The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in Jewish Tradition
\n1. THE ROLE OF SCRIPTURE IN JEWISH CIVILIZATION
\n\u201cThe Holy Scriptures may not be read but may be studied, and lectures on them given.\u2026\u201d
\nAlthough this tannaitic statement is a halakhic ruling within the context of the Sabbath laws, yet, if disengaged from its immediate reference, and taken as an abstract formulation, it expresses a profound truth. For the Bible cannot be read; it can only be studied and expounded.
\nThis none-too-obvious, yet incontrovertible, fact is to be accounted for partly as a product of a particular historical circumstance. The floodtides of Hellenism engulfed the ancient Near Eastern world and transformed its civilization, so that the cultural environment that produced the Hebrew Bible was no longer familiar to the reader. Thereafter, the traditional metaphors of biblical thought ceased to be immediately intelligible, and the biblical text ceased to be instantly readable; it could only be studied and expounded.
\nBut there is much more to it than this. The very fact that the Hebrew Scriptures, the canonized, definitively fixed body of sacred literature, became the focus, long the exclusive focus, of Jewish cultural activity, and constituted the very protoplasm of Jewish existence, the matrix out of which emerged all subsequent development\u2014this fact inevitably predetermined the approach to the text. The interpretation thereof was informed by the ever-abiding consciousness that it was the major source for the national language, the well-spring of the peculiar life-style of the Jew, the font of Jewish values, ideals and hopes. These were matters of transcendent seriousness that demanded not surface reading but deep study and interpretation, and interpretation itself became a propaedeutic discipline indispensable to the training of the cultivated Jew. As Gershom Scholem pointed out, commentary on Scripture became \u201cthe characteristic expression of Jewish thinking about truth.\u201d The unbelievably rich hermeneutical literature subsumed generically under the rubric of parshanut ha-Miqra\u2019, the exposition of the Scriptures, supplies all the essential ingredients of Jewish intellectual and spiritual history. A product of over two millennia of intensive intellectual activity, it is characterized by infinitely variegated attitudes and approaches\u2014with a refusal to absolutize any single stance.
\nRabbinic exegesis is firmly grounded in the cardinal principle that embedded in the sacred text is a multiplicity of meanings, the full richness of which cannot be expressed through a single body of doctrine or by any monolithic system that is logically self-consistent. To the contrary, the intrinsic, endless variety of interpretation, even if, or perhaps especially because, it may be internally contradictory and replete with antinomies, reinforced the reality of the divine inspiration behind the text. The sages of the Talmud vividly expressed the matter this way: The prophet Jeremiah proclaimed: \u2018 \u201cBehold, My word is like fire\u2014declares the Lord\u2014and like a hammer that shatters rock\u2019 (Jer. 23:29). Just as a hammer shatters rock into numerous splinters, so may a single biblical verse yield a multiplicity of meanings.\u201d This same concept is expressed in several ways, whether as: \u201cThere are seventy facets to the Torah,\u201d the number, of course, being typological and communicating comprehensiveness, or whether as, in the words of the tanna Ben Bag-Bag, \u201cTurn it over, turn it over, for everything is in it.\u201d
\nAll this means, of course, that for more than two thousand years the Hebrew Bible has been accepted and studied by Jews as the seminal body of religious literature, which has been filtered through a continuous process of rabbinic interpretation and reinterpretation within the community of practice and faith whence its immediate authority derived.
\n2. RABBINIC EXEGESIS
\nAlready in the year 553 c.e., the emperor Justinian took note of this fact in his novella constitutio concerning the Jews to whom he granted permission to read their sacred Scriptures in Greek, Latin or any other language. He stipulated, however, that they should \u201cread the holy words themselves, rejecting the commentaries\u201d by which he clearly meant rabbinic exegesis. As Justinian put it, \u201cthe so-called second tradition (deuterosis) we prohibit entirely, for it is not part of the sacred books nor is it handed down by divine inspiration through the prophets, but the handiwork of men, speaking only of earthly things and having nothing of the divine in it.\u201d
\nJustinian\u2019s motives and purposes are irrelevant to the present theme, for they belong within the category of medieval Jewish-Christian polemics. But this specified restriction does illustrate an historic fact of cardinal importance that differentiates the Jewish study of the Scriptures from the Christian approach which, of course, has its own venerable tradition of theological reinterpretation of the Bible of the Jews. The literate, committed Jew, to whom the study of the Bible is at one and the same time a religious obligation, a spiritual exercise, a mode of worship, and a moral as well as an intellectual discipline, is confronted with a vast array of texts which are not in themselves authoritative, yet which command attention, concentrated thought, and study. Jewish scriptural exegesis is a literature that has become endowed with a life and energy of its own, and in its independent existence the light of the Hebrew Bible has become refracted through a thousand prisms. To my mind, the most noble expression of rabbinic Judaism is the Great Rabbinic Bible exemplified by Jacob b. Hayyim\u2019s edition of 1524\/25. What I mean is that the Hebrew text is surrounded by a sea of commentaries of diverse authorship, provenance, dating and exegetical approaches, often mutually incompatible, all of which coexist peacefully within the confines of a single page, all accommodated within the framework of a single tradition. To use rabbinic parlance, \u201cThe one and the other alike are the words of the living God.\u201d
\n3. INNER BIBLICAL EXEGESIS
\nAt this point, I wish to advance the thesis that the traditional Jewish approach to the text as a living organism that perpetually rejuvenates and transforms itself was not a rabbinic innovation but a continuation of an established process that was contemporaneous with the formation of biblical literature itself. Recent studies in the concept of \u201cCanon\u201d have focused attention upon a hitherto neglected aspect of the subject. There is \u201cCanon\u201d as the formal expression of religio-legal decision-making on the part of some ecclesiastical body\u2014about which, incidentally, we know next to nothing. But there is also \u201ccanon\u201d as a dynamic process whereby a text, once it is recognized as being Scripture, necessarily and spontaneously generates interpretation and adaptation so that often the original text is transformed into a new and expanded text. Thus is created inner-biblical exegesis. As a matter of fact, it may be noted that even the Canon in the traditional, formal, sense of the word as a delimited, definitive and authoritative body of literature is ultimately a product of exegetical activity as is even more so the internal, final arrangement of the books in both Jewish and Christian traditions. The conclusion of the Hebrew Scriptures with Chronicles makes a statement that the consummation of history involves the ideal of the return of the Jewish people to its land, of the restoration of Jewish sovereignty and of spiritual renewal. The arrangement of what Christians call the \u201cOld Testament\u201d so that it closes with the words of the prophet Malachi interprets the coming of Elijah and the \u201cgreat and awesome day of the Lord\u201d in 3:23 as proleptic of the New Testament in which the role of John the Baptist and the advent of the Christian Messiah is pivotal.
\nIt seems to me that an excellent example of the process of inner-biblical exegesis being discernible within the Scriptures themselves, and being continued in rabbinic and medieval exegesis, is to be found in Gen. 21:33 which informs us that Abraham \u201cplanted a tamarisk (\u2019eshel) at Beer-sheba and invoked there the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.\u201d Now this passage is extraordinary in that the action of the patriarch appears to be in contradiction to the strict prohibition in the Torah on the cultic use of trees and on the planting of a tree near the altar of God. The phenomenon of the sacred tree, particularly one associated with a hallowed site, is well known in a variety of cultures. Sometimes the tree is a medium of oracles and divination, to which names like \u2019elon moreh, \u201cthe terebinth of the oracle-giver\u201d in Gen. 12:6, and \u2019elon me\u2018onenim, \u201cthe terebinth of the soothsayers\u201d in Judg. 9:37, are witness. Sometimes fertility cults flourished in connection with these trees, a form of paganism that seems to have been very attractive to many Israelites. In light of all this, it is remarkable that the tradition about Abraham planting a tamarisk and invoking there the name of the Lord should appear in the Abrahamic biography, and not have been expunged.
\nA close look at the text reveals that the narrative already exhibits a sensitivity to the problem. Firstly, the descriptive title of God is given as \u2019el \u2018olam. This epithet appears nowhere else in the Bible, but \u2018olam is known to be one of the Canaanite divine titles. Yet the God whom Abraham worshiped is explicitly named YHWH, using the tetragrammaton, the exclusive name for the God of Israel. Secondly, unlike the other instances of the use of the formula, \u201cHe invoked the name of the Lord,\u201d the usual concomitant of altar building is, tellingly, here omitted. A subtle process of inner-biblical exegesis is at work in order to disengage Abraham\u2019s act from the Canaanite cults.
\n4. RABBINIC TRANSFORMATIONS
\nHow has this passage fared at the hands of rabbinic commentators? At first glance, the exegesis appears to be so naive as to be worthy of immediate dismissal. In T.B. Sotah 10a we read that R. Nehemiah interpreted \u2019eshel not as a tamarisk but as a hospice. Abraham, he said, received wayfarers there, providing them with food and shelter, and bringing them closer to God. To add force to this interpretation, \u2019eshel is even taken as an acronym from \u2019akhilah, \u0161etiyah, linah, \u201ceating, drinking and lodging the night.\u201d All this, of course, is fanciful exegesis but what is seminal is that rabbinic and medieval commentary have extended the process of inner-biblical exegesis, thereby reinterpreting Abraham\u2019s cultic act to endow it with profound pedagogic value. An incident belonging to the realm of man\u2019s individual personal approach to God in a ritual ambience has been so transformed that it now exemplifies God\u2019s demands on man in a socio-moral context. The provision of wayfarers is itself elevated to being a mode of divine worship.
\nAt times, rabbinic and medieval Jewish exegesis give every appearance of constituting critiques of biblical morality. The story of Noah is a case in point. The text of Gen. 6:9 declares him to be a perfectly righteous man. Nevertheless, the silence of Noah, and his seeming unconcern for the fate of his fellow human beings, contrast strikingly with Abraham\u2019s vocal and passionate plea for the lives of his contemporaries in Sodom and Gomorrah. Rabbinic sensitivity to what appears to be a moral flaw in his character expresses itself in two ways. On the one hand, Genesis Rabba 30:7 has Noah building the ark for no less than one hundred and twenty years, all the while preaching to his compatriots and calling on them to repent of their evil ways; on the other hand, some sages did not hesitate to characterize Noah as being among those of little faith, and to relativize his righteous state. They were careful to note that the text itself appears to qualify its verdict on Noah\u2019s moral condition by the careful formulation \u201cHe was righteous in his generation\u201d; had he lived in the days of Abraham, he would not have been significant.
\nAnother example of this type of critical approach may be found in the treatment of the story of the kidnapping of Sarai, as told in Gen. 12:11\u201320. Abram is fearful of the evil of which human beings are capable. In order to save his own life, he appears to place the honor of his wife in jeopardy through misrepresentation of their relationship. Sarai\u2019s collusion may be looked upon as an act of self-sacrifice on behalf of her husband, but how is Abram\u2019s conduct to be judged? It is instructive to compare the reactions of some modern commentators with that of their medieval counterparts.
\nS.R. Driver remarks: \u201cUntruthfulness and dissimulation are extremely common faults in the east; and it would be manifestly unjust to measure Abram by Christian standards.\u201d
\nH.E. Ryle tells us: \u201cIt is repellent to our sense of honor, chivalry and purity.\u2026 This story doubtless would not have appeared so sordid to the ancient Israelites as it does to us. Perhaps the cunning, the deception and the increase of wealth may have commended the story to the Israelites of old times \u2026 the moral of the story does not satisfy any Christian standard in its representation of either Jehovah or of the patriarch.\u201d
\nJ. Skinner notes: \u201cThere is no suggestion that either the untruthfulness or the selfish cowardice of the request was severely reprobated by the ethical code to which the narrative appealed.\u2026\u201d
\nNow let us turn to the treatment of the problem as presented in the commentaries of Na\u1e25manides (RaMBaN, 1194\u20131270) and David Kim\u1e25i (?1160\u20131235?). The former unequivocally declares:
\n\u201cKnow that our father Abraham inadvertently committed a great offense in that he placed his virtuous wife in jeopardy of sin because of his fear of being killed. He should have trusted in God to save him, his wife and all he had, for God has the power to help and to save.\u2026 On account of this act, his descendants were doomed to suffer the Egyptian exile at the hand of Pharaoh\u201d (ad loc.).
\nDavid Kim\u1e25i first observes that had Abraham been aware of the ugliness of the Egyptians and of their being steeped in immorality he would never have gone to Egypt in the first place, but would rather have suffered famine than jeopardize his wife. In the circumstances, however, in which the patriarch now finds himself, says Kim\u1e25i, in effect, he is confronted with a moral dilemma and forced to make a choice between two evils: should he disclose the truth, he would assuredly be killed, and Sarai, beautiful and unprotected in an alien society of low moral standards, would certainly be condemned to life-long shame and degradation. If, however, he resorts to subterfuge, she might be violated by some Egyptian, but at least husband and wife would both survive. It would not have been proper, adds Kim\u1e25i, to have relied on a miracle as an excuse for inaction.
\nWhatever be the shortcomings of Kim\u1e25i\u2019s interpretation, it is clear that, unlike modern commentators, he sees the patriarch faced with a very real moral problem. Abraham\u2019s decision involved a conflict between human life and human dignity and their respective positions within a hierarchy of values. Unlike the above-cited moderns, he does not confuse chivalry with morality. What is of significance is that both Na\u1e25manides and Kim\u1e25i are sensitive to a problem of biblical morality.
\nOne final example is the thoroughly repellent folk-narrative, preserved in 2 Kings 2:23\u201324, about the prophet Elisha. Following his miraculous curing of the polluted waters of Jericho, the prophet made his way to Bethel. Some little children poked fun at his baldheadedness. Elisha pronounced a curse upon them in the name of the Lord, whereupon two bears came out of the woods and mangled forty-two children.
\nWhat did the rabbis do with this story? By the time they were through with it, nothing means what it appears to mean on the surface. The \u201cchildren\u201d are not minors but of the age of moral responsibility. Note that the text initially describes the offenders as ne\u2018arim, which in biblical Hebrew is an indeterminate noun that can cover a three month baby, as in Exod. 2:6, and a grown man, as in 2 Chron. 13:7. Moreover, a play on the verbal form of the word suggests that these people were meno\u2018arim min ha-mitsvot, \u201cthey had divested themselves of the mitsvot.\u201d The reference to their being \u201clittle\u201d (qetannim) actually refers, not to their physical stature, but to their spiritual condition. They were men of little faith. These people, say the rabbis, were the water carriers of Jericho who had been deprived of their livelihood by Elisha\u2019s miracle that made their local brackish water potable. They had no confidence in God\u2019s providence, that He would provide them with alternative means of subsistence. They did not call the prophet \u201cbaldhead\u201d (qer\u0113ah) in reference to his shiny pate, but they said to him, \u201cYou have made this place bare for us,\u201d that is, \u201cThrough you, we lost our means of making a living.\u201d In the end, the rabbis make Elisha the guilty one, and he is punished by God for stirring up the bears against the children.
\nObviously, this fanciful explanation cannot be defended, but by their wholesale reinterpretation of the narrative, the rabbis of the Talmud actually seem to be passing critical judgment on a particular aspect of biblical morality as reflected in this folk narrative. As Kim\u1e25i noted in his comment to 2 Kings 2:24: \u201cThey had difficulty in understanding how he (i.e., Elisha) caused their death (i.e., of the children) for such a thing.\u201d
\nA modern scholar might formulate the underlying issue thus: The Hebrew Bible is not a single, uniform, self-consistent system, but is a stratified work, layers of which sometimes represent the imperfect human understanding of the nature of God and His demands on man. That is to say, the written text is not the exclusive source of religious truth, but is, in general, the foundation upon which the edifice of moral truth may be constructed. Such a scholar, depending on his personal commitment, might even say, \u201cthe indispensable foundation.\u201d However, it is not clear that this formulation would have been acceptable to the rabbis or to the traditional exegetes. Still, rabbinic reinterpretation, or rewriting, of the narratives as described above, raises questions about the authority of the text, the legitimacy of the exegesis, and the relationship between tradition and text.
\n5. THE HOLISTIC APPROACH
\nIt seems to me that the rabbis, had they been challenged, might have defended their approach on the following grounds: It is the biblical canon in its definitive form that functions as normative. The sacred Scriptures are cumulative in their effect and impact. If the commentators appear to be assuming a stance outside of and over against the text, if they appear to leave room for the play of the intellect and the role of conscience and of moral sensibilities, then it must be appreciated that it is the Hebrew Bible itself in its entirety, as a composite work, that developed and honed these faculties, and that sensitized men to the critical standards to which that same text is now being subjected. The claim is that the commentators are simply actualizing what is potentially there all along, but what is potential can be discerned only through a unitary, comprehensive, holistic approach. This, in fact, is what is partially meant by the rabbinic dictum: \u201cWhatever a mature student may expound in the future, was already told to Moses on Sinai,\u201d which, incidentally, affords an interesting contrast with the axiom of Pope Stephen I: Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est.
\nTo return to our point. The classicist, M. I. Finley, noted that the world of the Iliad is saturated with blood because that represented archaic Greek values. We may point out that the Hebrew Scriptures are not saturated with blood and, unlike Homer\u2019s role in the world of the Greeks, their morally problematic texts did not, despite constant repetition, promote an inferior code of values. The reason is that the teaching of the text was always accompanied by traditional exegesis which succeeded in transforming that which is time-bound into that which is eternally relevant, and in translating the timelessness of the text into that which is supremely timely. The chronological and cultural gap between the reader and the text was effectively bridged, and the text could and was utilized to mold the mind and to shape the moral character of the Jew.
\n6. THE PROBLEM OF PESHA\u1e6c
\nAs we have noted, what we have just discussed raises the question of the literal sense of Scripture and its place in the hierarchy of interpretation. There is an interesting exchange on the subject in the works of Maimonides (1135\u20131204) and Na\u1e25manides (1194\u20131270) relative to the Talmudic rule of Shab. 63a et al. that the text of Scripture may not depart from its straightforward meaning (pesha\u1e6d). In his Sefer Ha-Mitsvot, Maimonides states that \u201cthere is no Scripture except according to its literal sense\u201d (pesha\u1e6d), to which Na\u1e25manides retorted that the rabbis \u201cdid not say that the Bible only has its straightforward meaning, but we have its Midrashic meaning side by side with its straightforward meaning, and the text departs from neither. It can encompass both, and both are the truth; that is to say, the homiletic (derash) does not neutralize the literal sense (pesha\u1e6d). Both are substantive.\u201d
\nAs R. Loewe and others have shown, what the rabbis meant by pesha\u1e6d is less straightforward than meets the eye. What interests me at the moment, however, is the oft-stated proposition that the true and sole task of the biblical scholar is to discover what the contemporary audience understood when the writer wrote what he did, and that such meaning, when recovered, is the one true meaning of the text. Granted, of course, that sound historical research must be the foundation of all biblical scholarship, and that every commentator must commence his exegetical work at that level; but is the interpretation of a text necessarily exhausted by the results of historical investigation, however well based? (In asking this question, I ignore the undeniable fact that there can hardly be a branch of human learning more strewn with the debris of discarded theories than biblical scholarship.)
\nIt seems to me that the rabbis would have held the view that this thesis, taken to its extreme, is of doubtful validity because it is predicated on the presupposition that the biblical writers consciously wrote only for their contemporaries. The rabbis would have said that the internal biblical evidence refutes such a notion and points in the opposite direction, namely that the biblical writers were fully conscious of writing for, and thereby influencing, future generations. Apart from such oft-repeated passages like, \u201cWhen your son shall ask you in the future, \u2018What means \u2026?\u2019 \u201d and other explicit documentation, the very transmission and survival of the biblical corpus, no less than its astonishing and sustained impact on vast segments of the human race for over two and one half millennia, would be difficult to explain unless the text was very early understood to be proleptic in nature. In other words, the rabbis would have claimed that embedded in the text and context is a deliberate equivocality, the full implication(s) and meaning(s) of which are valid subjects of study by the biblical exegete.
\n7. MEDIEVAL CRITIQUES OF RABBINIC EXEGESIS
\nOf course, I am not suggesting that biblical self-understanding always coincides with rabbinic understanding. In fact, as I have elsewhere shown, medieval Jewish exegesis frequently criticizes rabbinic exegesis. Its literature is replete with observations of the most daring kind, much of which well anticipates aspects of modern higher and lower criticism. In fact, the commentators not only may interpret legal or ritual texts not in accord with halakhic ruling, but are quite aware of what they are doing, and sometimes even criticize the rabbinic authorities for divesting the text of its plain meaning. This critical approach constitutes an important element in medieval Jewish exegesis, particularly but not exclusively in the Spanish school, and is not to be viewed as exotic or eccentric though admittedly some of its most extreme expression is both. I should like to emphasize that these scholars were men who were fully committed to the halakhic way of life, and did not question the authority of the rabbis in their legal rulings, only the exegesis by which such were derived from the text. It is almost as though they held\u2014though as far as I know no one has ever articulated it quite this way\u2014that the halakhah enjoys its own autonomous existence and authority, so that the biblical exegete is free to investigate the text independently of dogmatic or traditional considerations.
\nBy way of illustration, I might point to Rashi\u2019s rejection of the tannaitic exegesis of Exod. 23:2. There Scripture states: \u201cYou shall not side with the mighty to do wrong\u2014you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty.\u201d The Mishnah understands this verse to require a simple majority of judges for an acquittal but a majority of two for a conviction in capital cases. On this Rashi comments, \u201cThere are interpretations of this verse by the sages of Israel, but the language of the text cannot accommodate them.\u201d Rashi\u2019s grandson, known as RashBaM (ca. 1080\u20131158), in discussing the rabbinic exposition of Lev. 7:18 as found in M. Zev 2:2\u20134, T.B. Zev 29b, asserts that \u201cThe sages have wrested it from its plain meaning.\u201d Perhaps the most forthright expression of the independence of medieval Jewish exegesis from tradition is to be found in an observation by Samuel b. Hofni, Gaon of Sura (d. 1030), cited by David Kim\u1e25i in his comment to 1 Sam. 28:24: \u201cEven though the words of the sages in the Talmud imply that the woman (the witch of Endor) really did revive Samuel, yet insofar as human reason rejects this, they cannot be accepted.\u201d
\nIn the same strain, we may cite the comments of Isaac Abravanel (1437\u20131508) in connection with the narrative of 2 Sam. 11\u201312. In the Talmud, it is related that the 3rd\u20134th century c.e. Palestinian Amora R. Samuel ben Nahman, citing R. Jonathan ben Eleazar (3rd century c.e.) as his source, exonerated David from any sin. This is achieved by means of contortive exegesis in plain defiance of the straightforward intent of the text, the Prophet Nathan\u2019s severe castigation of David\u2019s shameful conduct, David\u2019s self-confession of his guilt, and the tradition reflected in Ps. 51. Although most of the medieval commentators follow the talmudic rationale, Abravanel launches into a blistering indictment of David, probingly analyzing the multiple sins that the king committed. He does this in full and open consciousness of his contradiction of the talmudic exegesis which he describes as being contrary to \u201cthe simple truth.\u201d
\nThe kind of freedom and intellectual honesty that such comments, and many more like them, display clearly points to a separation of matters of faith and law from matters of scholarship on the part of these medievals, a distinction that, alas, is often blurred today. Put another way, these traditional Jewish exegetes are really operating according to rabbinic doctrine that the oral Torah, the torah she-be\u2018al peh, codified as Halakhah, is one of the two modes of God\u2019s self-revelation to Israel, and the process of continuous reinterpretation and adaptation of the Halakhah to new and everchanging conditions is affected by the indwelling of the Divine Presence in those whose piety, learning and acknowledged authority are such as to give normative force to their halakhic decisions. Where the exegetes assert their intellectual independence is, first, in respect of the humanly wrought exegetical process by which the oral Torah is interlaced with the written Torah, torah shebikhtav, and, second, in the exposition of the non-halakhic sections of the Bible.
\nHebrew and Bible Studies in Medieval Spain
\nINTRODUCTORY
\nJewish biblical studies reached their apogee in Moslem Spain. Throughout the centuries of exile the Hebrew Scriptures were naturally studied as the revealed word of God. Occupying a central place in the Jewish tradition, they were looked upon as the faithful witness to the national past, the main source for the knowledge and use of the national language, the font of truth, wisdom, law and morality, the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of a glorious future. In short, as the animating force of Jewish existence, biblical words saturated the mind, the spirit and the literature of all medieval Jewry.
\nThe Spanish-Jewish achievement was not simply the highest and most intense expression of this phenomenon. It had about it a uniqueness and originality, a vitality and pioneering quality that set it apart from anything that came before or after. It was in biblical studies, in all their ramifications, that the intellectual history of Spanish Jewry found its most fundamental and concrete articulation. In fact, the Bible, the Book par excellence, constituted the very protoplasm of its tradition.
\nUnlike the experience of the Jews of Christian Europe, the study of the Scriptures in Spain did not become the consolidation of past learning. To be sure, antiquity and authority were cherished sufficiently to warrant preservation and transmission. But to the Spanish Jews, tradition was revered in not so rigid and inordinate a manner as to become static and decadent. An element of contention and controversy was allowed to penetrate, and a considerable admixture of critical independence and intellectual daring imparted a quality of excitement to biblical studies. The diversity and multiplicity of approach, the acute sensitivity to difficulties, the forging of the essential tools of scholarship, and the extraordinary degree of sophistication\u2014all these characterized the Sephardi contribution to biblical scholarship and led to a remarkable and unparalleled efflorescence in this field.
\nStrangely, however, the beginnings were humble enough and not in the least auspicious. The Jewish community of Spain could certainly claim to have existed since Roman times, even if it could not validate its boast to descent from the biblical tribe of Judah. Yet before the Arab conquest, and for quite a while after, it gave no evidence of any contribution to Jewish culture, much less of any predilection for, or even particular interest in Scriptural or linguistic studies. This situation is well illustrated through the correspondence of the Babylonian Geonim. Although responsa to enquiries on biblical matters are addressed to other Jewish communities, none such, surprisingly, appear in connection with the Jews of Spain. Moreover, it was not until the tenth century was far advanced that Spanish Jewry could boast of having produced a native-born Bible commentator or grammarian.
\nThe astonishing upsurge of intellectual activity which distinguished later Spanish Jewry and which found such glorious expression in the biblical and Hebraic fields, cannot be said to have been the result of a slow process of internal growth and development. The Sephardim absorbed a rich and variegated legacy and the main river of their scholarship was fed by many literary streams and sustained by numerous cultural tributaries.
\nOn the one hand, the Arab conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries, which imposed the unity of Islamic-Arabic culture upon a far-flung empire, brought Sephardi Jewry out of its isolation to give it free access to the great Jewish centres from which it had formerly been cut off. On the other hand, the mass immigration to Spain that came in successive waves following the victory of Tariq ibn Ziyad in 711, brought Jews from Morocco, Tunis and Egypt, as well as from the remoter lands of Palestine and Syria, and even far-away Babylon. The established community found itself immeasurably enriched by the commingling of diverse influences and the inter-penetration and cross-fertilization of varying traditions and intellectual trends.
\nTHE INFLUENCE OF BABYLON
\nThe most powerful influence upon Spain in the earlier period was that of the Babylonian academies. From them was received a mature and well-ordered tradition of talmudic study, and for a long time the Jewish community was culturally and religiously subservient to the Babylonian Gaonate. This state of affairs adequately explains the exclusive concentration of Spanish scholars upon Halakhah until the tenth century. An indication of how far the decline in biblical studies had gone in Babylon is the fact that the Gaon Na\u1e6dronai (853\u201356) felt impelled to explain away the contemporary flagrant contravention of the Talmudic prescription that one third of the curriculum of studies be devoted to the Bible. In these circumstances, the contribution of Babylonian scholars to Sephardi biblical and linguistic achievements was minimal, despite the fact that the twin centres of Jewish spiritual life, Sura and Pumbedita, were both within close proximity to Baghdad, an important seat of Arabic philological studies. True, the Gaon \u1e62ema\u1e25 ben Pal\u1e6doi (872\u201390) compiled the first talmudic lexicon, and Hai Gaon (998\u20131038) wrote a dictionary in Arabic covering biblical, Mishnaic and Aramaic words; true also, that Sa\u02bfadiah (882\u2013942) and Samuel ben \u1e24ofni (997\u20131013) had a tremendous impact on Sephardi scholarship, while the great Spanish Hebraist, grammarian and poet, Dunash ibn Labra\u1e6d (c. 920\u2013c. 990), had studied in Babylon. But it remains a fact, nevertheless, that philological accomplishments were atypical of Babylonian learning. Moreover, the lexica of \u1e62ema\u1e25 and Hai were not really based on sound scientific principles; Sa\u02bfadiah acquired his learning outside of Babylon, and Dunash, in all likelihood, was attracted to the place only by the fame of Sa\u02bfadiah.
\nBy the middle of the tenth century, the hegemony of the Babylonian academies over Jewry had declined disastrously and the installation of R. Moses ben \u1e24anokh as head of the academy at Cordova (c. 960) really signalized a final gesture of independence on the part of the Spanish community. It is no accident that it is precisely at this point that the hitherto exclusive concentration upon talmudic studies gave way to broader interests.
\nTHE INFLUENCE OF PALESTINE
\nAmong the influences at work here must be mentioned that of Palestinian Jewry. Generally speaking, its spiritual and cultural impact upon Spain was very small indeed. The mainstream of Sephardi tradition issued from Babylon, so that even the Jerusalem Talmud did not find acceptance in Spain. Yet the renewed contacts with Palestine that followed the Arab conquest led to very beneficial results for Sephardi culture in the fields of Hebrew language and Bible study.
\nThe widespread popularity of the Palestinian esoteric work, Sefe Ye\u1e63irah which contained the first known phonetic classification of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, stimulated an interest in the phonology of the Hebrew language. Similarly propaedeutic to linguistic and biblical studies were the activities of the Palestinian Masoretes, the undisputed leaders in the field, whose invention of a great mnemotechnic apparatus designed to guard the biblical text from error won authoritative acceptance, just as did the Tiberian system of vocalization and accentuation.
\nSpanish indebtedness to Palestine in these matters was gratefully acknowledged in all periods. The pupils of Mena\u1e25em ben Saruq (910\u2013970) rely upon the authority of Palestine for the correct reading and accents. Jonah ibn Jana\u1e25 (985\u20131040) speaks of \u201cthe men of Tiberias who excel all others in the clarity of their Hebrew speech.\u201d He rightly saw in the work of the Palestinian Masoretes the origins of systematic research into the Hebrew language, and it was a Palestinian Bible codex and Masoretic lists and notes from the same source that he used as the most reliable texts on which to base his grammatical researches. Spanish Jewish pilgrims to the Holy Land apparently served as the medium of transmission for these materials. Ibn Jana\u1e25 cites the work of a Jerusalem grammarian brought back by \u201cJacob the pilgrim of Leon.\u201d Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra (1092\u20131167) who, incidentally, also pays tribute to the Tiberians, was likewise familiar with the works of the Palestinians. He mentions an anonymous \u201csage of Jerusalem\u201d who authored no less than eight books on Hebrew grammar. In the light of all this, it will be readily understood why the Sephardim, despite their subservience to Babylon, adopted the order of the Books of the Bible as current in Palestine.
\nThis situation, however, must not be exaggerated. Palestine hardly produced grammarians of stature, and its biblical exegetical tradition, with its homiletic bias, was rejected outright by the Spanish scholars.
\nTHE ARAB IMPACT
\nThe imposition of Arabic culture upon a far-flung empire left its impact upon Jewry in numerous subtle ways. Internally, Karaite sectarianism, which owed not a little to the inspiration of Moslem schismatic movements, stimulated the study of the Scriptures through its vigorous anti-Rabbanite polemics. Furthermore, the spirit of criticism fostered by the spread of rationalism soon found expression in a skeptical approach to the Bible. \u1e24ivi ha-Balkhi\u2019s two hundred arguments and queries (c. 880) purporting to demonstrate the internal contradictions of the text and the unlikelihood of miracles achieved very wide circulation. Externally, Moslem anti-Jewish polemics frequently involved attacks on the sacred Book of the Jews and inevitably engendered apologetics and counter-polemics, all of which served as a goad to the re-examination of Scripture.
\nSomewhat paradoxically, the displacement of Aramaic by Arabic as the spoken language of a very large segment of Jewry brought in its wake a great renascence of Hebrew learning. It meant that the educated Jew had at his disposal an astonishingly varied linguistic equipment comprising the Hebrew of the Bible and the Tannaim, Aramaic in its biblical, targumic and talmudic dialects, and now Arabic. This alone must have served to sharpen a sensitivity to philological matters. Further, the meticulous regard of the Arabs for their language and the great attention they paid to proper grammatical and stylistic usage, could not but have developed among Jews a high degree of linguistic consciousness and aesthetic appreciation that was bound to carry over into their approach to Hebrew. The Moslem conviction, ceaselessly propagated, that the Arabic of the Qur\u2019an represented linguistic purity and literary elegance in its most exalted form, must certainly have stimulated a countervailing movement among Jews to promote the Hebrew Bible as the yardstick of literary excellence\u2014an idea that was in any case accepted as being self-evident.
\nThe impact of all these factors at work among the Jews of Spain was reinforced by the policies of \u2018Abd ar-Ra\u1e25man III (912\u201361) and his son \u2018Al-\u1e24akam II (961\u201376), Caliphs of Cordova. As a result of their active cultivation of linguistic studies through the import and patronage of scholars, the glittering city had become, by the second half of the tenth century, a most important centre of Arabic philological research. The foremost scholars of the age succeeded in gathering about them coteries of students instilled with pride in the beauty of their language and inspired with enthusiasm for its systematic study. Spurred by the example of the Moslem ruling classes, the Jewish aristocracy followed suit. \u1e24isdai ibn Shapru\u1e6d (940\u201366), cultured, scholarly, wealthy and powerful, became the leading patron of Hebrew studies in Cordova which was soon to become the Mecca of Jewish scholars who could be assured of a hospitable welcome from Jewish courtiers and men of means.
\nOne final factor, decisive for the Hebrew renascence in Spain, must be mentioned. The expansive Moslem culture broadened the intellectual horizons and altered the cultural perspective of the Jews beyond all previous experience. For the first time they became acquainted with a wealth of Greek and Islamic philosophical analysis and speculation, scientific lore, Arabic philological research and poetic achievement of a high order. New, challenging, unconventional ideas, topics and literary forms suddenly confronted them. The need to give adequate Hebrew expression to this new-found learning and sophistication strained to the limits the existing linguistic resources.
\nTHE INADEQUACY OF HEBREW
\nThe adaptation of the language to this purpose proved, however, to be a herculean task. Biblical Hebrew, as the medium of revelation, was the obvious norm by which excellence of style could be measured. But instead of regarding it as the foundation upon which a linguistic superstructure might be erected, the Spanish enthusiasts looked upon it as ideally self-sufficient. The result was the disappointing discovery that biblical Hebrew was woefully inadequate to the cultural needs of the times.
\nThis situation was further aggravated by the current philosophy of language. The Spanish Hebraists had no understanding of evolutionary development and, with few exceptions, did not realise that Mishnaic Hebrew might be a legitimate lineal descendant of the same language in which the Bible was written. Thus, the first Spanish grammarian of stature, Mena\u1e25em ben Saruq, made a clear distinction between the \u201clanguage of the Bible\u201d which alone was the \u201choly tongue,\u201d and the language of the Tannaim.
\nTo be sure, the inadequacy of the biblical language was easily rationalized. Mena\u1e25em, himself, provided the explanation that was to be repeated time and again by later writers. The Books of the Bible represent but a small fragment of the lost literary productions of ancient Israel. Hence, the biblical vocabulary is bound to be severely limited. If only the lost works might be recovered, the language would prove itself more than satisfactory to modern needs.
\nLater scholars appended to this apologia the further observation that the loss of national independence and the tribulations of exile had contributed greatly to the impoverishment of the holy tongue.
\nTHE DIFFUSION OF HEBREW
\nIt is difficult to assess the true extent of Hebrew learning among Spanish Jews on the basis of existing sources. From the tenth to the fifteenth century, poets and grammarians bewailed the ignorance and neglect of the national language. The historian Abraham ibn Daud (1110\u201380) actually goes so far as to say that it \u201chad become forgotten throughout the Diaspora.\u201d His contemporary Solomon ibn Par\u1e25on (c. 1160) reports that, whereas the Jews of the Arabic-speaking countries did not converse in Hebrew, the diversity of tongues that characterized Christendom was a powerful stimulant to the use of Hebrew as the one common language of communication for Jews. A century earlier, Moses ibn Chiquitilla (c. 1080) had stated that the Jews of Catalonia and Provence were devoted to Hebrew and accustomed to speak it. Jonah ibn Jana\u1e25, for his part, found it necessary to launch a tirade against the scholars, especially the Talmudists who, he said, trifled with the laws of the Hebrew language and did not even read the Bible accurately. The fact of the matter is that between the tenth and the twelfth centuries the Jews of Moslem Spain, in contrast to their coreligionists in Christian lands, used Arabic, not Hebrew, as the primary vehicle of literary expression.
\nOn the other hand, it is known that the Spanish syllabus of studies required intensive application to the biblical text and extensive rote learning from a tender age. The contrast in this respect between Franco-German and Spanish Jews is well illustrated by the ethical will of Judah ben Asher (d. 1349), Rabbi of Toledo, who had migrated from Germany. Writing at a time when Spanish Jewry was already well past its prime, he admonished his son to set aside regular times for the study of the Bible, grammar and exegesis. He, himself, he confessed, had neglected these subjects in his youth, for such was the German-Jewish custom. As a result he had found himself unable to teach the Bible in Toledo.
\nThe primacy of Bible in the traditional education of the Spanish community inevitably equipped the Jew with a rich store of Hebrew learning. Testimony to this is the fact that in their Arabic writings the Jewish scholars always cited the biblical text solely in the original. Further evidence is supplied by the honored position in Jewish society enjoyed by a relatively large number of Hebrew poets who succeeded in deriving a livelihood from the practice of their art. Such was possible only on the assumption of the existence of a fairly wide, appreciative and apperceptive audience.
\nTHE EXPANSION OF THE LANGUAGE
\nThe deeply-rooted commitment to the biblical model as the ideal and exclusive standard predetermined the direction of development in meeting the challenge posed by the confrontation with Islamic society. The Hebraists made a conscious, sincere and brave effort both to improve the literary style and to mould the limited material at their disposal into a more flexible and practical cultural instrument.
\nBy the end of the eleventh century, the systematic study of biblical Hebrew, its vocabulary, grammar, syntax and style, had become fundamental to the education of every enlightened Jew. Judah \u1e24ayyuj (c. 950\u2013c. 1000), whose spectacular discoveries revolutionized the scientific study of Hebrew grammar and lexicography, had as one of his expressed purposes the satisfaction of the needs of Hebrew writers. Jonah ibn Jona\u1e25, the greatest of all the classical Jewish grammarians, declared the cultivation of a more elegant Hebrew style among contemporary writers to be one of the prime motivating aims of his researches. Similar affirmations may be found in the writings of Solomon ibn Gabirol (1021\u20131069) Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra, and others.
\nIn their strivings to achieve linguistic expansion, the Spanish Hebraists, by virtue of their self-imposed terms of reference, hewed closely to the form and substance of classical Hebrew, and eschewed the radical innovations so dear to the payytanim of Palestine. The results were little short of miraculous.
\nBiblical vocables found but once or rarely, usually of uncertain meaning, were resuscitated and pressed into common usage, first in poetry, then in prose, through the endowment of specific significance. Conventional words often took on fresh nuances under the influences of Talmudic or Arabic usage. Nouns appearing only in the singular form were given their normative plurals, and singulars were derived from those found only in the plural. A biblical noun might serve as the basis of a new denominative verb, and a noun be freshly coined from a verb. The technical terminology of poetry and philosophy could be produced by the combination of biblical words and phrases by analogy with Arabic prototypes.
\nThe remarkable success of this experiment, in itself an achievement of no mean order, is immediately apparent if one considers that the Spanish writers preserved the biblical quality of their secular poetry up to the thirteenth century, notwithstanding the great variety and unconventionality\u2014from the Jewish point of view\u2014of the themes they cultivated. It was not until the time of Meshullam ben Solomon da Piera (d. c. 1260), who was one of the first to introduce the language of Halakhah and Agadah into secular Hebrew poetry, that the attachment to pure biblical style began to weaken. Yet the degree of loyalty to the Hebrew language and the earnest desire to avoid, as far as possible, foreign importations, may be measured by the surprising calculation that, of approximately three thousand philosophic terms in use in original Hebrew works or employed in translations from Arabic, only about eighty are actually loan words.
\nFinally, it says much for the deep and well-nigh universal attachment of Spanish Jews to Hebrew that, although there was opposition to the introduction of secular themes into poetry, we do not find throughout the period under discussion any protest based on the argument of the impropriety of the use of Scriptural quotation for a purely secular and divertive literature.
\nTHE POETIC MEDIUM
\nA distinction between the language of social intercourse and the language of literature was well established among both Moslems and Christians in Spain. It was thus not unnatural for the Jewish community to follow suit. But that the Hebrew renascence should have found its purest and most profound expression dressed in poetic vestment, rather than in prose garb, is indeed a strange phenomenon that is to be adequately explained only on several grounds.
\nFirst and foremost was the influence of a venerable tradition of liturgical poetry in Hebrew which was powerful enough to overcome the initial Arabic secular inspiration. Moreover, the very existence of this tradition naturally made the poetic medium the most effective, because the most readily acceptable, literary vehicle for the resuscitation of the language. The high prestige enjoyed by the poet in upper-class Moslem society also helped not a little. At the same time, the competitive spirit with Arabic proved to be a further stimulus, for to the Arabs poetry was supposed to exemplify the unrivalled beauty of the sacred Qur\u2019an. The Jews, therefore, would tend to shun versification in the Arab tongue and would be prone to use, instead, the language of their own sacred Scriptures.
\nPOETRY, PHILOLOGY AND BIBLE STUDIES
\nIt is obvious that the expansion of Hebrew on the basis of the biblical prototype could not have been pursued without the indispensable precondition of intensive research in the fields of grammar, lexicography and interpretation of the sacred text. Of necessity, therefore, the course of the Hebrew rebirth and efflorescence in Spain proceeded in three distinct directions\u2014poetic composition, linguistic studies and biblical exegesis.
\nIn actual fact, however, it is not always possible to separate the disciplines since all three were often inextricably intertwined, and they reacted one upon the other. The ability to write Hebrew poetry, where Hebrew was not the vernacular, required a thorough mastery of the biblical text, a keen sensitivity to the distinctive peculiarities of biblical prose and poetry, and a fine perception of the meaning of words and the subtleties of their use. A poet had either himself to be a philologist or an exegete, or at least to be thoroughly familiar with the results of philological and exegetical scholarship. No biblical interpretation could be convincing if it ignored sound philology. The Spanish-Jewish grammarians carefully studied the Bible to extract from it the laws of the language. Once having formulated them, they reapplied them for the deeper understanding and interpretation of the text.
\nThe close connection between poetry and philology was maintained from the beginning to the end of the Spanish period. The very first generation of grammarians, Mena\u1e25em ben Saruq and Dunash ibn Labra\u1e6d, set the pattern and left an indelible imprint on Hebrew poetry. Levi al-Tabban (11th cent.), a respected philologist, is known to have authored no less than seventy poems, and his poetic ability was highly praised. Moses ibn Chiquitilla, Bible exegete and illustrious grammarian, was \u201cdistinguished for his poetry.\u201d This tribute, coming from the usually vitriolic pen of Judah ibn Bal\u2018am (d. c. 1090), may be taken as praise indeed. Ibn Bal\u2018am, himself, was another great grammarian who was also a poet of merit. Admittedly, the greatest of all Hebrew grammarians left behind not a line of poetry; but such was the spirit of the age that Jonah ibn Jana\u1e25 apparently felt compelled to lay claim to poetic accomplishment, maintaining that his compositions had erroneously been circulated under the authorship of another. The first of the real giants of Spanish-Hebrew poetry, Samuel ibn Nagrela (993\u20131056), is reported to have composed twenty-two treatises on philological topics. Solomon ibn Gabirol, \u201cthe nightingale,\u201d wrote a poem entitled \u2018Anaq (Necklace) comprising four-hundred double-verses summarizing the important laws of Hebrew grammar. The celebrated exegete and grammarian Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra, whose work marks a turning-point in Spanish-Jewish intellectual activity, was a prolific and versatile poet of high calibre. Even as the curtain fell on the last generation of Spanish Jews, the traditional association of the disciplines was still being maintained. Sa\u02bfadiah ben Maimun ibn Danan, who left Spain in 1492, wrote a comprehensive grammar of Hebrew, a dictionary, a commentary on part of Isaiah and an analysis of Hebrew prosody, as well as some Hebrew poetry.
\nThe Spanish poets who drew on the Bible for their inspiration themselves, in turn, left biblical studies greatly in their debt. Not only did their writing stimulate and promote the closer study of Scripture, but their poetry, secular and religious, is an important, though still largely untapped, source of biblical scholarship. The assigning of particular meaning to hapax legomena, rare words or difficult phrases, was neither arbitrary nor gratuitous. It was mostly a reflection of an exegetical tradition, the recovery of which is invaluable for the history of biblical exegesis. The Hebrew poetry of the period may also be of great service in textual criticism since its biblical quotations often vary from our received text. Even if due and proper allowance be made for the vagaries of human memory, the considerable license exercised by poets, and the carelessness of later scribes, there yet remains a respectable residue of biblical citations which contains textual variants worthy of serious scholarly examination. Finally, it should not be forgotten that the Spanish-Hebrew poetry contains much original, if incidental, exegesis if only for the reason that the poets were frequently scholars who left the impress of their learning and originality in the manner in which they put Scripture to the service of the Muse.
\nMENA\u1e24EM BEN SARUQ
\nThe work of the poets was immeasurably facilitated by the compilation of dictionaries. Sa\u02bfadiah had initiated the process in compiling his Agron specifically for the benefit of poets.
\nTo Mena\u1e25em den Saruq (910\u2013970) must be credited the distinction of having been the first Spanish-Jewish scholar to write a dictionary. His work, popularly known as Ma\u1e25beret, was the first attempt to classify the entire biblical thesaurus on the basis of characteristic consonants, and to group together roots according to the varying meanings they can bear, as illustrated by scriptural citations. The Ma\u1e25beret can also boast the added virtue of having been the first complete dictionary written in the Hebrew language.
\nThe lexicon was prefaced by an introductory survey of Hebrew grammar analysing some of the outstanding features of the form and structure of the holy tongue. These notes really explain the principles upon which Mena\u1e25em operated in his lexicographical work. His overriding aim was to clarify the distinction between \u201cradicals\u201d and \u201cauxiliaries.\u201d By the former he meant those consonants that consistently maintain their identity. By the latter he understood those consonants that serve as infixed, prefixed or suffixed elements. This distinction is reflected in the arrangement of the dictionary.
\nOther data included in the introduction or scattered throughout the lexicon comprise observations on the use of the dagesh, the vowel system, homonyms and impossible combinations and sequences of consonants as radicals. Some problems of Hebrew syntax, particularly the phenomena of ellipsis and pleonasm, also receive attention. Mena\u1e25em believed these latter to be the basic features of the language. He also paid heed to parallelism as the outstanding characteristic of biblical poetry.
\nThe Ma\u1e25beret of Mena\u1e25em ben Saruq was a pioneering work. It managed to combine an exhibition of deep feeling for, and keen sensitivity to, linguistic subtleties with a lack of systematic and comprehensive understanding of the structure of the language. His criterion for distinguishing the root-form led him to postulate the existence of uni-, bi-, tri-, quadri- and quinque-consonantal radicals. In failing to grasp the nature of weak consonants he was led into serious confusion of etymologies. His grammatical treatment was rudimentary, unsystematic, selective, and far from exhaustive even in the topics discussed. Another serious fault is the absence of paradigms of the inflections of nouns and verbs.
\nCompared with the work of his non-Spanish predecessors Sa\u02bfadiah and Judah ibn Quraish (born c. 900) with which he was familiar, Mena\u1e25em not only showed little progress in the science of language, but was actually retrogressive in many respects. Thus, he deliberately refrained from utilizing Arabic cognates to elucidate Hebrew words, and even Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew he used but rarely. As a result, he was forced to rely solely upon the nexus of thought to elicit meaning from hapax legomena and other unusual words. This, of course, is a highly subjective method of very limited value. Also retrogressive was his opposition to the idea of consonantal interchange and metathesis, phenomena of language already well recognized by his day.
\nOn the other hand, all these drawbacks, serious as they are, must not be allowed to obscure the undoubted fact that Mena\u1e25em b. Saruq occupies a place of historic importance in the annals of the study and development of the Hebrew language. It is of little consequence that this is due less to the intrinsic merit of his work than to the rule it played in precipitating a new movement.
\nIn restricting himself, for whatever reasons, to the language of Scripture, he turned biblical Hebrew philology into an independent discipline. By insisting upon writing in Hebrew, instead of Arabic, he succeeded in raising the national language to the status of a value-concept that triggered a revival of Hebrew consciousness. In eschewing Arabic technical terminology he set the pattern for the coinage of a complete Hebrew grammatical nomenclature. By the use that he made of his non-Spanish predecessors in the field, he introduced the Spanish community to the scientific work of scholars abroad, including that of the Karaites, thereby helping to discard the earlier midrashic philological tradition and to inaugurate new methods of research.
\nMena\u1e25em ben Saruq\u2019s Ma\u1e25beret was soon superseded by superior works of other Spanish scholars and scant attention was paid to it by later generations in his own homeland. However, since it was written in Hebrew, it enjoyed an extensive popularity among the Jews of Christian Europe who had no access to Arabic. It exerted a profound influence upon Rashi (1040\u20131105) and, through him, upon Franco-German biblical exegesis in general. Rashi\u2019s grandson, Jacob ben Meir Tam of Rameru (d. 1171), greatly favoured it. Mena\u1e25em ben Solomon in Italy based his own dictionary, the \u2018Eben Bo\u1e25an (c. 1140), on that of his namesake, and R. Abraham ben \u2018Azriel was still making much use of it in Bohemia in 1234, nearly three centuries after its publication.
\nDUNASH IBN LABRA\u1e6c
\nThe scientific study of the Hebrew language initiated by Mena\u1e25em in Spain took a further step forward with the criticisms to which his contemporary Dunash ibn Labra\u1e6d (c. 920\u2013c. 990) mercilessly subjected his work. In his Teshubot (Responsa) he assailed the Ma\u1e25beret on one hundred and sixty counts.
\nDunash was possessed of a highly developed critical faculty and a biting tongue, both of which attributes he employed to the full in pinpointing, and then exploiting, the flaws and imperfections in Mena\u1e25em\u2019s work. Yet his own positive contributions to Hebrew linguistics, as distinct from poetry, were hardly revolutionary. Very often, in fact, he differed from his rival only in matters of detail and judgment. He did not write a grammar, and his strictures are really a collection of notes in no systematic order. But in the introduction to his polemical work he knew to outline the problems and tasks confronting the Hebrew grammarian.
\nIn another critical study, this time directed against Sa\u02bfadiah, Dunash displayed considerable progress in the maturation of his philological observations. This second work was apparently written at a much later period in his life, for in his diatribe against Mena\u1e25em he had defended Sa\u02bfadiah against his opponents strictures.
\nIn the field of grammatical analysis, Dunash has the distinction of being the first to differentiate transitive from intransitive verbs, the first to classify verbs according to the letters of the root pa\u2018al, and the first to divide the verbal conjugations into \u201clight\u201d and \u201cheavy\u201d groupings. He introduced considerable refinement into Mena\u1e25em\u2019s system of \u201cradicals\u201d and \u201cauxiliaries\u201d by recognizing the function of \u201cweak\u201d letters. In this way, several of his rival\u2019s uni- and bi-consonantals became bi- and tri-letter roots, with important consequences for lexicography. Following Mena\u1e25em\u2019s precedent, Dunash also enriched Hebrew grammatical terminology by the coinage of new words.
\nOf particular interest is his criticism of Mena\u1e25em\u2019s deliberate neglect of Arabic cognates in the elucidation of difficult Hebrew words. In contrast, he lauded the value of Arabic for such purposes and listed one hundred and sixty-seven vocables common to the two languages.
\nDunash, like his literary opponent, did not write biblical commentaries. But like him too, he helped provide the tools for the exegete, and included an abundance of exegetical material scattered throughout his notes. Whether sincerely, or merely to press advantage, it is no longer possible to say, Dunash accused Mena\u1e25em of heretical, especially Karaite, tendencies. He was not satisfied simply to correct misinterpretations of Scripture which might result from lexicographical errors, but paid special attention to renderings that might be misleading in matters of Halakhah and faith.
\nTHE GRAND DEBATE
\nThe intemperate attack of Dunash upon Mena\u1e25em proved to be the opening shots in a grand debate. Isaac ben Chiquitilla, Ephraim ibn Kafron and Judah ben David rallied to the defence of their master. They forcefully rejected the imputations of heresy, and, in turn, made much of Dunash\u2019s use of Arabic and Aramaic as an aid to the interpretation of the sacred literature. In addition, they directed their barbs against the imposition of Arabic metre onto Hebrew poetry, a revolutionary innovation for which Dunash had been responsible. They rightly claimed that such adaptation did violence to the rules of grammar, particularly in regard to accentuation, syllable division and vowel quantity. They also made detailed replies to fifty-five of the one hundred and sixty strictures of Dunash, pointed out his own errors, and expanded many of their remarks into excursuses which constituted valuable and original studies into grammatical problems. For instance, the first systematic attempt to deal with nominal formations and their declensions are to be found among these rejoinders. Dunash, personally, made no response to the counter-attack of the pupils of Mena\u1e25em, but one of his students, Yehudi ben Sheshet, took up the cudgels on his behalf.
\nDespite the sterile aspects of the debate which was conducted in an acrimonious atmosphere and generated considerable heat, the long term effects were decidedly favourable to the growth of the scientific study of the Hebrew language. The polemics stimulated wide interest in the subject in general, focused attention upon and clarified numerous specific problems, and greatly advanced the cause of biblical Hebrew grammar as an independent discipline. Best of all, they helped produce the man who was to overthrow completely one of the most basic-assumptions of both Mena\u1e25em and Dunash.
\nJUDAH BEN DAVID \u1e24AYYUJ
\nIf there be any doubt about the identity of this individual with the pupil of Mena\u1e25em, there is certainly unanimous agreement on the role of Judah ben David \u1e24ayyuj (c. 950\u2013c. 1000) as the real founder of Hebrew grammar as we know it today.
\nTaking full advantage of the opportunities offered by Cordova as a centre of Moslem scholarship, he steeped himself in the works of the Arab grammarians and applied their achievements, insofar as they were relevant, to the solution of the problems of Hebrew grammar. Hitherto, no one had succeeded in clarifying the basic rules governing the interchange and assimilation of the weak consonants. This lacuna had hindered the proper understanding of the verbal system. Moreover, the belief in the existence of uni- and bi-consonantal verbal stems, despite the modifications of Dunash, caused utter lexicographical confusion. Already two centuries earlier, the basic triconsonantal nature of the verbal stem had been discovered by the Arab grammarians. \u1e24ayyuj was the first to realize its equal applicability to Hebrew, thereby inaugurating a new era in Hebrew philology. With a single stroke he put the phonology of the language on a scientific basis, made possible the construction of a consistent, comprehensive, methodologically sound system of Hebrew grammar, and opened up entirely new vistas for the lexicographer.
\nAll this \u1e24ayyuj embodied in works dealing with the weak consonants, the geminated verbs, and the vowel system. He also adapted many Arabic technical terms to Hebrew grammatical nomenclature. Very strangely, although he arrived at his conclusions via his Arabic studies, and although he wrote his works in Arabic and not Hebrew, yet he avoided the use of Arabic cognates to explain Hebrew words. However, his grammars had a tremendous impact upon Hebrew writers in Spain, and more than any other person he helped to make biblical Hebrew the accepted style.
\nJONAH IBN JANA\u1e24
\nThe grammatical break-through achieved by \u1e24ayyuj quickly bore fruit. Basing himself on the master\u2019s discoveries, a younger contemporary, a scholar of true genius, soon outstripped all others in the field. With Jonah ibn Jana\u1e25 (Abu\u2019l Walid ibn Merwan, c. 985\u2013c. 1040), biblical Hebrew studies in Spain soared to a pinnacle of attainment unequalled subsequently until the nineteenth century.
\nHis first work, Kitab \u2018Al-Mustal\u1e25aq, consisted simply of critical observations upon \u1e24ayyuj\u2019s researches into the weak and geminated verbs which he supplemented with a list of fifty such roots omitted therefrom. Further small tracts resulted from a polemic with Samuel ibn Nagrela that erupted over these remarks, a polemic that served the good purpose of disseminating the discoveries of \u1e24ayyuj, thereby improving the general level of grammatical knowledge. All this, however, was merely preparatory to his magnum opus, a two-part work comprising a grammar, known as the Kitab \u2019Al-Luma\u2018 \u201cBook of Coloured Flower-beds,\u201d and a dictionary, Kitab \u2019al-U\u1e63ul \u201cBook of Roots\u201d. This work, written in Arabic like all his others, is a veritable mine of information of great historic and scientific value. The grammar is detailed and comprehensive, except for the treatment of the vowel system. The lexicon carefully differentiates the sundry meanings of the individual roots which are illustrated by appropriate biblical citations. A novel feature is the principle that where the context alone is inadequate to the explanation of a word or phrase, recourse may be had to rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic and, if still necessary, to Arabic cognates. The most revolutionary and enduring part of the work is the methodical analysis of biblical syntax in relation to sentence structure and, especially, stylistic peculiarities. This aspect will be later discussed in greater detail. Suffice it to mention here that Ibn Jana\u1e25 was the most outstanding representative of this type of study, antedating by about eight centuries many of the findings of modern critical scholarship.
\nSAMUEL IBN NAGRELA
\nAs has been stated, Ibn Jana\u1e25\u2019s critique of \u1e24ayyuj involved him in a literary feud with the statesman, poet and talmudist, Samuel ibn Nagrela (Ha-Nagid, 993\u20131056). The, latter, together with others, composed the Epistles of the Companions as well as another grammatical work rejecting the rejoinder it had evoked. Although a pupil of \u1e24ayyuj, Ibn Nagrela still adhered to the biconsonantalism of verbal stems. Nevertheless, he was a grammarian and lexicographer of note. According to Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra, he authored no less than twenty-two philological treatises, all now lost except for some fragments of the Kitab \u2019al-Istighna \u201cBook of Amplitude.\u201d If these be fairly representative of the entire original, then the work must have been a comprehensive dictionary of considerable dimensions. Its loss is doubly tragic since it seems to have contained many features unique in both arrangement and content. The entry for each root included a listing of the varying definitions and permutations of the root found in biblical Hebrew supplemented, most remarkably for the times, by a wealth of related exegetical and lexicographical matter culled from a host of sources, some of which are otherwise quite unknown.
\nMOSES IBN CHIQUITILLA
\nIt will have been observed that the successors of Mena\u1e25em and Dunash wrote their scientific works in Arabic, reserving Hebrew for purposes of poetry. The popularity enjoyed abroad by Mena\u1e25em\u2019s Ma\u1e25beret on account of the employment of the sacred language as its medium illustrates a wide-spread interest in the field of philology. Now that \u1e24ayyuj had revolutionized the study of Hebrew grammar there was an imperative need for his works to be made available to a wider circle of Hebrew readers, especially in Christian Europe. The task of translation was successfully undertaken by Moses ibn Chiquitilla (d. c. 1080) who rendered the works on the weak and geminated verbs into a free-flowing Hebrew style. He thus became the first Spanish Jew to translate a scientific work from Arabic into Hebrew.
\nBut Ibn Chiquitilla was also a grammarian in his own right. Some of his independent observations he had actually incorporated inconspicuously into his translations. He hardly earned the encomium \u201cthe greatest of grammarians\u201d bestowed upon him by Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra; nor, probably, did he deserve to be placed alongside of \u1e24ayyuj and Ibn Jana\u1e25, as Abraham ibn Daud thought. He did, however, compose an important monograph, now fragmentary, entitled Kitab \u2018al Tadhkir w\u2019al-Ta\u2019anith, which was a kind of detailed dictionary of \u201cmasculine and feminine nouns\u201d arranged alphabetically, and not by root. It discussed the grammatical implications of gender differentiation and listed nouns with erratic plural forms.
\nIbn Chiquitilla also included much original philological material in his extraordinary commentaries to the Bible. Of these also we shall have more to say later on.
\nJUDAH BEN SAMUEL IBN BAL\u2018AM
\nAnother exegete of great distinction who made original and important contributions to biblical philology was Judah ben Samuel ibn Bal\u2018am (d. c. 1090). Basing himself on \u1e24ayyuj and his own teacher Ibn Jana\u1e25, he wrote a text-book of grammar and Hebrew language that drew high praise from Moses ibn \u2018Ezra (c. 1070\u20131139). For the benefit of poets and biblical expositors, he composed the Tajnis, a work on Hebrew homonyms that achieved wide circulation. The external arrangement is alphabetic, but the order of words subsumed under each letter is haphazard. A peculiarity of the work is its restriction to nouns to the disregard of verbs. In setting forth the different meanings which words of identical consonantal spellings can bear, Ibn Bal\u2018am occasionally resorted to Arabic cognates. There is also apparent an emphasis on interpretations with an anti-Karaite bias.
\nOther grammatical compositions by the same author include a treatment of Hebrew particles and a work on the denominative verbs. A lectionary guide to the accentuation of the books of Psalms, Proverbs and Job has also been attributed to him.
\nABRAHAM IBN \u2018EZRA
\nThese scholars, whose grammatical and lexicographical work has been reviewed here, were the most illustrious representatives of the Spanish school. But the list is by no means exhaustive. The Arabic medium which the Jews of Moslem Spain employed was destined to consign to oblivion much of the results of their research. A man like the exegete Isaac ibn Yashush (982\u20131057), whom Moses ibn \u2018Ezra classed with Ibn Jana\u1e25 as one of \u201cthe two greatest scholars in the Hebrew language,\u201d must surely have deserved such acclaim for more than the single treatise on the Hebrew conjugations now known to us only by name (Sefer ha-\u1e62erufim).
\nWe have no way of evaluating the Sefer ha-Melakhim of David ibn Hagar of Granada, anymore than we can know at present whether Abraham ben Meir ibn Kamnial of Saragossa (11th cent.) had any greater claim to fame than the invention of a mnemotechnic device for the eleven letters of the alphabet used as auxiliaries. Unfortunately we know practically nothing, too, of the Sefe ha-Maftea\u1e25 of Levi (Abu\u2019l-Fahm) ibn al-Tabban of Saragossa (11th cent.), nor of any other grammatical work he might have written. Yet he was the teacher of the outstanding comparative philologist, Ibn Baron, whose work we shall presently discuss.
\nIf more of the work of the Spanish school has not been lost, it is in no small measure due to the efforts of Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra (1092\u20131167). There may have been much justice in the observation of Profiat Duran (14th\u201315th cents.) that this scholar contributed little new to the store of philological knowledge. But just because his forte lay in his thorough familiarity with the entire field of grammatical, lexicographical and exegetical scholarship from Sa\u02bfadiah to his own day, including that of the Karaites, and precisely because he was an anthologist and synthesizer, rather than an innovator, Ibn \u2018Ezra had the great merit of salvaging for future generations much of what would otherwise have certainly disappeared beyond reclaim.
\nHe lived at a time when the Jewish communities of Andalusia were disintegrating under the pressure, first of the persecutions of the fanatical Almohades, and then of the ever-increasing Christian encroachments upon large areas under Moslem rule. By the middle of the thirteenth century Spanish Jewry lived almost entirely under Christian sway, and the enlightened, sophisticated and aristocratic culture of the Golden Age gave way to one simpler, more popular and more circumscribed in its intellectual horizons. Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra\u2019s life thus marked the transition from one era to another in the fortunes of the Jews of Spain. It was most fitting, therefore, that his literary activity should have been characterized more by the consolidation of the achievements of the past than by the creation of new knowledge.
\nThe significance of ibn \u2018Ezra\u2019s role in Jewish history was enhanced by his consistent use of Hebrew. He not only preserved, in summarized form, the results of Jewish philological research written in Arabic, but he mediated these, through the agency of the Hebrew language, to the non-Arabic speaking Jews of Christian countries. He personally translated the most important works of \u1e24ayyuj. In this way, the Jews of Provence, Italy, Germany and England became acquainted with the scientific study of grammar, the discovery of the triconsonantal root, the elements of Hebrew prosody, and the closeness of Arabic and Aramaic to Hebrew.
\nApart from his commentaries to the Bible, in which much attention is paid to philological matters, Ibn \u2018Ezra\u2019s main works included the Sefer Mo\u2019znayim \u201cThe Book of Scales\u201d which deals mainly with the grammatical nomenclature, but which actually comprises a complete outline of grammar and contains an invaluable historical preface; the Sefat Yeter \u201cThe Preferred Language,\u201d a defense of Sa\u02bfadiah against the criticisms of Dunash; the Yesod Diqduq \u201cThe Elements of Grammar\u201d; the Sefe \u1e62a\u1e25ut \u201cThe Book of Clarity,\u201d a more complete grammar that has a lengthy discussion of the vowel system, a classification of the consonants and an outline of Hebrew prosody; the Yesod Mora\u2019, a philosophical-ethical work with much grammatical information; the Safah Berurah \u201cPure Language\u201d which, despite its title, is among the least lucid of Ibn \u2018Ezra\u2019s grammatical works. In it he deals with sundry topics, defends the antiquity of the Hebrew language and affirms the view that Arabic and Aramaic are derivatives of it.
\nCOMPARATIVE STUDIES
\nThe views of Ibn \u2018Ezra on the inter-relationships of what are today called the Semitic languages were, of course, extremely naive; but they were widely shared throughout the period of Moslem domination. As a matter of fact, since it appeared to be self-evident from Scripture that Hebrew was the original tongue of mankind, no other conclusion was really possible. Yet the important thing is that the Spanish scholars generally were conscious of the relationships between Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic and made great efforts to use the recognized affiliations to the advantage of biblical Hebrew studies. This was a distinct advance over Moslem scholarship. The Arabic grammarians and lexicographers perforce restricted themselves to the Arabic language, having neither the linguistic equipment available to their Jewish counterparts, nor any natural interest in the field.
\nThe Spanish Jews did not originate this kind of research. Already in talmudic times the rabbis had explained several biblical words according to Arabic roots. Sa\u02bfadiah had used Aramaic and Arabic, together with the Hebrew of the Mishnah and Talmud, to explain biblical hapax legomena. Dunash (Adonim) ibn Tamim of Kairuwan (c. 895\u2013c. 960) had authored a work on comparative Hebrew-Arabic-Aramaic philology, and Hai Gaon at the opposite extremity of the Jewish world had likewise used comparative material in his dictionary. Among the Karaites, the great lexicographer David ben Abraham Al-Fasi (10th cent.) had even made use of Persian. All this, however, was unsystematic. It was left to another North African, Judah ibn Quraish (b. c. 900), to put the study of comparative Semitic linguistics on a methodical, organized basis. He may be regarded as the real founder of the science and he went so far as to utilize Berber dialects and even Greek and Latin to elucidate otherwise intractable biblical words.
\nThe Spanish-Jewish scholars thus inherited a well-established tradition in the use of cognate languages for biblical exegesis. But in their hands this tradition took on two distinctive nuances. One characteristic is an evident and decided hesitancy and self-consciousness on their part not to be found elsewhere. Another is their use of the comparative material at their disposal far more sophisticatedly and to far greater profit, due to the tremendous advances they were able to make in the science of Hebrew grammar. Mena\u1e25em ben Saruq, who fully conceded the limited nature of biblical Hebrew, apparently regarded it as irreverent to use the language of Ishmael in the service of the holy tongue. He did not mind Aramaic so much, but he criticized both Sa\u02bfadiah and Ibn Quraish for their employment of Arabic cognates. Dunash ibn Labra\u1e6d, on the other hand, lauded the value of Arabic in solving Hebrew lexicographical problems, and he pointed to over eight score words common to both languages. Mena\u1e25em\u2019s disciples, in turn, claimed that Arabic and Hebrew were not comparable, and they actually criticized even Dunash\u2019s use of Aramaic.
\nEven \u1e24ayyuj, the founder of scientific Hebrew grammar who was steeped in the works of Arabic grammarians and who drew his inspiration from them, did not avail himself of Arabic to elucidate Hebrew. His pupil Ibn Jana\u1e25, however, enunciated clearly his guiding principles in the use of comparative linguistics. Alluding to those exegetes who expounded Holy Writ by reference to \u201cGreek, Persian, Arabic, African and other languages besides,\u201d he explains that he himself, when biblical Hebrew is inadequate, will have recourse: first, to the lingo of the rabbis; then, to Aramaic and finally, failing these, to Arabic. Yet Ibn Janah is highly conscious of the opposition to this comparative methodology and feels compelled to justify it by reference to the authority of Sa\u02bfadiah and other Geonim. Ibn Bal\u2018am, too, made use of Arabic cognates to explain Hebrew words, but is thoroughly apologetic about it and also evokes the precedents of Sa\u02bfadiah and Hai Gaon.
\nOutstanding on the Spanish scene was Isaac (Abu Ibrahim ben Joseph ibn Benveniste) ibn Baron (d. before 1128). His Kitab \u2019al Muwazana \u201cBook of Comparison\u201d was a bold attempt to continue the work of Ibn Quraish. It is a two-part systematic presentation of the grammatical and lexicographical correspondence between Hebrew and Arabic. Apart from his citations from the works of his Jewish predecessors, his frequent quotations from the Qur\u2019an and Arabic poetry exhibit considerable daring as well as broad-minded learning. Far less significant, but nonetheless interesting, is Judah Ha-levi\u2019s attention to the \u201cproblem\u201d of the \u201corigin\u201d of Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic relationships, in his great philosophical work, the Kuzari. He explains their similarity to each other \u201cin their vocabulary, grammatical rules and formations,\u201d by the fact that Abraham, deriving from Ur of the Chaldeans, employed Aramaic for every-day use, but Hebrew for sacred purposes. It was Ishmael, Abraham\u2019s son, who mediated Hebrew to the Arab peoples.\u201d
\nSuch explanations indicated the embarrassment engendered by comparative Semitic studies. This reaction was caused as much by the need to emphasize the pre-eminence and unrivalled antiquity of Hebrew in answer to Arab polemicists, as by the opposition of the unenlightened pietists in the Jewish community to the humanist movement.
\nTHE APPROACH TO THE TEXT
\nThe science of textual, or so-called \u201clower\u201d, criticism, in the modern understanding of the term, was unknown in the Golden Age. Nowhere do we find expressed in so many words any awareness of the possibility that our received text of the Bible might have had a long history behind it and that it might not be free from scribal corruption; nor do we encounter attempts to solve textual difficulties on the basis of the ancient versions. Speculation along these lines generally appears to have been beyond the horizon of medieval Jewish thinking or, at least, it transcended the bounds of literary freedom.
\nNevertheless, the Spanish-Jewish grammarians and exegetes displayed an unrivalled and sophisticated sensitivity to textual problems. They successfully developed a peculiar approach to the subject which delicately avoided any and all philosophic implications while simultaneously yielding results frequently acceptable to the least inhibited of the modern practitioners of textual anaplasty.
\nThis kind of sensitivity to the text manifested itself, first of all, in a general concern for the possession of correct manuscripts. Spanish Talmud texts achieved an enviable reputation for reliability. This may be traced to the fact that, since Aramaic was at no time native to Iberian Jewry, carelessly copied manuscripts compounded the difficulties inherent in talmudic studies. The demand for accurate Talmud texts was thus, from the beginning, dictated by practical pedagogic considerations which, in turn, played a major role in establishing scribal traditions in general. At the same time, the Spanish-Jewish devotion to linguistic studies would, in any case, have generated a natural attention to detail and an obvious interest in the minutiae of spelling, vocalization, accentuation and Masoretic notation. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that Spanish biblical texts became famous for their accuracy.
\nIn the earliest period books were imported from abroad, and Babylonian manuscripts appeared in Spain as early as the ninth century. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the three converted Jews who worked on the Complutensian Polyglot could still make use of four-hundred year old Babylonian manuscripts. Yet there is no doubt that Palestine was the main source of supply; the superiority of its Masoretic schools was unchallenged. Palestinian manuscripts were copied with such great care that even tenth century sources could already speak of \u201caccurate and ancient Spanish-Tiberian Bibles.\u201d A German-Jewish commentator on the Code of Maimonides refers to the \u201cexcellent and exact books of Spain,\u201d and the records tell of Jews travelling from Germany to Toledo for the sole purpose of acquiring model Torah codices. The pre-eminence of the Spanish Bibles was attested by the great grammarian and Masoretic scholar, Elijah Levita (1468\u20131549), and it was a Toledo manuscript of 1277, and mainly Spanish notes, that served Jedidiah Solomon Norzi (1560\u20131626) for his great text-critical and Masoretic commentary.
\nSo much for the well-deserved reputation for exactitude earned by the Spanish-Jewish scribes. What of the approach of the grammarians and exegetes to the obscurities of the Hebrew text? Already Sa\u02bfadiah had accepted the principle that the meaning required by the nexus of thought was the paramount exegetical criterion. This rule was accepted wholeheartedly by the Spanish school. But it could mean only one thing: the text as written was not always decisive for the extraction of sense and the construction of interpretation. Such a notion, however, clashed head-on with the theory of the inviolability of the received text. An ingenious system was therefore developed by which all apparent textual aberrations were actually explained as being inherent characteristics of biblical Hebrew style.
\nThis technique of rationalization had found its first formulation among the thirty-two exegetical rules commonly ascribed to R. Eliezer ben Yose ha-Galili, but actually authored by the Gaon Samuel ben \u1e24ofni who found them grounded in Sa\u02bfadiah\u2019s commentaries. They were made use of by the first native Spanish-Jewish grammarian who accepted the phenomenon of ellipsis as a feature of the thought process of biblical man. According to Mena\u1e25em ben Saruq, particles and entire words might be omitted from the written text since the deficiency was intended to be supplied by the imagination of the reader. Subsequent scholars continued to utilize the system to the full, and in this way the Spanish-Jewish exegetes practically covered the entire range of what modern scholars refer to as \u201ctextual corruptions.\u201d
\nWith Jonah ibn Jona\u1e25, this type of textual exegesis approached perfection. He laid great stress upon the accuracy of manuscripts as the essential precondition for grammatical research. More than anyone else, he realized that to establish the precise meaning of a passage, the wider context, not just the import of the words, has to be taken into account. The application of this principle might easily have led Ibn Jana\u1e25 far afield into many a perilous situation, for the pages of Scripture are strewn with numerous contradictions between text and context. He, therefore, systematized these difficulties and formulated on the basis of them what he claimed to be the syntactical laws of biblical Hebrew.
\nThe long-recognized phenomenon of ellipsis, for example, was employed by Ibn Jana\u1e25 to cover numerous instances of haplography and other omissions of letters and words. Thus,
\nsharshot (Exod. 28:22) stands for sharsharot;
\nbat-\u2018ayin (Ps. 17:8) is really babat-\u2019ayin (cf. Zech. 2:12);
\nshalman (Hos. 10:14) is a contraction of Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:2); just as
\nNo\u1e63rim (Jer. 4:16) is abbreviated from Nebukhadne\u1e63\u1e63ar.
\nTransposition of letter and word-sequence is another characteristic of the language emphasized by Ibn Jona\u1e25. Thus, for instance, the present word sequence of Lev. 14:3 requires a translation,
\n\u201c\u2026 the leprous disease be healed in the leper.\u201d
\nHowever, by inverting the word order, a superior translation is obtained, thus,
\n\u201c\u2026 the leper has been healed of the leprous disease.\u201d
\nSimilarly, in Ps. 104:6 the literal translation is:
\n\u201cThe waters stood above the mountains.\u201d
\nIbn Jana\u1e25 preferred to understand
\n\u201cThe mountains stood above the waters.\u201d
\nHe was not averse to the idea that even whole sentences might not be in their proper sequence, as is proved by, for example, Exod. 21:11 which refers to vv. 8f. and not to v. 10 and by the concluding phrase of Deut. 15:17 which is an extension of v. 14. In the same way, 1 Sam. 4:1 belongs with 3:20 rather than with the immediately preceding verse.
\nThe most daring of all the contributions of Ibn Jana\u1e25 is the phenomenon of \u201csubstitution.\u201d This assumes that the biblical writer \u201cintended one thing, but wrote another.\u201d It devolved upon the exegete to penetrate the mind of the writer in order to restore the true meaning of the text. In practice, \u201csubstitution\u201d actually encompasses the vast majority of textual difficulties. A few examples will serve to convey the extent and significance of this technique.
\nIn Exod. 19:23 Moses is told to \u201cset bounds about the mountain and sanctify it.\u201d However, vv. 10, 12 show clearly that not the mount, but the people are the target of the restrictions. Hence, we must conclude that the text wrote mount but intended people.
\nIn Jud. 14:15 the seventh day, in the light of vv. 17, 18, must be the second day; that is, the written text must be ignored in exegesis.
\nThe same applies to the irrelevant reference to forefathers in 1 Sam, 12:15. Since they could not possibly be the object of punishment, king is clearly preferable.
\nIn 2 Sam. 21:8, Merab, not Michal, must be intended in the light of the clear statements of 1 Sam. 18:19 and 2 Sam. 6:23. In 2 Sam. 21:19 the writer must have had in mind the brother of Goliath, as is proven by 1 Chron. 20:5, in the same way as he meant Solomon, although he wrote Absalom, in 1 Kings 2:28.
\nAll in all, Ibn Jana\u1e25 produced what, in effect, constitute over two hundred textual emendations. The question may well be raised as to whether he and the other Spanish scholars who used this system were aware of the fact. In other words, did they really believe in the inviolability of the received Hebrew text of the Bible? Were they communicating, albeit esoterically, the idea that sound exegesis frequently may require the restoration of a defective text?
\nNo certain answers can be given to these questions for the simple reason that nowhere do we find any explicit statement casting doubt, in general, upon the integrity of the text. Furthermore, there is even a good deal of ambiguity concerning the sanctity of the vocalization. Dunash attacked Sa\u02bfadiah for interpreting a passage in such a way as to necessitate a change of vowels but he, himself, occasionally felt impelled to emend the traditional vocalization. Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra ascribed the invention of the vowel system to the Tiberians and found \u201call vowels to be interchangeable;\u201d but he also indicated that the system is very ancient. Judah Ha-levi, contrary to the opinion of Natronai Gaon, even believed that the vowels, syllable divisions and accents go back to Mosaic times. Na\u1e25manides (1194\u20131270) and Joseph Albo (1340\u20131444) were aware of the fact that our present Hebrew script is not that in which the biblical books were originally written, and the former even knew that the text was once set forth scriptio continua, without the benefit of gaps or other indication of division between the words. Yet there is not the slightest suggestion in the works of these scholars that the changes in script and format might have engendered textual errors. Abraham son of Maimonides (1186\u20131237) most likely represented the prevailing view that regarded textual eccentricities as impenetrable mysteries handed down by tradition.
\nOn the other hand, Isaac ibn Yashush (982\u20131057) actually seems to have emended the text of Gen. 36:33, reading Job in place of Jobab. For this he was soundly castigated by Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra who also vigorously objected to the idea that in Ps. 77:3 \u201cmy eye\u201d would be preferable to the MT \u201cmy hand.\u201d In this latter instance, his comments are highly suggestive. He speaks of \u201ca great scholar who composed an important book\u201d which, however, is marred by \u201cmistakes,\u201d this being one of them. Ibn \u2018Ezra then goes on to observe that \u201cno intelligent person, let alone the Scriptures, speaks this way (substituting one word for another) even in obiter dicta.\u201d Whatever Ibn \u2018Ezra really meant by these remarks, it suggests that Ibn Jana\u1e25\u2019s theory of \u201csubstitution\u201d was understood in some quarters, at least, as textual emendation and hence objectionable. Yet in a comment to Exod. 25:29 Ibn \u2018Ezra himself actually maintains that there is a mistake in 1 Chron. 28:17, to which observation Na\u1e25manides caustically took exception.
\nHISTORICAL AND LITERARY APPROACH
\nWhatever may have been the views of the Spanish scholars about the doctrine of the inerrancy of the received biblical text, there can be no doubt of their interest in critical problems of the most sensitive kind. If the scraps of information preserved largely in quotation\u2014the greater part of the Spanish-Jewish exegetical productions having been lost\u2014be indicative of the trend and spirit of the times, then the Spanish school may be truly regarded as the forerunner of the modern historical approach to the Scriptures.
\nWe have no evidence that among these Jews anyone openly challenged the divine origin and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, Na\u1e25manides felt it necessary to commence his commentary to Genesis with a lengthy excursus reiterating the fact that the entire Torah, from its first to its last word, was written by Moses at the dictation of God. Judah ben Barzillai of Barcelona (c. 1070\u20131130) reported that \u201cmany of the biblical scholars\u201d of his day came perilously \u201cclose to being heretics.\u201d It certainly comes as a surprise to learn from Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra that \u201cmany people\u201d were of the opinion that Num. 21:1\u20133 were written by Joshua. Even more astounding is the assertion of Isaac ibn Yashush that Gen. 36:31ff. is an interpolation from the time of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah.
\nThoroughly intriguing are Ibn \u2018Ezra\u2019s own views. In the first place, one wonders why he so frequently cited the \u201cheresies\u201d of others when the effect was to give wide circulation to the very ideas he so vehemently denounced and would, presumably, have preferred to suppress. Furthermore, the virulence of his attacks creates the impression that he protests too much and that he is writing with greater circumspection than real conviction. Admittedly, this is a subjective judgment, but its persuasiveness is enhanced by the fact that not only does he frequently not refute the objectionable opinions, but even when he buttresses invective by reasoned argument the latter is usually far less satisfying than the original \u201cheresy.\u201d Finally, Ibn \u2018Ezra, himself, listed six pentateuchal passages which seem to be post-Mosaic interpolations. True, he does not explicitly say so, but his placing of these examples in juxtaposition and the esoteric language he employs, not to mention the plain implication of each text cited, would appear to make other conclusions less plausible.
\nMoses ibn Chiquitilla seems to have restricted his commentary to the Pentateuch to philological, rather than historical observations. However, he introduced some revolutionary ideas into his treatment of the Prophets and the Book of Psalms. He shows a clear tendency to naturalize miracles and his rationalistic explanation of Josh. 10:12 earned him the severe condemnation of Judah ibn Bal\u2018am. He broke away from traditional eschatological exegesis in interpreting the prophetic books as historical documents rooted in time and place.
\nThe Book of Isaiah provided fertile soil for the pioneering scientific approach of Ibn Chiquitilla. In 11:1 he saw a reference to Hezekiah, and he explained chapters 24, 26f, 30 and 34 against the background of the Assyrian invasion of Western Asia. Anticipating modern critics, he challenged the very unity of the book by noting the different historical situation pre-supposed by chapters 40ff., a conclusion which seems to have won the covert support of Ibn \u2018Ezra.
\nThe Minor Prophets fared no less well, eschatologically speaking, at the hands of Ibn Chiquitilla. He assigned the Book of Joel to the days of Jehoshaphat, and Obadiah to Hezekiah\u2019s time, while the messianic prophecies of Micah and Zephaniah he related to the period of the Second Commonwealth. The fact that this interpretation does violence to the traditional exegesis of these two books is both a measure of his courage and intellectual daring and a witness to the prevailing climate in Spanish-Jewish biblical scholarship. The same conclusion may be drawn from Ibn Chiquitilla\u2019s defiance of the accepted belief in the Davidic authorship of the Psalter by his ascription of Psalms 42, 47, 102 and 106 to the Babylonian exile and his conjecture that Ps. 51:20f. constituted a pietistic addendum from the same period.
\nThe rationalistic humanistic spirit that produced so sophisticated an approach to the historical and literary problems of the Bible found an outlet of a different kind in the work of Moses ibn Ezra (c. 1070\u20131139). His Kitab \u2019al-Mu\u1e25adharah w\u2019al-Mudhakarah \u201cBook of Discussion and Remembrance\u201d contains an investigation of the style and poetry of the Bible from an aesthetic point of view. It is highly significant that this unique work on the ars poetica subjects the language of Scripture to the same kind of analysis as it does medieval Hebrew and Arabic versification. The poetry of the Bible is not viewed as being sui generis, as a supernatural creation, but is treated as the natural, artistic, expression of the human spirit. It is clear that in Spain of the Golden Age, the line between heresy and orthodoxy was far less sharply drawn than in any other Jewish community throughout the Middle Ages.
\nTYPES OF EXEGESIS
\nPhilological
\nThe pioneers of Hebrew and biblical scholarship in Spain did not compose systematic commentaries to Scripture. Rather, they forged the essential tools of scholarship and created the materials from which commentaries could be later produced. Yet it must not be forgotten that they incorporated an enormous amount of first-rate and original biblical exegesis into their grammars and lexica. In the case of Ibn Jana\u1e25, for instance, it has been possible to extract and reconstruct from his writings a verse by verse commentary to the entire Bible; and the same could be done for many another Spanish Hebraist.
\nThe first systematic exposition of a scriptural book to appear in Spain, that of Joseph ibn Abitur (ibn Satanas, 10th\u201311th cent.), seems to have been midrashic in character and wholly untouched by the new learning. Yet very soon, the impact of the philological studies and their offspring was to make itself felt in the radical exegesis of an Isaac ibn Yashush. If the surviving fragments of Samuel ibn Nagrela\u2019s dictionary be indicative of his exegetical approach, then his now lost biblical commentaries must occupy an honoured place in the history of the philological school. Of even greater importance were the works of Moses ibn Chiquitilla and Judah ibn Bal\u2018am, already discussed. The former based his Arabic commentaries to a large part of the Bible on the linguistic researches of \u1e24ayyuj and Ibn Jana\u1e25, supplementing these by his own original rationalistic and historic approach. The commentaries of Ibn Bal\u2018am to the entire Bible likewise made full use of the philological achievements of his predecessors. They were described by a younger contemporary as being \u201cexcellent, containing not a superfluous word.\u201d Their historic importance lies in the combination of linguistic and scientific precision with faithfulness to Halakhic tradition. In this, as well as in his opposition to Ibn Chiquitilla\u2019s rationalization of miracles and interpretation of prophecies, he showed himself highly sensitive to the suspicions of the talmudists about biblical studies.
\nPhilosophic\u2014Allegoric
\nAmong the influences of Arab learning upon the Jews few were more enduring and more profound than philosophic speculation. In truth, this subject lies far beyond the purview of our study, constituting as it does a separate discipline. The Jewish philosophers of Spain, however, as indeed those of other lands, were constantly exercised by two problems. They needed to anchor their philosophic predilections to the scriptural text since they professed to believe that the latter really expressed the former, though in different language. At the same time, the system demanded the harmonization of any apparent divergencies between the teachings of revelation and those of reason. The inevitable result was the rise of a species of philosophic allegoric exegesis, the record of which must find a niche, however small, in the annals of biblical studies.
\nThe first representative of this school in Spain was Solomon ibn Gabirol (1021\u201369) who is counted among the Neoplatonists. Remarkably, he completely avoided the citation of Scripture in his magnum opus, the Fons Vitae \u201cFountain of Life\u201d. His allegorical exposition of the Bible has survived through the work of Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra and through Gabirol\u2019s ethical work, Tiqqun Middot ha-Nefesh \u201cImprovement of the Qualities of the Soul.\u201d Typical of his system is his interpretation of the verse, \u201cThe Lord God planted a garden in Eden\u201d (Gen. 2:8). The place-name is not really that, but an esoteric reference to the supra-sensory realm, whereas the \u201cgarden\u201d symbolized to him the mundane world. In the same vein, Ibn Gabirol regarded the ladder of Jacob\u2019s dream (Gen. 28:12) as signifying the rational soul, while the angels denoted intellectual activities. There is also a rationalistic strain in Ibn Gabirol\u2019s exegesis, for he explained away the miraculous speech of the serpent to Eve (Gen. 3:1) and of Balaam\u2019s ass (Num. 22:28).
\nTwo followers of Ibn Gabirol\u2019s Neoplatonistic exegesis were Ba\u1e25ya ibn Paqudah (ca. 1040\u20131100) in his \u1e24obot ha-Lebabot \u201cDuties of the Heart,\u201d and Abraham bar \u1e24iyya (Savasorda, ca. 1065\u20131136), the first Jewish philosopher to write in Hebrew, in his Sefer Hegyon ha-Nefesh. The latter, however, was not an out-and-out Platonist, for he incorporated many Aristotelian and other notions into his system. Both these philosophers devoted much of their works to the exegesis of biblical texts into which they read their metaphysical and ethical ideas. Another philosopher who belonged to the Neoplatonist trend was Joseph ibn \u1e62addiq (d. 1149), author of Sefer ha-\u02bfOlam ha-Qa\u1e6dan \u201cMicrocosm\u201d. Like his predecessors to whom he was greatly indebted, he too, identified theology with biblical exegesis.
\nIt was not long before these attempts to reconcile philosophy with Scripture met with spirited resistance. Judah Ha-levi (1086\u20131141) took up the cudgels in his Kuzari, subtitled \u201cBook of Argument and Proof in Defence of the Despised Faith,\u201d which became one of the great classics of Jewish philosophy. He challenged the claims of philosophy by denying its adequacy as a tool for the attainment of truth. For Ha-levi, biblical revelation was the exclusive source of religious truth. The Kuzari does not contain a great amount of exegesis, though its views on the history and form of Scripture are not without interest since it deals with such matters as the vocalization of Hebrew and the Masoretic notations, as well as the divine names, appellations and attributes.
\nHa-levi\u2019s assault on reason was directed primarily against Aristotelianism which had been gaining ground steadily. Within half a century of Ha-levi\u2019s death it achieved it highest expression in Jewish circles in the Guide for the Perplexed of Moses Maimonides (1135\u20131204). This work represented the high-water mark of biblical philosophic-allegoric exegesis in the reconciliation of reason with Scripture, in the achievement of a true synthesis of Aristotelianism with biblical revelation. Maimonides sought to demonstrate the degree of identity underlying the apparent diversity between the two.
\nHow far one could proceed upon this prescribed course depended upon the proper understanding, i.e. interpretation, of Scripture. It was, therefore, necessary to postulate the theory of the dual sense of Scripture, the metaphoric-esoteric alongside the literal-exoteric.
\nHence, the Guide commences with, and devotes no less than forty-seven chapters to, a lengthy lexicographical investigation. The multiple meanings of the verbs and nouns employed in biblical Hebrew are examined in the light of philosophical concepts, the grammatical laws as formulated by \u1e24ayyuj and Ibn Jana\u1e25, and the requirements of style and rhetoric.
\nThis linguistic analysis received its most immediate application in the elucidation of the doctrine of negative divine attributes. By his homonymic principle, Maimonides was able to show that the Scriptural passages ascribing to God positive and anthropomorphic qualities did not really clash with the proven impossibility of possessing knowledge of God. Abraham ibn Daud (1110\u201380) had actually preceded the Guide in the use of the homonymic principle, but this had not been central to his system and he had not exploited its potentialities.
\nTwo other biblical problems to which Maimonides addressed himself were miracles and the phenomenon of prophecy. In both instances he displayed his rationalistic approach, reinterpreting many of the former allegorically and the latter psychologically without, however, emptying either of its religious content.
\nThe enormous authority of the author, and the wide circulation achieved for the Guide through its Hebrew translation, proved to be a tremendous stimulus to the school of philosophic allegorization of Scripture. The system, of course, was highly artificial and became nothing more than a new form of Midrash dressed in philosophic garb, and removed even more so from the plain sense of the text which was subordinated to a particular trend of philosophic speculation. In essence, it was the antithesis of philological exegesis for it had no controls. Yet strangely enough, both schools encountered violent opposition and for similar reasons. Ibn Bal\u2018am had tried hard to remove the suspicions of the talmudists about the heretical tendencies of the grammarians. He had especially taken exception to Ibn Chiquitilla\u2019s rationalistic views on miracles and prophecy, pointing to their deleterious effects on faith and their social consequences. Those who treated the Bible allegorically were subjected to the same kind of attack and likewise branded\u2014with more serious results\u2014with the stigma of heresy.
\nFrom the extant records of the great controversy which erupted at the end of the thirteenth century, it would appear that the allegorical school of exegesis gained wide popularity, became completely arbitrary in its interpretations of the sacred text, and denied the historicity of the biblical narratives, It was even accused of tampering with the laws of the Torah, A few instances of this extreme exegesis will demonstrate at once its menacing nature: Abraham and Sarah were regarded as the symbolization of form and matter; the twelve sons of Jacob represented the twelve constellations; Lot and his ill-fated wife denoted intellect and matter. Yet it is not entirely certain that the indictment of the traditionalists was fully merited, that the allegorists did, in fact, preclude the literal meaning of the text by their symbolization. The latter, to them, may well have been supplementary to, rather than exclusive of, the former. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that the severity of the reaction was conditioned more by the broader conflict between religion and rationalism than by the immediate exegetical issues involved.
\nMystical
\nSide by side with philosophical exegesis, and not dissimilar to it in its basic pre-suppositions, occurred a movement towards mysticism which penetrated northern Spain from Languedoc in the thirteenth century. This trend gained added impetus from the Maimonidean controversy and the retreat from rationalism.
\nAt the same time, the shift of the centres of Jewish life from Moslem to Christian hegemony had brought with it a corresponding constriction of cultural horizons, so that by the end of the thirteenth century, Spanish-Jewish intellectual life had begun to stagnate. The conception of biblical studies changed radically to become more and more spiritual and less and less scientific. Biblical learning became, almost exclusively, a devotional, spiritual, experience, devoid of intellectual exercise. The principle of the dual meaning of the text pursued by the allegorists was taken over by the Kabbalists, except that the esoteric sense was now mystical instead of philosophical, and the mystical meaning was looked upon as representing the most sublime stage of biblical understanding.
\nThe Blending of Exegetical Trends
\nThe varying exegetical approaches which evolved in the Middle Ages gradually crystallized into four distinct trends, subsumed conveniently, under the Hebrew mnemonic PaRDeS. The letters of the word stood for Peshat (literal), Remez (allegorical), Derash (tropological, moral homilies) and Sod (anagogical, mystical). It was inevitable that the various schools would, in time, tend to merge into a new type of synthesized exegesis, combining several, or all, of the characteristics of each.
\nFirst and foremost among the synthesizers was Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra whose work in the fields of grammar, lexicography and historical criticism has already been surveyed. He was not, however, a mere eclectic, for his commentaries bear the unmistakable imprint of his own personality. They are distinguished by originality of treatment, clarity of style, pungent humor, depth of learning and an astonishing breadth of erudition, embracing philosophy, mathematics, poetry, astronomy and astrology. Ibn \u2018Ezra was thoroughly familiar with the exegetical work of his predecessors and contemporaries, including the Geonim and Karaites, and in his introduction to his commentaries he critically assayed their different approaches. He even showed an acquaintanceship with the Christian allegorists. His sophistication ensured for him an enduring place in Jewish intellectual circles.
\nSecond in popularity only to Ibn \u2018Ezra\u2019s commentary are those of Moses Ben Na\u1e25man (1194\u20131270). This scholar was the first to introduce the new esoteric exegesis into his systematic expositions of the Bible. A native of northern Christian Spain, he absorbed the learning of the French rabbis which he harmoniously blended with the secular scholarship characteristic of Spanish Jewry. He thus displayed a balanced combination of a deeply pietistic and mystical approach, traditional rabbinic interpretation and attention to contextual, philologic and scientific matters.
\nNa\u1e25manides was fully conscious of the existence of varying levels of exegesis and his hierarchy of values in this respect is established by practical, rather than doctrinal considerations. He did not automatically accord pride of place to the mystical sense. He also endeavoured, when necessary, to reconcile rabbinic comments with the plain sense of the text. He frequently quoted, and often disagreed with, both the French exegete Rashi and his own Spanish confr\u00e8re Abraham ibn \u2018Ezra. He objected to the homiletic tendency of the former and assailed the rationalism of the latter. But his respectful and usually delicate criticism of Rashi contrasts strongly with his harsh treatment of Ibn \u2018Ezra. Here we may discern both the influence of his own rabbinic training and predilections, and the impact of the reaction to philosophic allegorism and the rationalist movement. This latter factor is further visible in his own rejection of many of Maimonides\u2019 views and interpretations. Yet Na\u1e25manides was well aware of the fact that the philosophers were trying to find solutions to very real problems. It is to his credit that he did not ignore these issues, but did his best to provide his own answers to such topics as the nature of the miraculous, the phenomenon of prophecy, and the rationale of the laws and precepts of the Torah. In doing so, however, his commentary often became verbose and digressive.
\nThe introduction of the mystical element into biblical exposition soon found an enthusiastic adherent in Ba\u1e25ya ben Asher (d. 1340). He elevated the Kabbalah to a position of importance far greater than that accorded it by Na\u1e25manides. With him it became the fourth exegetical arm, next to the literal, midrashic and philosophic-allegorical modes. The latter, Ba\u1e25ya used but sparingly, and then mainly following Maimonides, but avoiding all problems of conflict between revelation and reason. He utilized it only where it could be unqualifiedly subservient to, and in confirmation of, tradition. In reality, Ba\u1e25ya was a very imperfect synthesizer, being obviously an eclectic whose originality lay mainly in his mystical interpretations. Yet, because of his extensive use of medieval exegetical sources and his vast erudition in the field of midrashic literature, his work has special value. Another interesting feature of his commentary is his frequent use of Arabic, Spanish and French equivalents of Hebrew words.
\nThe ever-increasing use of the mystical approach to Scripture during the last two centuries of Spanish-Jewish existence is the measure of the sad deterioration in biblical and linguistic scholarship that beset the community. Jacob ben Asher (1280\u20131340), known as the Ba\u2018al ha-Turim, pursued the esoteric principle to such an extent that he was able to derive homilies from the equation of totally unrelated words and passages through the sum of the numerical value of the individual consonants.
\nSpanish Jewry produced only one more Bible commentator of note before the lights of one of the most glorious eras in the history of the Jewish creative genius were extinguished forever. Don Isaac Abrabanel (1437\u20131508), heir to the millennial-long tradition of biblical exegesis in all its varied trends, was still able to make some novel contributions in this field. He may be credited with making a start in the direction of the science of biblical propaedeutics. Others had prefaced their commentaries by preliminary remarks. Abrabanel expanded his so that they became veritable introductions. Rather than give verse by verse explanations, he divided the biblical books on which he commented into contextual units, prefacing each with questions, the answers to which he intended to supply in the subsequent exposition. His comments thus partook of the nature of long excursuses dealing with such matters as the general character of the passage discussed, the date of composition and historical problems. Most unusual is the attention he paid to the realia of biblical life. As a statesman, he was particularly interested in the political and administrative system of ancient Israel, and he drew analogies between contemporary European social and political patterns and those of the Bible, as he understood them. He even discussed the advantages of a republic over a monarchy.
\nAbrabanel was an outspoken opponent of the rationalistic tendencies of Maimonides and of the French scholar Levi ben Gershon (1288\u20131344). He was also against the philosophic-allegorical school of exegesis. This, however, did not prevent him from indulging in his own, very superficial, brand of philosophic speculation. He eschewed Kabbalistic interpretations, and where he cited rabbinic homilies, he was well aware that they do not represent the straightforward meaning of the text. He also engaged in polemics with Catholic exegetes. On the whole, his commentaries are not of the highest calibre, and his avoidance of philological and grammatical observations, together with his prolixity, greatly limit their exegetical worth.
\n(Completed August 1964)<\/p>\n
weiter<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in Jewish Tradition 1. THE ROLE OF SCRIPTURE IN JEWISH CIVILIZATION \u201cThe Holy Scriptures may not be read but may be studied, and lectures on them given.\u2026\u201d Although this tannaitic statement is a halakhic ruling within the context of the Sabbath laws, yet, if disengaged from its immediate reference, … <\/p>\n