JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
German language and its literature. The writing of the Hebrew
“commentary” to the Torah was actually carried out by
various people who were commissioned by Mendelssohn, but
Mendelssohn’s stamp and his viewpoint are manifest in the
commentary (particular mention should be made of Solomon
*Dubno, who interpreted Genesis, and Naphtali Hirz Wessely,
who interpreted Leviticus). The method and approach
of Mendelssohn and his group were influenced by contemporary
Christian biblical research and commentary. It should
be pointed out that in 1753, approximately 15 years before the
beginning of the project, three basic works were published
which ushered in a revolution in biblical research, each of
which reflected a particular approach: R. *Lowth’s book on
form criticism (Praelectiones academicae de sacra poësi Hebraeorum;
Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, 1829);
J. *Astruc’s work on source criticism (Conjectures sur les mémoires
originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer
le livre de la Genèse); and C.F. Houbigont’s work on text
criticism (Biblia hebraica cum notis criticis et versione latina
ad notas criticas facta, 4 vols.). (See below, Bible research and
criticism). A short while later J.G. Herder’s book on Hebrew
poetry (Vom Geist der hebraeischen Poesie, 1782) and J.G. Eichhorn’s
introduction to the Old Testament (Einleitung in das
Alte Testament, 3 vols., 1780–83) were published.
Mendelssohn’s “commentary” was first intended to be
an explanation of the reasons for translating the Bible, but it
broadened into a comprehensive commentary on the entire
Pentateuch. The “commentary” places emphasis on grammatical
points, cantillation points, and elements of style, and
is based both on traditional Jewish exegesis and biblical research.
In matters of style, the commentary relies mainly on
Lowth and Herder (see the summary of Mendelssohn’s aesthetic
views in the preface to Ex. 15). The “commentary” on
the Pentateuch was written in simple language and in a scholarly
Hebrew style, and despite the fact that five authors collaborated
in its composition, the unity of language and style
was preserved because of Mendelssohn’s editing. In the “commentary”
Mendelssohn was attempting to establish a single
and homogeneous method for the study of the Bible among
the Jews, and for this reason early Jewish commentaries do
not appear alongside his commentary (for it is, essentially, an
eclectic exegesis). The commentary was very popular and was
reprinted about 20 times.
Mendelssohn’s followers continued with the method established
in the “commentary” in interpreting the Prophets
and the Hagiographa, but they made no innovations. These
interpretations are only a collection of commentaries, particularly
from the medieval commentators, but the introductions
to these commentaries were influenced by biblical research,
especially by Eichhorn’s introduction to the Old Testament.
In the generation after Mendelssohn, young Jews studied
in the German universities and adopted the critical method
which was prevalent there. Thus they moved to critical interpretation,
which was also written in German. In the 19th cen-
tury, German Jews wrote a number of works on biblical research,
but the only one who also dealt with exegesis was H.
Graetz in his commentaries to the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes
(1871), and Psalms (1881). The Mendelssohnian Enlightenment’s
view of the Bible as an independent aesthetic, religious,
and moral tract found expression only in Western Europe and
Italy (see below), while in Central and Eastern Europe, the
Bible was viewed mainly from a talmudic perspective, and the
approach to the Bible took on the form of “lower criticism,”
rather than “higher criticism.”
Most noteworthy among the commentaries of Eastern
Europe is that of Meir b. Jehiel Michael *Malbim (1809–79).
While it was written in the period of the Enlightenment, and
reflects, in a number of places, influences of the Enlightenment,
this commentary is nonetheless an authentic and typical
work of “the culture of the ghetto as it developed among the
outstanding and brilliant scholars of Eastern Europe” (Segal).
This commentary, which follows the method of pilpul (casuistry
and harmonization), contains halakhah and aggadah,
philosophy and Kabbalah, philological investigation and moralistic
homilies. Despite his declaration that he was interpreting
the text in accordance with its literal meaning, Malbim did
not recognize the boundaries between literal and homiletical
exegesis. He collected investigations of style and language,
classifying them into 613 rules, corresponding to the number
of the commandments of the Torah. He gathered these rules
from the Midrash, and added to them some of his own.
In Western Europe, in contrast to Eastern and Central
Europe, the Enlightenment penetrated Italy and influenced
Jewish Italian commentators, such as Samuel David *Luzzatto
(Sha haDaL; 1800–60) and others. Luzzatto combined a
comprehensive knowledge of traditional Jewish exegesis in all
its forms with a knowledge of non-Hebrew biblical research.
He did not, however, tread the beaten path, but was both independent
and original, disagreeing with both early and late
commentators. He drew on early and late commentaries, ancient
translations, and Semitic philology. He had a poetic bent,
and understood biblical poetry. Like Mendelssohn’s, his work
was bilingual and included translation and interpretation. He
translated and interpreted the Book of Isaiah (1855). His commentary
on the Torah was collected for publication from his
lectures in the rabbinical seminary in Padua (1871). His commentaries
on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Proverbs, and Job were published
by his son (1876).
Luzzatto introduced many new elements in his interpretations
and investigations, but at the same time he relied on his
predecessors. He introduced the method of textual emendation
(outside of the Pentateuch) into Hebrew biblical analysis,
his emendations following his own rules of interpretation. The
textual emendations he allowed himself to make were based
on the incorrect separation of words in the traditional text,
similar letters in the ancient Hebrew script and square (Aramaic)
characters, dittography, haplography, incorrect vocalization
and cantillations, metathesis, and abbreviations. In these
emendations Luzzatto used translations and manuscripts of
646 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3