4.1 Interpreting the Lemma versus Interpreting the Verse, Passage, or Book
The basic components of the commentary in MS Hunt. 268, as has been explained in § 2.4, are: Hebrew glosses, scriptural citations and explications, and paraphrasing of the text. The scribe usually comments lemma by lemma independently, as happens, for example in Ps 95:
95:1. Come, let us sing.
95:4. And the peaks (ותועפות) of the mountains [are His]. Alçamientos. In the sense of height and strength, as in: “Is for them like the horns (ותועפות) of the wild ox” (Nm 23:22, etc.). The root is yʿf, on the analogy of תולדות.
95:5. And the land (ויבשת). [It is written] as if in the construct state. It should say: ויבשה. This also happens with: “Will turn to blood on the dry ground (ביבשת)” (Ex 4:9) and “Thus, on the day of the battle (ביום מלחמת)” (1 Sm 13:22).
95:6. Let us kneel (נברכה). Onojemos. From “He made the camels kneel down (ויברך)” (Gn 24:11). It is derived from ברכים, in the same way that ויכרע (2 Kgs 1:13, etc.) is derived from כרעים, and יקד (Is 10:16) from קדקד.
95:7. If you would but heed His charge this day. In this world.
95:10. I quarreled (אקוט) with a generation. Barajé. In the sense of an argument, as in: “I hate (אתקוטט) your adversaries” (Ps 139:21). The root is qwṭ.
Although this is customary, it is also true that the scribe frequently goes beyond commenting on each separate lemmata and deals with connections between them or with the meaning of two or more verses, of a particular passage, or even of an entire book. Some specific ways in which the scribe goes beyond addressing a single verse are the following:
He recalls the lemma’s connection with its antecedent. To do this he often uses the conjugated roots šwb and ḥzr, in one of the following formulas: שב אל/ל- (Pss 22:9, 48:2, 49:11, 73:13, 130:6–7; Jb 6:7, 14:20, 15:32, 36:27); הענין שב אל (Pss 10:3, 34:18, 45:7, 48:3, 102:24, 144:12; Jb 31:18 [2]; Prv 2:20); ופי׳ הפסו׳ שב אל (Jb 36:29); והוא חוזר (Ps 91:9); חוזר לענין (Jb 41:5–6); הענין חוזר אל (Ps 11:7); וזהו כענין ראש המזמור (Ps 32:8).
He stresses the relationship between two contiguous verses, pointing out that the second is a continuation of the one preceding or is linked to that verse. This happens in Ps 17:4 (סמוך ל-), Jb 3:23 (סמוך ל-), Ps 17:14 (ופי׳ הפסוק סמוך ענינו למה שלפניו), and Ps 119:126 (מוסב על המקרא שלפניו).1
He gives the general meaning of a verse. Thus, in Ps 74:3, after commenting on several lemmata, the scribe adds: “The meaning of the verse is (ופי׳ הפסו׳): inflict blows, lashes, and suffering on your enemies until they are completely destroyed for every evil deed performed by the enemy in the sanctuary.” And in Ps 141:5, he adds: “The meaning of the verse is (ופי׳ הפסו׳): It is better that a true and righteous prophet, whose blows are kindness to me, reprove me and chastise me, than the wicked anoint my head with perfumed oil.”2 In these two cases the explanation of the verse as an exegetical unity is based on Rashi.
The scribe also offers the overall meaning of two or more verses.3 Thus, for example, at the end of Ps 58:9, he says, in reference to this verse and the previous two:
The meaning of these verses (Ps 58:7–9) is: prayer against the wicked who come to do harm using force, so that they ebb like a torrent of water4 that erupts forcefully and then is interrupted, and ebbs and leaves softly, so that this might happen to them when they come to do evil, that God might send his arrows against them and they might scatter and be subdued and weakened like the torrential waters that finally ebb away, and that they might be weak like the miscarriage of a woman that never saw the light of day.
Contrary to the previous examples, this overall interpretation of 58:7–9 is not taken from Rashi.
It can also happen that the scribe includes an introduction to a psalm, or makes exegetical comments on the first verse. Thus, in Ps 38:1:
A Psalm of David. To make remembrance (להזכיר). This means: to make remembrance (להזכיר) of the tribulations of Israel, as it says: “I pour out my complaint before Him” (Ps 142:3), as this is the meaning of the psalm as a whole, which is about trials and misfortunes.
In these introductions and first verses, the scribe discusses the psalm as a whole, addresses its authorship, and considers to whom it refers, as in Psalm 110, whose first verse runs as follows:
Of David. A Psalm. The Lord said to my lord. The subject of this psalm is mysterious and profound, the biblical text is confusing, and the opinions of the exegetes about it have multiplied. Our rabbis have explained it as an allusion to Abraham, since it says: “[The Lord has sworn and will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever] because of the speech of Melchizedek,’ ” etc. (Ps 110:4), which alludes to (דוגמה ל-): “And King Melchizedek of Salem [brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. He blessed him saying: ‘Blessed be Abram’]” (Gn 14:18–19). And Rabbenu Shelomo explained it as an allusion to David, and this is fitting, because there is no indication anywhere in this psalm that it is about Abraham other than this, and that is why David begins his poem saying: “The Lord said to my lord.”5
The scribe indicates that this is a psalm about which there are different opinions. He points out that the rabbis (b. Ned. 32b) explained it as an allusion to Abraham, since verse 4 alludes to the speech by Melchizedek, who, according to Gn 14:18–19, had blessed Abraham. He adds that, according to Rashi, the psalm refers to David. Actually, Rashi gives two explanations in his commentary. In his first interpretation of the entire psalm, he asserts that, “Our rabbis (Midr. Ps. 110:1) interpreted ʾadoni as a reference to Abraham, our father, and I shall interpret it in accordance with their words: The word of the Lord to Abraham, whom the world called ‘my master,’ as it is written: ‘Hearken to us, my master’ (Gn 23:6).” To this first interpretation Rashi adds a second, according to which the psalm is an allusion to David in his flight from Saul. In his commentary on this psalm, Kimḥi alludes to the rabbinic interpretation that connected it to Abraham but adds that, even so, the correct interpretation according to the pešaṭ is to explain it as a reference to David and to conclude that the words of the psalm would have been said by a poet in reference to him. On this last point—that is, the question of authorship—Kimḥi follows Abraham ibn Ezra, whom he explicitly cites further on.6
Elsewhere, the scribe alludes to questions of a structural nature, beyond the psalm as a unit. Thus, in Ps 72:20, and in reference to the end of Book 2 of the Psalms, he notes, quoting Kimḥi’s Šorašim verbatim:
And the exegetes have had different opinions about its meaning, and it seems that this psalm is the end of his [David’s] prayers, although he did not write it at the end [of the Psalms]. He possibly wishes to end the book with the maʿalot (מעלות) and the hillulim (הלולים), since the events [to which the Psalms refer] are not arranged in order. Do you not see that after Psalm 3 (“A Psalm of David when he fled from his son Absalom”) come psalms that took place before the incident with Absalom? Thus, in this psalm [Psalm 72] he prayed for the establishment of Solomon’s reign, something that occurred when [David] was an old man, at which time Solomon was established as king, and afterward nothing happened that [David] speaks about, and therefore here end his supplications and prayers.
In Ps 42:7, the scribe indicates that the first two sections of the psalm make reference to the past and to the present, and that the third section is a plea that refers to the world to come. In Jb 28:11–12, he summarizes the content of the preceding verses. At the end of Prv 31:9, he summarizes the alternative interpretation of the passage, according to Rashi, whom he quotes explicitly, and whose explanation was based on the Pešita. In Prv 31:31, he shows that the passage referring to the “woman of valor” may be interpreted according to the mašal (משל), taking this observation from Rashi, but without entering into a verse-by-verse explanation of the passage according to the mašal, as Rashi did.
There are also introductions to books, or first verses, that have an exegetical intent. This is the case in Job, Proverbs, and Song of Songs. Presumably, this was also the case with Psalms, although this book is incomplete and starts at 9:17. The introductions or first verses of the other three books mentioned above show a preference for literal-contextual meaning as opposed to a midrashic interpretation, and I will return to them in § 4.3.2. The introduction to Song of Songs also states that the observations made there were already mentioned at the beginning of the work (חבור), which suggests that there might have been a general introduction to the entire work.
As for the books of Ruth and Ecclesiastes, the amount of exegetical material is much greater than in the other books. In both books, the number of leʿazim is very small. In Ruth 1, there are only two leʿazim, both of which appear in 1:13, and in Ruth 4, there is only one laʿaz, which appears in 4:1. The treatment of Ecclesiastes is atypical compared to the other books. Moreover, there happen to be 10 folios missing from this book, between 171v and 172r. In contrast to the rest of the books, in the section of the text preceding the missing part of Ecclesiastes, the lemmata are not commented upon one by one, and it is difficult to see where the commentary on one lemma ends and another begins. The verses at times appear grouped together in clusters, and the commentary is continuous over a series of verses (in Eccl 2:4–9, 3:1–2). In this section there is also only one laʿaz (Eccl 1:2). After the missing folios, the commentary reverts to proceeding lemma by lemma and follows Rashi for the most part, with occasional interpolations.7
4.2 The Context
If there is a constant throughout the commentary—several instances of which have been provided over the last few pages—it is the importance given to the context as an exegetical principle. Thus, it is common for the scribe to explain a lemma by quoting what is said further along in the biblical text, introducing the textual segment with the formula huʾ še-ʾo[mer] (הוא שאו׳, “as it says”). This is the case, for example, in Ps 37:37, where he interprets the lemma שמר (lit. “save, guard”) in the sense of “look, behold,” in keeping with the contiguous text in the verse: וראה ישר (“behold the upright”).
The scribe also appeals to the context directly, in order to justify an interpretation or to designate it as preferable to others, by using the formula lefi meqomo (לפי מקומו, “according to the context”).8 For example, he explains the lemma במהמורות (Ps 140:11), which has the generic sense of “into pits,” in the specific sense of “into a grave,” as fits the context.
In Sg 1:12 and 5:13 the scribe refers to the context with the phrase ʾen maqom (אין מקום, “it is not fitting”). In the second of these cases, he explains that the word שושנים in the lemma שפתותיו שושנים, necessarily refers to a rose and not a lily, since in this context (that is, when alluding to lips) the lily, for its color, does not make sense.
Moreover, the scribe notes that the different meanings of a polysemic term are always to be understood in relation to the context. This is indicated with the phrase kol ʿinyan lefi meqomo (כל ענין לפי מקומו).9 Hence, he understands that the lemma ומזמה (Prv 1:4) “means ‘wisdom’ in the sense of reflection, reflection referring to science and the bad reflection on an act and just plain reflection,” and indicates that “each sense is according to the context.”
Finally, in Pss 80:18 and 99:4, he uses the phrase dereḵ ha-ʿolam (דרך העולם, “the way of the world”), and interprets the lemma by turning to a commonly accepted practice.10 Thus, in the first of these two verses, he says:
[May your hand be] upon the man of Your right hand. De to amiçtad. The man of your friendship, that is to say, he who is your friend, which is how [the text] designates the beloved son, as the right hand is more beloved to a man than the left […], as one is accustomed to placing that which is important and appreciated on the right of the king, or the favored disciple on the right of the master.
4.3 Literal or Surface Meaning as Opposed to Figurative Meaning
Closely linked to alternate interpretations on the one hand, and to contextual meaning on the other, is the question of literal versus figurative meaning, with both concepts understood in broad terms. Here we should bear in mind that medieval concepts and designations do not always coincide with modern linguistic and literary terminology, nor do they distinguish between the linguistic/literary level and the exegetical level. Given these considerations, and the consequent overlapping of categories that they sometimes entail, I will proceed in the following pages to address first the linguistic and literary dimension—that is, biblical stylistics—and then return to exegetical method.
4.3.1 Biblical Stylistics
4.3.1.1 Figurative Language: Metaphor, Simile, and Allegory or Parable
In modern literary terminology, metaphor and related devices (simile and parable/allegory) are important figures of speech.11 The medieval categories to which these notions correspond are different from modern categories and are used differently depending on the author.12 Explanations of those that appear in this text are given below:
-
Mašal
The term mašal (משל) appears in the following passages: משל (Jb 15:33; Prv 1:1); משל ל- (Ps 129:3; Jb 4:8, 18:11, 26:13; Prv 28:11, 29:21); משל על (Ps 22:1, 32:9; Prv 30:22–23); למשל היה, כדי שיהיה משל (Jb, introd.); להיות למשל ל- (Jb 17:6). It most frequently appears in the formula: (על) דרך (ה)משל.13
The term mašal as used in the Bible applies to a wide range of utterances and has a variety of meanings. Likewise, medieval exegetes assign it a more or less broad meaning. In his detailed study of the term mašal, Mordechai Cohen points out the sense given to it by Saadiah, Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, and David Kimḥi. Saadiah uses three terms: istiʿāra (metaphor), tašbīh (simile), and maṯal (allegory/symbolism); Abraham ibn Ezra uses the Hebrew term mašal to refer to all three categories; Maimonides refers to istiʿāra and maṯal, the latter encompassing simile and symbolism; David Kimḥi speaks of mašal, along with the complementary notions of meliṣah (מליצה) and hašʾalah (השאלה).14 Following Abraham ibn Ezra, Kimḥi uses the term mašal to label most cases of metaphor, simile, and parable or allegory. In the Šorašim he describes mašal as comparing one thing to another and containing hidden matters (דמות דבר אל דבר ויש בו גם דברים סתומים). Cohen argues that in the course of his commentaries he dropped the second aspect and distinguished between mašal (a type of comparison) and ḥidah (חידה) (something hidden). As Kimḥi came to use the term, a mašal expresses something that is not conveyed in a literal statement, and in this regard it adds meaning.
Like Kimḥi (and Ibn Ezra before him), the scribe of MS Hunt. 268 uses the term mašal generically, without subdivisions, so that it corresponds to more than one category in modern linguistic and literary terminology.15
In most instances, it refers to a metaphor, such as in Ps 18:9, where the scribe interprets the lemma עלה עשן (lit. “The smoke rose [to his nose]”) in the sense of “he became angry,” and he thus explains עשן (lit. “smoke”) as “ire and rage,” pointing out that, “since ire and rage inflame, [the psalmist] called them fire and smoke, metaphorically (על דרך המשל), and as smoke comes from a fire, a sigh comes from the nose when one feels angry.”
The term mašal is also used to refer to a simile—that is, to an explicit comparison. Thus, in Ps 102:4, the scribe says: “For my days have vanished like smoke. This means: in the fever of infirmity, because of much suffering, that is, he burns because of the great fever he has, as if he were in a great fire that sends up smoke, in the manner of mašal.”
The term is also used in a hyperbolic sense. Thus, the scribe interprets the lemma יהי פסת בר (lit. “handful of grain”) (Ps 72:16) in the following way:
At that time the land will be [so] blessed that, even if one plants a handful of grains (that is, only a few) on the mountain peaks where it is always difficult for them to germinate, and where seeds do not grow like they do in the valleys, from this little seed will sprout wheat as fat as the fruit of the tree, metaphorically speaking (דרך משל).
Elsewhere, the term is equivalent to anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, as in Ps 96:12, regarding the lemma “Then shall all the trees of the forest shout for joy,” or in Ps 98:8, regarding the lemma “[Let the rivers] clap their hands,” whose meaning, the scribe notes, is metaphorical.
There are several cases in which the term mašal—in the sense of metaphorical, figurative language—appears in conjunction with a second category. In Prv 1:1, it is with the term dimyon (דמיון), in a description of the book in terms of its literary form (mešalim we-dimyonim).16 While it might seem like mašal and dimyon should refer to two different figures of speech—that is, metaphor and simile—the fact is that in most cases, as we have seen, the term mašal includes both metaphor and simile, and in the only two instances in which the term dimyon also appears in the text, it is clearly to be understood as a synonym of mašal, as David Kimḥi also understood it. In Jb 13:12, the scribe interprets the word משלי in the lemma [זכרניכם] משלי אפר (“[Your memorials] are compared to ashes”) as דמיוני, whose laʿaz is “semejanças,” while in Jb 41:5–6, relying on Kimḥi (Šorašim, s.v. rsn), he explains:
The folds of his jowls. En dovli de so cabestru. By way of comparison (על דרך דמיון), that is, he whose mouth is covered as by a muzzle; thus, who could come close to him? And therefore it says [further along]: “Who can pry open the doors of his face?”
In Sg 1:1, the scribe associates mašal with ḥidah (חידה, “enigma”), using both to describe the contents and style of that book (על דרך חידה ומשל).17 In Ps 68:14, in commenting upon the phrase “There are wings of a dove sheathed in silver, its pinions in fine gold,” he associates the terms mašal and šir (שיר, “poetry”), inasmuch as this expression is a way for the poet to describe the community of Israel figuratively and poetically (על דרך השיר והמשל). In Prv 30:28, he associates mašal and ʾazharah (אזהרה, “exhortation”), asserting that the previous passage (Prv 30:24–28), in which the biblical text refers to four small but clever creatures, is written “in a figurative way [as] an exhortation (משל ואזהרה ל-) to those who put forth effort in reading the Torah and fulfilling the commandments in this world so that they might be worthy of life in the world to come.”
Lastly, in Ps 103:15, the scribe uses dugmaʾ (דוגמא) as an equivalent of mašal. Thus, in explaining the lemma “Man, his days are like those of grass,” he remarks: “Grass is a metaphor (דוגמא) for man, and all his goodness is as a flower of the field.”18
The terms mušʾal (מושאל) and hašʾalah (השאלה) appear in the following formulas: מושאל(ת) מן/מ׳/מ-19 and על דרך (ה)השאלה.20
The term mušʾal is extremely common in both Kimḥi’s Šorašim and his Bible commentaries.21 Although it is true that many of the occurrences in MS Hunt. 268 are not taken from Kimḥi, the way in which the concept is understood—as usually referring to an individual metaphoric term—is by and large the same in both. Thus, for example, in Ps 88:16 it says:
From my youth I have been close to death (וגוע). Flacu. It means weak, metaphorically, from (מושאל מן): “Breathing his last (ויגוע), he was gathered to his people” (Gn 49:32), that is, that I am [as] weak and tired as he who is going to die.
To return to Cohen’s study, as regards David Kimḥi’s concept of mašal, Cohen points out that Kimḥi supplements Ibn Ezra’s notion of mašal with meliṣah (מליצה), which he borrows from Rashi.
The term occurs in Prv 1:6, where it receives the following commentary:
U-meliṣah (ומליצה). Razón. Word, statement, and interpretation of words, from the Targum[’s translation of] “There was an interpreter (מליץ) between them” (Gn 42:23) as ארי מתורגמן.22
The source of the two Hebrew synonyms that follow the laʿaz is David Kimḥi’s Šorašim, where the word is explained as: “the content / plain meaning of a word or a statement” (תוכן הדבר והטענה), and to them is added here the sense of “interpretation.”23
The term appears in two other places in the commentary:
-
In Ps 17:8, the scribe comments on the lemma כאישון בת עין as follows: “Cum nenita. […] It means that in [the eye] can be seen the form of a small woman, which in laʿaz is called nenita, derived from the [vernacular] word for ‘boy’ (מליצת ילד), which is niñu.”
-
In Prv 31:31, the scribe refers to meliṣat ha-pešaṭ (מליצת הפשט)24 as distinguished from dereḵ ha-mašal (דרך המשל). Thus, in reference to the preceding passage in the biblical text, concerning a capable wife (Prv 31:10–31), and after explaining that passage verse by verse, the scribe says: “this is the narrative (מליצה) according to the literal meaning (פשט). According to the mašal, the passage refers to the Torah and to those who learn it.” Here the scribe quotes almost verbatim from Rashi, who contrasts meliṣah to mašal.25
In the first of these two cases, the term meliṣah is used to signal the literal meaning of the Hebrew word ילד (Eng.: “little boy”; laʿaz: “niñu”), as opposed to the figurative meaning of the idiom אישון בת עין (Eng.: “the apple of my eye”; laʿaz: “nenita”). In the second case, the phrase meliṣat ha-pešaṭ refers to the literal meaning of the allegory—that is, of a passage with a mašal—as opposed to dereḵ ha-mašal, which is the deeper, allegorical meaning. The commentary is taken almost verbatim from Rashi ad loc. (זו מליצה שפירשתי, אבל לפי המשל על התורה ולומדיה), who interprets the text about the capable woman, first literally and then allegorically, following the Midrash on Proverbs. Since the Commentary on Proverbs that some authors attribute to David Kimḥi is truncated, ending abruptly at Prv 21:14, there is no way of knowing how he interpreted Prv 31. In any case, the meaning that Kimḥi gives for meliṣah when addressing the root lwṣ in the Šorašim—which, as I have mentioned, is copied here in the definition of the term in Prv 1:6—is for him secondary in that it appears in his writings only rarely. He more frequently understands the term meliṣah either as the literal meaning of a passage with a mašal (as occurs here in Prv 31:31)—and in this he is indebted to Rashi—or in the sense of rhetoric and literary elegance in any type of language.26
The formula ke-mašmaʿo (כמשמעו) appears very frequently in MS Hunt. 268.27 It has the sense of “the expected, apparent, most obvious meaning” on both the grammatical and exegetical levels.
In explaining the lemma גדול כבודו (Ps 21:6), for example, the scribe understands גדול to be either the past tense of a paʿol formation or—according to the most obvious meaning (כמשמעו)—an adjective.
In this same grammatical sense, in a large number of cases the formula ke-mašmaʿo signals verb forms in hifʿil that are used intransitively. This happens, for example, in Ps 14:1, where we find the verb form התעיבו explained as the intransitive, past tense of a hifʿil form, meaning implicitly that it performs the function of a nifʿal, while at the same time the scribe suggests that the verb can be understood ke-mašmaʿo—according to its expected meaning, that is, in a transitive sense.
The formula is also frequently used in cases where the scribe proposes interpreting the lemma as it is, without presupposing any correction or rectification. Thus, in Ps 31:12, the context demands either that the particle מן be understood in the sense of ל- or that the text be understood just as it is—that is, without introducing any corrections—in which case it would be an elliptical verse:
For all (מכל) my foes I became the butt. It should say: לכל, since it goes on to say: “and for my neighbors (ולשכני).” Or it can be interpreted as it is (כמשמעו), as an elliptical verse: For all the evil that my foes committed against me, I became the butt for all the men of the world.
Lastly, ke-mašmaʿo denotes literal apparent meaning (that is, the first meaning of the word) as opposed to derived or secondary meaning. This is the case in Ps1 10:1, where the word שב, in the lemma שב לימיני, is interpreted as “stay and wait,” as in “After you had remained (wa-tašeḇu) in Kadesh” (Dt 1:46), and alternatively as “sitting,” according to the first or primary meaning of the root (כמשמעו). Similarly, the scribe explains the term המון (lit. “host”) in the lemma מהמון רשעים metaphorically, in the sense of “ganadu,” the accumulation of property; alternatively he explains the construction according to its most obvious, apparent meaning (ke-mašmaʿo), as elliptical: מ[נכסי] המון רשעים (“[the property] of a host of the wicked”), נכסי being the elided element.
What has been said up to this point about the term ke-mašmaʿo applies as well to the term ki-fešuto (כפשוטו), which occurs eight times in the commentary.28
We should note that, apart from the exceptions that will be addressed below, neither of these two formulas comes from Rashi’s ad loc. commentary, even in those cases where the formula introduces an explanation taken from Rashi.29 Some occurrences of ke-mašmaʿo are taken from Kimḥi’s Šorašim, and all of these correspond to the use of the formula by Kimḥi.30
The terms nigleh (נגלה) and nistar (נסתר) are not used in this text, and only rarely in Kimḥi’s writings, to allude to the two levels of the mašal—the surface meaning and the deeper meaning. Nor does the scribe use the term nimšal (נמשל) to refer to the deeper meaning, although at times he does allude to the category with an inflected form from mšl.31
4.3.1.2 Other Categories in Biblical Stylistics
Beyond metaphor and related figures of speech, to which I will return below when I address exegetical style, the text makes reference to several other categories related to biblical stylistics, which are listed below. The first three categories are generic; the rest describe a specific figure of speech.
-
Elegance in the use of language
This is indicated with the word ṣaḥut (צחות) in one of the following formulas: לשון צחות (Ps 42:5); (על) דרך צחות לשון (Pss 44:18, 68:28, 78:55, 81:3, 87:3, 94:20, 109:3; Jb 21:7, 22:21); and על דרך לשון צחות (Ps 58:10). In most cases, elegance in language is associated with the use of verbs with enclitic pronouns in place of verb + prepositional phrase. For example, in one of the cases cited above, the scribe explains אדדם (Ps 42:5) as אדדה בהם, and says that this is “for reasons of elegance of style.” In three of the cited cases (Pss 81:3, 87:3, and Jb 21:7), however, “elegance of style” is used to refer to ellipsis. In the last of these, for example, the scribe says: “And grow wealth (חיל). For reasons of elegance of style. It should say ‘in wealth’ (בחיל).”
The formula lešon tifʾeret (לשון תפארת) appears only once (Sg 1:4), in reference to the rhetorical use of the royal pronoun.
This is indicated with the phrase ʿal dereḵ ha-šir (על דרך השיר), in Pss 45:9, 48:15, 65:13, 65:14, 80:9, 97:4–8, 106:19; Jb 3:3, 15:7, 33:8, and once with ʿal dereḵ ha-šir we-ha-mašal (על דרך השיר והמשל), in Ps 68:14, as has been explained in § 4.3.1.1, a). This phrase alludes to a particular use of language that the scribe considers poetic and that includes metaphorical expressions (Ps 45:9, etc.), the use of one verb tense for another (Pss 80:9, 97:4–8, 106:19, and Jb 3:3, 33:8), etc.
The term ḥidah (חידה) is described in Ps 49:5, and its plural (חידות) in Ps 78:2 and Prv 1:6. At the latter verse, the scribe says: “We-ḥidotam (וחידותם). Renúceos. In the sense of that which is hidden, about whose interior [only] the clever understand something more.32 In Arabic it is called lugz.” The term also appears in the formula על דרך חידה (Ps 120:5), in reference to the hidden meaning of the terms משך and קדר in that verse.33
Although the term mašal is sometimes used to designate anthropomorphism or anthropopathism, there are twenty places in which the phrase lašon ʿoḇer (לשון עובר) is used to refer specifically to these two figures of speech.34 On only one occasion (Ps 18:10) does the scribe refer to anthropomorphism using the maxim of divine accommodation, “The Torah speaks in the language of man” (דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם).
In addition to explicit references, the following leʿazim also reflect the tendency to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropopathism:35 פניו, “sos sañas” (Ps 17:13); ידך, “to ayuda” (Ps 17:14); חציך, “tos plagas o tos feridas” (translated as “saetas” in romanceamientos) (Ps 38:3); ידך, “to plaga” (Ps 39:11); זרוע, “ayuda o força” (translated as “braço” in E3 and BNM) (Ps 83:9);36 יתר ידו, “soltásed so plaga” (Jb 6:9); יגיע כפיך, “criatura de to basallía” (Jb 10:3); ידיך עצבוני, “tos plagas mi doloriaron” (Jb 10:8); כפך, “to premiu o to plaga” (translated as “palma” in E3 and BNM) (Jb 13:21); חצי, “mi plaga” (Jb 34:6); עינו, “so ayuda” (Jb 36:7); מנשמת אל, “de bientu” (translated as “del esprito de Dios” in E3) (Jb 37:10), etc.
To these cases we should add those where anthropomorphism or anthropopathism is avoided although this is not reflected in a gloss. Thus, in Jb 1:11, the term ידך (lit. “your hand”) in the lemma is interpreted as מכתך (“your blow”) or נגעך (“your wound”).
Synonymous repetitions or parallel expressions—that is, the repetition of the idea in different words—are frequently mentioned by the scribe, who uses the root kfl in one of the following formulas:
-
כפל. Ps 137:7; Jb 38:27.
-
וכפל הדבר. Jb 21:23.
-
בכפל דבר. Pss 35:16, 57:9; Jb 3:20, 32:6, 34:25, 40:31, 41:8–9.
-
בכפל מאמר. Ps 94:4; Jb 24:24, 40:16; Eccl 1:2.
-
(ב)ענין אחד (…) בכפל דבר. Pss 11:6, 16:5, 68:14; Jb 15:24, 40:18; Sg 2:9, 8:4.
-
ענין אחד בכפל מאמר. Pss 17:15, 35:23, 48:13, 118:11, 121:4; Jb 16:19, 18:8, 31:24, 38:23, 40:22; Sg 4:12.
-
ענין … אחד הוא ושרש אחד בכפל מאמר. Sg 2:7–8.
At times, he also makes the function of the repetition explicit. Thus, he explains its purpose is to clarify or emphasize in Ps 68:15 (כל כפל בענינים לחזוק ולביאור הוא) and in Jb 40:18 (וכל כפל לביאור). In only two places—9 and 10 below—does he say that the purpose is to indicate a repeated action. The function of repetition is made explicit in:
-
והכפל/בכפל לביאור. Pss 37:20, 41:8, 57:8.
-
והכפל לחזוק. Ps 94:23.
-
והכפל לביאור ולחזוק / הכפל לחזוק ולביאור (דבר). Pss 29:1, 47:7, 56:11, 115:1.
-
כפל דבר לביאור ולחזוק. Ps 29:5.
-
ענין אחד בכפל מאמר לחזוק. Ps 31:4.
-
בכפל/וכפל (ה)דבר לביאור ולחזוק. Pss 19:11, 68:15.
-
וכפל/בכפל מאמר לחזוק ולביאור. Ps 90:17.
-
ענין … בכפל מאמר לחזוק ולביאור. Ps 84:3.
-
הכפל לחזוק ולהתמדה. Ps 116:18.
-
וכפל הדבר … לפי שהוא דבר תמידי. Ps 130:6–7.
The repetition might be of two nouns, as in Ps 17:15 (תמונתך—פניך); two verb forms, as in Ps 31:4 (תנחני ותנהלני); two particles, as in Ps 41:8 (לי—עלי); or two phrases, as in Pss 56:5 and 56:11 (באלים אהלל דברו—באלים אהלל דבר), and in Ps 68:15 (תשלג בצלמון—כפני יונה נהפך בכּסף).
The following two phrases also convey repetition:
-
שתי מלות בענין אחת. Ps 123:4.
-
שני שמות בענין אחד. Pss 40:3, 42:8, 132:3.
The notion that the Bible uses parallel expressions and repetitions as a means of emphasis was developed by David Kimḥi, and the text of the commentary in MS Hunt. 268 follows his practice. On this matter, he diverged from his father, Joseph Kimḥi, for whom almost all repetitions were to be interpreted as having a significance beyond mere emphasis.37
Ellipsis is referred to with the phrase miqraʾ ḥaser (מק׳ חס׳ / מקרא חסר),38 or with the inflected root ḥsr.39 Only once (Jb 36:33) is the phrase miqraʾ qaṣar (מקרא קצר) used.40 Ellipsis is not always explicitly pointed out, but there are many cases in which it may be inferred from the commentary. Thus, the scribe explains ראשו (Jb 1:20) as שי׳ שער ראשו, that is, by restoring the elided element, and אהלי שוחד (Jb 15:34) as אהלי לוקחי שוחד,41 לוקחי being the elided element.
This is indicated with the word gizzum (גיזום) in the phrases לשון גיזום (Ps 60:10) and דרך גיזום (Jb 40:32). The term haflagah (הפלגה, “amplification”), which can have the connotation of hyperbole, is also used in Jb 24:1–2.42
This is indicated with the word ʾazharah (אזהרה) in the phrases אזהרה ל- (Pss 37:1, 127:2, 131:2–3), דרך אזהרה (Ps 45:11), דרך משל ואזהרה (Prv 30:28), and דרך נדיבו[…] ואזהרה (Eccl 5:10).
This is indicated with the word genaʾy (גנאי) in the phrases (ב)לשון גנאי (Ps 135:15; Jb 13:4; Ru 1:9, 1:13), and על דרך גנאי (Jb 30:24). The first two examples refer to idolatry; the last three to the use of a feminine in place of a masculine.
This is indicated with the phrase lašon neqiyyah (לשון נקייה) in Prv 30:20 (2).
Closely connected to the previous category is the use of the word kaḇod (כבוד) in the following phrases: דרך כבוד (Ps 116:11; Jb 8:4, 10:16, 21:16–18, 27:7 [2], 32:21–22; Ru 1:9, 1:22) and דרך לשון כבוד / ללשון כבוד (Jb 30:24; Ru 1:9).
This is indicated with the phrase dereḵ qelalah (דרך קללה) in Jb 21:16.
In § 2.4.2.1 reference was made to be-hefeḵ (בהפך) and we-hefeḵ zeh (והפך זה) as formulas for introducing a Bible verse or part of a verse whose meaning is antithetical to that of the lemma or the verse being commented upon.43
In addition, to introduce an antonym, we find הפך (Pss 58:10–11, 116:3, 118:5; Jb 18:7), (ו)הוא הפך (Ps 39:14; Jb 24:8, 36:16), and והפך זה (Jb 17:6).
This principle, which is a rabbinic formulation, is indicated with the phrases והענין המוקדם בו מאוחר (Jb 12:18), המוקדם מאוחר (Jb 14:10), and המאוחר מוקדם (Ru 4:4).
Only once (Eccl 1:2) is reference made to an apparent contradiction in the biblical text, with the phrase miqraʾ maḵḥiš (מקרא מכחיש).
4.3.2 The Exegetical Dimension: Literal-Contextual versus Other Types of Interpretation
In the first section of this chapter I addressed the apparent or literal meaning as opposed to the figurative meaning, and the two different dimensions where this opposition might be expressed: (1) the linguistic and literary dimension; and (2) the exegetical dimension, noting that medieval authors did not make a distinction between the two.44
Looked at from a modern perspective, with an eye to methodology, the glossary-commentary shows a clear preference for the literal meaning of the text, in that it provides a text-based interpretation based on philological and linguistic criteria, as well as on the context—that is, on the text that precedes or follows it, and sometimes the entire psalm, chapter, or even the book to which the passage belongs.45 The scribe resorts to comparison, mostly with biblical Hebrew, but also with rabbinic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, and pays particular attention to the use of figurative language in scripture.
Explicit references to exegetical method are scant. Prominent among them are those that appear in the introductions (or first verses) in Job, Proverbs, and Song of Songs, where we see that a single exegetical approach serves as a guiding principle in all three books. The introduction to Job says:
Our sages said: Job never was and never existed but was simply a parable (אלא למשל היה) (b B. Bat. 15a).46 This dictum should not be understood at face value (כמשמעו), but rather in the sense that Job was created solely so that there would be a mašal in the world for men not to doubt [divine] justice and to believe that God is just in all his ways and merciful in all his actions.
In this passage, the scribe refers to the rabbinic opinion that Job never was and never existed but was only a mašal, and subscribes to the tradition of interpreting this opinion to the effect that Job only lived to serve as an example. Joseph and Moses Kimḥi had called attention to this dictum in the prologues to their respective commentaries on Job, and both had defended Job’s historicity.47 In this case, the scribe joins those who interpret the figure of Job in a literal-historical sense, although he does not enter into debate, and advises: “Whether Job was created or not, go forth and see the words as pearls and the righteous meanings and the clear arguments that are written [in the book].”
Further along in the introduction to Job, the scribe cites Jb 1:6–7, and stresses the fact that both בני האלהים (“the divine beings”) and השטן (Satan) constitute a mašal, that is, reads them figuratively.48 He identifies the former with “Job’s contemporaries, who were envious of him” and with “great men of the world,” and the latter with “the complaint that these hurled against Job,” which serves to transmit a specific idea: God tests Job as he did Abraham in order to demonstrate that it makes no sense to question divine justice, a topic that—he remarks—is also addressed in Ecclesiastes.49
In summary, the scribe defends the literal/historical meaning of the text of Job, and builds the allegory on that level. Throughout the commentary, he advocates a literal/contextual approach to the text, based on philological criteria and permeated with rabbinic views.50
The scribe returns to the contrast between literal and figurative meaning in Prv 1:1, where he writes:
All the words [of Solomon in this book] are metaphors and similes (משלים ודמיונים). He compared the Torah with a woman [of worth] and idolatry with an adulteress.51 Thus, most of his words [are used in the manner of] mašal, so that he called him who fears [God] “sage” (חכם) and “intelligent” (משכיל) because by virtue of his wisdom and intelligence he recognizes truth, and the wicked he called “foolish” (אויל), since on account of his foolishness he does not understand or recognize truth.
In the above paragraph, the scribe calls attention to the style of the book and the figurative language that it uses, citing Rashi on Prv 1:1, as David Kimḥi also does in the introduction to his Commentary on Proverbs.52 To this observation the scribe adds a discussion of the seven terms used to refer to the wicked in the book of Proverbs.53
He returns to the figurative use of language in the brief programmatic introduction that heads the Commentary on Song of Songs, where he points out:
All the poetry that there is in the Bible [is written] in a mysterious and profound language, in the form of enigma and mašal, which only the prophet understands, as we have said at the beginning of this work.54 How much more so then, here, since it says “Song of Songs,” and it is as if it said “The most hidden of hidden things” and “The greatest of secrets.” Our rabbis have said many derašot and haggadot about this book, as have the rest of the exegetes, each according to his understanding. That is why it did not seem necessary for me to speak [here] of these derašot and haggadot, but rather only to establish the meaning of the biblical text and [explain] the grammar rules (ישוב המקרא ומשפט הדקדוק), as far as my knowledge allows. And let him who fancies the deraš and the haggadah go and look for the deraš in the books of derašot and haggadot; I will not seek that which is too difficult for me (cf. b. Ḥag 13a) until justice come and teach us (cf. Hos 10:12).
Just as in the introduction to Proverbs—which called attention to the book’s figurative language—and in the introduction to Job—which suggested that, although the story about Job was historical, it needed to be interpreted allegorically—here attention is also given to the figurative language of the book. In this case, the scribe clearly presents the dilemma posed by two distinct exegetical and methodological approaches, one literal and the other midrashic, and opts for the former. The scribe thus positions himself in opposition to the many derašot and haggadot on the book and aims to establish the meaning of scripture by attending solely to grammar.
A comparison of the above passage with Rashi’s introduction to his Commentary on Song of Songs is instructive. The latter reads:
One thing God has spoken; two things have I heard (Ps 62:12). One verse can have a number of meanings (b. Sanh. 34a), yet […] a biblical verse does not leave the realm of its pešaṭ […] Even though the prophets utter their words in allegory (דוגמא), one must fit (lit. found) the allegorical meaning (דוגמא) on [the basis of] its foundation and sequence, according to the sequence of the verses. Now I have seen many aggadic midrashim on this book … that do not fit (lit. are not founded upon) the language of scripture and the sequence of the verses. I therefore have decided to establish the literal sense (משמע) of scripture … and the rabbinic midrashim I shall set, one by one, each in its proper place.
In this passage, Rashi juxtaposes the pešaṭ with the midrashic readings. The former is to be based, in Rashi’s opinion, upon setting the latter in order, that is, in their proper places. The literal meaning, as Japhet points out, is thus made to serve the preconceived allegorical meaning.55 In contrast, in MS Hunt. 268 the scribe advocates a literal reading and calls for ignoring the midrashic interpretations. The text is reminiscent of Kimḥi’s approach, not only in the latter’s definition of pešaṭ on the basis of grammar (ישוב המקרא ומשפט הדקדוק) but also in his reference to “lovers of deraš,” an expression Kimḥi uses in the introduction to his Commentary on the Former Prophets, where he observes that he will include some derašot for the lovers of deraš.56
After his methodological statement, which in theory contradicts Rashi’s exegetical intent, the scribe adds a summary of Rashi’s commentary to the book, as it relates to historical allegory. Besides this summary of Rashi, in the introduction to Song of Songs, the scribe invokes historical allegory in his verse-by-verse commentary in only two other verses (1:4 and 1:5). In 1:4, he interprets מישרים to mean “upright men,” indicating that this term refers to Israel, which is called Yešurun, that is, “upright lineage.” Next, in 1:5, the scribe says that the lover in the Song of Songs is “blackened, as a result of the darkness of exile.” Except for these two observations, the scribe remains true to his initial intention of adhering to an explanation of the grammar and establishing the meaning of the text according to its context.57 In this book, therefore, the scribe does not reject an allegorical interpretation (indeed, he provides this interpretation by following Rashi’s explanation of historical allegory), but he focuses his explanation of the lemmata on questions of lexicography and grammar, taking the homiletic interpretation as a given.
References to literal as opposed to non-literal interpretation appear not only in the introductions but also within the different books. As has already been pointed out in the discussion of the notion of meliṣah, the term pešaṭ appears only once (Prv 31:31), as part of the formula זהו מליצת הפשט, in contrast to ʿal dereḵ ha-mašal (על דרך המשל), a passage that draws from Rashi ad loc.58 To this case we can add four others (Ps 22:1; Prv 28:11, 29:21, 30:22–23) in which the allegorical interpretation given for a lemma or a passage is understood as mašal, in the exegetical sense of the term. In these four cases, the scribe draws from Rashi, whose interpretations he characterizes as mašal.
In addition to this sole occurrence of the literal meaning of the text (as opposed to the midrashic or homiletic one) being described as meliṣat ha-pešaṭ, the scribe describes this exegetical level—the literal one—using the formula ke-mašmaʿo, in opposition to deraš, in five other passages (Eccl 4:10, 4:11, 5:5, 5:10, 5:11). In the first and third of these passages, he contrasts the formula to ʿal dereḵ ha-deraš, and in the final one, to daršu ḇo (דרשו בו) (Eccl 5:11). Thus, in his commentary on Eccl 4:10, he says:
For should they fall, one (ha-ʾeḥad) can raise the other. Literally, should one of the two fall, the other would lift him up, as in “[If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is depravity;] both he and they shall be put to the fire” (Lv 20:14), which means: one (ʾaḥat) of them. And according to the deraš, as it relates to studies, if they are too difficult for him, his fellow will strengthen him in them, or if he stumbles and is imprecise in what he has heard from his teacher, his fellow will set him on the way to truth.
This passage is taken from Rashi’s ad loc. commentary, except for the segment in italics, which incorporates and makes the literal interpretation of the text explicit. The other three passages are also in dialogue with Rashi’s commentary: they either cite Rashi or incorporate some awareness of different exegetical levels (that is, the literal as opposed to midrashic or homiletic) into an interpretation drawn from Rashi.59
Notwithstanding these isolated, exceptional instances in which the literal interpretation is referred to as meliṣat ha-pešaṭ and ke-mašmaʿo, the commentary generally makes explicit reference only to the midrashic or homiletic interpretation. In these cases, following the first, philological-contextual interpretation of the lemma, there is another ʿal dereḵ ha-deraš—that is, according to the midrashic method (Pss 22:1, 58:1–2, 68:6, 127:5, 135:14). Ps 68:6 reads:
Father of orphans and judge of widows. As the Torah says: “He who executes justice for the orphan and the widow” (Dt 10:18). Another interpretation, according to the deraš: [God] is father of Israel, who is called orphan in: “We are orphans, without father” (Lam 5:3). And judge of widows. Who judges Jerusalem, which is called widow in: “You are like a widow” (Lam 1:1).
The first interpretation explains the text on the basis of Dt 10:18. The second invokes the deraš. As in the previous case, this second explanation (and the supporting verse adduced) are taken from Rashi’s ad loc. commentary.
Additional formulas to introduce rabbinic interpretations are: דרשו רבו׳, ורבו׳ דרשו (Pss 49:13, 64:2, 68:19, 90:1, 119:126; Eccl 4:13); ודרש ר׳ תנחומא (Ps 111:6); פירשו במדרש (Ps 102:15); ומדרש נכון הוא (Eccl 4:12); ולא יתכן זה הדרש (Ps 68:19); ועוד דרשו (Eccl 4:8–10, etc.); בדרש (Prv 31:9); and כך נדרש בפסיקתא (Prv 30:4).60 In one case (Ps 87:7), a midrashic explanation is introduced with the phrase לפי השיעור.61
The deraš is brought up rarely, and generally as a complementary or alternative explanation. Thus, the deraš is evoked in order to add an interpretation that makes reference to collectivity. This is the case in Ps 22:1, where the scribe mentions that the psalm can be understood according to the deraš as a mašal for the community of Israel in exile. Although he concludes that this collective interpretation is more fitting, in the commentary to the Psalm 22 attention is given primarily to questions of grammar, and the historical allegory is referred to only in exceptional circumstances (Ps 22:22), something that also occurs in the introduction to the Song of Songs, where the scribe summarizes the book’s allegorical interpretation and then goes on to focus on linguistic questions in the commentary, alluding only exceptionally to the allegory.62 The deraš also provides the context for a given lemma or adds supplementary information of a literary or historical nature, as in Ps 90:1, which runs as follows: “And our sages have explained (דרשו) that there are 11 psalms from here up to Psalm 101 and that all of them were spoken by Moses and that, corresponding to them, he pronounced eleven blessings for eleven tribes in order, in ‘And this is the blessing’ (Dt 33),” a passage taken from Rashi, who in turn relies on Midr. Ps 90:3.
Although in Ps 22:1 the scribe says that the midrashic interpretation is more fitting, in Ps 68:19 he rejects a certain rabbinic interpretation, instead invoking the context, making it clear that the incorporation of homiletic material is subject to its suitability to this context.
You ascended on high, etc. This refers to David. It means: you rose to a high and important station and you took captives in the wars you waged against enemies. You took gifts from men. This is the donation made by Israel’s leading figures for building the temple as is explained in the book of Chronicles. Even from the rebellious. Even from the rebellious you took, as it says: “[King David dedicated these to the Lord], along with the other silver and gold that he dedicated [taken] from all the nations that he had conquered” (2 Sm 8:11) […] And our sages explained (דרשו) that this refers to Moses, who went up to the heights and brought down the Torah and later collected gifts from Israel to make the temple, but this deraš is not fitting, because it says “and even from the rebellious [you took gifts],” and Moses did not collect from the rebellious but only from Israel.
The general tendency is to incorporate the deraš in an abbreviated form. At Prv 31:9, for example, this tendency is explicitly acknowledged in what appears to be an editorial comment. Here, after quoting a passage from Rashi which in turn quotes the midrash, the scribe concludes by saying: “and the midrash elaborates on this point, but I have abbreviated it” (ועוד האריך בדרש זה הענין וקצרתי).
This tendency to cite the midrash in abbreviated form is accompanied by a second tendency toward neutralizing its polemical content. We see this in many psalms, such as Psalm 69, that are traditionally identified with Israel in exile, from whose commentary the scribe eliminates all controversial or national content and focuses solely on clarifying the lemmata. In Proverbs 30—also known as the book of Agur—the scribe follows Rashi in the first part of the chapter, but omits or ignores Rashi’s lengthy explanation of the subsequent passage (Prv 30:16–30) as an allegory for the four kingdoms that have oppressed Israel historically—the grave (Babylon); the barren womb (Media); the earth (Greece); and fire (Edom)—with the very clear link it draws between the fourth kingdom and contemporary Christendom.
In my discussion of how rabbinic Hebrew is appealed to as a point of comparison for lemmata, I indicated that the source was almost always Kimḥi’s Šorašim. However, it is clear that the source of the majority of the rabbinic teachings that are mentioned, including their introductory formulas, is Rashi, as I will explain in more detail in the next chapter.
The phrase מוסב על המקרא שלפניו (Ps 119:126) is drawn from Rashi ad loc.
See also Pss 16:4, 22:9, 49:13, etc.; Jb 4:11, 5:7, 6:26–27, etc., Prv 28:16, etc.
In oral instruction, they would constitute a didactic unit. See also Pss 68:5–68:12–13, and various other examples in Jb 6.
The term שבלול (“snail”) is interpreted here as שבולת (“torrent of water”). Rashi gives both meanings in his commentary. Kimḥi interprets it in the first manner, both in the Šorašim and in his commentary, ad loc., and Ibn Ezra, ad loc., in the second.
See also Pss 22:1, 42:6, 45:17, 46:4, 72:20, 73:1, and 108:8 (where it says that the rest of the psalm has already been explained elsewhere, a phrase taken from Kimḥi).
There are many other examples of introductions or first verses in the Psalms that have an exegetical intent: Pss 22, 60, 64, 73, 76, etc.
On this topic, see § 5.6 below.
Pss 50:11, 50:20, 58:10–11, 63:2, 68:31–32, 78:47, 99:1, 104:15, 119:103, 140:11; Jb 3:7, 4:12, 5:5, 15:34, 22:30, 30:3, 33:25; 36:2, 36:29, 40:18, 41:11, 41:21; Prv 30:15–16; Sg 1:12; 2:14.
Pss 31:14, 37:12, 45:16, 78:65, 90:7, 107:30, 137:8; Jb 2:11, 24:12, 24:15, 29:20, 31:11–12, 33:26, 42:2, 42:11; Prv 1:4, 1:5, 31:12; Sg 4:13, 7:14; Eccl 1:2 (2).
The expression appears sporadically in Kimḥi’s Šorašim, with an identical sense.
While classical rhetoricians spoke of metaphor and related devices as figures of speech, since the 1930s a new philosophy of rhetoric has developed that calls for an understanding of metaphor not as a matter of speech but as a matter of thought—that is, as the interaction of two thoughts, the tenor and the vehicle, and the linking of the context of the latter to the former. Since the focus here is on the medieval categories, no reference will be made to this development.
This section is greatly indebted to Mordechai Z. Cohen’s Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor: From Abraham ibn Ezra and Maimonides to David Kimhi, Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2003) and cites it frequently. Cohen surveys the treatment of metaphor and related devices in the works of Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, and David Kimḥi.
See Pss 16:5, 18:9, 18:30, 29:5, 31:10, 39:3, 42:5, 46:3, 69:4, 72:16 (2), 75:4, 75:9 (2), 80:16–17, 81:17, 82:5, 96:12, 98:8 (2), 102:4, 114:4, 118:22–23, 141:6–7, 144:12; Jb introd., 1:7, 9:31, 12:8, 15:22, 15:32, 18:15, 20:17, 20:23, 21:34, 27:21, 29:6 (2), 29:19, 30:4 (2), 30:12, 30:22, 39:24 (2), 40:27; Prv 31:31.
Cohen (Three Approaches, 137), indicates that he takes the notion of meliṣah from Rashi, and hašʾalah from Ibn Janāḥ and Maimonides.
Leaving aside the occurrence found in the introduction to Job (where the term has the meaning of “example to follow”) and the one in Jb 17:6, which is provided as an explanation of the infinitive למשול in the lemma, the word mašal is most often used as a linguistic or literary category. The term is used in its exegetical sense in Ps 22:1; Prv 28:11, 29:21, 30:22–23, and 31:31. For this use, see § 4.3.2.
We should add two other cases (Jb 4:10–11, 19:12 [כנוי ומשל]) in conjunction with kinnuy (“expression”) and one (Ps 133:1 [משל ורמז ל-]) in conjunction with remez (“allusion”). Neither term adds new meaning.
Cf. Rashi ad loc.: דוגמאות ומשלים. Kimḥi, ad loc., employs an inflected form of the root mšl.
The term dugmaʾ appears in two other places, and in both it is used to link the lemma that is being explained to an earlier verse in whose light it should be interpreted. Thus, in Ps 68:15, the scribe states that the lemma “You will become white in the place of darkness” should be understood as a reference to Israel, which is described as “A dove sheathed in silence” in the previous verse. Likewise, in Ps 110:1, he indicates that the lemma “The Lord has sworn and will not relent: ‘You are a priest forever’ (Ps 110:4)” should be understood in connection to the words of Melchizedek in Gn 14:18: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High.” This explains why the rabbis understood that the psalm referred to Abraham. The term dugmaʾ does not occur in either Rashi or in Kimḥi ad loc. For a similar usage of dugmaʾ, see Maurizio Mottolese, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah: Interpretive Projections of the Sanctuary and Ritual, Sources and studies in the literature of Jewish mysticism 21 (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2007), 288.
See Pss 11:6, 34:11, 35:15, 37:16, 39:7, 55:22, 56:1, 63:2, 68:16, 69:16, 72:6, 78:50, 88:16, 94:19, 107:30, 119:120, 139:8, 139:15, 141:3; Jb 3:5, 4:12–13, 6:3, 6:6, 16:9, 16:16, 18:12, 31:34, 36:2, 38:28.
See Pss 11:6, 12:5, 18:19, 20:4, 31:21, 35:12, 35:16, 58:1–2 (2), 58:10, 62:11, 63:11, 68:28–29 (2), 74:11, 88:11, 141:3, 142:4; Jb 9:31, 14:19, 14:22, 19:4, 21:16–18, 21:33, 24:9, 24:11, 24:13, 24:24, 27:8, 30:2, 30:4, 35:10, 37:1, 38:8, 39:18, 39:20 (2), 39:28, 40:23, 40:31, 41:24; Sg 1:4, 4:2.
See Cohen, Three Approaches, 160.
This is also the connotation of the word meliṣah in Prv 1:21–22, where it says: “Scoffers (ולצים). Those who employ slander, libel, and bad words (מליצה רעה).”
Kimḥi ad loc. defines the term, in Cohen’s translation (Three Approaches, 147), as “the story told by the words as written” (סיפור הדברים ככתבם).
On pešaṭ, see below § 4.1.
Rashi ad loc.
On David Kimḥi’s understanding of the term meliṣah, see Cohen, Three Approaches, 157, n. 73.
See Pss 11:7, 12:5–6, 14:1, 18:35, 21:6, 25:17, 28:8, 31:12, 32:1, 32:11, 37:16, 39:7, 40:18, 44:11, 45:5, 46:2–3, 49:8–10, 49:19, 53:2, 57:7, 57:9, 59:17, 62:4, 69:21, 69:23, 77:18, 78:49, 81:5, 108:3, 110:1, 116:15, 138:7; Jb introd., 3:3, 3:23, 7:5, 10:22, 15:24, 15:32, 18:2, 20:5, 20:23, 27:23, 37:8, 37:9, 37:17, 39:16–17, 41:17; Prv 29:4; Sg 8:2; Eccl 4:10, 4:11, 5:5, 5:10, 5:11. The term also occurs in the phrases ואין צריך, כמשמעו (Ps 55:22) and אין צריך להציאו/להוציאם ממשמעו/ממשמעם (Ps 132:12; Jb 19:15; Eccl 4:12, 4:17, 5:16). Apart from the occurrence found in the introduction to Job (which is in reference to a Talmudic dictum), כמשמעו is mostly used as a grammatical category. The term occurs in its exegetical sense in Eccl 4:10, 4:11, 5:5, 5:10, and 5:11. For this use, see § 4.3.2.
See Pss 16:3, 19:5, 68:5, 106:5, 139:11–12; Jb 6:7, 12:13, 21:34.
On the use of the phrases משמעו של מקרא versus פשוטו של מקרא in Rashi, see E.M. Lipschütz, Rabbi Šelomoh Yiṣḥaqi (Raši) (Warsaw: Tušiyah, 1912), 165.
See, for example, the occurrences in Jb 3:3, 10:22, 15:24.
See המשיל (Prv 1:1), שנמשלו (Ps 60:1 and Jb 5:22), and נמשלים (Jb 13:12).
Kimḥi, Šorašim, s.v. ḥwd.
See also § 4.3.1.1. a).
Pss 17:14, 17:15, 18:10, 44:24, 56:9, 59:9, 65:13, 68:34, 78:36, 78:65, 118:19, 132:9, 135:7; Jb 2:3, 10:3, 12:2, 14:14–15, 38:22; Prv 1:26; Ru 2:12.
Medieval translations do not always opt to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. In the list that follows, some examples are provided parenthetically.
In this case, the term does not refer to God, but rather to Assyria.
See Kimḥi, The Commentary of David Kimhi on Isaiah, xxiv–xxv; Mordechai Z. Cohen, “Words of Eloquence: Rhetoric and Poetics in Jewish Bible Exegesis in its Muslim and Christian Contexts,” in Scriptures in Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Overlapping Inquiries, ed. Mordechai Z. Cohen and Adele Berlin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 274; “The Qimḥi Family,” 402; Talmage, David Kimhi, 102, 104; Perez, “Il metodo,” 181.
See Pss 27:13, 31:12, 56:10, 59:11, 69:4, 69:23, 70:2, 81:3, 101:3, 120:3, 139:16, 139:20; Jb 3:3, 4:2, 4:20, 6:7, 6:27, 17:15–16, 20:23; Sg 3:3; Eccl 4:12.
This happens, for example, in Ru 3:15 (וימד שש שעורים), where it is made clear that the name of the measure is missing (חסר שם המדה).
See Maʿaravi Perez, “One Exegetical Method in Rabbi David Kimhi’s Biblical Commentary: Ellipsis,” ʿIyyune miqraʾ u-faršanut 4 (1997): 149–188 [Hebrew]. In this article, Perez studies the terminology of ellipsis, establishes a typology of its use in the work of Kimḥi, and examines the similarities and differences between him and his predecessors in their use of ellipsis. In Perez’s opinion, ellipsis for Kimḥi is an exegetical issue and not connected with textual criticism. The use of ellipsis in this text is very similar to Kimḥi’s.
For other examples, see Ps 40:6; Jb 32:7, etc.
Although the phrase lešon haḇaʾy (לשון הבאי) can take the meaning of hyperbole, neither of the two occurrences of the phrase (Eccl 1:2–3) has a metalinguistic use.
See, for בהפך: Pss 65:12, 82:5 (2); for והפך זה: Pss 13:4, 17:11–12, 20:4, 22:2 22:8, 23:6, 35:19, 35:20, 37:35, 37:37–38, 38:14–15, 38:20, 39:2, 39:12, 40:13, 42:6–7, 45:9, 60:5, 70:4, 73:25, 88:19, 101:5 (2), 101:7, 104:35, 119:86, 121:4, 122:3, 132:9, 137:6, 144:14; Jb 5:18, 5:21, 5:26, 15:11, 22:26, 30:24, 34:25, 36:16; Ru 1:9; Eccl 5:11, 5:16, 5:17.
In his discussion of allegory, Cohen (Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor, 27, n. 89) notes: “One can distinguish between allegorical composition and allegorical interpretation (of a composition written without allegory in mind) […] The medieval authors did not make this distinction because they applied allegorical interpretation only where they believed it reflected the intent of Scripture, in other words, an allegorical composition.”
The literature on this topic is vast. For a survey of the most relevant scholarship and the current state of the field, see Mordechai Z. Cohen, “Reflections of the Conception of Peshuto Shel Miqra at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century,” in Japhet and Viezel, “To Settle the Plain Meaning of the Verse,” 5–58 [Hebrew]. In “Emergence of the Rule of Peshat in Medieval Jewish Bible Exegesis,” in Cohen and Berlin, Interpreting Scriptures, 204–223, Cohen revisits the emergence of the hermeneutic concept of literal interpretation in medieval Europe, the internal development of the different schools, as well as the incorporation of hermeneutic views from the Arabic and Latin traditions into that concept.
b. B. Bat. 15a reads: אלא משל היה. The explanation given here (אלא למשל היה) belongs to a tradition that is associated with the name of Hai Gaon (ninth century). On this dictum, see Joanna Weinberg, “Job versus Abraham: The Quest for the Perfect God-Fearer in Rabbinic Tradition,” in The Book of Job, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 114, ed. W.A.M. Beuken [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994], 282.
For Joseph Kimḥi, the reference is to his longer Commentary on the Book of Job, fragments of which are extant and were published by Simon Eppenstein, “Un fragment du commentaire de Joseph Kimhi sur Job,” REJ 37 (1898): 88. For Moses Kimḥi, see his Commentary on the Book of Job, 1.
Joseph and Moses Kimḥi also mention this verse in their introductions. The interpretation of בני האלהים as “great men of the world” agrees with Kimḥi’s interpretation: האצילים והנגידים (Šorašim, s.v. ʾlh).
On the connection between Job and Abraham, see Weinberg, “Job versus Abraham.”
Thus, to give one example, in Jb 1:6, the scribe interprets the construction בני האלהים as “great men of the world,” repeating what he had said in the introduction, and he adds that others interpret it to mean: “the heavenly angels,” the traditional interpretation subscribed to by Rashi.
Cf. Rashi ad loc.
In his introduction, Kimḥi also mentions those who compare the “woman of worth” with form and the adulteress with matter. This philosophical allegory does not appear in this or any other passage of MS Hunt. 268. In this manuscript, as is fitting for a text intended for learning the basics of the Hebrew Bible, the meaning of the allegory corresponds to the midrashic level. See § 5.4 below.
This grouping is featured in Abraham b. Isaac Bedersi’s dictionary of synonyms, Sefer ḥotam toḵnit, ed. Samuel David Luzzatto (Amsterdam: Yisraʾel Levisson, 1865), Gate 23, p. 49 of the ed., and in later works.
The beginning of the work is not extant.
Japhet, “ ‘The Lovers’ Way’,” 183–184; on the scholarly discussion of Rashi’s understanding of pešaṭ and deraš, see Cohen, “Reflections,” [Hebrew], and the literature quoted therein.
Among the reasons Kimḥi mentions as having contributed to his decision to write a commentary on Chronicles, as he states in the introduction to his commentary, was the need for non-midrashic interpretations of this book. In the introduction to his Commentary on the Former Prophets, in contrast, he announces that he will include some derašot for “lovers of deraš.” This difference between Kimḥi’s commentaries on the two books has been interpreted as indicative of the evolution of his exegesis, which developed in the direction of a more comprehensive method incorporating homiletic materials. On these two methodological statements, see Talmage, David Kimḥi, 125–126; Grunhaus, The Challenge, 31–34; Perez, “Il metodo”; Cohen, “Words of Eloquence,” 274. On the notions of pešaṭ and deraš in Kimḥi, see Talmage, David Kimhi, 72; Grunhaus, The Challenge, 4, 31; Perez, “Il metodo,” 193.
On pešaṭ commentaries of Song of Songs, see Walfish, “An Annotated Bibliography of Medieval Jewish Commentaries on the Song of Songs,” 571 [Hebrew]. Two of these commentaries, both anonymous and written in Northern France in the second half of the twelfth century, have been the subject of recent studies, such as Japhet, “The Anonymous Commentary on the Song of Songs in Ms. Prague,” and Japhet and Walfish, The Way of Lovers.
In fact, Rashi does not mention the term pešaṭ, but says (on 31:10): ובא זו המליצה שפירשתי, אבל לפי המשל על התורה ולומדיה. As for Kimḥi, he never uses pešaṭ in reference to the literal sense of a mašal. See Cohen, Three Approaches, 149.
This unusual understanding of ke-mašmaʿo, in opposition to midrashic interpretation, reflects an awareness of the opposition between both exegetical levels—literal and midrashic—when incorporating Rashi’s commentary. Of the five passages from Ecclesiastes that were mentioned (Eccl 4:10, 4:11, 5:5, 5:10, and 5:11), only in the first two does Rashi use—at least in the standard printed edition—the formula ke-mašmaʿo. In the first and the fifth, he refers to the midrash with a different formula than that used by the scribe of MS Hunt. 268. In summary, in these passages the scribe does not restrict himself to copying Rashi’s text. On the concepts of ke-mašmaʿo and pešaṭ in Rashi, see Lipschütz, Rabbi Šelomoh Yiṣḥaqi (Raši), 165; Sarah Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization in Respect to the Distinction between Peshat and Derash (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 136–139 [Hebrew].
There are a large number of cases in which homiletic material is incorporated without being explicitly indicated by any formula or otherwise. See, for instance, Pss 119:152, 119:160; Prv 31:9, etc.
The commentary to this psalm is interesting from a structural point of view, as sources seem to have been imperfectly incorporated. See § 5, on sources.
See also Ps 133:1, where a rabbinic passage that appears in Rashi is also quoted, in abbreviated form, Prv 32:9, where Rashi’s commentary is given in abbreviated form, based in turn on Midr. Ps. 32:2, etc.