the plain meaning of scripture and midrash halakhah · the plain meaning of scripture and midrash...

31
English Abstracts The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts through an array of hermeneutical tools, and not necessarily by virtue of seeking out the so-called “plain meaning.” It is true that they adduced the adage, “no verse may be explicated outside of its plain meaning,” yet they also said “a verse may have multiple meanings,” “seventy faces to the Torah,” and made other similar statements. The multivalent nature of the holy scriptures was recognized with regard to all genres of biblical literature: narrative, hortatory speech, poetry and prophecy (aggadic midrash) and in the interpretation of law and norms (halakhic midrash). Yet with regard to the final category mentioned, the normative field, a problem arises: which halakhah is it that is binding — that stated in the written Torah, according to its plain meaning, or that explicated in the oral Torah, by the Sages? The accepted answer is that it is the latter, and it is in accordance with this, that we fulfill the commandments. Yet, is it possible that the plain meaning of a verse will say something other than what the halakhah tells us, and perhaps even say something that conflicts with what the halakhah tells us? We categorize the answers that have been given to this question into four primary groups, and we attempt to delineate each of these briefly: 1) The eradication of the plain meaning of scripture when it does not accord with halakhah. It is inconceivable that the meaning of a scriptural verse could stand in dissonance with the accepted and normative halakhah; if one adduces such an explication, it must be rejected. The halakhah is truth, all else is falsehood. 2) The view that sees the derashah as a support, or as “an additional element.” It is precisely the plain meaning of scripture that is the true meaning of the verse, yet sometimes the rabbis applied their hermeneutical tools to it in order to provide a support for a pre-existing law, which is the binding halakhah. If possible, it is desirable to implement the halakhah as stated in the plain meaning of the verse, but there is no explicit mandate to do so. 3) The halakhah overrides the verse. In certain instances, not a few in number, it is impossible to carry out the verse according to its plain meaning, as it contravenes the received halakhah. Yet, as was explained by the Vilna Gaon,

Upload: others

Post on 13-Mar-2020

10 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

English Abstracts

The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah

Moshe Ahrend

It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts through an arrayof hermeneutical tools, and not necessarily by virtue of seeking out the so-called“plain meaning.” It is true that they adduced the adage, “no verse may beexplicated outside of its plain meaning,” yet they also said “a verse mayhave multiple meanings,” “seventy faces to the Torah,” and made other similarstatements. The multivalent nature of the holy scriptures was recognized withregard to all genres of biblical literature: narrative, hortatory speech, poetry andprophecy (aggadic midrash) and in the interpretation of law and norms (halakhicmidrash). Yet with regard to the final category mentioned, the normative field, aproblem arises: which halakhah is it that is binding — that stated in the writtenTorah, according to its plain meaning, or that explicated in the oral Torah, by theSages? The accepted answer is that it is the latter, and it is in accordance withthis, that we fulfill the commandments. Yet, is it possible that the plain meaningof a verse will say something other than what the halakhah tells us, and perhapseven say something that conflicts with what the halakhah tells us?

We categorize the answers that have been given to this question into fourprimary groups, and we attempt to delineate each of these briefly:

1) The eradication of the plain meaning of scripture when it does not accordwith halakhah. It is inconceivable that the meaning of a scriptural verse couldstand in dissonance with the accepted and normative halakhah; if one adducessuch an explication, it must be rejected. The halakhah is truth, all else is falsehood.

2) The view that sees the derashah as a support, or as “an additional element.”It is precisely the plain meaning of scripture that is the true meaning of the verse,yet sometimes the rabbis applied their hermeneutical tools to it in order to providea support for a pre-existing law, which is the binding halakhah. If possible, it isdesirable to implement the halakhah as stated in the plain meaning of the verse,but there is no explicit mandate to do so.

3) The halakhah overrides the verse. In certain instances, not a few in number,it is impossible to carry out the verse according to its plain meaning, as itcontravenes the received halakhah. Yet, as was explained by the Vilna Gaon,

Page 2: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSVIII

even in these instances, the plain meaning of the verse is to be considered the“seal of the Almighty,” which of course is true. Yet at the same time, however, itresults in the “inverse of the seal itself” (Job 38). Apparently, in any event, thereis a need to explicate the meanings of this truth, and its implications.

4) The derashot of the rabbis are themselves the simple meaning of scripture, inthe deepest sense. Biblical commentators of the modern period, such as R. Ya’akovZvi Mecklenburg, Malbim and R. Samson Raphael Hirsch all declared that thederashot of the rabbis in all cases affirmed the simple meaning of the verse,but maintained that this is evident only to one who endeavors to understand thesecrets of the language of scripture and its exegetical rules.

This last approach was already rejected by Nachmanides in the thirteenthcentury, in light of the fact that we find a verse cited from the Book ofDeuteronomy in the Book of Kings, where it is clearly understood to be atvariance with the rabbinic derashah associated with the verse.

Some Approaches to the Tension betweenPeshat and Midrash Halakhah

Meir (Martin) Lockshin

The differences between peshat, the plain or contextual meaning of biblical text,and Midrash Halakhah have troubled many traditionalist Jews over the centuries.Aside from the two most obvious theoretical solutions — the rejection of peshator the rejection of midrash halakhah — rabbinic readers of the Bible havedeveloped a number of more nuanced strategies for harmonizing these competingexegetical methods.

This paper analyzes three such approaches: (1) the yittur (or: “superfluity”)method, used by Rashi and Rashbam; (2) the asmachta method, popularized byRabbi Abraham ibn Ezra; and (3) the “Midrash Halakhah as legislation” methodadvocated by Rabbi Samuel David Luzzato.

Page 3: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS IX

Inner-Biblical Interpretation:The Story about the Gadites and the Reubenites

as a “Mirror-image Story”

Amnon Shapira

The parallels between the two stories of confrontation (in Numbers 32 and Joshua22), together with the reverse parallels, define the Joshua narrative as analogy.The salient theological point is Moses’ centrality as leader, and his authorityin his story of confrontation, as opposed to Joshua’s lack of leadership and thenation’s ascent to dominance in Joshua 22.

The first analogy reveals not only the (literary) awareness of the nationalcollective (which we identify as the human sovereignty), but also the successof the leadership that speaks for the collective, and its ability to resolve theconfrontation in a peaceful manner (as in the confrontation with Moses).

The second analogy refines the confrontation’s theological message evenfurther. Neither a single leader nor a chosen or representative group are fitting orproper to lead. The entire biblical nation of “the Children of Israel” is the rulingauthority, and they are the appropriate leadership.

An additional conclusion deriving from a literary analysis of the storiesin Numbers and Joshua is that the nature of the Children of Israel is more“anarchistic” than meets the eye. The various definitions of “anarchism” run aspectrum between the negation of a country’s established structure to a positiveaspect, which encourages voluntary organization and cooperation between peopleand groups. It can be stated that both poles of definition are to be found in theBible, in those events that attest to man’s reservations concerning human rule (thenegative side) due to his desire for the “Kingdom of God” (the positive aspect).

Those supporting this concept, such as Buber, will claim that there are signs inthe Bible that imply that the rule of man by other men is improper, and that thesovereign ruler is God. The practical ruling over a nation is in its autonomy as anation, and in its self-sovereignty. These conclusions are literary and rhetorical,and not historical.

Page 4: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSX

Targum Onkelos (TO) and Jewish Christian Polemic

Rafael B. Posen

The existence of a possible linkage between the Jewish Aramaic targumim and theNew Testament is held as a solid truth by various scholars, especially Christiantheologicans. This study challenges this assumption as far as TO is concerned.It offers a detailed analysis of thirteen examples of TO’s translations, provingthat each of them contains a hidden polemic against Christian ideas or Christianbiblical exegetics:a) Elohim (Gen. 1:1)b) Ruach Elohim (=The Spirit of God) (Gen. 1:2)c) Let us make man in our image (Gen. 1:26)d) Behold, the man has become like one of us (Gen. 3:22)e) Enoch (Gen. 5:22)f) The sons of God (Gen. 6:2)g) Melchiz’edek (Gen. 14:18)h) A star shall come forth out of Jacob (Num. 24:17); The best garments of

Esau (Gen. 27:15)i) Your brother came with guile (Gen. 27:35)j) And God saw everything that he has made, and behold, it was very good

(Gen. 1:31)k) [...] And he reckoned it to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6)l) Immersion (Ex. 19:10; Num. 8:8)m) He will live [...] in the future world (TO Lev. 18:5)

The Influence of the Book of Danielon the Biblical Exegesis of Talmudic Sages

Rebecca Raviv

The Book of Daniel is one of the biblical books closest to the conceptual worldof the talmudic Sages. It contains concepts that differentiate it from the other OldTestament books, among them: “resurrection of the dead,” “the four kingdoms,”

Page 5: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XI

and “acts of sanctification of the name of God.” This paper presents severalexamples of the influence of the Book of Daniel on talmudic Sages’ exegesis ofthe Bible.

The first part of the paper shows that the Book of Daniel plays a decisive rolein the development of several exegetical concepts, such as the “four kingdoms”and the “divine retinue.” The assimilation of these concepts into the Sages’exegesis was facilitated by the inclusion of the Book of Daniel in the HolyScriptures. In the wake of this inclusion, many biblical verses were interpreted asannouncing the future appearance of the four kingdoms and the activity of angelswas identified in various writings.

The second part of the paper suggests that the Book of Daniel also served asthe background for the creation of exegetical traditions for reconciling difficultiesin various midrashic writings. Two specific examples are presented. The firstdemonstrates that the Book of Daniel played a central role in engenderingthe legend depicting Abraham being thrown into a furnace. The second exampleshows how the Book of Daniel influenced the formation of the midrashic account,that Ahasuerus used utensils from the Holy Temple at his celebratory dinner. Inboth of these examples, generation of the exegetical traditions stemmed fromanalogies between verses in the Book of Daniel and elsewhere in the Bible. Thesetraditions helped the talmudic Sages find answers to various textual difficulties.During the process of developing these traditions, motifs present in the Book ofDaniel found their way into other stories. For instance, Abraham’s ordeal by firereplicates the motif of a Babylonian king flinging believers into a blazing furnace(Shadrach, Mesach and Abed-nego, as in Daniel 3); and the motif of Belshazzar’susing Temple utensils at a royal festivity (Daniel 5) is echoed in the story ofAhasuerus’ revelry at the beginning of the Scroll of Esther.

“The Opposite Happened” (Est. 9:1): Midrash on Megillat Esther

Isaac B. Gottlieb

This article examines the midrashic attitude toward Megillat Esther, a book ofthe Bible that is characterized by exaggeration. The Megillah is treated as theequivalent of the Torah; in one midrash, it was given to Moses on Sinai, in another,Mordechai is portrayed as the equal of Moses and Ezra is seen as lawgiver. This

Page 6: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXII

equivalency also guides the halakhic midrash, which derives several laws fromit. The vigorous advocacy on behalf of Esther turns a book whose canonicitywas problematic into “Torah.” Similar problems are found also in the case ofEcclesiastes and the Song of Songs, and these too receive special treatment in themidrash.

The Exegesis of the Book of Esther in Turbulent Times

Gabriel H. Cohn

The exegesis of biblical commentators is largely dependent on their historical,cultural and social environment, as Prof. Elazar Touitou shows in his variousworks. This essay attempts to illustrate how deeply Christian exegesis on theBook of Esther depends on the “Judgment and forejudgment” of changing times.

The attitude of Christian circles to the Book of Esther — especially in thefirst part of the nineteenth century — was extremely negative. The book heldlittle interest for Christianity, as the issues it dealt with were not theological (thename of God is not even mentioned in the Masoretic text of the book), but thenational fate of the Jewish people. Christian exegetes expressed their anti-Jewishsentiments in their commentaries. They considered the book to reflect Jewishhatred of non-Jews, as an expression of cruel hostility and national chauvinism.

From the mid-twentieth century, however, the attitude toward the book suddenlychanged. Almost all Christian exegetes accepted the determined struggle ofMordechai, Esther and the Jewish people against Haman’s dangerous plot andthe planned annihilation of the Jews. The aftermath of the Holocaust evidentlyled to an entirely new outlook on the Book of Esther.

The findings of the paper provide additional proof for the fact that biblicalexegesis over the centuries has largely been determined by the existentialexperience of the commentators.

Page 7: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XIII

“Train a lad in the way he ought to go; he will not swerve from it,even in old age” (Prov. 22:6)

Scripture, Aggada, and Interpretation

Hananel Mack

In spite of the great interest that Scripture takes in the process of education, theroot kh.n.ch (Í"Á) connotes education in only a single instance in the Bible.This is in the verse, “Train a lad in the way he ought to go; he will not swervefrom it, even in old age” (Prov. 22:6). Nearly all of the other appearances ofthis root in the Bible refer to the inauguration of a building. Even within therabbinical lexicon, and even in medieval times, it is rare to find this root usedwith reference to education. Within these bodies of literature, the root usuallyrefers to an individual’s assumption of a new role. Nor do any of the biblicalfigures who bear the name Chanoch (of whom there are four), seem in any wayto be associated with the process of education. The same may be said with regardto the pseudepigraphic work, Chanoch.

The added phrase, “by the mouth of his path” (Âί„ ÈÙ ÏÚ), is readily familiarfrom several biblical passages, and is normally taken to mean, “according to,”or, “in accord with.” It is with this meaning that the term is rendered in the versein question from Proverbs: “Train a lad in a manner that is appropriate for him,for his personality and his needs — he will not swerve from it, even in old age.”Teaching a lad in accordance with his needs is indeed sage advice, one that leadsto positive results. Alternatively, one may understand the phrase “according tohis way” as referring to his undesirable ways, “ways” that are punctuated bybad habits. According to this interpretation, the meaning of the verse is, “if youeducate a lad according to his ways, and do not rein him in during his youth —he will not swerve from it, even in old age.” Both of these options were raised inthe rabbinic exegesis to Scripture.

However, it is also possible to understand “according to his way,” as “at thebeginning of his way.” According to this understanding, the meaning of the verseis, “educate the lad as is fitting for the beginning of his way — even in old age,he will not swerve from it.” It is also possible to combine the two interpretations,as has been proposed by several commentators and translators.

There are some who saw within the verse “train a lad according to his path”a halakhically binding mandate. However, for the most part, the verse hasbeen taken as an instruction to the educator, and many aggadot illustrated the

Page 8: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXIV

instruction through biblical figures, and by reference to examples from the naturalworld of flora and fauna.

ÔÈ and „Î — From Biblical to Modern Hebrew

Shimon Sharvit

The words ÔÈ and „Î each occur three times in the Bible (in Genesis, Isaiah andJob), but always consecutively in the same verses, and always in the same order.The ancient translators and commentators present two different interpretations:1. ÔÈ = son, and „Î = grandson, in this order. 2. „ÎÂ ÔÈ = children, offspring,descendants. The modern biblical dictionaries and commentaries derive ÔÈ fromÔÂ (= fish, and hence: propagation), and some suggest „Î from „‚ (as in theSamaritan version to Genesis), nagd in Ethiopian (root, family), and ngd inEgyptian.

Some modern scholars suggest that these two words are an example of theso-called “hendiadys” = a pair of words that make one lexical entry and onesemantic unit, as Ì„Â ¯˘· ,Ìȯ·„ ÔÈ„ ,„ÒÁ ÔÁ. In medieval times, especially inpoetry, „ΠÔÈ are attested either (mostly) as a pair — in the biblical order andmeaning — or each of them separately: ÔÈ = a child, offspring; „Î = grandson. Inrabbinic literature from the twelfth century up to the beginning of the twentieth,we see this tendency: „Î denotes “grandson” and ÔÈ — “offspring.” The mostrecent step was taken in modern Hebrew, by using ÔÈ to denote “son of grandson.”

Fragments of Saadya’s Commentary to Isaiah

Yehuda Ratzaby

Ratzaby worked for many years on recreating the full text of R. Saadya Gaon’scommentary to the Book of Isaiah, on the basis of Geniza fragments. When thegates of the libraries of the former Soviet Union opened to scholars from aroundthe world, Ratzaby discovered previously unknown manuscripts of Saadya’s

Page 9: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XV

commentary to Isaiah. One of them is a complete manuscript, containing 225pages (Ms St. Petersburg, RNL Evr. Arab. II 697; IMHM f 59202).

The commentary is written in Saadya’s typical manner: each section openswith a translation into Arabic, followed by commentary. The commentary inthis manuscript is not continuous and consecutive. Rather, the scribe copied thesections before him, arranging them, generally speaking, in the order of thechapters.

From this manuscript, we publish here, for the first time, pages 57ay94, whichcontain Saadya’s commentary to chapters 21y24.

The Commentary of R. Isaac b. Samuel Al-Kanzion the Story of The Witch of ‘En Dor (1 Sam. 28)

Eliezer Schlossberg

R. Isaac b. Samuel Al-Kanzi, who was a dayyan in Fustat in the second half ofthe eleventh century and the early twelfth century, was one of the most importantbiblical interpreters in Egypt. Among his works was a compilatory commentaryon the Early Prophets. The remnants of this commentary are preserved in Ms.Arab. Heb. 3362 in the first Firkowitch Collection. From this manuscript I publishhere, for the first time with Hebrew translation, the part concerning the story ofThe Witch of ‘En Dor (1 Sam. 28).

As mentioned above, Al-Kanzi’s exegesis is in the nature of a compilation. Thecommentary on the story of The Witch of ‘En Dor is composed of three parts:1. A long quotation from a treatise written by R. Moshe b. Joseph ibn Kashkil,

a learned Spanish Jew of the second half of the eleventh century. This treatiseharshly attacks the rationalistic explanation of R. Samuel b. Hofni Gaon,which denies the literalness of the story of the Witch of ‘En Dor, to the effectthat Samuel appeared in person to Saul, and actually talked to him.

2. A quotation from the commentary of R. Judah ibn Bal‘am on this story,regarding the explanations of R. Saadia Gaon, R. Samuel b. Hofni Gaon andR. Hai Gaon.

3. A few explanations on difficult words that appear in 1 Sam. 28, based mainlyon “The Book of Hebrew Roots” by R. Jonah ibn Janah.

Page 10: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXVI

Masoretic Notes as a Tool for the Corroboration of the BiblicalText in Rashi’s Commentary on the Bible

Leah Himmelfarb

This article examines Rashi’s attitude to the Masoretes, based on Rashi’s use ofMasoretic Notes as a tool for the preservation of the biblical text as written andread — an activity characteristic of the Masoretes’ endeavors.

From the fact that Rashi mentions the Masorah, we learn of the prestige andauthority that he ascribed to the Masoretes’ preservation of the written and oralversions of the Bible, albeit without expressly stating this. The esteem in whichRashi held the work of the Masoretes is obvious in all the realms that the Masorahsought to preserve: in the writing of the letters (in the interpretation on ˙ÂÓÏÚ —Ps. 9:1), its accentuation (in his commentary on ‰ÏÁ — Ezek. 47:19), and in themanner in which the word is read (in his interpretation of È¯Â˘· — Hos. 9:12).

In each case we begin with an examination of Rashi’s commentary, as comparedto the targumim and the interpretations of other commentators, in order todetermine its distinctive nature. We then attempt to determine the Masoreticcommentary on which Rashi relied in his commentary.

The Symmetry Principle: Three Difficult Glosses in Rashi’sCommentary to the Pentateuch that Preserve the Torah’s Stylistic-

Literary Structure

Yitschak Sapir

This article explores Rashi’s glosses to two verses; glosses which, strangely,are based on aggada, even though explanations of the verses in question wereavailable within the limits of the plain meaning of the verse. The verses inquestion are: Num. 13:20 and Ex. 3:11. The explanation of Rashi’s glosses hereare predicated on Rashi’s sensitivity to the stylistic and literary structure of thepassages, in accordance with his exegetic principle that he would resort to theuse of aggada when “the agadda accords with the language of Scripture.”

Concerning Moses’ instructions to the spies, that they should inspect the land

Page 11: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XVII

and discern, “whether it has trees, or not” (Num. 13:20), Rashi explains, “whetherit has trees, or not — whether they have upstanding men who will protect them,in his merit.” In our opinion, Rashi explains this passage disregarding its plainmeaning, since it is part of a whole comprised of three parts. The doubling ofthe stich in the first statement of each sentence refers to the land, and the secondstatement in the first two sentences refers to its inhabitants. Rashi’s explanationmeant that the second statement of the third stich focused on the inhabitants ofthe land, like the first two. That is, Rashi preferred to explain a single statementas a whole, yet not in accordance with its plain meaning, in order to preserve theintegrity of the whole — land-people, land-people, land people. We refer to thisstyle of exegesis as “the principle of symmetry.”

According to this principle, one may readily grasp Rashi’s explanation of thewords of Moses to God, “and shall I take out the Children of Israel from the Landof Egypt?” (Ex. 3:11) — and shall I take out the Children of Israel, even if Iam an important person, by what merit do the Children of Israel deserve to havea miracle performed on their behalf, that I should take them out of Egypt? ForRashi, the question revolves around the merit of the Children of Israel, whereasthe plain meaning of Scripture revolves around the personage of Moses. In thewhole of the passage, there are two directives by God, two questions by Mosesand two responses by God. Because the second answer refers to the people, Rashiexplains that even the question refers to them.

A third example is seen in Deut. 17:8, “between blood and blood, between lawand law, between blemish and blemish, issues of dispute in your gate,” whereRashi explains that the difficult laws are those that distinguish between pure andimpure blood: between the law of the innocent and the law of the guilty, betweena pure blemish and an impure one. The term “issues of dispute” presents thosedifficult issues on which the sages of the city will be divided — one renderinga judgment of impurity and one of purity, one a judgment of acquittal, and onea judgment of guilt. Questions of impure blood or pure blood may be resolvedby a sage, those of guilt by a court, and those of blemishes by the priest. Thesethree bodies of authority, and they alone, render legal judgments for the Jewishpeople, in all areas of Jewish law, and it is to them that the verse refers.

Page 12: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXVIII

Rashi’s Attitude toward Truth and Humility

Avraham Grossman

Rashi did not engage in detailed expositions of his worldview, a fact that hasreceived little discussion in the scholarly literature. Yet, Rashi clearly did havea well-established worldview, one that may be discerned within his voluminousliterary output. Unlike the Sephardic sages, who engaged in systematic philosophyunder the influence of Greek and Islamic thinkers, Rashi registered his thoughtson these subjects within his commentaries to the Bible, the Talmud, his responsaand his liturgical poems.

Truth and humility emerge as dominant themes in his commentaries to theBible and the Talmud. In dozens of biblical passages he interjected the theme ofhumility in an artificial fashion, even when it has little basis in Scripture itself.Rashi comprehended the meaning of “humility” in a comprehensive manner. Thehumble individual is called upon not only to avoid haughtiness, but also to acceptwith humility the yoke of life, including its hardships, with equanimity. Just ashumility embraces all facets of life, so too is its reward all-encompassing, for theindividual as for the community, in this world and in the world-to-come.

Truth and humility also play a major role in Torah study. In a number of placesRashi addresses the need for the sages to reign in their polemical spirit, whichitself is driven by an inclination to haughtiness. Humility and a readiness toconfront the truth are prerequisites for the study of Torah and for spiritual growth.Even the salvation of Israel is dependent on scrupulous attention to the truth.According to Rashi, the Patriarchs and the great figures of Israel exhibited the traitof humility, and this trait will also characterize the figure of the Messiah. Eventhe Almighty is an exemplar of the trait of humility. Some of these emphases, ofcourse, may already be found in the writings of the rabbis, but Rashi underscoresthem with greater force. It is clear that he set for himself the task of educatinghis readership in the traits of truthfulness and humility. In his commentary toProverbs 31, Rashi even states explicitly that the most important attributes of aJewish household are truth and modesty.

These two attributes stood out even in the personal behavior of Rashi himself.His responsa exude extreme humility. This is not the type of humility that stemsfrom a weakness of personality. Rashi was a strong person, and, in his pursuit ofthe truth, he did not hesitate to critique his rabbis from the yeshivot of Germanyin the strongest terms, and to change the customs of the prayer service. It is

Page 13: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XIX

not surprising, therefore, to learn that Rashi opposed the custom of waiting forso-called “important persons” to return to the synagogue before continuing withthe prayer service, so as not to shame them. On the other hand, Rashi prescribedcommunal excommunication for an individual who led the community in aheavy-handed and haughty manner. Humility was also the hallmark of his ownstyle of leadership within the community. There was no contradiction betweenthis attribute, on the one hand, and his steadfast pursuit of truth on the other.These two attributes — which coexist with some degree of disharmony — existedsynchronously and in perfect harmony in Rashi’s persona.

Rashi’s Covert Rejection of Midrashim as Reflected inhis Commentary on the Pentateuch

Yosef Ofer

Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch is based largely on midrashim fromthe Talmud and from the midrashic literature. Rashi selects the midrashim andprocesses them in various ways. On rare occasions, one can sense Rashi’s covertrejection of a midrash aggada or some part thereof, and precisely this is the subjectof this article. Such cases reflect Rashi’s independence as a commentator, and the“method” he developed for himself in selecting the midrashim, in paraphrasingthem and in basing his commentary on them — in accordance with the uniqueexegetical criteria he adopted.

Rashi’s statements reflecting this feature may be divided into three categories.In the first category, Rashi neither adduces the midrash nor mentions it; he merelyexplains the biblical verse in a way that implies his disapproval of the midrashicinterpretation of that verse. A student of Rashi’s commentary may wonder at hisdecision to explain matters that would seem to be self-evident, but a comparisonof Rashi’s commentary with his sources reveals his true intent: to point outthat he does not accept the interpretation offered by the midrash. In the secondcategory, Rashi bases his commentary on the words of the midrash and actuallyadduces them, while disagreeing with sections of it. The third category is themost complex, and it is somewhat surprising: Rashi bases his commentary onthe midrash, which he quotes, while negating the linguistic basis on which it isconstructed. It would thus seem to be Rashi’s opinion that it is permissible to draw

Page 14: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXX

upon an exegetical concept of the midrash to make use of this concept to solvecertain exegetical problems, even without accepting the linguistic foundation thatthe midrash offers. The exegetical concept can thus be derived from some otherlinguistic basis, or even stand on its own merits.

Rashi’s Commentary to the Torah: His Exegetical Agendaas a Reflection of his Era

Yisrael Rosenson

Exegesis relates to a text on the basis of its content. An exegete, to a greateror lesser degree, consciously or subconsciously, often expresses his ideologicalworld, a world whose values and aims are willy-nilly influenced by historicalevents and the “spirit of the times.” Within Rashi’s commentaries there is anelement of the novel, which is witnessed in his very attempt to compose acommentary on the Torah and with it the entire Bible, and to do so throughan amalgam of peshat and derash glosses. Yet, within his commentary, we geta glimpse of the world of Torah scholarship in Ashkenaz and France in theeleventh century. As an halakhic jurist and religious leader, Rashi aimed toinstill religious values within his society, and this objective frequently lendsthe commentary a hortatory element. To what degree does Rashi’s commentaryconstitute a “reflection of the era”? The crusade of 1096 occurred towards the endof his life, yet the period knew ideological confrontation and friction betweenJews and Christians even prior to this cataclysmic event. Within his commentaryto Psalms, as well as to other biblical books, the disputational engagement withthe surrounding Christian world is made explicit. Concerning the Torah, the issuesare complex. Here the exegetical approach is exacting, and mention of the eventsof his day is much more limited than that found in his commentary to the laterbooks of Scripture. The search for reflections of Rashi’s era, therefore, mandatesan attempt to search for oblique references, and careful scrutiny of the midrashimthat he chooses as the basis of his gloss. Rashi’s viewpoint on the political worldaround him, and on the Christian milieu in which he lived, is most evident inthe glosses he offers to the attributes and actions of the gentile characters of theBible, first and foremost amongst them, Esau. In this regard, Rashi merely buildson a strand of rabbinic homily. Yet Rashi also takes it to extremes, and doesn’t

Page 15: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXI

find one good word to say about Esau anywhere, even when his comments goagainst the simple meaning of the text, and against other midrashic readings ofEsau. When Rashi is afforded an opportunity to engage in a theological discoursethat assaults the Church over its doctrines, he seizes the initiative through thechoice of appropriate midrashim and formulations, which reveal the extent towhich he was disturbed by the religious Christian milieu that surrounded him. Inthis fashion, Rashi followed in the footsteps of the Sages of the Midrash, whoseattacks against Christianity were largely oblique.

“The Hair of His Head Shall Go Untrimmed” (Num. 6:5):The Transmission of Rashi’s Gloss to the Verse

Joseph Peretz

This article addresses Rashi’s commentary to the word Ú¯Ù in Num. 6:5: “Theword is pointed with a patah because it is syntactically linked to the hair of hishead; Ú¯Ù of hair.” The gloss is problematic, inasmuch as the word Ú¯Ù is anoun of the form that always takes a segol under its first letter, even when it issyntactically linked to the next word.

For the sake of comparison, we examined thirty supercommentaries to Rashi,and categorized them into four groups: 1) those that ignore the problem entirely,a group that includes Mizrahi and others; 2) those that maintain that Rashi erred;3) those that defend Rashi by maintaining that scribal errors must have crept intothe text, and that the proper and original version of Rashi’s gloss must have read:¯Ú˘, with sheva; 4) those that accept the received version of Rashi’s gloss, andattempt to explain it.

To ascertain the correct version of Rashi’s gloss, we examined some sixtymanuscripts of Rashi’s commentary from different periods, and from variousregions, and we can conclude that the problematic version (Ú¯Ù with patah) is theauthentic version of Rashi, and that the proposed solution of an original versionof ¯Ú˘ with sheva is an apologia, of Italian origin. Furthermore, with regardto the four supercommentaries that we present from the fourth group, it is ourconclusion that their explanations do not accord with standard biblical grammar.Perhaps the solution to the problem is, following Berliner and Shadal, that Rashiwas inaccurate here.

Page 16: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXII

Rashi’s Corrections to his Commentaries on Joshua and Kings

Jordan S. Penkower

In previous studies we discussed a number of corrections that Rashi madeconcerning his commentary on the Prophets (in the books of Kings, Ezekiel, andHabbakuk). In this study, we discuss corrections that Rashi made concerning hiscommentary on Joshua (Joshua 1y6; twelve cases), and further corrections thathe made concerning his commentary on Kings (1 Kings 6y7; five cases).

In our previous studies there were explicit proofs that the corrections stemfrom Rashi. Sometimes, Rashi explicitly mentions this himself (in his responsa,concerning Ezekiel 42:1). In other cases, his students note that Rashi is thesource of the comments (Kings; Habbakuk). In our current study, once again, thestudents note Rashi as the source of the comments; however, their testimony isvery brief: (È·¯ ÈÙÓ =) "¯"Ó" (so concerning Joshua), or "È·¯ ¯Ó‡Â", and ‰È‚‰""'¯. At the outset of our study, we review the usage of the expression "¯"Ó",and show that its usage in the manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary proves that itrefers there to Rashi.

Of the two groups of corrections discussed in this study, the first is representedminimally in the printed editions (two of the twelve corrections; together withthe testimony: "¯"Ó"). On the other hand, it is almost fully represented in themanuscripts (eleven of the twelve corrections); however, only in the minority ofmanuscripts (5; 11 percent). One of these corrections first survives in the firstprinted edition. This group of corrections shows, once again, that in determiningthe history of Rashi’s commentary one cannot rely on the majority of manuscripts,especially if they are of one type. In our case, had we examined the 41 manuscriptswithout the corrections (89 percent), we would not have discovered the first groupof corrections.

In the first group of corrections (Joshua), and in the fifth example fromKings (1 Kings 6:21), most of the manuscripts (89 percent) preserve the originaltext of Rashi’s commentary, and only a minority of manuscripts bring Rashi’scorrections. In contrast, in the second group of corrections (Kings), concerningthe first correction (1 Kings 7:40), most of the manuscripts preserve the originaltext of the commentary, but in a smaller majority (58 percent); whereas a largerminority contain the correction (40 percent; and there are also mixed types). Inthe second and third corrections (1 Kings 7:39; 6:8) — both of whose purposeis to expand and clarify the commentary — the majority of manuscripts preserve

Page 17: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXIII

the corrected text (60 percent, and an additional 15 percent; 64 percent), andonly a minority preserve the original text (23 percent; 32 percent). In contrast,in the third case, a different addition, not from Rashi’s hand (but apparently byR. Shemaiah), is found only in a small minority of manuscripts (4 percent). Inthe fourth case, the overwhelming majority of manuscripts (82 percent) preservethe correction (or a version of it), with only a minority preserving the originaltext (18 percent).

In the first three corrections concerning Kings, their characteristic as correctionsis seen by their tendency to be placed in the manuscripts in different parts ofthe commentary. In the first case (1 Kings 7:40), the note was incorrectly placedin some manuscripts (13 percent) in verse 38. In the second case (1 Kings7:39), part of the correction was placed in some manuscripts (21 percent) in themiddle of the commentary and not at its conclusion. In the third case (1 Kings6:8), the “floating” tendency is conspicuous: 34 percent of the manuscripts placethe correction at the beginning of the commentary (one manuscript places it inthe margin); 18 percent place it in the middle; and 11 percent place it at theconclusion. The first case caused a doublet in the 1623 Lublin edition; the thirdcase caused a doublet in the 1860y1866 Warsaw edition. In the fifth case (1Kings 6:21), its placement at the beginning of the verse, instead of at the middle,points to its character as a correction.

The textual transmission of both groups of corrections, in Joshua and in Kings,was clarified by examining numerous manuscripts of different types. Once again,we see that the manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary on Prophets, according totheir various types, reflect the history of his commentary.

Rashi’s Biblical Exegesis in his Talmudic Commentary

Neria Guttel

Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud is also a resource for Bible exegesis. Onecan discover there new and original expositions found in the commentary to theTalmud that are not found in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah, as well as glossesthat complement what is already given partial expression in his Torah commentary.The commentary to the Talmud also provides us with resources that allow us toresolve questions arising from the commentary to the Torah. It is, of course, true

Page 18: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXIV

that the commentary to the Talmud is designed to enlighten the pericope at hand,and not the biblical passage embedded within it. Nonetheless, it is worthwhileseeking the connections that may exist between the two commentaries. Fine workwas done on this topic in Dr. Yoel Floersheim’s three-volume Rashi La-Miqrabe-Perusho la-Talmud (Jerusalem: 5741-49), although, as may be expected, somematerial remained unexplored. It is these elements that this article addresses.

In this article we present a variety of examples in an array of areas, in which thecommentary to the Talmud elucidates the commentary to the Bible: the capacityto resolve the dispute amongst Rashi’s supercommentators in halakhic matters;the capacity to resolve misunderstandings of Rashi’s comments to the Torah;the capacity to explicate biblical concepts; and, finally, the capacity to fill ininterpretations of the Books of the Prophets. The common denominator to all ofthese is to be found solely in Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud. The operativeconclusion then is clear: whoever wishes to get a complete picture of Rashi’scommentary to the Bible must investigate his entire literary corpus, including hisTalmudic commentary, for what is said in passing in one place, may well be morefully explicated elsewhere.

On the Commentators of Rashi: Early and Late(An Example)

Meir Raffeld

A well-known problem in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah is the fact that hementions the plague of the firstborn in his commentary to Exodus 9:14, a versethat refers to the plague of hail. In this article we summarize the various attemptsto solve this problem. We distinguish between the early commentators, includingthe Tosafists, who either emend the text or reinterpret the term “firstborn.” LaterPolish and German commentators of the 16thy17th centuries defend the text anddefy attempts to emend it. We discuss two reasons for this change in attitude.The first is the growing status of Rashi’s commentary in the obligation to studya translation of the weekly portion of the Torah: Rashi’s Torah commentarywas studied either in conjunction with Onkelos’ Aramaic translation, or actuallyreplaced it.

The second reason is the acceptance of Rashi’s commentary to the Torah in the

Page 19: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXV

world of study and pilpul, which focuses on textual analysis based on logic andreason, rejecting attempts to emend a traditional text.

Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra on the Phenomenon of Tiqqun Soferim

Aharon Mondschein

Tiqqun soferim is a term that appears in midrashic texts, in the listing of theMasorah, with reference to 17 or 18 specific passages. The simple meaning ofthis term is an emendation rendered by the early sages (Ezra or by the Men of theGreat Synod) within the original text of the verse, in order to uphold the honorof the Almighty by substituting a more fitting text. The legitimacy for engagingin such exegesis derives from the recognition that “it is better that one letter ofthe Torah be displaced than that the Divine name should be desecrated in public”(see b. Yebamot 79a).

The issue, however, has a dual aspect. The exegetical aspect, and that whichimmediately stems from it, the aspect of the reliability of the text. These texts allappear somewhat problematic, as seen in the glosses that accompany several of theseinstances, “the text should have read x,” or even, “the text originally said x.”

This article aims to examine the way in which the issue was addressed by theclassical exegetes Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, seeking to root their commentswithin the historical and exegetical realities in which they lived. An examinationof their standpoints reveals that they each adopt a different position with regard tothe Rabbis’ claim of tiqqun soferim. Rashi adopted their position in a consistentfashion, regarding the phrases tiqqun and kinui as interchangeable, and as atextual intervention. Rashbam offers sporadic comments, and only with referenceto the simple meaning of the verses in question. He never relates to the ostensibleproblems presented by the text, and entirely ignores the rabbinic claims of atiqqun, or amendment to the verse. Ibn Ezra elected to tread the middle path: hegrappled with the issue on the exegetical plane, but sidestepped the text-criticalimplications by maintaining that the rabbis did not intend to offer a text-criticalstatement about the verses at hand, but rather a homiletic and conceptual one.Hypotheses and avenues of consideration regarding the underlying backgroundfor each of the three approaches are given, such that it may be possible to root

Page 20: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXVI

their respective positions within the larger contexts of their respective approachesto biblical exegesis, against the backdrop of their respective time and place.

The “Principle of Anticipation” in Rashbam’s Commentaryon the Torah

Jonathan Jacobs

This article addresses the “principle of anticipation” in Rashbam’s commentary onthe Torah. The aim is to investigate the relationship between the primary definitionof this principle as presented in Rashbam’s commentary and its application in thecommentary itself.

Three conditions must be met, in Rashbam’s view, for the purposes of theanticipation principle: a) the existence of a superfluous anticipatory verse; b) adifficult anticipated verse; c) the former sheds light on the latter.

The article begins by noting instances where the principle is applied fully;these are the “classic” anticipations. A presentation of instances follows, in whichthe principle is broadened to include “partial” anticipations, where not all of therequirements listed in the primary definition exist: there may be a difficulty onlyin the anticipatory verse, or only in the target verse, or there may be no difficultyin either of these verses.

A further extension of the anticipation principle is then presented, withexamples where the relevant relationship exists among more than two verses:either the verse precedes an entire parasha (literary unit), or an entire parasha

serves as the introduction to a verse, or there is a string of anticipatory verses.Finally, there are some special “anticipations”: anticipatory verses that lay the

basis for a clause in the target verse; anticipations that contribute toward ourunderstanding of a character; a contrast between the anticipatory verse and thetarget verse; and anticipations of abstract claims.

The article concludes that Rashbam’s definition of the phenomenon ofanticipations is in fact accurate and exhaustive. However, in his commentaryon the Torah, he broadens the “principle of anticipation” far beyond the boundsof its primary definition.

Page 21: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXVII

Exegesis and Polemic in Rashbam’s Commentaryon the Song of Songs

Sara Japhet

Rashbam’s Commentary on the Song of Songs is, in many ways, a very interestingwork. On the one hand, it is a valuable contribution to our understanding ofthe Song of Songs itself, and sheds important light on Rashbam’s exegeticalenterprise. On the other hand, it is a landmark in the development of Jewishbiblical exegesis, illustrating significant aspects of the peshat school of exegesis,and broadening our knowledge of the social and intellectual reality of northernFrench Jewry in the twelfth century.

The present article may be seen as a “pilot” toward a new edition of Rashbam’scommentary on the Song of Songs, which I hope to publish in the near future,together with an extensive introduction.

The article seeks to shed light on some of the main aspects of the commentary,such as its specifically exegetical method in comparison to his other peshat works,Rashbam’s unique understanding of the literary structure of the Song of Songs,and the role of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs in the contextof the contemporary Jewish-Christian debate. The readings from the commentaryare already based on the new edition.

The Methodological and Critical Approach of Rashbam’sCommentary to the Talmud

Yehuda Felix

In his commentary to Tractate Baba Batra, Rashbam emphasizes a number ofmethodological and critical principles, which he are the subject of this article.One important principle, in his eyes, is the concept known as “the approachof the Gemara” (shitat ha-Gemara). The Gemara operates according to certainprinciples: principles of editing, principles of exegesis, and principles concerningthe organization of material. Connecting terms bear particular meaning, and arechosen with care. Particular attention is paid to methodological points that will

Page 22: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXVIII

assist the student to comprehend the pericope, such as those that explain whycertain sections are inserted where they are. In his commentary, Rashbam makesextensive use of a wide array of rabbinic materials, including midrashei halakhah,gaonic literature, and prior exegetical material, especially the commentary of hisgrandfather, Rashi. Rashbam pays special attention to the legal conclusionsdrawn from the Gemara. It would appear that his commentary is essentially apresentation of the lessons that he gave to his students. Because of this, there arerepetitions and summaries, all of which point to the pedagogic emphasis inherentin Rashbam’s commentary to Baba Batra, in which he ascribes importance to aknowledge of the history of the sages of the Talmud.

“The Actions of the Patriarchs Herald those of their Children” —Historical Interpretations within Nachmanides’ Commentary

to the Pentateuch

Ruth Ben Meir

The maxim “the actions of the Patriarchs herald those of their children” holdspride of place in the commentary to the Torah written by Nachmanides, who relieson this principle in many and varied ways. He regards the Patriarchs and theiractions as worthy of emulation by their descendants. Their characteristics anddeeds are models to be identified with, and their ways and actions are guidelinesthrough which a person may achieve spiritual perfection and success. Therefore,surmises Nachmanides, Scripture goes to great lengths in its descriptions which,at first glance, appear to be superfluous, but which are warranted on account ofthe lessons to be gleaned from them. For Nachmanides there are also the “hiddenaspects” of these stories, which he takes to be suggestive of events that willtranspire at a future time. As he seeks to unravel these mysteries, we even findthat within these accounts he sees references to his own time and place, and tothe final redemption. Moreover, Nachmanides, who readily integrates kabbalisticelements into his commentary, sees the deeds of the Patriarchs as prefigurativein a deterministic sense, of the destiny of the Jewish people. He scrupulouslyscrutinizes their deeds, therefore, with a heightened awareness of the impact ofthe Partriarchs and their actions on their descendants.

In executing all of this, Nachmanides set for himself the goal of attending to the

Page 23: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXIX

spiritual needs of his day, and responding to challenges both internal and external.As someone who engaged in bitter disputation against christological exegesis,he sought to undermine that approach by highlighting the accord between thelife-sagas of the Patriarchs and those of their descendants, the Jewish people.

By integrating the various exegetical aspects of his work into one immanenthistorical unity, Nachmanides offers within his commentary a unified andconsistent approach that is marked by its uniqueness and its richness of expression.

The Terms “Error” and “Enticement” in Nachmanides’ Rebukeof Ibn Ezra

Miriam Sklarz

The two terms “error” (shbbsh) and “enticement” (pth) recur repeatedly inNachmanides’ commentary, and are reserved for his rebuke of Ibn Ezra.Nachmanides uses these expressions in two ways — he either accuses Ibn Ezraof introducing “error” by his fallacious explanation or he warns the reader not to“be enticed” by Ibn Ezra’s commentary. These expressions usually occur in thecontext of controversy over matters of theological principle, when Nachmanidesis bent on defending the honor and credibility of (a) the canonical Books, (b)miracles not expressly described in Scripture and (c) biblical personages ofstature.

In his commentary to Exodus 25:29, Nachmanides clearly chose the verbshibbesh because of Ibn Ezra’s own use of that verb: “R. Abraham has writtenthat there is an error (shibbush) in The Book of Chronicles.... but the error(shibbush) lies in R. Abraham’s own words”; here Nachmanides has taken IbnEzra’s expression and turned it against him. This instance may have served as thearchetype for the other places where Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of “error”(shibbush).

The verb shibbesh occurs frequently in Ibn Ezra’s commentaries and Ibn Ezraapplies it also to those who, in his opinion, deserve severe censure: Karaites,other sects denying the rabbinic tradition and also those who suggest excessivelyrationalistic interpretations. And, thus, Nachmanides chooses to castigate hispredecessor with the very term that the latter himself had used against his

Page 24: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXX

opponents, appealing to the sense of the verse (Obad. 1:15): “As you have done,it shall be done to you; Your deeds shall return upon your own head.” With this,Nachmanides also hints that Ibn Ezra is no better than those forerunners whomhe denounces, and is indeed guilty of the very same errors.

The term pth (“seduce,” “entice”), arouses grave biblical connotations ofharlotry (Ex. 22:15) and idolatry (Deut. 1:16). The expression is often applied tofalse prophecy (1 Kgs. 22:20y22, 2 Chr. 18:19y21, Ezek. 14:9) — an accusationwhich Nachmanides explicitly levels at Ibn Ezra (cf. his comment on Gen. 9:18).In Proverbs (1:10; 16:29), the expression pth appears in warnings against beingmisled by someone who might tempt one to do wrong.

Of Nachmanides’ two main predecessors, Rashi and Ibn Ezra, it is the latterwho represents the Spanish school of exegesis, which upheld the banner ofplain-sense interpretation founded principally on the discipline of grammar andon rational thought. With the term pth (“entice”) Nachmanides warns of thedouble danger in Ibn Ezra’s words. Their charm is likely to beguile the heartand mind of the reader and, furthermore, they are charged with grave religiousand moral dangers. Nachmanides therefore regards it as his duty to step into thebreach, and to save readers from blunder.

The Structure of Repetition in the Prophecies of Ezekiel —Its Patterns and Purposes according to the Commentary of

R. Menachem b. Shimon

Tmima Davidovitz

This article addresses the phenomenon of repetition in the Book of Ezekielaccording to the commentary of R. Menahem b. Shimon (Rambash). Rambashwas a twelfth-century commentator of the Provencal school. His commentaryis characterized by its attention to the literal interpretation of Scripture andto its language. Rambash also studied prophetic style, considering it to becharacterized by repetition and duplication. In this study, we attempt to accountfor this phenomenon. For Rambash, it may be seen as a stylistic, thematicor literary means. In many instances, Rambash saw within repetition a purelystylistic-rhetorical element, even though, from a thematic-conceptual standpoint,it was superfluous.

Page 25: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXXI

Toward the Exegetical Method of R. Yehudah b. Elazar’sCommentary to the Torah

Hazoniel Touitou

In this study we assess the exegetical approach of R. Yehudah b. Elazar (Riva)against the backdrop of the work of the Tosafists. Inasmuch as Riva presentedhis work as a supercommentary to Rashi’s commentary to the Torah, we examinethe development of this genre of rabbinic commentary.

The supercommentaries that were written in the generations immediatelyfollowing Rashi were not merely supercommentaries. Rather, they constitutedworks that included new exegetical material as well. In these compositions,one notes the exegetical independence displayed in the use of aggadic material(such as the reworking of the linguistic content of the midrashim), the stancetaken toward their exegetical predecessors, and their ability to present a range ofviews in a succinct fashion. These characteristics are usually accompanied by anexegetical summary, as well as new insights concerning the text in question.

We discovered commentaries within the composition Minhat Yehudah thathave no connection to the commentary of Rashi, and commentaries within theMinhat Yehudah that differ from those of Rashi. Several examples are broughtand analyzed. We also discovered that Riva’s commentary frequently discussesissues of Masorah and incantation, and several illustrations are provided.

Riva’s approach to aggadic material was compared to that found in the worksof his contemporaries, such as R. Hayim Paltiel, author of the Sefer Ha-gan,the author of the Moshav Zeqenim, and others, as well as to the approach ofRashi. Rashi, it emerges, cites midrashim only when they contain an exegeticalmessage and do not controvert the simple meaning of the text, and may beconsidered “aggadic material that clarifies Scripture” (aggadah ha-meyashevetdivrei miqra). By contrast, Riva cites midrashim even if they do not solve anexegetical difficulty, and even if they controvert the simple meaning of Scripture,so long as they contain an educational or ideological imperative.

Page 26: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXXII

Exonerating Unconventional Behavior of the Patriarchs in theCommentary of R. Obadiah Sforno to the Pentateuch

Moshe Rachimi

One characteristic feature of talmudic literature and of the early targumim is thetendency to exonerate the Patriarchs of any wrongdoing. This tendency is alsoevidenced in the commentaries from the medieval and modern periods. Withinthe commentary of R. Obadiah Sforno (Italy, 1470y1550) we find no explicitdeclaration concerning this issue, although he does allude to it opaquely in hiscommentary to Gen. 30:16. From an examination of the examples in this study,we conclude that while, generally, Sforno labored to defend the actions of thePatriarchs, he did not feel himself bound by this principle in all cases. In somecases, Sforno exonerates the Patriarchs of any wrongdoing, and, in others, heseeks to moderate the severity of their wrongdoing, by exploring its motivation.Where he is critical of the Patriarchs, Sforno sometimes even magnifies themisdeed in question.

Sforno’s general tendency to defend the Patriarchs was motivated by twofactors: the polemic with the Church, and the need to strengthen the faith ofhis readers. The Christians believed that to implicate the fathers of the Jewishpeople was to implicitly condemn their descendants, the Jewish people, whowould continue in their path.

R. Jacob Mecklenburg’s Approach to theQuestionable Acts of the Patriarchs

Amos Frisch

The study is an expanded version of the author’s earlier article, “R. Jacob ZviMecklenburg’s Method in the Issue of the Patriarchs’ Sins,” Journal of JewishStudies, 53 (2002), pp. 107y119. The study addresses the unique approach of R.Mecklenburg, the author of ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbalah to the Torah, concerningthe issue of questionable acts of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Two fundamentalassumptions are to be found at the root of his approach to the issue: 1) an

Page 27: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXXIII

“historical” assumption — that the Patriarchs were exemplars of perfect humanconduct, and thus it is untenable to suggest that they may have sinned; 2) an“historiographic” assumption — that even if they did sin, the Torah would surelynot have reported the fact. Thus, in instances where it may appear to us thatthe biblical figure did in fact sin, R. Mecklenburg presents us with a differentreading. Usually based on linguistic nuance or subtlety, this reading invariablyleads to the exoneration of the figure in question. His approach stems from thatfound in rabbinic literature, which oftentimes seeks to exonerate the Patriarchs.R. Mecklenburg, however, goes even further than the rabbis, and seeks to defendthe Patriarchs, even in cases where many Jewish medieval commentaries seekto criticize the Patriarchs’ actions. His position on this matter derives from themain agenda of his commentary: to establish a strong correlation between thewritten and oral Torahs. In regard to this issue, however, it would appear that R.Mecklenburg exercises license, and exhibits a tendency that contrasts with hisprimary program.

In the second part of the study, we contrast R. Mecklenburg’s approach to theissue with that of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch through a single case study, theaccount of the rape of Dinah (Gen. 34). R. Hirsch’s subtle and complex approachplaces emphasis on the value of truth, whereas the approach of R. Mecklenburgplaces primacy on the value of reverence, — reverence for the forefathers of thenation, coupled with reverence for the Creator and for His Torah.

The Netziv’s Approach to Explaining Unconventional Behaviorby the Patriarchs and Matriarchs

Nissim Elyakim

We expand the definition of “Patriarchs” beyond the narrow limit of the threerecognized Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to also include the sons of Jacob.We relate to some thirty instances of behavior by the Patriarchs and Matriarchswithin the narrative of Genesis that appear to be questionable on moral grounds.The actions in question relate to issues of faith, moral conduct, modesty, andrelations between man and wife. They concern interaction with other membersof the clan of Abraham as well as outsiders, including some who may be deemedidolaters, or of otherwise disreputable character. In contrast with his contemporary,

Page 28: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXXIV

R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, who offered methodological declarations concerningthe issue at hand, the Netziv (R. Tzvi Naftali Yehuda Berlin of Volozhin) makesno such declarations. Yet, inspection of the problematic instances reveals that theNetziv sought ways to exonerate the characters in question.

The core of the defense offered by the Netziv is usually derived from rabbinicmaterial. Nonetheless, we see that the Netziv often displayed originality inhis handling of the material, usually with reference to philological subtleties,a hallmark of his commentary, Ha-amek Davar. Toward this end, the Netzivmarshals all facets of linguistic study: lexicography, grammar, syntax, and context.

Some of the problematic issues require no defense, for they emerge in a differentlight, or may be explained within the realm of normative human behavior. Insome of the instances, the Netziv explains that the actions in and of themselveswould not be objectionable; however, since it is the Patriarchs that we are dealingwith, it would have been preferable that the actions had not taken place. In mostinstances, the Netziv sought to protect the Patriarchs, and in only a handful ofcases did he condemn them for their actions. When he did so, he also indicatedthe punishment that they received.

We identify other instances that the Netziv’s predecessors saw as problematic,yet which the Netziv ignored. At the conclusion of the article, we seek tounderstand the motivation behind the Netziv’s defensive posture. On the onehand, we posit, this stems from his firm and true belief in the moral and spiritualfortitude of the Patriarchs. Moreover, he adopted this position as a necessityof the times. His generation was challenged by the Enlightenment and the riseof Reform Judaism. On the other hand, his generation faced attacks from theChristian environment relating to the immoral actions of the Patriarchs, andespecially Jacob, who was considered a prototype of Jews throughout the ages,in contrast with Esau, who was seen to represent the Christian world. Thesestruggles, coupled with the trend of secular Judaism, led the Netziv, as they did R.Samson Raphael Hirsch and R. Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg, to come to the defenseof the Patriarchs, and, by extension, to the defense of their descendants.

Page 29: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXXV

The Phenomenon of Tiqqun Soferim / Kinnah Hakkatub accordingto Shmuel David Luzzato (=Shadal)

Shmuel Vargon, Moshe Zipor

Shadal (1800y1865) frequently addressed textual issues in the Bible. In a numberof places he discusses the tradition of the eighteen alleged tiqqunei soferim(“corrections of the scribes”; in other sources: kinnah hakkatub [“Scripture hasbeen euphemized”]). He rejects the opinion maintaining that, in these instances,later copyists corrected the Holy Scriptures. In his opinion the Sages who definedthe tradition concerning the kinnuyim/tiqqunim believed that the original authorsthemselves used euphemistic wording. Shadal himself claims, however, as doesIbn Ezra, that in fact all of the instances that are referred to as tiqqunei soferimmay by understood literally, and were not intended to mitigate offensive phrases.

He even raises a bizarre hypothesis, one adduced in his youth, concerning theorigins of the eighteen “corrections”: they refer to 18 words (in fact 19 words)that were added to the Book of Ecclesiastes in order to render it more fitting forinclusion in the canonized Scriptures. In later years, however, he withdrew (withgood reason) from this position.

In this study we paid particular attention to Num. 16:14, “Should you gougeout those mens’ eyes?” Shadal says “it is a kinnui”. We determine how Shadal’sunderstanding of the term differs from that of some of the medieval commentators,who consider this case as belonging to the general phenomenon of kinnui/tiqqun.

Compassion for Animals in Midrashic Literature andTraditional Biblical Exegesis

Yael Shemesh

Although Judaism has an essentially anthropocentric attitude toward animals,viewing them as a means to serve the human race, the Sages assigned them legalstatus, and followed the Torah in setting limits to their permissible exploitation,even ruling that the ban on cruelty to animals is a Torah prohibition (and nota rabbinic amendment). The Sages’ and commentators’ concern for satisfying

Page 30: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTSXXXVI

animals’ needs goes beyond their physical requirements, to also include theiremotional needs. At the same time, the midrashim and commentaries do notagree on the rationale of the precepts that require humane treatment of animals— whether they are intended for the benefit of human beings, for the benefit ofthe animals, or perhaps for both. Another related question, on which the Sagesand commentators do not agree, is whether the Lord displays compassion foranimals.

Despite a number of texts rejecting the assertion that the Lord’s merciesare extended to animals, the dominant voice among the Sages and traditionalcommentators emphasizes His compassion for them. Some midrashim andcommentaries even hold that human beings are rescued sometimes only byvirtue of this divine compassion for animals. Other midrashim expound thefundamental difference between the limited and partial compassion of humanbeings, which is extended only to their fellow human beings (excluding animals),or the limited compassion that men display exclusively toward men (but nottoward women), and the Lord’s equal and inclusive compassion for all Hiscreatures, male and female, human and animal, with no discrimination based ongender or species.

Despite this abyss between divine compassion and human compassion, varioustexts demand that human beings emulate the divine attribute, and treat animalsmercifully. We also find that the Sages and traditional commentators assume thatthe way a person treats animals reflects his personality and may influence hisdestiny: human beings are punished or rewarded for how they treat animals, theLord’s creatures.

The Blessings over the Torah and their Place within the Liturgy

Israel M. Ta-Shma

This article addresses the relationship between the three blessings over the Torahthat are recited — together with the Mishnah from Tractate Peah — prior to themorning prayers, and the blessing of Ahavah Rabbah. It is the conclusion of thisstudy that in the tannaitic period it was considered sufficient to recite the blessingof Ahavah Rabbah, which allowed the continuation of Torah study for the entiretyof that day and night, with or without interruption. It was the first Amoraic Sages

Page 31: The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah · The Plain Meaning of Scripture and Midrash Halakhah Moshe Ahrend It is accepted wisdom that the rabbis explicated biblical texts

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS XXXVII

who instituted a separate obligation with special blessings, for those who got upprior to the time of the recitation of the Shema‘, and were desirous of engagingin the study of Torah. It was in the period of the geonim that this custom wasfurther embellished, as we find in the prayer book of R. Saadya Gaon who statedthat “it is the accepted tradition to study this Mishnah (Peah 1:5) prior to themorning prayers, each morning, following this blessing.”

Rashi was the first to note that there is no fear of the sin of reciting a blessingin vain in this regard, for this blessing over the Torah is an early institution, akinto the institution of the public reading of the law. At the beginning of the twelfthcentury, it was first noticed that it would seemingly be necessary to engage inTorah study immediately on the recitation of this blessing, on the basis of thestatement in the Jerusalem Talmud, “and it refers to he who studies at that verymoment,” which leads to a discussion of the precise import of this requirement.

There were those, such as R. Yehuda of Barcelona, who entirely rejected therecitation of the blessings over the Torah for anyone other than those who got upprior to the time for the recitation of the Shema‘. Most, however, leaned towardpreserving this custom, even as they were split over the question of whether ornot it was obligatory to repeat the blessing after each interruption of Torah studyduring the day, as per the Jerusalem Talmud. This brief dispute was short-lived,and, by the close of the twelfth century, a general consensus arose not to repeatthe blessing.