רוח חן - אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון בנגב

vi
the main tool with which to instill this knowledge in their students. These
science-teaching approaches and methods, including the use of Rua˙ Óen, did
not vary in the traditional educational system in Karaite communities of Crimea
at least until the second third of the nineteenth century.
Exegesis of Rua˙ Óen began already at the beginning of its reception.
This exegesis was given orally, during the process of teaching and learning
Rua˙ Óen, and resulted in the writings of commentaries. The need for exegesis
and commentaries was felt especially in Ashkenaz and Poland, where there was
no tradition of studying Aristotelian sciences, as developed by the Jews of
Southern France and Italy. These conditions led to the development of a
tradition of reading, copying and composing commentaries on Rua˙ Óen on
Ashkenazi soil, beginning in the middle of the fifteenth century and continuing
for over one hundred and fifty years. I have identified a total of six
commentaries on Rua˙ Óen that were composed by Ashkenazi Jews (one
printed and the rest are preserved in manuscripts).
My study of the commentaries on Rua˙ Óen sheds light on different
aspects relating to its use as a textbook. I thus asked whether the commentaries
widened the scope of philosophical and scientific contents presented in Rua˙
Óen itself. My analysis shows that this was not the case: the commentaries
generally did not provide a broader philosophical and scientific knowledge than
was presented in Rua˙ Óen, especially such that would have involved new
scientific theories. It is noteworthy that the philosophical and scientific scope of
these commentaries did not depend upon the openness or closure to the study of
the "foreign sciences" in the respective cultures.
At the end of this study a comparative discussion is presented, dealing
with Rua˙ Óen's place in the examined Jewish cultures. I suggest that in these
cultures, Rua˙ Óen attained recognition as a canonic text, whose authority as a