'"'"iwiiiiiiiriiuii; |i]i'iii.ii

mm

in II
1114 Pi

'i

"!lMj^, ,|,MHl,|^iW;f|'

Rosenau

{ n
F
t I M

!> > '%

'ItiS

tt I

•it

II I III'' I I » ' 11

Ifll «"

'! ill! „'

lir i , I" !l

' " "'V*' ", '\^-^

1 r t if
!t 1
ll^
! ill, I I ! 11 ,1 t.lW !i
I
DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

JEWISH BIBLICAL COMMENTATORS

"MIQRAOTH GEDOLOTH"
HEBREW TEXT OF SCRIPTURES WITH COMMENTARIES

JEWISH
BIBLICAL COMMENTATORS

BY
WILLIAM ROSENAU, Ph. D.
Johns Hopkins University.

1906
Zh JS'** (Sfftfttmore (Pteee
THE TKIEDENWALD COMPANY
BALTIMORE, MD., U. .M. A.

Copyright, 1906
BY
William Eosenac

THIS book
IS LOVINGLY INSCRIBED
BY THE AUTHOR
TO HIS WIFE,
MABEL HELLMAN ROSENAU.

PREFACE
During the winter of the scholastic year 1905-1906,
the author delivered a course of lectures, on the subject
of which this book treats, before the Oriental Seminary
of the Johns Hopkins University. At the conclusion of
the course, some of the students expressed the desire of
possessing the lectures iu permanent form. Acting on
this wish, on the consciousness that few people know
anything of the contribution of Jews to the science of
Biblical criticism, and on the hope that a word on the
subject may be welcome, the author herewith presents
the results of his investigation in. popular form. Foot
notes, giving more exhaustive explanations, have been
omitted, because lacking in interest for the majority of
readers. 'Not all Biblical commentators have been
treated ia this book, as not all are of equal importance^
Only such have been considered as represent distinct
schools of criticism. W. E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I PAGE
The Talmtjdic Pebiod  13
CHAPTER II
Kabaites and Saadia  33
CHAPTER III
Gbammaeians and Lexicogeaphers  49
CHAPTER IV
Rashi and The Tossafists  63
CHAPTER V
Ibn Ezea and The Kimchis  79
CHAPTER VI
Maimonides and Nachmanides  95
CHAPTER VH
Mendelssohn and The Biurists  113
CHAPTER VIII
The Nineteenth Centubt Ceitics  129
BiBLIOOEAPHT  145
Index  149

COMMENTATORS OF THE
TALMUDIC PERIOD

CHAPTER I
Commentators of the Talmudic Period
Biblical Exegesis is not a new science. Long before
the modem schools of Biblical criticism made their first
attempts to unravel the mysteries, explain the perplexi
ties, and give the history of Scriptures, people devoted
themselves to the study of the Bible. While it can not be
denied, that Biblical scholars all the way from Well-
hausen back to Santes Pagninus, a Dominican Monk of
the sixteenth century, rendeied valuable service to the
cause, it can also not be disputed, that the preliminary
work, done by others, living between the first and six
teenth centuries, made the task of the more recent critics,
comparatively easy. It may, in very truth, be asserted,
that the modems built upon the discoveries and theories
of the ancients, in this, the Biblical, as well as in all
other intellectual disciplines.
Nor should it be imagined, when reference is made
to the activity of earlier critics, that acknowledgement
is given merely to such men as the Epicurean philoso
pher Celsus, the Neo-Platonist Porphyry, the Greek Ha
drian, the African bishop Junilius, Cassiodorus, St. Je
rome, St. Augustine, Nicolas de Lyra and others. Sight
should never be lost of the activity of Jews in Biblical
Exegesis, not only up to, but also after the sixteenth cen
tury. The Jews, in fact, may be said to have called into
life the science of Biblical Exegesis. It matters little,
whether their method of interpretation is regarded sciers-

14 Jewish Biblical Commentators
tifie in the modern acceptation of the term " scientific."
The fact remains, that they studied the Bible, with the
object of acquiring a thorough knowledge, not merely of
the " Tendenz " of every one of the component books,
but also of the meaning of passages and the connotation
of words. That the Jews should have been foremost in
Biblical research, is not surprising, when we consider,
that they were the authors of the Bible, that their faith
was founded upon it, and that they looked upon it as
the advocate of humanity's highest ideals of civilization,
not to forget, that until a very late day, the claim of the
divine origin of Scriptures was rather general among
Jews. " The study of the law superseded every otlier
duty " in their estimation. They, virtually, if not lit
erally, carried out the commands " to teach it diligently
to their children, when sitting in the house, when walk
ing by the way, when lying down and when rising up" ;
and "to meditate therein day and night." Not only
that " ignorance of the law rendered piety impossible,"
but the neglect of the law for some other work endan
gered Israel's life. The following Talmudical account
brings out this point. Hadrian, the Roman Emperor,
had forbidden Jews to engage in the study of the laW;
which included the whole Bible and all the disciplines
related to it. Despite the imperial edict. Rabbi Akibah
taught the law publicly. A certain man, named Papus,
called him to account for his disobedience, whereupon
Akibah told the following fable. A fox -promenaded
along a river's bank, and, noticing that the fishes were
swimming nervously to and fro, inquired of what they
were afraid. They answered : " We fear the fishermen's
nets." " Come upon the dry land and we will live to-

Commentators of Talmudic Period 15
gether, like the first animals on earth," remarked the sly
fox. The fishes replied: "You are unjustly regarded
the smartest member of the animal kingdom. Do you
not know that, though we may not be safe in the water,
death must needs come to us if we venture upon the dry
land?" The application of the fable made by Akibah
was to this effect. Let Israel get away from its law and
its dissolution is inevitable.
Another point worthy of mention in this connection,
because demonstrating the extent to which the Jews
busied themselves with Scriptures and its interpretation,
is their almost unvarying tendency to regard every sub
ject of study they pursued in their dispersion, from the
Biblical point of view. The well-known attempt of Mai
monides, a Jewish teacher, living in the twelfth century,
to defend Judaism agaiast tlie then dominant Aristotel-
ianism, is by no means the only instance proving the
effort of Jews at harmonizing philosophy and other sys
tems of thought with Biblical teaching.
In searching for the first Jewish Biblical exegete, we
are led back to a time preceding by several centuries the
close of the Biblical canon. Ezra called mina thd ibid
ntyn " an expert scribe in the law of Moses " may be
regarded, as far as historical documentai-y evidence can
be trusted, the father of Biblical Exegesis. The He
brew equivalent for " exegesis " is lyiiD from a root tynn
meaning " to seek," " search," and, hence, to " ex
pound"; a verb occurring in Ezra 7: 10, which reads:
" And Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of
the Lord."
That Ezra should have been the first to devote him
self to the development of Biblical interpretation and

16 Jewish Biblical Commentators
should have been responsible for the cultivation of this
discipline, at the hands of others, is easily explained,
on the basis of the culture existing among the people of
his time living in Palestine. In the middle of the fifth
century before the Christian era, the colonists who had
returned from the exile to the land of their fathers
could not be considered a well established theocracy.
Apart from the adverse political conditions, the igno
rance of the people in the Mosaic law, which required
explanation before it could be understood, not to men
tion their lack of acquaintance with the classical He
brew, operated against the immediate and complete
formation of an enduring Jewish commonwealth. The
commonwealth of Israel had to be founded on the law
of Moses, and the establishment of the law presupposed
its execution. In the course of time the prophetical
books and the sacred writings were added. These, as
well as the Pentateuch, were ordered to be read at stated
times, but were in a language, which the common people
did not understand. The office of " Methurgeman," in
terpreter, was, therefore, created. This official gave the
meaning of passages of Scriptures, as soon as read, para
phrasing often, instead of translating into the dialect
in vogue among the people.
The interpretations of the existing Scriptures un
doubtedly called forth discussions as to their justifica
tion. Men, learned in the law, and teachers by profes
sion soon gathered about themselves disciples, in order
to disseminate their understanding of the scriptural text,
and thus the schools, which flourished in Palestine and
later also in Babylonia, arose. These schools, which in
creased in numbers and in usefulness from year to year.

Commentators of Talmudic Period 17
may be said to have given Biblical interpretation its
strongest impetus, by virtue of the subjects, to which
their courses of instruction were confined. They taught
two things : "The " Miqra," the Scriptures (including
Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa) by means of
which, the intelligent reading of the text, and its di
vision into sentences and words were in great measure
fixed. The Miqra was also known as " the written law "
and formed the subject of elementary instruction in the
schools. The other subject taught was "the oral law," called
so in contradistinction to the written law. It included
all interpretations or explanations of the intent and pur
pose of Biblical laws and passages, as well as all the new
civil, criminal and religious enactments, for which the
ever-changing political and cultural status called. While
these interpretations were originally transmitted by word
of mouth from father to son and from teacher to pupil,
they were written down eventually, on acount of the in
ability of the human memory to retain intact all these
ever-increasing traditions and on account of the desire
to prevent the traditions from becoming lost. Several
efforts were made before Rabbi Jehudah of the third
century, to systematize all the existing traditional ma
terial, but it remained for him to give to the world that
work known by the name " Mishnah " literally meaning
"teaching." And as at the time of the third century
the material became too ponderous to be carried by the
memory, a condition necessitating the formation of the
Mishnah, so at the close of the fifth century two men,
Rabbina and Eab Ashi, put to writing, in a work known
as the Talmud, traditions based on and interpreting the
2

18 Jewish Biblical Commentators
text of the Mishnah, in which a great mass of material is
found that is of Biblical exegetical interest.
The exegesis of the schools of Palestine and Babylonia,
preserved in the Mishnah and Talmud, is threefold in
character. We have the Midrashoth, Halakhoth, and
Haggadoth. First in point of time are the Midrashoth. They are
the interpretations of the Scriptural, more especially the
Pentateuchal passages containing legal enactments.
From this class eventually evolved the two remaining
kinds of interpretations, which alternate with one an
other or at times are even fused into one another in the
Mishnah, the Talmud and the other literary monuments
of the Talmudic period of Jewish History.
The Halakhoth (from "halakh" to go, to be in
vogue) are statutes exegetically derived from and con
nected with Scriptures.
The Haggadoth (from "nagad" to tell, to narrate),
are interpretations derived from the Scriptures, but not
directly connected with the same.
While these three classes cover all the interpretations
of the Talmudic period, the interpretations recorded are
also known either by the name " Peshat " the plain in
terpretation (from " pashat " to unfold) or by the name
" Derash," the implied or figurative meaning (from
"darash" to search, to expound). That in the "pe
shat " more of reason was displayed, while in the " de-
rash '' the imagination was given loose rein, is evident
from the terms themselves.
In this connection it should also be borne in mind that
the Biblical interpretations of the Mishnah and Talmud
are not found collated in any one part of either work.

Commentators op Talmudic Period 19
They are scattered all through these works, and are re
corded only as the necessities of the subject under con
sideration required them or called for them.
In the Mistmah and Talmud and also in kindred works
of Mishnah and Talmud, various principles of interpre
tation were employed.
The first person to formulate definite rules for guid
ance in this discipline, was Hillel, who flourished dur
ing the close of the first century before the common era.
These rules were seven in number and are as follows :
a. The inference from a minor to a major case, or
vice versa.
b. The inference based on analogy of expressions in
the Scriptures.
c. The generalization from one special provision in
the Scriptures.
d. The generalization based on two special provi
sions in the Scriptures.
e. The inference based on the use of general and par
ticular terms used in a Scriptural passage.
f. The inference based on the analogy established
between two Scriptural passages.
g. The inference based on the context.
These seven rules of Hillel were expanded to thirteen
by a certain Rabbi Ishmael living in the second century,
and to thirty-two by Rabbi Eliezer, his disciple.
A method of Biblical interpretation, differing widely
from that based on the foregoing rules and their expan
sions, is that introduced by Nahum of Gamzu, toward
' the close of the first and the beginning of the second cen
tury. It consisted of the use of certain particles and
conjunctions for the purpose of arriving at implied

80 Jewish Biblical Commentators
meanings in Scriptural passages. The method is known
by the name of " extension and limitation." Examples of
particles of extension are "af" and "gam," meaning
"also," and examples of particles of limitation are
" akh " and " raq " meaning " but." We shall cite but
one passage where this method is employed. The law
with regard to the Sabbath is most rigorous in the Pen
tateuch. In Ex. 31 : 13, however, we read "but my
Sabbaths you shall keep." Taking the word " akh "
translated " but " to mean " merely," the passage is in
terpreted to signify that the rigorous law of the Sabbath
is not to be observed, if such observance endangers life.
This method of interpretation found its fullest develop
ment in the celebrated Rabbi Akibah, who in 135 C. E.,
died the martyr's death in the massacre of Jews under
the Roman Emperor Hadrian.
Another method of interpretation is that known as
"Juxtaposition," which signifies that the meaning of
a law is sometimes explained by another law or passage
either preceding or following it. In the treatise Yeba-
moth 49 a. treating of the Levirate marriage, it is said
with reference to Deut. 23 : 3, reading " a bastard shall
not enter the congregation of the Lord," that the word
" bastard " signifies one born of incest or adultery, since
the law in the first verse of the same chapter forbids an
incestuous connection.
Another method of interpretation is found in the
change of the reading of the text, which the commen
tators introduced by virtue of the fact that the text de
prived of the vowel points might form an altogether dif
ferent word, than that which tradition has authorized.
In many of the instances coming under this head we

Commentators of Talmudic Period 31
have the formula k^x .... snpn Sr " Do not read
thus  , but thus  "
Allusion was made above to works which must be
placed into the Talmudic period of Jewish history.
These, too, should be considered in an attempt to give
an explanation of the peculiar kind of interpretation
carried on among Jews during almost ten centuries of
Biblical activity. Some of these works have been lost.
Others have been luckily preserved. Running parallel
with the Mishnah we have first and foremost the
" Tosefta " the " Supplement," a work intended to com
plete the deficiencies and omissions of the Mishnah. It
contains the fragments of interpretations, for which
some of the teachers living before and after the author of
the Mishnah are responsible. The Tosefta is usually
printed as an appendix to the Talmudic compendium of
Alfazi (1013-1103).
The "Beraitha " was a work, which is known only
from quotations made from it in other books. It con
sisted of laws and institutions which were not admitted
into the Mishnah by the author of the Mishnah. Hence,
the name " Beraitha " which signifies " that which is
outside." During the time of the Tanaim, a title applied to the
teachers whose opinions are recorded in the Mishnah,
the following books came into existence ; Mekhilta, Sifra
and Sifre, all Midrashic in character and treating of
the last four books of the Pentateuch.
The Mekhiltah, the Aramaic equivalent for the He
brew "Middah" measure, signifying in the Rabbinical
dialect method of interpretation, and then collection of
interpretations, is supposed to have originated in the

22 Jewish Biblical Commentators
school of Rabbi Ishmael, about the second century of
the common era. Its interpretations treat of Exodus and
begin with the twelfth chapter, enjoining the observance
of the Passover. It is both Halakhik and Ha-ggadic in
character, and is often quoted by the Talmud and the
post-Talmudic literature. An example will suffice to
illustrate its style. ' Ex. 12 : 3, reads m;r hj ha nm
¦7Nit»' " Speak ye unto the whole congregation of the
children of Israel." With this passage, as a basis, the
discussion carried on, is : Rabbi Ishmael says, " and
did both Moses and Aaron speak to Israel ? Was it not
also stated ' and thou shalt speak to the children of Is
rael, saying ' ? Why then does the text say ' speak ye ' ? "
The answer given to these queries is : When Moses spoke,
Aaron listened with fear, and Scriptures regard his list
ening to Moses equivalent to his having heard the teach
ing from God Himself. Rabbi Achat b. Rabbi Jeshaiah
is then reported to have said : ' When Moses spoke, Aaron
was at his right and Eleazar at his left. The word,
therefore, came from between them, and it seemed as
though the three spoke.' "
The Sifra, known also by the name " Torath Koha-
nim," law of the priests and quoted extensively in the
Talmud, is the product of the school of Akibah, with ad
ditions from the school of Ishmael, and treats the book
of Leviticus. It turns almost every word into a source
for Halakha and contains comparatively little Haggadic
matter. To illustrate it : Lev. 19 : 18 reads Dipn Kb
"thou shalt not bear vengeance." With reference to
this passage the following statements are made. " What
does vengeance signify ? If one person says to another
' lend me your sickle,' and the owner does not lend it ;

Commentators of Talmudic Period 23
and if on the next day the owner of the sickle says to
the other ' lend me your ax ' and the owner of the ax
answers ' I will not loan my ax because you did not lend
me your sickle.' "
The Sifre is a commentary on Numbers and Deute
ronomy. The part on Numbers is not by the same author
as the part on Deuteronomy, that on Numbers being
more argumentative than the other, and, therefore, re
sembling the Sifra in many respects.
In this connection, it is well to refer to another book
of these times which may also be regarded a running
commentary to the Biblical books. I have in mind the
" Seder 01am," literally " the order of the world," and
constituting a chronology of Biblical history.
As there are works kindred to the Mishnah, there are
works kindred to the Talmud, having come into existence
either at the same time with the Talmud or after the
Talmud, but showing a decided Talmudical fiavor. The
works referred to are the Midrashim, of which there is
a large number. These are, for the most part, Haggadic
and are more homiletical in character and only now and
then exegetical by way of implication. The best-known
Midrash is the Midrash Eabba, the great Midrash^ It is
called so because it opens with the explanation of a
teacher entitled Eabbi Hoshaiah Rabba. The difference
between the Midrash Rabba and other Midrashim is this,
that in the Midrash Rabba every interpretation is based
on a scriptural verse from some other book. The part
treating of Genesis is no doubt a product of the fourth
century. The following will illustrate the method of
Midrashic interpretation. Gen. 2 : 20 reads : Nip' riKi"?
nw nnpS wnn o nwn "she shall be called woman.

24 Jewish Biblical Commentators
because she was taken out of man." On this passage
we find thje comment, that from this is to be inferred
that the law was given in the holy tongue and that the
world was created in the holy language. Did you
ever hear that man is called 'JU (j'yvJc) which would
be allied to woman «"rj (r"*"?') or that from 'snnjx
{avdpv-Koq) K'3nnjN (dvdpioTcia') is formed; or that
from X13J the word Nrnjj is formed for woman?
And yet from i^'K the word ntyx is formed.
After the formation of the Midrash Rabba to Genesis,
the Midrashic literature grew in volume. -There came
into existence the Pesiqta de Rab, Kahanah, a Midrash
on the special Scriptural lessons to be read in the syna
gogue on Sabbaths and feast days; the Midrash Rabba
to Leviticus, and afterwards added to the entire work
• which goes by the name of Midrash Rabba ; the Midrash
Tanehuma, on the whole Pentateuch, called so because
the major part is from the pen of a certain Eabbi Tan
ehuma, and also by the name of " Yelamdenu " he will
teach us, or let him teach us, because the. opening phrase
is such, and believed by Zunz to be a product of the ninth
century; the Pesiqta Rabbati, called so to distinguish it
from the Pesiqta de Rab Kahanah ; the Midrash Rabba to
Deuteronomy, which Zunz also places into the ninth cen
tury; the Midrash Rabba to Numbers; the Midrash
Rafbba to Exodus; the Midrash to the five Biblical
scrolls : Song of songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes
and Esther; the Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, which contains
fifty-four chapters, describes the most important events
of the Pentateuch, and whose author lived about the
eighth century; the Yalqut Shimoni on the twenty-four
books of the 0. T. whose author is unlmown; the Yalqut

Commentators of Talmudic Period 25
Ha Makiri on the twelve minor prophets, also of uricer- '
tain authorship ; and finally the MidraSh Haggadol, an
other great Midrash, product of the Middle Ages, simi
lar in contents but not identical with the Midrash Rabba.
Taking into consideration the details of the exegesis in
vogue in the days of the formation of the Mishnic and
Talmudic literature,' one cannot help but infer that .it
must contain a great deal of valueless material; value
less from the truly exegetical point of view, however im
portant it may be homiletically and ethically. Never
theless, it must not be forgotten, in passing judgment on
the details of this literature, that Biblical research was
conducted in the main for purposes of edification, that
every verse was thought to be capable of many interpre
tations, and that only incidentally^ the text was ex
pounded in the truly exegetical way, which aims to de
termine the correct reading, the historical allusion and
the exact authorship, And again, though the " derash "
the derived or forced explanation was popular and the
" peshat " or natural meaning of a passage was not, as
a rule, aimed at, we cannot close our eyes to the truth
that some of the men, who produced the Midrashim were
among the main workers in the field of the Masora,
which established by means of the vowel points and
punctuation, the correct reading of the Hebrew j;ext of
the Scriptures. Nor must we lose sight of the problems
of authorship and of the valuable emendations which the
Talmud discussed, allusions to which may be met in
every modem Biblical commentary. Thus, for exam
ple, we find in the Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrashim
caution against the careless pronunciation and writing
of similar letters of the Hebrew alphabet (in order to

26 Jewish Biblical Commentators
avoid misunderstanding), indications of the special
meanings of the various verbal forms in Hebrew, the
mention of the fact that there is no chronological order
in the Pentateuch and other scriptural books, the trans-
positon of phrases, changes m the order of the words
of the text, changes in reading, the separation of the
various sections, explanations on the basis of etymology,
the numerical value of the component letters of a word,
the various shades of meaning which such a word as
" ki " usually translated " for " has in the Hebrew, and
many other points, helping the modern critic materially
in making his discoveries.
A factor, running parallel to the Mishnah and Tal
mud, and yielding considerable material of exegetical
value, from the Jewish point of view, is the variety of
translations of the old Testament text and the discus
sions of Biblical and Jewish questions which came into
existence from time to time during this period.
It makes no difference whether the translations in
question are from the pens of Jews or non-Jews. In
every single instance, where the non-Jew is responsible
for the translation, the knowledge shown in the making
of the translation was acquired from Jewish savants.
First and foremost let us consider the Targums, the
Aramaic translations.
A very old, in fact the oldest translation of the Old
Testament in Aramaic is the " Targum shel Kethub-
him," fhe Targum of the Hagiographa. Thirty years
before the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem,
Rabbi Gamliel I knew of its existence, for he refers to
the confiscation of the part dealing with the book of
Job. This translation- may have been embodied in an
other translation known as the Jerusalem Targum.

Commentators of Talmudic Period 27
The Jerusalem Targum is a paraphrase to the three
sections of the Old Testament. Of this only fragments are
preserved. It was, in all probability, used as a basis for
the works of Onqelos and Jonathan to be treated later.
The language of the Jerusalem Targum is the Western
Aramaic, and consists of a mixture of Hebrew, Syriac
and Greek elements. It is influenced greatly by Greek
thought and shows marked care in the explanation of
anthropomorphistic expressions.
E. g. Gen. 11:22, "And God created man" is ren
dered by the Jerusalem Targum, " And the word of the
Lord created man."
Another Aramaic translation is the Targum Jonathan,
called so because ascribed to a certain Jonathan b. Uziel,
on the authority of the Talmud (Megillah 3a) where it
is declared that Jonathan, son of Hziel, a disciple of
Hillel, produced the Aramaic translation of the Proph
ets. It is also termed pn omn " our translation " as
used by Palestinean Jewsto distinguish it from the Baby
lonian Aramaic translation of Onqelos. Based on the
Jerusalem Targum, its language is also the Western Ara
maic. Its principal peculiarity is, that it is explanatory of
the original text. The Targum Jonathan of the various
parts of the Old Testament is not all by one author. That
of the Pentateuch, however, is by one man. To illustrate
its peculiarity just referred to, let us take the following

a. Gen. 3 : 6, " ye shall become like God " is ren
dered "like great angels."
b. Gen. 30 : 2, " Am I in God's stead " is rendered
" Instead of your asking it of me, ask it of God."
c. Lev. 19 : 4, " Thou shalt not curse the deaf " is
rendered " Do not curse him who does not hear."

28 Jewish Biblical Commentators
d. Deut. 26 : 9, "a land flowing with milk and
honey." The Targum Jonathan renders this : " a land
whose fruit is fat like milk and sweet as honey."
The Targum Jonathan, to the prophets consists of
two recensions, one of very early date, and one more
recent. The latter is given in the text known as Miq-
raoth Gedoloth.
And still another Aramaic translation is the Targum
Onqelos. It is written in the Eastern Aramaic dialect,
and is reported by the Talmud (Megillah 3a) to be the
work of the Proselyte Onqelos. It covers only the Pen
tateuch. Its character is illustrated by the following
passages :
Gen. 2 : 24 reads, " Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother," which Onqelos rendered :
" Everyone should leave the sleeping chamber of his
father." b. Gen. 4:7, " If thou doest well, shalt thou not be
accepted ? " which Onqelos rendered, " If you improve
your conduct, you will be forgiven."
c. Ex. 1 : 22, " Every son _ that is born," Onqelos
emended with the word 'xnirrS so that the passage reads
" Every son that is born to the Jews."
d. In Ex. 3. 1 we have a complete change of diction.
The phrase " the mountain of God," Onqelos rendered
"the mountain, on which the glory of God revealed it
self." e. In Ex. 35 : 31 the phrase, " the spirit of God " is
rendered " the spirit of prophecy from God."
f . Num. 23 : 19 reads " God is not a man that He
should lie," which is rendered by Onqelos, " not like the
words of men is the decree of God."

Commentators of Talmudic Period 29
•g. Deut. 20 : 19, " for ths tree of the field is man's
life " is rendered by Onqelos, " behold not like man is
tree of the field."
In addition to the Aramaic translations we have the
Greek translations:
a. The Septuagint. It certainly reflects the Jewish
scholarship. b. The Greek translation of Aqila. It is a liberal
Greek rendering of the Old Testament text, is in
ferior to the LXX in diction, but is superior to it in ac
curacy, and reflects the scholarship of Jabneh. It is from
the pen of the same Onqelos to whom the Targum On
qelos is ascribed. The other existing Greek versions, the
Peshitta in Syriac and St. Jerome's Latin versions were
all influenced by Jewish teachers and may be regarded as
the avenues, through which much of the Jewish Biblical
exegesis came down to us.
Two other sources of Biblical exegesis exist which
have not been touched upon by us thus far. They are
not translations, but works discussing subjects of a Bib
lical character. I refer to the works of Philo and Jose-
phus. Philo may be called the representative of the
Alexandrian Jewish Exegetes who, in his writings, para
phrases, Pentateuchal storie^j and institutions, gives a
running commentary of the Biblical text, and attempts
to prove that Greek philosophy may be employed to ex
plain Biblical terms.
Josephus, who lived at the time of the siege of Jeru
salem and witnessed the downfall of the Jewish state and
nation, treats in the first part of his " Antiquities "
many of the narrative portions of Scriptures, and hence
may be justly regarded an interpreter of the Bible, in
addition to being considered an historian.

30 Jewish Biblical Commentators
The literature thus far mentioned comprises the first
attempts made by Jews to explain the meaning of the
Old Testament, as a whole, of its component books and
separate passages.
Leaving the Talmudical period, in which, for the most
part, the Midrashic method obtained, we encounter view
points which differ radically from those held by the Tal
mudic teachers and their contemporaries, although the
more recent view points may have been, and in all likeli
hood were, built upon or evolved out of the Midrashic
method. The causes which led to the change and the
men who championed the more recent method of inter
pretation will constitute the subject of the next chapter.

KARAITES AND SAADIA

CHAPTER II
The Karaites and Saadia
The year 500 of the Common Era marks the begin
ning of a new epoch, not only in the history of the Jew
ish people, but also in their literature. The view point
of Jews, with regard to all subjects, had undergone a
marvelous change, on account of changed cultural con
ditions. The Biblical exegesis which constituted their
main pursuit, could by no means remain unaffected.
That of the Talmudical period, treated in the previous
chapter, had been the product of the schools of Palestine
and Babylonia. In its creation, the Babylonian teachers
certainly played the more prominent part, inasmuch as
the Jewish centre of gravity had shifted from Palestine
to Babylonia at an early date, after the destruction of
the Temple in Jerusalem. It is true, Palestine could
boast of prominent academies, established for the in
terpretation of Scriptures, but they could not compare,
either in number or efficiency, with those which re
dounded to the glory of Babylonian Jewry.
In Babylonia, the Jews enjoyed, to a certain extent,
political independence. While they were under the con
trol of the Babylonian Government, they had, at their
head, an " Exilarch " known by the Aramaic title, " Resh
Geluthah." This dignitary, descendant as he was of the
Davidic family, enjoyed the respect and acknowledgment
of the State authorities. If is difficult to say, at what
time this office was first created. Documentary evidence,
3 ^-r-'-- ¦ ^- -

34 Jewish Biblical Commentators
to some extent, warrants us in holding the opinion, that
the office dates back to the time, when Babylon was a
part of the Parthian Empire; that it continued during
the rule of the Sassinades, and survived for several cen
turies during Arabic sway. One of the functions of the
Exilarch was the appointment of judges. He had juris
diction in criminal cases. He enjoyed special honor also
in the Synagogue. A proof of the last mentioned fact
is the circumstance, that the scroll of the law was car
ried to him during divine service, wliile all others had
to approach the scroll, when the benediction over the
scroll was to be recited by them. Enjoying the privilege
of maintaining a Court, the Exilarch was permitted to
levy taxes on the various provinces of Babylonia, in
which the Jews resided.
Granted such political and religious autonomy, it was
but natural for Jews to prefer to live in Babylonia, to
living in Palestine, howsoever dear Palestine was to
them, as the source of the holiest memories in their his
tory. It was, therefore, that many Jews, who had been
bom and reared in Palestine, migrated, often at an ad
vanced age, to Babylonia. As the Jewish population of
Babylonia increased, the schools in Babylonia became
more numerous than the Palestinean academies. They
also acquired greater prominence, and, eventually,
greater authority, in view of their superiority, depend
ent for the most part on the celebrity of their scholars.
Two of these schools, more particularly, grew in influ
ence. These schools were the academies of Sora and
Pumbeditha. At the head of these schools were men who
were known by the title, " Gaonim," literally, '' the
noble ones " ; also termed the " Eoshe Yeshibha," " heads

The Karaites and Saadia 35
of the academy," a title which came into existence about
the close of the sixth century.
The Gaonim constituted, in regular order of succes
sion, the fourth class of savants whose lives were de
voted to the study, teaching, and interpretation, not only
of the law of Moses, but of the entire Bible. The four
classes here referred to, are the following:
The first are the Tanaim — ^the teachers of the Mish
nah. The second are the Amoraim, the teachers of the
Talmud, who interpreted the Mishnah.
The third are the Saboraim who edited the Talmud.
The fourth are the Gaonim, who in turn interpreted
the Talmud, and based their religio-legal decisions on
the Talmudic teachings.
Before men could rise to the prominent position of
Gaon, they had to be elected by the academy. Their
learning, howsoever great, was, by no means, the sesame,
that opened for them the door to this scholastic promi
nence. Occasionally, however, they were appointed by
the Exilarch, who communally stood above the Gaonim,
and, whenever so appointed, they nevertheless remained
altogether independent of him.
While both Sora and Pumbeditha had their Gaonim,
the Gaon of Sora, in every single instance, occupied a
higher position than the Gaon of Pumbeditha ; in fact, if
the Exilarch died, during the administration of a Gaon
at Sora, the latter enjoyed the official income of the Exi
larch, until another Exilarch was appointed. The Gaon
of Sora undoubtedly owed his superior rank over his col
league in Pumbeditha, to the superiority of the school of
Sora, and it was only when the school of Sora closed

36 Jewish Biblical Commentators
its doors for all time to come, in the middle of the
eleventh century, that the office of Gaon went but of
existence. In the field of Biblical exegesis, the Gaonim did not
strike out along altogether new lines, until the middle
of the seventh century. They rather continued with
very slight variations, that Midrashic interpretation of
Scriptures, marking the works of the Talmudio period.
That eventually the Midrashic method of interpretation
should have been abandoned, is not surprising. Valua
ble as the " derash " seemed to be, some of the interpre
tations of this character were carried to extremes, in the
attempt to make every Biblical passage serve homiletical
purposes. The interpretation of the law was at times,
so far fetched and so fanciful, that it was sure to meet
with opposition. The Bible itself, on account of the
Midrashic method, was made secondary to its interpre
tation. Some of the teachers began to realize that the
Talmud was, on this account, supplanting the Bible,
in the estimation of the people. The undue reverence
for the Talmud, at the expense of the Scriptures, had to
be overcome. A movement was, therefore, set on foot
to reinstate the Bible into its proper place. This move
ment was inaugurated by no obscure individual, who
hailed from some out-of-the-way place, but by one who
belonged to the distinguished family of the Exilarch.
In order to understand thoroughly the influence which
the originator of the movement just referred to, exer
cised, it may be well to consider him in the light of his
social rank. The Exilarch Solomon had died without
issue, in 761, and the office was to have been conferred
on his nephew, Anan ben David. Anan ben David 'was

The Karaites and Saadia 37
deemed unfit for the position. There was personal ob
jection to him. He was presumptuous and overbearing,
while his brother, on the other hand, was unassuming
and modest. He also manifested a decided lukewarm-
ness towards traditional Judaism; a lukewarmness
amounting almost to disdain. What made him indif
ferent towards the traditions of his people was his long
sojourn in the Persian Mesopotamian borderlands,
where he was not only not under the influence of the
prevailing Jewish thought, but also where he did not re
main altogether unaffected by the propaganda of the
Islam. At his time, the weak remnants of Sadduceism and
Essenism, which dated their origin back as far as the sec
ond century before the Christian Era, made themselves
felt once more, amid the counter currents which were
sweeping across Jewish thought.
Keenly disappointed because not elected Exilarch,
Anan ben David allowed himself to be proclaimed Anti-
Exilarch. Jewish politics, despite the comparative Jew
ish independence, was not altogether unwatched by the
State authorities. Whenever differences arose within
the Jewish fold, the State authorities took a leading
part in the settlement. The Mohammedan Caliphs, hav
ing learned of Anan's determination to rule as Exilarch,
had him arrested, threw him into prison^ and would have
had him executed, had he not followed the advice of a fel
low prisoner, founder of the great Mohammedan Casuists,
the Hanafites, who counselled him to interpret all am
biguous and doubtful precepts of the law in a manner
directly opposed to the traditional interpretation, and
thus found a new religious sect. The Jews were looked

38 Jewish Biblical Commentators
upon as " unbelievers " by the Mohammedans, and it
was felt, that if Anan were bupposed to differ from the
Jews, as known to the Caliphate, the Caliphate would
look with favor upon the new sect, and its founder.
Anan accepted the advice. He was set free, and won
not only the connivance, but also the support of the Mo
hammedan authorities. No sooner set free, than he
devoted himself to the promotion of his new cause. He
went to Palestine and built a synagogue at Jerusalem,
in which the ritual in vogue was different from that
known in the synagogues recognized by Eabbinical au
thority. Eealizing that he was looked upon in the light
of a dissenter, Anan's hostility toward the Gaonate and
his animosity against the Talmud continued to grow
more intense. The remark is ascribed to him : " I wish
that all the adherents of the Talmud were in my body,
so that by killing myself I would at the same time kill
them." He did not hesitate to accuse the Talmudists,
including, of course, the Midrashic interpreters of Scrip
tures, of having corrupted Judaism, of having added to
the Torah many things not warranted by the text, and
of having disregarded some of the more important in
stitutions, which should be considered bone and sinew of
Israel as a people and of its religious life. The motto,
which guided Anan was, " Seek the Scriptures indus
triously." His battle cry seemed to be, " Back to the
Bible." In contradistinction to the Talmudists, called
" Eabbinites," because adhering to that Eabbinical tra
dition, supposed to explain the law and its intent, the
followers of Anan ben David are known in history as
the Karaites (Keraim, Baale Mikra, Bene Mikra), fol
lowers of the Bible, and the movement represented by

The Karaites and Saadia 39
them was' termed Karaism. Anan is reported to have ex
pounded his views concerning religious commandments
and prohibitions, in three works, one of which was a
commentary to the Pentateuch. These works have un
fortunately been lost. The later development of the
Karaitic movement, however, showed that Anan took so
bold a stand against Talmudic exposition that he went
to unwarranted extremes in his method, which consisted
of the literal exposition of Scriptures. Opposed as he
was to Eabbinical tradition, he did not steer clear en
tirely of the method of the Eabbinites. He fell into the
very net, from the meshes of which he endeavored to
extricate himself. Thus, for example, he made use of
the Mishnic rules of interpretation, in deducing the new
laws of his religion. Among the many things that he
effected, are the following: He abolished the fixed calen
dar, which had been in vogue for five enturies. Being a
literalist, he in some instances, outdid the Rabbinites In
rigorousness. This is evident in the observances of the
Sabbath, the laws regarding food forbidden to be eaten,
and the institution of mariage. Things that he forbade
were the laying of the Phylacteries, the use of the festal
plants on the Feast of Tabernacles, and the celebration
of the Feast of Dedication. He changed also the cycle
of Scriptural reading for the Sabbaths.
Justification as there may have been, to some extent,
in the Karaitic movement, it must not be forgotten that
the literalism of interpretation made for a point which
was equalled in danger only by the extreme to which
Rabbinism had gone before the advent of Anan. Nor
must it be forgotten that the natural changes, which are
brought about in the culture of a people, during cen-

40 Jewish Biblical Commentators
furies of existence, and which form the force known as
iradition, are the determining elements in the develop
ment of the cause the people may represent. And yet,
extravagant as Karaism may have been, and anxious as
it was to bring about a revolution against an ingenuity
run riot in the method of Talmudical interpretation, it
must be conceded that Karaism gave to Biblical criti
cism, as it did to Judaism, a healthy stimulus for Bible
study, along more careful and rational lines, even in
circles beyond its own territory. Although Karaism
divided the Jewish people into two factions, a cleavage
which since tlie time of Anan has not been repaired, it
proved a blessing in disguise. Nor was Karaism simply
a temporary phenomenon. Because of the novelty of its
thought, and its revolutionary tendency against Tal-
mudism, Karaism made many converts during the first
centuries of its existence, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria,
Babylonia, and Persia. In course of time, it extended
even to the Byzantine Empire, and about the thirteenth
century it made its way into Russia, where almost all the
living exponents of the movement are confined.
In the century and a half following Anan, Karaism
produced no prominent work in the field of Biblical
exegesis. Among those who devoted themselves to the
work are the following: Benjamin Nahawendi, who ap
plied the allegorical method of exposition, in a manner
resembling that of Philo; Judghan of Hamadan, known
as Judah the Persian, who expounded the theory that
the law had both exoteric and esoteric significance ; Hivi
of Balkh, who attempted to criticize the subject matter
of the Bible, on rational grounds, and claimed to have
discovered two hundred reasons, both historical and
legal, against the authenticity of the Pentateuch.

The Karaites and Saadia 41
The bulk of exegetical literature produced by Ka
raites, came into existence several centuries later, and
was inspired by the example of Rabbinism, which was
all this time producing important exegetical literature.
It is not necessary, in this connection, to give the names
of the Karaitic Biblical exegetes, living several centuries
after Anan. Suffice it to say, that their literary works
are commentaries on the Pentateuch and other Biblical
books, and treatises on the grammar of the Hebrew
language. However, it is no more than just to state that
the Karaites of the tenth and eleventh centuries, who •
contributed to Biblical exegeses, rendered, at times, valu
able service, since at this late day, the animosity of Ka
raism against Rabbinism had become considerably miti
gated, and the judgment of Karaites had become calmer.
While Rabbinism had a greater number of followers
than Karaism, it, by no means, looked with indifference
upon the new movement. Rabbinism regarded it as it
would every other revolutionary power, in the light of an
enemy, which, in all probability, would, in course of
time, become a formidable rival. Rabbinism, therefore,
felt itself called upon to answer the charges made against
it, and reconstruct, if this were necessary, the Midrashic
element of interpretation, which had been so carefully
developed during ten centuries of scholastic activity.
Rabbinism was prepared to acknowledge its wealaiesses.
It was willing to remedy its faults. It preferred recon
struction to seeing traditions suffer the complete loss of
respect and confidence among the people.
Towards the close of the ninth century, the first cham
pion of the new interpretation of Rabbinism made his
appearance. The man, to whom reference is made, is

42 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Saadia ben Joseph, who was born in the City of Fayum,
in upper Egypt, in 892, and died in 942 at the age of
fifty. Very little is known about his youth and- education.
Numerous conjectures exist as to the identity of his
teachers. One man supposes him to have been the disciple
of a certain Abu Kathir; another believes him to have
sat at the feet of the Karaite, Salman ben Jerucham,
against whom he, later in life, waged bitter war. The
works he wrote, however, indicate that for the time in
which he lived, his education was a many sided one. He
was not only master of the Hebrew language and all the
literature written in it, but also the master of the Arabic
tongue. He devoted himself to philosophy and famil
iarized himself thoroughly with the sacred literature of
Christianity and Islam. His reputation soon spread
from his native country to the center of Jewish life.
Probably he never dreamed in his youth, of being pro
moted to the dignity of Gaon. His superiority, how
ever, soon won for him this exalted position. In 928 he
was elected to become the head of the school of Sora,
because of the very qualities which his opponent claimed
rendered him unfit for the position. It was held that,
while Saadia surpassed all his contemporaries in wisdom,
piety, and eloquence, his very independent spirit made
him shrink from no undertaking. It was regarded an
exceptional instance for an Egyptian Jew, who had not
been reared in the Talmudic atmosphere of the Baby
lonian schools, to be called to preside over the academy
of Sora. Philosopher as Saadia was, he added to the al
ready very great glory of that Babylonian academy. Sora
soon became known, through him, not only for its Tal-

The Karaites and Saadia 43
mudic, but also for its philosophical disciplines. As he
added to the splendor of Sora, the school of Pumbeditha
continued to suffer a gradual loss of its former greatness.
Saadia's praiseworthy independence against the Exilarch
David, who wanted him to act contrary to the dictates
of his conscience, induced David to depose him, where
upon Saadia turned upon David, and deposed the latter.
Two factions thus arose in Babylonia, among the Rab
binites, each of which applied to the Caliphate for
intercession. In response to bribes, David was endorsed
by the Caliph. Saadia, nevertheless, asserted his au
thority as Gaon, and it was only upon the death of the
Caliph, when money again began to pour from David's
purse into the coffers of the new ruler, that Saadia was
compelled to live in Bagdad in retirement for four years.
Saadia was a prolific writer on every subject in which
he had received training. He produced an Arabic trans
lation of the Pentateuch and the other Biblical books,
with a commentary written also in Arabic. The only
books extant are the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Psalms, Prov
erbs, and fragments of the Book of Job. In his trans
lation he figures as the exponent of the " Peshat," " the
simple explanation," combining in the same, reason and
tradition. This translation was, therefore, also explana
tory, without possessing the character of the paraphrase.
In the introduction to this work, Saadia states that he
underakes the task upon the request of many for a trans
lation of the Torah, with special reference to the linguis
tic sense, in order to make the Torah more intelligible
to the people. His philosophical work, entitled " Sefer
Ha-emunoth Vedeoth" on the philosophy of religion, and
his commentary on the book of Creation, "Sefer Yezi-

44 Jewish Biblical Commentators
rah " must be mentioned also in this connection, as
throwing light on the many passages of Scriptures which
required exegetical explanation. The linguistic treat
ises he left, also, are worthy of note here. That of spe
cial interest is the " Sefer Lashon Ivri," a book on the
Hebrew language, in which he treats details of Hebrew
grammar. Two other books of interest, from his pen,
are the one on " Hapax-legomena," and the other on the
" Elegance of the Hebrew Language," " Sefer Zechuth."
Saadia figures as champion of that rational traditional
ism in interpretation, for which the conditions of the
times called. Reason is with him the basis of Scriptural
exegesis. He claims that the exposition of the Bible
must contain nothing that is obscure, or nothing that
contradicts logic. His interpretation is not limited by
the reproduction of simple words and sentences, but takes
into consideration the " Tendenz " of the books as entire
ties, and the relation in which the component chapters
of books, stand to one another. He believed in miracle',
and the divine origin of the Bible. He took into account
the collateral authority of Scriptures themselves, as a
source of exegesis^ and did not fail to lay stress upon
the authority of tradition. Saadia followed the exam
ples of the Targums, in the explanation of anthropomor
phisms. The understanding of his translation was pro
moted by his invariable attempt not to permit the ob
scure to remain, and because he used Arabic words for
expressions of the Bible, which, while they were not al
together warranted by the text, made the text clear. It
is on this score that Ibn Ezra criticized him, as well as
for his habit of giving terms connotations not warranted
by their real meaning.

The Karaites and Saadia 45
The point to which special attention should be di
rected in the exegesis of Saadia, is his theory, that in
the Bible we have frequent ellipses. Thus, for example,
in his commentary, where he speaks of the law of the half-
shekel, commanded in Exodus 30 : 11-16, we find him
saying that in Chronicles 5 : 6 and 9, between the words
" Masath " and " Mosheh," the word " Am " should be
supplied, so that the text would read, " The numbering
of the people of Moses." He claims that there are ten
ellipses in the Bible, which must be supplied after the
verb " Nasa " " to lift up." As pioneer of an exegesis
independent of the iron-clad traditional Midrashic
thought, Saadia soon won' many followers, both among
his contemporaries and his immediate successors. These
are Samuel ben Chofni (who died 1034) and who fol
lows Saadia in his explanation of the Pentateuch, al
though adhering to the Hebrew text more strictly than
Saadia ; Aaron Ibn Sargado, head of the school of Pum
beditha, who was the author of a commentary on the Pen
tateuch ; the Gaon Hai, Isaac Israeli ; Jehudah Karoisch,
Chananel ben Chushiel, of whose Pentateuchal com
mentary many examples have been preserved; Nissim
ben Jacob, and Sabbathai Donnolo. With the end of
Saadia's life, the Babylonian schools drew to their close.
One of the last of the more prominent Gaonim was She-
rira, and the last was the Gaon Hezekiah, executed by
order of the Caliph. The decline of the school of Sora
was no doubt the result of the antagonism of the Moham
medans and the differences between the Jewish scholars
of those days. When, in 1036, the last Gaon was cruelly
removed from his office, the scholars of Babylonia were
scattered, and Babylonia no longer continued as the seat

46 Jewish Biblical Commentators
of Jewish learning. Jewish activity shifted to other
quarters, and with the shifting of Jewish activity into
another environment, the Biblical exegesis among Jews,
took on a new shape and a new color.

GRAMMARIANS AND
LEXICOGRAPHERS

CHAPTER III
Grammarians and Lexicographers
That was a sorrowful day when the schools of Sora
and Pumbeditha were obliged to close their doors, never
again to be reopened for the reception of students and
the study of the law under the guidance of celebrated
scholars. As, at one time, the people did not deem it
possible for Israel to survive, without the ownership of
Palestine and Israel's separate existence as a nation, so,
in the days of the Babylonian academies, the conviction
was general, that Biblical knowledge could thrive only
under Babylonian skies. Little did men dream, that
in the far off Spanish Peninsula, the work, so conscien
tiously begun and faithfully cultivated in the East,
would be successfully continued, and that too, by men
not possessing less enthusiasm for, and perseverance in
the study of the Law, than their Palestinean and Baby
lonian predecessors.
Spain had been inhabited by Jews during the early
Christian centuries. The life of these early Jewish set
tlers was anything but an enviable one. They were ex
posed to constant proscriptions and persecutions. Not
until the conquest of Spain by the Mohammedans in the
beginning of the Eighth Century, when spurred on by
African co-religionists to ally themselves with the Moors,
did a period of comparative prosperity and ease dawn
for the Jews, who had taken up their residence in Spain.
That the superior advantages enjoyed by Spanish Jews

50 Jewish Biblical Commentators
should have attracted to Spain, Jews from other coun
tries, is a circumstance requiring but little special punc
tuation. From this time on, Spain became the New
Jerusalem, not simply because it offered aliome to " the
tribe of the wandering foot," but also because from it
issued " the law and the word of God."
The manner in which the learning of the East chanced
to be transplanted to the West, is one of the most inter
esting incidents in the history of those days. When the
school of Sora was rapidly declining and its end seemed
near, its teachers desired to make one last effort to pre
vent its disintegration. In the year 948, four teachers
were, therefore, delegated to cross the Mediterranean
Sea and address themselves to several commimities for
subsidies to be voted the most prominent seat of Jewish
learning then in existence. The four teachers in ques
tion embarked on the same vessel, which was captured
by the Spanish-Arabic Admiral, Ibn Rumahis. One of
the teachers, Shemaryah, was sent to Alexandria; Chus
hiel to Cyrene; Nathan ben Isaac Cohen to Narbonne;
and Moses to Cordova. With the infiltration of the
Babylonian Jewish influence, the Jews of Spain were
roused to a consciousness and appreciation of their valu
able opportunity. Everything favored their becoming
the main champions of, and the most valuable contribu
tors to the science of Jewish thought. The common
schools were not closed to them, nor did the higher seats
of learning bar them from the knowledge these were
dispensing. All the sciences and arts welcomed Jews,
as promoters, provided they had talent requisite for their
mastery. Social equality with the Moors also was not
denied them. Finding Moorish activity to be devoted

Grammarians and Lexicographers 51
to the field of Arabic grammar, the Spanish Jews soon
became mastered by an ambition to be active in the field
of Hebrew grammatical research. Many a person felt
that the proper definition of Hebrew terms, the proper
use of various parts of Hebrew speech, and the proper
syntactical correlation of sentences, were not yet thor
oughly understood, even by those who used the Hebrew,
both in their daily speech and in their literary under
takings; and that Biblical exegesis would certainly be
aided materially, if Hebrew in these various aspects were
better understood. Never, in all the history of Israel,
did the future seem to hold out richer promises than
were held out to Jews in the days constituting the Tenth
Century. Former generations had, it is true, produced
celebrities whose names became enveloped by the rich
halo of immortality. These days, however, produced
stars of a higher magnitude on the horizon of Jewish
scholarship, than had ever been attained before this
era. Men who built wisely on the traditions of the past,
and, at the same time, did not fail to avail themselves
of the valuable researches made by the Moors; men who
may be declared to have separated the dross of the fanci
ful from the purer metal of truth; men who broke the
fetters binding their co-religionists to the unreasonable,
and won the freedom of scientific speculation ; men who
may be regarded as the deliverers, rescuing Jewish exe
gesis from total stagnation, are the promising children
of this age, in the development of Jewish culture.
The first authority to claim our attention is Joseph
Ibn Abitur, who was born in the year 905 at Merida, and
died at Damascus, in 970. The place of his activity was
attractive Cordova, where he was a disciple of the Baby-

52 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Ionian Rabbi Moses, who had been sent out to collect
contributions for the school of Sora. Upon the death
of his teacher, Abitur was a rival candidate, with his
teacher's son, for the Rabbinate of Cordova. His fail
ure to get that high office, filled him with keen disap
pointment, and although he afterwards could have been
made the Rabbi of this Spanish metropolis, and could
have had his teacher's son deposed, he was perfectly will
ing to deny himself that honor. Although engaged, in
the main, in writing liturgical poetry for the synagogue,
much of which has found its way into the ritual still in
use, and which shows him to have had a deep insight
into the beauties of the sacred tongue, his activity was,
by no means, limited to this class of literature. Tal-
mudist as he was, he could not help but be influenced by
the Talmudic spirit, in his endeavor to establish the
correct sense of Scriptures. He must have written ex
tensively on the Biblical books, in spite of the fact that
only fragments of his Commentary on the Book of
Psalms have come down to us. His diction is tinged
with Aramaisms, and the peculiarity distinguishing him
from his predecessors in the field of exegesis, is that he
,coined many new Hebrew words, and thus increased the
already great wealth of the Hebrew vocabulary.
The man with whom the florescence of Andalusian
culture began, and who won for himself unsurpassed
fame in the history of dispersed Jewry, is Chasdai Ibn
Shaprut. He saw the light of day at Jaen in the year
915, and died at Cordova in 990. Being of wealthy par
entage, nothing was spared to give him a many-sided
education in the classics and sciences of that day. His
acquaintance with Hebrew, Arabic and Latin was all-

Grammarians and Lexicographers 53
embracing, and his eminence in the medical profession
was so marked that after the discovery of a panacea,
he was made physician to the then ruling Caliph. He
also took an active part in the settlement of diplomatic
relations between Spain and foreign powers, thus win
ning for himself the appreciation and gratitude of his
countrymen. It was he, through whose infiuence, Rabbi
Moses ben Enoch, interested in the restoration of the
academy of Sora, became the director of the destinies of
Cordova's Jews, and who made of Andalusia a second
Babylonia. While there are no works extant, from
Chasdai's pen, which directly help to promote the un
derstanding of Scriptures, it is asserted that he could
not have been altogether idle in this sphere. Some men
are the powers behind thron<^s. They are the sources of
other people's inspiration. They do the thinking and
guiding. They call attention to noteworthy facts, and
lend to the undertakings of others, wealth-producing
suggestions. Such a man Chasdai imdoubtedly was.
We know him to have been in correspondence, not only
with the King of the Chazars, who constituted a separate
Jewish State in the East, but also with the men of whom
we shall now treat, and to whom, by means of his corre
spondence, he, with the treasure house of his Hebrew
erudition, must have been of invaluable assistance, in
the prosecution of their grammatical undertakings.
Cordova being the center of Andalusian Jewish cul
ture, it naturally succeeded in attracting into its pre
cincts, unparalleled for inspiration, scholars from every
other city in the Spanish Peninsula. One of the schol
ars, thus attracted, was Menahem ben Saruk, bom at
Tortosa in 910. He came to Cordova at an early age.

54 Jewish Biblical Commentators
and upon his arrival in that metropolis, was befriended
not only by Chasdai's father, but also by Chasdai him
self. Menahem's forte Vi^as philology. It was claimed
for him that he understood thoroughly the laws that are
basic to the structure of languages, and could account,
with ease, for the causes that give rise to distinct lin
guistic phenomena. Encouraged by Chasdai, Menahem
undertook the production of a dictionary of the He
brew language, to which he gave the name, " Machbe-
reth," " the key." It was the first complete work of its
kind. While the need may have been felt before his day
for a lexicon of Hebrew terms contained in the Bible,
no one had, as yet, ventured upon so gigantic and, there
fore, formidable an undertaking. The theories he ad
vanced in his work were rather strange from our point of
view, and, therefore, remained by no means unattacked.
His most bitter critic was his contemporary, Dunash. He,
too, as we shall see later on, could lay claim to profound
grammatical knowledge, and to a pronounced linguistic
talent. His strictures on Menahem's work were so se-'
vere and thorough-going, that they made Menahem lose
not only the good will, but also the friendship of Chas
dai, his disillusioned devoted patron. Menahem never
took the occasion to defend himself against his assailant,
but left it to his pupils to plead his cause before the
tribunal of scholarship. While Menahem does not evi
dence exact knowledge of the forms of the Hebrew lan
guage, he nevertheless recognized that the language was
governed by definite rules. In the explanations he gave
for Hebrew terms, he frequently employed the termi
nology of the Arabic grammarians, although that termi
nology, because of differences in connotation was not al-

Grammarians and Lexicographers 55
ways applicable. Menahem did not know anything of
the theory of tri-literal stems, in the Hebrew language,
and, if he was aware of it, he completely ignored it. He
believed not only in bi-literal, but also in uni-literal
roots. That, therefore, he should have arrived at some
of the strangest conclusions as to the meaning of Bib
lical texts, requires no special proof for one acquainted
with the Hebrew language on the basis of the tri-literal
theory. A point worthy of note, in connection with
Menahem's theory, is the principle that strange words
in the Bible may be explained best in the light of their
context. For this purpose Menahem employs the struc
ture of Biblical poetry and rhetoric. Whereas much
that Menahem advocated has been overthrown, he cer
tainly is entitled to a prominent place among the liter
ary men of his time, on account of the impetus he gave
to the study of Hebrew. And had he lived longer than
960, who knows but what he might have seen the errOi
of his theories, and thus put Biblical scholars under
greater obligations to him than he did.
We have already mentioned the name of Dunash, who
attacked Menahem. This Dunash is known by the name,
Dunash Ibn Labrat. He was born in Bagdad in the
year 920, and devoted himself, more particularly, to the
study of philology, like Menahem, the object of his se
vere criticism. While still a young man, he found his
way into Spain. He, like hundreds of others, was at
tracted to beautiful and fascinating Andalusia. He
knew that his talents would thrive in that healthful at
mosphere of culture, for which Andalusia was famed.
He felt that there his soul could soar to dreamed-of
heights, amid the freedom which the Moors held out to

56 Jewish Biblical Commentators
every student. Having studied Arabic, he soon began
to trace the resemblances and differences between the
Arabic language and its sister tongue, the Hebrew. Nor
is he a poet of mean order. Studied in the light of a
singer, he is regarded the founder of a new Hebrew
meter, patterned after an Arabic model. It was the
" Machbereth" of Menahem, which gave Dunash the
greatest opportunity for the display of his specific talent.
Unwelcome as Dunash's criticism of Menahem was, he
justified it on the ground of his conviction that Menahem
was wrong, and that it is the duty of wise men to cor
rect one another, in spite of the fact, that it is claimed
that Dunash would not have been so severe in his criti
cism, had he not desired to ingratiate himself with
Chasdai, and thus displace Menahem in Chasdai's af
fections. In the introduction to his criticism, Dunash
treats of the various classes of letters in the Hebrew
alphabet, the parts of speech, inflections, various kinds
of sentences, the syntactical relations of clauses, the
peeularities of the Biblical text, synonyms, words writ
ten " plene " and " defective,'" superfluous letters, euphe
mistic expressions, the Aramaic and Arabic languages,
and the thirteen traditional rules of Biblical exegesis.
Dunash's main contention is that Hebrew words can
be traced back to tri-literal stems, only sometimes to
bi-literal, but never to uni-literal stems. As Dunash
had criticised Menahem, so he also criticised the Gaon
Saadia, in a work which has come down to us in frag
mentary form. On the death of the two opponents
Menahem and Dunash, their disciples continued for
some time to array themselves in hostile attitude against
one another, seeking at one another's expense, honors
on the battlefield of grammatical research.

Grammarians and Lexicographers 57
To one of the men taking an active part in this war
fare, attention must needs be directed. We refer to
Juda ben David Chayyug, a grammarian born in Mo
rocco in 950. Having moved to Cordova, he became a
pupil of Menahem, and took up the cause of his teacher
against Dunash. Well versed in Arabic grammatical
literature, he applied the methods of Arabic gramma
rians, to the explanation of Hebrew grammar. His
predecessors had often ha'd difficulty in accounting for
differences between strong and weak verbs. Chayyug
solved the problem. He held that all Hebrew stems are
tri-literal, and that if one letter does not appear in a
given form, it may be regarded as quiescent in one way
or other. This theory he expounded in a work entitled,
"A Book of Verbs Containing Weak Letters." The
work consists of three parts. The flrst part treats of
verbs in which the first radical is a weak letter ; the sec-
or.d part of verbs in which the second radical is a weak
letter, and the third part of verbs in which the third
radical is a weak letter. He also wrote a treatise on
verbs containing double letters, that is, such in which
the second and third radicals are the same; two trea
tises on punctuation, expounding the principles funda
mental to the Masoretic use of vowels and consonants;
arother treatise, entitled " The Book of Extracts," in
which he discusses verbal stems in the order ih which
they occur in the Bible. The influence Chayyug exerted
upon Hebrew grammarians, was so epoch-making, that
it is still felt to-day by men devoting themselves to the
promotion of Hebrew grammar, because the knowledge
they present, is for the most part, based upon the discov
eries of Chayyug.

58 Jewish Biblical Commentators
One of the first men who felt the influence of Chay-
yug's grammatical discoveries was Abulwalid, born in
Cordova towards the close of the Tenth Century. He
spent a part of his youth in Lucena. Whether he was a
pupil of Chayyug, is not certain. The fact remains,
however, that he revered Chayyug deeply, and valued
his discoveries. Although Abulwalid was a physician
and wrote medical works, he devoted himself most as
siduously to the study of the Hebrew language, in order
to unravel by means of his knowledge the intent of
Scriptures. His works were not written in Cordova.
On account of political difficulties, he was obliged to flee
that city, and only after wandering about for a long time,
did he settle in Saragosa, where he wrote his works.
His first treatise was " The Supplement," which, as its
name indicates, supplements the treatise of Chayyug on
weak verbs. He tells us that he had read the Scriptures
eight times, and explains some odd fifty roots, not treated
by Chayyug. Nor does he always agree with Chayyug.
He wrote another book entitled " The Awakening,"
which is in the nature of a reply to an anonymous at
tack made upon him, on the ground that he, in criticis
ing Chayyug, had forgotten some of Chayyug's mistakes.
In this reply Abulwalid gives valuable grammatical ob
servations. In the polemics, which subsequently were
carried on between himself and Samuel Ibn Nagdela,
many obscure points in Hebrew grammar are expounded.
Abulwalid's principal 'Vork was " The Critical Investi
gation," consisting of two parts ; the first treating of the
grammar of the language, the second being a vocabulary.
The most celebrated contemporary and rival of Abul
walid, in the field of grammatical research, was Samuel

Grammarians and Lexicographers 59
ben Joseph Ibn Nagdela, called also " Samuel Hanagid."
He was born in Cordova, in 993, and died at Granada
1055. He, like all other great men of that day, enjoyed a
thorough linguistic training. Arabic caligraphy is re
ported to have been one of the disciplines, for which he
showed special aptitude. Some of the letters he wrote in
his artistic style fell into the hands of the ruling Vizier.
At first, in consequence of the admiration of his letters,
he was made the private secretary of the Vizier, and
afterwards, upon the death of that official. King Habus
raised him to the office held by his patron. Although
exalted to the position of a Prince, he continued his
studies among the Jews of Granada. He was the Nagid,
or chief, the Rabbinical authority, and the intercessor
or representative of his co-religionists. He was the
friend of all students, who sought culture, and afforded
them the means for their education. He believed in
making knowledge as abundant as are the waters which
cover the sea. In his estimation, only knowledge, and
nothing else, was power. Of the writings of Samuel but
few have come down to us. One of these is his introduc
tion to the Talmud. Another is the fragment of a work
entitled "Ben Mishle," containing aphorisms and max
ims. Another is a collection of philosophical medita
tions, known by the name of "Ben Qoheleth." His
principal grammatical work is " Sefer Ha-Osher," no
longer in existence. In it, he went beyond the principles
laid down by Chayyug. Citations of this work are found
in Ibn Ezra, which indicate the independence of Sam
uel's thought. An example of his theories is the fol
lowing. He claims that the verbs like " Nathan " (to
give) and " Laqach " (to take) are not tri-consonantal,

60 Jewish Biblical Commentators
but bi-consonantal. The forms, " Yutan" (Lev. 11: 38)
and "Yuqach" (Isaiah 49 : 25,) are notr to be regarded
" Hophal " forms, but passives of the " Qal."
These are the characters who may be considered, with
justice, the links between the phase of Biblical interpre
tation, developed in Palestine, and that other phase,
which made its appearance in the Eleventh Century, in
Western and Southwestern Europe. These men, by vir
tue of the grammar and lexicography cultivated by
them, in which they were influenced by the example of
Arabic grammarians, were the natural forerunners of
that exegetical age, in the more modern sense of the
term, which was about to dawn. They, no doubt, felt
that in order to be able to understand the literature of a
language, the structure and syntax of the language must
be thoroughly mastered. They lived themselves into
the spirit of the ancient Hebrew, and, thus, not only
put themselves into the position of discovering for them
selves, the intent of the Scriptures, but also enabled the
critics of later days to give those explanations of the
Biblical text, for which they, in their turn, received a
prominent place in the history of Bible exegesis.

RASHI AND THE TOSSAFISTS

CHAPTER IV
Rashi and the Tossafists
Spain was, beyond all doubt, the most prolific country
in the production of Jewish literature during the middle
ages. In fact, as long as the Jew was permitted to reside
within its borders, he continued to add from day to day
to the already extensive storehouse of literary treasures,
the foundation of which was laid by the grammarians
and lexicographers treated in the previous chapter.
Even during the days of Jewish persecutions, instituted
by the church, after the expulsion of Moors from the
Spanish Peninsula, master-minds followed faithfully
that line of research opened by Arabic savants.
But Spain was not the only country where men of
light and leading were spurred on to take up the grate
ful task of interpreting the relation of Jewish thought
to the prevailing thought of the world of that time and
of unfolding (because Jewish thought was based upon
Biblical thought) the intent and purpose of Scriptures.
The influence of Moors extended beyond the Pyrenees.
These mountains separated the countries only physically
from one another. The peoples residing in the several
lands on both sides of the mountain chain could not
help but be moulded by the civilization for which the
neighboring nations stood. The Renaissance, for which
the never-to-be-forgotten Moors were responsible, both
in the sciences and the arts, swept everything before it.
France, nearest neighbor to the North, could not resist

64 Jewish Biblical Commentators
the Moorish revolutionary culture, to the potency of
which the people of other European domains perforce
succumbed. French Jews were quick to feel the magic
touch, which gave both new and bright tone and color
to the researches carried on by their Spanish co-religion
ists. TJie French Jews were, furthermore, prepared fot
the dawn of a new epoch in the realm of their religious
literature. It is to France, therefore, that our attention
shall be directed, more especially because in the field of
Biblical exegesis, chronological treatment of interpreters
is of great importance in tracing the development of
Jewish exegesis as a science. Although in those days, the
means of communication between peoples living at great
distances from one another were not those of railroad
and telegraph, thought, ne'\'ertheless, rushed like mighty
air currents from one section of the world to another
and in every instance, left behind perceptible traces of
its clarifying work.
France, like Spain, was inhabited by Jews in the early
centuries of the Christian Era, despite the many and
stringent church laws enacted against them, denying
them privileges that should have been theirs, as children
of God. Instances in point are the decree of the Council
of Macon (581), forbidding the appointment of Jews
as judges and tax collectors; the decree of the Council
of Paris (614), prohibiting Jews from exercising civic
rights over Christians; and the decree of the Council of
Narbonne, interdicting the singing of Psalms by Jews
at the burial of their own dead. Proscriptions against
Jews continued to be formulated until the time of Char
lemagne, when their life in Prance, fortunately, for a
time, at least, became more bearable and continued thus

Eashi and the Tossafists 65
until the reign of Amnio, in the middle of the ninth
century, with whose advent to the throne, suffering again
became the badge of Jews. It was in the eleventh cen
tury that the Viscount of Narbonne, happily prevented
in his district, at least, the massacre of Jews by the Cru
saders, who, without mercy, killed Jews, as they did the
Moors of Spain.
Narbonne was one of the largest, if not the largest
community of France. In the year 948, Nathan ben
Isaac Cohen, one of the four teachers sent from Sora
to collect funds to prevent the extinction of that school,
was brought thither by his Spanish-Arabic captor. His
learning was soon recognized- It was felt that he pos
sessed power, of which no man living in the West could
justly boast. Until these days, the Occident could not
compare in point of Jewish scholarship with the dying
Orient. It was, therefore, that teachers, hailing from
Babylonia, were welcomed as guides and directors of
European countries. As Eabbi Moses had lent dignity
and promise to Cordova and made it the most prominent
Spanish seat of Jewish learning, so Eabbi Nathan raised
Narbonne out of its obscurity to heights of scholarship,
which it perhaps never dreamed of occupying. Among
the scholars of that century was the grammarian, Tal-
mudist and great Eabbinical authority, Eabbenu Ger-
shon, called " The Light of the Exile," who hailed from
Metz, had a school in Mayence and while a German in
spirit, nevertheless influenced the thought of France
through his French pupils (who came to listen to his in
struction), and through his correspondence conducted
with the French Eabbis. The man through whom, in
all probability, he moulded French Jewisli thought most
5

66 Jewish Biblical Commentators
was Eashi. Although not his pupil, Eashi enjoyed the
benefit of Gershon's method and theories by way of in
heritance from an uncle. " Eashi " is an abbreviation,
consisting of the initials of the words, " Eabbi Solomon
ben Isaac." Sometimes he is called " Parshandatha,"
literally signifying " Interpreter of the Law." He was
born in 1040, in the city of Troyes, the same year that
Eabbenu Gershon died, and it has been often remarked
that he was ushered into the world in order to make
good the loss the world sustained by the demise of Ger
shon. It is erroneously claimed at times, that Eashi
hailed from Lunel. Tradition also holds that he was a
lineal descendant of the great Talmudic scholar, Jochanan
Hassandler. And another legend asserts that he was a
native of Worms in Germany, where — in the wall of the
synagogue, the people still point to a concavity, produced
by the pressure of Rashi's mother, who, while pregnant
with him, pressed against the wall to prevent herself
from being run down by a wagon, driven through the
narrow lane, for the express purpose of bringing about
her death. Despite these several legends, the fact re
mains that he was born on French soil in the city of
Troyes, was the Eabbi of that community, only visited
Worms, and probably taught the law there on the occa
sion of his visit, in the chapel adjoining the synagogue.
called the Eashi Chapel, but never lived in Worms per
manently, any more than he did in Prague or in some
of the African and Asiatic Jewish centers to which his
travels extended. Eashi took charge of the spiritual
destinies of the Jews of his native city at the age of
twenty-five, upon his return from the Jewish seats of
learning he visited in Germany. He witnessed the be-

Eashi and the Tossafists 67
ginning of the first Crusade in 1095, in the atrocities of
which he lost some of his. dearest relatives and best
friends. The year 1105 marks his death. Never in all
the history of the Jewish people didj^cholar live, who
gave evidence of greater industry and perseverance than
Eashi displayed. Apart from the fact that he mastered
the composite learning of his day and gave the result of
his researches to the world, not only in the training
of numerous disciples, but also in the creation of a
monumental commentary to the Bible, he wrote a com
mentary to the Mishnah and Talmud, as a rule printed
on the inner margin of folio volumes, alongside of the
text, as is the case with his commentary on the Bible.
Of this commentary on the Talmud, but one word need
be said in order to appreciate its great value. The Tal
mudic text is unintelligible without the light thrown
upon it by Rashi's explanation. Had it not been for
the' services rendered by Rashi in this direction, the Tal
mud, in all probability, would have remained a work
closed with seven seals. It shows him to have possessed
not only marked familiarity with the Talmudic idiom,
often obscure in the extreme because of its terseness, but
also a thorough acquaintance with the institutions the
Talmud treats and with the spirit characterizing its
many intricate discussions. His production of a com
mentary on a part of the Midrash and his composition
of some of the prayers and reflections, still having a
place in the ritual of the Orthodox Synagogue, may not
be relevant in a treatment ol Rashi, as Bible exegete;
nevertheless reference to these undertakings must needs
be made, in order to indicate the gigantic proportions of
the literature he left to posterity.

68 Jewish Biblical Commentators
As Bible exegete, his influence extended not simply
beyond the borders of his own school, but beyond the con
fines of France into Germany, Spain and Italy, and in
the course of a very short space of time, all over the en
tire world. Nor were his interpretations of moment only
in his day. Even at the present time, as much as in the
da3rs immediately succeeding his life, his interpretations
are studied by all students of the Bible, in their desire to
understand the spirit of the various books of Scriptures.
But because his interpretation elicited almost world
wide attention and often evoked the most favorable com
ments at the hands of his contemporaries, it must not be
imagined, that he encountered no opposition. In Ibn
Ezra, to whose activity we shall refer in a subsequent
chapter, he found a critic worthy of his steel. In a
number of instances, Ibn Ezra criticises Rashi's conclu
sions severely. This is but natural, in view of the fact
that they started from altogether different premises and
pursued widely varying methods.
Rashi's commentary on the Bible, written in Rab
binical Hebrew, must be studied in the light of the
exegetical tendencies prevailing in his day, if it is
to be thoroughly understood. Simultaneous with the
flowering of Bible exegesis in Spain, there arose a school
of exegesis in Northern Africa, whose purpose was to
establish the " Peshat," the simple, the natural explana
tion of Scriptures, in opposition to the "Derash," the
traditional, the derived, sense. On many sides, it was
felt that neither the " Peshat " nor the " Derash " alone,
can unravel the meaning of Biblical passages. The
happy combination of both, consisting of the virtues of
these methods, was, for the proper understanding of

Rashi and the Tossafists 69
Scriptures, deemed essential by a number of men who
observed with closest attention, the rivalry existing be
tween the exponents of these several tendencies. Rashi
was one of the champions of the theory, which sought
to bring about a compromise between the " Peshat " and
the " Derash." He interspersed the Aggadic and Mid
rashic with the philological, a circumstance, which, in
all likelihood, accounted for the popularity of his com
mentary. One can readily detect Rashi's indebtedness
to the Targumim, the Talmud and the Masora. Toward
these he leaned not only to a great extent, but mayhap
too much. Trained as he was in Talmudic schools, he
could not easily emancipate himself from the Aggadic
interpretation as he should have done, in order to make
his work stand more successfuly the scientific test. One
fact must be emphasized witJi reference to him, and this
is, that he aims at that clearness and conciseness, worthy
of emulation by the men in his sphere of life. He is
never daunted by the obscurity of an expression or
passage. Whenever he realizes that the reader may not
comprehend the meaning of a phrase with the aid of the
explanation given by him, he not infrequently gives
French equivalents for the Hebrew terms. It may be
stated in this connection that the French vocabulary em
ployed by him is of great assistance in determining the
phonology of the old French spoken in his day. Popular
as Rashi's commentary was, it naturally evoked praise,
not only at the hands of Jews, but also at the hands of
non-Jews, many of whom have based numerous inter
pretations given by them, upon explanations found in
the Rashi commentary, although Rashi does not always
evidence the scientific method. Suffice it to say, that

70 Jewish Biblical Commentators
he, like others, contributed his valuable quota to Bib
lical exegesis. Among non-Jews, who were affected by
Rashi's method, were Luther and Nicolas de Lyra.
In order to be able to get a clear conception of Rashi's
method, a few illustrations and interpretations given
by him, will prove of great assistance.
In interpreting the first verse of Genesis, he remarks :
" Rabbi Isaac says, ' The Torah should not have com
menced with this passage, but with Exodus 12 : 2, read
ing, " This month shall be to you the beginning of
months, because it is the first commandment given to
Israel." Why, therefore, does the Torah begin with the
creation story ? ' The answer to this question is given
in Psalm 111 : 6, reading, ' The power of his works, has
God told unto his people, that he might give them the
heritage of nations.' With this as a foundation, the
Israelites could answer, if heathens should accuse them
of taking their countries by force, that the whole earth
belongs to God; tliat He is its Creator; that He has the
right to give it to or take it away from such people as
he desires." Continuing, Rashi says, " that the world
was created because of the Law and because of Israel,
but if you desire the simple explanation of this expres
sion, then the text must be translated, that at the crea
tion of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and
void." _ The eighth verse of Genesis I reads : " And God called
the expanse heaven." Eashi here endeavors to explain
the word " heaven " — " Shamayim." He says that it
may consist of the following: either the words ". Sa"
and " Mayim," meaning " carrying water " ; the words
" Sham and Mayim," " there is water " ; or the words
" Esh " and " Mayim," " fire and water."

Eashi and the Tossafists 71
Eeferring to Genesis 49 : 22, which reads, " Joseph
is a fruitful bough by a spring, the branches of which
run over the wall," Eashi remarks, on the basis that the
word for " branches," " Banoth," originally signified
" daughters," that many interpretations may be given
for this passage, but that it may mean that the daugh
ters of Egypt ascended a wall to behold the beauty of
Joseph, since " Shur," the word for " wall," may be
taken as the verb connoting " to look."
Exodus 1 : 5 reads, " A new king arose over Egypt,"
which is explained by Eashi on the authority of one
teacher, that the Pharaoh was really a new king and on
the authority of another, that only new regulations
were formulated with regard to the Jews and that the
king merely acted as though he did not know Joseph.
Verse 10 of the same chapter reads, " Come, let us
deal wisely," and is an expression always signifying pre
meditated preparation to carry out an express purpose.
Chapter 21 : 1 of Exodus reads, " And these are the
ordinances," and is explained as follows : " In every
place where the word ' these ' is found standing by itself,
the matter which follows is distinct from that which
preceded ; but wherever the expression ' and these ' oc
curs, that which follows, only supplements that which
precedes. Interpreting the first verse of Psalm 2, reading,
" Wherefore do nations rage and people imagine a vain
thing," Eashi remarks that our Eabbis believe this
Psalm to refer to King David, of whom it is said when
the Philistines heard that Israel had anointed David
to be king over them, the Philistines gathered together
their forces and fell by his hand.

72 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Interpreting Psalm 120, Eashi explains that the super
scription of each of the songs of the collection, of which
Psalm 120 is the first, is worded " Song of Degrees,"
because the Levites were in the habit of singing one of
these songs on each of the fifteen steps leading from
" the Court of Israel " " to the court of the women " in
the Temple.
It is needless to cite additional examples to illustrate
the character of the interpretations, which Eashi was in
the habit of giving. The few which have been furnished
indicate how, in his work, the plain and the derived sense
are mingled together in view of their equal importance
in his eyes.
Eashi's effort to harmonize the simple with the de
rived sense, did not cease to have champions, with his
death, in the year 1105. For several centuries after his
demise, a class of men followed in his wake, who added
interpolations to his commentary. These men are known
by the name of " Tossafists " — " glossators." The char
acteristic of this school was its complete emancipation
from authority, in consequence of which it took the
liberty of correcting and even changing the conclusions
of its much revered pioneer. Members of Eashi's own
family continued and amended the work Eashi began.
Among the Tossafists — the glossators, the man who
comes first to our notice is Joseph ben Simon Kara. He
stated that the words of Scriptures are in every instance
intelligible and require no additional explanations; that
the Midrash purposes only to cultivate or encourage re
search in the Scriptures; that the reader who does not
know the natural sense of Scriptures and inclines toward
the Midrash, may be likened to one who is dragged along

Eashi and the Tossafists 73
by a raging stream and is therefore ready to grasp every
straw in order to rescue himself from destruction; and
that he who turns honestly to the word of God, will be
sure to recognize its true significance and unity.
While Joseph ben Simon Kara plays a prominent part
as Tossafist, greater luminary by far is Eashi's grandson,
Samuel ben Meir. He was a native of Eamerupt, a
town located near Troyes. He was born in 1085 and
died about 1174. He is known by the name of " Eash-
bam," an abbreviation, consisting of the initials of his
title and name. He was a pupil of his grandfather and
followed the Aggadic interpretation for a time, but
eventually emancipated himself from it to a great ex
tent. Rashbam's knowledge of Hebrew Grammar was
thorough, as was also his acquaintance with Spanish
Hebrew literature. He was recognized as an authority
not only by Jews, but also by Christians. To the latter,
he at times explained difficult Biblical passages. His
principal work was his commentary on the Pentateuch.
That which gave to it individuality was its independence
from the received interpretations found in the Talmud
and Midrash and its return to the "Peshat." In his
commentary to Genesis, he states that the interpretation
of a Biblical verse must not transcend the natural sense,
even though the Torah, by allusions, may attempt to
teach the principles of the Haggadah and Halacha. He
declares that he himself had frequently disputed with
Rashi and that Rashi confessed to him that if he had
had the time, he, Rashi, would probably have revised
his commentary in order to make it accord more thor
oughly with the natural sense. In a word, Rashbam
tried to harmonize his exegesis with the exegesis of his

74 Jewish Biblical Commentators
time and permitted the traditional interpretation to ob
tain only, provided it was not in conflict with the natu
ral sense. He did not hesitate to attack Ibn Ezra any
more than Ibn Ezra feared to criticise Rashi. Some of
his interpretations, which are of interest, are the follow
ing : He held that the creation story was put at the be
ginning of the Torah in order to accentuate and explain
the Fourth Commandment, which enjoins the keeping
of the Sabbath; that Moses told the Israelites the crea
tion story in order to make them feel that the world
was not always as luxuriant with life as in later days,
but that in earlier times it was indeed empty and void.
Rashbam explained the names of God in Exodus 2 : 14,
as verbal forms, indicative of God's eternal existence.
With reference to Ecclesiates, he states that the
words " vanity of vanities " are not a part of the original
text, but, in all probability, the superscription of an
editor. In his interpretation, he shows a marked ac
quaintance with French philology and with the Latin
language, and he was also no tyro in geographj% as evi
denced by his comments on Genesis 25 : 31, reading,
" And Israel journeyed and spread his tents beyond the
tower of flocks "; on Numbers 21 : 28, reading, " A fire
has gone out of Cheshbon and a flame from the city of
Sihon : it hath consumed Ar-Moab, the men of. the
high places of the Arnon ;" and on Deuteronomy 2 : 3,
which reads, " Ye have travelled long enough around
the mountain, turn yourselves northward." Rashbam
also wrote commentaries on the Talmud, but in this prov
ince, he did not reach the height of his grandfather's
erudition. A younger brother of Samuel, Jacob ben Meir, known

Eashi and the Tossafists 75
as " Eabbenu Tam " was also a Tossafist of marked
scholarship and pronounced mental analysis. He was
born in 1100 and died 1171. While an exegete of the
Bible, he did not come up to his brother Samuel in this
particular, but far surpassed him in Talmudic interpre
tation. Grammatical studies engaged his attention to
such an extent that he entered the breach between Mena
hem ben Saruk and Dunash with a work called, " Hakh-
raoth" (decisions) in which he protected Menahem
against the onslaughts of his critic.
While the Tossafists in Prance were numerous, but
one more remains to be mentioned because of his celeb
rity, namely, Joseph Bechor Shor, who followed in the
spirit of Eashbam in the creaiion of his Biblical com
mentary. It is only recently that the works of this man
have been brought to light.
Whereas the Biblical interpretations of Eashi and of
the school of Tossafists became known throughout the
then existing Jewry, on account of the power of dissemi
nation, which characterizes all thought, the persecutions
to which French Jews were unfortunately subjected cer
tainly helped very materially in giving this new school
its prestige. As Jews were driven out of Prance and
their scholars felt obliged to settle in other communities,
new centers for the spread of the teachings of the Tossa
fists were called into life.
With this digression from the Spanish Jews, we return
to them once more to take up the work they did in the
field of Biblical exegesis, as based upon the valuable re
searches, made by those forerunners, the grammarians
and lexicographers living at the time of Moorish sway.

IBN EZRA AND THE KIMCHIS

CHAPTER V
Ibn Ezra and the Kimchis.
If there was ever time, since the days in which the
Psalms were written, that the muses bestowed special
favor upon the Jewish people, it was in the age marking
the Spanish civilization with Moorish culture. Poetry
became the pleasant and fascinating occupation of all
men in Israel, who were prompted to explain Israel's
place among the nations, its literary productions, and
its religious ideals. Even those, who evidenced striking
mental analysis, and in whom the imagination was not
usually known to transcend its natural bounds, were
occasionally given to the making of verse, as a happy
pastime. While much of the poetry of the Spanish Jews
was secular in character, the bulk of it, as may be readily
supposed from the distinctive genius of the Jew, his
longings, and his ideals, was decidedly religious. The
ritual in use in the modem Synagogue can trace a great
portion of its component material to these times when
Judah took up, once more, its long silent harps, and at
tuned them to inspiring lays. It appeared, indeed, as
if history were to repeat itself, and the. golden age of
sacred literature, which lay between the end of the Baby
lonian Exile and the period of the Maccabees, were to
dawn once more.
And yet, general as the writing of verse was among
the Spanish Jews, they at no time ceased developing the
science of Biblical criticism on the basis of those gram-

80 Jewish Biblical Commentators
matical and lexicographical researches carried on by the
scholars of the Tenth Century. In fact, Spanish Jews
were jealous of the place, which they had won for them
selves as interpreters of the Scriptures among the Jewry
of that day.
Although every now and then the activities of a
scholar in another country more than justified the in
ference that Spain would be compelled to cede the honor
of being the leader in Jewish Biblical criticism, Spanish
Jews were ever ready to assert, by some new commen
tary, the claim they continued to have to the position
they had won for themselves through years of faithful
application and hard work.
The man who, in the Twelfth Century, made good
the leadership of Spanish Jews in the realm of Jewish
science, was Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra. He towers
head and shoulders above the great celebrities of his
time in that pursuit to which he consecrated his God-
given talents.
The Ibn Ezra family was one of the best known and
most popular families in Spain. A number of its mem
bers had ascended to the enviable rungs of fame. To say
that one was an Ibn Ezra was equivalent, in those days,
to a certification of broadness, intellectuality and exten
sive scholarship. In the province of poetry more es
pecially, the Ibn Ezras had rendered great service. All of
them were gifted with a poetic genius. They all seemed
to be favored by the muses, and could attune their lyres
to lofty themes. 'Whether Abraham Ibn Ezra belonged
to this celebrated family cannot be stated with certainty.
It is held that he undoubtedly was a member of one of
the family's more distant branches.

Ibn Ezra and the Kimchis 81
Abraham Ibn Ezra was born in Toledo, 1092, and
died in Calahorra on the border of Navarre in Aragon,
in 1167. But little is known of his early life. As soon
as he knew how to value the education which comes from
broad cultural surroundings, he migrated to Cordova, the
rendezvous of Jewish thinkers and scholars. He is re
ported to have been married to an only daughter of
Jehudah Halevi, the most celebrated Jewish singer and
one of the leading philosophers of those times. The mar
riage is said to have been brought about in this wise.
Jehudah Halevi was eking out a precarious existence
by virtue of his devotion to scholarship. His poverty
militated against his daughter's chances of marriage.
Because of this fact, Jehudah's wife reprimanded him.
He therefore made a vow, that he would give his daugh
ter to the first man who would chance to enter his home
on the following day. The first person to pass over the
threshold of Jehudah's home on the morrow, was Ibn
Ezra, no better, but probably worse conditioned than
Jehudah Halevi's family. It was thus that Ibn Ezra
won a life's companion, who shared with him more of
sorrows than she did of joys, and he thus became re
lated to one of the greatest celebrities of the Spanish
Jews. Ibn Ezra never, in his entire life, enjoyed those bless
ings calculated to insure his comfort and ease. In him
the lot of most literary men met with stern and almost
unbearable realization. He failed in everything but
scholarly efforts. In his epigrammatic style, he com
mented upon his never disappearing misfortune and his
ever continuing inability to amass wealth, by saying, " If
I were to engage in shroud making, men would cease
6

82 Jewish Biblical Commentators
dying; or if I made candles, the sun would never set
until the hour of my death." Though apparently
doomed to lead a poverty-stricken life, he did not desist
from trying to improve his condition. It is perhaps due
to his ¦"''"=ire to better his lot that he spent almost all
his years in travel, endeavoring, in all probability, to find
some place where fortune would deal more kindly with
him and his.
In his wanderings he visited Asia and Africa, and in
Europe went to Rome, Lucca, Mantua, and later to
Narbonne, Beziers, Rhodes and London. He won
friends at every one of these places, for his personality
was most interesting. Apart from the fact that he was
a fascinating conversationalist, on account of his ex
tensive travel, intelligence and epigrams, display of wit,
and use of thrusting satire (all characteristics to be
encountered also in his works) he possessed so extensive
a versatility of knowledge, that he was able to adapt
himself to all persons and conditions, with which fortune
brought him in contact. Ibn Ezra was poet, philoso
pher and mathematician, in addition to being a master
in the field of Biblical exegesis. It was, therefore, but
natural, that he could never have been at a loss for con
versational material, with which to make himself agree
able to his acquaintances. In fact, it may be said of him
that he was a product of the culture of his age. He was
a creature of circumstances who would have been obliged
to become what he was even in spite of himself. All the
men these times produced were many-sided. No one
could live for any length of time within the borders of
Spain, without becoming moulded, to a great extent, by
the numerous factors which entered into the civilization

Ibn Ezra and the Kimchis 83
of the Moors. Specialists, whose knowledge is restricted
to one specific province of thought, to the exclusion of
information in all other branches of learning, have no
place in the economy of the Spanish people. The Span
ish specialist was always particularly strong in his own
field, but, in addition, he mastered sufficient of other
branches of learning to make his opinion on almost
every other discipline of consequence.
Grammarian as every Biblical exegete had to be, in
order to be able to interpret the sense of Scriptures,
Ibn Ezra must needs claim our attention first and fore
most, as a contributor to grammatical research. He not
only translated Ben Chayyug's grammatical works, but
he himself also wrote a work entitled " Measnayim " —
" The Scale " — ^treating of vowels, verbal forms, stems,
conjugations, and the exposition of Hebrew grammatical
terminology. In the introduction to his work he speaks
of the sixteen Hebrew grammarians, beginning with
Saadia, and ending with Levi ibn Tibbon. Another gram
matical work of his is "Zachoth," dealing with the
purity of the Hebrew language; and the third is his
"Yessod Hadiqduq" discussing the whole province of
the Hebrew language. Other works of minor importance
along this line, are the "Sapha Berura" — the pure
speech — and the " Sefer Hamispar " treating of
numerals. In his Bible exegesis, he was thoroughly original,
bringing the light of his many-sided knowledge to bear
upon the interpretation of Biblical passages. The pur
pose of his exegesis is understood best from the intro
duction to his commentary on the Pentateuch. He there
speaks of four existing methods, employed in the inter-

84 Jewish Biblical Commentators
pretation of Scriptures, each one of which he criticises
in turn. The first is that of the Gaonim, who, in his opin
ion, employed too much foreign matter in their explana
tion. The second is the method of the Karaites, whose
ignoring of tradition he condemns. The third is that
of the Allegorists, of which he disapproves, because it
makes claims for the concealed meaning of Scriptures,
in the face of its oft-evident significance. And the
fourth is that of the Derash, against which he warns
readers, because it prefers the derived, or Aggadic sense
to the natural meaning. In opposition to these methods,
Ibn Ezra may be regarded the exponent of the Peshat,
the natural sense. As such he differs from Rashi, to a
great extent, as Rashi, in addition to advocating the
Peshat, the natural sense, frequently adopts the Derash,
the derived sense, in view of Rashi's belief that a Scrip
tural verse may have more than one meaning. Never did
critic interpret Scriptures, who made a stronger plea
for, and emphasized, more forcibly, the integrity of the
text. The Masora was to him an infallible guide. Its
conclusions were by him considered thoroughly authori
tative. Ibn Ezra pleads with a conviction, the strength
of which is greatly increased by his peculiar style. He
is terse and concise. He indulges in no superfluous lan
guage. He employs biting sarcasm, and frequently in
dulges in witticism. When he criticises an opponent,
he is unmerciful in the analysis of the opponent's
thought. In fact, there is nothing that he enjoyed more
than to test the conclusions arrived at by other critics.
Although an advocate of the Peshat, and being seriously
opposed to the four existing methods of interpretation
on grounds already specified, Ibn Ezra must not be con-

Ibn Ezra and the Kimchis 85
sidered as being thoroughly consistent. At times he de
fended the very methods against which he warns Bib-
Jiicai students. Upon a superficial examination, he ap
pears not to Icnow his own mind. Nor can his works
lay claira to symmetry and completeness. He frequently
leap^/from theme to theme, a phenomenon to be ex-
lained, no doubt, by the nervous and restless life he
was obliged to lead, in consequence of his almost unin
terrupted migration from country to country. The con
servatism of his critcism may be recognized by his un
willingness to concede that euphemistic changes were
made in the Biblical text. Whatever Ibn Ezra does not
understand, he considers one of the secrets beyond the
comprehension of men. To elucidate these, he considers
useless effort. In this connection it may not be amiss to
state that he was an astrologist, and firmly believed that
the stars, to a great extent, determine the destiny of man.
It was on this score that he reconciled himself completely
to that extreme poverty from which he found it impos-
cible to extricate himself during his entire life.
His exegetical works are a commentary on the Penta
teuch, (usually printed on the outer margin of the text
in the large Hebrew editions of the Bible), on Isaiah, the
twelve Minor Prophets, Psalms, Job, the five Scrolls,
Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. There are two recensions
of his commentary on Da;niel; two also of his commen
tary on the Song of Songs and Esther, and also two on
Proverbs. Works of his which incidentally contain ex
egetical matter are his "Yesod Mora," explaining the
reason for Biblical commandments, the " Iggereth Shab-
bath," treating of the Sabbath and " Sefer Hashem,"
discussing the name of God.

86 Jewish Biblical Commentators
On account of the lack of consistency displayed bj
Ibn Ezra in his commentaries, a number of super-com
mentaries came into existence, the purpose of which was
to make his explanations more intelligible to the reader.
The authors of these super-commentaries lived in the
Fourteenth Century, and some of them as late as the
Nineteenth. In order to get an idea of some of his con
clusions, let us take the following instances.
As to angels, he says, that the angel between God and
man is the human intellect. With regard to the story
of the Garden of Eden, he rejects all allegorical inter
pretation, and adheres to the words of Scriptures, add
ing, of course, that it contains a concealed meaning.
Such is his attitude also toward the accounts of the
Tower of Babel, of the Prophet Bileam, of the visit made
by the angels to Abraham, and of other similar events
in Biblical history. Ibn Ezra questioned the claim that
the whole of the Pentateuch could have been written by
Moses. Thus, for example, he states that Genesis 36 : 31
and following, the fragment treating of the kings who
reigned over Edom before kings ruled over Israel, could
not be of Mosaic autljorship. Deut. chapter 34, he as
cribes to Joshua. Ibn Ezra was also the first to question
the unity of the Book of Isaiah. He believed that the
last part of the book, bearing the name of that prophet,
was the product of a seer living in the years of the Baby
lonian captivity. He recognized the existence of glosses
in the Scriptures, as for example, such expressions,
"And the Canaanite was then in the land"; (Gen.
12 : 6) ; "On the mount of the Lord it shall be seen " ;
(Gen. 22 : 14) ; " These are the words which Moses spoke
unto all Israel, on this side of the Jordan," (Deut. 1:1);
" Behold, his bed was a bed of iron," (Deut. 3 : 11.)

Ibn Ezra and the Kimchis 87
His introduction to the Book of Psalms is of great
interest, and a part of it is given here, in order to con
vey an idea of Ibn Ezra's theories. Says Ibn Ezra: " In
this Book of Psalms are compositions, at the head of
which are given the names of the composers. In the
case of a number, as for example. Psalms 1, 91, etc.,
such names are missing. The critics differ with regard
to this Book of Psalms. Some claim that the whole of it
was written by David. If we read at the top of a Psalm,
both 'Jeduthun' and 'David,' it is to be inferred
that the Psalm is the composition of David, and was
handed to Jeduthun, a director, for musical rendering.
Psalm 72 is a prophecy of David, with regard to his son
Solomon, and Psalm 90, the Prayer of Moses, was com
posed by David and delivered by him to Moses' descend-
ents. The same theory holds good with regard to Psalms
in the superscription of which we find the names "Assaf,"
' The Sons of Korah,' etc. Other critics claim that this
book contains no predictions of the future, and that it
was, therefore, put by the ancients, together with Job
and the Scrolls. Proofs of this are the terms ' Song '
and 'Prayer.' They held that Psalm 137 was written
by a poet living in Babylonia, and that the same is the
case with the Psalms headed "' The Sons of Korah.'
Psalm 119 is Babylonian.
Ibn Ezra also holds that every Psalm, at the head of
which we find the name " David " is composed either by
David or by some poet who dedicated his composition to
David. He claims that the Prayer of Moses was writ
ten by Moses, Psalms of Assaf by Assaf, and the Psalms
of the Sons of Korah, by the Sons of Korah. The
Psalm without any name in the superscription, he

88 Jewish Biblical Commentators
claims, may be by other singers than David, although
some are by David. He believes the Book of Canticles
to be an allegorical representation of the history of Is
rael from the days of the Patriarch Abraham, to the
Messianic times, and that it emphasizes naught but the
love of God for Israel. Daniel's vision is explained as
follows, in his commentary to Deut. 7 : 4-8. " The first
animal resembling a lion is • Nebuchadnezzer, and the
eagle's wings torn out of him are his descendants Ewil
Merodach' and Belshazzar. The second animal is the
Persian Kingdom, which destroyed the Chaldean. The
third animal is the Greek Kingdom, which began with
the reign of Alexander the Great, and extended through
the Roman rule. Its four wings are the four kings
among whom the Kingdom of Alexander was divided
after his death. The fourth animal is the Kingdom of
the Arabs. Its ten horns are the ten districts where
Arabs resided. The little horn lies in the distant future
and will make its appearance before the advent of the
Messiah." From this presentation of Ibn Ezra's thought, we turn
once more to Prance, where, in the City of Narbonne, the
French center of Jewish activity, an illustrious family
attained to prominence for its grammatical and exegeti
cal researches. The family is known by the name " Kim
chi," the head of that family being Joseph ben Isaac
Kimchi, surnamed " Rikam," (a word consisting of the
initials of his fuller name), who hailed from the south
of France. He was greatly influenced by the" thought
of Ibn Ezra, who, in his travels, visited at the Kimchi
home. Like Ibn Ezra, he uses the word " Shamar " —
to keep — as the paradigm of the Hebrew verb. Ibn

Ibn Ezra and the Kimchis 89
Ezra, in turn, quotes him also in his commentaries.
While Joseph ben Isaac Kimchi was no doubt the means
of transplanting Jewish Arabic philosophy into Chris
tian Europe, he did not contribute anything new or es
pecially valuable to Biblical exegesis, although he wrote
a commentary on the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and
some of the sacred writings. He indulged, however, in
the writing of verses, the translation of Bachya Ibn Pa-
kuda's " Duties of the Heart " from Arabic into He
brew, and turned Gabirol's "Mibchar Ha-Peninim" — "
into metrical form.
The winning of spurs on the part of the Kimchi fam
ily, in the field of Biblical exegesis, was left to the
youngest son of Joseph ben Isaac, known by the name
of David, and surnamed "Redak," also an abbreviation
of his fuller name. He was born in Narbonne in 1160,
and died in 1235. Because his father had passed away
while David was a mere child, his rearing was left to
Moses, an elder brother. His main work consisted ol
an investigation into the Hebrew language, known as
" Michlol," comprising two parts, the first of which
treats of the grammar of the Hebrew language, while
the second part, called " Book of Roots " is a vocabulary.
Another work of his is known as " Bt Sofer," literally,
" The Pen of the Scribe," which discusses the Masora
and the Hebrew accents. The commentaries, which Ee-
dak left to posterity are on the earlier and later Proph
ets, the Psalms, the Book of Chronicles, and only on a
part of Genesis. In the Proverbs and Psalms, he at
tacks the Messianic interpretations given by the Church
to certain verses. His style is marked by clearness, com
pleteness, and conciseness. In his interpretation and

90 Jewish Biblical Commentators
definition, he built on the discoveries of his predecessors,
and thus helped to give wider circulation to the conclu
sions of the earlier grammarians and exegetes, as much
as he did to the grammatical system of his father, Jo
seph ben Isaac. To indicate the esteem in which Ee-
dak was held, we need but refer to the application made
to him of the verse in the Chapters of the Fathers, read
ing, " Where there is no Kemach (literally meaning
meal, or flour) there is no knowledge of the law " which
was twisted in spelling so as to admit of the rendering,
" Where there is no Kimchi, there is no law." Eedak is
the Ibn Ezra of France, in that he believed that the
sense of Scriptures must be based upon an examination
of grammatical forms and the emphasis of the natural
sense. The consideration of the following passage found in
his commentary of the Prophets, conveys a clear con
ception of his method. He remarks, " I desire to inter
pret verses of Scriptures according to their needs, and
shall explain words where explanation is necessary. I
shall interpret the text with reference to the Qere and
the Kethibh, so far as I am able. It appears that these
differences in the reading and the writing of the text
came into existence in this wise: The books were lost
during the Exile, the experts died, and the men of the
Great Synagogue, who endeavored to restore the Torah
to its former dignity, discovering differences in the
reading, always decided on the basis of the majority of
existing testimonies. Where these men of the Great
Synagogue were in doubt, they wrote the word into the
text, but did not point it, placing the proper pointing
into the margin ; or wrote only into the margin but not

Ibn Ezra and the Kimchis 91
into the text; or, again, wrote one reading into the text
and the variant into the margin."
The two men Ibn Ezra and Kimchi, working along
similar lines and according to similar methods, were
not only the links that bound together the Moorish and
Christian civilizations during the Eleventh and Twelfth
Centuries, but they also contributed, each in his own
country, to the promotion of that science, which the Jew
considered of prime importance, in the proper under
standing of that work or that literature, on which the
faiths of Christian Europe were founded. The products
of their pen, like the commentary of Eashi upon the
Bible, and probably more than the commentary of
Eashi, are the sources from which the scholars of all
ages succeeding theirs, drew the inspiration which gave
their conclusions the stamp of truth.

MAIMONIDES AND NACHMANIDES

CHAPTEE VI
Maimonides and Nachmanides
Self-defense and adjustment have been the alter
nating and oft coincidental tasks of religion,- ever since
religion first attempted to explain the mystery of the
universe and life. Skeptics and doubters, who ques
tioned the value of its services in the construction of
civilization, had to be answered, not because their
charges were true, but because of the fear that many
persons, easily deluded, might have their faith in re
ligion shaken. The discovery of new truths on the
part of constantly thinking humanity, had to be reck
oned with, not because there was a real conflict between
science and religion, but because religion felt that it
had to keep pace with the evolution of knowledge. Had
such not been the conduct of religion in the many pe
riods of the world's history, religion would not be vocal
with inspiring messages to society, in these days of
ours, when every factor of civilization is tested by the
law of evolution.
Among the faiths which have come into and gone out
of existence, none has been compelled to defend and re
adjust itself as frequently as did the faith of Israel.
"Tribe of the wandering foot," as Israel has been, it
came in contact with the earlier forms of culture which
the Orient sponsored, and with the later phases of spec
ulation expounded by Occidental peoples. Thus it hap
pens that from the moment Israel became dispersed, it

96 Jewish Biblical Commentators
turned religious philosopher, at one time asserting the
superiority of its theory of life, at another demon
strating the harmony between it and other systems of
thought, and frequently availing itself of the light fur
nished by philosophies of a newer day.
During the sojourn of the Jew in Spain, radiant with
a Moorish cultural complexion, the Jew felt called upon
to devote himself to the task of subjecting his belief to
careful analysis. Whereas his imagination indulged in
poetic flights, his reason delved into profoundest
thought. He could not escape the latter. Two schools
of philosophy attracted marked attention, and won for
themselves numerous eager students, and indefatigable
expounders. The philosophy of Aristotle had met with
revival, and the thought of the Motekallemin, an Arabic
sect, was being proclaimed. Spain and all its people, ir
respective of their religious traditions, promised to be
Greecized on the one hand, by the theory of the eternity
of the Universe and'Mohammedanized on the other by
the theory of God's existence, incorporeality and unity,
together with the " Creatio ex Nihilo " doctrine. The
Jew could not and would not ignore these two systems.
He felt called upon to search them carefully, contrast
their teachings with his, and explain whether or not his
religion, originally built on Scriptural doctrine, was, or
was not found wanting, when weighed in the then ap
plied philosophical balance.
No man of average attainments could undertake this
examination. A man fitted for the work by natural en
dowments and acquired erudition, the Spanish Jews pos
sessed in Moses Maimonides. If he had not been a
master in the written and oral laws, in Biblical and

Maimonides and Nachmanides 97
Rabbinical disciplines, he could never have proved him
self equal to the emergency. Profound philosopher that
he was, it is not particularly as such that he is of interest
at present, but rather as Biblical exegete, who, in the
writings he has left to posterity, has handed down many
valuable philosophical conclusions, illuminating the
sense of Scriptures. Maimonides' fuller name was
Moses ben Maimon. In Arabic literature he is known
as " Abu Imran Musa ben Maimun Ibn Abd Allah."
Among Jews he is called "Rambam," a term consisting
of the initials of his name. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon.
He saw the light of day first at Cordova, in 1135,
and died at Cairo, Egypt, 1204. The years, lying be
tween his birth and death, were characterized by a ca
reer which has many a touch of the romantic. The
foundation of his scholarship was laid by his father who
was himself a man of profound erudition, and by some
of the most celebrated Arabic lights of his country and
time. When he was thirteen yeas of age, Cordova was
conquered by the Almohades, who gave the Jews the
choice between the embrace of Islam and exile. The
Maimon family wandered about from place to place for
many years, until in 1160, they took up their residence
in Fez, hoping not to have their religion discovered.
However, owing to his ever-increasing prominence, and
the consequent discovery of his faith, Maimonides would
have been executed, if it had not been for the interven
tion of a celebrated Mohammedan literary friend. This
experience led him to realize that he had to seek shelter
elsewhere, settling finally in Fostat (Cairo) . Losing his
father, and subsequently his brother David, Maimoni
des, who had during his entire life devoted himself to
7

98 Jewish Biblical Commentators
the study and exposition of the law, now began to earn
his own livelihood by the practice of medicine. He was
so successful a physician that the attention of Saladin's
Vizier was directed to him, who, in turn recommended
him to the royal family, with the result that he became
physician to the Court, a position which, according to
Arabic accounts, was also offered to him in the court of
Richard the First. The strenuosity of his life, which
his dual position as physician to the Court, and as re
ligious head of the Cairo community entailed, is stated
by him in a letter written in 1199 to his friend and the
translator of his works. Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon. Says
Maimonides in his letter:
"With respect to your wish to come here to me, I
cannot but say how greatly your visit would delight me ;
for I truly long to communicate with you, and would
anticipate our meeting with even greater joy than
you. Yet I must advise you not to expose yourself
to the perils of the voyage, for beyond seeing me and
my doing all I could to honor you, you would not de
rive any advantage from your visit. Do not expect to
be able to confer with me on any scientific subject for
even one hour, either by day or night; for the following
is my daily occupation: I dwell in Mizr (Fostat) and
the Sultan resides at Kahira (Cairo). These two places
are two Sabbath days' journeys (about one mile and a
half distant from each other) . My duties to the Sultan
are very heavy. I am obliged to visit him every day,
early in the morning, and when he or any of his children,
or any of the inmates of his harem are indisposed, I
dare not quit Kahira, but must stay during the greater
part of the day in the palace. It also frequently happens

Maimonides and Nachmanides 99
that one or two of the officers fall sick, and I must at
tend to their healing; hence, as a rule, I "repair to
Kahira very early in the day, and even if nothing un
usual happens, I do not return to Mizr until the after
noon. Then I am almost dying with hunger. I And
the ante-chambers filled with people, both Jews and
Gentiles, nobles and common people, judges and bail
iffs, friends and foes (a mixed multitude) who await
the time of my return. I dismount from my animal,
wash my hands, go forth to my patients,, and entreat
them to bear with me while I partake of some slight
refreshment, the only meal I take in the twenty-four
hours. Then I go forth to attend to my patients, write
prescriptions and directions for their several ailments.
Patients go in and out until nightfall, and sometimes
even, I solemnly assure you, until two hours and more
in the night. I converse with them and prescribe for
them, while lying down from sheer fatigue; and when
night falls, I am so exhausted that I can scarcely speak.
In consequence of this, no Israelite can have any pri
vate interview with me, except on the Sabbath. On that
day the whole congregation, or at least a majority of
the members come to me after the morning service, when
I instruct them as to their proceedings during the whole
week, we study together a little until noon, when they
depart. Some of them return and read with me after
the -afternoon service, until evening prayers. In this
manner I spend that day. I have related to you only a
part of what you would see if you were to visit me."
The most important works which have come down to
us from this great teacher of the Middle Ages — in fact
such is the case with all his literary productions— seem

100 Jewish Biblical Commentators
to have been produced in their succession, in conse
quence of the thought changes which were then taking
place in Medieval Europe. Attracted as he was by the
philosophical disciplines of his time, he did not state
the attitude of the Jew towards them, without first
analyzing and summarizing carefully for himself and
his contemporaries, the fundamental concepts and the
accumulated traditions of Israel. Thus it happens that
at the early age of twenty-three, he began a commentary
on the ilishnah, known by the Arabic name "Sirag "
literally " illumination." His object was to simplify for
the beginner, the study of the Talmud. He takes up
every ^Mishnah separately, furnishes an explanation for
it, and gives the result of the discussion carried on by
the Gemarah, with the Mishnah as a basis. It was writ
ten in Arabic in order to make it accessible to Arabic
speaking people, although later in life he regretted the
fact that he had not written it in Hebrew. For its He
brew rendition, Charisi, Joseph Ben Isaac Ibn Alfual,
and Jacob Abbassi were responsible, each contributing
a part. A second work of Maimonides, theological, ethical and
liturgical in character, is his " Yad Chazaqah " literally
" the strong hand " written in Hebrew. As indicated by
the numerical value of the term, " Yad," it consists of
fourteen parts, and presents m systematic form, accord
ing to subject matter, Talmudical teachings and laws.
This work, in fact, is a code treating the institutions of
Juflaism on the basis of Biblical, Talmudical, and post-
Talmudica] literature. In the first part we have the
concepts about God, the teachings with regard to the
study of the law, and injunctions concerning idolatry;

Maimonides and Nachmanides 101
in the second the love due to God; in the third, laws
with regard to Sabbaths and holidays; in the fourth,
laws concerning marriage; in the fifth, forbidden mar
riages and food; in the sixth, vows and oaths; in the
seventh, regulations concerning agriculture; in the
eighth, the divine service; m the ninth, offerings; in
the tenth, rules of cleanliness ; in the eleventh, the crimi
nal law; in the twelfth, laws of purchase and sale; in
the thirteenth, the civil law; and in the fourteenth,
regulations governing courts, judges and kings.
The principal work of Maimonides was his " More
Nebuchim " — " The Guide of the Perplexed." It was
written in Arabic, and is known by the name " Dalalat
Al-Hairin." Its flrst translation into Hebrew was made
by Samuel Ibn Tibbon, and almost simultaneously with
him, Jehudah Al Charizi also produced a Hebrew ren
dition of the original. In " The Guide of the Per
plexed," Maimonides defines the attitude of Judaism
towards the prevailing philosophies of the times, and
establishes harmony between the Bible and Aristotele-
anism. Its object is stated best by himself in his intro
duction, when he says :
" I have written this work neither for the common
people nor for beginners, nor for those who occupy them
selves only with the law as it is handed down, without
concerning themselves with its principles. The design
of this work is rather to promote the understanding of
the real spirit of the law, to guide those religious per
sons, who, adhering to the Torah, have studied philoso
phy and are embarrassed by the contradiction between
the teachings of philosophy, and the literal sense of the
Torah."

102 Jewish Biblical Commentators
It is divided into three parts. The first part treats of
the • attributes of the Deity, which are preceded by the
consideration of homonyms and synonyms. The point
here made by him is, that terms used with reference to
God, which are applicable to man, are used only anthro-
pomorphistically. The first part closes with an analysis
of the principles of the Motekallemin. The second part
treats of the essence of the " First Cause " and the
theory of Aristotle as agreeing in many points with the
teachings of Scriptures, of angels, the planets, crea
tion, prophecy, and prophetical visions. The third part
treats of the visions of Ezekiel, of the various kinds of
evil, trials, temptations, and the reasons for the giving
of the Biblical precepts. It is in this work that Mai
monides formulated for the first time in the history of
Jews, articles of creed, which are, in his case, thirteen
in number, as reflected in the " Yigdal " one of the
hymns still in existence in the ritual of the Synagogue.
In addition to the works already mentioned, there
are a number of minor literary productions. They are
the " Sefer Hamizvoth " — " The Book of the Command
ments " ; the " Iggereth Hashemad " ; a treatise on apos-
tacy from Judaism, and on martyrdom ; and the " Ig
gereth Teman," a treatise on the Messianic hope.
As in the case of many other Jewish writers, who
have rendered valuable service to Biblical exegesis, the
opinions of Moses Maimonides on the intent of Scrip
tures are not to be found in any one book or work, de
voted to Biblical interpretation as such, but are scat
tered through his writings, and are not any the less
valuable on this account.
As epoch-making as Maimonides was in the realm of

Maimonides and Nachmanides 103
religious philosophy, so epoch-making he was also in
the province of Biblical exegesis. This fact must needs
be self-evident, in view of his employment of philosophy
in the interpretation of the Scriptures. If there is one
word which characterizes his exegesis, it is the term,
" rationalistic." His attitude towards tradition was
very much the same as that of Ibn Ezra, in that he took
account only of the contents of the traditional interpre
tation, but did not look upon it as a final authority. Tlie
Aggada received his attention only as a stage in the
gradual development, making for the thorough under
standing of the Bible. With him, Bible and science
were not in confiict with one another. Nor did he con
cern himself merely with the literary study of Scrip
tures. In his estimation, Hebrew grammar and rhetoric
constituted the stones, and philosophy the mortar which
had to be used in the construction of an enduring exe
gesis. Whatever some of his critics may say to the con
trary, it cannot be denied that the rigid system of Mai
monides made clear, in numerous instances, the mean
ing of many a Scriptural passage and expression, which
for others remained shrouded in obscurity. To show
his rationalism let us call attention to the following:
The Pentateuch is, in his opinion, a book illuminating
many mysteries. The prophetical writings are to him
indicative of a marked genius possessed by their authors ;
and the Hagiographa testify to an intellectual superi
ority, with which their authors were gifted. With re
gard to Canticles he holds, that it consists of poetical
allegories. Concerning Koheleth, he states, that it con
tains many non-religious elements. And of Job he as
serts that it is a parable, the object of which is to por
tray the theories of man on the ways of Providence.

104 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Since he re-echoes the Talmudical saying, " The
Torah speaks in the language of man," it is but natural
that he should father the doctrine, that when human
organs, powers and feelings are ascribed to God by the
Scriptures, such expressions must be understood meta
phorically, and not literally. He is, in this particular,
therefore, in very close sympathy with the interpreta
tions of the Targumim. For the purpose of showing
the metaphorical use of such Biblical expressions, he
explains the difference of connotation between the syno
nyms " Toar," " Zelem," " Demuth " (form or like
ness) ; also the difference between " Tabhnith " and " Te-
munah " (form, likeness), tmd between verbs such as
"Raah," " Hibit " and " Chazah " (to see); between
" Qarabh," "Naga" and "Nagash" (to touch, to ap
proach); between " Bara," " Asah " and " Yazar " (to
create, make, form) ; between " Ahabh " and " Chashaq "
(to love).
The same end is subserved by his explanation of such
homonyms as " Elohim " (God), "Adam" (man),
"Ish" (man), " Panim " (face), "Achor" (back),
"Regel" (foot), "Ayin" (eye), " Lebh " (heart),
"Nefesh" (soul), "Ruach" (spirit), " Maqom ""
(place), etc.; and by the explanation of such
verlis as "Alah" (to go up) and " Yarad," (to go
down), "Halakh" (to go), "Ba" (to come), "Yaza"
(to go. out), "Yashabh" (to sit), " Qum " (to stand),
etc., when applied to God. His interpretations of the
various appellatives for the Deity are of interest. The
name " Eheyeh " he derives from " Hayah " (to be).
" Adonay " is derived from " Aden " meaning " Lord."
" Elohim " is a term indicating an attribute of the

Maimonides and Nachmanides 105
Deity, like "Rachuni," etc. He believes in angels as
spiritual beings, mediating between God and man. His
presentation of prophecy is of moment. He holds that
the prophetic faculty is natural to man, but that man
may be prevented from prophesying, by Divine interven
tion. Prophets are, by him, said to differ in degree of
prophetical power. The prophet receives his message
through either a dream, vision or an angel. Moses is
the prophet of prophets. He alone saw God face to
face. On Genesis 1, he states that the creation story is
not to be taken literally, and asserts that he discovers
in it the teachings of Aristotelean physics and meta
physics, as he does in Ezekiel 1.
The sources Maimonides consulted were the gram
marians Abulwalid and Chayyug, the translator Saadia,
and the Biblical exegete Abraham Ibn Ezra. The Bib
lical exegetes of the Church were also not unknown to
him, and are quoted repeatedly.
So highly esteemed was tJ)e service Maimonides ren
dered to the Jewish cause, that the saying came into
vogue, " From Moses unto Moses there arose none like
Moses " ; which meant to convey the idea, that from
Moses, the law-giver in Israel, to Moses Maimonides,
the philosopher, none arose like either Moses.
Whereas there were many, in the days of Maimonides,
who were willing to endorse this eulogistic estimate of
Rambam, it cannot be said that he had naught but ad
mirers. It must be remembered that his philosophy
and exegesis were a new departure, and as such, were
calculated to meet with opposition. The Biblical schol
ars of his time, and of the centuries immediately suc
ceeding his, ranged them.3elves, therefore, into two

106 Jewish Biblical Commentators
hostile camps. The Talmudists objected to his explana
tion of anthropomorphisms, employed in the Bible,
Midrashim and Talmud, and to his high regard of
philosophy. Among his opponents were Eabbi Abraham
Ben David of Posquieres, known as "Eabhad," who at
tacked Maimonides' " Yad Chazaqah " on the grounds,
that he wrote in a Hebrew different from the Talmudic
idiom; that he departed from the Talmudic arrange
ment of subjects ; and that he failed to state the sources
of some of his opinions. Maimonides defended himself
against Eabhad's attack, by stating that the brevity and
the dialect he employed in the presentation of his sub
ject, would make the work more welcome to the student.
Another opponent was Eabbi Meir Halevi Abulafia,
head of the school in Toledo. A third was Rabbi Solo
mon Ben Abraham of Montpellier, and a fourth was
Judah Ben Joseph Alfacher of Toledo. So intense was
the opposition on the part of some scholars, against the
theories of Maimonides, that the works of Maimonides
were subsequently burned publicly, in the City of Paris,
because regarded by strict Talmudists, as heretical lit
erature. While the enemies of Maimonides were busy
pointing out his heresies, his friends did not lose time
to espouse his cause. Some of these were Samuel Ibn
Tibbin, Al Charisi, Bedarshi, Ibn Kaspe, Ben Palquera,
David Kimchi, and Nachmanides.
To the last named of this coterie of men, we shall now
devote special attention, in view of the importance he
won for himself as a Biblical commentator.
The fuller name of Nachmanides was Moses Ben
Nachman Gerondi, which was abbreviated into " Eam-
ban," a title consisting of the initials of his name. He

Maimonides and Nachmanides 107
was born in Gerona, Spain, in 1194, and died in Pales
tine, 1270. His family was one of the most illustrious
among Spanish Jews. The critical faculty, of which
he gave evidence early in life, was inherited by him from
his father, who, himself, had reached to high rungs of
scholarship. From his earliest youth he took for his
ideal the great Talmudic authority, Alfazi. Apart from
devoting himself to Biblicai and Talmudical research,
which in his time constituted the provinces in which
talented Jewish young men had to be trained, he studied
medicine and philosophy, and in addition to mastering
Spanish and Hebrew, was an expert in Arabic. He was
thoroughly at home in the writings of Eashi, Ibn Ezra,
and Maimonides, as evidenced by him in his works, on
the one side, and in his defence of Maimonides on the
other. History reports of him, that he took the leading
part, on account of his extensive Jewish knowledge and
wide communal influence, in a religious disputation, in
the year 1263, at Barcelona. In the royal palace were
assembled bishops and priests, men and women of the
Court, knights, and leaders of the municipality. Into
the presence of this august assemblage, Nachmanides
was invited, to defend the teachings of Judaism, against
the charges of the apostate Jew, Fra Paolo Christiani
of Montpellier, a missionary to the Jews. The session
lasted several days, at the end of which, Nachmanides
chronicled his victory over an unprincipled apostate.
As Nachmanides championed the cause of Maimonides
against his enemies, so he took up the cause of Alfazi,
against Sarachya Halevi and Abraham Ben David, who
attacked Alfazi's Talmudic productions. In the latter
part of his life, Nachmanides was very anxious to visit

108 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Jerusalem, and undertook the journey in 1267. It is
stated that the journey to the Holy Land was under
taken on account of his violation of the King's order to
the effect, that the disputation, in which Nachmanides
took part in Barcelona, was to remain unknown
to the various communities. The place of his burial
is not definitely known. Some claim that his remains
were intered at Kaifa, while others state that his burial
took place in the City of Jerusalem.
In addition to Talmudic works, he produced also lit
erature of a homilectical and ritualistic kind; as for
example, his writings on the holiness and significance
of marriage; on customs of mourning; on reward and
punishment; and on kindred subjects. That he took
quite an active part in the development of the Qabbalah
is generally recognized. The work issuing from his
pen, which interests us most, from the standpoint of our
present specific study of him, is his commentary on the
Pentateuch, usually found printed below the com
mentaries of Eashi and Ibn Ezra in the Miqraoth Gedo
loth, the large edition of the Hebrew Bible. Although
a defender of Maimonides, Nachmanides was not as
pronounced a rationalist as Maimonides. It is true, his
commentary is marked by the Peshat, the natural sense,
but through it runs a strong undercurrent of mysticism,
which makes him the first of Biblical critics to introduce
into the study of the Bible, the fiavor of the Qabbalah.
One of the points, in which he more particularly differs
from Maimonides, is his belief in the miracles of the
P)ible; not saying, as did Maimonides, that they should
be expounded in the light of natural phenomena, but
liolding that human affairs are miraculously controlled.

Maimonides and Nachmanides 109
The introduction to the book of Genesis, written by
Naclimanides, declares his position with reference to
Scriptures, and we shall, therefore, consider a few of its
statements. Says Nachmanides:
" Moses wrote the whole Torah upon dictation from
God  The two tablets of stone contain the Ten
Commandments, the term ' commandments ' including
both commandments and prohibitions  When
Moses returned from Mt. Sinai, he wrote the first part
of the Torah to the end of the account of the building
of the Tabernacle, while the latter part was written by
Moses at the end of the fortieth year of Israel's wander
ing through the desert  Fifty avenues of com
prehension were created in the world, and Moses was
denied only one of these, in acordance with Psalm 8:6:
' Thou hast made him little less than God.' .... Know
my answer to the question, why I have written my com
mentary as I did. I adhere to the methods of the
ancients, and wish to encourage the study of Scriptures
among people, on Sabbaths and holidays, inasmuch as
I refresh the heart with the natural interpretation, and
add to it, many an explanation of the hidden wisdom."
In view of the fact that Nachmanides helped to cul
tivate the Qabbalah, he became, as his commentary
shows, a severe critic of Ibn Ezra, the outspoken op
ponent to the Jewish Medieval mysticism. It is Pro
fessor Schechter, who says of Nachmanides, when con
trasting him with Maimonides, " If he was not a pro
found thinker like the author of the Guide of the Per
plexed, he had that which is next best — he felt pro
foundly." Whereas Nachmanides did considerable to allay the

110 Jewish Biblical Commentators
bitter feelings between Maimonists and anti-Maimonists,
he did not succeed in putting an end to the declarations
previously made, that Maimonides, with his .writings,
overthrew the foundations of Jewish belief. For several
centuries, it was considered heretical to study the More
Nebuchim. Only as the intellectual atmosphere was
clarified by the growing strength of the rationalistic
movement, was the work which Maimonides rendered
the cause of Biblical exegesis, by his harmonization. be
tween Biblical and Aristotelean thought, appreciated as
it deserved.

MENDELSSOHN AND THE BIURISTS

CHAPTEE VII
Mendelssohn and the Biurists
History reveals some queer phenomena. The progress
it chronicles in the civilization of mankind, is shown to
be far from constant. In many instances, humanity
appears to find it impossible to make many strides for
ward, without first stepping back a short distance. This
observation holds good both in the case of universal
history, and in the annals of separate peoples. The
story of the Jew is no exception to the rule. Often,
when a tidal wave of expansion and growth gives prom
ise of its uninterrupted, aye even perpetual flow, the ebb
sets in, and prevents, for many cycling years, the re
sumption of activity, calculated to event in a broader
culture. The death of Maimonides may be said to mark one
of the turning points in the development of the world's
Jewry, not because of the hostile attitude assumed by his
opponents, toward his philosophy, but because of the
unfavorable conditions which dawned for Jews, almost
everywhere on the European Continent. Proscriptions
and persecutions constituted the lot of Israel. The
Christian Church completely possessed by the desire to
Christianize the world, was bent upon exterminating
the synagogue. Living amid such harrassing environ
ment in every European country, the Jew could hardly
be expected to continue, for any great length of time,
his cultivation of religious philosophy and of scientific

114 Jewish Biblical Commentators
exegesis. With the exception of some minor philosoph
ical treatises, Levi Ben Gerson's " Milchamoth Adonay "
— " Battles of the Lord " (written in the first half of
the Fourteenth Century), and Joseph Albo's " Iqqarim "
— " Fundamental Principles " (produced in the Fif
teenth Century), constituted the only important con
tributions to religious philosophy, since the creation of
the " More Nebuchim."
The peculiar kinds of literature, offsprings of op
pression and persecution the Jews suffered in the middle
ages, are poetry, Qabbalism, history, apologetics, and
legal codes. The poetry reflected the sorrows and hopes
of an outraged people, and found its way into the ritual
of the synagogue. The Qabbalism monumentalized
mystical speculations about God, His relation to the
universe, .and the relation of the universe to Him; the
series of created worlds, and the secret of their emana
tions', the reciprocal influence of worlds on one another,
the occult significance of the names of the Deity, the
existence of angels and demons, and the nature of the
world to come. History treats of the description of
separate communities, their trials and tribulations.
Apologetics concerns itself with the explanation of Jew
ish loyalty and the defense against the unjust cliarges
made against Jews, either by Christian theologians or
Jewish apostates. The legal codes, such as the " Turim "
and the " Schulchan Arukh," summarized the Biblical
and rabbinical rules and regulations to be followed by
the Jew, in the government of his conduct. Every
literary effort was expended in the production of such
works, which helped to familiarize Jews with ritualistic
enactments, to promote ecclesiastical unity and solidar-

Mendelssohn and the Biurists 115
ity, despite their world-wide dispersion, and to rescue
them from a carefully planned annihilation.
It was in consequence of this peculiar status of the
Jews of the Middle Ages, that the science of Biblical
criticism was allowed to remain for centuries, fallow
ground among them. We do not mean to convey by
this statement, the idea, that no one ever endeavored
to explain the meaning of a Biblical passage. Biblical
interpretations are indeed to be found in nine out of
every ten works, produced amid the Mediaeval persecu
tions, but these interpretations are given only incident
ally, as they were employed to cite Biblical foundation
for some hope entertained, for some defense set up, for
some legal enactment formulated, and for some theory
advocated. Nor do we wish to ignore the commentaries
on Isaiah and Ezekiel by Moses Ben Shesheth, living in
Babylonia in the Thirteenth Century; that of Eleazar
Ashkenasi on the Pentateuch, living in the Fourteenth
Century; that of Nethanel Ben Isaiah on the Penta
teuch, living at the same time; and those of Bachya
Ben Ascher, Nathan Ben Samuel, Asher Ben Jechiel,
Samuel Ben Nissim, Simon Ben Zemach Duran, Nissim
Ben Moses, Eleazer Ben Jehudah of Worms, Don Isaac
Abarbanel, and others. The point, however, that we
do desire to make, is this — ^that until the Eighteenth
Century, no epoch-making work in Biblical exegesis
came into existence, with the exception of the " Tracta-
tus Theologico-Politicus " of Benedict Spinoza, the
Dutch philosopher, who, although excomunicated from
the synagogue, by the Amsterdam rabbinate, may never
theless be regarded a link in the chain of Jewish Biblical
interpreters, not simply because he was born a Jew, but

116 Jewish Biblical Commentators
because his rationalism was influenced, in great measure,
by the exegesis of Maimonides.
That it was no easy task to lead the Jew again to the
study of the Bible, in accordance with its natural mean
ing, requires no detailed demonstration. The night,
through which the Jew had passed, had lasted so long,
that some of his intellectual powers, more particularly
those bespeaking careful analysis and investigation, had
been completely lulled to sleep. For the Christian
world, the Middle Ages had come to an end, with the
opening of the Eighteenth Century, but for the Jew
they were not yet to be succeeded by the much to be de
sired Eenaissance. In almost every country of Europe,
he was doomed to associate only with his own, to live
in the Ghettos, and to pursue vocations defined for him
by law. He was thus naturally denied that intellectual
broadening, which would have been his, in consequence
of the intercourse with people who looked at the problems
of life and the mysteries of the universe, from view
points different than his own. The only mental exercise,
in which the Jew was therefore in position to indulge,
was that which came with the study of the rabbinical
law. And luckily for him, that he was at least per
mitted to study his legal codes. It rescued him from
complete mental decay. What wonder, however, that
in the face of the discriminations made against him, the
Jew soon learned to prefer the narrow environment, both
physical and intellectual, into which he had been origin
ally forced by the orders of kings, and the edicts of
ecclesiastics. While virtually all over Europe, the con
dition of the Jew was equally distressing, the step for
his improvement was taken in Germany. Germany was

Mendelssohn and the Biurists 117
gradually gaining the ascendency in culture, on the
European Continent, and while its Jews spoke the Jew
ish German jargon, that jargon, because so pronouncedly
German in character, furnished the Jews with the key
to the understanding of the sciences and the arts the
Germans cultivated. And when once the Jews had
gazed beyond the narrow circle of their Talmudical en
vironment, they soon began to develop again the study
of the Bible, from the rationalistic point of view, in ad
dition to familiarizing themselves with the truths and
discoveries called into life by the rationalism of the
newer day.
Many a man, of course, contributed his share to the
modernization of the Jew, but the greatest part of the
work certainly, must be ascribed to Moses Mendelssohn.
Moses Mendelssohn was born at Dessau, Germany, Sept.
6, 1729, and died at Berlin, Jan. 4, 1786. He was the
son of a scribe, who engaged in the copying of Torah
manuscripts for a living. Mendelssohn's first teacher
was his father, and his later instructor was David
Prankel, the Eabbi of his native town.
When, in 1743, Frankel was called as Eabbi to Berlin,
Mendelssohn, broken-hearted because of separation from
his teacher, determined to follow him to the capitol of
Germany. He arrived there a poor and friendless boy,
but soon, by virtue of his powers and affability, formed
the acquaintance of -men, who gladly assisted him in his
further education. Israel Samoscz initiated him into
the mysteries of mathematics, and gave him instruction
in the Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages. Dr.
Gumpertz taught him German literature, and the French
and English language; and Dr. Kisch was responsible

118 Jewish Biblical Commentators
for his Latin knowledge. While subsequently occupying
the position as tutor in the family of a silk manufac
turer, Isaac Bernhard, and a little later that of his
bookkeeper, Mendelssohn studied the works of the Greek
philosophers and those of Spinoza, Leibnitz, Locke and
others. Of Lessing, the German literateur, he soon be
came an intimate friend. It is to this friendship, that
Mendelssohn owed his mastery of the pure German, and
his immortalization as Lessmg's " Nathan the Wise."
Mendelssohn's writings attracted the attention of the
learned men of Berlin and other cities. Friedrich
Nicolai invited him to become a collaborer in the
" Bibliothek der Schonen Wissenschaften und der
Freien Kiinste." Among others who became interested
in him, were the Crown Prince of Brunswick, the Count
and Countess of Schaumburg-Lippe, Luise Ulrika of
Sweden, and Johann Kaspar Lavater, a preacher of
Zurich, Switzerland. It was the last named, who tried
to convert Mendelssohn to Christianity by sending Men
delssohn Charles Bonnet's investigation of the proofs
for Christianity, with the request, or rather challenge,
" either to refute the book publicly, or if he found it
logical, to do what wisdom, love of truth and honor
required, and what Socrates would have done if he had
read the work and found it irrefutable." Mendelssohn
accepted the challenge, and proved that Bonnet's book
(lid not succeed in converting him, and that his belief
in the truths of his own religion, was unshakable.
The debate, however, was not at an end. One brochure
after another was written against Mendelssohn, to the
most of which he replied. This controversy soon began
to tell upon his health, so that he was eventually com-

Mendelssohn and the Biurists 119'
peUed to seek recreation at Pyrmont, where he formed
the acquaintance of Herder, rm acquaintance which soon
developed into the warmest friendship.
Mendelssohn's philosophical writings are many and
various. Because of his " Phaedon," which is patterned
after Plato's dialogue by the same name, and which
treats of the immortality of the soul, he bears the name,"
" German Plato " and sometimes also that of " German
Socrates." He wrote also extensively on literary prob
lems, from the critical standpoint.
While his activities in the interest of Jews, for the
purpose of gaining for them civil emancipation, which
was still denied them in Europe, evidenced itself not
only in marked personal propaganda, but also in valuable
writings, and while his exposition of the Jewish faith
was lucidly presented in his " Jerusalem," " Morgen-
stunden " and his translatioa of Menasseh Ben Israel's
" Eescue of the Jews," his constructive influence in be
half of Jewish thought, was exercised most tellingly
by means of his Biblical researches.
Mendelssohn felt that it was absolutely necessary for
the German Jews to forget their jargon, and learn to
speak the German language. He held that this was
their duty not only as subjects of the Prussian govern
ment, but also as members of society, who should be
eager to avail themselves of the culture of their time.
He knew of no better way of bringing about this de
sired end, than by translating the Pentateuch, Psalms,
and Song of Songs into German. The translations met
with cordial welcome at the hands of the more en
lightened Jewish constituency, and also with opposi
tion, resulting in the pronouncing of a ban on his Pen-

120 Jewish Biblical Commentators
tateuch, at the hands of such men as Eaphael Kohen
of Altoona.
The Pentateuch was finished in 1783. Although his
opponents pointed to dangers into which Jews would
run, by using a translation of parts of the Bible, in the
vernacular of the land, these dangers were not realized.
The Mendelssohn translations had the direct opposite
effect. Apart from making Jews appreciative of the
value of the broader Jewish culture, the Mendelssohn
translations aroused within them an interest in the study
of Hebrew grammar, which, during the long night of
Medieval persecution, had been almost altogether neg
lected by them.
A few extracts from Mendelssohn's introduction to
his translations, will suffice to present a clear idea of
the motives which actuated him to undertake the epoch-
making work.
Says Mendelssohn in his introduction to the Penta
teuch translation :
"As long as the Israelites did not change their lan
guage, they were not in need of a translation of the
Holy Scriptures. — When they came to Babylon, they
were assimilated with the people, and the children for
got the mother tongue. — When Ezra and his followers
noticed that the mother tongue had been forgotten by
the great mass of the people, teachers translated the
Scriptures into Aramaic. His object was to get the
people to understand the Scriptures by means of trans
lation, and to get them to learn anew, the forgotten
language. — ^When the Greeks gained the supremacy, the
Aramaic was set aside. — Thus they forgot also the trans
lation which Ezra had ordered. — Aqila translated the

Mendelssohn and the Biurists^ 121
Scriptures into Greek. — Aqila was, however, not the
first Greek translator. The Septuagint, and other Greek
versions, were written before -his. — In the year 307,
(1547), there appeared at Constantino, a Pentateuch
with Spanish and Greek translation."
In the introduction to his translation of the Psalms,
he asks the reader to forget for a short time, everything
read in translations, expositions and paraphrases, and
also to note, how, in many places, he, Mendelssohn,
deviated from all his predecessors. He calls attention
to the fact that changes were made by him, based on
critical grounds. He acknowledges his indebtedness to
Michaelis' translation, and to that of Professor Knapp,
and to Luther, for the German diction. The critical
attitude of Mendelssohn, is shown, for example, in his
notes on Psalm 68, when he states that Psalm 68 could
not have been written by David, firstly because the
style is not Davidean, and secondly on account of the
advice given to desist from war.
With regard to Canticles he says in his introduction
to his translation, that Canticles is not all one poem,
but a series of poems, sung by the shepherd and shep
herdess alternately.
It was Mendelssohn, who, in giving a critique of
Eobert Lowth's lectures on the sacred poetry of the
Hebrews, made the valuable study of the illustrious
Oxford scholar, accessible to the German speaking
world. Says Mendelssohn in substance, by way of in
troduction to his criticism, " Although many have at
tempted to translate and explain Scriptures, few have
taken the trouble to exhibit the sources of beauty greatly
admired by the masters of the Hebrew language. People

122 Jewish Biblical Commentators
are wont to take great care in the study of Homer and
Virgil, but seldom do people try to master the funda
mental rules of Hebrew poetry. He that wishes to
speak on Hebrew poetry, must know more than the
grammar of the language. He must combine with his
knowledge of the language its philosophy, and must
know how to differentiate between the specific talents of
different peoples. Lowth's treatise is surely such a
work." Although Mendelssohn, might have been justified in
believing, that he rendered valuable service in the better
understanding of Scriptures, by making his transla
tion of the Pentateuch and the other books mentioned,
he felt that the translation had to be supplemened by
a commentary. The task of producing the commentary
in question, was assigned to Solomon Dubno, who was
born at the City of Dubno 1738, and who died at Ams
terdam 1813. Dubno had enjoyed the valuable instruc
tion which the schools of Galicia offered, and had won
for himself fame, for a work on the Hebrew accents.
However, Dubno did not finish the task. All that
emanated from his pen was a commentary in Hebrew
on the book of Genesis, on account of the fact that he
became ^ intimidated by the adverse criticisms of the
reactionary party. At first Mendelssohn thought of
finishing the commentary himself, but he realized the
great difficulties which such a work entailed. He there
fore divided the task. He himself produced the com
mentary on Exodus. Leviticus was annotated by
Naphtali Herz Wessely, who was born in Hamburg,
1725, and who died in 1805. Wessely was especially
fitted for this task, in view of his extensive acquaint-

Mendelssohn and the Biurists 123
ance, not only with the Hebrew grammar, but with all
branches of knowledge which absorbed the attention of
scholars in his day. The commentary on Numbers was
the work of Aaron Jaroslav, who had been a teacher in
the house of Mendelssohn, and afterwards resided at
Lemberg, at all times one of the most prominent Euro
pean Jewish centres. A part of Deuteronomy was
delegated to Herz Homberg, a native of Austria, whose
fame as a Talmudist had spread into Germany, and
whose reading of the current literature fitted him for
his contribution to Mendelssohn's Biblical commentary.
The men, who are responsible for the Mendelssohnian
commentary, entitled " Netibhoth Ha Shalom " — " The
Paths of Peace," are known in history as the " Biurists "
— " The Interpreters." To this class of commentators
belongs also, Joel Loewe, who was born in 1760, and
died in 1802, a man reputed for his profound gram
matical knowledge, and who, together with Aaron Wolf-
sohn, edited the " Ha Meassef ." Into this category
must be placed such men as Meir Obernik, the com
mentator on Joshua and Judges ; Samuel Detmold, who,
together with Obernik, annotated Samuel; Isaac Euchel,
the commentator of Proverbs, and others.
The commentary to Kaplan Rabe's translation of Ec
clesiastes was written by Mendelssohn himself.
The Biblical exegesis of Mendelssohn and his col-
laborers, as crystallized in his commentary on the Penta
teuch and on several other Biblical books, marks indeed
a revplution in the attitude of Jews towards Scriptures.
That revolution had for its purpose the reinstatement
of the Peshat, or natural sense, into its former well-
deserved recognition. Mendelssohn and his followers

124 Jewish Biblical Commentators
studied with care, the interpretations given by Rashi,
Ibn Ezra, Maimonides and Nachmanides, concealed for
centuries from human ken, and combined what was
valuable in them, with the conclusions based on the
rationalism of the latter days of the Eighteenth and
the earlier days of the Nineteenth Centuries,
thus creating a new school of exegesis. While the
Biurists availed themselves of the information, yielded
on the intent of Scriptures also by the leaders of the
.Protestant Church, the fear entertained by their op
ponents that the Mendelssohnian interpretation would
cease to have a Jewish flavor, was unfounded. It was
Jlediseval mysticism that had invaded the study of the
Bible, to which the Mendelssohnian exegetes dealt a
fatal blow; but the genuine principles of Jewish the
ology not only did not suffer, but actually benefited by
the much decried movement. The door to Biblical lore
had once more been thrown open to admit the People
of the Book to their rightful place. As Luther had
been the father of the Christian Reformation, so Men
delssohn became the sponsor of the Jewish Reformation.
Whether Mendelssohn was conscious of the rich
harvest that crowned his sowing, may be doubtful.
Suffice it to say that he sowed wisely and discreetly.
He not only Germanized the German Jew, but also
modernized the Jews all over the world. His researches
found their way gradually, into all Jewish communities.
He was the third Moses to have been born in the history
of Israel, commissioned to undertake his people's re
demption, from the degrading and annihilating ob
scurantism. He was the forerunner, who, by his sincer
ity and honesty, his love of reason and truth, paved the

Mendelssohn and the Biurists 125
way, not only for the Jew's political, but also for the
Jew's intellectual emancipation, a prominent feature of
which demonstrated itself in the higher exegesis for
which the age succeeding the Mendelssohnian became
celebrated.

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
CRITICS

CHAPTER VIII
The Nineteenth Century Critics
One of the most interesting chapters in the story of
the Jews, from all points of view, is the one that covers
the Nineteenth Century. The hopes which Mendelssohn
had entertained, when he undertook to plead the cause
of the Jew, before the Non-Jewish world, and to trans
late the Bible into German, for the benefit of German
Jewry, began to be realized, if not in fullest, at least
in partial measure, shortly after his death. Had he
been spared to round out a century, the sorrow he would
have experienced upon beholding members of his own
family forsaking the religion of their fathers, would
certainly have been mitigated by that delight which
would have been his, on witnessing the removal of civil
disabilities from his people. Although the Jew was not
declared to be entitled to the same privileges as subjects
of other persuasions enjoyed in the European countries,
and periods of Jewish recognition were time and again
followed by periods of Jewish repression, the lot of the
Jew was undoubtedly more endurable in the beginning
of the Nineteenth Century in Germany, -than it had
been for centuries, all over the European Continent.
Apart from the liberalism manifested by leading intel
lectuals, which virtue in them was the flower of their
scientific thinking, several events co-operated in better
ing the condition of Jews in Germany. In 1787, Mira-
beau published his work on " Mendelssohn and the Pol-
9

130 Jewish Biblical Commentators
itical Reform of Jews." In 1791 the French National
Assembly granted full civil rights to people of the
Jewish faith. In 1790, the Batavian National Assembly
granted Jews citizenship. In 1807, Napoleon the First,
convened the celebrated Great Synhedrion of French
Jews. What happened outside of Germany was sure to re
act upon Germany itself. The agitation carried on in
other countries was soon taken up by the German Gov
ernment. The Government found, that its Jewish sub
jects, with the permission granted them to leave the
Ghettos and the narrow mental disciplines for which
the Ghetto was responsible, gave promise of being no
less German in nationality, than the Germans of other
faiths. The Jewish jargon had been, by many Jews,
exchanged for the purer language of the la,nd. The
conviction became general, that given the opportunities,
the Jew would become a valuable contributor to the
sum total of Germany's material and intellectual wel
fare. In one province after another, emancipation, with
its implied rights, was granted them. In 1808, West
phalia and Baden removed Jewish disabilities. In
1811, Hamburg followed in the wake. In 1812, Meck
lenburg and Prussia did the same. And in time, other
provinces emancipated their Jewish subjects.
Whatever the value of the various privileges granted
by the emancipation acts may have been to the Jews
of Germany, not one compares in point of blessedness
with the opening of the doors of the German gymna
siums and universities to Jevdsh students. Attendance
at the higher seats of learning had been denied Jews,
until the close of the first decade of the Nineteenth

The Nineteenth Century Critics 131
Century. The introduction of the use of the pure
German by Mendelssohn, had served Jews as a good
foundation, on which to- build the knowledge of the
sciences now offered them. No sooner had they become
acquainted with the sciences and the philosophies, taught
at the higher academical institutions, but they
began to apply modern scientific and philosophical
methods in the prosecution of their religious studies.
It was felt, that religion and everything pertaining to
it, should be subjected to the same sort of analysis as
all other disciplines. The prevailing attitude assumed
towards the Bible, therefore, was sure to undergo a de
cided change. While characteristically Jewish, and
based on conclusions of the rationalistic interpreters of
the Middle Ages, the attitude towards the Scriptures
was, in great measure, defined by the philosophy of the
day. The character of the Biblical exegesis championed
by the Jewish scholars of these times, may be said to
have been an almost unanimous desire to accentuate the
Peshat, the natural sense of Scriptures. The means
employed were the scientific treatises, in German, on
the history, text and purposes of the Bible as a whole,
or its separate books, for the benefit of specialists, and
the translations of Scriptures, with running com
mentaries in the vernacular of the country, for the use
of the laity. It was felt, that these means were neces
sary, in view of the .obtaining ignorance in supposedly
learned circles, with reference to the history of the Bible,
and in view of the gradual loss of the knowledge of
pure Hebrew, on the part of the people.
The first man to claim our attention as valuable con
tributor to the better understanding of the meaning of

132 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Scriptures, is Leopold Zunz. He was the first, not
only in point of time, but also in point of service and
influence, so that he is today known as the father of
that movement which has been designated by the name
" Wissenschaft des Judenthums " — " the science of
Judaism." Leopold Zunz was born at Detmold, August 10, 1794,
and died in 1886. He was bereft of his parents in his
earh' youth, and received his rearing in an institution
at Wolfenbiittel, where he became the intimate friend
of a fellow student, Isaac Marcus Jost, the celebrated
historian. It was, however, not long before he found
his way into the* gymnasium at Brunswick, where he
received the foundation for that extensive classical train
ing, which served him in such excellent stead, in the
literary career in winning for him his enviable fame.
In view of the temporary denial of university advantages,
which the Jews of Germany were once more called upon
to suffer, Zunz turned preacher of a small Berlin con
gregation worshipping in the private house of Jacob
Herz Beer. He did not continue very long in that
capacity, for in 1823 the royal edict forbade the delivery
of sermons in the vernacular, and all other innovations
in the ritual of the German Synagogue. Zunz there
fore turned his attention to the larger congregation,
consisting of Jews and non-Jews, whose constituents
were to be found among people interested in the scientific
presentation of historical. Biblical, and religious prob
lems. In 1819, we find him establishing a society for
Jewish culture and science, together with Edward Gans
and Moses Moser. The object of this organization was
to bring about the religious culture of Jewry, along

The Nineteenth Century Critics 133
modern scientific lines. To carry out its lofty aim, a
journal for the promotion of the science of Judaism,
was published under the supervision of Zunz; but un
fortunately, only three numbers of that journal ap
peared, owing to the financial embarrassment of the
venture. Although the journal was discontinued, it
had engendered an appreciation for the science of Juda
ism, which could not be checked in its growth, but con
tinued to unfold from strength to strength, in the course
of the succeeding years. The liberty of thought, which
Zunz had won for the people, was now considered a
conditio sine qua nan, not only of the people's true
culture, but also of their complete happiness. Like
Zunz himself, the people recognized the natural rela
tionship between the cultivation of Jewish science and
the enjoyment of civil emancipation. Zunz now acted
in the capacity of political editor for Spener's Journal.
From 1825 to 1829 he was in charge of a Jewish school,
and subsequently acted as preacher in the City of
Prague. Prom 1839 to 1849, he was on the directorate
of the Jewish Teachers' Seminary in Berlin.
One of the most important critical works, of which
we are in possession, from the pen of Zunz, is his essay
on Eashi, which served as model for all future disserta
tions of its kind. The " Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage
der Juden," the " Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters,"
" Eitus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes " and " Litte-
ratur-Geschichte der Synagogalen Poesie " are products
of his pen, which exercised no little influence in the
establishment of 'the Jewish scientific thought of the
past century. In " Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage " he
demonstrates, that homeletical disquisitions constituted

134 Jewish Biblical Commentators
a part of the ritual of the Synagogue, since the earliest
times, and that the character of these disquisitions al
ways reflected the civilization of the times and the
countries in which the Jews lived. The subject was
scientifically presented. While Zunz, in this work,
made propaganda for scientific research in the study of
history and religion, he was by no means oblivious of
the dangers, into which mere science could lead the
Jewish, as well as every other religion. Tradition with
him, was of great help in withholding the student from
unwarranted extremes. It was, therefore, with the desire
to emphasize the power of tradition, in the polity of the
Jew, that he produced his works treating of the syna-
gogal poetry.
In the field of Biblical criticism, he demonstrated an
independence of view point, which is nothing short of
surprising, when Zunz is studied in the light of that
Talmudic tyranny, which still held sway in his time.
Thus, for example, he recognized the composite char
acter of the Pentateuch, and the lateness of some of its
sections. He states that Genesis, in more than one
place, proves, that it was composed several centuries
after the settlement of Israel in Palestine. Jacob's
blessings he does not consider earlier than the Prophet
Isaiah's date. Exodus and Leviticus he regards exilic.
Deuteronomy he finds consisting of three parts. The
address of Moses in the thirty-second chapter of that
Book, he believes to be a product of the Exile. The
blessing of Moses he deems the latest stratum of Deu
teronomy. The Book of Esther he placed into the
Maccabean period, and he states, that Koheleth belongs
to the same age.

The Nineteenth Century Critics 135
Zunz also produced a Bible for lay reading, which,
while basid on the Masoretic text, did not ignore the
later scholarship. In this Bible he is responsible only
for the Book of Chronicles, the rest of the work having
been done by Heyman Arnheim, Julius Fiirst, and
Michael Sachs.
Heyman Arnheim, who was born in 1796 and died
in 1865, was Rabbi at Wongrowitz. Having translated
into German the Book of Job, and written a com
mentary thereto, and having thus evidenced the breadth
of his scholarship, he was invited to become Zunz's co-
laborer in the Bible he planned.
Julius PtJRST was born in 1805 and died in 1873.
He studied in Berlin, Breslau and Halle. Having had
for his teachers such men as Hegel, Neander and Ge-
senius, in addition to being richly endowed by nature,
with strong mental faculties, it is but natural, that he
should have found his way easily, into the front ranks
of German Jewish scholars. In his Biblical exegesis,
he availed himself of the results obtained from the study
of Hebrew in the light of its cognate languages. In
Leipsic he was " Privat-Docent " in Aramaic, Syriac
and Hebrew grammar, and in 1864 the Saxon Govern
ment awarded to him the Professor title. In addition
to his collaboration in the Zunz Bible, he wrote on the
structure of the Aramaic idiom, published a Hebrew
and Aramaic dictionary, and a concordance of the books
of the Old Testament; wrote on the history of Biblical
literature and the Jewish Midrashic writings; produced
a treatise on the canon of the Old Testament in ac
cordance with the traditions of the Talmud and
Midrash; translated Saadia's " Emunoth Wedeoth";

136 Jewish Biblical Commentators
treated the history of Karaism; edited a weekly, called
" The Orient " ; and published independently an illus
trated Bible, with commentary.
JliOHAEL Jehiel Sachs was born in 1808, and died
in 1864. After graduating from the University of
Berlin, he became Eabbi in Pragaie. In 1835 he pub
lished a German translation of the Psalms, and later
an exegetical interpretation of the fifty-eighth chapter
of Jeremiah. He was an authority on the religious
poetry of the Jews in Spain, having written a book on
the subject. He also wrote on the relation between the
Greco-Roman world and the Midrashim.
While these four men were serving the cause of Ger
man Jewry, Samuel Cahen, who was born in 1796
and died in 1862, was looking after the intellectual and
religious interests of French Jews. After studying and
tutoring in Germany, he went to Paris, as director of
the Jewish Consistorial School. It was he, who gave
the French Jews a French translation of the Bible, ac
companied by careful notes. Cahen, although making
some valuable contributions to Jewish Biblical literature,
outside of Germany, by no means exerted so great an
influence in his country, as did the great critical schol
ars, Isaac Samuel Reggie and Samuel David Luzzatto,
in Italy.
Reggio was born in 1784 and died in 1855. He was
master of French, German, Latin, and the Semitic
dialects. He was founder of the Rabbinical Seminary
at Padna. Taking Mendelssohn and the Biurists as his
examples, he translated the Pentateuch, and accom
panied it with a Hebrew commentary. He rejected
Aggadic interpretations, and stands out, therefore, a.«

The Nineteenth Century Critics 137
a champion of the natural sense of Scriptures. Al
though he felt that the Biblical text was well preserved,
he confessed that a number of scribal errors, found their
way into it.
Samuel David Luzzatto was born in 1800, and died
in 1865. Already in his early youth, he gave signs of
extraordinary ability. It is told of him, that while at
tending school, he conceived the idea of writing a com
mentary on the Book of Job, feeling, that existing com
mentaries were unsatisfactory and misleading. Luz
zatto wrote a translation of the Pentateuch, with a com
mentary, a translation of Job, a translation with com
mentary on Isaiah, and notes on Jeremiah, Ezekiel and
the Proverbs. In 1817, he published " Maamar Ha
Nikkud," a treatise on vowels. The Syriac language
found in him a master, whose employment of the same,
led to the better understanding of the Targum. Realiz
ing the imperfect condition of the Hebrew text of the
Bible, he suggested numerous emendations. His belief
that Koheleth was not written by King Solomon shows
his departure from long hallowed teaching.
With the exception of Cahen's, Reggio's and Luzzat-
to's contributions to Biblical research, all the work in
this line, which is of any consequence to the science of
Judaism, fell to the lot of German scholars. It is.
therefore, that we return to Germany, in our examina
tion touching the rlevelopment of Biblical exegesis.
A translation of the Bible in German was produced
by Solomon Herxhetmer, who was born in 1801',
studied at Marburg and Gbttingen, and died in 1884.
His Bible, accompanied by a running commentary, seeks
to translate the Scriptures literally, and to interpret the
same from the grammatical and historical points of view.

138 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Almost simultaneously \\'ith Herxheimer's translation,
Ludwig Philippsohn produced one. He was born in
1811, was educated in Halle and Berlin, was preacher at
Magdeburg ; edited " Die Allgemeine Zeitung des Juden
thums," a Jewish weekly ; published works on the devel
opment of the religious idea in Judaism, Christianity
and the Islam, and on political and religious problems,
thus making propaganda for the further emancipation
of Jews; wrote poems and historical novels; and died
in 1889. His Bible was illustrated, and contains a com
mentary, in which are refiected the best conclusions of
Jewish and Christian interpreters. In his introductions
to the various books, he gives their character, " Tendenz "
and history, and a psychological study of each one of
the prominent personages of which the books treat.
Levi Herzfeld, who was born in 1810, educated in
Berlin and was Rabbi at Brunswick, was one of the
factors to convene the first Rabbinical convention in
Brunswick, wrote a history of Israel, treated Hebrew
stems, translated and commented the Book of Koheleth,
and died in 1884.
One of the principal men in the field of Biblical ex
egesis, as influenced by the spirit of the science of Juda
ism, and one that is worthy collaborer of Zunz, is
Abraham Geiger. He was born in 1810 and died in
1874. His education in Biblical and Talmudic lore,
was thorough from the very start. His scientific educa
tion, undertaken for the purpose of subsequent devotion
to Oriental philology, was obtained at the universities
of Heidelberg, Bonn, and Marburg. He was Rabbi at
Wiesbaden, then at Breslau, and later in Berlin. In the

The Nineteenth Century Critics 139
last named place, he became one of the teachers of the
Institute for the Promotion of the Science of Judaism.
Gne of his first publications was " Was hat Moham
med aus dem Juden thume aufgenommen ? " He pub
lished a Jewish theological review, a Jewish journal of
science and life, a text-book of the language of the
Mishnah, a monogTaph on Maimonides, studies on the
Hebrew grammarians, Jewish poets, Jewish history,
Jewish philosophy, comparative religion, and Jewish
Biblical exegesis. His principal work, which gives him
a prominent place jn Biblical criticism, was his " Ur-
schrift und Uebersetzung der Bibel " — the original text
and translation of the Bible. It treats the history of
the Scriptures, from the Exile to the times of Hadrian,
Emperor of Rome, and deals with the causes for the
existence of the different recensions. In the course of
this treatise he makes a critical investigation of the
different books of Scriptures, Biblical institutions, Jew
ish sects and their tendencies, the different ancient ver
sions, the Apocryphal Writings, the Tetragrammaton,
and the various names of God. It is this book which
has value not only for the Jewish Biblical scholar, but
has also found its way, as authority, into the schools of
Christian Biblical students.
Although Geiger's exegetical position has been com
mended and adopted generally in scientific circles, by
Jewish and non-Jewish scholars, it did not escape at
tack. One of his most bitter opponents, although or
iginally an ardent friend and admirer of Geiger, was
Samson Raphael Hirsch, the leader of the Jewish
orthodox movement in Germany. He was born in 1808
and died in 1888, as Eabbi, in Frankfurt on the Main.

140 Jewish Biblical Commentators
He was a profound Talmudic scholar, but did not fail
to combine with his Talmudic knowledge, the academical
training obtained at the University of Bonn, at the same
time Geiger attended that institution. Hirsch wrote a
number of brochures, in which he defended Jewish
orthodox theology and criticism against the newer con
clusions of the science of Judaism, edited a monthly
entitled " Jeshurun," produced a translation of the
Pentateuch, and another translation of the Psalms with
commentary. A man, who studied the Bible from the critical point
of view, despite the conservatism of his theology, was
Heinrich Graetz, the celebrated Jewish historian. He
was born in 1817, and died in 1891. He was a grad
uate of the university of Jena, obtaining his Doctorate
on a dissertation entitled " Gnosticism and Judaism."
He first had expected to follow the journalistic career,
but in 1854 he became professor in the Eabbinical Sem
inary at Breslau, teaching simultaneously at the Univer
sity of Breslau, after having received from the Govern
ment the title of Professor. Graetz took an active part
in the furtherance of the work of the " Alliance Israelite
Universelle,'' waged war against anti-Semitism by word
of mouth and pen, and won for himself immortality by
his history of the Jews. In addition to articles con
tributed by him to Frankel's Monatsschrift on Biblical
subjects, he became a direct contributor to Biblical ex
egesis by his translations of, and commentaries on, Ec
clesiastes, Canticles, and the Psalms.
With regard to Ecclesiastes he holds, that it must
have been written in the Maccabean times, and that the
King alluded to in the book, must be the Idumean,

The Nineteenth Century Critics 141
Herod. He makes numerous emendations in the text,
and points out the numerous Grecisms the author em
ploys. Of Canticles he holds that it came into existence
in the Macedonian period, shortly before Hellenistic
apostacies took place in Judea, probablyahalf of a century
before the Maccabean Wars. Of the Book of Psalms he
claims, that it is composite in character, and hence, doubts
the Davidic origin of the greatest number of them. He
does not hesitate to change the text, at times, in these
Biblical books. In addition to these works. Emendations
of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah were also published.
Some of the Jewish critics, who refiected the modern
higher criticism, are Kaufman Kohler in his " Blessing
of Jacob " and Canticles, and Claude Montefiore in his
" Bible For Home Beading."
Numerous other persons could be mentioned in the
treatment of Biblical research carried on during the
Nineteenth Century, who have added by the discussion
of separate books and separate component chapters of
the Scriptures, to the existing wealth of exegetical
knowledge. They are, however, not necessary in an at
tempt to convey a clear idea as to the part Jews played
in that discipline which is calculated to rid the Biblical
thought of the overgrowth nurtured by theological bias
and the preconceived notions as to the intent of the
greatest book found in the library of mankind. The
men treated, prove beyond the shadow of doubt, that the
objects cherished in the cultivation of the science of
Judaism were to bring about the return to the natural
sense of Scriptures, to strengthen the hold of the
Biblical thought upon the mind of humanity, to recast
Judaism, as well as other denominations by the aid of

142 Jewish Biblical Commentators
philosophical research, and to promote the cause of that
higher religion, the purpose of which is the conservation
and consecration of truth. Biblical criticism may today
be cultivated to a greater extent, outside of Jewry, than
within it; and yet the fact cannot be gainsaid, that all
who are building today the massive structure of ex
egesis, are building on the foundation laid by the Jew
ish savants, and with the material they have left in the
form of discoveries and conclusions to the present gen
eration of scholars. Although the indebtedness of the
modern critic to the Jewish researches is acknowledged
by many, the time will come when the scribes, beginning
with Ezra, the Eabbis of Mishnah, Talmud, Targumim
and Midrashim, the Karaites and Saadia, the Gram
marians and Lexicographers, Eashi, the Tossafists, Ibn
Ezra, the Kimchis, Maimonides, Nachmanides, Mendels
sohn and the Biurists, Zunz, Philipsohn, Geiger, Samson
Eaphael Hirsch, Graetz, and others, will be regarded
everywhere indispensable links in the development of
Biblical exegesis, and when the Jewish presentation of
the Bible will be looked upon as having a message worthy
of the highest regard, in the explanation of the intent
and meaning of Scriptures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGEAPHY
Abraham, I.: Jewish Literature.
Bachee, W.: Judische Bibel — Exegese, &c.
 Die Bibel Exegese Moses Maimuni's.
 Agada der Tanaiten.
 Agada der Palast. Amoraer.
Baeck, S.: Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes.
Beann, M.: Geschichte der Juden.
Dessauee, J.: Geschichte der Isrseliten.
DuBNOw, S. M.: Jewish History.
FtJRST, I.: Geschichte des Karaerthums.
 Bibel.
Pkiedlandbb, M.: Translations of the "Guide of the Per
plexed of Maimonides."
Geisee, A.: Urschrift und Uebersetzung der Bibel.
 Nach-gelassene Schriften.
 Judaism and its History.
 Was Hat Mohammed Aus Dem Judenthume Aufge
nommen?
Graetz, H. : Gnosticismus und Judenthum.
 Esther.
 Koheleth.
 Das Hohelied.
 History of the Jews.
 Emendationes, etc.
Jost, M.: Geschichte des Judenthums.
Herxheimee, S.: Bibel.
Herzfeld, L,.: Geschichte Israels.
Hirsch, S. R.: Pentateuch.
Ibn Ezra: Commentary.
Jewish Encyclopedia.
Jewish Quarterly Review.
Joel, M.: Geschichte der Philosophie.
10

146 Jewish Biblical Commentators
Joel, M.: Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte.
Karpelas, G.: Geschichte der Judischen Literatur.
 Jewish Literature and other Essays.
 Jews and Judaism in the Nineteenth Century.
Kohler, K.i "Der Segen Jakobs."
Magxus, Lady: Outlines of Jewish History.
Maimonides: More Nebuchim.
Margolis, M.: Theological Aspect of Reform Judaism.
Marshall, L.: Leopold Zung.
Mendelssohn, M. : Gesammelte Schriften.
 Commentary to Pentateuch.
Mideashim, i. e., Rabba, Yalqut, Tanehuma, Targumin,
Mechiltah, Sifra, Sifre.
Mielzinee, M. : Introduction to the Talmud.
MIQRAOTH Gedoloth and Commentaries.
Montefiore, C. : " The Bible for Home Reading."
 The Hibbert Lectures.
Nachmanides : Commentary.
Neubauee, a.. Geschichte des Karseerthums.
Philipson, D. : The Beginnings of the " Reform Movement
in Judaism," Jewish Quarterly Review.
Phillipsohx, L. : Bibel.
 Welt-bewegende Fiagen in Politik und Religion.
 Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte.
Rashi: Commentary.
Hambuegee, J. Real: Encyclopadie.
Rittee, J. H.: Geschichte der Judischen Reformation.
Saadia: Emunoth Wedeoth.
Sachs, M.: Bibel.
Saussaye, p. D. C. De La: Religionsgeschichte.
Schechtee, S.: Studies in Judaism.
Scheeibee, E.: Reform Judaism and Its Pioneers.
Spieglek, J. S.: Geschichte der Philosophie des Judenthums.
Steinschneider, M.: Allgemeine Einleitung in d. jued. Lit.
d. Mittelalters.
 Die Arabische Literatur d. Juden.
 Die Geschiohtsliteratur d. Juden.
 Die hebrseischen Uebersetzungen d. Mittelalters.

Bibliography 147
Ueberweg, F.: History of PhUosophy.
WlNTEB-WUNSCHE-JiJ'DISCHE LiTEBATUE.
Zunz, L.: Gesammelte Schriften.
 Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden.
 Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters.
Year Book Centeal Conference of Ameeican Rabbis, Vol.
XV, Rashi.

INDEX

INDEX

Aaron Ibn Sargado, 45.
Abarbanel, Don Isaac, ll.i.
Abbassi, Jacob, 100.
Abraham ben David, 106, 107.
Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra, 80, 10.5.
Abu Kathir, 42.
Abulafla Meir Halevi, 106.
Abulwalid, 58, 105.
Achai b. Rabbi Jeshaiah, 22.
Akibah, 14, 20, 22.
Albo, Joseph, 114.
Alfazi, 21, 107.
Almohades, 97.
Anioraim, 35.
Amulo, 65.
Anan ben David, 36.
Andalusia, 53.
Anti-Exilarch, 37.
Aqila, 29.
Aristotelianism, 15, 101.
Aristotle, 96, 102.
Arnheim, Heyman, 135.
Asher ben .lechiel, 115.
Ashi, 17.
Augustine, St., 13..^
Bachya ben Asher, 115.
Baohya Ibn Pakuda, 89.
Barcelona, 107.
Batavian National Assemblv, 130.
Bedarshi, 106.
Beer, Jacob Herz, 132.
Beraitha, 21.
Bernhard, Isaac, 118.
Biurists, 123.
Bonnet, 118.
Cahen, Samuel, 136.
Cassiodorus, 13.
Celsus, 13.
Channanel ben Chushiel, 45.
Charizi, 100, 101, 106.
Charlemagne, 64.
Chasdai Ibn Shapnit, 52.
Chayj-ug, 105.
Chushiel, 50.
Cordova, 51.
David ben Isaac Kimchi, 89, 106.
David, ExUarch, 43.
Derash, 18, 25, 36, 68.
Detmold, Samuel, 123.
Dubno, Solomon, 122.
Dunash Ibn Labrat, 54, 55.
Eleazar Ashkenazi, 115.
Eleazer ben Jehudah, 115.

Eliezer, 19.
Essenism, 37.
Euchel, Isaac, 123.
Exilarch, 33.
Extension and Limitation, 20.
Ezra, 15.
Ezra, Ibn, 44, 59, 68, 74, 80, 103.
Fayum, 42.
Fra Paolo Christiani, 107.
Frankel, David, 117.
French National Assembly, 130.
Fuerst, Julius, 135.
Gabirol, 89.
Gamliel I, 26.
Gans, Edward, 132.
Gaon, 34.
Gaonate, 38.
Geiger, Abraham, 138.
Gershon, Rabbenu, 65.
Gesenius, 135.
Graetz, Heinrich, 140.
Gumpertz, 117.
Habus, 59.
Hadrian (Emperor), 14, 20.
Hadrian (the Greek), 13.
Haggadoth, 18.
Hai, 45.
llalakoth, 18.
Hamburg, 130.
Hanafites, 37.
Hassandler, Jochanan, 66.
Hegel, 135.
Herder, 119.
Herod, 141.
Herxheimer, Solomon, 137.
Herzfeld, Levi, 138.
Hezekiah, 45.
Hillel, 19.
Hirsch, Samson Raphael, 139.
Hivi of Balkh, 40.
Homberg, Herz, 123.
Ishmael, 19, 22.
Islam, 37, 97.
Israeli, Isaac, 45.
Jabneh, 29.
Jacob ben Meir, 74.
Jaroslav, Aaron, 123.
Jehudah, 17.
Jehudah Halevi, 81.
Jehudah Karoish, 45.
Jerome, St., 13.
Jonathan, 27.
Jonathan b. Uziel, 27.

152

Index

Joseph Bechor Shor, 75.
Joseph ben Isaac Ibn Alfual, 100.
Joseph ben Isaac Kimchi, 88.
Joseph ben Simon Kara, 72.
Joseph Ibn Abitur, 51.
Josephus, 29.
Jost, Isaac Marcus, 132.
Juda ben David Chayyug, 57.
Judah ben Joseph Alfacher, 106.
Judah the Persian, 40.
Judghan of Hamadan, 40.
Junilius, 13.
Juxtaposition, 20.
Karaism, 39.
Karaites. 38.
Kaspe, Ibn, 106.
Kimchi, 88.
Kisch, 117.
Knapp, 121.
Kohen, Raphael. 120.
Kohler, Kaufman, 141.
Lavater, Johann Kaspar, 118.
Leibnitz, 118.
Lessing, 118.
Levi Ben Gerson, 114.
Levi Ibn Tibbon, 83.
Locke, 118.
Loewe, Joel, 123,
Lowth, Robert, 121.
Luther, 70, 121.
Luzzatto, Samuel David, 137.
Macon, Council of. 64.
Maimonides, David, 97.
Maimonides. Moses, 15, 96.
Masora, 25, 84.
Mecklenburg, 130.
Mekhilta, 21.
Menahem ben Saruk, 53, 75.
Menasseh ben Israel, 119.
Mendelssohn, Moses, 117.
Methurgeman, 16.
Michaelis, 121.
Midrash Haggadol, 25.
Midrash Rabba, 23.
Midrash Tanehuma, 24.
Midrashoth, 18.
Miqra, 17.
Mirabeau, 129.
Mishnah, 17.
Montefiore, Claude, 141.
Moses ben Enoch, 50, 53.
Moses ben Maimon, 97.
Moses ben Nachman Gerondi, 106.
Moses ben Shesheth, 115.
Mosea Moser, 132.
Motekallemin, 96, 102.
Nachmanides, 106.
Nahawendi, Benjamin, 40.
Nahum of Gamzu, 19.
Napoleon, 130.
Narbonne, 65, 88.
Narbonne, Council of, 64.
Nathan ben Isaac Cohen, 50, 65.
Nathan ben Samuel, 115.

Neander, 135.
Nethanel ben Isaiah, 115.
Nicolai, Friedrich, 118.
Nicolas de Lyra, 13, 70.
Nissim ben Jacob, 45.
Nissim ben Moses, 115.
Obernik, Meir, 123.
Onqelos, 27.
Palquera, Ben, 106.
Paris, Council of, 64.
Parshandatha, 66.
Peshat, 18, 25, 43, 68, 73, 84, 108,
123, 131.
Peshitta. 29.
Pesiqta Rabbati, 24.
Pesiqtah de Rab Kahanah, 24.
Philippsohn, Ludwig, 138.
Philo, 29.
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, 24.
Porphyry, 13.
Prague, 133, 136.
Prussia, 130.
Pumbeditha, 34, 43.
Qabbalah, 108.
Rabbina, 17.
Rabbinism, 41.
Rabbinites, 38.
Habe, 123.
Rabhad, 106.
Rambam, 97.
Ramban, 106.
Rashbam, 73.
Rashi. 66.
Redak, 89.
Reggio, Isaac Samuel, 136.
Resh Geluthah, 33.
Rikam, 88.
Rumahis, Ibn, 50.
Saadia ben Joseph, 42.
Sabbathai Donnolo, 45.
Saboraim, 35.
Sachs, Michael Jehiel, 136.
Sadduceism, 37.
Salman ben Jerucham, 42.
Samoscz, Israel. 117.
Samuel ben Chofni, 45.
Samuel ben Meir, 73.
Samuel ben Nissim, 115.
Samuel Hanagid, 59.
Samuel Ibn Nagdela, 58.
Samuel Ibn Tibbon, 98. 101, 100.
Santes Pagninus, 13.
Sarachya Halevi, 107.
Sassinades, 34.
Schechter, 109.
Schulchan Arukh, 114.
Seder 01am, 23.
Septuagint, 29.
Shemaryah, 50.
Sherira, 45.
Sifra, 21.
Sifre, 21.
Simon ben Zemach Duran, 115.
Solomon ben Abraham, 106.

Index

153

Solomon ben Isaac, 66,
Sota, 34, 42.
Spener's Journal, 133.
Spinoza, 115, 118.
Talmud, 17.
Tam Eabbenu, 75.
Tanaim, 21, 35.
Tanehuma, 24.
Targums, 26, 44, 104.
Toledo, 81.
Tortosa, 63.
Tosefta, 21.

Tossafists, 72.
Troyes, 66.
Tiu'im, 114.
WeUhausen, 13.
Wessely, Naphtali Herz,
Westphalia, 130.
Wolfsohn, Aaron, 128.
Worms, 66.
Yalqut Ha Makiri, 25.
Yalqut Shimoni, 24.
Yigdal, 102.
Zunz, Leopold, 24, 132.

122.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05047 8255

) I. 1.,, Il"l

illl

lil'f"!'!!''
1 li.'.i, ., ll i

[11,

!P"I'
¦1-1 'i m\'\

ii; li#n 1
i!rii,!iii|H,'tiiiii;ij;|l:

'iii!i'iii,L

1.1 1 Kf'.!

HI. 1

)^ tit

I

r 1,1

51

U ll I !i' .11 < , ,, ', J

MSI I I j'
1 I I 'i

I,' " -J'

i*' ,1 1

. , I I . I ' I '1 i'l I It *

1 i,l. i'
m n< h i"i i
m

,>!!!Wt!i.'ii,'! '!> r

!
li'ldkUi ,1- i!'.il^n,.i:..
1 * ''
|l| !, 1. 1 ,M 1 1 ( > i'l'
! I
I
Pi'"'!' ii!r'i'i
11'
flir
'I'll'*'''' t.' 11' ,,,„ ,
' ' '¦" I • '! II ,l' .11 '', 1
I . ' »H'
1,1 1 1 i'liT' ' '^li ' I I I 1 ""',' ¦
\H\ Viili |i';,,vi''' ii/si'i' '",;>; .•;:,. ?.'?,;. •i'—i
il.ii.i'H' 1 , /ll 11',' ulii!iii'ii, > ,ii , ,1111 1 ¦' > i ..
I " I
i|W!Sii!i ill?,. ;
i
'li'i'iiiP
'ill' ,ii
'Si
H!!i|tfli 1 .i| l,i
M
r 111 I'll J j^ '. -. '"': .i,i'!''i
I,'".*
.1.1 1,1-1 li!.yi,i'.i., ...111,!,,!.,: