JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

the Bible. His emendations serve as fundamental touchstones
in biblical research.
While non-Hebrew biblical research reached its peak
and culmination at the end of the 19th century, its influence
on Hebrew interpretation was gradual. At the end of the 19th
century and at the beginning of the 20th century there were
three Hebrew commentators whose exegesis was novel and
original: Meir *Friedmann (Ish-Shalom), Benjamin *Szold,
and Arnold *Ehrlich. Friedman and Szold did not rely in
their commentaries on non-Hebrew criticism, though they
were acquainted with it, but rather on the rabbinic scholars
and traditional exegesis, while Ehrlich displayed originality,
both in relation to traditional Jewish exegesis and non-Hebrew
biblical research.
Arnold Ehrlich’s writing was bilingual. His biblical
commentary on difficult passages, Mikra ki-Feshuto (3 vols,
1899–1901), was written, according to him, “in Hebrew for the
sake of my brethren and my people who only know Hebrew.”
He later published an expanded version of this work in German:
Randglossen zur hebraeischen Bibel (7 vols., 1908–14).
He had a free attitude toward the Bible and his approach was
almost secular. He directs sharp criticism against the method
of the non-Jewish critics, but emphasizes that in his system
“interpretation is primary while criticism is secondary.” Rather
than referring to the Documentary Hypothesis, Ehrlich prefers
to assign “early” and “late” dates to specific passages based on
linguistic usage, concepts and institutions. Comments on historicity
such as the denial of a factual Egyptian enslavement
or exodus are buried in notes to specific passages. Exegesis
though, remains the major and decisive basis of his work.
With his erudition, his knowledge of Semitic languages, and
especially his intuition, his interpretations are often very much
to the point. Ehrlich’s contribution is described by Orlinsky
in the following manner: “The Randglossen by A.B. Ehrlich
ranks as one of the more important and better-known contributions
to biblical studies textual and contextual.” While
his Hebrew commentary contains some minor emendations,
Ehrlich’s German commentary is replete with emendations.
Haran says of Ehrlich’s place in the history of Jewish biblical
exegesis: “In his partially secular approach to the Bible he did
not lag behind the period of the Enlightenment but rather anticipated
the national revival. This moment assures his place
at the crossroad of the two periods.”
In the period of the Enlightenment, Judaism did not liberate
itself from a dogmatic approach to the Bible. The extent
of the criticism of Jewish scholars depended on the degree of
holiness of the particular section of the Bible with which they
were dealing. Thus, they dealt mainly with the Hagiographa,
less with the Prophets, and very little with the Pentateuch. As
has been stated, this investigation dealt with “lower criticism”
and not with “higher criticism,” which is concerned with the
character of the author, the composition of the work, its editing,
and its time. The national revival brought about a change
and new evaluation of the Bible. Non-Hebrew biblical criticism
made deep and incisive incursions into Hebrew litera-
bible
ture. The depth of this penetration is reflected in the thought
of *Aḥad Ha-Am, “the father of spiritual Zionism,” and it was
he who wished for the publication of a Hebrew modern, critical
interpretation of the Bible. This desire was actually fulfilled
by the exegetical activity of Abraham *Kahana.
Abraham Kahana surrounded himself with the best Jewish
scholars of Eastern and Western Europe and divided the
labor among them (Samuel by M.Z. Segal; Isaiah by S. Krauss;
the Minor Prophets by J.B. Weinkopf, D.S. Loewinger, G.
Hirschler, M.L. Margolis, and P. Chajes; Psalms by P. Chajes;
Song of Songs by A. Kaminka; Lamentations by F. Perles; Esther
by G. Hirschler; Daniel by M. Lambert). He himself interpreted
much of the remainder (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,
Jonah, Haggai and Zechariah, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Ecclesiastes,
and Ezra and Nehemiah). Although the commentary was
not completed (it was published in 1904–1930), until 1990 it
was the only multi-volume critical commentary on the Bible
in Hebrew. This series is not uniform and includes interpretations
of varying value (the best are those of Chajes on Psalms
and Krauss on Isaiah). It gives very clear expression to the
conclusions of non-Hebrew analytical investigation in Hebrew
and Semitic philology, in comparative literature, based on the
great discoveries in the ancient East, and in the Documentary
Hypothesis in the study of the Pentateuch.
N.H. *Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), who engaged extensively
in the study of the Bible and the Hebrew language, collected
his commentaries and summarized his studies in this area in
his book Peshuto shel Mikra (4 vols. in 6, 1962–68). There is a
similarity in name, content, and method, between this work
and that of Ehrlich. Tur-Sinai’s work also reflects a broad
knowledge of Semitic languages together with a familiarity
with rabbinic scholarship and the early translations, but numerous
textual emendations are suggested in his commentary.
Of these suggested emendations, there are some which have
been accepted by many scholars. Tur-Sinai wrote a special
commentary to the Book of Job, which has been published
in various corrected editions (2 vols., 1941, 1954; Eng., 1957).
This work, which is the crowning achievement of his exegetical
career, is also marked by the same characteristics; and the
argument that Job was translated from Aramaic sometimes
dictates the interpretation. M.Z. *Segal, who interpreted the
Book of Samuel within the framework of Kahana’s project
(1919, 1922), returned to it later and published a new interpretation
(1956), which is very different from the original one.
Segal also published many investigations on various books of
the Bible. Umberto *Cassuto intended to compose a broad and
comprehensive interpretation of the Pentateuch, but did not
succeed in completing the work. He did interpret the entire
Book of Exodus (1952, Eng., 1967) but only managed to reach
chapter 13 of his interpretation of Genesis (2 vols., 1944–49;
Eng., 2 vols., 1961–64). Cassuto opposed the Documentary
Hypothesis in his comprehensive Italian investigation (La
questione della Genesi, 1934), and briefly in his Hebrew work
(Torat ha-Te’udot, 1941; The Documentary Hypothesis, 1961). A
conception of the unity of the Torah and its form served as a
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 647