who lived in close proximity to Kaspi in both place and time. In overall philosophical orientation, Gersonides adopts an Aristotelianism very close to Kaspi’s. Fur- thermore, his commentary on Esther is similar to that of Kaspi in that it also contains what appear to be traditional assertions about the role of divine providence and miracles in the Esther story (Perush ‘al Îamesh Megillot, Riva di Trento, 1559/60; reprint, Konigsberg 1860, p. 49a-d, to‘elet 51). All of this raises a number of questions. Is there some parallel to be drawn between the two thinkers in their reading of Esther? Are Gersonides’ statements about providence and miracles the same sort of pious rhetoric that we find in Kaspi? Is there a possible influence of one thinker on the other? Unfortunately, we cannot answer the first question because it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine Gersonides’ commentary in depth. However, such an analysis would be most instructive, as would a comparison between the commentaries of Kaspi and Gersonides. As far as influences go, there is no evidence to suggest that either of them knew of the other’s work as noted by KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 152, and TWERSKY, p. 233-234. 96. WALFISH, p. 89-94 97. Ibid., p. 89. 98. J.T. Megillah 70d; Midrash Mishley, chapter 9. 99. WALFISH, p. 89. 406 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER

Yet, what is interesting to note is that Kaspi’s commentary predates the two other exegetes who link the Esther story with messianic themes. Thus, Kaspi’s commentary may have been the first one to make such a connec- tion100. What is also noteworthy is that Kaspi’s own commentary may have been shaped by the same rabbinic sources which inform the commentaries of the two later thinkers. Thus, the notion that Haman is identified with Amalek may have inspired Kaspi’s identification of Haman with Satan, a figure who in turn represents the harmful natural forces that are responsible for evil in the world101. However, due to the lack of any explicit statement by Kaspi regarding rabbinic sources in his Esther commentary, it is difficult to make firm determinations about their role in his reading102.

To summarize, we have argued that Kaspi’s esoteric understanding of the Scroll of Esther can be discerned by a close reading of his commentary, despite its brevity and his profession of ignorance of esoteric matters concerning this biblical book. For Kaspi, the Esther story teaches valuable philosophical lessons about how negative prophetic predictions can be overturned by human initiative even though God’s will cannot change. Just as Mordecai and Esther were able to nullify the effects of Ahasuerus’s first decree by taking advantage of hidden conditions in it, so human beings can overcome negative prophetic predictions by taking advantage of conditions of this sort. There is also good reason to believe that Kaspi saw the Esther story and the philosophical ideas it embodies as giving insight into the messianic process. Just as Mordecai and Esther saved the Jewish people through a combination of political and military means in taking advantage of the unstated conditions in Ahasuerus’s first decree, so the Jewish people will achieve redemption by political and military means in taking advantage of unstated conditions in the predictions of the biblical prophets. Kaspi’s commentary is highly original in reading the Esther story against the background of a radically naturalistic philosophy. Furthermore, while other medieval exegetes made a connection between the Esther story and the messianic period, Kaspi appears to have been the first to conceive of this link.

100. It is unlikely that Kaspi exerted an influence on the two later exegetes. If Kaspi does make a connection between Esther and the messianic motif, it is, as we have shown, highly subtle and indirect. 101. We also noted above that Kaspi may have been influenced by rabbinic sources in equating Ahasuerus with God (p. 388). The same sort of allegorical interpretation used by the philosophers for the Bible was used for rabbinic texts. This method is well-documented in Marc Saperstein’s Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth Century Commentary on Aggadah, Cambridge, MA, 1980. 102. The extent and nature of Kaspi’s use of aggadah are themes virtually unexplored by scholars. JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER 407

I would like to mention two other more general insights into Kaspi’s thought that come out of our study. First, Kaspi’s views on allegory may be more positive than is generally assumed. Many modern commentators have noted that Kaspi is generally quite cautious in his use of allegory, a stance most likely inspired by the controversy over Maimonides’ writings, of which Kaspi was no doubt aware. In a number of places, Kaspi advocates that allegorical interpretation be restricted to cases where it is absolutely needed. Kasher presents the most extensive interpretation of Kaspi’s views on allegory, arguing that Kaspi’s attitude toward allegory is negative in his earlier writings but becomes more positive in his later works. Kasher supports her view by tracing Kaspi’s explicit statements on this matter as they develop throughout his writings103. However, our study casts doubt on our ability to determine Kaspi’s views on allegory from explicit statements alone. His commentary on Esther claims not be an allegorical reading, and yet it turns out to be pre- cisely that. Moreover, Kaspi’s statement about allegory in his commentary on Job — so pivotal in our study — turns out to be misleading. As we saw earlier, it is in that passage that he suggests an allegorical understanding of the Book of Esther. Yet, he also says in the same passage that allegory should be used only for instances in the biblical text which describe a prophetic vision — even though there is nothing to suggest that the Book of Esther is anything of the sort104. From this confusion of contradictions, one is left to wonder about all the other occasions in which Kaspi restricts or even rejects allegory for a particular biblical book or passage. If as Kasher notes, Kaspi speaks out against allegory in his early writings, is it not possible that, as in the case of Esther, Kaspi is withholding his true position? One could argue on the basis of our study that he supported allegory as a method of interpretation even in these writings, but chose to reveal his true views in later works. Given his habit of making claims to avoid controversy, this approach is certainly plausible. Only a careful and comprehensive study of Kaspi’s writings will allow us to draw firm conclusions on this matter. One other lesson that can be gleaned from our study is more methodo- logical in nature. Our analysis of Kaspi’s commentary demonstrates that his esoteric doctrines in a given work may not become known unless one does a comprehensive search for clues in his other writings. It is noteworthy that nowhere in his commentary on the Book of Esther does he make the key

103. DIMANT, p. 25 f.; Twersky, p. 238; HERRING, p. 35-41; KASHER, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, p. 19-27. 104. Above, p. 386-388. 408 JOSEPH IBN KASPI ON THE SCROLL OF ESTHER equation between Ahasuerus and God, on the one hand, and Haman and Satan, on the other, clues without which we would have had no key to unlock Kaspi’s secret reading. These clues are found, and stated all too briefly, in other commentaries. Thus, in order to read Kaspi, extraordinary care, precision, and thoroughness are required. This adds another challenge to understanding a thinker who is challenging even without these considerations. Our analysis has shown, I hope, that the effort can bear significant fruit.