JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
paraphrase of the text. His commentaries, particularly those
on the Pentateuch, include a wealth of material: explanation
of the text, linguistic and philosophic research, and polemics,
directed primarily against the Karaites. He even composed a
special work against the extreme and heretical views of *Ḥīwī
al-Balkhī on biblical subjects.
As a result of Saadiah’s biblical studies, Bible commentary
emerged from the sphere of homiletics to embark upon the
pursuit of direct and close exposition of the biblical text. In his
linguistic and philosophic approach Saadiah provided directives
for scholars who came after him. That influence is particularly
noticeable in *Samuel b. Hophni and his son-in-law
*Hai. Samuel b. Hophni, an unusually prolific writer, engaged
extensively in Bible commentary. In addition to translating
the Scriptures into Arabic, he applied himself to philosophic
inquiry. His attempts to explain miracles as natural phenomena
were attacked by Hai.
In Spain
A significant flowering of Bible commentary took place in
Spain, which had its basis in the researches of *Menahem
b. Jacob ibn Saruq, his critic *Dunash b. Labrat, and Menahem’s
pupil, *Judah b. Ḥayyuj (tenth century). Although
their works are mainly concerned with grammatical and
linguistic considerations, they are interspersed with numerous
elucidations of verses and individual words in Scripture.
The novelty of their approach lies in its philological orientation.
Particularly important are the investigations of Jonah
*Ibn Janāḥ (Abu al-Walīd) in Sefer ha-Rikmah and Sefer ha-
Shorashim. In illustrating and elucidating his philological
and grammatical rules, he cites many biblical passages, explaining
them in a profound and original manner. He is unfettered
in his inquiry, at times ignoring the masoretic text,
and, in some instances, even transposing and emending biblical
texts. Though his deviation from the masorah provoked
much opposition, his influence on later commentators was
very great.
Ongoing progress in Hebrew linguistics produced the
philological commentary, two of whose famous exponents
were Moses ha-Kohen *Gikatilla and Judah *Ibn Balʿam (11th
century). The former is characterized by his freedom and
originality, interpreting, for example, the predictions of the
prophets as applying strictly to their own times and not to the
Messianic era. Judah ibn Balʿam opposed his approach, writing
in a far more conservative spirit. In a class by itself stands
the Bible research of Moses *Ibn Ezra. Though his book Shirat
Yisrael was expressly written as a guide to the composition
of poetry, his analysis of the various literary forms – “The
Twenty Portals of Poetic Embellishment” – is rich in biblical
references. Ibn Ezra’s investigations bear the strong impress
of Arabic poetry and of the scholarship in that area. Belonging
to a completely different class of commentary, which was
also greatly influenced by Arab culture, is philosophical commentary
(see below).
Literal Commentary
Of a quite different nature is the literal commentary, fostered
by Rashi and his disciples, which flourished in northern
France, and which is relatively free of outside influence.
The Jews of France, though occasionally engaging in discussion
with Christians on the interpretation of biblical passages,
had only limited cultural relations with their neighbors, whose
standards in this area in any event were quite low. Thus, their
commentaries do not contain such philosophical or philological
elements as abound in the commentaries of the Spanish
school. The commentary of this school is characterized by the
search after the plain meaning, although a certain conflict is
discernible between the inclination toward homiletical exegesis
and the conscious effort to explain biblical passages according
to their plain meaning.
The interpretations of *Menahem b. Ḥelbo contain much
homiletics. Rashi, too, introduced many ancient rabbinic
Midrashim, but only in addition to the plain meaning, frequently
remarking that they were not to be taken as representing
the literal meaning of the passage. Rashi often reiterates
as his aim the explanation of the text according to its plain
meaning or according to the closest aggadic interpretation.
This tendency becomes even more marked with Rashi’s successors
Joseph *Kara, *Samuel b. Meir, *Eliezer of Beaugency
and Joseph *Bekhor Shor. It is somewhat surprising that this
phenomenon should exist particularly in northern France.
Samuel b. Meir and Joseph Bekhor Shor, for example, who
are outstanding exponents of literal commentary, are also
among the foremost tosafists, and their method with regard to
their biblical exegesis is in contrast to that adapted by them in
their talmudic exposition. In some instances they even assigned
to a biblical text a meaning at variance with the halakhah,
despite the fact that the halakhah was unquestioningly
accepted by them, their serene spirit and unswerving faith
ruling out any feeling of strain or conflict. A contributing
factor to the growth of literal exposition may have been the
need felt to counter christological interpretations of certain
biblical passages, although these commentators – and particularly
Rashi – had a definite influence on some of the Christian
biblical exegetes.
Synthetic Commentary
Certain commentators embody all the above methods of interpretation.
The main representatives of this synthetic approach
are: Abraham ibn Ezra, David *Kimḥi and Naḥmanides. Their
commentaries include philological, philosophical, literal,
homiletical and, in the case of Naḥmanides, even kabbalistic
elements.
While Ibn Ezra bases his commentary principally on the
philologic method, contributing much to linguistic research,
he also introduces many philosophical explanations. In dealing
with halakhic material, he accepts the rabbinic *Midrash
Halakhah, but opposes Midrash Aggadah when it is in conflict
with the plain meaning of Scripture. He argues that homiletical
explanations should not always be taken literally, there be-
642 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3