Vaeira: Ibn Kaspi’s Paradigm-Shifting Insights on Moshe’s Dialogues with Hashem

The free version of this article features one Ibn Kaspi commentary that answers two major questions about nevuah. The paid version explores three earthshattering (and possibly heretical) implications.

The Torah content for the rest of January is sponsored by Avital, “to continued growth, learning and clarity IY”H. Thank you for all your guidance!”

Click here for a printer-friendly version of the FREE version of this article. Paid subscribers can scroll to the end for the FULL version, which includes three additional pages of (possibly heretical) speculations.

The audio covers the FULL version of the article, and is only available to paid subscribers. There is no audio for the free version.

Vaeira: Ibn Kaspi’s Paradigm-Shifting Insights on Moshe’s Dialogues with Hashem

Preface: Ibn Kaspi Disclaimer

Readers of this substack and followers of my What I’m Thinking About This Morning posts may have noticed my recent obsession with R’ Yosef ibn Kaspi (1280-1345). I’m captivated by his “radical pshat” methodology, his Maimonidean philosophical orientation, and his fiery personality, which shines through in his witty (and often acerbic) writing. What draws me most to hims, however, is that his creative, original, and daring readings of Chumash have been a catalyst for paradigm shifts in my understanding of Torah.

The passage from Ibn Kaspi’s commentary that I’ve chosen to write about this week is one of these revolutionary readings. I will admit upfront that I do not fully grasp the meaning and implications of everything he writes here. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to share it because his comments have already begun to change how I understand Chumash and will continue to shape my perspective.

There are certain ideas that, upon encountering them for the first time, make you exclaim, “Of course this has to be true! How could I have thought otherwise?” These ideas often stand out because they resolve numerous other questions and illuminate new avenues of insight. This is one of those ideas.

However, I’m wary of the fact that there’s a good chance Ibn Kaspi’s views on nevuah (prophecy), in general, and nevuas Moshe (Mosaic prophecy), in particular, might be considered kefirah (heresy) by some—or at least carry heretical implications.

For this reason, I’ve chosen to split this article in half: the first half, available for free, presents Ibn Kaspi’s questions and answers. The second half, which explores my potentially heretical speculations on the implications of Ibn Kaspi’s ideas, will be kept behind a paywall.

Remember: this is Ibn Kaspi – not the Chumashwithrashi™ you may have learned as a kid. You’ve been warned.

Two Problems with Moshe’s Dialogues

Ibn Kaspi (Shemos 6:13) raises two significant questions about the dialogues between Moshe and Hashem:

There are two questions that arise from the events beginning with Moshe’s prophecy (in Parashas Shemos) until now (Parashas Vaeira).

The first question: How could Moshe harbor doubts at all when Hashem commands him to act, repeatedly wavering in fear after [hearing] His word? This did not happen just once or twice but seven times up to this point. This would seem, God forbid, to indicate a weakness in his conviction in Him!

The second question: Given that Hashem is the complete and perfect intellect, always in a state of actuality, how could His instructions change [in response to Moshe’s objections], as if Moshe were a more perfected advisor offering progressively better advice to Him? [I’m referring to two instances:] first, [when Moshe suggested] that Aharon be a spokesperson to the Israelites (4:13), and second (6:12) [when he suggested that Aharon] also [act as a spokesperson] to Paroh. Why didn’t Hashem respond, “Did I appoint you as advisor to the King?”

Note: I assume that “King” refers to Hashem and that Ibn Kaspi intended for this to be read in his characteristically sarcastic tone; it doesn’t make sense to interpret this as referring to Paroh.

For the sake of clarity and thoroughness, let us summarize and unpack Ibn Kaspi’s questions.

Ibn Kaspi’s first question becomes clearer when we compare Moshe Rabbeinu to Avraham Avinu. Unlike Avraham, who unquestioningly accepted Hashem’s command to slaughter his only son, Moshe responds with repeated questions, objections, and (so it seems) complaints. As Ibn Kaspi notes, he does this seven times:

1. “Who am I that I should go to Paroh, and that I should bring the Children of Israel out from Egypt?” (3:11)

2. “Behold, when I come to the Children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you', and they say to me, 'What is His name', what shall I say to them?” (3:13)

3. “But, behold,⁠ they will not believe me and will not listen to my voice, for they will say, 'Hashem did not appear to you!'” (4:1)

4. “Please,⁠ my Lord, I am not a man of words, not yesterday and not the day before,⁠ not since You have spoken to me, for I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue” (4:10)

5. “Please, my Lord, send through whomever You will send” (4:13)

6. “My Lord, why have You brought harm to this people? Why have you sent me? Since I came to Paroh to speak in Your name, he has brought harm to this people; and You have surely not delivered Your people!” (5:22-23)

7. “Behold, the Children of Israel did not heed me; how will Paroh heed me when I am of uncircumcised lips!” (6:12).

Thus, Ibn Kaspi’s first question is: How are we to understand Moshe’s words and behavior? What caused Moshe to question Hashem’s word to such an extent?

Ibn Kaspi’s second question arises from the straightforward reading of these dialogues, which suggests that Hashem responded to Moshe’s protestations by altering His plan. When Hashem first presented the mission to Moshe, He said: “And now, go (singular)! I will send you (singular) to Paroh. Take (singular) My people, the Children of Israel, out from Egypt” (3:10). Aharon is not mentioned. The implication seems clear: Moshe—and Moshe alone—is expected to take the Israelites out of Egypt. This implication is consistently reinforced in Hashem’s subsequent statements: “For I will be with you (singular), and this will be for you (singular) the sign that I have sent you (singular), when you (singular) take this people out from Egypt etc.” (3:12), “Thus shall you (singular) say” (3:14-15), and “Go (singular) and gather the elders of Israel and say (singular) to them” (3:16).

Only after Moshe objects—saying, “Send, please, through whomever You will send” (4:10)—does Hashem bring Aharon into the picture: “Hashem’s anger flared at Moshe, and He said, ‘Is there not Aharon, your brother, the Levite? I knew that He speaks well … You shall speak to him and place the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will instruct you (plural) what you (plural) shall do” (4:14-15).

Similarly, after the first attempt to persuade Paroh fails, Moshe protests: “Behold, the Children of Israel did not heed me; how will Paroh heed me when I am of uncircumcised lips?” (6:12). Here, Moshe implies that he feels unqualified to speak to Paroh himself. In response, Hashem further expands the role of Aharon. Aharon would not only speak on behalf of Moshe to the Israelites but would also serve as spokesperson to Paroh.

Thus, Ibn Kaspi’s second question is this: If Hashem is perfect and omniscient, what do we make of the fact that Moshe seemingly proposed an alternative plan, and that Hashem accepted it?

Ibn Kaspi’s Answer to the First Question

Here is Ibn Kaspi’s answer to the first question in its entirety, with my own paragraph breaks for clarity:

The answer to the first question: God forbid that Moshe’s reluctance and fear stemmed from doubting Hashem! Rather, it arose from doubting himself and his own mind, [fearing] that he might not have properly understood what Hashem told him. For His words are concise, concealed, subtle, and difficult [to discern] – as they ought to be, for such is the nature of the words of any chacham (wise man), all the more so those of God (exalted is He)! A servant standing before God is not permitted to demand explanation upon explanation of every single word, as though speaking with a peer.

Therefore, Moshe, the servant of Hashem, upon hearing Hashem’s word, was always suspicious of his own intellect and understanding, to the extent that he trembled in fear at the possibility of his own errors. All of this stemmed from his profound wisdom, as it is written: “The wise man fears and turns away from harm, but the fool is reckless and confident” (Mishlei 14:16), and similarly: “the prudent man considers every step” (ibid. 14:15). Hashem does not appoint fools as His servants, for He “has no desire in fools” (Koheles 5:3). Rather, [He selects His servants] from among the wise—those who strive to investigate and understand the inner contents of statements, their underlying reasoning, their causes, and the causes of their causes, to the utmost degree. [Thus, Moshe’s fear] does not indicate weakness of conviction in God, but the opposite: an extraordinary strength of conviction in Him. This is the intent of his statement, “You shall be wholehearted with Hashem, your God” (Devarim 18:13). This was the cause of Moshe’s hesitation and [apparent] avoidance, until, through his inquiry and contemplation, he attained a grasp of the prophecy that perfected [his understanding] of the mission …

Without a doubt, if Moshe had already attained the ultimate level of perfection described in the verses in Ki Tisa, where it is said about him, “Hashem spoke with Moshe face to face” (33:11) and “You will see My back etc.” (33:23), he would not have experienced any of these fears, not even once. However, at this point, he had not yet reached that ultimate level of perfection, although even now his level surpassed that of all the other prophets.

In short (no pun intended), Ibn Kaspi explains that Hashem’s speech is as concise as it is profound, and Moshe, in his wisdom and intellectual humility, doubted his own understanding. His questions and objections should not be misconstrued as a lack of trust in Hashem, but as expressions of his struggles to understand Hashem’s word. These struggles arose because, at this early stage in his prophetic career, Moshe had not yet attained the ultimate level of speaking with Hashem “face to face,” a level he would eventually reach by the time he received the Torah. Had he received this same nevuah later, Hashem’s meaning would have been crystal clear to him.

Ibn Kaspi’s Answer to the Second Question

Here is Ibn Kaspi’s answer to his second question, which follows directly from his first:

The answer to the second question: God forbid that Moshe should act as an advisor to Hashem (exalted is He)! Rather, Moshe was advising himself, and his advice to himself came to him from Hashem, “for Hashem gives wisdom; from His mouth [come] knowledge and understanding” (Mishlei 2:6).

Without a doubt, Hashem knew, even before Moshe came before him, that due to Moshe’s limitations—being “only a little lower than the angels” (Tehilim 8:6)—it would be necessary for Aharon to serve as an intermediary for the Israelites and also for Paroh. Hashem never uttered anything that would exclude this possibility, as anyone skilled in the art of logic would recognize – and Hashem is the unparalleled master of this art. However, as mentioned earlier, the utterances of a king – and all the more so those of the King of kings – are conveyed with the utmost degree of subtlety, brevity, and concision.

Hashem’s intent was always for Aharon to serve as an intermediary to the Israelites and to Paroh, even though this was not explicitly stated in Hashem’s word and was only implied latently. Because Hashem’s word is concealed, Moshe did not know what to do and was afraid that he had misunderstood the statement. At first, it seemed to him that Hashem’s intent was for him – that is, Moshe alone – to go and speak everything. [This is why] he said to Hashem as a question, “I am not a man of words” (4:10). Once he saw that Hashem responded, “Who gave man a mouth?” (4:11), as we have previously explained, he said, “Send, please, through whomever You will send” (4:13). This was because he had not yet grasped Hashem’s intent or understood His will, due to the conciseness of Hashem’s words – for who could understand them? Therefore, Moshe did not know how to find within himself the proper integration to combine both elements – namely, that he should remain [a part of the mission] and that Aharon should be joined with him.

Even though he was only slightly less perfected than an angel, he was initially alarmed only about [the prospect of speaking with] the Israelites, as if his “uncircumcised lips” would hinder his ability to speak effectively with the Israelites but not with Pharaoh. Perhaps this was because, as mentioned earlier, the Israelites would require more elaborate explanations than speaking to Paroh. Therefore, Moshe said, “Send, please, through whomever You will send” – meaning that he would leave the group and return to shepherding Yisro’s flock. Hashem then responded, “Is there not Aharon, your brother, the Levite? I knew that he speaks well” (4:14), as if explicitly clarifying His original intent – that Aharon was always meant to join him and serve as his intermediary.

And if you will object to me, saying, “If Hashem had always wanted this, why [does the Torah say,] ‘Hashem’s anger flared at Moshe’ (4:14)?” I will provide a few answers.[1] [First,] by way of analogy: Even though a father knows and recognizes his only son’s deficiencies, he will still feel anger and disappointment when he acts upon or expresses those deficiencies. Similarly, in the manner of dibra Torah ki’lshon bnei adam (the Torah speaks in human language), Hashem “was saddened,” because Moshe was slightly lacking compared to the angels in all his ways. If Moshe had been truly perfect, he would not have been “uncircumcised of lips,” nor would he have raised so many objections and questions about this entire matter, for it would not have seemed too lofty for him.

Additionally, if [Moshe were perfected as] an angel, he would have understood the concise expression of Hashem and would have understood that Hashem’s intent from the outset was for Aharon to go with him as an intermediary. Furthermore, if [Moshe had been as perfected as] an angel, he would not have offered improper advice, as he did when he said, “Send, please, through whomever You will send,” thereby excluding himself from the collective. Since there was no one like him on earth, it would have been proper for him to say instead, “Send Aharon with me!” …

[Note: I have omitted a small portion of Ibn Kaspi’s commentary here, which I deemed tangential for the purposes of this article.]

In any event, it is clear that Hashem’s original intent was the same as it ultimately was. Therefore, Hashem spoke to Moshe with language indicative of this, saying, “Is there not Aharon, your brother, the Levite? I knew that he speaks well.” I mean to say that the word ha’lo (“isn’t there”) was used rhetorically. Similarly, [the phrase] “I knew” in the past tense serves as clear proof of what we have said: that Hashem’s original will was thus. However, Moshe did not understand this, and therefore Hashem addressed him harshly and rhetorically, saying, “Didn’t I know? Didn’t I establish that Aharon speaks well and is willing to take on this mission between you and the Israelites? This was my intent, though you didn’t understand.”

To summarize: contrary to the implications of a straightforward reading, Hashem did not change His plan in response to Moshe’s objections. He had always known that Moshe could not carry out this mission alone due to his limitations and had always intended for Aharon to act as spokesperson to the Israelites and Paroh. This plan was implicit in Hashem’s original communication, but Moshe’s struggles to grasp it arose from his limited understanding of Hashem’s concise words. Hashem’s display of anger, like all anthropomorphisms, is the Torah’s way of communicating Moshe’s imperfection at this stage of his prophetic career—relative to the level of nevuas Moshe he would ultimately attain.

We can now explain the difference between Avraham and Moshe. Avraham may not have known why Hashem commanded him to sacrifice his son, but the command itself was clear. Moshe, on the other hand, could not make sense of what Hashem wanted him to do. How could he, with his “uncircumcised lips,” speak to Israel and Paroh?

This is the end of the free part of this article. From here on out, the kefirah alarm is on. Proceed with caution!