Does Ibn Caspi maintain that Hashem appeared to Avraham in human form?

This would be quite a stunning position for a medieval French commentator to take. On the other hand, as discussed elsewhere, believe in certain types of Divine Corporeality may have been prevalent among certain French Rabbinical figures.

On the other hand, entirely separate from Ibn Caspi, I saw how this idea, of Hashem appearing in the form of a human, or three humans, can work out well according to the peshat of Vayera -- perhaps a separate post explaining just how it works out so nicely -- and so I may be reading this position into him.

Let us start with the beginning of Vayera. The first two pesukim read:

א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה', בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם.	1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
ב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, אָרְצָה.	2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,

Some may want to say that these three angels are God. This sort of approaches the Christian idea of a trinity. But Ibn Ezra handily rejects this, writing:

[יח, א]

וירא -

הנה קצת אמרו, כי השם ג' אנשים הוא אחד והוא ג' ולא יתפרדו. והנה שכחו ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה ומפרשים אמרו: שהשם נראה אליו במראות נבואה ואחר כן נשא עיניו וראה ג' מלאכים:

האחד בא לבשר שרה.

והשנים הלכו לסדום:

האחד להשחית.

והשני להציל את לוט.

ופירוש ויאכלו, כי נאכל הלחם, כטעם אשר תאכל האש:

Thus, that they separate shows that they are not one unit, and so vayera elav Hashem is not elaborated upon by the next pasuk by the three "men" showing up. He then adds what classic meforshim say, to explain the role of these three angels.

Ibn Caspi, at the beginning of the narrative, and perhaps on this first pasuk, writes:

יח (א) האיש אשר נמצא הגביע בידו ידע כעת זה הסיפור

What is this gevia, goblet? I don't entirely know. There is a possible reference to Binyamin. And perhaps there is reference to the mashal brought by Avi Ezer in this very parsha (for another purpose) of the silver goblet split into pieces, where depending on how big the pieces, one might figure out the whole. In which case he certainly divides his explanation into different pieces here, and seems to be deliberately ambiguous in each section.

Or the somewhat likely, it is a reference to his work Gevia Kesef. To cite Wikipedia:

Gebi'a Kesef (Mug of Silver), or Yoreh De'ah (Teacher of Science), supplement to the mystical commentaries on the Bible ("Cat. Peyron." p. 208; Munich MS. No. 267). The initial chapters may have been written as refutation of the apostate Abner of Burgos (Herring 1982). Kaspi finds great theological significance in the number 3 (Chap.V), and he speaks in this work about the origins of the concept of The Trinity found in Christian philosophy, attributing it to an earlier ternary division made among the Separate Intelligences by Aristotelian thinkers (e.g., Abu-Nasr). He also expounds the different philosophical implications of the diverse names of God in the Bible.

Here, we are dealing with three entities appearing, immediately after vayeira eilav Hashem. It seems quite probable that he relates these to the ternary division of Separate Intelligences by Aristotelian thinkers, such as Abu-Nasr. Of course, I haven't read his sefer Gevia Kesef. Therefore, the gevia is not found in my hand, and so I will be unlikely to understand his intent about the meaning of this Biblical narrative.

(That he makes reference to the gevia later in his commentary here gives some weight to the idea that it is not a reference to this other work of his, but rather refers to a divided and deliberately ambiguous commentary.)

But let us say for now that I suspect that it has to do with the idea that one of the three "men" who appear is some physical manifestation of Hashem's Presence, while the other two are mere angels who accompany Him.

The next pasuk:

ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.

3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

And "Adonay" is spelled with a kametz, usually reserved for the Shem Hashem. See what various meforshim say, grappling with this, and even different textual variants of a patach or kametz in this word.

Ibn Caspi writes:

ש(ג) אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך. אע"פ שידוע בכל ספרי
הקודש, כי לדבר (?) פעם ליחיד פעם לרבים, הטיבו מאד רבותינו שאמרו
לגדול שבהם אמר (ב"ר פמ׳׳ה), וגם מה שאמרו ז"ל אברהם שהיו
כחו יפה נדמו לו בדמית אנשים לוט שהיה כחו רע נדמו לו כדמות
מלאכים(ב"ר פ"נ). אולם לא יבין זה אחד מני אלף, מצורף למה שכתב
הרב במדרגת הנבואה:

Do not pass on from your servant -- although it is known in all Holy Books, that to the matter (?) sometimes it is written in singular and sometimes plural, our Rabbis did very well in stating that he said this to the greatest of them (in Bereishit Rabba, perek 45). And also that which they, of blessed memory, said: Avraham, whose strength was good, they appeared to him in the form of people; Lot, whose power was poor, they appeared to him in the form of angels (Bereishit Rabba perek 50). Yet not one in a thousand understands this, combined with what the Rav {=Rambam?} wrote about the levels of prophecy.

I may not be the one in a thousand, but I will give it a shot nonetheless. He is being deliberately cagey and ambiguous, because he is saying something that many may deem heretical or quasi-heretical. Thus, he is instructing us to look more deeply at his words, to find the shocking message.

And this is it:

True, the word (adonai, my master) may be written in plural and singular, and in this instance, at one peshat level, it can merely mean just that. But there is a message in what Chazal said. The Gadol shebahem is one of the three, who is the greatest of them. Who is this? The manifestation of Hashem Himself! (Or alternatively, all three are. But if we say only one, it fits in better with gadol shebahem, where Chazal intended only one of them -- Gavriel?)

Further, this was prophecy, not mere visitation by heavenly beings. And so it was Hashem revealing Himself in the way each could receive it. Lot was on a lower level, so he saw them as angels. Avraham was on a higher level, so he saw them as humans. But I think what Ibn Caspi is hinting at, through the medium of Chazal's words, is that both of them saw something other than the reality. For both, it was נדמה לו כדמות. But that was not the real form, neither for Avraham nor for Lot. Rather, in both cases, it was a visitation by Hashem Himself! And this was the prophecy.

Ibn Caspi continues, not on the main theme I am trying to develop. But he does call it a malach. On Bereishit 18:10,

י וַיֹּאמֶר, שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה, וְהִנֵּה-בֵן, לְשָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ; וְשָׂרָה שֹׁמַעַת פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו.

10 And He said: 'I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh round; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.' And Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.--

Ibn Caspi writes:

י) והוא אחריו. הנרמז במלת והוא הנה הוא לפתח האחל,
וכנוי אחריו למלאך המדבר 2 ) ואס סיבל העניין הפך זה 3 ) והענין אחד:

Thus, in vehu acharav, vehu refers to the door of the tent, while acharav refers to the speaking angel. Or the opposite, with the same meaning.

Finally, when the two angels finally reach Sodom, in 19:1:

א וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה, בָּעֶרֶב, וְלוֹט, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-סְדֹם; וַיַּרְא-לוֹט וַיָּקָם לִקְרָאתָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַפַּיִם אָרְצָה.

1 And the two angels came to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom; and Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them; and he fell down on his face to the earth;

Ibn Caspi writes:

יט (א) ויבואו שני המלאכים. אלו השנים היו מן האנשים
שלשה שנפרדו מאברהם שהלך עמם לשלחם. והגדול שבהם לא נראה
ללוט, ובאמת אלו השנים אינם השנים אשר להם
למשל שני הכרובים אשר מתוכם היה הקול נשמע
למשה , ואלו ענינים נכבדים, והכל נמצא בגביע:
"And the two angels came -- these two were from the three 'men' who had separated from Avraham, who had gone with them to send them off. And the greatest of them did not appear to Lot. In in truth, these two are not the two who, for example, are the two cherubs from which the Divine voice is heard to Moshe. And these are weighty matters, and all is now found in the goblet."

Thus, he counters Ibn Ezra's apparent claim that the fact that they divided, such that three became two, is a total disproof of the "revelation of God Himself" concept. It is indeed a disproof of a Trinity, joined as one.

So Ibn Kaspi asserts that these two angels are the same as two of the three men. But which one left? The "gadol shebahem." And as we said earlier, that gadol shebahem was likely intended as Hashem Himself!

Where he degrades the level of these angels, he is only degrading the level of "these two". They are not like cherubs, where Hashem's voice, and directives, came out to speak to Moshe Rabbenu. By the keruvim, we are dealing with a kind of manifestation of the Divine Presence Itself. But these two, who went to Sodom, were mere angels.

Not so for the "greatest of them." The Gadol Shebahem was like the keruvim. For michlal lav ata shomea hein. Those two were not like the keruvim, with the hinted implication that the third one was like the keruvim. And so the third one, which appeared in human form to Avraham, was a Manifestation of the Divine Presence. And that is why it is fitting that the kametz was there, when the gadol shebahem was addressed. And Hashem was accompanied by two regular angels.

All this works out remarkable well in terms of the peshat. To see how, read this post, for example, or Ephraim Speiser's translation and summary in the Anchor Bible Genesis.

By the way, this is not "real" corporealism. It is not a belief that Hashem Himself has human form. Rather, just like the midrash that has Hashem take equine form to tempt the horses of Pharaoh at the Yam Suf, this has Hashem take on human form as a disguise in order to communicate with mankind. Compare to how Manoach and his wife thought that after seeing the Ish Haelohim, that they would surely die. Even so, it is corporealism which nowadays is not just out of vogue, but considered heretical or quasi-heretical. On the other hand, if (and perhaps only if) this is what the Biblical text actually means, then by some definitions, it could not be heretical.

Regardless, it would be quite interesting if this is what Ibn Kaspi intended. And recall, once again, that some forms of corporealism were acceptable among the rabbis in France at that time.

Does anyone else have a plausible explanation of all of the references comments by Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi?

Update: In order to better respond in the comment section, I am appending this segment from Speiser's Anchor Bible Genesis.