GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock

*********************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Mr Emanuel Abrams
in memory of Rabbi Abba and Eleanor Abrams
*********************************************************
Lecture #1:
Targum Onkelos
A.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In order to understand the world of biblical exegesis (parshanut), one

must become familiar with the major exegetes (parshanim; singular, parshan).
This is my overarching goal in this series of weekly lectures. We will examine
the unique style of each parshanindividually, from his particular methodology
to the influence of the his life experiences on the nature of his commentary. At
the same time, we will deal at length with the contribution of each exegete
to parshanut in general. Naturally, in this framework, we cannot deal with all of
the biblical exegetes, or even with most of them; rather, we will focus on
those parshanim who, in my opinion, have had the most significant impact on
the world of biblical commentary. I will try, in each lecture, to bring examples
from the Torah portion of that week. In this lecture, we will cite numerous
verses from bothParashat Bereishit and Parashat Noach.
Before we begin our analysis, we must address the following pressing
question: when and why did biblical exegesis emerge in Jewish history? It is
logical to assume that the generation that received the Torah understood its
instructions. Similarly, it is logical to assume that in subsequent generations,
parents bequeathed to their children an understanding very close to that of
the generation that stood at the foot of Mt. Sinai. However, as the
chronological distance from Sinai grew, the meaning of the text became
progressively more obscure for those who studied it.
Take, for example, the description of the manna in Shemot 16:31: And
it was like a white coriander seed; and the taste of it was like a wafer in
honey. This verse is a bit perplexing for the modern mind. What is the taste of
a wafer in honey? What exactly does a white coriander seed look like?
Ostensibly, the generation that received the Torah understood these
references, just as Shakespeares plays were understood by his Elizabethan
audience. Nevertheless, a modern reader may find it difficult to understand
the metaphors and associations that the Bard employs.
Not only do obscure words and abstruse expressions require an
explanation; the syntax may be challenging as well. The difficult structure of a
given verse or passage may have been much clearer at the time of its writing;

alternatively, the words of the Masoretic authorities may hold the key to its
explication. However, in the absence of these elements, there is a pressing
need to present an understanding that is reasonable and fitting for
comprehending the biblical text.
I have chosen to open this series with Onkelos and his Targum
(translation) of the Torah, and we will begin with a few brief words about the
general nature of biblical translation.
B.

TRANSLATION AS AN EXEGETICAL TOOL

Translation is inherently commentary. When a given word has a

number of possible meanings and the translator chooses a specific term from
among many options, this translator is explaining the word in a definitive way
and excluding all other options. For example, let us take Bereishit 4:7, a most
difficult verse. God is speaking to Kayin, who is upset that his offering has
been rejected while his brother Hevels has been accepted. God reassures
him that there is no reason to despair:
If you improve, seet;
And if you do not improve, sin crouches at the door.
It is not clear what the term seetmeans. Onkelos (and Rashi, who
follows in his footsteps) translates the term as it will be let alone for you
that is, it will be forgiven. [1]Accordingly, he determines that one should
understand and punctuate the verse in this way: If you improve your actions,
you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve, sin crouches at the door. The
Malbim, however, explains the term seet as related to the term maset, a gift
or tribute;[2] God is thus saying to Kayin that it will not help him whether he
improves (i.e., increases) his offering or not; the result will be the same,
because sin crouches at the door i.e., acts are more significant than
offerings.[3] Thus, the translation of the word seet is determinative not only in
terms of the definition of this one word, but in terms of the syntactic structure
of the verse as a whole.
No translation is perfect. No translator can ever render the text in a
precise manner. Very often, the process of translation causes the text to lose
the beauty of the original text; when we speak of the Torahs language in
particular, we may even say that it loses some holiness as well; at the end of
the day, any translation takes away from the Torahs inherent value as the
words of the living God (Yirmiyahu 23:36).
The problematic nature of translation comes to the fore in a number of
ways. One of them is wordplay. Consider, for example,Bereishit 2:23: This
shall be called woman (isha), because this was taken from man
(ish). Onkelos renders: This shall be called itteta, for this was taken from her
husband (balah). The verse in the Torah teaches that the etymological root of
isha is ish, but this concept is utterly lost in the Aramaic translation. [4]

An additional sphere in which translation creates difficulties is that of

words that express more than one meaning. At the moment when the
translator picks a given definition, the reader loses every other potential
meaning of the word. An example of this can be found in Bereishit 2:25: And
they were botharummim, the person and his wife Immediately afterward,
the next verse (3:1) states: And the serpent was arum. Naturally,arum is
rendered naked in the first verse, while in the latter it is rendered clever or
subtle, but the Torah clearly desires to link the two. As these two terms are
unrelated in Aramaic, the translation forfeits the eloquence of the Torah.
The inevitable conclusion is that no translation can possibly maintain
the full multiplicity of meanings in the original; the translator is compelled to
pick one meaning only generally, one of the simpler ones and to
abandon the rest. Thus, one must necessarily turn the Torah into a shallow,
superficial book, without the unique depth and variegated layers hidden within
the original text. This approach is expressed by the Sages in the Talmud:
R. Yehuda says: Whoever translates a verse as it is written is a
fabricator, and whoever adds to it is a blasphemer and an execrator.
(Kiddushin 49a)
A precisely literal translation of the text cannot encompass the conceptual
truth of the verse, and a translation such as this is liable to lose the message
of the verse. Conversely, a rendering of the message without the literal
translation may succeed in transmitting the idea hidden in the verses, but it
ignores the fact that we are talking about a sacred text in which every word
carries meaning. This, apparently, is the explanation of a statement in Megillat
Taanit (Addendum):
And these are the days on which we fast
On the 8th of Tevet, the Torah was written in Greek in the days of King
Ptolemy, and the darkness came to the world for three days. [5]
C.

WHEN WAS THE TORAH FIRST TRANSLATED?

Despite the Sages negative view of the translation of the Torah, as

seen in the above source, at some point in history, they realized the
contemporary exigency of crafting a faithful rendering of the Torah. When did
the need for biblical translation arise?
Aside from the problem of comprehension that we discussed earlier
the chasm of time that may make it difficult to understand Tanakh at the
beginning of the period of the Second Temple, an additional impediment to
understanding the Torah came into being a basic lack of familiarity with the
language of Tanakh, biblical Hebrew. From the time of the Babylonian exile
and onwards, the Aramaic language progressively spread among the Jews,
as well as among the other peoples of the Ancient Near East. Slowly, the use
of Hebrew decreased, until Aramaic became the dominant tongue in the
region. This process necessitated a rendering of the Torah in a spoken

tongue, because without such a translation, there was no way of

approachingTanakh, except for the scholars who still knew Hebrew.
According to the view of the Sages, the first translations of the Torah
arose during the Return to Zion in the beginning of the Second Temple era
(5th century BCE). Nechemia 8:8 describes Ezras public Torah reading in the
following way:
They read from the scroll, from the Torah of God, clearly, and they gave
the meaning, so that the people understood the reading.
This is how the Sages understand the verse:
Rav said: What does it mean: They read from the scroll, from the
Torah of God, clearly, and they gave the meaning, so that the people
understood the reading? They read from the book, from the Torah of
God this is Scripture; clearly this is translation. (Megilla3a)
The Rambam writes:
From the days of Ezra, the custom was to have a translator translate
for the people whatever the reader would read in the Torah, so that
they might understand the content of the words. (Hilkhot Tefilla 12:2)
Thus, we may point to the period of Ezra as the first step in the development
of biblical exegesis.
It may be that the primordial translation described in the Book of
Nechemia is not a methodical, systematic rendition of the Torah in its entirety;
rather, it appears that the verse describes a translation according to the needs
of the audience, picking out difficult expressions and explaining them. Later,
apparently in the era of the Mishna, translations of Tanakhbecame an
accepted phenomenon throughout Jewish communities. The mishna attests to
this by enumerating the guidelines of simultaneous translation of the public
Torah reading:
One who reads the Torah he should not read for the translator more
than one verse; but in the Prophets, three. (Megilla 4:4)
In light of the Sages skepticism toward biblical translation, they saw fit
to choose one rendition and to grant this targumprimogeniture, thereby
preventing an outbreak of do-it-yourself translation. From among the Aramaic
translations of Scripture,[6] the one which most accorded with the Sages
viewpoint both because of its faithfulness to the text as much as possible
and its exclusion of a gross number of independent addenda was Targum
Onkelos. (This choice was as opposed to another famous targum, commonly
attributed to Yonatan ben Uzziel and known as Pseudo-Jonathan, which
weaves in Midrashic elements in almost every verses, as we will see
below.) These qualities made Onkeloss targum the Targum, granting him the

distinguished position of the official translator of the Torah. [7] But who was
Onkelos?
D.
THE IDENTITY OF ONKELOS AND THE TIME OF THE TARGUMS
COMPOSITION
We have no exact information concerning the identity of Onkelos and
the time of the composition of his Targum, and there are different views
concerning the matter. Onkelos is mentioned in Tractate Megilla:
Said R. Yirmiya alternatively, R. Chiya bar Abba: Onkelos the
convert recited the Targum of the Torah from the mouths of R. Eliezer
and R. Yehoshua. (Megilla 3a)
However, this declaration is far from self-evident, and it is difficult to conclude
based on this that Onkelos lived in the period of the Mishna (as I will shortly
explain). It may be that the intent of this aggadic statement is to identify
Onkelos as a student of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, much like R. Akiva,
thereby declaring that Onkelos received his interpretation through
the mesora and giving the seal of approval to his Targum.
Dr. Israel Drazin, an Onkelos scholar, proves in his analysis that we
should apparently date Targum Onkelos around the year 400 of the Common
Era.[8] He offers two main proofs of this:
1.
Onkelos is not mentioned in sources compiled before this time,
such as the Talmud Yerushalmi and Tannaiticmidrashim (such as the
Mekhileta of Rabbi Yishmael, the Mekhileta of Rabbi Shimon bar
Yochai, the Sifra, and the Sifrei.)
2.
Onkelos
commonly
quotes
the
abovementioned
Tannaitic midrashim, which were compiled about the year 400 of the
Common Era. Furthermore, he consistently uses the version of the
later editions of the Sages midrashim.
On the other hand, we should not date the life of Onkelos much later
than this, since he is mentioned in the Talmud Bavli (e.g.,Megilla 3a, Avoda
Zara 11a, Gittin 56b).[9]
E.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TARGUM ONKELOS

What characterizes Targum Onkelos, and what is so unique about his

style that earned him such a distinguished standing?
We will enumerate a number of important points:
1. The Targum is a terse, literal translation that aims to explain the
verses in a simple way, and it does not add details from the
Midrash. This is opposed to the Targum Yerushalmi, et al. For
example, the words And the woman saw that the tree was good for

food (Bereishit3:6), Onkelos translates simply: And the woman

saw that the tree was good to eat, while the Targum Yerushalmi
renders it, And the woman perceived Samael, the Angel of Death.
2. The Targum avoids the anthropomorphization of God. Onkelos,
out of respect for the divine, avoids attributing human acts or
ascribing human feelings to God. There are a number of examples
of this. Consider Bereishit 7:16 after Noach enters the Ark, the
verse reports, And God closed for him. Onkelos translates this,
And God protected him with His word, stressing that God protects
Noach with His utterance. Onkelos uses this language in order to
refute the possible interpretation that God closes the door of the Ark
with
His
hand.
In
another
example
fromParashat
Noach (Bereishit 8:21), we find, And God smelled the pleasant
smell, and God thought to Himself In this verse, there are two
expressions that express physicality: God smells an odor, and God
thinks to Himself (literally, said to His heart). Onkelos translates
the expression And God smelled as And God accepted with
goodwill; God thought to himself is translated: And God said in
His utterance.
3. When the Torah uses a metaphor, Onkelos is exacting in
explaining the significance of the metaphor and not translating it
literally, as this would be a ludicrous rendering of the Torah. For
example, the words And the Israelites were coming out with a high
hand (Shemot 14:8), Onkelos translates, And the Israelites were
coming out with a bare head that is, the nation leaves openly,
ostentatiously.
4. In translating verses of biblical poetry, Onkelos breaks away
from his customary approach; he does not explain the verses
according to their simple meaning, but rather according to their
prophetic content. For example, Yaakovs blessing of Yehuda, And
to the choice vine, his she-donkeys child (Bereishit 49:11),
Onkelos renders, The nation will build his sanctuary. The choice
vine is seen as the Jewish people, since they are often compared
inTanakh to a grapevine;[10] he reinterprets the word beni as
related not to ben, son, but beneh, build; and the word atono is
translated as his sanctuary, based on the Templesshaar ha-iton,
the entrance gate.[11]
5. The Targum attempts to prevent errors that may lead to the
desecration of Gods name. Sometimes, the Torah uses an identical
word for something sacred and profane. Thus, for example, the
term mizbeiach is used equally for an altar dedicated to God and
one designated for pagan worship. Nevertheless, Onkelos
translates these words differently. He translates a reference to an
altar for God asmadbecha, cognate to mizbeiach for
example, Bereishit 8:20 reports, And Noach built an altar for God,
which he translates, And Noach built a madbecha before God. On
the other hand, the term he uses for pagan altars is agora for
example,Shemot 34:13 commands, For you must demolish their
altars, and Onkelos applies this to the paganagora. Even the
word elohim is ambiguous; in Tanakh, this is sometimes a sacred

name and sometimes a term for pagan deities. In the latter case,
Onkelos uses the term dachala, fear that is, inherently powerless
objects that are invested with powers by those who worship them.
This is how he renders, for example, Shemot 20:19: Do not make
for yourselves silver gods or golden gods dachalan of silver
or dachalan of gold.
6. The Targum strives to maintain the dignity of the leaders of the
Jewish nation, often concealing character defects in the Patriarchs.
When the Torah describes an act by using a term with an extremely
negative connotation, Onkelos transmutes the negative word to a
neutral word. For example, in the story of the theft of the blessings
by Yaakov, Yitzchak says to Esav, Your brother came with guile,
and he took your blessing (Bereishit 27:35). Onkelos renders this,
Your brother came with cleverness, and he received your blessing.
Thus, Onkelos changes two things: Yaakov is described as clever
rather than guileful, and instead of taking the blessing, he merely
receives it. Consequently, a reader of the Targum perceives that
Yaakov is not a thief, but a clever man; furthermore, Yaakov is the
receptacle for Yitzchaks blessings, not the one who takes
them. Similarly, the Torah unequivocally states that Rachel stole
her fathers terafim (Bereishit31:19), but Onkelos softens this and
translates it as And Rachel took the images.
7. The rendition of the Targum follows the Halakha. Sometimes,
Onkelos translates the verse according to the tradition of the Oral
Torah, and not according to the simple meaning of the verse. For
example, Bereishit 9:6 states, One who spills the blood of a
person, by a person shall his blood be spilled, establishing the
death penalty for homicide. Onkelos translates this verse in the
following way: One who spills the blood of a person, with
witnesses, by the utterance of judges, his blood shall be spilled. In
other words, the death penalty requires eyewitness testimony and a
judicial verdict. Another example is the rendering of the famous
phrase, Do not cook a kid in its mothers milk (Shemot 23:19, et
al.), which Onkelos transforms into Do not eat meat in milk.
F.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TARGUM ONKELOS

There is no doubt that Targum Onkelos succeeded, for over a

millennium, in maintaining its honored place in the Jewish community as the
authoritative and sanctified translation of the Torah. In every publication of the
Torah with commentaries, Targum Onkelos maintains its place of honor, and
throughout the Jewish world, the weekly study of the Targum is a halakhic
obligation. The formula of twice Scripture, once Targum is in fact codified
(Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 285).
In this lecture, we have seen that the words of the Targum were
chosen by Onkelos with exactness and precision, based on pedagogical and
theological motives; therefore, one who reads Targum Onkelos must delve
into it in order to understand it thoroughly. For this purpose, the works of a

large number of commentators and researchers, old and new, are available to
use in the study process.
May we all merit the blessing of the Talmud:
R. Huna bar Yehuda says in the name of R. Ammi: A person should
always complete his portions together with the congregation, twice
Scripture and once Targum for if one completes his portions together
with the congregation, his days and years are prolonged. (Berakhot 8ab)
(Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch)

[1] Cf. Bereishit 50:17, where sa refers to bearing or pardoning a sin.

[2] Cf. Bereishit 43:34. Medieval exegetes offered many and sundry explanations of the
term seet (see ibn Ezra, Ramban, Seforno); I have chosen the Malbims explanation, as this
influences the syntactic structure of the verse.
[3] In Malbims words: Thus, God revealed to him that He does not desire offerings; rather,
Behold, listening is better than any fine offering (I Shmuel15:22). The essence is improving
ones actions, not improving the maset or the offering, as improving themaset will not be
desirable in His eyes. [God is saying to Kayin:] whether you improve the maset or not, it is not
desirable in My eyes, as there is no qualitative difference in it.
[4] It may be that Onkelos is formulating an alternative etymology, using the wordplay
of itteta and the term nesiva, taken, which is synonymous with the word aitei, brought
(used in the previous verse). Indeed, a bride is brought or taken from her fathers house to
her husbands house.
[5] This formulation of the Sages may present the inverse of the three days of preparation
before the Torah was given at Sinai (Shemot 19:10-16).
[6] The limitations of this series do not allow me to analyze the Greek translations of
Scripture, but their place of honor remains unquestioned.
[7] See for example, the following ruling of the Rambam, Hilkhot Ishut 8:4: If one says to a
woman, You are betrothed to me by this on the condition that I am literate, he must read the
Torah and translate it with Targum Onkelos.
[8] I. Drazin, Journal of Jewish Studies 50, No. 2 (1999), pp. 246-58.
[9] Many miraculous tales are attributed to Onkelos, the most famous being the passage
in Avoda Zara, in which the Roman emperor sends three Roman legions, one after another, in
order to convince Onkelos to recant his conversion; Onkelos manages to convince them all of
the veracity of the Torah, and it is they who convert to Judaism. (Titus is identified as
Onkeloss uncle in the passage in Gittin.)
[10] For example, Yirmiyahu 2:21.
[11] See Yechezkel 40:15.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #2:
Saadia Gaon
A. BIOGRAPHY

Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon ben Yosef (882-942) [1] known by the

acronym Rasag is considered one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of the
early medieval period. Rasag was well-versed in many disciplines: biblical
exegesis, Jewish philosophy, Hebrew language, prayer, and Halakha. He
was born in Egypt,[2] but he operated mainly in Babylonia, where he served as
the rosh yeshiva of the Talmudic academy in Sura (near Al-Hira in modernday Iraq). Rasag was the first learned Jew to compose a tract of Jewish
philosophy, and he was the first Jew to write a comprehensive commentary to
the Torah. These compositions of Rasag were designed to address the
challenges of the time, and they served as his weapons of war against
phenomena that threatened to tear apart the Jewish community, as we will
see presently.
During the course of his life, Rasag passed through all of the
contemporary Jewish centers of Torah and Arab centers of education. In
Egypt, he married and had a number of children, two of whom are known by
name: Sheerit and R. Dosa Gaon. It was in Egypt that the Rasag started his
professional life as well, writing the Agron, the first Hebrew-Arabic dictionary.
At the age of about thirty, he moved to Israel, apparently to Tiberias, where he
lived and operated until 921, when he returned to Babylonia.
Arriving there, he joined the yeshiva of Pumbedita, where he was part
of the administration for eight years, and there he received the title of
Alluf. The Exilarch, David ben Zakkai, invited Rasag to become the rosh
yeshiva of Sura in the year 928, and Rasag accepted this invitation.
Throughout all his years of service in theyeshivot of Babylonia, Rasag never
set down his pen; he was constantly composing halakhic tomes and writing
responsa to the questions he received from the far reaches of the Jewish
Diaspora.
In the year 930, a sharp dispute broke out between the Exilarch and
Rasag, compelling the latter to flee to Baghdad. During his year of his exile
from Sura, Rasag wrote his most important books in the world of philosophy,
including his magnum opus, Emunot Ve-deot. In the year 937, in the wake of
his reconciliation with the Exilarch, Rasag returned to his position as rosh
yeshiva of Sura, where he remained until his death in 942.
B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In order to understand the universal importance of Rasags writings
generally, and his commentary to the Torah in particular, we must examine the
cultural background of Rasag. One may point to two historical developments
that influenced the Rasags creations, one internal and the other external.
The outside phenomenon was the rise of Islam. As a result of the
success of the Muslim conquests of the 7 th century, many Jews around the
world found themselves under Muslim rule and surrounded by Muslim culture.
The aim of the Muslim faith is to strengthen Islam in the world by encouraging
the conversion of those living under its rule. Sometimes, this was done by
force, but on the whole, it was accomplished by giving greater rights to those

who converted to Islam. The effect of exposing the Jewish community to

Muslim religion and culture was ambiguous. On the one hand, Muslim
civilization enriched the cultural world of the Jews; on the other hand, this
exposure might seduce some to abandon Judaism for Islam.
In parallel, perhaps because of these phenomena, a new development
began from within the Jewish community about a century prior to the period of
Rasag. In the second half of the 8 th century, inspired by the actions of Anan
ben David, a sect developed that claimed essentially that Judaism could be
based only on Tanakh, without relating to any outside information at all. [3] The
command of Anan, founder of the sect (in fact, members of the sect were
identified as Ananites), was: Investigate thoroughly the Torah, and do not rely
on my words. Anan regarded the mesora as an invention of humans, and it
therefore could not be binding; only that which had been written in the Torah
could be seen as obligatory. Two centuries later, this position solidified into
that of the well-known Karaite sect. Practically, the main point of contention
was the relationship between biblical law and the tradition of the Oral Torah,
whether in terms of principles or in terms of specific laws. Of course, the
Gaonim preceding Rasag opposed this phenomenon quite forcefully, but they
did not feel threatened by it perhaps because, in the Gaonic period
preceding Rasag, the Karaite sect had not yet solidified. However, in the time
of Rasag, the sect had already begun to act in an aggressive way and to
influence many Jews.
These two phenomena
commentaries on the Torah.

are

the

foundations

of

the

Rasags

C. RASAGS COMMENTARIES ON THE TORAH

Characteristics of the Peirush Ha-katzar
Rasags commentary on the Torah is divided into two parts:
A) Peirush Ha-katzar (The Short Commentary): This is the translation
of Tanakh into Arabic (tafsir is the term in Arabic for parshanut),[4] and it
includes some brief explanations beyond the literal translation
designated for the wider community (Jews and non-Jews).
B) Peirush Ha-arokh (The Long Commentary): This is also written in
Arabic, but it is designated for educated readers. This commentary
includes an analysis of different topics in the disciplines of linguistics,
Halakha, and philosophy.
We will first analyze the Peirush Ha-katzar. Rasag composed an
introduction to his Peirush Ha-katzar,[5] in which he describes the impetus for
writing the commentary:
My only motivation for composing this work is the personal request of
one of the students, who asked for a book dedicated to the simple
meaning of the Torah, without integrating any element of linguistic

flourishes, metaphors, synonymy, or antonymy. I will cite neither the

questions of the heretics nor my answers to them. I will not explore the
intellectual mitzvot, nor will I delve into the performance of the
pragmatic mitzvot. Rather, I will translate the simple meaning of the
verses of the Torah only. I note that what I have been asked to do has a
purpose: that the readers will understand and comprehend the issues
of the Torah the narrative, the command and the reward in
sequence and with concision
It may be that a reader will afterwards seek to understand the
fundamentals of the intellectualmitzvot and the commission of the
pragmatic ones, as well as how to refute the claims of those who
challenge the portions of the Torah; let him satisfy all of these ends in
my other book. This brief one may inspire him to this end and lead him
to his object.
Bearing all this in mind, I have written this book as a simple translation
of the verses of the Torah only, exacting in its logic and following
tradition.
According to his own words in this introduction, the main aim of Rasag
was to translate the Torah into the spoken Arabic of his world, in order to
make it approachable for everyone. Rasag stresses that the Peirush Hakatzar does not deal with the philosophical questions that arise from the
Torah, nor is it a comprehensive explanation of the mitzvot of the Torah;
rather, it is a literal translation. The student interested in deepening his
understanding of the Torah is encouraged to turn to thePeirush Ha-arokh:
This brief one may inspire him to this end and lead him to his object. After
the student understands the simple meaning (peshat) of the verses in the
short Torah commentary, the student may proceed to study the Peirush Haarokh.
Still, we must ask does Rasag really translate the simple meaning of
the verses of the Torah only? Analysis of this commentary shows that the
Rasag often goes beyond the narrow peshat of the verses. First, Rasag adds
concise explanations. Since his target audience includes non-Jews as well,
who know little or no Hebrew, Rasag wants to make the books
of Tanakh accessible with a biblical translation and commentary.[6] In addition,
Rasag hoped to bolster the faith of all Jews through his translation, bridging
the chasms and destroying errant and mistaken beliefs, including the Karaite
faith. The language of the translation is meant to be clear, logical and
understood by the Arabic-speaking target audience, [7] and this is due to literal
precision of the Torahs text.
Similarly, Rasag intended for text to be understood in an unequivocal
way, without the ambiguity of the source language, apparently in light of his
debates with the Karaites. In addition, Rasag goes beyond the literal
translation in order to transmit different messages and to prevent possible
errors in the sphere of faith and philosophy.[8]

More specifically, the Peirush Ha-katzar has

characteristics (we will cite examples from Bereishit):

number

of

A) Avoiding anthropomorphization:Rasag will avoid translating and

explaining in a literal way those verses in which there is an attribution
of physical phenomena to God. For example, in 17:22, the verse
states, And God went up, and the Rasag renders, And the glory of
God went up.[9]
B) Commentative elucidations: For example, the Torah explains Chavas
name by saying (3:20), For she was the mother of all living things,
and the Rasag changes this to, of all living speaking things, since
Chava was not the mother of the animals.[10]
C) The identification of places, nations, objects and animals:Rasag
customarily identifies different nations mentioned in Tanakh, as well as
locations, various flora and fauna, etc. For example, Rasag identifies
the sites mentioned in the first eight verses of chapter 14 by describing
the places known to him in his era. Similarly, Rasag uses the names of
precious stones known in his time to identify the stones of the
breastplate.[11]
D) Clarifications in the sphere of faith and philosophy: For example,
Malki-Tzedek declares (14:15), Blessed be Avram to High God, while
Rasag translates, to the High God, to eliminate the possibility that the
verse refers to numerous gods, of whom Avrahams God is the chief of
the pantheon.
E) Alterations to prevent the desecration of Gods name: For example,
the Torah reports (12:17), And God plagued Pharaoh and his house
with great plagues because of the matter of Sarai, Avram's wife, but
Rasag renders this, And God informed Pharaoh that he would bring on
him and his house great plagues on Sarais account. This is in order to
avoid the claim that God punishes Pharaoh even though Pharaoh does
not yet know that Sarai is a married woman.
Characteristics of the Peirush Ha-arokh
Unfortunately, we have no complete manuscript of the Peirush Haarokh of Rasag, only parts of the Book of Bereishitand parts of the Book
of Shemot. This is a true shame. In any case, in his introduction to
the Peirush Ha-arokh, Rasag explains the methodology of his commentary to
his readers:[12]
It is fitting for every thinking person to always take hold of the Torah
according to the simple meaning of the words, what is most common
among those who speak his language and the most useful unless
sense or logic contradicts this expression, or if the simple meaning of
the expression contradicts a different verse or contradicts the prophetic
tradition.
Accordingly, Rasags modus operandi is to explain the verses
according to their simple meaning, unless:

A)
B)
C)
D)

The sense (our sensory perception of the world) refutes the peshat.
The intellect refutes the peshat.
There are verses which contradict each other.
The Sages tradition refutes thepeshat.

Due to the brevity of our discussion, we will deal at length only with the
last of these caveats: rejecting the peshat when it contradicts the Sages
tradition. As we have said above, the commentary of the Rasag is dedicated,
among other things, to strengthening the oral tradition in opposition to the
Karaite position. Therefore, in a considerable number of halakhic passages,
Rasag ignores the peshat of the verses. Instead, he explains the verse
according to the mesora, and he reinterprets the peshatof the verses through
logical argument, as the Sages law must be based on logic.
An example of this can be found inShemot 21:24-25:[13]
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a
foot. A burn for a burn, an injury for an injury, a bruise for a bruise.
Rasag engaged in a debate with Ben Zuta [14] concerning the question
of whether the verse really means that the assailant should lose a limb or
merely requires him to compensate his victim monetarily:
R. Saadia said: We cannot explain the verse as it sounds. For if a man
will strike the eye of his fellow, reducing the latters vision by one-third,
how can it be that he will be struck to just such a degree, no more and
no less? Perhaps he will be rendered totally blind! The burn, injury and
bruise are even more difficult [to reproduce]; if they are in a critical
place, [the assailant] may die, and this is ludicrous.
Ben Zuta said to him: But is it not written in another place
(Vayikra24:20): As he puts a blemish in a person, so must be put in
him?
The Gaon answered him: The term in sometimes mean upon. [15] It
means to say: so must a punishment be put upon him.
Ben Zuta responded to him [with the verse]: As he has done, so must
be done to him (ibid. v. 19).
The Gaon responded: Did not Shimshon say [of the Philistines]
(Shoftim 15:11), As they have done to me, so have I done to
them? Now, Shimshon did not take their wives and give them to others
[which the Philistines had done with Shimshons wife]; he simply meant
that he had dealt them a deserved punishment.
Ben Zuta responded: If the assailant is indigent, what shall his
punishment be?

The Gaon responded: If a blind man puts out the eye of a seeing man,
what shall be done to him? On the contrary, it is conceivable that the
poor man may become wealthy one day and pay, but the blind man will
never be able to pay!
Another example of his deep involvement in the battle with the Karaites
is his commentary on Shemot 34:18, concerning the Karaite custom of
creating a leap year in order to ensure that Pesach falls in the month of the
fresh ears that is, when the barley ripens.
Whoever defies our ancestors tradition, along with their practical
accustomed as witnessed by all, and instead presumes to reach a view
based on his musings alone I will find fifteen responses to him.
Rasag speaks at length about this point, giving a special mention to
Anan, may his memory be cursed.
In all of his debates with the Karaites, Rasag cites only verses
fromTanakh and logical argument, not the tradition of the Sages, as the
Karaites did not accept the mesora.[16]
D. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF RASAG
If we wish to point to the person who had the most profound and wideranging influence upon the development of the Jewish tradition in the early
medieval period, it is indisputable that this title belongs to Rabbeinu Saadia
Gaon. Rasag was a revolutionary in many spheres. In the discipline of
linguistics and halakhic writing, his work marks a turning point and a paradigm
shift in the Jewish tradition. In the realm of parshanut, he is one of the
founding fathers and trailblazers of the Jewish exegesis of Tanakh.
However, it appears that his most important achievement was his
readiness to respond to the challenges of his age and to fight different sects
with different techniques, wielding his commentary to the Torah and his
magnum opus Emunot Ve-deot in an uncompromising way. In so doing, he
protected and preserved the tradition of the Jewish People.

[1]
The term Gaon is a title for the heads of the yeshivot in Sura and Pumbedita.
[2]
He was born in Faiyum in Upper Egypt hence his Arabic name, Said al-Fayyumi.
[3]
The background for this challenge to rabbinic authority is based, apparently, on the
fact that the founder of the sect, Anan ben David, did not receive the position of Exilarch.
Anan ben David was a remarkable personality, and his charisma and intelligence,
combined with his compelling methodology, led all of the Jews opposed to the Babylonian
leadership to coalesce around him. R. Abraham ibn Daud, who lived in 12 th-century Spain
and composedSefer Ha-kabbala, describes the factors for the development of Karaism in
this way:
And in [R. Yehudai Gaons] days, there arose Anan and Shaul his son, may the name
of the wicked rot. This Anan was from the Davidic dynasty, and he was a Torah
scholar at the start, but they could see that there was a blot upon his soul. Because of
this, he was not appointed as Gaon, and he received no help from the heavens to

become the Exilarch. Because of the jealousy and pettiness in his heart, he collected
a following and began to seduce and lead Israel away from the tradition of the Sages,
and he became a rebellious elder He fabricated out of whole cloth unsound laws
and rules by which no man can live. For after the destruction of the Temple, the
sectarians had petered out, until Anan came and strengthened them.
[4]
Rasag wrote a translation of the entireTanakh, but in the framework of these
lectures, I will only address his commentary on the Torah.
[5]
Rasag wrote introductions for most of his works.
[6]
See the analysis of Y. Blau, Al Targum Ha-Torah shel Rav Saadia Gaon, in M. BarAsher (ed.), Sefer Ha-Yovel Le-Rav Mordechai Breuer, (Jerusalem, 5752), p. 634:
There is no doubt that the Rasags translation was directed toward Jews who did not
understand Scripture in its Hebrew original. This may be clearly proven from his
commentary (which includes his translation), because the very content of the
commentary gives testimony as valid as a hundred witnesses that it is directed
toward the Jews alone; a non-Jew could never hope to understand the halakhic
debates in it. The question is: was the translation (aside from the commentary) also
directed toward the Jews, or perhaps it was also for those who are not members of
the tribe. This is the testimony of ibn Ezra in the famous passage from his comment
inBereishit (2:11): Perhaps he did this i.e., translating the names of the families and
the countries and the animals and the birds and the rocks into Arabic for Gods
honor, because he translated it into the Ishmaelite tongue and into their script, so that
they could not say that there are words in the Torah which we do not comprehend.
[7]
The Rasags method of translating verses is very similar to the Rambams definition
of proper translation. The Rambam, in his letter to Rabbi Shemuel ibn Tibbon, concerning
the translation of Moreh Ha-nvukhim, writes this (Iggerot Ha-Rambam, Y. Shilat Edition
[Maaleh Adummim, 5748], Vol. II, p. 532):
And I will explain to you everything by mentioning one rule to you, namely: whoever
wants to translated from one language to another and intends to exchange one word
for one word and keep the order of the grammar and the syntax he will toil greatly,
and his translation will be very dubious and very distorted and it is not fitting to do
so. Rather, one who needs to translate from one language to another must
understand the content first, and afterwards he may relate it so that the matter will be
understood in the other language. This is impossible without moving one word
forward or backward among many words; one must convey many words with one
word; one must take away letter and adds letters, until the matter is arranged and
understood according to the language into which the text is being translated.
[8]
In the Kapach edition of Rasags commentaries, published by Mosad Harav Kook
(as an independent volume, as well as in Mosad Harav Kooks Torat Chayim edition of
theChumash), R. Kapach renders the translation of Rasag into Hebrew only in the
following cases: a) the word, expression or verse is not unequivocal and Rasag chooses
one of a kaleidoscope of possibilities; b) Rasag goes beyond the simple literal translation;
and c) the translation constitutes a certain commentary. R. Kapach, in his great modesty,
expresses the reason for this in his preface (p. 8) to the collection of Rasags
commentaries on the Torah:
My first work in this case was to collect from our masters translation all of the words
and the alterations which have in them some sort of commentary and to turn them
into Hebrew, and this selection demanded great attention from two perspectives: one,
that I will not translate the translation, making this a superfluous, onerous act for the
lone reader, because is not Scripture which lies before us, and what does it avail us
to change Scripture words of the living God in Hebrew, in the style given to Moshe
at Sinai into my inferior Hebrew?
[9]
In this, the Rasag follows in the footsteps of Onkelos. In his book Emunot Ve-deot,
Rasag dedicates a chapter to the question of anthropomorphization of God in Tanakh (I:9).
Among other things, he writes:
It is a tradition handed down by the great scholars of our nation, who are trustworthy
in matters of faith, that in any place in which they discover something which gives rise
to doubts, they do not translate it in the language of physicality. Rather, they
transform them into that which is fitting.
[10] This is an example brought by the Rasag in his introduction: If we leave the
expression all living things with its simple, widely-understood meaning, we are denying

reality. This would require us to believe that the lion, ox, donkey and other animals are
descended from Chava.
[11] As for Rasags identification of the four rivers coming out of the Garden of Eden, ibn
Ezra comments (Bereishit 2:11) caustically:
There is no proof that the Pishon is the Nile as it has no tradition Perhaps he
saw it in a dream? He already has erred in some of them, as I will explain in the
proper place; consequently, we will not rely on his dreams
[12] These rules are applicable only to thePeirush Ha-katzar.
[13] As we have said, we do not have all of the commentaries of Rasag, but ibn Ezra
quotes him often; the commentary of Rasag on this verse is taken from ibn Ezras Peirush
Ha-arokhto Shemot 21:24.
[14] Ben Zuta was a Karaite sage who debated Rasag about the meaning of a number of
verses.
[15] In other words, in Biblical Hebrew, the term in is ambiguous; thus, the meaning of
the verse is put [a monetary punishment] uponhim and not to put a wound or defect in
the body of the assailant.
[16] In his famous poem, Esa Meshali,Rasag mocks the Karaites and proves that the
Oral Torah is the essential basis for understanding and maintaining the Written Torah. The
reason for this is that the Torah requires explication and specification, which are not found
in the verses. Here are a number of stanzas from this long poem:
Our Gods law is swapped as they hop
To forbid the licit, while prohibitions drop
Without fear and without hesitation.
How many cubits must my hut measure?
How long and how wide, for holiday pleasure?
And what of its height, to plan it straight?
How many grapes for the poor must be saved?
Is any of these with a chisel engraved?
Or does Scripture insinuate?
As we affix our fringes to four-cornered things
How many coils and how many strings?
Do you know if it is ten or eight
All of these, and like them so many
I ask the verse-readers if they can find any
To lay out for us a fine explanation?
But Mishna and Talmud continue to reach us
And derive all of these plainly to teach us
And so many more, beyond enumeration.
[Translators note: The meter has been changed in the translation, but the rhyme scheme
has been maintained.]

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Ruchy Yudkowsky
in memory of Yehuda Yudkowsky z"l
*********************************************************
Lecture #03:
R. Yona ibn Janach

A.

INTRODUCTION

His Life and His Work

Although R. Yona ibn Janach did not author even one full volume
dedicated to biblical commentary, his contributions toparshanut have proven
momentous. Who was he, and why is his work so crucial to the development
of Jewish exegesis?
R. Yona ibn Janach (henceforth, Ribag)[1] lived in Spain in the first half
of the 11thcentury,[2] and he was one of the most important Hebrew linguists
and grammarians of the early medieval period. For Ribag, as we shall see,
biblical exegesis represented both the most fundamental basis and the
ultimate application of the study of Hebrew language and grammar. His
grammatical innovations lay the foundation for biblical exegetes who came
after him, such as R. Avraham ibn Ezra, and these exegetes often cite his
explanations throughout Tanakh. There is no doubt that one should view
Ribag as an important exegete who influenced parshanut both in his time and
in the following generations. For this reason, we must attempt to understand
his approach.
Ribag was one of the first to formulate the rules of Hebrew
syntax. Indeed, it may be that he was the first to use the peh-ayinlamedformat as the basis for demonstrating and explaining all verbs and
conjugations.[3] Using this model, all roots are of three letters, the first of which
is referred to as peh, the second asayin, and the last as lamed. Ribag studied
and was very much influenced by the grammatical works of R. Yehuda ben
Hayyuj,[4] but he apparently never met him; Ribag mentions R. Yitzchak ibn
Gikatilla and the linguist and poet R. Yitzchak ben Shaul as his regular
teachers. He made his living in the field of medicine, and apparently wrote a
medical text that is not extant. In addition, he studied philosophy and was an
expert in Aramaic and Arabic.[5]
Ribag wrote seven books dealing with grammar and language. They
were written in Judeo-Arabic, and only some of them were translated into
Hebrew, mainly by R. Yehuda ibn Tibbon. Some of his compositions are
glosses and addenda to his predecessors works. [6] In the framework of this
series, we will deal with Ribags magnum opus, MachberetHa-Dikduk. (We will
use ibn Tibbons Hebrew titles, as these are most familiar to the modern
reader.) Machberet Ha-Dikduk (Tract of Investigation) is considered the most
important of his creations, in terms both of its scope and its influence on the
Hebrew language and biblical exegesis.
Machberet Ha-Dikduk
Machberet Ha-Dikduk is divided into two parts, both translated by ibn
Tibbon: the first is known as Sefer Ha-Rikma (the Book of Many Colors), while
the second is known as SeferHa-Shorashim (the Book of Roots).[7]

The focus of Sefer Ha-Rikma is linguistic: to examine the biblical text

and to formulate rules that are tied to its language and its forms of expression.
These rules, as we shall see later, help us understand the language
of Tanakh. Ribag brings many examples from Tanakh to illustrate each
linguistic phenomenon, sometimes relying on a halakhic Midrash in which the
Sages take a similar approach to that of his own proposal. Ribag was the first
grammarian to craft a comprehensive and thorough methodology,
encompassing all of the spheres of linguistic expression and including
exceptional cases.
In his introduction to Sefer Ha-Rikma, Ribag explains his motivations
for writing it. Three distinct impetuses may be identified:
1. Basic understanding of the Hebrew language is an urgent
concern.[8] While the Arabic language is widely studied, he notes,
Jews simply chant, mouthing the words without understanding
anything about the study of linguistics.
2. Understanding language is the basis of all knowledge. All
communication is effected by language, and every deficiency of
linguistic comprehension will necessarily bring about a deficiency in
understanding the content.[9]
3. One cannot understand the Torah without understanding its
language. In order for us to fulfill the will of God, which is
expressed in the Torah, we must understand the science of
language.[10]
Sefer Ha-Rikma is divided into forty-six chapters (literally, gates), and
every chapter deals with another linguistic topic. The issue is explained
concisely at the beginning of every chapter, followed by Scriptural examples
for illustration.
We will examine a number of issues fromSefer Ha-Rikma to see how
grammatical analysis influences biblical exegesis.
B.

SELECT TOPICS FROM SEFER HA-RIKMA

The Lamed of Substitution

In Chapter 6, in explaining the concept of prefixes, Ribag notes one of
the meanings of the letter lamed when it is added to the beginning of the
word:
The lamed indicates exchange or substitution, instead of saying in
place of. For example, the lamed as used in the verse, And the bricks
were as stone (le-aven) for them, and the asphalt was as mortar (lachomer) (Bereishit 11:3).
In other words, the meaning of the lamed at the beginning of a noun may be
for or in place of.

Ribag brings another example from the verse in Parashat Vayera in

which God orders the Binding of Yitzchak: And bring him up as a burnt
offering (le-ola) (Bereishit 22:2):
A lamed used similarly may be found here: And bring him up as a
burnt offering (le-ola) on one of the mountains For I believe that
God, may He be blessed and praised, when He wanted to show to all
creation the travails of Avraham, peace be upon him, and the rewards
He gave him for his suffering, He spoke to him with a phrasing that
encompassed two understandings.[11] One of them is what the masses
will understand, and the second is what individuals may understand in
it, and this is what And bring him up as a burnt offering
accomplishes.
The masses understanding is what is connoted by the verses simple
meaning that is, to offer him as a sacrifice However, its individual
meaning[12] is the following: bring him up there, on one of the
mountains, in place of a burnt offering that is, God wants Avraham to
bring Yitzchak up to the mountain to Him at the time that God will
desire that Avraham bring him a sacrifice.
Avraham initially applied the masses meaning, and God foresaw that
this common meaning was what would initially occur to him, but He
wanted to show people his travail and the rewards He gave him for it,
and when Avraham achieved the matter that God wanted from him,
namely bringing his son up to the mountain, the Blessed One called
from the heavens: That will do, Avraham.
Ribag claims that it is never Gods intention for Yitzchak to be
slaughtered. He commands, And bring him up as a burnt offering, knowing
that Avraham will interpret the phrasing of the command in the usual meaning
(what the masses would understand). However, the true meaning, Gods true
intent in this command, is for Avraham to bring Yitzchak up to the mountain in
place of an ola that is, in such a way that he will be considered by God as
an ola. (Otherwise, it may be that God would have phrased the command
without thelamed.)
After this, Ribag draws the following conclusion as regards the eternal
nature of the Torah:
This is it, and may the Lord God grant you success in it, for in my mind,
it is a pleasing matter, fine and wondrous, though no one else seems to
have apprehended it But this will negate the confusion of one who
demands that we accept the Torahs mutability.
There is no question that Ribag is responding here to a common
Muslim claim that the incident of the Binding of Yitzchak proves that God
changes His mind; just as God rethinks His command to sacrifice Yitzchak,
they argue, so He may rethink the commands of the Torah, exchanging
Moshes revelation for Muhammads. Ribag counters that, in actuality, God
does not change His mind over the course of this story; He never commanded

Avraham to kill Yitzchak. This is a good example of a confluence and

cooperation between the science of language, biblical exegesis, and the
sphere of faith and philosophy.
Derekh Ketzara
An exegetical trait that Ribag deals with at length is derekh ketzara,
which he defines as, what is used in a deficient state. This is how he
explains the phenomenon in Chapter 25:
Know that the Hebrews very often subtract and take away from
phrases rather than completing them, in truth, for the sole purpose of
lightening and shortening them, with the speakers intent remaining
clear
In this chapter, the Ribag cites all of the types of abbreviations used in
biblical Hebrew, but we will note and cite only two examples.
A. Sometimes, Ribag claims, the word min (from) is missing. For
example, inShemot 19:12, the verse literally reads: Keep yourselves
going up the mountain or touching its edge, but the meaning is, Keep
yourselves from going up the mountain or touching its edge.[13]
B. At other times, the verse uses parallel clauses, but only specifies a
modifier in one. An example of this is found in the verse
(Devarim 33:6), May Reuven live and not die; and may his men be
numbered. Ribag argues that it should be understood as, May
Reuven live and not die; and may his men not be numbered, as not
in the beginning of the verse is meant to apply to both clauses.
Synecdoche
Chapter 28 of Sefer Ha-Rikma deals with metonymy, meaning a word
that is written in Scripture when another, related word is meant: Although this
word is stated, the intent is for something else. Ribag notes a number of
types of this phenomenon; we will deal with one specifically, synecdoche, in
which we find the general in place of the specific or the reverse.
To a foreign people he has no authority to sell her, as he has betrayed
her (Shemot 21:8) the intent [of the verse] is to a man [and should
be understood as, To a foreign man]. This is certainly acceptable,
because a people is certainly a collection of persons. A similar
instance of this type is what is stated (Bereishit 20:4), Will you kill even
a righteous nation?[14]
Syntactic Inversion
A final topic that we will deal with is the inversion of syntactic order
in Tanakh, which is discussed in Chapters 31-32 of Sefer Ha-Rikma. This is
how Ribag defines this phenomenon:

Know that the inversion of their words will be in two ways: one of them
is grammatical and the second is logical. When no doubt may enter
ones mind, it may be written in the standard way or inverted.
In other words, Tanakh is free to express itself even in a way that differs from
the normal, as long as the content is still understood. Ribag will change the
sequence of the verse in cases in which the Scriptural context obligates one
to rearrange it. For example, taking the verse, And all the land came to Egypt
to procure to Yosef (li-shbor el Yosef) (Bereishit 41:57), Ribag rearranges the
sentence and reads it in the following way: All the land came to Egypt, to
Yosef, to procure. In other words, the phrase to Yosef is to be seen as the
object of the verb came, not the object of the verb to procure. The
motivation for this rearrangement is that the phrase li-shbor le- or li-shbor
el can mean selling to a buyer [15] or buying for another,[16] but not buying from a
seller.[17] The brothers are not coming to sell to Yosef or to buy something on
Yosefs behalf, but to buy from Yosef, so the Scriptural context requires this
rearrangement.
One may also rearrange the verse, according to Ribag, when
compelled to do so by external considerations of logic that have nothing to do
with the context of the verse. For example, the verse describing the fate of the
leftover manna, And it bred worms and it rotted (Shemot 16:20), is
rearranged by Ribag to say, It rotted and it bred worms. He explains why:
For rotting is born of decay, which is the generator of the worms;
[decay occurs] before the worms are generated, because the generator
must precede that which is generated.
We will conclude with one final example from the Binding of Yitzchak
in Parashat Vayera, the difficult verse describing Avrahams actions after God
orders him not to harm Yitzchak:
And Avraham lifted up his eyes and he saw: behold, a ram achar,
caught in the thicket by its horns. Avraham went and took the ram, and
he offered it as a burnt offering instead of his son. (Bereishit22:13)
The word achar literally means after or behind; some render it,
based on context, as behind him or behind it, despite the absence of any
pronoun. Ribag, on the other hand, rearranges the verse: And Avraham lifted
up his eyes, and after [he lifted his eyes], he saw: behold, a ram caught in the
thicket by its horns.[18]
We have seen a number of examples of Ribags great contributions in
the sphere of understanding biblical grammar and biblical exegesis. Now, we
will turn to Sefer Ha-Shorashim.
C.

SELECT TOPICS FROM SEFER HA-SHORASHIM

In his introduction to Sefer Ha-Shorashim, Ribag sets before the reader

the aim of his book:

This book, which we have called SeferHa-Shorashim, contains most of

the Hebrew roots that we find in Scripture, and we will explain their
definitions as well as their connotations, as proves necessary.
The book is built in an alphabetical structure; for every root, Ribag cites
the different conjugations in which the root appears and the different
meanings of every root. If Ribag has already dealt with a certain root in
another of his works, he does not go on at length about it in Sefer HaShorashim. Ribag does not list every appearance of each root inTanakh, but
he does bring a number of examples for every root.
For the purpose of identifying the roots of words in the Torah, Ribag
first and foremost turns to Scripture itself, afterwards to the language of the
Sages and to Aramaic, and only as a last resort, if it still proves difficult to
identifying the root, he refers to Arabic cognates. Ribag seems to sense the
readers hesitation to use Arabic, so he establishes that he stands on the
shoulders of giants in doing so:
In order to explain some of the roots, I will bring proofs from whatever I
may find in Scripture, and what I will not find in Scripture for this
purpose, I will bring proofs from whatever I may find in the Mishna and
the Talmud and the Aramaic language. In this, I follow the Hebrew
tradition, in the footsteps of the al-Fayyumi dean [R. Saadia Gaon],
may his memory be a blessing, who cites evidence concerning the
seventy
unique
words
from
Scripture, [19] Mishna,
and
Talmud However, if it should happen that I can find no evidence from
any of the above-mentioned sources, but I then discover evidence in
the Arabic language, I will not hold myself back from bringing a proof
from that which is revealed through it. (Introduction toSefer HaRikma[20])
Ribag continues to criticize those who avoid using Arabic in order to
understand the language of Scripture (ibid.):
I will have no compunctions about bringing evidence from that which is
evident in it, for this is the practice of men of our generation whose
minds are weak and whose knowledge is puny.
Similarly, Ribag claims that those who avoid using Arabic for this purpose are
in fact sanctimonious:
This is true all the more so for one who seeks to demonstrate his
righteousness and swathe himself in the cloak of saintliness, in his
limited understanding.
We will analyze a number of examples from Sefer Ha-Shorashim:
I.

The meaning of the word ki. Reish Lakishs famous dictum (Rosh
Hashana3a, et al.) declares that the word ki has four meanings.

Ribag claims that there is yet another meaning of the word

although and he brings a number of examples of this usage.
In Shemot 34:9, Moshe asks, Let God please walk in our midst, ki it is
a stiff-necked people;[22]Ribag explains that this should be translated:
Let God please walk in our midst although it is a stiff-necked
people.[23] Another example which proves this claim is Gods
declaration after the Flood: I will no longer curse the ground because
of man, ki the inclination of mans heart is evil from his youth
(Bereishit 8:21). The word ki does not fit into any of the four
explanations brought in the Talmud, but it works out well according to
Ribags approach: I will no longer curse the ground because of man,
although the inclination of mans heart is evil from his youth.
[21]

II.

D.

The meaning of the root peh-lamed-alef. In Bereishit 18:14, God

questions Avraham about Saras laughter at the idea of her having a
child, challenging him: Ha-yippaleh? The biblical exegetes try to
explain this term. Rashi and ibn Ezra, following Onkelos, translate it as
covered, hidden, yielding the awkward translation: Is any matter
hidden from God? Based on biblical parallels, [24] Ribag reaches the
conclusion that every time the root appears, it means great. Thus, the
meaning of the sentence is: Is any matter greater than God?
THE FATE OF HIS WORKS

Unfortunately,
with
all
of
the
importance
of Sefer HaRikma and Sefer Ha-Shorashim in expanding our understanding of the biblical
text, these books have been pushed into a lonely corner of the Jewish
bookcase.
It appears to me that the time has come to reclaim these books from
the dust and to give them their proper place of honor among the other
medieval commentaries. Indeed, it is worthwhile to include the Ribags
commentaries in the study of Tanakh generally and the study of the weekly
Torah portion specifically.
(Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch)

[1]
The full name of Ribag, as is written in his own works, is Abu al-Wald Marwn ibn
Janh. Ibn Ezra referred to him by the Latin name Marinus, and he was the one to give
him the first name Yona (dove), as ibn Janach literally means winged.
[2]
The years of his birth and death are tentatively put at circa 993 and 1050.
[3]
An example of this view may be found in his preface to Sefer Ha-Shorashim, ed.
Bekher(Jerusalem, 5726), 3:
Know that many times I will speak of the pehof the verb or the ayin of the verb or
the lamedof the verb. Know that my intent is to fix for each of the verbs its tenses and
conjugations and all of its forms And I will in each case speak of the peh of the
verb, as this is parallel to the pehof p-a-l (work, the standard verb).

[4]
Judah ben David Hayyuj (circa 945-1012) was one of the leading Hebrew
grammarians and philological exegetes in Spain; his main innovation was that in Hebrew,
all roots have three letters.
[5]
Aside from autobiographical points scattered in the various works of Ribag and ibn
Tibbons notes, we do not know much about the events of Ribags life.
[6]
For example, in his Sefer Ha-Hassaga, Ribag offers his glosses on the words of R.
Yehuda ben Hayyuj; in Iggeret Ha-Heara, he defends his positions against R. Yehuda ben
Hayyujs supporters.
[7]
Ribag explains the meaning of the names of these works at the end of his
introduction to SeferHa-Rikma:
Because of its many topics, I have named itSefer Ha-Rikma, as its chapters may be
compared to a series of terraces or structures, in which are planted many and sundry
varieties of flowers; in this way it is similar to the embroidering of a garment of many
colors. In the second book, we will recount the roots mentioned throughout Scripture,
and therefore I have called this second part Sefer Ha-Shorashim.
[8]
Speaking of the Muslims, Ribag writes:
And I have seen that the people among whom we live exert themselves to attain the
wisdom of their language but the speakers of our language, in our generation, have
already cast this wisdom behind their backs, and they have set this issue outside of
their hearing. In fact, they treat it lightly, considering it superfluous and pointless. As
a result, they remain bereft of its felicities and empty of its beauty; indeed, they have
divested themselves of its ornaments. We have come to a point of individual
expression and personal speech, but we do not pay attention to this, and we are not
exacting about it, as if language has no order to be restored and no boundary to be
demarcated. Instead, they have sought from the language whatever is easy for them
to expropriate and expound. They pay no heed to its roots, nor do they care about its
branches.
Ribag uses the phrase divested themselves of its ornaments in keeping with the verse
describing the serious ramifications of the sin of the Golden Calf: And the Israelites
divested themselves of their ornaments from Mount Chorev (Shemot 33:6), which means,
They removed the adornment which they had received at Mount Chorev that is, the
Torah. Ribag claims that in his time, the Jews have similarly removed from themselves the
adornment of being well-versed in biblical Hebrew.
[9]
In the words of Ribag:
Because the work of linguistics is a tool for everything expounded and a preface for
everything researched, the effort was to reach its end and to stand on all of its issues,
and the desire is to reach the edge and to know what is complete from it and what is
not complete, the full and the deficient, and the true language and the language of
transfer As we will find it of the abridged and the deficient, it will be the lack of
understanding of the researched and the abridgement of knowledge of that which is
sought.
[10] These are his words:
Because the reward of the Creator, may He be praised, the good in everything the
man will acquire for himself in his world, and the honored in everything which is
destined for him in his end, and reaching this will not be completed unless one
understands what is written in the prophetic books and the fulfillment of
theirmitzvot and their admonitions, and it will not be feasible to understand what is
written in these books except by the wisdom of the language, so that the obligation of
a mans toil and fixing this wisdom and his strengthening to acquire it and improve it
and be precise in its issues and to know the plots of its words is a greater obligation
and the need for it very strong according to the quality of the degree of that which is
sought and the great value of the researched All the more so, this valuable,
respectable wisdom which causes to understand the words of God, which helps to do
his mitzvotand brings us closer to His reward and distances us from His punishment.
[11] In other words, it is ambiguous terminology.
[12] In other words, this is the meaning that an individual may assign to it.
[13] Following this rule, Ribag, explains the verse (Kohelet 12:12), More than them, my
son, be careful, making many books, endlessly in the following way: Be
careful of making many books.

[14] Accordingly, the term goy should be rendered person, rather than nation, the
meaning it appears elsewhere in Tanakh, and the reference here is to Avimelekh. This is
opposed to Rashi, who writes: Perhaps this is Your way to destroy nations for no
reason? In other words, goy here means nation, as in the rest of Tanakh.
[15] The root is usually used for this purpose in the causative conjugation, but in one
place we find it even in the simple conjugation (Bereishit 41:56): And he provided for
Egypt.
[16] E.g., Bereishit 43:4: And we will procure food for you.
[17] Buying from a vendor is described as lishbor mi-; e.g., Bereishit 42:3: To procure
provisions from Egypt.
[18] This proposal is already voiced by Targum Onkelos on the Torah.
[19] Here he refers to R. Saadia Gaons list of unique words in Scripture.
[20] The end of the introduction to Sefer Ha-Rikmadeals with Sefer Ha-Shorashim.
[21] They are: if, perhaps, but, because.
[22] Rashi, the Rashbam, ibn Ezra and the Ramban all struggle to explain this verse.
[23] Ribag adds, To counteract the criticism of a stiff-necked people, he preempts this
by saying, Let God please walk in our midst.
[24] For example, Iyov 5:9 describes God as the one Who does great, unsearchable
things; wonders without number; similarly, the Psalmist says (Tehillim 131:1), I do not
concern myself with great matters or things too wondrous for me. In each case nifla
(wonder, wondrous) is used as a synonym for great.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Mr Paul Pollack
in honor of Rabbi Reuven and Sherry Greenberg
*********************************************************
Lecture #4:
Rashi (Part I)[1]
A.

INTRODUCTION

The Importance of Rashis Commentary

The lamps of the pure candelabrum I set as my light,
The words of Rabbeinu Shelomo, coronet of beauty, diadem of glorious
might.
His name is his crown Scripture, Mishna and Talmud, his delight.
His is the firstborns rite.
Of his words I think, in their love I sink, to debate and defend, to
examine and excite
Every definition and derivation
And every allegorical citation
Mentioned in his commentation.
(Ramban, Introduction to the Torah)
It is impossible to exaggerate Rashis importance in shaping the
worldview of the Jewish People; it may be said that after Tanakh and Talmud,
Rashis commentaries are next in line in terms of their influence. One

expression of this phenomenon is the fact that the first Hebrew book ever
printed (Rome, 1469) was the Torah with Rashis commentary.
Rashis commentary on the Torah is the point of departure and the
foundation of many of the biblical commentators who come after him.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and studies have been written about
Rashis commentaries. Rashis commentary on the Torah has more
supercommentaries[2] on it than any other work of biblical interpretation in
Jewish history (if we do not view the Talmud itself as a commentary for this
purpose). However, before we analyze the influence of Rashi, we must
examine the defining characteristics of his historical setting; we may thereby
see how the environment influenced Rashi and the nature of his commentary.
The Era of Rashi
Rabbeinu Shlomo Yitzchaki[3] was born in 1040 in Troyes in northern
France, and he died there in 1105. One of the characteristic phenomena of
11th century France was the socio-economic link with the Christian community
as a result of economic development. An additional phenomenon that defined
Rashis era was the Renaissance of the 12 th century, which marked the
beginning of the High Middle Ages in Europe. (Although it was in the
12th century that this Renaissance hit its apex, its seeds were planted in the
11th century.[4]) This Renaissance, as two of the scholars of this period define
it, was marked by its restless searching after ancient and new
authorities, and its audacious criticism of authority; its tireless quest for new
knowledge, and its insistence on restructuring knowledge new and old alike. [5]
These two phenomena, economic development and spiritual renewal,
were linked to each other. Indeed, as a result of socio-economic development,
daily points of contact were formed between the Jewish and the Christian
community. Spiritual trends and upheavals that were occurring in one affected
the other,[6] and the common involvement with and analysis of Tanakh,
whether by Jews or by Christians, propagated the study of Holy Writ and
challenged its students on both a religious and an intellectual level. The
Renaissance of the 12th century in the Christian community was characterized
in the spiritual sphere by limiting the allegorical exegesis of Holy Writ and
focusing on literal interpretation; indeed, this trend came to characterize the
commentary of Rashi as well.
The involvement with and development of biblical exegesis on the part
of both Jews and Christians eventually brought about some theological
disputations between the two groups, some of them public. Jews contended
with Christians, sometimes because they were compelled to and sometimes
because they desired to do so in order to protect Judaism from Christian
attempts to combat apostasy on the part of Jews. While the character of
Rashis parshanut on Tanakhwas oriented towards peshat, the simple
meaning of the text, it was also influenced by the need to contend with
Christian claims, at a time when Christian scholars of that faith were
attempting to wrestle with biblical passages on the basis ofpeshat. We may

also find polemical content in Rashis commentary as he contends with

Christian biblical exegesis.
Rashis Biography
Who was Rashi? We have no information about his parents. As Rashi
brings no comments in the name of his father,[7] we may assume that his
father was not a Torah scholar. We know nothing of Rashis wife, but we know
that they had three daughters: Yokheved, Miriam, and Rachel. (It is also
possible that they had a fourth daughter who died at a young age.)
At the age of eighteen, Rashi went to study in the famous yeshiva of
Mainz, Germany, founded by Rabbeinu Gershom, Light of the
Exile.[8]Rabbeinu Gershom put great emphasis in hisyeshiva on the necessity
of knowing and understanding Tanakh as a prerequisite for studying Talmud.
As for studying Talmud, Rabbeinu Gershom invested great efforts in
correcting the text of the Talmud, so that the students would have one
authoritative version.[9] After putting together a definitive text, the main pursuit
of the rosh yeshivaand the students was the commentary on the Talmud.
Rashi, who was born shortly before Rabbeinu Gershoms death (or a number
of years after his death), did not study Torah from him directly, but he
benefited from and was greatly influenced by Rabbeinu Gershoms students,
primarily from R. Yaakov ben Yakar,[10] from whom Rashi learned
both Tanakh and Talmud. After a number of years, Rashi relocated to
the yeshiva in Worms. The yeshiva of Worms was known for its revolutionary
approaches to the field of Torah study, in which it blazed many new paths.
At the age of thirty, having acquired a thorough knowledge
of Tanakh and Talmud, Rashi returned to France to Troyes, the city of his
birth. Upon his return, he immediately took a central role in leading the
community. In parallel to his communal involvement, Rashi also established
ayeshiva in his city. The yeshiva began with a very limited number of students,
but as the years progressed, the number of students gradually increased. The
success of the yeshiva is demonstrated by the great number of students of
Rashi whose works have become indispensable tools in the area of biblical
and Talmudic exegesis.[11]
What was the secret of Rashis success as a teacher?
Professor Avraham Grossman, in his fascinating book on Rashi cites a
number of factors,[12] and I will suffice with mentioning his main points:
1. The democratic character of theyeshiva encouraged critical and
creative thinking. (In this, it greatly differed from the yeshivot of
Babylonia and was even set apart from those of Mainz and Worms).
2. Rashi based his methodology on textual analysis and his great
familiarity with the disciplines of Tanakh, Talmud, halakhic writings,
aggadic material and poetry.

3. Rashis hearty and radiant personality, along with his

compassion, allowed him to forge a lasting relationship with his
students.
Besides his occupations of rosh yeshiva, rabbinical court justice, and
communal leader, Rashi wrote a commentary on all of the books
ofTanakh[13] and most of the Babylonian Talmud; in addition, Rashi composed
hundreds of responsa.
B.

THE TEXT OF THE COMMENTARY

It is quite difficult to determine the original version of Rashis

commentary on the Torah due to the plethora of manuscripts. There are not
merely minor variations among these manuscripts, but rather significant
distinctions.[14] The theologian and historian Abraham (Adolf) Berliner (18331915) published (in 5665/1905) [15] a critical edition of Rashis commentary on
the Torah based on over one hundred manuscripts and printed editions;
despite this, it is logical to assume that the result is not a work wholly
reflective of what Rashi wrote in his own hand.
It is evident why so many manuscripts of Rashis commentary on the
Torah exist: Rashis commentary quickly became the most popular
commentary throughout all Jewish communities worldwide, both Ashkenazic
and Sephardic. But what caused so many versions to abound? It appears that
a number of factors conspired:[16] The scholars who studied or taught the
commentaries of Rashi sometimes added their notes in the margins of the
manuscripts; as time passed, the names of these scholars were elided and
these notes were integrated into the body of the commentary.[17] An additional
factor is Rashis extensive reliance on Midrashic sources sometimes Rashi
changes the Sages language (apparently deliberately) or abbreviates
the midrash, and a copyist later fixes the text. This phenomenon has great
significance when it comes to the study of Rashis commentary; sometimes,
students of Rashis commentary build mountains upon every jot and tittle of
his phrasing, but inspecting the text proves that every one of these theses is
based on a certain version of Rashi, which may be inapplicable to other
versions. Therefore, before one attempts to craft an approach based on a
close reading of Rashi, one must at least consult the Berliner edition and see
how reliable a given version is.[18]
C.

TARGET AUDIENCE OF THE COMMENTARY

Once we have dealt with the question of text, we must think about the
question of who the target audience of the commentary was. This is a matter
of some debate among scholars of Rashi. According to Lifschitz, [19] Rashis
commentaries were designed for educated people. He declares:
He did not compose his commentary so that it might be an open book
for the masses and the ignoramuses, but rather for the intelligentsia of
his generation who knew the Torah well.

On the other hand, it is quite striking how much is absent from Rashis
commentary: grammatical essays, lengthy discussions of halakhic subjects,
complex analyses of philosophy and theology. Therefore, it appears that his
commentary was designed for everyone, and anyone can study his
commentary on the Torah on his own level: a simple Jew without background
can read his words and easily understood them, while a scholar can delve into
all of their depth. His commentary was not directed towards Torah scholars
alone, and the goal of making the Torah approachable and understandable for
all readers is noticeable even today.[20] It appears that this is one of the
advantages of Rashis commentary: his ability to compose a text which is
equally engaging to Torah scholars and to schoolchildren. This is a very rare
trait for biblical exegetes, and indeed Rashi has had no challenger in this field
throughout the generations.
D.

AGGADA HA-MEYASHEVET

Rashi did not compose an introduction or preface to his commentary,

but there is a certain declaration of principles in his commentary to the verse,
And they heard the voice of God going in the garden (Bereishit 3:8):
And they heard there are many aggadicmidrashim about this, and
our Sages have already presented them in their proper arrangement
in Bereishit Rabba and other Midrashic works. As for me, I have come
for no purpose other than the simple meaning of Scripture and the
aggadic material which harmonizes the words of Scripture, each word
according to its properties. The simple meaning of it is that they heard
the voice of the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who was walking about the
garden.
Rashi sees himself, above all, as a champion of peshat: I have come
for no purpose other than the simple meaning of Scripture. In this, he is a
revolutionary in the annals of Ashkenazic Jewry; until his era, Torah was not
studied
according
to
its peshat.
(In
Sephardic
communities,
studying Tanakh according to the peshat was already widely accepted,
following in the footsteps of Shemuel ben Chofni, Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon, and
ibn Janach.) A pashtan, an exegete who interprets biblical verses according to
their simple meaning, must engage in the endeavor of judging verses on their
own terms, according to the literal,[21] immediate definition, which
complements the context according to the rules of grammar and linguistics.
However, Rashi adds that in his commentary he will integrate certain
homiletic material, but only of a specific type: the aggadic material which
harmonizes (meyashevet) the words of Scripture, each word according to its
properties. At this point,[22] I will suffice with describing the phrase aggadahameyashevet in the following way. Rashi saw a number of midrashim on each
verse; how did he pick and choose? What was his yardstick for selecting
some midrashim and rejecting others? Rashi, as a pashtan, brings before the
reader only those midrashim which are harmonious with the syntactic
structure of the verse, only if the additional details which are found in
the midrashim dovetail with the context and sequence of the verses. In

themidrashim which Rashi cites, there is supplementary information, beyond

what is mentioned in the verse, but this addition must not contradict
the peshat; it must be harmonious with it.
This is how Dr. Sarah Kamin puts it:
In his approach to the interpretation of the verses, Rashi keeps upmost
in his mind the categories which make the unit whole, in which all of its
elements are found the syntactic and grammatical
structure, linguistic meaning and content the reciprocal relationship
among them and between them and the unit in its entirety.
We will demonstrate Rashis method in his interpretation
of Shemot 15:22: Moshe led Israel away from the Reed Sea, and they went
out into the desert. Rashi has many midrashim to choose from in order to
compose his comment on this verse, and we will present two of them:
Moshe led Israel away from the Reed Sea he led them away
against their will, at their displeasure. How so? When Israel left Egypt,
Pharaoh came out to pursue them with all of these troops. What did he
do? When Pharaoh [decided to] pursue Israel with chariots and cavalry,
he arose and adorned all of these horses with precious stones and
gems. When they came to the sea and the Holy One, Blessed be He,
drowned them, all of those precious stones and gems floated, and they
were cast on the seashore. The Israelites would go down each day and
take some of them, and they had no desire to leave there. Once Moshe
saw this he arose and led them away, against their will. (Tanchuma
Yashan, Beshalach 16)
Moshe led Israel away from the Reed Sea R. Eliezer says: This
tells you the praise of Israel. When Moshe told them to leave, they did
not say, How can we possibly set out for the desert without provisions
for the journey?! Instead, they believed in and followed Moshe. About
them, it is stated explicitly in the kabbala[23] (Yirmiyahu 2:2): I recall for
you the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you
went after Me in the desert, in an unsown land. (Mekhilta de-Rabbi
Yishmael, Beshalach, Va-yassa 1)
These two midrashim try to explain the phrase Moshe led Israel away
(va-yassa Moshe et Yisrael) from the Reed Sea. According to theMekhilta,
these words come to indicate the great ease with which Moshe convinced the
Israelites to venture into an unsown land; according to theTanchuma, these
words indicate the great difficulty with which Moshe convinced the Israelites to
move, overcoming their reluctance to abandon the plunder of the sea. Despite
Rashis great affection for the Jewish People, which is expressed within his
commentaries in other places, Rashi prefers themidrash mentioned
in Tanchuma, which is critical of the behavior of the Israelites, over
the midrash in the Mekhilta, which praises Israel:

Moshe led [Israel] away he led them away against their will, for the
Egyptians had adorned their horses with jewelry of gold, silver, and
precious stones, and the Israelites were finding them in the sea
Therefore, he had to lead them away against their will.
Rashis motivation for choosing this midrash is exegetical; the midrash as
cited in the Tanchuma is chosen by Rashi because this midrash is appropriate
for the context of the unit. In this very verse, we find: And they came to Mara,
and they could not drink the water of Mara, followed in the next verse with a
formal complaint: And the people complained to Moshe, saying What will we
drink? (vv. 22-23). Lauding the Israelites who believed and followed Moshe
(in the language of theMekhilta) does not match the context of the words.
Moreover, the midrash in the Tanchumacomplements not only the
situation described in the verses, but also the language of Tanakh. According
to the Masoretic punctuation of the text, the word is conjugated in the
causative (va-yassa), so that the verse must be rendered And Moshe made
Israel journey; however, according to the Mekhilta, it should be conjugated in
the intensive (va-yissa), so that the verse may be rendered And Moshe
journeyed with Israel. (The word et can mean with or merely indicate a
direct object, so it is the punctuation of the first word that tells us whether the
Israelites are being moved by Moshe or he is moving with them.) Rashi
selects the appropriatemidrash, whether in terms of the context of the verses
and the grammatical viewpoint.
The conclusion drawn from here is that Rashis method is to cite
Midrashic sources that dovetail with the peshat of the verses. In this, we have
determined his way of choosing among different midrashim.
Next week, God willing, we will continue to discuss the question of the
impetus to cite amidrash in the first place. When does Rashi turn to
the midrash, and when does he satisfy himself with the peshat?
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] Due to the importance of the topic and the wealth of material dealing with it, we will
discuss Rashis commentary over the course of four lessons.
[2] These are scholars who write about the commentaries of others.
[3] His full name should have been R. Shlomo ben Yitzchak; it may be that in order to avoid
possibility of confusing him with the Tanna R. Shimon bar Yochai, known as the Rashbi,
the letter bet was dropped from the acronym.
[4] We will deal more expansively with the influence of the 12 th-century Renaissance on
biblical exegesis when we examine the biblical commentaries of Rashis students.
[5] Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (eds.),Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth
Century, p. XXIX.

[6] There is a dispute among the scholars of 11th-12thcentury biblical exegesis about the
question of who exerted influence upon whom Christian exegetes upon Jewish
exegetes or vice versa.
[7] There is one exception (Avoda Zara 75a): This is the language of my honored father,
may he repose in honor.
[8] The title Light of the Exile was given to Rabbeinu Gershom by Rashi, and all who came
after him used this title for Rabbeinu Gershom. See, for example, Rashis commentary
to Yeshayahu 46:1 and Beitza 24b.
[9] As the Jews reached Germany, different versions of the Talmud abounded.
[10] Rashi mentions him in his commentary to Pesachim 48b and Sanhedrin 92b.
[11] Professor A. Grossman (Rashi [Merkaz Zalman Shazar], p. 64) lists the creative spheres
in which Rashis students were active, and he points out that we are talking about a partial
list only, since much of their work was unfortunately lost.
Rashi, pp. 59-60.
[13] However, the commentaries attributed to Rashi in the printed versions of Ezra,
Nechemia, Divrei Ha-yamim and part of the book of Iyov were apparently not written by
him.
[12]

[14] For example, full Midrashic passages have been omitted or added.
[15] 2nd edition.
[16] See Grossman, loc. cit., pp. 78-80.
[17] This is true of other works published before the invention of the printing press as well.
[18] The Mikraot Gedolot Ha-keter edition, published by Bar-Ilan University, is based on a
great number of manuscripts, not on a lone, trustworthy manuscript, which does not exist.
[19] E. M. Lifschitz, Rashi (Mosad Harav Kook), p. 174.
[20] In cases in which he is worried that his Hebrew will not be understood, Rashi does not
hesitate to translate the word into French (as spoken in his time).
[21] Sarah Kamin (Peshuto Shel Mikra U-midrasho shel Mikra[Jerusalem, 5740]) defines well
the concept of peshat: Peshat is not the narrow, literal explanation of some element or
another or of a given expression, but an explanation which takes into account all the
linguistic foundations, in their permutations, and gives to each of them a meaning,
according to the rules.
[22] We will later learn of other possibilities explaining Rashis terminology of aggada hameyashevet.
[23] This is a Talmudic term for the books of the Prophets.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Abe Mezrich
*********************************************************
Lecture #05:
Rashi, Part II
A.

INTRODUCTION: WHEN DOES RASHI USE MIDRASHIM?

Rashis commentary is composed, for the most part, of

adapted midrashim. In the last lecture, we stressed the great ability of Rashi
as a Midrashic filter; he selects thosemidrashim which are most appropriate in
terms of fitting in to the continuity of the verses. We have dealt with the
criterion of Rashi for choosing midrashim, but not with the impetus to turn to
Midrash in the first place. In the current lesson, we will try to answer the
following question as well: What requires Rashi to turn tomidrashim that
apparently do not explicate thepeshat?
We may indeed find a number of types of motives for Rashi to turn
to midrashim.
B.

A DIFFICULTY IN THE VERSES

First of all, Rashi turns to midrashimwhen he has a difficulty in the

verse and finds no way to reconcile it using peshat.[1]
We will bring two examples of this:
I)

When Yosef is sent by Yaakov to find his brothers and arrives in

Dotan, the verse says, And a man found him when he was lost
in the field (Bereishit 37:15). Rashi (ad loc.) cites the
followingmidrash:[2] This is Gavriel, as it says, And the man
Gavriel (Daniel 9:21).

It appears that Rashi is motivated to bring this midrash in order to solve

a twofold problem.
1)
2)

The terminology And a man found him (rather than: And

a man saw him) indicates that the man was looking for
him (because one finds that which one is looking for).
Yosef asks the man, Please tell me where they are
pasturing (37:16), indicating that it is clear to Yosef that
the man standing opposite him knows where his
brothers are (as he does not ask the man if he knows
where they are).

If we assume that the man is an angel and that Yosef knows this, the
problems are solved: the angel looks for Yosef in order to help him, and it is
obvious to Yosef that he knows where they are.
II)

In Shemot 2:23, the Torah says, And the king of Egypt died,
and the Israelites groaned due to the work. Rashi (ad loc.)
cites amidrash: [3]He was afflicted with leprosy,[4] so he
would slaughter infants and bathe in their blood.

Obviously, the words of the midrash add to the peshat in a striking way,
but Rashi appears to be motivated by a difficulty in understanding the verse: if
the king dies, why do the Israelites groan? Should they not be rejoicing that
their subjugator is dead? Themidrash explains that we are not talking about

true death, but rather leprosy, which is akin to death (a concept mentioned by
the Sages a number of times); this so-called death was the reason for
groaning, since the leprosy causes him to bathe in the blood of children. In
other words, the Midrashic explanation manages to connect, from a logical
point of view, the death of Pharaoh with the Israelites groans.
C.

THE TORAH DOES NOT SPEAK IN THE HUMAN VERNACULAR

The rule that The Torah does not speak in the human vernacular
(which we will explain presently) is the factor that motivates Rashi to explain
verses according to the Midrash in dozens of cases, despite the absence of
any difficulty in these verses. We will bring a number of examples of this:
I.

In Parashat Chayei Sara (Bereishit24:10), the Torah says: And the

servant took ten camels of his masters camels. Rashi cites
amidrash[5] in his commentary on this verse:
They were distinguished from other camels, because they were
muzzled to prevent pilfering, so that they would not graze in others
fields.[6]

Rashis words are beautiful and hold an important message for all of us
the importance of taking responsibility not only for the damage we do
ourselves, but even for damage which is caused as a result of our property.
But what was the impetus for Rashis commentary? At first glance, the simple
meaning of the verse poses no problem there is not even one word that is
not understood, and the context is clear and obvious. Is there a certain
difficulty that forces Rashi to cite the midrash?
In order to respond to this question, we will expand the scope a bit by
explaining two approaches to biblical exegesis. There is a basic argument
between two schools ofparshanut regarding expounding the language
of Tanakh: the academy of R. Yishmael versus the academy of R. Akiva.
R. Akiva believes that the Torah is divine, and it therefore cannot
contain any superfluous phrase, word, or even letter in it; God intends that
every element have meaning. Therefore, R. Akiva would derive mounds of
laws from every jot and tittle (Menachot 29b). On the other hand, R.
Yishmael, who of course agrees with the basic assumption of the Torahs
divine origin, counters that God nevertheless has written the Torah for human
beings, and it is therefore expressed in the style that people use when
speaking or writing The Torah speaks in the human vernacular. Therefore,
if there is any redundancy or superfluity in the biblical terminology, the
extraneous elements do not teach us anything, because this is how people
talk.
The argument between R. Akiva and R. Yishmael appears in many
places, and, inter alia, in Sanhedrin 64b. There, they argue about the use of
three similar terms in two consecutive verses (Bamidbar 15:30-31) ve-

nikhreta ha-nefesh ha-hi hikkaret tikkaretha-nefesh ha-hi that soul

shall be cut off.
Hikkaret tikkaret: Hikkaret in this world; tikkaret in the next this
is R. Akivas view.
R. Yishmael said: But the previous verse has stated ve-nikhreta
are there then three worlds? Rather, ve-nikhretain this world:
hikkaret in the next; tikkaret that is because the Torah speaks in
the human vernacular.
There is no doubt that Rashi adopts R. Akivas approach, according to
which every word has meaning and significance. Therefore, one should be
precise with biblical language, and even when the reader has no difficulty
understanding the verses, one may derive information from some extraneous
element in the text. We shall see that Rashi indeed sees himself as
a pashtan, but according to him,peshat has a wider definition, including giving
significance to every additional detail. A method such as this is very
demanding, as it requires the exegete to justify every word and even every
letter, which the strict pashtan usually dismisses as human vernacular.
Indeed, Rashi does not always find in the framework ofpeshat a satisfying
explanation for the superfluous language in the text, and he therefore must
consult the Midrash in many circumstances. However, in every case, he
employs Midrash as part of his overall purpose to explain the peshat of the
verses.
At this time, we may return to the example that we cited above: And
the servant took ten camels of his masters camels. It is clear to the reader
that the camels are of his masters camels it would not occur to us that
the servant took his own private camels! If so, why do we need the phrase of
his masters camels? The Midrash responds that there is some unique quality
in these camels, and it even specifies what it is the camels would always go
out muzzled.[7]
Thus, Rashi uses the midrash not only in cases of redundant language,
but even in cases in which the verse mentions superfluous details. An
additional example of a midrash that appears in Rashi because of superfluous
details may be found later in the same tale:
II.

Twelve verses after the servant sets out with the camels, he takes out
gifts for the girl who has watered them (Bereishit 24:22): And it
was, when the camels had finished drinking, that the man took a
golden nose ring, weighing a half-shekel, and two bracelets for her
hands, weighing ten of gold. Rashi cites the midrash,[8]which
attaches significance to the weights and features of the jewelry.
A half-shekel this alludes to the shekels of Israel, a half-shekel per
head (Shemot 38:26).
And two bracelets this alludes to the two Tablets paired together.
Weighing ten of gold this alludes to the Ten Commandments on
them.

Naturally, this particular information in the Sages allegory has no basis

in the peshatof the verse, but the motivation for this commentary is the
superfluity within the peshat. Why is it so important for us to know the exact
weight and quantity of the jewelry that Rivka receives? The response of
this midrash is that these details have great significance, and it searches for
other instances in Tanakh where these numbers are mentioned.[9]
D.
MAINTAINING THE INTERNAL LOGIC AND SEQUENCE OF THE
TEXT BY FILLING IN LACUNAE
In addition to the above-mentioned examples, Rashi is accustomed to
cite Midrashic material when he is interested in the chronological or thematic
sequence of the Torah, in order to fill in gaps and to create
using midrashim a logical narrative sequence. Filling in the gaps
sometimes is accomplished by the reconstruction of a particular event, as we
shall see in the first two examples below, or through a dialogue (sometimes a
monologue), as we shall see in the third example.
I.

In Bereishit 37:29, the Torah states, And Reuven returned to the pit,
and behold, Yosef was not in the pit; so he tore his garments. Why
is Reuven so shocked to find Yosef gone? Was he not present
when the brothers sold him? Where else could he have been?
Rashi explains:
When [Yosef] was sold, [Reuven] was not there, for it was his day to go
and serve his father (Bereishit Rabba 84:15).
Alternatively, he was busy with his sackcloth and his fasting for
disturbing his fathers bed (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana25).

II.

After Yaakov serves Lavan for seven years, a wedding feast is held,
but Lavan tricks Yaakov and gives him Leah instead of Rachel
(Bereishit29:14-28). The Torah states (29:25): And it was in the
morning, and behold she was Leah How could it be that Yaakov
did not notice this earlier? The Midrash (Megilla 13b) cited by Rashi
responds that Rachel was also in on the ruse:
And it was in the morning, and behold she was Leah but at night,
she was not Leah,[10] because Jacob had given signs to Rachel, but
when she saw that they were bringing Leah, she said, Now, my sister
will be put to shame. So she readily transmitted those signs to her.

III.

In the passage of the Binding of Yitzchak, the Torah begins

(Bereishit22:1) by saying: And it was after these things (devarim)
Rashi cites two midrashim to explain this reference, taking the
word devarim(things) in its literal sense, words. The reference
cannot be to the events of the previous narrative (the treaty with
Avimelekh), as this would have been the readers assumption
without any such introduction. Apparently, these words have a

greater significance, and Rashi understands that a difficult trial such

as the Binding must have a precipitating event, specifically a
precipitating proclamation:
Some of our Sages say (Sanhedrin 89b) that this was after the words
of Satan, who was accusing and saying, Of every feast that Avraham
made, he did not sacrifice before You one bull or one ram! [God] said
to him, Does he do anything but for his son? Yet, if I were to say to
him, Sacrifice him before Me, he would not hold back.
Others say that it was after the words of Yishmael, who was boasting to
Yitzchak that he was circumcised at the age of thirteen and he did not
protest. Yitzchak said to him, With one part you intimidate me? If the
Holy One, Blessed be He, were to say to me, Sacrifice yourself before
Me, I would not hold back. [11]
An additional manifestation of Rashis tendency to fill in gaps is his
inclination to identify anonymous characters in Tanakh. If people are
mentioned, they must be important, and as a pashtan, he is compelled to find
out who those people are. Thus, for example, after Moshe has slain the
Egyptian overseer, the Torah reports (Shemot 2:13): He went out on the
second day, and behold, two Hebrew men were quarreling, and he said to the
evil one (rasha), Why should you strike your fellow?Rashi (ad loc.) identifies
this pair as Datan and Aviram; they were also the ones who saved some of
the manna (ibid. 16:19, 20).
We have here a twofold identification: the two men (anashim) here are
the sameanashim who save the manna overnight, in direct defiance of Gods
command via Moshe, and those people were Datan and Aviram. This
identification continually recurs in Rashis commentary: in Shemot 4:19, God
tells Moshe that he may return to Egypt for all the anashimwho seek your life
have died, and Rashi ad loc., following the Midrash, identifies
theseanashim as Datan and Aviram (and describes their death as
metaphorical, referring to their financial situation). The impetus for this
identification is clear: the term anashim appears in each verse, and this is
the term that Moshe uses to warn the people to keep their distance from
Datan and Aviram as the earth is about to open its mouth (Bamidbar 16:2526):
Moshe arose and went to Datan and Aviram He spoke to the
congregation, saying, Get away, please, from the tents of these evil
men (ha-anashim ha-reshaim), and do not touch anything of theirs, lest
you perish because of all their sins!
An additional linguistic connection is what the quarreling Hebrews say
to Moshe: Who made you a lord and a judge over us?"(Shemot 2:14).
Similarly, Datan and Aviram say to Moshe (Bamidbar 16:13): Will you now
lord it over us? There is also a conceptual link: in both instances, the
speakers are challenging Moshes authority. Thus, the identification is logical.
E.

RASHI AS AN EDUCATOR

In all of the examples which we have cited so far, we have seen that
Rashi is motivated to cite Midrashic material in light of the difficulties in the
text; whether these were linguistic or other issues, what motivates his
commentaries is solving problems in understanding Tanakh (with all of the
caveats mentioned above).[12] But does Rashi cite Midrashic material only
because of difficulties in the verses, with the aim of resolving those
difficulties? Alternatively, does Rashi at times cite midrashim even without
having found any difficulty in the biblical text, merely because he believes that
these midrashim have a significant message for his audience?
I had the privilege of studying with Professor Nechama Leibowitz of
blessed memory. She was of the opinion[13] that Rashi is a pure parshan, and
his aim is solely exegetical:
Rashi enlists midrashim only when they respond to a question which
arises from the text of the verse, when they resolve a difficulty, solve a
problem or fill in a gap i.e., when they help the reader to understand
the text written. He does not cite midrashim in order to decorate the
words of the Torah with pearls of rabbinic wisdom, nor does he bring
them for a mere sermon, a moral lesson or anything of that sort. [14]
The famous question posed by Professor Leibowitz, recurring in her
lessons and writings, is, What is bothering Rashi? This is the crystallization
of her methodology. According to her, Rashi relates to a verse only in a case
in which he is troubled by its simple understanding.
This
position
is
not
universally
accepted.
Some
supercommentaries[15] and modern scholars challenge this view; they believe
that despite the fact that Rashi essentially aims to explain the verses and cites
Midrashic material when it explicates the peshat, he does sometimes deviate
from this course. When the verse and its midrash constitute excellent
opportunities to transmit a spiritual or ethical message, Rashi cites
the midrash even though there is no exegetical need for it. This is the opinion
of, for example, Professor A. Grossman:
The basic assumption of Rashi is that since the aim of the Torah is to
educate one to believe in God and keep His commandments, the
commentator must embrace this purpose and not suffice with
commentary alone. In many cases, one may accomplish this purpose
to educate towards faith and to strengthen weak knees by
using midrashimwhich dovetail with the language of the verses, thus
accomplishing two aims: to explain and to educate simultaneously.
However, in cases in which the homily seems crucial from an
educational point of view, one must cite it, despite the fact that the
connection between it and the language of the verse is very shaky. The
famous question which was so beloved by Nechama, What is
bothering Rashi? is appropriate for many of his comments, but not all
of them. [16]

I am inclined to accept the approach of Professor Grossman. Rashi

indeed cites Midrashic material in order to explicate the verses, but he brings
a significant number ofmidrashim which are not only not conducive to
the peshat, but are in fact not needed at all for the purposes of understanding
the peshat. This is because of Rashis view of his obligations in the public
interest and his strong will to encourage and to educate the audience of
readers.
God willing, our next lecture will be dedicated to Rashis educational
and ethical methodology, as expressed in his comments on the Torah.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] In the previous lesson, we noted that the definition of the concept of peshat is beyond
the scope of this framework, so we will suffice with Sarah Kamins definition (Peshuto Shel
Mikra U-Midrasho shel Mikra[Jerusalem, 5740]): Peshat is not the narrow, literal explanation
of some element or another or of a given expression, but an explanation which takes into
account all the linguistic foundations, in their permutations, and gives to each of them a
meaning, according to the rules.
[2] Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2.
[3] Based on Shemot Rabba 5:34.
[4] Translators note: For conveniences sake, we use the term leprosy for tzaraat,
despite the fact that inTanakh, tzaraat is a physical manifestation of spiritual infirmity, not
Hansens disease, which is bacterial in nature.
[5] Bereishit Rabba ad loc. (with some minor changes).
[6] Indeed, the concept of the importance of avoiding stealing and any hint of larceny
appears many times in Rashis comments. See Rashis commentary onBereishit 13:7; 27:3,
5, 6-9; Shemot 29:36; Leviticus 1:2, 16; etc.
[7] How does the Midrash derive that this is what makes the camels unique? It appears that
it derives this from another detail in the continuation of the story of the servant in Lavans
house, which also appears superfluous: And he loosed the camels (ibid. v. 32). What does
this detail add to the narrative? It appears that the text here indicates that until this point, the
camels were muzzled. Indeed, there as well, Rashi explains consistently: He unfastened
their muzzles [which he had put on them] so that they would not graze in others fields.
[8] Bereishit Rabba ad loc.
[9] One may delve into the words of the midrash and claim that the deeper meaning of the
Sages words here is that through Rivkas act of kindness, she merits to be the ancestress of
the nation of Israel, which will ultimately receive the Torah and build the Tabernacle.
Alternatively, one may say that Rivkas actions are as weighty as the Tablets and the
Tabernacle.
[10] In other words, she did not act like Leah, but rather like Rachel.
[11] The distinction between these two midrashim is in the question of who initiates the test
and what the aim of the test is. According to the first midrash, God is the initiator, and the
point of the test is to demonstrate and publicize Avrahams behavior. According to the
secondmidrash, the initiator is Yitzchak, and the aim of the test is to demonstrate and
publicize his behavior. It is clear that the second midrash is very distant from the peshat, and
as we shall see in a future lecture, this midrash has polemical religious echoes.
[12] Rashi sometimes uses the phrase: This verse demands to be expounded literally:
This verse says, Expound me!
[13] In this, she followed in the footsteps of the supercommentaries R. Abraham LvyBacrat in Sefer Ha-Zikkaron and R. David Prado in Maskil Le-David.
[14] Nechama Leibowitz and Moshe Ahrend, Peirushei Rashi La-Torah: Iyunim Beshitato, Vol. II (Tel Aviv 5750), p. 460.
[15] See R. Eliyahu Mizrachi and R. Yitzchak Yaakov Horowitz in his Beer Yitzchak.

[16] Pulmos Dati U-Megamma Chinukhit Be-Feirushei Rashi La-Torah, Pirkei Nechama
Sefer Zikkaron Li-Nechama Leibowitz, pp. 187-205.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
****************************************************************
This shiur is dedicated in memory of Israel Koschitzky zt"l,
whose yahrzeit falls on the 19th of Kislev.
May the world-wide dissemination of Torah through the VBM
be a fitting tribute to a man whose lifetime achievements
exemplified the love of Eretz Yisrael and Torat Yisrael.
****************************************************************
Lecture #6b:
Rashi, Part III
The Moral and Educational Philosophy of Rashi (cont.)
C.

SENSITIVITY TO THE DISADVANTAGED

In his commentaries, Rashi displays great sensitivity towards the

people in society who are indigent or powerless, who have no defenders.
[1] This compassion for the disadvantaged is expressed in numerous
ways. We will focus on his commentary onVayikra.
At the end of the first chapter, Rashi declares that the economic
situation of the pauper does not decrease his or her value in Gods eyes. In
explaining the phrase a fire-offering of a pleasing fragrance, he writes:
Now, regarding birds, it says here, A pleasing fragrance, and
regarding animals (v. 9), it says, A pleasing fragrance as well. Thus,
we may see that whether the offering is a large animal or a small bird,
the fragrance is pleasing to God. This teaches us that it makes no
difference whether one offers much or little, provided that one directs
the heart heavenward. (Rashi, Vayikra 1:17)
A similar idea is cited by Rashi in the next verse, And if a person
[literally, soul] offers (ibid. 2:1):
Regarding all the sacrifices which are donated voluntarily, the only
instance where Scripture uses the word soul is in the case of the
meal-offering. Now, who usually donates a meal-offering? Only the
poorest of people do so. Nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He,
says: In my eyes, it is as he has offered his very soul!
Returning to the bird-offering (1:17), Rashi uses a technical detail to
stress that the Torah worries about the rights and dignity of the weak. The
Torah commands that when offering a bird, the priest shall cleave it by its

wings, but not sever it; then he shall burn it on the altar a pleasing fragrance
to God. Rashi (ad loc.) explains:
By its wings with its wings. There is no need to pluck the feathers
of its wings.
By its wings the actual feathers. But surely even the most
unsophisticated person finds the smell of burnt feathers
repulsive! Why then does Scripture command, Then he shall burn
it? So that the altar should appear content and enhanced by the
offering of a pauper.
In other words, offering the wing feathers on the altar is designed to
create the image of a satisfied altar; a featherless or wingless bird appears to
be a very small offering, while the wings add a bit of volume and beauty. Thus,
the pauper, who is bringing something of the small amount that he or she
owns, feels good about the offering.
Later in the book, this concept is extended to interpersonal laws. The
Torah states (ibid. 25:35), If your brother becomes destitute and his hand
falters beside you, you shall support him, alien or resident, so that he may live
with you. Rashi directs our attention to the fact that in charity, timing is
everything:
You shall support him do not allow him to fall down and collapse
altogether, making it difficult to pick him up again. Rather, support
him when his hand falters. To what can this be compared? To a load
on a donkey as long as it is still on the donkey, one person can grab
hold of it and keep it in place. Once it falls to the ground, however,
even five people cannot pick it up.
Throughout
the
Torah,
Rashi
is
wont
to
cite
the
halakhic midrashim which emphasize the severity of the prohibitions of taking
advantage of the weak, whether in terms of the sin or in terms of the
punishment.
The prohibition of defrauding is mentioned twice in Scripture.
In Vayikra (19:13), we read, Do not defraud your fellow; in Devarim (24:14),
we read, Do not defraud your poor or destitute hiree, from among your
brethren or from among your aliens. According to Rashi, the Torah views the
offense as more serious when it is committed against a pauper; indeed, one
who transgresses and takes advantage of the indigent violates two
prohibitions simultaneously:
Do not defraud your [poor or destitute] hiree But has this not
already been written? Indeed it has, but this makes the transgressor
liable for two negative commandments for a poor person: 1) Do not
defraud your poor or destitute hiree of his wages; 2) Do not defraud
your fellow, which proscribes doing so [even] to a rich
person. (Rashi, Devarim 24:14)

A few verses later (24:17), Rashi applies the same logic to the justice
system that he does to labor relations:
Do not pervert the judgment of an alien or an orphan The Torah
has already proscribed doing so even to a rich person: Do not pervert
justice (ibid. 16:19). However, the Torah repeats it here in reference to
the poor person in order to make the transgressor liable for two
negative commandments. Since it is easier to pervert the judgment of a
poor person[2] than that of a rich person, the Torah proscribes once and
then repeats.
In other places in Rashis commentary, we see that God Himself serves
as a guardian of the weak. For example, in Shemot 22:25, the Torah states: If
you take your fellows garment as security, return it to him until sunset. Rashi
comments:
If you take as security [literally, If you take a security, you shall take
a security] The Torah employs duplicative language, indicating that
one may end up taking the security many times.
The Holy One, blessed be He, says: How greatly are you in My
debt! For your soul ascends to Me every night, gives an account and
tally, and is found wanting before Me, but I return it to you
nevertheless. You as well must take and return, take and return. [3]
This midrash implies that the creditor must return to the pauper his
collateral daily, since this is how God acts with every person when He returns
his soul to Him; in other words, God, as it were, represents the poor, and the
bounty which God bestows upon us must therefore be shared with the
pauper.
A similar idea is expressed in the previous verse (22:24): If you lend
money to My people, the pauper among you Rashi comments:
To My people do not act towards [the borrower] in a demeaning
manner when you lend to him, for he is with Me.
Rashi is suggesting a homiletic reading: instead of vowelizing the word
ammi (My people), it may be understood as immi (with Me). Thus, the
pauper deserves respect, since God is in his corner, and disrespect for the
pauper is thus disrespect for God.
Rashi reiterates this idea in his comment toDevarim 16:11. The verse
describes the joy of the festival of Shavuot:
And you shall rejoice before Lord your God, you, and your son, and
your daughter, and your servant, and your maidservant, and the Levite
in your gates, and the alien, and the orphan, and the widow in your
midst

Rashi explains:
The Levite and the alien, and the orphan, and the widow [God
says:] These are My four, corresponding to your four Your son and
your daughter and your servant and your maidservant. If you will
gladden Mine, I will gladden yours.
If a person gladdens the Levite, alien, orphan, and widow, My four,
then God will gladden your four son, daughter, servant, and maidservant.
Rashi even teaches us that empathy for the pauper can lead us to
sympathy. Returning to the verse in Shemot 22:24, Rashi examines the
phrase the pauper among you:
The pauper among you Look at yourself as if you were the pauper.
Rashi writes similar things about the welfare of the aliens, the strangers
or converts. In the next chapter, the Torah states: You know the soul of the
alien (23:9), and Rashi explains:
The soul of the alien [You know] how hard it is for him when people
oppress him.
The Jewish people know how difficult it is for the aliens when they are
oppressed, because the Israelites were aliens in Egypt, and they were also
oppressed, And we cried out to God and He saw our suffering and our
oppression (Devarim 26:7).
D.

AFFECTION FOR FOREBEARS OF ISRAEL

Rashi expresses great affection for the forebears of Israel, the

Patriarchs, the Matriarchs, and the Twelve Tribes. This regard is expressed in
two areas. The first is an attempt to minimize to the level of obscuring the
very progression of the biblical text the negative traits or acts which are
attributed in Scripture to Israels forebears and its role models. The second is
the glorification of acts that seem to be insignificant. There are a number of
examples of Rashis forgiving attitude towards the ancestors of the Jewish
People, and we will cite a number of them from the Book of Bereishit:
1. Avraham asks God about the future provision of the Holy Land (15:8): By
what shall I know that I will inherit it? Rashi stresses that Avraham does
not actually doubt Gods ability to fulfill the blessing, but he needs to know
how his descendants will merit to receive the land and hold on to it: He
said to Him: Let me know by what right will they endure in it?
2. In Yitzchaks words to Esav, he describes Yaakovs trickery in the following
way: Your brother came with guile (be-mirma), and he took your blessing
(27:35). Rashi follows in the footsteps of Onkelos, rendering be-mirma as
with cleverness (be-chokhma). When Yaakovs sons hatch a scheme to
kill the men of Shekhem, the Torah notes, And Yaakovs sons answered

Shekhem and Chamor with mirma (34:13); Rashi translates the

word mirma aschokhma.[4]
3. When the Torah states (30:1), And Rachel saw that she had not borne a
child to Yaakov, and Rachel was envious of her sister, Rashi explains that
Rachel is not jealous, but rather envious of her good deeds, by which
she had merited giving birth to so many sons.
4. The verse reports (35:22), And Reuven went, and he slept with Bilha, his
fathers concubine; Rashi explains that he disarranged his bed.
5. When the brothers hatred of Yosef becomes overpowering, so that they
could not speak peaceably with him (37:4), Rashi points out that this
redounds to the brothers credit; they did not act in a duplicitous manner,
pretending to like him.[5]
Conversely, as we have said, when it comes to the forebears of Israel,
Rashi also glorifies actions which seem meaningless. Interpreting the words
of the verse (30:14), And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest,
Rashi explains:
This tells you how the tribes were praiseworthy, that it was the time of
harvest, but [Reuven] did not stretch out his hand in thievery to steal
wheat or barley, but an ownerless thing, which no one cares about.
Another example is Rashis interpretation of the verse (22:1), And
Avraham said, Here I am, when God tests him:
Here I am This is the reply of the pious. It is an expression of
humility and an expression of readiness.[6]
Next week, we will complete our analysis of Rashi as an educator and
moral authority.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] The Torah declares, Do not oppress any widow or orphan (Shemot 22:21), and Rashi
explains this: The same applies to all people, but the Scripture speaks of the usual situation,
since [the widows and orphans] are weak and they are often mistreated.
[2] Note that Rashi uses the term poor person to describe an oppressed person (in this
case, an alien or orphan), not specifically one who is financially disadvantaged.
[3] This is a payment which is taken from a borrower who does not have the cash to pay a
debt. When the creditor takes the collateral garment of the pauper in this case, he must
return it to that individual every morning, so that the pauper will have something to wear
throughout the day, and at sunset the lender takes the garment once again, until the next
morning, and so on and so forth (until the pauper pays his debt).
[4] In the case of Shekhem, the alteration from the peshat of the verse is more significant,
since the guile is also mentioned by the objective biblical narrator, who calls it mirma, while
Rashi explains that the reference is to chokhma. On the other hand, in the case of
Yitzchak, mirma is mentioned only by Yitzchak himself; one may understand that even though
Yitzchak himself evaluates it asmirma, in fact, Yaakovs actions are not so deplorable, and
they are in the category of chokhma, not mirma. As we shall see below, Rashi is not overly

concerned with setting aside the literal meaning of the words employed by the objective
biblical narrator in order to convey a moral message.
When Yaakov describes what Lavan has done to him in swapping Leah for Rachel, he uses
the identical term: And why have you beguiled me? (Bereishit 29:25). Rashi does not
explain that the meaning of the word mirma there is chokhma, but rather leaves it without
explanation, with the understanding that the reader will interpret it according to the usual
meaning that Lavan has tricked, misled, or defrauded Yaakov.
[5] This explanation of Rashi teaches us the importance of honesty in his worldview.
[6] A similar idea is applied to Yosefs use of the term when his father addresses him;
see Bereishit 37:13.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #6C:
Rashi (Part III)
The Moral and Educational Philosophy of Rashi (Conclusion)
*********************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Drs. Irving and Roberta Strauchler
in memory of Jonas Strauchler zl
*********************************************************
E.

PRAISE AND AFFECTION FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE

Rashi has a great affection not only for the ancestors of the Jewish
people, but for Israel as a nation as well, and he succeeds in finding points in
their favor even when their sins are spelled out in the verse.
One example is in the passage of the blasphemer (Vayikra 23:1012). Rashi praises the nation of Israel, deducing that if the verse finds it
worthwhile to mention the name of his mother And his mothers name was
Shelomit, daughter of Divri, of the tribe of Dan (ibid. v. 11) it must be that
she was unusual:
His mothers name was Shelomit the daughter of Divri this is to
praise Israel. The verse publicizes this one to let us know that she
alone was involved in sexual immorality.
An additional example may be found inDevarim 32:43, where the Torah
states, Nations, sing out praise for His people. Rashi explains:
At that time, the nations will praise Israel, saying: You see, now, what
the praise of this nation is. For they clung to the Holy One, Blessed be
He, through all the sufferings that befell them, and they did not forsake
Him! They knew His goodness and His praise. [1]
It is difficult not to see in this approbation of the nation of Israel, who
clung to the Holy One, Blessed be He, through all the sufferings that befell
them, a reassuring comment which comes to bolster his
contemporaries. Rashi lived in a period in which the Church pointed to the

success and power of Christendom, on the one hand, and the low situation of
the Jews, on the other hand, as a divine sign of the rightness of the Christian
viewpoint. Through his commentary, Rashi strengthens his coreligionists,
who are overwhelmed and beleaguered by their current situation, reassuring
them that, in the future, the nations of the world will praise the nation of Israel
because they have not been seduced into apostasy.
F.

LOVE OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL

This lesson would be incomplete without noting Rashis great affection

for the Land of Israel. Rashi attributes many great qualities to the Land of
Israel, whether physical or spiritual, and sometimes they even dovetail with
each other.
The terms aliya (ascent) and yerida(descent) have become the
common terms for, respectively, immigration to and emigration from the land
of Israel. It is logical to assume that this use of the term aliya, instead of
defining mere upward motion, became rooted in the Hebrew language
because of Rashis many comments describing Israel as above all other
lands, which should be seen as a physical and spiritual description combined.
Below are a number of examples.
After Yosef identifies himself to his brothers, he says (Bereishit 45:9),
Hurry andgo up to my father. Rashi explains: The Land of Israel is higher
than all other lands. InShemot 33:1, God says to Moshe, Go, go upfrom
this, you and the people which you brought up from the land of Egypt, to the
land which I swore Rashi explains: The Land of Israel is higher than all
other lands; this is why He said, Go up.
The same applies in the reverse; leaving the land of Israel is described
to this very day with the term yerida. This also follows in Rashis footsteps. On
the verse, And they will bring down to us (Devarim 1:25), Rashi explains:
This tells us that the Land of Israel is higher than all other lands.
Rashi believes that the Land of Israel has higher spiritual standards
than other lands. In Vayikra 18:28, the verse says that the Land will vomit out
those who defile it, and Rashi explains: The Land of Israel does not suffer
sinners. The Land itself, as it were, is not capable of containing evildoers,
and consequently, it vomits them out. Similarly, because of the high spiritual
level of the Land of Israel, Rashi determines that one who lives outside of
Israel is likened to an idol worshipper, while one who lives in the Land of Israel
makes the God of Israel his. In Vayikra25:38, the verse states: I am the Lord,
your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of
Canaan, to be a God to you. Rashi explains: For I am a God to anyone who
lives in the Land of Israel, but anyone who leaves it is like one who worships
idols.
Rashi emphasizes the physical advantages of the Land of Israel as
well. In his commentary to Bamidbar 13:22, Now Chevron had been built
seven years before Tzoan of Egypt, Rashi argues that the simple meaning of

the verse is untenable, since the Egyptians are an older people than the
Canaanites. Instead, he explains that even the most inferior part of the Land
of Israel, Chevron, is seven times as good as the finest part of Egypt:
This is meant to teach you the excellence of the Land of Israel, for
there is no place in the Land of Israel rockier than Chevron, which is
why it was designated for a burial ground. On the other hand, there is
no country in the world as superb as Egypt, as it says, It was like
Gods garden, like the land of Egypt (Bereishit 13: 10). Furthermore,
Tzoan is the best part of Egypt, for the residence of the kings is
situated there, as it says, For his princes were in Tzoan
(Yeshayahu 30:4). Yet Chevron was superior to it seven times over.
Similarly, Rashi comments on the words of the verse
in Devarim (11:10) stating that the land of Israel is not like the land of Egypt,
noting: Rather, it is better than it.
Rashi emphasizes that these superior qualities of the Land of Israel are
known not only to the Jewish People, but even to the nations of the world.
This is what he writes earlier in Devarim (3:9), where the Torah notes that
other nations have their own name for Mount Hermon: The Sidonians call
Hermon Sirion, while the Amorites call it Senir.
The Sidonians call Hermon but in another passage, it states,
Until Mount Sion, which is Hermon (Devarim 4:48). So we see that it
had four names [Hermon, Sirion, Senir, and Sion]. Why was it
necessary for all of them to be written? To express the praise of the
Land of Israel, that there were four kingdoms taking pride in it one
saying, It shall be called by my name, and another saying, It shall be
called by my name.
A similar concept arises one more time in Devarim, towards the end
(33:17). There, Moshe is blessing the tribe of Yosef: The firstborn of his ox is
his glory, and the horns of the aurochs are his horns; with them he will gore
together the ends of the earth. According to Rashi, the verse constitutes a
prophecy describing the impending conquest of the land of Israel by
Yehoshua. Once again, Rashi finds the opportunity here to weave the
message of the superiority of the Land of Israel into his commentary, despite
the fact that there is no difficulty in the verse that requires the introduction of
aggadic material:
The ends of the earth that is, the thirty-one kings. [2] Is it possible
that these kings were all from the Land of Israel? Rather, there was
not one king or ruler who did not acquire for himself a palace and a
holding in the land of Israel. This is because the Land of Israel was
considered distinguished by all of them, as it is said, The finest
inheritance of the hosts of nations (Yirmeyahu3:19).

In other words, every king throughout the world (the ends of the
earth) wanted to own real estate in the Land of Israel because of its universal
importance.
G.

APPENDIX RASHIS DICTA

Having reached the end of this part, I wish to list a number of

expressions and maxims which have become a treasured part of the Hebrew
language because of Rashis commentary. Here as well, I will stress that
Rashi did not compose these expressions, but the fact that Rashi uses these
aphorisms has made them extremely popular. I bring here only a small
sample of these dicta:

Say part of ones praise in his presence, all of it outside of his

presence (Bereishit 7:1).
Woe to a villain, woe to his neighbor (Bamidbar 3:29)
A cloak all of blue wool (Bamidbar16:1). [3]
What does the sabbatical year have to do with Mt. Sinai?
(Vayikra 25:1).[4]
For Rachel, your younger daughter (following Rashi, Bereishit 29:18).
[5]

Two kings cannot share the same crown (Bereishit 1:16).

One in the mouth and one in the heart (Bereishit 37:4).[6]
Each word according to its properties (Rashi, Bereishit 3:8, based
on Mishlei25:11).[7]
Do not criticize your fellow for a blemish that you have (Shemot 22:20)
When you see something like this, sanctify it (Shemot 12:2). [8]
The grandfather of all impurity (Bamidbar 19:22).

Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] It is worth adding the innovation of Rav Mordechai Breuer (Megadim 28 (5758), pp. 45-72)
concerning Rashis method in his introductory comments to each volume of the Pentateuch:
It appears that Rashi has a clear methodology here. Rashi introduces his
commentary to each volume of the Pentateuch by singing the praises of Israel:
proving their righteousness (Bereishit), revealing how beloved they are
(Shemot,Vayikra, Bamidbar) or defending their honor (Devarim). There is a great
significance to this method of Rashi throughout his commentary. After all, the Holy
One, Blessed be He, Israel, and His Torah are one. Thus, one who seeks to interpret
the Torah must always have Israel uppermost in his mind. Only Israel received and
fulfilled the Torah, and they still fulfill it until to this very day. Israel is the sole subject
of the Torah, and they alone are what it deals with, from the beginning to the end.
[2] Chapter 12 of the Book of Yehoshua lists thirty-one Canaanite kings whom he defeated in
order to conquer the Land of Israel.
[3] Korach, whose rebellion is described in Bamidbar 16 (immediately following the
commandment to the Israelites to make fringes, containing a thread of blue, on the edges of
their garments) uses the following tactic:
He dressed them with cloaks made entirely of blue wool. They came and stood
before Moses and asked him, Does a cloak made entirely of blue wool require

fringes, or is it exempt? He replied, It does require fringes. They began laughing at

him. "Can it be that one string of blue wool fulfills the obligation for a cloak made of
any other color, while this one, which is made entirely of blue wool, cannot exempt
itself?
[4] This is a phrase which describes a non-sequitur in the biblical text. In this case, it is the
introduction toVayikra 25, which deals with the sabbatical and jubilee years. It opens with,
And God spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai, saying, instead of the usual, And God spoke to
Moshe, saying.
[5] This is a phrase which describes the apparently redundant, legalistic terminology of
contracts and the like. In this verse, Yaakov strikes a deal with Lavan: I will work for you for
seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter. Ostensibly, he could have merely said for
Rachel. Rashi explains:
For Rachel, your younger daughter Why were all these signs necessary? Since
Yaakov knew that Lavan was a deceiver, he said to him, I will work for you for
Rachel; lest you substitute some other Rachel from the street, it states explicitly:
Your daughter; lest you say, I will change her name to Leah, and I will change
Leahs name to Rachel, it states explicitly: Your younger [daughter].
[6] This is an expression of hypocrisy or duplicity.
[7] In other words, a word must be defined on its own terms, literally rather than homiletically.
[8] This expression refers to an unequivocal, unquestionable teaching. The first
commandment given to Israel in Egypt is: This new moon shall mark for you the beginning of
the months. Rashi is troubled by the word this, and he explains:
Moshe had some difficulty understanding the crescent of the new moon, at what size
it must appear before it is fit for sanctification. So He showed him with His finger the
moon in the sky and said to him, When you see something like this, sanctify it.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
******************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Carole S. Daman of Scarsdale in
memory of Tzvi Hersh ben David Arye zl Harlan Daman
******************************************************
Lecture #6a:
Rashi, Part III
The Moral and Educational Philosophy of Rashi
A.

RASHI AS AN EDUCATOR

In our previous lesson, we discussed the question of what motivates

Rashi to expound a verse. Does Rashi explicate the verses only when he
finds some difficulty in them, with the sole motive of clarifying the text? This is
what Professor Nechama Leibowitz argues, in the footsteps of a number of
Rashis supercommentaries. Or does Rashi see himself as obligated not only
to explain the verses, but even to educate the community and to transmit
messages by way of parshanut when these opportunities happen to fall into
his lap? Indeed, a not insignificant number of modern scholars of Rashi
maintain that the latter is true.
We have noted that the first approach compels the student to find the
difficulty that Rashi tries to resolve for each and every verse which Rashi
expounds. Nevertheless, there are times that there is no escape from saying

that Rashi does not always have a difficulty in the verse; at least in some
circumstances, his desire is to educate and to shape the viewpoint and life
practices of the members of his generation, and this is what motivates him to
expound the verse.
Regardless of the position we maintain regarding Rashis motivations,
there is no doubt that Rashi whether intentionally or unintentionally has
becomes one of the great developers of Jewish education throughout all
generations.
We may say that Rashi is directly responsible for shaping a significant
part of the ethical and educational tradition of the Jewish nation. We might
even go far enough to say that in this sphere, his success may be even
greater than in the exegetical sphere. Parents and other educational figures
construct the values and the outlook of the Jewish child upon the rock-solid
foundations of Rashis commentaries onTanakh; these words serve as their
guiding light.
Every Jewish child who is about to hit his classmate or playmate
immediately hears the resounding voice of the kindergarten teacher quoting:
Whoever raises a hand against his fellow is called a rasha (evil one)
(Rashi, Shemot 2:13, based on Sanhedrin58b).[1]
We all remember that it is better to say a little and do a lot; this is, after
all, Avrahams behavior, while Efron (who is, of course, a non-Jew) acts in the
opposite way (Rashi, Bereishit 23:16, based on BavaMetzia 87a).
The seriousness of publicly shaming another was emphasized in our
youth when we learnt of Tamar: Better that one leap into a fiery furnace than
shame ones fellow in public (Rashi, Bereishit 38:25, based onBerakhot 43b).
The importance of prayer is derived from Rashis commentary as well.
On the verse, And God took account of Sara (Bereishit 21:1), Rashi
explains, This section[2] was juxtaposed to the other to teach you that
whoever asks for Gods compassion for another, when he needs the same
thing, he is answered first (based onBava Kamma 92a).
The authority of the official leadership, which we must respect even if
we do not like it, is recalled with Rashis phrase: Yiftach in his generation is
like Shemuel in his generation (Rashi, Devarim 19:17, as cited from Rosh
Hashana 25b). And who does not remember Rashis famous example of the
difference between taking revenge and bearing a grudge (based on
the Sifra ad loc.and Yoma 23a):
X says to Y, Lend me your sickle, and Y replies, No! The next day, Y
says to X Lend me your ax. If X says to Y, I will not lend it to you, just
as you did not lend to me! this constitutes revenge.
Now what constitutes bearing a grudge? X says to Y, Lend me your
ax, and Y replies, No! The next day, Y says to X, Lend me your

sickle. If X says to Y, Here it is for you; I am not like you, who did not
lend me! this constitutes bearing a grudge, for X keeps the hatred
in his heart, even though he does not take revenge.
Of course, the source of all of these statements is the Talmud and
Midrash, but most of us first encountered and came to know them from
Rashis words.
In this lecture and the next, I have gathered a number of examples of
educational topics that are very close to Rashis heart, so much so that at
every opportunity he interweaves them into his commentary. By way of these
examples, we may build a model of the ethical and educational philosophy of
the greatest of all teachers: Rashi.[3]
B

LASHON HA-RA

To Rashi, speaking ill of others lashon ha-ra, here used as a term

including slander, gossip, defamation and the like is anathema. He notes
how serious this sin is in a number of places; according to him (as we shall
see presently), the sin is so serious that it is the cause of exile.
When Moshe encounters two quarreling Hebrew men and rebukes the
assailant, he is shocked to learn that his killing of the Egyptian slave-driver the
previous day has become public knowledge: And Moshe was afraid
(Shemot 2:14). After explaining this reaction literally, Rashi (ad loc.) continues:
Midrashically, it is interpreted to mean that he was worried because he
saw that were delators[4] among Israel. He said: If this is the case,
perhaps they do not deserve to be redeemed![5]
Explaining the next phrase, And he said, Indeed, the matter is
known, Rashi continues to develop this approach:
Its Midrashic interpretation, however, is this: The matter I was
wondering about, why the Israelites are considered more sinful than all
the seventy nations that they deserve to be subjugated in cruel
servitude, has become known to me. I see that they do indeed deserve
it.
It is not only the Jewish nation that is punished by the privations of
exile due to the sin of lashon ha-ra; this is true of the individual as well. For
example, Yosef informs on his brothers, as the verse notes (Bereishit 37:2):
Yosef brought their evil report to their father. Rashi (ad loc.) describes at
length both the slander and the punishment of Yosef for bringing lashon hara to his father. In fact, he writes, all of the troubles which befall Yosef are a
punishment for his lashon ha-ra concerning his brothers:
Their evil report any evil he saw in his brothers, the sons of Leah,
he would tell his father: 1) That they ate limbs from living animals, 2)

that they demeaned the sons of the maidservants by calling them

slaves, and 3) that they were suspected of illicit sexual relationships.
For these three, he was punished:
For the tale of limbs from living animals, they slaughtered a kid goat
(Bereishit 37:31) when they sold him, but they did not eat it alive.
For the report that he told about them that they called their brothers
slaves, Joseph was sold as a slave (Tehillim105:17).
For the tale of illicit sexual relationships that he told about them, his
masters wife lifted her eyes (Bereishit 39:7).
According to Rashi, Moshe Rabbeinus experiences described in
chapter 4 of Shemot demonstrate that even leaders and great men such as
he must be careful to avoid lashon ha-ra; indeed, they are forced to pay for
this sin if they stumble in this severe crime. [6]
When Moshe Rabbeinu is sent to redeem the Israelites from Egypt, he
doubts whether they will trust in his account that God has indeed revealed
Himself to him: But they will not believe me (v. 1). Gods response to Moshe
is to give him two signs (vv. 2-8); at first glance, their aim appears to be to
convince the Jewish People of the trustworthiness of Moshe Rabbeinu.
However, according to Rashi, the two signs that Moshe performs allude to his
own sin slandering the Jewish people with the statement But they will not
believe me.
The first sign is changing the staff into a serpent, and Rashi finds in this
two allusions to Moshes sin. The first allusion precedes the sign itself, when
God asks Moshe (v. 2), Ma-zeh be-yadekha?, What is this in your hand?
On the basis of the Midrash,[7] Rashi directs our attention to the strange
compound word ma-zeh, composed of ma (what) and zeh (this).
This is why it is written as one word: so that it may be expounded: Mizeh, from this in your hand you deserve to be stricken, for you have
suspected the innocent.
In addition, the sign itself, turning the staff into a serpent, is seen by
Rashi (v. 3) as an allusion to Moshes sin:
He alluded to him that he told lashon ha-ra about Israel, seizing the
occupation of the Serpent.[8]
The second sign is Moshes hand becoming covered with leprosy [9] (v.
6), and Rashi brings the midrash which connects this sign to the sin of lashon
ha-ra:

This is an allusion to the lashon ha-rathat he had told by saying, They

will not believe me; therefore, he was stricken with tzaraat, just as
Miriam was stricken because of lashon ha-ra.
God then declares: If they will not believe you, and they will not
hearken to the call of the first sign, then they will believe the call of the latter
sign (v. 8). Rashi explains that the second sign (the leprous hand) is more
convincing than the first sign (the ophidian staff), because with the second
sign Moshe is punished:
Once you tell them, I was stricken because of you, because I
told lashon ha-ra about you, they will believe you. [10]
According to the gemara, lashon ha-rais one of the seven sins
punished by tzaraat:
R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of R. Yochanan: Plagues
are caused by seven things: by lashon ha-ra, by bloodshed, by vain
oath-taking, by sexual immorality, by arrogance, by robbery and by
greed. (Arakhin 16a)
From among these seven possibilities, Rashi chooses the sin
of lashon ha-ra as the exclusive offense that causes the punishment
of tzaraat; ever since the publication of Rashis commentary on the Torah, the
punishment of tzaraat (by itself!) is known throughout Jewish communities as
the fitting punishment for the sin of lashon ha-ra! Rashi even justifies the idea
of tit-for-tat inherent in the punishment of tzaraatwhen he explains the verse,
He shall reside alone; outside the camp must his residence be
(Vayikra 13:46), the rule governing themetzora:
He shall reside alone even other impure people must avoid him.
Our Sages said (Arakhin 16b): Why is he different from other impure
people, that he must remain isolated? Since, with his slander, he
caused a separation between a man and his wife or between a man
and his fellow, he too, shall be separated!
I do not know why this topic of lashon ha-ra is so imperative for Rashi.
It may be that Rashi, as a communal leader and rabbinic judge, saw up close
the extremely harmful results that the sin of lashon ha-racan cause. In any
case, it is clear to me that it is Rashi who succeeded in inculcating the
severity of the sin of lashon ha-ra in the consciousness of the Jewish People,
long before R. Yisrael Meir Kagan wrote his magnum opus on the
topic, Chafetz Chayim.[11]
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] Usually, this threat is voiced without mentioning the term rasha, following another of
Rashis dicta: It threatens, but it does not delineate the punishment (Shemot 22:22; a similar
expression appears inBereishit 4:15).
[2] In 20:17, Avraham prays for Avimelekh and his household.
[3] As we have noted above, the source of all of these points is ultimately the words of the
Sages. Nevertheless, we will attribute the resultant educational philosophy to Rashi, because
he selects certain midrashim and cites them, while ignoring others.
[4] This is a term for informers from the Latin that has found its way into both Hebrew and
English. How does Moshe know that it is Hebrews, not Egyptians, who have informed on
him? Before he kills the Egyptian, he turned this way and that, and he saw that no man was
there (Shemot 2:12); therefore, the only person who could have told the tale was the Hebrew
whom Moshe had saved from his Egyptian attacker.
[5] It may be that the impetus for adding thismidrash is the question of how a person at
Moshes spiritual level would be in fear of mere humans. According to this midrash, this is not
the fear of personal peril, but rather a concern for the fate of the Jewish people; perhaps, God
forbid, they do not deserve redemption due to their perfidy.
[6] It is noteworthy that while Rashi generally tries to justify the acts of the Patriarchs and
other role models (see more on this topic later in this series), in regard to the sin of lashon hara, he does not mince words.
[7] Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 23.
[8] The association of snakes with the sin oflashon ha-ra also appears in Rashis comments
to the following verse: God sent against the people the venomous snakes, and they bit the
people, and many people of Israel died (Bamidbar 21:6). Rashi writes: And they bit the
people let the snake, which was stricken for speaking evil, come and punish those who
spread slander.
[9] Translators note: For conveniences sake, we use the terms leprosy and leper
for tzaraat andmetzora respectively, despite the fact that in Tanakh,tzaraat is a physical
manifestation of spiritual infirmity, not Hansens disease, which is bacterial in nature.
[10] It appears that what motivates Rashis interpretation of these signs is the fact that
Moshe is required to perform the signs while he is still standing by the Burning Bush, before
he arrives in Egypt at all, without even one person around to witness these phenomena. The
aim of performing these signs afterwards, before the Israelites, is quite clear - Moshe needs
to convince them that God did indeed speak to him - but what is the point of performing them
at the Burning Bush? According to the comments of Rashi, the answer is profound; they serve
as a rebuke and punishment for Moshe.
[11] The sin of lashon ha-ra appears in Rashis commentaries in the following places as
well: Vayikra14:4, 19:16; Bamidbar 33:18; Devarim 22:14, 27:24, etc.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
****************************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Yehuda Chaim ben Aharon Safier z"l
by Rafe and Roberta Safier
****************************************************************
Lecture #7a:
Rashi, Part IV
Rashi and Christianity
A. INTRODUCTION
Perfect Torah/ Of two millennia prior,
Beseech now the face of God/ For the unblemished dove.
Implore in supplication/ He Who dwells above

To show compassion to those who probe your depths/ At every

moment and time
Approach in supplication/ The face of the ancient succor.
Garb yourself in black/ Like a woman widowed.
Avenge the oppression of your saints/ And the spilled blood of your
scholars
From the hands of the harlots children/ They who cut off your
servants. (Torah Temima, Piyutei Rashi). [1]
In the previous lectures, we have seen that by way of Rashis
commentary to the Torah, we may understand his character, values, and
educational philosophy. In this lecture, we will deal with the comments
and midrashim that Rashi brings not because of any interpretative need, nor
because of their educational or moral significance, but rather because of their
exigency for his generation, a generation living beneath the shield and the
sword of the Christian faith. Rashi, as a communal leader and public figure,
could not ignore the growing Christian propaganda emerging from Ashkenazic
lands. As we have seen, sometimes Rashi is inclined to stray from
the peshat in order to transmit a moral message which is important to him.
Similarly, as we shall see in this lesson, Rashi sometimes strays from
the peshatof the verses because of the need to contend with Christian claims
against the Jews, out of his desire to strengthen the spirit of his nation.
The position which reads Rashis explanations against the background
of Jewish-Christian polemics was developed by a number of critics, led by the
historian Y. Baer.[2]
In Rashis time, literary polemics between Judaism and Christianity
began, growing in parallel to the general development of Christian theology
and scholasticism. Only in the middle of the 12 th century did these polemics
reach their climax; the beginning of this revolution belongs to the last chapter
of Rashis life. With this spiritual background, we may understand and explain
a number of things that Rashi wrote in the last years of his life.
B.

INTRODUCTION

There is no doubt that Rashi, in his commentary to Shir Ha-shirim, is

responding to the First Crusade (1096), also known as the Decrees of Tatnu
(after the acronym for the Jewish year, 4856). [3] Similarly, in his commentaries
to a number of psalms[4] and the Book of Yeshayahu, Rashi relates to the
cruelty of the Christians, [5] their claims against the nation of Israel, and the
punishment that God is destined to bring upon them. For example, this is
what Rashi writes in his introduction to Shir Ha-shirim:
I say that Shlomo foresaw with divine intuition that Israel was destined
to suffer a series of exiles and would lament, nostalgically recalling her
former status as Gods chosen beloved. She would say, I will return to
my first husband, for it was better with me then than it is now
(Hoshea 2:9).

The children of Israel will recall His beneficence and the trespasses
which they trespassed (Vayikra 26:40). Moreover, they would recall the
goodness which He promised for the End of Days.
The prophets frequently liken the relationship between God and Israel
to that of a loving husband angered by a straying wife, who has
betrayed him. Shlomo composed Shir Ha-shirim in the form of that
same allegory. It is a passionate dialogue between the husband, God,
who still loves his exiled wife, Israel, and the veritable widow of a living
husband (Shemuel II 20:3), [6] who longs for her husband and seeks to
endear herself to him once more, as she recalls her youthful love for
him and admits her guilt. God too, is afflicted by her affliction
(Yeshayahu 63:9), and He recalls the kindness of her youth, her beauty
and her skillful deeds for which he loved her so. He proclaims that he
has not affiliated her capriciously (Eikha 3:33), nor has she cast away
permanently. For she is still His wife and He her husband, and He will
yet return to her.
In other places in his commentary to Shir Ha-shirim, Rashi stresses
the relevance for his time, and we will see a number of examples of this
(noting in particular his use of the word today).
Draw me, we will run after you; the king brought me to his
chambers. We will rejoice and be glad in you. We will recall your love
more fragrant than wine; they have loved you sincerely. (Shir Hashirim 1:4)
Rashi explains:
The king brought me to his chambers And even today, to this very
day, I still have joy and happiness that I clung to you.
We will recall your love Even today, in living widowhood, I recall
your early love more than any banquet of pleasure and joy.
Let us explain the words of Rashi. The verse begins with the past tense
and switches into future tense. The congregation of Israel says that it has
clung to God in the past (the king brought me to his chambers) and even
today (namely, in Rashis time); despite the difficulties and sufferings of
exile, it does not regret its relationship with God, but it is still happy to have
chosen to cling to God. In the continuation, Rashi says that even today, to
this very day, when the nation of Israel is found in a situation of living
widowhood, it recalls Gods love.
In Rashis commentary to Shir Ha-shirim, one may also find a direct
reference to the dedication of the nation of Israel.
Behold, you are fair, my beloved; behold, you are fair; your eyes are
doves, from within your scarf; your hair is like a flock of goats that
stream down from Mount Gilead. (4:1)
Rashi explains:

Your eyes are doves Your hues and your appearance and your
characteristics are like those of a dove, which clings to its mate, and
when they slaughter it, it does not struggle but stretches forth its neck;
so have you offered your shoulder to bear My yoke and My fear.[7]
This appears to be Rashis personal testimony about the dedication of
his acquaintances, perhaps even his colleagues and classmates from
theyeshivot of Worms and Mainz.
An additional element in Rashis commentary to Shir Ha-shirim is
confronting the Christian claim that the low position of the Jews testifies to
their rejection by God. Rashi claims that God remains with the nation of Israel
in their exile:
With me from Lebanon shall you come (4:8) And when you return
from the exile, I will return with you, and also all the days of the exile, I
will share your troubles. Therefore, he writes, With Me from Lebanon
you shall come. When you are exiled from this Lebanon, you shall
come with Me. It does not state: With Me to Lebanon you shall come,
denoting that from the time of your departure from here until the time of
your arrival here, I am with you wherever you go and wherever you
come.
In his commentary to many verses in Shir Ha-shirim, we find direct
references to the troubles of Rashis generation. In his commentary to Shir
Ha-shirim 5:9, when the daughters of Jerusalem ask the female, What is your
beloved more than another beloved? (in other words: what makes your
beloved so unique, so precious that you still look for him), Rashi explains:
What is your beloved more than another beloved? This is what the
nations were asking Israel, What is it about your God more than all the
other gods, that you allow yourselves to be burned and hanged
because of Him?
In a number of places in the Book ofYeshayahu, one may find in
Rashis commentaries direct references to the events of his era. The most
distinct example is in Rashis commentary to chapters 42-43. Similar to his
comments to Shir Ha-shirim, we may find here evidence of Rashis struggling
with the events of his time. For example, Rashi appears to give chilling
testimony regarding those killed to sanctify Gods name in explaining verse
53:9: And he gave his grave to the wicked and to the wealthy with his kinds
of death.
And he gave his grave to the wicked He subjected himself to be
buried according to anything the wicked of the nations would decree
upon him, for they would penalize him with death and the burial of
donkeys in the intestines of the dogs.

To the wicked according to the will of the wicked, he was willing to

be buried, and he would not deny the living God. [8]
Up to this point, we have seen a relationship to Christianity in Rashis
commentary to Neviim andKetuvim. Can we find a similar trend in Rashis
comments on the Torah?
C.
ANTI-CHRISTIAN TRENDS IN RASHIS COMMENTARY ON THE
TORAH[9]
Overt and Covert Debates with Christianity
It is unclear whether Rashi composed his commentary to the Torah
before or after the Decrees of Tatnu, but even if the composition of Rashis
commentary to the Torah preceded the Crusade, we may still claim that there
is occasion to find in his interpretations a Jewish response to Christian claims.
[10] Sometimes, Rashi does this in an overt, obvious way, as for example
when he uses the term minim, sectarians. (This term precedes Rashi, and it
appears in the literature of the Sages in describing the heretics of their time;
Rashi, however, uses this term to describe the claims of the Christians of his
time.) However, sometimes the reference is not explicit, and it is important to
stress that when Rashi does not explicitly address Christian claims, it is hard
to prove that we are indeed talking about a polemical position. At the same
time, the use of certain arguments, the absence of the interpretative need for
choosing a certain midrash from among a number of possiblemidrashim, as
well as the particular working of amidrash can certainly support our approach.
Monotheism
A.
In Bereishit 1:26, discussing the creation of man, the Torah
states, And God said, Let us make man. The plural language us is used
by the Christians to prove their Doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, Rashi cites
the words of the midrash:
Let us make man Even though [the angels] did not assist Him in
His creation, and there is an opportunity for the sectarians to rebel,
[11] Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of
humility, that the greater person should consult with and receive
permission from the lesser. Had it been written, I shall make man, we
would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to
Himself. And the response to the sectarians is written alongside it (v.
27): And God created; it does not say: And they created.
One of the bases of the Christian faith is belief in the Trinity, that God is
composed of three entities: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit
(Ghost). Here, Rashi sets out explicitly against the Doctrine of the Trinity, and
he adds that even though this could be misconstrued, God still chooses a
potentially misleading term in order to transmit an important message: That
the greater person should consult with and receive permission from the
lesser.

B.
The verse which literally reads, Hear, Israel: Lord our God, Lord
one (Devarim 6:4) may be most simply explained in the following way: Hear,
Israel: Lord, Who is our God, He is one. Indeed, this is R. Saadia Gaons
interpretation. This oneness can be explained as meaning that He alone is our
God (and thus He alone should be worshipped), as the Rashbam and ibn
Ezra explain.[12] However, Rashi reworks the Sifrei to craft the following
interpretation:
The Lord is our God; the Lord is one God, who is now our God and
not the God of the other nations, will be [declared] in the future the one
God, as it is said: For then I will convert the peoples to a pure
language, that all of them call in the name of God [and to serve him as
one] (Tzefanya 3:9), and it is [also] said: On that day will God be one
and His name one (Zekharya 14:9).
Now, let us examine the original in the Sifrei(32), and let us note the
alterations that Rashi introduces:
Lord is our God in this world; Lord is one in the World to Come.
Thus it is written: God will be king over the entire land; on that day will
God be one and His name one.
It appears that the simple meaning of the terminology of the Sifrei is
that Lord is one comes to include the World to Come; the oneness of God is
equated to this world, for the oneness of God is immutable in both.
Rashi, on the other hand, stresses that that there is a universal unity
that is lacking in this world, as the nations of the earth fail to recognize and
embrace Gods kingship and oneness in this world, in his time. In order to
support the idea of the people of the world coming to recognize Gods
kingship and oneness, Rashi enlists the verse from Tzefanya.
An additional change that Rashi makes in relation to the Sifrei is that
instead of speaking of this world, Rashi talks about now, a term that
stresses the relevance of the reading for his era, his audience, his readers. It
is clear that this interpretation does not arise from the peshat, as there is
nothing to indicate that Lord is one is meant to be in the future. Therefore,
we may definitely see this comment as a tendentious interpretation, which
comes to strengthen the members of his generation with the determination
that in the future, even the nations of the word will recognize Gods oneness
and accept the yoke of His kingship.
Translated by R. Yoseif Bloch

[1] See note 3.

[2] Y. Baer, Rashi Ve-Hametziut Ha-Historit shel Zemano, Tarbitz 20 (5709), pp. 320-332.

[3] On November 27, 1095, in the Hebrew year 4856, Pope Urban II made a speech calling
on the faithful to launch a Crusade to the Holy Land and reclaim it from the heretics
(Muslims). This speech resounded throughout Europe and led to a mass movement
eastward. In order to provide basic equipment and provisions for themselves, the Crusaders
pillaged the lands they passed through; when they happened to encounter Jewish
communities along the way, they raided and murdered them. Sometimes, the Jews were
offered the opportunity to convert and thereby save their lives, but many Jews preferred to be
killed to sanctify Gods name, and there were even suicides among Jews during this
period. On the basis of the events of Tatnu, a number of dirges were composed, dealing
mostly with the slaughter of Jewish communities and the loss of yeshivot and Torah scholars.
In the poem Torah Temima, part of which was quoted at the beginning of the lesson, Rashi
bemoans the loss of Torah scholars in his time during the Crusades.
[4] See A. Grossman, Peirush Rashi Li-Tehillim Ve-Ha-Pulmos Ha-Yehudi-Notzri, in D. Rafel
(ed.), Mechkarim Ba-Mikra U-Va-Chinukh Mugashim Le-Professor Moshe Ahrend (Jerusalem,
5756), pp. 59-74.
[5] In a number of places, Rashi identifies Esav and Edom with Rome (that is, the Romans).
The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages would identify Rome with Christianity and the
(Roman) Catholic Church; therefore, prophecies in the Bible which speak about Esav and
Edom were understood by them as relating to Christianity, as were the references of the
Sages to Esav, Edom, or Rome. See G.D. Cohen, Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval
Thought, Alexander Altmann (ed.), Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge,
1967). See also the course offered by the Open University of Israel, Bein Yehudim LeNotzerim: Yehudim Ve-Notzerim Be-Maarav Europa ad Reishit Ha-Et Ha-Chadasha, Prof.
Ora Limor (1993-1997), Vol. I, pp. 9-15 in particular.
[6] This expression appears a number of times in Rashis commentary on Shir Ha-shirim. This
refers to an aguna, a woman whose husband is missing, who sits and waits for him to return
and cannot marry anyone else. She is like a widow, because her husband is not with her, but
he is still alive somewhere; thus, she is a widow not to the dead, but to the living. This is the
position of the Jewish nation in exile it still waits, like a living widow, for God to return to His
people.
[7] A description of the nation of Israel like a dove appears also in Rashis dirge, cited at the
beginning of this lecture.
[8] Additional examples will be cited below.
[9] A. Grossman, Pulmos Dati U-Megamma Chinukhit Be-Feirushei Rashi LaTorah, in Pirkei Nechama Sefer Zikkaron Li-Nechama Leibowitz (Jerusalem, 5761), pp.
187-205, brings a number of examples of anti-Christian tendencies in Rashis commentary on
the Torah. We will also bring a number of examples of this, and some of them overlap with
Grossmans examples.
[10] For the most part, we deal in these lectures with Rashis commentary on the Torah, but in
the framework of this chapter, which deals with the debate with Christianity, we must note the
words of Rashi to Yeshayahu 53:4: Indeed, he bore our illnesses; and our pains, he carried
them. Yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. According to the
claim of Christianity, this verse is a prophecy about Jesus, about his suffering and dying for
the sins of Israel. Rashi, in his commentary to this verse, explains this in the exactly opposite
way:
Indeed, he bore our illnesses But now we see that this came to him not
because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that all the nations
be atoned for with Israels suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon
us, he bore.
Yet we accounted him We thought that he was hated by the Omnipresent, but it
was not so; he was pained because of our transgressions and crushed because of
our iniquities.
In other words, the low status of the nation of Israel is not testimony to the fact that he is
hated by God; rather, he is low because he suffers the sins of the nations of the world. Rashi
continues this idea in the next verse as well: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he
was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him:
The punishment that brought us peace was upon him The punishment, which
was for the sake of the peace enjoyed, came upon him, for he was punished so that
there would be peace for the entire world.

Thus, Rashi devises an innovative interpretation of this verse, and he maintains the opposite
of the claims of the Christians. Jesus did not bear suffering because of the sins of Israel; it is
rather the nation of Israel which bears suffering because of the sins of the nations of the
world. There is no doubt that this is one of the places most remarkable for tendentious antiChristian exegesis in Rashis commentaries on the Torah.
[11] That is, to defeat Israel in a debate (see Midrash Sekhel Tov, Vayikra 1:2).
[12] Naturally, Rashi never saw these commentaries, but these interpretations arise from
the peshat of the verses.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of our parents Jack Stone z"l and Helen and Benjamin
Pearlman z"l
and in honor of Esther Stone by Gary and Ilene Stone
*********************************************************
NEW PUBLICATIONS FROM YESHIVAT HAR ETZION:
Rav Aharon Lichtensteins Varieties of Jewish Experience
is now available in Israel!
Rav Amital memorial volume Le-ovdekha Be-Emet (in Hebrew)
is now available in the USA!
Discounted prices for VBM readers.
Details here:http://www.haretzion.org/torah/yeshiva-publications.
Lecture #7b:
Rashi, Part IV
Rashi and Christianity (conclusion)
The Selection of the Jewish Nation
According to Christianity, the Jewish People were once indeed the
Chosen Nation, but they were eventually rejected for their sins and replaced
with the Christians Israel in spirit in place of Israel in flesh. In order to
combat this claim, Rashi stresses in many places in his commentaries that
even if the Jews sin, they remain Gods treasured people. Similarly, Rashi
seeks in his writings to encourage the nation and prevent them from giving up
on redemption out of feeling that they do not deserve it. Rashi relates to this in
numerous places, and we will analyze a few examples:
A)
Genesis 6:6 states: And God reconsidered (va-yinnachem) that
He had made man in the earth, and He was saddened to His heart. This
verse could serve as ammunition for the Christian claim; if God could
reconsider and regret the creation of man as a whole, they might argue, it is
certainly feasible that God might regret His selection of the Jewish
People. Therefore, Rashi explains the word va-yinnachem in the following
manner:

And God reconsidered that He had made it was a consolation

(nechama) to Him that He had created him [man] of the lower beings,
for had he been one of the upper beings, he would have caused them
to rebel.
According to this explanation, the word va-yinnachem does not mean
And He regretted, but And He was comforted or And He consoled
Himself.
The source for this midrash is Bereishit Rabba, Ch. 27:
And God reconsidered that He had made - R. Yehuda said: It is
regrettable for Me that I created him below, for if I had made him of the
elements of heaven, he would never have rebelled against me.
R. Nechemia said: I take comfort in the fact that I created him below,
for if I had created him above, just as he caused the lower beings
[humans] to rebel against Me, so he would have caused the upper
beings [angels and the heavenly host] to rebel against Me.
R. Aibu said: It is regrettable for Me that I created in him the impulse to
do evil, for if I had not created the impulse to do evil in him, he would
never have rebelled against me.
Said R. Levi: I take comfort in the fact that I made him from the earth.
In this midrash, four different opinions appear to explain the verse.
According to the first and third ones, the term va-yinnachem indicates regret
(and Rashi therefore does not cite these interpretations), while according to
the second and fourth views, the word indicates consolation. (Rashi ultimately
chooses the second view over the fourth because it fits better with the
language of the verse, that He had made man in the earth.) [1]
B)
In Devarim 29:12, we find the phrase, And He will be to you as a
God. Rashi explains:
And He will be to you as a God Since God has given you His word
and sworn to your forefathers not to exchange their offspring for
another nation, He therefore binds you through these oaths, so as not
to provoke Him to anger, because He cannot separate Himself from
you.
C)

In Vayikra 26:44, the verse says (at the end of the Reproof):

But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not
despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking
My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God.
Rashi explains:
But despite all this Moreover, even though I will mete out this
retribution upon them which I have described when they are in the land

of their enemies, nevertheless, I will not despise them to

annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them.
In other words, it is not merely that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms
His covenant with the Jewish People initially; even the punishment of exile
cannot be seen as Gods abandonment of his nation. Even this harsh
retribution is only temporary, because God is present with them in exile, and
with them He will return from exile.
D)
In the passage of repentance (Devarim 30:3), it says, The Lord
your God will bring you back from captivity. Rashi explains:
The Lord your God will bring you back from captivity It should have
been written in the causative, but it is written in the simple [literally,
God will come back]. Our Rabbis derived from this that the Divine
Presence appears to reside with Israel in the distress of their exile;
when they are redeemed, He has written, redemption will be His, for
He will return with them.[2]
E)
Rashi also stresses that the sins of the nation of Israel do not
take away from Gods love for His nation. In Devarim 10:12 (after describing
the Sin of the Golden Calf), commenting on the words, And now, Israel,
Rashi explains: Even though you have done all of this, He still has
compassion and affection for you.
The Jewish Nation as a Moral People
Christianity indicts the Jews for theft, exploitation, and fraud. [3] Rashi,
in dozens of places in his commentary, identifies the great caution of the
nation of Israel from theft. Aside from many other instances, the idea of
punctilious honesty appears in the context of each one of the Patriarchs in
Rashis commentary to Bereishit:
A)
Concerning Avraham, the Torah records, And there was a
quarrel between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and between the herdsmen
of Lot's cattle (Bereishit 13:7). Rashi (ad loc.) famously explains:
And there was a quarrel Since Lots herdsmen were wicked and
they pastured their animals in fields belonging to others, Abrams
herdsmen rebuked them for committing robbery[4]
There is no doubt that Rashis commentary here is tendentious,
because the previous verse says exactly what the quarrel was about: And the
land did not bear them to dwell together, for their possessions were many, and
they could not dwell together (v. 6). In other words, there was not enough
pastureland for both Avraham and Lot to share.
B)
Concerning Yitzchak, when Yitzchak requests that Esav will catch
him some game, And hunt for me (Bereishit 27:3), Rashi explains: From
that which is ownerless, and not from that which is stolen.

C)
Concerning Yaakov, Rivka says that Yaakov should bring her two
kid goats so that she may prepare them for Yitzchak. Rashi adds to Rivkas
words (27:9):
And take for me They are mine; they are not stolen for Yitzchak
had written this for her in her marriage contract to take two kid goats
every day.
One might wonder how Rivka had a right to take the goats, as what a
woman acquires, her husband acquires (Nazir 24b); therefore, Rivka
reassures Yaakov and explains that she is asserting a monetary right.
In addition, according to Rashi, the mandrakes picked by Reuven are
ownerless (Rashi, Bereishit 30:14), and Moshe leads his sheep into the
wilderness in order to avoid theft (Rashi, Shemot 3:1).
D. Esavs Character in Rashis Commentary
The Demonization of Esav in Rashis Commentary
In many places in Rashis commentary, there is strong, piercing
criticism of Esav. It is not only that Rashi never has a positive word for Esav;
[5] even apparently neutral acts of Esav are judged in a negative light by
Rashi. He makes sure to blacken the face of Esav even when the things are
not required at all to explain the peshat of the verses.[6] What is the meaning
of this hatred of Esav?
As we have noted previously, many view Esav as a symbol of
Christianity. The relationship between Yaakov and Esav recalls, to a great
extent, the struggle between the nation of Israel and another people or faith
which hopes to inherit the place of Israel incarnate. When the nation of Israel
must contend with an enemy threatening its very existence, the question of
who is chosen and who is rejected once again arises in its full strength. Esav
is the designated enemy sometimes as Edom, sometimes as Rome, and
sometimes as Christianity.[7] The hatred of Esav is actually hatred for the
Christians, who claim that they are the chosen people and that the nation of
Israel incarnate is rejected.
We will now analyze Rashis references to Esav in a number of
domains.
A) Esav is a villain in utero: InBereishit 25:22, it is said of the
pregnant Rivka, And the boys struggled inside her. Rashi explains:
Our Rabbis interpreted it as an expression of running. When she
passed by the entrances of the study halls of Shem and Ever, Yaakov
would run and struggle to come out; when she passed the entrance of
an idolatrous temple, Esav would run and struggle to come out.

B) Esav (not Yaakov) is a cheater and a thief: Just as Rashi

describes the Patriarchs as scrupulous in avoiding theft, he sees Esav as
having no compunctions about this. When Yitzchak requests of Esav to hunt
on his behalf, he needs to stress that Esav should not steal any animals
(Bereishit 27:3, as we have noted above: And hunt for me, which Rashi
explains, From that which is ownerless, and not from that which is stolen).
Yitzchak is scrupulous about avoiding theft, but Esav is not. Rivka also
believes that Esav is a thief; concerning Rivkas words (quoting Yitzchak), to
hunt for game to bring (ibid. v. 5), Rashi says: What does it mean to bring?
If he would not find game, he would bring from that which is stolen. [8]
The verse describes Esav as knowing hunting (Bereishit 25:27), and
Rashi explains what the intent is:
He knew how to trap and to deceive his father with his mouth and ask
him, Father, how do we tithe salt and straw? His father therefore
thought that he was scrupulous in his observance of the
commandments.[9]
This is opposed to Yaakov, described in the verse as an innocent
man. Rashi explains:
An innocent man He was not an expert in all these matters. Like
his heart, so was his mouth. A person who is not astute at deceiving is
called innocent.
At the time that the Christians accuse the Jews of being inveterate
thieves and cheats, Rashi undertakes to prove Yaakovs innocence on the
one hand and to present Esav as a cheater and thief on the other. [10] This
idea runs through his entire commentary to Bereishit27.[11]
C) Esav is a murderer, adulterer and idolater:
a) Esav is a murderer: InBereishit 25:25, Esav is identified as
ruddy, and Rashi explains: This is a sign that he will be a person who sheds
blood. Furthermore, when Esav comes in from the field and finds Yaakov
making stew, he is described as faint, and Rashi explains: And he was faint
from committing murder, as it is said (Yirmeyahu4:31): For my soul is faint
before the murderers. Similarly, when Yaakov rebukes Shimon and Levi at
the end of his life, Rashi explains Yaakovs words, Their weapons are stolen
instruments, in the following way:
Stolen instruments This craft of murder is in their hands wrongfully,
for it is Esavs blessing. It is his craft, and you [Shimon and Levi] have
stolen it from him.
b) Esav is an adulterer: OnBereishit 26:34, And Esav was forty
years old, and he married, Rashi explains:
Forty years old Esav is comparable to a swine, as it is said
(Tehillim 80:14): The boar from the forest gnaws at it. This swine,

when it lies down, stretches out its hooves, as if to say, See, I am a

kosher animal. So, they rob and they plunder and then pretend to
be honorable. During the entire forty years, Esav kidnapped wives
from their husbands and violated them. When he was forty years old,
he said: My father married at forty; I, too, will do the same.
The words I have emphasized in Rashis comments clearly have a
broader purpose - not only to explain why we are told that Esav was forty
years old when he got married, but to express an idea that Rashi wished to
transmit to his contemporaries about the Esav of his time. I have no doubt
that these words are, in fact, a reference to the Christians, who represent
themselves as saints, but in fact are evil.
c) Esav serves idols: In 25:27, the Torah says, And the youths grew
up, and Esav was Rashi points out:
And the youths grew up, and Esav was As long as they were
small, they were not recognizable through their deeds, and no one
scrutinized them to determine their characters. As soon as they
became thirteen years old, this one parted to the study hall and that
one parted to idol worship.
D) Yaakovs Deserved Birthright and Blessing:
a) Esav is born first, and the birthright should apparently be his.
Rashi therefore explains that the birthright reaches Yaakov justly:
And afterwards, his brother emerged, etc. I heard an
aggadic midrash which interprets the verse according to its simple
meaning: He [Yaakov] held onto him lawfully, to restrain him. Yaakov
was formed from the first drop and Esav from the second. You may
observe this in a tube that has a narrow opening. Insert two pebbles
into it, one after the other. The one that entered first will emerge last,
and the one that entered last will emerge first. The result is that Esav,
who was formed last, emerged first, and Yaakov, who was formed first,
emerged last. Thus, Yaakov came to restrain him so that he [Yaakov]
should be the first to be born, as he was the first to be formed, and he
would open her womb and take the birthright by law.
(Rashi, Bereishit 25:26)
The source for this is Bereishit Rabba, Ch. 63:
A matron asked R. Yosei ben Chalafta: Why did Esav issue first?
Because the first drop was Yaakov's, he answered her. For consider:
if you place two diamonds in a tube, does not the one put in first come
out last? So too, the first drop was that which formed Yaakov.
Rashi quotes the midrash, but we must nevertheless pay attention to
how he quotes it and what he adds. The essential addition is the final line in
Rashis commentary: And Yaakov came to restrain him so that he should be

the first to be born, as he was the first to be formed, and he would open her
womb and take the birthright by law. The significance of this point is that
Yaakov is not trying to take by strength that which does not belong to him, but
rather to take the birthright by law. Therefore, the accusation that Esav hurls
at Yaakov, He has tricked me twice, (27:36) is not correct.
b) Rashi believes that God Himself wanted Yaakov to receive
the birthright. On Bereishit 27:1, Rashi justifies Yitzchaks blindness: In order
that Yaakov would take the blessings!
c) Not only is God interested in Yaakovs success in receiving
the blessings, even Yitzchak is on his side. After Yaakov receives the blessing
by cunning, [12]Yitzchak concedes that the blessings deserve to go to Yaakov
and not to Esav:
The Midrash Tanchuma asks: Why did Yitzchak shudder? He said,
Perhaps I am guilty of an iniquity, for I have blessed the younger son
before the older one, and thus altered the order of the relationship.
Thereupon, Esav started crying, He has tricked me twice! His father
said to him, What did he do to you? He replied, He took my
birthright. Yitzchak said, That is why I was troubled and shuddered,
for I was afraid that perhaps I had transgressed the line of strict justice,
but now that I know that I actually blessed the firstborn, He too shall be
blessed. (Rashi, ibid. v. 36)
E. Know What to Respond
These tendentious interpretations of Rashi cannot be seen only as
encouraging the Jewish community at a time of persecution; it appears to me
that Rashis aim is to teach his generation how to answer theological
challenges - in Mishnaic terms, Know what to respond to the heretic
(Avot 2:14). We may find echoes of this in Rashis interpretation ofShir Hashirim 7:9-10:
I said: Let me climb up the palm tree, let me grasp its boughs, and let
your breasts be now like clusters of the vine and the fragrance of your
countenance like apples.
And your palate is like the best wine, that glides down smoothly to my
beloved, making the lips of the sleeping speak.
Rashi explains:
I said: Let me climb up the palm tree I boast of you among the
heavenly hosts, that I should be exalted and hallowed through you in
the lower realms, for you will hallow My name among the nations.
Let me grasp its boughs and I will grasp and cling to you
And let your breasts be now and now, cause my words to be
realized, that you will not be seduced to follow the nations, and may the
good and wise among you be steadfast in their faith, to retort to those
who seduce them, so that the small ones among you will learn from
them.

And your palate is like the best wine be careful with your answers
that they should be like the best wine.
The community of Israel responds:
That glides down smoothly to my beloved I am careful to answer
them, so that I will remain steadfast in my faith.
***
This lecture concludes our series on Rashis commentary. As we
pointed out in our first lecture, Rashis writings certainly deserve extensive
and deep study.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] A similar idea is found in the story of the Binding of Yitzchak, in which God seems to
change His mind as well. First, he asks Avraham to bring Yitzchak up as a burnt-offering, and
afterwards he reverses himself. Rashi explains Gods command, And bring him up as a
burnt-offering (Bereishit 22:2):
And bring him up He did not say, Slaughter him, because the Holy One,
Blessed be He, did not want him to slaughter him, but rather to bring him to the
mountain to prepare him as a burnt-offering; once he brought him up, He told him to
take him down.
[2] A similar idea appears in Rashis commentary toShemot 3:14: I will be as I will be I will
be with them in this trouble, as I will be with them in the subjugation of other kingdoms.
[3] John Chrysostom, who became archbishop of Constantinople in 398, wrote eight homilies
against those joining the Jewish faith, Adversus Judaeos. The Jews, according to
Chrysostom,
are
thieves,
cheaters
and
exploiters. See:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html#HOMILY_I,
#6.
[4] See also Rashis commentary to Bereishit 24:10.
[5] This is as opposed to the view of Esau in a number of midrashim, in which the Sages
praise him for honoring his father.
[6] See Grossmans book, Rashi, pp. 104-6.
[7] What is unique about these enemies as opposed to other enemies, such as Egypt or
Babylonia, is that these try to seize the status or place of the Jewish nation.
[8] See also Rashis comments to Bereishit 26:34, which is analyzed at greater length below.
[9] See also Rashis comment to Bereishit 25:28: For hunting was in his mouth and
its midrash is: in the mouth of Esav who would hunt him and trick him with his words.

[10] This tendency is very prominent when one takes into account the peshat of Bereishit 27,
according to which Yitzchak wants to bless Esav, but Yaakov acquires the blessings through
guile (as Yitzchak himself puts it in v. 35).
[11] See Rashis comments to the following verses inBereishit 27: 19, 24, 35.
[12] Rashi stresses that Yaakov did not trick Yitzchak, but rather acted with wisdom or
cunning; see Rashi,Bereishit 27:35.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
In memory of our grandparents, whose yahrzeits fall this week:
Shmuel Nachamu ben Shlomo Moshe HaKohen Fredman (10 Tevet)
Chaya bat Yitzchak David Fredman (15 Tevet)
Shimon ben Moshe Rosenthal (16 Tevet)
By their grandchildren and great-grandchildren,
Aaron and Tzipora Ross and family
*********************************************************
Lecture #08: Rav Yosef Kara
A.

Introduction

R. Yosef Kara (1060-1130), known as Mahari Kara, earned his

surname because of his occupation as an exegete of the Bible (Mikra); he
thus earned this title of respect for one who studies Tanakh. Mahari Kara lived
most of his life in France, in Rashis city of Troyes, and for a certain period, he
lived in Worms, Germany.
Mahari Kara was very close to Rashi, and apparently was his student.
He transcribes Rashis commentaries, and Rashi mentions him in his
commentary a number of times (e.g., Mishlei 18:22). Rashis grandson, the
Rashbam,
also
mentions
Mahari
Kara
in
his
commentaries
(see Bereishit37:12), and apparently the Rashbam was influenced by Mahari
Karas exegetical approach.[1]
It is not clear if Mahari Kara wrote a continuous commentary on the
Torah itself; it may be that he wrote only interpretations of dozens of individual
verses. Even these comments have not survived in a complete manuscript,
but rather have reached us by way of other peoples citations. [2] It may be that
what prevented Mahari Kara from writing a complete commentary on the
Torah was Rashis primogeniture. In any case, as a transcriber of Rashis
commentaries, it may be that our current version of Rashi contains many
interpolations originating with Mahari Karas pen.

Mahari Kara composed a commentary to most of the books of Neviim.

[3] His commentaries to NeviimRishonim are considered some of the most
significant and creative in medieval exegesis, and he is a commentator known
for independent and critical thinking. [4] Among the books of Ketuvim, we have
Mahari Karas commentaries on Iyov and the fiveMegillot.
Although Mahari Kara has not received the exposure he deserves for
his great comments, there is no doubt that his interpretive approach
influenced the exegetes of his time, including Ri Bekhor Shor, the Rashbam,
Radak, and Ralbag. Thanks to Bar-Ilan Universitys Haketer project, there has
been a resurgence in the popularity of his commentary on the books
of Neviim.
I have decided to dedicate a lesson to the exegetical approach of
Mahari Kara, despite the fact that we have only very few of his commentaries
on the Torah, due to the great importance of his interpretive approach. This
significance is expressed in three points:
A.
Mahari Kara sticks to the peshat, much more so than Rashi, and
he feels no obligation to cite any derash at all. In this, his commentary may be
considered trailblazing.
B.
Mahari Kara displays a great sensitivity to literary technique and
style.
C.
Mahari Kara delineates exegetical principles that may be applied
elsewhere in Tanakh.
We will now elaborate on each of these points.
B.

Mahari Kara: A Pioneer of Peshat

Rashi famously make a declaration of intent in his commentary

on Bereishit (3:8):[5]
As for me, I have come for no purpose other than the simple meaning
of Scripture and the aggadic material which harmonizes the words of
Scripture, each word according to its properties.
Nevertheless, we have seen that Rashi, for various reasons, veers
from this path.
Without a doubt, the very idea of Rashi to write a biblical commentary
not chained to Midrashic material was certainly an innovation in the lands of
France and Germany; still, in practice, his remarks are based, to a great
extent, on the corpus of midrashim. Mahari Kara actually applies Rashis
intent, virtually never citing the words of the Sages. He is aware that his
approach is innovative, and it may very well be that his commentaries
received a great deal of criticism from the scholars of his generation because
of this. Indeed, there may be evidence to this in the fact that that there is only
one extant manuscript of his commentary, as opposed to the hundreds of
manuscripts of Rashis commentary on the Torah, which testify to its wide

circulation. An additional expression of the criticism directed toward his

commentaries may be seen in his remarks to I Shmuel1:20:
I know very well that all of the aggadic and Talmudic masters will
gloat[6] over this explanation, for they will never set aside the
explanation of our rabbis But the wise will understand to see the
truth of the matter.
Mahari
Kara
makes
about peshat and derash:

number

of

basic

assumptions

A.
Even the Sages, who wrote themidrashim, believed that peshat is
the essence. The aim of derash is only for ethical purposes, to make the law
great and glorious (Yeshayahu 42:21), and not to provide an explanation
missing in Tanakh.
B.
Tanakh does not require external facts in order to explain it; it
cannot be that the verse speaks ambiguously and relies on aggadic material
in order to be understood.
The first assumption can be found, among other places, in Mahari
Karas commentary on Yeshayahu5:9:
Incline your ear and bend your back to the verse, because each and
every verse which the Rabbis expounded though they express
themidrash about it, they are the ones who ultimately say of it, No
verse loses its simple meaning. Thus, there is no better attribute in the
verse than its simple meaning.[7]
The second assumption may be seen, for example, in his commentary
to Shoftim 4:5:
It is not the way of the prophet, in any of the twenty-four books, to
leave his words ambiguous, requiring one to derive them from aggadic
sources.
In a sharper way, in his commentary to I Shmuel 1:17, Mahari Kara
claims that the inclination of exegetes to explain the verses according to
the derashsprings from their ignorance inability to understand appropriately
the peshat of the verses:
Know, when a prophecy is written, it is written in toto, with its
explanation and everything that is needed, so that the coming
generations will not stumble due to it. Its context is not deficient, and
one need not bring evidence from another place, nor a Midrashic
interpretation, for the Torah is transmitted perfectly, written perfectly,
with nothing missing in it. The Midrashic interpretations of our Sages
serve [only] to make the law great and glorious. However,
anyone who does not know the simple meaning of the verse is
inclined after the Midrashic interpretation of the matter, similar to one
swept away by the surging river, whom the depths of the ocean cover

 he grabs anything which may come into his reach in order to save
himself! Nevertheless, if he were to set his heart to Gods word, he
would search out the meaning of the matter in its simple sense, and he
would be capable of fulfilling what is said (Mishlei 2:4-5): And if you
look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you
will understand the fear of God and find the knowledge of God.
C.

Mahari Karas Sensitivity to Literary Technique and Style

In Mahari Karas comments, we see a certain literary sensitivity; he

pays attention to formal structures in Tanakh, tying them to the meaning of the
verse and relating to different stylistic phenomena inTanakh. The following are
a number of examples:
A.
Mahari Kara often notes lashon nofel allashon,[8] alliteration
and paronomasia. Take the following example from Yeshayahu 10:30-31:

Cry out, daughter of Gallim! Listen, Laisha! Poor (aniya) Anatot!

Madmena flees (nadeda); the people of Gevim take cover!
Mahari Kara explains:
This is based on the lashon nofel al lashon of Anatot and aniya, as it
says in the adjacent verse, nadeda Madmena that is, the city is
called Madmena because they fled from before it. Similarly, we find
Ekron will be uprooted (teiaker) (Tzefanya 2:4), and For the waters
of Dimon have been filled with blood (dam) (Yeshayahu 15:9).[9]
In other words, according to Mahari Kara, when the prophet wished to
describe the destruction of the cities mentioned in the verse, he chose the
term aniya because of the phonetic similarity to Anatot, and he chose
nadeda because of the similarity to Madmena.
B.
Mahari Kara pays close attention to rhythm and meter.
[10] Sometimes, he argues that a verse repeats a phrase exactly in order to
maintain the balance and the rhythm of the text or in Mahari Karas words,
to complete the meter.[11] It appears that what he refers to with the phrase
to complete the meter is to maintain the same length in each of a verses
two clauses (apparently the number of syllables). For the same reason,
Mahari Kara claims, the verse may also be abbreviated. For example, the
verse states (Yeshayahu 43:6):
I will say to the north, Give them up! and to the south, Do not hold
them back. Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends
of the earth.
Mahari Kara explains:
To the nations in the south, Do not hold them back. Bring my sons
and my daughters from afar and from the ends of the earth This is

true of many verses: the measure of the meter will shorten it by one
word.
In the continuation of his commentary to this verse, Mahari Kara writes:
Sometimes, the verse expresses the word with another sound,
because of the weight of the meter All of this is determined by the
meter.
C.
The literary structure of prophecies: Mahari Kara explores the
connections between different prophecies and different narratives that come
one after the other, and he finds associative connections between them.
Mahari Kara expresses an essential rule in terms of the structure of the
prophecies in his remarks on Yeshayahu 4:6:
Indeed, from the beginning of the subject until here, I have seen all of
the verses attached one to its fellow like the clasps in the loops, and if I
would have come to give the derash between them, I would separate
between each verse and its fellow

One may find an example of a literary reading in his commentary

to Yeshayahu 3:16: God says: The women of Zion are haughty, walking along
with outstretched necks:
Above [in previous prophecies], it says of this issue, The arrogance of
man will be brought low and the pride of people humbled (2:17),
because until this point it has been talking about human arrogance and
pride, so it continues with the prophecy of the arrogance of the women
of Zion.
An additional example is Mahari Karas explanation of the connection
between the story of Delila and Shimshon and the story of Mikhas idol, which
appears immediately afterward in the book ofShoftim:
The passages are adjacent because of the amount of filthy lucre in
each, here one thousand and one hundred of Delila (16:5) and there
one thousand and one hundred of Mikhas idol (17:2-3), both of which
are money for sinful purposes.
In the passage of Shimshon and Delila, the Philistines offer a bribe in
this amount to Delila to compensate her for her assistance in binding
Shimshon; in the passage of Mikhas idol, Mikhas mother dedicates this
amount to idolatry. Mahari Kara notes that the associative link is expressed
not only with similar words, one thousand and one hundred of silver, but also
in the similar context: in both cases, the silver is designated for a negative
aim, money for sinful purposes.

D.

Rules Crafted by Mahari Kara

Mahari Kara was the first exegete in France and Germany who
formulated the rules for interpretive methods that may be applied in additional
places.[12]Thus, despite the fact that Mahari Kara did not compose a full
commentary on the Torah, his commentary on Neviim should be seen as a
tool for understanding the simple meaning of the Torah; in his commentaries
on Neviim, Mahari Kara formulates interpretive principles which hold true in
the Torah as well.
We will demonstrate a number of examples:
E.

Pre-Emption.

Sometimes, there appear in Tanakh verses that seem to be

superfluous or misplaced. Mahari Kara explains these verses on the basis of
the assumption that the verse mentions information which will be important
later on in the text.[13] We may see an example of Mahari Karas application of
this rule inShemot 16:35, which reads, And the Israelites ate the manna for
forty years, until they came to a settled land. It is not clear why in the middle
of the story of how the Israelites first receive the manna, the Torah must
describe how long it continued to fall. Mahari Kara explains this in the
following way:
There is a great need for the verse to state this, so that one will not be
perplexed[14] by the words Who will feed us meat? (Bamidbar11:4)
did the quail not come up every evening and cover the camp? Why
should they cry for meat of craving? Therefore, it pre-empts and
teaches you that the quail were temporary.
In Shemot 16, there are two foods that God grants the Jewish people,
the manna and the quail (vv. 12-13), while in Bamidbar, the Torah describes
how, about one year later, the Israelites complain about not having meat. The
reader may wonder: what happened to the quail? For this reason, Mahari
Kara explains, the Torah pre-emptively tells the reader that the Israelites
continued to eat the manna for forty years implying that the quail were a
special, limited-time offer. Thus, the point of this verse is to pre-empt the
future question that the reader would have asked without this indication. [15]
Let us examine an additional example in which Mahari Kara applies
this rule in order to explain biblical details that appear totally superfluous in
context. When David flees before Shaul to Nov (I Shmuel 21:2-10) and is
assisted by the priest Achimelekh, the following verse appears in the middle of
the conversation between David and the priest (ibid. v. 8): And there was a
man from the servants of Shaul servants and his name was Doeg.
Immediately after this verse, the narrator returns to the conversation between
David and Achimelekh. Mahari Kara explains:

This is so that one will not be perplexed when reaching the verse, And
Doeg the Edomite answered I have the seen the son of Yishai come
to Nov (ibid. v. 9), saying, where did Doeg come from?
F.

Parallelism

When a verse concludes with two clauses, the verse sometimes

duplicates the subject at the opening of the verse. [16] One example of this is
the verse (Yeshayahu 43:25): I, I am the one Who wipes away your
transgressions for My sake, and I will not recall your sins. Mahari Kara views
the double opening as paralleling the two clauses that follow in the verse: Iam
the one Who wipes away your transgressions for My sake; and I am the one
Who will not recall your sins.
Another example is the puzzling structure ofYehoshua 22:22:
Lord God of gods, Lord God of gods, He knows, and Israel, it shall
know; if it is in rebellion or if in trespass against God, do not save us
this day.
Mahari Kara explains:
Why is Lord God of gods repeated? God knows that it is not in
rebellion, and God knows that it is not in trespass.
Since the verse concludes by speaking of knowing that the eastern
tribes are innocent of two counts rebellion and trespass the verse opens
by referring twice to Lord God of gods.
It appears that one may apply this rule to other places in Tanakh as
well. For example, Gods double address, Avraham, Avraham
(Bereishit 22:11), may be explained according to the view of Mahari Kara
using the succeeding verse: Do not send your hand towards the youth, and
do not do anything to him (ibid. v. 12). One should accordingly read the
verses in the following way: Avraham, do not send your hand towards the
youth; Avraham, do not do anything to him.[17]
G.

Rashis Influence on Mahari Kara

Despite the great independence of Mahari Kara, we find that he often

relies on Rashis commentaries. In order to demonstrate this, we will compare
the commentaries of Rashi and Mahari Kara on I Shmuel 15:1-9
(the Haftara reading for ShabbatZakhor). First, let us see the verses
themselves:
1) And Shmuel said to Shaul, "God sent me to anoint you to be king
over His people, over Israel; and now listen to the sound of the words
of God. 2) So said God of Hosts, 'I remember that which Amalek did to
Israel, how they laid for them on the way, when they came up out of
Egypt. 3) Now, go, and you shall strike Amalek, and you shall utterly
destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him; and you shall

slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel
and donkey.'" 4) And Shaul called the people together, and he counted
them with lambs, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand,
the men of Judah. 5) And Shaul came as far as the city of Amalek, and
he fought in the valley. 6) And Shaul said to the Kenites, "Turn away
and go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them,
for you did kindness with all the Israelites, when they went up out of
Egypt." And the Kenites turned away from amidst Amalek. 7)And Shaul
struck Amalek, from Chavila until you come to Shur, which is before
Egypt. 8) And he seized Agag, the king of Amalek, alive; and he
completely destroyed all the people by the edge of the sword. 9) And
Shaul and the people had pity on Agag, and on the best of the sheep
and the cattle, and the fatlings, and on the fattened sheep, and on all
that was good; and they did not want to destroy them; but everything
which was vile and feeble, that they utterly destroyed.
The following chart illustrates the commentaries of Rashi and Mahari
Kara on these verses:
T

Rashi

ext
1 And
Once you acted
now,
foolishly. Now, take
listen to heed.
the
voice of
the
words of
God.

2 How
they laid
for them
on the
way,
when
they
came up
out of
Egypt.
3 Ox and
For they were

Mahari
Kara
In other
words: if you
did not listen
at first, when
you did not
keep your
promise, for I
said, Wait for
me seven
days, until I
come to you
(I
Shmuel10:8),
now listen, so
that you will
not violate
Gods
command.
How they laid
an ambush for
them on the
way Many
verses require
that we add a
word.

So that they

sheep

sorcerers, and they

would assume the
shapes of animals.

4 And he
counted
them
with
lambs.

He told everyone to
take a lamb from the
kings flocks, and
afterwards he
counted the lambs.

9 Vile

Nemivza is
like nivzeh(despised),
and themem is
superfluous.

may not say:

This ox is of
Amalek; This
sheep is of
Amalek; the
same is true of
a camel or a
donkey, for
were it not so,
it would not be
wiping out the
memory of
Amalek.
He took a
lamb to put in
the hands of
each and
every one,
and
afterwards he
counted the
lambs.

This comparison yields a number of observations:

1)
Rashis explanations are the basis for the commentary of
Mahari Kara. Therefore, if Mahari Kara agrees with Rashis words and
sees no reason to clarify them further, Mahari Kara will not make any
notes. Mahari Kara logically thought that the word nemivza in verse 9
demanded explanation, but because Rashi had explained it sufficiently,
Mahari Kara does not add anything. [18]
2)
Sometimes, it appears that Mahari Kara is reiterating
Rashis words without introducing anything new. However, a precise
reading of Mahari Karas words shows that Mahari Kara is not
repeating Rashis words verbatim, but is rather sharpening and
explaining his words. So, for example, in the explanation of v. 1, And
now listen, Rashi claims that Shmuel is asking Shaul to rectify his
mistake, listening to Gods word instead of ignoring it, as the king had
done previously. Mahari Kara adopts this explanation, but adds the
information required by the reader who is not familiar with the verses.
[19] In v. 4 as well, And he counted them with lambs, Mahari Kara
expresses Rashis words in a clearer way.
3)
When Mahari Kara opposes Rashis interpretation, he
explains the text in a very different way than Rashi. This is what we find
in the explanation in v. 3: Mahari Kara opposes the Midrashic
explanation cited in Rashis commentary concerning the need to

exterminate the animals (due to the reasons mentioned above

Mahari Kara tries not to bring commentaries which do not arise from
the simple meaning of the verses). He therefore explains in his remarks
that exterminating the animals is the fulfillment of the mitzva to wipe out
the memory of Amalek.[20]
4)
When Rashi does not explain something in the verse that
requires an explanation, Mahari Kara fills in the gap. For example, in v.
2, How they laid for them on the way, there is some difficulty, as the
verse omits what precisely Amalek laid for Israel; Mahari Kara explains
that the intent is how they laid an ambush for them on the way. The
use of such abbreviated language is a common phenomenon
in Tanakh.
Rashis influence on Mahari Kara may be seen not only in the latters
exegesis, but also in Rashis educational approach, which is expressed a
great deal in Rashis commentaries.[21] One example his explanation of the
verse (I Shmuel 2:3), Do not keep talking so proudly, let your mouth speak
superiorly, for God is a God who knows, and by Him deeds are weighed.
First, Mahari Kara explains the verse as two clauses.
Do not keep talking so proudly You, the creatures, may learn from
Me that you should not talk so proudly.
[Do not] let[22] your mouth speak superiorly its meaning is: do not
bring out superior sayings from your mouth, of the same root as
become old, yes, and grow superior in power (Iyov21:7).
Afterwards, Mahari Kara brings examples of superior sayings which it
would be better not to say at all:
Namely, each of you should not abuse his fellow with words. If you see
an unfortunate person, do not harass [insult] him with his afflictions; if
you see a person with no strength, do not disrespect him; do not mock
a childless woman as barren; if you see a luckless person, do not mock
him

[1] We will deal with this point at length when we study the Rashbams commentary on the
Torah.
[2] A. Berliner, Pletath
Soferim: Beitrge zur Jdischen Schriftauslegung im

Mittelalter (Breslau, 1872).

[3] The commentary of Mahari Kara to the book of Yechezkelwas written by one of his
students. This may be derived from a number of places in the commentary, e.g., This is how
my master, R. Yosef son of R. Shimon, explained according to the simple meaning of the text
(14:5), as well as, And my master R. Yosef explains in another way (33:27). However, there
is no doubt that the style and methodology in the commentary toYechezkel are those of
Mahari Kara.
[4] We may see evidence of Mahari Karas critical thinking in his challenge to the Sages
attribution of the book of Shmuel to the prophet of the same name: Our Rabbis, of blessed
memory, say that Shmuel wrote his book, and He Who lights the land will turn the darkness
into light before them and make the rough places smooth (I Shmuel 9:1).

[5] See our first lesson on Rashi.

[6] That is, they will malign them.
[7] See also his comments to I Shmuel 1:17, cited below.
[8] Lashon nofel al lashon is mentioned in a number of places in Rashis commentary as
well, but Rashi only notes this phenomenon in five places in Tanakh, whereas the
phenomenon is far more widespread in Mahari Karas writings. It appears to me that there is
good reason to attribute the instances in Rashis commentary to interpolation of Mahari Karas
commentary.
[9] We should note that Mahari Kara brings numerous examples that commentators such as
Ibn Ezra and the Radak ignore, even though they also frequently note the phenomenon
of lashon nofelal lashon.
[10] One of the domains in which Mahari Kara comments at length is the exegesis of poetry. It
appears to me that when he comes to explain the biblical text, he does so under the influence
of poetic structures.
[11] See, for example, his commentary to Yechezkel 16:6.
[12]
The first to compose rules that serve to understand the peshat was ibn Janach, but
he wrote in Arabic, which was not known by most residents of France and Germany, and his
rules were mainly rules of syntax and grammar.
[13] The expression of the rule in the language of Mahari Kara is: And so is the way of many
verses, that it pre-emptively teaches one something without which one might otherwise
wonder about later on (I Shmuel 1:3).
[14] Mahari Kara often uses the phrase, So that one will not be perplexed, when he defines
a certain verse as prefatory; see also Shofetim 1:16, 4:11, 13:19, etc.
[15] An interesting question relates to whether Rashi was aware of the phenomenon of
prefacing or if this was an innovation of Mahari Kara. In Bereishit 9:8, the verse tells us, And
Cham, he was the father of Canaan. The location of the verse is problematic, because the
story that appears immediately prior is Noachs drunkenness and the passage of the
generations of the sons of Noach appears only after this narrative. Rashi explains:
And Cham, he was the father of Canaan Why is it necessary to say this here?
Because the chapter proceeds to deal with Noachs drunkenness, in which Cham
sinned, and because of him, Canaan was cursed. Since the generations of Cham had
not yet been written, and we would not know that Kenaan was his son, it is necessary
to say here, And Cham, he was the father of Canaan.
It appears that Rashi explains the verse on the basis of the assumption that one verse
prefaces another, giving certain information so that what follows will be understood by the
reader. Nevertheless, the distinction between Mahari Kara and Rashi sharpens the difference
between them: while Rashi is only explaining the local verse, Mahari Kara formulates the rule
which may be applied to other places.
In the coming lessons, we will see how the Rashbam, apparently influenced by Mahari Kara,
expands this rule and applies it in numerous places.
[16] As Mahari Kara puts it: When it intends to discuss multiple matters, it multiplies the
words before it (Yehoshua 22:22).
[17] We may similarly explain the duplication in Gods address, Moshe, Moshe (Shemot 3:4),
on the basis of the two commands in the succeeding verse: Do not draw nigh; take your
shoes off your feet.
[18] See also v. 12, s.v. Nichamti; v. 16, s.v. Heref; v. 21, s.v. Reishit ha-cherem. All of
these do not require explanation because the basic assumption of Mahari Kara is that
whoever reads his commentary has previously studied Rashis commentary.
[19] It is possible, in some ways, to view the commentary of Mahari Kara as a
supercommentary of Rashi.
[20] This relationship is similar to the relationship of the Tosafists to Rashis commentary on
the Talmud.
[21] See Parts III and IV of our lesson on Rashi.

[22] The word al (do not) does not appear in the second part of the verse, but according to
Mahari Kara, the al in the first part relates also to the second part.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Florence Lipstein, whose yahrzeit is 25 Tevet
by Sidney and Cheryl Lipstein
*********************************************************
Shiur #09: Rashbam, Part I
A.

Biography

As is well-known, Rashi did not have any sons, but he did have three
daughters. One of his daughters, Yokheved, [1]married R. Meir ben Shmuel,
and they had four sons: Yitzchak, Shmuel, Yaakov and Shlomo. These sons
grew up to be the first of the Tosafists. R. Yitzchak became known as the
Rivam[2] (dying in his fathers lifetime); R. Shmuel ben Meir became known as
the Rashbam, whom this lecture will discuss; R. Yaakov, known by his
nickname Rabbeinu Tam, was one of the great leaders of 12 th-century French
Jewry and the first of the Tosafists in this era; R. Shlomo (named after Rashi)
dealt mainly with interpreting Tanakh, and he may have composed a volume
of halakhic rulings as well.
To our dismay, just as with Mahari Kara in our previous lesson, we
know very little information about the Rashbam. The Rashbam lived in
northern France, in the city of Ramerupt, not far from his grandfathers city
of Troyes. The years of his birth and death are not conclusively known,
although they are generally assumed to be circa 1080 and 1160 respectively.
For his livelihood, he sold milk and wool from the sheep he owned.
Apparently, the Rashbam wrote a commentary for all twenty-four books
of Tanakh, but all that survives is a commentary on the Torah, [3] along with
part of his commentaries to the books of Ketuvim.
The Rashbam studied Torah with his father and with his grandfather,
Rashi. Aside from his commentary on the Torah, the Rashbam was one of the
great Talmudic commentators; his words were cited a great deal by the
Tosafists, and his commentaries toPesachim and Bava Batra were printed in
the Vilna edition of the Talmud.
The Rashbam debated the Christians of his time, [4]and apparently
understood Latin (see his commentary to Shemot 20:12). The Rashbam also
involved himself with poetry, and expression of his skill can be found in a
number of places in his commentaries. For example, on the last verse of the
book of Bereishit, And Yosef died at one hundred and ten years old; he was
embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt (Bereishit 50:26), the Rashbam
writes:

To bring him up in the coffin was his fate,

When His anger and fury would abate;
Crossing Jordan, they sing and celebrate,
I am the Rose of the Sharon, they state.[5]
B. The Rashbams Interpretative Approach
The Methodology of the Rashbam
The Rashbam, like the other 11th and 12th-century French exegetes we
have mentioned in previous lessons (Rashi and Mahari Kara), did not write an
introduction to his commentary (as opposed to the Spanish exegetes, whom
we will study in the future). We may learn of his interpretive approach by way
of the declarations woven into his commentary. For this purpose, we will cite
his words at two pivotal points in Bereishit the beginning of the book and
the opening of its final act, the Yosef narrative:
The enlightened (ha-maskilim) will understand that all of the words of
our rabbis and their derivations are true and genuine. This is what is
stated in Tractate Shabbat: I was eighteen years old, but I did not
know that the verse never loses its simple meaning. [6]The essential
laws and derivations are based on extraneous verses or variations in
the syntax; the simple meaning of the text has been written in a
language which lends itself it be expounded in this way. For example,
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they
were created (be-hibaram) (Bereishit2:4) is understood by the Sages
as an anagram, be-hibaram to be read as be-Avraham. This is
based on the verbosity of the text; the word be-hibaram is
superfluous. Now, I will explain the commentaries of the early
authorities to this verse, to let people know why I did not explain as
they did. (Bereishit 1:1)
The lovers of enlightenment may understand and be enlightened by
what the Rabbis have taught us, namely that no verse loses its simple
meaning. This is true even though the essence of the Torah comes to
teach us and to edify us with lore, law, and legislation, by way of
allusions in the simple meaning and the verbosity of the text, as well as
the thirty-two hermeneutical principles of R. Eliezer son of R. Yosei the
Galilean and the thirteen principles of R. Yishmael.
The earlier authorities, due to their piety, were inclined to deal with the
derivations, which are the essence; because of this, they were
unaccustomed to the depth of the simple meaning of the verses. For
this reason, the Sages advised that one should not raise his children
on biblical recitation (Berakhot 28b), and they also said (Bava
Metzia 33a): Delving into Scripture is good, but not great delving
into Talmud there is nothing greater than this. Based on these dicta,
they were not well acquainted with the simple meaning of the verses,

as it says in Tractate Shabbat, I was eighteen years old, but I did not
know that the verse never loses its simple meaning. [7]
Rabbeinu Shlomo, my mothers father, Illuminator of the Exile, who
explainedTorah, Neviim, and Ketuvim, has dedicated himself to explain
the simple meaning of the verse, and even I, Shmuel, son of his son-inlaw R. Meir, of blessed memory, argued with him, in his presence, and
he conceded to me that if he had the opportunity, he would have to
write other commentaries according to the simple meanings which
arise anew daily (ha-peshatot ha-mitchaddeshim be-khol yom). Now,
the enlightened will
see
what the
early
authorities
explained. (Bereishit 37:2)
We may derive the following point from these words of the Rashbam
on the nature of his commentary:
A) The target audience of the commentary is the enlightened (hamaskilim); we will discuss below whom this refers to.[8]
B) Aside from the maskilim, we also have the earlier authorities (harishonim). This is a term that is now used to describe the medieval authorities,
but obviously the Rashbam does not mean this, but rather the commentators
(such as Rashi) who were swayed by Midrashic sources. Perhaps they even
thought that they were explaining the verses in accordance with the peshat,
but according to the Rashbam, their commentaries do not express the simple
meaning of the verse.[9] If so, the enlightened are those who
study Tanakh without relying on any Midrashic material.
C) Despite the Rashbams desire to explain the verse according to its
simple meaning,[10] it is important for him to emphasize that all of the words
of our Rabbis and their derivations are true and genuine. In other words, the
Rashbams pursuit of pure peshat does not take away from his regard for the
Sages traditions; the words of the Sages are reliable and valid, and in fact
the derash is the essence the data of these derivations are more important
than the data derived from peshat.
D) Despite the fact that the derash is the essence, even the Sages, the
masters ofderash, have emphasized that peshat is an independent stratum:
No verse loses its simple meaning.
E) The distinction between the simple meaning of the verse and its
Midrashic permutations is not a distinction between a correct interpretation
and an incorrect interoperation; both of them are true readings of the Torah
that exist alongside each other. The basic meaning of the Torah is peshat; the
meanings derived from allusions and extraneous and verbose language
is derash. Indeed, the Rashbam does not reject the interpretation defined
as derash. Sometimes, he will set out his interpretation alongside
thederash not as confrontation, but rather as an alternative based
on peshat.[11] The Rashbam does contend with a reading that presents itself
as peshat (like the interpretations of his grandfather Rashi), if it does not
respond to the criteria of the Rashbam for peshat.

The Rashbams Definition of Peshat

With these methodological rules, the Rashbam identifies the innovation

in his commentary as the dogged pursuit of peshat. However, we must still
understand how the Rashbam explains the concept of the simple meaning of
the verse. To do this, we must look at his final remarks on the Torah: [12]
If the observers see older commentaries which incline towards
another peshatbased on a different approach, they must take note
that these are not the way of the world (derekh eretz) according to
human wisdom, or according to the interpretation of the verse it is
not so. Indeed, I have explained it wellaccording to the verses and
according to the way of the world.
Thus, these are the principles of peshataccording to the Rashbam:
A.
The way of the world according to human wisdom
thecommentary takes into account common sense, logic and nature.
B.
According to the interpretation of the verse the
commentary cannot be detached from other verses; it must be understood as
part of the general context in which it is placed and as being integrated in the
sequence of verses in which it is found.
Let us sharpen the distinction between apashtan and a darshan, one
who uses peshator derash respectively in order to interpret the verses, in the
Rashbams view. While thepashtan explains the verse according to the way
of the world according to human wisdom, or according to the
interpretation of the verse, the darshan will seek sources outside of the
biblical world and outside of that which is accepted, adopted, and logical.
Thedarshan will add incidents into the story and utilize concepts from the
historical, ethical, and religious world that do not arise directly fromTanakh.
The Way of the World
An additional interpretive rule that the Rashbam indicates in his
methodological guidelines the interpretation according to the way of the
world (derekh eretz), and this is a very broad concept for the Rashbam.
While for the Sages this phrase means pleasant social norms [13] or honest
labor,[14] it appears that for the Rashbam, this term denotes that which is
widely accepted or practiced. Sometimes, he does not use the phrase derekh
eretz explicitly, but it is clear that his intent is to refer to that which is widely
accepted or practiced. We will see in the following examples how different
verses are interpreted by use of explanations that take account of common
sense and practice and human nature:
A)
In Bereishit 38:24, Yehuda condemns his daughter-in-law Tamar
to death by burning. The commentators are shocked by the severe
punishment. Rashis explanation, following Midrashic sources, is that Tamar
was the daughter of a priest, and the daughter of a priest is burned for
adultery (Vayikra 21:9).[15]The Rashbam follows the peshat: According to the
simple meaning, this was their custom, because she was bound to marry the

levir. Rashbam answers the question using an explanation that this was the
common custom in that era.
B)
Yaakov declares his innocence in his work for Lavan: These
twenty years I have been with you, your ewes and goats have not miscarried,
and the rams of your flock I have not eaten (Bereishit 31:38). The question
arises: what is the great virtue that Yaakov did not eat the rams of the flock?
The Rashbam explains this according to the custom:
It is the way of shepherds in the wilderness to eat of the male lambs,
but Yaakov declined to do so, despite the fact that this was the
accepted practice.
C)
Explaining the repetition in Esavs words to Yaakov, Feed me,
please, of this red, red stuff (Bereishit 25:30), the Rashbam refers to human
nature: When one is in a hurry to make a request of his fellow, he repeats his
words.[16] Here, we are not talking about a social norm, but rather human
nature; nevertheless, the principle is similar.
Rashbams Rules for Understanding the Biblical Lexicon
The Rashbam formulates a number of rules for comprehending the
biblical lexicon. We will demonstrate a number of rules in the Rashbams
formulation:
A)
It is the way of the verses to duplicate their words
(Bereishit 49:3). My strength and my power are synonymous, and even
though they appear next to each other in this verse, Reuven, you are my
firstborn, my strength and the first of my power, there is no need to find a
different meaning to each word, because this is the way of the verses.
B)
In his commentary to the verse, And it was at that time, and
Avimelekh and his chief of staff And now swear to me (Bereishit 21:2223), the Rashbam writes the rule: Similarly, every And it was at that time
must be explained based on the event. In other words, when the Torah
introduces a passage with And it was at that time, this does not indicate the
simple chronology; rather, it is an expression which comes to tell us that this
event is closely tied to the previous event. In this case, the event prior to the
treaty with Avimelekh is the miracle done for Sara, who gives birth to Yitzchak
in her old age; it is for this reason that Avimelekh is interested in making a
treaty with Avrahams family. In a similar way, the Rashbam explains the
expression introducing the following passage, the Binding of Yitzchak, And it
was after these things (Bereishit 22:1), even formulating it as a general
rule: Every place in which it says After these things, it is connected to the
preceding passage. Thus, these things are tied to the previous narrative.
Here, the Rashbam explains that the Akeida is a punishment for making a
treaty with Avimelekh.
C. Comparing the Rashbam and Rashi

In order to evaluate and understand the methodology of the Rashbam,

we must compare his commentary to that of his grandfather, Rashi. We
should note that the Rashbam displays a great deal of respect towards his
grandfather,[17] having learnt a great deal from him, but this does not prevent
him from arguing on his views, sometimes in a caustic manner. Here are a
number of examples which will sharpen the distinctions between the method
of the Rashbam and the method of Rashi:
A)
Bereishit 1:16 tells us, And God made the two great luminaries,
the great luminary to rule over the day and the small luminary to rule over the
night, as well as the stars. The obvious difficulty in the verse is that at its
beginning, it states that the two great luminaries are created, but at the end
of the verse, one is described as great and one as small.

Rashi explains the verse in this way:

They were created equal, but the moon was diminished because it
challenged and said, It is impossible for two kings to share one
crown![18]
The method of Rashi is categorically that of a darshan; in order to solve
the problem, Rashi fills the gap by describing an event that is not mentioned
at all in the text. According to the Rashbam, the peshat of Tanakh should be
understood on its own, without consulting any external information; all data
must be either explicit in the text or implicit in human logic or accepted
practice. Therefore, this explanation of Rashi, even though it is responding to
a legitimate peshat-based question, is not defined as peshat.[19]
With this in mind, let us look at the Rashbams brief remark: The small
one of the two great luminaries. With this explanation, the Rashbam deals
with the problem[20] without utilizing any outside information. There are two
great luminaries (apparently, in comparison to the stars), and of these two, the
moon is smaller.
B)
In Bereishit 21:17, the angel tells Hagar that she should return to
the side of her ailing son: Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the
youth as he is there. The difficulty of the verse is the extraneous phrase as
he is there; it is clear that God has heard him in his present location.

Rashi explains:
As he is there according to the deeds that he does now he is
judged, and not according to what he is destined to do. For the
ministering angels were accusing and saying, Master of the Universe,
for one who is destined to kill Your children with thirst, You are bringing
up a well?!
And He answered them, What is he now, righteous or wicked?
They replied, Righteous.
He said to them, According to his present deeds I judge him. This is
the meaning of as he is there.

In order to solve the problem of the extraneous as he is there, Rashi

explains, in light of Bereishit Rabba (53:14), that the word there is not a
geographical location, but rather a chronological note, and he adds in a
complete conversation between the angels and God. The Rashbam supports
explaining the verse based on the text itself and not utilizing facts which do
not appear in it, and therefore explains it in the following way:
Because she could not see him, as she had distanced himself from his
location, it had to give the location as he is there, He gave him the
water.
Not only doesnt the Rashbams remark require the use of elements
external to Tanakh,the verse is well-explained specifically in the context of the
passage. In the previous verse, the Torah tells us that Hagar distanced herself
from the youth, and therefore the angel has to explain to her that God has
indeed heard her prayer, and the water is available next to Yishmael, in his
place.
C)
In Shemot 2:6, Pharaohs daughter finds the baby Moshe in his
makeshift ark: And she opened, and she saw him, the boy. The difficulty in
the verse is the extraneous language, and she saw him. Va-tireihu already
includes the direct object (the final hu is not part of the verb, but rather a
pronoun); the addition the boy is thus extraneous. Rashi explains:

Whom did she see? The boy this is the simple meaning
In other words, according to Rashi, despite the fact that we know that
Pharaohs daughter would naturally see Moshe upon opening the ark, the
Torah adds another two words and stresses that she sees the boy there. The
Rashbam opposes this forcefully:
Whoever explains that she saw the boy is in error. Who would fail to
understand that when she opens the ark, she would see the boy
inside? Rather, this is what it means: she opened the ark and looked at
the infant, to see if it was male or female, and she saw that he was a
boy in other words, male, not female. Furthermore, she saw that he
was circumcised, and therefore he had been hidden
In other words, there is no reason to stress that she actually saw the
boy, since this is obvious; the verse is emphasizing that Pharaohs daughter
sees that the infant is male, and not just male, but circumcised as well. Thus,
Pharaohs daughter knows that she has found a Hebrew boy hidden because
of the decree of Every son born must be cast into the Nile. [21]
D)
Yaakovs blessing to Dan states: Dan will judge his people
[when] the tribes of Israel are as one (Bereishit 49:16). Rashi pinpoints the
realization of this prophecy with Shimshon:

He will exact his peoples revenge upon the Philistines and this
prophecy was expressed about Shimshon.
The Rashbam responds strongly to this supposition:
Whoever applies it to Shimshon does not know the depth of the simple
meaning of the verse at all. Is Yaakov coming to prophesy about one
man who fell into the hands of the Philistines under bad
circumstances? God forbid! He is prophesying about the tribe of Dan,
which was the rear guard of all the camps (Bamidbar 10:25) This is
because throughout all those years, whether in Moshes time or
Yehoshuas time, it went after all of the banner camps, and it had to
fight all of the nations that would pursue them and to exact
vengeance from the nations, because they were warriors. Therefore he
said, Dan will judge his people, i.e., he will avenge his people
Both Rashi and the Rashbam agree that these blessings are
prophecies (and this is the simple meaning of the verse). According to Rashis
view, we are talking about a specific prophecy about Shimshon. Rashbam has
some difficulty in saying that Yaakov is predicting the career of a problematic
person (who fell into the hands of the Philistines under bad
circumstances[22]), and it is not logical that Yaakov would apply the prophecy
of Dan, which sounds very positive, to a character with such a tragic end.
Therefore, the Rashbam explains that we are talking about a prophecy about
the entire tribe of Dan, which was very active in combat during the era of
Moshe and Yehoshua.
D. Original Interpretations
The Rashbams commentaries are original and creative; his avoidance
of Midrashic material allows him to look at the verse in an innovative, direct
way. We will bring a number of examples of this:
A)
Arguably the Rashbams most innovative interpretation is that of
the sale of Yosef (Bereishit 37), in which the Rashbam proves, based on the
verses, that it is not the brothers who sell Yosef, but rather the Midianite
merchants who take him out of the pit. [23] This is how the Rashbam explains
it:
Midianite men, merchants, passed by Because they [the brothers]
sat down to break bread, and they were a bit distant from the pit, so as
not to eat over blood, and they were waiting for the Ishmaelites whom
they had seen. However, before the Ishmaelites arrived, other men,
Midianites, passed by that way, saw him in the pit and pulled him out. It
is the Midianites who sell him to the Ishmaelites. We should say that
the brothers did not even know about this, even though it is written,
that you sold me to Egypt (Bereishit 44:4); we may say that their
actions brought it about, so they are accessories to his sale. This is
what appears to me based on the deep way of the simple meaning of
the verse. Indeed, Midianite men, merchants, passed by indicates

that this was happenstance, and they sold him to the Ishmaelites
(Rashbam, Bereishit37:28)
This commentary of the Rashbam solves a number of problems in the
verses. For example, the brothers see an Ishmaelite caravan from far away (v.
25), but immediately afterwards we are told about the Midianite merchants (v.
28), and they are the ones who sell Yosef to the Ishmaelites. Without the
commentary of the Rashbam, it is not clear to the reader what role the
Midianites play in the narrative. [24] Similarly, in the verse Midianite men,
merchants, passed by, and they pulled and brought Yosef up from the pit, the
brothers are not mentioned at all, while the Midianites are; it therefore makes
sense that they are the subject of both halves of the sentence they pass by
and they are the ones who pull Yosef out and sell him to the Ishmaelites.
Some other questions resolved by the commentary of the Rashbam
are where Reuven returns from (And Reuven returned to the pit, v. 29) and
why Reuven does not know that Yosef has been sold and why his brothers do
not tell him that Yosef has been sold when he says (v. 31), The boy is gone!
And I, where can I go? According to the Rashbams commentary, neither
Reuven nor his brothers know that Yosef has been sold, because while they
are sitting and eating their meal; as they are waiting for the Ishmaelite
caravan, the Midianites come and remove Yosef from the pit without the
brothers knowledge. When Reuven reaches the pit in order to rescue him,
before his brothers can sell him, he sees that Yosef has disappeared, and
then he turns to his brothers with the cry, The boy is gone! Thus, the
brothers are as perplexed as Reuven by the mysterious disappearance of
Yosef.
B) Concerning the Hebrew midwives, the verse (Shemot 1:20-21)
states:
God did well by the midwives, and the people multiplied and became
very strong. And it was when the midwives feared God, that He made
houses for them.
Rashis commentary is well known:
God did well by the midwives what was this benefit?
He made houses for them the dynasties of the priesthood, the
Levitical family, and the royal family, which are called houses
Rashi explains that the making of houses is the definition of God did
well by the midwives, but this interpretation is not a good fit in the context of
the verses because between God did well by the midwives and He made
houses for them we find a totally different subject: And the people multiplied
and became very strong. Therefore, the Rashbam explains:
That he made houses for them to keep watch over them, lest they
go to the Hebrew women in labor.

In other words, Pharaoh is the one who makes houses for the
midwives, putting them under house arrest, so that they could not go out and
assist the Hebrew women giving birth. In this way, there is no need to tie the
making of houses to the reward bestowed by God, and the verses may be
read in sequence.
C)
When Yaakovs sons tell him that Yosef is alive and a viceroy in
Egypt, the Torah says the following about Yaakov: And his heart skipped, for
he did not believe them (Bereishit45:26). The Rashbam, following Rashi,
explains the difficult phrase in this way: And his heart skipped his heart
changed, to say that this is not the truth. His intent is to explain that Yaakov
has a change of heart that is, opinion and he stops believing them.
Afterwards, the Torah states (v. 27):
And they told him all of Yosef's words that he had said to them, and he
saw the wagons that Yosef had sent to carry him, and the spirit of their
father Yaakov was revived.
What convinces Yaakov? The Rashbam explains that in the verse, two
factors are mentioned. First, And they told him all of Yosef's words that he
had said to them; he explains, that he cried on their necks and they knew for
certain that he was their brother in other words, there has been a positive
identification. The second factor is seeing the wagons, because they are royal
property, and it would be forbidden to take them out of Egypt without special
permission.
Yaakovs conviction is described in the verses by the statement, Rav!
My son Yosef is still alive (v. 28), and it is not clear what Rav! means.
(Rashi and ibn Ezra offer unconvincing explanations.) The Rashbam explains
that it means enough: Enough of my disbelief! From now, on Yaakov
believes that My son Yosef is still alive.
*
In this lesson, we have dealt with the Rashbams commentary on some
biblical narratives; in our next lesson, we will deal with his unique approach to
halakhic passages.

[1] Her name is not known definitively.

[2] There is another Tosafists known by the acronym Rivam; his name was Rabbi Yitzchak
ben [Rabbi] Mordekhai.
[3] The commentary of the Rashbam on the Torah survived in one single manuscript, and
even it was lost in the period of the Holocaust. The manuscript is missing the commentaries
from the beginning of the Torah until the eighteenth chapter of Bereishit, as well as the final
two chapters of Devarim. In addition to this manuscript, the commentary of the Rashbam
onBereishit 1:1-31 has been discovered; in 1984, Moshe Sokoloff discovered the final
sentences of the Rashbams commentary on the Torah.
[4] See note 21 below.
[5] The Rashbam goes on to write a short poem in honor of the conclusion of Parashat
Vayechi and Bereishit as a whole:
Vaychi has reached surcease.

I will now say my piece,

Before my Pride, my Glory, until decease,
To make my strength increase,
May my exiles return in peace.
And if my splendor is lost to caprice,
Before Whom I am cast from womb cerise
Let my aroma be pleasing as the offerings grease
From the empty pit grant release,
The words to their very end.
[6] This is a statement of R. Kahana, Shabbat63a.
[7] We may see in these words of the Rashbam a certain leniency towards those who follow
the path ofderash (as opposed to the combative approach of Mahari Kara). It may be that this
thread is a result of opposition to the school of peshat that arose in France. Thus, on the one
hand, the Rashbam understands the source of the errors of the early authorities, because
they were not experts in the work of peshat, while on the other hand, he strives to defend
himself and his pashtancolleagues, who are faithful to the Sages and fulfill the words of the
Sages themselves that no verse loses its simple meaning. See also A.
Grossmans Chokhmei Tzarfat Ha-rishonim (Jerusalem, 5741), pp. 468-471; E. Touitou, HaPeshatot Ha-Mitchaddeshim Be-Khol Yom: Iyunim Be-Feirusho shel Rashbam LaTorah (Ramat Gan, 5763), p. 73.
[8] Before we define who exactly the maskilim are, it clear that the reader already feels a
streak of elitism in Rashbams commentary. A commentary which opens with the words Let
the maskilim understand is certainly not designated for the simple people, and this stands in
opposition to the commentary of Rashi. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the
Rashbams commentary never gained the popularity which his grandfather Rashis did. (In our
coming lessons, we will raise some other hypotheses as to why this interpretation has not
been as popular.)
[9] Rabbeinu Shlomo, my mothers father, Illuminator of the Exile, who explained
Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim, has dedicated himself to explain the simple meaning of the
verse.
[10] The French exegetes of the 11th century have an inclination to follow the peshat, as
established in E. Touitous Ha-Renaissance shel Ha-Meia Ha-Shteim Esreh, in Ha-Peshatot
Ha-Mitchaddeshim Be-Khol Yom, pp. 11-33.
[11] See, for example, his commentaries to Bereishit39:10, 46:8, 49:1.
[12] This is not found in the printed version; it is cited by Touitou, p. 75.
[13] For example, The way of the world preceded the Torah (Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu, ch. 10).
[14] For example, "Torah study is pleasing with the way of the world (Avot 2:2). This can be
understood by what follows in the mishna: Any Torah which has no labor with it will ultimately
be nullified and will lead to sin.
[15] In Gur Aryeh, one may find an exhaustive analysis of the status of an unmarried priests
daughter, but here is not the place to elaborate.
[16] Perhaps in this way one may explain Gods words at the Binding of Yitzchak, Avraham,
Avraham (Bereishit 22:11) God hurries to prevent him from performing the slaughter.
[17] When the Rashbam disputes Rashi, he generally does not mention him by name, but
rather refers to him as the Commentator. However, when he agrees with him or praises him,
he refers to him as Rabbeinu Shlomo.
[18] This appears in Chullin 60b.
[19] Rashi, who does not classify this explanation as Midrashic, apparently believes that this
interpretation can be called peshat.
[20] It appears that the Rashbam would not have bothered to explain this verse at all, were it
not that he wanted to dispute Rashis explanation.
[21] Apparently, the Rashbam also adds external information: the fact that Moshe was
circumcised. Presumably, the Rashbam believes that it is not enough that Pharaohs daughter
saw the boy in order to know that he was of the Hebrew boys (as she herself says at the
end of the verse), and it is clear in Tanakh that every Jewish male is to be circumcised.
Therefore, when it says that Pharaohs daughter sees a boy, it is clear that she would see that
he is circumcised, and so it is understood how she knew that he was of the Hebrew boys.
[22] The Rashbam poses a rhetorical question: Is Yaakov coming to prophesy about one
man? This appears to indicate that beyond the problematic fate of Shimshon, who fell into
the hands of the Philistines under bad circumstances, the Rashbam finds it difficult to apply

this prophecy to an individual (and not an entire tribe). However, in his commentary on
Binyamins blessing (Bereishit 49:27, s.v. Binyamin), the Rashbam explains that the verse
talks about King Shaul; this would indicate that, according to his view, there is no problem for
the prophecy to deal with a specific individual.
[23] According to Professor E. Touitou, the Rashbam enumerates his methodological
principles specifically at the beginning of the Yosef narrative because of Jewish-Christian
polemics. This is what he writes in his book,Ha-Peshatot Ha-Mitchaddeshim Be-Khol Yom, p.
100:
The story of Yosef is understood in the eyes of Christianity as a definitive
prefiguration of the experience of their messiah: we have twelve brothers (parallel to
the twelve apostles in Christian tradition) and one of them, specifically Yehuda
(parallel to Judas Iscariot), sells his brother (as Judas does to Jesus). Yosef is thrown
into a pit and saved from it (Jesus dies and is resurrected). The betrayed brother not
only fails to take revenge on the betrayer, but saves him from distress and saves his
family from famine (Jesus saves humanity). The story of Yosef and its Christian
interpretation was very popular in the Christian street in the medieval era The
Rashbam sees appropriately to direct the readers attention to a simple explanation of
the Yosef narrative that refutes the Christian exegesis. The verse that is determinative
in this context is verse 28 in chapter 37, which describes pulling Yosef out of the pit
and selling him to the Ishmaelites. According to the Rashbams approach, it is not the
brothers who sold Yosef, but rather the Midianites. Thus, the Christian explanation
has no foothold at all.
[24] See Rashi and ibn Ezra, who struggle in their commentaries to explain this verse.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #10:
Rashbam, Part II
A.
The Rashbams Understanding of the Narrative Sections of the
Torah
The Principle of Foreshadowing in the Rashbams Methodology
One of the most important ideas that the Rashbam develops is the
principle of foreshadowing. We have seen this in the past, when we discussed
the commentary of Mahari Kara, but the Rashbam develops the principle
further, giving it a more central place in his methodology. According to this
principle, when the Torah notes details that appear to be disconnected,
extraneous, or anachronistic, it actually provides them in order to explain an
event that comes afterwards.
Let us see an example in the Rashbams commentary. Describing
Yosefs experiences and success in Pharaohs house, the Torah states:

And Yosef stored up grain in great abundance, like the sand of

the sea, until he ceased to measure it, for it could not be
measured.

Before the year of famine came, two sons were born to

Yosef. Osnat, the daughter of Poti Fera, priest of On, bore them
to him. (Bereishit 41:49-50)
Why is it important for the Torah to note that the two sons born
to Yosef in Egypt were born before the year of famine? The Rashbam
explains this by applying the principle of foreshadowing:
Before the year of famine came Because Yaakov came
at the beginning of the second year of famine, and seventeen
years later, he said to Yosef (ibid. 48:5-6), Your two sons, who
were born to you before I came to you are mine, but the
children that you fathered after them, after I came to you,
shall be yours. Therefore, he explained here that Ephraim
and Menasheh were born before the year of famine, before
Yaakov came, but afterwards, [Yosef] had sons and grandsons
called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance, as
Yaakov said.
Shortly before his death, Yaakov tells Yosef, Your two sons,
who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in
Egypt, are mine; however, if Yosef has additional children, they will
not be considered Yaakovs children. Therefore, it is important that
we know that Ephraim and Menasheh were born before Yaakov
came down to Egypt.
As we noted in the previous lecture, the Rashbam formulates
exegetical principles that he describes as the way of the verses,
and foreshadowing is one of these techniques. Generally, the
Rashbam signals this in his commentary by using the terminology it
prefaced, the verse prefaced, or it was necessary to write.
In his introduction to Bereishit, the Rashbam explains the
concept of foreshadowing at length and demonstrates it:
This is the essence of the simple meaning according to the way
of the verses, which are accustomed to preface and to mention
explicitly an item which is superfluous at that point, because of
an issue which is mentioned below. As it says, Shem, Cham,
and Yefet (Bereishit 9:18), and it says, And Cham, he is the
father of Canaan (ibid.);[1] this is because it is written upon
[after] it, Cursed be Canaan (ibid. v. 25), and if it were not

explained who Canaan is, we would not know why Noach

cursed him.
And he slept with Bilha, his fathers concubine, and Yisrael
heard (ibid.35:22). Why is it written here, And Yisrael heard?
Is it written here that Yaakov said anything about Reuven?
Nevertheless, at the time of his passing, he says, Unstable as
water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up
to your fathers bed; then you defiled it he went up to my
couch! Therefore, it prefaces, And Yisrael heard, that you
should not be perplexed when you see that he rebuked him
about this at the end of his days.
The Creation Narrative Prefaces the Commandments
In all of these cases, the preface or foreshadowing is a verse
or a fragment thereof, but from the next words of the Rashbam, we
shall see that it is possible to apply the principle of foreshadowing
even to larger segments. In the continuation of the Rashbams
introduction to Bereishit, he declares that the story of Creation
interests us solely because it helps us understand the Ten
Commandments:
In addition, Moshe Rabbeinu[2]prefaced this entire passage of
the work of the six days to explain to you what the Holy One
said at the time of the Giving of the Torah, Remember the
Sabbath day, to keep it holy For in six days God made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested
on the seventh day. Therefore God blessed the Sabbath day
and made it holy (Shemot 20:8-11). This is why it is written,
And it was evening, and it was morning, the sixth day
(Bereishit 1:31) that sixth which is the conclusion of the six
days that the Holy One, Blessed be He, mentioned at the
Giving of the Torah. Therefore, Moshe told this to the Israelites
to inform them that the word of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is
truth, and that one might think that this world has always
existed as it does today, full of every good thing but this is
not true. Rather, In the beginning, God created
In other words, the story of Creation is written in the Torah in
order to confirm that in six days God made heaven and earth. The
Rashbam adds that in the commandment of the mitzva of Shabbat,
one may see the verses reliance on the story of Creation This is
what is written, And it was evening, and it was morning,the sixth

day this sixth day, after which the Shabbat arrives, which God
commands them about at the Convocation at Mount Sinai.[3]
In the continuation of his interpretation of Creation (v. 27), the
Rashbam explains why other things created by God are omitted from
the narrative, such as the angels, Gehennom, and the Divine Chariot:
Do not be perplexed by the omission of the creation of the
angels, because Moshe did not write here anything about
angels, Gehennom, or the Divine Chariot, but these things
which we see in the world are mentioned in the Ten
Commandments, because for this reason it is said the entire
act of the six days, as I explained above.
In other words, in describing Creation, the Torah only mentions those
items which are mentioned in the Ten Commandments that is, that
which is visible to the human eye.
An additional prominent example is the Yosef narrative, which
the Rashbam (Bereishit 37:2) also justifies based on Moshes
rhetorical needs:
It was necessary for Moshe Rabbeinu to write all of this,
because he reproved them with the words (Devarim 10:22):
With seventy souls, your ancestors went down to Egypt.
In other words, the aim of describing the story of Yosef and his
brothers is to form the background to justify Gods demand of the
Israelites to keep the mitzvot, a demand which appears at a great
distance (both chronological and literary) afterwards: With seventy
souls your ancestors went down to Egypt, and now Lord your God
has made you as numerous as the stars of the heaven, followed
immediately by the imperative (ibid. 11:1), And you shall love Lord
your God, and you shall keep His observance and His decrees and
His laws and His commandments
From these explanations, in particular from the justification of
the Creation narrative,[4] it arises that the essence of the Torah is
the mitzvot, while the narratives are secondary; the stories appear in
order to explain the mitzvot.[5]
B.

Rashbams Interpretive Approach to Mitzvot

In his explanations of the halakhic portion of the Torah, the

Rashbam employs the same method which he applies to the
narrative portion of the Torah the explanation of the verses without
any reliance on Midrashic literature. This approach, which releases
the pashtan from the chains of derash, is very difficult to apply it
to mitzvot; at the end of the day, the binding halakha is not the simple
meaning of the verse, but the interpretation of the verses as the
Sages explain it.
It is clear to the Rashbam that one should adopt the views of
the Sages for everything that relates to practical Halakha; the
interpretation of the peshat and the halakhic midrashim can live
under the same roof. The Rashbam repeatedly stresses that his
interpretations are only and solely interpretations according to the
way ofpeshat. They are never to be taken as a substitute for the
words of the Sages; rather, they stand alongside the Sages words.
The words of the Sages are the essence, and they are binding in
terms of practical Halakha. In his introduction to his commentary
on Parashat Mishpatim(Shemot 21:1), the Rashbam clarifies his
approach to explaining the halakhic parts of the Torah and his
relationship to the Sages words:
The
knowers
of enlightenment may
understand and
be
enlightened, for I have not come to explain the laws, even though they
are the essence, as I explained in Bereishit. The verbosity of the text
teaches us both lore and law, and some of the derivations may be
found in the commentaries of Rabbeinu Shelomo, my mothers father,
of blessed memory. However, I have come to explain the simple
meanings of the verses, and I will explain the rules and laws according
to the way of the world. Even so, the laws are the essence, as our
Rabbis have said (Sota 16a) [6]
The Rashbam declares here that he is going to explain the verses, but
he is not going to use the method of his grandfather Rashi, who explained the
verses according to Midrashic sources. Nevertheless, the Rashbam stresses
that the Halakha is the essence. His fidelity to the halakhic ruling is more
adamantly expressed in the conclusion to his commentary on Shemot(40:35):
Whoever pays attention to the word of our Creator will not budge from
or abandon the explications of my grandfather, Rabbeinu Shelomo,
because most of the laws and derivations are close to the simple
meanings of the verses; from the superfluous or altered language, one
may learn all of them. It is good to grasp the one that I have explained
and not let go of the other
Whoever pays attention to the word of our Creator that is, one who
fears the word of God will study the words of Rashi, a commentator who

follows the Halakha, but not the simple meaning of the Torah. The reason for
this is that the Halakha is binding, and therefore one is compelled to know it.
However, there is also value to studying Scripture on the basis
of peshat, [7]even though one is not learning practical Halakha. The Rashbam
quotes the words of Kohelet (7:18), It is good to grasp the one and not let go
of the other, advising the reader to embrace the words of Rashi (to grasp the
practical Halakha) as well as his own commentary (to understand the simple
meaning of the verse).
C.

Examples of the Rashbams Explanations of Mitzvot

We will now see a number of examples of the Rashbams readiness to

diverge from the Sages in his hunt forpeshat.
a.
One prominent example is the Rashbams explanation of the
mitzva oftefillin:
And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial
between your eyes, so that the law of God may be in your mouth, for
with a strong hand God has brought you out of Egypt. (Shemot 13:9)
Rashi explains the verses according to the Halakha:
As a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes You
shall write these paragraphs and bind them on the head and the arm.
In contrast, the Rashbam explains the verse according to the peshat:
As a sign on your hand According to the depth of the simple
meaning, it should be a constant memorial, as if it were written on your
hand, like Set me as a signet on your heart (Shir Ha-shirim 8:6).
Between your eyes It is a like an ornament or a golden circlet,
which we are accustomed to put on our forehead. [8]
The Rashbam gives this mitzva a metaphorical explanation to internalize
Gods word as if it were inscribed on ones arm and the ornament between
ones eyes.[9]
This interpretation of the Rashbam may not, perhaps, be the
clear peshat of the verse, but it exemplifies how the Rashbam, when
explaining the verse, feels totally unfettered by the practical Halakha if it
seems to contradict the peshat.
b.
The law of the Hebrew slave who does not want to be freed from
his masters home is detailed in Shemot 21:6:
Then his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to
the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with
an awl, and he shall serve him forever.
The words of Rashi, following the Sages, are well-known:

And he shall serve him forever That is, until the jubilee year. Or
perhaps it means literally forever, as is its apparent meaning?
Therefore, the Torah states: And each man to his family you shall
return (Vayikra25:10). This tells us that fifty years is called forever
In other words, the Sages explain forever as only lasting until the jubilee
year, since inVayikra, the Torah indicates that all of the Hebrew slaves are to
be emancipated in the jubilee year. It cannot be that there is a contradiction
between the Book of Shemotand the Book of Vayikra, and thus the Sages
explain that the meaning of the term forever in the book of Shemot is until
the jubilee year.
However, the Rashbam, inveteratepashtan that he is, follows his
customary approach:
Forever According to the simple meaning, all of the days of his life,
as it says of Shemuel, And he will reside there forever (I
Shemuel1:22).
The Rashbam proves from the vow of Channa in the Book of Shemuel that
Scripture refers to forever, the intent is for the length of ones life; there is no
doubt that Channa intends for her son to remain in the Tabernacle all of the
days of his life.
c. Concerning the mitzva of yibbum(levirate marriage), the Torah says:
If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the
wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a
stranger. Her husbands brother shall go in to her and take her as his
wife and perform the duty of a husbands brother to her. And the
firstborn whom she bears, he shall succeed to the name of his dead
brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (Devarim 25:56)
How is this law of he shall succeed to the name of his dead brother to
be understood? Rashi, following the Sages, explains that the reference is to
the laws of inheritance, as affected by yibbum:
The one who marries his wife is to take the share of his deceased
brothers inheritance of their fathers property.
Rashi explains the verse, And the firstborn whom she bears, in a similar
manner. The mother referred to here is the mother of the deceased, whose
widow is married by her living son, the levir. He is called the firstborn because
preference is given to the oldest surviving brother, but any of the surviving
brothers can fulfill this role, assuming the role of the firstborn; he shall
succeed to the name of his dead brother, by taking the portion of the dead
brother in their fathers estate. This is the interpretation cited in
the gemara (Yevamot24a).

The Rashbam explains the verse differently. The mother mentioned in

the verse is the widow and the firstborn is the child whom she has with
the levir who is to be named after the dead brother. In other words, the child
is considered the offspring of the dead uncle, the first husband of his mother,
and not of the biological father. This interpretation is rejected by
the gemara in Yevamot.
This interpretation of the Rashbam is indeed appropriate for the simple
reading of the passage. According to the peshat, there is no doubt that the
mother mentioned is the widow, as she is the subject of the previous verse,
and this verse continues to describe her situation: The wife of the dead man
shall not be married outside the family to a stranger And the firstborn whom
she bears Similarly, the Rashbam explains how the name of the deceased
will not be blotted out the child born fromyibbum will be considered the child
of the deceased.
d.
The final example does not appear in a halakhic passage, but it is
very significant from a practical point of view. During the Creation of the world,
the Torah states (Bereishit 1:5): And it was evening, and it was morning, one
day. From this verse, the Sages derive that the day follows the night that
is, the 24-hour halakhic day starts at night and continues throughout the
following day: [10]
This is what R. Shimon ben Zoma expounded: It says in the story of
Creation, One day, and it is said by [the prohibition to slaughter] a
mother animal and its child [on the same day], One day
(Vayikra22:28). Just as in the one day which is said in the story of
Creation, the day goes after the night, so too, in the one day which is
said by a mother animal and its child, the day goes after the night.
(Chullin 83a)
Here we encounter one of the most problematic interpretations of the
Rashbam. According to the Rashbam, the peshat of the verses of Creation
indicates the reverse that the night follows the day! The creation of the
universe starts in the morning, and the first creation is light; at the end of the
first night, namely towards morning, the first day is completed and set. The
Rashbam states this idea a number of times in his commentary to the first
chapter of Bereishit:
And God separated between the light and the darkness That the
day would be twelve hours, and afterwards the night would be twelve
hours. The light was first and then the darkness, because at the
beginning of the creation of the world came the statement (v. 3), Let
there be light.
In other words, the first thing to be created was light; therefore, we are
compelled to say that the creation of the universe started during the day,
namely during the morning, and not at night. Thus, he explains v. 5:

And the darkness he called night Forever light comes first, and
afterwards darkness.
"And it was evening and it was morning The Torah does not say
here: it was night and it was day, but rather it was evening for the
first day was coming to an end, the light was setting; and it was
morning the end of the night, for the dawn was breaking. And thus
the first of the six days, mentioned by God in the Ten Commandments,
was completed. And then began the second day The Torah does not
mean to teach us here that evening and morning constitute a day, for
we need only understand how there were six days. Daybreak came
and the night was finished; hence, one day ended and the second day
began.
The Rashbam notes that the verse does not use the formula, And it
was night, and it was day, one day, but rather, And it was evening, and it was
morning, one day. The terms night and day indicate the times respectively
between dusk and dawn and between dawn and dusk. Were it to say, And it
was night, and it was day, this would indicate that nighttime was followed by
daytime, completing a 24-hour day, what the Torah refers to as one day.
However, the Torah says, And it was evening, and it was morning; the words
evening and morning do not indicate time periods, but rather a specific
point on the timeline, and the meaning of the verses is that evening arrived
(daytime ended with dusk) and then the following morning arrived (nighttime
ended with dawn). The dawns early light signaled that the first 24-hour day
had come to a close.
And God said, Let there be a sky After the first day ended, at its
morning, And God said. (v. 6)
And it was evening and it was morning, a second day The day
became evening, and then it was morning of the second day. Thus
ended the second of the six days mentioned by God in the Ten
Commandments, and now the third day begins in the morning. (v. 8)
The immediate implication of this commentary is that according to
the peshatof the verses, Shabbat should start on Saturday morning, not
Friday night!
This interpretation of the Rashbam aroused harsh criticism. It may be
that this is the reason that his commentary proved so unpopular in earlier
generations; at the very least, it may be that this is the reason that his
commentaries on the early parts ofBereishit disappeared. (As we noted in the
previous lecture, his commentary on chapter 1 only came to light a few years
ago). The most famous criticism is that of R. Avraham ibn Ezra, [11] which may
be found in his commentary on the passage of the manna (Shemot 16:25):
Now, pay attention, so that you may understand the foolishness of
those who explain And it was evening, and it was morning as I
mentioned, because the verse says And God called the light day,

and this is from dawn until dusk, And to the darkness, he called
night, from dusk until dawn; and behold the night is the opposite of
day, just as the darkness is the opposite of the light. If so, how may we
call from evening, which is the sun fading away, day, when it is in fact
night?![12]
Naturally, it is clear that the Rashbam welcomed the Sabbath on
Friday evening, not Saturday morning; at the same time, he explains the
verses according to their meaning in peshat, not their meaning in Halakha.
D.

Between Peshat and Derash

This is the place to relate to the question of what meaning we should

attach to the Rashbams explanations that are not in accordance with
Halakha. This is not a question on the Rashbam, but rather a question
on peshat generally. What worth does peshat have when it does not fit with
Halakha?
We cannot, in this framework, bring a comprehensive answer to this
question, but one possibility to explain it is that thepeshat reflects the ideal,
while the derashdeals with the real. The best example of this approach is the
explication of the law of eye for eye. There is no doubt that according to the
simple meaning of the verse, the implication is that one must remove the eye
of the assailant:
If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done, it shall be done to him,
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has
given a person shall be given to him. (Vayikra 24:19-20)
However, Halakha says that the assailant must make monetary
compensation (see Bava Kamma 83b). If so, why is it written eye for an
eye? Let us cite the words of Seforno in his commentary to Shemot 21:24:
Eye for eye It would have been fitting [to do so] by the truest
justice, which is measure for measure. The tradition is that one must
make monetary compensation, because of the deficiency of our
estimation, lest we make a mistake and punish him more severely than
he deserves.[13]
Eye for an eye is the punishment rightfully incurred by one who puts out his
fellows eye, but because of other considerations of justice, [14] this
punishment is not applied. The idea that the peshat embodies the ideal can
also be applied to the mitzva oftefillin. Indeed, it is appropriate that Gods
commands constantly be remembered by us, but the reality is that most
people cannot live such spiritually intense lives. The Sages therefore
expounded the mitzva realistically: one should put on tefillin at least once a
day.

As we have said, this is only one possibility, and there is still a great
deal to say about this issue of the tension betweenpeshat-based exegesis
and binding halakhic guidelines.
*
We have concluded our study of the Rashbam. God willing, our next
lecture will deal with his contemporary, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] The inexplicit question is why the verse says, Cham is the father of Canaan out of
context.
[2] The Rashbam has a unique approach towards the identity of the author of the Torah.
According to him, the narrative parts were written by Moshe (perhaps he even determined
the lexicon and the style), while the halakhic parts were determined by God. See, for
example, Bereishit 1:27, 19:37, etc. See also E. Touitous analysis in his book,Ha-Peshatot
Ha-Mitchaddeshim Be-Khol Yom: Iyunim Be-Feirusho shel Rashbam La-Torah(Ramat Gan,
5763), pp. 120-121.
[3] The Rashbam assumes that the Israelites first experienced the Giving of the Torah and
only afterwards were told the stories of Bereishit, even though the chronological sequence
of events is reversed in the text of the Torah. Therefore, when Moshe tells the Israelites the
narratives of Bereishit, he can refer to the Convocation at Mount Sinai.
[4] See also the Rashbams commentary toBereishit 5:1.
[5] See Touitou, p. 114, who concludes that according to the view of the Rashbam, it may
be that the entire Parshiot of Noach and Lekh Lekhaserve only to justify half a line from the
recitation upon bringing the first fruits. We cannot prove this definitely, since we do not
have in our hands the Rashbams commentary on these parshiot; this hypothesis is based
on his explanation ofDevarim 26:5:
My father was a lost Aramean My father, Avraham, was Aramean, and he was
exiled from Aram, as it says, Go for yourself from your land (Bereishit 12:1), and as
it says, When God made me wander from my fathers house (ibid.20:13) In other
words, our ancestors came from a foreign land to this one, and God gave it to us.
[6] Touitou explains this well in his book Ha-Peshatot Ha-Mitchaddeshim Be-Khol Yom, pp.
72-73:
Observe that it is in the introduction to his commentary to the halakhic section of the
Torah that the Rashbam finds it appropriate to write these words of his. The phrases
are parallel both in structure and content. Every one of the phrases is built of two
parts: a) a certain determination and b) programmatic declarations about the aim of
the commentary, defining an interpretive approach. The declaration of the Rashbam,
Some of them may be found in the commentaries of Rabbeinu Shelomo, parallels
and echoes the declaration of Rashi, These are the aggadic midrashim
Bereishit Rabba and other Midrashic works. The declaration of the Rashbam about
his general aim: However, I have come to explain the simple meanings of the verses
parallels what Rashi says, As for me, I have come for no purpose other
thanthe simple meaning of Scripture. Finally, the definition of the approach of the
Rashbam, I will explain the rules and laws according to the way of the world,
parallels the definition of Rashis approach, and theaggadic material which
harmonizes thewords of Scripture, each word according to its properties.
[7] At the end of this lecture, we will deal with the question of the value of studying peshat.

[8] It is interesting to note that the Rashbam believes that the explanation of the peshat of
this verse is actually metaphorical, while the literal explanation (taking the words at face
value) is an explanation that does not reflect peshat. Another example of this may be found
when Avrahams servant goes to find a wife for Yitzchak. The Torah reports, And all his
masters goods were in his hand (Bereishit 24:10). The explanation according to
the peshat defines in his hand in a non-literal way, as in his possession, while the
explanation which explains the word in his hand literally (at face value) is an explanation
which is not peshat. Rashi, for one, explains against the peshat He put a bill of
acquisition in his hand.
[9] Ironically, perhaps the best explanation of the Rashbam's explanation may be found in
the ibn Ezras challenge to it:
There are those who question our holy ancestors, as it says that is a sign and a
memorial, akin to For a graceful wreath are they to your head and chains to your
neck (Mishlei 1:9), as well as And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand
(Devarim6:8), and Bind them on your heart continually; bind them on your neck
(Mishlei 3:3). What is to be a sign and a memorial? You are to regularly mention that
with a strong hand God has brought you out of Egypt.
However, this is not correct, because the book [of Mishlei] begins with the title
Shelomos parables, indicating that everything in it is to be understood as a parable;
on the other hand, what is written in the Torah is not to be understood as a parable,
God forbid, but rather by its literal meaning. Therefore, we will not abandon its simple
meanings, unless doing so contradicts common sense, for example, And you shall
circumcise the foreskin of your heart (Devarim 10:16).
In other words, unless doing so contradicts common sense, there is no reason to pass over
the literal meaning.
[10] In the commentary of Torah Temima toBereishit 1:5 (ch. 34), a number of exceptions to
this rule are brought.
[11] It is not clear if R. Avraham ibn Ezra knew the commentary of the Rashbam on the
Torah, but it is known certainly that in the years of his wandering in Christian Europe (11401164), ibn Ezra was in contact with the Rashbams brother, Rabbeinu Tam. In ibn Ezras
commentaries, there are some quotes which are very similar to the Rashbams language,
and it is feasible to see this as evidence that ibn Ezra was familiar with the commentary of
the Rashbam. We cannot prove this definitively, however, because their interpretive
approaches are similar, and it is logical to assume that they might arrive at similar
conclusions.
[12] In Iggeret Ha-Shabbat, ibn Ezra takes the Rashbam to task. In this work, Ibn Ezra
describes in an allegorical manner an experience which happened to him on the eve of
Shabbat: A courier brings him a letter, written by Shabbat itself, and it beseeches ibn Ezra
to fight for its honor. In the Iggeret, he sets out the interpretation of the Rashbam, that each
24-hour day begins at daybreak (this is the significance of receiving the missive in the
middle of the eve of Shabbat, i.e., Friday night), and the ibn Ezra argues that this
interpretation is misleading.Iggeret Ha-Shabbat was written by ibn Ezra himself, apparently
after he saw the commentary of the Rashbam to the first chapter of Bereishit(as arises
from the content of the missive), and this serves as a preface to his composition dealing
with the temporal questions of defining the year, month, and day. An excerpt follows:
And the emissary of the Shabbat answered and said to me, It has certainly been told
to me that your student brought to your house yesterday books of biblical
commentaries, and there it is written to violate Shabbat eve. Now you must gird your
loins for the honor of Shabbat, to fight the war of the Torah with the enemies of the
Shabbat. Show no favor to any man!
And I awoke, and my spirit was troubled, and I was very much disturbed. I arose, with
my fury burning in me, and I put on my clothes, washed my hands, and brought out
the books by the light of the moon, and there it was written an interpretation of And it
was evening, and it was morning. It said that when the morning of the second day
came, then one day was complete, because the night follows the day. I almost rent
my garments and rent this commentary as well, for I said, Is it not better to desecrate

one Sabbath, so that the Israelites will not desecrate many Sabbaths, should they
see this evil commentary? Furthermore, we would become an object of ridicule and
derision for the uncircumcised!
Nevertheless, I held myself back because of the honor of Shabbat, and I made a vow
not to let my eye sleep, after the end of the holy day, until I would write a long missive
to explain what the beginning of the Torahs day is, to pick up an obstacle and to
remove a snare and a trap. For all of the Pharisee Jews, and even all of the
Sadducees with them, know that inParashat Bereishit, Gods actions are transcribed
day-by-day only so that the Torah-observant will know how to keep the Shabbat, that
they will rest just as God in His glory did, counting the days of the week. Behold, if the
end of the sixth day was the morning of the seventh day, we should observe the night
afterwards. Now this is a misleading interpretation for all of Israel, in the East and in
the West, the close and the distant, the living and the dead! God will avenge the
Shabbats vengeance from anyone who believes in this difficult interpretation.
Whoever reads it in a loud voice, may his tongue adhere to his palate; furthermore,
the scribe who writes it among the commentaries of the Torah will surely find that his
arm will wither and his right eye will be dimmed.
[13] This is based on what the Rambam says inHilkhot Chovel U-Mazzik 1:3:
The Torah's statement, "Whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him,"
should not be interpreted in a literal sense. It does not mean that the person who
caused the injury should actually be subjected to a similar physical punishment.
Instead, the intent is that he deserves to lose a limb or to be injured in the same
manner as his colleague was, and therefore he should make financial restitution to
him. This interpretation is supported by the verse (Bamidbar 35:31): "Do not accept a
ransom for the soul of the murderer." Implied is that no ransom may be paid for a
murderer alone, but a ransom may be paid for causing a loss of limb or other injuries.
[14] For example, what would the law be in a case in which a one-eyed man blinded his
fellow in one of his eyes? If we remove the eye of the assailant, he will be totally blinded,
while he only partially blinded his fellow.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #11:
R. Yosef Bekhor Shor
A.

Introduction

R. Yosef of Orlans, northern France, was a 12 th-century parshan who

has become known through the generation as Ri Bekhor Shor. [1] He was a
Tosafist, a student of Rabbeinu Tam,[2] and he was influenced mainly by
Rashis commentary and the commentaries of Mahari Kara and the Rashbam.
Nevertheless, Ri Bekhor Shor blazed a trail of his own in biblical exegesis.
We do not know anything about his life story. Apparently, he was born
around the year 1140, and his correspondence with Rabbeinu Tam indicates
that they had great mutual respect and friendship.
In addition to his biblical and Talmudic commentaries, Ri Bekhor Shor
was a liturgical poet, composing elegies and penitential prayers. [3]From the
contents of these works, we can learn about the great suffering of the Jewish
people in his time. Ri Bekhor Shors poetry also appears in his commentary
on the Torah, which is filled with passion and rich stylistic flourishes. In

addition, Ri Bekhor Shor writes a small poem of between four and eight lines
at the conclusion of each Torah portion in the books of Bereishit andShemot,
as well as Parashat Balak. The subject of each poem is a topic addressed in
the portion or the longing for redemption; in general, every line rhymes with
the name of the portion.[4]
Ri Bekhor Shor, like his predecessors Mahari Kara and Rashbam,
was a member of the peshat school in 12th-century northern France, but in
the commentary of Ri Bekhor Shor, we do not find any explicit methodological
statements. Nevertheless, it is definitely possible to identify characteristic
themes that are prominent in his commentary.
[5]

B.

Attitude Towards Derash

In order to understand the attitude of Ri Bekhor Shor to aggadic

material, we must compare his path to that of his predecessors. Recall that
Rashi, for different reasons, adopts aggadic material even when it does not
dovetail with thepeshat. Mahari Kara and the Rashbam, however, oppose this
unequivocally, and their inclination is to ignore derash entirely. It appears that
Ri Bekhor Shor forges a path that is a sort of middle way between Rashi and
the pursuers of the peshat, the Rashbam and Mahari Kara. On the one hand,
Ri Bekhor Shor aims to explain the verses without non-biblical information; on
the other hand, when the derash is appropriate for explaining the peshat and
for the general context of verses, or when one may explain it as being in
keeping with biblical reality, Ri Bekhor Shor will not hesitate to bring
a midrash. Sometimes, Ri Bekhor Shor will cite derash and act as a defender
of the Sages, providing reasons why their words have a certain basis
inpeshat. When the drash reflects an accepted tradition among the Sages, Ri
Bekhor Shor accepts their words.
Let us demonstrate this phenomenon:
1. During the plague of darkness, the Torah notes: For all the Israelites,
there was light in their residences (Shemot11:23). The Sages famously
explain that at the time of the plague of darkness, the Israelites did not suffer,
even those who were among the Egyptians. Ri Bekhor Shor first brings his
view:
This was in the land of Goshen, in which they lived; however, the land
of Egypt was dark for everyone, even Israelites.
According to Ri Bekhor Shor, the meaning of in their residences is the
region inhabited by the Israelites, namely Goshen. Thus, the verse indicates
that in this place alone, the Israelites had light; those who were in the land of
Egypt proper had to deal with the darkness. After he provides his explanation
according to the way of peshat, Ri Bekhor Shor adds:
Still, our Rabbis say that there was light for the Israelites even in Egypt,
so that they could look in to see what the Egyptians had in their homes.

Thus, in their residences would mean wherever they resided, even in

Egypt.
Thus, Ri Bekhor Shor attempts to explain how the explanation of the
Sages fits in with the peshat, despite the fact that he himself explains
otherwise.
2. In the opening of Parashat Vayera(all subsequent citations are Sefer
Bereishitunless otherwise noted), the Torah says, And he saw, and behold,
three men (18:2). Ri Bekhor Shor explains that the verse is referring to
actual human beings:
According to the peshat, these were actual men, for we have not found
angels eating, drinking, and sleeping in a mans home as they sleep in
Lots house[6]
Nevertheless, there is an accepted tradition of the Sages that these
were angels, and therefore Ri Bekhor Shor adds the following sentence:
But we should not refute the words of our Rabbis, because they too are
like prophets who know everything that happens in the land. [7]
However, in many cases, Ri Bekhor Shor does not cite midrashim;
instead, he explains according to the way of peshatalone.
C.

The Torah Does Not Provide Extraneous Information

Another principle in Ri Bekhor Shors exegetical approach is that the

Torah does not provide superfluous information. Sometimes, we find
in Tanakh verses that appear to provide extraneous data about the
characters. According to Ri Bekhor Shor, the information is in fact essential; it
comes to teach us something about the characters. We will demonstrate this
phenomenon:
1. Ri Bekhor Shor explains the fact that Avraham takes all of his property
with him to the land of Canaan (and all their possessions that they had
gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Charan; 12:5) as follows:
This teaches that he had faith in Gods promise, not like a person who
says: I will go now and take some of my possessions if He will do to
me as He says, well and good, I will send for the rest of it; and if not, I
shall return. Rather, he took everything with him, because he was
certain that God would do as He had said.
In other words, the Torah tells us that Avraham took with him all of his
possessions in order to teach us about Avrahams true and unshakable
confidence in Gods promise; he would not leave any possessions in Charan
as insurance, should he be compelled to return there.

2. The Torah describes the first encounter of Yaakov and Yosef in Egypt in
the following way: And he came up to greet Yisrael his father, to Goshen; and
he appeared to him, and he fell on his neck, and he wept excessively on his
neck (46:29). The words and he appeared to him seem extraneous, as it is
clear that Yaakov saw his son if he fell and wept upon his neck. Ri Bekhor
Shor explains this detail:
Because it says below (48:10), And Yisraels eyes grew heavy from
old age; he could not see, it says here, And he appeared to him, to
inform us that he still saw well, and he enjoyed [Yosefs] appearance
and visage.
In other words, the verse stresses that despite the fact that Yaakov
later went blind, Yaakov still saw well at this time, and therefore relished the
appearance Yosef.[8]
D.

Explaining Verses in the Stated Context

Ri Bekhor Shor goes to great lengths to explain the verses in their

specific context. We will note a number of examples:
1. In the commandment of circumcision, the blessing appears, And I will
multiply you very greatly (17:5). Why is it specifically keeping this
commandment that will allow Avraham to merit this blessing? Ri Bekhor Shor
explains:
So that you will not say: perhaps it will render me impotent; on the
contrary, it will not make you impotent, it will make you more virile
2. At the end of Parashat Noach, we first encounter Avrahams family:
And Avram and Nachor took wives. The name of Avrams wife was Sarai
Now Sarai was barren; she had no child (11:29-30). Ri Bekhor Shor explains
this about the verse:
Now Sarai was barren; she had no child This tells us how beloved
Avraham Avinu was, because he left all of his fathers inheritance, and
everything which he had there, and he went as God commanded. If he
had left there a son or a daughter to inherit his portion in his fathers
house, this would not have been such a great matter, but now he
abandoned and left everything, running after Gods command.
In other words, the point of mentioning Saras barrenness is to mark
Avrahams greatness in relinquishing his fathers estate without leaving a son
or a daughter who could receive the inheritance, as he goes to fulfill Gods
command.
3. In a similar way, Ri Bekhor Shor explains the mention of Avrahams age
in 12:4 (Avram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Charan):

It counts Avrahams years, to tell you that his father was still alive, but
he did not worry about his fathers love, nor any other thing; [he sought]
only to run after Gods commands.
We should note that regarding this point, Ri Bekhor Shor uses the
reverse method of Mahari Kara and the Rashbam. While they explain many
verses as introductions to what follows, [9] Ri Bekhor Shor specifically exerts
himself to explain the verses in the context in which they are brought, even in
cases in which it appears that they are meant to serve as an introduction (see,
for example, his commentary to 35:22). We should note that Ri Bekhor Shor
does not negate the principle of foreshadowing, and he sometimes does
explain according to this principle (e.g., 9:18), but there is a definite tendency
to reduce its use and to explain the verses in their context.
E.

Characters Actions and State of Mind

One of Ri Bekhor Shors most notable innovations is his attempt to

explain the verses based on understanding the state of mind of the human
actors. There are numerous examples of this:
1. After Yitzchak touches Yaakov and hears his voice, he still suspects
that something is up, and therefore requests, Draw close and kiss me, my
son (27:26). Ri Bekhor Shor explains this in the following way:
His heart still troubled him, saying:[10] I have two signs for this, one of
which is the voice, which is similar to that of Yaakov, and one of which
is the hands, which are similar to those of Esav, and I do not know
which one to rely on. I must use a third sign: the scent of Esav is the
scent of the field, and that of Yaakov is not the scent of the field. I will
kiss him [and thereby smell him]; if his scent is the scent of the field,
this must be Esav, and if not, this must be Yaakov, because I will follow
the majority of signs, and therefore he said, Draw close and kiss me,
my son, and he smelled the scent of his clothing. Then he decided that
it was Esav, and he blessed him.
2. Another example is his explanation of the fact that Tamar chooses to
seduce Yehuda specifically at the time when he is shearing his sheep (38:13):
At the sheep-shearing time, they were happy and would make big
meals When a person rejoices, his lusts overwhelm him, and
therefore she chose for herself sheep-shearing time.
3. The Torah tells us that Yosefs brothers hated him because of his first
dream (37:8). Why should Yosef be held guilty for a dream he has? Does he
decide what to dream? Ri Bekhor Shor explains this in the following way:
Because they said, As you lay in bed came thoughts (Daniel 2:29);
this is how you plot to dominate us, because our father loves you, and
what you think about during the day, this is what you dream of at night.

F.

Biblical Reality

Ri Bekhor Shor is accustomed to explain verses according to the reality

of the biblical era, at least according to the reality that he recognizes. It is
important to note that it is difficult to know whether Ri Bekhor Shor explains
the verse according to the reality of his own era (assuming that in the time
and region of Scripture, conditions were similar) or if he assumes what the
reality was during the biblical era, and explains the verses accordingly. We will
see a number of examples of this:
1. When Moshe sees the Burning Bush, God says to him (Shemot 3:5),
Takenealekha off your feet. Ostensibly, if the term naal (here in the secondperson possessive) means sandal or shoe, Moshe would understand that
God is talking about the coverings on his feet. Thus, Take your shoes off,
Shal nealekha, should have sufficed. Therefore, Ri Bekhor Shor explains
that there is also a hand covering termed a naal namely a glove. God is
telling Moshes that is only his foot-coverings which he must remove, because
only these are dirty:
Take your coverings Because the foot-covering treads
everywhere, sometimes in dirty places, it is not appropriate to bring it a
holy place.
Off your feet Because even that which is on the hand is simply
called a covering, and this is what Boaz gives to the redeemer
(Ruth 4:7-8), and it is gant in Old French.[11] In fact, we find that the
nobility still use their gant to transfer property. Therefore, He must say
off your feet, so that he will not think that He is speaking of the one on
the hand.
In this case, it is clear that Ri Bekhor Shor explains the verse according
to the reality of his own era. In the following examples, it is more difficult to
know whether we are talking about the reality of his time or the reality of
biblical times.
2. In the commandment of circumcision, God says to Avraham, And I will
put my covenant between me and you (17:2). Ri Bekhor Shor explains the
meaning of the covenant:
I will put a mark in your flesh, as a sign that you are my servant; so will
My covenant be. This is the way of servants, who have a sign on their
clothing to show that they are servants and bound to their masters
Here too, God marks our flesh, because we are his servants, in a place
that a person cannot shed or cast off of himself. [12]
3. When Yitzchak seeks to bless Esav, he says to him, Prepare for me
delicious food, such as I love, and bring it to me so that I may eat, that my
soul may bless you before I die (27:4). Why is there a need for a meal at the
time of the blessing? Ri Bekhor Shor explains this in the following way:

It is the way of the aristocrats to prepare a feast when they receive a

noble title.
Ri Bekhor Shor maintains that that biblical reality (presumably similar to
his own era) supports this; when a person receives an aristocratic title, a feast
is prepared for the event, and Yitzchak requests the feast in order to
memorialize Esavs new title.
4. Why does Rivka love Yaakov (25:28)? Ri Bekhor Shor explains:
He was a shepherd, dealing with the settling of the world, and it is the
way of women to love one who raises lambs and kids.
In other words, while Esav is a hunter of coarse manners, Yaakov is a
shepherd with a gentle soul, and therefore Rivka prefers Yaakov.
5. In another insight into pastoral mores, Ri Bekhor Shor manages to
justify the absence of Reuven from the sale of Yosef, exploring the meaning of
what is told to us about the brothers before his sale: And they sat down to
break bread (37:25):
And they sat down to break bread It is the way of shepherds that
some of them eat while others stand over the animals, and then the
others eat; but their way is not for all of them to eat together. Yehuda
and some of his brothers were eating, while Reuven and some of his
brothers were watching the sheep; therefore, Reuven did not know
about the sale.
G.

The Simple and the Logical

Many times, Ri Bekhor Shor provides a simple reading of the verses

that is so convincing that after reading his words, one is hard-pressed to
understand the text in any other way. For example, Ri Bekhor Shor explains
the words of Pharaohs ministers, And there is no one to interpret it (40:8), in
the following way:
This is because we are in the prison, for if we were not in the prison,
we would go to the adepts and the sages.
In other words, in prison, there are no interpreters of dreams available.
Another example may be found a few chapters later, when Yosef
reveals himself to his brothers, saying to them, Draw close to me (45:4).
What is the meaning of this request? Rashis words are well-known: He
summoned them with mild, supplicatory language, and he showed them that
he was circumcised. Ri Bekhor Shor, on the other hand, follows the path of
the pashtan and attacks two difficulties. First, why does Yosef ask his brothers
to approach him, instead of approaching them himself? Second, why should
they have to approach him when they are all in the same room? This is how
he explains it:

He could not draw close to them, because they were many, and if he
came close to one, he would distance himself from another.
This was in order to say quietly, I am Yosef your brother, whom you
sold lest a person from outside hear, which they might notice,
causing them to be shamed.
H.

Attitude towards Miracles

Ri Bekhor Shor believes that God directs the world in a natural way as
much as possible, and the use made of miracles is the absolute minimum. We
will see a number of examples of this:
1. Addressing the sixth plague in Egypt, that of shechin, Ri Bekhor Shor
explains why Moshe and Aharon must fill their hands with furnace ashes and
throw them heavenward (Shemot 9:10):
And Moshe will throw it heavenward So that it will fall on man and
animal and they will be burned by it, causing blisters, for when
someone is burnt, blisters arise from the burnt spot. In any case, the
verse talks about shechin, which implies [being hurt] not directly by fire,
but rather its byproducts
Now, two handfuls of fire could not be enough for all of Egypt, and
because of this, the shechin comes of itself, not because of the
fire.Nevertheless, God does not want to change the custom of the
world, and He acts partially according to the custom of the
world, and therefore He commanded to cast embers [smoking
ashes] upon them. [13]
In other words, the point of throwing ashes in the air is to cause
something similar to shechin in a natural way; the miraculous element is the
quantity the fact that a few handfuls are sufficient to bring shechin over all
of Egypt. Ri Bekhor Shor even adds a general determination when it comes to
miraculous phenomena: So you will find that in most miracles, God does
not change the custom of the world.
2. Ri Bekhor Shor makes clear his approach to miracles
in Shemot 16:25, analyzing the incident at Mara, in which God sweetens bitter
waters by having Moshe throw a piece of wood into them:
And God showed him a tree If it was the will of God, He could
sweeten the water without a tree, butthe way of God is to perform
miracles by the way of the world.We put the sweet types in a bitter
substance to sweeten it.
According to Ri Bekhor Shor, the wood is naturally sweet, and Moshe
uses the sweetness of the tree in order to temper the bitterness of the water.

God performs the miracle using the way of nature, sweetening the wood to
the extent that it would suffice for all the water at that location. [14]
3. The widely accepted explanation for the fate of Lots wife (19:26) is that
she is punished and turned suddenly into a pillar of salt because she disobeys
the angels commands. However, Ri Bekhor Shor explains otherwise:
She was gazing [around her] and delaying [as she was distracted by
what was happening], so that she was not walking quickly until she
fell behind him, and the spreading cloud caught her and dropped on
her sulfur and salt, because wherever the sulfur would fall, the salt
would fall with it.
According to Ri Bekhor Shor, this is not a miraculous punishment, but a
natural result of the sulfurous-saline cloud which was raining down destruction
on the Jordan Plain (cf. 19:24 and Devarim 29:22).
I.

The Reasons for the Commandments

Ri Bekhor Shor is not the first exegete to delve into the reasons
formitzvot, but we can certainly see in his commentary an expansive and
consistent approach to the question of the reasons ofmitzvot. It is possible
that this should be viewed as an element of his polemical bent, as Christianity
gives symbolic and allegorical meanings to the mitzvot, claiming that the
fulfillment of mitzvot may be replaced with faith and good works alone.
Indeed, Ri Bekhor Shors definition of mitzvot stresses the pragmatic
significance of their fulfillment. We may see a number of examples of this:
1. Ri Bekhor Shor (Shemot 30:1) explains the (psychological) need for an
offering in the following way:
If a person sees and knows that he has achieved atonement for his
sins, realizing that he is now pure, he is more careful to avoid sinning
However, if he does not know that he has achieved atonement, if he
sins today and tomorrow thinks, I am befouled by sins, he no longer
guards himself
We may use this metaphor: a person who has clean, spotless and
fresh garments, as long as his garments are unsullied, he is careful to
avoid dirt and filth; once they have been befouled, he is no longer
careful To this Shlomo refers when he says (Kohelet 9:8): At every
time, let your garments be white. [15]
In other words, the aim of the offerings is to give a feeling of atonement
to a person so that he will avoid sinning in the future, because a person who
sees himself as a sinner will not hold himself back from additional sins.
2. Ri Bekhor Shor explains the reason for the prohibition of crossbreeding
in the following way (Vayikra 19:19):

If one mates a donkey with a horse and produces a mule, which I did
not create, he has altered Creation.
Later on, Ri Bekhor Shor explains that the reason that these species
are infertile is that they were not made by God at Creation, and therefore they
do not merit the blessing of Be fruitful and multiply:
The blessing does not apply to them. The mule will never bear a child,
nor will any other crossbred animal.
According to this explanation, we can also understand the introduction
to the prohibition of crossbreeding, Keep my decrees, as Ri Bekhor Shor
writes: Those decrees, which I issued already during the six days of Creation,
must not be altered.[16]
3. Regarding the prohibition of orla, the first three years of a trees fruits,
Ri Bekhor Shor (Vayikra 19:23) explains:
One is not to benefit from its fruit, because it is not the way of the world
that one should benefit from it until one makes a tribute (lehadrin) [17]from it to the Omnipresent. Now, the beginning of each yield
must be brought to the Omnipresent as a tribute, and the first three
years it only yields a small amount, which is not worth bringing before
the Omnipresent, and one is not permitted to precede me
In other words, the reason to avoid eating orla is that one cannot
partake before one brings the first fruits to God, and one cannot bring the first
fruits before the end of the years of orla, because the yield is too poor in these
years.
4. We have already seen that in the view of Ri Bekhor Shor, the reason
for themitzva of circumcision is to put a mark of servitude upon Gods people.
He adds (17:1) that the feminine parallel to themitzva of circumcision are the
laws of menstruation:
The menstrual blood, which the women watch carefully in order to tell
their husbands at what times they are permitted this is their blood of
the covenant.
J.

Midrash Halakha

We have seen that the Rashbam, for the most part, tends to explain
the verses only on the basis of peshat, without taking into account the
halakhic ruling. Ri Bekhor Shor, on the other hand, is much closer to Rashis
approach in the halakhic realm, and he is generally wont to explain the verses
following the Sages.
Indeed, in his commentary toBamidbar 12:8, he vociferously opposes
the Rashbams view of the mitzva of tefillin,[18]according to which the intent in

the verses is not to delineate the practical mitzva oftefillin, but rather to stress
the importance of remembering Gods words constantly:
In addition, there are people of our nation who express doubts
abouttefillin, mezuza, and covering the blood [of slaughtered birds and
beasts]. They say that And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand
and as a frontlets between your eyes (Shemot 13:16) is similar to Set
me as a signet on your heart, as a signet on your arm (Shir Hashirim 8:6), which does not refer to an actual sign on ones arm or
heart; so too, these are not actually tefillin andmezuza Woe is to
them who insult the Torah (see Avot 6:2), for they too are destined to
be judged for this!
However, there are some isolated cases in which Ri Bekhor Shor
explains in a way that does not follow the Halakha. [19]For example, when it
comes to the Hebrew slave who is supposed to go free in the seventh year, Ri
Bekhor Shor (Shemot21:1) explains, in opposition to the halakhic ruling, that
the verse is referring to the universal sabbatical year (not the seventh year of
his personal term of servitude):
He cannot plow and sow and reap and pick, so he does not need his
services so greatly; therefore, he must send him away.[20]
Later in the same chapter (v. 9), Ri Bekhor Shor explains the verse,
The ox shall be stoned, and also its owners shall die, in a way contrary to
Halakha:
According to the simple meaning, sometimes one is liable for anothers
death: for example, if he sends it to go knowingly, in order that it might
kill someone whom he hates, and this in fact happens, then one is
liable for this death, because it is as if he has killed him with his own
hands
In other words, according to Ri Bekhor Shor, since the verse says,
And also its owners shall die, it must be referring to a situation in which the
owner of the ox is liable to the death penalty. In his view, we are talking about
a situation in which the owners free the ox with the intent that it will kill a
certain person. This is opposed to the view of the Sages, who explain And
also its owners shall die as a death penalty in the heavenly court. [21]
K.

Anti-Christian Commentaries

We have seen in previous lessons that there is a certain inclination by

biblical exegetes in medieval France to explain verses in terms of JewishChristian polemics. This is one of the causes of the development of the school
of peshat in 12th-century France; the dogged pursuit ofpeshat was motivated,
among other reasons, by the need for a response to the phenomenon of
Jewish-Christian polemics. One of the main claims of Christianity is that one
should explain the mitzvot in an allegorical way, so that the commandments
do not in fact have any pragmatic meaning. In order to contend with this claim,

the methodology of peshat was developed, which strips away the meaning of
the allegorical interpretations and gives the verses concrete significance. The
exegesis of peshat is based on the language and context of the verses, and in
this way, it counteracts the Christian interpretations of the Torah.
This tendency is prominent particularly in the commentaries of Ri
Bekhor Shor S. A. Poznanski writes:
Note that we see here that Ri Bekhor Shor dedicates a place in his
worldview to the matter of anti-Christian polemics. In fact, we find
interpretations in his works as a refutation of the sectarians more so
than all who precede him
He responds to almost all of the verses which the Christians cite as the
foundations of their religion, particularly those used to prove the
Doctrine of the Trinity
Thus, he will contend against the making of statues and images and
against Jesus being born without a father. [22]
We will bring a number of examples of this:
1. In his commentary to 19:1, And the two angels came to Sedom, Ri
Bekhor Shor gives a classically anti-Christian commentary:
And the two angels And from this verse is a refutation of the
sectarians who say that these three men were the Trinity, [23]as one may
refute them: if so, where is the third? There are only two parts, as it is
said, And the two angels, etc. Furthermore, it says, And God sent us
to destroy it now, which one sent? Are they not equal?
2. In 24:2, when it comes to Avraham making his servant swear by placing
his hand under his thigh, Ri Bekhor Shor writes this:
Now, the sectarians say that this was because of their shame that
Jesus came from there. But we may refute them: he was not conceived
from a man, according to their words, so they should have sworn on
the womb of a woman![24]
*
Let us complete this lecture with the poem that Ri Bekhor Shor writes
at the end of Parashat Bo:
He Who inclined His ear to His people and listened so,
To see it and know it as exiles pains did grow;
Heart torn, soul brought low,
Strength and power upon him you did bestow.
For you are its Redeemer, King and Savior, we know,
And you saved it from every evil and every blow.
As I complete the section of Bo el Paro.

Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] The source of the name is Moshes blessing to the tribe of Yosef (Devarim 33:17): The
firstborn ofhis ox (bekhor shoro) is his glory, and the horns of the aurochs are his horns; with
them he will gore together the ends of the earth. Apparently, R. Yosef used this appellation
himself. Thus we find, for example, in his commentary to Devarim 10:10: I, Bekhor Shor, give
a sign
[2] Scholars dispute whether the Ri ben R. Yitzchak (or the Ri of Orlans) mentioned by the
Tosafists is the same person as Ri Bekhor Shor. Most assume that they are identical; see E.
E. Urbach,Baalei Ha-Tosafot, pp. 132-140.
[3] Five of his poems have survived, most of which deal with the troubles of the Jewish nation
in exile and the anticipation of redemption. One of the most famous poems is recited as part
of the penitential prayers of Erev Rosh Hashana in Ashkenazic communities: Adon Moed KeTikach.
[4] A stunning example of his talent can be found in the concluding poem of Parashat Vayera,
which begins with the words Vayera elav. In this six-line poem, Ri Bekhor Shor uses six
different definition of the word elav or eilav:
My God will builds its porticos and its lintelsabove [part of the Temple, mentioned in
juxtaposition with the doorposts; see I Melakhim6:31];
His powerful and his mighty ones [seeYechezkel 17:13] assemble in the court thereof.
And we will offer there, before Him, His lambs andHis rams like a turtledove.
His terebinths and His oaks [see Yeshayahu1:29] will bear fruit in love,
And the fatlings of the flock wear its tallow like a glove,
As I complete the section of Vayera elav."
[5] See lessons 8-10.
[6] There is no doubt that the impetus for his explanation is Jewish-Christian polemics, and Ri
Bekhor Shor is challenging here the Doctrine of the Trinity, as he writes in the continuation of
the story (19:1):
And the two angels And from this verse is a refutation of the sectarians who say
that these three men were the Trinity; one may refute them: If so, where is the third?
There are only two parts, as it is said, And the two angels.
See also R. Avraham ibn Ezras commentary to 18:1.
[7] Perhaps Ri Bekhor Shor alludes here that in fact his view is that the truth lies with the view
of the Sages, but he is compelled to explain according to the peshat because of his
opposition to the Christians.
[8] As it is stated in the next verse, And Yisrael said to Yosef, I may die this time, after I have
seen your face, for you are still alive.
[9] See lessons 8 and 10.
[10] That is, Yitzchak said in his heart, to himself.
[11] A gauntlet, the glove that medieval knights were accustomed to wear, was, for the most
part, made of metal.
[12] In the continuation of the passage of circumcision, he explains the punishment of
excision for someone who violates the covenant (17:14): According to the simple meaning,
he will be cut off and excised from the others that are marked as my servants; he is not
marked, so he cannot be reckoned as my servant.
[13] Ri Bekhor Shor assumes that we are talking about glowing embers, not ashes from a
long-dead fire in a furnace that has cooled.
[14] The issue of strengthening the miracle is not mentioned here, but this is what his words
imply.
[15] See also his commentary to Vayikra 2:13:
Everyone knows that God does not need any aroma or any act of offering, but it is for
Israels benefit. When one sins and brings an offering, he achieves atonement and knows
that he is clean; consequently, he is more careful about avoiding dirtying himself with sin,
just like a man who has clean clothes avoids mud, but when they are filthy, he does not
care
[16] See Kiddushin 39a, Sanhedrin 60a, and particularly Yerushalmi Kilayim 1:7.

[17] The word means to give a tribute (doron), and it seems to me that Ri Bekhor Shor
invented this conjugation, le-hadrin. See also his commentary toBamidbar 8:11.
[18] See lecture 10.
[19] We should not see in this any inconsistency: the sharp opposition of Ri Bekhor Shor to
the commentary of the Rashbam on the mitzva oftefillin does not emerge from the fact that
the Rashbam opposes the halakhic ruling, but from the fact that the Rashbam explains a
practical mitzva in an allegorical way. Ri Bekhor Shor spends a great deal of time combatting
Christianity, which explains all of the mitzvot in an allegorical manner, which motivates his
opposition to the above-mentioned commentary of the Rashbam. See below in this essay.
[20] I have heard many teachers and students err about this law, believing that Hebrew slaves
are freed in the sabbatical year, while Halakha mandates that each goes free in the seventh
year of his servitude. Perhaps the source of their error is the universal emancipation of slaves
in the jubilee year; from this, they applied the freeing of servants to the sabbatical year.
[21] Even in cases which are similar to those presented by Ri Bekhor Shor; see the
Rambam,Hilkhot Rotzeiach U-Shemirat Ha-Nefesh 2:13, 3:11.
[22] S.A. Poznanski, Mavo al Chokhmei Tzarfat Mefarshei Ha-Mikra (Jerusalem, 5725), p.
LXIX.
[23] That is, the Christian Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[24] See also his commentary to Devarim 6:8.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #12:
Summary of Exegesis of Northern France
Introduction to Spanish Exegesis
A.

The Peshat School in 12th Century France

Over the past few lessons, we have become familiar with the school of
northern French[1] exegetes of the 12th century, and in the next few, we will
address the exegetical school that developed in Spain. Before proceeding, we
will summarize the exegetical path of the northern French exegetes, the men
of the peshat school. The peshat school was founded by Rashi, who wrote his
commentary according to the way of peshat alongside the Sages
interpretations. Those who followed in his footsteps R. Yosef (Mahari)
Kara, student-colleague of Rashi; the Rashbam, Rashis grandson; and R.
Yosef Bekhor Shor of Orlans[2] took this idea ofpeshat to an extreme,
shunning use of the Sages words for purposes of biblical interpretation.
The peshat school in northern France lasted for a short period of about
a century. The critical literature has raised a number of hypotheses as to the
causes of the development of the school during this period. M. Z. Segal
claims that there is a connection between the involvement of these scholars in
Talmudic interpretation and the nature of their biblical exegesis:
It appears that this compulsion comes from the study of the Talmud,
specifically the halakhic section of it, which flourished among them
during these years. It is no coincidence that the great pashtan of
Talmudic explication, Rashi, is also the firstpashtan of Scripture.
Rashis students and study partners Rabbi Shemaya, [3] the
Rashbam, and Ri Bekhor Shor were also great Talmudic

commentators. They were compelled to study Talmud according to the

way of peshat, because the correct and direct understanding of the
Talmudic text was exigent for them in order to extract practical
Halakha. Since the Talmud and Scripture were for them the two sides
of one Torah, they applied their methodology of studying Talmud to
studying Scripture, and they used the same tools for understanding
Scripture which they had used in order to understand the Talmud, i.e.,
evaluating the words according to the demands of the language and
explaining the matter in a way faithful to the sequence of the text and
clear logic.[4]
Segal
believes that
the
impetus
for the
development
th
of peshat exegesis in the 12 century was internal, coming from the Jewish
community, and it was influenced by the Talmudic methodology that
demanded a disciplined approach based on the explanation of the text by the
techniques ofpeshat, with the intent of applying this exacting reading in the
practical world. In contrast, O. Limor believes that the impetus was cultural
and external to the Jewish community, connected to the 12 th Century
Renaissance, which helped to define the period of the High Middle Ages:
Around the year 1100, an innovative cultural movement which
historians call the Renaissance began. The center of the movement
was in northern France, and it was expressed in many domains of
cultural creativity, among which was studying and interpreting
Scripture. This movement manifested itself both in the Christian
majority and the Jewish minority, each one of them according to its
characteristics and its ways. Both the activity of Rashis students and
the activity of the Victorines [5] should be seen as part of this
Renaissance, as the spirit of innovation and critical thinking finds its
expression here in biblical commentary. In this sphere, we find that
they have specifically those qualities which one may find among the
scholars who dealt with classical literature: textual criticism,
consideration of the context, and rational thought. Similarly, one may
find among the scholars of both camps the same issues being
discussed: criticism of the past versus the authority of the past, as well
as the attempt to pursue independent thought and objective truth,
actively and consistently.[6]
It is important to stress that Limor does not claim that the specific
contents and tools of the exegesis of peshat were based on Christian culture;
rather, she maintains that this type of study, according to the way
of peshat, was influenced by the methods of study developed by the Christian
Church.[7]
Once we have examined the peshatexegesis of 12th-century France
and the factors which contributed to its development, we must ask the
following question: Why did this school last for such a short time? Why, after
the 12th century, do we not find another pashtan in northern France? The
answer is the persecution of French Jewry in the 13 th and 14thcenturies. This
persecution included, among other things, the Crusades and the burning of

the Talmud in Paris in 1242, reaching its climax with the expulsion of Jews
from France in 1306. The difficult conditions of persecution destroyed the
spiritual and material status of French Jewry, and they prevented the
continuous development of Torah creativity.[8] Granted, we still find a few
interpretations of the Torah in France after the 12 th century, but these
interpretations are mainly a collection of previous commentaries. [9]
Thus, the period of the exegesis in northern France was brief, but it
had great significance on the development of this type of exegesis and on
Torah scholars throughout the generations. Now, let us turn to a description of
Jewish biblical exegesis in Spain in the 11th and 12thcenturies.
B.

The Golden Age of Spain

In the year 711 C.E., Spain was conquered by the Muslims. With the
stability of Muslim rule, the Golden Age of Spanish Jewry began. This era was
characterized mainly by two phenomena. First, court Jews [10] held key
positions in the service of the caliphs.[11] Second, there was a flourishing of
culture, spirituality, and Torah throughout the Jewish community in Spain. This
boom was expressed in many major spheres of Jewish creativity: biblical
commentary, halakhic literature, poetry (both holy and mundane), Hebrew
grammar, Jewish philosophy, and Kabbala.
There is no doubt that these two phenomena namely the honored
status of the sages of Spanish Jewry in the centers of power and the cultural
development of the Jewish community influenced each other. This period
was one in which unique individuals could flourish rabbis and intellectuals
who were well-integrated in society and the developing Arabic culture, which
included, among other things, delving into Arabic philosophy (influenced by
Greek philosophy), developing science, and studying philology.
Indeed, Muslim culture served as both an example and as a stimulus
for Jewish scholars. These sages used the model of enlightened Islam to
forge the tools and devices to become the first Hebrew grammarians [12] and
biblical exegetes. At the same time, they sought to contend with the Muslim
faith in the battle for religious primacy. Due to their greater political power and
numbers, the Muslims clearly had the upper hand; nevertheless, in cultural
terms, there was certainly a chance for the Jews to prove the superiority of
their religion. For this purpose, the sages of Israel enlisted the best of Arabic
culture developed in Spain. They used the tools of philology and linguistics to
develop the research of biblical language based of the three-consonant root
(the Arabic model), and from this sprang many grammatical books and Arabic
dictionaries. Furthermore, they wrote beautiful poetry, which borrowed its
meter from Arabic poetry and its expression and language from Tanakh.
This culture left its mark on Jewish exegesis of Spain. However,
despite these influences, which were external to the community, there was
another characteristic of Spanish Jewry that also influenced the biblical
commentators, albeit indirectly the relationship to the Talmud. In Spain, a
new genre of Jewish writing was created and developed, the literature of

halakhic codes, developed by R. Yitzchak ibn Ghiyyat [13] and R. Yitzchak

Alfasi. In this literature, the methodology is to present to the student the
halakhic conclusion, in its most pragmatic form, disconnected from the
Talmudic analysis. This changed irrevocably the importance of study for the
reader, since using these texts, one could reach a halakhic conclusion even
without a throughout knowledge of the Talmud. Professor U. Simon expands
on this:
Using this literature, it became possible for the first time in our history
to achieve a reasonable proficiency in Halakha without dedicating
oneself to long and deep study of the Talmud. This breakthrough not
only freed spiritual energy for the construction of that multi-branched
culture mainly based on Scripture, but it allowed also emancipation
from the Sages exegesis, while being faithful to Halakha. Thus it
happened that theGeonim of Babylonia at one end and the greats of
northern France at the other gave their power to Scripture and Talmud.
At the same time, the first linguistic scholars (such as R. Yehuda
Hayyuj and R. Yona ibn Janach) and biblical scholars (such as R.
Moshe ibn Gikatilla and R. Avraham ibn Ezra) arose on Spanish soil.
These luminaries did not innovate anything in the Talmudic arena, and
they even minimized their use of the Sages interpretations and
derivations in clarifying the meaning of the verses They could allow
themselves to ignore the literature of halakhic Midrash because they
were confident in their interpretive ability to reconcile the halakhic ruling
with the simple meaning of the verses.[14]
An additional result of being disconnected from the Sages
interpretations, also characteristic of the Spanish sages of this era, was a
stunning expertise in the twenty-four books ofTanakh. This great proficiency is
the result of the freeing of energies from studying Talmud in order to delve into
Scripture. This encyclopedic knowledge is expressed in the integration of
verses and verse fragments in the writings of these commentators, as well as
their use of biblical wordplay.
Unfortunately, the writings of most biblical commentators of this era
were lost, mainly because they were written in Judeo-Arabic. Thus, for
example, the commentary of R. Moshe ben Shmuel Ha-Kohen ibn Gikatilla
(middle of the 11th century), who was a poet, linguist, and biblical
commentator, was lost to posterity. Of his biblical interpretations (written in
Arabic), only some citations have survived. Another important exegete was R.
Yehuda ben Shmuel ibn Balaam (second half of the 11thcentury), who was
also a linguist and biblical commentator. All of his writings were written in
Arabic;
from
his
commentaries
on
the
Torah,
only
those
onBamidbar and Devarim have survived.
The Golden Age reached its end with the invasion of extremist
Muslims, who founded the Almohad Caliphate in southern Spain in the middle
of the 12th century. After this conquest, the Jews of the area were ordered to
convert to Islam. Some of them fled south to North Africa, but most of them
relocated to northern Spains Christian principalities.

Despite the destruction of southern (Arabic) Spanish Jewry, the

influence of the Golden Age extended far beyond its limitations of time and
space. The sages of Spain who were compelled to abandon their homes
wandered penniless, but they brought with them treasures of wisdom which
they had acquired in the land of their birth. From the second half of the
12thcentury, we find the development of Judaism in Arabic in the realms of
Christian Spain, under the influence of R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yehuda Halevi, and R. Yehuda Alharizi.
C.

The Distinction Between the Schools

We can summarize the distinctions between the biblical exegesis of

northern France and the biblical exegesis of Spain in the following way: The
Jewish exegetes of northern France based their approaches, for the most
part, on sources and ideas from Jewish tradition, which we may describe as
internal concepts. These are not based at all on the ideas and outlooks of the
Christian culture amidst which the exegetes resided. (As we stated above,
even according to those who believe that the methodology of peshat was
influenced by Christianity, the contents and the tools were certainly not drawn
from Christianity.) In contrast, the Jewish exegetes of Muslim Spain drew their
tools from internal sources as well as external sources. The many domains to
which the scholars of Spain had been exposed left their mark on the character
of the Spanish commentaries.
In the sphere of biblical commentary, the main representative of the
Golden Age was R. Avraham ibn Ezra, and we will dedicate the coming
lectures to his commentary.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] It is important to distinguish between northern France and southern France (Provence).
Provenal exegesis was much closer to that of Spain, as we will see in the coming lessons.
[2] To this group we may add R. Eliezer of Beaugency, who also lived in the 12 th century in
northern France. He presumably composed commentaries to all of Scripture, but only his
commentaries to Yeshayahu, Yechezkel, and Trei Asar have survived. R. Eliezer of
Beaugency is one of the most extreme exegetes of peshat in 12thcentury France. While the
Rashbam and Mahari Kara feel a need to explain their relationship to the Sages, R. Eliezer
does not feel the need to apologize for his relationship to the Sages.
[3] R. Shemaya was one of the most important of Rashis students, as well as his scribe.
[4] M. Z. Segal, Parshanut Ha-Mikra, pp. 61-62.
[5] This was an important medieval school of monks from the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris.
Some of these monks devoted their lives to the study and interpretation of Scripture. In the
12th century, the Victorines began to study the Bible according to thepeshat. Until this period,
the general tendency of biblical commentary by Christians had been allegorical: the Christians
preferred the symbolic, spiritual interpretation, and they scorned the literal interpretation. The
monks of the Abbey of St. Victor stressed the importance of studying the Bible literally and
delved into it. They did not reject the allegorical interpretation; rather, they claimed that one
should understand the literary significance, and only afterwards should one pass to the
allegorical interpretation.

[6] O. Limor, Parshanut Ha-Mikra Ba-Meia Ha-12, in Bein Yehudim Le-Notzerim (Open
University: Tel-Aviv, 5753), vol. IV p. 61.
[7] A similar phenomenon exists, according to a number of critics, in Talmudic commentary as
well. See E. E. Urbach, Baalei Ha-Tosafot, pp. 744-52; Yisrael M. Ta-Shma, Ha-Sifrut HaParshanit La-Talmud, Vol. I, pp. 93-117.
[8] Here as well there is a similar phenomenon found among the Talmudic commentators (for
the same reasons); see Urbach, ibid., pp. 521-2.
[9] Two examples are Daat Zekenim and Hadar Zekeinim, the authors of which are unknown.
[10]Court Jews were courtiers who were close to the king and had high positions. For
example, Chasdai ibn Shaprut was appointed physician to thecaliph Abd ar-Rahman III of
Cordoba (912-961), and the warrior and poet R. Shmuel Ha-Nagid moved toGranada, where
he was first tax collector, then a secretary, and finally an assistant vizier to the Berber
king Habbus al-Muzaffar.
[11] This was a term for the political leader in Muslim lands; the English caliph comes from
the Arabic title "Khalifat Rasul Allah," the successor of the messenger of God, Muhammad.
[12] These were Dunash ben Labrat, Menachem ben Saruk, and Yosef ibn Janach.
[13] He was an 11th-century halakhic authority who composed a code of law.
[14] Encyclopedia Mikrait, Tanakh Parshanut, p. 660.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #13:
R. Avraham ibn Ezra, Part I
A.

BIOGRAPHY

General Background
R. Abu Ish q Avraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (1089-1164), known
simply as Ibn Ezra, was born inTudela, Spain. Ibn Ezra was educated in the
Spanish approach, the guiding principle of which was that in order to reach
the ultimate truth, it is incumbent upon a person to be familiar with and
understand all areas of human knowledge. Consequently, Ibn Ezra was
renowned as a poet, grammarian, philosopher, astronomer, physician, and
mathematician.
Ibn Ezra was extremely poor for most his life, and he earned his
meager living by tutoring the children of wealthy nobles and composing books
for them. This arises from his words in his introduction to the Book ofEikha:
These books of mine, in my exile, were holding my hands in other words,
writing these books allowed him to make a living. It appears that Ibn Ezra
succeeded in dealing with his difficulties with a sense of humor, as he
describes his fate in a sardonic way.[1]
The periods of his life may be split in two, the first lasting until 1140
and the second from that point until his death.
His Early Years

In the first part of his life, ibn Ezra lived in Spain (although he visited
Algeria and elsewhere in North Africa). Ibn Ezra, as we have noted, like his
Golden Age colleagues, received a wide-ranging education. On the one hand,
he acquired great expertise in the works of great Jewish minds throughout the
generations; on the other hand, he was also fluent in Arabic, and he was
involved in the rich Muslim culture, its literature and its scientific innovations.
During this period, he wrote mainly secular poetry.
Ibn Ezra had a family in Spain, but we know very little about his family.
As far as we know, he had five children.[2] His wife and four of his children
died at a young age while he was still in Spain. His surviving son, Yitzchak,
became known in his own right as a poet. Yitzchak was a close friend of R.
Yehuda Ha-Levi, and in the year 1140, when R. Yehuda Ha-Levi moved to
Israel, Rabbi Yitzchak joined him. He later settled in Baghdad and apparently
converted to Islam.
Leaving Spain and Moving to Italy
The second period of Ibn Ezras life began in the year 1140. In this
year, Ibn Ezra started living a life of wandering throughout Christian Spain.
During this period, he composed most of his books.
The reason for this departure was apparently the conquest of Muslim
Spain by the Almohads.[3] In 1140, the Almohads initiated a cruel occupation,
which compelled Jews to convert to Islam or face murder or expulsion. Ibn
Ezra left Spain for Rome, a city of scholars[4] and a wealth of books. Ibn
Ezras departure was clearly under circumstances of haste and fear.[5]The
destruction of Spanish Jewry and their rich legacy is lamented by ibn Ezra in
his dirge Ahah Yarad al Sefarad:
Alas! The rain / upon Spain / from heaven was foul.
Greatly distressed / stood the West / hands trembling, to howl
The Torah was withdrawn, the Holy Writ gone / and the Mishna was
hidden;
And the Talmud / barren stood / for all its glory was overridden
Cordoba was stunned / and wholly abandoned / became like the seas
desolation.
The names of the sages / and warriors for the ages / died in famine
and privation
Jews in medieval Europe did not know Arabic, and ibn Ezra took upon
himself the task of translating the works of the Spanish scholars, with a
twofold aim: supporting himself financially by doing the translation and
maintaining Spanish culture even after its destruction. Ibn Ezra saw himself as
having a central role in keeping the cultural tradition of Spain alive.
Not only did Ibn Ezra translate the three grammatical treatises of R.
Yehuda ibn Hayyuj from Arabic to Hebrew, he also composed books of
grammar for European Jews, after he saw personally how their knowledge of
Hebrew was not sufficient.

Ibn Ezra acquired some admirers in Italy, who respected his works
and recognized their worth (although simultaneously, some opponents took
great exception to his interpretations and labeled them as heresy). For his
own part, Ibn Ezra was less than impressed by the compositions of his new
acquaintances in Europe. In his commentary to Kohelet (5:1),[6]he criticizes in
his caustic way the poetic style imported from the Land of Israel, which
influenced the lands of Ashkenazic Jewry. Instead, he provides the reader
with specific guidelines for writing poems; he also stresses the importance of
being precise[7] with the Hebrew language, and he complains of the faltering
speech of Ashkenazic Jews.[8]
While he lived in Italy, ibn Ezra composed a number of works; among
them was his Peirush Ha-katzar to the Torah (which we will deal with
presently), his commentary to Neviim (which was lost, aside from his
commentary to Yeshayahu), and a book dealing with the calendar, SeferHaibbur. Ibn Ezra did not stay very long in Rome,[9] and he ended up wandering
through different towns in northern Italy.
The Life of Ibn Ezra in France
From Italy, ibn Ezra wandered to southern France in 1148. It may be
that the cause of this peregrination was the influence of the Second Crusade
on the Jews of Italy. Although the Crusades did not pass through Italy per se,
the initiative for this Crusade came out of Italy, and it therefore may be that
some Italian Jews emigrated because of the intensification of anti-Semitism.
[10] It is possible that he did not feel sufficiently appreciated in Italy, [11]but it is
also possible that he felt responsibility to transfer to other lands the traditions
of Spain.
In southern France, Ibn Ezra encountered a community which was
excited by his innovations and appreciated his contributions. The translator
Yehuda ibn Tibbon describes the influence of ibn Ezras writings on the Jews
of southern France:[12]
But the exiles in France [13] and throughout the borders of the Edomites
lands did not know Hebrew and they held these books[14] as sealed
tomes until the sage R. Avraham ibn Ezra arrived in their lands and
helped them in this respect with his brief compositions, including many
precious and valuable matters in them Thereafter, some of them
followed this discipline, and they occupied themselves a bit in it. Then I
encountered those who diligently are at its doors, who travel by its
lights; men began to seek it, and they tasted of its sweetness, and
when they saw that their eyes would light up, their ears opened up and
they were drawn after it. Thus, they desired to understand its
literature
During this period, ibn Ezra composed some
compositions in the disciplines of astrology and astronomy.[15]

wide-ranging

In the year 1152, Ibn Ezra once again took the wanderers staff into his
hand and moved to northern France. It appears that he arrived in the city of
Dreux in northern France and fell ill there. [16] Ibn Ezra vowed that if he would
rise from his sickbed, he would go back and interpret the Torah a second time.
Indeed, after he recuperated, Ibn Ezra wrote a new commentary on the
Torah, Peirush Ha-arokh.[17]
At the time of his sojourn in northern France, Ibn Ezra apparently
merited the great respect of the major scholars of northern France, Rabbeinu
Tam and Rashbam. One may learn of Rabbenu Tams great evaluation of Ibn
Ezra from the exchange of poetry among the two. This exchange actually
began because of Ibn Ezras criticism of Rabbenu Tams poetic abilities:
What gall brings the Gaul in verses abode?
Like a stranger in the temple, no fear to tread.
Were Yaakov to make sweet as the manna his ode,
I am the sun that melts his heavenly bread. [18]
Rabbeinu Tam responded:
The Abiezrite may still the thought that springs,
That his comrade touched between his wings;
I am the servant of Avraham, his property,
And I bow and prostrate before him in all things.[19]
In his response to Rabbeinu Tam, Ibn Ezra expresses his humility, and
he recognizes Rabbeinu Tams superiority:
Is it right for the bull of Gods people, their shepherd prized
To bow his head in a missive to the peoples most despised?
Heaven forfend that Gods own angel
Should bow and prostrate before Bilam chastised. [20]
While in France, Ibn Ezra wrote additional commentaries to some of
theKetuvim. He also produced a number of compositions dealing with
mathematics,[21]astrology, and astronomy. In 1158, he moved to England, and
there he lived until his death in 1164.[22]
Ibn Ezra, Renaissance Man
Despite his difficult and peripatetic life, Ibn Ezra composed dozens of
books, more than one thousand poems, mathematical and biblical riddles,
[23]
and various exercises of wit.[24]
It may be that the riddles were composed by Ibn Ezra when he was
lonely or during his wanderings, whether because of the need to dispel his
boredom or because of the need to challenge himself in the absence of
intellectual equals. However, Ibn Ezra was not only a sharp-tongued thinker;
he was a believing Jew, with a passionate love for his people and his Creator,
for the Torah and its commandments. Two elements that of the man of

science and the man of spirit have left their mark very deeply on the
different compositions of Ibn Ezra.[25]
We will finish this biography with a quote from Professor Simons
introduction to his edition of Ibn Ezras Yesod Mora:[26]
In absolute contrast to his difficult and miserable personal life, his
intellectual life was rich. He was a poet and liturgist of great stature, an
innovative and authoritative astronomer, a sought-after astrologer. He
was is an expert in mathematics and the Hebrew calendar, a
grammarian and a linguist, a man of intellect and thought, and above
all, the greatest of the biblical commentators throughout the
generations.
B.

Survey of His Commentaries

Ibn
Ezra
wrote
commentaries
on
the
Torah,
the
Five Megillot, Yeshayahu, Trei Asar, Tehillim, Iyov, and Daniel. It appears from
his words that he wrote commentaries to other books of Tanakh as well, but
they have been lost.[27] As we noted above, he wrote two commentaries to the
Torah,Peirush Ha-katzar and Peirush Ha-arokh, the Short and Long
Commentary. PeirushHa-katzar was written first, and after a number of years,
he produced Peirush Ha-arokh, from which there remain only fragments
on Bereishit and the entirety onShemot.[28]
Ibn Ezras commentaries, unlike those of the commentators of
northern France, are difficult to comprehend. There are a number of reasons
for this. First, it may be that these are summaries of lectures that he
presented to his students, and the text therefore displays extreme terseness.
Second, Ibn Ezra was the first of the commentators of Spain to write in
Hebrew, and he was therefore sometimes compelled to coin phrases and
expressions that have not endured in the Hebrew language and are thus
unintelligible today. In addition, Ibn Ezra believed that some interpretations
should be kept secret, and he therefore wrote them in a sort of code. Because
of
the
difficulties
of
understanding
his
explanation,
various
supercommentaries were composed very soon after Ibn Ezra wrote his
commentary.
C.

Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah

As opposed to the French commentators, the sages of Spain were

accustomed to writing introductions to their compositions. In Ibn Ezras
introduction to his commentary (written in rhyme), ibn Ezra presents the
different approaches to biblical interpretation followed by the commentators of
previous generations. He voices strong criticism of these approaches, and in
the end, he presents his own path. In order to understand his method, we
must first survey the interpretive options that Ibn Ezra rejects.
The first approach is the way of the scholars of Spanish yeshivot, such
as R. Shmuel ben Chofni, R. Yitzchak Ha-yisraeli, and R. Saadia Gaon, who

weave philosophical views into their commentaries on the Torah. Ibn Ezra has
no problem with external wisdom he himself includes many diverse
disciplines in his writings, and he claims that they are essential in order to
understand the Torah. Rather, the main argument of Ibn Ezra is that in the
framework of a straight commentary on the Torah - that is, an interpretation
based on peshat - one should not expand upon or explore philosophical
questions, since they do not contribute to our understanding of the verses and
the readers do not understand the philosophical debate:
One way is long and broad again,
Beyond our contemporaries ken
And one who wants to understand external science,
Let him learn from books by men of understanding and reliance
We should note that despite the fact that Ibn Ezra rejects this path, in
a number of places Ibn Ezra himself presents long and convoluted
philosophical or scientific analysis.[29]
The second way is that of the Karaites, who deny the tradition of the
Oral Torah. Ibn Ezra fights against the Karaites with all of his power, and in his
commentary he works hard to prove that there are many commandments
which cannot be understood without the Sages traditions: [30]
The second view chosen by the twisted
And this is the way of Anan and Binyamin,[31] like the Sadducees,
As well as ben Mashiach, [32]Yeshua,[33] and all who voice heresies.
The scribes words they treat with spite,
And each inclines to the left or to the right.
Every man as he wants interprets each clause,
Both in the commandments and in the laws
How shall they rely in commands on what their notions have wrought,
Each moment veering to and fro by their thought;
For in the Torah you will not find
Even one commandment fully defined
This shows us that Moshe relied on the oral tradition,
Which provides the heart joy and balm for our condition,
For there is naught between the oral and written teaching;
They both are our patrimony, beyond impeaching
The third way is the way of those who understand the Torah as
allegory. Ibn Ezra mainly opposes this as a path leading to Christianity:
The third way is one of darkness and murk
In all things, they see secrets as they piddle,
Believing that the Torah and its rules are a riddle;
I decline to address at length their arts,
For they are a people of wayward hearts (Tehillim 95:10).
Ibn Ezra believes that one may use allegory only when there is no
other way to interpret the verse: [34]

If logic forces one to deny it,

If the pure senses[35] make one defy it,
Then we must seek out the transcendental,
For common sense[36] is the fundamental.
The Torah was not for the unintelligent designed,
And the emissary between man and God is his mind.
As long as ones intellect does not reject it,
We must explain the verse simply and thus respect it.
The fourth way is that of the homiletic exegetes in Christian lands, who
do not relate to the peshat of the verses, instead following the Midrashic
approach. This is superfluous, as the Sages have already done this, and there
is no need to reinvent the wheel:
This is the way of the sages in the lands of the Edomites and the
Greeks
Who do not give weight to grammatical techniques
Now since we have found in the ancient books this lore
Why should the latter-day scholars do this anymore?
To describe his own interpretive path (which we will analyze in the
coming lecture, God willing), ibn Ezra uses the metaphor of the point inside a
circle. The point symbolizes the straight interpretation, the truth, and
everything else radiates out from it. For example, the Christian path is outside
the circle entirely, but the fourth way is very close to the center.

Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] The most prominent example is the poem which Ibn Ezra composed describing the
advantages of his worn cloak (brought here in part):
I have a cloak which is like a sieve;
To winnow wheat or barley, I could give.
I will spread it out for a tent at evenfall,
And the stars above will put light in it, as I live.
His lack of fortune in every profession he turned to is described in a magnificent poem as well
(brought here in part):
Constellations and stars in their state,
To my birthplace, they incline as they rise.
Were candles to be my merchandise,
The sun would not be taken in until my demise.
I try to succeed, but I am not able,
For they have wronged me, the stars of my skies.
Were I a merchant of burial shrouds,
As I live, no man dies.
[2] This is what he mentions in his commentary onShemot 2:2.
[3] See lesson #12.
[4] The most famous of them was the author of theArukh, R. Natan ben R. Yechiel.
[5] Echoes of this may be found in his poems in the introductions to the Megillot:

From his land they did banish,

From the realms of the Spanish;
To Rome he did vanish
With a fainting soul.
(Introduction to Kohelet)
And I am Avraham son of Meir, from distant lands.
He took me out from the land of Spain, the wrathful oppressors hands.
(Introduction to Eikha)
[6] In his commentary to the Five Megillot, he indicates that these are the first commentaries
which he composed to Scripture.
[7] Ibn Ezra opposed and considered inferior the style of R. Eliezer Ha-Kalir (Eretz
Yisrael poet of the 6th century), which the European scholars imitated. It may that Ibn Ezras
criticism was the cause of the removal of Ha-Kalirs poems from Sephardic and Eastern
prayer books. They were replaced by the poets of Spain, including Ibn Ezra himself, as well
as those of R. Shlomo ibn Gabirol and Moshe Ibn Ezra.
[8] This is what he writes:
We are obligated to know the grammar of the language, so that we will not make a
mistake. For example, there are those who say the Grace After Meals and pronounce the
word zunenu, but they do not know that zanenu is from the root zana (to stray), just as
anenu comes from ana (to answer). They do not realize that the root is zan (to
provide food), for zunenu is comparable to (Tehillim 85:5): Restore us again (shuvenu),
O God of our salvation.
[9] It may be that sharp criticism of the views of his predecessors brought about a dispute with
the sages of Rome.
[10] Ibn Ezra, as a child of Spanish Jewry and a wanderer in France, was familiar with the
anti-Semitism of both Muslims and Christians. He writes in his well-known poem Tzama
Nafshi:
See, the true mistress [Judaism]
While the maidservant does stress [Namely Hagar, the mother of Yishmael]
It is your child who is lifeless [Islam claims that the Jewish nation is not the chosen
people, that it is the dead child; see I Melakhim 3:22-23]
And my child who lives [They claim that Islam is the chosen faith]
Is this not your portion from the start? [The nation of Israel is Gods portion For Gods
portion is his people, Devarim 32:9)
Seek out his bloods part! [Seek to avenge the blood of Israel]
Pour wrath on the head of the living goat. [Seek the blood of Israel from the Christians,
symbolized by a goat. The Christian Church is seen by the Sages as the successor to
Edom, founded by Esav, who was known as ish sair in Bereishit 27:11, which can
be translated as hirsute man or hircine man]
[11] As he wrote in his poem, Nedod Hesir Oni:
There is no glory among the Edomites,
For any scholar who there alights,
In the land of the Kedarites.
And they hoot at us.
[12] Yehuda ibn Tibbon (1120-1190) is often called the father of the translators. Among the
important compositions which he translated from Arabic to Hebrew are R. Saadia
Gaons Emunot Ve-Deot, Bachya ibn Paqudas Chovot Ha-levavot, and R. Yehuda HaLevis Sefer Ha-kuzari. In his youth, when he was thirty years old, he had to leave his
birthplace Granada for Provence in southern France; it seems that he left because of the
Almohad invasion. He apparently knew Ibn Ezra in Spain, and afterwards encountered him
once again in France.
[13] Citing Ovadia 1:20. The Tzarfat and Sefarad mentioned in this verse are most
probably not France and Spain, as they have been used respectively for the past millennium
in Hebrew, but rather places in North Africa and Asia Minor.
[14] This is a reference to the grammarians R. Yehuda ben Hayyuj, Yona ibn Janach, and R.
Shmuel Ha-Nagid.
[15] His astronomical works were famous from the 13 th to the 15th centuries; Sefer HaIbbur andReishit Chokhma were translated into Latin, Spanish, and French. For this reason,
the lunar crater Abenezra (21.0S 11.9E) was named after him. (I thank my brother Avraham
Poupko for this point.)

[16] It may be that his illness was the result of his extensive travels at an advanced age.
[17] This is what he writes in his introduction toPeirush Ha-Arokh (in HaKeter edition, Bereishit, vol. I, p. 27): I made a vow to God in my illness to explain the law
given on Mount Sinai.
[18] This means the following:
What gall brings the Gaul in verses abode? [What makes this Frenchman, Rabbeinu
Tam, think he can write poetry?]
Like a stranger in the temple, no fear to tread. {Rabbeinu Tam is trampling the holy
precincts of poetry]
Were Yaakov to make sweet as the manna his ode [If Rabbeinu Yaakov Tam would write
poetry as sweet as manna]
I am the sun that melts his heavenly bread. [Then Ibn Ezra will take the role of the midday
sun, melting the manna, as described inShemot 16:21; i.e., Ibn Ezras poetical abilities
far exceed those of Rabbeinu Tam)
[19] This means the following:
The Abiezrite may still the thought that springs [Ibn Ezra may rest at ease]
That his comrade touched between his wings [That his friend has stolen his occupation]
I am the servant of Avraham, his property [Rabbeinu Tam sees R. Avraham ibn Ezra as
his master, referencing the eponymous patriarch in Bereishit 23:18 and 24:34)
And I bow and prostrate before him in all things [Rabbeinu Tam concedes that Ibn Ezra
has the greater skills]
[20] This means the following:
Is it right for the bull of Gods people, their shepherd prized [Avir, bull is used as a term for
the patriarch Yaakov, Bereishit 49:24; here it refers to Rabbeinu Tam, the bull of Gods
people and their shepherd]
To bow his head in a missive to the peoples most despised? [To humble himself before
the lowly Ibn Ezra]
Heaven forfend that Gods own angel [a term of honor for Rabbeinu Tam]
Should bow and prostrate before Bilam chastised.
Since Rabbeinu Tam concluded with the words And I bow and prostrate before him, words
based on Bilams self-effacement before the angel of God in Bamidbar 22:31, Ibn Ezra
compares himself to Bilam and Rabbeinu Tam to the angel of God.
[21] It is accepted among researchers that the decimal numeral system, which had been
known for ages in India, first appeared in Europe in Ibn Ezras writings. The following comes
from Ibn Ezras"Sefer Ha-mispar", describing the number zero:
Now, if he does not have any one, but he does have in the next level, i.e., the tens, he
should put a circular symbol first, to indicate that in the first level there are none, and then
he should write the number of tens afterwards.
[22] It is told of ibn Ezra that in the year of his death, he jokingly applied the following verse to
himself (Bereishit 12:4): And Avraham was seventy five years old when he left Charan the
city; he said, And Avraham was seventy five years old when he left charon the furious
wrath of the world.
[23] Here are two of his riddles:
What is the name which has the quality,
That the fourth is a fourth of the third,
And the second is a tenth of the fourth,
And the first to the second is a fifth?
The answer is Aharon (alef-heh-reish-nun), and the values are based on gematria:
That the fourth is a fourth of the third the fourth letter (nun = 50) has a value which is
one quarter of the third letter (reish = 200).
And the second is a tenth of the fourth the second letter (heh = 5) has a value which
is a tenth of the fourth letter (nun = 50).
And the first to the second is a fifth and the first letter ( alef = 1) is a value which is a
fifth of the second letter.
An additional riddle:
In a country without soil,
From knights to the blood royal,
They walk with no toil.
If the king is made spoil,
All shuffle off this mortal coil.

This is description of chess.

[24] Ibn Ezra loved palindromes. Consider the following examples:
? , ,
(My father, named Living God, why will the King Messiah not come?)
. ,
(Know from your Father that I will certainly not tarry; I will certainly return to you when the
appointed time comes.)
[25] See his commentary to the verse (Shemot31:3), And I fill him with the spirit of God, with
wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge, in every discipline, which describes Betzalel:
Betzalel was filled with every subject of mathematics, algebra, geometry, astronomy,
science, and the secrets of the soul. He had an advantage over all of the men of his
generation: he knew every discipline, while many of the wise of heart did not know even
one discipline. This is why it says, in every discipline.
It appears that ibn Ezra is actually describing himself.
[26] This is book dealing with the reasons for themitzvot.
[27] In fact, R. Moshe Kimchi wrote his commentaries to Mishlei and Ezra-Nechemya.
[28] Peirush Ha-katzar to Sefer Bereishit is published in the Ha-keter edition (Bar-Ilan
University).
[29] For example, in his commentary to Shemot12:2, Ibn Ezra explains at length the Hebrew
calendar, and he rejects the Karaite approach to the topic. In his commentary to Shemot 3:15,
Ibn Ezra deals at great length with the Holy Names and the significance of their numerical
value.
[30] We will expand on this in the coming lesson.
[31] This is Binyamin ben Moshe Nahawandi, of the 9 th century, one of the founders of the
Karaite community in Jerusalem.
[32] This is Hasun ben Mashiach, a Karaite sage who lived in Baghdad in the 10 th century.
[33] This is Yeshua ben Yehuda, a Karaite sage of Ibn Ezras generation.
[34] For example, Ibn Ezra describes the term foreskin of the heart as an instance of a
situation in which one is obligated to explain the verse in a metaphorical way.
[35] This indicates that one denies that which is obvious to the senses.
[36] This refers to a rational approach.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
DAYS OF DELIVERANCE: ESSAYS ON PURIM AND HANUKKAH
by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
SPECIAL VBM 20% DISCOUNT $22.00
*********************************************************

Lecture #14:
R. Avraham ibn Ezra, Part II
A.

Exegetical Approach

In our previous lecture, we dealt with Ibn Ezras biography and the four exegetical
approaches that he rejects. In this lecture, we will discuss the fifth approach, the way in which
Ibn Ezra interprets the Torah. Already in his introduction to the Torah (Peirush Ha-Katzar), Ibn
Ezra alludes to his exegetical approach:
This is the book of the straight
By Avraham the bard, the work I create
According to binding grammars dictate,

Fit in reasons eyes, beyond debate,

And all its supporters it shall elate.
Ibn Ezra describes his commentary as the book of the straight,[1] and an analysis of his
commentaries indicates that the word straight is a reference to following the way of peshat.
Ibn Ezra explains the work as a commentary based on the fundamentals of grammar
(According to binding grammars dictate) and conforming to the requirements of logic (Fit in
reasons eyes). As his introduction continues, Ibn Ezra lays out what defines his
interpretation, The fifth among these ways:
The fifth among these ways,

The foundation of my commentary upon them stays;

And it is right in my eye,
Before Gods face on High.
His awe alone I savor;
In the Torah, I will never show favor.
I will explicate each words grammar with all of my strength,
And afterwards as I am able, I will explain it at length
Because derash does not make the way of peshat mistaken,
For the Torah has seventy faces which we may awaken.
Only when it comes to teachings, laws, and decrees,
If the verse has two reasons which may please,
And the one reason relies on the scribes expertise,
For they are all righteous, we need no guarantees,
We will doubtless rely on their truth, with strong hands and ease.
God forbid that we may involve ourselves with Sadducees,
Who say that the scribes contradict the details written in these.
Rather, our predecessors embody truth,
And all of their words are truth;
And Lord God of truth
Shall direct his servant on the way of truth.
Ibn Ezra begins by declaring that he does not feel himself chained to
previous commentaries (In the Torah, I will never show favor); this refers
both
to
Midrashic
sources
and
the
commentaries
of
his
predecessors. Furthermore, Ibn Ezra expresses his intent to explain the
Torah through the rules of grammar, linguistics, and reason i.e., human
intelligence.
However, this is all stated with regard to the narrative sections of the
Torah; in his commentaries to the halakhic part of the Torah, Ibn Ezra indeed
sees himself as bound to the Sages exegesis. (Even if he is not chained to
the Sages method, the nature of halakhic exegesis, he sees himself as
committed to the Sages conclusion.[2])
The nature of the commentary in practice matches his declarations of
intent. Ibn Ezras commentary is indeed characterized by a great emphasis on
grammar, language, and stylistic sensitivity. Similarly, his commentary is
anchored in rationalism, and he includes, among the rest, comments based
on his multi-disciplinary knowledge. Ibn Ezra sets himself apart from his
contemporaries, thepeshat-based exegetes of France: although they do
display some stylistic sensitivity, linguistic and grammatical exactitude is not

common among the French pashtanim. Moreover, in his uncompromising

desire to explain Tanakh according to the Sages views as well, Ibn Ezra is
different from the French exegetes.[3]
In general, Ibn Ezra writes in a concise, terse form, and sometimes his
severe brevity makes it difficult to understand what exactly he means. [4] Ibn
Ezra does not have the expansive knowledge of Talmudic sources that we
find among the sages of northern France, and he therefore does not quote a
great deal from the Sages or refer to them often. A particularly prominent
characteristic of Ibn Ezras commentary is his reference to other
commentaries. (In his commentaries, over thirty other exegetes are
mentioned![5]) Sometimes, he accepts their words and sometimes he rejects
them; this rejection may be expressed with respect and admiration or with
anger and mockery, usually accompanied with caustic wit.
B.

Issues of Language and Grammar

As we have said, Ibn Ezras commentaries include broader reference

to linguistic and grammatical issues. Aside from specific commentaries in
which Ibn Ezra explains a word or verse based on grammatical considerations
(based in part on the commentaries of the grammarians who preceded him),
Ibn Ezra formulates in a consistent way linguistic and grammatical rules in his
commentary. Let us see a number of examples for this.
1)
Ibn Ezra has a tendency to avoid identifying exceptions to the
rule; he strives to formulate rules which are adequate for all
circumstances. This is apparent in his approach to the confounding term
na. Ibn Janach, in Sefer Ha-shorashim, explains that the meaning of the
word na is now or please (as Rashi, Bamidbar 12:13, explains as
well). When Aharon asks Moshe to pray for Miriam, he says
(Bamidbar 12:12), Let herna not be like the dead Ibn Janach interprets
this as a term of supplication and request. As for Moshes prayer, God, na,
heal her, na (ibid. v. 13), Ibn Janach explains the first appearance of the word
as a term of supplication and the second appearance as a term of urgency,
thus rendering it: God, please, heal her now. [6] Ibn Ezra (Shemot 4:13)
opposes this, preferring to define na the same way throughout the passage:
I
have
already
explained that
every
na in Tanakh is
now. Similarly, Speak now in the peoples ears (Shemot 11:2);
Hear now, Yehoshua (Zekharya 3:8); This man must now be put to
death (Yirmeyahu 38:4); Woe now to us, for we have sinned
(Eikha 5:16).
Ibn Ezra systematically explains all of the appearances of the word na[7] as
meaning now exclusively.[8]
Ibn Ezra also defines the word im following the same principle. The
word describes a state that is not necessarily applicable in other words, a
conditional situation. This interpretation creates a problem with the verse,
Im you shall lend money to my people (Shemot 22:24), because there is
a mitzva to lend to a pauper. Rashi, in his commentary to this verse, quotes

the view of the Sages, according to whom this is one of three instances in
which im does not indicate what follows is optional. Ibn Ezra, as is his wont,
attempts to reduce the number of exceptions to any rule, and he gives a
unique meaning to all of the ostensibly exceptional appearances of im. He
thus explains the verse: If God has given you the wherewithal to allow you to
lend to a pauper. The lending is conditional because not every individual is in
a financial position to be able to and required to lend to his impoverished
brother.[9]
2) An additional linguistic element of Ibn Ezras view is the
meaninglessness of trivial changes; the verse uses synonyms frequently, and
there need be no justification for interchanging them. Similarly, there is no
reason necessary for variations in spelling. In this context, one of the most
prominent examples that Ibn Ezra addresses (Shemot 20:1) is the difference
between the Ten Commandments inShemot and in Devarim:
Behold, we have seen that from the beginning I until the end who will
bear His name in vain (Shemot20:7), there is no difference between
the two passages. From the beginning of Remember (ibid. v. 7) until
the end of the Ten Commandments, there is an alteration at every
opportunity. The first is Remember, while the second is Keep
(Devarim 5:12)
After a long list of comparisons and various answers attempting to
resolve the contradictions, Ibn Ezra writes:
Avraham the author says: This is the way of those who speak the Holy
Tongue. Sometimes they will explain their words in great detail, and
sometimes they will state matters succinctly and tersely, so that the
listener may understand their meaning. Know that the words are like
bodies, while the meanings are like souls, and the body is like the
souls utensil; therefore, the rule of all the wise in every language is
that they maintain the meanings, but they do not worry about changing
the terminology as long as the meaning remains the same.
I will present some examples of this. God says to Kayin, You are
cursed from the earth When you work the earth, it will no longer give
its strength to you; you shall be a wanderer and a nomad in the land
(Bereishit 4:11-12). Kayin replies, Behold, you have banished me
today from the face of the earth (v. 14). Only a thoughtless person
would believe that the meaning is not the same because of the change
in terminology. Eliezer says (ibid.24:17): "Please let me sip," but he
later says (ibid. v. 45): "I said to her: 'Please let me drink.'
There are many more examples of this phenomenon: one may find
different words, but the meaning is the same. As I have already stated,
sometimes their way is a brief one, and sometimes it is long, so that
sometimes one will add or remove a prefix or suffix, but the matter
remains the same

Nevertheless, the members of this generation look for a reason for

variations in spelling
3) Another rule propounded by Ibn Ezra is Moshekh atzmo ve-acher
immo, It draws itself and another along with it. [10]This rule means that the
verse will often use a word (or a number of words, or even a one-letter prefix)
to refer to multiple items, even though it appears in the text only once. Using
this rule, Ibn Ezra explains many verses in Tanakh.
One example of this is found in Moshes final blessings to the tribes of
Israel (Devarim 33:6), May Reuven liveand not die, and may his men[11] be
numbered. The second clause is quite troubling, as it is not a blessing but a
curse.[12] Ibn Ezra explains that not is subject to the rule of Moshekh atzmo
ve-acher immo:
And may his men be numbered And may his men not be
numbered; it is like, And I did not study wisdom (Mishlei 30:2-3) and
as in as Almighty God (Shemot 6:3), as I have explained many
verses.
According to Ibn Ezra, the term not refers to both dying in the first
clause and being numbered in the second, as if it were written, May Reuven
live and not die, andmay his men not be numbered. The second half of the
verse thus means: may the men of the tribe not be few in number, but rather
many.
Let us look at two other examples ofMoshekh atzmo ve-acher immo:
For I am more of an ignoramus than any man; I do not have human
understanding. And I did not study wisdom, and knowledge of the holy I
know. (Mishlei 20:2-3)
The verses are difficult: if the person is ignorant and unlearned, how
would he know knowledge of the holy? According to Ibn Ezra, one should
explain the verse so that the adverb not may be applied not only to the first
clause, but to the second clause as well, as if it were written: And I did not
study wisdom, and knowledge of the holy I know not.
The
last
example
is
from
the
beginning
of Parashat
Vaera (Shemot 6:3): And I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak and to Yaakov
as Almighty God, but my name Lord I did not make Myself known to them.
According to Ibn Ezra, one should explain the verse as if it is were written:
And I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak and to Yaakov as Almighty God,
but by my name Lord I did not make myself known to them. An interesting
point is that in this example, Ibn Ezra is applying the rule not to a word, but to
a prefix, the single letter bet, which can mean in, as, by, with, etc.
C.

Logic and Reason

Ibn Ezra applies the test of rationality when he explains the verses. He
writes in his introduction (cited above) that his way is Fit in reasons
eyes. Therefore, when the words of the Sages are not logical in his eyes, he
will challenge them (in the narrative part of the Torah).
Thus, for example, in the story of the Binding of Yitzchak
(Bereishit 22:4), Ibn Ezra finds it illogical to say that Yitzchak was thirty-seven
at the time, as the Sages suggest (Bereishit Rabba 56:1). If that were true, the
test would be of Yitzchak, not of Avraham! Therefore, Yitzchak must be twelve
or thirteen years old when the story takes place:
Our Rabbis have said that Yitzchak was, at the Binding, thirty-seven
years old. Now, if these are words of tradition, we will accept them; but
logically, this is not proper, for Yitzchaks righteousness should be
revealed, and his reward would be double the reward of his father he
gave himself over willingly to be slaughtered. However, the verse tells
us nothing about Yitzchak. Others claim that he was five years old, but
this cannot be, because he carried the wood for the offering. What is
most reasonable is that he was about thirteen years old, and his father
compelled him and bound him against his will. The evidence [13] of this
is that his father hid the secret from him.
We should note that in this interpretation, Ibn Ezra distinguishes
between two types of Midrashic sources, tradition (kabbala) and speculation
(sevara), and in this he determines the limits of following ones personal
view. If there is a kabbala, a tradition of the Sages handed down from Moshe
Rabbeinu, we must accept their words. However, if their words are
speculation, an interpretation that they concocted of their own accord, their
speculation is no better than anyone elses. This is what he says in his
commentary[14] to Bereishit 11:29 (PeirushHa-arokh):
Now, some have said[15] that Sara was called Yiska because she
would foresee (sokha) with the Holy Spirit, but this is by way of
hermeneutics or speculation, not tradition. Moreover, this is not an
issue of a commandment.
In other words, there is no requirement to accept the Sages words
when it arises by way of hermeneutics or speculation. However, if this
aggadic material is the Sages kabbala, then there would be no option but to
accept them.
This is most explicitly stated when Ibn Ezra explains the term Ur
Kasdim. Is Ur the name of a city or is it a term for fire?
Our predecessors have stated that Avraham Avinu was cast into a fiery
furnace. This is not mentioned in the verse, but if it is a tradition, we will
accept it like the words of the Torah. (Peirush Haarokh, Bereishit 11:28)

An additional interpretation of the Ibn Ezra based on the rational

approach is his understanding of the plagues in Egypt. According to Ibn Ezra,
the Israelites suffered just as much from the plagues as the Egyptians. This is
how Ibn Ezra explains Shemot 7:24: All of Egypt dug around the Nile for
water to drink, for they could not drink the waters of the Nile. He writes:
Many say that when the water was in the hands of the Egyptian, it was
as red as blood, but it turned clear again when in the hands of the
Israelites. If so, why was this sign[miraculous occurrence] not written in
the Torah? In my view, the plagues of blood and frogs and lice included
Egyptians and Hebrews, for we must follow what is written. Now, these
three caused a bit of damage, but in the plague of wild animals, which
was severe, God distinguished between Egypt and Israel. The same
was true of the plagues of pestilence and hail because of their herds.
However, this was not true of boils and locusts, because they were
leaving Egypt. (Peirush Ha-arokh ad loc.)
Thus, just as the Egyptians dug, the Hebrews dug as well. Ibn Ezra assumes
that if the Torah is describing a situation in which the Jewish nation is
miraculously spared suffering, it would mention this explicitly, because there is
no reason for the Torah to conceal miracles. [16]Therefore, one cannot assume
that there is a difference between Israel and Egypt in the plagues unless this
is stated explicitly in the verse. For example, concerning the plagues of wild
animals, pestilence, and hail, it is explicitly stated that the Jews did not suffer
from these plagues (Shemot8:17; 9:6, 25). If so, according to Ibn Ezra, when
the verse notes that All of Egypt had to dig for drinking water, this refers to
all of the residents of Egypt, natives and Hebrews alike. Thus, the Israelites
suffered equally from blood, frogs, lice, boils, and locusts. [17]
D.

Structure and Sequence in the Torah

According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah is written generally according to

chronological sequence. Despite this, sometimes there are some divergences
from chronological sequence, a phenomenon that is describes as Ein
mukdam u-meuchar ba-Torah, There is no earlier or later in the Torah. Ibn
Ezra stresses that in every place in which we encounter this phenomenon, we
must explain why the verses alter the chronological sequence and what the
aim is in juxtaposing one passage with the next.[18]
One of the most famous examples of Ein mukdam u-meuchar and the
juxtaposition of passages appears in the beginning of Parashat Yitro. There is
a famous dispute as to whether Yitro arrived before the Giving of the Torah,
and the verses are written in their proper chronological order, or if Yitro came
after the Giving of the Torah, and the verses are not in order.[19] Ibn Ezra
proves that Yitro arrived after the Giving of the Torah and he explains the
reason for the change in the order:
Now I will explain why the passage of Yitro was inserted here. Because
we have mentioned above the evil done by Amalek to Israel, here we
mention the contrasting good that Yitro did for Israel. It is written, And

Yitro was elated about all the good (Shemot 18:9), and he gave good
and correct advice to Moshe and to Israel, and Moshe said to him,
And you will be eyes for us (Bamidbar10:31), and this means that he
enlightened their eyes. Now, Shaul said [addressing the Kenites,
Yitros descendants], And you did kindness with all of the Israelites (I
Shemuel15:6). Because it is written above (17:16), God is at war
with Amalek, Israel must fight [Amalek] when God will grant them rest
[from their other enemies]. So it mentioned the matter of Yitro here
because [his descendants] reside near the nation of Amalek; this will
remind Israel of the kindness of the ancestor, and they will not touch
his seed. (PeirushHa-arokh, Shemot 18:1)
According to Ibn Ezra, the reason for the change of the chronological
sequence is to sharpen the distinction between Amalek and Yitro, to separate
between this act and that. [20]Similarly, (Ibn Ezra adds the historical element
of the relationship to the family of the Kenites; despite the fact that the Kenites
live among the Amalekites, we must repay the kindness of Yitro and not
include them in the war with Amalek.
Ibn Ezra relates a great deal to the juxtaposition of the passages in the
halakhic sections of the Torah, and he refuses to accept a capricious
sequence of laws. In Peirush Ha-arokh to Shemot 21:2, he describes his
essential approach to the order of mitzvot in the Torah:
When you buy Before I am able to explain this, I must present the
rule that each and every law or commandment stands on its own. If we
happen to find a reason why this law is adjacent to that one or this
commandment to that one, we will cling to it with all of our
ability. However, if we are unable to do so, we will believe that the
deficiency comes from our lack of intelligence.
[In this case, this law comes first because] there is no more difficult
thing for a human being than being under the control of another human
being; therefore, it starts with the law of the slave. [21]
There is an apparent contradiction here. On the one hand, Ibn Ezra
proclaims that each and every law or commandment stands on its own; on
the other hand, he says that there is a reason for the order of the laws. We
may find a resolution in his comments to Devarim 24:6:

No one shall take a mill or an upper millstone in pledge

The deniers say that this passage is attached to to be happy
with his wife (ibid. v. 5) because this alludes to sleeping, for it
is prohibited to withhold himself from sleeping, but this is vanity
and emptiness
As for the one who relies on the juxtaposition of passages, this
is not a valid claim, as every commandment stands on its own.

The juxtaposition is the way ofderash. Still, this passage is

cohesive
Ibn Ezra opposes the interpretation of the Karaites, [22] who
explain the mitzva, No one shall take a mill or an upper millstone in
pledge, as a prohibition to withhold a wifes conjugal rights. The
Karaites reach this understanding based on the juxtaposition of the
passages. In the previous verse, it says, When a man is newly
married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other
public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his
wife whom he has taken. In there view, the first verse is a positive
command, and the next verse, concerning the millstone, is the
negative prohibition.[23]Concerning this, Ibn Ezra says that
everymitzva stands on its own, that it is impossible to derive the
content of themitzva based on the juxtaposition; nevertheless, one
may explain this in the way of derash that is, in a way which does
not affect the understanding of thepeshat of the verses.
Finally, let us see the view of Ibn Ezra when it comes to the
juxtaposition of passages in the context of verses 15-17 of chapter 21
of Shemot, in the first part ofParashat Mishpatim. In this passage, a
number of laws are brought in sequence, and there is no apparent
link between them:
15. Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to
death.
16. Whoever steals a man and sells him, if he is found in his
hands, shall be put to death.
17. Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to
death.
Concerning the juxtaposition of these verses, Ibn Ezra cites
the Gaon (Rabbeinu Saadia)[24] in his commentary to the middle
verse (Peirush Ha-arokh):
The Gaon says: Why does this verse come in between striking
a parent and cursing a parent? He responds that the verse
addresses reality, because minors who are kidnapped and
grow up in a foreign place do not know their fathers, so it may
come to pass that they may strike them or curse them. The
punishment is for the kidnapper.
According to Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon, the verses describe the
reality of human trafficking: most of the victims are minors, and it may

be that when they return as adults, they may strike or curse their
parents without knowing who they are. In a case such as this, the
punishment for striking or cursing is upon the kidnapper.
We must stress that Ibn Ezra says that the verse addresses
reality (literally, the present, i.e., the usual circumstances). Ibn Ezra
does not discount the simple meaning of the text, which prescribes
the penalties in the usual case of a man knowingly striking his
parents, and this distinguishes him from the Karaites mentioned
above.
God willing, in the next lecture we will discuss Ibn Ezras
understanding of the relationship between the Written and the Oral
Torah.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] Certainly, his intent is not to refer to the Book ofBereishit, which is also described as the
book of the straight, because Ibn Ezra writes explicitly that this is the book of the straight/ by
Avraham the bard, i.e., the work composed by R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.
[2] We will expand on this, God willing, in the coming lesson.
[3] As we continue our analysis, it will become clear that despite his declaration of principles
concerning his fidelity to the Sages, ibn Ezra often diverges from the Sages exegesis.
[4] We have discussed the motives for his terse, difficult style in the previous lesson.
[5] A full list appears in E.Z. Melamed, Mefarshei Ha-Mikra vol. II (Jerusalem, 5735).
[6] Thus, it makes sense that God responds that healing her immediately is not an option,
declaring (v. 14) Certainly, if her father were to spit in her face, would she not be
embarrassed for seven days?
[7] In comparing Ibn Ezras explanations of the verses in which Rashi states that na is a
term of request, we find that Ibn Ezras commentary fits well in the peshat of the verses.
[8] There is, however, one case in which na does have another meaning. In describing the
eating of the paschal offering, the Torah commands, Do not eat of it na (Shemot 12:9). Ibn
Ezra explains this as well:
What appears correct to me is that it has nothing like it in Tanakh. What it means is
the opposite of cooked, that which is called raw elsewhere, for example, He will not
take from you cooked meat, but rather raw (II Shemuel 2:15). As I have already said,
the Arabic language for the most part is similar to the Hebrew language. Now, raw
meat is called in Arabic nayyeh, and the letter alef, heh, vav and yud are
interchangeable in their language as in ours.
Thus, the Arabic nayyeh becomes the Hebrew na, but only in this case.
[9] Ibn Ezra does the same in the two additional places in which the Sages interpret im as
introducing an obligation. In Shemot 20:21-22, the verse states, Make me an altar of
earth Im you shall build an altar of stones, and Ibn Ezra explains the following:
The meaning of Im you shall build is as follows: Make Me an altar of earth right
now And if you merit to enter the land, then you shall build an altar of stones.
In Vayikra 2:14, the verse states, Im you shall offer a first-fruits offering to God. Ibn Ezra
explains that we are not talking about the omer offering, which is mandatory, but rather a
voluntary flour-offering:
Many have said that the word im refers to an obligation. In my view, this is
unnecessary, because the obligation is to bring the premier of the first-fruits, not the

first-fruits, and one who wants to bring a flour-offering from the first-fruits voluntarily is
entitled to do so.
[10] The English term for this is ellipsis.
[11] The term "metei mispar, literally men of number, appears a number of times in Tanakh,
and it refers to a sparse population; see Bereishit 34:4,Devarim 26:5, Yeshayahu 3:25. The
word metei should not be confused with meitei, which means the dead of, as in meitei
milchama, casualties of war (ibid. 22:2).
[12] Rashi, following Onkelos, explains: And may his men be numbered He shall be
counted along with his other brothers In other words, his men should be considered in the
number of the tribes of Israel. In Rashis view, because of Reuvens sin (see Bereishit 35:22),
there was speculation that he would not be considered a tribe. Moshe therefore stresses that
despite the sin, he will still be considered in the number of tribes.
[13] Literally, the witness. This is a common expression used by Ibn Ezra.
[14] In the Torat Chayim edition, this appears at the end of volume I of Bereishit. In Bar-Ilan
Universitys Responsa Project, it appears under the name Shitta Acheret.
[15] Seder Olam II; Sanhedrin 69b; see Rashi ad loc. v. 29.
[16] See also his commentary to Bereishit 46:23, addressing the Sages view (cited by
Rashi ad loc., v. 26) that Yokheved was born between the walls as they entered Egypt.
[17] Ibn Ezra (ad loc.) explains why the Israelites were spared certain plagues but not others.
[18] I. Gottlieb, Yesh Seder La-Mikra: Chazal U-Farshanei Yemei Ha-beinayim al Mukdam UMeuchar Ba-Torah (Jerusalem-Ramat Gan, 2009), counts more than 150 cases of discussion
of juxtaposition of passages, in its many varieties, in Ibn Ezras commentary.
[19] See Mekhilta, beginning of Parashat Yitro; Zevachim 116a; Ramban, Shemot 18:1.
[20] This juxtaposition is quite appropriate when we consider the similar terminology in the
two passages, as Cassuto notes in his commentary onShemot: About Amalek it says, And
Amalek came, and it waged war (Shemot 17:8), and about Yitro it says, And Yitro
came And each inquired of the others peace (18:5-7). Similarly, in the battle with
Amalek, Moshe says to Yehoshua, Select men for us (17:9), while in the application of
Yitros counsel, it says And Moshe selected men of valor (18:25); other examples abound.
[21] See also his commentary to Vayikra 19:3;Devarim 16:18, 24:6.
[22] Ibn Ezras relationship to the Karaites will be dealt with in the next lecture.
[23] They prove this from the verse in Iyov (31:10), Then let my wife grind for another. Thus,
grinding is a euphemism for intercourse.
[24] Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon is quoted in Ibn Ezras commentary dozens of times mainly so
that Ibn Ezra may challenge his view.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
FESTIVAL OF FREEDOM: ESSAYS ON PESAH AND THE HAGGADAH
by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
SPECIAL VBM 20% DISCOUNT $20.00
*********************************************************

Lecture #15:
Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra, Part III
A.

Evaluating Midrash Halakha

Integration of Peshat and Derash in Halakhic Passages

In his introduction to Peirush Ha-katzar, Ibn Ezra defines his relationship to
halakhic derash:

Only when it comes to teachings, laws and decrees,

If the verse has two reasons which may please,
And the one reason relies on the scribes expertise,
For they are all righteous, we need no guarantees,
We will doubtless rely on their truth, with strong hands and ease.
God forbid that we may involve ourselves with Sadducees,
Who say that the scribes contradict the details written in these.
Rather, our predecessors embody truth,
And all of their words are truth;
And Lord God of truth
Shall direct his servant on the way of truth
Ibn Ezra believes that it is inconceivable for the Sages halakhic tradition to contradict
thepeshat of the verses. On this point, he argues with the Rashbam, who goes as far as to
explain the halakhic verses against the tradition of the Sages. As we have explained in the
previous lessons, Ibn Ezra supports the view of philological pashtanutand exerts great effort
to explain the verses in accordance with the rules of grammar and topical logic. However,
when there is a contradiction between the peshat and the Sages tradition, ibn Ezra pushes
the simple meaning of the words so that it will fit with the Sages view, but he also strives to
have it dovetail with the rules of grammar and language. This is what he writes in his
introduction to the Torah (Peirush Ha-arokh), describing the fifth among these ways:
But in commandments and laws, on our predecessors I will rely
And I will fix the grammar of our language, for their words are to live by.
An example of this may be seen in his comments on Shemot 23:2. The verse literally
reads:

Do not be after the many for evil

And do not speak up in a trial to turn
After the many to make turn.
The simple meaning of this verse is that the Torah proscribes bowing to
the will of the majority (in a jurisprudential setting) for evil purposes Do not
follow the majority to do evil. This is a warning for the judge not to be swayed
by the majority opinion: Do not speak up in a trial to pervert justice, deciding
on the basis of the majority. In other words, according to the simple meaning
of the verse, the final word le-hattot, to make turn, is not part of the
prohibition, but rather its result: if a judge follows the majority and ignores the
evidence, this perverts justice.
However, the Sages derivation from this a law flips the simple meaning
of the text (although it is not directly contradictory). While the peshat indicates
that the judge must not bow to the pressure of the majority nor be concerned
about expressing a view opposed to the majority, the Sages derive from this
verse that the halakhic ruling is determined by a majority vote. Thus, lehattot is actually an imperative, and it has no negative connotation. [1] Ibn
Ezra attempts to incorporate the Sages words in the peshatof the verse:
Our Sages have explained that we derive from here that the law follows
the majority, and what they have transcribed [2] is the truth. After the

verse says, Do not follow the majority to do evil, we may derive from
this that if the majority are for the good, it is a mitzva to follow them.
Thus, Ibn Ezra tries to reconcile Sages approach with the text.
Rejecting the Sages View
Despite these words of Ibn Ezra expressing the unquestionable
authority of the Sages in Halakha, it appears that many times ibn Ezra veers
in his interpretation from the interpretation of the halakhic ruling. Thus, for
example, in the PeirushHa-katzar to Shemot 13:13, And every firstling
donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, you must
break its neck, ibn Ezra writes:
If the firstling is from a herd of cattle or flock of sheep, it is Gods, and if
it is the firstling of an unclean animal such as a donkey, redeem it
with a lamb.
According to the Sages and the halakhic ruling (see Rashi ad
loc.; Bekhorot5b; YD 321:1) the verse is talking about a donkey alone. Ibn
Ezra explains that the intent is to include all unclean animals, [3]apparently
based on the presumption that the verse addresses reality. [4]
How may we resolve the contradiction between ibn Ezras adamant
commitment to the Sages rulings and the fact that, in many places, ibn Ezra
veers from this path and explains in accordance with the peshat alone? This
question has a number of answers, which together give a full picture of ibn
Ezras path as it diverges from that of the Sages.
First of all, it may be that ignorance of the halakhic ruling is what
causes him to interpret verses differently than the Sages. We must assume
that because of ibn Ezras poverty and wanderings, he did not always have
the books necessary for clarifying the halakhic ruling, [5]and Ibn Ezra, unlike
the French exegetes, was not a Talmudic expert. [6] In other words, it may be
that ibn Ezra did not know at all that he was explaining the text in opposition
to the Sages view.
Furthermore, it makes sense that ibn Ezra sees himself as bound by
the Sages legal authority, but not specifically their reading of the verses. The
law itself is a tradition from the Sages, but reading the verse can be done by
way of derash. Because of this, when the peshatcontradicts the reading of the
Sages but not the law itself, ibn Ezra absolves himself by explaining that the
interpretation is anasmakhta (support) that is, the Sages themselves do not
believe that this is the verses intent, but they want to hang the law on the
verse. In the language of the ibn Ezra, There was a tradition in their hands
from the Prophets, and they set the verse as a memorial and a sign for the
readers.[7]Thus, as we have seen, ibn Ezra anchors majority rule in the
verse, but in a different way than the Sages reading. Ibn Ezra himself
expands on this issue elsewhere:

And I say that the reason is that we have in the Torah places in the
Sages are known to utilize anasmakhta, but they know the essence of
the matter.
For example, And he will inherit it (Bamidbar 27:11) is known in the
transcription[8] as [the source of] a man inheriting his wife, and they
expounded this verse as a memorial, for all of Israel know the
interpretation of the verse, according to its literal and simple meaning
[9]And what is correct is that the verse [should be read] according to its
simple meaning, and they supplement it with this matter of tradition.
Similarly, And the firstborn whom she bears (Devarim 25:6) has a
literal meaning, but they also have a tradition (Yevamot 24a) teaching
that the oldest of the brothers should be the levir, and they expounded
this verse as a memorial and anasmakhta.[10]
Similarly, concerning To a foreign people (Shemot 21:8), they had a
tradition that a man cannot sell his daughter twice (Kiddushin 18a), and
they put the verse as a sign and a memorial. Nevertheless, its simple
meaning is its literal meaning[11](Peirush Ha-katzar, Shemot 21:8)
In all of these examples, ibn Ezra diverges from the Sages
interpretation, since according to him, the Sages themselves do not intent to
engage in biblical exegesis; they merely want to moor a well-known law,
traditionally transmitted, in the text of the verse, apparently as a mnemonic
device.
Finally, sometimes ibn Ezra holds that the Sages interpretation is the
view of a single authority (not the majority), and therefore one may reject it. [12]
B.

Relationship to Karaites

Together with the great respect that ibn Ezra displays towards the
Sages, he has a profoundly negative view of the Karaites. Ibn Ezra is known
for his fierce war against the Karaites, but it is important to note that he does
not hesitate to cite their interpretations if he believes they are correct. For
example, the Karaite exegetes Yefet ben Eli and Yeshua the Karaite [13]are
quoted a great deal by Ibn Ezra. Only when the Karaite comments are
opposed to the accepted law does ibn Ezra go on the offensive against them,
using caustic and sharp language.
Ibn Ezra does not oppose only specific interpretations of the Karaites:
he actively refutes their general view. According to his view, the truth of the
Oral Torah may be established not only by finding its laws in the verses of
Written Torah, but by confronting the reality of the absence of many laws in
the Written Torah. These exigent rules are only found in the Oral Torah, and
without their existence there is no significance at all to the laws of the Written
Torah. Ibn Ezra expresses this beautifully in his introduction to the Torah, as
he addresses the second way and its uselessness in terms of understanding
the Jewish calendar:

For in the Torah you will not find

Even one commandment fully defined.
One of these I will relate,
For those who know it, it is great.
Indeed, one is excised for eating on the Day of Atonement,
And Passover brooks neither leaven nor, for the pure, postponement.
Seven are the days when no labor may be done;
Instead there are offerings, tabernacles and trumpets, each one.
Now, in the Torah, the rules of the year are not stated,
So how would we have the months calculated?
Verily, the commands of the festivals bind all Israel for all time,
So why does the Torah not provide us testimony, pure and prime?
Now, for allusions we here and there must inspect;
Why is this so in our Torah, which is perfect?
This shows us that Moshe relied on the oral tradition,
Which provides the heart joy and balm for our condition,
For there is naught between the oral and written teaching;
They both are our patrimony, beyond impeaching [14]
When ibn Ezra rejects the Karaite commentaries, he sometimes does
so with ridicule and sarcasm towards the Karaite exegete (and in these
comments, his sophisticated sense of humor is prominent). An example of this
may be seen in ibn Ezras commentary to Shemot 21:35 (Peirush Ha-arokh),
When a mans ox will injure his fellows ox
Ben Zuta says that his fellow refers to the ox. He did not notice that it
is possessive, so it is his fellows ox." The only fellow ox here is ben
Zuta himself!
The final two words in this clause are shor reehu." According to ben
Zuta, the word reehu in the verse is adjectival, and it should be rendered its
fellow ox. Ibn Ezra argues that reehu refers to the owner of the damaging
ox; the injured ox is owned by his fellow. Ibn Ezra points out that this parallels
shor ish earlier in the verse, which clearly means an ox belonging to a
man; ish does not modify shor." He sarcastically concludes that only the
obtuse ben Zuta himself is deserving of bovine companionship.
Ibn Ezra is equally brutal in his comments (Bereishit 29:17) about ben
Efrayim, another Karaite exegete. The verse describes Leahs eyes as
rakkot (spelled reish-kaf-vav-tav), weak or sensitive. He writes:
Rakkot as its literal meaning indicates However, ben Efrayim
claims that it is missing an alef, and it should be understood as
arukkot." He was the one missing an alef.
Ben Efrayim believes that the word rakkot is missing an alef, so that it
should have been written arukkot (spelled alef-reish-kaf-vav-tav), long." Ibn
Ezra argues that perhaps we should take the alef from ben Efrayim
(spelled alef-peh-reish-yud-mem), yielding ben parim (spelled peh-reish-yud-

mem), son of bullocks.Once again, ibn Ezra describes Karaite intelligence

as bovine.
We should note that it is a bit bizarre that ibn Ezra fights so fiercely
against the Karaites, because he wrote his comments after he had moved to
the lands of Christian Spain, while the Karaites were active in Muslim
Spain. Perhaps it is specifically because ibn Ezra accepts the comments of
the Karaite exegetes in a not insignificant number of places that he must
make it clear that he is not part of the Karaite camp, and he does this through
harsh criticism towards them.
C.

Ibn Ezra and Rashi

In Ibn Ezras introduction, he describes the fifth way (the one which he
adopts):
The fifth among these ways,

The foundation of my commentary upon them stays;

And it is right in my eye,
Before Gods face on High.
His awe alone I savor;
In the Torah, I will never show favor.
Generally, we may say that ibn Ezra fears no man, and he critically
analyzes the commentaries of Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon, ibn Janach, Dunash
ben Labrat and others. He praises the interpretations of which he approves
and he sharply criticizes those which he finds wanting. Ibn Ezras approach to
Rashi is exceptional, because in the rare instances in which he refers to him,
he does not praise him; but he also does not reject him in his characteristically
caustic style, noting only that Rashi is mistaken. [15] It may be that the reason
for this is the respect that ibn Ezra has for Rashi, but it is difficult to accept this
for two reasons. First, there is no doubt that ibn Ezra has a great deal of
respect for Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon, but he does not hold himself back from
his sharply ironic tone.[16] Second, in his Safa Berura,[17] ibn Ezra expresses
his view of Rashi, which is not complimentary at all:
There is no doubt that they[18] knew that the direct way is as it is;
therefore, they formulated the rule, No verse loses its simple
meaning. Thus, the derash is merely supplemental. The following
generations made every derashessential and crucial, as Rav
Shlomozl does, so that the Tanakh was explained by way of derash.
Though he was under the impression that this is the way of peshat, in
his writings one will find only onepeshat out of a thousand yet
the sages of our generation boast of these books. (Safa Berura,
Wilensky edition [Jerusalem, 5738], p. 64)
Ibn Ezra mocks not only the interpretations of Rashi, but the
intelligence of a generation which cares about his homilies. If so, why does
ibn Ezra not criticize Rashi himself?

It seems that Ibn Ezra was aware of Rashis status in France, and he
was concerned that harsh criticism of Rashi would lead to his commentary
being condemned, or at least rejected. Therefore, in his commentary to the
Torah, ibn Ezra keeps his silence. In the venue of Safa Berura, which was not
designed for mass consumption but for intelligent individuals, ibn Ezra notes
almost off-handedly his attitude towards Rashis comments. [19] His feelings
towards Rashi also explain the few citations of French exegetes in his
commentaries, as compared to the great number of citations of the scholars of
Muslim Spain (including Karaites, as we said above). Thus, ibn Ezra does not
pick fights with the exegetes of Christian Europe for the simple reason that he
has no great respect for their commentaries and does not have a common
denominator with them. According to him, Karaite exegesis is better than the
absurd commentaries of the traditional parshanim.
D.
The Concept of Sod
Covert and Overt Writing
Ibn Ezra conceals in his commentary more than his relationship to
Rashi; he embraces the general phenomenon of sod." One who reads his
commentaries often encounters the cryptic phrase Ve-zehsod, And this is a
secret, and the like.[20]
An example of this may be found inPeirush Ha-arokh, Shemot 28:6:
The matter of the efod and the breastplate is a deep secret, and I will
only allude to the secret a bit, for one who knows the knowledge of the
Most High
An additional example may be in his explanation of the goat to Azazel:
If you are capable of understanding the secret which stands behind the
word Azazel, you will know its secret and the secret of its name, for
there are others like it in Scripture. I will reveal to you part of the secret
by allusion; when you are thirty-three, you will know it. [21]
What is the meaning of all these secrets, and whom are they designed
for?
In order to answer this question, we must first define precisely who the
target audience of ibn Ezra is.
There is no doubt that ibn Ezras commentaries are not designed for
the simple Jew. Rashi and Ri Bekhor Shor succeed in interesting both the
simple Jew and the intellectual Jew. Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, often relates
to matters of grammar and language in his commentary, and he makes
complex mathematical calculations that may be far beyond a simple Jews
ken. Therefore, it appears that ibn Ezra directs his interpretation to a
sophisticated audience which knows the knowledge of the Most High
(Bamidbar24:16) an audience that is unusually intelligent. The most
prominent expression of this orientation is ibn Ezras tendency to allude to

his sod by writing in code, expressed generally in an enigmatic style which is

not easy to decipher. Similarly, the integration of extensive scientific
investigations[22] into his commentary may be understood only by those who
are particularly intelligent.[23]
The Reasons for Allusive Interpretations
Sometimes, Ibn Ezra hides his secrets because he is worried that he
will be seen as a heretic. The best example is his comment to Devarim 1:2:
If you wish to understand the secret of the twelve, see also, And
Moshe wrote (Devarim 31:22); And the Canaanites were then in the
land (Bereishit 12:6); On Gods mountain, He will be seen
(Bereishit22:14); And behold his bedstead was an iron bedstead
(Devarim3:11).
What is the secret of the twelve? Ibn Ezra explains in his commentary
toDevarim 34:1:
And Moshe went up According to my view, this verse was written
by Yehoshua, because after Moshe went up, he did not write, and he
wrote it by the way of prophecy.
The secret of the twelve is ibn Ezras claim that the last twelve verses
of the Torah were not written by Moshe, but rather by Yehoshua. In his abovementioned comment at the beginning ofDevarim, Ibn Ezra uses these twelve
verses as a model for a wider phenomenon of adding verses into the Torah,
as spelled out in the examples which he brings there. [24] It is understood why
ibn Ezra prefaces his words by metaphorically swearing the reader to secrecy,
because the determination that these verses were written after Moshes death
could be construed as undermining the belief that the Torah in its entirety was
dictated to Moshe by God. Ibn Ezra himself believes, apparently, that one may
say about lone verses that they were not written by Moshe, but this is not
acceptable for the Torah as a whole.[25] If so, a concern that he might be
labeled as a heretic motivates ibn Ezra to conceal his views here. [26]
Peirush Ha-shelishi, the Supercommentary
We may prove this hypothesis by comparing ibn Ezras commentary,
which was written and published in France, to a later interpretation of the
Torah written by his private student, [27] R. Yosef b. R. Yaakov of Moudeville.
[28] Ibn Ezra dictated this to him in his twilight years in London, [29]but only
fragments of it have survived.[30]This comparison teaches us that in the
interpretation of the Torah written in France, ibn Ezra does not include all of
his ideas.
One of the most prominent examples is ibn Ezras understanding of the
following cryptic verse (Bereishit 35:22): Reuven went and slept with Bilha,
his fathers concubine, and Yisrael heard; and Yaakovs sons were
twelve. The words of the Midrash are well-known and cited by Rashi; they

detach this incident from the simple meaning of the text. [31] This view of Rashi
reflects the Sages dictum: Whoever says that Reuven sinned is solely in
error (Shabbat 56a). Ibn Ezra explains the verse differently:
Our Rabbis have explained this well; indeed, The clever conceal the
contemptible (Mishlei 12:16).
Apparently, ibn Ezra is complimenting the Sages and conceding the
point; but what does he mean by citing the proverb, The clever conceal the
contemptible? In his commentary onMishlei, ibn Ezra explains that the
clever person is the one who knows to conceal an act which is
contemptible." Therefore, it may be that ibn Ezra means to tell us that the
Sages in fact believe that Reuven did sin; nevertheless, they hid the sin and
reinterpreted the verse in a way different from the peshat. In any case, it is
clear that ibn Ezra utilizes his obscure language so that one cannot, God
forbid, accuse him of indicting Reuven for sleeping with his fathers wife; on
the other hand, for those who understand the matter, he alludes to his real
view by quoting Mishlei. In Peirush Ha-shelishi, the following is written about
Reuvens sin:
And Israel heard what Reuven did, therefore, And Yaakovs sons
were twelve and no more. For Bilha had been desecrated, Rachel was
dead, and he despised Leah and her handmaid because of Reuven.
Therefore, he never again came in to a woman and did not bear
children thus, his sons were only twelve
Apparently, Ibn Ezra in this commentary reveals what he had
concealed in his earlier commentary. Perhaps in his old age, he was not
concerned about airing his views; perhaps he did not think that his
discussions with his student would ever be publicized.
Another sod of Ibn Ezras commentary explicated by Peirush Hashelishi is how he explains Rachels theft of the terafim. Rashi, faithful to his
view of defending the acts of the greats of the nation, [32] explains that Rachel
steals theterafim in order to prevent her father from worshipping idols. We will
examine ibn Ezras comment on this verse:
I find it likely that the terafimresemble the human form, designed to
receive the higher powers, but I cannot explain this in detail
There are those who say that Rachel stole them to wean her father
from idolatry. If it were so, why would she take them with her and not
hide them beside the road?
It seems likely that her father Lavan knew the constellations, and she
was worried that her father would look in the constellations to know
which way they had fled
Ibn Ezra understands that there are three approaches (I find it likely;
There are those who say; It seems likely). We can immediately identify the

second interpretation cited as Rashis interpretation, which he rejects for the

following reason: if Rachel intends to break her fathers idolatrous habits, why
does she not toss away the terafim along the journey?
To this question, we must add another question: is Lavan able to get
otherterafim to replace the ones she steals? Since it appears clear that he
could get them, how would the theft help anyone?
Ibn Ezra posits a final explanation: the terafim were tools of prediction,
and Rachel took them in order to prevent her father from obtaining information
about their location. However, we must note that here as well, ibn Ezra uses
his enigmatic style, demurring, but I cannot explain this in detail.
When we read his words to his student, we understand why ibn Ezra
could not raise publicly his view concerning the theft of the terafim. We do not
have in our hands the Peirush Ha-shelishi for Parashat Vayeitzei, but we do
have the commentary to Parashat Vayishlach. There (Bereishit35:2) we find:
And Yaakov said to his house and to all with him, Remove the foreign gods
in your midst and purify yourselves and change your clothes, and it is not
clear what foreign gods these are. Rashi explains that the verse refers to
booty from the city of Shekhem. Ibn Ezra, as cited in Peirush Ha-shelishi,
says this:
And Yaakov said to his house [33]and to all with him, Remove the
foreign gods in your midst but until this point, he did not say this to
them. Now, Rachel stole her fathers terafim, because under their
fathers law they all were, the women and the children. This is what
is written there (ibid. 31:53), The God of Avraham and the god of
Nachor will judge between us, the God of their fathers.
And purify yourselves wash yourselves, because until now you
have served foreign gods.Therefore, And change your clothes,
similar to (Devarim 21:13), And she will remove her clothes of
captivity, for all of the garb and jewelry of idolaters is impure, and one
may not even benefit from them. Therefore, they gave the rings to him,
and Yaakov hid them.
There is no doubt that when ibn Ezra writes but I cannot explain this in
detail in his conventional commentary he means that Rachel stole
the terafim in order to use them. Writing this explicitly might not only, God
forbid, serve to strengthen the views of the heretics, it could lead to removal of
ibn Ezras commentary from the Jewish library, and therefore ibn Ezra does
not write it. At the same time, he does not want to conceal this interpretation
totally, and he therefore alludes to it.
*
At the end of these three lessons dealing with R. Avraham Ibn Ezra, we
may reach the conclusion that his contributions are remarkable. This is not
only due to the dozens of original interpretations which he crafts, but mainly
because of his methodology. He advocates studying the Torah and its

commentators with the Fear of Heaven on the one hand, but on the other
hand critically. One must accept the truth from whoever says it, and above all
one must never show favor in the pursuit of Torah.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] This is how the debate appears in Chullin (11a):

What is the rabbis source that we follow the majority?
What is their source?! It says Decide on the basis of the majority
The Talmud goes on to explain why the derivation from the verse is not appropriate for all
cases.
[2] The scribes (literally, transcribers or copyists) is ibn Ezras term for the Sages. Other
terms are our predecessors, our ancestors, and our sages.
[3] In Peirush Ha-arokh, he reverses himself and endorses the view of the Sages.
[4] There are additional examples of ibn Ezras commentaries rejecting the view of the
Sages:Peirush Ha-arokh, Shemot 20:13, 22:13; ibid. 22:28 (Ha-katzar and Ha-arokh); etc.
[5] This is apparently one of the reasons that ibn Ezra does not cite a great number of the
French exegetes, as opposed to the Spanish exegetes and grammarians, whose work,
apparently, he knew by heart.
[6] This fact is evident from the absence of Talmudic citations in his commentary.
[7] This is the fourth approach in his introduction to the Torah for Peirush Ha-arokh.
[8] This refers to the tradition of the scribes, i.e., the Sages.
[9] In order to understand ibn Ezras words, we should cite the verse in its entirety: If his
father has no brothers, you will give his inheritance to his close relative from his family, and he
will inherit it (otah) (Bamidbar 27:11). There is no doubt that according to the peshat of the
verses, the words And he will inherit it refer to the inheritance mentioned in the beginning of
the verse. (Otah is the third-person feminine, which may refer to a female person or a
feminine noun.) This is how the Sages expound it (Bava Batra 111b):
I might think that she shall inherit him? The verse says, And he will inherit her he
inherits her; she does not inherit him.
According to ibn Ezra, it was clear to the Sages that the simple meaning of the verse would
be understood by all, and they decided to use the verse to anchor another law, transmitted by
tradition.
[10] The Torah (Devarim 25:5-6) says:
If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead
man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husbands brother shall
go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husbands brother to
her. And the firstborn whom she bears, he shall succeed to the name of his dead
brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
Rashi understands, And the firstborn whom she bears in the following way: The mother
referred to here is the mother of the deceased, whose widow is married by her living son, the
levir. He is called the firstborn because preference is given to the oldest surviving brother, but
any of the surviving brothers can fulfill this role, assuming the role of the firstborn, and he
shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, by taking the portion of the dead brother in
their fathers estate.
Nevertheless, according to the peshat, there is no doubt that the mother mentioned is the
widow, as she is the subject of the previous verse, and this verse continues to describe her
situation: The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a
stranger And the firstborn whom she bears
According to ibn Ezra, the Sages do not reject thepeshat of the verses, but they only use it as
a framework on which to hang these laws, laws which have been accepted traditionally
(see Yevamot24a).
[11] The verse speaks about a Hebrew maidservant: If she is displeasing in the eyes of her
master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. To a foreign people
he has no authority to sell her, as he has betrayed her (Shemot 21:8). The peshat of the

verse is that the master cannot sell his Hebrew maidservant to a non-Jew, but the Sages
derive from this verse that one cannot sell a Hebrew maidservant twice (i.e., if the father sells
his daughter and she is emancipated, he may not sell her again). Here as well, ibn Ezra
claims that the peshat of the verse is accepted by the Sages, but they have made a support
for the law, which is derived from the tradition, on the verse.
[12] However, sometimes ibn Ezras classification of the Sages view as a lone opinion is in
error; see for example, Peirush Ha-katzar, Shemot 21:19.
[13] They were 10th-century Karaite exegetes.
[14] In another place (Peirush Ha-katzar, Shemot13:12), Ibn Ezra relates to this point
concerning themitzva of redeeming the firstborn:
Behold, we need to know about the redemption of the firstborn, and we cannot know
it from what is written, but rather from the words of tradition.
[15] See Peirush Ha-arokh, Shemot 9:30, 16:15.
[16] See, for example, Peirush Ha-katzar, Shemot23:20:
Behold I am So says Avraham, the noted Spaniard. Behold, I am sending forth my
hand by speaking against the great man who attacked his betters verbally, and arrogance
has issued from his lips.
[17] This is one of ibn Ezras grammatical treatises.
[18] This refers to Rashis teachers.
[19] In this context, we might ask how the Rashbam dared to challenge the Sages and
Rashi. AaronMondschein writes in R. Avraham Ibn Ezra Ha-ish Neged Ha-zerem, Beit
Mikra 49 (2004), p. 147:
Rashbam comes from the inside. As a famous master of Halakha, he stands on the
same firm ground on which his potential critics stand, and by this he leaves them without
proper ammunition. Not so ibn Ezra; his foreign identity card is not that of a rabbinical
scholar, one whose Torah is his occupation.
[20] The word sod is applied to more than one hundred times of his comments on the Torah.
[21] The Ramban reveals this secret in his commentary to Vayikra 16:8: And behold,
R. Avraham of faithful spirit conceals the matter, but I am a gossip, so I will tell his
secret See loc. cit.
[22] See, for example, his commentary to Shemot12:2 (explaining the luni-solar Hebrew
calendar),ibid. 12:40 (calculating the time of residence of the Israelites in the land of Egypt),
as well as Bamidbar3:39 (comparison of ratios).
[23] For ibn Ezra, Spain provides the model of the particularly intelligent, those who are fully
educated: they were experts in grammar, astrology and astronomy (in that era, there was no
distinction between the two), medicine, mathematics and philosophy the disciplines which
ibn Ezra incorporates into his commentary on the Torah.
[24] These are the four verses which the ibn Ezra cites:
A) And Moshe wrote this song on that day (Devarim 31:22) in this case, the entirety
of the chapter is problematic, because all of Devarim, aside from the introduction and the last
four chapters, is written in the first person, and the speaker is Moshe Rabbeinu. This seems
to indicate that whatever is written in the third person is the work not of Moshe, but another
person.
B) And the Canaanites were then in the land (Bereishit 12:6) it appears that then in
the verse addresses a later reader, one living in a time in which the Canaanites are no longer
in the land, so at earliest it must be after the conquest of Yehoshua.
C) As it will be said today, On Gods mountain, He will be seen (Bereishit 22:14) it
is implied that this was written during the era in which the Israelites would perform their
festival pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
D) And behold his bedstead is an iron bedstead; is it not in Rabba of the Ammonites?
(Devarim 3:11) it appears that the verse comes to verify the historicity of the war against
Og, King of Bashan, by noting the fact that until this very day (the time of composition), one
may still see the iron bedstead, thus proving that Og was indeed a giant. From this, it is clear
that the verse was not written by the generation that fought Og and saw him, but a later
generation.
[25] See Shittat Ha-bechinot shel Ha-Rav Mordekhai Breuer, pp. 311-2.
[26] In the 18th century, there was an exchange of correspondence between Shmuel David
Luzzatto and Shlomo Yehuda Rappaport, in which the former accused ibn Ezra of being a
closet heretic:

What can we say when we see his cleverness, making himself a saint in the eyes of the
readers of his work? He says: Look, I am pure, and this is part of his twisty scheme. His
thoughts are the opposite of his words.(Kerem Chemed, 5599, No. 20)
[27] This is what is written in the beginning ofParashat Vayishlach:
And I, Yosef b. R. Yaakov of Moudeville, have heard from him the interpretation of
these portions in London orally, and I have written it in my language.
In other words, the content is Ibn Ezras, but the formulation and style is that of his student, R.
Yosef b. R. Yaakov.
[28] Out of gratitude for this student, ibn Ezra put together the important book Yesod Mora,
dealing with the reasoning of the mitzvot.
[29] On this commentary, see Aaron Mondschein, Shitta Shelishit Le-feirusho shel R.
Avraham Ibn Ezra, in Or Le-Yaakov: Mechkarim Ba-Mikra U-vemegillot Midbar Yehuda (Tel
Aviv, 5757), p. 179.
[30] This appears in the HaKeter edition.
[31] This is what Rashi writes:
Since he disarranged his bed, the verse equates it to sleeping with her. Now why did he
disarrange and profane his bed? When Rachel died, Yaakov took his bed which had
been regularly placed in Rachels tent, not in the other tents and relocated it to Bilhas
tent. Reuven came and challenged his mothers humiliation. He said, My mother was
forced to compete with her sister; now, must she compete with her sisters
handmaid? This is why he disarranged it.
According to this, the conclusion of the verse, And Yaakovs sons were twelve, is tied to the
beginning of the verse. Rashi concludes and explains that the words, And Yaakovs sons
were twelve are in fact the Torahs testimony establishing Reuvens innocence:
Our rabbis have derived that it teaches us that they were all equal and they were all
righteous, for Reuven did not sin.
[32] See lecture #6.
[33] Ibn Ezra is slightly paraphrasing the verse.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
FESTIVAL OF FREEDOM: ESSAYS ON PESAH AND THE HAGGADAH
by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
SPECIAL VBM 20% DISCOUNT $20.00
*********************************************************

Lecture #16:
Rav David Kimchi
A.

Biography

The Radak R. David Kimchi (1160-1235) was born and active in Provence, in
southern France, near Spain. The Radak was a member of a family of Spanish grammarians
and exegetes, including his father R. Yosef[1] and his brother R. Moshe.[2] Like R. Avraham
ibn Ezra, the Kimchi family brought the fundamentals of linguistics and grammar from Spain
to France.
R. Yosef was the Radaks mentor, and he is quoted more than three hundred times in
his sons commentaries: My lord father explained or This is what my lord father wrote.
Radak also studied Torah with his brother, R. Moshe, and he is often cited in his commentary
in the following way: And my master brother, R. Moshe, explained. [3]The Radak also wrote
commentaries to Bereishit,Neviim Rishonim and Acharonim, Tehillim, andDivrei Ha-yamim.
We do not know if he wrote any commentary on the other books of the Torah as well.

The Radak composed two linguistic works: Sefer Ha-dikduk (the Book of
Investigation) and Sefer Ha-shorashim (the Book of Roots), which are bound together in a
volume called SeferMikhlol (the Book of the Array). Sefer Ha-dikdukdeals with Hebrew
grammar; Sefer Ha-shorashim is a Hebrew lexicon.[4] The importance of these works to the
sphere of biblical exegesis if incalculable. Despite the fact that we do not have the Radaks
commentaries on four of the five books of the Torah, Sefer Mikhlol is an important exegetical
source. In Sefer Ha-shorashim, we may discover, using the Radaks dictionary, the meanings
of dozens of verses.[5]
For example, consider the verse (Shemot16:15), And when the Israelites saw it, they
said one to another: What is it? (man hu) for they did not know what it was. The two
words man hu may be seen as interrogatory What is it? or declarative It is man!
The Radak, in Sefer Ha-shorashim, takes the latter view; according to him,man comes from
the root mem-nun-heh, a portion or a gift:
Since they did not know its name, they called it man, that is, a gift and a portion from
God
B.

The Radaks Exegetical Approach

The Radaks Attitude toward Derash

As the scion of a family of Spanish grammarians, the Radaks exegesis is based on
the approach of peshat, founded on principles of linguistics, vowelization, grammar,
lexicography, and tradition. The Radaks style in his commentary is direct and clear.[6]
Despite the fact that Radak sees himself as a pashtan, he does not hesitate to
cite derash. However, when the Radak quotes these sources, it is obvious that he has a
distinction between peshatand derash. Generally, the Radak will bring the explanation
according to peshat, and afterwards he will add, And there is derash The Radak explains,
in his introduction to his commentary onNeviim Rishonim, what his guiding principles are for
utilizing Midrashic sources:
I will cite the words of our rabbis of blessed memory in places in which we need their
interpretation and their tradition nevertheless. Also, I will bring some Midrashic
sources for the lovers ofderash.
Thus, the principles of the Radak in citing Midrashic sources are:
1. Derash may be used when it is difficult to resolve the peshat without any derash.[7]
2. For the lovers of derash, the Radak cites a nice derash in order to explain the text
and engage his readers. Indeed, many Midrashic sources brought by the Radak draw
the readers attention.
Morality and Ethics as the Torahs Purpose
In his introduction to Neviim Rishonim, the Radak explains the importance of practice
over study:
Our rabbis of blessed memory said Whoever says: I have nothing but Torah does
not have Torah (Yevamot 109b). This means [that if one says]: I have no interest in
performing commandments; I only wish to read the Torah, even the merit of reading
the Torah is not his by right, as it says: And you shall study [them and keep them] to
fulfill them (Devarim 5:1). Anything which exists in practice exists in study, and but
anything which does not exist in practice does not exist in study For the study
without practice is ineffectual; in fact, it is harmful and damaging to oneself and to
others
What he means by this is that a person is required to study the Torah in order to fulfill
it; if Torah study is purely theoretical, it is meaningless and even detrimental harmful and

damaging. These words of the Radak apply not only to mitzvot which are obviously binding
and demand action but even to the narrative section of the Torah: the study of the words
without action does not help at all.
Furthermore, it appears that in the view of the Radak, the Torah is not a historical
tome, and therefore not all of the stories of the Patriarchs have made it into the Torah. Those
stories of the Patriarchs which have been selected to put into the Torah must fulfill one
criterion: teaching a moral lesson.[8] When it is not clear, the exegete must find it. We find in
the Radaks commentary to the Book of Bereishit many formulations along these lines:
Therefore this story was written; And this was written to teach people; To teach you; So
that a person may learn; This entire story is to inform us; etc. The numerous expressions
testify to the Radaks worldview, according to which the Torah is designed to teach us the
ways of the world.
A profound example of this may be seen in his commentary on the conversation of
Yosefs brothers, after Yosef accuses them of espionage and wants to imprison one of them
(Bereishit42:21):
And they said one to another, Indeed, we are guilty concerning our brother, in that
we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear;
therefore, this distress has come upon us.
Apparently, this verse comes to teach us that Yosefs brothers regret selling him.
However, according to the view of the Radak, the Torahs stories are not designed to tell us
stories about the Patriarchs but to teach us morals, and therefore the Radak explains the
verse otherwise:
Therefore, this distress has come upon us We may learn from this story that
when distress comes upon a person, he should inspect his actions and examine what
the bad action is that he has done; he may express remorse and confess before God,
and then he may seek atonement from Him.
Another example, from the same cycle of stories, is that of Yosef and Potifars wife:
It was all for his good and the good of his father and his brothers, and even though it
was difficult at the outset, it was for the good in the end. The same is true of the sin of
the butler and Pharaohs dream; all of this was by Gods reason, for by this Yosef
came to power. This story is written to let us know the reason of the matter: if
anything happens to a person, he should trust in God. This is also written to
tell you the righteousness of Yosef; one may learn from this to conquer his
inclination and to keep faith with one who trusts him, whoever it may be, and
never act falsely. (Commentary to Bereishit 39:7)
In other words, this story has two morals. One concerns bad things befalling good
people: when something bad happens to a person, he should trust in God that all is for the
good; even though it was difficult at the outset, it was for the good in the end. [9] The second
lesson concerns conquering ones evil inclination in order to keep faith with another who has
demonstrated his trust, even if it is a non-Jew such as Potifar (whoever it may be). As in the
first example, the Radak here expresses his belief that the Torahs aim in relating the
Patriarchs stories is not to convey knowledge of their actions, but rather to teach a lesson
and a moral.
In the introduction to the Binding of Yitzchak, the Radak writes his explicit view of the
aim of the Torahs stories:
The issue of the test is very difficult to say of God, for He knows the heart and
understands the innards, and He knew that Avraham would do what He
commanded In fact, the truth is that this test serves to show people the Avrahams
full love. It is not done for those generations; rather, it is for the following
generations, who believe in the Torah as Moshe Rabbeinus transcription of

Gods words. Through its stories, they will see the extent of Avrahams love for
God, and they will learn from it to love God with all of their hearts and all of
their souls
In truth, before the Torah and its stories were written, this important matter was
handed down to the seed of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, for Yitzchak transmitted
it to Yaakov, and Yaakov to his sons. However, after the Torah was written for
Yaakovs sons, the matter was publicized in the world, some believing it and some
disbelieving it Now that most people in the world believe this great story,[10] it
testifies significantly to the nature of Avraham Avinu, who loved God so
completely and wholeheartedly. It is worth it for a person to learn from him the
way of His love. (Commentary toBereishit 22:1)
Consequently, when the Radak does not find a message, he notes the problem.
Thus, for example, in his commentary to Bereishit 47:7, he writes:
And Yaakov blessed Pharaoh He gave him peace in the way that one comes
before a king but I have found no reason for this story, as to why it was
written.
Unapologetic about the Patriarchs
According to the Radak, just as one may learn from the positive acts of the
forefathers of the nation, so one may learn from their negative acts. Therefore, the Radak
does not engage in apologetics; instead, he writes explicitly that the narratives which describe
the negative acts of the Patriarchs have been written in order to help us avoid this sort of
behavior.
An example of this is Saras mistreatment of Hagar. The Radak does not hesitate in
criticizing Sara, teaching us a moral lesson:
And Sarai mistreated her She did more than appropriate, subjugating her cruelly.
It seems that she would strike her and curse her and she could not stand it so she
fled.Sara did not act in accordance with the trait of morality and the trait of
piety.Even though Avraham permitted her to do this, saying, Do what is good in your
eyes, it was appropriate for her to pull back her hand and not to mistreat her, for the
sake of his own honor. Sara displayed neither the trait of piety nor a good soul, for it
is not appropriate for one to do whatever one can to whoever is under ones
control Furthermore, what Sara did was not good in Gods eyes, as the angel said
to Hagar, For God has heard of your mistreatment (v. 19), and he gave her a
blessing in place of this This story is written in the Torah so that one may adopt
the good traits and avoid the bad ones.(Commentary to Bereishit 16:6)
Details for Moral Purposes
According to the Radak, superfluous details apparently come to teach us a lesson.
This, for example, is his approach in his commentary to the story of the three angels visit to
Avraham (Bereishit18). The point of the angels coming to Avraham is to inform him of
Yitzchaks birth and Sedoms destruction. Why does the verse set out in great detail the words
and actions of Avraham?
The Radak answers:
Do not pass Na is a term of supplication and request Now, this entire story
serves to teach a person to conduct himself with all beings with righteousness and
kindness. To act kindly is to bring guests into ones home, to honor them and to
provide their needs: washing their feet, drinking, even providing a bed if they will
sleep in his house. (Commentary toBereishit 18:3)
Difficult Formulations

The Radak argues that the Torah uses problematic formulations in order to point to
a certain message. An example of this may be seen in his commentary on the verse
(Bereishit 18:21), I shall go down now, and I shall see whether they have done altogether
according to its cry, which has come to Me. God is speaking of Sedom, but the phrasing, I
shall go down now, and I shall see, is puzzling. The Radak explains:
Even though everything is revealed and known before God, the Torah writes this to
teach people not to be hasty in their judgment. God said, To see, and He said, And
I shall see this seeing refers to considering the actions of the party, seeing if
there is a reason to exempt them from the punishment, just as a human will debate
judicial matters.
Redundancies and Parallelism
Among the many principles that the Radak discusses, let us talk about the principle
of kefel lashon, redundancy. The Radak points out consistently that the Torah often uses
repetitious language, not because each word introduces new meaning, but because the verse
seeks to stress the significance of a given issue. This view stands in stark contrast to that of
Rashi, who argues that generally speaking, one must assign meaning to every word, as there
cannot be any redundancy in the biblical text.
For example, in the story of the Binding of Yitzchak, God says to Avraham, Do not
send your hand towards the youth, and do not do anything to him. The Radak explains that
there are not two different commandments; rather, It repeats this issue in different words to
amplify the warning. Rashi, in accordance with his view, explains otherwise:
Do not send your hand towards the youth To slaughter. He said to Him: If so, did
I come here for nothing? Let me wound him slightly, and take some blood out of him.
Therefore, He said to him, And do not do anything to him do not put a blemish in
him.
Another example is found in the story of Yaakovs anxious anticipation of his
encounter with Esav, in which the Torah says, And Yaakov feared exceedingly, and he was
distressed (Bereishit32:8). The Radak explains:
It repeats this matter in different words to magnify his trepidation.
However, we must understand the words of the Radak in the context of Rashis
explanation (which the Radak cites):
And Yaakov feared lest he be killed.
And he was distressed lest he kill others.
The Reasons for Keri and Ketiv
One issue which occupies the Radak a great deal was establishing the Masoretic
text. The Radak travelled around Spain a great deal in order to inspect different manuscripts.
[11] Sometimes, the version of the Radak is different from the version which we have.[12]
The Radak refers in a number of places to the issue of understanding the difference
betweenketiv (the text as it is written) and keri (the text as it is read). These are his words in
his introduction toNeviim Rishonim:
I will write the reason for the written and the read It appears that these words are
present here because, during the first exile, the books were lost and disarranged, and
the sages who knew Scripture died. When the members of the Great Assembly
returned the Torah to its ancient form, they found a difference of opinion in the books,
so they followed the majority, according to their view. In cases in which they did not
fully understand the matter, they wrote one version but did not vowelize it.

According to the Radak, the differences between keri and ketiv emerge from the
doubts created after the destruction of the First Temple, because of the exile, concerning the
text of the books of Tanakh. The members of the Great Assembly expended great effort to
explain the text and to decide among the different versions. When they could not decide
among them, they made one the ketiv and the other the keri.[13] Generally speaking, the
Radak explains both the keri and theketiv. Sometimes, he posits that they reflect an
equivalent idea And the matter is one but sometimes he explains the keri and ketiv in
different ways.
Original Interpretations
The Radak has to his credit a number of totally original interpretations. Here are two
examples:
A)

Yitzchaks desire to bless Esav specifically is explained by the Radak in this

way:
This is why Yitzchak asked his son to bring him game, so that his heart might be
gladdened and he might bless him, for he knew that he needed his blessing
because he was not a good, suitable man. However, Yaakov did not require a
blessing, because Yitzchak knew that Avrahams blessing would be his, along with
the unique blessing of establishing Avrahams seed, and his sons would inherit the
land. After all, Avraham never blessed Yitzchak. (Commentary to Bereishit 27:4)
According to the Radak, Yitzchak recognizes Esavs personality as well, and
specifically because of this, he chooses to bless him and not Yaakov: Esav needs the
blessing more, because Yaakov will merit Avrahams blessing in his own right, just as Yitzchak
received it even though Avraham never explicitly blessed him.
B)

After Yosefs coat of many colors is brought to Yaakov, the Torah says:

Then Yaakov tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his
son many days. All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he
refused to be comforted and said, No, I shall go down to the netherworld to my son,
mourning. Thus his father wept for him. (Bereishit 37:34-35)
The conclusion of v. 35 is difficult, because the subject of the sentence, But he refused to be
comforted and said, No, I shall go down to the netherworld to my son, mourning, is Yaakov,
so that the term his father is totally superfluous, and it would have been enough to write
and he wept for him. [14]The Radak explains the verse:
And his father wept for him It says his father because he demonstrated a
fathers love for a faithfully serving son who was his constant companion. Even
though he was a shepherd with his brothers, at most times he was standing with his
father and serving him. Therefore, at all of the times during which he was missing his
service, he would recall him and he could not hold himself back from crying.
According to the Radak, the verse stresses the uniquely loving relationship of Yaakov
and his son Yosef. Similarly, the Radak explains the cry of Yaakov, which is mentioned in the
end of the verse and not in the previous verse, which describes his mourning. The Radak
reveals himself as an exegete of great humanity and sensitivity, who understands the
seething emotions of the soul.
C.

The Radak and Christianity

Despite the fact that these lessons deal with the exegesis of the Torah, it is incumbent
upon us to mention the commentary of the Radak onTehillim.[15] In his commentary, he
clearly explains some matters based on the events of the Crusades, and as a result of this,

some of his commentaries were censored. We will bring two examples of comments which
relate to the Crusades:
A band of evildoers have encircled me, like a lion, my hands and my feet For they
have encircled me like a lion encircles his prey in the jungle with his tail. Any animal
which finds itself in this circle will not depart out of dread and fear of the lion; instead,
they draw in their hands and feet, so that the lion preys on them inside the circle.
Similarly, we in exile are inside the circle, so that we cannot leave it without falling into
the hands of the predators, for if we leave the domain of the Ishmaelites, we will fall
into the domain of the uncircumcised. Behold, we gather in our hands and feet and
stand in fear and dread of them, for we have no right to flee with our feet and fight
with our hands, and therefore it is as if our hands and feet are in fetters.
(Commentary to Tehillim 22:17)
Concerning this psalm, there are those who say that it was said by David in his exile
among the Philistines, and there are those who say that this was said in the language
of the exiles, and this is what is correct. Thus, he says it in singular language, as if
every one of the exiles is moaning and crying out from the exile, desiring the Holy
Land, hoping that the glory may return to it. (Ibid. 42:2)

***
We will conclude with a poem in honor of the Radak which appears in
the introduction to the Radaks Sefer Mikhlol, written by the publisher, R.
Yitzchak b. Aharon Rittenberg, in the year 1862:
Who is like David, Yosefs son,
In every house faithful to the holy tongue?
Who is like him to gather every one
Of the array of tools in the artisans belts hung?
General and specific are his grammatical feats,
And they are many; no man is left out of the story.
There is no breach, no outgoing, no crying in our streets. [16]
Your right hand, David, is raised in the holy tongues glory.
Its roots you have planted; now they flower in the sun.
The true Torahs explanations you have explored,
And the vision of its prophets, seven on one,[17]
As good wisdom from your spirit you poured.
All nations have seen your writing,
And they have adorned you with the highest laurel.
They compose this dictum, voices uniting:
If there is no kemach, [18] there is no Torah is the moral.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

He was an important exegete in his own right, who wrote many commentaries to Torah
andNeviim. Most of his commentaries have not survived through the ages, but he is quoted
extensively by his two sons, R. David and R. Moshe.
[2] R. Moshe Kimchi was also a biblical exegete who explained according to peshat. Most of
his writings have been lost, but at this time we have his commentaries on Mishlei,
Iyov, and Ezra-Nechemya.
[1]

The Radak is very careful to distinguish between his brother and the Rambam, whom he
also quotes a great deal; he refers to the latter as, The master, Rabbeinu Moshe, or The
great sage, Rabbeinu Moshe.
[4] As for the impetus for writing his works, the Radak explains the following in Sefer Mikhlol:
If a person comes to study the discipline of grammar, he will wear himself out trying to study
all of the authors works; indeed one will have to study them all of his days! It is not good for a
person to be ignorant of grammar; rather he must involve himself with Torah and
commandments, with interpretations and needful things from the words our rabbis of blessed
memory. Thus, one must deal with grammar briefly so that one may study the words
appropriately However, God has inspired me and strengthened my heart to write the book
in a concise manner, and I have come like the gatherer after the harvester and the picker after
the vintner, and I have set out in their footsteps to abridge their words and to write a book. I
have called it Sefer Mikhlol, because I wanted to include in it the grammar of language and its
topics in the briefest manner, so that it will be simple for students to study it and to understand
its path, and they will find in it everything they need of grammar and the like at their
fingertips
[5] R. E. Z. Melamed, scholar of biblical exegesis, in his book Mefarshei Ha-Mikra, Vol. II
(Jerusalem, 5735), pp. 782-8, compiles a list of verses explained through Sefer Hashorashim.
[6] Perhaps it is specifically his clear style which has worked to the Radaks disadvantage, so
that his commentary is not as widely studied as those of Rashi and ibn Ezra. Rashi and ibn
Ezra write very concisely and sometimes (particularly in the latters case), their words are
difficult to understand because of their extreme terseness, and therefore they have many
supercommentaries. The Radak does not have many supercommentaries; ironically, the
accessibility of the text ultimately leads to its being less widely studied.
[7] See Bereishit 24:32, s.v. Va-yitten, U-mayim.
[8] The Ralbag was influenced by this method, and he explores, in his commentary to the
Torah, the moral lessons that he finds in these stories.
[9] This does not contradict his view (cited above, concerning the words of Yosefs brothers,
Therefore, this distress has come upon us) that when one finds himself in distress, he
must inspect his actions and repent. The individual must inspect his actions because of the
distress which has already befallen him, hoping simultaneously that it will ultimately turn out
for the good.
[10] In the part we have skipped, the Radak explains that despite the fact that the Christians
believe that one should explain the mitzvot of the Torah in an allegorical manner, they
concede that the narratives of the Torah are true.
[11] This is what arises from his own words in a number of places in his commentary:
There are books in which it is emended: And from the tribe of Reuven (Yehoshua 21:7).
This is what I have in a number of precise books, but in others I have found it [vowelized] with
akamatz (Yechezkel 11:16).
[12] See Yeshayahu 13:16, 16:20; Yirmiyahu 17:13.
[13] Abarbanel, in his introduction to the Book ofYirmiyahu (pp. 299-300), disputes this:
How can I believe in my soul and how can I raise on my lips that Ezra the Scribe, who found
the book of Gods Torah and the books of his Prophets, and the others who spoke with the
Holy Spirit, were flummoxed by doubts and discombobulated? We know that a Torah scroll
missing one letter is invalid, all the more so for keri and ketiv!
[14] Because of this question, Rashi brings a source from Bereishit Rabba (84:21): Yitzchak
cries because of Yaakovs distress According to this explanation, the term his father does
not relate to Yaakov (the subject of the previous verse, For I shall go down), but to
Yaakovs father Yitzchak: Yitzchak feels Yaakovs pain.
[15] The Radaks commentary on Tehillim was one of the first books in Hebrew.
[16] The verse is Tehillim 144:14, Our oxen are carrying, there is no breach, no outgoing, no
crying in our streets in other words, thanks to Radaks writings, There is no breach
(crack) in our language and no crying in our streets, i.e., no unanswered questions.
[17] Perhaps the reference is to the seven books of the Prophets: Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel,
Melakhim, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu and Yechezkel. Another possibility is that it alludes
to Yeshayahu4:1, And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, We will
eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away
our disgrace. In other words, the Radak takes away our disgrace.
[3]

Translators note: Kemach literally means flour; in Avot 3:17, this refers to the necessity
of material sustenance in order to pursue spiritual activities. Here, it is a pun on the family
name Kimchi.
[18]

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #17:
Ramban, Part I
A.

Biography

Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman[1] (henceforth known as the Ramban) was born in
Girona, Catalonia (today in northeast Spain), part of the Crown of Aragon, in 1194. This area
was heavily influenced by Spanish Muslim culture and by French Ashkenazic culture. Indeed,
the Rambans writings reflect Spanish philosophy as well as the studiousness which
characterized Ashkenazic Jewry. The Ramban was a physician by profession, but he
studied Tanakh, Talmud, philosophy and philology as well.
The Raman served as a yeshiva head in Barcelona and as leader of the Jewish
community. In the year 1232, following the polemics about the Rambams writings,[2] the
Ramban tried to resolve the conflict between the Rambams supporters on the one hand and
his opponents on the other, by offering a compromise: the Rambams work would no longer
be banned, but there would be a minimum age for studying philosophy and science. In its
time, the Rambans attempt at compromise was not successful.
In the year 1263, as part of his position as chief rabbi of Castilian Jewry, the Ramban
was asked by King James I of Aragon[3] to represent Judaism in a public debate with
Christianity. This disputation occurred in Barcelona, in the royal palace and in the royal
presence. Pablo Christiani, a Jewish apostate, represented the Church. For four days,
Christiani attempted to bring proofs of Jesus divinity and of the abrogation of the
commandments of the Torah from the Tanakh and the Talmud, but the Ramban refuted all of
his claims. The disputation ended with the Ramban victorious, and he received a reward of
300 dinars. The Ramban summarized the debates in a book, which exists today as the Sefer
Ha-vikuach, and following the publication of this work, the organizers of the disputation
wanted to put the Ramban on trial for defaming and libeling Christianity. This came about two
years after the end of the disputation (1265). Due to the kings intervention, this was delayed,
but the disputations organizers succeeded in convincing Pope Clement IV to condemn the
Ramban to perpetual exile over what he wrote in Sefer Ha-vikuach. Thus, in 1267, the
Ramban had no choice but to flee Spain; he moved to the Land of Israel.
By mid-1267, the Ramban had reached the coast of Acre, and on the 9 th of Elul (the
first of September) he arrived in Jerusalem.[4] The Ramban was shocked by what he found:
Jerusalem was in ruins, the economic status of the Jews was very difficult, and their numbers
were very low, to the extent that it was quite challenging to find a ten-man quorum for public
prayer. The Ramban describes in a long elegy the misery of Jerusalems Jewish population
at this time:

Over these I cry and forswear all pleasure,

For the city remains in waste and desolate beyond measure.
Our holy and glorious temple, where our fathers praised you, has been
burned with fire, and in ruins lie all our treasures.

How the faithful city has become a byword!

Great among the nation, supreme and preferred,
How has this befallen the lands sovereign? How absurd!

The dove city, perfect to every extent,

Sun-bright, moon-beautiful in ascent,
Myrrh and frankincense are her scent.

Holy one, I saw in you, by todays light,

A most difficult and troubling sight.
I found in you a Jew who weathered cruelty and spite;
A dyer he was, and I witnessed his plight. [5]
He had borne every unbearable slight.[6]
Old and young gather in the house to make a quorum:
A congregation, though they have no place in the forum, [7]
No possession or property to maintain decorum,
Poor, needy, indigent, without argent or aurum.
The destroyed state of the city and the status of the Jews in it touched
the Rambans heart, and with great determination he came out to strengthen
the city and to reorganize the remnants of the community in
Jerusalem. Among other projects, the Ramban built a synagogue (named
after him) in the city at a partially ruined site. With the Rambans arrival in
Jerusalem and his activities to revive the community, Jews started to
return. Despite his minimal stay in Jerusalem (about a year, apparently), his
influence on the character of the city was tremendous, and we may credit the
Ramban with rejuvenating Jewish Jerusalem in the 13 thcentury. From
Jerusalem, he returned to Acre, which had the largest and most important
Jewish community in the Land of Israel, where he lived until his death at age
76 in the year 1270.[8]
B.

The Rambans Writings

The Ramban composed dozens of works, among them novellae on

different tractates of the Talmud; Sefer Milchamot Hashem, in which the
Ramban protects the Rif from the attacks of the Baal Ha-maor; halakhic
compositions and philosophical works; glosses on the Rambams Sefer Hamitzvot; books of responsa, etc. However, his most famous work is his
commentary on the Torah, which was among the first books to be published in
Hebrew.
In his writings, the Ramban demonstrates clear his expansive and
deep mastery of the Talmud; the writings of the Rif, Rashi and Tosafot (the
Tosafists are mentioned in his commentary on the Talmud more than one
hundred and fifty times[9]); the Sages homilies; his predecessors exegesis
(Onkelos, Rashi, ibn Ezra); and philosophical knowledge of great breadth and
depth.[10] The Ramban integrates the studiousness of the Ashkenazic-French
study hall, with the philosophy and philology which characterized Torah study
in Spain. The Ramban was considered in his time the head of Spanish Jewry,
but he was accepted and praised by the sages of France and Ashkenaz.
Rav Dr. Yitzchak Unna, in his research on the Ramban, describes very
well[11] the complexity of the Ramban:

The Ramban unifies, as it were, the virtues of both sides. Aside from
his great expertise in Talmud and his respect for tradition, he also
exhibits knowledge of philosophy and fine sensitivity for all linguistic
issues. Nevertheless, tradition is always his guide in his commentary,
and in every place he tries to repel the attacks against it. However, he
knows well the nature of the problems which the Torah sets before us;
he recognizes the streams of time and the questions which come out of
them, and he does not retreat before them.
C.

Characteristics of Commentary to the Torah

As we have said, in all of his writings, the Rambans commentary to the

Torah is the most widely distributed. Thus, he had great influence in shaping
Jewish thought.
As for the aim of his commentary, the Ramban writes in his introductory
poem:
In the name of God, awesome, mighty and great,
I shall begin my comments on the Torah, to innovate
My mind is not broad enough for all of its secrets to accommodate.
Hidden in its house and veiled in the rooms of its estate,
For every treasure and every wonder and every deep secret and every
glorious wisdom incarnate,
Remains stored up in it, sealed in its storehouse, innate
In allusion and speech, to write and state.
As the prophet, glorious in crown and in royal garb habilitate,
The anointed of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel did
dictate:
I have seen a limit to all perfection, but your commandment is
exceedingly broad (Tehillim 119:96)
But what shall I do? My soul longs to plunge in the Torahs stream!
There is in my heart a consuming fire, a burning gleam
Stopped up in my innards to the extreme.
I long to follow in the footsteps of the first ones, the lions of the team,
The geniuses of the generations, masters of might and esteem:
To bear with them the heaviness of the beam,
To write in them simple meanings in verses and lore, in
commandments and homilies to deem
Ordered in all things and sure, as they seem.
The lamps of the pure candelabrum I set as my light,
The words of Rabbeinu Shelomo,coronet of beauty, diadem of
glorious might.
His name is his crown; Scripture, Mishna and Talmud, his delight.
His is the firstborns rite.
Of his words I think, in their love I sink, to debate and defend, to
examine and excite
Every definition and derivation
And every allegorical citation
Mentioned in his commentation.

And Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra, I will speak of

With open rebuke and hidden love.
This introductory poem reveals a number of characteristics of this
commentary. First of all, the Ramban in his commentary intends to offer new
interpretations (I shall begin my comments on the Torah, to innovate) and
not to explain the verses sequentially. When the Ramban does not interpret a
given verse, we may assume that he intends to accept Rashis approach
(unless he explicitly states otherwise), as he writes in his poem, The lamps of
the pure candelabrum I set as my light/ The words of Rabbeinu
Shelomo, coronet of beauty, diadem of glorious might. [12] Another
characteristic of the commentary is its being a wide-ranging, comprehensive
commentary, in which the Ramban uses specific verses as jumping boards to
general topics. The Ramban does not look only at the verse which stands
before him, but rather the general context, and he relates to additional
contents and topics which are tied to the issue under discussion.
D.

Two Examples of the Rambans Generalist Approach

We will now examine two instances of the Rambans wide-ranging

exegesis from the Book of Bereishit: the food designated for the human race,
as descendants of Adam and Noach, and the massacre of the male citizenry
of Shekhem by Yaakovs sons.
Mans Dietary Laws
First let us consider his commentary on Bereishit 1:29-30, And God
said, Behold I have given to you all seed-bearing vegetation The Ramban
explains at length the shift which occurs in the menu of people from their
creation until Noach leaves the Ark:
but he gave to Adam and his wife every seed-bearing herb and all of
the fruits of the tree. To the animals of the land and the birds of the
heaven, he gave every grassy herb, not the fruits of the tree or the
seeds. Their food is not for all of them together equally, but until the
Noahides, they were not allowed to eat meat, according to our
Rabbis. This is the simple meaning of the verse. Now, this is because
the owners of the moving soul have a bit of an elevation in their souls;
they may be compared in it to the intelligent soul, having a choice in
their good and their foods-, and fleeing from pain and death. Indeed,
the verse says (Kohelet 3:21), Who knows whether the spirit of man
goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
When they sinned, and every flesh corrupted its way upon the earth,
He decreed that they would die in the Flood, and because of Noach
they were saved, in order that the species might survive, so He gave
them permission to slaughter and eat, that this might serve for their
survival.

Nevertheless, there was no permission given to them [to partake] of the

soul, and He forbade them [to eat] a limb from a living animal. Similarly,
He added for us the commandments to forbid every type blood,
because it maintains the soul, as it says (Vayikra 17:14), For the soul
of every flesh, its blood is in its soul, and He said to the Israelites, The
blood of very flesh do not eat, for the soul of every flesh is its blood,
for He permits [the consumption of] the body of the living that does not
speak after its death, not the soul itself
We should note the many topics to which the Ramban relates in this
comment:
1. An explanation of the verse itself, in which the Ramban distinguishes
between that which is allowed for human beings and that which is allowed for
animals to eat.
2. The reason to forbid eating animals for Adam.
3. A reason to annul the prohibition for Noahides.
4. Delimiting the application of eating animals.
On the other hand, Rashi explains the verses precisely:
For you it shall be to eat, and for all the animals of the land the
verse equates for them wild and domesticated animals to eat, [13] and it
does not allow Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat meat, but
every grassy herb they may eat, all of them together. When the
Noahides were permitted to eat meat, it says (below 9:3), Every
creeping thing which lives, etc. like the grassy herb which I gave to
Adam, I have given you everything.
The Execution of the Men of Shekhem
An additional example is the Rambans interpretation of the narrative of
Shekhem, in which the Ramban (Bereishit34:13) relates to a wide range of
topics. First, he wonders how it is that Yaakov seems shocked and surprise by
his sons action; was he not present when they devised their scheme and
convinced the men of Shekhem to circumcise themselves?
There is a question here: it appears that by the will of her father and his
counsel they answered, for they were before him, and he knew how
they responded, speaking with guile; if so, why was he
angry? Moreover, how can it be that he would marry his daughter off to
a Canaanite who had defiled her? Behold all of the brothers respond
thus with guile, and Shimon and Levi alone did the act [of the killing the
men of the city], but their father cursed [Shimon and Levi] alone?
Now, the guile was in their saying that every male should circumcise
himself, for they believed that the people of the city would not have
done that, and if perhaps they would listen to the princes and they
would all be circumcised, they could come on the third day when they
were in pain and take their daughter from Shekhems house. This was

the counsel of the brothers, sanctioned by their father, but Shimon and
Levi wanted to be avenged of them, and they killed all the men of the
city.
It may be that the anger of Yaakov, who cursed their wrath, came
because they killed the men of the city, who had not sinned towards
him, and what was fit for them is that they should have killed Shekhem
[the prince of the city] alone. This is what the verse says, The sons of
Jacob answered Shekhem and his father Chamor with guile, because
he had defiled their sister Dina. For all of them agreed to speak to him
with guile, because of the outrage committed against them.
Now, many have asked: how could Yaakovs righteous sons have
committed this act, spilling innocent blood?
The master responded in Sefer Shofetim (Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14) and
said that Noahides are bound [to enforce] laws and a Noahide who
violates one of them is killed by the sword Because of this, all of the
citizens of Shekhem were deserving of capital punishment, because
[Prince] Shekhem was a thief, and they saw and knew this, but they did
not bring him to justice.
These things are not right in my eyes, for if so, Yaakov would have to
have taken the lead in killing them. Even if he was afraid of them, why
did he rage against his sons and curse their anger repeatedly,
punishing them by sundering and scattering them? Did they not take
the initiative and fulfill a commandment, trusting in God, Who in fact
saved them?!
In my view, the law [enforcement] which they counted for the Noahides
among their seven commandments is not to establish judges in each
and every province alone; He also bound them to uphold the laws of
theft and fraud This includes appointing judges in each and every
city, just as for Israel, but if they do not do so, they are not killed,
because [law enforcement] is a positive commandment for
them. Indeed they said (Sanhedrin 57a), that their prohibition is their
death penalty, and a prohibition is only that which one is proscribed
from doing. This is the way of the Talmud in Sanhedrin (59b)
Why does the master[14] search for a liability? Were the men of
Shekhem and the seven nations not idolaters and adulterers,
committing all that God finds abominable Nevertheless, it is not the
responsibility of Yaakov and his sons to hold them accountable for
these offenses.
Rather, the issue of Shekhem is this: Yaakovs sons, because the men
of Shekhem were so evil that their blood was water in their eyes,
sought to avenge themselves with the sword of retribution, and they
killed the king and all the men of his city Thus, Yaakov said to them
here that they had put him in jeopardy, as it says, You have brought

trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land and

there,[15] Cursed is their anger because they committed violence
against the men of the city, who had said to them in his presence,
[16] And we will dwell with you and become one people. However,
[Yaakovs sons] made the choice to undermine their words, even
though the possibility existed that [the men of Shekhem] might return to
God, which would mean that they killed them for nothing, for they did
not do any evil to them. This is why he said: Tools of violence are their
wares (ibid. 49:5).[17]
If we believe the book Milchamot Benei Yaakov[18] (which is Sefer Hayashar), their fathers fears were fulfilled, for all the neighbors of
Shekhem gathered against them and waged three great battles against
them, and were it not for their father who girded his weapons of war
and fought, they would have been in jeopardy, as it is told in this
book. And our Rabbis (Bereishit Rabba80:10) made mention of this
concerning the following verse (48:22): Which I took from the hand of
The Amorite, by my sword and by my bow. We see that all who
surrounded them gathered to engage them, so Yaakov had to gird his
weapons of war, as Rashi writesad loc.
Nevertheless, the verse chose brevity, for this is a hidden miracle, as
they were heroic men and it was their might that saved them, just as
the verse truncates the issue of Avraham in Ur Kasdim Indeed, this
is the meaning of Gods terror [was upon the cities surrounding them]
(35:5), for awe and fright fell upon [Shekhems neighbors] when they
saw their might in war, and therefore it is said (35:6), And Yaakov
came to Luz, he and all the people with him, to let us know that neither
they nor their servants fell in battle.
The Ramban relates to a number of points:
1. Why does Yaakov get angry at his sons after they kill the men of
Shekhem, while according to the verse, he himself was involved in the
trickery, because he was present at the time of the speech between his sons
on the one hand and Shekhem and Chamor his father on the other? Why
was he angry at Shimon and Levi, when all of the brothers responded
deceitfully?
2. Philosophical question: how can it be that the righteous sons of Yaakov
killed deceitfully?
3. Response of the Rambam: since Noahides are obligated to appoint
judges, and the abuse of Dina shows that there were no judges in Shekhem,
the lawful sentence for the men of Shekhem was death.
4. Rejecting the view of the Rambam according to the simple meaning of
the verses.
5. Rejecting the view of the Rambam on halakhic grounds, and a lengthy
analysis defining and delimiting the requirements of the seven Noahide laws.
6. The view of the Ramban that Yaakovs sons indeed sinned by killing the
men of Shekhem deceitfully.

7. The reference of the Ramban to Yaakovs suspicion (v. 30), You have
brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the
Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather
themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my
household a concern which proved true.
8. The reason for the Torahs omission of the Amorite war against Yaakov
is that it is a hidden miracle, and there is no need to spell out hidden
miracles. At this point, the Ramban adds examples of other hidden miracles
not mentioned in the verses.
Using these two examples, we may see by way of these two examples
that it is not only that the Ramban, in his commentary to a lone verse, may
relate to many facets of exegetical, halakhic and philosophical issues; he
seeks an explanation which jibes with the details of many wider contexts. The
proof is not local, but wide-ranging, comprehensive, taking in a broad
perspective. One may see also the analytical style constructed, in which the
Ramban, in an organized, consistent way, lays out the issues, brings different
opinions and deals with them until he develops his own view.
As for the Rambans writing style in his commentary on the Torah, there
are clear parallels between it and his writing style in his novellae on the
Talmud. There as well, we are talking about organized, topical, analytical
writing. In his Talmudic novellae, it is clear that there is a wider analytical
element, for he draws from the style of the Tosafists; still, he integrates the
Tosafists analyses within his orderly topical framework, as appropriate for a
scholar brought up on the Spanish tradition. Apparently, he copied this style
for his biblical exegesis as well.
In the next lesson, God willing, we will deal with specific philosophical
topics which are common in the Rambans commentaries on the Torah; these
have proven to be quite influential in shaping Jewish thought throughout the
generations.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

The official Spanish name of the Ramban wasBonastruc a Porta. He is also referred to as
Nahmanides, and his last name is sometimes given as Girondi, indicating the city of his birth.
[2] This controversy arose due to the Rambams reliance on Greek philosophy in Moreh Hanvukhim; there was strong opposition to his writings among French Jewry. According to his
opponents, the Rambam made the Jewish tradition subservient to concepts from Greek
(pagan) philosophy. The polemics began when Rabbi Shelomo min Ha-har and his student
Rabbeinu Yona Girondi (the Rambans cousin) turned to the French sages to express the
Ashkenazic opposition to the Rambams writings. The French sages indeed expressed their
strong objections, banning both that work and Sefer Ha-madda, the first part of Mishneh
Torah. For their part, the Spanish sages band the works of Rabbi Shelomo min Ha-har, the
initiator of the ban.
[3] He was also known as Jaime el Conquistador(the Conqueror).
[4] This is what arises from his elegy over the destruction of Jerusalem (see below):
[1]

For on the ninth day of the month of Elul, five thousand and twenty-seven, you came
in the ruined city, desolate and without her children, sitting with her head covered
[5] A Jew who is oppressed and suffers
[6] By occupation
[7] In the marketplace, i.e., the congregation had no way to make a living.
[8] There are a number of traditions concerning his place of burial; according to one version,
he was buried in Acre, and according to other traditions, he was buried in Jerusalem or
Hebron.
[9] The Ramban had great regard for the Tosafists. For example, in his comments
on Chullin 94a, he writes this:
And this reason I have learnt from the words of our French masters, of blessed
memory, and I have added some applications, but our Torah is theirs.
In his introduction to his Dina De-garmi, he writes:
The French sages have been gathered to their people: they are the teachers; they
are the educators; they are the one who reveal the hidden
[10] While the Rambam tries to unify Greek philosophy and the Torah, the Ramban believes
that one should not put foreign elements in Judaism (see Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, Rav
Dr. Yitzchak Unna, Jerusalem, 5737, p. 11).
[11] Ibid. p. 16.
[12] Below we will discuss at length the relationship of Ramban to Rashi.
[13] The Ramban disputes this view; he believes that man was not equated to animals initially
when it came to eating vegetable matter.
[14] This refers to the Rambam.
[15] This is in Yaakovs blessings, Bereishit 49:7.
[16] This was in Yaakovs presence.
[17] In other words, there was a logical chance that the men of the city of Shekhem, who
consented to circumcise themselves, so that they were ready to accept on themselves the
faith and the morality of Yaakovs family.
[18] The history book which describes in a narrative style the events of our forefathers from the
time of Adam until the period of the Judges. The book was edited, apparently, around the
9th century.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #18:
Ramban, Part II
In the previous lesson, we looked at the most prominent characteristic
of the commentary of the Ramban on the Torah - his comprehensive
approach to many topics in the category of theology and faith. This lesson is
dedicated to a number of philosophical topics that recur throughout the
Rambans commentary on the Torah.
A.

Maaseh Avot Siman Le-Vanim

An interesting issue in the commentary of the Ramban is his melding of

historiography and exegesis, an idea expressed in the dictum, Maaseh avot siman levanim, The happening of the fathers is an omen for the children.[1] The source of this view
is found in the words of the Sages:
R. Pinchas said in the name of R. Hoshaya the Great: The Holy One, Blessed be He
said to our patriarch Avraham, Go and pave the way before your children.
Thus, you find that everything that is written of Avraham is written of children
as well. Of Avraham it is written, And there was a famine in the land

(Bereishit 12:10), and of Israel it is written, For these two years, the famine is in the
midst of the land (ibid. 45:6). Of Avraham it is written, And Avram went down to
Egypt to sojourn there (ibid. 12:10), and of Israel it is written And our fathers went
down to Egypt (Bamidbar20:15). Of Avraham it is written, To sojourn there
(Bereishit 12:10), and of Israel it is written, To sojourn in the land we have come
(ibid. 47:4). Of Avraham it is written, For the famine was severe in the land of
Canaan (47:4),[2] and of Israel it is written, And the famine was severe in the land
(43:1) (Bereishit Rabba, Vilna, Parashat Lekh Lekha 40)
R. Yehoshua of Sikhnin said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave an omen to
Avraham: every incident which befell him befell his children.
How so? He chose Avraham from all of his fathers house, as it says, You are Lord,
the God, You Who chose Avram and took him out from Ur Kasdim, and you made his
name Avraham (Nechemya 9:7), and He chose his children from seventy nations, as
it says, For a holy people are you to Lord your God, and you Lord your God chose to
be a treasured people, from all the peoples upon the face of the earth
(Devarim 14:2). To Avraham it is said, Go for yourself (Bereishit 12:1), and to his
children it says, I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt to the land of the
Canaanites (Shemot 3:17). To Avraham it is said, And I will bless you and make
your name great, and you will be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you
(Bereishit 12:2-3), and to his children it says, God shall bless you (Bamidbar 6:24).
To Avraham it is said, And I shall make you a great nation (Bereishit 12:2), and to
his children it says, And what great nation (Devarim 4:8) [3](Midrash
Tanchuma, Warsaw, Parashat Lekh Lekha 9)
It appears that in each of these two homilies, the nature of the link between the
ancestors actions and the experiences of their descendants it is different. According to
themidrash in Bereishit Rabba, the connection between the progenitor and the seed is the
connection of cause and effect. The father in a conscious, intentional way - influences the
future of his children by his acts: Go and pave the way In other words, the parent has the
capacity to influence the experiences of the children. The view of R. Yehoshua of Sikhnin
in Midrash Tanchuma is different: we are not talking about a conscious or willful act of the
father, but rather information given to the father about his seed an omen that
everything which happened to him happened to his children. What befalls the father is
a siman, an omen, a portent. The examples cited are not those in which the ancestors are
active; rather, events that happen to the ancestor are an allusion, a presage of the future
which will befall his children. In other words, the Avot, the Patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak and
Yaakov, could have learnt from what occurred to them what would happen to their
descendants in the future. According to this, the ancestor does not influence history in a
conscious way, but one may predict and foretell history based on the ancestors experiences.
The Ramban relates to this idea in a number of places, generally in a way similar to
that of the Midrash Tanchuma the events of the fathers constitute an expression of
prophetic transmission, the message of God to the Patriarchs (and to the readers of the
stories). He even mentions, in a roundabout way, the language of siman le-vanim.
The Ramban relates first to this topic in his commentary to Bereishit 12:7:
And Avram passed through the land, to the place of Shekhem I will tell you a rule
to allow you to understand all of the coming passages, the matter of Avraham,
Yitzchak and Yaakov. This is a fundamental subject, mentioned by our Rabbis in a
condensed way, namely that the incidents which befell our fathers is an omen for
the children (siman le-vanim). Therefore, the verses will elaborate on the narrative
of the journeys, digging wells, and other incidents, and one may be led to think that
these things are extraneous and purposeless, but they all come to teach of the
future.When a prophecy of the Patriarchs comes true through these occurrences, he
must think of the matter decreed to come upon his seed as a result.

The Ramban expresses this view many more times, including later in the same
chapter:
Behold, Avraham went down to Egypt because of the famine to sojourn there, in order
to keep himself alive in days of famine. The Egyptians wronged him without cause by
taking his wife, so God avenged him with great plagues, and He took him out from
there with flocks, silver, and gold, and Pharaoh also ordered his men to escort
him. He alluded to him that his children would go down to Egypt because of
famine, in order to reside there in the land, and the Egyptians would treat them
badly and take their women from them, as it says (Shemot 1:22), And let live every
girl. Nevertheless, God would take revenge with great plagues, taking them out with
silver and gold, sheep and cattle, very great flocks; indeed [the Egyptians] would
compel them, sending them out of the land. There was not one iota of the fathers
experience which the children did not undergo. This is explained
in BereishitRabba (Ramban, Bereishit 12:10)
On the other hand, as he goes on to explain Bereishit 12:6, it may be that there is a
slightly different element involved:
Know that once a decree delivered by angels emerges from the potential to the
actual via symbolization, this decree will be fulfilled in all cases. Therefore, the
prophets perform an act of prophecy, as Yirmiyahu ordered Barukh (Yirmiyahu 51:6364): When you finish reading this book, tie a stone to it and cast it into the midst of
the Euphrates, and say, Thus shall Babylon sink, etc. This is the issue of Elishas
putting his hand on the bow: (II Melakhim13:17): Then Elisha said, Shoot, and he
shot. And he said, The Lords arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram! And it
says there (v. 19): Then the man of God was angry with him and said, You should
have struck five or six times; then you would have struck down Aram until you had
made an end of it, but now you will strike down Aram only three times. Therefore,
God strengthened Avraham in the land, causing him to perform acts which
symbolized all of the future events which would befall his seed. Understand this.
Some see a mystical element in the words of the Ramban, according to which
the acts of the fathers do not just teach us about the destiny of their seed, but rather create
and determine the future. However, as we have seen, the Ramban in his commentary views
the essence of the issue as a prophetic transmission; he directly compares these things to the
symbolic acts performed by different prophets. It appears that the intent of the Ramban is to
set out that there are different levels of certainty as to words of prophecy some prophecies
may not necessarily be fulfilled (for example, a prophecy dependent on human activity), while
other prophecies will definitely occur. The form of the expression of the prophecy determines
the level of certainty and teaches us about it.[4]The claim of the Ramban is that any prophecy
which is given over not only verbally, but actively as well, is a prophecy which is immutable. In
other words, since these events happened, microcosmically, to the father, the future of the
prophecy, macrocosmically, is certain. In this sense, Avrahams actions pave the way for his
children.
It seems that the Ramban also accomplishes another goal by developing this
principle - he explains the tension in the Midrashic sources between the active language of,
Go and pave the way before your children, on the one hand, and the passive formulation
of, The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave an omen to Avraham.Once we understand that
there are varying levels of probability for the practical fulfillment of different prophecies, this
becomes clearer. Nevertheless, this is not a simple concept, which is why the Ramban ends
with the two-word imperative: Understand this. [5]
This idea is almost explicit in his introduction to the Book of Shemot. As he explains
there, the Patriarchs determine and shape the future, but in essence, it is not their actions
which accomplish this; it is Gods proclamation of the future, as reinforced by events, which
creates and determines this future:

Thus ends the Book of Bereishit, which is the book of the creation and invention of
the world and the creation of every creature; [it is also the book of] the experiences of
the Avot, which are, for their seed, a matter of creation because all of their
experiences are illustrations. They allude to and tell of all future events which
are fated to befall them.
After completing the [story of] creation, another book begins, detailing all of the
results emanating from these allusions.Thus, the Book of Shemot is dedicated to
the issue of the first explicitly-decreed exile and the redemption from it.
In particular, the Ramban stresses how the generations of exile and redemption of the
Jewish people are alluded to in the narratives of the Avot. As we have seen, the events of
Avrahams life allude to the first exile, the Egyptian exile. The Ramban goes further and
determines that the events which befall Yitzchak allude to the second exile, the
Babylonian/Persian exile. This is what the Ramban writes in his commentary
to Bereishit 26:1:
In my view, this issue contains an allusion to the future, because the exile of Avraham
to Egypt due to famine alludes to the fact that his children will be exiled there, but his
going to Avimelekh was not exile, for he settled there of his own accord.
However, Yitzchaks descent there because of the famine does allude to this exile, for
he was exiled from his place against his will and went to another land; indeed, he is
exiled from his place to the land of the Philistines, which was the land of his fathers
sojourning. This alludes to the Babylonian exile, for it is the place of their fathers
sojourns, namely Ur Kasdim
The Ramban adds and specifies points of comparison between Yitzchaks exile and
the Babylonian exile. Just as Yitzchak leaves the land due to the compulsion of famine and
goes to a land which his father settled in the past, the Israelites are similarly destined to go
out of their land against their will and go to the land of their fathers sojourns, in Babylonia
(indeed, we first encounter Avraham in Babylonia, in Ur Kasdim). Just as Yitzchaks
settlement in Philistines is without affliction, so too, the Babylonian exile is destined to be
without subjugation and affliction (the Jews prospered in Babylonia). Just as the Philistines
sent Yitzchak out of their land after he had settled there, the Israelites are similarly destined to
be sent out from the Babylonian exile (by the edict of Cyrus the Great).
Following this line of thought, the Ramban sees the events of Yaakovs life as alluding
to the Edomite exile. To this exile, the Ramban dedicates huge swathes of his commentary, as
this is the exile in which the Ramban and his contemporaries reside:
To Esav his brother, to the land of Seir Because the south of the Land of Israel is
next to Edom, and his father resided in the southland, one would have to pass by
Edom or close to it. Thus, [Yaakov] was afraid lest Esav hear, so he sent messengers
ahead of him to his land.
However, the Sages, likening him to One who takes the dog by the ears
(Mishlei26:17), have already criticized him. As they put it (Bereishit Rabba 75:3): The
Holy One, Blessed be He said to him: He was going along his way, and you sent to
him and said (Bereishit 32:5), So says your servant Yaakov?
In my view, this also alludes to the fact that we initiated our downfall in the
hand of Edom, for the kings of the Second Temple forged a covenant with the
Romans (Chashmonaim 1:8), and some of them went to Rome, which was the
ultimate cause of our downfall in their hands, and this is mentioned in our Rabbis
words and publicized in books (Yosippon, ch. 65).(Ramban, Bereishit 32:4)
This is how it is for us with Rome and Edom. It is our brothers who have caused our
downfall in their hands, for they forged a covenant with the Romans. The latter King
Agrippas of the Second Temple fled to them for assistance, and because of the

famine, the Jerusalemites were captured. Now, the exile has been lengthened a great
deal, without our knowing when it will end, like the other exiles. We are in it like the
dead, saying (Yechezkel 37:11), Our bones are dried up [and our hope is lost]; we
are indeed cut off Nevertheless, they shall bring up all of us from all the nations as
an offering to God (Yeshayahu 66:20), and they will have severe mourning when they
see our glory. We will witness Gods vengeance, for He shall lift as us up, and we will
live before Him (Hoshea 6:2).(Ramban, Bereishit 47:28)
This historical view of the Ramban is of great significance, not just in the field of
exegesis, but also because it has such a clear polemical anti-Christian aim. The Church
sought to prove that Jesus and Church history were already predicted and prefigured
in Tanakh. Taking into account the Christian approach, one may understand the significance
of the commentaries of the Ramban, in which he stress that indeed there is an allusion to the
future in the stories of the Avot, but the allusion is for Israels future what is decreed upon
their seed but not for others, who are not of their seed.[6]
B.

The Superiority of the Land of Israel

The Ramban is known for his deep love of the Land of Israel. We may detect echoes
of this in his poetry,[7] and indeed the Ramban moved to Israel. In his commentary
to Bereishit 35:16, he writes: I have merited arriving in Jerusalem myself praise be to God,
good and beneficent! In the halakhic sphere, the Ramban is the first of the enumerators of
the 613 commandments who counts living in Israel as a mitzva:
We have been commanded to settle the land and not to leave it in the hands of
other nations, nor [to leave it] desolate And I say that the commandment which the
Sages go to extremes to express is that of living in the Land of Israel It is a positive
commandment for all generations, and everyone is bound by it, even in a time of
exile. (Ramban, Glosses to Sefer Ha-mitzvot, Positive 4) [8]
According to the Ramban, the superiority of the Land of Israel predates its being
given to Avraham and to the People of Israel. For example, the Ramban explains that the
overturning of Sedom was due to the superiority of the Land of Israel.
Know that Sedom was judged by virtue of the superiority of the Land of Israel,
for it has the status of Gods portion, and it does not tolerate abominable
people. When it vomited out the entire nation because of its abominations, it came
first and vomited this people out, for they were the most evil, towards Heaven and
towards creations For there are exceedingly evil and sinful nations whom He does
not do this to, but all of this was because of the superiority of this land, for
Gods sanctuary is there.[9](Ramban, Bereishit19:5)
In other words, the unique superiority of the Land of Israel is because of its status as
Gods portion and Gods sanctuary, and the unique connection of this land to God incurs a
great attribute of justice more so than other lands, since God is less tolerant of sins in His
portion than in other places. The issue is explained more broadly in his commentary
on Parashat Acharei Mot(Vayikra 18:25), where the Ramban explains that God does not
directly control the affairs of the nations of the world. Instead, He appoints angelic
representatives for each and every people and land, and He directs them by way of these
intermediaries.[10] The Land of Israel, in contrast, is managed by God directly:
This is the matter God in His glory created everything, and He put control of the
lower realms in the upper realms, and he put over each and every one, in their lands
and by their nations He gave them sublime angels to be princes over them Now,
God in his glory is the God of gods and the Lord of Lords, for the entire world.
However, the Land of Israel, the center of the civilization, is Gods portion, dedicated
to His name; He does not appoint over it any angel as an officer, marshal, or
governor. Instead, He gives it as a portion to the nation which unifies His name, the
seed of his beloved Thus, He gives to us the land so that He, in his blessedness,
will be our God and we shall be unified for His name. Behold, the land which is the

portion of God, in His glory, will vomit out anyone who defiles it, and it will not tolerate
idolaters and adulterers.[11]
The Ramban goes quite far in his approach, and he declaims that the main
significance of the fulfillment of commandments is specifically in the Land of Israel. Fulfilling
the commandments outside the land even those which are clearly bodily obligations, such
as putting on tefillin is designed only in order for us not to forget the commandments upon
returning from exile. He cites the explanation of the Sifrei (Ekev 43):
And you will quickly perish (Devarim11:17) [God says:] Even though I have
exiled you from the land to dwell outside it, remain distinguishable by the
commandments, so that when you return, they will not be new to you.
This is analogous to husband who, furious at his wife, sends her to her fathers home.
He said to her, Keep wearing your jewelry, so that when you return, they will not be
new to you.
Thus said Yirmiyahu (31:20): Set markers for yourself these are the
commandments, which make Israel remarkable
The Ramban concludes:
They explained that it should not be new to you when you return to the land, for the
essence of all the commandments is for those who reside in the land of God. [12]
(Ramban, Vayikra 18:25)
It appears that the connection between the Land of Israel and the fulfillment of the
commandments is an outgrowth of the special status of the Land of Israel as a land with a
direct link to the Divine Presence.
Indeed, the Ramban manages to find praise for the Land of Israel even amid Gods
severe rebuke:
And this is what it says here (v. 32), So that your enemies who live there will be
desolated this is in fact good news, cheering the exiles; our land does not accept
our enemies, and this is a great proof and promise for us. For you will not find in
civilization a land which is as good and broad, and which was always settled, yet is so
devastated For from the time we left, it has not accepted any nation or state;
though all of them try to settle it, they do not succeed(Ramban, Vayikra 26:16)
C.

Nissayon

An additional philosophical issue which appears in the Rambans commentary

is nissayon, testing or proving. In the Torah, there are a number of situations in which God
tests people, and there is a basic philosophical question common to all of them: what is the
point of the nissayon, when all is known and revealed to Him? What reason does Omniscient
God have to test human beings?
The Ramban relates to this in an explicit way regarding the nissayon of the Binding of
Yitzchak:
This is called a nissayon for the one being tested, but the Tester, in his blessedness,
will command him to realize his potential in actuality, to earn the reward of good
action and not the reward of a good heart alone. Know that God examines the
righteous (Tehillim 11:5), when He knows full well that the righteous will do His will,
but He seeks to demonstrate his righteousness, He will give him a test. However, he
will not examine the wicked, who will not listen regardless. Thus, each of the tests
in the Torah is for the benefit of the one being tested.(Ramban,Bereishit 22:1)

If so, in the view of the Ramban, the test is designed to serve not the Tester, God, but
rather the one who is being tested. The nissayon in the Torah is an opportunity which is
provided for the righteous to apply in practice their dedication to God and to earn a reward for
this. In this way, they will receive a reward not only for their potential dedication, but for their
actual dedication.
In a similar way, the Ramban explains the test of the manna, about which the Torah
says, So that I may test them, whether they will follow My law or not (Shemot 16:4).
The nissayon is designed to take the Israelites dedication and readiness from the realm of
the potential to the realm of the actual, realizing their reliance on God:
So that I may test them, whether they will follow My law or not to test them and to
provide them good in the end, that they will believe in Him forever
Furthermore, the Ramban explains (Devarim 8:2) And you shall recall all the way in
the following manner:
And you shall recall all the way but He subjected them to this test, for from it
He knows that they will keep His commandments forever.
According to the Ramban, the aim of the test of the manna is to take the total
dedication of the Israelites to God from the potential to the actual, as they will exemplify
throughout their years of wandering in the desert, and the reward for withstanding the test is
that they will believe in Him forever.[13]
As we have said, we have cited only some of the philosophical issues which the
Ramban deals with in his commentary. Throughout his work, the reader may find dozens of
analyses of philosophical topics, which continue to shape our worldview until this very day.

[1] In the Ramban, this is actually formulated: The incidents which befell our fathers The
term Maaseh avot siman le-vanim is mentioned byAcharonim who cite the view of the
Ramban.
[2] This verse actually appears concerning Yaakov and his children; perhaps the reference is
meant to be the verse, And there was a famine in the land (Bereishit 12:10), which appears
in Avrahams narrative.
[3] Afterwards, additional homilies are cited.
[4] This is similar to what Yosef says to Pharaoh (Bereishit 41:32): And the doubling of
Pharaohs dream means that the thing is proper by God, and God will shortly bring it about.
(Still, the commentators argue regarding whether the term proper indicates inevitability or
proximity.)
[5] In one place, the Ramban speaks in a clear way of the causal connection between
Avrahams actions and his childrens experiences. Immediately after what we have cited
above from Bereishit12:10, he goes on to say:
Know that Avraham Avinu sinned greatly, if inadvertently, by involving his righteous wife in the
stumbling-block of sin as well as leaving the land This is the sin he committed and for
this act, it was decreed upon his seed the exile in the land of Egypt, by the hands of Pharaoh.
However, it appears that there is no link between this matter and the previous issue, the
general idea of the experiences of the fathers being an omen for the children. The Ramban
simply adds a new element - that in this specific instance, Avraham sinned and brought about,
by his actions, a punishment for his children.
[6] See about this at length in Amos Funkensteins comprehensive essay, Parshanuto HaTypologit shel Ramban, Zion 45 (5740), pp. 35-59.
[7] Al Chorvotayikh Yerushalayim (see previous lesson).
[8] The same may be found in his commentary on the Torah (Bamidbar 33:53): And you shall
occupy the land and you shall reside in it:
As I see it, this is a positive commandment, commanding them to reside in the land and settle
it, for it is given to them and they must not reject Gods portion. Now, they may have a thought

of going and conquering the land of Sumer or the land of Assyria or others and to settle there,
but this would violate Gods command. Indeed, our Rabbis go to extremes to express the
commandment of residing in the Land of Israel and that it is forbidden to leave it by this, we
have been bound by this commandment. For this verse is a positive command However,
Rashi explains: And you shall occupy the land you shall clear it of its inhabitants, and
then You shall reside in it. Only then will you be able to survive there, but if you do not do
this, you will be unable to survive there. Nevertheless, what I have said is the essence.
[9] See Vayikra 18:24-28, 20:21-24.
[10] According to the Ramban, there is a hierarchy of these factors: the fates of the nations
are determined directly by heavenly factors (astrology), and the heavenly factors are directed
by angels (according to the Ramban, these are the princes and kings mentioned in the
Book of Daniel), who are under Gods control. This cosmological hierarchy matches the
philosophical views that were commonly held in medieval times, and the Ramban certainly
perceives it as a natural system. According to him, it is specifically the situation in the Land of
Israel which constitutes a supernatural situation.
[11] See the verses which the Ramban refers to,Vayikra 18:24-28.
[12] He includes a similar point in his commentary to Devarim 4:5.
[13] However, in his commentary to Shemot 20:16, the Ramban explains the nissayon in a
different manner:
And according to my view, it is an actual test. He will say that God wanted to test you
whether you will keep his commandments, for He removed all doubt from your heart, and now
He shall see whether you love Him and if you desire Him and His commandments.
Indeed, any term of testing is examination. [As David says of Shauls battle dress,] I cannot
go with these, for I have not been tested (I Shemuel17:39) I have never examined my soul
by going in them.
It may be that this testing is for the good, for the master will sometimes test his servant with
harsh service to know if he will tolerate it out of his love, and sometimes he will do good to
him to know if he will repay him for this good which he has received, to enhance his masters
service and honor.
This is just as the Sages said (Shemot Rabba31:20): Fortunate is the man who withstands
his tests, for there is no creature whom the Holy One, Blessed be He does not test: the rich
one He tests to see if his hand will be open to the poor; and the poor He tests if he can accept
the suffering, etc.
Therefore, the verse says that God has been good to you to show you His glory, which He did
not do for any nation, to test you. Will you repay Him the good which he has bestowed upon
you, as His allotted nation, as it says, Shall you repay God with this? (Devarim 32:6).
Moreover, it says, Only you have I known from all the families of the earth; therefore I will
take account of you for your sins (Amos 3:2); the nations are not obligated to Me as you are,
for I have known you face-to-face.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #19:
Ramban, Part III
In the previous lecture, we dealt with the philosophical aspects of the
Rambans writings. In this lesson, we will deal with additional characteristics
of the Rambans commentary on the Torah.
A.

The Secret Torah Al DerekhHa-Emet

One of the hallmarks of the Rambans commentary on the Torah is the use of the
words al derekh ha-emet.[1] Derekh ha-emet is literally the way or path of truth; although
it contrasts with derekh ha-peshat, it certainly does not indicate that the simple way or the
path of simplicity is untrue. When the Ramban prefaces an explanation with these words, his
intent is to cite a commentary based on sod (literally, secret), the hidden, mystical elements of

Jewish tradition.[2] The peshatexplanations of the Ramban do not require a special

background; one need only be familiar with the text of the Torah. His Kabbalistic
commentaries, on the other hand, cannot be understood by a reader unschooled in
fundamental Kabbalistic concepts, [3] and it seems that the Ramban indeed intends that only
individuals with a background in Kabbala will understand his words:[4]
Behold, I come with a faithful covenant, and it is what gives appropriate counsel for
everyone who looks at this book. Do not formulate an approach or conceptualize
a matter based on the allusions that I write of the secrets of the Torah! I make it
known unequivocally that one cannot conceive a matter, nor know it at all by
any view or understanding, save by the mouth of a wise Kabbalist to the ear of
an educated Kabbalist (Ramban, Introduction to the Torah)
Thus, the Ramban formulates or employs a type of code. This allows him to
disseminate his words while concealing them from anyone who is not an expert in the
discipline of Kabbala, anyone who did not learn it by the mouth of a wise Kabbalist.
A commentary by way of sod appears as an alternative after the Ramban brings the
commentary of peshat, and generally the Kabbalistic explanation will not be advanced as the
sole explanation.
One example of this may be found inShemot 2:23-25. The verse there describes the
difficulty of the enslavement in Egypt and the cry of the Israelites. Verse 25 notes, And God
saw the Israelites, and God knew. The biblical exegetes deal with the question of the
meaning of Gods knowledge at this point. Does God, as it were, discover something, alerted
by the cry of the Israelites, which He had not known earlier? This flies in the face of Gods
omniscience! Therefore, the Ramban writes:
This is correct al derekh ha-peshat, for at first He was hiding His face from them,
and they were devoured,[5] but at this point God hears their cry and sees them. This
means that He did not hide His face anymore; He acknowledges their pain,
everything done to them and everything needed for them
After this commentary al derekh ha-peshat, the Ramban adds an explanation
according to sod, in which the Ramban coyly alludes to the mystical elements of the Torah:

Al derekh ha-emet, this verse has one of the greatest secrets of the
mysteries of the Torah and this verse is explained in the Midrash of
Rabbi Nechunya ben Ha-kaneh (Sefer Ha-Bahir, no. 76). You will
understand it from there.
B.

Citation and Incorporation in the Commentary of the Ramban

At this point, it is worth dedicating a number of lines to the Rambans method of citing
verses and Jewish sources. In his essay on the topic, Ephraim Hazan differentiates between
citation and incorporation in the Rambans commentary.[6] The Ramban often brings sources
from the Sages and Scripture in order to prove and strengthen his words. In these cases, the
citation is introduced with one of the following phrases: As it is written, As is written, As it
says, etc. In addition to citation, the Ramban often use the technique of incorporation, a style
of writing in which the author integrates into his text a verse or a statement of the Sages, in
full or in part, without notifying the reader that this is a quote.
Granted, this technique predates the Ramban considerably; nevertheless, in the
Rambans writings it becomes amazingly frequent, giving a unique significance to his words.
Sometimes, the Ramban relies on the readers expertise and does not even exert himself to
interweave the entire verse; instead, he only writes out the beginning. However, in order
to understand the idea completely, one needs to be familiar with the entire verse.

In order to demonstrate this, we will look at the Rambans incorporation in his

commentary to the verse referred to earlier (Shemot 2:25).
This is correct al derekh ha-peshat, for at first He was hiding His face from them,
and they were devoured.
The Ramban is referring to the following verse (Devarim 31:17):
Then my anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and
hide my face from them, and they will be devoured. And many evils and troubles will
come upon them, so that they will say in that day, Have not these evils come upon us
because our God is not among us?

This incorporation allows us to descend to the depths of the Rambans

commentary: the troubles of the Jewish nation are an expression of Gods
distance from them, and thus the Ramban can explain And God knew as
noting that God stops hiding His face.
C.

Psychological Sensitivity

An additional important characteristic of the Rambans commentary is its

psychological sensitivity. The Ramban explains the verses using an analysis of the
motivations of the dominant personalities, based on his reasoned assessment of the
characters and the situations in which they find themselves. One of the most famous
examples appears in the emotional encounter between Yaakov and Yosef in Egypt, after more
than two decades of separation:
Then Yosef prepared his chariot and went up to meet his father Yisrael in Goshen. He
presented himself to him, and he fell on his neck and he wept on his neck
exceedingly. (Bereishit 46:29)
The pronouns of the second half of the verse are excruciatingly abstruse. Who
presents himself to whom? Who falls on whose neck? Who weeps on whose neck? In each
case, the singular pronoun is used, so that the verse must be referring either to Yosef or to
Yaakov in each case, but who is who?
The Ramban explains this in the following way: [7]
The verse mentions that when he presented himself to his father, who looked at him
and recognized him, his father fell on his neck and wept on his neck excessively, just
as he would cry over him constantly until this very day, when he could not see
him. After this, he said (v. 30), Now let me die, since I have seen your face. It is
well-known who is prone to tears: is it the aged father who finds his son alive
after hopelessness and mourning, or the youthful ruling son?
According to the Ramban, it is more logical to assume that the elderly Yaakov cries
upon encountering his lost son, not the youthful ruling son who does so.
An additional example of the use of psychology in the Rambans commentary can be
found in the Rambans explanation of Pharaohs decrees. Pharaoh turns to his people with
the words, Come, let us outsmart them (Shemot1:10), and the Ramban relates to the
question of why Egypts ruler has to outsmart his Hebrew subjects. Why does he not simply
kill the ones whom he wants to kill? What is the meaning of the different decrees, culminating
in the final solution of throwing the boys into the Nile (ibid. v. 22)?
This how the Ramban responds to this question:
Pharaoh and his wise counselors did not consider striking them down by the sword,
for this would be a profound betrayal to unjustifiably exterminate a nation which

came to the land by the command of a preceding monarch. Furthermore, the

common people would not allow the king to commit such violence, for he consulted
them, even though the Israelites were a great and mighty nation who might wage a
great war against them. Rather, he said that they should do it in a wise way, that the
Israelites would not feel that they did it with enmity, and therefore he put work levies
upon them
Afterwards, in secret, he commanded the midwives to kill the males upon the
birthstones, and even the mothers would not perceive it. Finally, he commanded his
nation, You shall cast every male born into the Nile you yourselves. The issue is
that that he did not wish to command the executioners to kill them by Pharaohs
sword or to throw them into the Nile; rather, he said to the nation that when each of
them might find a Jewish boy, he should cast him into the Nile. Should the boys
father cry to the king or the municipal authorities, they would say that he must bring
witnesses, and they would then avenge him. However, when the king loosed the
reins, the Egyptians would search the houses and enter there at night in disguise and
remove the boys from there. This is why it says, And she could no longer hide him
(ibid. 2:3).[8] (Ramban,Shemot 1:10)
In his commentary, the Ramban explains the psychology that Pharaoh uses in order
to convince his people to collaborate in this genocide. Pharaoh needs to outsmart Israel
because the Israelites will not go like lambs to the slaughter; conversely, the local Egyptians
will not consent to the injustice of committing genocide against the Jewish people. By his
scheming by introducing gradual changes in their relationship to the Israelites and creating
an environment in which the Egyptians themselves may act against the Israelites the final
goal can be accomplished: exterminating every newborn male.[9]
Let us look at a final example. Rachel turns to Yaakov and dramatically declares,
Give me children; if not, I am dead (Bereishit 30:1). The Ramban plumbs the depths of
Rachels words in order to explain Yaakovs outrage:
In truth, her intent was for him to pray for her, but that he must pray for her until she
would have children in any case; otherwise, she would kill herself in pain
She thought that in his love for her, Yaakov would fast and wear sackcloth and ashes
and pray until she would have children, so that she would not die in her pain.
And Yaakovs anger was kindled (ibid. v. 2) because the prayer of the righteous is
not in their hands, that it may be heard and answered in any case. However, she
spoke in the way of longing of beloved wives in order to intimidate him with her death;
therefore, his anger was kindled

According to the words of the Ramban, Yaakovs anger is not about the
actual request, but the mistaken view of prayer. Rachel believes that the
prayer will be efficacious in any case, that God will certainly respond to the
prayer. The Ramban also points to the emotional situations of Yaakov and
Rachel in describing Rachels desperation and understanding the sharp
response of Yaakov.
D.

Serus Ha-Mikra

Another exegetical tool employed by the Ramban in his commentary is serus hamikra, the inversion or transposition of the verse. Sometimes, in order to understand the
intent of the verse, one should read it as if the sequence of the words is different.[10]
Serus ha-mikra is not the Rambans invention. This technique already appears in
theberaita of the thirty-two principles of R. Eliezer ben R. Yosei the Galilean as number thirty-

one: The preceding element which comes later in the text. However, there is no doubt that
the Ramban makes broad and significant use of this principle in his commentary on the Torah.
One of the central places in which the Ramban uses serus ha-mikra is his
commentary toBereishitt 15:13: Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a
land not theirs, and they will be enslaved and subjugated for four hundred years:
Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners This is an inverted verse,
and it means: your offspring will be sojourners in a land not theirs for four hundred
years, and they will be enslaved and subjugated. However, it does not explain how
many days of servitude and affliction there would be
The point of the verse is that God is declaring that even though He says (ibid. v. 18),
To your seed I have given this land, Know for certain that before they receive it,
they will be sojourners in a land not theirs for four hundred years, and they will also
be enslaved there and subjugated.
The difficulty in the verse is the statement that the nation of Israel will be sojourners
and slaves for four centuries; in actuality, the period of servitude was significantly less than
that. Therefore, the Ramban suggests reading the verse in the following way: Know for
certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land not theirs for four hundred years, and
they will be enslaved and subjugated. In other words, the time period of four hundred years
relates not to the servitude and affliction mentioned immediately before it, but rather the
sojourning described before them.
Since this is the first place in the Torah where the Ramban uses the term mikra
mesuras,[11] the Ramban explains at length the principle of serus ha-mikra and he brings a
collection of examples of difficult verses from Torah and Neviim which may be resolved using
this principle:
Many inverted verses may be found throughout Scripture. For example, The
Hebrew slave came to me, whom you brought to us to laugh at me (ibid .39:17);
similarly, And all the land came to Egypt to procure to Yosef (ibid. 41:57); similarly,
For whoever eats leaven, that soul will be cut off from Israel, from the first day until
the seventh day (Shemot 12:15) And many are like this.
The Ramban cites a number of examples, and we will look at the first, taken from the
words addressed to Potifar by his wife: The Hebrew slave came to me, whom you brought to
us to laugh at me. It is clear that Potifar did not procure a slave with the aim of making sport
of his wife, and the technique of serus ha-mikra makes clear the intent of the verse: He came
to me to laugh at me the Hebrew slave whom you brought to us.[12]

E.
When there is a certain lack of correlation between the initial
description of an event and the later recapitulation of the same event, the
Ramban explains the lack of correlation using the following rule: It is the way
of the verses to abbreviate it in one place and to elaborate in another
place.[13]
For example, when Yosefs brothers regret selling him, they say, In
truth, we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his
soul, when he begged us and we did not listen. That is why this distress has
come upon us ((Bereishit 42:21). The difficulty of this is that in the description
of the sale of Yosef (ibid. ch. 37), the Torah never tells us that Yosef begs his
brothers for mercy.

The Ramban (42:21) suggests three answers for this, and the third is,
It is the way of the verses to abbreviate it in one place and to elaborate in
another place. The Torah does not see any need to state all of the details of
the events twice. Instead, it may tell at the time of the event some of the
details and at a later point it may reveal other details, and the student is
invited to connect all of the dots. We may add that specifically because the
narrative will appear later, the Torah may truncate its initial description. [14]]
*
There are many other exegetical rules that the Ramban cites, but
unfortunately, we cannot mention all of them. There is no doubt that the
Ramban is one of the most influential figures in terms of shaping the world of
biblical exegesis and the Jewish worldview generally.
Let us conclude with some words of the Ramban that are particularly
appropriate for this season of the year, celebrating the rebirth of the nation of
Israel in its land:
These words promise that the future redemption will come, a promise more complete
than all of Daniels visions. And this is what it says here (v. 32), So that your enemies
who live there will be desolated this is in fact good news, cheering the exiles: our
land does not accept our enemies, and this is a great proof and promise for us. For
you will not find in civilization a land which is as good and broad, and which was
always settled, yet is so devastated For from the time we left, it has not accepted
any nation or state; though all of them try to settle it, they do not succeed
(Ramban, Vayikra 26:16)
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] This phrase appears more than a hundred times in his commentary.
[2] The Rambans philosophy of sod is not equivalent to that of what is familiarly called Kabbala, which
began developing at the end of the 12th century.
[3] Moshe Halbertal investigates the Kabbalistic elements of the Rambans philosophy in his
comprehensive essay, Al Derekh Ha-Emet: Ramban Vi-Yetzirata shel Masoret (Jerusalem, 2006). On
p. 11, he writes:
Between the lines of his rich commentary on the Torah, the Ramban scatters Kabbalistic
allusions crowned with the title derekh ha-emet. Thus, he creates an unusual connection,
formulating an approach to two different audiences. Most of the students of this commentary,
who cannot penetrate the veil of the Rambans allusions, see in the opening al derekh haemet a sign to skip ahead, until the commentary will return to the level of the revealed.
Moreover, in the Rambans study hall, there were apparently those who drank thirstily his
revealed teachings, while studiously avoiding the level of sod in his thought.
[4] Sometimes, immediately after the commentary alderekh ha-emet, we may find the terms sod or
ha-maskil yavin, the educated will comprehend.
[5] This follows the verse in Devarim 31:17; we will explain this matter in detail below.
[6] Ephraim Hazan, Kavim Achadim Li-Leshono shel Ramban Be-Feirusho La-Torah Le-Darkhei HaShibbutz Ve-Shilluvei Ha-Mekorot Bi-Khtivato, Mechkerei Morashtenu I (5759), pp. 163-174.
[7] He does this after citing and rejecting Rashis words.
[8] These words, stated eight hundred years ago, are still applicable to our generation, and they could
have been stated equally about the laws of the Third Reich.
[9] We should note that the words of the Ramban do not come to explicate a local problem of a certain
word or verse. He is analyzing a complex intellectual issue, explaining the rationale behind Pharaohs
decrees and the progressive nature of Pharaohs decrees. For this aim, the Ramban uses many verses,

all of which come together to form a fabric to resolve the verses. This is an additional example of one of
the characteristics of the Rambans commentary, which we studied in the first lesson dealing with him
(#17) the commentary is a specific and comprehensive work, in which the Ramban uses specific
verses as jumping-off points to discuss general issues.
[10] Nechama Leibowitz explains the term serus ha-mikrawell:
We should note that the term, Invert the verse and explicate it, is only a technical term,
commonly used by the sages of Israel. Its meaning is the following: this verse should be
understood by altering the sequence of the words, thereby making it easy to understand it. In
any case, one should not understand the expression as endorsing textual
criticism[emphasis mine A.R.], as if the verse is somehow corrupted and requires
emendation. In our case, its meaning as we explained above is only this: the verse is
arranged according to a certain sequence, totally correct and logical, but in order to understand
the chronological sequence of events fully, one should rearrange the phrases and read them in
an opposite or different direction. (Nechama Leibowitz and Moshe Ahrend, Peirush Rashi LaTorah [Tel Aviv, 5750], vol. 1, p. 215)
In her book, Iyunim Chadashim Le-Sefer Shemot(Jerusalem, 5756), p. 157, n. 8, Nechama deals with
the problematic nature of the requirement of rearranging the verse in order to explain it. Ultimately, she
resolves the matter in the following way:
More than once, the Ramban employs this concept, which is certainly one of the principles
ofpeshat. We must remember that the logical order of the words, putting next to each other the
phrases which are close to each other logically, is only one of the possible sequences of the
words. There is a rhythmic or musical sequence, and there is also a didactic sequence, which
lays out that which is important both at the beginning and at the end in order to make it
prominent, highlighting what distinguishes them and psychological and aesthetic factors
may sometimes overpower the logical proximity.
Meir Raffeld, Ve-Harbeh Mikraot Mesurasot Yesh Ba-Katuv, Pirkei Nechama (Jerusalem, 5761), pp.
273-275, attempts to understand the aim of the Giver of the Torah in writing the verses in a way differing
from the logical sequence.
[11] In his commentary to 8:2, the Ramban uses the terminology its meaning is as if it were inverted,
but this concept is not the same as the concept of mikra mesuras.
[12] Another possibility of inverting the verse is: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to
me to laugh at me.
[13] The Sages put it this way, The words of the Torah are scant in one place and ample in another
place (Yerushalmi, Rosh Hashana, ch. 3, 58).
[14] The first answer of the Ramban is that it is clear that Yosef must have begged for his life, and there
is no need to write this:
Because it is known naturally that a person will beg for his life when it comes into others
hands to do evil to him, and he will make them swear by the life of their father and do
everything in his power to save his soul from death
In another place, the Ramban expresses this rule in the sentence: The verse will abbreviate the matter
which is understood.
The second answer of the Ramban is that the verse wishes to abbreviate their iniquity; in other words,
the Torah does not hide the fact that Yosef begs his brothers for his life, but it relates this fact in a later
place so as not to emphasize the cruelty of the brothers.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #20:
The Chizkuni R. Chizkiya ben Manoach
A.

Introduction

Unfortunately, we do not know the details of the Chizkunis life. Where

and when he lived is a matter of much debate. The contemporary critical
consensus is that the Chizkuni wrote his work around the middle of the
thirteenth century, and apparently he came from Northern France.
The Chizkuni wrote a comprehensive commentary on the Torah, and
his style is very clear and accessible. He himself invented the name

Chizkuni, an allusion to his name, Chizkiya. This is what he writes in the

introductory poem to the commentary:
I have chosen the name Chizkuni amidst Israel
So that its readers will remember me well.
It appears that the Chizkuni had three aims in composing his
commentary on the Torah:[1]
1) To collect all the explanations in keeping with the peshat from the
works of the commentators who preceded him.
2) To explain Rashis commentary.
3) To write an independent commentary on the Torah.
We will now explicate and demonstrate these aims.
B.

The Chizkuni as a Collector

In his introductory poem, the Chizkuni describes the eclectic character

of his composition. At first, he specifies his Midrashic sources, which he calls
the commentaries on the Torah:
And I came to Bereishit Rabba, Mekhilta, and Sifra
Sifri, Tanchuma, and Pesikta, the commentaries on the Torah.
In the next section, R. Chizkiya explains the work of collecting from the
various biblical commentators:
To find commentaries of the Five Books, I swam to every port,
And I have found commentaries, twenty of every sort.
I have taken the choicest parts from them, [2]according to my ability,
Their very clear writing and their felicitous utility.
Thus, I have found words of delight and peace to relate;
They are set like emerald, sapphire, and diamond on the breastplate
This tells us that the Chizkuni journeyed to many countries with the aim
of finding different commentaries on the Torah, and he found twenty of them.
These commentaries represent a wide array of biblical exegesis: Spanish,
Italian, and French scholars, in addition to the Sages exegesis. From among
all of the commentaries that he gathered, he selected the finest explanations
in his view. At times, he quotes them verbatim, while at other times, he adapts
the commentary using his own words.
When the Chizkuni cites a Midrashic source or later work, he normally
omits the name of the commentator, whether because it is not always clear
who originally expressed the idea or because of a concern of bias the
reader may prefer the idea of a certain distinguished commentator over the
explanation of a less well-known commentator. This is what he writes in his
introductory poem (invokingKohelet 12:11):

Therefore, my kidneys have counseled me and my heart has filled

me
To cover the source of things, to forestall
Mentioning them together, glorifying the great with the small,
Lest the wisdom of the lowly be disdained
And the utterance of the high before the great be maintained.
For my words are the wisdom of the wise, unifying the riven;
Truly, by one Shepherd they have been given
Frequently, the Chizkuni will cite two or three commentaries that he
likes on one verse. Moreover, for the most part, he chooses a comment in
which there is some educational message. Thus, for example, the Chizkuni
presents three different commentaries for the prohibition of plowing with an ox
and donkey together (Devarim22:10). These three commentaries are taken
from there different sources, some of them slightly adapted for greater clarity:
For the ox chews its cud, but the donkey does not chew its cud, so this
one eats while the other one suffers, and this is animal torture. [3]
Alternatively, because the ox is the king of the domesticated animals
and its image is upon[4] the Throne of Glory, while the donkey is a
despised animal; thus, they are not complementary.[5]
Alternatively, Gods mercies are upon all of His creations, and the
donkey does not have the strength of the ox. [6]
C.

The Chizkuni as a Supercommentary on Rashi

As we saw above, the Chizkuni has an additional exegetical aim aside

from collecting various commentaries; he seeks to explicate Rashis
commentary, and he thus may be seen as a super-commentary. This is what
he writes in his introductory poem about his relationship to Rashis
explanation:
I come only to add to the words known as Rabbeinu Shelomos,
Not to undermine them. May God grant him peace in his repose!
This makes the Chizkuni one of the first of Rashis supercommentaries. Despite the general rule that the Chizkuni does not quote
commentators by name, Rashi is an exception; Rashis commentaries are
quoted by name in hundreds of places throughout the Chizkunis commentary.
The stated aim of the Chizkuni is that he merely comes to add
Rashis commentary, or to answer some difficulty that may arise therein. This
is similar to the approach of the Tosafists in their Talmudic commentary;
indeed, tosafot literally means addenda. Therefore, Rashis words are
always their point of departure.
Sarah Yefet notes this linguistic phenomenon, which developed toward
the end of the 12th century:

In parallel to the appearance of the Tosafot, addressing Rashis

Talmudic commentary, and perhaps influenced by this phenomenon,
Rashis commentary itself become a subject of study. The biblical text
and Rashis commentary became one system, studied as one entity,
and the commentators attention was directed not only to the text and
the questions it raises, but Rashis commentary as well. Do Rashis
words stand up to criticism? Is he consistent? These and similar
questions were raised. [7]
As we shall see in the following examples, the Chizkunis addition to
Rashis commentary is expressed in a number of ways.
1.

Explaining by changing or adding.

On the verse, When a stranger sojourns with you in your land you
shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt
(Vayikra 19:33-34), the Chizkuni cites Rashi: Do not accuse your fellow with
your own defect. However, the words of Rashi are unclear, and therefore the
Chizkuni adds and explains:
And in Egypt, the Israelites worshipped idols, as it says in the book
of Yehoshua (24:14): Remove the gods which your fathers worshipped
on the other side of the river and in Egypt.
In other words, the blemish is not that we were also strangers in a
foreign land (Egypt), as one might have understood Rashi, but that we too, as
strangers, were idol worshippers.
The Chizkuni sometimes add the psychology behind a certain
explanation that Rashi brings. For example, on the words of the chief butler to
Pharaoh describing Yosef, And there was with us a Hebrew youth, a slave
(Bereishit 41:12), Rashi explains:
Cursed are the evil, for their good is incomplete; he mentions him with
contemptuous terminology.
The Chizkuni adds the motivations of the chief butler in deriding Yosef:
A youth, a Hebrew slave He was afraid that he might be angry at
him, that he might hate him for not mentioning as he asked him;
therefore, he spoke ill of him.[8]
Alternatively, so that the king would not be angry at him that he did not
tell him until this point about such a great sage such as this in his land;
therefore, he derided him.
Rashi explains that the butlers words are derogatory, and the Chizkuni
enhances this approach by explaining the possible motivations of the chief
butler in deriding Yosef.

Another example of explaining Rashis words and using psychology in

order to understand the verses may be found in the Chizkunis comments on
the sale of Yosef. When Yehuda suggests selling Yosef, he says, What profit
is there in killing our brother and concealing his blood? (Bereishit 37:26) This
verse is explained by Rashi in the following way:
What profit what money?
And concealing his blood? hiding his death.
Yehuda claims that the brothers would not gain anything from Yosefs
death (What profit is there in killing our brother?) but what is the meaning of
the continuation, and concealing his blood? Furthermore, what is the
connection between this claim and the claim of What profit is there? The
Chizkuni explains the intention of Rashis words so as to present Yehudas
claims as consistent and consecutive:
For we would need to conceal and hide his death, and we cannot glory
in it because of Fathers distress.[9]The custom of the world is that
when a man takes revenge upon his enemy, the vengeance does not
count if one does not glory in it.
If so, Yehudas claim is that not only will they not make money from
Yosefs sale (What profit is there in killing our brother?), but they will not
even be able to savor their vengeance and to glory in this murder, for they
must conceal it: And concealing his blood?
2.

Resolving difficulties in Rashi.

The Chizkuni defends Rashi from many attacks. Generally, he

introduces the question with the words, And if you will say [10] (a common
Tosafist term), and immediately after presenting the question, we find the
Chizkunis answer. For example, on the words, And Yitzchak entreated God
for his wife, because she was barren, and God was entreated of him, and
Rivka his wife conceived (Bereishit25:21), Rashi explains:
And God was entreated of him He allowed Himself to be entreated,
placated and swayed by him. I say that every expression of entreaty is
excessive supplication, and similarly we find (Yechezkel 8:11): And a
thick cloud of incense arose, indicating the immensity of the ascent of
smoke; And you have multiplied your words against Me (ibid. 35:13);
Whereas the kisses of an enemy are excessive (Mishlei27:6) they
seem to be too many
The Chizkuni explains:
And if you will say, what does Rashi teach us by saying that I say that
every expression of entreaty is excessive supplication, [11] but you may
say that at first Rashi explains what he received from his rabbis i.e.,
And He was entreated indicates excessive supplication. Afterwards,

he explains his own view: that every use of the root refers to
supplication and excessiveness.[12]
3.

Pointing out inconsistencies in Rashis commentary.

God asks Moshe (Shemot 4:11), Who has made mans mouth? Who
makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, God? Rashi cites
the Midrash Tanchuma (Shemot 10), which explains this verse as relating to
Moshes flight from Egypt:
Who made Pharaoh dumb, that he was incapable of issuing the order
to kill you? And [who made] his servants deaf, so that they did not hear
his commandment concerning you? And who made the executioners
blind, that they did not see when you fled from the platform and
escaped?
However, we find elsewhere (ibid. 2:15), And Pharaoh heard of this
matter,and he sought to slay Moses:
He delivered him to the executioner to execute him, but the sword had
no power over him. This what Moshe refers to when he says, And He
saved me from Pharaohs sword (ibid. 18:4).
The Chizkuni (ch. 4) points out the contradiction in Rashis words:
Or blind Rashi explains And who made the executioners blind,
that they did not see when you fled?Chazak! For when it said above,
And Pharaoh heard, Rashi explained this: He delivered him to the
executioner to execute him, but the sword had no power over him.
In this context, we should explain the term chazak as it appears many
times (more than seventy) in the Chizkunis commentary on the Torah.
Literally, it means strong, but it is clearly meant to be some sort of acronym
or abbreviation. The Chizkuni himself does not explain what this term means,
but it appears that it alludes to his name, Chizkiya, and he uses this term
when he has the desire to express some difficulty which he cannot explain,
something along the lines of, This requires further analysis. [13]
D.

The Chizkuni as an Independent and Original Exegete

Psychological Understanding of the Characters

Despite the fact that the Chizkuni utilizes many commentaries for the
purposes of writing his work, there are more than a few original commentaries
to be found in its lines, characterized mainly by his attempt to understand
reality and the motivations of the characters in each narrative. In this, the
influence of Ri Bekhor Shor [14] is noticeable, and the Chizkuni draws more
than a few of his explanations from that exegetes work.

We may see this in his approach to the verse, And he loved Yosef
from among all of his brothers, for he was a child of his old age
(Bereishit 37:3). The Chizkuni explains this using psychology, dealing with an
obvious question: why should Yaakov love Yosef more than his other children,
including Binyamin? Is Binyamin not, in fact, the youngest of his children?
And if you will say, is Binyamin not a child of his old age, consider that
his love for Binyamin was not as deep in Yaakovs heart as his love for
Yosef, because their mother died while giving birth to [Binyamin].
Similarly, the Chizkuni uses psychology to understand Yaakovs
reaction to Yosefs death (ibid. v. 35): All his sons and all his daughters rose
up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, No, I shall go
down to the netherworld for my son, mourning. Thus his father wept for him.
The Chizkuni makes this dependent on Yaakovs guilt over sending Yosef to
his spiteful brothers:
But he refused to be comforted He thought he
banished[15] due to his negligence, because he sent him there.

was

For my son On account of my son, because of the sin which I

committed against my son, that I sent him to the place where I knew he
was hated to death.
Another example may be found in the Chizkunis explanation of the fact
that the chief baker is impressed by the interpretation that Yosef offers to the
chief butlers dream (Bereishit 40:16):
Were he truly a liar, he would prevaricate and procrastinate, but he did
nothing of the sort; instead, he said (ibid. v. 12), In another three
days
Original Interpretations
Even when we are not talking about a psychological interpretation of
the motivations of the characters in the story, the Chizkuni has some very
original interpretations. One example of this is the Chizkunis explanation of
the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve (Bereishit 32:33) as a punishment for
Yaakovs sons, who failed to accompany their father:
By law, the sons of Yisrael deserved to be penalized and prohibited
from eating the sciatic nerve due to their leaving their father alone, as it
is written, And Yaakov remained alone (ibid. v. 25). Now, they were
strong, and they should have waited for their father to assist him,
should he need it; however, they did not accompany him, and he was
injured because of this. From this point on, this will serve as reminder
for them, and they will be alacritous in fulfilling the commandment of
accompaniment. For this reason, Yaakov accompanied Yosef.[16]

An additional example is his explanation of the verse, You shall not

take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen, and you shall love
your fellow as yourself (Vayikra 19:18). After the Chizkuni explains the nature
of the prohibitions of vengeance and bearing a grudge, he explains the
conclusion of the verse:
And you shall love your fellow as yourself If you do so, you will
love him.
In other words, according to the Chizkuni, the words, And you shall
love your fellow as yourself do not constitute a positive command (as
the peshatindicates), but the aim and the natural result of not taking revenge
or bearing a grudge.[17]
Explaining According to Reality
The Chizkuni attempts to explain many verses using by examining the
reality of the biblical era. We shall bring a number of examples:
1) The Chizkuni explains Avrahams name change (Bereishit 17:5) by
putting it in the context of the ancient custom of acquiring new
appellations based on ones exalted position:
The custom is to change the name of a person who ascends to
greatness, and this is what we find concerning Sara; [18] Yaakov;
[19] Yosef;[20]Yehoshua; Chananya, Mishael and Azarya.[21]
2) When Yaakov comes to prove to Lavan his dedication as a shepherd,
he proclaims before Lavan: These twenty years I have been with you.
Your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten
the rams of your flocks (Bereishit 31:38). The difficulty is that refraining
from eating Lavans flocks is exactly what is expected from Yaakov.
Thus, the Chizkuni explains:
And I have not eaten the rams of your flocks The custom of the
shepherd was that when he would take the sheep to a distant place to
find pastureland, and he could not find food to buy because he was far
away from civilization, he would take from the rams of the flocks, which
are not fit for reproduction, and eat them. However [Yaakov says], I
have not eaten the rams of your flocks.
In other words, the Chizkuni is detailing the standard deal for
shepherds of the era: they would eat some of their flock whenever they found
themselves in a place where it would be difficult to acquire food. However,
Yaakov, going beyond the letter of the law, did not do so.
3) In Shemot 11:2, the Israelites are commanded to borrow from the
Egyptians silver and gold vessels. The Chizkuni notes:
In place of the houses and fields and possessions which the Israelites
left behind because they could not take them along, for the Israelites

had estates in Egypt, as it is written (Bereishit 47:27), And they took

possession of it.
In other words, the legal justification for taking the Egyptians
possessions and not returning them is as compensation or a settlement for
the fields that the Israelites are leaving in Egypt. [22]
Indeed, it may be that in the final example, the Chizkuni is responding
to the Christian claim that the Jewish nation stole from the Egyptians.
*
Let us conclude with the Chizkunis blessing to his readers:
I adjure you, by words of delight, each man by his name,
Not to treat this book lightly,[23] but honestly regard the same,
Whoever supports and strengthens it is worthy of praise,
And in the eyes of God, upright he stays.
May God take account of him and him bless
And in all his ways, grant him success
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

[1] As for the other aims of the composition, see Yosef Priel, Darko Ha-Parshanit shel R.
Chizkiya ben Manoach (Chizkuni) Be-Feirusho La-Torah (doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan
University, 5770), pp. 12-14.
[2] In other words, he has chosen the commentaries that seem to be the finest in his view. He
is paraphrasing the verse (Bamidbar18:30): And you shall say to them, When you lift up the
choicest part from it, it will be considered for the Levites like the yield of the threshing-floor
and the yield of the wine-press. Many other verses use this terminology as well, using the
term chelev, which literally means fat, to indicate the most desirable or prestigious part.
[3] The Tosafists (ad loc.) write: For the ox chews its cud, and the donkey is pained when it
hears the ox eat.
[4] According to Yechezkel 1:10; the original text is And upon its image is the Throne of
Glory, and apparently this is a printers error.
[5] I have not found a source for this commentary. The idea that the ox is the king of the
domesticated animals appears on Chagiga 13b.
[6] He is quoting ibn Ezras explanation.
[7] Chizkuni La-Torah in Sefer Ha-Yovel La-Rav Mordechai Breuer (Jerusalem, 5752), p.
108.
[8] In other words, the butler tries to doom Yosefs chances for advancement, for if Yosef were
to ascend to greatness, Yosef might punish the butler for failing to mention him and help him
before this. Despite Yosefs specific request (ibid. 40:14), the butler had forgotten him for two
years (ibid. v. 23).
[9] In other words, in order not to cause their father pain, they cannot publicize Yosefs killing.
[10] The expression, And if you will say appears dozens of times, not only when the
Chizkuni wants to resolve a difficulty in Rashis commentary, but even when the Chizkuni has
a problem with the verses themselves.
[11] In other words, Rashi explains already at the beginning of his comment that entreaty
refers to excessive supplication, so what does he add by saying, I say that every expression
of entreaty is excessive supplication?

[12] In other words, at first Rashi explains that only the formulation, And God was entreated
means excessive supplication; afterwards, Rashi explains that this is the meaning of other
forms of the rootatar.
[13] It is interesting to note that among the seventy appearances of the word chazak, more
than forty of them are challenges to Rashis explanations, which unequivocally identify the
Chizkuni as a super-commentary on Rashi. For a broad discussion of this, see the essay by
Yosef Ofer, Peirush Chizkuni La-Torah Ve-Gilgulav, Megadim 8, pp. 3-4. In my humble
opinion, it may be that the meaning of the term is, And Chizkiya finds it difficult.
[14] See our lecture on Ri Bekhor Shor.
[15] The version that we have before us has nitrad (banished), but this may be a printers
error, and the word should be nitraf (torn apart). On the other hand, it may be that nitrad is
a reference to a term the Sages use, banished from the world (e.g., Sota 4b, Chagiga 9b),
which is a metaphor for death.
[16] We will see two more examples below.
[17] The letter vav in the Torah is the conjunction, and. And you shall love your fellow as
yourself can be understood in one of two ways. If we take it as a separate command, the
verse essentially should be translated: You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge
against your countrymen; rather, you must love your fellow as yourself. If it is meant to
indicate a result, we should translate it, You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge
against the sons of your own people; then, you will love your fellow as yourself.
A similar example is v. 23 (ibid.), which literally reads, And when you shall come into the
land, and you shall plant any kind of tree for food, and you shall regard its fruit as forbidden.
And you shall plant any kind of tree for food is clearly the continuation of the first clause,
setting up the situation, while And you shall regard its fruit as forbidden is the command.
Thus, we translate the verse: And when you will come into the land, planting any kind of tree
for food, then you must regard its fruit as forbidden.
A case in which the use of the vav is unclear is Yaakovs vow (Bereishit 28:20-22), If God
shall be with me and I shall return to my fathers house in peace, and Lord shall be my
God And of all that You give me, I shall give a full tenth to You. Are we to understand And
Lord shall be my God as the last of the conditions of the vow (If Lord shall be my God) or as
the first of Yaakovs commitments (Then Lord shall be my God)? See Rashi and Ramban ad
loc.
[18] God changes her name for Sarai to Sara (Bereishit ibid. 15).
[19] This refers to changing his name to Yisrael (ibid. 32:28, 35:10).
[20] Pharaoh changes his name to Tzafenat Paneach (ibid. 41:45).
[21] Nevukhadnetzar changes their names to Meishakh, Shadrakh and Aved Nego
(Daniel 1:7).
[22] On this comment of the Chizkuni, Nechama Leibowitz notes:
In this, the Chizkuni touches on a problem which exists in every mass emigration. It even
bothers Herzl, in his book Der Judenstaat, as he plans the Jews sudden departure from
Europe what can he do with all of the immovable possessions, so that their worth will not
plummet? Otherwise, the Jews immigrating to their land will arrive impoverished! This
difficulty of abandoning property has hit us hard in the Expulsion from Spain and all of the
departures from the lands of the Diaspora, and we have seen it in our days. Nevertheless, in
all of those cases, their neighbors did not lend them silver and gold vessels in exchange for
their houses and fields neither as an outright gift nor as a loan. ( Iyunim Be-sefer Shemot,
p. 133)
[23] The Chizkuni asks his readers not to treat his work with disrespect.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #21:
R. Yosef Ibn Caspi
A.
A. Origins[1]

Introduction

R. Yosef ibn Caspi was born in 1279 in Largentire, Provence, and

died sometime after 1340. His last name comes from the name of his city.
[2] He dealt extensively with grammar, philosophy and biblical exegesis, and
he composed a number of works on these topics. Ibn Caspi began writing at
age seventeen, and throughout the remaining years of his life, he wrote close
to thirty volumes.
B. Personality
What sets Ibn Caspi apart from his contemporaries is his extensive use
of the first person. The way he speaks of himself and his stylistic choices may
tell us something about Ibn Caspis personality. His excessively sardonic
words indicate that he sees himself as a lone wolf, bereft of friends and
intellectual equals, and the more he seeks out such colleagues, the more
disappointed he becomes by his inability to find them.
In the following paragraph, Ibn Caspi describes the phenomenon of his
distance from other people. According to Ibn Caspi, he avoids intimacy with
others because he has no desire to juxtapose two opposites, namely the
intelligent person (himself) and the fools (other people). He even goes further,
describing the masses as animals, horses and mules:
My neighbors and acquaintances know that I have never in my life
desired to show myself to all people, because I have no desire to
juxtapose two opposites, and I know that this is the general rule
there are intelligent people and fools, and the fools are the majority
Therefore, my custom has been to minimize communication with other
people, for I am very careful to avoid acting or speaking haughtily
Nevertheless, I do not regret at all my superiority over horses and
mules[3] (Tirat Kesef, p. 8)
From the contents of his statements and from the nature of their
formulation, it appears that Ibn Caspi sees himself as championing the truth at
all costs, and he does not care at all about negativity expressed towards him
or towards his works. It may be that he even believes and hopes that his style
will deny those who are unfit the appreciation of his words on an intellectual
level.
When Ibn Caspi boasts, his words do not only express derision for the
hoi polloi, but also for all women, whom Ibn Caspi regularly insults.[4] The
following lines are prime examples:
There is no doubt that the counsel of women is categorically bad,
whether inferior or shameful or fatal, as with the counsel of Chava,
who gave to her husband from the tree, and the counsel of Iyovs wife
[see Iyov2:9]. Fortunate is he who escapes their clutches! (Tirat Kesef,
p. 95)

Behold, our patriarch Yaakov surpassed him by his superior

perception, just as we surpass our wives by superior perception. (Ibid.,
p. 118)
In other words, just as Yaakov had an intellectual advantage over other
people, men have an intellectual advantage over women.
Ibn Caspi also has very few complimentary things to say about nonJews. An example of his relationship to non-Jews may be found in his
comment regarding the issue of Yaakovs sons killing the men of Shekhem.
How, a number of exegetes ask, could such righteous men slaughter the male
citizenry of an entire town? Ibn Caspi responds dismissively:
Why should our commentators complain about this? I would complain
only about who is left.[5](Matzref La-Kesef, p. 81)
Ibn Caspi takes a great deal of pride in his words, and he repeatedly
describes his exegetical abilities, which surpass the skills of his predecessors.
Thus, for example, we find:
My son, take out the silver and gold from your treasuries and put this in
them, for this is the royal treasure of the kingdom of priests and holy
nation. (Tirat Kesef, p. 64)
Together with his sharply critical tone, Ibn Caspi is blessed with an
excellent sense of humor. For example, in Matzref La-Kesef, in the end of his
words regardingBereishit 11:10, he remarks about the phenomenon of
factionalism in the Jewish nation:
We are witnesses today to the honor of our ancestress, the wife of
Peleg, that she was righteous and did not stray.
In other words, we Hebrews may be certain that our divisive and
contentious activity testifies that we are truly descended from Peleg (whose
name means division), son of Ever.
C. Ibn Caspis Exegesis
The Audience for Ibn Caspis Commentary
Ibn Caspi composed two commentaries on the Torah, Tirat
Kesef(silver battlement, Shir Ha-shirim 8:9) andMatzref La-kesef (silver
crucible, Mishlei17:3, 27:21). The first commentary explains different issues
in the Torah, while the second commentary is a running commentary on the
Torah. The target audience for these exegetical compositions is clearly the
intelligent, educated reader, who knows philosophy and biblical exegesis.
Throughout their pages, the reader finds profound concepts interwoven,
requiring prior knowledge of philosophy; deep thought is necessary in order to
understand his words. Exegetes and exegetical works are used without
attribution, with the basic assumption that the reader is familiar with the major

works of biblical exegesis. Ibn Caspi even relates to this explicitly in Matzref
La-kesef(Shemot 23:30):
I will not elaborate, for this is well-explained to those who are intelligent
and knowledgeable, who are superior among everyone, even if the
fools find it too complex and convoluted. I have no truck with fools
[cf. Kohelet 5:3]. Now, if I were to elaborate in my commentary, the
fools would still not understand, while I have no need to explain it all to
the intelligent. Therefore, I will set aside this explanation, and blessed
is the one who gives wisdom to the wise [cf. Daniel 2:21].
Ibn Caspis Style
Ibn Caspi writes in a challenging, enigmatic style; it may be that the
succinct and mysterious style in his writings is designed specifically in such a
way as to dissuade the hoi polloi from perusing his commentaries. Logical and
linguistic concepts are employed frequently, making matters difficult for the
reader; however, it appears that for Ibn Caspi, it is not important to explain
matters to the reader completely; he suffices with allusions, and sometimes
even less than that.
Undoubtedly, this phenomenon exists in the works of other medieval
exegetes, such as Ibn Ezra and the Ramban, but Ibn Caspi far surpasses
them in the frequency with which he reveals a bit while concealing the greater
part.[6] This style gives his commentary a mysterious and enigmatic character;
sometimes one may divine his intent from his words in other places, and
sometimes this is insufficient. Many times, Ibn Caspi does not explain
anything; instead, he uses the term ke-taam (akin to) and then quotes a
verse. The onus is upon the reader to understand the connection between the
quoted verse and the commentary.[7]
D. Exegetical Principles
The Aims of Scripture and its Target Audience
Despite his own aims and predilections in his commentary, according
to Ibn Caspis philosophy, the main target audience of the Torah is not the
intelligentsia and the elite, but rather specifically the masses, and only in a
number of places are there high-minded concepts designated for educated
philosophers. Consequently, in the view of Ibn Caspi, the main use of the
Torah is as a partial and relative corrective for the masses; providing
informed transcendencefor the intellectual elites is a secondary objective. This
is what Ibn Caspi determines in Matzref La-Kesef, in his introduction
to Parashat Bechukkotai(Vayikra 26):
Thus, it is self-explanatory that this Torah has been given to the
masses in its entirety to meditate on it constantly, and the masses do
not understand transcendence, that Moshe would compose for them a
book for the soul, or what is behind nature, that they would meditate on
it constantly. In order to repair the masses, it is necessary that they

have a book that they will study at all times; therefore, he composed
this book for them. So that this book would not be devoid of
transcendence, he puts in it in separate places wondrous statements of
the wisdom of nature and divine insights, so that it would be a complete
book
Thus, it is clear that it is necessary for the public matters [8] to
outnumber the transcendent matters, just as those who use the public
matters are much more numerous than those who use the
transcendent
The fact that the Torah addresses the masses is not only relevant for
grasping the meaning of the verses, but also for understanding the editorial
choices of the Torah: which narrative elements are included, and which are
omitted?[9]
Despite this, Ibn Caspi claims that sometimes the Torah turns both to
the masses and to the intelligentsia, in a stratified manner; in these case, the
two groups are supposed to understand the same verse in different ways.
[10] In other cases, the Torah even prefers to turn to the intelligentsia, at the
cost of the masses interests.[11]
In the view of the Ibn Caspi, a central aim of the books of the Prophets
is to explain the Torah, so that if we understand properly the prophetic books,
the biblical commentators are superfluous:
This honored issue was explained to us by the Prophets not only
this, but all the Torah. Indeed, if we understand them adequately, we
will have no need of Ibn Ezra and his ilk. (Matzref LaKesef, Bereishit 1:2)
Ibn Caspis Peshat
Ibn Caspis exegetical methodology in Matzref La-Kesef is to explain
the verses by way of the peshat. Many contemporary philosophers embraced
very extreme allegorical approaches, but Ibn Caspi stresses the need to
explain verses according to their peshat and to avoid allegorical exegesis.
Sometimes, Ibn Caspi rejects very sharply explanations that do not fit
in with the peshat, even if they had been previously accepted by the classical
exegetes. The most famous example of this is Ibn Caspis commentary on the
words of Miriam and Aharon against Moshe (Bamidbar 12:1), in which he
accuses the biblical exegetes who preceded him of explaining the verse in an
arbitrary manner, in explicit opposition to the intent of the Giver of the Torah.
In his blistering diatribe, he even alludes to the fact that some of these
explanations verge on Christian exegesis.
The verse states that Miriam and Aharon are speaking about Moshe,
concerning the Cushite woman whom he had taken, for a Cushite woman he
had taken. Onkelos, following Midrashic sources, translates Cushite as

strikingly beautiful and renders the final clause: for he had divorced the
strikingly beautiful woman whom he had taken.
Concerning the Cushite woman whom he had taken Yosef says: I
am astounded at my predecessors, though they be more perfect than I,
and I cannot reach the soles of their feet. [12] How in the world did it
enter their imagination to do this? How can they explain something
from the Torah as the reverse of what is written, either by changing a
word to its opposite, or adding words which invert its meaning?
Now, it is well known what Onkelos says, and Rabbeinu Moshe [13] says
that Onkelos the convert is a great sage, but how can he explain that
Cushite means beautiful when they are antonyms, like black and
white? Indeed, how does he know to add other words which invert the
meaning of for he had taken a Cushite woman, as if it is written in the
Torah, rendering it: for he had abandoned or distanced the Cushite
woman whom he had taken? And if this is the intent of the Giver of the
Torah, why was it not written thusly? Why does it write the opposite?
Furthermore, who allows us to do this? Why does Onkelos have the
authority to do this? What of the Talmudic sages or the Ibn Ezra, all of
whom follow this? Why should we not do so ourselves, each man
according to what is right in his eyes? Should we say, instead of And
you shall love Lord your God (Devarim 6:5), God forbid: And you shall
hate Lord your God? Alternatively, should we hate whatever is beloved
by God?
And if you will say that [Moshe] received the Torah from Sinai and gave
it to Yehoshua, telling him orally that this is the explanation of this
verse, my answer is that we return to the first claim: why is it not written
explicitly according to the facts, instead of using a word that describes
the opposite? Can we call it commentary if one exchanges a word for
the opposite? It can only be called commentary when the explanation
of the words is according to their meaning, however they may be
explained. You shall not kindle a fire (Shemot 35:3) and You shall not
eat upon the blood (Vayikra19:26) have profound explanations, but the
verses tolerate it; certainly, they are not explained in a contrary way.
Anything else may be called conversion and opposition and
erasing and uprooting and destroying.
We may say this in every language which one may hear why should
we not say that when it says, And you God took (Devarim 4:20), it
actually means: And you God abandoned? Similarly, And he and his
neighbor shall take (Shemot12:4) why is this one better than the
other?
As God loves, this approach is beyond me, though it is the consensus
of all my predecessors, the pillars of the world in the faith and strength
of Moshes Torah. I cannot bear it. God forbid that I should do such a
thing, either that I should totally abandon Moshes Torah and believe in

a new Torah, God forbid, as has already been done, or that I should do
as these do, Heaven forfend(Matzref La-Kesef, Bamidbar 12:1)
Egyptian Reality and Contemporary Reality
Ibn Caspi drew great inspiration from his visit to Egypt, in which he
recognized the customs that, according to his view, persisted from the biblical
era, and he explains the verses according to them. For example, this is what
he writes about the verse (Bereishit 41:40): And by your mouth, my entire
nation will be provided for (literally: will be kissed):
The custom of the land is not to kiss on the mouth literally. Rather, the
custom is known for all who come here, so that this language is very
appropriate. (Matzref La-Kesef,Shemot 7:15) [14]
The custom helps Ibn Caspi not just in understanding the narrative
itself, but the linguistic issues as well.[15]
E. Exegesis and Polemics of Philosophy
In all of his writings, Ibn Caspi displays a remarkable philosophical
worldview, profoundly influenced by the Rambam, as indicated by the many
citations of the Rambams writings in his compositions. Ibn Caspi even
composed two commentaries on the Rambams Moreh Nevukhim, and his
great interest in the Rambams views brought him, at the age of 35, to wander
to Egypt, with the aim of learning from the descendants of the Rambam. [16]
We may find references to contemporary anti-philosophical polemics in
Ibn Caspis many compositions and his exegetical view. From the 13 th century
until the beginning of the 14 th century, a controversy raged in Provence
concerning the study of philosophy.[17] Those who opposed studying
philosophy issued a ban against all those who studied the discipline,
particularly the philosophical writings of the Rambam. Provencal Jewry was
not receptive to this ban, and those who studied philosophy continued to do
so. The struggle reached its height in the year 1305 with the imposition of the
excommunicative bans in Barcelona, [18]which was essentially directed
towards the Jews of Provence, [19]where rationalism was influential and where
Ibn Caspi lived. One of these bans was issued against extreme allegorical
exegesis.[20]
Both Christians and Jews in Provence used allegorization, even though
they naturally reached different results. The Rambam teaches that a literal
understanding of the sources may bring one to make far-reaching errors of
faith, and because of this, sometimes one needs to explain the sources in an
allegorical way. This view of allegorical exegesis continued to expand in farflung directions, with the aim of finding philosophical contents in Jewish
sources. The use of allegorization by Jews stood at the center of the polemics
about philosophy in 13th and 14th centuries.

Allegorization was attacked for a number of reasons. First, it appeared

to contradict the historicity of the Jewish tradition. Second, the similarity to
Christian methodology raised the concern of ratifying and confirming the
elements of Christian interpretation, which obviously included statements of
the Christian faith. To an extent, there was also concern that allegorization of
the mitzvot would lead to the result that they would cease to be viewed as
binding on the practical level.[21]
Ibn Caspi, as a philosophical exegete, is compelled against his will to
deal with these questions. More than once, we find in his commentaries
exegetical apologetics, defending the Jewish sages of philosophy from claims
raised against them. In this way, Ibn Caspi is consistent in that he identifies
with rationalists, praises them, and sees philosophy a compelling tool for
understanding the Torah.[22] On the other hand, as a pashtan and
grammarian, one may see in his writings a certain opposition to allegorization
that is not necessary in order to understand the verse and does not arise
from peshat-oriented methodology.[23]It appears that in the view of Ibn Caspi
in a number of places, the essential meaning of the verse is the deeper level,
which alludes to the wisdoms of nature and divinity.[24] At the same time, the
presumption of the biblical narrative is that of a realistic narrative; only when
there is a pressing need may one explain it in an allegoristic way.
F. Connection to the Biblical Yosef
In Ibn Caspis commentary on the narrative of Yosef and his brothers
(Bereishit 37-50), there is a clear tendency to elaborate. Ibn Caspi spends
more time on these chapters than any other narratives in the Torah, analyzing
and evaluating the characters, their motivations, and the nature of their
morality. It appears that Yosefs character has special meaning for Ibn Caspi,
and for this reason he goes on at length in Yosefs narratives. [25] Ibn Caspi
sees Yosef as one of the patriarchs, unlike what the Sages propound, [26] and
even surpassing them in his estimation.
According to Ibn Caspi, we may gauge the qualitative importance of an
issue in the Torah by quantitative measures. [27] Thus, one may learn the
regard of the Torah for a certain person or issue from the quantity of the
verses dealing with that person or issue. The fact is that Yosef has four
weekly portions dedicated to his story (more than any other Patriarch). This
testifies to Yosefs importance, and only Moshe Rabbeinus importance is
greater.
Indeed, Ibn Caspi gives Yosef a number of positive titles. In his preface
to Chapter 37 of Bereishit alone, Yosef is called our premier patriarch, called
Tzafenat Paneach Moreover, this worthy was a great sage. Yosefs
sagacity is mentioned explicitly by Ibn Caspi dozens of times, to the point that
we may say that Yosef earns the definite article in Ibn Caspis terminology:
Yosef the sage. Ibn Caspi praises not only the attributes and spiritual level of
Yosef, but even his abilities.[28] In addition, according to Ibn Caspi, Yosef is not
only an intellectual, but a righteous and sensitive person. [29]

Ibn Caspi also goes on to compare Yosef and his brothers, [30] which
results in Yosefs preference, and in any place in which there exists a
possibility to level criticism at Yosefs actions, Ibn Caspi always comes to his
defense. Thus, for example, while some biblical exegetes criticize Yosefs
actions towards his brothers, Ibn Caspi explains them as reflecting a desire to
educate them and to actualize his dreams (see Tirat Kesef,Bereishit 42:9).
From Ibn Caspis words, it seems that he identifies with Yosef. First,
given the many accolades showered on Yosef by Ibn Caspi, it appears that his
great regard for Yosef is what brings Ibn Caspi to identify with him. Second, it
appears that the fact that they share a name constitutes a basis for
identification. A third factor is that apparently Ibn Caspi sees Yosef as his
comrade: both are isolated from their environment, and both of them are
sages among the foolish masses.
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

For his biography, see I. Twersky, "Joseph ibn Kaspi Portrait of a Medieval Jewish
Intellectual," in I. Twersky (ed.), Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (1979),
231257; Shulchan Kesef, five exegetical and theological essays, ed. H. Kasher (Jerusalem,
1996); Hacohen, Sugyot, pp. 99-102; Gevi'a ha-Kesef, Introduction, pp. 11-13, ed. B.E.
Herring (New York, 1982). The alert reader will note that spellings of his name vary in
academic literature.
[2] Argentum in Latin and kesef in Hebrew both mean silver. This is what Ibn Caspi
himself writes in Kevutzat Kesef (Version A), in Asarah Kelei Kesef, ed. I.H. Last, Vol. I
(Presburg, 1903), p. XXII. See also Barry Mesch, Studies in Joseph ibn Caspi: FourteenthCentury Philosopher and Exegete (Leiden, 1975), p. 1, n. 1.
[3] See Kalonymus, Teshuva She-Heshiv, p. 24, where one may find the sharp criticism
Kalonymus b. R. Kalonymus levels against this statement.
[4] See Tirat Kesef, p. 84, 114.
[5] See also Tirat Kesef, pp. 119-120.
[6] Similarly, when Ibn Ezra and the Ramban use allusions, they generally do not do so in
order to explain the simple meaning of the verses. Instead, they primarily delve into issues
of sod (mainly the Ramban) and linguistic matters (mainly Ibn Ezra).
[7] Thus, for example, in Matzref La-Kesef toBereishit 27:45, we find:
Why should I be bereaved also of both of you on one day this is akin to: And I
will also be built from her (Bereishit 30:3).
The explanation is that the word why in the verse means perhaps; Rivkas intent in saying,
Why should I be bereaved also of both of you on one day is, Perhaps I will be bereaved of
both of you, just as Rachels intent with her words, And I will also be built from her is,
Perhaps I will be built also from her. See also Shulchan Kesef, ch. 65 (p. 122), and Kashers
notes there.
[8] This refers to those things which are simple and understood by everyone.
[9] See, e.g., Matzref La-Kesef, Shemot 24:12:
There is no need to mention everything which Moshe did with God during this forty-day
meeting what did God say to him, and what did he respond? for who can know this?
Nevertheless, it will mention what is necessary for the masses
[10] See, for example, Matzref La-Kesef, Bereishit1:2:
We will do all of this to hide it from the masses, so that the masses will take them according to
their degree, while some individuals will understand in all of this honored matter two facets,
the metaphorical apples of gold in settings of silver (Mishlei 25:11).
See also Rambams introduction to Moreh Nevukhim.
[11] This is what Ibn Caspi writes in the continuation to his commentary on Vayikra 26:30:
[1]

I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you
Now, what would it help the masses all the more so this thick-headed generation if he
were to say to them: If you follow my rules, you will merit the life of the World to Come, and
if you do not listen, you will not merit it? This is only like yelling at statutes or playing music
among the dead.
Similar things may be found in Shulchan Kesef, ch. 64, p. 120:
For our holy books have been composed to be handed over to the entire masses, children
and women.
[12] It is not clear to me whether this is a true expression of Ibn Caspi regard for the Sages, or
a certain lip service because he is about to attack their commentary.
[13] Rambam, Moreh Nevukhim 1:27: Onkelos the convert is very complete in the Hebrew
and Aramaic languages.
[14] See also Matzref La-kesef, Bereishit 41:40.
[15] Thus, for example, he distinguishes between two biblical verbs for removing shoes, shal
and chalatz:
The people of the land do not understand what it says of Moshe: Remove ( shal) your shoes
(Shemot 3:5), as it compares to the issue of Boaz, A man would remove (shalaf) his shoe
(Ruth 4:7) and the topic of levirate marriage, And she shall remove (chaletza) his shoe
(Devarim 25:9). The matter is as follows: The custom of the land is to wear on ones feet
shoes of hard leather, and the shoes are not tied to anything, and therefore when one wants
to remove this shoe, one merely shakes his foot, and the shoe falls off. This is shal,
equivalent to nashal in Devarim 19:1, And the iron will slip off. This is why it says, A man
would remove (shalaf) his shoe and give it to his fellow. However, if the shoe is tied and
attached to the foot with the straps, then we use the term chalitza, similarly to And they will
remove (chaletzu) the stones (Vayikra 14:40) (Tirat Kesef, p. 19)
[16] This is what Ibn Caspi writes in Tirat Kesef, pp. 18-19; see ibid., p. 42.
[17] For more on the background of these polemics, see Halbertal, Bein Torah LeChokhma, pp. 11-21.
[18] One ban decreed that no one under the age of 25 could study philosophy; the second ban
will be discussed below.
[19] For the background of polemics in Provence, see Benedict, Ha-Torah BeProvence; Lasker, Natzrut.
[20] See Minchat Kenaot in Teshuvot Ha-Rashba, p. 724.
[21] The view of the Rambam, claiming that biblical anthropomorphization should be seen as
an allegory for deeper content, ultimately led to an even more extreme view among radical
groups in Spain. While the Rambam utilizes the allegorical approach for issues of
anthropomorphizing God alone, there are those who utilize for interpreting practical mitzvot. In
other words, a school arose which claimed that the intelligent person, who knows the
intentions of the mitzvot, is not required to fulfill the mitzvot practically, and his understanding
is enough. See Shalom, Zeramim Be-Mystica, p. 391, quoting R. Moshe de Len from a
manuscript. The Rambams adherents rejected, of course, the indictment of the Rambam and
his philosophy for exegesis of the mitzvot along these lines, but the dispute was focused on
the essential view leading to these extreme opinions. See Ben Sasson, Toledot Yisrael, pp.
220-226.
[22] Tirat Kesef, pp. 10-12.
[23] For example, this is what he writes in Tirat Kesef (p. 20):
Now listen, my son, to what I say, and it is this: for it is not appropriate in my view to remove a
narrative from its simple meaning, unless one is compelled to do so. Therefore, when a
narrative appears in Scripture, either a statement said or an action done, it is appropriate that
we should follow the presumption and explain it thus: it was a conscious event, employing the
senses in their normal way
See also Peirush Le-Mishlei, I, p. 19; Sefer Ha-Musar, p. 67; see also Rambam, Moreh
Nevukhim,I, 8, and Maskiyot Kesef, ad loc.
[24] See, for example, Gevia Kesef, ch. 15.
[25] Already in the preface to Bereishit 37 in Matzref La-Kesef, Ibn Caspi dedicates a lengthy,
detailed analysis to the ranking of the Patriarchs. We shall bring here part of his words:
Says Yosef ibn Caspi: My intent is to elaborate on the issue of Yosef, for he dominates from
here until the end of the Book of Bereishit; indeed, he is our premier patriarch, called
Tzafenat Paneach (41:45), which means He reveals the hidden secrets. Moreover, this
worthy man was a great sage, as we shall explain, and also Aristotle mentioned him when it

comes to interpreting dreams. Indeed, he was the man who ruled longer than all of the rulers
who have led our nation, for he stood in his greatness for eighty years.
[26] The Sages declare (Berakhot 16b): Our rabbis taught: Only three may be referred to as
Patriarchs, and only four may be referred to as Matriarchs.
[27] Ibn Caspi explains that the length of Yosefs narrative is proportional to the significance of
the main character in it, conforming to that which is accepted in the rest of the Torah: Moshe
gets an entire book, Yosef gets four Torah portions, Avraham three, Yaakov two, Yitzchak one,
and Adam and Noach one each:
See how this part of the Pentateuch, i.e. the Book of Bereishit, is the most honored. Now, this
book is itself divided into a dozen portions: the first tells the story of Creation, from Adam until
Noach; the second, from Noach until Avraham; the third, fourth and fifth deal with Avraham,
the pioneer. The sixth concerns Yitzchak, whose quality was weaker than the quality of his
father and of his son. The seventh and eighth deal with the honored Yaakov. The ninth, tenth,
eleventh and twelfth deal with the wise Yosef. Afterwards, Moshe flourished, master of all, and
to him is dedicated the entire book of Shemot.
[28] For example, this is what he writes in Tirat Kesef (p. 125):
Interpreting dreams is for the masters of the power of inference, for this is the power which
the prophets have in great measure, and therefore Yosef thought and inferred in his mind:
how might these dreams come into reality?
[29] See Tirat Kesef, p. 127; Matzref La-Kesef,Bereishit 44:17.
[30] See for example, the following citation:
Even though his brothers were wise and clever, he was more wise and clever than they
Then the mentally deficient responded
The mentally deficient are the brothers, as compared to Yosef.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #22:
The Ralbag
A.

Introduction

R. Levi ben Gershom (1288-1344) lived in Provence, and he was a

dominant and famous figure in his era not only in the Jewish community and
not only because of his Torah-based writings. He was also known for his
contributions to the fields of philosophy, science, [1] mathematics[2] and
astronomy,[3] and he even composed a number of academic treatises in these
disciplines. Some of the Ralbags scientific writings were translated from
Hebrew to Latin, so that they could serve the non-Jewish intelligentsia. [4] One
indication of the great importance of his biblical commentaries is the fact that
his commentary was chosen to be one of the first books to be printed in
Hebrew.
Like R. Yosef ibn Caspi, whom we dealt with in the previous lesson, the
Ralbag dedicates a significant portion of his commentary to Sefer Bereishit. A
large part of his commentary, mainly the chapters ofBereishit which deal with
creation, is focused on his philosophical approach. Despite this, there is a
great difference between the two exegetes: the Ralbag uses philosophical
principles taken from physics and metaphysics, while ibn Caspi uses mainly
the discipline of logic.

This is an interesting phenomenon of two scholars exploring Tanakh,

living in the same time and same area, and having a similar style. However,
while one (Ralbag) became famous and accepted, the other (ibn Caspi) was
almost unknown, and his writings were not studied. It seems to me that a
comparison of the two personalities yields the following explanation. The
Ralbag was a scholar who was not only expert in the Written Torah, but also in
the Oral Torah, and was a well-known halakhic authority. This is not true of ibn
Caspi, who declares that he is not a halakhic expert; [5]in his compositions, he
conspicuously avoids delving into halakhic topics. In addition, understanding
the Ralbags commentaries generally does not require prior knowledge, while
understanding ibn Caspis commentaries requires prior knowledge not only in
philosophical logic, but also in biblical exegesis. While a reader who is not
totally well-versed in the philosophical world of the Middle Ages will have
some difficulty in understanding the commentary of the Ralbag as well, there
is no doubt that understanding his commentaries is a much simpler task than
understanding ibn Caspi.
B.

Structure of the Commentary

The Ralbag divides the portion into a number of subtopics: each

subtopic is considered an independent literary unit, which he calls a parasha.
The Ralbag divides his commentary into three separate parts, each of which
deals with another discipline, and together they constitute a comprehensive
exegetical system. The three parts are: the lexicon (biur ha-milot), the
exegesis (biur ha-parasha), and the values (toalot).
Biur ha-milot is a short commentary on words that require definition.
This commentary is structured according to the standard template, each entry
followed by its definition. The lexicon is significant as part of the
comprehensive explication of the entire unit, and is relevant in terms of
framing the general context of the unit.
The second part, biur ha-parasha, is a comprehensive commentary,
which recapitulates the words of the Torah while adding exegetical addenda in
the style of a lecture, without dividing it into verses.
The third part, toalot, explains the meanings, morals, and messages
that come out of the parasha. These values are divided into three segments:
metaphysical (deot), moral (middot), and mitzva-related. The first of these
relates to philosophical issues that emerge from the unit; the second deals
with behavioral and ethical issues that arise from the unit; and in the halakhic
portions of the Torah, the third examines the contents and meanings of the
commandments. The Ralbag expands on the significance of these three
categories in his introduction to his commentary on the Torah:
It is crucial to divide the Torah, by courtesy, into these three parts,
because human perfection cannot be realized without achieving the
perfection of middot

According
to
the
view
of
the
Ralbag,
these mitzvot, deot, and middot are three categories in which human beings
must reach for perfection. Perfection, after all, is the aim of creation, as the
Ralbag continues to explain, delineating the great gifts God gave to man:
Indeed, He guided his reality[6] in this wondrously providential way,
crafting his limbs and their powers and their instruments, all of which
He gave to him to maintain his reality. He did not hesitate to give him
direction and guidance towards the true perfection, which is the entirety
of mans yield This He accomplished by giving him this divine Torah,
which is the nomos[7]which all may follow, thereby reaching perfection
and true success.
In other words, just as God creates the mechanism of the human body
in a way in which a person can survive, similarly God creates a mechanism
that allows each person to achieve perfection, which is the ultimate goal of
man in this world. This manual is the Torah, and those who follow the Torah
will reach true perfection. This direction is given both through the
commandments of the Torah and through the biblical narrative. [8] Indeed, the
Ralbag consistently explains the Torah according to this conception.
Analyzing the entirety of the Ralbags metaphysical values will give the
reader a comprehensive picture of his philosophical world. In these toalot, the
Ralbag expands on many topics such as prophecy, providence, reward and
punishment, etc. In his commentary on Tanakh, the Ralbag reveals that he is,
on the one hand, as a man of faith who sees himself as bound by what he
perceives as basic beliefs of the Jewish religious tradition, and on the other
hand as a man of science and philosophy who tries to enhance these beliefs
with explanations in the philosophical and scientific frameworks, based on
Aristotelian thought.
An example of ethical values may be seen in Bereishit 43:11-14. In
these verses, the Torah describes Yaakovs preparations for sending
Binyamin to Egypt with the brothers:
Then their father Yisrael said to them, If it must be so, then do this:
Take some of the choice fruits of the land in your bags, and carry a
present down to the man, a little balm and a little honey Take double
the money with you Take also your brother, and arise, go again to the
man. May God Almighty grant you mercy before the man
These verses are clear and understandable, requiring no explanation,
but the Ralbags view is that the details in the story come to teach us rules of
behavior (not only ethical behavior, but intelligent and socially acceptable
behavior):
The fifteenth value is in middot. It is not appropriate for someone
whose master suspects him of a bad thing to be excessive in offering a
generous gift, because this will seem to indicate that the suspicion is
actually true. Thus, one will find that Yaakov does not act excessively

at this point by offering a generous tribute, while one may see that he
gave a generous tribute to Esav. Rather, it was a minimal amount that
he sent to him: a little balm and a little honey
We learn from this that Yaakov prefers to give a mistrustful person a
small gift, as exaggeration in this realm will only serve to bolster the others
concerns.
From these same verses, the Ralbag also extracts a metaphysical
value:
The sixteenth value is in deot. This informs us that when a person is
concerned about some evil, he should not rely solely on praying to
God; rather, it is worthwhile to exert efforts according to all the
reasons[9]that are feasible in order to save himself, and he should
juxtapose this to his prayer to God Almighty. God Almighty will assist
those who attach themselves to him and He will show them
providence, but His desire is that they juxtapose this with the
appropriate reasons Furthermore, if the perfect one will rely only on
praying to God, this may result in an irreplaceable loss; should this
perfect one not receive his hearts desire, his faith will be reduced,
which is in itself the reason for a lack of achievement [10]
We learn here of the relationship of the Torah to a persons effort and
initiative. Yaakov does not suffice himself with prayer alone; in addition, he
also uses natural tools, namely, the gift which he sends to the viceroy. [11] The
importance of the natural effort is twofold: Gods desire is to show providence
using natural tools (the appropriate reasons), not miracles; furthermore, the
person who relies on prayer alone can be damaged theologically if his prayer
is not accepted.
C.

Innovative Explanations

In light of his view that one must learn rules of behavior from biblical
narrative, the Ralbag believes that the story of Avraham going down to Egypt
(Bereishit12) portrays him as a positive role model. The Ralbag praises
Avraham for leaving the Land of Israel in light of the famine and not staying
put in obstinacy:
The first value is in middot. This teaches us the diligence required for
one to maintain his body and give it all that it needs. One may see this
in Avraham; despite the fact that God Almighty had already ensured
that he would succeed financially, he arose, because of the famine
which occurred in the Land of Canaan, to go to the Land of Egypt. He
did not hold himself back because God Almighty commanded him to
settle in the Land of Canaan. God Almightys command is solely
designed to benefit man, not to bring about his death. Therefore,
Avraham knew that it was God Almightys will that he should depart
from there in order to seek sustenance[12]

D. Attitude towards Miracles

The Ralbag has a complex approach to the limitations of miracles. In
accordance with philosophical considerations although this is not the forum
to elaborate on them in his book Milchamot Hashem(VI, 2:12), he
determines three principles relating to miracles:
A)
There are no constant miracles. Exceptions to the rules of
nature can exist in a miraculous way temporarily, but not in a
permanent way.
B)
The magnitude of the miracle correlates to the greatness of the
prophet. Miracles happen only by way of prophets, and their scope is
dependent on the prophets level.
C)
Miracles cannot happen for heavenly reasons. This principle
compels the Ralbag to explain that miracles which appear ostensibly to
be based in cosmic causes in fact happen without any intervention of
heavenly reasons.
An additional principle appears in a number of places in the Torah
commentary of the Ralbag:
D)
The miracles are done with the appropriate reasons: God
minimizes His interference in the order of the natural world.Exceptions
to the rules of naturetake place only if they are required to achieve the
relevant benefit.[13]
For example, as an instance of the third rule, one may note the original
explanation of the Ralbag for the miracle of the suns standing still at Givon
(Yehoshua10:13), which appears to directly contradict this principle. The
Ralbag explains that the verses are not describing a change in the natural
position of the sun, but rather describe the dramatic success of the Jewish
army; in a very small amount of time, even before dark, they achieve victory in
combat.
What Yehoshuas statement means is that before the sun could pass
over Givon, and the moon arrive in the Ayalon Valley, the nation took its
vengeance from its enemies
Now, this was a wondrous matter: not only did Israel manage to
avenge themselves of their foes, but they managed to avenge
themselves of their foes completely and conclusively in a relative short
amount of time.[14]
As an example of the fourth principle, we may turn to the Ralbags
commentary on the following verse (Devarim 7:22):
Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little.
You cannot make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too
numerous for you.

The Ralbag explains:

Even though God Almighty is in control of doing whatever He wants
and whatever He desires, He will seek the reasons which are as
appropriate as possible. Moreover, He will not innovate a wonder
unless the situation compels it. For He does not hate nature; indeed,
He made it!
Therefore, He does not subvert it except in a time of need and in the
most minimal way that it is possible to do so. This is why it says, Lord
your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You
may not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too
numerous for you. Indubitably, God Almighty could destroy them
quickly and guard Israel against the wild beasts, so that they could not
overwhelm them; nevertheless, He chose not do this, because it was
possible for Israel to achieve the goal without this.
In other words, God could have helped the Jewish nation to conquer
the Land of Canaan swiftly, but He holds Himself back from doing so because
there was no essential need for a miracle of this sort. God avoids subverting
the natural law because He does not hate nature He loves His world as
He created it, and therefore His interference in the laws of nature will be as
minimal as possible.
E. Attitude towards Halakhic Midrash
In the halakhic portion of the Torah, the Ralbag has an innovative
approach to studying the laws of the Oral Torah. Up to his time, biblical
exegetes fall into one of two groups. One group (Rashi, Ramban, et al.) cites
Midrashic material dealing with halakhic topics and (generally) explains the
verses in keeping with these sources. However, most exegetes are in the
second group, dealing only with analyzing the verses, whether in terms of
their halakhic content (ibn Ezra) or in an independent way (Rashbam).
Regardless, they do not deal with all the details of halakhic Midrash.
The Ralbag, in his introduction to his commentary on the Torah,
explains his relationship to halakhic Midrash:
Now, when we explain the commandments and the roots from which all
of the laws emerge, as explained by Talmudic wisdom, do not expect
us to juxtapose those roots with the sites utilized by our Talmudic
sages, via one of the thirteen attributes, according to their custom. This
is for the following reason: they juxtapose these accepted and true
things concerning the Torahs commandments to those verses, but only
in order to utilize them as allusions and supports; they do not really
intend to extract these laws from these sites
We, on the other hand, will juxtapose them to the simple meaning of
the verses, so that it is possible for laws to come out of them, for by

this, the soul will be more thoroughly satisfied. This is not veering from
the way of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, for as we have said, they
never intended that these laws should really be extracted from these
sites to which they are juxtaposed. Rather, they have a direct oral
tradition, man to man, going back to Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon
him, so they merely seek an allusion from the verse
The Ralbag accepts the laws that emerge from halakhic Midrash as
genuine and binding, but he believes that the form of studying Halakha is not
obligatory; it only serves an asmakhta, a support. In other words, when the
Sages expound a verse and, as it were, derive laws from there, the verse
expounded is not the source of the given law. Rather, the Sages hold it is a
legal tradition from Mt. Sinai, and they seek a verse that may serve as
an asmakhta for some laws the verses are the frame on which to display
the laws.[15] Since this is true, the derivation of any given asmakhtais not
obligatory; the Ralbag may use anasmakhta which differs from that of the
Sages, and he uses different tools than what they use.
For example, while the Sages may find allusions or supports using the
thirteen attributed by which the Torah is expounded, the Ralbag composes
other logical rules for the sites,[16] which are designed to be a substitute for
the thirteen attributes of the Sages. The Ralbag stresses that he does not
argue with the Sages, because they themselves never meant for the types of
derivation utilized in halakhic Midrash to be obligatory.
The Ralbag sees great significance in his approach for two reasons.
First, it is satisfying to the soul ideas are more acceptable and pleasing if
they are studied in a more logical way. The second reason is that the easiest
way to commit the laws of the Oral Torah to ones memory is to connect the
laws to the verses, as the Written Torah is familiar to all. [17]
Thus, for example, the Ralbag derives the prohibition for one to judge
his relative from Shemot 32:27-29, wherein Moshe orders the Levites to kill
those who have served the Golden Calf:
Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the
camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and his fellow
and his kinsman You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you
were against your own sons and brothers, and He has blessed you this
day.
Ralbag points out:
From the fact that he makes a point that today they should not hold
back from executing justice upon a sinner who is their son or their
brother, it is possible for us to that a judge cannot sit in judgment of his
relative.
F.

Main Contribution of the Ralbag

We should see the essential contribution of the Ralbag to the Torah as

a contribution to the sphere of Jewish thought. However, even in the sphere of
biblical exegesis, the Ralbag is very innovative, and most of his innovations
are found in his values. The Ralbags worldview in terms of the Torahs aim
motivates him to find as many relevant messages and morals as possible
through the Torahs narrative and laws.
We will conclude with a nice quote from the Ralbag, who characterizes
his outlook of Torah study thusly:
The greatest joy is in the acquisition of spirituality, and this is quite
understandable, because we will rejoice more, beyond measure, when
we grasp an intellectual matter, than we will rejoice over the acquisition
of anything physical.(Commentary to IDivrei Ha-yamim 16).

[1] His most famous invention is the "Jacob's Staff," a navigational tool which served sailors
for
hundreds
of
years
and
is
even
in
use
today;
see,
for
example,http://ascscientific.stores.yahoo.net/precjacstaf.html.
[2] His innovations in this area were integral to the development of trigonometry.
[3] Due to the Ralbags great contributions to the discipline of astronomy, a lunar crater is
named after him: Rabbi Levi, 34.7S 23.6E.
[4] In 1342, Pope Clement VI had the Ralbags astronomical work, based on the great Arab
thinkers, translated into Latin.
[5] Sefer Ha-Musar, p. 151.
[6] This refers to the psychology and physiology of man.
[7] This is the Greek term for a system of laws.
[8] The Ralbag expands on the importance of biblical narrative for human perfection in his
commentary to Devarim 32.
[9] These are the possible causes and factors.
[10] See also his commentary to Shemot 1:
The fourth value is in middot. This teaches us that a person should not rely on a miracle,
because everything that he does should be motivated by fear of God. It is appropriate that
one try, to the best of his ability, to distance himself from any evil that may befall him
[11] This is also mentioned in the midrash cited by Rashi (Bereishit 32:9)concerning Yaakovs
preparations from his encounter with Esav:
He prepared himself for three things: for tribute, for prayer and for battle.
[12] In a similar way, the Ralbag praises Yosefs act of trying to escape the guardhouse by
appealing to the chief butler (see Ralbag, Bereishit 40) as opposed to Rashi there
(following Bereishit Rabba89:2-3), who criticizes Yosef.
[13] We may view this principle an expansion of the first principle: not only does God not
make miracles happen in a permanent way, but even when He makes them happen in a
temporary way, they will happen in a way as minimal as possible.
[14] See also Naava Ecksteins essay, Gishat Ralbag Le-Nissim Ba-Mikra: Yasad Eretz al
Mekhoneha in Ha-Reneh: Asufat Maamarim(Ulpana AMIT Noga, 5771), pp. 100-107.
[15] See the view of the Rambam about this in the introduction to his Commentary on the
Mishna.
[16] These are types of claims.
[17] The Ralbag puts it this way:
There is value in our juxtaposing these laws to the simple meaning of the verses, for the laws
may then be more easily recalled in our souls. The verses of the Torah may be easily
remembered, because we read them constantly. Thus, if we derive the explanation of these
commandments from the simple meaning of the verses, this will be the reason to remember
the explanation of the commandment when we recall these verses.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #23:
Abarbanel
A.

Introduction

R. Yitzchak Abarbanel was born in Lisbon, Portugal in 1437 to a

prestigious family from Seville, and he died in the year 1508 in Venice (and
was buried in Padua). The Abarbanel family had a tradition of being
descended from the Davidic dynasty.[1] Abarbanel began at a young age to
compose a commentary on the Torah (specifically, the Book of Devarim), as
well as a philosophical work (Ateret Zekenim), but these endeavors were cut
short due to familial obligations.
Abarbanels family had great influence in the royal palace. His father,
Yehuda, was the treasurer for Alfonso V, King of Portugal, and in his youth,
Abarbanel was forced to set aside his spiritual development and help his
father with his business affairs. After his fathers death, Abarbanel also served
in the royal court; he was in charge of the treasury. This period is described as
the happiest period of his life, a period in which Torah and greatness resided
in the same place.[2]
This period ended with the reign of Alfonso Vs son and successor,
John or Joo II (1481-1495). King Joo was worried about his nobles rebelling
against him; in the year 1483, he executed eighty of them. Abarbanel
managed to escape over the border to Spain, but he was forced to leave all of
his possessions in Portugal. He describes this experience as an extremely
difficult period,[3] in economic as well as theological terms, but Abarbanel
overcomes and reaches the conclusion: God is righteous, for I have rebelled
against his word (Eikha 1:18). He makes a spiritual audit, concluding that the
loss of his status and wealth is a punishment for spending too much time on
physical acquisitions and not investing sufficiently in spiritual acquisitions. [4]
A short time after settling in Spain, while he was still writing his
commentary on the Book of Melakhim (March of 1484), Abarbanel was
summoned to serve the Catholic Monarchs, Queen Isabella I of Castile and
King Ferdinand II of Aragon. [5]After nine years of faithful service, in 1492, the
Alhambra Decree was issued, expelling all Jews from Castile and Aragon.
Abarbanel did everything he could to prevent this edict from going into effect,
even proposing a prodigious tribute to convince the monarchs to annul it, but
to no avail.[6]
The privations and suffering of the expulsion are described by
Abarbanel in his commentary on the Haggada, Zevach Pesach, in which he
includes the dramatic sentence: I have seen God face-to-face, fighting His
nation, the lot of His inheritance.

Abarbanel left Spanish soil together with 300,000 Jews and reached
Naples. King Alfonso II of Naples assumed the throne in early 1494 and
recruited Abarbanel as a royal adviser. In the beginning of 1495, King Charles
VIII of France invaded, deeply affecting the Jews of the city; Abarbanel
explains that many of them lost everything and became paupers and captives,
many others were forced into apostasy, and others died. [7]
After the French invasion, King Alfonso II fled to Sicily, and Abarbanel
accompanied him as a counselor. A year after the kings death, Abarbanel left
Sicily and settled for a short time on the island of Corfu, and afterwards in the
port town of Monopoli on the Adriatic. While he was in Monopoli, Abarbanel
was preoccupied with the overwhelming sense of hopelessness in the wake of
the Expulsion from Spain; he was concerned about his fellow Jews despairing
of the redemption, and he witnessed that many abandoned Judaism totally. In
response, Abarbanel wrote a number of compositions dealing with the
redemption: an explanation of the Book ofDaniel (Maaynei Ha-Yeshua), a
commentary on certain prophecies ofYeshayahu (Mashmia Yeshua[8]), and
an explanation of Talmudic lore dealing with the Messiah and the redemption
(Yeshuot Meshicho).
Abarbanel explains his motive in writing these books:
I have said to myself that there is a time to act for God, to grasp weak
hands and to bolster weak knees, to give consolation to those who
stumble in exile(Introduction toMaaynei Ha-Yeshua)
In 1503, Abarbanel settled in Venice, where he lived until his death.
B.

Biblical Commentary

Structure
Abarbanel wrote a commentary on most of the books of Tanakh. He
generally opens his commentary on each book with a preface dealing with
questions of the Intro to Bible nature. Thus, for example, in his introduction
to the Book of Yirmiyahu,Abarbanel deals expansively with the question of the
relationship between the Masoretic text and the traditional reading. In the
introduction to the Book of Shmuel, he deals with identifying the author of the
book. In the introduction to the Book ofYehoshua, he deals with the
arrangement of the books of Neviim and the nature of the distinction
between Torah, Neviim andKetuvim. In the introduction to Melakhim, he
defines the relationship between it andDivrei Ha-Yamim.
Like the Ralbag, and following theAkeidat Yitzchak of R. Yitzchak
Arama,[9]Abarbanel does not explain the verses using a running commentary
for every verse; instead, he divides the portion into topics, and he explains the
unit with a comprehensive explanation. Sometimes, he relates also to
individual verses and difficult words.

Abarbanels trademark is presenting questions at the beginning of each

unit of study. (This also follows in the footsteps of R. Yitzchak Arama, who
introduces every chapter with a list of doubts.) Sometimes, Abarbanel brings
more than forty questions at the beginning of a given unit. [10] In the beginning
of every passage, Abarbanel sets out the questions and difficulties raised by
reading it, and afterwards he presents at length his solutions, noting at the
end of each one, By this, we have resolved question number X.
Characteristics of the Commentary
Abarbanels style is direct and clear. He will generally base his
explanation onpeshat, but sometimes he notes elements of derash as well.
Abarbanel aims to understand the biblical narrative, the motivations of the
characters, and the structure of the passages. For example, Abarbanel
expands on the question of the order of the Ten Plagues and the Ten
Commandments. Similarly, he deals in a very broad way with the reasons for
themitzvot, and he is precise about the meaning of the mitzva in all of its
details.[11]Abarbanel deals also with matters of philosophy, but he avoids
dealing with questions of grammar and linguistics. Here, we will present a
number of questions of the Abarbanel for Parashat Korach(Bamidbar 16),
questions from different disciplines:
The first question is that it says, AndKorach took, without the verse
explaining what he took. The Sages have expounded it in this way
(Sanhedrin 109b): He took for himself a bad purchase. In Midrash
Tanchuma, we have: He took himself to one side, as Rashi explains.
R. Avraham ibn Ezra, on the other hand, explains that he took people
with him. Ultimately, according to all of these views, the essential
element has been omitted from the text
This is a question about understanding the peshat of the verse.
The sixth question is how Korachand his company agreed to the test of
the incense and did not think of the wonders which they had seen. Did
they not know that Nadav and Avihu were incinerated when they
brought incense? How did they not fear for their lives?
This is a question about the characters motivations.
The fifteenth question is about the statement, And if God creates
something new, and the ground opens its mouth (Bamidbar 16:30).
Why did Moshe pray that the earths mouth would open and swallow
them, and not pray that the fire would consume them? What did he see
to ask for the earth to open its mouth to swallow them, and what is the
connection to the punishment for their transgression? The burning was
a punishment corresponding to their intruding to perform the service
and to offer incense against Gods law, but the swallowing [by the
earth] is not so.
This is a philosophical question.

In his commentary, Abarbanel displays a comprehensive knowledge of

the biblical exegesis preceding him, and similarly demonstrates that has a
thorough knowledge of philosophy, history, and geography. Many times,
Abarbanel relates to the commentaries of his predecessors; sometimes he
accepts their views, and sometimes he rejects them with clear evidence.
Oftentimes, Abarbanel brings the explanations of his predecessors without
letting his readers know that the explanation is not his own. [12]
Interpolations
Abarbanels commentary is full of biblical and Midrashic
interpolations[13] there is almost no piece free from them. For example, in
the following paragraph, from his introduction to the Book of Devarim,
Abarbanel deals with the question of whether Devarim is the direct word of
God or Moshes composition. Note the great number of biblical interpolations
that appear in this short paragraph:
My petition and my request (Esther5:7): was the digest of the Torah
which Moshe put before the Israelites (Devarim 4:44) I mean to say,
the Book of Devarim from God, from the heavens (Bereishit19:24),
and were the things which are in it said by Moshe from Gods own
mouth, as with all the words of the Torah, from In the beginning until
before the eyes of all Israel? Or was this book, this digest of the
Torah, said by Moshe, composing and voicing it on his own, explaining
what he understood according to the way of showing aptitude for
every kind of learning, well informed (Daniel 1:4)? Did he compose a
whole book dedicated to the difficult matter (Shemot 18:26), to those
things (cf. Yeshayahu 23:18 andDaniel 7:9) which were covered up by
the Ancient of Days?
Juxtaposition of Passages
Abarbanel spends a great deal of time dealing with the significance of
the order of the passages and commandments; he even takes a wider look in
the structure of the entire Pentateuch. For example, Abarbanel relates to the
order of passages in Parashat Reeh, chapters 13-15 ofDevarim. In the first
part (13:2-19), we find the prohibitions of idolatry, such as the laws of the
inciter and of the straying city; in the second part (14:3-21), we find the laws of
forbidden foods; in the third part (14:22-15:23), we find the laws of tithes,
charity, severance, etc.[14] Apparently, there is no link between the passages,
but Abarbanel writes:
In the first passages, Moshe Rabbeinu warns the Israelites that they
must serve God in matters of faith and the soul; afterwards, he turns to
foods and bodily matters. This fulfills what it says: You shall love Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul (Devarim 6:5). Now,
in this passage, it comes to teach us how to serve Him with ones
money and crops (ibid.): and with all your might.

In other words, these units parallel the verse, You shall love Lord your
God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might (a verse
which appears earlier, in the beginning of the Book ofDevarim). Your heart
corresponds to the ritual commandments, the prohibitions of idolatry, which
appear in the first unit; your soul corresponds to the prohibitions of forbidden
foods, which appear in the second unit; your might (understood by the
Sages in Berakhot 54a and elsewhere as a reference to your property [15])
corresponds to the commandments which relate to monetary matters, which
appear in the third unit.
Original Interpretations
In Abarbanels commentary, one may find countless original
interpretations. For example, explaining Shemot 7, Abarbanel establishes via
a number of convincing proofs that the tzefardeiaplague in Egypt consisted
not of frogs,[16]as is usually assumed, but rather crocodiles:
Concerning what is written here, we have many proofs. One of them is
that it says (7:27), If you refuse to let them go, behold, I will plague all
your borders with tzefardeim. The term plague is reserved for lethal
strikes
All of this proves that thesetzefardeim are not small, croaking aquatic
creatures, but rather the gigantic aquatic reptile which is known as altimsh , which has a form similar to that of a tannin, and a mouth that
opens by the movement of the upper jaw. This creature is a great
predator, able to consume a whole calf or human child
These creatures came out of the Nile to seek food due to the
contamination of the river, when they were unable to sustain
themselves from the fish that died and were decomposing (ibid. v. 18),
so they went out to the dry land to find food
The only question that remains is whether these tzefardeim were in the
Egyptian Nile previously, or if they came there by way of miracle from
another source.
This is only a small part of his commentary, but we may observe not
only his great knowledge of many disciplines, but also his comprehensive
view; after the claim that these are crocodiles, Abarbanel deals with the
question of whether crocodiles existed in the Nile before this or they were
transported miraculously.
An additional original explanation, also based on the verses, is his
explanation of the severe punishment decreed against Moshe and Aharon in
light of the sin of Mei Meriva (Bamidbar 20:1-13). Abarbanel cites ten different
approaches and rejects them all, and afterwards he writes that the sin of
Moshe and Aharon at Mei Meriva was not a complete sin; the severity of the
punishment is based on their culpability for other sins. Thus, Aharon is
punished for the sin of the Golden Calf, and Moshe is punished for the sin of

the Spies. In these two sins, their involvement was significant, but for the sake
of their honor, their punishment is not mentioned at the time of the peoples
punishment. Here, at the sin of Mei Meriva, God finally calls in the debt.
C.

Response to the Expulsion

Abarbanel cannot be removed from his era. Abarbanel, as a spiritual

and national leader in a time of crisis, uses sources from Tanakh in order to
encourage his contemporaries, both those who were expelled and those who
converted
under
duress,
the conversos.
For
example,
he
expounds Devarim 4:28, And you shall serve there human handiwork, wood
and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. As a witness to the
awful atrocities of the Inquisition, Abarbanel explains:
Due to the horrible troubles, many of them will leave their faith and
worship forms of the stars of the heavens, human handiwork. They do
not believe them, because they know that in their knowledge and their
recognition they are wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor
eat, nor smell. They will only perform this service in order to escape
death and they will keep Gods Torah in their midst, while they serve
the nations gods out of fear.[17] This is not mentioned here to portray a
sin, but rather a punishment:[18] this was the greatest of evils,
recognizing and feeling the belief of the true God in their hearts while
they serve idols with their mouths, and their tongues will betray them,
and they will be killed for this. About this it is said (Devarim28:64[19]),
And you shall serve there other gods.
Abarbanel also relates to the question of the status of
the conversos from a theological standpoint. Some believed that
the conversos had no option to return and repent, but Abarbanel explains his
view in his commentary to Devarim 30:2-3, the passage dealing with
repentance:
Because faith in exile is divided into two parts: the small part of them
who keep the faith and follow the Torah of God, and they are called by
the name of Israel, and they are a special few left of many. The other
part is the majority of the people; they change their religion out of
distress and the weight of the exile
Therefore, it was said corresponding to the two parts of the people
(30:1-2): And you shall call them to mind among all the nations
where Lordyour God has driven you, and return to Lord your
God The first statement is said about those compelled to leave the
faith. It says among all the nations where theLord your God has driven
you, meaning that they are mixed in with them and considered like
them, but in their heart they will return to God And when they return
to God and go after Him everyone according to his status and his
ability, he promises that Exalted God will bring them close to Him

In other words, in the view of Abarbanel, the verses talk specifically

about the status of the converses. They cannot serve God openly, but only in
their hearts; even so, they are included in the passage of repentance, and
they are considered to be penitents.
D.

Relationship to Monarchy

Abarbanels attitude toward the institution of monarchy is directly

influenced by his life experience with monarchs. For example, the passage of
the king (Devarim17:14-20) may lead the reader to understand that there is
a mitzva to appoint a king. Abarbanel explains that there is nomitzva to
appoint a king, but if the nation wants a king, there are a number of conditions
(specified in that passage). This is comparable to the paragraph of the
woman of beautiful form (eshet yefat toar)which appears in the Torah at the
beginning of Parashat Ki Teitzei (Devarim21:10-14). There is no mitzva to
take a captive for a wife, but if one wants to do this, he has limitations put on
him, as enumerated there.
Similarly, in his explanation of IShmuel, ch. 8, Abarbanel explains at
great length the reason for Shmuels opposition to the monarchy. Abarbanel
is well aware of the dangers for the country when it is led by a hereditary
power structure, when all of the powers are centralized in the hands of one
man who answers to no one - tyranny and bloodshed. According to
Abarbanel, the king is never satisfied with the legitimate power given to him
by the people; he will go further and further beyond the accepted legal norms,
until he establishes an authority of tyrannical despotism. [20]
After the Expulsion from Spain, Abarbanel became familiar with the
aristocratic republics of Italy. Abarbanel praised this form of government (see
continuation of his commentary onShmuel), and he prefers it to a monarchy.
In his view, the ideal government is a republican form of government, in which
the people choose the leaders for short, predetermined times.
*
Abarbanel died penniless and alone in the year 1508, and he was
buried in Padua, in an unmarked grave. In the year 1893, the local Jewish
community erected a monument to his memory in the cemetery. On one of the
sides of the monument, the following epitaph appears in Italian:
Philosopher and linguist, a pioneer of exegesis, spreading his wings
over the Jewish spirit, in matters of ethics, in issues of society, in
matters of faith, he revealed them all in the holy books. He leaves
blessing to the coming generations in his many works, a treasury of
wisdom and faith.
On the other side is engraved:
In this graveyard rests eternally Don Yitzchak Abarbanel

[1] Thus, for example, Abarbanel writes in his introduction to the Book of Yehoshua:
I am the man, Yitzchak, son of a vital man, of great exploits in Israel; his name is renowned,
Lord Yehuda ben Yosef ben Yehuda of the Sons of Abarbanel, all of whom were people at the
heads of the Israelites, scions of the Davidic dynasty. He was a national prince and
commander, ztl.
We should note that in academic research, this fact is in doubt; see, for example, Ephraim
Shmuel, Don Yitzchak Abarbanel ve-gerush Sefarad (Jerusalem, 5723).
[2]
These are his words:
Once I was in my home, with the estate and wealth that I inherited from my ancestors, an
abode filled with Gods blessing in illustrious Lisbon, metropolis and capital of the Kingdom of
Portugal I built myself houses with wide porticoes, and I made my home a meeting-house
for scholars In my house and in my walls, there was great abundance and charity Torah
and greatness I was luxuriant in the court of the mighty and noble King Don Alfonso
When he grew strong in his wealth, God took account of his people to give them bread.
Deliverance and salvation arose for the Jews. I delighted to sit in his shade; I was close to
him, and he relied upon me.(Introduction to the Book ofYehoshua)
[3] With the passage of time, it became clear to Abarbanel that this era was really a short
period in relation to other events which he experienced over the course of his life.
[4] This is what he writes (loc. cit.):
You have not sought beyond Gods book to hear of learning You have been moved by
words of falsehood among kings and counselors of the land, which are lost at the time of their
accounting You have put your confidence in gold You have gone after the great vanity
and the might and the glory, but if you have forgotten your Gods name, these will be forgotten
as well.
In the end, Abarbanel comforts and strengthens himself with the following message:
If you will only seek God early and meditate in His law day and night God will return to
rejoice over you for good Indeed, I have shaken out my lap, and I arise to perform the labor
of the King, God of Hosts is His name: the explication of these books
[5] This arises from the introduction of Abarbanel toMelakhim.
[6] Abarbanel very creatively describes this year based on Yirmiyahu 31:9, the Disperser
(mezareh) of Israel will gather it up. The word mezareh (mem-zayin-reish-heh) in gematria is
40 + 7 + 200 + 5, totaling 252. He also refers to the famous phrase For you have been
strangers (gerim) in the land of Egypt (Shemot 22:20, 23:9; Vayikra 19:34;Bamidbar 10:19),
as the word gerim (gimmel-reish-yud-mem) in gematria is 3 + 200 + 10 + 40, totaling 253. The
year 1492 began in the Jewish year 5252 and concluded in 5253.
And in the ninth year, the year of the Disperser of Israel, the King of Spain captured the entire
realm of Granada And Esav said in his heart (Bereishit 27:41), how shall I achieve Gods
favor to give me strength in victory if not by bringing in under his wings the people who go
in darkness, the scattered flock of Israel, and by returning to his faith and belief the wayward
daughter. Otherwise, I shall cast them to another land, from upon my face; they will no longer
reside in my land Get up, leave from among my people (Shemot 12:31), from the lands of
Spain and Sicily, Majorca, and Sardinia which is under my rule and over the course of three
months. Not one hoof will remain (ibid. 10:26) from whatever is called by the name of
Yaakov or by the name of Yisrael in all of the provinces of my kingship
When I was there in the kings court, I expended every effort by calling to the king three
times to say, Save us, O King, why should you do so to your servants?
(II Shmuel 14:4; Shemot 5:15). Like the deaf adder that stops its ear (Tehillim 58:5), he would
not respond to me at all. The queen was standing at his right hand as an adversary
(Zekharya 3:1)
And I was in the midst of the exile (Yechezkel1:1). I have come with all the members of my
household; the children are my children and the flocks are my flocks (Bereishit 31:43). I
have come here to the illustrious city of Naples, the kings of which are kings of kindness.
This year, the year of You have been strangers, I have spoken to my heart, What I have
vowed, I will fulfill (Yona 2:10) to write a commentary on the Book of Melakhim, which I have
not done up until this point.(Introduction to the Book of Melakhim)
[7] See his Introduction to the Book of Devarim.

[8] In this composition, Abarbanel claims that some of the prophecies of redemption and
consolation inYeshayahu do not relate to the Return to Zion during the Second Temple Era,
but to a later period.
[9] R. Yitzchak Arama (1420-1494) was one of the Spanish sages of the generation of the
Expulsion, and he has become known as one of the great medieval exegetes. He served as a
rabbi and rosh yeshiva in Zamora, in northern Spain, and from there he became a rabbi in
Tarragona in southern Catalonia. At the time, Spanish Jews were compelled to attend
churches and to listen to propaganda speeches by priests, which were delivered in an
impressive philosophical style. In light of this, R. Yitzchak Arama saw a need to organize and
deliver his lecture according to philosophical style. After some time, he gathered these
homilies and compiled his famous book,Akeidat Yitzchak, and that is how he earned the
title Baal Ha-Akeida.
[10] The challenging questions of Abarbanel are no less important, and perhaps more so,
than his answers. For example, Nechama Leibowitz, in dozens of places in her works,
presents the question of Abarbanel and afterwards demands: Answer his question!
[11] An excellent example of this is his explanation of the portions dealing with the Tabernacle.
[12] It is difficult to argue in Abarbanels defense that he is not aware that these ideas were
said by others, since we are talking at times about full quotations of lengthy interpretations. R.
Meir Arama, the son of R. Yitzchak Arama, describes in a furious letter the relationship
between his father and Abarbanel. R. Yitzchak Arama and Abarbanel were friends, and
Abarbanel even had the custom to visit R. Yitzchak Arama and to study with him. Afterwards,
however, Abarbanel took advantage of these study sessions, and he published R. Aramas
interpretations under his own name without citing his father at all.
It happened to befall us that God led us to the house of a man of authority and Torah, of the
greatest caliber, towering above the peaks, tall as Gods mountains. Known to the kings and
counselors of the land his name is Don Yitzchak Abarbanel
Over the course of many days, his heart grew haughty in Gods ways He made books and
composed works to make it heard outside, streets and markets He has called them new,
sweet and deep but these words are attikim!
The concluding phrase comes from I Divrei Ha-yamim 4:22; it means that they are not
novellae, but rather taken from others. The term attikim can mean ancient, but it can also
mean relocated, transferred or copied.
Yair Hass, in his essay, Le-Vaayat Himutzut Divrei Rabbi Yitzchak Arama Be-Khitvei Rabbi
Yitzchak Abarbanel, Sinai 134 (5767), pp. 154-9, argues and works hard to prove that
Abarbanel does not attempt to steal the ideas of R. Yitzchak Arama. Instead, it is
characteristic of Abarbanels style to interpolate the words of the exegetes into his
commentaries, either to preserve the beauty of language or perhaps to add emphasis to his
words as well.
[13] An interpolation is the use of partial or full quote, without mentioning explicitly that it is a
quote or noting its source.
[14] Abarbanel even explains the order of the law in the unit itself, and he claims that these
laws deal with the generosity a person is supposed to exhibit as regards his property:
It started with the easier one, and it went on to the more difficult one. Whatever comes later in
these passages is harder, in terms of the amount of generosity required, than that which
precedes it.
[15] See Rashi, Devarim 6:5..
[16] Rabbeinu Chananel raises this possibility, but Abarbanel proves it conclusively.
Translators note: In Modern Hebrew, tzefardeia is the word for frog, while tannin is the word
for crocodile. Both terms appear in the Torah, but their definition is unclear. Abarbanel argues
thattzefardeia in the Torah is the species known asCrocodlyus niloticus, and he uses the
Arabic termtimsh to make the reference clear.
[17] This appears to be a cynical allusion to the Cutheans, the lion converts (see
II Melakhim17:24-41), who convert and worship God out of fear of lions, but continue to serve
their own gods. Jews in exile, on the other hand, may serve idols (at least before the naked
eye) out of the fear of non-Jews, but they will continue to serve God in their hearts.
[18] Many exegetes have difficulty understanding this verse, since the content of the verse
appears to be a description of a sin of idolatry, but the context of the verse is a description of
the punishment of the Israelites. According to Abarbanel, there is no difficulty: the verse in
truth talks about idolatry, but it is part of the peoples punishment.
[19] See his commentary to Devarim 28:64.

[20] Indeed, this happened to King Ferdinand: his power so corrupted him that he ultimately
expelled all the Jews from Spain.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #24: Seforno
A.

Introduction

R. Ovadia Seforno (1475-1550) was born in Cesena, near Bertinoro,

Italy, where he acquired most of his Torah-related knowledge. As an adult, he
moved to Rome, where he became well-versed in general studies, including
philosophy, linguistics, mathematics, and medicine; the last was his main
profession. In 1501, he received his medical degree.
Seforno had many financial problems, and in Rome, he was supported
by his brother Chananel.[1] To support himself, Seforno taught some students
privately in the disciplines with which he was familiar, and he quickly he
became a sought-after instructor for both Jews and non-Jews. Educated nonJews asked him to teach them Hebrew language and grammar.[2]
In Rome, Seforno dedicated himself to community affairs. He taught
Torah to the community for close to three decades.In the year 1524, David
Reubeni[3] arrived in Rome and met Seforno. In the year 1525, Seforno left
Rome and began wandering, until he eventually settled in the city of Bologna
(where his brother settled).In this city, he became renowned as a medical
expert and a great Torah scholar.[4] Seforno sat on the communitys court, and
he became the local rosh yeshiva. He also invested great efforts in
establishing a Jewish printing house, in which a number of his works were
published.
Aside from the commentary he composed on the Pentateuch, Seforno
wrote a commentary to additional books:Yona, Chavakkuk, Zekharya, Shir
Ha-Shirim, Kohelet, Iyov, and Tehillim. For the most part, philosophical topics
are discussed there.
Two other books by Seforno areKavanot Ha-Torah and Or
Ammim. Kavanot Ha-Torah is essentially an addendum to his commentary on
the Torah, in which Seforno explains the aim of the Torah and its
narratives. Or Ammim is a philosophical composition. These two books were
designated to strengthen the fundamentals of faith in the midst of the Jewish
nation.Similarly, Seforno wrote a commentary on Tractate Avot and a book of
Hebrew grammar.
B.

Background and Target Audience for the Commentary

In Sefornos introduction to his Torah commentary, he describes his

motivations for composing the commentary on the Torah. He rouses himself
to reclaim the honor of the Torah, responding to the various claims of Jews
who try to minimize the value of the Torah. Among these claims are the

accusations that the Torah is not written in order and that the Torah is
explained based on mistaken interpretations.
It may be that the basis for claims of this type was the development of
humanism during the Italian Renaissance of the 15 thcentury.[5] Following the
development of humanism, there was a surge of interest in history, linguistics,
and literature. In the domain of literature, the humanists stressed the art of
writing, and it was therefore specifically during this period that questions were
raised about the supposed lack of chronological sequence and logical
structure of the Torah. In addition, there was some criticism of lines that
seemed to be incomprehensible.
Later in his introduction, Seforno writes that it was difficult for the Jews
of his generation to respond to these claims, since they were preoccupied
with making a living and managing their troubles and they did not have the
opportunity to study Torah.Because of this, he decided to take upon himself
the responsibility of writing a commentary on the Torah which would be
accessible for those busy Jews, responding to the questions that
contemporaries might ask. According to Seforno, the commentaries of his
predecessors are not sufficient for this task, since sometimes their words are
not understandable, and sometimes their answers are unsatisfying.These
claims against the Torah caused a desecration of Gods name, and in order to
remedy it, Seforno wrote his commentary.[6]
Thus, the target audience of Sefornos commentary is intelligent Jews
who do not have the opportunity for a deep study of the Torah. Therefore,
Seforno does not see a need to explain each and every verse; he explains
only what he believes will be useful to his contemporaries, when the
commentaries of his predecessors are not sufficient. At the same, he strives
to make his explanation clear, devoid of convoluted argumentation and
lengthy analysis.[7]
C.

The Humanist Thought of Seforno

Seforno is the last of the Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages, but
his commentary on the Torah is not a philosophical commentary, but rather a
commentary based on peshat. Despite this, one may find in his commentary
many allusions to his philosophical worldview.
A fine example of this may be seen in his conception of man and his
role in the world. It appears that Sefornos attribution of great importance to
the status of human beings is firmly grounded in the principles of humanism,
which was gaining momentum in the era of Seforno. The guiding principle of
humanism in this period is the centrality and the superiority of man in nature,
which requires a person to yearn towards human completion. Seforno accepts
humanistic thought (as we shall see below), but he gives it a Jewish spin: he
concedes that the person is the superior creation, but it stresses that God is
sublime above man.Similarly, he agrees that a person must aspire towards
self-completion, but this completion is not defined by man, but by God.

One of the places in which Seforno relates to this topic is his

explanation of the image of God (Bereishit 1:27) in which man is created. In
his view, the phrase tzelem elohim does not mean the image of God; the
term elohim does not refer to God Himself, but purely spiritual beings, and
tzelem means potential. The unique character of man is his ability to realize
his spiritual potential.[8]
In a number of places, Seforno stresses that the entire human race is
sublime, not just the nation of Israel (see his commentary
to Shemot 19:5, Devarim33:3). One of the most prominent places in which
one may learn the value of every person in the eyes of Seforno is his
commentary to the verse, You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may
not charge your brother interest, so that Lord your God may bless you in all
that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it
(Devarim 23:21). The accepted understanding of this verse, as we have in
fact translated it, is that it is forbidden to lend to a Jew with interest but it is
permitted to lend to a non-Jew with interest (see, for example, Rashi ad loc.).
God will then bless the Jewish people for avoiding lending to each other with
interest.This might imply that the Torah minimizes the value of the nonJew. However, Seforno explains this verse in an innovative way; his amazing
commentary is as follows:
Pay him his interest if you have committed to do so, and do not deceive
him.
So that Lord your God may bless you For you will not deceive the
foreigner, and you will not desecrate the Name.
According to the view of Seforno, the verse does not deal with charging
non-Jews interest, but the reverse paying interest to non-Jews. If a Jew
borrows from a non-Jew and is obligated to pay interest to him, it is incumbent
upon him to fulfill this obligation.Faithfully paying interest will prevent a
desecration of Gods name; for this reason, God will bless his nation Israel.
Humanism sees the point of the existence of man in this world, and
mans aspiration must be to extract the maximum from this world. It appears
that this is the basis of Sefornos emphasis in a number of places for the
centrality
of
reward
in
this
world
(see
his
commentary
to Shemot20:12; Devarim 26:19, 31:20).
D. The Influence of the Spanish Expulsion
Seforno lived at the height of the Expulsion and the generation after the
Expulsion. On the basis of these events, we may understand certain
emphases in his commentary and significant deviations fromhis explaining
according to the plain sense of Tanakh. In the episode of Yaakovs ladder
(Bereishit 28:10-22), Yaakov receives the blessing (v. 14):

Your seed shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread
abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south,
and in you and your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
Seforno explains the first part of the verse, Your seed shall be like the
dust of the earth, not as the blessing of fecundity that the nation of Israel
will be increased like the numerousness of the dust but rather as description
of lowness - the nation of Israel will be lowered to the dust. It is after this
situation that the redemption will come:
After your seed will be like the dust of the earth namely, that they will
be at the extremity of lowliness, then they will sprout in the land upon
which you lie
For indeed, the salvation of God, which is destined to occur after the
great lowliness of Israel, which is a phenomenon happening today,
in their exile, which has no precedent, as they of blessed memory
said (Sanhedrin 98a): R. Yochanan said: When you see a generation
overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await him, as it is written,
When the enemy shall come in like a flooding river, Gods spirit shall
lift up a standard against him; this is followed by, And the Redeemer
shall come to Zion (Yeshayahu 59:19-20).
Sefornos tendency is to comfort the people of his generation after the
difficult crisis of the Spanish Expulsion. He sees the current period of exile as
more arduous than all other periods of exile; the redemption from it is certain.
[9]
We may find an additional allusion to the Inquisition and the Spanish
Expulsion in his explanation of the verse (Bereishit33:20), And he set up an
altar, and he called it, God, God of Yisrael, which Yaakov states when he
comes to Shekhem:
He called Him, the Blessed God, [by the name] God in his
prayer This is signified by the name of Yisrael, that the nations of the
world cannot compel him to abandon his faith and knowledge of his
Creator
It is clear that Seforno here explains the verse on the basis of his era. It
is not logical that Yaakov would request in his prayer that the nations of the
world not be able to compel him to change his religion! Apparently, Seforno is
referring to the perils familiar to his contemporaries, and on their behalf, he is
praying that the nations of the world cannot compel him to abandon his faith
and knowledge of his Creator.
In another place (Bereishit 11:4-6), Seforno presents the dangers of
religious centralization, which may mask a politicaltakeover. It appears that
Seforno alludes to the danger of the Christian faith taking over the political
sphere, as occurred in his era:

And a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for
ourselves Let us make a name refers to idols that would be in the
tower. They wanted the entire human race to know of the height of the
place and the greatness of its city, in a way that it might be considered
the God of Gods for all people, and towards it everyone might turn. The
intent of this was that whoever ruled over the city would rule over the
entire human race
Behold, they were one nation in the matter of religion, for all of them
would agree to the faith of the Sabians. In this, all of them agreed to
the language, And now it will not be held back from them.
Thus, there is nothing to stop them from realizing their intent that
idolatry[10] would be accepted by everyone in the human race, and not
one of them would know to turn to the Blessed Creator and to
understand that he is the Creator of all. The opposite will happen when
there is a dispute about the issue of these foreign gods, for every one
of them will consider that there is a God of Gods to whom all of the
gods are subservient, and He will arrange their systems and the order
of reality, as it says (Malakhi 1:11): For from the rising of the sun to its
setting, my name will be great among the nations.
In the process of Yaakovs encounter with Esav after the former returns
to the Land of Israel (Bereishit 32:3-33:17), Yaakov expends great effort in
order to appease Esav. Seforno praises Yaakovs subservience to Esav, and
he sees in this a symbol of the future: the nation of Israel will be laid low
before the nations of the world, and thus it may survive the exile. In his view,
in the days of the Second Temple, had the Jewish People been obsequious
and kowtowed to Vespasian, instead of rebelling against Roman rule, the
Temple would not have been destroyed:
His heart was turned[11] in a moment by Yaakovs subservience. This is
akin to our situation in exile among the sons of Esav, who says at his
height, Who will bring me down to the ground? (Ovadia 1:3),[12] and
he teaches us that we may escape from the reach of his prideful sword
by demonstrating subservience and tribute
Had the brutes of the Second Temple not been so violent, our Temple
would not have been destroyed, as R. Yochanan ben Zakkai himself
testified (Seforno,Bereishit 33:4)
The Ramban in his commentary to these verses takes the opposite
view, criticizing the subservience of Yaakov:
In my view, this also alludes to the fact that this precipitated our fall into
the hands of Edom [the Romans], for the kings of the Second Temple
entered a covenant with the Romans (I Maccabees, ch. 8) and some
came to Rome, and this was the reason that we fell into their hands.
(Ramban, Bereishit 32:4)

The great distinction between these two views may depend on the
changes that occurred in the Jewish nation between the era of the Ramban
and the era of Seforno.The Ramban lived two centuries before the Spanish
Expulsion. In his time, the Jewish community had an honored status in the
midst of the Christian community; indeed, the Ramban himself was close to
the monarchy. However, Seforno, who wrote his commentary a few years
after the Spanish Expulsion, cannot speak about standing strong and
unbowed before Christianity; the singular way to survive in his era was by
subservience and obsequiousness.
E. Ethical Matters
Seforno learns ethics from many verses, even if they are not the focus
of the narrative in his view, there are no superfluous verses, and therefore
if a certain detail is noted, the implication is that we should learn something
from it. An additional possible source is the influence of the humanists on
Seforno; the stream of humanism stresses the importance of ethical conduct
by people. Below, we will examine a number of examples which stress the
ethical component of Sefornos commentary:
1. When Yaakov reaches Charan, he turns to the shepherds and says to
them (Bereishit 29:7), Behold, it is still high day; it is not time for the livestock
to be gathered together:
He said, Behold, it is still high day the righteous will reject evil,
even towards others
2. God turns towards Kayin with the question (Bereishit 4:6): Why has
your face fallen Seforno explains:
When a mistake can be repaired, it is not fit to be distressed about
what has passed; rather, it is appropriate to exert effort to achieve the
reparation in the future.
3. The Torah recounts that Yosef supported his brothers in Egypt with
bread according to the children (Bereishit 47:12). Seforno notes:
Even though he had the power to increase food for them, he gave them
a sufficient amount. As they of blessed memory said, when society at
large is in distress, a person should not say, I will go to my home, eat
and drink, and my soul will be at peace (Taanit 11a).
F. The Sins of the National Leaders
In a consistent way, Seforno avoids criticizing the Patriarchs
actions. One example of this is Sarais treatment of Hagar, Sarai mistreated
her (Bereishit16:6). Seforno justifies this behavior in the following way:
So that she will recognize that she is subjugated, and she will no longer
despise her mistress, as a sign that this will happen to any despiser of
Israel

In other words, Sarai mistreats Hagar so that Hagar will fully understand her
status in Avrahams house and she will avoid being arrogant in the future.
This explanation is in total opposition to that of the Ramban. Not only
does he criticize Sarais conduct, he notes that this conduct has a negative
impact on the future of the Jewish nation:
Our mother sinned in this mistreatment, as did Avraham by letting her
do so. God heard her mistreatment, and He gave her a son who
would be a wild man, in order to mistreat the seed of Avraham and
Sara in all manners of mistreatment.
Seforno as well, like the Ramban, believes that Sarais behavior has
ramifications for the future, but in his view, we are talking about a positive
impact. This is a sign that this will happen to any despiser of Israel.
A second and far-reaching example of Sefornos relationship to the
heroes of the nation is the positive relationship of Seforno to the act of selling
Yosef into slavery. It appears that he is the first among the biblical exegetes
who justifies the actions of the brothers in Yosefs sale, and he returns to this
idea in a number of places. One example of this is the difficult phrase, vayitnakkelu oto:
They suspected Yosef of plotting to kill them; they thought that he came
to them not to seek their peace, but in order to hatch a plot against
them or to make them sin so that their father would curse them or
Blessed God would kill them, and he himself would remain blessed
among the sons
This tells us what they are: they must be totally righteous, for their
names were before God for remembrance, [13] so how could it be that
they united to kill their brother or to sell him and they did not repent of
the evil?[14]
Behold, the verse tells us that they imagined in their hearts and thought
that Yosef was a schemer and attempting to kill them, either in this
world or the next world or both of them. Now, the Torah says, If
someone
comes
to
kill
you,
etc.
(Sanhedrin 72a).
(Seforno, Bereishit37:18)
At the beginning of his words, Seforno resolves the linguistic issue in
the verse. If the verse is describing the brothers as plotting against Yosef, the
direct pronoun (oto) is not appropriate; rather, it should be elav, to him (see
Rashi, ad loc.). According to Seforno, va-yitnakkelu oto does not mean that
Yosefs brothers were plotting against him, but they thought that he was
plotting against them to kill them, or at least to make them sin so that Yaakov
or God might punish them. If so, in their view, they were required to kill Yosef
because of the principle, If someone comes to kill you, kill him first.

According to Seforno, an additional proof that the brothers act out of

self-defense is found in the verse And they sat to eat bread
(Bereishit 37:25), which appears immediately after Yosef is cast into the pit:
They did not see this as an obstacle or disaster which would prevent
them from sitting down to their meal, as would be appropriate for those
who are righteous as they, when some disaster came by their hand, as
Israel did after killing the tribe of Binyamin
This occurred to them because they thought that Yosef was a
pursuer; in such a case, whoever kills him first is praiseworthy
when there is no other way to save the pursued otherwise.
G. Original Interpretations
In Sefornos commentary, one may find numerous original
interpretations. We have already seen two of them above the explanation of
interest and non-Jews and the explanation of the sale of Yosef. We will bring
two more original explanations below.
1) On his way to Charan, Yaakov dreams of a heavenly ladder
(Bereishit 28:10-16), and in light of this, he makes a vow:
Then Yaakov made a vow, saying, If God will be with me and will keep
me in this way that I go, and if He will give me bread to eat and clothing
to wear, so that I come again to my fathers house in peace,
and Lordshall be God for me, and this stone, which I have set up for a
pillar, shall be Gods house. And of all that You give me, I will give a full
tenth to You.
It is clear that Yaakovs words until the first part of verse 21 (so that I
come again to my fathers house in peace) are a description of the terms of
the vow: If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go,
and if He will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I come again to
my fathers house in peace Similarly, it is clear that verse 22 (and this
stone) is the obligation of the vow: Then this stone, which I have set up for
a pillar
However, it is not clear how we should relate to the clause at the
second part of verse 21, And Lord will be my God. Is this one of the
conditions of the vow, or are we perhaps talking about the first of the vows
obligations? Many exegetes struggle with this question (see, for example,
Rashi and Ramban, ad loc.[15]). The commentary of Seforno on this issue is
interesting and original. Seforno distinguishes between the names God and
Lord, which express the different divine orientations towards the world.
God expresses the Attribute of Justice, while Lord expresses the Attribute
of Mercy. According to the view of Seforno, this verse is part of the obligation
to the vow. Its meaning is that Yaakov accepts upon himself that God will
relate to him with the Attribute of Justice instead of the Attribute of Mercy if he

will not serve God with all of his might: And Lord shall be, Lords Attribute of
Mercy, God for me, it will turn into the Attribute of Justice.
2) Seforno offers an interpretation, surprising in its originality, to the verses
inShemot 16:6-7:
So Moshe and Aharon said to all the Israelites, In the evening you will
know that it was God Who brought you out of Egypt. And in the
morning you will see the glory of God,because He has heard your
grumbling against Him. Who are we that you should grumble against
us?
The simple understanding of these verses is as follows: In verse 6,
Moshe says to the Israelites that in the evening they will know that God took
them out of Egypt, and in verse 7, he says that in the morning, they will see
the glory of God. However, Seforno explains these verses in opposition to the
division of the verses. In his view, they should be read in this way:
So Moshe and Aharon said to all the Israelites, In the evening you will
know that it was God Who brought you out of Egypt, as well as in the
morning. You will see the glory of God, because he has heard your
grumbling against him. Who are we that you should grumble against
us?
In his view, in verse 6, Moshe says to the Israelites that by feeding the
Israelites at certain times, in the evening and in the morning, they will
understand and know that God took them out totally from slavery in the land
of Egypt, because slaves cannot eat at a set time; rather they eat at any time
they can.[16] In verse 7, Moshe says to them that they will witness the glory of
God.[17]
*
We will end with the concluding blessing of Seforno in his Kavanot HaTorah:
Behold, our God has given to us all of this! Aside from them, in His
great kindnesses, is He not our father, in whom we put our hope that
He will save us, He will make us hear jubilation, satisfied and full of
Gods blessing. His kindness will overwhelm us, and His glory will fill
the entire land, amen and amen.

[1] The Zevulun-Yissakhar relationship which existed between the brothers may be the
basis of Sefornos expansive comment to Bereishit 49:13, Zevulun will dwell at the shore of
the seas:
Zevulun, who deals with business, precedes Yissakhar, who delves into the Torah
for indeed it is impossible for a person to delve into the Torah without first acquiring
what he needs, as they have said (Avot 3:17): If there is no flour, there is no
Torah. When one provides for his fellow, so that his fellow may delve into the Torah,
as is said of Zevulun, behold the worship of Blessed God in the enterprise of the

Torah scholar will be attributed to both of them.This is the intention of the Torah when
it comes to the gifts for Priests and Levites; the entire people may help those who
grab hold of the Torah
[2] One of his most famous students was Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522), a Christian
humanist who excelled in the study of the Hebrew language. Reuchlin was the first to
disseminate the study of Hebrew among the Christian scholars in Germany and elsewhere in
Europe, and he endowed chairs for studying Hebrew in a number of institutions of higher
learning. Reuchlin recognized that the essential source for all religions is the Torah of the
Jews, from which all the Church fathers drew. Similarly, he understood that the Latin
translations of Tanakh contained many errors, and in order to repair them, he decided to
study Hebrew and Aramaic. We should note that Reuchlin was a zealot for Christianity, and
his study of the Hebrew language and the literature of the sages of Israel was not motivated
by a love of the Jews, but a desire to develop his religious investigations.
[3] David Reubeni travelled from the Arabian Peninsula to Europe in order to convince
Pope Clement VII and King Joo III of Portugal to organize an army and navy, paid for by
European Jewry, to fight the Muslims in India, and thereby to free the Holy Land from the
Muslims and to allow the Jewish nation to return to its land.
[4] For example, Maharam Padua, in his responsa (48-49), describes Seforno in this way:
A great man and a shining light is the sage whose name is widely known as our
honored teacher, Rabbi Ovadia, man of Seforno. May God protect him, peace be
upon the master and his Torah. One of the angels flew to me, carrying a scroll of
secrets, set with marble, bedecked with sapphires. These are the words of the living
God, and from behind the veil I have heard that you are the source of greatness, the
wellspring of waters, sweet and cold, to saturate a weary soul, which is thirsty for
Torah, for everything our honored master has written is built on stones of marble
[5] Below, we will explain briefly the principles of this movement, and we will expand our
description of the influence of Seforno.
[6] These are his words:
I am the young one, Ovadia, may God protect me and keep me alive, son of the
honored master, lord and teacher, Yaakov Seforno, of blessed eternal memory, by the
sound of the words of the honored master, Chananel, my brother, may God protect
him and keep him alive.
He has great zeal to reclaim the honor of the Torah from the unfaithful children
(Devarim 32:20), who impart a bitter taste in the explication of its words, narratives
and order. It is a treasure that is wholly desirable, correct for those who understand it,
with no one to say, "Send them back."
So I have said that I will tell the bit of a matter I may hear of it, for my hand has found
a bit of success in it. The small measure which I may surmise may arouse to give
pleasant words honorably and inscribe a remembrance in the book may the Torah
be great and glorious!
For indeed, my toil amid my current circumstances each day surrounds me like bees,
until there is no place and proper time to see the wonders of our Torah
Sometimes, the statement of the early ones is not well-understood, and sometimes
they provide an answer insufficient to resolve the doubt, and it is shame to them
And we, how can we justify ourselves, when God will arise and take account of the
matter of His Names glory? Is it not in the telling of wonders from His Torah, to
enlighten every eye and broaden every mind as to its narrative and its order, which
teach of the righteousness and of the greatness of the Blessed Name, as well as His
good reason in dividing and concluding the books
[7] This position stands in totally opposition to that of Abarbanels commentary.
[8] An additional place in Bereishit in which Seforno deals with human superiority is his
commentary on 9:5-6.
[9] Words of encouragement concerning the future redemption can also be found in his
commentary to Bereishit 41:14.
[10] They wanted all people to worship one false God.
[11] This means that Esav was persuaded.
[12] The verses in Ovadia are dealing with Edom and Esav; Edom, in Tanakh, is a synonym
for Esavs descendants (see, for example, Bereishit36:1).
[13] He is referring to the verses describing the onyx stones on the breastplate:

You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them the names of the sons of
Israel, six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the remaining six on the
other stone, in the order of their birth so shall you engrave the two stones with the
names of the sons of Israel And you shall set the two stones on the shoulder
pieces of the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel. And Aharon
shall bear their names before Lord on his two shoulders for remembrance.
(Shemot 28:9-12)
[14] Here, Seforno says explicitly that the motivation for a forgiving interpretation of the
brothers actions is the general evaluation of them as positive characters.
[15] In fact, we are talking about a double question: whether this sentence is part of the
conditions of the vow or part of the obligations of the vow, and how one may understand it
according to each of the possibilities. Rashi and the Rashbam, for example, agree that we are
talking about the continuation of the condition, but they argue about the question of the
understanding of the sentence, while the Ramban maintains that this is an obligation of the
vow.
[16] Reading these verses such that morning is the end of verse 6 creates the problem of
a deficient sentence, because the word evening has a continuation: And you shall know
that God took you out of the land of Egypt, but for morning the continuation is deficient
what will happen in the morning?
This problem may be solved in one of two ways. One is that one may rearrange the
verse and read it in the following way: In the evening and in the morning, you shall
know that God took you out of the land of Egypt. The second is that the verse is tobe
read as having two parallel clauses: And you shall know that God took you out of
Egypt also relates to the word evening and one should read the verse thusly: In
the evening, you shall know that God took you out of Egypt, and in the morning you
shall know that God took you out of Egypt.
[17] These are his words:
6) In the evening you will know May it be His will that what He said to me, that He
will give you food, will be in such as a way that He will give you in the evening your
evening needs, in a way that you shall know that Blessed God took you out totally
from the land of Egypt. He will take you out also from its customs, for you would
reside there on the pot of meat, without a set mealtime, like animals, as they of
blessed memory said that at first Israel were like chickens pecking in a garbage heap,
until Moshe came and set mealtimes for them (Yoma 75b).
7) And in the morning you will have bread in the morning.
You shall see the glory of God thus may it be His will that you will see Gods
glory, which will come to delimit the times, so that you shall know that your complaints
are upon Him, and He will be the one to appear to remove them from upon Him.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
Lecture #25:
R. Hirsch
A.

Introduction The New Era

The new era presented new interpretive challenges for Jewish biblical
exegetes. Due to the Enlightenment, which began at the end of the
17th century, and the Emancipation, which began at the end of the
18th century, the Jewish community in Europe underwent many changes
during the 19th century. Jewish emancipation allowed Jews to leave the ghetto
and to integrate in all of the domains of non-Jewish life, including culture,
academia, and finance, fields which they had been barred from previously.

There is no doubt that the Emancipation brought much benefit to the

Jews of Europe, who, for the first time in centuries, were able to speak of
equal rights. At the same time, the Emancipation held within it an existential
danger for the future of Judaism. The idea of the equal rights for European
Jewry enchanted the Jews, some of whom wanted to give up the Jewish
characteristics of religion, dress, language and Jewish community, in order to
be fully equal to the rest of the population. Thus, for the first time since the
period of Ezra, Orthodox Jewry had to compete with a widespread
phenomenon of willing assimilation.
The Reform movement was a direct result of the Emancipation. At the
beginning of the 19th century, the Jewish spin-off of the Enlightenment, the
Haskalah, began; its adherents, the Maskilim, had the intent of emending the
Jewish religion. TheseMaskilim saw abstract Jewish principles monotheism
and pure morality as worth saving, but other fundamentals unique to
Judaism (for example, practical commandments and characteristic dress)
were seen as expressions of Jewish isolation and clannishness. Thus, they
maintained, the modern Jew must give them up. (The distinction between
abstract principles and practical commands is based on, apparently, Christian
influence). In practice, these alterations were designed to uproot the national
fundamentals of Judaism. Judaism was seen as a religious affiliation alone;
those who believe in it were seen as having only a faith in common, without
any national identity.
An additional phenomenon at this time was the appearance of biblical
criticism. This view was developed by Baruch Spinoza at the end of the
17thcentury, and it acquired Jewish supporters in the 18 th and 19th centuries.
According to this view, the Torah was not given by God at Sinai; rather, the
Pentateuch is a literary creation which was written in a later time than the era
of the Torah, composed of the works of different authors in different periods.
These literary creations were brought together, through the years and by later
editors, into the Torah which we have in our time.[1] The view of biblical
criticism in the new era was considered the most enlightened view of
understanding Tanakh, as opposed to the traditional view; naturally, it
influenced ones relationship to the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot and the
belief in a God-given Torah.
In the following lessons, we will look at the biblical commentators of the
new era, and we will see how their commentaries are influenced by the
phenomena we have mentioned: the Haskala, the Emancipation, the Reform
movement, assimilation, and biblical criticism.
I have chosen to begin with the commentary of R. Shimshon ben
Refael Hirsch. R. Hirsch is not the first of those opposed to these phenomena,
but his commentary is one of the most prominent representatives of
contending with the spirit of his generation. About R. Hirschs commentary, his
great-grandson, R. Mordechai Breuer, zl, writes the following:
One may say that, without any concern of exaggeration, R. Hirschs
commentary on the Torah was, in its time and in its era, akin to Rashis

commentary for the Jews of Germany. Men, women, and youths who
wanted to study the weekly Torah portion would skip all of the classic
Torah commentaries, including Rashis commentary, in order to study
R. Hirschs commentary
Below, we will attempt to clarify the singular nature of his commentary
and to explain the firstborn status it earned in his generation.
B.

Biography

R. Shimshon ben Refael Hirsch (1808-1888) was born in Hamburg,

Germany. R. Hirsch studied in his youth in the Gymnasia of R. Yitzchak
Bernays, Hamburgs chief rabbi, and he was greatly influenced by him. R.
Yitzchak Bernays had a modern approach, and he was interested in general
philosophy. On the other hand, he was one of the great warriors against the
Reform movement. His student, R. Hirsch, also followed this approach,
integrating secular and religious studies while struggling against Reform
Judaism. While engaged in his studies, R. Hirsch also worked as a clerk in a
commercial enterprise.
At the age of twenty, R. Hirsch travelled to the yeshiva of R. Yaakov
Ettlinger, one of the Torah greats of that period, and after two-and-a-half years
of study, he received his ordination. In the year 1829, R. Hirsch began
studying in the University of Bonn, where he studied theology (apparently, he
did not complete his studies there).
In 1830, with the retirement of the rabbi of Oldenburg, R. Hirsch was
appointed rabbi of the city. The young age of the new rabbi (he was 22)
testified to his great skill. A year after this, he sharply polemicized against
Reform leaders and against biblical critics.[2]
It was during this time that he composed his famous book Horeb, in
which he explained with scientific tools that serving God according to the
Torah is not old-fashioned, and he published his famousNineteen Letters on
Judaism. Both of these were written in German (the latter asNeunzehn Briefe
ber Judenthum).[3]
In the year 1841, he left Oldenburg and moved to Emden for six years.
In Emden, he continued his polemical activities against the Reform
movement, using the slogan: Truth lasts, but falsehood does not. He dealt at
length with education and social welfare.
In the year 1847, he became the rabbi of Nikolsburg. His appointment
as rabbi was something of a compromise: theMaskilim accepted him as the
most enlightened rabbi whom they could appoint, and the
Charedi[4] community accepted him as the most traditional rabbi whom they
could succeed in appointing. The result was that the two sides accepted this
as the least objectionable option, and his time in this office was characterized
by a series of polemical exchanges with both Charedi and Reform elements.

In the year 1850, eleven Orthodox families in Frankfurt am Main

received the license to establish a separate congregation with its own rabbi,
because of the dominance of the Maskilim in the city. This congregation
identified itself as Adat Yeshurun. R. Hirsch decided to leave his wellestablished post for this tiny community, the members of which had a
worldview similar to his own. His success in this community was massive
many joined his community within a short amount of time, and similar
congregations were established in different cities all over Germany.[5] This, in
fact, was the beginning of the movement known as Neo-Orthodoxy.[6]
In Frankfurt, R. Hirsh wrote his commentary on and translation of the
Pentateuch in German,[7] and he also composed a commentary on
the Siddur and the Book of Tehillim. His Torah commentary, as we shall see
below, was influenced greatly by processes in the Jewish community in the
19th century. In addition, R. Hirsch tried to update and rejuvenate traditional
Orthodoxy: the synagogue was built in glory and great splendor, featuring an
all-male choir; for ritual slaughter, they were careful about rules of hygiene.
The most significant innovation was in the high school he headed, where
secular and religious studies were integrated. In this school, which he led
himself, the ideal was to educate students who would embody Torah im
derekh eretz, Torah with the way of the world.
C. Aim of the Commentary
In his introduction, R. Hirsch explains the aim of writing his
commentary on the Torah:
I seek to explain the biblical verses on their own, to draw this
explanation from the literal expression through all of its facets, to pull
the explanation of the words from the treasury of the language of the
Holy Writ, to draw and to describe by way of linguistic research. I will
draw from the traditions of law and lore, which have been transmitted
to us from the days of our predecessors, together with the biblical text,
those truths upon which is based the worldview of Jewish life. These
they are the laws of Israels life forever and ever behold, this is the
burden of his soul of the author, and so long as he does not miss the
target totally in this commentary, then this author will not have worked
for naught. He hopes to make some small contribution to recognizing
the full unity of the spirit which reverberates through the Holy Writ of
Gods word. Thereby, we may realize that this spirit is not the
inheritance of days of yore, now obsolescent; rather, it lives with us in
the present, and in it is the future hope of all human aspirations.
According to these words, the main aim of R. Hirsch is to draw from the
Torah the worldview of Jewish life. For R. Hirsch, the aim of understanding
the peshat is to comprehend the Jewish worldview that the Torah comes to
teach. That is how the verses shape the spiritual world of each and every
person. This aim stands at the center of R. Hirschs commentary.
D. Educational Topics

R. Hirsch, educator of the generation, expresses his view on many

educational topics, and he explains the Torah in terms of the needs of the
generation. In this framework, we will address only a minimal number of
topics:
Marriage
In the verse which describes Yitzchaks marriage
Yitzchak brought her to the tent of Sara his mother, and he
she became his wife, and he loved her (Bereishit 24:67),
out that the order of the actions in the verse seems unusual
took, then And he loved her:

to Rivka, And
took Rivka, and
R. Hirsch points
first, And he

The more she was his wife, the more his love grew! The marriage of
the first Jewish son is exemplary, and this is how the marriage was
established. Most Jewish marriages are based not on lust, but
on thejudgment of reason
One need only peruse the novelistic descriptions taken from life in
order to immediately establish how great the gap is between love
before marriage and the same afterwards
Not so is the Jewish marriage for there the wedding is not the apex
of blooming, but the taking root of love.
Education
The Torah describes the maturation of Yaakov and Esav in the
following way: And the youths grew up, and Esav was a man who knew
hunting, a man of the field, and Yaakov was a simple man, dwelling in tents
(Bereishit 25:27). R. Hirsch tries to answer the question of how the son of
Yitzchak and Rivka became the evil Esav. According to R. Hirsch, the main
cause was the poor education which Yitzchak and Rivka gave to Esav:
As for the deep opposition between Avrahams grandchildren, its
essential source was not only in their personal qualities but also in their
poor education. As long as they were small, they did not pay attention
to their hidden inclinations. One Torah and one education were given to
both of them, and they forgot a great principle of education: Educate a
youth according to his way (Mishlei22:6). We must direct the disciple
in terms of the particular way which is most appropriate for him in the
future, which accommodates the latent tendencies of the depth of his
soul
The great Jewish purpose is one and singular in its essence, but the
ways of its realization are many and variegated
R. Hirsch goes on to investigate the psychological explanation of
Yitzchaks love for Esav and Rivkas love for Yaakov (ibid. v. 28):

Bearing in mind the power of attraction between opposites, we may

understand easily Yitzchaks love for Esav and Rivkas love for Yaakov.
Yitzchak, who was a perfect offering, kept quite distant from the
bustle of the world, and he preferred the pleasant quiet of Be'erLachai Ro'i in the place of teeming human society. It may be that he loved
the characteristics of Esav, who was fearless and proud of his actions,
seeing him as capable of leading the house with surpassing skill. On
the other hand, Rivka saw Yaakov as the perfect character, very distant
from all the concepts of her fathers house.
E. R. Hirsch in the Age of Enlightenment
As we said above, R. Hirsch sees in a positive light the era of the
Enlightenment and the Emancipation, viewing it as an opportunity to perfect
the world in the divine image. Concerning the social ideas which were
developed in the new era, R. Hirsch claims that they are not new at all; the
Torah originated them. An example of this is human equality: R. Hirsch sees
the Emancipation as the phenomenon which could influence the Jews in a
positive way, and it expresses the ideas which are already found in the Torah.
[8] In his commentary, we can find a number of examples of the idea of human
equality and freedom. Thus, for example, in his commentary on one verse in
the passage of the Binding of Yitzchak, And the two of them went together
(Bereishit 22:19), R. Hirsch writes:
In other human societies, they would have done this differently. The
experience was one of such elevation and closeness to God, exaltation
of a sort beyond any terrestrial border. People such as Avraham and
Yitzchak would have been wholly overcome by their own importance
and by the matter of the divine. They would no longer have any
connection to any issue of regular, terrestrial life or regular, terrestrial
people
However, Avraham and Yitzchak differed essentially from this,
displaying the spirit of a wondrous nature transmitted through the
generations. After they experience the utmost of any human being to
walk the earth there is no great degree of respect they accord
themselves more than others. In the eyes of a son of Avraham, all
people are equal in their occupation; he does not make any distinction
between himself and the woodcutters or servants of a low status
Another example of the spirit of the Emancipation is R. Hirschs
defense of those commandments which apparently oppose the principle of
sexual equality. For example, this is what he writes in his commentary
to Bereishit 23:19:
Also, marrying a woman is learnt from the purchase of Efrons field.
[9]The Jew acquires his wife this is what a thoughtless time accuses
us of. Verily and truly, he acquires his wife, but on the other hand, she

remains his. She is honored as his greatest possession upon this

earth
In the passage of the Hebrew slave, R. Hirsch claims that this passage
does not deny human freedom; rather, it comes to help the sinner. This is
what he writes in his explanation of Shemot 21:6:
The Torah commands us to bring the sinner into the family
Moreover, the Torah ordains a number of sets of guidelines to ensure
that the status of the slave in the same family will be maintained. Thus,
the ethical consciousness in the soul of the sinner will not be
depressed, so that despite his low status, he will still feel that honor is
accorded him and that they treat him with a custom of brotherhood
How much inconvenience we subject the master to, in order to
maintain the family ties of the servant, so that his family will not be
abandoned to sorrow and sighing as a result of his sin
R. Hirsch continues to explain why the punishment of the Hebrew slave
is more enlightened and ethical than the accepted punishment of
incarceration:
The punishment of imprisonment with its attendant loss of hope
andcorruption of morals, residing behind the walls of the prison, with all
thesorrow and sighing it brings theprisoners wife and children it has
no place in Gods Torah.
Another example of R. Hirschs relationship to contemporary issues is
his opposition to Reform Jews. [10] In Bereishit18:19, the verse describes the
destiny of Avrahams descendants: to keep the way of God, to do
righteousness and justice. R. Hirsch relates to the fact that the Torah first
mentions, to keep the way of God, and only afterwards, to do righteousness
and justice:
Why does to keep the way of God appear first and to do
righteousness and justice afterwards?
Walking with God in the way of the ethical purity; this is the condition
and root of relations of justice and rectitude with all creatures. Only a
generation conceived, born and raised in the bosom of laws,
illuminated and enlightened by these laws only a generation such as
this is prepared to do righteousness and justice. The commandments
between man and God are a precondition, the root for all
commandments between man and fellow man.
There is no doubt that this contention is directed against the Reform
movement, who claim that there is no need to fulfill ritual commandments
between man and God.

In this context, it is worthwhile to note R. Hirschs attitude towards the

reasoning of the commandments. The Reform movement, with its willingness
to blur and erase the distinctions between Jews and Christians, sought to
annul the fulfillment of active commandments, [11]mainly those which make the
nation of Israel unique. One of the claims of the Reform movement was that
the commandments of the Torah were given in a certain setting, at a certain
time, and for this reason they are not relevant to the modern era. As part of R.
Hirschs war against these views, he claims that the meaning of the mitzvot is
not only practical; they have a basis in philosophy as well. He dedicates a
complete work to the investigation of symbols in general, and he explains the
commandments in particular as symbols, and so he shows how the
commandments are appropriate also for his era.
A good example of this may be seen in his commentary
to Vayikra 16:4, And he will wash in water his flesh, in which R. Hirsch deals
with the symbolic significance of the High Priest washing his hands and feet of
the on Yom Kippur after every change of clothing:
We have derived from this that not only the change of wardrobe from
holy to holy, but even the change of wardrobe from holy to mundane,
requires washing hands and feet
I would say that even taking off holy garb in order to put on mundane,
everyday clothing is part of the service. It turns out that this is the idea,
completing the order of this day: the significance of all of the symbolic
actions in the Temple lies in the actual life outside the Temple, for the
life of the mundane actualizes the spirit, which is drawn from the life in
the Temple. Indeed, the significance of the aspirations in the holy
garb lies in the acts done in secular dress.
It is difficult not to see this as an application of the philosophy of Torah
im derekh eretz. R. Hirsch endorses the intellect and the new culture, and in
all of these, there may be an expression of serving the Creator. However, the
secular life must emerge from a vector of holiness: for the life of the mundane
actualizes the spirit, which is drawn from the life in the Temple.
F. Etymology
R. Hirsch deals at length with his research into the fundamentals of the
Hebrew language. In his view, the root of the word teaches us the
philosophical meaning of the word. R. Mordechai Breuer [12] beautifully
expresses the theory of the importance of language in R. Hirschs philosophy:
Our master determined as a principal and fundamental idea that this
language carries in its heart the announcement of the creator to man
and to Israel, not only through its content, but through its form. The
language of Scripture is the objective language in which the Creator
expressed through the forms of language the meaning of the words, as
came out in his thought and as the person wanted to relate to them.

R. Hirsch used the idea of phonetic relationships to develop

etymological distinctions, as according to him all letters which have the same
source[13] are interchangeable. Thus, for example, there is a connection
between the similar rootsnun-samekh-ayin, nun-sin-alef, nun-samekhheh and nun-samekh-chet; they all indicate a certain movement:
Nun-sin-alef, to lift and take an item from its place;
Nun-samekh-heh, to ascend to a higher level for this is the essence
of the trial;
Nun-samekh-ayin, to leave a place consciously and willingly;
Nun-samekh-chet, to uproot with the power and strength of the hand.
(Bereishit 11:2)
Another example may be found in his commentary on Bereishit 42:3,
on the verse, Lest a disaster befall him. Kuf-reish-alef is close to kuf-reishheh, kuf-reish-ayin and kuf-reish-chet, and apparently there is no connection
between these roots. However, R. Hirsch maintains, as a matter of fact, that
these are different manifestations of one basic idea:
Kuf-reish-alef, to bring a person to willingly leave the direction of his
way;
Kuf-reish-ayin, [to tear] tearing moves the parts of the material in
opposite directions;
Kuf-reish-chet, [to make bald] gathering the parts of the body in a
direction that is opposed to the power of adhesion;
Kuf-reish-heh the events which influence a person or an item,
changing the natural direction which one has willingly chosen and
turning in another direction, are called circumstance.
This etymological approach is undoubtedly speculative, and for the
most part it is not accepted nowadays in linguistic research. Nevertheless, this
methodology is undeniably creative, and like all of his other comments on the
Torah, via this approach, R. Hirsch adds spirit to the words of the Torah.
Concerning the commentary of R. Hirsch, R. Breuer makes the following
declaration:
Every meaning that a man from Israel finds in the Torah is the true
meaning of the Torah, as it speaks to him, emerging from the unique
letter he has in the Torah.
Know that this is the true, because it is accepted to say this today even
about secular literature: the meaning of every creation is not dependent
on the writers intent. Rather, it is given over to the view of the reader;
and every meaning that the reader finds in his creation is the true
meaning.

All the more so, we may say this about Gods Torah, the explanation of
which is not in the heavens; instead, it is given over to the person
who reads and studies. Every comment which is pleasing in the eyes
of the student, which satisfies his mind, serves to steer him towards the
truth of the Torah, as it shines for him from his unique letter in the
Torah.
Because of this, the commentaries of R. S.R. Hirsch can be neither
proven nor disproven; it is impossible to say that they are correct or
incorrect. It is possible only to say that they are pleasing; for they
express the meaning of the Torah which complements the root of
the soul of the reader.(Peirush Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch LaTorah,Machanayim 4B, 5753)

According to their view, the rest of Tanakh came together in a similar way: the books
of Neviim, for example, were not prophetically stated from Gods mouth; rather, they were
written by later authors, and they were edited later still.
[2] Apparently, this struggle failed, because when R. Hirsch left in 1841 (to the city of Emden),
the community of Oldenburg appointed a Reform rabbi as his replacement.
[3] This led Shadal to criticize him, in a letter that he wrote to him after R. Hirsch sent him a
copy of the work. Shadal questioned R. Hirschs motivations, wondering, Has he turned into
Geiger? and condemning his use of German rather than the language of Judah and
Jerusalem.
[4] What is known as the Charedi community today, with all of its various characteristics, did
not yet exist at this time, and it certainly did not use the term, and therefore this appellation is
certainly anachronistic. Nevertheless, in retrospect, we may identify the ideological
characteristics of opposition to Reform, which is similar, at least partially, to the Charedi
community of today, and therefore we have used the term.
[5] With Hitlers rise to power and the closing of many synagogues and yeshivot throughout
Germany, R. Joseph Breuer, grandson of R. S.R. Hirsch and uncle of R. Mordechai Breuer,
moved to the United States, and there he founded Khal Adath Jeshurun (KAJ), a
congregation in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Manhattan. This became a huge
community, and similar congregations were founded throughout the United States.
In the last few years, Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, the Institute for German Jewish Heritage,
has spearheaded the founding of a number of congregations in Israel following the path of R.
Hirsch in Frankfurt am Main. One of the most prominent is Khal Adas Yeshurun Jerusalem
(KAYJ), in the capitals Ramot neighborhood. Similar congregations have been established in
Bnei Brak, Beitar, and Kiryat Sefer.
[6] The distinction between Orthodoxy and Neo-Orthodoxy was expressed in a number of
aspects. First of all, while Orthodoxy sought to maintain the closed nature of the community
and saw the Emancipation as a destructive force for Judaism, Neo-Orthodoxy tried to take
advantage of modernity because of the opportunities it afforded for the advancement of
Jewish life and the Jewish religion. Second, Neo-Orthodoxy believed that European Jewry
could make the Jewish faith flourish, while Orthodoxy rejected this idea. Similarly, NeoOrthodoxy stressed the importance of the texts, customs, and aesthetics of the synagogue,
while Orthodoxy did not.
[7] In 1992, his great-grandson, R. Mordechai Breuer, translated this is into Hebrew.
[8] Thus, for example, he writes in Letter #16 ofNineteen Letters:
I laud the principle of equal rights, for an onerous load was pressing excessively upon the
Nation of Israel, squeezing it out of all walks of and curtailing its opportunities to develop its
spiritual possessions. This would minimize the free development of its greater qualities
Now, I see in this breaking dawn the burgeoning and resurgence of the human race a
corridor in order enter in the great hall of recognizing that God is the Lord of all for all
people are His sons
[9] Kiddushin 3a.
[1]

It is worth noting that the Reform Movement in Germany was more dominant than in other
countries. The essential reason was that in Germany, the struggle to keep and maintain the
Emancipation was particularly difficult, and it culminated in an official way only about a
century after the French Revolution, in the year 1869. Throughout R. Hirschs life, the
question of Emancipation in Germany was in some doubt, and it still was necessary to
persuade the general community that the Jews were fit to be considered German citizens
with equal rights. On the basis of this fact, we may understand the great need felt in the
Jewish street in the days of R. Hirsch to be Germans for all purposes and to try to blur the
religious distinctions between each Jew and his German neighbor.
[11] Christianity, of course, annulled the fulfillment of practical commandments at its inception.
[12] This may be found in the introduction to his translation of R. Hirschs commentary on the
Book of Bereishit.
[13] This refers to glottal, labial, or dental consonants and the like.
[10]

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock
*********************************************************
This week's shiurim are dedicated by Matt Tambor
in memory of Abraham Tambor z"l
*********************************************************
Lecture #26:
Radatz Hoffmann
A.

Biography

R. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1843-1921), whom we will refer to as Radatz,

was born and educated in the Hungarian city of Verb(modern-day Vrbov,
Slovakia). Afterwards, he studied in the yeshiva of Maharam Schick, [1]near the
city of Bratislava, until the year 1865.
From there, Radatz turned to academic studies at the University of
Vienna and the University of Berlin, studying philosophy, history, and Oriental
languages, ultimately receiving his doctorate in 1871 from the University of
Tbingen. In the same year, he accepted a teaching position in Hchberg,
allowing him to form connections with the leaders of Orthodox Judaism in 19 thcentury Germany. A short time afterwards, he started teaching in R. S. R.
Hirschs Realschule in Frankfurt am Main, an experience which undoubtedly
had a great influence upon Radatz. [2]
In 1873, with the founding of the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin by R.
Azriel Hildesheimer, Radatz joined the faculty, teaching there for close to
three decades. Upon R. Hildesheimers death in 1899, Radatz became the
rector of the Rabbinical Seminary, and he continued his educational work until
shortly before his death. His commentaries to the Torah are based on the
lectures that he gave over many years in the seminary.
Although he grew up in a traditional Hungarian community (studying
under a disciple of the Chatam Sofer, originator of the phrase, What is new is
forbidden by the Torah!), Radatz was influenced by the openness and the
ways of critical teaching and study then in vogue in Germany. Radatz was

part of the Judaic Studies (Wissenschaft des Judentums[3]) movement, for

which R. Hirsch criticized him. Taking the view of scientific criticism which
started to develop as part of the Haskalah, Radatz applied it to his study of
the Oral Torah and halakhic Midrash, an area of his expertise and a discipline
to which he contributed significantly.[4] Another area of his expertise was, of
course, biblical exegesis.
B.

Background

As we have mentioned, Radatzs commentaries on the Torah began as

a series of lectures which he gave in the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin.
Afterwards, a number of lectures were collected and edited into a book of
commentary on the Torah. The commentaries were written in German and
were later translated into Hebrew.
Originally,
commentaries
on Bereishit,Vayikra, and Devarim were
published; recently, his commentary on Shemot was published, based on his
lectures,
by
Mosad
Harav
Kook.
The
commentaries
on Vayikra and Devarimwere written by Radatz himself, while the
commentaries on Bereishit and Shemot were written by his students, based
on the manuscripts of his lectures.
Radatz did not write his commentaries in a vacuum. He explains his
motivations for writing his commentary in a clear way in his introduction
to Vayikra: [5]
In this commentary, we will grab with both hands the Masoretic version.
We will do our utmost to repel the criticism based on texts opposed to
the Masoretic grade, seeking to breaks down its walls
We will throw off the yoke of high criticism, [6] which appoints itself the
lofty judge of our Tanakh. We will go in the light of the mesora, for we
believe in its divinity. According to it and through it we will try to explain
the words of the verses. Nevertheless, we will pay attention to
explanations which have a point of view different from ours, and we will
give them the benefit of the doubt as much as is possible.
So that we may understand these words, we will expand a bit on the
topic of biblical criticism in Germany in the 19 th century.[7] The accepted view
of biblical criticism in the 19 thcentury was that of the German critic Julius
Wellhausen. According to his view, which was based on the documentary
hypothesis which predated his activity, the Torah was based on different
documents from different times, composed by different people, so that wide
swaths of the first four books of the Torah were actually composed later
than Devarim(composed, according to his view, during the reign of
Yoshiyahu[8]), and they were completed after the Babylonian Exile.
[9] Wellhausens view was accepted among the Christians and Maskilim.
This view posed a two-fold challenge to tradition: first of all, it conflicted
with basic belief in Torah from heaven that is, the divine origin of the

Torah. In addition, traditional faith was also challenged on account of its

faithful adherence to the halakhic conventions of the Sages based on their
exegesis of the verses through the Oral Torah; alternative interpretations of
the halakhic sections of the Torah undermined this idea. This challenge also
emerged from the battles that Orthodoxy waged against the Haskalah and the
Reform movement, and it threatened to produce a practical result of
abandoning Orthodox Halakha. Alongside this phenomenon, there were antiSemitic (or anti-rabbinical) attacks launched directly against the alleged illogic
of rabbinical Halakha.
As we saw in the previous lesson, the Jewish community in Germany
willing exposed itself to these conceptions because of the inclination to
assimilate in German society. R. S.R. Hirsch wrote in his commentary against
these conceptions in his didactic way. R. S.R. Hirsch stressed [10] the
involvement of Moshe Rabbeinu in writing the Torah, as well as the antiquity
of Halakha and the authority of themesora. This was an emotional appeal; R.
Hirsch turned to the heart of the nation, and in this lies the greatness of his
commentary.
Radatz took a different tack, turning to the intellect and using scientific
proofs. Radatz was aware of all the critical theories and intimately acquainted
with the critical literature, and he competed directly with its claims, using the
scientific tools he knew well Oriental languages, linguistics, and history.
Together with this, he was a sage, an authority in the halakhic sphere. Using
his expertise and skills, he succeeded both in protecting the conceptions of
the Torahs antiquity and perfecting an approach respected by Jews who had
been captured by the enchantment of criticism, anchoring the Oral Torah in
the Written Torah.
Thus, the target audience of the commentary was those intellectual
Jews who knew the claims of the bible critics, but as we have seen, Radatzs
commentary retains great value even outside of the polemical context.
C.

Basic Assumptions

In his introduction to his commentary onVayikra (p. 1) and in other

places, Radatz makes clear his basic assumptions, which prevent him from
reaching any conclusion which conflicts with one of the Thirteen Principles.
These assumptions are for him prior principles; nevertheless, he tries not
to rely on them in the interpretation. This is what he writes:
I willingly admit that because of my principles of faith, I have not been
able to reach a conclusion that the Torah was not written by the hands
of Moshe Rabbeinu or, all the more so, that it was written after Moshes
time. In order not to leave a place for doubts of that issue, I have
explained and clarified with prior notes the principle which has served
me as the basis for my explanation in this respect. However, with the
aspiration to rely on these dogmatic principles from a scientific
aspect, I have tried constantly to rely on reasons which may be seen
as justified even by those who have a worldview different from mine.

As we have said above, one of the important aims of Radatz was to

prove the unity of the Torah that it was all given by God as well as its
antiquity that it was written by Moshe. In the continuation of our words, we
will see how Radatz competes with a number of problems that proponents of
biblical criticism have raised concerning the concepts of the unity and
antiquity of Tanakh.
D.

Radatzs Relationship to Stylistic Variations in the Torah

The Influence of Content on Style

One of the claims of the biblical critics is that stylistic alterations attest
to different sources. The fact that the Torah uses at times certain words or a
certain style and sometimes uses others demonstrates that every one of the
variations is a remainder of a document or different source. The answer of
Radatz to this claim is that God writes in different styles, based on the content
of the section. This is what he writes about the differences between Bereishit 1
and Bereishit 2-3:
We must still question whether the variation in language and in the
forms of expression in the two descriptions justifies the assumption that
there are two authors for these chapters, one for the first chapter, and
one for the two chapters afterwards. Here we should note first of all,
that even if the contention is correct and it is possible to find different
styles in the Torah, this still does not prove that we should relate these
styles to different authors
Consider this: would a father write to his son in a standard missive
about his welfare with the same language which he will use when he
comes to lecture him about significant, sublime truths or when he
comes to tell him about new scientific discoveries?(Bereishit, p. 91)
In a more succinct formulation, he writes:
There is naught but the content which determines the style.
(Bereishit 3:22-24)
In other words, Radatz claims that the Torah uses different styles in
keeping with the content of the passage. [11] Now, we shall see how Radatz
applies this principle to a number of problems.
Gods Names at Creation
One of the classic examples brought by the biblical critics as a basis for
the claim that the Tanakh is composed of different sources is the multiplicity of
names of God, e.g. Hashem(the Tetragrammaton) and Elokim. (They refer to
these authors as J and E respectively.) The most famous example is the dual
descriptions of creation in Bereishit, in chapter 1 and chapters 2-3.

We will not go into the details in this confined framework, but we will
note the problematic nature of these chapters briefly. In the first chapter
of Bereishit, we find a description of the creation of the universe and its
relationship to God. For example, we have In the beginning God created
(1:1); and the spirit of God (1:2); et cetera. Throughout the chapter, we have
only the name Elokim, but beginning with 2:4, we find Hashem Elokim.
Moreover, the details of creation differ in the two accounts.
[12] Addressing this phenomenon, Radatz explains that Gods different names
express different relationships of God to creation, not different authors:
Now in the first chapter, God is described in the glory of His sublime
kingship, when, by His word, chaos and nothingness are banished,
while days and continents, flora and fauna, sun and moon and stars
are all created, culminating with man, made in His image
Should we expect to that same style and those same forms of
expression in the two following chapters, consisting as they do of a
description of Him, Blessed be He, as a merciful father who creates the
human being with unique love, worrying about him and nurturing him
and dealing with his education? True, He chastises him for his sin, but
at the same time, does He not direct him to the school of hard work
and toil, by which he will continue to be educated?(Bereishit, p. 91)
In other words, the first chapter ofBereishit describes a relationship in
which God is distant from creation and man, a relationship which is expressed
by the harsh name Elokim,[13] while the second and third chapters describe a
close relationship of God with creation and man, a relationship which is
expressed by the tender name Hashem.[14]
Gods Names at the Binding of Yitzchak
An additional example in which Radatz applies this principle, the
changing content dictating a different name of God, may be found in his
commentary on the Binding of Yitzchak (Bereishit 22).
In the first section of this passage (up to v. 9), we find Elokim, while in
the second part (v. 11 ff.), Hashem appears alone. According to the
proponents of biblical criticism, the explanation of the fact is that the narrative
of the Binding is composed of two documents.
Radatz, in his commentary on the Binding, notes the change in Gods
names, but he argues that this reflects a change in Avrahams consciousness.
When God asks Avraham to offer his son, this is an act ofElokim, the God who
commands and demands uncompromising obedience from His servants.
However, when a substitute for his son is found, Avraham understands that
God is actually Hashem, Who asks His worshippers to bring offers not as an
expression of service and obedience, but to make man worthy. As a result of
mans dedication to his Creator, God will make His presence rest upon
humanity.[15]

Yaakov/ Yisrael
Similar to their distinction between the names of God, bible critics
believe that the use of the names Yaakov and Yisrael for our third Patriarch
reflect different authors.
Radatz explains that the different names reflects a difference in the
perspective of the narrative. The name Yisrael appears when we are talking
about something having significance for the history of the nation as a whole,
while the name Yaakov relates to more personal and intimate issues. [16]
E.

Different Contexts

The Sin of the Spies

Radatz relates, of course, to redundancies and contradictions in the
content of the Torah as well. We will bring two examples of these.
As is known, the Sin of the Spies as described by Moshe in the Plains
of Moav (Devarim 1:22-46) differs from the description in Parashat
Shelach (Bamidbar 13-14). The biblical exegetes[17] already address this
contradiction, but Radatz relates to this problem from a different direction. In
his explanation ofDevarim 1:22, Radatz determines and applies a consistent
methodology which addresses the narrative variations in Devarim in a general
way:
Moshe Rabbeinu does not mention all of these details in the Book
of Devarim, because of the simple reason that they are not applicable
to his words of rebuke
In light of this, it is certainly understandable that there a number of
facts that the historian will not mention; on the other hand, one who
gives a speech will mention this specifically, since they add to his
speech the power of persuasion
In other words, the contradictions between Devarim and other books
do not reflect different authors, but different themes.
Slaughtering Outside the Mishkan
We will see here an additional and final example of Radatzs method of
resolving a contradiction, using his knowledge of Halakha and giving an
elegant solution to one of the difficult problems raised by biblical
critics.Vayikra forbids any slaughtering (mundane or holy) outside
the Mishkan:
If anyone of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the
camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance
of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to God in front of
the Mishkan of God, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has

shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. Thus
the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the
open field, that they may bring them to God, to the priest at the
entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of
peace offerings to God
So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the hircine, after
whom they stray. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout
their generations.(Vayikra 17:3-7)
However, we find in Devarim:

Rather, you shall seek the place that Lord your God will choose
out of all your tribes to put His name and make His habitation
there. There you shall go, and there you shall bring your burnt
offerings and your sacrifices
You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today,
everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes, for you have
not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance that Lord
your God is giving you. (Devarim 12:5-9)
From these verses, it would appear that already in the desert, the
Israelites were allowed to bring offerings outside of theMishkan. When the
Israelites inherit the land, they are told, it will be allowed to offer only in one
place (vv. 9-11), but in the desert it is allowed to offer in any place, according
to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his
own eye (v. 8).[18]
A number of resolutions are cited by the exegetes for this contradiction.
We will bring here the Rashbams answer:
In every place where we camp in the desert, we bring in the Mishkan,
which is moved from one place to another. (Rashbam, Devarim 12:9,
s.v. Ish)
This means that in the desert, the Israelites brought offerings in
the Mishkan alone (as commanded in Vayikra). However, the Mishkanwas
portable; therefore, despite the fact that offering was allowed only upon its
premises, in practice this was done in dozens of places in the wilderness,
each time matching the current location of the Mishkan. The Book
of Devarimaddresses the situation when the Israelites will reach the land; at
that point, the place of permitted offerings will be stationary. At that point,
offerings may be brought there exclusively.[19] The problem with this
explanation is that the verse (9) says that in the desert, the situation is one of
everyone doing whatever is right in his own eye, and this implies that one
offers it in any place where he wants, not only upon the premises of
theMishkan.

Now, we will see the commentary of Radatz (Devarim 12:8) and his
solution:
It appears to us that Scripture may be explained according to its simple
meaning, based on the following assumption:
We have indeed learnt in the end ofZevachim (14:5) that only when
they came to Gilgal were the private altars allowed, but the Rambam
in Peirush Ha-Mishna ad loc. explains that the basis of this allowance
is because the previous basis for the reason of the prohibition had
been rendered null and void.
In Vayikra 17, it is stated only that it is forbidden to offer inside or
outside the camp, So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the
hircine, after whom they stray (v. 7); in their mistaken view, these goatdemons were found in the desert.
However, once Israel entered a settled land and the concern of offering
to the hircine is no longer significant, they were no longer bound by the
prohibition of slaughtering outside.[20]
According to this, it is self-evident that with the conquest of
Transjordan, the prohibition stated in Vayikra 17 would be null and
void
In other words, when the Israelites were in the desert, it was allowed to
bring in theMishkan only, due to the concern that the Israelites would offer to
these goat-demons whom they believed to be in the desert, as is stated
explicitly in verses 5-7 of chapter 17: Thus the people of Israel may bring
their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to
Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting So they shall no
more sacrifice their sacrifices to the hircine, after whom they stray. However,
when the Israelites conquered the East Bank of the Jordan and entered the
land, they abandoned the desert, the place in which, in their view, the goatdemons were found, and therefore there was no longer a danger of the
Israelites sacrificing to them. The prohibition of bringing outside
the Mishkan was therefore annulled.
Thus, at the time that Vayikra, which is stated in the desert, is taught, it
is forbidden to bring outside the Mishkan, but at the time thatDevarim is
stated, on the East Bank, it is permitted to bring offerings outside of
theMishkan. Radatz, with great originality, uses a halakhic principle (private
altars, i.e., offering outside of the Mishkan, being prohibited and permitted at
different times) and he stretches it[21] a bit in order to solve a critical problem
of the peshat of the text.
F.

Proving the Torahs Antiquity

Aside from the question of the authorship of the Torah, biblical critics also
challenged the Torahs antiquity, claiming that parts of the Torah were written

during the First Temple Era and other parts during Second Temple Era. In a
number of places, Radatz brings proofs to the fact that the Torah was written
and given over to the generation that left Egypt; in his view, the language of
the Torah testifies to this. We will bring a number of examples:
1.
In Bereishit 23:2, the verse states, And Sara died in Kiryat Arba,
which is Chevron, in the land of Canaan, and Avraham came to mourn
Sara and to cry for her. There, Radatz notes:
In the land of Canaan this addition proves that our chapter was
written in particular on behalf of the Israelites in the desert. In front of
them, he had to come back and stress that Chevron, the place of the
burial of the Patriarchs, sits in the land of Canaan, in the land that they
must conquer.
2.
In Devarim 17:16, the Torah says concerning the king, Only he
may not increase horses for him, so that he will not return the people to
Egypt There, Radatz writes:
They justifiably point this out, for a later legislator would not use this
justification for the prohibition of increasing horses. The concern lest
the king return the nation to Egypt was one which was relevant only in
the days of Moshe and a short time afterwards [22]
3. In the commentary to Bereishit (p. 205), Radatz writes:
We may ask: how can it be that the Torah does not even allude to the
reasons that Avraham is chosen by God? Instead, it immediately
charges into the sequence of events, as God promises Avraham a
great reputation and blessing
We may answer that the reputation and greatness of Avraham Avinu
would have been exceedingly well-known to the generation which
received the Torah. Thus, there would have been no need to acquaint
them with the descriptions of the days of his youth
G.

Juxtaposition, Structure and Meaning

One of the prominent and significant characteristics of Radatzs

commentary is determining the sequence and structure of the Pentateuch,
dividing the topics into narrative units and splitting the units into subunits. This
classification, without a doubt, helps the student to grasp the meaning of the
content.
In this way, Radatz adopts the accepted scientific view of dissecting
narrative creations; similarly, he adopts the method of biblical critics for
identifying different sources - a precise reading of the Torah while paying
attention to expressions of language, structure, order, headings, and the like.
The view of biblical teaching accepted today was recognizably influenced by
his methodology. Specifically, one may take note of the Daat Mikra project, in
which the units are defined and demarcated clearly.

We will show how Radatz uses these techniques to frame the topics
in Devarim 19-21. In these chapters, the following laws appear according to
the order specified below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Cities of refuge and manslaughter (19:1-10)

Murder (19:11-13)
Moving the boundary marker (19:14)
Witnesses and perjury (19:15-21)
War (20)
Unsolved killing (21:1-9)

What connects these topics? Radatz writes at the beginning of the unit:
After the commandments of national leadership judges, king, priests
and prophets the verse continues with a number of commandments
binding upon the leadership, delineating what the most important ones
for the existence of the country are. In other words, how will the people
who are under the threat of death protect their lives? How may one
prevent the spilling of innocent blood?
When we look at the previously mentioned topics, it is immediately
prominent to the eye that the prohibition of moving the boundary marker does
not seem to fit with the group of commandments binding on the leadership or
the commandments which prevent bloodshed. Radatz explains the relevance
of the prohibition; using his explanation, we learn the severity of the
prohibition of moving the boundary marker, and we understand how it relates
to theft or robbery, which the Torah has already discussed previously:
Just as bloodshed desecrates the sanctity of the land, so the same is
true of moving the boundary marker
This sin is more serious than the prohibition of You shall not steal; in
fact, it is close to You shall not murder. Thus, we have found that the
inheritance of the Patriarchs was dear to every man of Israel like his
life, and he did not want to sell it.
This is the continuation of the verses: [23]an accidental killer is sent into
to exile because this expiates his sin, but it is forbidden to steal the
territory and birthright of any other person in Israel, because this defiles
the holiness of the land as much as bloodshed.(Devarim, p. 376)
H. The Superiority of the Land of Israel
I will conclude this lesson with Radatzs fine words about the
superiority of the land of Israel:
The clime of the Holy Land constantly reminds the inhabitants of the
presence of the Creator and His Providence, and it protects them for
corruption of traits. For in this land, blessing and curse are so close to

each other, without any boundary, until the words of the Torah are,
Behold, I put before you today, blessing and curse. This dictum
always hovers before the eyes of each and every one. The nature,
climate and territory of the Holy Land are most suitable to accept the
flow of blessing like the bitter curse.
When Gods eyes are in it, this land is a paradise, but when He
withholds his blessing from it or stretches out his hand to punish it,
there will be famine, illness, and plagues to make it desolate.
Moreover, the wealth of the land and its pleasant geographic situation
draw after them often foreign conquerors who were ready to serve as
the staff of His Blessed anger, should the people every stray from His
path. This indicates that the land is capable, in all of its aspects, to
nurture the religion of the Unique One and to direct one towards it and
to educate its residents towards a sanctified way of life.(Bereishit 12:7)
According to these words, the superiority of Israel is not only in its
blessings, but in its curses as well; both blessings and curses are a spiritualeducational tool.
One may apply this approach also to biblical criticism. This
phenomenon brought about religious destruction among many Jews, but one
must recognize that thanks to the development of the discipline of biblical
criticism, the great minds of Israel, led by Radatz, managed to see the verses
in a new light, expounding them and investigating them innovatively.
Specifically,
it
was
biblical
criticism
which
brought new
impetus and new methodsto the study of the Torah, which continue to
influence and nurture us until this very day.

R. Moshe Schick was one of the great rabbis of 19 th-century Hungary. He was one of the
Chatam Sofers most prominent disciples.
[2] In fact, R. S.R. Hirsch is quoted by Radatz dozens of times.
[3] This movement began in the 19th century, influenced by the Haskala. It began with a group
of Jewish critics, led by Leopold Zunz, Abraham Geiger, Heinrich Hirsch Graetz, et al.
Members of this movement claimed that the historical analysis of Jewish culture, which they
saw as part of human culture, would help Jews to become acquainted with their past, define
the characteristics of Judaism in the modern era, and investigate their identity. Beyond this,
the critical analysis and the innovative definition of the religion would help in reducing antiSemitism and restoring the pride of Judaism, since the Christian environment would
recognize Judaism and Jews scientifically, consequently raising their esteem. Consequently,
they believed, the movement would contribute to advancing the Emancipation in Germany
and to the deepening of the Jews integration within their environment.
[4] In fact, Radatz discovered the distinction between R. Yishmaels academy and R. Akivas
academy in the development of halakhic Midrash.
[5] Radatz starts his commentary to the Torah with his commentary on the Book of Vayikra. In
his introduction that book, he explains why he commences his biblical commentary with the
third book of the Pentateuch (p. 9):
In the eyes of the Jew, it has always been more important to know what he is obligated to do
and to fulfill and what not to do; this is more important than the critical analysis of the creation
of the universe and the subsequent generations of creation.
[6] Biblical criticism distinguishes between the terms high criticism and low criticism. High
criticism tries to identify the author of the text, the historical-cultural background of the text, its
[1]

varying levels and its literary forms. Low criticism deals with the biblical text with the aim of
restoring the original form of the text.
[7] We will expand here on what was said in the previous lesson.
[8] The claim was first mentioned by the researcher Wilhelm de Wette.
[9] Biblical criticism generally, as a branch of study, maintains that the Torah (indeed, all
of Tanakh) was written first as different documents by different authors, at least some of which
were written long after the events described in them, and afterwards they were edited
repeatedly until they became the modern Scripture. This claim is accepted by all the biblical
critics, but they argue over the question of which books were written first and which books
were written afterwards, what the aims of different documents were, how the editing took
place, etc. The view of Wellhausen, presented above, is one of the most prominent discussing
this question.
[10] Thus, for example, R. Hirsch writes the following, commenting on Shemot 20:16, in which
the nation turns to Moshe after the Convocation at Sinai with the request, You speak with us:
With this statement, they declare that God spoke with them the way a person speaks with his
friend. Their personal experience of this phenomenon was the main aim of Gods making this
event happen. The experience of the entire people made Gods speaking to the people a real
fact. In this, the truth of the revelation was proved, beyond any deceitful attempt to cast
doubt, by which some attempt to turn the revelation of God to man into the revelation of God
from within man, the revelation of God to Moshe into the revelation of God from within the
heart of Moshe, and by this they would turn revelation into non-revelation. The matter of
revelation is written clearly and truly on each and every passage of the words of this Torah:
And God spoke to Moshe, saying.
These words are directed against the biblical critics, but in his words, as pleasant as they are,
there is no scientific proof of the Torahs antiquity.
[11] Radatz concedes that one may not always explain stylistic variances according to the
content:
We do not claim that it we are capable of explaining each and every verse in the Scripture,
why this name is used specifically or another. However, the truth of the matter is that this is
not compelling at all, because it is sufficient if we will prove in a number of prominent places
throughout a given narrative that the namesElokim and Hashem are used together
deliberately in order to demonstrate that, in any case, the difference of names is no proof of
different authors, Heaven forbid. (Bereishit, p. 57)
In this context, see his instructive words (loc. cit.) concerning the names of God in the verse,
Those who come male and female from all flesh came when Elokimcommanded him,
and Hashem sealed on his behalf (Bereishit 7:16). Additional examples are cited there.
[12] For example, in the first chapter, the grass is created on the third day before man created
on the sixth day, while in the second chapter, it is written that before the creation of man, God
had not yet caused the vegetation to sprout. There are additional distinctions, but we will not
get into them here.
[13] Explaining Elokim, Radatz writes:
This comes from the term mighty one, a reference to strength Thus, this describes God as
all-powerful. The plural suffix shows that this name demonstrates the unification a number of
powers, indicating that this One rules over all powers of nature and directs them in
accordance with His will. Because of this, our Sages of blessed memory described Elokim
as the Attribute of Justice, for indeed He is strong, omnipotent, ruling over nature. He is the
One Who demarcates boundaries for all of His creations, preventing one from attacking the
other, determining what is right for each one.(Bereishit, p. 55)
[14]
As for the name Hashem, Radatz writes:
This is the personal name of the Unique God. The accepted explanation of the verse I will be
what I will be (Shemot 3:14), i.e., I am what I am, does not dovetail with the context in which
this name appears. The concept of absolute existence will not plant the hope of redemption in
the heart of the audience.
However, if we understand this name as referring to the One Who accompanies man, then
we may say that this name complements exactly what was said before this to Moshe from the
mouth of God, For I will be with you (ibid. 12). Hashem is with man, and this is the Attribute
of Mercy, the nexus of all the terms of love and kindness. Similar to I will be what I will be,
we find in another place, And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show
mercy to whom I will show mercy (Shemot 33:19). In other words: I will be with whom I will
be, in order to help him

Thus, it comes out that the Tetragrammaton is a Jewish concept, the unique aspect of divinity,
divinity which is not distant from the world but residing amongst its creatures.
[15] These are his words:
It appears that the motivation for using different holy names is this: it is God Who tests
Avraham. Therefore, God, Blessed be He, does not appear as a merciful father Who assists
man, but He appears like a powerful lord and commander Who demands unconditional
obedience and the command has been given. Avraham knows and recognizes Elokim, and
therefore he is identified as being Elokim-fearing. He knows very well that he is only the
creation of this God and a tool in His hand, and that there is no place for opposition to or
rebellion against Him, for only obedience will bring one to happiness
And as one so God-fearing, he executes His command, Blessed be He, without thinking
about it, and he obeys Him as a soldier obeys his commander, with blind obedience.
Therefore, he says, Elokim will see to the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son. Elokim will
choose the offering which He desires, and whatever He will choose of him, one is obligated to
draw close to it without any rebellion
Immediately afterward, the unanticipated salvation comes, and the ram is discovered to be an
offering in place of the son given to Avraham anew. Then Avraham names the place
using Hashem, Hashem will see, when he is convinced that not to Elokim do we bring
offerings, but to Hashem. We are not doing a service for the Blessed God by bringing Him
offerings; rather, He commands us to bring offerings so that we may be educated and
elevated, so that He may reside among us, in our midst, as a father among His children.
[16] These are his words:
The use of the name Yisrael demonstrates that the event being related holds great
significance in the history of the nation; indeed, this is the reason for the rejection of
the tribe of Reuven and the promotion of the tribes of Yosef and Yehuda
(Bereishit 35:22)
It is not frivolously that the verse here and below v. 13 uses the name Yisrael, for indeed what
is told here is of great significance for the history of the nation in its entirety, because as a
result of this, the slavery of Israel in Egypt came about
As opposed to this, we find the name Yaakov And Yaakov tore his garment (v. 34) for
his act was his personal issue, and there were no ramifications for the descendants.
(Bereishit 37:3)
[17]
See, for example, Rashi and Ramban,Bamidbar 13:2.
[18] This contradiction stands at the heart of Wellhausens documentary hypothesis. This view
believes that the Book of Devarim (authored by D before the destruction of the First Temple)
preceded the Book of Vayikra, because the author of Vayikra, P, writing, according to them,
during the Second Temple Era, had the aim of centralizing the sacrificial service at one site.
According to biblical critics, Vayikra expresses the religion that the priests gave to the people
after the Babylonian exile. Its author had the ritual view, according to which the essential
religious obligation is the sacrificial service in the Temple. Thus, Vayikraencompasses mainly
the sacrificial rites and the specifics of the commandments.
[19] The final sentence does not appear in the Rashbams commentary, but it is the conclusion
of his words based on the verses in Devarim 12.
[20] Up to this point is a summary of the Rambams words; from here on is Radatzs
explanation.
[21] The problem with this approach, and Radatz alludes to it, is that the Mishna
in Zevachim (14:4-8) describes the stages of prohibited and permitted private altars, but it
does not mention a period of the private altars being allowed after the construction of
the Mishkan and before entering the land:
Before the Mishkan was set up, the private altars were allowed
Once the Mishkan was set up, the private altars were forbidden
They came to Gilgal, the private altars were allowed
They came to Shilo, the private altars were forbidden
They came to Nov and Givon, the private altars were allowed
They came to Jerusalem, and they did not have any further allowance
From the great detail in this chapter, the clear implication is that the mishna is detailing every
stage of the private altars being forbidden and allowed, and the era which Radatz speaks of
does not appear there.
[22] This justification is relevant only for a generation about which there is a concern that it
might return to Egypt. In the era of the First or Second Temple, no such concern would exist.

In other words, this is the lesson to be learnt from the sequence of the topics within this
unit.
[23]

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock

Lecture #27:
Malbim

A. Biography
R. Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel Weisser (1809-1879) hereinafter: Malbim was
one of the most prominent figures in Eastern European Jewry in the 19 th century, both in the
realms of biblical exegesis or rabbinical leadership. Malbim was born and educated in
Volochysk in the Volhynia region of what is now western Ukraine. He married at the age of
fourteen, but his marriage was unsuccessful, and he got divorced soon after.
Malbim left his city of birth and moved on to Warsaw, where he became known as the
Illui of Volhynia. From there he moved to ??czyca, Poland, where he married the daughter of
the towns rabbi, R. Chayim Auerbach. At this time, Malbim wrote Artzot Ha-Chayim, his
commentary on the Orach Chayim section of Shulchan Arukh, and upon its completion, he set
out on a journey in order to receive the approbations of prominent rabbis for his book. After a
multi-year journey, he became the rabbi of the town of Wrze?nia in the Pozna? district of
Poland, and he lived in the city for seven years. In 1845, he became the rabbi of Kempen. [1]
In 1858, Malbim was invited to become the rabbi of the Jewish community in Bucharest,
and in the year 1860, he was appointed as the chief rabbi of Romania. Malbim was accepted
graciously, both by haredi Jews who saw him as a rabbinical figure of great renown and by
Maskilim who saw him as a rabbinical figure endorsing a modern intellectual approach.
However, this high position quickly became the source of many troubles; at a later point, it
even endangered Malbims life.
In the second half of the 19 th century, the spirit of the Reform movement blew from
Western Europe to Eastern Europe. Malbim, who became acquainted, during his travels, with
the destructive influences of Reform Judaism upon Orthodox Judaism, came out sharply
against the leaders of the Reform movement in Romania and against certain developments
that the heads of the community supported in order to modernize and reshape the Jewish
community of Romania. His main opposition was to the relationship of Reform Judaism
towards Written Torah and Oral Torah.
One of the struggles against Reform Jews came to a head in 1858, after great efforts by
the leader of the Haskalah community to build a synagogue in the style of a Christian church,
with a choir and organ. This Templul Coral (Choral Temple) was authorized by the Prince of
Moldavia, Grigore Alexandru Ghica. Malbim opposed the style of this synagogue forcefully; he
was concerned with its imitation of both Christian architecture and the Reform synagogues of
Western Europe. Similarly, Malbim sharply opposed the modern Jewish schools established
in the city, criticizing them for putting too great an emphasis, in his view, on secular studies,

and making holy studies ancillary. Malbim even complained about the biblical translations
which came out in different languages, except for those in Yiddish.
An additional source of conflict between him and the modern Jewish community was his
passionate support of punctilious standards in the halakhic realm; for example, he inspected
each morning the knives of the kosher butchers. Thus, Malbim earned the reputation of being
a zealot among the modern Jews of Romania.
However, Malbim faced criticism from the traditional wing as well. Hasidim, incensed by
his support for reviving the Hebrew language,[2]viewed him as irredeemably progressive, and
he was targeted with sharp criticism.
Ultimately, the arguments with the modern community, coupled with Malbims powerful
sermons against Reform Judaism, led to a proposed compromise, in which Malbim would be
offered monetary compensation for relinquishing his rabbinical position, but he demurred.
Because of this refusal, his opponents turned to the local rulers and accused him of treason.
As a result of this, Malbim was thrown into prison and sentenced to death. He was released
only due to the involvement of Sir Moses Montefiore. [3] The condition of his being freed to
leave the soil of Romania.
Malbim then set out on a grand journey in order to purify his name and to have his decree
of banishment rescinded. At one point, he reached Constantinople (Istanbul) in order to
appeal to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Romania at the time, but this
did not help. He also travelled to Paris,[4] but there as well his efforts were unsuccessful.
Without any other options, Malbim accepted his decree of banishment, and he wandered
to many places. Among other locations, he served in the community of his father-in-law, ??
czyca, and from there he moved on to Kherson, Ukraine and Mogilev, Belarus. Even in these
places, Malbim suffered the persecution and slander of the Maskilim and assimilationists on
one hand and the Hasidim on the other. Despite Malbims opponents, he succeeded in
drawing many attendees to his sermons, but in the end, he was compelled to leave the area
by the local governor, apparently due to the activities of informers.
He had to leave the Russian Empire, and he moved on to Prussia and its capital, K?
nigsberg, where he took over the rabbinical position of R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (author of HaKetav ve-ha-kabbala) for four years. In 1879, after twenty years of conflict, wandering, and
humiliation, Malbim left K?nigsberg, returning to the Russian Empire to assume the position of
rabbi in Kremenchug, Ukraine,[5] but he died on the way, on the first day of Rosh Hashana,
in the year 5640.[6]

B. Commentary to the Narrative Portion of the Torah

Characteristics
Malbim composed a comprehensive commentary on all of Tanakh (except
for Koheletand Eikha). Without any doubt, this commentary became the most widely read of
the more recent biblical exegetes works.
The commentary on the Torah may be divided into two parts the narrative part and the
halakhic part. His style in the narrative part is very similar to the style of Abarbanels
commentary. He usually explains a full unit, placing the questions at the beginning. [7] In his
introduction to his commentary on Yeshayahu,[8] Malbim expands on his exegetical

philosophy, and he explains there that his commentary follows the peshat of the verse, rather
than the derash (or, to use his term, derush).[9]
The most prominent characteristic of Malbims commentary is his analysis of synonyms
and various forms of repetition in Tanakh (parallelism and recapitulation). In his view,
Scripture is divine, and as a result, it does not speak in the human way. Therefore, it includes
no synonyms for the sake of poetic beauty; every word has a special significance of its own,
and every word is chosen with punctiliousness, in order to transmit a certain specific
message. Similarly, there can be nothing redundant, duplicative, or extraneous in the biblical
narrative.[10]
In Malbims introduction to Vayikra,[11] Malbim counts six hundred and thirteen principles
of linguistics, many of which deal with the distinctions between ostensible synonyms. Malbim
dedicates so much time to this topic partly because of his great desire to strengthen the study
of peshat among Orthodox Jews, but mainly, it is polemic directed against the interpretations
of the Maskilim. During his time, the Maskilim began developing a literary relationship to the
Torah, similar to the relationship of the local culture to classical Greek literature, an approach
which extinguishes the holiness of the Torah.[12] Expressing the antithesis of this approach,
Malbim works hard to prove that the Torah is not literature; rather, it was written in holiness,
with utmost precision in the composition of every jot and tittle.

Examples
We will demonstrate this with Malbims analysis of synonymous parallelism
in his comments on Yaakovs words to Shimon and Levi: Cursed be their
anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel! (Bereishit 49:7). The
classic approach sees this as direct parallelism, with the initial word, Cursed,
serving both hemistiches:
A: Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce,
B: And [cursed be] their wrath, for it is cruel!

If their anger parallels their wrath; fierce parallels cruel, and the
second hemistich adds nothing to the first.
Malbim, on the other hand, explains that wrath and anger are not
equivalent:[13]
There is a difference between anger and wrath, for anger is what one
feels towards one who has sinned against him, and wrath is the
expression of ones fury toward another who did not sin against him,
until it crosses a line. Towards Shekhem ben Chamor, there was anger
expressed, but towards the rest of the citizens of Shekhem, there was
wrath expressed.[14]

Malbim reads the verse very carefully, and his precise reading produced
many pleasing and felicitous comments. Thus, for example, Malbim claims
that one should differentiate between the term selicha(absolution) and other
expressions of forgiveness:
The definition of the verb to absolve is that one removes the sin from
reality totally, as if it had never existed in reality at all. This is its
distinction from other terms. For example, when he says, I have taken
away your sin (Zekharya 3:4), the sin has an independent existence,
[15] it is just being taken away from the person
Therefore, you will find the term selicha only in association with God,
not in terms of one persons relation to another. While a person may
take away sin or bear sin he cannot absolve, for this means that the
matter, in reality, is as if it had never existed at all. (Vayikra 4:26)

This interpretive approach has ramifications for resolving contradictions

inTanakh. Thus, for example in the Bilam narrative, at first God tells Bilam not
to join the officers of Moav, saying You shall not go with them (imahem)
(Bamidbar 22:12) while below God says, If the men have come to call you,
rise, go beside them (itam) (ibid. v. 20). Bilam indeed goes with the officers of
Moav, and God becomes angry (And Gods anger was kindled because he
was going, v. 22). The resulting difficulties have been addressed by many
biblical commentators.[16] Malbim distinguishes between imahem and itam:
There is a distinction between beside him and with him, for with
him indicates equality, while beside him will tell us that one is the
principal. Now, God let him know that he must not go with them
equally, but only beside them his mind must be separated from
their minds, because he was forbidden to go with the intent to harm
Israel. He does not do so, for he went with them.

Another nice example may be found in the words of Yosefs brothers to

themselves after their fathers death, Lu Yosef loathe us (Bereishit 50:15).
The difficulty in the verse is that it should have used the term pen (lest)
rather than lu (would), because lu is used when one wants something to
happen, while pen is for when one is concerned about some eventuality.
[17] Malbim has a nice comment here, explaining the use of the word lu:
I have already explained that the greatest revenge upon ones
enemy is if, in place of his enmity and the evil he dealt him, [the victim]
will make [the aggressor] one of those who eat at his table, doing him
only good and kindness, for then he will remember constantly the evil
which he has done

Now, Yosefs brothers felt this, and Yosefs good was in their eyes akin
to stoking the coals in their heads, and they said: Would it only be that
Yosef may loathe us certainly! Thus, would that he may return to us all
of the evil which we have dealt him. Let him do evil in practice, not
good, for that is to us like stabbing us with a sword.[18]

C. Commentary to the Halakhic Portions of the Torah

Characteristics
Malbims commentary on the halakhic part of the Torah is a magnum opus
in its own right; apparently, in his view, it is the central part of his commentary
on the Torah. A proof of this is the fact that Malbim begins the writing of his
commentary on the Torah with the Book of Vayikra, the content of which is
almost exclusively halakhic, and his commentary for Vayikra is significantly
longer than his commentaries on the other books of the Pentateuch.
Malbim expands on the significance of interpreting the Torahs halakhic
sections in his commentary on the Book of Vayikra. He explains that his
commentary was composed in order to counter his generations disrespect for
Oral Torah and the authority of the Sages.[19] This disrespect was a product
of the apparent lack of connection between the law of Oral Torah and the text
of the Written Torah; the links seemed forced, and the derivations did not
seem to be the natural products of the verses.[20] Because his
contemporaries found the Sages hermeneutics unconvincing, they concluded
that the Oral Torah was not binding.[21] Malbim writes his commentary in
order to fight these views,[22] which spread progressively through the second
half of the 19th century. His aim is to prove that the Sages exegesis is in fact
based upon the rules of language.[23]
For this purpose, Malbim formulates six hundred and thirteen linguistic
principles that the Sages carried with them when they analyze these verses.
(These rules are written individually in his work Ayelet Ha-shachar.[24])
According to his view, these rules were correct in the biblical era,
andTanakh was written according to them. The reason that the Maskilim
opposed these rules was, he maintained, out of ignorance.[25] They were
unfamiliar with these rules, and specifically the words of the Sages written
according to these principles. Ultimately, these derivations point towards
the peshat of the verse, unlike the words of the Maskilim, who did not
recognize the rules of language according to whichTanakh was written.

Aims of the Commentary

Malbims commentary deals with three areas in particular:

1. Explaining halakhic exegesis: in his commentary on the Torah, Malbim

cites the compendia of Tannaitic Midrash Mekhilta, Sifra, and Sifrei and
he explains these derivations at length.
2. Explaining the peshat of the verses: for this purpose, Malbim uses the
rules
of
biblical
linguistics,
formulated
in
his
introductions
to Yeshayahu and Vayikra.
3. Exploring the connection betweenpeshat and derash.[26] In light of this
link, Malbim gives his commentary the nameHa-Torah Ve-Ha-Mitzva.[27]

Examples of Halakhic Commentaries

The following examples are taken from halakhic passages, and they
demonstrate the essentials of Malbims interpretive approach and his
exegetical innovations.

1. The verse, Judge your comrade righteously (Vayikra 19:15), is

understood in the Sifra as Give every person the benefit of the doubt.
Malbim explains how this explanation of the Sages, which apparently has
nothing to do with thepeshat, is actually the depth of the simple meaning of
the verse:
An additional derash is based on the phrasing of Judge your comrade
righteously in the singular language, for there are always two litigants,
as it says, And you shall judge righteously between each man and his
brother (Devarim 1:16)
However, we can imagine justice limited to one person if another
examines his acts, along the lines of Judge me God, according to my
righteousness (Tehillim 7:9). Thus, this means that you should judge
your fellow favorably; you shall not see him as evil

In other words, a court case always involves two litigants, and therefore
the Sages expound that we are talking about judging the behavior of ones
fellow. Thus, upon each person is the obligation to give his fellow the benefit
of the doubt, to find him righteous.

2. Devarim 23:25 says:

When you enter your neighbors vineyard, then you may eat grapes
until you are fully satisfied, but in your vessel you may not put any.

The simple meaning of the verse is apparently that whenever a person

enters his fellows vineyard, he may eat some grapes, as long as he does not
store it in a vessel. But the Sages understand (seeBava Metzia 87b and
Rashis comment on the verse) that this verse is speaking only about a
person working in a vineyard a laborer is allowed in to eat in the vineyard
while he picks grapes, but it is forbidden for him to store any in a vessel.
Malbim sets out to prove that the derush of the Sages which determines that
we are talking about a laborer doing his job is in fact the depth of the simple
meaning of the verse.
He distinguishes between two forms of commands in the Torah. The first is
when the verb appears, followed by the object (e.g. You shall not curse the
deaf, Vayikra19:14); the second is when the object appears first, and then the
verb (e.g. The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not
reveal, ibid. 18:15). When the verb appears first, the Torah is presenting an
absolute prohibition, even if the given object in the verse is not at issue (e.g.,
You shall not curse the deaf is actually a general prohibition against cursing
anyone, even those who cannot hear). When the object appears first, the
Torah forbids only in a situation in which the object which appears in the verse
is at issue (e.g. The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not reveal
the prohibition applies only to ones daughter-in-law). In other words, when
the object appears first, it defines the command.
According to this rule, the verse should read, When you enter your
neighbors vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but
you may not put any in your vessel. Then there would be total opposition
between you may eat and you may not put it is permitted to eat the
grapes, but it is forbidden to put them in vessels. However, in the form in
which the verse is written, When you enter your neighbors vineyard, then
you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but in your vessel you may not
put any, the definition of the prohibition is determined by in your vessel, and
the matter is apparently perplexing.
Malbim explains that if we understand that we are talking about a laborer,
whose main occupation is putting the owners produce in the owners vessels,
the verse may be understood: when the laborer does his job and puts produce
in the basket, it is allowed for him to eat, but concerning putting in vessels, it
is only permitted for him to put in the owners vessels and not his own
vessels.[28]

We will conclude with Malbims commentary on Devarim 30:1, and you

shall call them to mind among all the nations where Lord your God drives you
off; this comment explains the unique significance of the verb to drive off as
reflecting Gods love for the Nation of Israel, even at the time that He
punishes them:
The distinction between casting off and driving off is threefold:
a)

When one casts off, the object is flung far away from him;

b)

Through casting off, the object is ruined;

c)

One demonstrates that one does not care where the object lands.

However, one who drives off, as long as he drives off, he must be close
to the object, and through driving it off, it will not be ruined, and he will
know where it is
This is testimony and evidence that Gods eyes are upon you solely to do good for
you.

[1] This book was greatly appreciated by the Chafetz Chayim, and its rulings are mentioned
inMishna Berura more than a hundred times. It was first printed in 1837.
[2] In Bucharest, Malbim established an association for the dissemination of the Hebrew
language.
[3] In the Hebrew periodical Ha-Levanon (17 March 1865), Malbim describes his
imprisonment:
It was the eve of the Shabbat on which we read Remember what Amalek did to you
(Devarim 25:17) when the agents of the police came, by the order of the minister
They surrounded my house on every side and they took me by force and cast me
into the wagon and the cage which they brought, and the entire battalion, all the
police captains and the guards, the armed men and the patrolmen and the cooks and
their servants and their dogs, surrounded the cage on every side. It was treatment
normally accorded to one of the thieves or the murderers who are infamous and
notorious throughout the land.
In the continuation, Malbim indicts the Jews who brought this about:
This was by the hand of adversaries from among our own people; they were the ones
who destroyed our Temple and sold their own brothers into the hands of their
adversaries, who shunned them
[4] There he met the heads of the Alliance Isra?lite Universelle, an international organization
founded in 1860 by the French statesman Adolphe Cr?mieux in order to safeguard the
human rights of Jews around the world.
[5] In the year 1879, a number of congregations in New York invited him to come to the United
States and to serve as the chief rabbi of the country, but he rejected this proposal.
[6] In 2000, Yisroel Meir Gabbai, founder of Agudas Ohalei Tzadikim, dedicated to maintaining
Jewish graves and cemeteries in the Diaspora, attempted to find Malbims grave in Kiev. R.
Gabbai found his headstone, but beneath it was bedrock, indicating that the ground

beneath had never been excavated. R. Gabbai hypothesized that the Jewish community
buried Malbim in one place and put the headstone in another place, out of the concern that
those who opposed him would violate his grave; thus, the exact location of his grave in the
cemetery is unknown.
[7] Abarbanel is very well-regarded by Malbim; the latter calls the former the knight-errant of
exegesis, our noble teacher, R. Yitzchak Abarbanel (commentary on II Shemuel 24).
[8] Malbim began his biblical commentary with the Book of Esther (1844), and afterwards he
moved on to the Book of Yeshayahu (1849).
[9] These are his words:
I have now taken out, in the light of the sun, this commentary on Yeshayahus vision
(Yeshayahu, ch. 1), and I will bring out other parts of this sort It follows, in the
general and the specific, the pathways ofpeshat, which have been paved by many
It does not travel down the pathways ofderush; it does dig deeply with the shovel of
criticism You will find it neither derush nor criticism, neither secret nor allusion, only
the simple peshat
[10]

This is what he writes in the introduction to the Book of Yeshayahu:

In the parables of the prophets, there is no repetition of the matter in different words
neither the matter itself, nor the statement, nor the parable There cannot be
found in the parables of the prophets or in their statements nouns or verbs left out
by happenstance The parables of the prophets cannot be found to be empty
shells for the utterances of the Living God are they all; the Living God is in their
midst, the spirit of life in their nostrils

[11] We will look at this introduction at length below.

[12] Concerning this phenomenon, Malbim relates in his introduction to the Book of Vayikra:
There is a time to act for God (Tehillim119:126), a time to act for the Written Torah
For this evil congregation has likened it to one of the stories of primitive peoples, and
its poems and its parables they have equated to that of the emir and of the Greeks.
[13] The assumption of Malbim, assigning significance to every word and every expression,
does not necessarily mean that we cannot apply a word which appears in the first
hemistich to the second; it merely means that we must reject the idea that there is no
significant distinction between the hemistiches.
[14] In his commentary on this verse, Malbim applies an exegetical principle which he sets
down in his introduction to the Book ofYeshayahu:
Know that this is a great principle and a basic tenet: the parable will always proceed
conceptually from the light to the heavy, from the small to the great, from the few to
the many, and not in the opposite direction. Any place which appears that it will be
found in Holy Writ two words or equivalent issues, the second must necessarily add
something to the first
Now, should you find a source in Tanakh in which the second word or sentence
appears to be lighter or smaller than the first, know certainly that you have not
understood the explanation of these verses fundamentally.
Indeed, all of the linguists have mentioned this, but they have not kept to it and they
have not used it; according to them, this is rule which holds true in most cases, but
not in all of them. However, I say that we will not find in any place an exception to this
rule
Indeed, we may rely on this for the purpose of distinguishing synonyms, for every
later word we know certainly to include more than that which precedes it
[15] It continues to exist on its own.
[16] See the Rambans commentary and Akeidat Yitzchak.

[17] In Modern Hebrew, a similar distinction exists between chance (sikkui) and worry
(chashash): there may be a sikkui of a good outcome, but there is a chashash of a bad
outcome.
[18] See Bekhor Shors commentary on this verse.
[19] As Malbim puts it:
They denied it, and they said that it is not so. They have mocked the Sages, and
[deniers] have said that [the Sages] did not know the simple meaning of the verses
and were unfamiliar with the specifics of language It has been in their eyes a
source of derision and laughter all through the day.
[20]

In his language:
This matter is yet another step beyond, exceeding all ideas of the most shocking
audacity! Our coreligionists, who breach everything, have arrogated for themselves a
new vision and failed. From them have emerged the Karaites and the deniers who
have shattered the yokes and who burst the bonds. They have corrupted the mighty
ones, the nation of holy people.

[21] This is what he writes:

However, when we investigate the verses themselves and we pay attention to the
paths which they took in deriving many laws from the verses, we discover that the
roads have moved and all traces have vanished. In most cases, it seems that we find
that not only does the simple meaning of the verse not compellingly lead to
the derushwhich is derived from them; moreover, we find the opposite: the depth of
the peshatcontradicts the derush and opposes it. In the majority of instances, it
seems that they have hung the shields of the mighty upon spider webs. Great and
consequential laws are supported by a single word or a single letter, and despite
massive toil expended, one cannot comprehend or find the way that this word or letter
proves to be so compelling
[22] Malbim puts this quite poetically, playing the Hebrews off the blind (both of which are
pronounced ivrim, but which are spelled differently):
The Hebrews will see/ That diamonds flow free
Ten times over with glee/ While the blind must fearful be
For there are weapons and engines of war
Where the wolves of evening and the mixed multitude roar
Against every heretic and denier
Every critic and defier
Against all who to uproot and deracinate aspire
Who deny the essence, who doubt or investigations require
Their mouths will be shut, alongside every liar.
[23] As he defines it:
for all the words of the Oral Torah are compelling, engrained in the peshat of the
verse and in the depth of the language.
[24] He justifies his choice of this name for his composition, Ayelet Hashachar (Morningstar orBreaking Dawn), writing that just as daybreak disperses the dark,
his work aims to do the same:
They are the six hundred and thirteen lights which illuminate and glitter and shine like
the stars of light upon the face of the heavenly firmament, and they will enlighten all
dark place and cast aside the gloom in the lands of the living (artzot ha-chayim)
[25] In his words:
There is wisdom, the boors must see

Though it be hidden in mystery

From the eye of every grammarian
Every researcher and critical utilitarian.
All of those in language reputed wise
You shall not to the ankles of the first generation rise
And if the latter ones walk in the dark
The former ones are nigh to the angels mark.
Holy officers is the rank they achieve
By the holy spirit they perceive
By them alone is wisdom amassed
Among them no foreigner has passed.
[26] Malbim formulates it this way:
On the third side, the center crossbar which extend[s] from end to end
(Shemot26:28) connects the writ and the tradition with loops, and the tabernacle will
be one (ibid. v. 6). This explains the words of the Sages and their enigmas, the
words of our rabbis in their tradition on the basis of the fundamentals of language
And all the words of the tradition and the Oral Torah are explained in Writ and
maintained in the depth of peshat and parable
For the derush is the simple peshat, and all the words of the Sages are compelling,
engrained in the depth of language and the fundamentals of the Hebrew language.
[27] In the language of Malbim:
It is upon the reader to connect the Torah and commandments with clasps, to connect
the explanation of the Torah (Holy Writ) andmitzva (the teaching of the Sifra) one
opposite another, each will cleave to his brother, come together, and not be separate,
and the tabernacle will be one.
[28]

These are his words:

We may begin with one rule: every place in the Torah where it says not to do
something and includes a detail, if there is an aspect in which it is forbidden even
without this detail, the You shall not will be mentioned first and only afterwards the
detail.
Consider this (Vayikra 19:11): You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall
not lie each man to his comrade even though it says each man to his comrade,
stealing, falsehood and lying are inappropriate in all circumstances, so first we have
the act, and then the detail. Similarly (ibid. vv. 13-18), You shall not oppress your
fellow; You shall not curse the deaf; You shall not corrupt justice; You shall not go
around as a slanderer among your people; You shall not stand upon your fellows
blood; You shall not hate your brother in your heart; You shall not take vengeance
or bear a grudge against your own countrymen. However, when without this detail
there is no reason to forbid the act, such as the forbidden sexual relationships, it
always mentions the detail and afterwards the act
It turns out, according to this rule, that after it says that he will eat as much as he
wants, it should have been stated, but you may not put any in your vessel, for when
it says but you may not put any there is an aspect to forbid regardless, for putting is
the opposite of eating. Thus, we have proven that the verse must be talking about a
laborer, for the sole occupation of the laborer is to put produce into the owners
vessels.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock

*********************************************************
Dedicated by the Wise and Etshalom families
in memory of Rabbi Aaron M. Wise, whose yahrzeit is 21 Tamuz.
Y'hi Zikhro Barukh.

*********************************************************
In memory of our beloved father and grandfather,
Fred Stone, Ya'acov Ben Yitzchak,
whose yahrzeit will be Sunday 25 Tammuz, July 15th.
Ellen, Stanley, Jacob Chaya, Zack, Yael, Ezra, Yoni, Eliana, and Gabi Stone.
*********************************************************
Lecture #28:
The Netziv
A.

Biography

R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (1816-1893) hereinafter, the Netziv (literally, pillar or
governor) was born in the Russian Empire, in Mir, Belarus, to an educated, scholarly
family. His father, Yaakov, was a merchant and Torah scholar, and his mother was descended
from R. Meir Eisenstadt.[1]
At the age of thirteen, he married the daughter of R. Yitzchak of Volozhin (Reb
Itchele), the son of R. Chayim, the founder of the Volozhin Yeshiva. When he married, the
Netziv moved with his bride to the city of Volozhin.
After R. Chayim died, his son R. Yitzchak took over the yeshiva, and when R.
Yitzchak died in the year 1851, his son-in-law and nephew, R. Eliezer Yitzchak Fried, inherited
his position. R. Eliezer Yitzchak did not last long in this position; a few years later, in 1854, he
passed away. The Netziv was then appointed to be the Rosh Yeshiva, and the Netziv held on
to this position for close to forty years. In the year 1866, after his first wife died, he married his
niece.[2]
Under the Netzivs leadership, the Volozhin Yeshiva became resoundingly successful,
and it was famed far and wide. The students came to the yeshiva from the farthest reaches of
Europe, and the number of students in the yeshiva reached a height of four hundred. The
Volozhin Yeshiva recruited elite students who could study Talmud and Tosafot on their own
and were ready to apply themselves in long hours of study. The graduates of the yeshiva
during the Netzivs tenure eventually became the shapers of Orthodox Judaism throughout
the world at the end of the 19th century. This elite group included, among others, R. Avraham
Yitzchak Ha-Kohen Kook, R. Shimon Shkop, R. Isser Zalman Meltzer (author of Even HaAzel), R. Barukh Ha-Levi Epstein (author of Torah Temima), and many other notable figures.
While the Volozhin Yeshiva enjoyed great success, it also underwent more than a few
crises. Foremost among them was the Russian governments demand that the administration
integrate secular Russian studies in the curriculum the yeshiva. This issue was raised
repeatedly, with increasing intensity. Although the Netziv initially accommodated these
demands, in the year 1892, the yeshiva was asked to implement far-reaching changes:
[3] now the yeshiva would be require to dedicate most of its time to secular studies, and
religious studies would only occupy a few hours at the end of the day. Otherwise, the yeshiva
would be shuttered. In the end, with great pain, the Netziv decided to close Volozhin Yeshiva.
With the closing of the yeshiva, the Netziv resolved to makealiya, but his health failed, and in
the year 1893, he died in the city of Warsaw.

The Netzivs scholarliness was expressed in his various compositions, which showed
him to be a master of all disciplines of Torah study. He wrote Birkat Ha-Netziv on
the Mekhilta, Emek Ha-Netziv on the Sifrei, and a composition on the Babylonian Talmud
calledMeromei Sadeh. In addition, he wrote a commentary on R. Achai
Gaons Sheiltot called Haamek Sheala (the name comes from the verse, Yeshayahu 7:11),
andHaamek Davar on the Torah, with addenda in a commentary called Harchev Davar. The
Netziv dealt not only with theoretical study, but also with teaching practical Halakha. The
Netzivs responses to those who turned to him may be found in his responsa.
Aside from his scholarly activity, at the end of his life, the Netziv joined the Hovevei
Zion movement. He became an ardent supporter of the Zionist movement, advocating for the
Jewish settlement of what was then Ottoman Palestine. [4] He even would put out charity
boxes on Yom Kippur eve to gather contributions for the settlers. This was at a time when
many Orthodox rabbis (R. S.R. Hirsch among them) shunned the Zionist movement; some
even opposed the movement in a public way, out of concern for the negative influence of the
movements membership, which included a significant number of people associated with the
Haskalah.
The Netziv contributed to the development of Torah study in the yeshiva setting in a
number of ways. First, while most yeshivot of the time studied primarily the Babylonian
Talmud, the Netziv devoted a place of honor to the in-depth study of Midrashic and Geonic
literature, which had been almost totally banished from the bookshelves of yeshivot before the
Netziv. HisHaamek Sheala is an analytical composition of R. Achais Sheiltot, and the Netziv
was the first to analyze Geonic literature systematically.
The Netziv also continued to develop the methodology introduced by the Gra, a
method of comparing and emending texts in order to allow for a basic understanding of
primary sources. However, it appears that the Netzivs most sweeping and seminal innovation
was to move biblical study to the center of the yeshivas focus. While
contemporary yeshivotavoided studying Tanakh, apparently due to the increased interest of
the Maskilim in biblical studies, the Netziv stressed for his students the importance of studying
Holy Writ. The Netziv himself gave a daily shiur in the weekly Torah portion, and these
lessons constituted the basis of his masterwork of biblical exegesis, Haamek Davar.
B.

The Aim of the Commentary

In Kidmat Ha-Emek (his introduction to HaamekSheala, Part II), the Netziv relates to
the importance of biblical study. In the period of the Netziv, as we have said, the study
of Tanakh was seen as not particularly exigent. Thus, the Netziv sets out to explain why the
study of Tanakh is in fact important, beginning by citingMidrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 11:
R. Shimon ben Lakish says: Just as a bride adorns herself with twenty-four
adornments, so a Torah scholar must be diligent in twenty-four books
The bride, aside from the essence of her dowry and the conditions of her marriage,
comes to her nuptial home expending all effort to find favor in the eyes of her
husband and all who are happy with her.
This is the condition of the Torah scholar, that aside from the body of laws which he
studies in order to perform them, which brings him to the level of the Torah scholar,
he still must adorn himself with traits and ethics and wisdoms alluded to in the twentyfour books of Holy Writ, to find favor in the eyes of God and man.
Thus, he makes his way straight and pure, following the path of good manners, loving
people and maintaining their honor. He seeks out their desire and their good and their
peace, and the name of Heaven is sanctified by him.
The Netziv reaches the conclusion that the study of the Written Torah has two facets,
and a Torah scholar must deal with both of them:

From our words we have learnt that the Written Torah may be expounded in two
ways: one way, for the topic at hand, to study every jot and tittle until we reach the
point of the law or the depth of the story
In other words, one aim of studying the Written Torah in detail is the basic
understanding of Halakha and the story being told. However, there is also an additional facet
the derivation of wisdom and morality from the Torah - and every sage must interpret the
verses and learn from them according to the needs of his generation:
Another way is to derive, via an exacting reading of the language, wisdom and
knowledge which diverges from the topic under discussion
The sage has to know the time and its issues in order to accommodate himself to that
which is good and moral, according to his wisdom.
In other words, a Torah scholar is required to learn ethics from the Torah according to
the needs of his generation, beyond the basic intent of the verse.
C.

Style and Target Audience

As we have said, the basis of this commentary is the series of lectures given by the
Netziv on the weekly Torah portion in Volozhin Yeshiva. The style of the commentary is not
simplistic at all. The point of departure for his commentary is that his students are experts in
the sources of Oral Torah and well acquainted with the passages under discussion. The
Netziv uses a great number of expressions borrowed from the Gemaras language, and he
makes numerous references to the literature of the Rishonim and theAcharonim.[5]
The style of the commentary, its contents and themes, testify to the fact that the
commentary is designed mainly for Torah scholars. Similarly, in keeping with the aims of the
commentary, it is designated in particularly for his contemporaries, their problems and needs.
Therefore, while the thoughts of the Netziv are nice even not in their time, in order to get to
the depth of his commentaries, one should expend effort to understand the background of
their writing.
D.

Relationship between Written and Oral Torah

In his commentary on the Torah, the Netziv stresses the compelling connection
between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Netzivs expansive exploration of this topic
appears to be an attempt to contend with the disrespect of the Maskilim towards the Oral
Torah, who saw it as a human creation that often contradicts the Written Torah. It is worth
noting that more than a few of the yeshiva students struggled between traditional Judaism
and the Haskalah movement.[6] In order to produce and strengthen the status of the Oral
Torah among his students, the Netziv posits a view of the Written Torah according to which it
does not contradict the Oral Torah.[7]
An example of this may be seen in his commentary to Shemot 21:20, When a man
strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall
surely be avenged. The Netziv asks the following question on this verse:
According to tradition, this comes to teach us that one who kills his slave must be put
to death by sword, like any murderer. If so, what is to be derived from with a rod?
Also he shall surely be avenged, aside from the Sages commentary, has an
additional intent.
The Netziv begins by addressing the apparent contradiction between the Oral Torah,
which sees this verse as the source for the law of killing ones slave in a general way, and
the peshat of the verse, which talks about striking him or her with a rod. Similarly, the Netziv
wants to understand the peshat of the words he shall surely be avenged without the
commentary of the Sages, who use textual analogy to derive that the punishment for
homicide is decapitation by sword (Mekhilta, Mishpatim 7).

The Netziv explains the verse through a peshatinterpretation that does not contradict
the Sages hermeneutics:
This indicates that if he hits him with a rod and he dies, then aside from the
punishment of murder, that one is liable to receive the death penalty as per the
Sages tradition, this sin is compounded by exceptional cruelty. It is much worse than
if he kills him with a sword and the like, for with a rod he extinguishes his life with
great suffering, over a number of hours. Therefore, he shall surely be avenged
from the heavens.
In other words, someone who kills his slave is liable to be put to death by the sword,
as the Sages expound; but in addition to this, someone who is killed in an torturous manner
(because killing with a rod is a slow, cruel death, as the rod is not designed for killing), incurs
an additional punishment from the heavens: he shall surely be avenged.
E.

The Ethical Imperative

As we said above, the second aspect of studying Torah is finding contemporary

wisdom, ethics, and good traits in it. There are a number of ethical topics that the Netziv
stresses explicitly a number of times; apparently, he believes that there is a need for his
contemporaries to address and improve in these areas. In the Netzivs introduction to his
commentary on the Torah, he relates at length to the central reason that led to the destruction
of the Second Temple, baseless hatred. The Netziv explains that although there were great
Torah scholars in the era of the destruction, they were not as morally impeccable as the
Patriarchs:
This was the praise of the Patriarchs: aside from their being righteous and saintly and
lovers of God to the greatest extent possible, they were also morally impeccable.
Indeed, they followed this model of behavior even with the nations of the world, even
the ugly idolaters; regardless, they regarded them with love and concern for their
welfare
This is all opposed to the Second Temple generation:
Because of the baseless hatred in their hearts, they suspected that anyone who
acted in a way not accordance with their own view of the fear of God was a Sadducee
and a heretic. This led them ultimately to bloodshed, by way of hyperbole, and to all
of the evils in the world.
It is difficult not to see here some deep criticism of the Netzivs contemporaries. It
may be that specifically in the Volozhin Yeshiva, the mother of allyeshivot, which put a great
emphasis on the toil and effort required to fulfill the mitzva of Torah study, the Rosh Yeshiva
was concerned that the students might indeed be wise and understanding, but they were not
moral in terms of their behavior and good manners. They might fight for truth, but at the price
of the honor of and love for the other. Therefore, he warned of a situation such as this. [8]
There are other possibilities as well. It may be that his words are based on the
negative attitude of many Orthodox national leaders towards the Zionist movement and the
members of the Haskalah.[9] Finally, it is possible that this relates to the fierce debate
between the Hasidim and their opponents. (Despite the Netzivs own opposition to the Hasidic
approach, as we shall see below, he avoided direct confrontation with the Hasidim.)
The Netziv relates to this once again in his explanation of the first verse of the priestly
blessing (Bamidbar 6:24), May God bless you and protect you:
For blessing needs[10] protection, so that it will not become an obstacle; one wellversed in Torah requires protection from arrogance, desecration of the Name and the
like

The fact that the Netziv spends so much time addressing the moral
behavior of Torah scholars testifies to the great ethical sensitivity of the Netziv
and his relationship to the actions of the yeshiva students and scholars of his
generation.
In this context, one may cite his words concerning the issue of the
dangers of religious zealotry, to which he relates more than once in his
commentary (apparently, on the basis of the difficult arguments ravaging the
Jewish People in his period, which we have mentioned above). Thus, for
example, in his comments on the vengeance which Shimon and Levi wreak
upon the citizens of the town of Shekhem, the Netziv criticizes the behavior of
the brothers:
Yaakovs two sons Two is superfluous but it comes to teach us that even
though they were united in their great fury to destroy a city in its entirety, and they
were united also to put themselves in great jeopardy, nevertheless, they were two. In
other words, they were of two minds in what ignited this fire.
One came with the human view of being zealous for the honor of his fathers house,
which may enflame one in this manner. However, this is a foreign fire, as is known.
The other comes with the view of being zealous for God, without any impetus and
inclination away from fire, the very flame of the God (Shir Ha-shirim 8:6). In any
case, from a fire such as this, one must also be very careful, to address the place and
the time
Yaakov Avinu explains in his rebuke the two views which were in this, but he did not
consent even to the sublime fire[11] (Haamek Davar,Bereishit 34:25)
Thus, the Netziv warns us about the dangers of religious zealotry. First, it may spring
from less-than-pure motives; in such a case, there is no mitzva in the endeavor, but rather a
sin. Even in a situation in which ones zealotry is based on pure motives, one must be very
careful about it. Therefore, the Torah distinguishes between Levi and Shimon (Yaakovs two
sons): Shimons motivation is personal, while Levis motivation is pure. Nevertheless, Levis
acts are just as dangerous, and therefore Yaakov rebukes him about this before his death.
F.

Anti-Hasidic Interpretations

A clear opposition to Hasidism is expressed in the commentary of the Netziv. He

relates many times to the concept of a foreign fire in Gods service; out of ones great
enthusiasm, there is a risk in this that it may ruin the normal standards of decency and
humanity. In his commentary on the foreign fire of Nadav and Avihu, the Netziv writes:
Because they entered in order to offer this fire out of the enthusiasm of Gods love,
the Torah says that even though Gods love is precious in Gods eyes, He does not
desire it in a way which He has not commanded. (Haamek Davar,Vayikra 10:1)
In other words, the service of God that is appropriate is the form in which the person
subordinates himself to Gods will and accepts upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of
heaven; he does not act out of internal pressure, but as a servant before his master.
As for the principle of foreign fire, the Netziv expands on it in a number of places.
For example, in his explanation of the sin of Korach and his assembly, he explains in a very
original way the distinction between the sin and punishment of Korach and his two hundred
fifty men on the one hand and the sin and punishment of Datan and Aviram on the other:
It appears that the two hundred and fifty men [12]were indeed greats of Israel in every
aspect, including in the fear of God. Their motivation was the priesthood, which is the

impetus of clinging to and loving God, like a fire burning in their midst. This was not
for the sake of imagined office and honor, but to become holy and to acquire this
great distinction by service. They also knew that the word of God was true as
transmitted by Moshes, and there was no cause to question it, God forbid. They only
thought, in their hearts, about the will of God, and they chose to surrender
themselves to death for Gods love, for love is as strong as death (Shir Hashirim 8:6)
This is called, Those who sin with their lives (Bamidbar 17:1): they sought to lose
their lives only in order to acquire the height of love and saintliness, which He,
Blessed be His Name, does not desire
Now, since they regardless intended to act for the name of heaven, on account of this
they were punished by the burning of the fire which came out of the Holy of Holies,
and there was in this a matter of honor (Haamek Davar, Bamidbar 16:1)
The two hundred and fifty men sinned in aspiring to excessive closeness to God,
despite the fact that they knew that they would die by doing so. In other words, giving oneself
over to closeness to God can be a sin, if it is done by contravening Gods command. The
danger which ambushes Gods servant is born of enthusiasm; by shrugging of the yoke of the
kingdom of heaven, one crosses the borders which the Torah defines.
It is clear that these words reflect the attitude of the Lithuanian yeshivot which
opposed the Hasidic movement. We should note that the Netziv, who teaches religious
tolerance, expresses the positive side of the enthusiasm of the two hundred and fifty men;
their unique punishment, he argues, is an expression of honor and respect.
Another anti-Hasidic allusion may be found inBamidbar 15:40:
So that you shall remember and perform all My commandments - This is the
remembrance for a person of distinction who is totally absorbed in loving God. The
verse commands him to make strings of sky-blue, which tell of the connection to lofty
thoughts; regardless, he must recall the performance of the mitzva in its time Then
his holiness will be truly Godly.
The Netziv here criticizes the men of distinction who are not punctilious about the
proper times for the performance of mitzvoth. Apparently, this is directed against those
Hasidim who were less than careful about prayer times and the like.
We may add in this connection the Netzivs attitude towards to holiness. The Netziv
stresses that there is no immanent holiness in man; sanctity emanates from mans behavior,
not mans nature.
Holy shall they be to their God This means separation from men for Gods name,
in every way by which the name of heaven may be sanctified; thus, they must excel in
good traits, modesty and the like, unlike those who separate themselves from other
people not for the sanctification of heavens name, but only out of superciliousness
and arrogance. (HaamekDavar, Vayikra 21:6)

It may be that his words are directed towards the rebbe phenomenon,
which became more widespread in his generation. Alternatively, he may be
addressing certain students who thought highly of themselves because of
their supposedly great wisdom. To all of these, the Netziv turns and says: if
Israel does not sanctify God, it cannot be sanctified.
G.

Original Interpretations

The Netziv has many innovative commentaries, and we will note some
of them:
1) Concerning the Levites, the Torah commands in Parashat Bamidbar,
And they shall not come when the sanctuary is being swallowed (ke-valla),
lest they die (Bamidbar4:20). Every exegete has attempted to explain this
verse, particularly the word ke-valla.[13]The Netziv explains this in a very
sharp and simple way:
Ke-valla this means in the blink of an eye; as in eating, one who
swallows without chewing does not benefit from the eating, just a
moment of swallowing. Similarly, one who sees something which does
not satisfy the eye is referred to as swallowing, and the verse warns
that they [the Levites] should not look even when the sanctuary is
being swallowed.
In other words, the Levites are not allowed to look at the vessels of
the Mishkanwhen they are exposed, even for the shortest time of ke-valla.
2) The Netziv, like the Malbim, explains synonyms, precisely dissecting
in differentgrammatical forms and different prepositions. A good example of
this is the distinction betweenva-yikra el and va-yikra l-:
Pharaoh called to Moshe (el Moshe) and to Aharon (le-Aharon) it
does not say le-Moshe and le-Aharon and this is because calling has
two aspects, one of which is that other is not present, and he sends to
summon him. The second is that even if he is there, he calls him by
name to indicate geniality and all love and honor, and in this aspect, it
says el as with Va-yikra el Moshe.(HaamekDavar, Shemot 8:21)
In other words, va-yikra el is calling with affection or respect, while
va-yikra l- is summoning, inviting a person of lower social stature.
3) In the following example, the Netziv explains the parallelism of
wayward and rebellious in the verse (Devarim 21:18), If a man has a
wayward (sorer) and rebellious (moreh) son who does not obey his father and
mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him.
In the verse in the Book of Mishlei (1:8), Listen, my son, to your
fathers discipline (musar), and do not abandon your mothers teaching
(tora), the explanation is as follows. The father knows the way[14] to
teach his son Gods Torah, which is called discipline, and the mother
teaches by way of good manners and good custom, and this is the
mothers teaching. Thus, the son who does not listen to the fathers
discipline (musar) is called wayward (sorer) and one who does not
listen to the mothers voice is rebellious (moreh). The idea is that he
does not follow the way of the Torah or good manners.

4) We will conclude with the Netzivs commentary praising the settlers of

the Land of Israel, even those who do not study Torah:
The essential will of the Blessed One is that they should be dwelling in
Israel for the security of the Land of Israel that is, they should not
trade with those outside the land
This indicates that when a person does not study Torah himself, he
requires greater protection, and there is no place better protected than
the Land of Israel, the main residence of Israel.

He wrote a volume of responsa, Panim Meirot.

The Netzivs sister was married to R. Yechiel Michel Ha-levi Epstein, author of Arukh HaShulchan.
[3] Czar Alexander III (1845-1894) made these rules with the vision of one nationality, one
language, one religion, and one government throughout his empire. Throughout his rule
(beginning in 1881), he sought to do this by forcing the Russian language and Russian
education upon all of his subjects. On the basis of this reality, one may understand the
Netzivs interpretation of the sin of building the Tower of Bavel (in his comments
toBereishit 11:4, Come, let us build a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and we
shall make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed upon the surface of the entire land):
They thought that all cities would be close and subordinate to this city, in which they
built the tower, and the tower would allow them to see far off, across all of civilization,
so that they would not be spread out in another land
And we shall make a name for ourselves this refers to people who would watch
over things, those who would be appointed over others as military officers to punish
the transgressors
All of this was due to the concern of lest we be dispersed upon the surface of the
entire land
Now, whoever would turn from the common speech (ibid. v. 1) among them, his
penalty was to be incinerated, as they did to Avraham Avinu. It turns out that this
common speech was for them an obstacle, for they decided to kill anyone who
thought differently
The Netziv presents a totalitarian society, akin to the Russian government which he was all
too familiar with: a society which wants to build a tower in order to allow the observation and
strict control of people, compelling them to adopt a unified view. Such a society would
certainly be united, but necessarily it would lead to the elimination of anyone having the
temerity to defy it.
[4] Kibbutz Ein Ha-Netziv was named in his honor, in tribute to his Zionistic activities.
[5] In addition to his scholarly style, the Netziv uses many acronyms (although these
abbreviations may be the work of the publisher). Sometimes, one may find sentences written
almost completely in acronyms and bizarre permutations. Thus, in his commentary
toDevarim 22:7, we find:
Concerning sending

"
away the mother bird,

it is written
That there is reward in
"
this world

All the more so for

"
honoring ones father

"
and mother
[1]
[2]

Among the students who left the way of the yeshiva was the poet Chayim Nachman Bialik.
Aside from his famous creation Ha-Matmid, which describes yeshiva life, and additional
[6]

poems that explicitly deal with topics such as these, he hints to his theological struggles even
in such apparently innocent context as the nursery rhyme Nadneda.
The Mishna (Chagiga 2:1) writes:
Whoever reflects upon four things would have been better off had he not been born:
what is above and what is below, what is before and what is beyond
Bialik writes in Nadneda:
See, saw, see, saw
Up, down, down and up!
Whats up?
What's down?
Only me,
Me and you,
Two of us balanced
on the scales
In between the earth
and the skies.
[7] The Netziv relates to the relationship between the Written Torah and Oral Torah when he
analyzes the double mitzva of tefillin. In his view, the head tefillinsymbolize the Written Torah,
which is revealed to all the nations, while the hand tefillin symbolize the Oral Torah, which is
hidden from other peoples and unique to the Nation of Israel. He explains the significance of
the formulation, And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a frontlets between your
eyes (Shemot13:16):
Because of this, it is said in the head tefillin, and as frontlets between your eyes,
which means an adornment, and this is because the Written Torah, in which it says,
And all the nations of the land (Devarim 28:10). The handtefillin is so that the power
of the Oral Torah. According to this reason, the head tefillin is put before the
hand tefillin because it is like the sword, that the scabbard is an adornment only when
the sword is placed in it, but without the sword, there is no point of it at all even to be
adorned with it. This is not true of the sword, even without a scabbard; its aim is the
same, but it has no glory, for its bearers when it is unsheathed. Similarly, the point of
the Written Torah is only achieved when we believe in the Oral Torah and we know of
it if it was less or more, but without this it does not help at all
(Harchev Davar, Shemot 13:16)
[8] We may find evidence of conduct unbecoming Torah scholars in the memories of a student
in the Volozhin Yeshiva, the author Abba Balosher, who describes the opposition of the
students to the Netzivs desire to appoint his son, R. Chayim, to become Rosh Yeshiva after
his retirement, in the following way:
Every day and every hour, the Netziv would find anonymous messages, many written
with heavy hands, filled with words hard as sinew against him, and they caused him a
grievous injury. Like the frogs in Egypt, these letters arose and engulfed the Netziv
in his bedchamber and upon his bed, in the Holy Ark and his lectern, in his tallit bag,
among his bookshelves and in the pockets of his clothing there was no place clear
of them. This showed great cruelty (Abba Balosher, Bialik BeVolozhin, Moznayim4 [1935], pp. 123-124).
[9] We may find evidence of this in a letter he wrote to Hovevei Zion in the year 5649 (18881889):
I have been shocked to see how lies and hypocrisy have arisen, to devise evil
schemes against our brothers those who live in the colonies in our Holy Land
May God cut off all duplicitous lips (Tehillim12:3), for with duplicity they make the
mitzva of settling the land a sin, and they dissuade the many from performing
this mitzva. This is one of the ten things precluding repentance!(Iggerot
Tziyon [Jerusalem, 5683], 101).
[10] This means that one must be circumspect in receiving the good.
[11] See also his commentary to Bereishit 49:6-7.
[12] These are consumed by a heavenly fire, while the faction led by Datan and Aviram are
swallowed by the earth.
[13] For example, Rashi explains that the Levites must not look at the time when the vessels
are swallowed by their coverings, and the Rashbam explains that the Levites may not look
when the Mishkan is disassembled (swallow means to take apart and disassemble, as
inEikha 2:5, He has swallowed all of her palaces).

[14]

Apparently, this should say his way.

GREAT BIBLICAL EXEGETES

By Dr. Avigail Rock

*********************************************************
In memory of our beloved father and grandfather,
Fred Stone, Ya'acov Ben Yitzchak,
whose yahrzeit is Sunday 25 Tammuz, July 15th.
Ellen, Stanley, Jacob Chaya, Zack, Yael, Ezra, Yoni, Eliana, and Gabi Stone.
*********************************************************
Lecture #29:
Shadal
A.

Biography

R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) hereinafter, Shadal was born and lived
in Italy. His father, R. Chizkiya, was a carpenter and Torah scholar. [1] When he was four,
Shadal began studying the Pentateuch with his father, [2] while paying special attention to
the peshat of the verse, without relying on previous exegetes. His father saw to Shadals
academic and Torah studies.
Shadal was sent to a modern Talmud Torah, in which, in addition to religious subjects,
they studied sciences and languages, including German, Italian, French and Latin, languages
which in the future would prove very influential upon Shadals commentary.
In the year 1821, Shadal wrote an Italian translation of the Siddur. With the
publication of this translation, Shadal became well-known among the Jews of Italy.
Afterwards, Shadal published his poems[3] and his essays on biblical philology. In the year
1826, he married the daughter of his teacher, R. Raphael Baruch Segr. In the year 1829,
when the Rabbinic Seminary of Padua was opened, he was appointed as one of the first two
instructors upon the recommendation of Yashar,[4]and this began a new period of his life.
Shadal became one the dominant figures among Italian Jewry and one of the
founders of theWissenschaft des Judentums movement. Even though he was an observant
Jew, his critical method had a great influence upon the Haskalah movement. Shadal was
known as a linguist, a Hebraist, an exegete, a researcher of medieval literature, and a poet.
Dozens of his essays were published in various periodicals in his time. In the year 1831, he
finished writing his book Ohev Ger (Lover of the Sojourner) about Targum Onkelos, and he
even named his firstborn son Ohev-Ger.
Though he enjoyed great success in academic research and his impressive
intellectual achievements, Shadals personal life was full of pain. In the year 1841, his wife,
Bilha Bat-Sheva, died after long years of mental illness, during which Shadal tended to her.
Shadal then married his wifes sister, and she bore him two sons and one daughter;
one of the sons died at age seven. Some years after this, in 1851, his daughter Malka passed
away as well, at the age of eighteen. In the year 1854, his firstborn son Ohev-Ger, who was
also his favorite student, died at the age of 24. The death of his firstborn son shattered his

spirit, and over the next few years, his body deteriorated. He suffered from poverty [5] and
blindness, and he died in the year 1865.
B.

The Commentary

Source and Scope

Shadal comments mainly on the Torah and the books of Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu,
Yechezkel, Mishlei,and Iyov. The first edition of his commentary on the Torah was published
in the year 1847, as an addendum to the commentary of the Rambemam (R. Moshe ben
Menachem Mendelssohn) on the Torah, called Ha-Mishtadel. (The verb shadal in Aramaic
means to swing, and the reflexive, mishtadel, means to struggle or to insinuate
oneself).
Shadal himself did not write a complete commentary on the Torah; the Peirush
Shadal La-Torah, as it appears in print today, was the product of the editing of Shadals
students, around five years after his death. [6] The commentary was edited according to his
printed commentary, Ha-Mishtadel, his different essays, and the notes of his lectures in the
Rabbinic Seminary. On some issues, Shadal changed his view from that which was published
in Ha-Mishtadel. He stated in his lectures, in these cases, that this annuls what was said
in Ha-Mishtadel.[7]
Characteristics
Shadals comments point to his thorough knowledge of all of the twisting paths of
Jewish exegesis preceding him. Sometimes he quotes the commentaries of his predecessors
to agree with them, and sometimes to argue with them. [8] Shadals knowledge was not limited
to traditional Jewish exegesis; he was quite familiar with both Christian exegesis and biblical
criticism, and he quotes widely from them, sometimes to support them and sometimes to
express reservations. In his introduction to the Book of Yeshayahu, Shadal justifies the use of
Christian commentators, writing:
If sometimes I find in them a new interpretation which is justified on all sides, I do
not reject it; I accept it, and I write it in the name of its masters, because my only aim
is truth, and our faith, thank God, does not fear the truth. [9]
One of the unique qualities of Shadals commentary is the exegetical give-and-take
between him and his students quoted by him in his commentaries. [10] These debates reveal a
modest teacher, who shows love and regard for his students and their views; he is even ready
to reject his own view and accept the views of his students. See, for example, his words at the
end of his introduction to the Book ofYeshayahu:
Praise and glory also go to all of the beloved and pleasant students, who inclined
their ears attentively to the sound of my words. They came along with me into the
thick of it to seek the truth, and they helped me by their diligent study to bring the
truth out to the light and to devise innovations
An example of the debate among the students may be found in Shadals comments
on (Bereishit13:16), I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can
count the dust of the earth, your offspring will also be counted, in which he cites an
exegetical debate between three of his students in explaining the verse:
David Chazak said that it should be read as if was written in the simple conjugation:
one will count your offspring.[11] Eliezer Avraham Fava responded to him responded
that if one can count the dust of the earth should be understand as just as one
cannot count, and this will justify saying your offspring will also be counted in
other words, your offspring also cannot be counted. And Shabbetai Ancuna says if
one can count is an infinitive: Were it possible to count the dust of the earth, it would
be possible to count your offspring as well.

Interpretive Approach
In his introduction to his commentary of the Torah, Shadal lays out three principles of
biblical exegesis, and in his introduction to his commentary on the Book of Yeshayahu, he
determines additional rules. In this framework, we will bring some of his most prominent rules
for interpreting the Torah.
1. Grammar and linguistics this principle holds an important place in Shadals
commentary. Aside from his startling command of language in his commentary
onTanakh, Shadal uses his wide control of Semitic languages (Aramaic, Syriac,
Arabic). This knowledge helped him a great deal in his commentary on the Torah
and Neviim. Thus, for example, in his commentary on the changing of Sarais
name to Sara (Bereishit17:15), he writes that In Arabic, sarameans to have
many offspring. In other words, there is significance to the fact of adding the
letter heh to our matriarchs name, in keeping with the event which it alludes to that she will have biological offspring. [12]
Another example of the use of Semitic languages is to explain the difficult word
nedari in the Song of the Sea Your right hand, God, nedari in strength (Shemot 15:6).
Shadal writes:
It appears that root adar is cognate to azar in Hebrew and chadar in Syriac
(which means to surround and encircle), and thus it is similar to nezar in might
(Tehillim 65:7), and this is the source of the term adderet, a type of garb which
encircles the body, as well as addir. Ultimately it comes from nezar, and it is a
metaphor for strength, as in (Yeshayahu 45:5), I will strengthen you, though you
have not acknowledged me, aazerkha.
2.
Explaining the verses according to the reality in which they were
written[13] An example of applying this principle may be found in the commentary upon the
reward of the midwives, And he made houses for them (Shemot 1:21). Shadal explains that
midwives in the biblical era were generally women not blessed with their own families, and for
this reason they could work, which required leaving the house frequently. On the basis of this,
it is understood that the reward for the midwives is having families of their own.
Another example may be seen in his commentary about the meaning of the coat of
many colors which Yaakov gave to Yosef (Bereishit 37:3). He explains (according
to Bereishit Rabba 84:5) that the intent is for a garment which covers the entire body, even
hands and feet. The workers in the field wore short clothing, because it would be easier to
work in them; a long garment was the dress for men who did not work in the fields. Thus, it
became a status symbol. In other words, receiving the coat of many colors from Yaakov
symbolizes the fact that Yosef is emancipated from the family chores.
3.
Literary sensitivity according to Shadal, in order to understand the holy
poetry and the parables of the Torah and Neviim, the commentator must develop sensitivity
to poetry, and in his language, he must have a poetic soul. [14] Indeed, Shadal has an
incomparably poetic soul. This sensitivity is expressed in the commentary on the Torah and
the commentary onNeviim.
For example, he explains the psychological complexity of Yaakovs lengthy response
to seeing his sons coat, It is my sons coat. A fierce animal has devoured him. Yosef is
certainly torn to pieces (Bereishit 37:33). Shadal explains that the statement, Yosef is
certainly torn to pieces is not a pointless repetition of the statement, A fierce animal has
devoured him. They express the different stages of Yaakovs perception of the event:
At first, when he saw the coat, he said, It is my sons coat; afterwards, when he
contemplated the blood upon it and what they said about finding the coat, along with
the fact that Yosef still had not returned to his house, he considered in his heart, A
fierce animal has devoured him. When this last idea occurred to him, immediately his
mercies were aroused for his son, and he pictured in his imagination as if he saw

Yosef in the jaws of the animal, and then he called out bitterly, Yosef is certainly torn
to pieces! in other words: An unspeakably cruel fate has befallen my beloved son,
Yosef!
Many examples of his poetic soul may be found in his commentary on the Song of the
Sea (Shemot15:1-19), and we will cite a number of them. The Torah uses the singular in
Horse and its rider (ibid. v. 1), which Shadal explains in this way:
In the poetic parable, singular is better than plural, for the feeling is much stronger
because the readers thoughts flit among many topics. Consider, for example, Bring
justice to the orphan, plead the widows cause (Yeshayahu1:17). Were it said to
bring justice to the orphans and to plead the cause of widows, the parable would lose
a great deal of its power, as the readers thoughts would flit among many orphans
and widows. Now, all of them are gathered together into one orphan and one
widow
Another example is the use of Aramaic words in the Song of the Sea e.g., rama
in the above-mentioned verse, Horse and its rider He cast (rama) into the sea. Shadal
explains the use of Aramaic words in the Song of the Sea in the following way:
Similarly, many unique Aramaic words are used for poetic analogies, such as enosh
instead of adam [for human being]
This is because the poetic form loves to use words unfamiliar to the masses, as well
as ancient and bizarre words. (Similarly, in the Italian language, the poets choose for
themselves Latin words or words from Old Italian.) The very unfamiliarity with them
will add to them felicity and grace.
This literary sensitivity is displayed also in the legal sections of the Torah, not only in
its poetic sections. For example, in Parashat Mishpatim, Shadal identifies more than a few
instances of wordplay designed, in his view, as mnemonic devices. Thus, for example, we
have the following verse (Shemot 22:4), which uses the root of bet/vet-ayin-reish three times:
If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over (yaver), or lets his beast (beiro)
loose and it feeds (u-vier) in another mans field, he must pay the best of his field or
the best of his vineyard.
Shadal explains the verse using the concept of lashon nofel al lashon, alliteration
and paronomasia.
It uses beiro[15] for lashon ha-nofel al lashon and the sentences are stated in this
poetic way, so that it will make an impression in the masses memory.
An additional example of this may be found in the Shadals comments (ibid. 23:5) on
the prohibition of abandoning the fallen donkey of ones enemy, Forestall leaving (mei-azov)
him; you shall certainly help (azov taazov) him with it: This is lashon ha-nofel al lashonwith
oppositional meanings.
In other words, the meaning of mei-azov in the first part of the verse is to abandon,
while azov taazov means to help him to unload the burden.
4.
The significance of the cantillation marks Shadal attributes great
significance to the cantillation marks, and he stresses their role as reflecting interpretive
tradition; aside from this, he stresses that the tradition of cantillation marks dates from the first
days of the Second Temple, and therefore it is not binding. [16] Indeed, Shadal does not
hesitate to argue with the cantillation marks.
Thus, for example, the verse (Bereishit 8:11) tells us, And behold an olive leaf torn
off in its mouth. Should we read this: And behold a torn-off olive leaf was in its mouth or
And behold, an olive leaf was torn off in its mouth? Shadal chooses the first option,

indicating that the olive leaf was fresh and moist; however, he admits that this stands in
opposition to the cantillation marks, which put a pause in between olive leaf and torn off.
Original Interpretations of Shadal
Shadals commentary contains a wealth of original interpretations which point to his
straightforward intellect and clear thinking.
One example of this may be found in the verse, And she saw that he was good, and
she hid him for three months (Shemot 2:2). Biblical exegetes attempt to understand what
good refers to and to explain the link between the two hemistiches, And she saw that he
was good/ And she hid him.[17] Shadal explains in the following way:
To me, it appears to be simple, for we call an infant good when he is not crying and
bawling; if he had been bawling, it would not have been possible to hide him, for his
voice would have been heard from far off, but because he was good, she was able to
hide him.
C. Textual Considerations
In his relationship to the issue of biblical text, Shadal writes this:
The tenth principle is that the books of the Holy Writ were kept constantly in the midst
of Israel as a precious, beloved treasure, and no one ever set a hand against them to
falsify them, to add to them or to take away from them.
Despite this, it would have been impossible, after so many transmissions and so
much copying, not to have alternate versions, one of which is correct, emerging from
the hands of the author, and the other only the mistake of the copyist scribe. This was
more common in previous generations, when books were not bound together in
individual volumes
However, once they were written in Assyrian script, supreme caution and alacrity was
exercised by the sages and the entire nation in keeping the holy books. Thus, there
were only very few errors or alternative versions.
In other words, Shadal does not reject totally the possibility of textual errors. We find
this explicitly in his commentaries, particular in Neviim, but also in the Torah.
Thus, for example, we find some interesting comments on Yosefs interpretation of
the dreams of his fellow prisoners. The verse (Bereishit 40:19) states:
Yet within three days, Pharaoh shall lift up your head from off you and shall hang you
on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from off you.
The difficulty in the verse is that it is not clear why after the killing of the chief baker by
decapitation there would be a reason to hang him. Shadal notes that There are those who
say that the word from off you is a scribal error, which comes from the end of the verse, and
in the original version, it said, Pharaoh shall lift up your head, similar to what Yosef says
about the chief butler (v. 13).[18] This interpretation engendered opposition from Orthodox
Jews on the one hand; on the other hand, low biblical critics saw it as a proof to buttress to
their positions. Therefore, it appears to me that despite the fact that Shadal sets out this
interpretation in the name of those who say, there is room to speculate that he is talking
about his own view, but in order to avoid conflict, Shadal attributes this to those who say.
D. View of Halakhic Midrash
Shadals straightforward mind compels him to sometimes explain the halakhic verses
in opposition to the Sages hermeneutics, which often do not fit with thepeshat of the verse.
Naturally, like the Rashbam, Shadal does not intend to reject the halakhic authority of the

Sages and to determine that one should follow Halakha according to his commentaries and to
deviate from the Sages; according to him, halakha remains on one side and peshat on the
other. As to his approach to interpreting passages of biblical law, Shadal himself testifies:
I have not moved from explaining the verses according to the depth of their simple
meaning and many times against the ruled and accepted law and I have also
explained the reason for their takkana.
In other words, in his view, the Sages knew full well that halakhic midrash does not
follow the peshat of the verse; with this awareness, they used their legislative prerogative to
expound the verse as atakkana, an institution necessary for the proper order of society.
Therefore, Shadal is allowed to explain the verse according to the peshat, which is in fact the
original meaning of the verse.
An example of this may be found in his interpretation of the law of assault
(Shemot 21:18-19):
If men quarrel, and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die
but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the
other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the
injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is certainly healed.
The verse talks about bodily injury caused during a dispute between two men. One of
the combatants hits the other with a stone or fist, but the blow is not fatal, merely one which
requires recuperation. R. Yishmael explains in the Mekhilta that the phrase with his staff is
metaphorical:
With his staff in full health; this is one of the three matters that R. Yishmael
expounded in the Torah as an metaphor. (Mekhilta, Mishpatim, Nezikin 6)
Shadal, on the other hand explains with his staff following the peshat: if the injured
party is able to walk with the aid of a cane (with his staff) and afterwards dies, the attacker is
liable only for payments, for one may say that his death was the result of his negligence,
because he was not careful to refrain from exertion during his recuperation. Of the Sages
halakha, he writes, And this is stringency. Shadal apparently sees in the words of the Sages
a takkana, according to which the attacker will be cleared only if the victim will return to his
original strength and power. Shadal tries to explain the role of the Sages as institutors
of takkana, not as explicators of peshat.
Another example of Shadals view of explaining halakhic verses in opposition to the
Sages is his commentary on the law of the owner of the killer ox (Shemot 21:29-30):
If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but
has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and
the owner also must be put to death. However, if payment is demanded of him, he
may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.
The halakhic ruling is that the owner of the ox is not to be put to death by the court; he is
only liable to make restitution as the court will determine:
And the owner also must be put to death by the hands of heaven. You say by the
hands of the heaven, or perhaps it is by the hands of man? When it says, However, if
payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life, it mandates redemption for
those put to death by the hands of heaven.[19] (Mekhilta, ibid. 10)
Shadal, on the other hand, explains these verses following the peshat:
And the owner also must be put to death According to the peshat, he will be put
to death by the court, but the Torah allows taking payment, since he did not kill with

his hands; it left it in the hands of the judges to adjudicate based on the issue of the
person and the issue of the occurrence, whether it is most appropriate to execute him
or to allow him to save himself by payment, and how much the payment should be
In other words, the word if, according to Shadal, is explained in its regular meaning,
as giving a number of options to choose from: indeed, the basic law suggests putting the
owner to death, but sometimes, according to the judgment call of the court, it may rule that a
ransom payment is sufficient. Shadal apparently would explain that the fact that the normative
Halakha precludes putting the owner of the killer ox to death in a case such as this and
instead requires that he make restitution is yet another example of the Sages power and
prerogative of takkana.
E. The Humane Aspect
Together with the intellectual aspect, Shadals commentaries are suffused with a
humane aspect. Thus, for example, in his commentary to Shemot 12:44,But every slave that
is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him, Shadal explains the
requirement of circumcising a slave:

Circumcision of servants is the obligation of the master from Avraham

and on
Thereby, the level of the servant, which is a bit lower than that of his
master, is raised. Therefore, immediately after he is circumcised, he
may eat of the paschal offering like his master.
Now, towards the end of the Second Temple era, our traits were ruined
by the Herodian kings and Israel learned the ways of the non-Jews,
and particularly those of the aristocrats and patricians. They yearned to
emulate the Romans, and as we know, the Romans were cruel to their
slaves. Thus, a situation was created in Israel that masters did not
want to circumcise their servants so that [the servants] would not think
of themselves as Israelites and as human beings.
Then the Sages of Israel arose and decreed that whoever failed to
circumcise his servants could not partake of the paschal offering. Their
intent was, in my view, this: anyone who cannot regard his slaves as
human beings is not fit to be among those who celebrate the holiday of
liberation.
According to Shadal, the Torah is not a book of information and laws;
the essential aim of the Torah is the development of the empathy and ethics,
and the aim of many commandments is the development of the emotion of
compassion. For example, this is what he writes in his commentary
on Vayikra22:28, Do not slaughter a cow or a sheep and its young on the
same day:
The aim here is not to show actual compassion to the animals, but to
strengthen in in our hearts the attribute of mercy and to distance us
from cruelty.[20]
This thought is mentioned in his famous poem, Chelek Ke-Chelek
Yokhelu (Portion by Portion They Shall Eat):

Curse wisdom if slyness and plotting it inspires,

Teaching us guile and not letting righteousness soar!
I hope intelligence is lost forever and sagacity expires
If kindness and compassion be their casualties of war
No, for this reason intelligence and thought were granted
To see peace sown and kindness planted.

In Shadals introduction to the Book of Yeshayahu, he describes his father:

My master father, of blessed memory, who was a carpenter, never read Homer but
he readTanakh every day
In a number of places, Shadal quotes his fathers interpretations. For example, in his
commentary onBereishit 27:18, Shadal brings in the name of his father an interesting
interpretation, in which Shadals father distinguishes between Yaakovs words to Yitzchak and
Esavs words to Yitzchak in the episode of the blessings:
My master father, of righteous blessed memory, says that Yaakov when he came to
his father only said My father, and he waited to be asked who he was. Esav, on the
other hand, immediately when he came before him he explained to him why he came
and he did not wait for him to ask him who he was, for he immediately said, May my
father rise and eat (ibid. v. 31)
The reasoning of the matter is that Yaakov was afraid that Yitzchak would recognize
his voice, and in order to test the matter, he only said first, My father, and it was in
his mind that he might recognize his voice and would say to him: What is it, Yaakov
my son? Then he would have spoken to him of other matters and would not at all
have mentioned the matter of the blessings. This was not the case with Esav, who
was not afraid lest he be found to be a liar; he had no need for this, so he revealed
his desire immediately.
[2] Shadal began writing his innovative Torah interpretations at a young age. Indeed, in his
comments on the phrase, brother of Rivka, mother of Yaakov and Esav (Bereishit 28:5), he
notes that already in the year 5573, namely when he was thirteen, he was already writing
commentaries on the Torah.
[3] In the year 1825, he published a collection of poetry titled Kinnor Naim.
[4] R. Yitzchak Shemuel Reggio (1784-1855) was a rabbi, philosopher, academic researcher
of Jewish studies, biblical exegete and writer. He was one of the leaders of the Wissenschaft
des Judentums movement and one of the founders of the Rabbinic Seminary of Padua.
[5] Most of his money was spent on books.
[6] Indeed, Shadal writes in his introduction to the Book of Yeshayahu about economic
difficulties which delayed printing his commentaries:
Behold, my soul has pined greatly throughout these years to see my work publicized
in the world. Nevertheless, I will not be pained about the gates of its printing being
sealed before me. For I have seen that in my passing over it every three years with
new students, I am constantly correcting my mistakes and filling in the lacunae found
in my work, and in my mouth and my heart I would say: whatever is done from the
heavens is for the good.
[7] See, for example, his commentary on Bereishit18:19.
[8] In a certain way, Shadals commentary is similar to Abarbanels commentary in that the
two of them are accustomed to quote different interpretations in a critical way, in order to
arrive at the most correct interpretation.
[9] Shadal attributes great significance to the truth in a general manner. Among other things,
he composed the poem Ha-Emet Nissi (Truth Is My Banner), in which he describes his
readiness to seek the truth despite the insults and indignities he suffers. The sonnet goes
as follows:
Verity and straightness, heavens true word
To you, from youth until now, my troth I plight
I have set you up a stronghold from every fright
Drawing the bow, my loins I gird.
Against those who bend the knees, to falsehood deferred,
[1]

I have seen many, but I fought your fight.

I have despised deceit, I have loathed plots outright
On those who are clean of hand, I have honor conferred.
Therefore, hatred and burden began to sever
Between me and my dear ones; they thought me senseless and neurotic
They imagined me crazy and quixotic.
Black and beautiful, my mistress, until the grave
For you, the shame of man I brave
To be an adornment for verity, forever.
[10] In this way, there is a certain similarity to Tosafots commentary on the Talmud.
[11] One who can count the dust of the land can also count your seed.
[12] The Shadal also suggest an additional explanation for adding the heh:
Perhaps the heh, an indication of the feminine, is added to Avraham and Sara as
a sign of fecundity.
[13]
Shadal puts it this way:
The fifth principle is to leaver our own place and time and to bring ourselves into the
time of the writers and their place. This certainly is not feasible for us to do
completely, but a bit of this is possible and achievable. Above all, the exegete must
not intend to find favor in the eyes of his contemporaries, to acquire for himself praise
and honor, to find many buyers for his books, for this will bring him (even though he
has no intention of doing so and never stops loving truth) to subvert the words of the
ancients and to bring them closer to the customs of the latter ones.(Introduction to the
Book ofYeshayahu)
[14]
These are his words:
The eighth principle in holy poetry and prophetic analogies requires, aside from this,
that the exegete have a poetic soul, in a way that he will be prepared to go into the
internal workings of the thoughts of poets and prophets, to understand the things
which were not written but were in the thought of the poet. (Introduction to the Book
of Yeshayahu)
[15] This is a rarely-used term for ones livestock.
[16] So he says in his introduction to the Torah:
Indubitably, the notes and tones have exceedingly great significance at the time that
we come to explain the Holy Writ. Indeed, we see that the greats among the exegetes
oftentimes have relied on the view of the cantillation, and some of them have even
warned us explicitly not to veer from it
In truth, the view of the cantillation deserves our respect as well as our attention.
However, this does not make them infallible, and the biblical exegetes have not
forbidden us absolutely the option of taking issue with it.
[17] See, for example, the interpretations of the Ramban and Rashbam ad loc.
[18] An additional example of his textual approach appears in the commentary
to Bereishit 27:46, on the verse, And Rivka said to Yitzchak, I am disgusted (katzti) with my
life Shadal relates to the small letterkuf of the word katzti:
It appears to me that the custom of writers in days of yore, when a word would begin
with the same letter which appeared at the end of the previous word, they would
leave out one of these letters, and perhaps they would note that letter with some sign
to know that it stands in the place of two. After some time, they began to add in
between the two words the missing letter, and because it was narrow, they wrote it
small. Similarly, we find: Va-yikra el Moshe (Vayikra1:1).
Vayikra ends with the letter alef (written small), and the next word, el begins with an alef.
Similarly, katzti which begins with a kuf, follows Yitzchak, which ends with a kuf.
[19] The ransom payment is not an acceptable solution for those who are to be put to death by
human hands, i.e., the court.
[20] Similarly, see his words to Devarim 20:19, relating to the prohibition of destroying trees:
But I command you that you shall not cut it down, so that you shall make your soul
accustomed to the good trait, not to forget what was good to you.